I'm getting confused- a nanny MUST be an employee, but they don't actually need a qualification...

Cthea, I have been in several positions both work wise and voluntary where I have had to have medical checks.

When I worked at a large conpany in an office I had to have a medical with the company doctor. I had to fill in a detailed medical questionaire to be a volunteer breastfeeding peer supporter and more recently I am having to have a medical/give permission for my records to be seen in order to become a children's theatre chaperone.

How many of us had qualifications as parents before our first dc arrived?

And yet They let us have full-time, unsupervised one-on-one care of a helpless newborn.

I'm not sure how this works, in terms of whether they can go on a fishing expedition through your medical records as such, and how far back. I can well understand why people wouldn't want or feel they had to disclose as relevant conditions they had a number of years ago, or irrelevant but personal information being passed on. What I am talking about are current (or quite recent and potentially recurrent) problems which would make a nanny job difficult.

Not to mention alcohol,drug misuse and a load of other things I for one would want to know about when leaving my vulnerable young children in the sole care of a nanny.

Why should nannies have to? Because being a nanny can be a physically demanding job. Other employees do have to show fitness (teacher for one but it also happens in the city too). I would always ask this question now, having had the experience of two nannies working for us with preexisting medical conditions. Could the job make the nanny's problem worse? Both legal and human factors at play here. Legally where would we be if it did get worse, and it could be said to be through her duties with us? Secondly, you can have people saying i'll be fine, i'll be fine, and they aren't, they go off sick, etc. Not nec out of malice - I'll take the job because it suits - but maybe because they want to please and they just keep working long after it's good for them. This is not a good situation for anyone.

That's a good point. No other employee needs to show anyone his/her medical record, why should nannies have to? AFAIK only doctors have to show they've got their Hep B up to date. Maybe a few other professions for some v good reasons.

I have to admit I would not want a prospective employer delving into my medical records.

not that I have anything to hide per say, but as a young 'un I had many a medical complaint that is totally irrelevant to my life now but I could see how the amount of illness I had as a child would concern a former employer ifyswim?

also, hypothetically, say you had a period of depression etc in your teens, this would show up but is it really fair to make that common knowledge to an employer?
they would obviously hold this (unfairly??) against you.

also, the CRB process is rubbish. I have a nanny friend who couldn't be bothered to list all the addressees she'd lived at for the last 5 years so she just put one and it went through, no questions asked!

my answers sound proper shifty lol

Crb checks don't prove that you haven't commited a crime, they just show that you haven't had any convictions. Also, my health declaration form had about a dozen tick boxes to be filled out and a space for the Dr to go into more detail if relevant. The practice manager filled mine out (incorrectly, ticked that I had every possible illness on the list!!!). I crossed out her ticks and re-ticked the correct ones and it all went through. There were no questions asked by Ofsted!

I struggle to see who these rules are there for. I'm under the impression that it's to safeguard children but that doesn't seem to happen when issues are raised about a child's safety.

And as for CSSIW (Wales), don't even get me started............

Far too much regulation these days. For the majority of parents, it is parents who know what is best for their child... not Government. Alas some parents don't know how to bring up children, they don't know what's best for their child... those are the ones who need the help, advice, guidance - even regulation. But why should we all drop down to that level... why can't legislation be there as a safety-net for when things get out of hand, rather than being there to make everyone the same.

I believe that with the reponsibilities of being an employer whould come the priviledge of defining the job.

What is the point of requiring a CRB check on a foreign nanny?

I don't want Eyfs regulating the care of a toddler. That's why I have a nanny. I do care if my nanny is ahealthy eater and if she likes to work out. Those are high on my list. But they won't be high on someone else's list.

Government regulation belongs in schools and small businesses, not in my home.

I think if you start licensing nannies, you will find more people paying cash in hand.

All checks should be ongoing - as things can change quickly. The latest from Ofsted is that they aren't re-doing CRB checks for registered nannies every year, like the old scheme did. Same will go for childminder CRB checks... they may get done every 3 years if you are lucky.

