Childcare campaigners achieve ratio petition target

Campaigners fighting plans to reduce staff-to-child ratios in childcare have gained enough backing to trigger an official response from the government.

The Pre-School Learning Alliance’s Rewind on Ratios e-petition has amassed 10,500 signatories in the past two months, surpassing the 10,000 threshold requiring the government to respond.

Neil Leitch, chief executive of the alliance, has now written to the Department for Education demanding it address the concerns raised among parents and early years practitioners since the departmentpublished its childcare reform proposals in January.

Leitch’s letter asks for responses to five areas of concern, including the provision of evidence to back claims that higher-qualified early years providers will still lead to positive early years outcomes if staff-to-child ratios are reduced.

It also demands clarification on what qualification requirements childminders will have to meet in order to operate under the proposed ratios.

In his letter, Leitch warns the department that it needs to thoroughly address all the issues, adding the “standard, pre-prepared responses which simply reiterate the department’s previously-established stance on that particular issue” will not suffice.

He said: “Given the strength of feeling on the plans to relax childcare ratios, of which I am sure the department is well aware, such a standard response would not be well received by the thousands of parents who have voiced their opposition to the ratio proposals, and would serve to reinforce the already-widespread perception that the government is not listening to, or addressing, their serious concerns on this matter.”

Despite reaching the 10,000 milestone, Leitch said the campaign against ratios proposals would continue.

“This is not the end of our campaign. It is only the end of phase one,” said Leitch.

“Our next target is to reach 100,000 signatures [the milestone for triggering a Parliamentary debate] so that childcare ratio changes will be debated in the House of Commons.”

Source: CYPNow