Ratios

[hali]

confusing or what

[Guest]

Hi

So potentially we have 3 ways of working this out!

 

1. The "points" system....definately does not work for me!

2. The using ratios, ensuring that each child is in its correct age related ratio even if ages are mixed ie 2 year olds in 1:4 even if made up with over 2 yr olds - one OFSTED said to us

3. The using ratios and NEVER mixing the age groups - sure start one

 

Surely using each of these different methods would result in quite a difference in staffing numbers

 

To use version 3 we would have to limit our 2 year old numbers to 4 and the comm would not do that. It was bad enough me getting them to agree to use version 2 and OFSTED to commit to it!

 

Agree that all these are minimum but then when you have comm like ours who cant afford any more staff (paying agency for 2 months to cover deputy job!) there isnt much choice. They do try and include parent help to advertise a better looking ratio.

 

Dont you just wish someone would make the decision on how it should be done! In fact on a EYFS course tonight...might see what the tutors say???

[Deb]

You have summarised the issue well Marley! Out of the confusion, it seems clearer to me that the points system along with our previous way of working it out is not an option.

 

For us, limiting the number of 2 year olds in any given session probably wouldn't be a problem as we rarely reach 4 2 year olds in at the same time, especially as for us it is only for short period of time legally. However you could see an argument for not having any 2 year olds or charging them double - given they cost twice as much to accommodate .

 

Seriously though, yes I do wish Ofsted would provide a definitive unambiguous answer, in black and white!

[Inge]

She said to imagine a box! Put the 3 under 3's in the box for one member of staff. She said we cannot put any over 3's into the box in this scenario because that would affect the 'space' available to the 3 under 2's.

Therefore the number of staff required would be 4 because the 18 over's would require 3 members of staff.

 

So I said, are you saying that if you have any under 3's eg 1 under 3, that no over 3's can be put in that box, she said in that scenario there would be 'some capacity' but where would you draw the line and we would need to explain to Ofsted how we came to this decision.

 

She emphasized that the 1:8 and 1:4 ratios were minimum requirements and settings need to take into consideration the setting layout, needs of children, taking children to the toilet etc.

 

It's still not as cut and dried as I would like!

 

Ok am going to confuse everyone now including myself.. but cannot find any real logic as to why you cannot have a 3 year old included in 2 year ratios....

 

I can see some reason in this as they are also appear to be using the space required per child in their logic.. BUT a the space for a 2 year old is greater than a 3-4 year old so by that logic the child would easily fit!

 

to sort myself out a bit..

you have a box of say 4 squares at 2.5 metres..

one per 2 year old.. so you can fit in 4 of them..

but if a 2 year old is left out that leaves 2.5 sq meters empty..

and a 3 year old only needs 2,3 sq meters to fill the hole with a 3 year old still leaves ample space....2 of a sq meter in fact...

 

so it fits!

 

 

Inge

[Deb]

That crossed my mind too Inge .

[Inge]

You mean that actually made sense ...

 

I really was not sure it did...

 

Inge

[Beau]

I'd already been through the same thought process but didn't want to post it and appear stupid - more so than I already appear. But now I can say - yes, I totally agree.

[hali]

know what you mean Beau - but i actually think i understand that one Inge - thanks

[Inge]

I just love logic puzzles. .

 

so felt the need to try to explain why I felt it was not logical.....

 

 

 

Inge

[lynned55]

However you could see an argument for not having any 2 year olds or charging them double - given they cost twice as much to accommodate

 

We were advised by our local PSLA representitive, sometime ago now, that as the ratio for two year olds was so much higher it was perfectly acceptable to be charging a higher fee. In act if you look at daycare the younger the child the more they charge. As we dont take children until they are 2yrs & 9mths it has never really been a problem for us- majority of ours are over 3 when they start.

[Deb]

Hi everyone

 

I would like to use this thread as evidence of evaluating and updating my knowledge and practice for E115 and was wondering if you would all be OK with that?

 

I would of course anonymise it completely to maintain confidentiality. If anybody would like to to remove their comments from my printable version of this thread, I'd be very happy to.

 

Thanks

[HappyMaz]

I would like to use this thread as evidence of evaluating and updating my knowledge and practice for E115 and was wondering if you would all be OK with that?

No problem for me Deb!

 

Maz

[Guest]

Hi

Fine by me!

[Inge]

me too

 

Inge

[Beau]

I'm fine with it too.

[Guest]

me too, mrsW.

[Guest]

I would say lucky you if you get that fourth member. I am in a school and fighting for a third member of staff to help in our Nursery of 3-4 year olds. We have 26 children and 2 staff only because ratios in school are 1:13. We are operating free-flow play indoor and outdoor and as soon as one child wets, slips, or needs changing or assistance one area in or out is unmanned while the child is attended to.

 

Why does the government think it is ok for private nurseries to have 1:8 and schools to have 1:13. There is no difference and it's really unfair.