Abstract
Childminders in England have historically been seen as marginal providers of childcare, fulfilling Bruner’s description of the service as an ‘accordion pleat’ in provision. This article outlines the history and current position of childminders in English early childhood policy, and then reports on the views on this role of childminders who participated in focus groups to discuss the statutory requirements for their role. The participants describe their feelings about their role, revealing tensions between the maternal and professional aspects of their practice, the ‘expert’ and ‘common-sense’ contributions they make, and the ways in which they perceive adherence to regulatory frameworks as undermining the relationships with parents, which form a core theme in their self-perception.
Introduction: ‘national policies for infants and toddlers’
The data discussed in this article, on English childminders’ perceptions of their professional role, are situated in the much broader context of the role of government policy in shaping early childhood. Over the last 50 years – the period in which research on childminding has been undertaken in the United Kingdom – such policy has increasingly shaped the experiences of young children. Current statutory arrangements in England for the care, education and welfare of children from birth to school age, for instance, have been viewed as both centralised and prescriptive in comparison with the requirements in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This line of critique, launched in 2003 by Soler and Miller, has been repeatedly echoed by others, including by the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee (2009) and by Papatheodorou (2010), who describes the current framework as ‘a top down governmental initiative … a prescriptive curriculum’ (pp. 7, 8). This degree of centralisation has arrived on the scene rather rapidly in the last 15 years, in the form of statutory regulatory regimes which include curriculum content as well as welfare standards (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), 2008; Department for Education (DfE), 2012; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 2000). Yet, few of those advocating for young children, including the national body representing childminders (Professional Association for Care in the Early Years (PACEY)) question the notion that government should take responsibility for ensuring the quality of services for young children.
This was not always the case, as one of the earliest major studies of preschool provision signalled. In the late 1970s, Jerome Bruner led the Oxford Preschool Project (Bruner, 1980) which included a relatively large-scale investigation of the provision made for young children in childminding settings. Bruner’s (1980) enthusiasm for this project did not prevent him from affirming that ‘we are repelled by the very idea of a national policy for infants and toddlers, for it smacks of invasion of privacy or worse, of totalitarian efforts to shape young minds’ (p. 1); he went on to compare this idea to ‘Chinese communes where children spend time each day packing little torch bulbs in wrappers’, as part of their political indoctrination. Fast forward to the 21st century, and a national infant-toddler policy is no longer widely viewed as repellent: a think-tank proposal for the English government, describing a ‘Five-a-day’ policy on parenting, to ensure that all parents comply with a set of expectations – ‘Read to your child for 15 minutes’, ‘Play with your child on the floor for 10 minutes’ and so on (CentreForum, 2011) was welcomed in some quarters, while ridiculed in others. Perhaps the little torch bulbs are still just around the corner. But meanwhile the national policy for infants and toddlers has become a reality, and includes in its remit the technically ‘private’ arrangements which are made between parents and the childminders they pay to care for their young children.
Bruner’s (1980) comments are included in an overview of government’s role in early childhood policy-making which presciently remarks that ‘Every society defines in some way the uses it hopes to make of immaturity’ (p. 1). Whereas the purposes of governments in the 1970s and 1980s were not always clear in this respect, those of recent UK governments are perfectly transparent: we support early childhood provision, and intervention, from the public purse, in order to ‘narrow the gap’ between more and less advantaged groups in society, to improve social mobility and to eliminate child poverty (Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), 1998). These ‘uses of immaturity’ are to be mediated by a two-pronged provision which enables mothers of young children to become economically active, while offering an early educational ‘entitlement’ for all children. Although parents are not compelled to place their young children into group care, those who do so soon learn that the nature of that provision is quite strictly regulated in terms of its quality: the government’s statutory guidance applies to the environment, curriculum and assessment arrangements of the setting, as well as its care and welfare standards (DCSF, 2008; DfE, 2012). All registered childcare providers are regularly inspected by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) to ensure that they are compliant with all aspects of the statutory framework (The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), DfE, 2012). Government rhetoric presents these regulations as benign safeguards designed to ensure all children’s development and well-being.
