Jump to content
Home
Forum
Join Us
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

Rising threes


 Share

Recommended Posts

I am currently in a Nursery class. I have been told by the head that we can now take rising threes. She has told me that in September we are having children some of which won't be three until December. I think this is crazy as there is no difference to staffing ratios. Anybody else come accross this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely yes, just yesterday!

 

Our numbers are low and my understanding is that nurseries can take rising threes (ie those with third birthdays in the term they start) this could obviously bump our numbers a little! It also doesn't affect the OFSTED registration, you don't need to register for under threes!

 

As you say however, these children would need 1:4 ratio of staff.

 

My job is maintained nursery in the morning and private in the afternoon currently.

However for two years now numbers have been low and so we are in a consultation to close the maintained nursery and re open the whole day as private provision (run by the school)

 

I would keep my job in this scenario and I think the idea behind taking rising threes has come up because we had wanted to take over our defunct CC building and haven't heard anything!

We had planned on providing 2 year old care in there! The area we serve will have many children who will be entitled to two years old funding but who have nowhere to go!

On the other side of this, those who go elsewhere sometimes settle and then stay there, adding to our numbers woe!

 

I am an EYP so suppose I could have 13 children and another staff member have 4 of the younger ones!

 

I don't know.

 

I know viability is such an issue maybe we will have to run this way until numbers pick up!

 

Will be interested to hear others thoughts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok i know im pre-school (and therfore have different ratios) but this makes me a bit cross.....these children are not rising threes ...they are two!.

Two years olds are very different from three year olds (yes that few weeks makes a huge difference) We have been taking two year olds for the last few years. They need different resources, much more time,more toilet training,more time ! You will need to do 2 year old checks for them (again more time) you will need to check all your toys for suitability.....they still mouth things at 2! and your links to SALT services and support organisations will need to be strong and have a good referral system.

All these things need to be looked in to....to be honest whatever you do the thing that they need most is caring staff but they need lots of them. Unlike three year olds they do not share, they are egocentric and need to be treated as individuals not as part of a group. I love having my 2 year olds but they are hard work :blink:

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to disagree, i take from 2 1/2 in my pre-school,

 

I dont have any problem, mostly are trained, few in nappies but then some of my 3 year olds have accidents!

monitoring of all your children for SALT or other agencies goes across the board not just yr 2's.

Yes they need progress checks but if they are just coming upto 3 and have not been with you long then you are justified in not completing a check as you will not know them well enough.

 

I do agree there is a huge difference between those that are just 2 and those that are 2 1/2 but once they are 2 1/2 i find with the older ones as role models it is not a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess everyone will have different issues but my point was that 2 year olds are 2 year olds not young threes. They have differnt needs and their attachments need to be secure which may be difficult in a setting where the ratio of adults to children is small (not many adults i mean!!)

As to the two year old checks we are being told that we must do a two year old check even if they start the day before their 3rd birthday. The information from ofsted appers to back this up and they will expect to track a two year old and see the checks done on them (i agree this is a bit daft but does seem to be the rule!)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Finleysmaid too. Two year olds are two year olds. And if you take children who have two-year-old funding, many have issues that affect their development so that they remain 'two year olds' even after they have turned three!

Two year olds are not a 'problem'. They are two, with all the delights and challenges that come with that wonderful age!

In my opinion, school nursery is not the best place for them. But I understand the sustainability issue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suer- I think the reason you do not find 2 1/2 year olds a problem is your staff ratio? We have 6/7 qualified & experienced staff per day for 26/27 children- and yes some are under 3, a maintained nursery will not have this amount of staff.

 

Quite frankly I am appalled that anyone would consider a nursery class with 2: 26 ratio the best place for U3's and if a HT is considering this then I feel that it shows their level of ignorance around E/Y's. Unfortunately it sounds to me like ££ signs are flashing- as someone has already said- do they not realise some of the problems these 2 year olds may have?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a maintained nursery and have been able to take rising 3s for several months. Having had several enquiries, our first one started this week. However, we have been told it doesn't affect our ratio (1:13) so I am slightly concerned at the suggestion it does. Also, there has been no advice to us that we need to do a 2 year check. the child in question was sent to us via a Children's Centre, so i assume they felt it was the best place for him. Any pointers to where specific guidance exists would be most welcome!

