|
Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers
1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the decision by the Children, Schools and Families Committee to undertake an inquiry into Sure Start Children's Centres (SSCCs). The NUT's recommendations to the Committee are highlighted in bold text.
Development of Children's Centre Model 2. The NUT recommends that early education and childcare should be at the heart of any legal definition of a SSCC. This is not to dispute that other services for children and their families are necessary or should be available from Centres, but to ensure that the importance of early education and childcare is not lost in the myriad of services which Centres are encouraged to offer. The definition should flow from the proposition that SSCCs are established primarily to benefit children and to provide them with the best possible start in life.
3. A universal entitlement to nursery education for all three and four year olds has been one of the most significant Government interventions of recent years to address the associated problems of child poverty and social exclusion. The Government's investment in early education may be dissipated, however, by the need to offer a full range of other services via SSCCs. Its long-term aim of boosting children's skills, and hence future employability, could be compromised by short-term targets relating to parents' employment and other associated family-based targets.
4. Local authorities' ability to determine the kind of provision needed and wanted in their local area is currently curtailed by the requirement under the Childcare Act 2006 that they must first consider whether the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector is willing to provide it. This can be interpreted as encouraging direct competition between Centres, maintained nursery schools and classes and PVI providers, which is not helpful in establishing high quality, sustainable provision strategically within an area.
5. It also suggests that Government considers PVI sector provision to be of superior quality. The NUT continues to be concerned by the Government's insistence that the private sector should be looked to as the first choice for any new early years provision. Such a policy is not supported by evidence and appears to be more concerned with political dogma than providing the most effective services. The Government sponsored Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) research found that the maintained early years sector provided the highest quality provision and outcomes for young children.
6. In some local authorities, however, maintained Centres, nursery schools and classes have been unable to fill all their places, which has led to a number of closures. It would appear in most such cases that private providers are favoured because of lower staffing costs. A significant number of these closures have been in areas of social and economic deprivation. This policy therefore may contradict the Government's stated commitment regarding quality provision for young children and their families and is at odds with its initiatives which aim to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
7. In addition, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament contains provision which would require local authorities to consider SSCCs as the first choice for establishing any new early years provision in their area. Together with the existing requirement to use PVI providers, this suggests that local authorities will have very limited ability to offer provision which best meets the needs of local communities.
· The NUT recommends, therefore, that the statutory duties on local authorities should be reviewed and that local authorities should be able to determine what kind of early years provision is needed, choosing from the full range of providers available.
Range and Effectiveness of Services Provided by Children's Centres 8. Evidence from the National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) indicates that Centres are not effective across the full range of services which they are encouraged to provide and that some degree of specialism is required for high quality outcomes in education, employment and training and health, linked to the staffing of the Centre. A "generalist" approach to Centres, where all services are expected to be provided, may in fact compromise the quality of early education and childcare.
9. Indeed, SSCCs are not actually required to offer early education but rather 'educational activities' despite the fact that many high quality maintained nursery schools were closed as a result of the establishment of SSCCs, especially in Waves 1 and 2, despite both the outstanding provision they offered children and the range of extended services many of them provided.
· The NUT believes, therefore, that the primary function of SSCCs should be the provision of high quality services relevant to children's education, health, social care and welfare from birth to five years old and this should form the core of any legal definition. In addition, there should be a duty on local authorities to evaluate regularly the capacity of SSCCs to deliver any additional services to support young children and their families.
10. Parents should be able to expect the same high quality early education and care provision wherever they live and whichever institution their child attends.
· The basis for that equality of opportunity should be that where provision offers publicly funded "early education", children are taught by a qualified teacher, led by a qualified head teacher. This would provide the best guarantee that all three and four year olds, whatever their home circumstances and prior leaning, will have their learning needs met in an appropriate way.
Funding Sustainability and Value for Money Early Years Single Funding Formula
11. The
12. Funding formulae must fully reflect the costs faced by SSCCs, with such costs met fully by funding allocations. There should be a comprehensive audit of the costs experienced by SSCCs and regular monitoring of such costs in the future. The impact of the full range of relevant factors must be included in the funding mechanism. Such factors would include for example the levels of deprivation, the need for SEN support, staff development and differential premises costs.
13. The need to measure the full range of factors will add a high level of complexity to funding formulae. Nevertheless, care should be taken when consulting on the implementation of funding changes to fully engage those consulted by ensuring that such changes are explained clearly. Exemplifications illustrating the impact of funding changes on given SSCCs should be provided, to enable those consulted to consider proposals in the light of all of the relevant information.
14. For some SSCCs, particularly those which are attached to schools or which were formerly maintained nursery schools, the change from place-led to participation-led funding will make a significant difference to both their funding levels and the way they operate. It has long been good practice to admit children to such settings throughout the year according to their age and hence developmental appropriateness. Under the new funding arrangements these Centres will be required to fill all the places from the beginning of the academic year. In addition, the high costs involved in running the premises and maintaining a stimulating learning environment may not necessarily be covered by the formulas currently being finalised by local authorities.
