Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry - i know there are millions of threads about nursery - seems to confuse people other than me! I am due in October and we are planning to be able to share the childcare between us until he is 1 which would take us to October 2011. After that point - I will be back at work and we are thinking about an aupair/ nanny share from 1-2.


After age 2, we'd like to put him in a nursery and went today to see the Mothergoose Nursery on Uplands road which seemed really nice.


so - we definitely need to try & secure a place from about Sept 2012 - do you think we'd be safe just signing up for 1 nursery given that this is still a long way away - or would you recommend putting your name down and a few places just in case?


Also - I'm wondering if we should also try & put our names on a waiting list for sometime around January 2012 just in case the idea of a nanny share/ au pair doesn't work out?


Any advice?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/12637-nursery-im-confused/
Share on other sites

i would see what nursery you like first and then ask. with this much notice i would have thought you would be fine. an au pair does not look after babies sole care so you would be looking at a nanny/ share, you might want to look at the costs of these options now while you have the energy!!

Saila - had you paid anything? The place we went to see asks for an application and a small deposit to hold your name on the waiting list - I assume this secures your place?


In terms of au pairs not being able to take care of babies - who sets those rules? I was an au pair for a 4 month old and it was a great experience?

There's government legislation that says you can't look after a baby without qualifications for more than 3 hours.. or something like that. someone else on here will know more than me.


I didn't pay a deposit.. they didn't ask for one? but it was a state nursery so perhaps they don't give you that option?

Maybe the private ones do. Anyway, we went for a nannyshare in the end.

if you go to any of the au pair web sites they say this is the rule. of course privately you can do what you like. BUt when you think about it would you hand your baby over to an untrained person whose first language was not english and who can only do 25 hours a week and given opportunity to go to language school? Some people call themselve au pair plus which means they have experience and are a bit older check our au pair world on the internet. Some au pairs are completley abused in this country and abroad and it makes me so mad as I have had them crying in my kitchen many a time by parents using them as very cheap labour.

Saila Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's government legislation that says you can't

> look after a baby without qualifications for more

> than 3 hours.. or something like that. someone

> else on here will know more than me.


I don't think so.. I think someone caring for your children in your home requires no qualifications, but a minder in their own home needs to be registered. There is prob some rule re immigration for non EU aupairs though.

Saila Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i didn't realise that if it was in your own home

> you didn't need to be ofsted registered?

>

> how confusing

>

> i always thought that there was this rule (3 hours

> or somehting) to do with those who aren't

> registered, at home or not.

>

> but i'm probably wrong



Have a look at the exemptions

You do not have to register with us in the following cases.


1 If you care for children who are aged eight and over.


2 If you provide care where a child does not stay with you for more than two hours a day, even if your childcare service is open for longer than two hours.


3 If you only care for a child or children aged under eight who you are related to. A relative means a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister of a child (or half-brother or sister) or someone you are related to through marriage or civil partnership.


4 If you care for children aged under eight on domestic premises as a childminder without receiving any payment or reward for your services. Domestic premises can be your own home or someone else?s home.


5 If you are a foster carer for the children.


6 If you only care for the children of one or more friends in your own home or someone else?s home and no money changes hands, including money to pay for things like electricity and food.


7 If you provide care for children in their own home. This includes caring for children of up to two sets of parents completely or mainly in one or both sets of parents? homes. However, you need to register as a childminder if you look after the children of three sets of parents in any or all of the parents? homes.


8 If you only provide care between 6pm and 2am on domestic premises (babysitting arrangements). Domestic premises can be your own home or someone else?s home.


9 If you are providing a home-education arrangement where a child of school age receives full-time education outside school, and is partly or completely taught by a person other than a parent of the child. Care provided to the child is incidental to (not the main focus of) the education offered.


10 If you provide no more than two activities from the following list.

 School study support or homework support

 Sport

 Performing arts

 Arts and crafts

 Religious, cultural or language study

This only applies if you care for children who are aged three and over, and you do not care for children aged under five for more than four hours in any one day. Any care provided is incidental (not the main focus of) to the provision.


11 If you provide care as part of your organisation?s activities in any of the following places.

 A children?s home

 A care home

 A hospital in which a child is a patient

 A residential family centre

 A young offenders institution or secure training centre


12 If you are a school that provides education or care for children aged three and over, where at least one child being cared for is a pupil of the school. Children who are two years old when they start school but are three by the end of their first term at school (known as rising threes), may count as age three when deciding whether you need to register.


13 If you care for children under eight for four hours or less each day and the care is for the convenience of parents who plan to stay on the premises where you are providing care or within the immediate area. This type of provision has no long-term commitment to provide care for children ? for example, a shoppers? cr?che, a cr?che attached to a sports centre or adult learning centre, or an exhibition ? and covers services where children do not necessarily attend every day.


14 If you provide an open access scheme for children. An open access scheme allows children not in the early years age group (see note 1 below) to leave on their own. Childminders are not allowed to provide an open access scheme.

1 The early years age group is children aged from birth until the 31 August following their fifth birthday who go to early years settings that deliver the Early Years Foundation Stage.


15 If you care for children under eight from specific premises for 14 days or less in any year, and you let us know in writing at least 14 days before starting the service.


16 If you care for children between 6pm and 2am in hotels, guest houses or similar places. The care is for children of no more than two different clients, staying at the same place at the same time (babysitting arrangements).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...