# RTE Primetime Investigation into creches



## DB74 (28 May 2013)

Just to let people know that this will NOT be available on RTE iPlayer (by request of the parents of the children involved) so tonight (RTE1 9:35) is the only chance you will have to see it


----------



## delgirl (28 May 2013)

Thanks for that DB74, no doubt it'll be a somewhat difficult watch, but at the same time I really appreciate this sort of investigative journalism for shedding light on issues we otherwise wouldn't know about.

I wish there were more such TV exposures - we've got a very interesting case here in Wicklow concerning junkets taken by members of the Wicklow Enterprise Board and their families.

They spent €25,000 on one trip to Florida from October 29 to November 11, which included Disney World, Adventure Boat Rides, Entrance to Kennedy Space Centre followed by *one* dinner at a Bistro costing $1,000.

An absolutely outrageous waste of taxpayers money which should have been used, as intended, to assist small businesses and start-ups in the county.


----------



## Marion (28 May 2013)

Before I watch this, I would like to ask the following:

What level of education/qualification and expertise do parents expect that Child Care employees will have?

These are the people who are supervising your children for an entire day for a number of years.

Marion

(58 views on this thread so far. there must be more parents than this on AAM who have children in childcare. I don't have any btw.)


----------



## fobs (28 May 2013)

They are expected to have fetac training and not shout or mishandle their charges at a minimum I would say. My kids used to attend a local community crèche which had very low staff turnover and never had a problem with the care they received. Knew all the staff on a first name basis and they would still enquire after them 4years later.


----------



## Marion (28 May 2013)

Hi Fobs

Did they learn any skills while they were there?

Marion


----------



## Marion (28 May 2013)

I have taught many Childcare students at Fetac level 5 and I have to say that while I am not a childcare-specific  teacher (they do other subjects) that I would have been reluctant to send children to some of them if I had children and if I knew where they were employed.

Marion


----------



## DB74 (28 May 2013)

Well that was very disturbing to say the least. Some of those people should be charged with assault IMO. Also, why is it necessary to protect the identity of the workers?


----------



## Marion (28 May 2013)

I think the identities were not divulged because fair procedures were not followed in that they were not aware that they were being filmed.

Very disturbing revelations.

It just goes to show that inspections per se are meaningless. 

Also, you can have all the perfect paperwork in the world in order but what does it prove? Nothing!

Marion


----------



## Delboy (29 May 2013)

Sickening stuff to watch as a father of kids in a creche in Dublin currently.

But what can you expect..our politicians fighting in the Dail over penalty points and personalities. Main concern is to be re-elected or have a family member elected in their place.
The 'Free Market' is left to run the creche 'industry' in Ireland with profit as the main goal. Our schools are'nt run for profit so why are our creches?

The State 'Regulator', in this case the HSE, don't carry out enough inspections. And even if they do find anything serious, the creche is allowed to continue on as before and still draw down state funding.
They say they're short staff for visits. But there's an abundance of staff in admin roles throughout the HSE (500 at least in the Dept of Health itself doing God only knows what). But they can't be let go (to free funds for recruitment of staff in areas where they are needed) or moved around because the Unions call the shots and some ruling from 50 years ago says there has to be X # of staff in X area...they spend their time protecting workers pay, and stopping the useless ones getting disciplined/fired. Screw the users of the public services...they're of secondary concern.

Pobal pay out the cheques on behalf of the State...what sort of controls or checks do they perform?

I don't buy the 'staff getting poor pay argument, what do you expect'. You've either got it in you to really care for kids and be good with them or you don't....pay would not cloud your judgement on this.

The HSE and the FG Minister refused to appear last night even though they knew for a week at least that this was going to happen.

Labour want to reduce child benefit again to pay for another year (3 hrs a day, 39wks only by the way so that 'free year' title is misleading) in the creche.
Previous FF led Govt's let house prices go through the roof (to the benefit of their builder buddies/members) so both parents were forced out to work to pay the bills.

We know from previous exposé's that our old people get treated like animals in some care homes, we now know our kids are possibly getting substandard care also (God knows what's going on in Mental hospitals as we speak and thats a whole scandal yet to break). 

I've said it time and time again, this country is broken. I had hoped the IMF would shock us into some sort of rebirth/major change but they've gone light on us as we're a 1st world European country.

We are a very rotten people in a very rotten country


----------



## Protocol (29 May 2013)

I am interested in the arguments for and against public or private provision of services like health and childcare.

Generally, I am pro market provision.

I don't mind normal profits being earned if the service is efficient, and waiting lists are short. (Example: Specsavers opticians?)

However, if private provision means low pay for workers and massive profits for the providers, then I am unhappy.

The Independent reports today about the three creches featured on RTE PrimeTime:

Giraffe Childcare - staff paid 18,200 on average

Links Childcare and Montessori Ltd., founded by Malahide businesswoman Deirdre Kelly - accumulate profits = 1.7m

Links Childcare - 2m in rent paid by the company to its directors between 2007 and 2010.

