Jump to content

Photo

Ratios For 2 And 3 Year Olds


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 tpaterson

tpaterson

    New user

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:45 PM

I know the ratio for 2 yr olds is 1:4 adults to children and 1:8 for 3 yr olds. Does this change on a childs 3rd birthday or is it in the term thay are going to be 3? For example can they join a nursery class for 3 yr olds in the term they are 3 rather than on or after their 3rd birthday?

#2 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 01 June 2010 - 10:07 PM

Welcome to the Forum, tpaterson and congratulations on making your first post.

Ratios are calculated by age so the ratio will change once the child reaches three (although I'd argue that whlist this would meet your legal obligations under the welfare requirements, it might be desirable to keep to a higher adult:child ratio if necessary to adequately meet children's needs).

Children may well be able to join a nursery class in the term they are three depending on admissions criteria, however the adult: child ratio would need to be 1:4 for these children.

Maz

#3 tpaterson

tpaterson

    New user

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:33 AM

Welcome to the Forum, tpaterson and congratulations on making your first post.

Ratios are calculated by age so the ratio will change once the child reaches three (although I'd argue that whlist this would meet your legal obligations under the welfare requirements, it might be desirable to keep to a higher adult:child ratio if necessary to adequately meet children's needs).

Children may well be able to join a nursery class in the term they are three depending on admissions criteria, however the adult: child ratio would need to be 1:4 for these children.

Maz


Thankyou this is what I thought but was being told otherwise at work!

#4 Cait

Cait

    Retired Preschool Manager

  • Full Member
  • 9,032 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cumbria

Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:47 AM

Children may well be able to join a nursery class in the term they are three depending on admissions criteria, however the adult: child ratio would need to be 1:4 for these children.

Maz


Is that until their third birthday Maz, then it changes to 1 : 8?

Personally I prefer to keep the higher ratio until the term following the term when they had their birthday, if I can. There's no magic wand that waves over a child in the night of their birthday after all, turning them from 2 to 3, and changing them suddenly int more autonomous, capable beings. :o

The nice thing about living in a small village is that when you don't know what you're doing -someone else always does!

Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here, we might as well dance


#5 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 02 June 2010 - 09:19 AM

Is that until their third birthday Maz, then it changes to 1 : 8?

Well I wasn't making a comment on what would happen after the child turned three - just that I thought the legal ratio would need to be 1:4 for a two year old in that setting. That's the challenge in supporting parental choice really - one three year old I know joined a nursery class on their third birthday when the ratio could possibly have been 1:13 (although I can't be sure that this would have been the case because I don't know whether the class was full).

We're agreed on the necessity to consider legal ratios on the basis of children's individual needs and not just the age of the child - although this has rarely been an issue for us because we work on such high adult to child ratios. Unfortunately.

Maz

#6 tpaterson

tpaterson

    New user

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:28 AM

You mention 1:13 for 3 yr olds I thought that was just for reception classes? Sorry still confused! Does it depend on the setting? What wold be the legal ratio for 2 and 3 yr olds in an independent school?

#7 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 02 June 2010 - 10:48 AM

You mention 1:13 for 3 yr olds I thought that was just for reception classes?

I'm not sure, but I thought the ratios in a school or state nursery was 1:13 on the basis that there is a qualified teacher in charge? I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will come along and correct me. Its not something I have to worry about in my job!

Not sure about independent schools either to be honest - perhaps the answer is there in the welfare requirements somewhere!

Maz

#8 Marion

Marion

  • Full FSF Member
  • 7,009 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:21 AM

You mention 1:13 for 3 yr olds I thought that was just for reception classes? Sorry still confused! Does it depend on the setting? What wold be the legal ratio for 2 and 3 yr olds in an independent school?



1-13 is the legal ratio for a nursery class/school including Independent schools with a qualified teacher

Children aged 2-5 in a mixed class could also fall under the 1-13 ratio even if most won't be statutory school age by the end of that school year ...total madness!

