Review Into Vanessa George

[Guest]

As I wrote that last paragraph I wondered too how many privately run groups might be operating under very similar circumstances - I'm not entirely sure this sort of situation couldn't arise in the private sector.

 

Maz

 

They could, which is why I wouldn't advocate the sector being solely privately run either. The model I think we need is one closer to schools, for instance with committee run settings being federated to their local primaries and given access to the kind of support you mention for governors.

 

I know governors in theory 'run' schools, but you can't equate a head teacher to my poor over loaded manager who is doing a similar job but for less than a third of the wage and without holiday pay, public sector pension, etc. etc.

 

What I mean is, they have to start taking this whole sector a whole lot more seriously, starting with funding it at a level whereby voluntary settings can afford both a leader and a manager. I suspect we'd all love the same!

[Guest]

I was under the impression that it was the managers job (of any setting) to know the childcare side inside out, to set the standard, keep up to date with policy/practice change and drive the quality forward. Even private settings may be owned by people not in the 'childcare know'. their role to facilitate the success of their business would be as a support mechanism in their own area of expertise eg if it's a business background then they would support marketing, budgets

 

I agree but then why do OFSTED on a suitable person interview ask the chair questions about EYFS, how the chair ensures the children learnand develope (see Suzie post about her experience of this)

 

I have no idea about committees but would guess they are there to support the manager to enable her to do her role to it's best by utilising their own skills.

Yes this is true but committees are also responsible for everything to do with staff as they are the employers.

 

Every type of setting would be flawed if there wasnt strong leadership and vision, clear roles and everyone committed to the same goal.

 

It would be wrong if the upshot of this report resulted in the condemnation of committee run settings; there were so many anomalies and assumptions in so many different areas.(like trustees not even knowing they were trustees etc) What it should be however is the catalyst for constructive change and better recognition, definition and support for committees of the role they have to play.

 

Is it a requirement that committee run settings have a childcare manager or do the committees set the standards/policies, manage and guide staff?

 

As above. The committee does the policies procedures with input from staff.

 

My situation is possible different to others in committees...the team at OOSC is very inexperienced (or set in their ways??!) and completely unaware of things that should be in place. Myself and another childcare qualified committee member have had to go in and look at basics such as updating registration docs, accident forms, bring in inductions, appraisals, health declarations, how to recruit plus I have done the SEF. We are training them but they themselves have never had any support from previous committees and have just been plodding along wihtout any updates for the last 4 years. Finally we are getting there as it is now 4 and half years since last inspection. I am hoping that soon we can take a step back and let staff do all this. But in the mean time without us who would train/inform the staff....the last time anyone from the LEA came in was with the old lot of staff over 3 years ago...my thanks goes out to this forum as this is where i find things out that we should be doing!!!??

Edited November 7, 2010 by marley

[HappyMaz]

They could, which is why I wouldn't advocate the sector being solely privately run either. The model I think we need is one closer to schools, for instance with committee run settings being federated to their local primaries and given access to the kind of support you mention for governors.

So what you're talking about is the wholesale nationalisation of the PVI sector? How expensive would that be? That would completely remove parents' ability to choose what kind of pre-school experience they want for their child.

 

Going back to the Plymouth report, I wonder what the research tells us about the abuse of children within educational settings - is it more prevalent in early years groups, primary or secondary schools?

 

Maz

[Gezabel]

I am intriuged to read in the review that a total of 30 members of staff (22 employed at the time of arrest and 8 who were previously employed) were sent invitations to be interviewed and only 13 accepted the invitation. I just wonder why less than half the staff were willing to contribute??

 

I know we can't belieive all we read in the press but I read about George apparently showing other staff pornographic pictures on her mobile and regularly discussing her sex life. I guess it is easy to say what we would do in a situation but I am confident in saying that if I worked in a setting where this was the behaviour of the manager I would challenge it - if I felt unable to do so I would resign and not hesitate in reporting her.

[Guest]

I agree but then why do OFSTED on a suitable person interview ask the chair questions about EYFS, how the chair ensures the children learnand develope (see Suzie post about her experience of this) from Marleys post, above

 

Thanks for your reply Marley - Gosh no wonder people struggle to recruit committee members- that on top of the liability issue would see me run for the hills! Surely those questions should be aimed at the manager.

 

I think as someone else has already said the sector is due an overhaul, mixed in with some proper recognition not only for the practitioners but for the managers etc who take ultimate responsibility. However, what would it look like and who foots the bill?

