Advanced search

Brilliant news re ratios!

(53 Posts)
libertyflip Wed 05-Jun-13 19:23:18

HSMMaCM Wed 05-Jun-13 20:21:36

Good news for children

debduck Wed 05-Jun-13 20:30:18

good news for staff! Brilliant. stupid idea in the first place.

colafrosties Wed 05-Jun-13 22:50:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sportivod Wed 05-Jun-13 22:56:56

The government (whoever they happen to be at the time) have a very simple way to dramatically reduce the cost of childcare to parents, but they have no intention of ever doing so, as they care more about their own income and only pretend to be interested in the cost to parents to get a few cheap votes. Of course, the simplest thing they could do is to make all, qualified child care costs tax deductible. In the US they have loads of things that are deductible from gross income (eg mortgage, child care, charitable giving and many other sensible things). The result is that no-one is disadvantaged because they contribute to the economy and so more mothers work, more homes are owned, more is given to charity etc. Our governments never address this issue, or even acknowledge that such a thing could be possible, as the initial loss of tax revenue would be considered too great. If they implemented such a scheme on a gradual basis it would massively stimulate the economy and bring working families back above water level.

BackforGood Wed 05-Jun-13 22:59:27

Good to hear of politicians actually listening to what the public think on this occasion smile

ItsAllTLAsToMe Wed 05-Jun-13 23:04:11

Really good news smile.

Elquota Wed 05-Jun-13 23:04:14

Great news! Thank goodness for that!

JugglingFromHereToThere Wed 05-Jun-13 23:30:38

Agree HSM, this is good news for children.
Like many other Mumsnetters working with young children even though I might possibly have benefitted if these proposals had gone ahead (as a qualified graduate deemed able to look after more children I might have been in more demand by employers) the price would have been too high - in terms of reduced quality of care for the children and increased stress for the staff. However as a spokeswoman for the sector says if they'd like to go ahead with plans to raise the status and skill of the workforce we aren't against those proposals - this just wasn't the right way to achieve those things. An increase in pay would also be welcome to reflect the return on investment provided by this sector in terms of both social and economic benefits. Research has shown this is x6 for every £1 invested because of increased life prospects when children grow up and decreased criminality.

NorthernLurker Thu 06-Jun-13 00:01:23

Good news for parents and children and further proof (were any needed) that this government cannot find their arse with both hands and a GPS system.

libertyflip Thu 06-Jun-13 06:37:10

Won't sully the thread with a link, but the Pit of Doom is blaming Mumsnet and reckons that Nick Clegg changed his mind after 'private talks with figures of Mumsnet'.

If this is true, thank you, thank you so much. I have worked with babies and two year olds for twenty years, and have more qualifications than you can shake a stick at, and know beyond any doubt that this would have been an epic disaster.

Today my key group of four (that's FOUR Ms Truss!) glorious two year olds are cooking...that just wouldn't be safe or possible with six!

WouldBeHarrietVane Thu 06-Jun-13 06:43:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

insancerre Thu 06-Jun-13 07:20:28

we won!!!!!!!!!!!
this was one of the worst ideas ever
and their reasoning was full of holes

alienbanana Thu 06-Jun-13 08:11:54

I did a little cheer when I read this grin

nannynick Thu 06-Jun-13 08:53:58

Looking at the amendenet to childcare bill, Wed 5 June, the 1:13 ratio will still apply in some cases:

Where there is registered early years provision, which operates between 8 am and 4 pm, and a member of staff with Qualified Teacher status, Early Years Professional status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification is working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13; and
(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.

It also applies in a maimtained nursery (so a state nursery). I think that if a school opens a nursery class, then that is a maintained nursery but if a provider opens a nursery/pre-school on a school site but runs independently, then that is not a maintained nursery.

JugglingFromHereToThere Thu 06-Jun-13 09:09:41

That's interesting nannynick and could mean more recognition for those of us with higher qualifications, which hopefully could be good for everyone. I think the higher ratio of children to adults is less of an issue with the over 3's than the changes which were being proposed for younger children. I've worked in Nursery classes in schools where we got by fairly happily with 2 staff and 26 children - and especially where I worked in a double unit with 4 staff (2 teachers, 2 nursery nurses) and 52 children. Was busy and lively though - but I was young and energetic then !

Minifingers Thu 06-Jun-13 09:18:53

The cynic in me is wondering if this was always going to happen - a sort of underhand plan to boost Nick Clegg's popularity, like the sort of strategy thought up by characters in 'The Thick of It'. Because the policy was so stupid and ill thought out and researched in the first place you can't believe they ever actually meant it to become law. On the other hand - the bedroom tax.......

nannynick Thu 06-Jun-13 09:33:57

Juggling I agree. It can work, if none are in nappies. If children are not dry during the day then it's harder. When I did preschool it was tricky at times on 1:8 ratio, so would nursery schools refuse to take children who were not dry during the day?
When you worked in nursery class, was that ever an issue, or is it in reality a non issue?

ssd Thu 06-Jun-13 09:36:14

MN at its best...looking out for our kids

Wishiwasanheiress Thu 06-Jun-13 09:39:26

Good news indeed. smile

jonsimsy Thu 06-Jun-13 09:49:35

Bad news for the working parent, I was hoping this would have given me the choice to return to work but still will be unable to afford it, hope my children wont suffer too much due to financial hardships for too long, thanks

JugglingFromHereToThere Thu 06-Jun-13 10:00:08

But jons from what I've read most people who looked at these proposals came to the conclusion that any cost savings were unlikely to be passed on to parents ?

I think what's needed is more investment in early years by government. It's a real win-win opportunity for everyone, with both social and economic rewards both immediately and for the next generation. So, personally I can't see why governments don't get behind this area more whole-heartedly and radically. I think the Labour government did to some extent with it's investment in Children's Centres. So sad to see that initiative often not being built on but subject to austerity cuts.

Hope things work out well for you with opportunities to return to work.

olgaga Thu 06-Jun-13 10:01:28

jons the reason it's been abandoned is because it would never have achieved what it was supposed to achieve - which was to make childcare more affordable.

Well done Mumsnet grinthanks

PirateMonkey Thu 06-Jun-13 10:01:48

What a relief! Well done for campaigning against this MNHQ!

JugglingFromHereToThere Thu 06-Jun-13 10:04:36

nannynick - I think for some time nursery classes would not want to, nor be able to, discriminate by saying that children must be dry during the day in order to attend sessions. I'd say it doesn't need to be a big issue, though you can certainly feel stretched at times with 2 staff and 26 young children !

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: