Ratios point system

[SazzJ]

Hi

 

I had a visit from my sure start teacher today and she explained that we are probs in a position to take more children than we think we can.

 

I work using the ratios only so for example

 

5 children under 3

3 over 3

 

In my eyes means 2 staff with no room for any others.

 

She said that there was the capacity to take more with just 2 staff.

 

She explained that:

 

1 staff is equal to 24 points, a 2-3 year is equal to 6 points and a 3 year old and over is equal to 3 points.

 

Does anyone use this system?

 

So two staff would be 48 points.

 

The 2-3 years old would be 5 x 6 = 30

And the 3 years and overs would be 3 x 3 = 9

 

Giving a total of 39 meaning that there is a capacity to take an extra two year old and a three year old.

 

But in my opinion this puts you over ratio.

[SueJ]

Not a system I use SazzJ or have even heard of

My workings out would be

 

5 children under 3 = 2 staff (working on 1:4)

3 children aged 3+ = 1 staff (working on 1:8)

 

therefore 3 staff in total with the potential to have 3 more 2 year olds and 5 more 3yrs+ year olds

[laura]

You are right, two staff but no room for anymore children, this is because:

1 staff member is responsible for 4 children under 3,

the second staff member is responsible for the other under 3 and because the child is under 3 that child MUST be kept in a ratio of 1:4 so only room for 3 more children.

this is why the points system doesn't work!

hope that helps!

[SazzJ]

Thank you.

 

I knew there was no scope to add more children

[Inge]

yes many use it but it doesnt work.. a person cannot be broken in half which is how the points system works... if it worked we could all be looking after more children..

 

if you use it the 2 year olds may not be in a 1;4 ratio..

 

how could they be if a member of staff (24 points) had 1 x 2 yr old ( 6 Points) and 6 x 3 yr olds ( 18 points) allocated to them in the points system for doing ratios.. that works out as a ratio of 1:7

 

So irritating when these advisor's come in and give advice that is wrong!

[SazzJ]

I am sticking to what I know that is for def

[WChurchill]

We got in touch with DFE regarding rising 3s and now have it in writing they can be 1:13. Ridiculous as they are 2.

[SueJ]

We got in touch with DFE regarding rising 3s and now have it in writing they can be 1:13. Ridiculous as they are 2.

Please put a copy on here or give out the DFE contact - being able to say that rising 3s can be counted as 3 would certainly help with staffing for the first couple of weeks of term when waiting for some of our 2yrs 350dayers to turn the magic 3

[SazzJ]

I was wondering if raising threes was still in place.

 

At what point though are the classed as a raising three?

[Inge]

dont know if it is still the same, but I was told a while ago now that rising 3 was the beginning of the term in which they turned 3...

 

so some could be 2yr 9 months, if birthday was at end of a term..

 

no wonder all are confused as to ratio.. so many have a different idea on the same thing... .

[Scarlettangel]

I was told recently that rising threes were those who started say in September and had their 3rd birthday anytime during that term, ie Sep, Oct, Nov or December.

 

So they need to be three in the term they start to be a rising three!!

[SueJ]

Just to be contrary then - why have I been told that I must still do the statutory 2 year check on any child under 3 years old - rising 3 or otherwise - as they are still 2

 

Arggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

[lynned55]

Actually I was just thinking the same thing. 'Rising 3' (as in 2 days before their 3rd b/day) but we HAVE to do a progress check on them. 'rising 3' (as in 3 mths before their 3rd b/day) but for ratios can be classed as a 3 yr old? Who decides these rules

 

Well the Statutory Framework makes no mention of 'rising 3's' does it? or have i missed it? Honestly this is becoming more & more ridiculous isn't it? Yet another thing we are being told (and treated differently!!)

[Possum]

We don't change ratios or anything until a child is actually 3, rising or otherwise. We only do the 2 yr checks on new twos coming in when they have been with us about a month. If a child started just before they were three we would do a summary sheet that's similar when they'd had their birthday, just a sort of baseline thing I suppose

[SazzJ]

I only do 2 year check if they have not had one. If HV has already done one no need for us too

[lynned55]

I only do 2 year check if they have not had one. If HV has already done one no need for us too

We are yet to get any child come in with one done at any age.

[thumperrabbit]

We were told that we still needed to do a 2 yr check even if the Health visitor had done one, as HV is more health/development and we are more educational/development - they are meant to enhance each other basically.

[finleysmaid]

can someone please explain to me why schools are allowed to disregard the statutory framework? i thought this is the legal document that we run to....or am i just being nieve?

[Mouseketeer]

We are too thumperrabbit, Hv does their side we do ours and they get put together (apparently) which is ok if with us long enough to do one before Hv does theirs...which doesn't happen often.

[finleysmaid]

ok so just gone back to check my info...this is what the stautory framework says.....

 

This framework is mandatory for all early years providers (from 1 September 2012)

1: maintained schools, non-maintained schools, independent schools, and all providers on the Early Years Register2. The learning and development requirements are given legal force by an Order made under Section 39(1)(a) of the Childcare Act 2006. The safeguarding and welfare requirements are given legal force by Regulations made under Section 39(1)(b) of the Childcare Act 2006.

