Childminders face huge rise in Ofsted fee

In modern life we've (or at least I've) come to expect that the government actually doesn't have any big vision for what it's trying to do. A thousand different departments each pursue their own little goals and look to tick their boxes so they get home on time each night. If a couple of discs with millions of bits of sensitive information go missing, well, you know, we tried.

But the news today of higher Ofsted fees for nurseries and childminders is jaw-droppingly shortsighted.

The Government wants Ofsted to start generating money to cover its operating costs. This just illustrates the root problem with the way government approaches childcare and education in the UK. Ofsted's job has been to inspect schools, nurseries and childminders to make sure they are providing the care and education our children need, and by all accounts it's one of the few bodies whose advice people really rely on. It's not perfect but it doesn't get into bed with the industries it regulates and its rankings are valued. It's a children's service that actually works like it's supposed to.

But now it's supposed to transform into a little money-making endeavor, generating cash flow to help cover its £236 million budget, putting up childminder's registration fees from £15 to £103 and nurseries from £155 this year to £450 by 2010. These fees will most likely be passed on to parents. They'll certainly increase the operating costs for childcare providers and dissuade new childminders from joining the ranks.

So let's get this straight: We could end up paying more in childcare yet then have a complex system of childcare tax credits, which of course has to be managed and implemented by the government. We have childcare that's already so expensive that many parents opt to stay home because their salary wouldn't cover nursery or childminder fees. We fork out a bigger proportion of the costs of our own childcare - around 70% in the UK according to the Daycare Trust, compared with about 30% in Europe. We're working longer hours on a whole and we know that one of the most important parts of a child's young life is to have dependable, high-quality care. And we have political parties who are courting families and women voters by saying they're focusing on our needs.

Best not to wait around to see how those promises pan out and instead register your feelings about the proposed Ofsted fees change on the Department for Children, Schools and Families site. Scroll down to the sixth entry. It's the last day to do so.

Read what several nursery and daycare associations had to say about the proposed change in today's Times

Comments

[Jo Reid]

I am currently charging one fee for two sisters and need to now start charging for second child. I need some help composing a friendly but to the point letter for the parents, i have had the children for one year and would like new fees to begin in sept 2008. Any sample letters that could help me?
Thanks

[CHILD CARE ADVICE]

HELLO !!!

What a great site you have.

You provide a good deal of useful info and its look and feel is just great.

Keep up the good work.

[Baggofbones]

Indeed not! SM's choices wouldn't be mine (understatement of the century...), but at least she is honest. Quite refreshing in its way...

[Jane]

What I'm trying to say is that people should be honest about why they make their choices. If their honest view is that they find childcare boring and that they'd go nuts if they had to spend their days at home, that's fine

**

Well, we certainly can't accuse SM of being dishonest then, can we! :)

[Baggofbones]

J: I don't know many of the families that BBS talks about either (though there are a few at my son's school!) However, your post shows exactly what I'm trying to say: some mothers work for the sake of their 'sanity', not because their families would starve without their income. What I'm trying to say is that people should be honest about why they make their choices. If their honest view is that they find childcare boring and that they'd go nuts if they had to spend their days at home, that's fine - but in that case, it shouldn't be dressed up as economic necessity.

[j]

BoB, true, and I did much the same myself. But it's also true that a lot of people work either to protect a long training and their future career, or their sanity, or because there is actually some money left over, and the family needs it. I know only two sets of people who live in the kind of luxury BBS talks about. Either they have no kids, or they have a very very rich daddy in the city and mum is at home but does no childcare cos the staff do it. The idea that normal families have one incom,e that covers all of life and mum's income is just for fun- get real!

[Baggofbones]

But in purely financial terms, wouldn't a nurse married to a teacher be better off giving up work to look after the children, rather than paying someone else to do it for them? A nurse's/teacher's income couldn't do much more than cover childcare costs where we live.

And might the same not apply to those who say they work to 'pay the mortgage'? Why not spend the money that they spend on childcare on paying off the mortgage instead? One reason I gave up work (as a lecturer at an allegedly top university) is that we would have been worse off financially if I'd stayed at work. (Well, the financial argument is what finally convinced my husband: in fact, I hated work and always wanted to stay at home is another matter altogether!)

People should really be honest about what their motivation is - to themselves, even if to nobody else.

[j]

"It is not about being unable to quit work, it is about giving up the 2nd and 3rd holiday, and about giving up the wonderful big and expensive house."

Blimey BSS, who did you marry? most people cant afford even one holiday, never mind three. Nor a big wonderful and expensive house. You may be lucky enough to live somewhere with cheap property I suppose, but even so, that is naive and rude beyond belief. Try asking a nurse married to a teacher which of their three holidays they will give up...