[Fredbear]

Having read the report i sit here thinking about my own provision which is committee run and really believe the change has got to come.

How can we possibly expect parents to continue in this way without the support/training and supervision. I know our setting is lucky as i and my team have sound knowledge and a clear vision for all in our care, and having an inquisitive mind i jolly well ask if in doubt, but the pay is disgraceful for the role and responsibility we take on everyday.

We are just in the process of becoming an incorporated company with charitable status, and this will certainly go someway in protecting our committee to for the forseeable future.

[Guest]

Do you mind me asking what the difference is, benefits are?

 

" We are just in the process of becoming an incorporated company with charitable status"

[Toots]

Do you mind me asking what the difference is, benefits are?

 

" We are just in the process of becoming an incorporated company with charitable status"

 

 

Hi,

I'm not sure what incorporated is but can tell you that we've just become a limited company with charitable status (it took a over a year) and apart from adopting a slightly different constitution, it now means that the committee are are only liable to pay £1 if we go bust.

[Fredbear]

Yes thats the one Toots, just from a financial point of view it certainly safeguards any trustees from possible financial ruin, but it also means as a group you are more accountable. To me this can only be a good thing.

I have to add that it will require somebody to fill in relevant forms and accounts to Company House annually, but this is a small price to pay. A lot of this is just a duplication of what we already send to the Charity Commission each year anyway.

If you are a member of the PSLA they have a booklet and adviser for any assistance you may require .

[Guest]

So what you're talking about is the wholesale nationalisation of the PVI sector? How expensive would that be? That would completely remove parents' ability to choose what kind of pre-school experience they want for their child.

 

Going back to the Plymouth report, I wonder what the research tells us about the abuse of children within educational settings - is it more prevalent in early years groups, primary or secondary schools?

 

Maz

 

Choice could still be there, just as with the current 'voucher' style system. The notion of 'choice' (in theory) applies now to the whole state sector. You can send your child to any primary or secondary you want if it has space and you meet other criteria, why not make it the same in the early years?

 

Of course it would cost an absolute fortune to offer state early years education, and I wouldn't expect it to happen any time soon. But with the 15 hours, that is effectively the way they are going, I guess they are hoping that the private sector will 'take up the slack' but unless they increase funding I can't see that happening.

[Upsy Daisy]

Choice could still be there, just as with the current 'voucher' style system. The notion of 'choice' (in theory) applies now to the whole state sector. You can send your child to any primary or secondary you want if it has space and you meet other criteria, why not make it the same in the early years?

 

Of course it would cost an absolute fortune to offer state early years education, and I wouldn't expect it to happen any time soon. But with the 15 hours, that is effectively the way they are going, I guess they are hoping that the private sector will 'take up the slack' but unless they increase funding I can't see that happening.

 

I think the fundamental difference between Early Years education and school education is that the vast majority of Early Years provision is outside compulsory school age. Provision is led by market forces and, by imposing the sort of requirements you suggest, you'd end up shutting down a large proportion of these settings, not least childminders.

 

Surely it would be more relevant to ensure that affordable training and better guideline are available to committee run settings (and others too) along with more effective supervision from Early Years services and Ofsted to close the gaps which this setting fell through.

 

There are lessons to be learned from the whole ethos of this setting and I think those lessons are relevant to all Early Years practitioners, Early Years services and Ofsted. I hope that these lessons can be passed on to all practitioners, not just those who are motivated to read this report and reflect on it. I'm not sure what would be the best way to do that but with luck someone somewhere is working that out right now.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Upsy Daisy

[Guest]

Suzie- I am so with you.....

 

I am an Early Years teacher and have worked in schools and been Acting Head. I am now a Pre-school Leader. Workload and responsibility very similar. Pay and benefits extremely different. When I managed a school I actually had time during the working day to carry out all those management tasks and didn't have to do them all at home in the evenings as I do now.

 

I have been a governor in several schools and a parent on a pre-school committee. I was stunned at how little support a committee gets from the LEA. They are effectively independent and have to sort out all legal, staffing, pay issues themselves.

Governors on the other hand, I'm afraid to say, is a bit of a 'puppet' role in my experience. The head makes all the decisions after consulting her staff, chews it over with the chair of Governor and by the time it gets to a meeting you are just dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's'. The school is totally supported by the LEA and support services and the Head has time to manage the school. If schools become acadamies then they will more like a pre-school model.