He has rapidly formed a very strong attachment to me :rolleyes: and is like my shadow at the moment- not sure what'll happen when I'm not there ( I am in school for 1 session a week!). He joins in with the other children and doesn't stand out as the youngest - we had 5 other just 3s start with him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two year olds shouldn't e anywhere near a school in my opinion. The government are playing silly games with our education system and should stop. Just seen Mr Gove wants to reduce the summer holidays too, the guy on tv seemed to think Gove was refering to Singapore and Hong Kong when he said other countries did longer at school.

They'll have maternity units in schools next!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ha Rea that so made me laugh. But seriously I so wish the powers that be would stop meddling with our education system.

I am filled with horror to imagine two, yes two year olds not rising threes in a school environment.

Sorry ranting a lot tonight it's been a bad day.:(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, maintained nurseries can only take Rising 3's for the term in which they turn 3 and in the nursery they will attend anyway. This is why we were told it didn't impact on ratios, but I will be checking this!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a maintained nursery and have been able to take rising 3s for several months. Having had several enquiries, our first one started this week. However, we have been told it doesn't affect our ratio (1:13) so I am slightly concerned at the suggestion it does. Also, there has been no advice to us that we need to do a 2 year check. the child in question was sent to us via a Children's Centre, so i assume they felt it was the best place for him. Any pointers to where specific guidance exists would be most welcome!

He has rapidly formed a very strong attachment to me :rolleyes: and is like my shadow at the moment- not sure what'll happen when I'm not there ( I am in school for 1 session a week!). He joins in with the other children and doesn't stand out as the youngest - we had 5 other just 3s start with him!

I also thought the 1:13 was for 3yr olds in maintained nursery not 2 yr olds??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely any child under 3 is a rising 3!

 

Current ratio requirements do not categorise children as rising anything so therefore children under 3 years should be ratio'd accordingly

 

1:3 Children Under 2 years old

1:4 Children Aged 2

1:8 or 1:13 Children aged 3 or over (depending on practitioner qualifications)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a maintained nursery and have been able to take rising 3s for several months. Having had several enquiries, our first one started this week. However, we have been told it doesn't affect our ratio (1:13) so I am slightly concerned at the suggestion it does. Also, there has been no advice to us that we need to do a 2 year check. the child in question was sent to us via a Children's Centre, so i assume they felt it was the best place for him. Any pointers to where specific guidance exists would be most welcome!

He has rapidly formed a very strong attachment to me :rolleyes: and is like my shadow at the moment- not sure what'll happen when I'm not there ( I am in school for 1 session a week!). He joins in with the other children and doesn't stand out as the youngest - we had 5 other just 3s start with him!

 

Madmum, if you check out the EYFS statutory framework it states quite clearly what any organisation who is caring for under 5's must adhere to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madmum, if you check out the EYFS statutory framework it states quite clearly what any organisation who is caring for under 5's must adhere to.

We had checked this, but sometimes the advice given by those who are supposed to be the experts is not what it might be .

Challenging them is going to be interesting. :huh: :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is easier said than done if you're in a school and are the one at the bottom of the ladder...... :(

In the 'More Great Childcare' review it states that schools will be able to take 2 yr olds, but not sure it says under what ratio - so are schools presuming (rightly or wrongly) that their current 1:13 ratio stands for the 2 yr olds too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so thumperrabbit. There is this slightly grey area (I mentioned this in the NUT thread) around 'rising threes' but there is absolutely no reason for schools to be allowed to take 13:1 ratios for 2 year olds per se. I am currently working with schools registering for two year olds and we are quite clear about the ratios they need to maintain. I think the waters could muddy though once it is no longer a requirement for schools to register under threes provision.. I think that's worrying.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so thumperrabbit. There is this slightly grey area (I mentioned this in the NUT thread) around 'rising threes' but there is absolutely no reason for schools to be allowed to take 13:1 ratios for 2 year olds per se. I am currently working with schools registering for two year olds and we are quite clear about the ratios they need to maintain. I think the waters could muddy though once it is no longer a requirement for schools to register under threes provision.. I think that's worrying.

 

 

Just that phrase 'schools registering for two year olds' makes me 'shudder' :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. (Privacy Policy)