Government response
Government response to the Education Select Committee's
report on Foundation Years: Sure Start children's centres
May I begin by taking this opportunity to thank the
Committee for their thorough work in gathering evidence from a
wide range of individuals and organisations. The Committee's thoughtful
questions and discussion have made for a comprehensive and thought-provoking
report. I very much welcome the report and have studied the recommendations
carefully.
We want to see all children do well, and children's
centres have a vital role in making sure families access the right
services to support children's development and early learning.
Children's centres offer a single doorway that provides targeted
support to the most vulnerable families, alongside offering universal
services for all families.
This rich mix of parents and services is an important
part of what makes children's centres successful and popular with
parents. Where services are joined up or co-located this can help
to engage a family in the first place but also keep them coming
back through the door. They provide a valuable place for parents
to meet, as well as helping them to access the range of services
they may need from midwifery, birth registration and beyond. Children's
centres also help to bridge the gap between early years and schools—as
just over a third of centres are co-located with schools.
As I made clear when I gave my evidence to the Committee
in October, we have developed a clear core purpose for children's
centres which focuses on improving outcomes for young children
and their families, and reducing inequalities.
The core purpose helps provide flexibility for local
authorities to design and develop the services that are right
for their own communities. On top of this, local councils have
been given the freedom to target their resources so that they
best support the needs of local communities. Funding for early
intervention in the round has increased from £2.2 billion
in 201-12 to £2.5 billion in 2014-15, and councils are in
charge of how this money is spent.
Many local authorities are examining their current
children's centre provision to make sure that services are being
delivered efficiently and effectively and that they are meeting
the needs of the community. In doing so, they are identifying
new ways of retaining a network that is accessible to all, while
having a particular focus on making a real difference to those
most in need. For example, Dorking Children Centre was set up
as a hub and spoke model and delivers services from the 'hub'
main centre through spokes across the locality overseen by a specific
member of the senior management team. Services differ in the "spokes"
according to local need.
As 4Children's own survey, published on 29 October,
showed us, over a million families are now using children's centres
and accessing the valuable services they provide. That survey
also, quite rightly, highlighted the importance of joint working
especially between health and education professionals. Children's
centres need to act as a gateway for families so they can receive
support, whether that is in parenting, for health services, support
with child development or early learning. This joined up thinking
is developing locally, and we have seen some excellent examples
of birth registration now taking place at children's centres and
health visitors being based at children's centres.
As the children's centre network matures, we are
keen to explore how we can have an accountability framework that
looks at the overall impact those networks are having in local
areas. We will continue to work closely with Ofsted and consider
how we might move from the current focus on individual centres
to improving outcomes for children right across the country.
Response to recommendations
We have responded to each numbered recommendation
below.
What is a Sure Start centre?
1 To assist its policy-making, the government needs to
have a clearer picture of the pattern adopted by local authorities
in fulfilling their statutory obligations with regard to Sure
Start children's centres. We recommend that the DfE collect data
from local authorities on the pattern of centres commissioned
based on the model we set out above. (Paragraph 17)
The government agrees that it is important that local
authorities are clear on how their local network of children's
centres is configured so that it fulfils their statutory obligations
under the Childcare Act 2006. This will include being clear on
the governance arrangements for main centres and associated sites,
particularly where management functions have been merged.
The department is currently overhauling the way in
which data on main centres and further sites is collected, to
ensure that parents have access to up-to-date information on where
to access services locally, and to ensure that data is available
by local authority on the number of main centres and further sites
open locally. This is important is ensuring that local authorities
can be held to account by their local electorate for the delivery
of their statutory duties.
The core purpose
2 We are not convinced by the Minister's defence of the
wording of the core purpose, which we judge to be too vague and
too broad, whichever version is used. It is not possible for a
small children's centre, which acts principally as a signpost
to other services to fulfil such a wide-ranging and all-encompassing
purpose. For other centres, the core purpose is too all-encompassing
to be of any use as a guiding principle of their aims and priorities.
In neither case is it possible for a children's centre to achieve
such expectations alone. It is right that councils should have
the freedom to organise their services to achieve the best outcomes
for children but we are not convinced that setting a universal
core purpose for all children's centres assists them to do this.
We recommend that the core purpose be reviewed and reshaped to
focus on achievable outcomes for children's centres to deliver
for children and families, and to recognise the differences between
the three types of centre. (Paragraph 20)
The government agrees with the Committee that it
is important that local authorities should have the freedom to
organise their services in the way that best meets the needs of
local families. Those needs will inevitably vary from area to
area. The core purpose document was published in April 2013 following
a period of extensive consultation with local authorities, children's
centre managers and other interested parties. It was always intended
to offer a high level and aspirational statement of intent, which
gives local authorities and individual centres the flexibility
to configure services in accordance with local circumstances.
