Under 3 Yrs Ratio Query

[Guest]

Hi all

Jut exactly when do you change your ratios for those that are under 3 yr (1:4) to over 3yrs (1:8). eg boy turns 3 on 10 March. So after feb half term would you have him still in a ratio of 1:4 or given that he is 3 this half term have him in a ratio of 1:8. Or do you only have him in a ratio of 1:8 the half term after his birthday so in this case after the easter hols.

 

Hope I havent confused you!

 

Thanks

[AnonyMouse_64]

Once he's turned 3 then the ratio is 1:8, but not before even if his birthday is later that term. So basically from 10th March onwards he can be counted in the over 3's ratio.

[AnonyMouse_75]

from his 3rd birthday and not a day before, Ofsted pointed this one out when checking our staff ratios one inspection

 

we work 1 to 5 which covers the mix of 2 and three year olds we have in the session so Ofsted couldnt complain

[Guest]

Ok. So now realised our committee are putting those children that turn 3 that half term into 1:8 ratios...great...thing just get better.

 

Is there any proof of this as I know they are going to say it doesnt matter!

 

It took me a battle to gt thm to stop thinking of 2yr ods just taking the place of two 3 yrs old

Edited March 13, 2009 by marley

[AnonyMouse_3735]

must be somewhere in EYFS document.. not got one to hand, or I would have a quick look.

 

perhaps someone else can give the relevant page

 

Inge

[Guest]

Hi Inge

In the welfare requirment it just states the ages ie 2 years needs ratio 1:4, 3 and above 1:8.

I was wondering in practice and settings when did you actually change the ratios for a particular child. Its a bit annoying for us as staff are not responsible for admissions. So when I originally got them to stop thinking of an under 3 yr old taking the place of 2 x 3 yr olds I thought it was all sorted. However, its only when i have come to look more closely at th mnumbers thy are forcasting for after Easter that i think this is what they are doing. ie if a child turns 3 that half term they include him as 1:8. Thing is he may not be 3 until towards the end of the half term! I think the reason they are doing this is that they want to look at staff levels per half term so that they can sort out admissions.However, i also think that it is better to say that we move their ratio the half term AFTER they turn 3 dont you?

 

Have mailed the chair this (so will be popular seeing as they have lots of other issues to sort out!!) Im sure it would be loads better if we were responsible for admissions.Apart from mor paperwork not paid for!

So another question how many of you are doing your own admissions?

 

We have another committee role we are not sure they should be doing... lunch club. They always get the numbers wrong/paperwork of children attending, hence school get annoyed with us. We keep having to tell them!

[AnonyMouse_13453]

I do our admissions, and you are right, I only change the ratio once the child has his/her third birthday - although it seems potty that a child can be 1:4 one day and literally 1:8 the next - no sliding scale at all. So we do a little ceremony and give a certificate - and this highlights the change for parents. I have them in a different colour box on the register for the different ages and on the lists for the day so that everyone knows 'where we are' at a glance.

[AnonyMouse_10713]

I do admissions and I change them over when the receive funding, so if the child's birthday was on 1 January I would still wait until after Easter to move them up. It is just easier for me that way.

[AnonyMouse_8282]

We do same as Cait, different colour on register - and counted as 1.8 on birthday - doesn't make difference to actual attendance numbers just means we run on a better ratio all round!!!

 

xxx

[AnonyMouse_3735]

Hi Inge

In the welfare requirment it just states the ages ie 2 years needs ratio 1:4, 3 and above 1:8.

 

quote]

 

think this says it until they have their third birthday how can they be classed as a 3 year old? They are still only 2! so ratio applies until after 3rd birthday.

 

Must admit to this being one reason we don't take them until they are 3.. did consider, but extra cost and charges to cover staff were too much in practice...and we did not need the extra children.

 

Inge

[AnonyMouse_20414]

Our 2 year olds are classed in 1:4 ratio until the half term after they turn 3. So if a child turns 3

at the end of February they will still be included in the 1:4 ratio until after Easter. This helps our group

with admissions, fees and staff rotas. We feel that just because they have their 3rd birthday, it doesn't mean they are

going to need less support the next day!!

 

dottyp

[Guest]

We also count 3 year olds as three once they are eligible for funding as it makes it easier to work out that way. We also do our own admissions as the committee wouldn't have a clue! If we have a request for a place we want to refuse or delay for any reason we run it by the committee with our reasons so effectively they oversee the process.

[Guest]

We also count 3 year olds as three once they are eligible for funding as it makes it easier to work out that way. We also do our own admissions as the committee wouldn't have a clue! If we have a request for a place we want to refuse or delay for any reason we run it by the committee with our reasons so effectively they oversee the process.

