7 Conclusion
156. Children's centres are held in
great affection. Although there is a strong popular image of
what a good centre is or should be, we found a structure in need
of clarity. It is no longer possible, if it ever was, to think
of a children's centre as a single model replicated in all areas.
Our proposed three part structure of fully integrated centres,
centres as part of a school and family centres is intended to
make planning and policy delivery clearer. It would also allow
more appropriate accountability measures to be put in place.
It is inevitable that the pattern of provision will continue to
change. There will be closures and further mergers of centres,
with more centres working across localities. What is important
is that this process is handled strategically by local authorities,
with community involvement, to ensure that those in need have
ready access to the right services and universal services are
offered to good effect.
157. The Minister told us: "Early
years is getting increased attention and people are excited about
it. We want to keep them excited about it, so we are going to
be raising the profile of early years even more."[334]
The critical importance of early years for future life chances
makes this a fundamental test of the Government's seriousness
in closing the attainment gap between the most disadvantaged children
and their peers. Their policy and strategy for the early years
therefore need to be made clear. To ensure that the early years
are also treated as a priority for local authorities, the accountability
framework must ensure that the lead member and DCS remain focussed
on early years. Questions raised by Ofsted about children's centres
should trigger the same level of response as questions about schools
or other children's services. The focus of centres, local authorities
and central Government must be on improving outcomes for the most
vulnerable and disadvantaged children and their families.
Conclusions and recommendations
Definition and purpose of Sure Start
children's centres
What is a Sure Start Centre?
1. We
believe that it is necessary for reasons of policy-making and
accountability that there is clarity about what is meant by a
children's centre. This is not the case at the moment when the
only distinction is between phase 1, 2 and 3 centres. There is
confusion, in particular, between centres offering childcare and/or
early education and those which do not. It is important also
to recognise that some centres work across localities and may
be inspected as groups by Ofsted. For the purposes of this report,
we have identified three distinct types with different roles and
functions:
- Children's centres based around
nursery schools, offering a full service, with some acting as
teaching centres and network hubs, with fully integrated services
- Children's centres as part of or
managed by a school, usually a primary school, on the extended
school model
- Children's centres that operate
as family centres, offering family support and opportunities for
community participation. These offer no childcare or early education
but are used by local authorities for targeted prevention services.
(Paragraph 15)
2. In
the current economic circumstances it is unrealistic to demand
fully-integrated centres in all communities and this may not be
the most suitable model in all cases. It is the responsibility
of local authorities to determine what is required on the basis
of need and to adopt the model of delivery, including the number
and pattern of centres, which provides the best outcomes for children
and families. Local authorities can then more easily be held
accountable for how they perform against those key outcomes. (Paragraph
16)
3. 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 core purpose
4. 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)
Universal or targeted services
5. 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)
Priority services: children or
parents
6. 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)
7. The
0 to two year olds are a key group but not the only one. Equal
attention should be given to the crucial pre-school period from
two to five, when children may be in early education but will
not necessarily have access to other services except through children's
centres. Priority should be given on the basis on individual
need and there should be no fixed restriction due to the age of
the child. Local authorities are best placed to decide the age
range to be served by the services they commission through children's
centres. (Paragraph 29)
8. 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)
Childcare and early education
9. 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)
10. 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)
Working with partners
11. The
difference in the size and structure of children's centres makes
it impractical to stipulate that all relevant health services
should be delivered through children's centres. Physical co-location
may be desirable in some cases but it is not essential: it is
more important that there is close working between the different
services and that parents are helped to find their way between
them. The priority should be integration of services, and the
quality of that integration, rather than co-location. Parents
should not be expected to tell their story three times to three
different professionals; professionals must share information
and develop a seamless integration of services, wherever those
services are delivered. (Paragraph 44)
12. 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. (Paragraph
45)
Working with childminders and
other education providers
13. Children's
centres need to see childminders as both important customers and
partners. Centres should take on a role in assisting childminders.