While the government understands the Committee's
concerns, the government believes that focus should now be on
developing services within the broad framework the core purpose
document provides, and seeking to maximise the impact of the roughly
£1.3 billion investment that local authorities are making
in children's centres. While it will obviously continue to monitor
local application of the core purpose document, the government
does not agree that there is a need for a formal review so soon
after its adoption.
Universal or targeted services
3 Funding pressures inevitably mean that greater targeting
of services must occur but it is important that all families are
able to access services through children's centres and universal
services play a significant role in removing the stigma from attending
centres and in encouraging families to engage with centres in
the first place. The Government must make clear in its statutory
guidance that local authorities should have regard to the relationship
between universal services and the effectiveness of targeted prevention
services when planning local provision. (Paragraph 24)
The government agrees that children's centres should
offer a universal front door, and will continue to offer something
for everyone. At the same time, it is also right that limited
resources should be targeted on the families where they can have
the biggest impact. Getting the balance right between universal
and targeted services must be a matter for local planning and
decision. The statutory guidance clearly indicates that local
authorities should offer a network of services available to everyone
but especially those most vulnerable families.
Priority services: children or parents
4 Clarity is needed on who children's centres are for and
the balance between the needs of parents and those of the children
themselves. The core purpose gives scope for a focus on parenting
skills but is vague about parental "aspirations" and
what this means for child development. It is also not clear how
far centres are meant to offer training for parents in employment
skills. We recommend that the Government address these issues
in its review of the core purpose. (Paragraph 28)
The core purpose is clear that children's centres
are there to support both children and their parents, especially
those in greatest need. As the Committee's report notes, parenting
classes are one of the services most commonly provided by children's
centres, and the core purpose document reflects the fact that
this will continue to be an important role for many centres moving
forwards. Improving parenting aspirations was an important theme
in the consultation and is intended to capture the desire expressed
by many professionals that we should encourage parents to have
greater aspirations for their children and for their own contribution
as parents. It is intended to be a flexible term which centres
are able to interpret in ways that best meet the needs of parents
in their area.
The government understands why the Committee raises
the question of whether centres are meant to offer training for
parents in employment skills. However, that would seem to imply
a more prescriptive view of the role of centres than the government
intends. Where there is an identified need locally for training
of this sort, and where centres have forged good links locally
with Job Centre Plus and local training providers, the centre
will often provide a convenient setting, possibly with crèche
facilities, which will enable training to take place. There are
good examples where that has happened. However, this will depend
entirely on local needs and the extent of collaboration at a local
level.
5 Centres are required in legislation to provide activities
for young children and it is not acceptable for any centre to
operate without direct contact or engagement with children: local
authorities should ensure that the statutory requirement is met
and Ofsted should draw attention to any centres in breach of the
requirement in its inspection reports. (Paragraph 30)
The core purpose makes clear that children's centres
must provide activities for young children. We agree local authorities
must meet their statutory duties, and Ofsted inspection reports
should always draw attention to any breach of legislative requirements.
Childcare and early education
6 We consider that it is not necessary or practical for
all centres to run their own education with care but it is essential
that all centres build close links with high quality early education/childcare
providers. For the majority of centres that do not have childcare
or education on site, there are questions about how well they
can fulfil the expectations in the core purpose that they deliver
improved outcomes for young children and reduce inequalities in
child development. The Government must set out clearly how these
expectations apply in such cases. (Paragraph 35)
The government agrees with the Committee that it
is not practical for all centres to provide education and childcare
provision. However, it would be wrong to view early education
and childcare services as the only way in which centres can contribute
to improved outcomes for young children and reduced inequalities
in child development. Most if not all the services that centres
offer will contribute directly or indirectly to these outcomes.
The core purpose document sets out the universal and targeted
services that centres can offer to help deliver these outcomes
and so ensure that local authorities are meeting their legislative
and statutory responsibilities. It is for local authorities to
interpret these requirements in relation to the needs of families
in their area and to tailor services accordingly.
7 Research shows that contact with qualified teachers enhances
outcomes for children. All centres require input from a qualified
teacher to help shape their offer to and their work in direct
contact with, children. The Government was wrong to remove the
requirement for a link with a qualified teacher and we recommend
that the decision be reversed. (Paragraph 36)
The government agrees that high quality early education
staff can have the biggest impact on children's outcomes. We have
announced a series of reforms to increase the supply of people
with the relevant specialist skills in the early years workforce,
and already there has been a 25% increase in the number of students
training to become Early Years Teachers.
