To think relaxing adult to child ratios won’t improve childcare costs?

[Tillsforthrills]

Ministers are continuing with the idea of changing regulation to relax adult to child ratio’s to ‘reduce childcare costs’. This idea was aborted 8 years ago due to a backlash from Nurseries, childminders and parents.

For example, an EY worker would usually be able to care for three children ages 0-5 would potentially care for five.

Instead of properly funding Early Years and supporting parents with the costs, their solution is to reduce the quality of childcare and make EY carers work much harder with more children, less pay and shouldering the responsibility of easing the financial burden on parents.

Would you be prepared for your child to be cared for under these conditions if it meant lower costs?

I think it sounds like a terrible idea...which means the government are probably going to go for it!

Agree, I'm a childminder and I'm not going to look after more children for the same amount if money. That's crazy! For a start expenses will be higher and the other issues of general safety and ability to provide an enriching curriculum will be reduced.

@Camomila quite, they seem to especially love terrible ideas at the moment

Absolutely ridiculous.

Needs to subsidised like other countries... I pay $160 per MONTH for daycare. You read that right.

Have you got a link to the actual proposals? I'm in Scotland and I think we might be stricter already - here it's 1:3 for under 2s, 1:5 for 2, 1:8 for 3-8 (can be 1:10 for sessions under 4 hours) and 1:10 for 8+.

@StatisticallyChallenged

It's 1:3 in England currently under 2, but a max 1:5 if mixed age

I believe you, I idly googled the costs for the fanciest private nursery in my nearest big town in Italy one day - under €400 a month full time.

(DS2s nursery in SE England would be about £1.2k a month if he went full time)

@StatisticallyChallenged

Have you got a link to the actual proposals? I'm in Scotland and I think we might be stricter already - here it's 1:3 for under 2s, 1:5 for 2, 1:8 for 3-8 (can be 1:10 for sessions under 4 hours) and 1:10 for 8+.

Not sure about childminders. But in England 1:3 for under twos, 1:4 for 2year olds, and 1: 3-4 years olds- this can be 1:3 if teacher status (or equivalent)

After working 10 years in the EY field, and seeing the standard of care in some nurseries already, lowering ratios is an awful idea. It's already an over-worked & under-paid vocation, the last thing needed is to increase children to adult ratio. 2 adults in a room of 10 babies? Like hell would those babies get adequate care

I pay a lot for childcare compared to my wages. It is worth it for the great care they get and opportunities they get. I do not believe the answer is to reduce ratios, more to increase funding and investments so more parents may feel confident remaining in work. I believe in Scandinavian countries they have found investment in high quality childcare repays itself by parents staying in work (sorry not got a link as in a rush) .

1:5 babies is absolute insanity. Tbh i think the Scottish one are about right - maybe a tad excessive for school age kids (given they can be 1:33 in a school) but I certainly wouldn't want them lower for littlies. Similarly our childminding (1:6 under 12s, max 3 under school age, max 1 under 1) are about right. You can occasionally get higher with a variation in specific circumstances but that's done on an individual basis.

I suppose nurseries will be particularly badly hit with the increased pressure on gas/electricity/food/wage inflation and many parents are already operating at the upper limit of how much they can afford for childcare. I think there are lots of reasons why it would make sense to increase public spending on childcare but I suppose these businesses are looking for a way to keep their head above water and this is the most achievable route given the government in office.

[quote NorthSouthcatlady]@Camomila quite, they seem to especially love terrible ideas at the moment[/quote]
only terrible ideas for the poor.

It's a bonkers proposal - it's actively choosing to decrease the quality of care, which research has shown is key to long-term outcomes for children. But I'm not even sure it'd work to lower costs significantly. Staffing is an important cost but it's not the only one. I think the difference it would make to costs would be really marginal but it would massively impact on staff morale and on the quality of care. It would be so damaging for little gain.

It’s insane! Is there any info on what the proposed ratios would be? What people also sometimes don’t consider, is that with 2 and under, one staff member is often taken out of action as they are changing a child, meaning 3 adults with twelve 2 year olds is actually 2 adults with 11 2-year olds. The current ratios are the lowest (or do I mean highest?) they can go. Staff are leaving in droves, there is already a staffing crisis. This government are clueless!

I would not be happy with this and I doubt the nursery staff would either

Early years, like school, needs to be paid for in large part by taxes. Childcare, same as education should be an equal option for all. Maternity and paternity leave should be significantly enhanced to reduce the reliance on childcare in a child’s first years with a social expectation that where it is used it is shared between parents and children's primary caregivers are their parents in early years.

If it is approved, I doubt it'll be compulsory. Childcare providers will still be able to maintain the current ratios if they want to, and parents will be able to choose those providers that offer the higher adult:child ratio.

I wouldn’t feel safe leaving my baby in a nursery where ratios are lower than they already are, especially taking into consideration that nursery workers are often young and inexperienced school leavers who are still in training.

They are already underpaid and to expect more from them is exploitative.

@justfiveminutes

If it is approved, I doubt it'll be compulsory. Childcare providers will still be able to maintain the current ratios if they want to, and parents will be able to choose those providers that offer the higher adult:child ratio.

Presumably it'll affect the level that the government pays for funding, though, so it'll fall even further behind the actual cost of providing care.

@dipdye

Absolutely ridiculous.

Needs to subsidised like other countries... I pay $160 per MONTH for daycare. You read that right.

Exactly this. Childcare is essential for society as it allows all adults to work and contribute to society, so it should be subsidised so that no parent has to make an unwanted decision not to work because they can't afford childcare, and subsidised enough that ratios are good enough and the care is quality. I only pay 35 euros a month for 148 hours a month childcare (sliding scale system, higher income pays more but only up to a maximum of 250 odd euros)

That's crazy! I'd never leave DS in a nursery with those kind of ratios, it's not safe, nor will there be much education going on.

An awful idea. I already feel under 2’s especially demand a lot of attention and childcare struggles to give them the 1-2-1 they crave. I’d be concerned if the ratio went up more.

@12yearsinazkaban well, quite. It’s different for us poor little people

@GeorgieTheGorgeousGoat why should you have to? You’re a professional providing a service. Total joke