NUT Response to DofE Consultaion on EY Ed & Staff deployment

[SueFinanceManager]

THE RESPONSE OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS TO THE DfE CONSULTATION ON EARLY EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE STAFF DEPLOYMENT

 

FEBRUARY 2013

Well this makes interesting reading and particularly interested in points 18 and 19 that refute the European model for early years works better than ours.

Happy Reading :1b

DFE-CONST-EARLY-ED-CHILCARE-RESPONSE.doc

[Rea]

I'll read it in full later, but in the email to my MP I asked if Ms Truss to direct me to research by people or organisations who found the French model better than the UK. Bet she wont point to anything other than her own voice.

Thanks

[sunnyday]

Thank you! :1b

[SueJ]

Thanks for that Sue - lots of good stuff in there to help us consultation weary early years people fight the good fight

[eyfs1966]

it was a very interesting piece, which will no doubt get up Ms Truss's nose, and be shoved to the very bottom of her intray, to be ignored later!!

[WChurchill]

Still seeking advice on rising threes ratios. Anybody know????????

[sunnyday]

Still seeking advice on rising threes ratios. Anybody know????????

 

 

Sorry Mumm - have obviously missed this before :blink: my answer would be there is no such thing as a 'rising three' - they are two year olds........therefore 1:4 ratio - ready to be shouted at or even shot at :blink:

[Guest]

Great comments, very sensible and what we in early years have been saying all along so I expect it goes without saying that this document will be ignored

[WChurchill]

Thank you so much Sunnyday. My head said she has checked it out and it is 1.13 but I can't find anything to support this. I will have to do all baselines and 2 year old checks.

[sunnyday]

Thank you so much Sunnyday. My head said she has checked it out and it is 1.13 but I can't find anything to support this. I will have to do all baselines and 2 year old checks.

 

 

Crikey - really :blink:

[Rea]

I thought it would be in the guidance but it only mentions QTS or equivalent for the over 3s. It seems to presume under 3s won't be in that environment I think. Under 3s is still level 3 at a ratio of 1:4

[sunnyday]

Thank you so much Sunnyday. My head said she has checked it out and it is 1.13 but I can't find anything to support this. I will have to do all baselines and 2 year old checks.

 

 

So that made me dig out my copy of the Statutory Framework........

 

3.31 For children aged two:

 

There must be at least one member of staff for every four children

 

page 19

[Rea]

But it says 4 under 3s wth a level 3. I think mumms HT is presuming as QTS she can have 13 children because it doesn't say otherwise. QTS can have 13 children between 8-4 but outside those hours its says 1:8. QTS isn't mentioned with under 3s

[sunnyday]

But it says 4 under 3s wth a level 3. I think mumms HT is presuming as QTS she can have 13 children because it doesn't say otherwise. QTS can have 13 children between 8-4 but outside those hours its says 1:8. QTS isn't mentioned with under 3s

 

Exactly :1b so surely that means it's 1:4 at whatever level of qualification

[Rea]

But then why say level 3 with half the others at level 2? Why isn't QTS mentioned? Do you think when it was written someone knewunder 3s should never be in a school nursery!?

[WChurchill]

Really appreciate comments. So Rea do you agree 1:4?????

[Rea]

I would say yes from a common sense point of view but I can see how your head could argue it from the way QTS isn't on the list for under 3s. Good luck with it, if it goes ahead, you're going to need it

[sunnyday]

I would say yes from a common sense point of view but I can see how your head could argue it from the way QTS isn't on the list for under 3s. Good luck with it, if it goes ahead, you're going to need it

 

 

But isn't that why it says 'For children aged two: there must be one member of staff for every four children' - doesn't that show clearly that there are no exceptions irrespective of qualification levels? Help me out someone/anyone please :1b

[Rea]

I'd agree with you sunnyday but I wonder why it doesn't say QTS along with level 3? I think its presuming under 3s won't be in that environment. You know from other posts on her that heads will do what they want if they can find a way and I think he might have found a way. Sad isn't it

[Rea]

I'd agree with you sunnyday but I wonder why it doesn't say QTS along with level 3? I think its presuming under 3s won't be in that environment. You know from other posts on her that heads will do what they want if they can find a way and I think he might have found a way. Sad isn't it

[sunnyday]

I'd agree with you sunnyday but I wonder why it doesn't say QTS along with level 3? I think its presuming under 3s won't be in that environment. You know from other posts on her that heads will do what they want if they can find a way and I think he might have found a way. Sad isn't it

 

3.29..............'Exceptionally, and where the quality of care and safety and security of children is maintained, exceptions to the ratios may be made'???

