Ratios For 2 And 3 Year Olds

[Guest]

You usually do!!

[Masha]

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.

 

That doesn't make sense to me (not much does!)

 

I can understand the maths alright, but why write it as 'there must be at least one member of staff for every 13 children' in the welfare requirements? Why not, 'there must be one EYP/QTS for every 13 children'?

 

Surely the same ratio would then apply to nursery classes, as the wording for them is the same, no? so a class of 26 in a school nursery would need one QTS and 2 others (one at level 3) - is that right?

 

But a reception class can have 30 with one teacher?

 

I should stop worrying about it really, as I think 1:13 is too high a ratio anyway, and wouldn't use it. Just fed up of the big O being so illogical/unclear

Edited June 7, 2010 by Masha

[HappyMaz]

I can understand the maths alright, but why write it as 'there must be at least one member of staff for every 13 children' in the welfare requirements? Why not, 'there must be one EYP/QTS for every 13 children'?

I think it is the usual EYFS unclear language syndrome. I'm not going to worry about it any more - I have my definitive answer, so that's what I'll go with. Mind you, oh to have the luxury of 21 children for two practitioners! That sort of occupancy level would definitely pay for a third member of staff!

 

Maz

[Inge]

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

 

 

Ok and my correct answer from Ofsted is ( in writing)

 

Dear Ms xxxxx

 

Thank you for your e-mail.

 

In response to your enquiry I can confirm that if there is an person with EYPS working directly with the children then the 1 : 13 ratio applies to both members of staff. So if an EYPS is working directly with the children and you have a level 3 qualified member of staff you can have 26 children.

 

I hope you find this information helpful. However should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Regards

 

so it is different... and what I thought originally!

 

Inge

 

sorry but had to do it.. to see if it was different..

Edited June 8, 2010 by HappyMaz

[HappyMaz]

sorry but had to do it.. to see if it was different..

So the award for the correct answer also goes to... Inge!

 

Had you already had this answer Inge or did you do it in response to my telephone call to Ofsted yesterday? If the latter then I'm seriously impressed in their speed if not the accuracy of information being given by Ofsted.

 

I shall go and email them now and see what answer I get! Oh, have you got a name to quote? That would help point out the inaccuracies of the information they're giving!

 

Maz

[eyfs1966]

just love this thread....how on earth are we supposed to ensure we meet the requirements when Ofsted themselves can come up with 2 competely different answers!! Madness, but well done Inge for getting an answer in writing!!

Edited June 8, 2010 by eyfs1966

[HappyMaz]

I have now emailed Ofsted telling them of the two different responses Inge have had over the last 24 hours, and asking for clarification. I can't wait to see what they say!

 

Maz

[Inge]

Its like being an undercover shopper to test how they do...

 

Inge

[HappyMaz]

Well here we go then. After three emails I finally nailed them down to a response, as follows:-

 

In response to your enquiry I can advise that the over 3 Year olds ratios directly relate to the staff qualification. Thus resulting in each level 6 qualified member of staff being able to care for 13 children and each level 3 member of staff being able to care for 8.

 

Please be advised that all staff to child ratios should be met at all times, this includes staff breaks and dinners.

 

This was signed by Stacey Holt, Ofsted - National Business Unit

 

So where do we go from here? I'm unfortunate enough not to have this problem however I will be printing the email out and putting it into my operational plan. But it is shocking to know that two emails can be received from the same organisation (that tells the rest of us what to do) but say two completely different things in answer to the same basic question.

 

Incidentally there was a customer service questionnaire attached. I wonder how honest to be in completing it?

 

Maz

[Inge]

I just love it....

 

if they cannot decide on what ratios should be how can we?

 

 

 

Inge

[HappyMaz]

if they cannot decide on what ratios should be how can we?

The Lord above only knows!

 

I've been thinking about this some more. Do you think I'm right to assume that if an EYP can care for 13 children, the Level 3 practitioner can care for four under threes?

 

Maz

[Gezabel]

Well here we go then. After three emails I finally nailed them down to a response, as follows:-

 

In response to your enquiry I can advise that the over 3 Year olds ratios directly relate to the staff qualification. Thus resulting in each level 6 qualified member of staff being able to care for 13 children and each level 3 member of staff being able to care for 8.