[BSS]

It is not about being unable to quit work, it is about giving up the 2nd and 3rd holiday, and about giving up the wonderful big and expensive house.

[Florence]

Well, I am myself a childminder and knew nothing about the increase in the Ofsted fee, yet I have just received my renewal letter this week. Not only, chilminders face this increase in their cost, they also face a loss of revenue by the 15 free hours a week offered to children aged between 3 and 4. Who will really benefit from this? Working parents will have to find a childminder who is willing or able to take/pick up the child from the nursery and that may prove difficult because childminders also have to pick up from schools and cannot be in two places at the same time. The only real beneficiaries are the parents who don't work and can therefore take and collect their child from the nursery. They are the ones who actually should have the time on their hands to do painting, singing, and social interaction with their children without this help. Who will be hit by the changes? Middle class working parents who cannot afford to be on one salary and have to sacrifice at least half of the second salary in childcare cost while receiving less than a day's worth of cost in return as tax credit. The lower class, they don't really get hit because if they do go back to work, up to 80% of the childcare cost is paid for them, so £3 or £6/hour does not make a big difference to them. The increased provisions expected from childminders who generally are already open for business 50 hours a week, on a very low income, will make the profession disappear and nothing else will replace a good home to home stimulating and caring service chilminders offer to families.

[Vicky]

And what's the alternative in terms of who should pay, Jennifer?

Ah yes, that'd be the ubiquitous "other people" that are always expected to fork out in order that we can do just what we want, cost-free.

[Mrs L]

Yes, Loll, you're right, I shouldn't have taken the bait - sorry!

[Loll]

Tired, tired arguments - can we focus a bit please? The issue isn't whatever pious stance you happen to take on the W/SAH issue because there really isn't anything new to say about that. It's about protecting good quality, affordable childcare.

[Mrs L]

Personally, I don't regard claiming benefits as an option and it's not an example I want to set for my children. And while fancy cars, holidays and clothes are a luxury, BOB, a mortgage is not - it's what keeps the roof over our heads. I work to help pay the mortgage because I don't expect the taxpayer to do it for me when I am perfectly capable of doing it myself. So I fully support CJ's conviction that not all of us have the option to stay at home full time with the kids.

[Baggofbones]

Just as a matter of interest, CJ (and others)... what do you actually mean when you say that not everyone has the option to stay at home with the children? I'm sure there are people whose options are genuinely either a) claim benefits or b) work. However, I am convinced that many of the people with 'no option' (and I have no idea whether this is your situation, CJ) mean that they'd have to sacrifice too much (cars, holidays, clothes, large mortgage and so on) if they gave up work. I just don't believe that so many people have 'no option' but to leave their children with alternative carers. It's true on this site that many mothers prefer to work than to look after their children. Nobody should criticise them for that choice - but it should still be said that their children would be better off at home, even if with a nanny!

[CJ]

And BSS - it's really lovely that you can stay at home and look after your kids. Not everyone has that option, so how about a bit of support for those less fortunate than yourself? Then I might forgive the woeful spelling...

[Loll]

Yesterday was the last day, so we've missed it.

[CJ]

Hi - I can't work out which is the right consultation either. Being cynical, I might suggest that this is because these proposals are probably buried deep in some other rubbish. I'm stuggling to think of a good idea that the Government's come up with recently, but this must really be the worst. In contrast I rather liked David Cameron's idea about having maternity nurses for new mothers. How can GB be so clueless about the needs of families when he has one of his own? Mystifying.

[Chloe]

Thanks for the heads up! 2 months before the realities of parenthood really hit, but have taken the prompt and responded like a responsible citizen. How completely bonkers. I'm going to pretend I didn't see that last post from BSS...

[BSS]

And what is the problem? Mum's should take care for their little kids, since its great for their development. Its one of the most important jobs parents do in their lifes.

[Busy Mums]

So much for this government being pro children and parents and education - absolutely ridiculous.

[Mikey]

Of all the incredibly dimwitted things this government has done, I think this might be the dimmest.

[Kathryn]

Done - thanks for bringing this to our attention - hope enough people see it in time.

[Gipsy]

Thank you J. I knew it was a case of me being dense. D'oh. I just could not see that Respond Online link before.

[AWilliams]

My daughter has been told by her childminder that the cost and red tape make it unviable to continue to provide the service in a small village that lacks any other facilites. My daughter, who herself is involved in dealing with "at risk" children, will now have to give up her job because the alternatives will mean her and her children leaving home at some unearthly hour and returning way past their reasonable bed time. AND THIS GOVERNMENT CALLS ITSELF SOCIALIST.