Interesting email...

[sarah707]

I have just received an email from Richard House at the 'Early Childhood Action' campaign.

They have given an interesting viewpoint on the petition against deregulation of childminders -

QUOTE 'we think that there needs to be some open reflection across the field about the subtleties of child-minding, rather than the kind of knee-jerk, simplistically ideological positions that are currently being taken up.'

I do not like being told I am 'simplistically idealogical' when I have spent many hours researching my position before signing the petition - and putting together arguments and writing to MPs and generally doing all I can to encourage open discussion rather than knee-jerk reactions of Ms Truss that attack childminders rather than looking at early years as a whole.

I am also very disappointed that they have chosen 2 letters in Nursery World Magazine to vilify - one written by our very own Penny - who is, coincidentally, a signatory to the Open House campaign

Hmmm I feel a 'knee jerk ... simplistically ideological' email coming on tomorrow

[jumpinjen]

The cheek of it - sinply outrageous - what do they know about Cm's to be able to say that we shoudl discuss the 'subtleties' - what do they mean by that - do they say any more? And what problem exactly do they have with Penny's letter? i feel sorry for them when penny gets at them and make no mistake!

[Pipsqueak]

I have just received an email from Richard House at the 'Early Childhood Action' campaign.

They have given an interesting viewpoint on the petition against deregulation of childminders -

QUOTE 'we think that there needs to be some open reflection across the field about the subtleties of child-minding, rather than the kind of knee-jerk, simplistically ideological positions that are currently being taken up.'

I do not like being told I am 'simplistically idealogical' when I have spent many hours researching my position before signing the petition - and putting together arguments and writing to MPs and generally doing all I can to encourage open discussion rather than knee-jerk reactions of Ms Truss that attack childminders rather than looking at early years as a whole.

I am also very disappointed that they have chosen 2 letters in Nursery World Magazine to vilify - one written by our very own Penny - who is, coincidentally, a signatory to the Open House campaign

Hmmm I feel a 'knee jerk ... simplistically ideological' email coming on tomorrow

and what 'subtleties' would these be.... I wonder if he doesn't actually have a clue and is needing someone to enlighten him....
as to being 'simplistically idealogical' with 'knee jerk' reactions - I am sure I can have a 'knee jerk' direction in his simple ideals!

cheeky roger!

[sarah707]

They liken the EYFS and Ofsted to -

'a scandalous state of affairs ... bears more resemblance to an East European communist state than it does a modern Western democracy.'

Do you remember the childminder from Warrington who took on Ofsted over the learning and development requirements of the EYFS in the early days of the EYFS??

They are referring back to that and saying that the EYFS is 'quasi-formal learning' which is 'compromising young children’s well-being'

Ok fair enough some of us might have some concerns about the ELGs of the EYFS ... but childminders do not deal with those anyway they are for schools!!

We are about play and I think they have completely failed to recognise the value of the EYFS in ensuring children's play is of a high quality across all early years provisions.

From what I am reading they are using the childminder deregulation issue to have a go at the government, the EYFS and Ofsted. It's not about us at all

I will be very interested to hear what Penny makes of it all. I am sure we can come up with a suitable reply

[uf353432]

I'm looking forward to writing my response tomorrow - given that I have in fact written to DofE, Hurn and Ofsted and now have formal responses back from all of them - they all seem to be saying that even if deregulation happened - it would not be about removing the EYFS. So, if they had taken the time to ask questions - they would have seen that trying to use it as a mechanism to get more support will backfire.

[AliceK]

I'm looking forward to writing my response tomorrow - given that I have in fact written to DofE, Hurn and Ofsted and now have formal responses back from all of them - they all seem to be saying that even if deregulation happened - it would not be about removing the EYFS. So, if they had taken the time to ask questions - they would have seen that trying to use it as a mechanism to get more support will backfire.

I agree. I was quite disappointed to get this email from him and will be replying tomorrow
X x

[The Juggler]

They liken the EYFS and Ofsted to -

'a scandalous state of affairs ... bears more resemblance to an East European communist state than it does a modern Western democracy.'

Do you remember the childminder from Warrington who took on Ofsted over the learning and development requirements of the EYFS in the early days of the EYFS??