Since government policy regards the needs of children and the needs of parents as inextricably entwined, an important principle of the latest statutory framework (DfE, 2012) requires that early years’ practitioners should work in ‘partnership’ with the parents of young children in their settings. Parents, it is stated, should be consulted on all important decisions made about their children, and should participate in the assessment of their development and learning; practitioners should listen to parents and respect their views and wishes for their children. These principles derive from well-established research evidence of the importance of parental involvement in children’s development and learning (Desforges, 2003; Goodall and Vorhaus, 2011).
One of the first ways in which parents enact such views is in their choice of a childcare provider, and the choices available to them include taking up a place in a childminding setting, rather than in centre-based care such as a nursery school, day nursery or preschool. Parents make this choice based on their assumptions about the kind of childcare environment, resources and routines which childminding offers, and childminders have emphasised the extent to which they are willing and able to meet parents’ needs (Fauth et al., 2010; Hohmann, 2007).
This article explores childminders’ perceptions of their changing role, including the ways in which statutory requirements tend to confirm, or conflict with, the relationships which they develop with parents. It begins with a brief overview of childminding in England, past and present, which is followed by an account of the ‘triangle of care’ (Brooker, 2010; Hohmann, 2007) which, it is argued, can provide a supportive environment for young children’s development and well-being. The procedures and findings of the study are described, together with a discussion of the emerging themes which highlight the complementary expectations which parents and practitioners bring to their mutual relationships.
Childminding: ‘the accordion pleat’ in English early childhood provision
Bruner’s (1980) neat description of the childcare provision offered by childminders in the 1970s (p. 21) is still apt: childminders, he said, ‘have provided the accordion pleat to accommodate a growing need’, an accordion pleat which contracts as well as expands. An overall increase in the number of minders from the 1940s to 1990s in response to changing demographics and the growing demand for childcare places (Fauth et al., 2010) masked numerous smaller fluctuations in supply (such as a reduction from 92,000 to 85,000 between 1973 and 1976), but the overall trend from the late 1990s until recently has been downward, as government policy, in the form of the National Childcare Strategy [Department for Education and Employment (DfEE),1998], has promoted the expansion of the private nursery market. A threefold increase in nursery places between 1998 and 2008 was matched by a decline in childminder places, so that in 2009 they provided only 15 per cent of the market (Fauth et al., 2010), although recent statistics suggest a rise in the number of providers and places. In 2012, childminders constituted 60 per cent of all providers and offered over 20 per cent of all childcare places (Ofsted, 2012). This 20 per cent of parents represent those who have made a deliberate choice of ‘minder’ over ‘nursery’ for their child, including parents who initially chose a nursery and subsequently changed to childminding (Fauth et al., 2013).
This situation appears to reflect a considerable change in the status of childminding, which first became widespread during the Industrial Revolution in England and in particular with the rise of the Lancashire cotton mills in the 19th century (Bruner, 1980; Mayall and Petrie, 1977). The practice initially attracted the attention of researchers because of concerns about the poor quality of the care provided. Early observational accounts by Jackson (1974) in Birmingham and Mayall and Petrie (1977) in London told a story of emotional deprivation resulting from harsh or impersonal care-giving, even where children’s physical needs were met. The report from the Oxford Preschool Project (Bruner, 1980; Bryant et al., 1980), although less sensational, raised grave concerns with its descriptions of passive, withdrawn and alienated small children.
This negative perception has been slowly overturned, as the status of ‘childminding’ in the United Kingdom has approached the acceptance accorded to ‘family day care’ or ‘family childcare’ in Australia and the United States. By the late 1990s, with support from government and from the work of the National Childminders Association (NCMA), which organised and trained childminders through local networks, a more positive public image of childminding became available. From 2000, when childminders were cited in the national early years’ curriculum guidance, and included in the inspection regimes (QCA, 2000), minders were placed on a more equal footing with other childcare choices. The quality of provision offered to minded children – in small family groups of mixed-age children, with a relatively flexible daily routine – was expected to be equivalent to that offered to children in large, single-age groups in a more school-like setting.
The most recent expansion of the accordion pleat comes as a response to a government initiative to find high-quality childcare for disadvantaged 2-year-olds (DfE, 2013c). With thousands of new places required, places with childminders are easier to create than places in new nurseries. The new policy requires that ‘Childminders must be Ofsted registered, but there is no national requirement for them to be part of a childminding network’ (DfE, 2013c, no page).