*I am happy that CB is reduced, and that child edu is increased, but not if the funds end up in rent and profit payments.*


----------



## fobs (29 May 2013)

Marion I don't understand what "skills" you are referring to but my kids both attended a montesorri year as their final year in the creche before school and were taught by trained montesorri teachers and felt this did help their development. THey learned some nursery rhymes and ther numbers but mostly played in the attache playground rather than learned. Felt there was time enough for that in school.

I would expect if I was working alongside colleagues that were abusive to their charges that I would whistleblow so to me the staff that looked on and let this happen are as bad. Years ago when I went to school the teachers were very abusive to their pupils until this culture was stamped out and pupils knew their rights and believe that unless their is zero tolerance to bad treatment then it will continue as it did for years in schools while they were allowed to.


----------



## Calico (29 May 2013)

Appalled and shocked by the Primetime footage last night of what was essentially child abuse. Obviously working in a creche can be very demanding, but how some of those people could think their behaviour was okay is beyond me. 

Today the focus is all on ramping up inspections but I don't see how any inspection, even spot inspections, would prevent the kind of stuff on show last night. Obviously the kids won't be thrown around like ragdolls and strapped into their chairs when an inspector is present. 

Constant CCTV recording and random inspections of the footage is one possible solution imo.


----------



## Bill Struth (29 May 2013)

There's a pre-school facility in a house in my estate. Before they had applied for (and were refused) planning permission they were already operating and had even been given HSE funding. Their initial planning refusal was based on the half finished house being unsuitable for the purpose. They hadn't even got a fire safety certificate. Yet parents would leave their kids there every morning. Do these people do any research into where they leave their children?

They have since been granted conditional permission, despite there being no new information in their planning appeal, icluding no fire safety certificate. Baffling.


----------



## liaconn (29 May 2013)

Very disturbing stuff and I would imagine a lot of parents had huge difficulty dropping their children off at the creche this morning.

It really is hard to see the point of inspections if creche's are allowed to repeatedly ignore criticisms and continue to make the same mistakes. The HSE have a lot to answer for here.

Also, while some of the staff featured clearly should not be working with children; others seemed to be acting from complete ignorance as to how a child develops and thinks and were expecting a level of understanding and self discipline from 18 month old babies that was totally unrealistic. Why were the more trained and experienced supervisors and managers not stepping in and showing them how to do things properly? So again, while some of the creche's tried to excuse their behaviour on the grounds that they've sacked or suspended the staff concerned, the problem is a lot more fundamental than that.

I suspect there are people out there making a lot of money from running creches and are simply treating it like a profit turning business and not the important service it is.


----------



## Sunny (29 May 2013)

The question is why does it always take a media exposé for these things to come to light. It was the same with nursing homes. I know there is legislation planned to make it a statutory obligation for people to reports concerns that they have and it can't come soon enough. Am sure these places are full of great staff but they still stood back and allowed the minority to behave like that. Personally, I would rather be broke and out of work than work people who treated children like that.


----------



## T McGibney (29 May 2013)

Calico said:


> Constant CCTV recording and random inspections of the footage is one possible solution imo.



Great idea, let's put webcams into the Financial Regulator's office!


----------



## Betsy Og (29 May 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Great idea, let's put webcams into the Financial Regulator's office!


 
In fairness I know of a commercial enterprise that provides that service - child care and OAP care mainly I think.

When vulnerable people are involved I think its fair enough - obviously access to the "feed" should be limited to those with a genuine vested interest, but if you've nothing to hide then I dont see the problem. Same for prisons or garda cells - which isnt there a garda regulator with access to that.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

Hmmm. Well as a parent with a child in a creche it was certainly upsetting to see children in distress.

I'm not sure what to make of it though. The programme itself was, to be blunt, terrible. The token 2 seconds at the start about good practice at the creches didn't provide any balance at all and, from what I could see, the most distressing issues seemed to stem from one or two individual employees rather than it being widespread among all staff. I think that needed to be made clearer.

Obviously, that leads to conclusions about the management of the creches as opposed to the HSE. No inspection system is perfect or for that matter infallible, especially with the resources allocated. 

More information needs to be made available to parents in deciding what creche they will use than is currently publically available. However, having said that, when selecting a creche for my child, we looked at two of the companies involved in the programme and based upon a visit and a bit of time on the internet, we quickly ruled them out. I'm not blaming the parents, but deciding which creche to put your child in is a huge and important decision, it's easy enough to establish some fundamental information on the creches that should flag up warning signs. I just wonder how parents decided on those creches that to me just had too many red flags against them to mean I would never consider them for my child or recommend them. 

