DIVIDED AND RULED
I am a childminder in a deprived area. I work with my husband and have one full-time member of staff. I also employ one part-time assistant for supply cover. Our setting is large, with 23 part-time children in the EYFS and another 18 children aged between six and 14 years old.
I am in my third year of taking the Early Years Foundation Degree and I intend to do my BA and gain Early Years Professional Status. However, the Government's initiative to have every early years setting led by a graduate does not appear to apply to childminders.
Staff in nurseries and children's centres are able to access the Graduate Leader Fund, which pays for supply cover, equipment and course fees. Childminders cannot access it.
I am the only childminder on my course, out of 25 people. The only other one who was a childminder has become a nursery nurse because of the financial constraints. We have to pay 20 per cent of our course fees, pay for any supply cover we need and buy all our own equipment. Due to my joint income I am unable to access any other funding.
Once again we childminders have become of unequal status, expected to meet all of the requirements that nurseries meet but without the financial support. We have more children in our setting than many children's centres that are providing daycare, yet we are not on an equal footing.
The system of new qualifications was supposed to strengthen the early years workforce as a whole, but it appears to be dividing it further.
Nicola Dickinson, Hollyhock Childcare, Castleford, West Yorkshire
- Letter of the Week wins £30 worth of books
BARRING FLAWS
I think the clarifications made by Adrian McAllister, chief executive of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, concerning vetting and barring (Letters, 29 October) are helpful. However, I must take issue with a couple of points:
In his letter, Mr McAllister states that it is 'not clear that the scheme would not have prevented' the Vanessa George child abuse case. This contrasts with the views expressed by his boss, ISA chairman Sir Roger Singleton, who was quoted in the Guardian (26 October) stating that 'it (the ISA) would not have stopped Vanessa George ... as there were no previous concerns about her suitability for working with children.'
Mr McAllistair also states that if 'it is clear that a malicious allegation has been made, it will be discounted by the ISA.' Unfortunately, life is rarely that simple, and staff facing allegations will have only very limited opportunities to present their side of the story. As things stand, they will have no right to a personal hearing or to appeal against the ISA decision.
Barring applies for ten years, and the decision to bar can destroy careers and reputations. While the protection of children must always be our priority, the implications of being barred are so serious that much more has to be done to ensure that staff who are subject to allegations have the right to a fair hearing.
Ben Thomas, national officer, children's services, Unison
GRANTS FOR THE FEW
I totally sympathise with the Bolton nursery owners who are claiming that the capital grant funding has been allocated unfairly in their area (News, 5 November).
We put in two claims for a doorway in our three- to five-year-olds room, so that the children can have open access to the outside. It was for a small amount of money, but the claim was rejected on both occasions.
We then saw in a council newsletter that most of the grants were allocated to the Sure Start Children's Centres. When I asked the grant co-ordinator how this can be, she told me it was priority claims that won the funding.
I think that they shouldn't bother inviting the private sector into the claims process if it is highly unlikely that we will ever see any of the money.
Gemma Froude, nursery manager, Smart Tots Nursery, Complete Childcare, Banbury, Oxfordshire
- Send your letters to ... The Editor, Nursery World, 174 Hammersmith Road, London W6 7JP; letter.nw@haymarket.com; 020 8267 8401