Where children's centres are continuing to offer
early education and childcare, then local authorities have a responsibility
to ensure that it remains high quality and an example to other
providers locally. Indeed in some areas, children's centres are
at the heart of local efforts to improve the quality of early
education provision. In Bristol, for example, there is an Early
Years improvement network involving a children's centre, school
nurseries and a PVI provider, working together to improve children's
outcomes across their area.
However, it may not always be practical for children's
centres to offer full daycare provision. National Audit Office
evidence suggested that in some areas, where demand for full day
care was low, money intended for other children's centre services
was subsidising it. By removing the requirement to provide full
day care where there is no demand the government freed local
authorities and children's centres to use their resources more
flexibly and to intervene more effectively.
Working with partners
8 We welcome the new integrated 2½-year-old health
check as a demonstration of closer partnership-working with shared
objectives. Joint training for the integrated check might overcome
some of the barriers between the professions. We recommend that
the Government incorporate joint training between the different
agencies involved into the implementation of this policy. (Paragraphs
45)
The government agrees it is essential that joint
working between different agencies occurs, as we believe it may
overcome some of the barriers between the professions. We will
continue to work closely with Department of Health colleagues
to see how this can be incorporated into the implementation of
the 2 - 2½ year old integrated review. We expect to see a
draft report from the implementation study on the Integrated Review
later in the spring.
Working with childminders and other education
providers
9 The Government's proposals for a new baseline assessment
of children upon entering reception may lead to improvements in
primary school accountability, but a better procedure is needed
for passing on richer information on individual children from
children's centres to schools and nurseries. Clearer guidance
is also needed on how schools should use this information. This
applies equally to assessments of individual children passed on
from childminders to children's centres and schools. We recommend
that the Government examine how this can be done. (Paragraph 51)
There are many good examples around the country where
information sharing between children's centres and schools is
working effectively. This is particularly the case where children's
centres are operating on the same site as schools and/or under
shared leadership and management arrangements. For example, at
the Old Church Nursery School and Pre-school in Tower Hamlets
the Headteacher works closely with the children's centre on site.
The school and children's centre share information and jointly
manage case reviews on children at the centre and the school.
They also jointly provide healthy eating programmes and training
for parents.
Outcomes and accountability
Measuring Outcomes
10 We agree that local authorities should be held to account
for outcomes for their children across the piece but there is
still a strong case for being able to measure the performance
of and contribution made by individual centres. We recommend that
the Government develop a new national outcomes framework, in consultation
with the sector. This would increase the accountability
of centres to parents, local authorities and the Government. Any
framework must be usable by staff and include meaningful, achievable
outcomes and be capable of adaptation to the different kinds of
centre. (Paragraph 55)
The government agrees that it is important that local
authorities should be accountable to their local electorate for
the delivery of their statutory duties in relation to children's
centres and for children's outcomes as a whole. We are currently
exploring with Ofsted how best to achieve this.
The government understands the rationale for a national
outcomes framework for individual centres. However, as other evidence
to the committee suggested, it might be difficult to reconcile
such a framework to the mixed and flexible offer made by children's
centres. If children's centre managers would find a national outcomes
framework a useful local tool, then local authorities and third
sector organisations should be encouraged to develop such a tool.
However, the government would not want to prescribe its use.
Inspection
11 It is important to distinguish between early education
and children's centres in terms of inspections. Ofsted needs to
act on the research which questions its expertise in inspecting
provision for the under-threes and address other concerns about
its inspections. It also needs to demonstrate that its framework
is adaptable enough to allow a meaningful assessment of a centre
offering a few, targeted services as well as of a centre offering
a wider range as identified in our three-part structure at the
beginning of this report. Ofsted must also make clear to centres
that a good or outstanding rating does not mean that they have
no need for further improvement. (Paragraph 60)
The government has noted this recommendation. While
we are working with Ofsted to improve and strengthen the inspection
regime so it looks at the overall impact of a local network of
children's centres as part of the broader effort to raise children's
outcomes, this is a recommendation to which HM Chief Inspector
should respond.
12 Ofsted does not have the resources to assist improvement
in all 3,000 individual centres. We recommend that the Government
clarify who is to fill this gap if local authorities are no longer
able or empowered to help with improvement. The Government should
recognise the role in sector improvement of Early Years Teaching
Centres where nursery schools that are also children's centres
assist leaders and staff in other centres, and the Early Years
Teaching Schools, where nursery schools help other schools. (Paragraph
61)
Local authorities continue to have statutory responsibilities
to ensure that there is an adequate network of children's centres
and for the delivery of good outcomes for children in their area.