The critical questions are on how creches are staffed, more importantly managed. What we don't know from the programme is the quantity of good caring and excellent staff to the ones who clearly should not be allowed near a child in any circumstances.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> In fairness I know of a commercial enterprise that provides that service - child care and OAP care mainly I think.
> 
> When vulnerable people are involved I think its fair enough - obviously access to the "feed" should be limited to those with a genuine vested interest, but if you've nothing to hide then I dont see the problem. Same for prisons or garda cells - which isnt there a garda regulator with access to that.


 
Couldn't happen due to restrictions on filming children, plus how can it be guaranteed that only I will be able to view my child when rooms are shared with other children.


----------



## liaconn (29 May 2013)

Latrade said:


> Hmmm. Well as a parent with a child in a creche it was certainly upsetting to see children in distress.
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of it though. *The programme itself was, to be blunt, terrible. The token 2 seconds at the start about good practice at the creches didn't provide any balance at all and, from what I could see, the most distressing issues seemed to stem from one or two individual employees rather than it being widespread among all staff. I think that needed to be made clearer.*
> 
> ...


 
I don't think that's fair. The voiceover stressed on several occasions throughout the programme that their journalist had seen plenty of good practice and excellent care. They also made it clear that they selected creches that had already been the subject of complaints. I thought it was as balanced as it could be, given how emotive the subject matter was.


----------



## Purple (29 May 2013)

This is yet another example of the inability of the state to regulate and enforce. 
It's the same in almost every other area where the state interacts with the private sector. The solution is proper regulation, not more ineffective regulation or inefficient state provision. 
The state needs to do its job properly.


----------



## Betsy Og (29 May 2013)

Latrade said:


> Couldn't happen due to restrictions on filming children, plus how can it be guaranteed that only I will be able to view my child when rooms are shared with other children.


 
Maybe if all agree to it (or maybe its just OAP). I'm no expert on the subject - but this paranoia about children in photos and video - presumably if the kids are not in a state of undress then is it really of interest to paedophiles??? I'm the father of 2 young boys but isnt the main thing keeping them in safe environments, giving no opportunity to those of ill intent, rather than putting a sharia style cloak over them??


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

liaconn said:


> I don't think that's fair. The voiceover stressed on several occasions throughout the programme that their journalist had seen plenty of good practice and excellent care. They also made it clear that they selected creches that had already been the subject of complaints. I thought it was as balanced as it could be, given how emotive the subject matter was.


 
It's hard to find balance with such a subject, and I'm not defending the company's involved (as I said three years ago I refused to send my child to those companies). However, I disgaree as I felt it played on the emotive subject in a very tabloid manner rather than a proper journalistic manner. 

Even just the text information it provided next to little cute baby faces, reconstructions of parents leaving happy children into the creche before another example of abuse shatters the happy, touching moment, or children wandering lonely down the road (all that was missing was the end theme to the Incredible Hulk). It was awful, awful tabloid journalism, which if it were a satire like The Day Today would have been a slick well put together take down of TV investigative journalism. Instead it deliberately played (and in my opinion preyed) on parents fears and concerns.

All we saw was the journalist challenging or questioning the staff involved. Did any other staff? We don't know, we assume they were happy or accepted this because it was never mentioned. We have no idea of timescale, was this over one day, a couple of days or systematic and daily? 

That kind of context makes a difference. But, it got viewers and it's got people talking a thousands of parents across the land distressed, so it achieved its goal (and ad revenue) I guess. 

The problem for me is much of the issues of most concern probably wouldn't have been nor will be picked up in any inspection or audit, so I can't really blame the HSE as all inspections present a snapshot and behaviour will be massively different when an inpsector is around. 

However, maybe one positive to come from this is that parents will be much more picky and selective about where they send their kids and really research places. There weren't that many surprises in the programme for me as there have been many concerned stories and opinions given on internet forums for years about those companies. Why parents still chose to send their children there is completely beyond me. I may chose to ignore some bad reviews on Trip Advisor when picking a hotel, but not for a creche I'm going to spend the best part of €1000 per month to have my child spend all day in. 

What I'd like is something similar to the good public information we have on restaurants from the FSA. Let's have something similar available for creches too.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> Maybe if all agree to it (or maybe its just OAP). I'm no expert on the subject - but this paranoia about children in photos and video - presumably if the kids are not in a state of undress then is it really of interest to paedophiles??? I'm the father of 2 young boys but isnt the main thing keeping them in safe environments, giving no opportunity to those of ill intent, rather than putting a sharia style cloak over them??


 
I agree with the perhaps very strictly applied rules about filming. But it would just take one parent objecting to their child being recorded to mean no one can be recorded. Plus I'm not sure employers would be happy with their staff watching a live stream of their child at creche all day.

If parents want 100% guaranteed control over their child's wellbeing, then don't put them into creche, stay at home with them. Live video isn't practical or the answer, the answer is more public information available for when selecting a creche and parents researching and carefully selecting a creche rather than (in some cases I know) picking the one that's most convinient for them.