They are referring back to that and saying that the EYFS is 'quasi-formal learning' which is 'compromising young children’s well-being'

Ok fair enough some of us might have some concerns about the ELGs of the EYFS ... but childminders do not deal with those anyway they are for schools!!

We are about play and I think they have completely failed to recognise the value of the EYFS in ensuring children's play is of a high quality across all early years provisions.

From what I am reading they are using the childminder deregulation issue to have a go at the government, the EYFS and Ofsted. It's not about us at all

I will be very interested to hear what Penny makes of it all. I am sure we can come up with a suitable reply

i was offended by the e-mail. i feel it demonstrates that the eyfs is soley about goals (which I admit at the end profile stage it is ) but that it indicates that no-one lower down the scale (babies and toddlers) understands that the importance is about play based curriculum. THIS is a professor I'm shocked that he thinks that professionalism of minders is linked to us concentrating on meeting academic goals and not that we can argue against them and fight the corner for home based play. he seems to indicate that only those childminders who do not buy into eyfs can provide the true home from home experience without concentrating on what goal is next sorry if doesn't make sense but written in a fit of miff after several glasses of red

[Kiddleywinks]

sorry if doesn't make sense but written in a fit of miff after several glasses of red

I thought you were doing quite well until this point lol (you missed out the word 'it' )


Sarah, isn't Penny a founding supporting member of the ECA?

[sarah707]

Sarah, isn't Penny a founding supporting member of the ECA?

Penny is a supporter of ECA yes. She has promoted ECA to childminders as an option to look into because she believes in some of the principles and is broad minded about different approaches to early years care.

She is on holiday at the moment and unable to post on the forum but has said to me -

'He (they) are confusing the two issues - no one likes the EYFS but our campaign is not about the EYFS is it?'

As UF says - it's not as if we would be losing the EYFS anyway!! Statements coming out of government and Ofsted tell us that we would still need to follow it under deregulation but within a different organisation.

He is not only insulting us - I think he is confused too. I think some strong letter writing is in order from those who received his email last night and feel that he is very wrong in using childminders and deregulation as a platform for his own ends.

If you are interested in the full email please let me know in a pm and I will forward it to you so you can reply.

[sarah707]

My opening remarks -


I cannot begin to tell you how insulted I felt when I read your email last night.

To call my attempts to retain my professional standing in the early years workforce ‘simplistically ideological’ is an insult to me and to childminders as a profession.

It appears from your email that you do not understand anything about the anti deregulation campaign we are fighting or you would not be asking childminders who support both you and Ofsted registration to sign your letter!

It also appears to me that you are using our anti deregulation campaign as a means to further your own campaign which is shabby and ill conceived, especially as you appear to have a limited understanding of what we are fighting against and why.

The fact that you have chosen to vilify a letter written by ***** to Nursery World magazine underlines this! Penny is a supporter of ECA and has promoted it to childminders in the past - in fact the reason you have so many childminder members is probably a result of Penny’s work on your behalf.

However, Penny, like many other well educated and professional childminders also recognises the value of both Ofsted registration and the EYFS in the lives of young children. Like me she is a tireless in her support of an anti deregulation campaign which aims to protect childminders from becoming under valued, over worked and underpaid - all very real risks with an agency model as purported by Ms Truss.

Hmmm this could be a long one... coffee now

[sarah707]

More...


The anti deregulation campaign has a groundswell of support from childminders for many reasons -

Childminders do not want to be seen as second best in the early years workforce. We have to be regulated and inspected by Ofsted in the same way as nurseries and pre-schools so that parents continue to recognise us as professionals who offer an equal and comparative service. I have been graded outstanding twice by Ofsted - I do not want to lose that because I am seen by parents as a baby minder again!

I do not want to have my business managed by an agency which controls how much I can charge, when I receive my money, which enquiries I get, how many children I care for, what I do on a daily basis, what paperwork I have to use etc. I do not want to be linked to a local nursery which is less professional and well run than me - or to a Children’s Centre where staff do not understand me or the personal and professional way I run my business.

Apart from anything else the conflict of interest would make it totally unworkable - can you imagine a nursery or Children’s Centre giving any work to childminders until they were full?

