Looking after children Options

[Iommi]

Having said that, repetition is the mother of learning. In an emergency, one doesn't have the time to do revision.

[On the edge]

Good point; doctors don't retake their qualification. It is just a money grabbing exercise.

It could also be protection of vested interests. For instance - we are very short of Dentists, NHS ones in particular, and have been for quite some time. Apparently won't work NHS because one way or another money too low. So, why don't we train more dentists? Difficulty is Dentists professional body will only permit a fixed number of new ones to qualify each year. Its called upholding professional standards if you are top draw or restrictive practices if you are bottom!

[Chesapeake]

Good point; doctors don't retake their qualification. It is just a money grabbing exercise.

The First Aid courses change all the time due to continual changes in the best methods for CPR etc etc... If you are a "First Aider" at work you will notice these changes every time you have to re-take your qualification.

Doctors unlike First Aiders go through years and years of training in order to gain their qualifications. They will tell you, if you ask, that they do not know everything and are being continually updated and trained on new methods, drugs and equipment.

The responsibilties of both jobs are miles apart. Hardly a good comparison I think?!

[Chesapeake]

I wonder how many parents would pass, yet they are considered able.

A lot of parents are not considered able and that is why Social Services get involved! We hear about some stories when they reach the news but unfortunately that is a fraction of the tragedies that are actually happening every day and probably in your very own streets.

[Iommi]

A lot of parents are not considered able and that is why Social Services get involved! We hear about some stories when they reach the news but unfortunately that is a fraction of the tragedies that are actually happening every day and probably in your very own streets.

The point I make is that there is NO formal training in child care required to be a parent.

[Bloggo]

The point I make is that there is NO formal training in child care required to be a parent.

Quite right however there are too many parents who don't have and don't care about basic parenting skills that are fundamental in bringing up children.
Perhaps this should be treated as a priority too.

[Chesapeake]

Quite right however there are too many parents who don't have and don't care about basic parenting skills that are fundamental in bringing up children.
Perhaps this should be treated as a priority too.

I couldn't agree more. The trouble is that the mistakes that have been made in the past are instrumental in the way that things are handled today. Social Services have got too soft in the handling of children at risk. Yes, the best place for a child is at home with it's parents, but sometimes that is not the case and that child would have a far better chance in life with Foster Parents.

We should be looking at more education (from an early age) in how to be a good parent. Parents should be parents, not friends, to their children and they should be educated in the rights and wrongs of bringing up children. Gone are the days when families took pride in their homes and the manners of their children and educated their children in their social responsibilities. We need to replace that culture and rid our lives of the new culture of allowing children to do what they want when they want because it is easier. Raising a child is the most difficult job in the world to get right.

I have had bad experiences in the past with child minders and nurserys and I welcome the new imposed rules, restrictions and paperwork. I know that it is a bind for the people who have to abide by it but it gives me a feeling of security in the care that I place my child in. I can quite clearly see that my childs day is more structured and he will get more out of his time there than just sitting in a room full of toys.That can't be a bad thing surely. I would be happy to pay more for my child care and I am sure that most people would if it meant that those who carry out the job of looking after their children are qualified to do so and are monitored. People on lower wages would not be badly affected by price rises as Tax Credits would make up most of the difference.

[dannyboy]

The point I make is that there is NO formal training in child care required to be a parent.

true. Things change though when you start charging money for doing something.

You don't need a hygine certificate in your home kitchen. Yet a restaurant / cafe does. Maybe we should just start trusting cafe/restaurant owners to be clean & hygenic & not bother inspecting them.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

How many of you have been on courses and then forgotton everything that you learnt on the course because you do not use the skills you have learnt in an every day manner?

Be honest.......

[GMR]

The First Aid courses change all the time due to continual changes in the best methods for CPR etc etc... If you are a "First Aider" at work you will notice these changes every time you have to re-take your qualification.

Doctors unlike First Aiders go through years and years of training in order to gain their qualifications. They will tell you, if you ask, that they do not know everything and are being continually updated and trained on new methods, drugs and equipment.

The responsibilties of both jobs are miles apart. Hardly a good comparison I think?!