----------



## liaconn (29 May 2013)

Latrade said:


> It's hard to find balance with such a subject, and I'm not defending the company's involved (as I said three years ago I refused to send my child to those companies). However, I disgaree as I felt it played on the emotive subject in a very tabloid manner rather than a proper journalistic manner.
> 
> Even just the text information it provided next to little cute baby faces, reconstructions of parents leaving happy children into the creche before another example of abuse shatters the happy, touching moment, or children wandering lonely down the road (all that was missing was the end theme to the Incredible Hulk). It was awful, awful tabloid journalism, which if it were a satire like The Day Today would have been a slick well put together take down of TV investigative journalism. Instead it deliberately played (and in my opinion preyed) on parents fears and concerns.
> 
> ...


 
I'd agree with you if what we subsequently saw was a few minor infringements that had been blown up out of all proportion - as per typical tabloid journalism.
But that wasn't the case here. Very few of those incidents could be explained away as 'she was just in bad form that day. Normally she's lovely', or 'The manager was just out of the room for a minute but usually untrained staff are highly supervised'. It was obvious that some of those childcare workers had no training, skills or aptitude whatsoever for the important job they were doing and that they were working unsupervised and unmonitored for a lot of the time.  I honestly don't think any of the reconstructions could, in any way, make what we saw last night any worse. 

I really think that calling it 'tabloid journalism' is unfair. Hopefully this programme, like the Leas Cross one, will propel the Government into long overdue action due to pressure from an outraged public. That is what public service broadcasting is all about.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

liaconn said:


> I'd agree with you if what we subsequently saw was a few minor infringements that had been blown up out of all proportion - as per typical tabloid journalism.
> But that wasn't the case here. Very few of those incidents could be explained away as 'she was just in bad form that day. Normally she's lovely', or 'The manager was just out of the room for a minute but usually untrained staff are highly supervised'. It was obvious that some of those childcare workers had no training, skills or aptitude whatsoever for the important job they were doing and that they were working unsupervised and unmonitored for a lot of the time. I honestly don't think any of the reconstructions could, in any way, make what we saw last night any worse.
> 
> I really think that calling it 'tabloid journalism' is unfair. Hopefully this programme, like the Leas Cross one, will propel the Government into long overdue action due to pressure from an outraged public. That is what public service broadcasting is all about.


 
The footage was indeed upsetting, so much so that it didn't need the other stuff they added (like the happy reconstructions or all the happy cute babies for their presentation of images). So the only reason they were added was to completely play on emotions.

Again, the behaviour and actions were dispicable, but how it was edited was to add to the emotion. when trying to get a child to sleep, the total footage was about thirty seconds, however, this was edited to give the impression it went on much longer. What we don't know (as it's subject to criminal investigation) is the whether that was a one off incident (yes one is enough) of about thirty seconds recorded over a day, week, month? 

None of this is to excuse the creche, its management or its employees, but I really objected to this was presented and in my opinion how the programme deliberately set itself up in a very tabloid in an emotionally exploitative way. It would have been as impactful, as upsetting without the editing and additions. In my opinion, the fluff was only added for crass emotionally explotative reasons. It really did bring to mind a Chris Morris satire. 

And I hope it does bring about change, I hope it has lifted a certain parental apathy I've seen about creche selection. I know parents who have had concerns over their creche (staffing numbers, staff turnover etc) and still send their child there.


----------



## liaconn (29 May 2013)

I take your point, but I think calling it 'tabloid journalism' is a step too far.

Anyway, we digress. The issue here is about creches being run first and foremost as profit making ventures by business men and women who have absolutely no interest whatsoever in childcare, children's welfare, education or any of the other areas which should be central to this type of work. Instead they just want to make as much money as possible and, as a result, are breaching regulations re staff:children ratios and in some cases hiring young, untrained and often poorly educated or not very bright staff who are not in a position to demand decent salaries and who are ill equipped to take on this challenging work.
Obviously, there are also many highly skilled, properly trained staff working in creches who love children and are brilliant at looking after them and developing them emotionally and educationally. It is unfair on them to have their work demeaned by some of the things we saw last night.


----------



## DB74 (29 May 2013)

I don't really see how "the programme deliberately set itself up in a very tabloid in an emotionally exploitative way"

Seeing young children being slammed into a mat on a floor is an upsetting viewing experience, as is seeing them being strapped into chair unnecessarily for over 2 hours, as is seeing them being force-fed, as is seeing them punished by being strapped into a chair or made to stand behind a closed door at 18 mths of age.

What would you prefer them to have shown - Nothing?

How they chose to edit the other aspects of the programme doesn't take away from the footage that was shot in the creches in question.


