Would you employ a nanny without qualifications in childcare...

[LolaTheShowgirl]

...but with contactable references and many years experience?

The problem with saying that anyone starting out to be a nanny should have to get a qualification is that the only way of making it compulsory is to tell parents they're not allowed to employ young people without a specific qualification to look after their children. That would be a huge infringement on parents' decision-making about their own children. It would have prevented me from employing my last nanny. I suppose you could say that if you don't have a qualification you can;t call yourself a "nanny". but that is in effect no different to what we currently have - which is that you can't put NNEB after your name/on your cv unless you actually have an NNEB. same with NVQs.

I agree re first aid. my unqualified nanny didn;t have a first aid certificate (and neither did I) so she and I went to do a course together in the first few weeks she worked for us. But I still think it's my choice. and if I wanted to employ someone without first aid I don't think the govt should stop me. (I do, on teh other hand think first aid should be on the school national curriculum but taht's a different issue)

I think qualifications are ONE way to kcik start your nanny career. But, by no means, the ONLY one.

Who is to say that the people who approve the qualifications have the same goals for my children that I have. For example, some of my preferences for education are not in line with the national curriculum. I place more emphasis on math, sports, and competition than the school does. This is right for my DD because she is fiercly competitive by nature. I can not ignore this. I try to find appropriate places for to compete. For example, hording all the trains so DS is left in tears is not appropriate competitiveness. She takes tennis because the tennis court is an appropriate place to be competitive. So, if a nanny applicant has "tennis coach at summer camp" on her CV, then she scored mega points with me. But, that will not be something any diploma has taught her.

First aid is useful, of course. But I have never actually required it. Perhaps I should have a rethink on that one.

And can someone explain why a nanny, who does not offer her services to the general public, needs public liability insurance?

for an employer - public liability insurance covers you in the event of an accident to a person you employ in you home, for which you can be held legally responsible.
As an employer, you must have, Employer's Liability Insurance and Public Liability Insurance.

For an employee (the nanny or child carer) public liability insurance covers you in the event of an accident to a child in your care for which you can be held legally responsible.

For more information you can get it from the direct.gov website, if you choose to do so.

Which is one of the many reasons why I linked to that site in the first place as it for Lola, who is a young nanny looking for advice, work options and courses.

You read enough sad things in the press to know that its all about compensation when things go wrong. Both employer and employee can be held legally responsible when things go wrong.

Wotzy, I'm sorry I jumped on you. Really, it was meant to be directed at the silly nanny state. Ther is some good advice there and some not so good. And a newcommer won't know the difference. And that is why I think the government should not advise on whom to employ. The employement law advice is good.

Again, I'm sorry I jumped on you. I should not have done that. I just get really would up about the people in government abusing their power. They are not qualified to advise on these matters.

No!

I took someone on for mat cover for my nanny who was experienced but not qualified and it was an unmitigated disaster, whish we managed to end quite quickly. We now have another formally trained nanny and happiness has returned.

As someone who has just signed a contract to employ a nanny the only thing which puts me off is the ability to be ofsted registered - those childcare vouchers can make a real difference.

AtheneNoctua, that is very much appreciated. I do understand that it is a sensitive area (we care so much for our children's needs and children are irreplaceable). Some of the views here are an eye opener for those seeking work or looking for a nanny.

I hope Lola, and others like her, would have an employer who would support them if she wanted to pursue her career and send her to gain some qualifications, either with time off or some other way to support her.

It would be interesting to know if someone would consider that as an option, if they took someone on with no qualifications?

I wouldn't mind if it didn't interfere with her work for me. For example, my nanny is doing some distance courses and I'm sure she does homework during the day when she is technically working for me. But, if she gets all her work done, I don't mind.

I would not give her time away from work when I needed her and I would not pay for the course.

Admittedly the ICP is a module of a full qualification but it's still something. And if the goverment in their wisdom class it as a qualification then I will go with them (but yes, it's a short course...the MNT maternity practioner took longer and had more assessment and that's 'worth' less I believe). A full qualification is better - the point I was making is that some form of training is freely available and should be taken up, even for experienced nannies who could do with a refresher. It's just good practice. Teachers and nurses have to show evidence of CPD, it's encouraged for nursery nurses so why shouldn't nannies do the same? I know many on here do, but I think we've discovered in the past that we're hardly a representative sample! Qualifications aren't going to magically make a crap nanny into a good one, they were probably always going to a crap nanny but 99% of the time they will make a good nanny better.

