27/04/2022
First post in a while, as I am winding down for maternity leave, but as my newsfeed is currently filled with the rumours of increased ratios, I felt that I needed to put my side across, and after posting in a childminder group and receiving countless messages of agreement, it seems that I am not alone in my thinking. I can only apologise for the length of ranting!
***
So, childminders are to save the economy by taking on more work but putting our prices down for the pleasureā¦
I mean, aside from the fact that childminders (along with nurseries etc) are already underfunded, overworked, underappreciated, and increasing ratios directly results in decreasing child safety⦠itās a fab idea⦠eye roll.
Childminders are businesses, just like any other. Itās a small business, yes, and the majority of us do it because we adore the little ones that we work so hard to welcome into our home⦠but we are businesses! Our main purpose is to pay our mortgages, and feed our families. Many childminders are barely staying afloat.
Increasing our ratios will increase our costs. The resources we need, the consumables we go through, the outings we pay for. The risk level will go up, so insurances likely will too. The work load will also go up - as much as people assume itās just a hobby, childminders are lone workers, caring for up to 6 children at a time. Itās an exhausting, never ending juggling act of cooking, cleaning, changing nappies, planning and preparing activities, tracking development, chasing small humans around playgrounds, and doing everything we can to support the families that we work with in every way that they need, all whilst trying to stop little Timmy hurling themselves off the dining table and reading the gruffalo for the 784th time that week. Adding another child into that pot, whether itās increasing the over all number of children or just the number of early years children, is going to increase that amount of work. A lot.
Most importantly, itās going to decrease our ability to keep children safe. We are lone workers. Every additional child, brings additional risk, but I still only have one set of hands, one set of eyes, and one head. I would love to see the people proposing this increase take a group of 6x 1-8year olds on the school run, crossing main roads, and not losing any. I swear the school runs alone will turn me grey by 35. Or try taking 3 toddlers to a playground - where they all run in different directions, one towards the fast moving swings, one straight to the highest point they can find, and the third instantly trips over their own feet. I might look calm and collected (I probably donāt), but inside I am constantly counting heads, risk assessing, and praying that no one asks me to push them on the swings for 40 minutes. Itās bloody hard.
And yet, itās proposed that we increase our numbers, and drop our prices? Putting it politely⦠why on earth would we want to do that? Who in their right mind, as a small business owner, is going to want to increase their work for free? Would you approach a taxi driver, and ask them to drive twice as fast, so that they can give you two journeys for the price of one? Or maybe say to a restaurant owner, hereās a table for 4, I know there are 6 people on it, but Iām sure you wonāt mind only charging for 4 since youāre cooking anyway. Of course not. So why would childcare providers do that? Itās the common misconception again that childcare is easy, cheap to provide, and a glorified hobby. It is not the responsibility of childcare providers, who work damned hard to provide quality childcare and the best start in life for the children we love like our own, to subsidise childcare by making a loss. For too long the government has been pushing us to do this, by threatening to increase ratios, and underfunding supposedly āfreeā childcare at the providers cost, and then wondering why we are facing a childcare crises with providers closing left right and centre. I donāt know what the answer is, but it isnāt reducing the quality of care that we are able to provide by expecting us to fund it for them.