Letters to the Editor: Ratio changes prompt petition

In an attempt to address affordability, childcare minister Elizabeth Truss believes that nurseries and childminders might do better to have fewer (although better paid) members of staff. Thus, the theory goes, savings would be passed on to parents.

The government has failed to grasp three things. First, and most important, the welfare of children would be jeopardised by more children and fewer adults. It is impossible to see how they might be nurtured as unique individuals who are growing and learning in their most formative years on a 1:6 basis.

Second, there is an assumption that more qualified staff can somehow provide care and learning for more children – having developed more eyes, ears and arms than others. And third, it is difficult to see how cost savings will be passed onto parents if fees are paying higher wages to these better-qualified staff.

The sector is rightly “up in arms” about the proposals and has become a vocal lobbying force for change. A petition has been launched by registered childminder Penny Webb at www.change.org/keepratiosdown.

Nathan Archer, development manager, Lincolnshire Montessori


Charity independence threat
Your article Are children’s charities too afraid now to ‘bite the hand that feeds’? (CYP Now, 8 January) tells only part of the story.

Ever since the Nuffield Review of 14-19 education, we have known that the real problem lies in the competitive culture of contracting and commissioning, which all your respondents seem to accept as inalienable. The review reported “at best, a weakly collaborative system”, which is an irony given the evidence that services have to work together to be effective.

That the big four charities now aim to collaborate in campaigning work is a further irony, as their might is implicated in the death of many smaller organisations and charities.

The case of Nomad in Henley, which after 16 years of good work recently lost its contract to Action for Children (£184m turnover), illustrates that the big players are part of the problem. With their growth-obsessed behaviours, akin to the new private sector providers, these “charities” talk the language of localism, but know well it is a charade. Deep down, they know they have been well and truly incorporated, both financially and philosophically. Which begs the question: are there any non-governmental organisations remaining?

Graeme Tiffany, independent education consultant