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 May 2013)

DB74 said:


> I don't really see how "the programme deliberately set itself up in a very tabloid in an emotionally exploitative way"
> 
> Seeing young children being slammed into a mat on a floor is an upsetting viewing experience, as is seeing them being strapped into chair unnecessarily for over 2 hours, as is seeing them being force-fed, as is seeing them punished by being strapped into a chair or made to stand behind a closed door at 18 mths of age.
> 
> ...



Agreed DB74. For me the show highlighted a number of issues with the current system.

The HSE reports seem to be ignored in that any creche found in breach of regulations faces no consequences, so much so that they even continue to receive funding
Staff are not adequately trained for the job
Employers face difficulties when staff leave as it can take at  least 8 weeks to have new staff members Garda vetted
It is quite easy for employers to take on untrained and/or unvetted staff
The current structure is flawed in that creches are run as businesses rather than services meaning employers can put profit before anything else
As Purple pointed out, the state must accept a lot of responsibility here in allowing unscrupulous employers operate in this manner. There should be consequences for those in breach of regulations and the state should also help employers to ensure staff are adequately trained for the job. It has been said many times before but the Scandinavian childcare model is one we should be trying to learn from where the state is much more involved.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

DB74 said:


> I don't really see how "the programme deliberately set itself up in a very tabloid in an emotionally exploitative way"
> 
> Seeing young children being slammed into a mat on a floor is an upsetting viewing experience, as is seeing them being strapped into chair unnecessarily for over 2 hours, as is seeing them being force-fed, as is seeing them punished by being strapped into a chair or made to stand behind a closed door at 18 mths of age.
> 
> ...


 
Nope, my comments on the presentation of the programme has nothing to do with the issues it raised. I disliked the programme not because of the hidden footage, but how it chose to edit the footgae without context (that is tabloid journalism and not investigative journalism) and how it chose stock footage and reconstructions of deliberately tacky and cheesy images/footage in order to play even further on the emotions of the audience. It was, in my opinion, very poor and cynical television which given the footage they had and the topic at hand did not warrant that level of fluff.

It angered me because the evidence that had was awful and was distressing, but it should have been presented in context (such as a timings, occurrences, etc) and should have just been presented in a factual way. Unfortunately as an audience we aren't permitted to just view footage and make our own minds up without editors trying to further manipulate the emotional response. It was as if they had employed the editors of the X-Factor.

However, as I thought I'd made clear, my issues with the quality of the programming does not detract from my shared anger at what was found. I just prefer that when such investigative journalism takes place it is only fair that findings and footage is provided in the context of all the other hours of footage they have.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

Ceist Beag said:


> Agreed DB74. For me the show highlighted a number of issues with the current system.
> The HSE reports seem to be ignored in that any creche found in breach of regulations faces no consequences, so much so that they even continue to receive funding
> Staff are not adequately trained for the job
> Employers face difficulties when staff leave as it can take at least 8 weeks to have new staff members Garda vetted
> ...


 
The problem with the "breach of regulations" is what was, can be or will be observed during an inspection. From the brief information provided in the programme, the issues that had been identified during inspections did not relate to the issues shown in the footage. Not to say the breaches were minor, but they weren't related to the actions and mistreatment by the staff, if I remember correctly, they were concerns about arrangements more than staff behaviour. Would those ever be identified in an audit or inspection of any kind? In my experience, no. Were those breaches identified in inspections enough to justify the closure of a creche? I don't know as the programme didn't provide that information. As I state earlier in my issues with the programme itself, it listed all the Giraffe premises that had breaches identified under various sections, but without the detail of what they were or how serious they were. 


However, I do think that results of inspections should be more readily available for parents who are making decisions. If we are to have a private industry (which actually in the main does work and provides a good and caring service for parents) then we should have full disclosure or a version of it so that parents can choose which creche they send their child to. 

We know and can find out if the local chipper has ever had a bad report from a food hygiene view, we know if the local beach has too much litter on it, but we don't know if a creche we pay €1000 to each month may have concerns raised against it.


----------



## Sunny (29 May 2013)

Latrade said:


> Nope, my comments on the presentation of the programme has nothing to do with the issues it raised. I disliked the programme not because of the hidden footage, but how it chose to edit the footgae without context (that is tabloid journalism and not investigative journalism) and how it chose stock footage and reconstructions of deliberately tacky and cheesy images/footage in order to play even further on the emotions of the audience. It was, in my opinion, very poor and cynical television which given the footage they had and the topic at hand did not warrant that level of fluff.
> 
> It angered me because the evidence that had was awful and was distressing, but it should have been presented in context (such as a timings, occurrences, etc) and should have just been presented in a factual way. Unfortunately as an audience we aren't permitted to just view footage and make our own minds up without editors trying to further manipulate the emotional response. It was as if they had employed the editors of the X-Factor.
> 
> However, as I thought I'd made clear, my issues with the quality of the programming does not detract from my shared anger at what was found. I just prefer that when such investigative journalism takes place it is only fair that findings and footage is provided in the context of all the other hours of footage they have.