Whether it is a good comparison on not is beside the point. The point is that Child Minders don't get a lot of money (more so if you only do it part time) and to be charged exorbitant amounts of money is wrong; and on a regular basis. It is ok if you are a solicitor or work for the government as they either pay for it or you can afford it yourself. As you said; most do it for the love of the job, or they should do, rather than the money so making them jump through hoops is wrong. It never used to be like that; are kids any more safer nowadays? I don't think so. Recently it was reported in the news that a nursery nurse was taking pictures of children (even though she had jumped through all the hoops she was meant to jump through).

If the government/ council want people to be child minders and they are on a low wage then maybe they should shoulder the over the top fees.

[Chesapeake]

[If the government/ council want people to be child minders and they are on a low wage then maybe they should shoulder the over the top fees.

[/quote]

They already do, it's called Working Tax Credits.

[Andy]

The point is that Child Minders don't get a lot of money (more so if you only do it part time) and to be charged exorbitant amounts of money is wrong; and on a regular basis.

The going rate is up to £6, with the average being £3.26 per hour and up to 6 children under the age of 8..

£3.26 x 6 x 8 hours = £156.48 per day

£156.48 x 5 = £782.40 per week

ie £40,684.80 per annum

So there's very good money to be made!!!

[Rachel]

The going rate is up to £6, with the average being £3.26 per hour and up to 6 children under the age of 8..

£3.26 x 6 x 8 hours = £156.48 per day

£156.48 x 5 = £782.40 per week

ie £40,684.80 per annum

So there's very good money to be made!!!

Shame on you Andy! If you think being paid 40K a year for looking after SIX children under 8, 8 hours a day for 52 weeks a year is GOOD MONEY, I'd like to see you try it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not a betting person, but I doubt many people would take up the challenge just to keep that number of children happy & safe.....let alone do first aid courses, Ofsted paperwork etc etc.
The truth of it is this. Most parents (I hope) would list their children as their number 1 priority, & they'd like their children cared for as well as they would or better. They'll go out to work to earn a decent wage, would pay a cleaner £8-10 an hour, but the person who does the most important job in life in the parents absence? She gets a fiver an hour if she's lucky.
Sorry to be so sharp Andy, but this really needs to be said for all those childminders out there who do stirling work AND enable others to earn a good wage & keep the country working....Well done all of you!

[Andy]

Shame on you Andy! If you think being paid 40K a year for looking after SIX children under 8, 8 hours a day for 52 weeks a year is GOOD MONEY, I'd like to see you try it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not a betting person, but I doubt many people would take up the challenge just to keep that number of children happy & safe.....let alone do first aid courses, Ofsted paperwork etc etc.
The truth of it is this. Most parents (I hope) would list their children as their number 1 priority, & they'd like their children cared for as well as they would or better. They'll go out to work to earn a decent wage, would pay a cleaner £8-10 an hour, but the person who does the most important job in life in the parents absence? She gets a fiver an hour if she's lucky.
Sorry to be so sharp Andy, but this really needs to be said for all those childminders out there who do stirling work AND enable others to earn a good wage & keep the country working....Well done all of you!

Shame on me, wtf are you talking about, I've only put some data on here which I got directly from the National Childminding Association's own website and many of them charge a damn sight more that the national average I've used as an example.

Obviously as you couldn't work out the economics from the aforementioned EXAMPLE, so let me explain....You can manipulate the figures by using different rates to have either less hours, less children or different rates to earn, what is still in effect, hardly a breadline salary as GMR had seemingly stated!!!

Nowhere have I said that the majority don't work hard and do a good job, but in the real world if they charged too more then they would get no work at all as it wouldn't prove viable to the parents to work at all.

[Sarah]

The going rate is up to £6, with the average being £3.26 per hour and up to 6 children under the age of 8..

£3.26 x 6 x 8 hours = £156.48 per day

£156.48 x 5 = £782.40 per week

ie £40,684.80 per annum

So there's very good money to be made!!!

6 children under 8, for 8 hours a day, and only one person to take care of them, I wouldn't do that for £350 a day.

[Rachel]

Shame on me, wtf are you talking about, I've only put some data on here which I got directly from the National Childminding Association's own website and many of them charge a damn sight more that the national average I've used as an example.