 

Committees rise and fall depending on the skill set that this years set of parents happen to have or not have and how much spare time they can give. As a leader I constantly worry about the Chairperson moving on and who will replace her as my employer yet know less than me about everything. How can she be qualified to do my appraisal?

 

I absolutely agree with Suzie that the committee run pre-school is no longer a fit model . It was fine for a group of volunteers to be running a 'playgroup' ten years ago but now we are Ofsted inspected, health and safety regulated and have the EYFS requirements to comply to. I totally agree that pre-schools should be affiliated to schools and have their own lead teacher and a paid manager. We should be creating more nurseries attached to schools, with their own permanent buildings rather than doing away with all the school nurseries. This would not eliminate choice.

 

i feel like writing to everyone who could make a difference about this. It gets me so angry. The Pre-school sector is pretty much run on goodwill. It might as well be run by the WI. What does that say about the value being put on young children's care and education?

[Guest]

Wow, very eloquently put, we are definitely on the same wave length.

 

Rea appears to have started a debate on the future of the entire early years sector!

[HappyMaz]

We should be creating more nurseries attached to schools, with their own permanent buildings rather than doing away with all the school nurseries. This would not eliminate choice.

I'm not sure whether the model you suggest would promote choice, however. At the moment parents can choose the kind of group day care environment they think is best suited to their child's needs - whether a montessori, High/Scope, Steiner, full day care or small sessional group (privately owned or committee run), etc. They can make this choice independent of the primary school they ultimately want their child to attend.

 

My guess is that you're advocating these nurseries attached to schools are run by the school and would not be privately owned, or run by a group of Trustees. How would you edge people like me out of the childcare market? Or would you assume that there would be enough two year olds to keep me in business to keep feeding three year olds into the school nurseries? Where would childminders fit into your model?

 

Would you envisage that parents would choose a school for their three year olds, and then send their child to that school's nursery? Or would your model provide for children attending a nursery at three but allowing their parents to elect to send their child to a different primary school at four? This might effectively mean a child will have attended three different pre-school settings before going into year one.

 

I absolutely take your point about the difficulties that committees face, and am no great fan of the committee run group. However I think this wholesale nationalisation of the pre-school sector is a massive undertaking which would be almost impossible to orchestrate and fund. We have a large number of PVI settings in my LA and I just can't see how every school would be able to incorporate a pre-school on their site. Our local primary is bursting at the seams as it is, without having to find space for a new building for a pre-school group.

 

I've said before that I think the professionalisation of the workforce has not been mirrored by a professionalisation of the committee structure, and this has inevitably caused friction between well qualified practitioners and well-intentioned and often hard-working committee members who receive little or no support for the important job they do. However we need to think carefully before we throw the baby out of the bathwater.

 

This conversation has moved far away from the Plymouth report, and it remains to be seen what the Government's response will be to the issues the report raises about the way this group was run. I wonder whether they will put more emphasis on the lack of formal structure of the group, or on the way the group was run which enabled an unsafe culture to grow which in turn enabled Vanessa George to carry out her crimes. Only time will tell.

 

Maz

[Rea]

Couldnt have put it better Edlee. Although, being attached to school is something that would put me off, I like the independence of a playgroup and, although I know everyone works to the same framework, I also like the informality of a playgroup over nurseries (in my experience anyway)

Isnt it funny though how the only people willing or interested enough to debate it are the ones who perhaps dont need to?

A professor was on the news this morning being asked why he thought things went wrong at the Staffordshire hospital leading to so many deaths. He said an American study had shown the NHS looks upwards ( towards managers, polititians) instead of outwards (to the people). He quoted a line out of Tony Blairs book which was along the lines of 'people have more trust in doctors than polititians, what a hoot'. I imagine he felt the same way about lots of other professions too. Hopefully that says more about Tony Blair than current polititians!

Edited November 8, 2010 by Rea

[Guest]

Rea

"isn't it funny though how the only people willing or interested enough to debate it are the ones who perhaps dont need to?"

 

That nail was firmly hit on the head Rea, well said...and not only interested/willing to debate but also to tweak and change what we can

[HappyMaz]

Isnt it funny though how the only people willing or interested enough to debate it are the ones who perhaps dont need to?

I hadn't noticed this comment before. Were you thinking of someone or a group of someones in particular Rea?

[Guest]

Really interesting how the debate has developed...

 

I think that there should be a legal obligation, irrelevant of management structure which makes clear what the legal 'welfare' responsibilities are ie: a committee member / trustee should sign a legal document stating that they are fully aware of their obligations.