 

There is a 'footnote' which says 'Ofsted may determine that providers must observe a higher staff:child ratio than outlined here to ensure the safety and welfare of children'

 

I really need to 'leave this alone' - I don't want to offend anyone - but please, please tell me 1:13 for two year olds can not be acceptable

[WChurchill]

I agree that it's sad but also quite dangerous! I certainly won't do free flow! Will need to be more regimented. Barmy!!!!! I have been in touch with my advisor as she is working with a school that has 'rising threes'. On a course with her next week and will have a chat then. Will get back to you with her comments.

[sunnyday]

I agree that it's sad but also quite dangerous! I certainly won't do free flow! Will need to be more regimented. Barmy!!!!! I have been in touch with my advisor as she is working with a school that has 'rising threes'. On a course with her next week and will have a chat then. Will get back to you with her comments.

 

 

We crossed posts there Mumm - yes please do let us know what she says :1b

[Guest lillybeth]

This is a very interesting post please forgive me for talking about my situation. I have been a manager of a setting for the last six years on a school site. It is governed by the governing body. Previously I had owned the setting in a village hall for 16 years. Our first ofsted was outstanding. Two weeks ago I had the devastating news that the head wanted to make me redundant so my role would be taken by her and they wanted to put a teacher into the setting, therefore the ratios would go up. We have two year olds what does this mean for them? I totally agree that rather than free flow high quality play it would be a situation of containment and very dangerous. The above response from the NUT is interesting and I may be able to use this as a response to the governing body. I have to say I am totally devastated as are the wonderful team that I work with two of them are also being made redundant. You might think that this is a random post and perhaps should be posted somewhere else, but I think a lot of the above posts are relevant to my situation. It has upset me so much I have only just returned to work, going back was so hard.

[Rea]

Oh Lillybeth, that's awful news. I think the best thing to do would be to contact you LEA about the ratios and ACAS about your redundancy.

[sunnyday]

This is a very interesting post please forgive me for talking about my situation. I have been a manager of a setting for the last six years on a school site. It is governed by the governing body. Previously I had owned the setting in a village hall for 16 years. Our first ofsted was outstanding. Two weeks ago I had the devastating news that the head wanted to make me redundant so my role would be taken by her and they wanted to put a teacher into the setting, therefore the ratios would go up. We have two year olds what does this mean for them? I totally agree that rather than free flow high quality play it would be a situation of containment and very dangerous. The above response from the NUT is interesting and I may be able to use this as a response to the governing body. I have to say I am totally devastated as are the wonderful team that I work with two of them are also being made redundant. You might think that this is a random post and perhaps should be posted somewhere else, but I think a lot of the above posts are relevant to my situation. It has upset me so much I have only just returned to work, going back was so hard.

 

 

That is so sad - great advice from Rea - let us know what happens.......

[thumperrabbit]

I think, it should be 1:4

- however does this come about with whatever the review was that stated schools could take children from 2?.. And therefore it is presumed that the ratios will be the same as they currently are for maintained which is 1:13

[Guest lillybeth]

Thank you we have got to respond to the proposal they have given us. It is so hard because the parents have not been consulted. We have been gagged by the confidentiality policy so cannot tell them, so in effect parents registering now for September are not going to be getting the service they think they are.

[Rea]

So the redundancies and take over are at the proposal stage? If its a proposal why cant it be given out to the parents and let them consult? I'm sure if the parents knew their children were going to be in such a ratio they might change their minds. Is there someone you can speak to in the LA?

When our local primary school next door to our playgroup wanted to open its own nursery the LA turned them down because there was already enough provision in the area, so the head tried to bring in a private company. The head spoke to us and invited us to meetings but in the meantime I spoke to the LA about our concerns. Our DW from the PLA heard someone in the LA was asking why I knew so much, it was supposed to be confidential. the whole thing fell through on a legal matter, I never found out what, but maybe my questioning messed things up.

Ask questions, find out the rights and wrongs. I hate how people think they can run rough shod over others.

[Inge]

Engouraging schools to take younger children. We want to see many more schools offering childcare and education to young children. Some schools already do this very well in their nursery classes. We will make it easier for schools to teach younger children by removing the requirement on schools to register separately with Ofsted if they wish to provide for children under three. We are also going to reform the current cumbersome statutory processes required of schools if they want to take children lower down the age range.

Taken direct from More Great Childcare

 

knew I had read it somewhere... this will allow the schools to take the younger children with no need to do any thying other than decide they want to.... this one could be the death of so many local independent preschools etc. No way to stop it happening because it affects another nearby as we have done in the past.. we too managed to stop a local school opening a nursery on site as we would have been unsustainable.