The question remains, however, whether minders and parents are happy for the provision to become gradually more ‘nursery-like’ or whether childminding’s unique qualities needed to be preserved.
What makes childminding special? Research evidence
Childminding remains a relatively under-researched area in the United Kingdom, in comparison with the extensive research bases in family day care and family childcare which exist in the United States (see, for instance, Clarke-Stewart et al., 2002; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 2000). Until the 1990s, most research was concerned with the quality of care, while in the last decade, the focus has largely been on childminders’ careers and roles (Mooney, 2003a, 2003b). Only recently has the focus turned to the more subjective conditions of childminders (Jones and Osgood, 2007), and eventually to the experiences and outcomes for minded children (Barnes et al., 2010; Leach et al., 2008). Children in childminding provision were not included in the otherwise comprehensive Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) study of preschool provision (Sylva et al., 2004).
The distinctive claims made for childminding are of three kinds: an emphasis on the ‘family-like’ experiences offered to children, on the flexibility available to parents and on the personalised care offered to children (Fauth et al., 2013). Most childminders (Fauth et al., 2010; Mooney, 2003b) took on the role as a way to occupy themselves and earn a little money while their own small children were at home, and ‘minded’ children traditionally fitted into the daily routines of another family, including shopping and housework as well as focused play experiences. Most minders are willing to fit around parents’ working hours (Fauth et al., 2013) but also to respond to emergencies or disruptions which require the child to attend for different hours: a child having to be picked up later than planned is not such a problem if she is in a family home as if she is in a building waiting to be locked for the night. And the very small ‘group size’ in a minder’s home should ensure that every child can be known and cared for as an individual. (In the United Kingdom, childminders may currently only look after three children under 5 years of age, including their own young child or children.) Parents interviewed by Fauth and colleagues (2013) described the childminding setting as ‘the next best thing to being at home’. A further benefit suggested by Freeman’s (2011) study is that childminders can form part of a local community network, mediating children’s relationships with the everyday world, while centre-based provision may tend to isolate children from their neighbourhood.
Perhaps as a result of the small group size, Garrick et al. (2010) found that among children in a qualitative study of different types of provision, only children in childminding settings were likely to report that their caregiver played with them. This finding makes intuitive sense: a childminder who sets up an activity for a baby and two toddlers is very likely to engage with them in the activity, rather than simply observe and record. The data in Garrick’s study, and the self-reports by childminders in the present study, indicate that childminders enjoy such opportunities for play.
The benefits of the small group size may extend to parents too: if only one or two other parents are leaving or collecting their children, opportunities for face to face conversations are far greater than if a dozen parents descend on the playroom at once.
Childminding and the triangle of care
The relationship between minders and parents is a fertile ground, as Hohmann (2007) has pointed out, for the development of close trusting relationships or of conflict and mistrust. Where relationships are good, they support the development of a ‘triangle of care’ which enables parent, practitioner and child to both give and receive care from each other – not in the traditional sense of ‘care-giving’, in which the older, more competent and more experienced (adult) carer provides care to the younger, less competent and less experienced child, but in a more open and equal recognition of needs expressed and met by all parties in the relationship. The idea of a ‘caring triangle’ has affinities with the ethics of care developed by Noddings (2002) and discussed by, among others, Dahlberg and Moss (2005).
Hohmann’s (2007) study, conducted prior to the recent policy frameworks, showed conflicts between parents and childminders arising from disagreements over aspects of the child’s day – about eating and sleeping, age-appropriate care and activities and behaviour management and discipline. Only where these issues were discussed openly and honestly were high levels of trust and ‘friendly’ relationships established. A later study of parent–practitioner relationships, focused on children under 3 years in nurseries (Brooker, 2010), revealed a further range of opportunities for discontent, including differences in perception of roles, responsibilities and relationships, complicated by expectations derived from social class and ethnic cultures. The attitudes of the nursery parents in this study were quite polarised: at one extreme, they reflected the somewhat ruthless demands associated with the private market in childcare, in which the consumers (parents) complained when they did not get what they thought they had paid for (childcare customised to their own wishes). At the other extreme were relationships of respect and trust which nevertheless ensured a sufficient professional distance between the two adults for dialogue to be sustained while stressful emotions were contained.