In the case of private ownership then that single person is legally responsible for the welfare of every child.

 

I also think that every person working with children should have to sign a legal document stating that they have been trained and are aware of who they should report to any concerns regarding childrens welfare, including 'whislteblowing' on colleagues and that to ignore this responsibility is a criminal offence in itself.

 

I believe that each individual in that setting had a part to play which enabled the ethos that prevailed. Sorry if this sounds harsh.

 

I ask the question that how can there have been so many people employed, yet none of them identified or reported even one of the concerns that the serious case review 'researchers' identified? All the people employed were supposedly professional, responsible adults weren't they?

 

I have found the discussions regarding management interesting but strip it back to a building, with adults looking after children within the building, irrelivant of management structure the adults within this building failed to ensure the childrens safety, care and welfare were met.

 

I don't know why it has come to this state that adults appear to 'look the other way', don't want to get involved', 'hope others will deal with concerns' or even worse, adults didn't even recognise the basic flaws and risks so easily identified by the serious case review people.

 

How many times has an adult hesitated in reporting another adult for a wrongdoing, in case it 'hurts' them, or their reputation etc, thinking it's a 'one off' and/ or the child affected will 'get over it', it is time that ALL adults working with children stand up and say 'this is not good enough', when they find themselves working in a less than professional situation, which this setting so clearly was.

 

There were so many clues identified in the SCR, yet not one person reported concerns- this I believe is the biggest lesson to learn from this report. I cannot believe that no-one was aware of these, and those that 'kept quiet' should take some responsibility. The review says they didn't know how to 'whistleblow' well excuse me but an adult working in this sector MUST be aware of Ofsted, childrens society, NSPCC for goodness sake.

 

EVERY adult needs to be the voice the advocate, the safeguarder of every child he/she cares for, not in policy but in practice.

 

Ooooh here's a controversial thought....the review states that the 'policies' were PLA, not adapted, maybe organisations (PLA just being one of many), hold some responsibility, if safeguarding policies could not be so easily available, and had to be produced from scratch by every setting then maybe, just maybe all involved in the setting would have a true understanding of responsibilities, ethos etc, and once produced if each new recruite had to review each policy and be tested on its contents as part of interview, then for sure every member of staff would have a full understanding of their responsibilities and what is expected of them.

 

I think the Pkymouth case all boils down to complacency, the biggest risk factor for any child in childcare.

 

Peggy

 

p.s. I agree with Catma, the communication between LA and Ofsted MUST improve, whatever happened to Every Child Matters, multi agency working?

[hali]

yes peggy i agree too - said to my boss this morning multiagencing not working again!!!!!! very sad and very scary

[Rea]

I hadn't noticed this comment before. Were you thinking of someone or a group of someones in particular Rea?

 

I dont really know Maz, LEAs, Ofsted, Charity commission, Government? It seems to me that this overall issue of committee run settings needs a shake up. The PLA, while good, I think need to be more supportive. There is no training for committees here in Birmingham anymore, although someone is looking into it for me, but even then, can we expect someone who has been dragged kicking and screaming onto the committee with threats that it will close, be expected to train with no pay when they already do everything else for no pay? The amount of stuff we need to now is staggering, I certainly had my eyes opened when I became chair. Luckily I have a background I can fall back on, but even so, workshops would have been helpful. I've googled 'help for committees', using a variety of phrases, and found zilch.

We know what the issues are surrounding different types of settings but the whole inspection and funding process is a one size fits all. How can we be inspected on the same criteria as a nursery school when we have to have a parents on the committee who most likely have no idea about the sector? You could argue that thats why we have a maager but the committee are the people who interview and employ them, how do they know they have the right person for the job??

I dont want special treatment for playgroups who are run out of rented premisis or are managed by a group of parents but I do want more recognition that we might need help, that we might not know about Ofsted, accountants, charity law, employment law, safeguarding and all the policies we need to have.

[Guest]

I can see the points about how we keep variety in the sector which is absolutely a good thing. So, here's my suggestion for how voluntary committee run groups could be changed so that we don't rely on the goodwill of parents totally, but they are still kept involved.

 

The LEA would employ a single person per setting (or per local group of settings), who is answerable to and employed by the LA, and who can lean on the local primaries as appropriate for advice and assistance, but is not directly linked to them. This person would then act as a kind of manager/chair/overseer of the playgroup (i.e. kind of a surrogate head teacher), and would be a permanent fixture in the running of the setting. This person would then work together with parents to ensure the smooth running of the setting. As part of that, they would contract an accountant to run the cashflow/budgets side of things, with a volunteer treasurer being responsible for collecting in monies and anything that doesn't require technical expertise. This person would also have overall responsibility for stuff that parents really cannot be expected to know about, such as employment, safeguarding, policies, paperwork, liaising with other agencies, etc. etc. This could be a teacher, but equally it could be someone who has general managerial experience.