As indicated above, we see the role of Ofsted moving forwards
to be inspecting whether or not local authorities are delivering
on those duties. If they are not, the responsibility rests squarely
with the local authority, and it will want to take steps to address
any weaknesses identified by Ofsted in its children's centre provision.
How a local authority does that is a matter for local
decision, but the government has taken a number of steps to ensure
that support is available, not least through the development of
the Early Intervention Foundation. The government is keen to explore
what more it could do in collaboration with the Local Government
Association and other partners to support improvements in children's
centre practice.
Evidence-based interventions
13 The use of evidence-based programmes in children's centres
is developing but more training needs to be given to help staff
understand and implement the programmes correctly. Centre leaders
need to ensure that they are aware of best practice both in choosing
programmes and putting them into effect. The EIF should issue
guidance on how programmes can be used and implemented in the
context of children's centres. Such programmes should include
examples of local practice as previously validated and shared
by the C4EO. Centres which have developed their own evidence-based
programmes should also be encouraged to have them validated through
the EIF. (Paragraph 68)
The Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) is building
a robust overview of the evidence on early intervention covering
the programmes, practice and systems relevant to families with
children of different age groups. As the Foundation reviews the
evidence, they will summarise it in forms accessible to children's
centres, and other local services, through an EI Guidebook on
their website. This will provide information in terms of what
works and what does not for key population groups, in relation
to key outcomes.
As part of this a systematic what works review is
currently being undertaken on 'What works for 0-5s on programmes
and interventions'. This will cover the most effective programmes/practice
that staff in early years services can use to make a difference
to children and families, and is due for publication early in
2014.
In addition, the EIF will also be seeking wider examples
of programmes being delivered in early years and other settings
in order to provide advice on how far they reflect evidence about
what works best for improving children's outcomes.
14 Local authorities need to be clearer about the outcomes
they expect from programmes and how these can be monitored. Authorities
also need to be clear about their role in commissioning programmes
and their accountability for commissioning services. We recommend
that this is set out by the Government in its statutory guidance.
(Paragraph 69)
We agree local authorities have to be clear to centres
on what is expected of them to deliver good outcomes for children
within their local communities and this should inform their approach
to commissioning. However, this is not something that local authorities
need to be told to do by central government. The approach that
local authorities take to commissioning and organising their centre
provision will vary depending on local circumstances, and local
authorities are best placed to judge how to undertake their local
commissioning role.
Decision-making and governance
15 As we have argued elsewhere in relation to schools,
good governance is vital both in terms of the right structures
and the effective performance of those involved. The governance
of children's centres must become stronger and more formal like
an effective school governing body and linked to their statutory
duty. Parents need to be more involved in children's centres but
within a clear framework to ensure that one group does not dominate.
We recommend that the DfE take the necessary statutory steps to
bring this about. (Paragraph 75)
The government agrees that parents have an important
role to play in the governance of children's centres. Statutory
guidance already makes it clear that families should be at the
heart of decision making and that this may involve a role for
parents in governance. No 'one size fits all' system of government
is likely to work for all areas. Different models of parental
involvement have worked well in different areas. For example,
volunteering to run activities, being a member of a children's
centre advisory board or parents' forum. The department has also
funded a project that was run by our strategic partner (4Children)
to support ten groups of parents and community members to help
them bid to run their own local children's centre.
The government would prefer to allow these models
of parental involvement to develop organically in accordance with
local circumstances rather than legislate to make a particular
form of governance a national requirement.
16 Local authorities should improve the quality of data
given to advisory boards and put more effort into encouraging
all sections of the community to contribute to boards. We look
forward to learning the outcome of the DfE's further consideration
of the need for closer monitoring of the adherence of local authorities
to the statutory guidance on these issues. (Paragraph 76)
Local authorities have a legal duty to ensure that
each of their children's centres has an advisory board. While
we do not prescribe what the make-up should be, we agree that
it is important that the membership of advisory boards is drawn
from right across the community and should reflect the community
the board serves. We rely on Ofsted to consider the make-up of
advisory boards as part of the inspection process.
Research into effectiveness
17 We recommend that the Government continue to fund the
on going research into children's centres and commission more
work into what makes children's centres of the three distinct
types effective in improving outcomes for children. In particular,
research is needed into what kind of engagement with parents in
their children's learning in the family home makes the difference
in narrowing the gap between the most disadvantaged children and
their better-off peers. (Paragraph 78)
The government agrees with the importance of taking
an evidence-based approach to the development of children's centres
and of services to support children's outcomes.