These examples of an ethic of care in action between parent and practitioner can suggest positive roles for providers and practitioners to adopt. They allow for a respectful balance of familiarity and ‘otherness’ (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005). The present exploration includes a consideration of parent–minder relationships using similar dimensions, seeking to identify the extent to which these are facilitated by statutory requirements.
Design and methods for data collection
The data discussed here are transcripts from focus groups conducted as part of a wider, government-funded investigation into practitioners’ experiences of the EYFS (Brooker et al., 2010). Practitioners from seven different professional groups, including staff from schools and nurseries, were recruited to participate in discussions in six different English regions (North-East, North, Midlands, South-West, South-East and Inner London). All the discussions were recorded and transcribed.
Between six and nine childminders participated in each of the six regions, although some daytime ‘groups’ were undertaken as two smaller groups so that participants could mind each others’ children. In all, 127 pages of discussion were transcribed. The analysis first looked for answers to the questions which were commissioned, and then sought to identify additional themes which were spontaneously raised by the practitioners.
Focus group data can be hard to analyse (Macnaghten and Myers, 2004), since the topics for discussion develop in different ways in each group, depending on local circumstances and on the accident of those present and the relationships they construct during the hour-long discussion. Although all the groups were good-natured and friendly, some discussed the issues calmly and equably, while others grew lively and argumentative. In some groups, no dominant voice was detected, while in others, the discussion was clearly dominated by two or three leaders. The themes reported here are ones which were common to all the childminder groups, and were broadly consensual. (The transcripts did not make it possible to differentiate between speakers, although the original recordings do, to some extent; so quotations from the data indicated whether one, two or three speakers were part of an exchange.)
One of the questions used as a prompt in all 42 focus groups was Do you think the EYFS enables staff to engage better with parents? Childminders were the one practitioner group to report strong views in answer to this question, and these views were felt to be worthy of closer analysis.
Findings: who were the childminders?
All participants in the study were invited to complete minimal demographic information (experience and qualifications) on the consent form they signed before the session began (Tables 1 and 2).
Childminders’ qualifications as reported (n = 36).
Childminders’ years of experience as reported (n = 36).
Of those who provided this information (n = 36), almost half had been childminding for between 5 and 10 years, another one-third had childminded for between 11 and 20 years and a handful had childminded either for under 5 or over 20 years. Similarly, almost half had a Level 3 qualification, one-third had ‘no relevant qualification’ and the remainder had a range of related qualifications including nursing. These reports are fairly similar to those obtained in a nationally representative survey sample by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) (n = 581) (Fauth et al., 2010), which showed 52 per cent of respondents having a Level 3 qualification and 15 per cent ‘no training or qualification related to childcare’. The average age of the national sample (44 years) is compatible with the ‘length of experience’ reported by the participants in this study. The higher percentage of unqualified participants in the present study may reflect the fact that NCB respondents had to choose individually whether to complete and return the questionnaire, whereas the present respondents were invited, more opportunistically, to join in a discussion at a local children’s centre.
Childminders in this study were not asked why they became childminders, but the topic arose spontaneously in several discussions. A typical occasion was when one participant confidently spoke for the group as if there could be no doubt that her views represented those of the others:
You know, if I wanted to work in a nursery I would be working in a nursery, I would have gone to college and university and got that qualification. But most childminders, even the new childminders, if you are doing childminding it is because you’ve got young children, of your own, and that’s why you start … We needed to earn an income, and have our children cared for, our own children cared for, and just brought other children in to do exactly the same as we were doing with our own kids. (Midlands group A)
This particular group included women who had been minding for over 30 years, but similar views were expressed in groups where participants were much younger and less experienced. Most participants strongly emphasised how much they enjoyed their work, pointing out that if it were not for the ‘job satisfaction’, the work, which is demanding and poorly paid, would not be worth doing. Surveys by the NCB (Fauth et al., 2010, 2013) similarly report that the majority of respondents enjoy their work and plan to continue with it indefinitely.
Participants’ experiences showed some significant regional differences, as the result of the interaction between childminding and other forms of provision in the locality. In one inner-city area, for instance, the two groups of minders only cared for children until they were aged around 30 months, when they departed for preschool or nursery; in one rural area, however, many children continued with the same minder throughout the preschool and early school years. The majority of the discussion which took place however concerned caring for children from 1 to about 4 years.
What matters most to the childminders?