Fine if you think Irish viewers are idiots and can't see through the editing like you. Nobody thinks these events happened every hour of every day and everyone realises that there are probably hours of footage showing happy children and great staff. Doesn't change the fact that these events occurred. Be like me being caught by CCTV stealing in work and then giving out that my employer is not using all the footage of me working and not stealing so people aren't getting the full story.


----------



## Latrade (29 May 2013)

Sunny said:


> Fine if you think Irish viewers are idiots and can't see through the editing like you. Nobody thinks these events happened every hour of every day and everyone realises that there are probably hours of footage showing happy children and great staff. Doesn't change the fact that these events occurred. Be like me being caught by CCTV stealing in work and then giving out that my employer is not using all the footage of me working and not stealing so people aren't getting the full story.


 
Not even remotely what I said or am saying. I just thought the actual putting together of the programme was awful, I thought it took an already distressing topic and deliberately tried to manipulate emotions further through editing and how it was presented. And I thought that crass and tabloid.

And that's it. 

Now, moving on.


----------



## Sunny (29 May 2013)

Well at least our Minister of Justice will be breathing a sigh of relief that there is a new story.


----------



## thedaras (30 May 2013)

A couple of points I would like to make.
I don't get how any parent leaves a baby in a crèche for up to ten hours a day.
I don't get why anyone is expected to look after five or six toddlers for ten hours a day.
I don't get why they are paid so little.

I don't buy the "more training".
I do buy,the person who is into this type of job and then training.

If you take my sister in law ,who is a teacher of children in fifth class,she starts at 8:30 and finishes at 2:30,she is paid well,has a proper break,and has lots of holidays,now compare that to screaming toddlers ,perhaps five or six,for up to ten hours every day,and getting paid a minimum wage and very little holiday time,there is no comparison.

Ok,she has gone to college for three years so deserves more pay,fair enough,but honestly it seems to me,that those who are looking after the most vulnerable of all,are treated the worst,and paid the lowest.

I have heard many union reps speak of the difficult task of nurses for example ,that they have to clean an adults privates for example,and yet the ones who need to do this with several children ,day in day out,seem to be ignored.

Just in case any one should say that I'm bringing the public sector into this ,let me be crystal clear,a cleaning lady in the local supermarket would have a less difficult job,A taxi driver ,Etc,but I'm trying to compare similar jobs and teachers and nurses would be an example.

Does anyone believe that this is a suitable environment for a baby ? I was just as worried if not more worried by how many children were so compliment,isn't that telling us something?

I get why parents who send their kids to crèches ,feel the need to defend them,what else can they do,the other option is admitting its not a great idea,and what parent wants to admit that ,when they need to justify it.

The parents who choose this option,are in the main making a lifestyle choice.reason being this practice was happening during the boom years when both parents didn't have to work.

Perhaps now they have no choice but to work,but if you didn't have to work ,why would you ..

Parents should be able to leave their kids in safe hands,but you always take a chance.

Most parents who look after several toddlers at home will tell you how difficult it is,yet we expect everyone else to get on with them,not to give out to them etc etc.

I would rather that person be me,their mother.

Do I have a solution..maybe..
Mothers or fathers who choose to stay at home be allowed to leave their employment,get an allowance equal to the difference in what they earn and what they would pay a crèche,my guess is that's not a lot in most cases.and it would be capped.
This in effect would mean more jobs would become available,more parents who don't want to leave their children can be with them,and this should happen until school starting age.

Most child are workers seem to me to be early school leavers,in my experience they are also young girls and we all know how hard it is to look after one toddler never mind several screaming ones.

Parents are paying a lot and it should go without saying that their children are treated with care,I wouldn't like to be a parent who has no choice but to leave a baby into a crèche for ten hours a day,but would absolutely hate myself if I left them their because of my need to be in the workforce.

In the meantime while we wait for etopia,I would try limit as much as possible the amount of time they spend there,I would hope that some assessment of suitability of child care workers  comes into force and should they pass that , they get the best training,I also would hope that they get properly paid for what has to be a very difficult job.
But mostly I hope children get the chance to be at home ,safe,with a caring ,less worried,less stressed .parent.
Reading over my post,I think I come across as being on the side of those who work in crèches,and I am,for everyone's peace of mind ,things need to change.
I also feel very sad for the poor babies and toddlers who have no choice in any of this.
I feel sad for the poor parents who have no choice in the matter.
I feel disgusted by the treatment of the little kids,and I believe any parent who leaves their child into someone's care should be comfortable and secure in the knowledge that their child will be cared for.
No amount of training will give anyone a heart.