 

The 'leader' of the playgroup could then be freed up to focus mainly on the learning and development side of things. This person would also be tasked with ensuring continuity between committees from year to year, and with getting other local people involved in supporting the setting.

 

This would be so much more valuable to me than the current 'early years advisor' type model, where we get specialists parachuted in to support us with learning and development but practically never with actually running the bloomin' thing!! Not that I'm saying anything against our early years advisors, most of them are quite helpful, but the money spent could perhaps be targetted in a different way.

 

This is it seems to me pretty much what happens at the day care nurseries I know. The fact that they can bring in far more revenue than us by virtue of being open much longer hours and able to charge more for additional hours, means they can afford to employ a manager who is not directly involved with the children.

 

Right, shoot me down in flames! Find the flaws in my model! (apart from money, that is obviously always going to be an issue).

[Rea]

The only flaw that immediatly springs to mind is whether this person would be able to allow groups to do things their way so we dont end up with one group in many venues. But I suppose on reflection that person would be employed just to oversee the managerial side. Yes, I could see it working in theory. I'm going to think some more on it. Not that theres much point, it would never happen without the government sticking their fingers in and then we're in the sticky place of not being as independent.

Good idea though, it would be nice to be able to pass things I dont understand to someone else, or at least to know someones there.

[Upsy Daisy]

Why is it written in stone that the manager must be employed by the committee?

 

Perhaps another way to look at it could be to completely redesign the committee run setting model. There is a current expectation that the chair must be manage the whole setting, employing the staff and taking ultimate responsibility. That fact that this person may well not be able to fulfil this role effectively seems to be the biggest sticking point.

 

Maybe a new model in which the committee becomes responsible to the manager is required. The committee's remit could be solely fundraising and the responsibility for managing the setting, employing staff, etc could fall on the manager. This would alter the role of the manager to make it more like that of a manager or owner in a privately run setting. The role of the committee member or chair would become much less daunting and hopefully there would be no need for power struggles between staff and committees. However it would mean that settings could still run on a not-for-profit basis, offering the playgroup ethos valued by many parents.

 

It would take someone like the PLA to rewrite a constitution, negotiating with the Charities Commission along the way, and make it legally workable but once done it could revolutionise how these settings are run.

 

I'm sure there would be some pretty big obstacles to overcome but perhaps it would be worth considering.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Upsy Daisy

[Guest]

Rea, the independence issue could be retained by having a committee who vote on the way that the playgroup is run, but with this 'manager' style person taking responsibility for the day to day running.

 

Upsy Daisy, the drawbacks of that model that occur to me are:

 

1. This sounds awful, but the leader at our setting earns less than my cleaner. Why on earth should she do the job of a head teacher who gets £40k plus a year?

 

2. On average, I probably spend about 10-15 hours a week on preschool related stuff. We would need to make the leader a totally non contact role if she was responsible for staffing, etc.

 

3. In theory, the committee act as a safeguard against a manager who could end up having excessive amounts of power over how the setting is run, just as the governors in theory do the same at school.

 

If we could afford to employ a separate manager we definitely would, but the advantage of the LEA doing that is the continuity aspect - the committee members can change, but the manager stays in place.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Guest

[Upsy Daisy]

Ok so maybe in order to keep the wage bill affordable it would be good to still have committee members who help with some of the paperwork too.

 

I don't think there's a big issue with the manager having an excessive amount of power in how a setting is run is there? That is what happens in childminding and private settings all the time without causing any problems. There may need to be a way to ensure that the manager's pay is managed carefully but in all other respects the manager would be the professional and should be making the decisions.

 

That continuity aspect has become vital I think. Changing the management every year is getting less and less practical so what's needed is a way to make these setting sustainable of possible rather than making sweeping changes throughout the sector. Lets face it, in the current economic climate the former is far less likely than the latter.

[Guest]

Taken from Upsy Daisy's post

The committee's remit could be solely fundraising and the responsibility for managing the setting, employing staff, etc could fall on the manager. This would alter the role of the manager to make it more like that of a manager or owner in a privately run setting. The role of the committee member or chair would become much less daunting and hopefully there would be no need for power struggles between staff and committees. However it would mean that settings could still run on a not-for-profit basis, offering the playgroup ethos valued by many parents.