 

So how about this then Holly. At next AGM we query whether admissions should be a committee role? Looking at our current registers then and being in -line with the rest of you we are actually over ratio eg 5 under 3 yrs and 13 over 3yrs with 3 staff (should be 4) on 2 days. As i think i also said they are getting lunch club numbers wrong. The admissions lady has been doing this for 3 yrs and wants to keep doing it (no child at pre-chool). When supervisor mentioned that staff could do it chair said staff not allowed on committee. I said not using the 2005 constitution but using 2008 we could if pre-school adopted. Now Im thinking more on the lines that it should not be a committee job. But then again do you lot get paid for doing it as we wouldnt so more work voluntariliy. What do you think?

Edited March 14, 2009 by marley

[AnonyMouse_64]

Really it is up to you and your committee to work this one out between you. I do think you need to set up a simple table for each day you operate showing children and the number of staff you should have to cover the ratio's. Clearly at the moment the person doing the admissions doesn't understand how it works.

 

You also need to stress the seriousness of operating under ratio's. This is not just about placating OFSTED. The ratio's are there because this is deemed the minimum number of adults per child for health and safety reasons. If something happened to one of the children then a parent would have a good case for taking all of you to court for being negligent. If it were me I would refuse to work on these days unless they get another member of staff or duty mum to cover.

[Guest]

We don't get paid for it firstly. That said it is one of those jobs (like the policies) which will be an inadequate in an inspection so do you want to put yourselves as staff through that? Unfortunately your committee seem surprisingly tenacious and maybe only something like that will get them changing. I really feel for you because I can't think a way throughthis whole situation with your current committee and I can't see how you shift them.

 

By the way I see no reason why a committee cannot delegate roles to staff even if the staff are not on the committee.

 

Edit (I like the points made above)

Edited March 14, 2009 by Guest

[AnonyMouse_75]

we are actually over ratio eg 5 under 3 yrs and 13 over 3yrs with 3 staff (should be 4) on 2 days.

 

if your room is a mixed age then you combine the staff and child ratios, dont panic thats not over ratio for 3 staff

 

the 5 under 3's =1.25 staff (5/4)

 

the 13 over 3's = 1.625 staff (13/8)

 

=2.875 staff required

 

so you could have 1 more over 3 and still be in ratio

 

 

Ive got a chart somewhere Ill post it when I find it

[AnonyMouse_75]

found it!

 

heres a chart for working out staff ratios

 

STAFF_RATIOS_IN_MIXED_AGE_ROOM.doc

[Guest]

if your room is a mixed age then you combine the staff and child ratios, dont panic thats not over ratio for 3 staff

 

the 5 under 3's =1.25 staff (5/4)

 

the 13 over 3's = 1.625 staff (13/8)

 

=2.875 staff required

 

so you could have 1 more over 3 and still be in ratio

 

 

Ive got a chart somewhere Ill post it when I find it

 

Hi Alison,

 

I'm totally confused now because I thought you had to have 2 staff for 5 under 3's. Have I got this completely wrong. If I have 6 2year olds and 20 3-4 year olds on the same day I have 5 staff because of this. Oh confusing myself even more now...... mrsW

[Guest]

found it!

 

heres a chart for working out staff ratios

 

STAFF_RATIOS_IN_MIXED_AGE_ROOM.doc

 

 

This looks like a useful tool, just a query, and I'm not familiar with the new welfare statndards, is there a limit to the total number of children in a room (excluding the square metre considerations if they still apply)? The reason I ask is that the graph goes up to a possible 40 x 2/3 yr olds in one room.

 

Peggy

[AnonyMouse_10713]

Peggy, I am registered to have up to 40 children per session. We have two ajoining classrooms and an outdoor area directly accessible from both rooms. When we registered at the new premises 6 years ago Ofsted came and measured the area and offered us registration for 44!! We capped it at 40, but only go up to 38 where possible and in an emergency have 2 spaces for social care referals.

[AnonyMouse_75]

Im not too good at explaining myself so I hope this makes sence....

 

if they are in a under 3's room then yes you would need 2 staff but if they are in a mixed age room then the staff ratios can cross over

 

so if your have 5 under 3's you have 2 members of staff but the second member of staff can care for an additional children of a different age

 

so if you had 9, 3 year olds (that would require 2 staff)

and if you had and 5 under 3's (again you would need 2 staff)

but you dont need 4 staff in total those two children that push the numbers over if they are all being cared for together you can just have 3 staff

 

hope that makes sence

 

the graph was only 20 X 20 cause i made the table that big..... im only allowed 12 two year olds in my sessions but I thought others might have more...

[AnonyMouse_10713]

Alison, you say that you made the table, but can I ask where you got the information from?

 

It seems to say that if you had 1 under 3 and 6 over 3 you only need one member of staff?!!? Surely that can't be right!!

