Advanced search

This topic is for discussing childcare options. If you want to advertise, please use your Local site.

NCMA will become PACEY

(48 Posts)
Italiana Fri 09-Nov-12 11:39:42

NCMA has announced their new name will be PACEY = Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years

Happy or not?

fraktion Fri 09-Nov-12 12:12:40

I laughed out loud when I saw that. The name is still.

It's also a hugely retrograde step for CMs who won't have anyone specifically protecting their interests any more. Focused is good, scattergun is bad.

fraktion Fri 09-Nov-12 12:13:10

The name is silly, not still.

FeelingOld Fri 09-Nov-12 12:24:50

Its not the name i voted for when we went to regional conference, am not keen on it i must say.

HSMM Fri 09-Nov-12 12:59:14

The old name didn't mean much and the new one doesn't either.

nannynick Fri 09-Nov-12 13:03:29

I wonder how much rebranding is costing and if it will really see a dramatic rise in membership numbers.
Maybe they hope nursery workers will join and more nannies.

FeelingOld Fri 09-Nov-12 13:23:28

I can see why a nanny might want to join but can't see so much why nursery workers would, but that's just my opinion...... I voted for the name that didn't have 'early years' in the title as i feel this makes it look like we only care for under 5's and also in a few years 'early years' may not be the words used to officially describe this age group iyswim.

Akasa Fri 09-Nov-12 13:24:36

This is not a good outcome. There needs to be be specific reference to childminders in the name. I do not welcome the broadening out of the membership at all. Registered childminders should be represented within their own profession. Like fraktion, I agree that this is hugely retrograde step.

fraktion Fri 09-Nov-12 13:37:14

The old name didn't mean much and the new one doesn't either.

I disagree. The old one didn't make a shiny acronym but it was pretty clear what it did. This one is all woolly round the edges.

electricalbanana Fri 09-Nov-12 14:05:53

for some reason this came into my mind.....

Italiana Fri 09-Nov-12 15:21:30

NCMA are also widening the membership for others in childcare to join: nannies, preschools, day nurseries and other professionals
We voted against this as they are well represented and we wanted something that concentrated on c/ms....also NCMA nanny does welcome them

We also voted against a new name (in the survey for rebranding 1500 c/ms responded) but we were told no matter what the objections it would happen
It was also suggested keeping NCMA but having 'umbrella covers' such as NCMA nanny or NCMA preschools etc...but no!

Neither NDNA or PLA are rebranding and NCMA should have paused and maybe approached this again at a later much going on now who wants a new name right now when deregulation is much more important to spend money on?

I am very as NCMA moves on I wonder how many c/ms will also move on to having no representation and being independent (I favour the last very much)

If any of you are on NCMA Local the news is there...I wonder who will fire the first shot of disppointment?

fraktion Fri 09-Nov-12 15:51:24

I think NCMA will lose members to UKCMA. It'll be like when PANN merged with Voice all over again unless they can persuade other organisations to merge (which they won't).

Their head of business strategy needs a slap. They've just launched things like NCMA local and they're going to rebrand without allowing those initiatives time to bed in.

I don't trust them with nannies. They say CYPOP5 is suitable to register with OFSTED but it isn't as it doesn't cover the common core. They e not done their research there. Plus they require nannies to be OFSTED reg which BAPN don't so that's a sector of the market cut out.

What experience are they basing the expansion to nurseries on? Are they headhunting from the NDNA or PLA? How are the funding that? By taking from the insufficient money they have to support CMs already?

Also it just reminds me of the drip from Dawson's creek.

MrAnchovy Fri 09-Nov-12 16:38:19

They say CYPOP5 is suitable to register with OFSTED but it isn't as it doesn't cover the common core

They say it's suitable to register as a childminder too (and Ofsted seem to agree) even though it doesn't cover the EYFS as is now required.

It's a mess.

MrAnchovy Fri 09-Nov-12 16:47:09

The problem is that the NCMA is too big to survive if it restricts itself to childminders. It spends over £17 million pounds a year - that's over £300 for every childminder in England and Wales!

So as strategy goes, I suppose it makes sense to them. Just not to childminders sad

MrAnchovy Fri 09-Nov-12 16:57:52

It seems to me that there is a real need for some kind of not-for-profit organisation or Social Enterprise that has a focus only on childminders, that is really able to deliver services that they need.

It's not just the rebranding - the NCMA don't seem to react in the right way to anything that affects childminders commercially (I'm not qualified to speak on other issues like the EYFS).

Example - Data Protection Act registration. It is farcical that every childminder is required to pay £35 a year to the Information Commissioner's Office (see other threads). The NCMA's reaction has been to 'clarify that this is what is required by the regulations' - not to have used some of that £17m to run a campaign to get the regulations changed.

Italiana Fri 09-Nov-12 18:01:14

Mr Anchovy
17m is a lot of money. I have never seen any figures as to how NCMA spends its funding...I would love you have any of those lovely links hidden somewhere and to share?
The widening of membership is to survive financially...would they need it if they had 17m?

