EYFS 2012: ratios and self variations

[Simona]

Self variations and ratios are 2 of the most asked questions in this forum...they do appear very regularly in all sections of the forum

Cms are now allowed to increase their numbers for under 5s from 3 to more in 'exceptional circumstances'...we do not need to tell Oftsted...although at inspection the inspector will want to see how we made that decision by:
1. discuss with parents whose children are already in our care
2. do a Risk Assessment
3. ensure we have enough and appropriate resources and space for all children
4. keep the paperwork related to the decision to increase numbers in our file

Ofsted will not offer any advice or support if we ring them but will refer us to the EYFS

This is what the EYFS 2012 p21 states:

Childminders
3.39 At any one time, childminders may care for a maximum of six children under the age of eight. Of these six children, a maximum of three may be young children, and there should only be one child under the age of one. Any care provided for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.

3.40 If a childminder can demonstrate to parents and/or carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby.
If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children. But in all circumstances, the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for must not exceed six.

3.41 If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder (or assistant) may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified above22. Children may be left in the sole care of childminders’ assistants for 2 hours at most in a single day23. Childminders must obtain parents and/or carers’ permission to leave children with an assistant, including for very short periods of time. For childminders providing overnight care, the ratios continue to apply and the childminder must always be able to hear the children (this may be via a monitor).

What is very clear in the guidance and what is unclear?
Hopefully we can discuss this in this thread without worry about taking over anyone else's post....it will be interesting to see what we think about the guidance.

[hectors house]

Self variations and ratios are 2 of the most asked questions in this forum...they do appear very regularly in all sections of the forum

Cms are now allowed to increase their numbers for under 5s from 3 to more in 'exceptional circumstances'...we do not need to tell Oftsted...although at inspection the inspector will want to see how we made that decision by:
1. discuss with parents whose children are already in our care
2. do a Risk Assessment
3. ensure we have enough and appropriate resources and space for all children
4. keep the paperwork related to the decision to increase numbers in our file

Ofsted will not offer any advice or support if we ring them but will refer us to the EYFS

This is what the EYFS 2012 p21 states:

Childminders
3.39 At any one time, childminders may care for a maximum of six children under the age of eight. Of these six children, a maximum of three may be young children, and there should only be one child under the age of one. Any care provided for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.

3.40 If a childminder can demonstrate to parents and/or carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby.
If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children. But in all circumstances, the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for must not exceed six.

3.41 If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder (or assistant) may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified above22. Children may be left in the sole care of childminders’ assistants for 2 hours at most in a single day23. Childminders must obtain parents and/or carers’ permission to leave children with an assistant, including for very short periods of time. For childminders providing overnight care, the ratios continue to apply and the childminder must always be able to hear the children (this may be via a monitor).

What is very clear in the guidance and what is unclear?
Hopefully we can discuss this in this thread without worry about taking over anyone else's post....it will be interesting to see what we think about the guidance.

I only do variations if they are the type of ones I used to ask Ofsted about and if I was 99% sure that they would grant - eg: existing children coming extra or different days, sibling babies

[gef918]

I stick to 3 under 5 - no exceptions. At least then I know I'm definitely not over numbers.

[FussyElmo]

To be it reads as you are allowed 3 under 5 unless an exception for a sibling baby or a cm has their own baby

[*daisychain*]

3.40 If a childminder can demonstrate to parents and/or carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then exceptions to the usual ratios can be made when childminders are caring for sibling babies, or when caring for their own baby.
If children aged four and five only attend the childminding setting before and/or after a normal school day, and/or during school holidays, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children. But in all circumstances, the total number of children under the age of eight being cared for must not exceed six.

I have been given conflicting advice about the rising 5's. Children can attend a maintained nursery school full time from the age of three where I live in Manchester. This is 9am till 3pm, 10 sessions a week, i.e a normal school day. So reading the above I take it that when these children turn 4, they can be classed as a rising 5. Nowhere in the EYFS , unless I am mistaken and forgive me if I am , does it state that the children have to be in reception class.
I have been emailing ofsted to clarify the matter for them to send me links to the eyfs !
Another childminder I met at a meeting had three children who were about to start nursery school full time and wanted to keep them on as she had had them from a very early age and was worried she couldn't because she couldn't take on any more children, can't really live of a wage of before and after school pick ups and sat twiddling thumbs all day with no other children.

[Simona]

To be it reads as you are allowed 3 under 5 unless an exception for a sibling baby or a cm has their own baby

You are right Fussy Elmo ...that is all it says...
so I want to see where the 'new business' idea has come from which so many cms quote all the time as a NO reason for self variation
it is worth clarifying I believe considering the amount of questions we get on this subject all the time and the sure answers we hear about new business

Also many Cms quote 'continuity of care'....which together with new business is what is mostly used to guide self variations....I hope many more will give their interpretation

The other issue is where does it say how long can a variation last?