The government has set up the Early Intervention
Foundation to provide advice and support to local commissioners
on evidence-based policy and practice, and build research evidence
on what works in terms of intervening early. They will conduct
a rigorous review of the existing evidence on early intervention
and develop standards of evidence to judge how effective intervention
has been.
Evaluation of Children's Centres in England (ECCE)
began in 2012 and will be completed in 2017. It will produce strand
and impact reports when children are aged three, five, with a
potential for it to also offer a follow up report at age seven.
The study evaluates the range of children's centres looking at
services being provided, costs usage, impact and how outcomes
vary by user. A high proportion of children's centres now use
outcome data to monitor their own impact.
Reaching children and families in need
Disadvantaged groups
18 Local authorities are obliged under the Children Act
1989 to identify the number of children in need in their area
and also to support their families. This provides a framework
for identifying those in need but we recommend that there be a
new duty on local authorities to put these children and families
in contact with services, including children's centres. Local
authorities and health professionals should seek out the most
vulnerable children and also do more through their websites and
other services to raise awareness of children's centres. (Paragraph
83)
The Childcare Act 2006 already places duties on local
authorities to improve the well-being of young children in their
area and reduce inequalities between them, and to provide information
to parents about services - and families in need of support are
making use of their children's centre provision. The government
assists local authorities in these duties by providing information
as appropriate. For example, to support the programme of early
learning for two-year-olds the government is providing local authorities
with regular information on eligible families. This is intended
to help make sure that parents are made aware of their entitlement
and supported to take up a place. It provides an opportunity for
local authorities to share information with parents about other
services available locally.
19 We recommend that the DfE restore the national collection
of data on the reach of individual centres in order that both
good and poor practice can be identified and monitored, including
the effectiveness of centre services and the impact on children
in the community. Ofsted could use this data to assist them in
their role of requiring local authorities and centres to account
for those who do not attend. (Paragraph 84)
The government agrees this is helpful information,
and to support the current inspection framework introduced in
April 2013, local authorities are already asked to provide Ofsted
with information about the number of under-5s within the reach
of a children's centre.
Data-sharing
20 We welcome the Gross report on information-sharing in
the foundation years. Data-sharing is vital: the DfE must strengthen
its guidance on health services and local authorities sharing
data with children's centres. We recommend that the DfE and the
Department of Health audit where this is not happening and ensure
that the appropriate protocols are put in place. The Government
should report back on its findings. (Paragraph 97)
The government agrees with the Committee about the importance
of professionals working together to identify families who are
in need of support and to offer them that support. As the Committee
will be aware, the DfE's statutory guidance for children's centres
is clear that health services and local authorities should share
information, such as live birth data, with children's centres
on a regular basis.
The Committee is quite right that more could be done to encourage
even greater data sharing between professionals. We agree with
Jean Gross' analysis, that some of the biggest barriers to information
sharing are linked to professional practice and culture. There
is a need to break down these barriers, if we are to ensure that
information is shared effectively in all areas. We are tackling
this by promoting the sharing of information and good practice.
The government is also exploring with the Royal College of Paediatrics
and Child Health, and the DfE's strategic partner, 4Children,
how best to take forward work on an e-learning package on information
sharing that would be appropriate for and accessible to health
and early years professionals.
Child protection and children in need
21 Local authorities need to ensure better co-ordination
between children's services and children's centres. Information
on children and families known to social services should be passed
on where possible. In particular, children's centres should be
directly linked to Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC)
to ensure that they are kept informed about domestic violence.
The principle behind the named social worker requirement is that
there should be clear responsibility for building relations with
children's centres so that action can be taken quickly where necessary.
Local authorities should ensure that this is done even where the
named social worker model is not adopted. The DfE should revise
its statutory guidance to reflect this. (Paragraph 100)
We know there are a number of initiatives where local partners
are already working in innovative ways to share information about
a child and its family. The Multi Agency Risk Assessment (MARAC)
provides a forum for sharing information from other representatives
such as children's services.
Working Together to Safeguard Children 2013 is clear that the
timely exchange and sharing of information between professionals
is critical if children are to be safeguarded. It is a requirement
that all organisations should have arrangements in place, which
set out clearly the processes and the principles for sharing information
between each other, with other professionals and with the Local
Safeguarding Children's Board (LSCB).
The LSCB should play a strong role in developing mechanisms for
supporting information sharing between and within organisations
and addressing any barriers. This should include ensuring that
relevant guidance is understood and supports information sharing;
that multi-agency training covers information sharing; and that
a culture of information sharing is developed. It is for local
areas to decide how they develop their information sharing mechanisms
and how they train their workforce on appropriate information
sharing arrangements. The presumption should be that information
is shared wherever possible in the interests of safeguarding children.