 

Please be advised that all staff to child ratios should be met at all times, this includes staff breaks and dinners.

 

This was signed by Stacey Holt, Ofsted - National Business Unit

 

So where do we go from here? I'm unfortunate enough not to have this problem however I will be printing the email out and putting it into my operational plan. But it is shocking to know that two emails can be received from the same organisation (that tells the rest of us what to do) but say two completely different things in answer to the same basic question.

 

Incidentally there was a customer service questionnaire attached. I wonder how honest to be in completing it?

 

Maz

 

Yet this is ambiguous too! I am level 6 qualified but I cannot apply the 1:13 ratio as only qualifications deemed to be 'suitable and relevant ' by CWDC are counted as level 6 and that of course is only EYP and QTS

 

Maybe I am having a sense of humour failure but these inaccuracies and conflicting information supplied by the body that is supposed to be 'hot' on all relevant legislation absolutely infuriates me!

[Inge]

from reading your response from them I would say yes..

 

" ratios directly relate to the staff qualification" - (which by the way the standards do not say!)

 

 

but if you ask this they will give yet a third different reply..

 

you could go on forever with this one... and never get a definitive answer..

 

Inge

[Guest]

And they wonder why the mere mention of the word ofsted strikes fear into our hearts!!!

[Pimms o'clock?]

Just thought I would add a little extra to the mix.

 

The EYP ratio of 1:13 only applies between 8.00hrs and 16.00hrs - something very strange must happen to either the adults or the children after 4 o'clock which means reverting to 1:8 and a level 6 EYP down grading to level 3.

 

I don't know if QTS gets down graded after 4 o'clock or if its more about teachers having finished teaching by then, I'm sure someone will know the answer - Ofsted or CWDC perhaps??!!

 

BMG

[Gezabel]

Received this today in response to my whinge about OFSTED giving conflicting advice regarding ratios

 

 

 

 

Dear

 

Thank you for your e-mail.

 

In order for your request to be dealt with effectively I have forwarded it to our Duty Inspector for a response.

 

A member of this department will reply to your request as soon as possible.

 

However should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Regards

Edited June 11, 2010 by Geraldine

[louby loo]

I love following this post!

 

Makes me feel a super organised and efficient person!

 

x

[suebear]

Hi, I don't want to hi jack another post but feel what I want to get off my chest ties in to the themes of this post. We've had the age old debate at preschool about ratios when 2 and 3 year olds are combined for a while now. So when OFSTED came it made sense to get this clarified. Mrs O said that 2 year olds must be in a ratio of 1:4 and we looked at the idea of 2 two year olds counting as 1 three year old (as suggested by my committee, that this is what LA advised them to do) and she said no. "If it's over it's over. When OFSTED receive complaints 99% of the time the complaint/accident has occurred because staff are being spread too thinly or risks haven't been appropriately assessed." She wrote down 3 &4yr olds 1:8 2yr olds 1:4. So Mrs O agreed with my understanding that 1 2year old is not the same as 2 three year olds. Sorry never quite makes sense this writing it down. For example we have 7 2year olds, the first 4 fit into a nice ratio of 1:4 but then we're left with 3. My understanding being we can add 1 3 year old to that group making it a full ratio of 1:4, but that we can't add those 3 2yr olds into a bigger group of 3 and 4 year olds. Mrs O agreed with this saying yes you round down not up. Simple, yes.

 

Now problem occurs. My Chair came today with admissions figures for September and on one day we have 10 two year olds and 4 three year olds in with 3 members of staff. So that it works as 4 2yr olds with 1 staff member, 4 2yr olds with another staff member and 4 3yr olds and 2 2yr olds with a 3rd member so that the last lot of 2yr olds are in a ratio of 1:6. (I know we're all in the same hall but you get what I mean!) I said they'd be in 1:6 and she said it's ok as you can use 1 2year old to mean 2 3year olds. She said she had rang the inspector who did our OFSTED inspection and the local authority who have okayed these figures.