Edited by Marion, 02 June 2010 - 11:26 AM.

Marion


Play, while it cannot change the external realities of children’s lives, can be a vehicle for children to explore and enjoy their differences and similarities and to create, even for a brief time, a more just world where everyone is an equal and valued participant.

#9 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:26 AM

1-13 is the legal ratio for a nursery class/school including Independent schools with a qualified teacher

So I would be right that my example of the just-three year old joining a school nursery class would have a ratio of 1:13 assuming the class was full? :o

Maz

#10 Marion

Marion

  • Full FSF Member
  • 7,009 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:30 AM

So I would be right that my example of the just-three year old joining a school nursery class would have a ratio of 1:13 assuming the class was full? :o

Maz



yes that's correct our policy was for children to begin nursery the Tuesday following their third birthday and we have had children start on their third birthday straight into a 26 place nursery with 1 teacher and 1 nursery nurse.
Marion


Play, while it cannot change the external realities of children’s lives, can be a vehicle for children to explore and enjoy their differences and similarities and to create, even for a brief time, a more just world where everyone is an equal and valued participant.

#11 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:37 AM

yes that's correct our policy was for children to begin nursery the Tuesday following their third birthday and we have had children start on their third birthday straight into a 26 place nursery with 1 teacher and 1 nursery nurse.

Which is presumably why an EYP working with a Level 3 practitioner can have the same ratio for 3 and four year olds. Wonder how many settings have opted for this higher ratio once they have an EYP on board?

Thanks Marion for clarifying the position.

Maz

#12 Inge

Inge

    Cat and mouse

  • Full FSF Member
  • 5,488 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Somerset

Posted 02 June 2010 - 12:40 PM

Which is presumably why an EYP working with a Level 3 practitioner can have the same ratio for 3 and four year olds. Wonder how many settings have opted for this higher ratio once they have an EYP on board?

Thanks Marion for clarifying the position.

Maz



some may well have, if not be expected to, so they can pay the EYP the wage they deserve / expect.. and with funding levels to be able to stay afloat in some cases.. ( or make more profit.. did I say that? what profit?)

Inge

Inge





There are three ways to get things done: Do it yourself, Pay for someone to do it for you,

Forbid your children to do it!


#13 JefnerF

JefnerF

    Settling in nicely!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tyne and Wear

Posted 05 June 2010 - 12:10 PM

So how would this work if say I had 3 x 3 year olds and 2 x 2 year olds, would I still need 2 members of staff?

#14 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 05 June 2010 - 12:13 PM

So how would this work if say I had 3 x 3 year olds and 2 x 2 year olds, would I still need 2 members of staff?

You always need two members of staff!

However more generally I think good practice suggests you shouldn't mix ratios - but opinion does vary so it is best to check with your LA.

Maz

#15 JefnerF

JefnerF

    Settling in nicely!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tyne and Wear

Posted 05 June 2010 - 12:21 PM

Sorry I mean in one room. Of course we always have two members of staff in the building :)

#16 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 05 June 2010 - 12:31 PM

Sorry I mean in one room. Of course we always have two members of staff in the building :)

:o

How open is your setting? How easily could a lone staff member call for help (and could that help be supplied without compromising ratios elsewhere? As I said before, views on mixing ratios differ and I haven't seen anywhere in the welfare standards where it gives explicit instructions. My authority certainly has advised me that ratios shouldn't be mixed, but yours may have different views!

I'll be interested to see what people in other authorities say!

Maz

#17 JefnerF

JefnerF

    Settling in nicely!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tyne and Wear

Posted 05 June 2010 - 01:20 PM

The specific room I'm talking about opens onto my office (my sadly open plan office :o ) so they can easily come to the door and grab me if necessary.

At present we do work towards 1:4 ratio but on one day we have 3 three year olds, and two 2 year olds so we bring in two members of staff.