We understand the concerns expressed about centres running childminder
agencies. This certainly would not be appropriate for all centres
but it should be a matter for individual decision whether taking
on the role of a childminder agency would help to achieve a centre's
core purpose. (Paragraph 48)
14. There
is significant potential to improve outcomes and provide integrated
services where heads are leading and managing children's centres
as part of nursery schools or schools. Where the children's centre
leader is part of the senior management team of the school as
a whole and seen as an equal partner, there is likely to be more
focus on realising these benefits. (Paragraph 50)
15. 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)
Outcomes and accountability
Measuring outcomes
16. 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)
Inspection
17. 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)
18. 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)
Evidence-based interventions
19.
Evidence-based programmes are not a panacea but they have a part
to play in the services offered by centres. Research shows that
what is important is how programmes are delivered, by whom and
to whom. We agree with the Minister that it is important to look
at the broader culture of evidence-based practice, rather than
individual programmes. Establishing a culture in which centres
expect to use evidence-based programmes is key. This needs to
be done alongside consideration of other factors which are known
to influence outcomes such as graduate and teacher trained staff
and access to high quality early education experiences. (Paragraph
67)
20. 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)
21. 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)
Payment by Results
22. We
agree with the Minister that Payment by Results is not appropriate
for the type of services offered by children's centres and we
are pleased that the Government does not intend to pursue this
approach. (Paragraph 71)
Decision-making and governance
23. 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)
24. 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)
Research into effectiveness
25. We
recommend that the Government continue to fund the ongoing 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)
Reaching children and families in
need
Disadvantaged groups
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. Barriers
to involving disadvantaged groups and others, such as fathers,
who are reluctant to engage with centres must be addressed in
practical ways. Children's centres need to learn from the best
practice of those who have been successful in doing this, including
offering services outside school hours and terms to enable more
people to take advantage of their services. Again, networks of
centres, such as Early Years Teaching Centres, have an important
part to play in this. (Paragraph 85)
Involving parents in children's
centres
29. It
is important that centres involve parents through parents groups
and in other ways. Local people need to be encouraged to take
a stronger role in influencing the management of children's centres.
Volunteering is particularly important and should be encouraged
both in itself and as part of a career route into employment for
many parents. Practical support, such as training, childcare vouchers
or transport, could make a significant difference in encouraging
this kind of involvement. (Paragraph 90)
Data-sharing
30. 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)
Child protection and children
in need
31. 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)
Registration of births
32. 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)
Use of data by centres
33. 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)
Local and central Government: funding,
commissioning and strategic planning
Funding
34. 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)
35. Research
evidence shows clearly that investment in early intervention reaps
rewards. It is the most effective way in which the gap between
the most disadvantaged children and their peers can be addressed.
Reductions in spending on early interventions therefore risks
being counter-productive, requiring more money to be spent later
on. (Paragraph 112)
Commissioning
36. 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)
Reconfiguration and closure of
centres
37. Closing
centres is not popular but we accept that the current pattern
of provision may not be the best model to meet the needs of different
areas. Change in the network may make centres as a whole more
effective. We therefore welcome the innovative approach being
taken to adopting different models of provision. New patterns
of provision will require fresh responses from centre workers
and their partners. Local authorities should be prepared to help
with this, whether with training or other practical assistance.
(Paragraph 121)
38. An
existing centre should be closed only where there has been proper
consultation with the public and where the local authority has
made a strong case for a better way of achieving outcomes. Alternatives
to closure, including expansion and co-location of services, should
be considered as options in the consultation. Outstanding children's
centres should be encouraged by their local authorities to become
public service mutuals or to devise other methods to continue
their work. (Paragraph 122)
Local authority accountability
39. 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)
Government policy
Two year old offer
40. 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)
41. 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)
Central Government policy on early
years
42. 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)
43. 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)
Workforce and leadership
The workforce
44. 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)
Training and development
45. 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)
Leadership
46. 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)
47. 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)
334 Q902 Back
| 