I hope this will prove useful...all I want to do is put it to Ofsted at the London meeting or send to The Childminding Director Lorna Fitzjohn

The aim is to see it clarified in the EYFS when it gets revised....failing that a letter to Truss may be another good idea

[Mouse]

What are "exceptional circumstances"? What is the "norm"?

When setting rules I really don' think it is helpful to use such ambiguous terms.

I tend to grant myself exceptions based on what I know Ofsted have granted me in the past. So if a baby sibling started (what is the definition of baby?) or if a parent requested a change of days, I would do it.

[bunyip]

I confess I am not offering a solution here, merely some perspectives on the problem.

1. The 'normal' (as per regulations) numbers are clear.

2. The circumstances in which a CM can make an exception (as per regulations) are also clear. By this, I refer to 3.40 covering:-
a. EY children in full-time school (the 'rising 5s') and,
b. A sibling baby or CM's own baby - which I take to mean an under-1yo, as per The Childcare Act's definition of a "baby".

So, the strict regulatory rules are actually much tighter than what Ofsted/inspectors 'on the ground' are permitting. The confusion is not so much in the regs, as in the way Ofsted are applying them, and the guidance documents they've issued. The latter are meant to clarify, but actually contradict the regs and therefore muddy the waters.

Understand that I am not making any judgement here about how many children a CM is capable of looking after, nor how many they should be allowed to care for. I am simply pointing out the facts of the regs.

Further complications:

3. Ofsted apply the general principle of 'exceptional circumstances' which they say is contained within the EYFS. But this principle is described (poorly) not in the section about CMs' ratios, but rather in the section concerning group settings.

4. None of this is helped by Ofsted (and the industry in general) bandying about ill-defined terms such as "self variation", "new business" and "continuity of care". I say "ill-defined"; in fact, these terms are completely undefined and nowhere are they mentioned within the EYFS.


An observation, and opinion. There is an unfortunate trend for CMs to ostensibly "ask" about a 'self variation' they are proposing, and frequently to get into quite heated arguments when advised against it. (Usually along the all-too familiar lines of "sound advice" = "thanks for agreeing with me" and "rude and offensive" = "how dare you disagree".) Such threads tend to rumble along like a cross 5yo, flitting from mummy to daddy et al in the desperate bid to find someone to agree with them: only "yes, darling, you can have an ice cream" is replaced with "yes, darling, you can mind whomsoever you wish."

The problem with seeking 'clarification' is simple: we might just get it. The regulation is perfectly clear: it is the deviation from the regs, as practiced, which has made things unclear.

What's more, every CM is going to want something just a little bit different out of 'variations'. eg. I'd like to see scope for going over ratio just for, say, an hour where children overlap - rather than having 4 lo's all day just cos 2 are brothers.

If we are to demand clarification then have no illusions about where it may lead. We are not all going to get what we want. Don't be surprised if Ofsted simply fall back on the regs as written: rising 5's, sibling under-1s, own under 1s, and nothing else. Be careful what you wish for.

[FussyElmo]

You are right Fussy Elmo ...that is all it says...
so I want to see where the 'new business' idea has come from which so many cms quote all the time as a NO reason for self variation
it is worth clarifying I believe considering the amount of questions we get on this subject all the time and the sure answers we hear about new business

Also many Cms quote 'continuity of care'....which together with new business is what is mostly used to guide self variations....I hope many more will give their interpretation

The other issue is where does it say how long can a variation last?

I hope this will prove useful...all I want to do is put it to Ofsted at the London meeting or send to The Childminding Director Lorna Fitzjohn

The aim is to see it clarified in the EYFS when it gets revised....failing that a letter to Truss may be another good idea

But surely 3.40 clarifys it. No where in the eyfs does it say you can go over your numbers for new business. Even on the other factsheet it gives various scenarios and not one of them state new business

Ofsted | Factsheet: childcare - The numbers and ages of children that providers on the Early Years and Childcare Registers may care for

[Mouse]

How much easier would it have been to increase ratios to say we can have 4 under 5s, full stop? No need for variations. No wondering if we could have 5, or even 6 children under 5? Simple a rule that the maximum we can have is 4.


Oh, hang on...that's what was proposed before wasn't it? That's what the petitions and protests were against. That's the battle the we 'won', so that we couldn't have more than 3 under 5s unless we followed ambiguous rules and took our chances that an inspector would agree with our interpretation

[loocyloo]

What are "exceptional circumstances"? What is the "norm"?

When setting rules I really don' think it is helpful to use such ambiguous terms.

I tend to grant myself exceptions based on what I know Ofsted have granted me in the past. So if a baby sibling started (what is the definition of baby?) or if a parent requested a change of days, I would do it.

That's what I do too. It is always to help parents who need extra days.