15. Significant changes to funding levels could create real problems for SSCCs. Consideration must therefore be given to arrangements for transitional protection, to enable those SSCCs adversely affected to adjust to new funding levels.
· The funding for maintained settings which also host Children's Centres must be closely monitored as this may be an area where the Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) leads to changes to staffing structures as a means of reducing costs. Where SSCCs have been based around a maintained nursery school the staffing costs will be higher as the Centre will employ teachers and other well qualified support staff. Such a Centre may also have higher premises costs. SSCCs run by PVI groups will have lower staffing costs although it is recognised that they should be encouraged to improve staffing qualifications.
16. For SSCCs, there is a real concern that reduced funding levels under the EYSFF will lead to a reduction in staff quality where it is currently good or better and that a dilution in the number of teachers employed in SSCCs will be experienced alongside an increase in the use of Early Years Professionals, who are not qualified in the same way as teachers and should fulfil a different role within Centres.
17. The different costs of staffing in the maintained and PVI sectors are a key concern for the NUT. It has received reports from members that these differential costs are not always factored in by local authorities when they make their calculations. In part this is due to the inherent difficulty of attempting to reconcile the different terms and conditions under which staff in the various early years sectors are employed. Also, staffing costs are being levelled down in many areas, rather than being enhanced to match the maintained sector. This is because of pressure to keep staff costs to a minimum, as they are a key part of calculating the new Early Years Single Funding Formula.
· The NUT's view is that local authorities should use the statutory ratios for maintained nursery schools and classes, as set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage document, as the guide for minimum staffing levels in each SSCC.
· The NUT further recommends a requirement for qualified teachers to be deployed in a direct teaching role, using the statutory ratios for maintained nursery schools set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage.
Staffing, Governance and Management Staffing
18. The NUT believes that there should be a requirement related to good practice for children enshrined in SSCCs legislation. Rather than focus on managerial practices and processes, the legislation should look to enhance the quality of experience for children who attend SSCCs, both pedagogic and otherwise. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project, which has been cited extensively by Government, has demonstrated that maintained nursery classes and schools and publicly-funded combined centres score significantly higher than private or voluntary nurseries and playgroups across all of the seven criteria it assessed.
19. It found that in private nurseries, it was often less the staff's interventions and more the parents' pro-active behaviour which accounted for children's progress, as families using private nurseries were predominantly middle-class. In more socially diverse settings, however, it was the quality of practitioners' knowledge and understanding of curriculum and pedagogy that was vital and that trained teachers were the most effective in their interactions with children.
20. The EPPE research is clear that the involvement of qualified teachers in both the delivery of provision and its management are crucial factors in both quality of experience and outcomes. The NUT understands that this was the reason why the original DCSF guidance for SSCCs included:
"the minimum requirement is the employment of an early years teacher on a half-time basis. However, we would also expect that this would be a minimum which most centres would exceed and that centres offering this minimum will build up to a full-time teacher within 12-18 months of designation"
21. In the NUT's view, this was barely adequate but at least provided some guarantee that the early education services offered by the Centre would be high quality. The NUT believes that this "good practice" from the guidance should be included in legislation, rather than addressed in secondary legislation.
22. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that a number of PVI SSCCs barely fulfil even the above minimum requirement. If Government truly believes that SSCCs are the means to enhance the future learning and life chances of young children it must insist that these children have access to the highest quality staff regardless of who operates Centres.
Role of the Early Years Professional
23. The NUT believes that all early years settings should contain a range of staff who work as a team. Early years teams should include qualified teachers, nursery nurses and well qualified support staff. This range of expertise is vital if all the social, emotional and learning needs of very young children are to be met. The introduction of the Early Years Professional (EYP) status was a welcome step towards increasing the number of appropriately qualified graduates in the PVI sector. The status is not interchangeable, however, with qualified teacher status, as the latter requires rigorous theoretical training and practical experience in order to specialise in teaching young children, whilst EYP status is typically assessed 'on the job' or after a short course which is an adjunct to employment. One type of professional cannot substitute for the other.
· Where Early Years Professionals are employed in Centres, teachers should retain responsibility for leading the educational provision offered by the SSCC. The early years should have equal status with every other phase of the education system and, for that to be so, it needs to be staffed by qualified teachers. Teaching younger children is no easier than teaching any other age group and, therefore, requires the same degree of training.
· The NUT further recommends a requirement that any employee in an SSCC who is employed to undertake teaching-related work which is within the legal definition of "specified work" should be employed under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) and be paid, according to qualifications, as a qualified teacher or an unqualified teacher. Where the employee is also employed to undertake a managerial or advisory role in relation to the provision of education, they should receive appropriate additional financial reward which reflects those additional duties using the provisions of the STPCD.