 

Now I am really confused because surely OFSTED have said something completely different to me to what they said to the chair? Have I just misunderstood? Would you be happy with these numbers in your setting? There was nobody in the OFSTED feedback with me to hear what Mrs O said and when I spoke to the Chair I felt like I was being awkward and making up what OFSTED told me! She then said if I felt I couldn't cope with the numbers because of staff capabilities then that was a different matter and we could address that - which course isn't what I was inferring to at all, I'd just said about the care needs of two year olds (toileting etc) being greater.

 

Ok. Help please. What do I do now? I feel confused by it all.

[Guest]

Can you point out that the ratios are the bare minimum you should be providing and that stretching to another member of staff will actually mean you are working to better than expected ratios which will be a positive for any parents looking round? I know it's a long shot but if you try to couch it in "business" language such as making it a selling point that you have more adults than the ratios require it might make a difference to the committee. I know some parents who look at our setting are swayed by this.

[suebear]

they really hate spending money and I can imagine their faces if I tried to justify another member of staff, they'd rather reduce numbers and add to the waiting list

[Guest]

You are right Sue bear, 4 members of staff are needed. I'd be wary of your chair saying she has the official word (or I would want written proof of it) You've seen on this thread how it's ambiguous but at the end of the day the way your chair is working it out those two year olds are on a 1:6 ratio not a 1:4.

[Guest]

I have two EYP's in my setting but would not dream of using a 1:13 ratio. I think you have to look at the size of the setting and if you are able to offer freeflow play inside and out, which is offered throughout at my provision. For these reasons alone I plan for two practitioners outside and two inside to be able to offer the range of activities on offer. 1:8 is the bare minimum for quality care for 32 3-4 year olds. So if I was re-writing the EYFS I would definately change the ratio's required.

[HappyMaz]

So if I was re-writing the EYFS I would definately change the ratio's required.

Out of interest what would you change them to? We would struggle to get 8 children for every one practitioner, and because we have such low numbers this term we've gone down to two practitioners and are finding it difficult to do all we'd like to do, even with me as a third (supernumerary person). On some days our ratio is 1:3 and still there isn't enough time in the day!

 

Maz

[Guest]

Sorry to hear you have low numbers Maz. I would prefer a 1:6 ratio for 3-5 year olds which I offer most days. We have PLA accreditation and to meet the standards we offer a higher adult ratio. However I did ask the PLA if on some sessions I could stick to the EYFS requirements of 1:8, which I have in writing I could as I have some higher level staff.

 

We also have under threes and 1:4 is only just about manageable with practitioners nappy changing and sorting out tantrums. I try to limit the session to only 4 under threes, although this will have to change next September with the one admission to primary schools going ahead in my area.

[suebear]

Now problem occurs. My Chair came today with admissions figures for September and on one day we have 10 two year olds and 4 three year olds in with 3 members of staff. So that it works as 4 2yr olds with 1 staff member, 4 2yr olds with another staff member and 4 3yr olds and 2 2yr olds with a 3rd member so that the last lot of 2yr olds are in a ratio of 1:6. (I know we're all in the same hall but you get what I mean!) I said they'd be in 1:6 and she said it's ok as you can use 1 2year old to mean 2 3year olds. She said she had rang the inspector who did our OFSTED inspection and the local authority who have okayed these figures.

 

Final update -

 

I emailed OFSTED who confirmed by email that I would need another member of staff, as 2 year olds shouldn't be in a ratio of 1:6. Then I took a deep breath and emailed this to my Chair asking her to request my wishes to stay within ratios. Now the Chair is stepping down in September, she replied that she will pass on my concerns to the new committee and they will consider this and its implications on future budgeting!!

 

Oh well, I've done my bit and the two children who were bringing us over ratio aren't starting in September now due to other reasons, so I can start with legal numbers in September!!!!!!!!!!

[HappyMaz]

Oh well, I've done my bit and the two children who were bringing us over ratio aren't starting in September now due to other reasons, so I can start with legal numbers in September!!!!!!!!!!

Phew! Well done for sticking to your guns. You must be very relieved.

 

Maz