A variation used to either be for a set period of time or 'until a child within the variation no longer requires care' ( ie mindee comes for an extra day every Tuesday...making 4 EY children. In September different mindee goes to full time school putting numbers back to 3 EY children )

[loocyloo]

How much easier would it have been to increase ratios to say we can have 4 under 5s, full stop? No need for variations. No wondering if we could have 5, or even 6 children under 5? Simple a rule that the maximum we can have is 4.

Oh, hang on...that's what was proposed before wasn't it? That's what the petitions and protests were against. That's the battle the we 'won', so that we couldn't have more than 3 under 5s unless we followed ambiguous rules and took our chances that an inspector would agree with our interpretation

I was happy with 4 under 5 proposal. Would have made my life much simpler!

[FussyElmo]

How much easier would it have been to increase ratios to say we can have 4 under 5s, full stop? No need for variations. No wondering if we could have 5, or even 6 children under 5? Simple a rule that the maximum we can have is 4.


Oh, hang on...that's what was proposed before wasn't it? That's what the petitions and protests were against. That's the battle the we 'won', so that we couldn't have more than 3 under 5s unless we followed ambiguous rules and took our chances that an inspector would agree with our interpretation

But why 4 why not say no more than 3 under 5?

[Mouse]

But why 4 why not say no more than 3 under 5?

Because 4 is a perfectly manageable number. Who decided it should be 3 children? Where is the research and evidence showing that an experienced childminder working in their own home (where they have total control over safety etc) is only capable of looking after 3 young children at a time?

[smurfette]

Because 4 is a perfectly manageable number. Who decided it should be 3 children? Where is the research and evidence showing that an experienced childminder working in their own home (where they have total control over safety etc) is only capable of looking after 3 young children at a time?

I had four this morning and it was grand! All under three

[FussyElmo]

Because 4 is a perfectly manageable number. Who decided it should be 3 children? Where is the research and evidence showing that an experienced childminder working in their own home (where they have total control over safety etc) is only capable of looking after 3 young children at a time?

Im thinking surely there must have been some research into the numbers as it always been 6 under 8 etc etc. Can anyone remember it being any different? Perhaps the mistake that was made was allowing leeway with these numbers for baby siblings/cross overs so now 4 is considered the norm.

[Mouse]

Im thinking surely there must have been some research into the numbers as it always been 6 under 8 etc etc. Can anyone remember it being any different? Perhaps the mistake that was made was allowing leeway with these numbers for baby siblings/cross overs so now 4 is considered the norm.

I agree there must have been some reasoning behind it. But if 3 is the optimum number, why were we faced with the possibility of an increase? Presumably it was felt that 4 was a manageable number. And what is the difference between looking after 4 children for continuity of care, or 4 children when one is new?

Just because things have always been done one way it doesn't necessarily make it the best or right way.

I'm sure we can all think back to rules that used to exist in cming, but have been changed or removed for the better.

And why are cms so limited on numbers, when nursery staff are deemed capable of looking after a far greater number?

[Simona]

Bunyip...asking for clarification and a more 'english' speak should not lead us to having something we do not wish for...al least I hope it won't lead to that.
I am sure that, while there maybe CMs who may abuse the variations...or get it all wrong...there are also many who won't even contemplate increasing their numbers for fear of getting their interpretation wrong...so many cms could be losing business

Preschools and nurseries are not in our position as their ratios in the EYFS are in black and white...there is no 'exceptional circumstances' ...no 'new business' hidden in the blurb...no 'continuity of care'...just plain numbers
Their ratio is also spread over 4 pages (18-21)...while CMs are relegated to 3 short paragraphs in very obscure English

Can't we have the same? or at least say a plain '4 under 5' and that is it and leave room for 2 after school children...so much simpler in my view.

[FussyElmo]

I agree there must have been some reasoning behind it. But if 3 is the optimum number, why were we faced with the possibility of an increase? Presumably it was felt that 4 was a manageable number. And what is the difference between looking after 4 children for continuity of care, or 4 children when one is new?

Just because things have always been done one way it doesn't necessarily make it the best or right way.

I'm sure we can all think back to rules that used to exist in cming, but have been changed or removed for the better.

And why are cms so limited on numbers, when nursery staff are deemed capable of looking after a far greater number?

I honestly don't know but also why do Scottish cms have stricter ratios? What makes English cms more capable than out north of the border cms

Would it be wrong to say it because the powers that be don't really know themselves

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I disagreed with the 4 under 5's because it would then be standard. It is okay if you are an experienced childminder but what if you are not, would you be able to cope? would you know that you weren't able to cope? would you be giving a sub standard service and not know?

I think the rules are clear - 3 under 5 unless you or a current parent has a baby and then you can go to 4 or under continuity of care a parent needs more days or needs to move current days, short or long term.

By granting yourself a variation you have to thing of all scenario's and document it - risk assess etc.. makes self evaluation of ourselves and our practice which in the long run benefits the children we care for.

Don't see why this is such an issue but it could be that I have been through so many changes in my time that this reads well to me.