Added to that, any agency which is set up to manage me is going to want to make a profit - I do not want to be forced to give my hard earned money to someone else when I am perfectly capable of running my already very high quality successful business on my own.

The majority of childminders also recognise the great value of the EYFS - and the way it has raised outcomes for children. I am not talking about the Early Learning Goals - those are not within a childminder’s remit. I am talking about the playful learning opportunities children are given on a daily basis as a direct result of the changes the EYFS has brought to the thinking of those professional and highly trained childminders who work with young children.

I support the ECA campaign in that I feel it is right to question how outcomes for young children are measured. However, I also recognise the value of the EYFS in teaching childminders about child development, how to spot a child in difficulties, how to work with parents to promote better outcomes for all children etc.

The EYFS for childminders is not about ‘developmental obsessiveness’ or ‘quasi-formal learning’ as described in your letter - it is about providing developmentally appropriate activities for young children which enable them to learn. you appear to be confusing school learning in the latter stages of the EYFS (which childminders do not get involved with) and early years activities to enable young children to reach their full potential.

Hmmm what next?

[SYLVIA]

Loving it so far Sarah. My belly is churning with anger and frustration just reading your reply. I would love a chance to be in a room with a group of minders and some of these people who have not got a clue about our work and how the proposed changes will effect children. Keep up the good work Sarah!

[uf353432]

Sarah - you could make the point that with the deregulation there would be no removal of EYFS - so even childminders who disagree with EYFS have a vested intesteres in challengin dereg - because of the impact to their businesses, their sustainability, their income - that by slamming our efforts to challenge the government is leading their supporters into a false sense of security that EYFS will be removed under a new system and that childminders would be left worse off.

[sarah707]

Gotta go shopping... any ideas on a closing paragraph to write when I go back guys?


Furthermore, to call the anti deregulation campaign a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction is simplistic in itself if I may use your insults against us to my own ends. The campaign was started by a childminder who believes strongly that we have worked too long and too hard for professional standing in the early years workforce to have it ripped away from us by a government which clearly understands little about how we work or what we do.

As the author of the petition against deregulation states -

“If you are going to move the goalposts - where yesterday safeguarding was the biggest priority and tomorrow its not, then don't expect childminders to respect your plans. Childcare reform shouldn't mean reducing quality - it should be about building upon the considerable advancements that have been made in the profession over the years."

Furthermore, I think that to call the following noted academics and professional people ‘ideologically simplistic’ is to forget yourself...

Anne Longfield OBE, Chief Executive of 4 Children
Richard at childcare.co.uk
Stephen Twigg, shadow education secretary
Liz Roberts, Editor of Nursery World magazine
Purnima Tanuku, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association
Kay Fisher, editor of Essential Childminder Magazine
Anand Shukla, Chief Executive of Daycare Trust
Amy Griggs, editor of Practical Pre-school magazine (Child Care)
Pauline, owner of the Childminding Forum
Liz Bayram NCMA joint chief executive
Neil Lynch of the Pre-School Learning Alliance
Nick Clegg and children’s minister Sarah Teather when rolling out the government’s new 2 year old funding programme and including childminders as part of the ‘high quality provision’ needed to deliver it.

I have quotes from all of the above plus many more who all state their support of childminders who are fighting to retain their right to individual inspections and Ofsted regulation because they all understand the value of high quality, well educated and professional childminders to the early years workforce.

Let’s be honest here Mr House before we go any further - very few childminders will tell you they enjoy Ofsted inspections! A lot of childminders will grumble about the paperwork burden of the EYFS and the time it takes them to produce documents etc.

However, these same childminders will also tell you that outcomes for children have improved significantly since the EYFS was introduced. They will proudly show you positive comments from their individual Ofsted reports which demonstrate Ofsted's recognition of the excellent work they are doing with children and the ways Ofsted have noted their value as a significant and vital cog in the early years workforce.

They might also be one of the 7000+ signatories (so far) to the campaign against deregulation and for individual Ofsted inspection.

Right... phone shopping with dd... back later!