Obviously as you couldn't work out the economics from the aforementioned EXAMPLE, so let me explain....You can manipulate the figures by using different rates to have either less hours, less children or different rates to earn, what is still in effect, hardly a breadline salary as GMR had seemingly stated!!!

Nowhere have I said that the majority don't work hard and do a good job, but in the real world if they charged too more then they would get no work at all as it wouldn't prove viable to the parents to work at all.

I would appreciate the respect I afford you. There is no need for swearing or casting aspersions on my ability in mathematics. Figures can indeed be manipulated, minders can indeed earn more money if they care for more children (obviously) but there is nothing wrong with my maths. Look after 3 children for an hour, earn a tenner. Clean for an hour, earn a tenner. Work on a car for 15 minutes, earn a tenner. Offer legal advice for 10 minutes, earn a tenner. Play proffessional football for a nano second, earn a tenner. (sorry, don't really know the wage each of these jobs commands, not wishing to offend). Each & every one of these is a valid, valuable & honest way to make a living. NONE of them deserve the sort of "money for old rope" comment that comes across to me in your post.
And in the real world, if they could all afford to stick together & demand a rate worthy of their genuine hard work, the rest of us would have no choice, we'd have to pay up or give up work, then we'd be in a terrible mess, rest assured.

[Sarah]

The going rate is up to £6, with the average being £3.26 per hour and up to 6 children under the age of 8..

£3.26 x 6 x 8 hours = £156.48 per day

£156.48 x 5 = £782.40 per week

ie £40,684.80 per annum

So there's very good money to be made!!!

Your example might work in theory, but in practise I very much doubt it.

Child minders are not there just to keep the child safe, they also have to see to the toilet needs, supervise stimulating play, provide food and drink when needed, and also care for the emotional needs of their charges.

Three might be manageable alone, but only Mary Poppins could do this properly for six under eight children.

[GMR]

Obviously as you couldn't work out the economics from the aforementioned EXAMPLE, so let me explain....You can manipulate the figures by using different rates to have either less hours, less children or different rates to earn, what is still in effect, hardly a breadline salary as GMR had seemingly stated!!!

You are presuming that the person I mentioned earns that much. In fact they do not.

[GMR]

[If the government/ council want people to be child minders and they are on a low wage then maybe they should shoulder the over the top fees.



They already do, it's called Working Tax Credits.

Tax credits are to help people keep their head above water... not turn them into millionaires. And not everybody gets tax credits either. Tax credits doesn’t also mean that they can or are happy to pay those exorbitant fees.

[Andy]

I would appreciate the respect I afford you. There is no need for swearing or casting aspersions on my ability in mathematics. Figures can indeed be manipulated, minders can indeed earn more money if they care for more children (obviously) but there is nothing wrong with my maths. Look after 3 children for an hour, earn a tenner. Clean for an hour, earn a tenner. Work on a car for 15 minutes, earn a tenner. Offer legal advice for 10 minutes, earn a tenner. Play professional football for a nano second, earn a tenner. (sorry, don't really know the wage each of these jobs commands, not wishing to offend). Each & every one of these is a valid, valuable & honest way to make a living. NONE of them deserve the sort of "money for old rope" comment that comes across to me in your post.
And in the real world, if they could all afford to stick together & demand a rate worthy of their genuine hard work, the rest of us would have no choice, we'd have to pay up or give up work, then we'd be in a terrible mess, rest assured.

Of course saying "Shame on you" and scowling with an angry face was an extremely respectful in your opening gambit, silly me for misunderstanding and taking offence.

And as you fail to grasp the simple economic fact that if they all stuck together and raised their rates, then it would not be worthwhile the parent continuing to work as they would not then earn enough to justify the expense of child minding, then there's no real point in discussing it with you further.

Your example might work in theory, but in practise I very much doubt it.

Child minders are not there just to keep the child safe, they also have to see to the toilet needs, supervise stimulating play, provide food and drink when needed, and also care for the emotional needs of their charges.

Three might be manageable alone, but only Mary Poppins could do this properly for six under eight children.

6 children under 8, for 8 hours a day, and only one person to take care of them, I wouldn't do that for £350 a day.

Quite a few primary and pre school teachers manage to do this every day and for a lot less money!!!