----------



## DaveD (30 May 2013)

thedaras said:


> A couple of points I would like to make.
> I don't get how any parent leaves a baby in a crèche for up to ten hours a day.
> I don't get why anyone is expected to look after five or six toddlers for ten hours a day.
> I don't get why they are paid so little.
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## Delboy (30 May 2013)

thedaras said:


> I don't get how any parent leaves a baby in a crèche for up to ten hours a day.





thedaras said:


> The parents who choose this option,are in the main making a lifestyle choice.reason being this practice was happening during the boom years when both parents didn't have to work.



I doubt it's a lifestyle choice for the majority of families...it's out of necessity due to large mortgages, debts etc



thedaras said:


> Mothers or fathers who choose to stay at home be allowed to leave their employment,get an allowance equal to the difference in what they earn and what they would pay a crèche,my guess is that's not a lot in most cases.and it would be capped.
> This in effect would mean more jobs would become available,more parents who don't want to leave their children can be with them,and this should happen until school starting age.


that last line smacks of the ban on women working in the CS/PS when they got married which only was done away with in 1973 upon joining the EU.
Most people 'choosing' to stay at home would inevitably be the Mother....so what you have outlined here will land you in a lot of bother from the feminist lobbies

I agree that it's mad to have a kid 10 hours a day in a creche. We try and keep our kids to a short week but that's not possible every week. And the days they are in are long days.
But not every employer is flexible,not everyone has family nearby that can help, not everyone can afford to take a hit on their pay to have shorter hours for their kids.
Thats the harsh reality of where we are today as a country


----------



## Purple (30 May 2013)

thedaras said:


> A couple of points I would like to make.
> I don't get how any parent leaves a baby in a crèche for up to ten hours a day.
> I don't get why anyone is expected to look after five or six toddlers for ten hours a day.
> I don't get why they are paid so little.


The market dictates the rates. If the required level of training was higher then there would be more competition for the qualified labour so pay rates would increase. This would of course increase the cost of childcare.



thedaras said:


> I don't buy the "more training".
> I do buy,the person who is into this type of job and then training.


I agree.



thedaras said:


> If you take my sister in law ,who is a teacher of children in fifth class,she starts at 8:30 and finishes at 2:30,she is paid well,has a proper break,and has lots of holidays,now compare that to screaming toddlers ,perhaps five or six,for up to ten hours every day,and getting paid a minimum wage and very little holiday time,there is no comparison.


 Your sister in law is in charge of between 20 and 30 kids on her own and has to teach them. A childcare employee in a crèche is in charge of 4-6 kids and will not be on duty 10 hours a day, or if they are they are breaking the law.   



thedaras said:


> Ok,she has gone to college for three years so deserves more pay,fair enough,but honestly it seems to me,that those who are looking after the most vulnerable of all,are treated the worst,and paid the lowest.


 Nobody deserves to get paid more simply because of their qualifications. They get paid more if their qualifications make their labour more valuable.



thedaras said:


> I have heard many union reps speak of the difficult task of nurses for example ,that they have to clean an adults privates for example,and yet the ones who need to do this with several children ,day in day out,seem to be ignored.


 They’d hardly say otherwise now, would they?




thedaras said:


> I get why parents who send their kids to crèches ,feel the need to defend them,what else can they do,the other option is admitting its not a great idea,and what parent wants to admit that ,when they need to justify it.
> 
> The parents who choose this option,are in the main making a lifestyle choice.reason being this practice was happening during the boom years when both parents didn't have to work.
> 
> Perhaps now they have no choice but to work,but if you didn't have to work ,why would you ..


 Too many sweeting statements there. People leave their children with minders and in crèches for all sorts of reasons. 




thedaras said:


> Do I have a solution..maybe..
> Mothers or fathers who choose to stay at home be allowed to leave their employment,get an allowance equal to the difference in what they earn and what they would pay a crèche,my guess is that's not a lot in most cases.and it would be capped.
> This in effect would mean more jobs would become available,more parents who don't want to leave their children can be with them,and this should happen until school starting age.
> 
> ...


So if I earn €150’000 a year and spend €12’000 a year on childcare I should be able to give up work and get paid the net difference to stay at home and mind my 4 children? The state already forks out hundreds of millions in children’s allowance, why should my fellow citizens have to pay for my choice to have 4 children?



thedaras said:


> In the meantime while we wait for etopia,I would try limit as much as possible the amount of time they spend there,I would hope that some assessment of suitability of child care workers  comes into force and should they pass that , they get the best training,I also would hope that they get properly paid for what has to be a very difficult job.
> But mostly I hope children get the chance to be at home ,safe,with a caring ,less worried,less stressed .parent.
> Reading over my post,I think I come across as being on the side of those who work in crèches,and I am,for everyone's peace of mind ,things need to change.
> I also feel very sad for the poor babies and toddlers who have no choice in any of this.
> ...