[AnonyMouse_64]

We have talked about this before and I'll do a search for it in a bit but my understanding was that you can't mix the ratios in this way.

 

So in marleys case:

 

under 3s, 1:4

4 - 1 member of staff

1+3 over 3's - 1 member of staff (you can't mix this and say 1 under 3 and 6 over 3's, as this is compromising the ratio for the under 3!!)

 

over 3's, 1:8

8 - 1 member of staff

2 - 1 member of staff

[AnonyMouse_3735]

yes agree Beau,

this has been discussed before,

 

had a friend who had problems using the kind of system which uses points or splitting an adult into parts which is what this seems to do.. Ofsted told her while mixing ages was fine you had to have correct ratio for younger ones , which makes your calculations correct..

 

at the time there was a very nifty calculator added which proved useful in calculating ratios..

 

it is something which often arises, and until Ofsted make it very clear how they want ratios calculated will continually be debated.

 

thing is these are minimums and still not being calculated the same everywhere

 

Inge

[Guest]

Hi

Inge posted on my behalf a few months ago as i was getting conflicting info. Since then have joined th forum!

I was eventaully told by my OFSTED (and ets face it we get conflicting info from them but we have decided to go with this) that 2 yrs old had to be in a 1:4 ratio even if they were mixed in with 3 years old

eg 18 children, 5x 2yrs old, 13x 3yrs old

 

so

4x2yrs old = 1 staff

 

8 x 3yrs old = 1 staff

 

1x2yrs old + 3x 3yrs old = 1 staff

 

2 x 3yrs old = 1 staff

 

Total 4 staff.

 

My committee do now work it out like this however, the issue is that they are counting them as 3 in the term that they turn 3! Now not sure this should be done (after comments here). I know they have waiting list for 2yrs olds but they are taking on more 3 yrs old on after Easter and their numbers will be affected if they continue to do it this way.

 

Inge our posts crossed!

Edited March 14, 2009 by marley

[Guest]

Im not too good at explaining myself so I hope this makes sence....

 

if they are in a under 3's room then yes you would need 2 staff but if they are in a mixed age room then the staff ratios can cross over

 

so if your have 5 under 3's you have 2 members of staff but the second member of staff can care for an additional children of a different age

 

so if you had 9, 3 year olds (that would require 2 staff)

and if you had and 5 under 3's (again you would need 2 staff)

but you dont need 4 staff in total those two children that push the numbers over if they are all being cared for together you can just have 3 staff

 

hope that makes sence

 

the graph was only 20 X 20 cause i made the table that big..... im only allowed 12 two year olds in my sessions but I thought others might have more...

 

You see I would work that out as

8 x 3 yrs old = 1 staff

4 x 2yrs old = 1 staff

1x2 yrs old + 1 x 3yrs old = 1 staff

 

still get the same answer as yourself. However according to your table 6X 3yrs old and 1 x2yrs old = 1 staff. Now I would personally say that should be 2 staff as that one 2 yrs old is not in a 1:4 ratio but a 1:7 ratio.

 

Love the idea of the table. Did you do this? Can I try to amend it to suit my own needs??

[AnonyMouse_13453]

You see I would work that out as

8 x 3 yrs old = 1 staff

4 x 2yrs old = 1 staff

1x2 yrs old + 1 x 3yrs old = 1 staff

 

still get the same answer as yourself. However according to your table 6X 3yrs old and 1 x2yrs old = 1 staff. Now I would personally say that should be 2 staff as that one 2 yrs old is not in a 1:4 ratio but a 1:7 ratio.

 

Love the idea of the table. Did you do this? Can I try to amend it to suit my own needs??

 

 

Yes, I agree with you - we have a minimum of two staff anyway, so I don't understand the '1's on the table, but I've printed it out anyway - it's a good ready reckoner!

[Guest]

Yes, I agree with you - we have a minimum of two staff anyway, so I don't understand the '1's on the table, but I've printed it out anyway - it's a good ready reckoner!

 

 

Hope Alison doesnt mind but I have amended to work it out as we would work out our ratios. It is certainly a great idea. If copywright an issue then please delete!

 

Shiny does this seem better?

 

Thanks

staff_ratios.doc

[AnonyMouse_64]

A quick glance but that looks right marley. It's quite clear from that what your staffing levels should be each session and should help the committee to understand.

[AnonyMouse_10713]

Shiny does this seem better?

 

Marley, yes it is far better!!! But I still disagree with the 1's in the table!! There should never be only 1 member of staff!! From what you have said on here you committee can misunderstand things even when you explain them clearly to them, and I wouldn't want you to ever be put in the position where they said you only needed one staff member on. I personally like the table, but replace all 1's with 2's. If you get what I mean!!