Registration of births
22 Registration of births at children's centres is a powerful
engagement tool but we are unconvinced that it is necessarily
a practical solution for all local authorities to implement. It
is also not cost-free. We recommend that local authorities should
be permitted to adopt the practice but not obliged to do so. An
approach of presumed consent, where the local authority will pass
on information to children's centres unless specifically told
not to, could achieve similar results at lower cost. (Paragraph
103)
We agree with the recommendation put forward by the committee
and have recently met the Local Government Association to explore
what more could be done with other partners to support improvements
in children's centre practice. We agree it would not be appropriate
to make birth registration compulsory in all children's centres.
It is for local authorities to determine where to locate registration
facilities and they need flexibility in determining where to locate
services to best meet the needs of the community they serve.
Local authorities can already make children's centres one of the
places where parents can register the birth of their child. We
know that some local authorities, such as Manchester, are already
doing so and we welcome that.
Use of data by centres
23 Children's centre staff need appropriate training in
collecting and interpreting data and centre leaders need to be
taught how to use the data to drive interventions. It should be
the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that the required
standards are met by centres. Joint training in data-handling
with staff from other agencies would break down barriers and ensure
greater understanding of what data is available and how it can
be used to target those in need of services. We recommend that
the DfE include this in its statutory guidance on children's centres.
(Paragraph 106)
We agree with the committee on the importance of
data collection by children's centres and that this should be
used to inform improvements in service delivery.
The government is exploring with the Royal College
of Paediatrics and Child Health and our strategic partner, 4Children,
how best to take forward work on an e-learning package on information
sharing that would be appropriate for and accessible to health
and early years professionals.
In addition, the Department of Health will liaise
with NHS England and partners, including the Health and Social
Care Information Centre, to explore the practical issues involved
in providing regular and timely updates of bulk live birth data
to local authorities.
Local and central Government: funding, commissioning
and strategic planning
Funding
24 We believe that it was right to remove the ring-fencing
from funding for children's centres because of the different ways
in which the centres are used by local authorities and the different
services provided by them. In principle, we would welcome the
end of ring-fencing for early intervention as a whole to give
freedom to local authorities to respond flexibly to needs in their
area—if the accountability framework were effective enough
to ensure that funding decisions led to improved outcomes for
children. Given the current accountability framework, we do not
believe that the ring-fence around early intervention spending
should now be removed. There should, however, be more transparency
on Early Intervention Grant spending by local authorities so that
it is clear how much has been spent on different services. We
recommend that the Government ensure that this is done. (Paragraph
111)
Whilst we do not monitor how individual non-ring fenced grants
are spent, the government continues to collect details of local
authorities' spending, irrespective of the funding source, on
Looked After Children, safeguarding, youth justice and family
support services via local authorities' section 251 returns. We
will certainly explore the potential for incorporating this data
alongside other relevant data sets in the department's existing
early years and children's services benchmarking tables.
Commissioning
25 We believe that multi-agency commissioning makes for
the best use of resources and the most informed service delivery.
We recognise the difficulties caused by short-term funding decisions
and recommend that the Government examine how a longer term view
of children's centre funding can be taken within current spending
decision cycles. (Paragraph 115)
From 2013/14, funding was transferred to DCLG and formed part
of the new Business Rate Retention grant. This means that children's
centres funding is now a local issue for local authorities.
Local authority accountability
26 The accountability framework must ensure that the lead
member and Director of Children's Services remain focussed on
early years. Questions raised by Ofsted about children's centres
in an authority should trigger the same reaction as questions
about schools or other children's services. We recommend that
the Government consult on a new accountability framework for local
authorities' children's services that puts as much weight on early
years and children's centres as on schools and children's social
care. (Paragraph 126)
We agree the accountability framework must remain
focused on early years. The Centre for Excellence and Outcomes
(C4EO) has been developing work in this area by looking at how
the services provided at children's centres help to improve the
lives of the children and families who use it. We are also working
with Ofsted to improve and strengthen the inspection regime so
it looks at the overall impact of a local network of children's
centres as part of a local authority's broader effort to raise
children's outcomes,
Government policy
Two year old offer
27 We welcome the two year old offer but have concerns
about the funding, the quality of providers, the availability
of places in effective settings and about the impact on places
for other age groups. We recommend that local authorities monitor
and report back to Government on the number of places available
in good or outstanding settings in 2013/14 in order that action
can be taken before September 2014 if necessary. (Paragraph 130)
The government has provided local authorities with £525 million
in 2013-14, rising to £755 million in 2014-15 for early learning
for two-year-olds. This equates to an average hourly rate of £5.09,
which compares favourably to the £4.26 average hourly rate
charged by nurseries in England in the Daycare Trust's (now Family
and Childcare Trust) 2013 childcare costs survey. Although these
amounts are not ring-fenced within the Dedicated Schools Grant,
the department encourages local authorities to pass as much funding
as possible to providers.