This was a room we were thinking about combing with baby room because we don't have many children at all :lol:

#18 anita.kennedy

anita.kennedy

    Settling in nicely!

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 12:45 PM

Which is presumably why an EYP working with a Level 3 practitioner can have the same ratio for 3 and four year olds. Wonder how many settings have opted for this higher ratio once they have an EYP on board?

Thanks Marion for clarifying the position.

Maz


Hi, just wanted to say that I recently inquired about this topic with my LA and an EYP can have 13 children but has to be assisted by a level 3 worker, which in effect makes the ratio remain the same if not better than the 1:8 ratio.

#19 Inge

Inge

    Cat and mouse

  • Full FSF Member
  • 5,488 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Somerset

Posted 06 June 2010 - 05:14 PM

the statutory frame work says.

where an eyps is working directly with the children the re must be one member of staff for every 13 children.. and at least one other member of staff must have level 3..

which i read to mean there could be 26 children with the 2 staff.. so ratio so much less than the 1 to 8 which is written in same way

(eg there must be one member of staff for every 8 children- one of which must be minimum level 3 etc)

it does not say one eyps 'assisted' by a level 3 which has a totally different meaning..

it has always been my big issue that with all that training you suddenly gain arms, legs, heads and everything else to cope with the higher ratio allowed... not to say you have to but for some financially it could be the only way ..

Inge

Inge





There are three ways to get things done: Do it yourself, Pay for someone to do it for you,

Forbid your children to do it!


#20 louby loo

louby loo

    Forum Gardener

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 05:32 PM

the statutory frame work says.

where an eyps is working directly with the children the re must be one member of staff for every 13 children.. and at least one other member of staff must have level 3..

which i read to mean there could be 26 children with the 2 staff.. so ratio so much less than the 1 to 8 which is written in same way

(eg there must be one member of staff for every 8 children- one of which must be minimum level 3 etc)

it does not say one eyps 'assisted' by a level 3 which has a totally different meaning..

it has always been my big issue that with all that training you suddenly gain arms, legs, heads and everything else to cope with the higher ratio allowed... not to say you have to but for some financially it could be the only way ..

Inge


Interesting - I read it as EYPS = 13..... other staff = 8 so a total of 21. (or more if more staff, still not good though)

#21 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 06 June 2010 - 05:37 PM

Hi, just wanted to say that I recently inquired about this topic with my LA and an EYP can have 13 children but has to be assisted by a level 3 worker, which in effect makes the ratio remain the same if not better than the 1:8 ratio.

That's interesting - I assumed it was one adult to 13 children, so an EYP and a Level 3 practitioner working together could have 26 children. Certainly my development worker has suggested making use of the higher ratio in order to keep my group afloat in the short term. If if were two practitioners to 13 children then as you say this is still better than the minimum requirements, but not much.

I shall have to go away and check!

Maz

#22 Cait

Cait

    Retired Preschool Manager

  • Full Member
  • 9,032 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cumbria

Posted 06 June 2010 - 05:39 PM

Certainly that's how I read it too Maz, as a teacher would have those different ratios, so would an EYP. It's a different slant altogether

The nice thing about living in a small village is that when you don't know what you're doing -someone else always does!

Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here, we might as well dance


#23 tpaterson

tpaterson

    New user

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 08:45 PM

Sorry I mean in one room. Of course we always have two members of staff in the building :)



Oh dear I think this means we could end up with a nursery class with one person and a reception class with another as neither will be big enough to legally require 2 teachers! Hopefully an Early years advisory teacher will advise differently. . Do you think? I hope so!

tpaterson

#24 gingerbreadman

gingerbreadman

    Part of the Furniture

  • Full FSF Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 June 2010 - 09:12 PM

Interesting - I read it as EYPS = 13..... other staff = 8 so a total of 21. (or more if more staff, still not good though)



This is how I read it, only EYP to have the higher ratio.

Scary that so much of our guidance is ambiguous and that you could end up in trouble through no fault of our own!!