Parents should not rely on anyone to carry out checks. They should be able to do their own. Yet our Government does not permit that. Why? Isn't that the question that should be asked? Why can't parents choose to pay for a CRB check, on a carer whom is providing care for their child... be that carer a childminder, nanny, au-pair, nursery staff, teacher. What does a CRB check actually do anyway... all it says is that a x point in time, the person had not been convicted or cautioned for an offence.
I've seen nursery staff CRB checks... they can contain a lot of information, but as the 'crimes' were not to do with harming children, Ofsted would permit them to work in a nursery. Do parents who use nurseries ever get to see those checks - I doubt it. If they did, I wonder how many mums would take their handbag into a nursery!

To be honest to be a nanny in my opinion you must have these 3 basic characteristics that NO qualifications will provide. In my opinion,

[1] a love for children
[2] a patient character
[3] excellent references

It's not fancy qualifications that bother me but the basic checks. The health check is a detailed form filled out by you and your GP. They basically go through your records.

Yes it does cover mental health.

But once she'd had all the checks done it would be job done and she'd have all the documentation needed to take to her next job. It's only the paed 1st aid that needs to be done again(lasts 3 years).

Well working parents who afford nannies usually have some qualifications themselves.

If anything I think that the mistake for new mums is that they trust too much in the qualifications and shy away from unqualified nannies as they don't always appreciate the value of experience. I soon learnt!

He will probably have to write book reports himself!

But tbh the enhanced CRB check isn't that helpful is it? One of the workers at ds1's preschool served a prison sentence for a violent crime within 12 months of starting work at the preschool (I knew this as I was her church pastor). This was never disclosed to any parents, but the setting is Ofsted registered with a good report.

As regards your signed health check, how detailed was the exam? Did it cover mental health etc?

To say that you can't trust parents to choose a suitable nanny is a bit much, and I'm not convinced that regulation is the way to go. The lady who currently nannies for me in school holidays works as a TA in a local primary school reception class and has 3 children of her own. Whether she would be as keen to nanny if it meant extra courses and paperwork I'm not sure but it would be a shame to lose people like this because of regulation which really doesn't much to enhance things.

Having no qualifications doesn't equate to non experienced.

I am more than happy to leave my baba with a non qualified carer.

To be honest most of the nannies I interviewed that had an impressive cv in paper- ie_ qualifications, diplomas, etc.... really dissapointed me in person.
One even told me not to expect to cover my children in kisses in the first day...Uhum!!! Weird, right?

You are Athene but not all parents are.

As a nanny employer I am adomately opposed to compulsory licensing/qualifications for nannies. I am far more qualified to decide what skills my nanny needs than the government is.

They have proven this with the introduction of these silly new EYFS requirements. For example, DS is starting at the nursery which is attached to the primary where DD goes. She is in year 1. For DS, they are going to send a book home with him every Friday which we are to read to him. They did not do this when DD was in the nursery so presumably it is part of EYFS. Do think my 3 year old is going to read by the end of nursery? Does he need to? Personally, I prefer a bit more focus on how to properly ram the trains together. He is 3! Besides, we read books all the time. This really didn't need formalising. I wonder if I'll have to write book reports for him?

Tough question probably not but knowing Ofsted had done pretty rigorous checks on them would make me feel happier than leaving them with somebody who hadn't ie a nanny who hadn't had health checks,enhanced CRB,paed 1st aid etc.

I'm aware the vast majority of nannies are great and there must be many childminders who aren't but just feel the currant situation re nannies just isn't good enough.

Would you have been happy leaving say a 2yo with either of the girls on your course who had no experience (other than the course)?

That's why you assess them at an interview, look at their references and use a trial period, and in general use your instincts as a parent to choose someone who would work best in your household.

If your course was crap then why does it make you a "better" childcare provider than if you didn't have the qualification?

And if someone is instinctively crap at childcare, then do you really think that the course would have transformed them?

If not, then the fact that you have this qualification doesn't really mean a lot does it?

Nannies can:
have an enhanced CRB check (done via an agency, or via Ofsted)
have an Ofsted Inspection (as part of Ofsted Childcare Register)
have a medical (employers could request that)
have childcare training
have first aid training
have insurance

A nanny could have all that, and still be useless at caring for children. In the same way as a childminder is required to have all that and could still be useless with children.

Ripeberry - Yes, Childminders are like a mini-nursery now under EYFS. Government wants all children educated from a young age, and can insist upon that where the child is being cared for outside of their own home.

There were a couple of young girls on my course with no dc or experience with young children so they I presume would have found it useful.