[sarah707]

Sarah - you could make the point that with the deregulation there would be no removal of EYFS - so even childminders who disagree with EYFS have a vested intesteres in challengin dereg - because of the impact to their businesses, their sustainability, their income - that by slamming our efforts to challenge the government is leading their supporters into a false sense of security that EYFS will be removed under a new system and that childminders would be left worse off.

Thank you for that!

Bear with me I'm writing more when I get back

[uf353432]

Is there any mileage I wonder in NOT emailing this to him?

but instead - using it as a Open Letter to Nursery World in reponse to his letter?

Kind of think it might be more powerful counter attack and because its such a good measured response.

just thinking out loud

[uf353432]

In homage to ECA the 7000 sig update reads as follows:

Deregulation = No EYFS, Hurrah!.....NOT SO!

There are some who think that if childminders are deregulated that they will no longer have EYFS to contend with. Organisations that communicate that the EYFS is a 'regime' that encourages 'quasi-formal learning' are now using the deregulation of childminders proposals as a vehicle to drive their own agenda, they suggest our petition is a 'knee jerk reaction' and that we are all 'simplistically ideological'.

The campaign against the deregulation of childminders is the protection of the sustainability of childminders businesses ensuring parents have a choice of good quality childcarers who will care for their children, keep them safe and extend their learning through play. It is not about the merits of the EYFS!

So I say to this organisation and its followers: Be careful if you are not supporting the campaign on the promise that you no longer have to complete the EYFS. If childminders are deregulated, we stand to loose a lot - the EYFS is not one of those things and that is fact!

[sarah707]

In homage to ECA the 7000 sig update reads as follows:

Deregulation = No EYFS, Hurrah!.....NOT SO!

There are some who think that if childminders are deregulated that they will no longer have EYFS to contend with. Organisations that communicate that the EYFS is a 'regime' that encourages 'quasi-formal learning' are now using the deregulation of childminders proposals as a vehicle to drive their own agenda, they suggest our petition is a 'knee jerk reaction' and that we are all 'simplistically ideological'.

The campaign against the deregulation of childminders is the protection of the sustainability of childminders businesses ensuring parents have a choice of good quality childcarers who will care for their children, keep them safe and extend their learning through play. It is not about the merits of the EYFS!

So I say to this organisation and its followers: Be careful if you are not supporting the campaign on the promise that you no longer have to complete the EYFS. If childminders are deregulated, we stand to loose a lot - the EYFS is not one of those things and that is fact!

Oh that is very good

[uf353432]

Oh that is very good

thank you

It helps only having 1000 characters!

[sarah707]

It goes on a bit... I will send it in a moment when I have done a final proof


Sarah Neville / Knutsford Childminding
10.6.12

Dear Dr House

I cannot begin to tell you how insulted I felt when I read your ‘round robin’ email last night.

To call my attempts to retain my professional standing in the early years workforce ‘simplistically ideological’ is an insult to me and to childminders as a profession.

It appears from your email that you do not understand anything about the anti deregulation campaign we are fighting or you would not be asking childminders who support both ECA and Ofsted childminder registration and individual inspection to sign your letter!

It also appears to me that you are using our anti deregulation campaign as a means to further your own campaign which is shabby and ill conceived, especially as you seem to have a limited understanding of what we are fighting against and why.

The fact that you have chosen to vilify a letter written by ***** to Nursery World magazine underlines this! Penny is a supporter of ECA and has promoted it to childminders in the past - in fact the reason why you have so many childminder members is probably largely a result of Penny’s work on your behalf.

However, Penny, like many other well educated and professional childminders, also recognises the value of both Ofsted registration and the EYFS in the lives of young children. Like me she is a tireless in her support of an anti deregulation campaign which aims to protect childminders from becoming under valued, over worked and underpaid - all very real risks with the agency model as purported by Ms Truss.

The anti deregulation campaign has a groundswell of support from childminders and parents who use childminders to care for their children for many reasons -
Childminders do not want to be seen as second best in the early years workforce. We have to be regulated and inspected by Ofsted in the same way as nurseries and pre-schools so that parents continue to recognise us as professionals who offer an equal and comparative service. I have been graded outstanding twice by Ofsted - I do not want to lose that and be seen by parents as a baby minder again!