#25 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 06 June 2010 - 09:24 PM

Scary that so much of our guidance is ambiguous and that you could end up in trouble through no fault of our own!!

Yes, that's what I am thinking! I may have to brave a telephone call to Ofsted to check this out.

Maz

#26 Gezabel

Gezabel

    Landscape design and gardening consultancy!

  • Full Member
  • 2,310 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 09:53 PM

That's interesting - I assumed it was one adult to 13 children, so an EYP and a Level 3 practitioner working together could have 26 children. Certainly my development worker has suggested making use of the higher ratio in order to keep my group afloat in the short term. If if were two practitioners to 13 children then as you say this is still better than the minimum requirements, but not much.

I shall have to go away and check!

Maz


Me too Maz!
On page 50 of the statutory framework sections 7 (with EYP) says one member for every 13 children
and Section 8 (without EYP) says one member for every 8 children. The latter sentance is the one we work with in our setting so if we had an EYP we could legally change the ratio from 1:8 to 1:13 so two members of staff (EYP and level 3) could have 26 children.

Then of course this only relates to children aged 3 and over there seems to be no mention of EYP in relation to children aged 2.

Edited by Geraldine, 06 June 2010 - 09:53 PM.


#27 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 06 June 2010 - 10:16 PM

Then of course this only relates to children aged 3 and over there seems to be no mention of EYP in relation to children aged 2.

I think this may be because a two year old wouldn't be in a school setting, so the comparisong between an EYP and QTS for children under two wouldn't be appropriate. However that's just my own theory! :lol:

It is a little worrying that when Mrs Ofsted comes through my door I could be in breach of the welfare requirements regarding ratios when I thought I was safe in the knowledge that I was complying. :o

Maz

#28 Sam

Sam

    Forum Inhabitant!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:London

Posted 07 June 2010 - 05:52 AM

I'm finding this very confusing.
My interpretation/understanding of the ratio was that one EYP = 13 children, other level 3 staff member = 8, therefore maximum of 21.
However, just for discussions sake...if what others say is correct, that EYP = 13, with other level 3 = 13 = 26, are we saying that if you had an EYP and two level 3 staff, they would be able to have 39 !? Surely, only the EYP = 13.
I'm not aware how ratios currently works in nursery/reception classes in schools, or maximum class sizes, really not clear at all.

#29 Inge

Inge

    Cat and mouse

  • Full FSF Member
  • 5,488 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Somerset

Posted 07 June 2010 - 03:43 PM

the actual wording is (as I said above.. )
In appendix 2 number 7

Where EYPS works directly with the children......

*THERE MUST BE AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF STAFF FOR EVERY 13 CHILDREN

* AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF STAFF MUST HOLD A RELEVANT LEVEL 3 QUALIFICATION

no mention of any other ratios in that particular part

the 1: 8 is referred to in the next section about eyps not working directly with children (this is number 8)

so I fully believe they do mean 1:13 for all staff.. as they are level 3 and supervised by the EYPS..

(and when you ask they will say it is in the book!)

what a 'can of worms' it all is..

Inge

Inge





There are three ways to get things done: Do it yourself, Pay for someone to do it for you,

Forbid your children to do it!


#30 HappyMaz

HappyMaz

    Fully paid up member of the awkward squad!

  • Moderator and FSF Saint
  • 12,484 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maidenhead, Berkshire

Posted 07 June 2010 - 05:45 PM

And the award for the correct answer goes to... Sam!

I called Ofsted and spoke to a nice young man called Alf (at least I think that's what he said). The EYP can supervise 13, and the Level 3 can supervise 8. So as Sam says, that does make 21 children.

He was keen to point out that these were minimum ratios, though!

So glad I know the right answer (and can quote who I spoke to and the time I called so that if I do have a sticky moment I'll be able to back it up).

Mind you, I was considering emailing Ofsted too to see if I got a different answer!

Maz




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users