The following sections describe some of the strongest views expressed by the childminders about their roles and responsibilities within current policy contexts. They reveal a number of clear tensions in their role, including their sense of the conflict between policy requirements and parents’ wishes.
Changing identities: mothers or professionals?
Apart from the youngest and ‘newest’ childminding recruits, who presented their views rather hesitantly and tentatively in the mixed-aged focus groups, participants in all six regions voiced similar views about their professional identities, past and present. A strong sense was expressed in every group that minders’ knowledge and expertise – what makes them good minders – derives to a large extent from their own experiences as mothers, and from the common sense which comes from caring for children over many years. To this extent, Bruner’s (1980) comment that childminders view their work as ‘a continuation of domesticity’ (p. 107) is still broadly true. Childminders report that they ‘know’ how to provide children with safety, care, healthy eating, exercise, emotional security and stimulation, because they have brought up their own children. The service they provide is beneficial for children, they explain, because it is ‘home-like’, ‘a home from home’, and this is the reason parents choose it. To the extent that the EYFS framework supports and validates these assumptions, it is beneficial; to the extent that it challenges or questions these assumptions, it presents them with problems.
At the same time, most of the groups raised the notion that the framework – which requires childminders to comply with the same goals for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, as well as care and welfare, as centre-based provision – presented an opportunity for minders to gain greater public recognition, and to be seen as the equals (apart from their lamentable pay and conditions) of other early childhood professionals. These competing images of the childminder – as mother and as trained and qualified professional – generated a great deal of discussion in the groups, although the notion that good childminding was based on the common sense and experience of good mothering was far more prevalent. This contribution from a participant hints at the tension between the two available images of their role:
We’re just normal mums aren’t we? Just normal mums doing childminding … Sorry, I’ve got my NVQ [National Vocational Qualification]! (South-West group)
Competing views on the value of experience, and the value of qualifications, generated many uncertain or faint claims about training undertaken and awards gained. None of the participants drew attention spontaneously to knowledge or skills they had acquired as a result of their own studies, although half had achieved a Level 3 certificate of some kind. When asked directly about how useful any training had been, they tended to be non-committal: the child development was ‘quite useful’, the health and safety was necessary, the First Aid was valuable, but none of these areas appeared to count for much in their own self-estimation.
On the issue of whether minders could ‘learn’ how to care for children from the curriculum framework or associated training, another group developed a unanimous view:
CM1: I guess if you really didn’t have a clue then it would. CM2: Or if you weren’t even a parent maybe, if you did it and you didn’t have kids of your own, then yes it probably would. But if you’re a parent you’ve naturally done it anyway with your own kids so therefore you’re continuing it. (North-East group)
On one topic after another, the framework requirements were passed off as common sense which, by being formalised, risked becoming non-sense. On the requirement for risk assessments, for instance,
All the things you do, if you’ve got three children, a toddler, one in a buggy, and one on reins, well, you put the two that are mobile in the car first … And then you’ve got to write it down, to show you are not stupid, that you are going to do that anyway. And that’s what gets me, you’ve got to put everything down to show you are not stupid, things you’ve just been doing for years and years and years. (Midlands group B)
Similarly on nutrition, the consensus was that ‘we know healthy eating … everyone knows’. As two North-East participants explained,
CM1: … you’re not going to give kids fizzy pop and sugary drinks are you? You’re just not going to do it … well, some people might … CM2: And crisps and Mars bars …
Nevertheless, new requirements to plan in detail for nutrition, or to meet the assumed standards for kitchen inspections, had prompted many participants to give up cooking for their minded children, despite the importance of food in the provision of care, in constructing close bonds, and in making the setting ‘home-like’(O’Connell, 2011). Ironically, one group believed that nutritional regulations – which they tended to exaggerate – have reduced the home-like aspects of provision:
You’ve got to have a separate sink. Everything you have to do within a kitchen in a, you know, a proper establishment … Different gloves. All that stuff. So it’s not your home any more. (Inner London group A)
What’s special about childminding provision?
Participants were not asked to compare the benefits of childminding with those of other forms of provision, but every group made this comparison, and a strong consensus emerged about the benefits, for parents and children, of choosing childminding.
