Latest report on cost of childcare: is a childminding agency coming?

[Italiana]

This is the latest report in The Telegraph today
Is a National agency coming to produce more c/ms ?
I am sure you will have many comments

"I do not think you can compare the care provided by holiday clubs with that of c/ms"

I couldn't agree with you more. I think that there is a danger that we move towards a 'two tier' arrangement with those that can afford it paying for kindergartens and/or childminders and those that are supported by benefits only able to afford inadequately resourced, low staff/child ratio, poorly regulated kid's clubs.

Asmy, why is that? Genuine question

You can have a homely environment within a regulatory framework. Nannies registered with OFSTED are no different from ones who are really. The difference between a CM and childcare in your home is nothing to do with the level of regulation. You control your home, you can't control a CMs that your child goes to for example.

Now I do think there's too much daily box ticking and paper trailing for CMs around the EYFS but that can be relaxed without losing sight of safeguarding.

It scares me that anyone can be a nanny and OFSTED for them is a joke, but people think it means something. Thankfully rarely an issue, but potentially devastating.

It isn't that stupid when you consider the history of baby farms and childcare in the 19th century.

Anyone can be a parent, yes, but people generally have children because they want to raise them and do it well, and there are monitoring systems in place (like HVs) and measures to protect children (like SS). Nannies have a huge variety of motivations for becoming nannies and don't always treat children appropriately. However there is no barring system, no body to complain to - in short no equivalent of SS to intervene when necessary. 99% of the time it isn't going to be needed. That still leaves 1%. The status quo relies on parents doing their due diligence but in 5+ years there have been some utterly crazy posts on here from people who genuinely thought what they were proposing was sensible in terms of childcare arrangements.

It would not be unreasonable to relax the strictures on CMs but bring all forms of childcare in line with each other as far as safeguarding goes. If your nanny already has a CRB, a first aid cert and some form of training which covers safeguarding etc then there would be no additional red tape beyond a form she would have to fill in as things currently stand. There is a powerful argument for (re)defining what an au pair is and exempting them from such a scheme, which would probably have to be self-funding. I have no idea where the best part of the £100+ you hand over to OFSTED every year goes for the vOCR.

Actually there's been regulation since 1872, and in the 70s/80s I think CMs would have been under LA control following the 1948 Act.

It's only since OFSTED took over that its gone bananas IMO. At lit of people don't realise the history of regulation in CMing.

But regulations and incorporation into statutory frameworks are two entirely different things. Regulation deals with who can do what, the issue most people have nowadays is with interference in HOW they do what they do.

"in the 70s/80s I think CMs would have been under LA control following the 1948 Act."

Indeed they were - and this was often a problem as the standards of supervision varied widely from authority to authority, much as the standards of Social Services do now.

I agree Fraktion...interference is a bit over the top sometimes...every one seems to want a slice of the action and impose so much and I find it very restricting as I understand my responsibilities under regulation and legislation

LAs impositions I find the most difficult to deal with...so many variations especially those imposed on providers who have achieved good grades at inspections and have experience and knowledge through qualifications
So much moeny is awsted by LAs, DfE, Ofsted and many more and we keep going round in circles!!

It would be more effective to make c/ms responsible for their own practice, with clear guidelines of course and allow more independence...
I feel this would raise 'aspirations' in offering high quality with competency in running our own businesses and some competition too

Considering the amount of reports, proposals, campaigns and everything else added at present it seems too many people are interfering without allowing us to have a fair say...

On balance I think it is better to have a central agency, and I don't really have any big issues with Ofsted. The problem IMHO has been the drafting of the EYFS by the Department for Education and its predecessors which has resulted in requirements placed on all day and wrap-around carers which were intended for part-time pre-school environments. The 2012 EYFS is some improvement, but it is still not focused enough on what childminders can and should be providing IMHO.

Neither do I as Ofsted are the ones judging provision even though every 47 months now but we could have a system to account for CPD via the SEF...very simple I think
I am not sure what IMHO is?
I am very against any talk about 'agencies' but you may mean something different form Truss' model?

I do think OFSTED is partly to blame because they weren't really used to dealing with CMs, so they made them mini nurseries, not because they're centralised. Centralised is good on many levels. But being under OFSTED makes it easier to implement central initiatives like EYFS, which isn't in and if itself a bad thing - it can be very helpful. I echo what italiana says about practitioners being responsible for themselves. OFSTED have, whether it was intended to or not, removed a lot if freedom to make judgements based on individual circumstances.

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

Good point about the word 'agency' - I need to avoid that in this context! I simply meant a single national body like Ofsted rather than individual LAs

I read agency as an organisation rather than Truss's idea, which is essentially privatised LAs.

I prefer Ofsted to when it was our LA. The authority had far more paperwork and rules.

But ... if we're going to get a local agency, I'd rather it was the council than the local nursery.

"I do think OFSTED is partly to blame because they weren't really used to dealing with CMs"

Yes that is probably true too. I think they would say "we were just implementing the (2008) EYFS", but this crucial sentence "... a childminder who sees a child for two hours a day should consider what a child?s individual needs are at that time of day, and ensure that the provision they deliver is both appropriate to those needs and complementary to the education and care provided in the child?s other setting(s)." (1.13) seems sometimes to have been overlooked resulting in all providers being judged on how they were providing all of the EYFS all of the time.

The more I think about it the more I see that costs could be reduced both for the CMs and OFSTED if the EYFS were made less conpulsory. A complete opt out would probably be a mistake but there should be a distinction between early years education focused settings delivering funding and more home like environments.

At the moment CMs are following it blondly be side they have to in many cases. It's seen as a cage and the 2008 one was in many ways. Focusing on understanding and appropriate application within the new, more flexible framework, would retain quality but reduce burdens.

"CMs are following it blondly"

ROFL That's set me up for the weekend!