

All these unregistered people...

(43 Posts)
Caitycat Fri 26-Apr-13 17:28:13


OutragedFromLeeds Fri 03-May-13 21:32:05


OutragedFromLeeds Fri 03-May-13 21:29:32


NomDeClavier Fri 03-May-13 20:32:53



HSMMaCM Fri 03-May-13 20:15:26

I did a 12 hour course over two days

Cloverer Fri 03-May-13 20:04:30


OutragedFromLeeds Fri 03-May-13 19:06:53


minderjinx Fri 03-May-13 18:11:01


suchashame Fri 03-May-13 16:47:00


Strix United States Fri 03-May-13 14:12:34




HSMMaCM Fri 03-May-13 12:37:29





irishlee Mon 29-Apr-13 22:12:18


Cloverer Sat 27-Apr-13 20:07:08




OutragedFromLeeds Sat 27-Apr-13 18:10:45



doughnut44 Sat 27-Apr-13 18:07:09


OutragedFromLeeds Sat 27-Apr-13 17:39:57


lljkk Netherlands Sat 27-Apr-13 17:30:26




NomDeClavier Sat 27-Apr-13 17:15:43




Tanith Sat 27-Apr-13 17:01:44

We already have Network childminders and non-Network childminders, though.
Before the EYFS was introduced, things were much as Nick suggests and the grumbles then were about elitism. Oh well...

Insurance does matter. Maybe its the last thing on your mind if your child is killed, but it sure as hell assumes major importance if your child is permanently harmed and needs expensive medical care or

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 27-Apr-13 15:46:18

I don't think it's to do with training as much as regulation though. I'm very qualified, but I don't want to be subject to Ofsted grading and endless paperwork.

With nannies you can have someone very highly qualified, with no input/regulation/hassle from the government. It can be a completely private arrangement. They should have something similar for people who can't afford a nanny, like the OP.

NomDeClavier Sat 27-Apr-13 15:37:48

That's a good idea, nick. An EYE register would be much easier to administer, although you'd still have to have legislation to stop Victorian style baby farms popping up or people who weren't on the EYE register would be tempted to over-mind.

nannynick Sat 27-Apr-13 14:09:29

'early years educator' is a term that has been mentioned in DfE: More Great Childcare though not clear if that will relate to everyone who meets Level 3 requirement, or not. It says things like "In future, people will train at Level 3 to become Early
Years Educators." "Early Years Educator qualifications will be the modern
equivalent of the highly respected Nursery Nurse Diploma, which used to be provided by the National Nursery Examination Board (NNEB)" - so perhaps it could be used to describe anyone, be they working as a childminder, nanny, or in a nursery, as someone who has completed Level 3 training.

Maybe then parents could choose between having a childminder who was an "Early Years Educator" or having someone who did not meet that training level. In the same way parents are currently able to choose to have a nanny with qualifications or have someone with no qualifications.
Also similar to nursery staff... nursery assistants may only have Level 2 training and may be working towards Level 3.

OutragedFromLeeds Sat 27-Apr-13 13:53:46

Maybe avoiding the word basic would be better. Maybe doing away with the term childminder altogether and having 'out-of-home nannies' or something like that and 'early years teachers'. So many people use the term 'childminder' to describe any old person who babysits their child anyway I don't think it would a problem to drop the term altogether.

tazzle Sat 27-Apr-13 09:33:20

I was a registered childminder some years ago before the paperwork became such an issue. I looked after child with very special needs ( tracheostomy) so had first aid plus additional skills. I was also insured etc. Could cater for special later child had Christmas disease for example.

These days there are just so many hoops to jump through that don't actually mean in practical terms that a child is automatically any more cared for, or has a more stimulating environment than, a childwho would be with a basic chilminder.

Anyone good at paperwork can make any situation "look good" but lack of it does not mean chilminder any less effective in assisting child development.

Eg .. different age group but I work with vulnerable adults in day facility and have been able to tell without being told when someone moved from one registered place that ticked all the boxes to one where actually they did more for physically and mentally... .the difference in demeanour can be dramatic. Same with children.

I would kinda like the idea of basic and plus... though basic does not necessarily mean less quality !

NomDeClavier Sat 27-Apr-13 09:03:50

Startail you aren't systematically caring for other people's children and you don't have an obligation to report any suspicion of abuse, so there's no real reason why you should have done safeguarding.

As for the first aid, many parent do choose to take a course just for peace of mind. I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect someone who is being paid to care for children to have done one, or to expect them to have appropriate insurance. Your house insurance probably covers guests injuring themselves but the minute someone starts paying they aren't a guest and most, if not all policies, exclude claims related to business.

I think a 2 tier system would work - many people are put off CMing not because of the first aid and insurance aspect but because of the endless EYFS requirements and turning their homes into mini nurseries. However to be fair you'd also need to allow nannies to register on the higher tier if they choose without the restrictions on their working environment because it's their employer's home (as long as they've done a risk assessment).

The only way to cut out unregistered minding altogether is to require all childcarers to register - that way you'll know if someone cares for a child for more than 2 hours, more than a certain number of times a year and is paid for it they should be registered.

Play dates truly are a private arrangement. Childcare can't truly be said to be any more - there's too much expectation for those involved to actively safeguard the welfare of children.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion


Register now