To think change in childcare ratios will lower childcare standards

[moogy1a]

Proposed change in ratios for nurseries and childminders means that some nurseries will almost double the number of children with the same number of staff.
How can this possibly improve childcare standards? Common sense says more children, less attention per child no matter how qualified the staff.
The proposal also seems to think this will lower costs. it won't. Costs per child will be the same but nursery profits will increase.
For CM's the ratios are also to increase. The whole point of CM's is that you can get out and about to parks / playgroups etc. How will that happen with 4 one year ols to transport?

People are posting the petition link - great - please sign everyone!
Someone also posted the link to take part in consultation. Please please please do this too, it is a little more timeconsuming but you do get the opportunity to write your own views in your own words, and I beg you all to do this.

www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/departmentalinformation/consultations/a00220966/early-educ-childcare-staff-deploy

The questions are skewed but you can still get your points across.

I am furious and sad and anxious about this, it is so so so wrongheaded - as you all know.
(Haven't been on mn for while, came back last Friday because of this and started a couple of threads on it - knew I could rely on you all to be right about this!)

Having previously worked in a nursery I just can't imagine this being good for anyone. A big NO vote for me. It makes me that bit more grateful that we're lucky to have granddparents helping with childcare.

Sorry, link:

www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/departmentalinformation/consultations/a00220966/early-educ-childcare-staff-deploy

"No, it just means they may not use a full range of punctuation or be able to apply the correct techniques when writing an essay about their best holiday or a speech arguing for more bins in school."

In the absence of any specific learning difficulty, a person of 16 who can't string a sentence together on paper or use punctuation they should have mastered in primary is probably in this situation because they are a) thick or b) have spent most of their time at secondary pissing about in lessons.

I really don't want someone who is thick or a slacker looking after my children.

Agree - Truss won't show, like Cable.
If she does, I also agree that she be asked to look after 4 x 2-year-olds for the hour, while doing the chat (equivalent to being a CM filling in the observations). We'll ask her if she has a degree first - if she has, she'll be fine, obv.
MNHQ, do you have a webcam in your office?

A good point JugglingFromHereToThere - in fact with toilet-training 2-year-olds one child can often need two members of staff - one to change the child and one to clear up the puddle.

There is however no exception for lunch times as far as I know, a member of staff on a lunch break doesn't allow ratio to be broken the right number of staff should be in the sight and hearing of the children most of the time and in the sight or hearing all of the time (as per the EYFS).

Well, when I've worked in nurseries in the past ratio's have been stretched early mornings, late afternoons, and lunch-times because staff working 8 till 4 or 10 till 6, but nursery open 8 till 6, and obviously lunch-times often a tricky time too to give all staff a lunch break. I've often been the only adult in a room with a large number of children sometimes of assorted ages.

I think this is pretty appalling. Children learn the fundamentals of life under three: how to love and be loved, how to have a basic respect for others, not to mention how to go to the toilet and eat without throwing it all on the floor. Helping them to do this is vital, important work, which takes compassion, patience and understanding, and most importantly, time. The ability to pass a maths or English exam I would say is pretty irrelevant.

Cat98-you should get tax credits towards it

interesting to see Xenia on this thread. Have you changed your mind Xenia, I know you think childcare work is dull drudge work any old idiot can do?

So, my point really, I wouldn't want to see ratio's stretched any further than they often already are.

But that's my point, Titty, getting a D does not mean you can't string a sentence together. It just means you're not great with punctuation other than full stops and commas. It certainly doesn't mean you're thick.

How many nursery observations do you read with sentences warranting semi-colons and brackets?

I heard Penny Webb on R4 last night and am off to sign the petition. The government are very very wrong if they think that this will in anyway improve the current situation. Well done Penny!

DD's nursery observations may not always be perfectly written, but the meaning is very clear. As DD is 2 she can't read, so doesn't read the observations and learn incorrect spelling, punctuation or grammar. Would I describe the staff as "thick" - no, they are (probably) less academic than me, but have a different and very valuable skill set.

Don't agree Astro0naut.

I taught GCSE English retake for 10 years in an FE college.

The intake comprised: kids with undiagnosed dyslexia; kids who really just weren't that bright; boys (mostly) and some girls who'd pissed around the whole way through secondary.

Kids learn how to write in sentences at primary. They learn how to use speech marks, apostrophes, colons and semi-colons. They learn how to structure a paragraph and a longer piece of writing. Really if they haven't mastered these BASIC skills by the end of secondary there's something wrong.

Yes - marks are taken away for poor or missing punctuation, but to end up with a D you have to be quite weak in English to start with.

I started my eldest (now 10) at a nursery when she was 6 months old. The ratio was supposed to be fairly good, but one child (not quite sure why as we pulled her out of there) seemed to be getting constant 1:1 while my daughter must have been ignored a lot as she came back unable to smile and interact properly with blisters on a raw bum. Our GP said it wasn't worth the risk.

The actual common sense, quality of interaction and compassion shown in any care setting is what matters. It is just the same with old people's homes and hospitals: If the staff are academically qualified but don't have the sense, decency and practicality to handle a few children, then having more children on their watch will only make things worse. I agree that in some countries the higher ratios can work, but it would be interesting to find out what makes those care settings run so well. I assume that the staff are highly conscientious in the way good teachers are?

We don't get tax credits towards childcare, we applied and were rejected - it is because I'm part time? Joint income is too high apparently but as I say it's just under £30k which doesn't seem that high to me, I think a poster further back said only v rich don't get thelp..?

Cat98, the point about tax credits is fair enough. There has been a lot in the press recently about the child benefit cuts, but they didn't appear to hark back to the tax credit cuts which were in many ways worse as they affected the lower-middle incomes earlier on. It was just the start of a slippery slope, as many just 'afford' the essentials (food, heating, utilities, petrol) and not much besides. The difference may have only been about £500 + childcare: That is a lot for some people - it equates to a huge amount in childcare; Christmas, a family holiday including spending money and school uniform in many ordinary families. Obviously, many of the politicians making these decisions would not have a clue how to stretch their money that far!

This is a huge step backward not just for the well being of children (for all the reasons already stated) but for womens rights.

It will only make more and more women stay out of the workforce and return at later dates to lower salaries.

Hannah, what do you mean? I said you don't need the GCSEs to be a nanny and if good nursery workers lose their jobs through the new measures they might be able to double their pay by becoming nannies. I don't think that is any kind of change of my position at all. let the free market decide, less regulation not more.

Cat98- We have parents on 30kish and still claim quite a bit, but I think it depends on how much the higher earner in the family takes home

thanks. Higher earner - £24k

just under

Cat 98 - I think in that case its probably as the main earner has a high wage.I think you have the higher earner on a medium/low wage.

The free-market only works if people are free to make choices about childcare. A lot of people are not.

On one hand there's a second cousin who has her Mum and Dad at her beck and call to give her children 24-hour care for days on end. She is free to choose childcare.

On the other, there is my brother-in-law and his wife. Her parents are both dead and my in-laws are too frail to give childcare. In fact the roles are reversed! They had no choice in after-school childcare, but luckily found a great child-minder who can do the job at the moment...

I think there should be more support for people who can honestly say that their relatives cannot help them. Would this mean more regulation?