 

Gosh, this is how I thought they were run already! - the manager running the setting (because they are the 'expert' in the field) and the committee as a support network/employer - with defined roles which were as simplistic as possible due to them not being paid.

 

Recruitment of staff done together/alongside the committee as the manager would know what they were looking for (and and they are accountable for their performance as their line manager)

 

 

 

I'm in a private daycare background (owners are not childcare savvy but incredibly supportive and have skills and knowledge that I don't)

 

Having read your posts I'm becoming clearer (a little) as to how the chain of command is actually set up and I can see now why so many playgroup leaders are exasperated because the committee can interfere in the day to day running without necessarily having any knowledge. This must be incredibly unsettling added to the ever changing structure and therefore expectations/support above them - you guys need a medal!

 

I think the managers wage is a factor (and we'll never have it likened to the LEA) but to be honest I think a lot of the posters on here would gladly settle for their current wage but without all the aggravation and 'clear as mud' politics.

 

Is their any flexibility in how the chain of command is set up? and

 

How accountable is the manager for the performance of the staff?

[Rea]

Taken from Upsy Daisy's post

The committee's remit could be solely fundraising and the responsibility for managing the setting, employing staff, etc could fall on the manager. This would alter the role of the manager to make it more like that of a manager or owner in a privately run setting. The role of the committee member or chair would become much less daunting and hopefully there would be no need for power struggles between staff and committees. However it would mean that settings could still run on a not-for-profit basis, offering the playgroup ethos valued by many parents.

 

Gosh, this is how I thought they were run already! - the manager running the setting (because they are the 'expert' in the field) and the committee as a support network/employer - with defined roles which were as simplistic as possible due to them not being paid.

 

Recruitment of staff done together/alongside the committee as the manager would know what they were looking for (and and they are accountable for their performance as their line manager)

 

 

 

I'm in a private daycare background (owners are not childcare savvy but incredibly supportive and have skills and knowledge that I don't)

 

Having read your posts I'm becoming clearer (a little) as to how the chain of command is actually set up and I can see now why so many playgroup leaders are exasperated because the committee can interfere in the day to day running without necessarily having any knowledge. This must be incredibly unsettling added to the ever changing structure and therefore expectations/support above them - you guys need a medal!

 

I think the managers wage is a factor (and we'll never have it likened to the LEA) but to be honest I think a lot of the posters on here would gladly settle for their current wage but without all the aggravation and 'clear as mud' politics.

 

Is their any flexibility in how the chain of command is set up? and

 

How accountable is the manager for the performance of the staff?

 

 

Officially the committee run the setting. they employ the staff, decide wages, pay the rent, insurance, any bills. They send out invoices, claim funding, submit accounts, write policies. They also do the playleaders appraisal, she does the rest of the staff with their support and they also check planning so it complys with current legistaltion and check the accident book. (I bet Suzie can add to the list)

In reality committees do what they can. I have an excellent relationship with 'my' staff (but i did used to be the playleader). I do most of whats required but the staff help with recent recruitment, after all the playelader needs to like who the committee employ! They go to the bank, do the shopping, hand out invoices, take fees and do the stuff I cant always be on hand to do. Hopefully after this weeks AGM I'll have a committee who can take over some of the jobs.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rea

[Upsy Daisy]

Every pre-school seems to work in it's own unique way depending on the history of the setting, the availability of committee assistance, the skills of the staff and the manager and the financial position of the setting.

 

It would appear that the main difficulties are experienced when unqualified committee members are unwilling to defer to the staff's knowledge and experience, when the workload on committee members is so large as to make recruiting them difficult and, as in this case, where the responsibility for ensuring the setting is run safely and effectively is not taken on by anyone.

 

Perhaps altering the chain of command in these settings would go some way towards addressing these issues.

[Fredbear]

Well put Upsy Daisy totally agree with those comments.

[Guest]

Officially the committee run the setting. they employ the staff, decide wages, pay the rent, insurance, any bills. They send out invoices, claim funding, submit accounts, write policies. They also do the playleaders appraisal, she does the rest of the staff with their support and they also check planning so it complys with current legistaltion and check the accident book. (I bet Suzie can add to the list)

 

And all for no financial reward?!!

 

 

"Hopefully after this weeks AGM I'll have a committee who can take over some of the jobs."

 

I truly hope you find some x