I do not want to have my business managed by an agency which controls how much I can charge, when I receive my money, which enquiries I get, how many children I care for, what I do on a daily basis, what paperwork I have to use etc.

Childminders do not want to be linked to a local nursery which is less professional and well run than them - or to a Children’s Centre where the staff do not understand what a childminder does or the personal and professional ways they run their business.

Apart from anything else the conflict of interest would make it totally unworkable - can you imagine a nursery or Children’s Centre giving any work to childminders before they had filled their own vacancies first?

Added to that, any agency which is set up to manage childminders is going to want to make a profit - I do not want to be forced to give my hard earned money to someone else when I am perfectly capable of running my already very high quality successful business on my own.

The vast majority of childminders also recognise the great value of the EYFS - and the way it has raised outcomes for children. I am not talking about the Early Learning Goals - those are not within a childminder’s remit. I am talking about the playful learning opportunities children are given on a daily basis as a direct result of the changes the EYFS has brought to the thinking of those professional and well trained childminders who work with young children.

You only have to look at the hundreds of childminder, Facebook and other sites where childminders share ideas and knowledge, help each other with problems with children and parents, support each other when they are looking for ideas and inspiration etc to recognise how professional and caring most childminders are. Do you really think this would continue if we were run by and giving a percentage of our hard earned money to an agency?

Ms Truss’ model even suggested that in Canada a childminder could look after 5 children without being registered - do you really think if this was the case childminders would care about supporting children to play and learn, following their interests and learning styles, noting their schemas, working closely with their parents to follow their home interests etc? No, we would be back to the old baby minder on every corner system where early years care was promoted by those happy to earn a bit of pin money as long as the children were ok in front of the television.

What of children’s health, safety, play, learning and safeguarding then? The very thought of it makes me shudder.

I am interested in finding out more about the ECA campaign in that I feel it is right to question how outcomes for young children are measured. However, I also recognise the value of the EYFS in teaching childminders about child development, how to spot a child in difficulties, how to work with parents to promote better outcomes for all children etc.

The EYFS for childminders is not about ‘developmental obsessiveness’ or ‘quasi-formal learning’ - it is about providing developmentally appropriate activities for young children which enable them to flourish in a supportive playful environment. You appear to be confusing school learning in the latter stages of the EYFS (which childminders do not get involved with) and early years activities aimed at supporting young children to reach their full potential.

To call the anti deregulation campaign a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction is simplistic in itself if I may use your insults against us to my own ends. The campaign was started by a childminder (who for your information is currently completing a degree in early years practice and considers herself to be anything but ‘simplistic’ in her outlook) who believes strongly that we have worked too long and too hard for professional standing in the early years workforce to have it ripped away from us by a government which clearly understands little about how we work or what we do.

As the author of the petition against deregulation states -

“If you are going to move the goalposts - where yesterday safeguarding was the biggest priority and tomorrow its not, then don't expect childminders to respect your plans. Childcare reform shouldn't mean reducing quality - it should be about building upon the considerable advancements that have been made in the profession over the years."

Furthermore, I think that to call the following noted academics and professional people ‘ideologically simplistic’ is pushing the boundaries a little far...
• Anne Longfield OBE, Chief Executive of 4 Children
• Richard at childcare.co.uk
• Stephen Twigg, shadow education secretary
• Liz Roberts, Editor of Nursery World magazine
• Purnima Tanuku, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association
• Kay Fisher, editor of Essential Childminder Magazine
• Anand Shukla, Chief Executive of Daycare Trust
• Amy Griggs, editor of Practical Pre-school magazine (Child Care)
• Pauline, owner of the Childminding Forum
• Liz Bayram joint chief executive of the NCMA
• Neil Lynch of the Pre-School Learning Alliance
• UKCMA - the about to launch UK Childminding Association
• Nick Clegg and children’s minister Sarah Teather when rolling out the government’s new 2 year old funding programme and including childminders as part of the ‘high quality provision’ needed to deliver it
• MP Dianne Abbott and many of her colleagues
• The Secretary for Education who states in a letter to one of my colleagues that, ‘The Government strongly values the important role that childminders play in improving outcomes for children, including through the delivery of the EYFS and the free entitlement’

I have quotes from all of the above plus many more who all state their support of childminders who are fighting to retain their right to individual inspections and Ofsted regulation because they all understand the value of high quality, well educated and professional childminders to the early years workforce.