Governance
24. Over the past three years, increasing numbers of SSCCs have been opened on primary school sites, thus forming part of an extended school campus. School governing bodies have received little guidance on how governance arrangements, in particular, advisory boards, reflect their shared responsibility for services offered on the school site, even though these services are formally accountable to the local authority, Primary Care Trust etc.
25. The current focus, and legal responsibility, of governing bodies of "predecessor" nursery schools and primary schools with co-located SSCCs is the quality of the educational provision offered by the institution. By extending the range of activities which schools, with newly constituted SSCCs, were required to offer and additional partners from other agencies, such as health, employment and social care, represented formally in their governance and accountability arrangements, it will be difficult to maintain the centrality of responsibility for educational quality in the future.
26. Advisory boards' accountability must be addressed if such bodies are to become a legal requirement. Clear mechanisms for informing the local community about the advisory board's discussions, decisions and accountability must be in place.
· The NUT would suggest that school governing bodies could be used as a useful model in this respect, using the principles that they are accountable in law, democratic and representative of the school and local community. Indeed, the original guidance for SSCCs indicated that governance using the governing body model would be good practice.
27. As mentioned above, the relationship between SSCC advisory boards and governing bodies is also far from clear. Indeed, the case for having two separate groups has not been made. Centres which were formerly nursery schools or have developed from a school site already have governing bodies and therefore already have a legal basis.
28. It is important, however, that the views of local community groups are taken into account when governing bodies are considering SSCC provision. It would be useful for governing bodies to be required to consider inviting additional members from the parent body and the local community to represent the users or providers of such services. It would also be advisable for governing bodies to be required to review their existing governance arrangements to ensure that the SSCC is represented on it effectively.
Working with Partners 29. The requirements to involve local parents, businesses, service providers and other community stakeholders in consultations on the establishment or closure of SSCCs and also on Centre advisory boards is welcome but not unproblematic.
30. Involvement of parents in the education process is a vital factor in raising achievement. There is a pressing need for Government to promote an "education culture" amongst local communities. There must be acknowledgement, however, that some parents are indifferent or even hostile to school and other public services which aim to support their children. The scale of the task facing Centres in securing greater parental involvement, particularly in those sited in areas of multiple deprivation, should not be underestimated.
· Consideration should also be given to how Centres serving a large minority ethnic community can be supported, such as strategies to identify and tackle any barriers to parental involvement, for example, parents who are not familiar with the English education or health system and/or have English as an additional language
Management 31. Currently, Centres are either run by head teachers, who were formerly the head of the predecessor nursery school; have a head teacher who has agreed to take on the additional line manager role for the Centre manager; or have a Centre manager employed and managed by the local authority. Such managers may come from a wide variety of backgrounds and professional disciplines and hold a range of different qualifications. The NUT has argued previously that head teachers should retain responsibility for the leadership of SSCCs because of their pedagogical background and the importance of this to young children's learning development.
32. The NUT supports the ability of head teachers to delegate the day-to-day running of SSCCs to a Centre manager who is suitably experienced and qualified. It cannot support, however, the equal status awarded to qualified head teachers and other persons who have achieved the National Professional Qualification for Integrated Centre Leadership (NPQICL), which has introduced an unacceptable differentiation between head teachers who work in maintained nursery schools and all other state schools.
33. NPQICL participants do not necessarily need to hold a degree level qualification in order to undertake this qualification, but merely to demonstrate "graduateness". NPQH candidates, on the other hand, must have at least an honours degree in order to obtain Qualified Teacher Status. Both courses, however, lead to a qualification of a level equivalent to a third of a masters' degree. This devalues the importance of graduate status when compared to a head teacher in the primary sector, particularly as the qualification is intended to have parity with the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH).
34. There is little emphasis on teaching and learning within the NPQICL programme, which is more concerned with generic approaches to leadership in the context of working across sectors. The NPQH, in contrast, covers a far wider range of relevant areas, including the strategic leadership of teaching and learning and the strategic direction and development of schools, as well as general management strategies and working with stakeholders. The NPQH is "firmly rooted in school improvement" (NCSL website description) and offers a much more rounded view of what leadership of a school actually means in practice, as the focus of the head teacher's responsibilities must primarily be on educational provision.
35. NPQH and NPQICL cannot be interchangeable. NPQH, as indicated above, is of sufficient standard to cover both sets of responsibilities but the NPQICL can only cover at a minimum integrated centre responsibility. The interchangeability of the two qualifications can only have a detrimental impact on the quality of educational provision offered. Indeed, it would appear that the introduction of the NPQICL qualification was driven more by a need to staff the radically increased number of centres offering early education and care, rather than enhancing professionalism and improving the quality of provision.
· The NUT therefore urges the Committee to consider the need for a requirement that qualified head teachers should have overall responsibility for the leadership of SSCCs.
October 2009 |