It is important that early learning places are of the highest
quality, as these are known to have lasting benefits for a child's
development. As outlined above local authorities should only fund
two year old children in providers that have been judged 'satisfactory/requires
improvement' where there is not sufficient 'good' or 'outstanding'
provision. Our ultimate aim is that all early learning places
are delivered by 'good' and 'outstanding' providers, and wider
reforms and improvements in the early years sector will help to
make that a reality.
Estimates provided in October 2013 from 114 local authorities
suggested that around 90% of settings delivering two-year-old
funded places so far are rated 'good' or 'outstanding' by Ofsted.
Data on the quality of settings will be routinely collected on
an annual basis. The first statistical data will be available
in summer 2014.
28 There is a clear disparity in how funding is being used
by local authorities. The Government should monitor funding and
the impact on positive outcomes for children. We recommend that
there should be flexibility in the use of the funding by local
authorities to offer direct support or parent intervention where
families are not just poor but also vulnerable. (Paragraph 131)
We agree that local authorities are best placed to decide how
to spend their resources and we would expect them to consider
how best to allocate funding that would affect the outcomes for
children and families within their communities, while delivering
on their statutory duties.
Each year the department collects and publishes data on planned
expenditure of local authorities via the section 251 returns,
which outlines planned expenditure on schools and a range of services
for children and young people. Information on the rates paid to
providers for two year old places will be published shortly in
the department's early years benchmarking tables. This will provide
a powerful tool to help parents and providers to hold their local
authority to account for local spending decisions. The government
agrees that it is important that the two year old entitlement
is integrated with a wider range of services for young children
and their families. Children's centres have an important role
to play both in offering places directly and in identifying and
supporting hard to reach families so that they are able to take
advantage of their entitlement.
Central Government policy on early years
29 There has been, and continues to be, too much short-term
and disparate government policy in the area of early years. Too
much reorganisation of services impedes professional relationships
and communication. The change in funding for early intervention
from DfE to DCLG emphasises the role of local authorities in tailoring
services to meet local needs but breaks the direct link between
the Department for Education and children's centres. Changes in
funding streams also lead to short-term contracts and distract
centres from their crucial work with disadvantaged children and
families. We recommend that the Government set out coherent, long-term
thinking on early years and the place of children's centres within
that, including funding, responsibility across Whitehall and accountability.
(Paragraph 136)
The government set out its future strategy on early years policy
in two sister documents published last year: More great childcare,
and More affordable childcare. These documents set out a vision
for the sector, and a clear set of reforms aimed at improving
the quality, availability and affordability of early education,
and so increasing choice for parents. Both documents set children's
centres squarely at the centre of this vision. The core purpose
document, also published in 2013, went into more detail about
the particular role and responsibilities of children's centres.
30 We are particularly concerned about Government policy
towards maintained nursery schools. They offer capacity and a
recognised level of expertise, which needs to sit at the centre
of the Government's proposals on Early Years Teaching Schools.
We recommend that the Department for Education set out a strategy
for ensuring the survival of those that remain and for encouraging
the further development of the network of nursery schools with
children's centres throughout the country. (Paragraph 137)
Maintained nursery schools are part of the wide range of school-run
early years provision that is available to meet the needs of parents
and children, and many offer a fantastic quality of early education
that is to be celebrated.
We are keen to ensure that nurseries more broadly can spread best
practice, share their expertise, and extend their reach, through
working in partnership with a range of organisations, including
other schools, PVI providers, children's centres and so on. There
are a growing number of nurseries engaged in local Teaching School
alliances and the government is collecting and sharing best practice
in this area.
We are also encouraging school nurseries to consider how best
their offer can be made as flexible as possible to meet the needs
of parents, whilst maintaining high quality standards. There are
some great examples of schools that do this, including the St
Bede Academy in Bolton. They offer nursery places from 0-5, 7.30am-6pm
for 52 weeks of the year, that enable parents to take up their
15 hours of funded early learning entitlement in a flexible way.
But too few schools currently offer flexible 8-6 provision which
meets the needs of working parents, whilst still delivering the
high quality education that many are known for.