What about the thousands of parent s who would do a brutal job of looking after their own children, who have no idea how to help a child developmentally, who are stressed and abusive to their children when they see them and who have little interest in helping their children socialise and learn to play? Playing in important, until a child is 4 or 5 they will learn more through playing then they could ever learn through formal education. This isn’t a good V bad argument. 

Let’s not pretend that the best crèches are as good for kids as them being minded by their mother or father because in many cases a mediocre crèche is better than the parental option. I’d suggest there are proportionately far more small children being physically and emotionally abused by their parents than by staff in crèches.


----------



## liaconn (30 May 2013)

Going off point a bit but 'Little Harvard'????????   I think that name alone would put me off the creche. Talk about trying to sell an image.


----------



## Marion (30 May 2013)

@ Fobs:



			
				fobs said:
			
		

> THey learned some nursery rhymes and ther numbers but mostly played in the attache playground rather than learned.



Play is excellent. It is underestimated.


The most horrific part of that programme for me was to see the children being flipped over in their cots and being strapped into chairs and being force fed.



@Purple


			
				purple said:
			
		

> What about the thousands of parents who would do a brutal job of looking after their own children, who have no idea how to help a child developmentally, who are stressed and abusive to their children when they see them and who have little interest in helping their children



These childcare facilities are in the private sector and are in the business of making a profit with thousands of children in their care. 

One cannot compare this with dysfunctional parenting.

@thedaras



> Most child are workers seem to me to be early school leavers,in my experience they are also young girls and we all know how hard it is to look after one toddler never mind several screaming ones.




Most childcare students taking Level 5 and Level 6 where I work are not early-school leavers. They will, in the main, have Leaving certificate completed. There will be some who will be adult learners (over 23) - some without Leaving Certificate  but they are generally in the minority. There will always be exceptions. I have taught Level 8 grads who  undertake our QQI course to enable them to set up in practice as a reputable practitioner. Of course, attainment of a certificate does not mean suitability for the job.

I have never seen a male student in a Childcare class at level 5 or Level 6. They tend to opt for Healthcare,  Social Studies, Nursing, or Advanced Community Care in the caring-studies programmes.


Marion


----------



## AgathaC (31 May 2013)

Purple said:


> So if I earn €150’000 a year and spend €12’000 a year on childcare I should be able to give up work and get paid the net difference to stay at home and mind my 4 children? The state already forks out hundreds of millions in children’s allowance, why should my fellow citizens have to pay for my choice to have 4 children?



+1. Think of the eye-watering salaries enjoyed by our (un)esteemed bankers and politicians, for example. 
I did not watch the programme, I chose not to. I do hope that it leads to an overhaul of current standards. I saw Frances Fitzgerald on Prime Time tonight. Uninspiring, IMHO. Cannot help thinking it will simply lead to committees, reports etc, while children suffer, and greedy crèche owners profit.


----------



## liaconn (31 May 2013)

AgathaC said:


> +1. Think of the eye-watering salaries enjoyed by our (un)esteemed bankers and politicians, for example.
> I did not watch the programme, I chose not to. I do hope that it leads to an overhaul of current standards. I *saw Frances Fitzgerald on Prime Time tonight. Uninspiring, IMHO.* Cannot help thinking it will simply lead to committees, reports etc, while children suffer, and greedy crèche owners profit.


 
I totally agree. She came across as someone simply sticking to a script, there was no sense coming across that she was going to be proactive or kick any a*ses. That, on top of being 'otherwise engaged' for the discussion immediately following the programme and not sending a representative, have done her no favours. She's just not coming across as a strong Minister at all.


----------



## AgathaC (31 May 2013)

I almost expected her to say 'someone should do something about it'...


----------



## Latrade (4 Jun 2013)

My one question with the current media coverage and political "solution" to this is just how does a FETAC Course prevent someone from being unsuitable to look after kids? Training isn't the root behind what we saw, so insistence on better training is a complete moot point. No certificate would have made those individuals suitable to be around children unsupervised.

From what I could gather from the show, those incidents happened when there wasn't a manager around (at other location, etc), though that wasn't entirely clear so I could be mistaken. The move should be that there is always supervision of the staff, not that staff have to have a certificate.


----------



## liaconn (4 Jun 2013)

I don't think the programme just uncovered one type of fault, though. 

I agree that lack of supervision and management was a fundamental flaw and needs to be urgently addressed. But I also think the programme showed that some childcare workers simply didn't have a clue and thought they could reason with an 18 month old baby, put a toddler in a room on their own as a punishment etc. This is also something that needs tackling and some of the staff involved, with proper training and adequate supervision, would probably be capable of working in a creche. Some of them probably chose that type of work because they 'loved children' and were then completely overwhelmed when they realised that working fulltime with dozens of toddlers is not remotely like minding the baby down the road for a couple of hours now and then. 

And definitely some of the staff shown are temperamentally unsuited to working with small children and should never have been employed by a creche in the first place.


----------