Home
‘Home’ was the term most frequently used, in every group, to describe their own provision and also the reasons parents chose them; and it was a point of tension for many childminders, who felt that their home-like-ness was being tested at many levels. In Inner London, one participant sought to explain,
… [the parents] said the reason they chose me was because it is a home-based setting, whereas I am now operating on sort of a nursery level, and there is something being lost, and I feel like I need to claim back how I used to be, but also in the same way as, you know, I am operating on a different level. So I am a bit sort of in-between at the moment …
One Midlands group constructed a similar picture:
CM1: They want a home from home. For environment … CM2: And all we are being made to do now is create small, loads of little small nurseries everywhere. (Midlands group A)
Except in the Inner London groups, where many minders live in flats and regularly attend children’s centres and drop-ins, reference was often made to dedicated ‘playrooms’, which were either never used by the childminder’s family or were used only at weekends, when the minded children were not present:
I gate off, you know the gates that go across, I gate off an extension at the back, which in the week is my playroom. I’ve got a home corner, dressing up box, and all the toys are stored in the extension. Come the weekend that’s my room. (Midlands group B)
The home-like aspects of the setting were seen as essential to ensuring the happiness and well-being of children, which was described in every group as the parents’ priority, and which was manifested in responding flexibly to children’s individual needs as they arose. For the youngest children, this was often expressed as ‘having a sleep when they want to’, while for older children, mention was made of days when they were ‘off-colour’, ‘feeling poorly’ and ‘just needed a lie down and a cuddle’, or a DVD on the sofa, rather than a programme of learning activities. One childminder reported that she had issued questionnaires to her parents:
‘Why did you choose a childminder as opposed to a nursery?’
One parent said to me,
I want my child to have a sleep when she wants a sleep, to have a cuddle when she needs a cuddle, and to have her … bottom changed, you know, basically I just want her to be from home in a home environment. (Midlands group A)
Responsive care-giving of this kind is clearly offered as an extension of mothering, rather than as the product of qualifications. It also demonstrates what many participants referred to as ‘common sense’, as opposed to professional learning, and may be seen as prioritising a ‘caring’ over an ‘educating’ role. In the North-East group, childminders discussed what they had gained from attending training sessions (which, as every group pointed out, they must attend on evenings and weekends rather than during their working hours). The interviewer asked, ‘when you went on your courses, did they inform you what it was all about, and the principles behind it?’
CM1: Yeah … but nobody’s benefiting from it, there’s no like outcome of somebody benefiting from it though is there? CM2: Like I say: it doesn’t make my childcare any better and it doesn’t make the parent or the child any happier.
Happiness
Overwhelmingly, ‘happiness’ was viewed as the parents’ other priority, and the reason why childminding was preferred by many. One minder reported that when she gained her Level 3 qualification, and showed parents the portfolio of work she had produced, they had emphasised that this made no difference to their perspective because ‘parents judge you by the care that you give, and by the child’. This exchange in the South-East group was typical of all groups as they reflected on the priorities of their parents and the requirements of the framework and of Ofsted:
CM1: All they really want is for their child to turn up somewhere, to be picked up, for them to be safe, healthy and happy, they’re not actually worried about what we’re doing with them in that sort of way … CM2: If you think of a new parent coming, a prospective parent coming and you say ‘I’m working to the EYFS’, they’re not interested, the parents that I’ve had to visit me they’re not!
A childminding environment was widely believed to be more conducive to children’s emotional security than was nursery care, particularly for younger children, and some participants made this point forcefully.
Family
It was interesting to note that although participants in every group agreed that their skills were primarily derived from their experience as mothers rather than from their professional learning, none described their own relationship with the children under discussion as that of a mother to her children. Some were very careful to ensure that they did not encroach on parental privileges by reporting any ‘firsts’ for a child (such as standing, walking or saying words) before the parent had had a chance to witness them. The family-like experience they provided was attributed rather to the homeliness of the environment and activities, and to the presence of a small group of mixed-age children. Several groups pointed out that whereas nursery groups typically consisted of a large number of same-age children, childminding settings might have a baby, a toddler and a couple of preschool children, all of whom had to learn to live together and play together. This was seen as a distinct advantage for the children, who learned through imitation and negotiation, but as a challenge for the minder, who had to ensure that the activities she provided were safe and suitable for different age groups. This participant was particularly exasperated:
You are trying to do all these different activities with all these different age groups. And you can’t have the marble run out, you can’t have the tiny Lego out, because you’ve got an eight month old baby crawling. (Midlands group B)
Participants in some of the groups met frequently with other minders and their minded children, so that in the words of these participants,
CM1: We plan what we’re going to do so the children have just got like an extended family. So they always say, ‘Oh, is so and so coming?’ CM2: The older ones make friends and then in the summer holidays we all get together and they like that, they’ve got friends to meet. (North group)
Both the ‘small family’ at the minders, and the ‘extended family’ among a group of minders, are implicitly seen to mediate small children’s links with the local community.