 

so how are schools being able to offer 2 year olds places with 1:13 ratios? surely this needs to be challenged?...maybe another question for our political friends?

[Poohshouse]

Sorry to hijack but if we had 6 children 2 x under three and 4 x over three - can that be one person (not on their own in room but for ratio purposes?) - so 1:6 as no more than 2 x under threes?

[finleysmaid]

two x under 3...plus two over=1 person (1;4)

the other 2 would have to have another member of staff...so 2 staff

[Inge]

Poohshouse (love it!)

 

Some will argue using the points system that this would be ok.. BUT you cannot split a person into half...

 

and when I enquired with Ofsted a long time ago now they stated that I could have a 3 year old included in a 2 year ratio but not a 2 yr in a 3 yr ratio..

 

so in that case I would need 2 staff for those children... 1 for the 2 year olds plus you can add 2 3yrs to this making the required 1:4 ratio for the younger ones... That leaves 2x3 yr over ratio...

 

i know many do work to this ratio using points, but I also know of a friend who was using this as a ratio when Ofsted called and were picked up on being out of ratio.

[catma]

ok so just gone back to check my info...this is what the stautory framework says.....

 

This framework is mandatory for all early years providers (from 1 September 2012)

1: maintained schools, non-maintained schools, independent schools, and all providers on the Early Years Register2. The learning and development requirements are given legal force by an Order made under Section 39(1)(a) of the Childcare Act 2006. The safeguarding and welfare requirements are given legal force by Regulations made under Section 39(1)( B) of the Childcare Act 2006.

 

so how are schools being able to offer 2 year olds places with 1:13 ratios? surely this needs to be challenged?...maybe another question for our political friends?

 

There are differences within the different statutes which apply to schools and EYFS registered providers though - don't forget schools are not registered providers so do not have to report things to Ofsted for example, even though it's in the framework.

 

As there is currently no provision in the statutory framework for under 2's in maintained schools; presumably the DfE have considered this a school class with a qualified teacher hence the 1;13 ratio, which is currently enjoyed by all Nursery class teachers (and 1:30 for reception) despite being in the EYFS as well!

Cx

[Berryred]

As a childminder I am glad I can only have 3 children 4 with a variation

 

 

We were told that we still needed to do a 2 yr check even if the Health visitor had done one, as HV is more health/development and we are more educational/development - they are meant to enhance each other basically.

All my 2 year old training and I have done loads of late as I offer 2 year funding you HAVE to do a 2 yr check regardless so agree with you here. But then I do one every 6 months anyway and thinks it's good practise to work out next steps getting together with parents ect I understand I don't have so many children but do have 5 in ey over the week so it builds up!

[lynned55]

As a childminder I am glad I can only have 3 children 4 with a variation

 

 

All my 2 year old training and I have done loads of late as I offer 2 year funding you HAVE to do a 2 yr check regardless so agree with you here. But then I do one every 6 months anyway and thinks it's good practise to work out next steps getting together with parents ect I understand I don't have so many children but do have 5 in ey over the week so it builds up!

We are yet to meet a new parent that has had one done or knows of the 2 year progress checks. Whether it be from another setting, childminder or HV. We get transition documents but no no progress checks.

Edited July 11, 2013 by lynned55

[thumperrabbit]

I've had a few children who have transferred from other settings who have had their 2 yr check done, interestingly they've all come from childminders!

Only had 1 child come from a day nursery and he hadn't had his done - so we did it.

[Berryred]

We are yet to meet a new parent that has had one done or knows of the 2 year progress checks. Whether it be from another setting, childminder or HV. We get transition documents but no no progress checks.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head, parents don't really know about it! And different LA's giving different advise

[finleysmaid]

There are differences within the different statutes which apply to schools and EYFS registered providers though - don't forget schools are not registered providers so do not have to report things to Ofsted for example, even though it's in the framework.

 

As there is currently no provision in the statutory framework for under 2's in maintained schools; presumably the DfE have considered this a school class with a qualified teacher hence the 1;13 ratio, which is currently enjoyed by all Nursery class teachers (and 1:30 for reception) despite being in the EYFS as well!

Cx

 

Ok im confused ...i think the statutory framework is very clear about this and it includes ALL providers from birth to five. It is very clear to my mind that 2 year olds are treated the same in all settings with a 1:4 ratio....it then goes on to explain how 3 year olds are treated and takes all the different settings into account (which vary depending on setting and qualifications) when the statutory framework talks about providers it states whether they are 'registered providers'....or just 'providers (ie schools)

[catma]

Well the child would presumably be registered as on roll in the school - ie in a school class, requiring a teacher with QTS, hence 1:13 (I'm not saying I agree, just trying to unpick DfE logic).

 

This didn't exist when the framework was published - they will need to amend any framework to accommodate new legislation since Sept 2012, which this is.

 

Cx