SEED report: Study of the quality of CMs in England

[Simona]

This has just been published...good read for cms!

http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/fi...in_England.pdf

[Dragonfly]

Sorry( saying this jokingly) not a good read for me ,a good chick lit would be lol

Thank you anyway

[bunyip]

I have to say I didn't look beyond the bullet points on the Foundation Years email I received.

1. CMs more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they belonged to a quality assurance scheme: I never have.
2. CMs more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they had several years experience: I had less than 6 months.
3. CMs not more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they had fewer children on roll: I usually had only 1 paying mindee per day (plus grandchildren.)

I realise I'm being purely anecdotal (and I'm the first to say i'm an oddity) but one is always left wondering "exactly whom did they ask" when published survey results are diametrically opposed to one's own experience.

[FloraDora]

Got the email, looked at the document, skimmed it, 62 pages is not for a Friday night! Plan to read it Sunday early doors.
Know what you mean Bunyip I don't fit in to any of the catagories either!
Should be interesting reading though.....after a relaxing weekend!

[moggy]

I have to say I didn't look beyond the bullet points on the Foundation Years email I received.

1. CMs more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they belonged to a quality assurance scheme: I never have.
2. CMs more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they had several years experience: I had less than 6 months.
3. CMs not more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they had fewer children on roll: I usually had only 1 paying mindee per day (plus grandchildren.)

I realise I'm being purely anecdotal (and I'm the first to say i'm an oddity) but one is always left wondering "exactly whom did they ask" when published survey results are diametrically opposed to one's own experience.

Ha ha, I was thinking the same- when I got my grading I was not on a Network/QAS, had been doing the job 3 months with no prior experience and only 1 child on roll! They obviously didn't count you and me, Bunyip!

[Simona]

Got the email, looked at the document, skimmed it, 62 pages is not for a Friday night! Plan to read it Sunday early doors.
Know what you mean Bunyip I don't fit in to any of the catagories either!
Should be interesting reading though.....after a relaxing weekend!

it is a 'strangely' interesting and intriguing reading Flora Dora...I kept asking myself why was it commissioned?
The findings could easily have been found elsewhere

But...because of who they chose for the research, for some of the reasons they gave for the cms' success and a few 'odd' matters mentioned....strange too that the research is very recent but it seemed they have totally bypassed some of the changes that have taken place and changed our practice...I mean Networks and cms ratio were wrongly taken into account.....very odd indeed!...or is there a reason for that?

Not sure if it did for you ...but for me it rang a little nasty bell in my head....only time will tell.

I am sure the research was carried out well...Melhuish is the EPPE researcher... but compared that to who was commissioned to do the report...4Children of all people....why did the DfE need 4 Children to tell them what they already know??

4 Children...unless I am wrong...have often compared CMs agencies to Networks...and 4 children are still very active in giving talks and clarifications on what 'exactly' cms agencies do....just my thoughts there

[Simona]

Just found this in my inbox....lovey 4Children...who do they think they are kidding?


Childminder quality highlighted | Nursery World

[Mouse]

For me, the report lost all credibility when I saw that 4Children were involved

[Simona]

The CMs SEED research has some very misleading information and ...IMHO...will only serve one purpose which will suit 4Children very well.
On this occasion it may be worth not judging the book by its cover...the contents are very worrying.

Here is Pacey's response to it...the link will not show but cms will be able to look for it very easily.

https://www.**************/news-and-...ional-associa/

[bunyip]

My head has gone blank on this, but am I right in thinking 4children are one of the groups looking to cash in on the agency thing?

A few observations:-

If it's true that 'experience' contributes to higher quality, how does this measure up against the agency model? I mean, the whole idea of agencies was to help create a lot of new CMs "on the cheap". So how does an agency which is newbie-heavy ensure the quality that only comes with experience?

Since Sam-Gy-Am is paying lip-service to CMs and parental choice, could he explain the conflict of interest this creates with Wilshaw, who is on record as saying that parents who send their lo's to CMs are letting their children down and damaging their prospects?

I now have more experience and more training than when I was last inspected. I fully expect to be downgraded next time around (mainly because I'm doing more of what parents want, and less of what the Tory regime dictates.) Go figure........................

[Simona]

Bunyip...may I ask if you have been able to access the Pacey response to the SEED report?

I wondered what any pacey members think of their mention of Quality Improvement Network scheme because I found this very misleading and have sent a message to pacey and 4Children to clarify.

The SEED report also mentions LAs' Networks...to my knowledge these were disbanded more than 2 years ago...that is why I feel the report is misleading because it was carried out in late 2014 and early 2015

The report also mentions Quality First which was abolished a few years ago to the dismay of many cms....including myself.
Quality 1st was the substitute for cms who did not belong to a LA network and it was very good.

4 Children have received a huge grant to 'promote' agencies in 2013/2014 and again 2014/2015 under what I believe is called the 'National Prospectus Grant'...I am looking at the copy in front of me.

Both Sue Robb and her colleague Sarah Read attended our LA agency briefing to answer cms' questions first...then Sue Rob returned to answer further questions recently
4 Children offers support to any potential agency to prepare for the application.
They are still very pro active in arranging meetings to talk about agencies to cms.

The findings in the report I found intriguing, puzzling and misleading are on p13
then again on p 29 and p40 when it mentions LAs networks
p48 and p49 seem a contradiction when it comes to ratios...I understand it that low ratio encourages high quality while at the same time prevent cms in achieving top grades?....not so but then things have changed now

I hope someone is going to challenge some of the SEED findings.

[bunyip]

Bunyip...may I ask if you have been able to access the Pacey response to the SEED report?

You may. I have not.

[Simona]

You may. I have not.

Now that is even more puzzling....the response was widely available so I thought as a Pacey member you would have got it in your inbox....kind of ' members first' to get the news.
I am sure you will find it interesting.

[mumofone]

I have to say I didn't look beyond the bullet points on the Foundation Years email I received.[*]CMs more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they belonged to a quality assurance scheme: I never have.[*]CMs more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they had several years experience: I had less than 6 months.[*]CMs not more likely to be graded 'outstanding' if they had fewer children on roll: I usually had only 1 paying mindee per day (plus grandchildren.) I realise I'm being purely anecdotal (and I'm the first to say i'm an oddity) but one is always left wondering "exactly whom did they ask" when published survey results are diametrically opposed to one's own experience.

This was my first concern at reading the report, I'm not on a QAS and figures from reading this I would be downgraded just because I don't give Pacey £100 a year! :-(

[Simona]

This was my first concern at reading the report, I'm not on a QAS and figures from reading this I would be downgraded just because I don't give Pacey £100 a year! :-(

Be reassured on Quality Assurance...Ofsted is now the 'sole judge of Quality' as stated in the report...you will not be downgraded for not having one.

LAs used to carry out QA for cms...usually via their LA Network...non network cms had to pay for their own.
To balance that CMs could do Quality First via NCMA...then renew it after 3 years.
I did it and found it useful....I was also funded for it although I paid £100 to renew it 3 years later.
It was a good scheme but then Pacey abolished Quality First so we were left with nothing

There is a difference between Quality Assurance and a Quality Improvement scheme such as Pacey Local which is a peer-to-peer support scheme which I joined at the start.
ECCERS are a QA scheme if you would like to try that one.

That was the reason I asked Bunyip if he had read the SEED report....I would have liked hip opinion on that
It was also the reason I said the report was misleading and messaged 4 Children and pacey on that.
Pacey replied it was to do with a change in terminology which I disagree with....I will pursue it my query elsewhere.