EYFS ratios, and the evidence that you were in ratio

Every manager can recite the ratios. Very few settings can show, without a scramble, that they met them at a particular moment eight months ago.

That gap is the actual risk. Ratios are not a policy you hold, they are a claim you make about every session you have ever run, and a claim is only as good as the record behind it.

The numbers

For early years providers in England other than childminders, the Early Years Foundation Stage sets out minimum staff-to-child ratios by age:

• Under two: one adult to three children.
• Aged two: one adult to five children.
• Aged three and over: one adult to eight children, or one adult to thirteen where a person with a suitable level 6 qualification, such as qualified teacher status or early years professional status, is working directly with the children.

The framework also sets qualification requirements within those numbers, including that at least one person in each room holds a relevant level 3 qualification. Only people aged 17 or over count towards ratios at all. Students on long-term placements and volunteers may be counted where the provider is satisfied they are competent and responsible.

The two-year-old ratio changed in recent years, so check the current statutory framework rather than a training handout, and check it again if your handbook predates your last staff intake.

The arithmetic is not the hard part

Work through a morning. A setting has three rooms: five children under two, ten two-year-olds, and sixteen aged three and over with no level 6 qualified person working directly with them.

• Under twos: 5 ÷ 3 = 1.67, so two adults. There is no such thing as 1.67 of a practitioner, and the number always rounds up.
• Twos: 10 ÷ 5 = two adults.
• Threes and over: 16 ÷ 8 = two adults.

Six staff on the floor. That is the easy calculation, and it is the one most rota software already does.

Now make it 12:40. Two of those six are at lunch. The setting needs six on the floor and has four, unless somebody planned the cover. Ratios apply whenever children are present. They do not relax for lunch, for handover, for the ten minutes a manager spends taking a phone call in the office, or for the afternoon a practitioner goes home unwell.

The practical consequence is that a setting running at exactly the minimum is not in ratio. It is in ratio until the first thing happens.

What "evidence" actually means

An inspector is rarely asking whether you know the ratios. They are asking how you know you met them, and the honest answers fall into three levels.

"We roster to ratio." This evidences intent. It shows the plan was compliant, and says nothing about what happened when somebody called in sick.

"Here is the daily register and here is the staff rota." Better, and still short. Two documents that have to be cross-read by hand, for a particular day, to produce a number that neither of them states.

"Here is what each room looked like through the day, children present and adults on the floor, with the times." This is the only one that answers the question asked. It lets you or an inspector pick any past moment and see it, rather than infer it.

The difference between the second and third level is the difference between a defensible record and an argument.

Three gaps worth closing this month

Breaks. If your record cannot distinguish a practitioner who is on the floor from one who is on their break, it does not evidence ratio at the times ratio is most at risk. A signed-out break is a small habit that closes a large gap.

Outings. Ratios on an outing are set by your own risk assessment rather than a fixed number, so the assessment is the evidence. Keep it, with who was on the trip and which children went.

Under-twos rounding. Small groups are where rounding errors hide. Four under-twos need two adults, not one and a bit, and a room that drops to four children does not drop to one adult.

Keep the record honest, including when it is uncomfortable

The most useful ratio record is one that can show a moment you were not in ratio, along with what you did about it. A setting that records a fifteen-minute shortfall, an escalation and a fix has evidenced a working system. A setting whose record shows unbroken perfection across two years has evidenced a record that nobody reads.

Inspectors have seen both. The second is less reassuring than it looks.

Little Bees works out the required ratio from who is actually signed in, room by room and minute by minute, and keeps the result as a record, so being in ratio last March is something you can show rather than something you remember.