Do parents get what they want from their childminder?
Despite clear-cut notions of the many dimensions on which nursery and childminder provision differed, a consensus emerged that these differentials were eroded by the requirements of current policy, and that as a result, parents’ own wishes were no longer paramount, and the childminders were presented with dilemmas. This point is made very clearly by one Midlands childminder:
The thing is, very much now, there used to be a distinction, from a parent’s point of view, if you want them to go into a structured environment put them into nursery, if you want a substitute mum, if you like, you put them with a childminder. That is getting very smudgy now.
The single biggest problem reported by all the groups was bureaucratic requirements and the associated paperwork, but this requirement was one which also involved parents. At its heart was a perceived requirement to provide a nursery-like ‘education’ for the children, based on careful planning of the curriculum, environment and pedagogical strategies, and assessed by means of written documentation.
Care or education?
While the minders believed that parents prioritised the ‘care’ aspect when choosing a childminder, they were in no doubt that the statutory requirements, and particularly Ofsted, prioritised ‘education’. Every group discussed how they used the framework documents to plan and assess learning, and this discussion always included assertions of the heavy demands this placed on them, and the lack of interest of parents in this aspect. The minders were perfectly clear about ‘what parents want’ and equally clear about ‘what Ofsted want’, but they found little overlap between the two.
Some groups had developed shared templates for planning, and got together for monthly planning meetings and to share ideas. Every group included individuals, usually younger and ‘newer’ minders, who followed the ‘rules’ to the letter:
What I do with my planning now is I tend to take one sort of focussed area of activity, and then I link it towards the six areas of learning. And so it may be something like multi-sensory activities, but I’ll link several activities throughout the week to all the six areas of learning, and I’ll give copies to the parents and I keep copies in my file. (Inner London group)
Most participants described a less systematic planning regime, but all were conscious that an inspector could come at short notice and ask to see their plans, and how they were being implemented. At the same time, all agreed that parents were rarely interested in this paperwork. Time and again, they described offering parents planning sheets, assessment sheets, tracking documents, folders and portfolios and being told to keep it themselves, because the parents had no time to look or were simply ‘happy that they’ve enjoyed themselves and they want to come again’.
Communicating
Sustaining a caring triangle demands regular close, open and trusting communication between parents and minders. In every group, comparisons were drawn between the face-to-face communications they had formerly relied on (‘back in the day’ as one minder put it), which met the needs of both parents and minders, and the written communications which they believed were required by Ofsted. The following comment was typical:
The parents are not interested in what you’ve written down. When they pick them up all they want to know is that they’ve been happy and they’re well cared for, end of story. (North-East group)
In particular, they insisted, if a child had been unwell or upset, it would be wrong to write this on a ‘daily diary sheet’ rather than explaining it to the parent and inviting them to comment or offer suggestions. Yet, in every local authority, advisors and trainers had interpreted the Ofsted requirements as including scrapbooks and portfolios, diaries and assessment sheets, which minders were expected to produce, and parents to sign or comment on. The minders, as they reported, were attempting to meet their obligations by ‘taking time away from the children’ (a frequent refrain) while the parents were steadfastly declining to make any written contribution. This disparity was felt quite keenly in some groups, who pointed out that ‘you can be a good childminder and no good at writing’, or ‘you can be good at writing and no good with the children’.
Numerous minor disagreements between parental and statutory perspectives were cited – over spending time out of doors, taking photographs, administering medicines and even applying nappy cream or sunblock – and childminders expressed real concerns about attempting to meet the wishes of parents and comply with the EYFS requirements. Above all, many asked, ‘has anyone asked the parents what the parents want?’ (South-East group), with one group emphasising ‘even if the parent doesn’t want you to do it, they don’t get a choice’ (Midlands group A). Childminders, who pride themselves on the flexible and accommodating relationships they have created with parents, find this conclusion hard to accept.