The campaign against the deregulation of childminders is fighting to maintain the status quo and to continue to allow childminders to deliver the EYFS and the free entitlement - why would we want to lose this right when we have fought so hard to be allowed to deliver it?

Let’s be honest here Dr House before we go any further - very few childminders will tell you they enjoy Ofsted inspections! A lot of childminders will grumble about the paperwork burden of the EYFS and the time it takes them to produce documents etc.

However, these same childminders will also tell you that outcomes for children have improved significantly since the EYFS was introduced. They will proudly show you positive comments from their individual Ofsted reports which demonstrate Ofsted's recognition of the excellent work they are doing with children and the ways Ofsted have noted their value as a significant and vital cog in the early years workforce.

They might also be one of the 7000+ signatories (so far) to the campaign against deregulation and for individual Ofsted inspection. These childminders and many thousands of parents who use childminders to care for their children do not believe that ‘the over-formalising professionalisation of child-minding within the centrally imposed EYFS ‘regime’’ is a truth (did you ask any of them before coming up with this rather bizarre statement?) or that the EYFS is ‘driven early learning protocols’ or ‘quasi-formal learning’.

On a similar note, Ofsted have made it clear that deregulation of childminders does not mean the removal of the EYFS. Even childminders who do not like the EYFS or do not see its benefits will not gain in this way if we are deregulated. What deregulation means is that someone else will be put in charge of controlling childminders and deciding what we earn, how we work, what paperwork we use etc… at a cost which we pay from our hard earned incomes.

I don’t know if you are aware but there are many childminders in the north of England earning £2.75 - £3 an hour and sometimes less. They don’t do it for the money already! To be told they will then have to give a percentage to an agency which will control their businesses is, frankly, an insult to their hard work, love of children, professionalism and everything else they stand for.

So let’s not get our campaigns muddled up should we Dr House?
You want to stop the EYFS and remove Ofsted from early years because you believe it is forcing ‘quasi-formal learning at ever younger ages, and which imposes a kind of ‘developmental obsessiveness’’.

Many, many thousands of very well educated and highly professional childminders want to stay within the Ofsted remit and continue using the EYFS because it is the only way we can ensure we are treated the same as other early years carers and educators without a two tier system where we become ‘baby minders’ again.

We would potentially lose the right to find our own business, run our businesses as we want, earn our own money, write our own paperwork, decide our own play based curriculums, be in charge of our own income, manage our own sustainability… and probably have more inspections a year while paying an agency to do what the vast majority of us already do very well indeed by ourselves.

Perhaps now you have some of the facts of the matter you will reconsider your aims and objectives and leave childminders out of your battleground? We do not want to be insulted or used for your own ends. We do not feel that our campaign needs support from an organisation that calls us names and insults our intelligence and professionalism.

I know that Pat Evans will not want this because I have spoken to her previously on the subject. However I very much doubt even she can convince me that life under agency control will be a better option for childminders than the system we have at the moment.

The majority of us accept that the current system is not perfect - but as alternatives go, a failed Netherlands model and a Canadian model in which there are unregistered baby minders through the country are hardly awe inspiring alternatives spouted by a Government minister who, from reading her email replies to childminders who are challenging her, frankly does not seem to know an awful lot about the subject in the first place.

Let’s not forget the aims of the government here as well - they want to drive down childcare costs and raise numbers of mothers in the workforce. The aims of Ofsted appear to be simple - the overriding goal is to save money by any means possible and deregulation of childminders will save them millions very quickly. At what cost to the wellbeing, safety and care of young children - well it won’t be their problem any more will it?

By agreeing with them and pushing your letter of support for deregulation I strongly suggest that you are playing into their hands…

So what do you think Dr House? Maybe you could join us and support us in our fight to remain equal early years providers?

Best regards,


Sarah Neville l Knutsford Childminding
BA, Cert EYP (Open), LAM
Childminder and early years writer