Workforce and Leadership
The workforce
31 The Government is right to want to increase qualifications
of the workforce but difficulties remain with status and pay.
The message that Early Years Teachers are not equal to teachers
in schools is strong and unjust. It is not enough for the Minister
to articulate a vision of equality with other teachers-she has
to set out a course of action with milestones on the way to a
position where equal pay attracts equal quality. We recommend
that the Department for Education set out such a strategy. We
also recommend that an evaluation of the impact of the introduction
of Teach First to the early years sector be carried out before
the programme is expanded beyond the current pilot. (Paragraph
144)
We welcome the Committee's endorsement of our aim to improve the
status and qualifications of the early education and childcare
workforce. This is a priority for the government and we set out
our plans in More Great Childcare in 2013.
The new Early Years Teachers programme, builds on the achievements
of the Early Years Professional Status programme. Interest in
the new programme is high and 25% more trainees have been recruited
to the first intake of Early Years Teacher trainees in September
2013 compared to the intake onto the predecessor programme in
September 2012.
To be awarded Early Years Teacher Status, trainees must meet robust
standards designed specifically for high quality work with the
birth to five age range. The entry requirements to Early Years
teacher training have been strengthened and are the same as those
for entry to primary teacher training. In addition the bursary
levels are set at the same level as those for primary teacher
training to encourage equally high caliber trainees to enter the
profession.
The pay and conditions for those working in early education and
childcare settings outside maintained schools are determined by
employers at a local level. The majority of early years' settings
are private, voluntary or independently (PVI) owned and run. We
would expect employers to want to pay Early Years Professionals
and Early Years Teachers in accordance with their status.
The Teach First in the early years programme leads to the award
of QTS and is an extension of the primary programme. We agree
with the committee on the importance of evaluation. Evaluation
is an integral part of the Teach First in early years programme.
An independent evaluation will be completed at the end of the
first year and regular review of progress is being undertaken
to inform future development.
Training and development
32 CPD is vital and should be encouraged by all centres.
We recommend that the Ofsted inspection framework include checking
that each centre has a training plan and that the plan is being
implemented. We support the development of Early Years Teaching
Centres as an effective way of passing on best practice and promoting
workforce development. Nursery schools with children's centres
should be at the centre of these hubs. The NCTL should take on
a role in developing this and should also set out a career structure
for children centre staff, including how the new qualifications
and other CPD match to this pathway. The NCTL should also continue
their work on systems leadership in early childhood education
and their work on leadership standards in the early years. (Paragraph
149)
Under the current arrangements, CPD is covered in the inspection
framework within the judgement on the effectiveness of leadership,
governance and management of children's centres. Ofsted inspectors
routinely ask to see training plans as part of their evaluation
of CPD.
NCTL's purpose is to support the development of a self-improving,
school-led education system. To deliver this, NCTL is working
with schools and providers to develop a 2-18 system in which teacher
and leadership training, continuous professional development and
school-to-school support are delivered locally by partnerships
led by the best schools, early years providers and leaders working
together. Teaching schools are central to the delivery of the
government's vision. Teaching schools are amongst the best schools
in the country. They are outstanding in their own performance
and have a track record of working with others to raise standards
for children beyond their own school.
NCTL are considering how to encourage further early years engagement
in a 0-18 self-improving education system, to enable quality improvement
and leadership standards to be driven locally by the best leaders.
Leadership
33 The NPQICL needs to be overhauled to reflect current
practice in children's centres and then offered widely to new
leaders. The course should retain the much valued elements of
professional exchanges and time for reflection. It is vital that
practitioners are involved in reviewing and designing the qualification.
(Paragraph 154)
NCTL are considering options for the NPQICL programme, which was
developed by the former National College for School Leadership
in 2005. Future options for leadership development will be considered
within the context of the government's vision for a system where
improvement and continuous professional development are led by
frontline experts and where the role of central government is
to support this, rather than to design, develop and deliver it.
34 The NCTL should take on the role of promoting locality
leadership to spread best practice and encourage innovation, as
it does in schools. (Paragraph 155)
NCTL's aim is to support the development of a 0-18 self-improving
education system that is led by the best schools, early years
providers and leaders working together to spread best practice
and encourage innovation. As part of this, we will encourage opportunities
to share expertise, resources and knowledge across early years
provision and schools. As outlined elsewhere, school nurseries
are increasingly involved in the teaching schools programme, which
is central to this school-led approach. Through the teaching schools
research and development network, interested teaching schools
have been invited to build on their existing alliances and explore
models to increase early years engagement. Development plans are
underway and a final evaluation report is due by the end of 2014.
| 