Discussion
In many respects, the EYFS document was recognised by all practitioner groups involved in the larger study as both validating their existing good practice with children and supporting them in identifying and extending children’s learning. But for the childminder groups, whose priority, shared with parents, is care rather than education, compliance with such a framework threatened to undermine not only their practice but their valued relationships with parents. Despite viewing themselves as professionals whose worth is equal to that of other employee groups, they explain that their ultimate authority lies in ‘knowing about children’, while their own emotional satisfaction derives from seeing their children develop, enjoying their company and feeling trusted by their parents. The emotional labour of their role brings its own emotional rewards, which all participants indicated was compensation for their long hours, low pay and lack of public recognition. One of these rewards lies in knowing that parents place complete trust in them and are fully appreciative of their competence – a competence which is not demonstrated through written plans, tick-lists or even qualifications, but through face to face relationships built over time. One North-East childminder tried to explain the distinctive nature of their relationships in this way:
We get to know them as a bit of a friend as well because … in nurseries the staff turnover is massive, a lot of them are only 19 or so, they can’t communicate as well as … because we build the bonds, don’t we?
The caring triangle here relies on a bond between two adults who share a focus on the child they both care for. Both parties can appreciate each other’s interactions with the child because these are contingent, responsive to the child’s mood, inclination or disposition at any given time, rather than regulated by formal notions of good practice.
Parents who prefer their young children to be in a ‘home’ rather than an institution (Fauth et al., 2013) may be basing their decision on some genuine insights into the differences in provision. Young children in nursery care may receive less attentive provision from a younger, less experienced and more changeable staff team. Communications between parents and professionals may be undermined by the absence of shared expectations, as well as by the large group size. The complexities of nursery routines and organisation may limit the nursery’s ability to respond flexibly to children’s individual needs or to parents’ unexpected eventualities (Brooker, 2010). At an official level, the percentage of childminders judged as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted is only slightly below the percentage of childcare centres given those grades (Ofsted, 2012). Yet, if the characteristics which impel parents to choose childminders are undermined by the very frameworks intended to ensure the quality of children’s care, those policies may need further thought.
Although not expressed in these terms, the minders in this study often seemed to be making a case for the rights of children and parents to have their views in these important matters listened to. One very legitimate justification for the existence of statutory frameworks is that by regulating practice and conditions, they are ensuring all children’s entitlement. At the same time, the minders suggest, such policies threaten to take away the entitlement of parents to express their views and participate in decision-making about their child’s care. Where such policies test the caring triangle which minders and parents value, it is important for their typically powerless voices to be heard.
Conclusion
English government policy for early childhood has been subject to further modifications since the collection of these data. The statutory framework (DCSF, 2008) which was in operation during data collection was replaced by a new version, in force from September 2012 (DfE, 2012). The revised framework was intended to simplify the assessment and reporting requirements, making them more supportive of children’s learning but less demanding for practitioners; it also placed greater emphasis on parental partnership. The actual changes for childminders however were marginal. While the policy emphasises partnership, the details of its implementation do not address the issues of trust which underpin such a relationship.
It is important to recognise the extent to which the daily lives of young children are shaped by macro- as well as micro-changes in provision. In dramatic recent developments (DfE, 2013a, 2013b), the Minister for Early Years Care in the Coalition government has proposed drastic reductions in childcare regulation, allowing poorer adult–child ratios, and abandoning the registration of childminders. A series of national petitions was launched by childminders and other organisations, while the NCMA, now re-branded as PACEY, strenuously argued for maintaining the high quality of care currently provided by childminders. Meanwhile a new policy of funded early education for 20 per cent of all 2-year-olds requires local authorities to create thousands of new early education places – many of them with childminders. The ‘accordion pleat’ of childminding provision will again expand to enable new policy initiatives.
As recent events have confirmed, minders profess themselves unwilling to trade their fragile equality with other providers for the sake of a relaxation in requirements which would damage the quality of their provision, and undermine their reputation in the eyes of parents and the public. As these policy shifts occur with ever greater frequency, the unsettling implications for children and families, including those served by childminders, will need to be closely watched.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a grant from the Department for Children, Schools and Families.