NDNA and PLA are not rebranding, I would like to know how they survive
I know they represent their members very very well but we would not fit in their membership and I don't believe they will fit in this new PACEY
Also remeber NCMA mship is £54 compared to £35 for PLA...why would they switch?

NCMA Local is funded by the DfE at does not work for many I'm afraid and the forum gets a revamp ever 5 minutes...another one due soon

UKCMA...not too sure there...we will see
We need a Union Mr Anchovy..fed up of paying money and little representation

Of course it could be they are preparing to become 'an agency'...we did ask at a recent meeting, the reply was 'definetely not'...I don't believe that

My personal view is that we should pay the ICO in line with everybody else, we always have to be 'different' and that is not an advantage...same with the Ofsted fee, NCMA argued for that to be so low...sorry it is a problem now and we are in deep trouble because of that

fraktion Fri 09-Nov-12 19:30:41

If they need to widen to survive financially that indicates they aren't pre-investing in their new membership and, more damning, aren't meeting the needs of their existing core members. Do it small, do it well, then expand. Repeat. They aren't doing what CMs need. Their expansion into nannies hasn't worked. Why are they going even bigger?

MrAnchovy Fri 09-Nov-12 19:33:35

Well the 2010/11 report and accounts are here: they aren't very exciting reading I'm afraid, I would have expected a chart or two at least.

It's worth considering the (entity formerly known as the) NCMA's objects - these are what it sets out to achieve:

(i) To promote the provision of facilities for the daily care, recreation and education of children and particularly of children under the age of 8 years and promote the observance of good standards of childminding by the parents of such children and all persons and organisations providing such facilities, and

(ii) to advance the education and training of childminders and other persons and organisations providing day care facilities for children and particularly of children under the age of 8 years and to conduct research into all aspects of the care, recreation and education of such children and publish the useful results of such research

Nothing in there about providing services that childminders want, or protecting their interests. And what does "promote the observance of good standards of childminding by the parents of such children" mean? That's just wrong.

Italiana Sat 10-Nov-12 08:17:35

Thank you Mr Anchovy...this is incredibly useful and worrying but it is March 2011 so I need to look for the latest March 2012 to see if it reflects the cuts in staff announced and in funding...there little difference between 2010/ was after that date that all changed

I have posted the same topic on NCMA Local and asking for NCMA to pause the rebranding until it is put to the members vote...the original survey had 1500 responses...not a mandate in my view and many are 'unclear' as to why rebranding is so important...if we are convinced by the board can then get on with it

If you feel strongly about this please add your voice

Italiana Sat 10-Nov-12 09:43:49

I have posted my reply and also written to NCMA chair asking for a 'pause' until we are clear about the reasons behind it
If you cannot access Local I will copy it here...please support

MrAnchovy Sat 10-Nov-12 10:05:40

need to look for the latest March 2012

They haven't published them yet. The last one was filed at Companies House on 10 October 2011 so you might have expected them, but they don't seem to be in a hurry to get them out.

asking for a 'pause' until we are clear about the reasons behind it

It's a bit late for that I'm afraid - they filed the change of name at Companies House on 1 November. They could always change it back...

Italiana Sat 10-Nov-12 10:10:10

Thank you Mr Anchovy
The announcement came out late afternoon yesterday

I am amazed that the members know less that you do...that is all I want: a clear reason behind it which we now assume is that they are preparing to become an agency by which they know deregulation is coming?

MrAnchovy Sat 10-Nov-12 11:27:44

Actually I think that if there is going to be an agency model imposed, the NCMA setting one up wouldn't be a bad thing. It would provide some competition for the big nursery chains, however I am concerned that the NCMA under any name are just not commercial enough to make it a success.

That's why I am looking at this too grin

I think you're wrong about this being behind the name change though, apart from anything else they couldn't run an agency as part of the charity it would have to be a trading subsidiary that could have a different name anyway.

I think they are changing the name because they cannot keep paying their 300+ staff from the income they can get from childminders.

Italiana Sat 10-Nov-12 12:03:34

Thank you again...I am probably wrong about many things...just started to connect a few things
The number of staff has been cut but until we get this year's report we won't know

If NCMA are going to be our agency or preparing for one the members would have backed this because NCMA is what we would prefer say to LAs but they had to be honest with us and spekk it out
Many c/ms complain it is becoming very commercial

Am I right in assuming that while we were campaigning against deregulation and the agency they were actually negotiating this with the DfE? hence the reason they did not back the e-petition

As an agency ...if that was to be...they would make money out of the 'fee' charged for being one...why would a preschool come under PACEY when PLA is excellent at representation

I could not find their application to change the company's name online but you say they did this on 1 Nov...not even NCMA shows
All very worrying and my fear c/ms will go along with whatever happens without raising any questions
The 2 recent messages from NCMA CEOs point to deregulation, NCMA knows a lot more than we are told and changing the name was not an option why consult and not just get on with it?

Italiana Sat 10-Nov-12 12:09:08

MR Anchovy...may ask what is your interest in this? you are very well informed...I get more from you than anywhere else

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now