I guess the other problem is that when people says "lots of experience" what exactly does it mean? Is it 10 years as a FT sole-charge nanny, 10 years working with children in nurseries, 10 years volunteering with children once a week at Brownies, 10 summers coaching tennis at summer camp? And that's something which is completely subjective and for an employer to decide.

wotzy If I were employing a nanny and they met my requirements re: basic qualification I would do as much as I could to support them through an NVQ at an appropriate level or time off to go on short courses. In France my employer pays social security (on my behalf) into a fund which is used for continuing education - I use it for French classes at the Sorbonne at the moment but it could equally be something childcare related. I'd like to do something like that, say a % of monthly pay, which the nanny could then put towards an appropriate short course/OU course or similar.

Franniken, are you suggesting working parents pay more money into a fund which a nanny could use for her own education? Or are you suggesting that some of wht we already pay to Gordon and Alistair should be offered back to the nanny (and presumably all employees) for the purpose of education?

I took someone on for mat cover for my nanny who was experienced but not qualified and it was an unmitigated disaster, whish we managed to end quite quickly. We now have another formally trained nanny and happiness has returned.

work2hard - what happened?

I'm suggesting it should come out of what we already pay in tax/NI or there should be some kind of tax break even if there isn't a specific fund. I don't have a choice about paying it although I do have a choice about using it. Sadly in the UK nothing like that exists which I think is a massive shame because if the money for CPD was there I think more people would take it up.

Of course if you want to do extra that makes you a nice person, but I can't see that many employers doing it!

Well, you'll have to talk to Gordon. Good luck. I think he'd prefer to spend the money himself. You'll need it.

That's a brilliant idea, it would encourage more people to go back into education if the costs could be covered a bit! I wasn't looking forward to paying three hundred and something if my funding was turned down! Haha

But this money is already allocated somewhere else. Like on that all important and cost effective ID Card plan. Gordon isn't going to let YOU spend YOUR money. You are just being silly. You should give him all your money because he is better able to decide how to spend it for the good of the nation. It's not good for people to let them spend their own money you know. You could get into trouble. And you need the government to tell you what to do... for your own good you understand.

Yes, because the government knows how each and every one of us work and live and play and can predict how we're going to spend every penny
So, I'm assuming that you feel the same way as me on the government then? This ID Card Scheme is so wrong. I'm pretty much prepared to leave the country when it comes into effect!

sniggers at AN

I don't acutally have anything against ID cards but I don't think it's being done very efficiently. Britain's actually regarded as rather strange because it's not legally required to carry ID. But that's a tangent which I'm not going to follow and it doesn't change the fact the current government have become total nosey parkers.

My scheme could be implemented by individual employers on an opt-in basis by deducting tax/NI/CPD fund from a gross wage instead of adding to a net one....but I'm well aware that in the minority saying nanny wages should be advertised, negotiated and paid gross. Although not on here I believe. However as my contracted use of the conditional (I'd = I would) implies I'm aware said scheme doesn't exist and isn't likely to, no matter how many how nice an idea it might be.

Besides, I don't need to talk to Gordon as a) I don't live in Britain and b) even if I did I'd have no plans to go sticking my nose into the Civil Service to get this plan implemented. I took the sensible decision and left the coutry.... But if Gordy's reading, or any other goverment nosy parker, you heard it here first (ignoring the fact I blatantly plagiarised it in the first place).

they do do so-called placements- but i wonder why when we talk about caring and child-care we mention nappies ! yes it is a personal service but what about- education, role-modeling, play activities, safe- guarding,hygiene, first aid, behaviour-modification ect. I think there is a massive conflict between "natural" carers who feel and those who want and have extra training. It is possible to be educated and care at the same time! Less- confident people may concentrate on natural instincts -its not rocket science. It is if you fail to recognise a developemental disorder or abuse.

This thread is more than 3 years old, FFS!