ITEM SH8(b)SOCIAL & HEALTH CARE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 11 DECEMBER 20023 to 5’s Learning – Proposals for Single Main Point of Admission3 to 5s Learning Report from Public Consultations – Autumn 2002
Over 2000 hard copies of the consultation document were distributed in September 2002. The document was distributed to the following people/organisations:
The text of the document was also posted on the County Council’s website and on the Education Service’s Intranet
Four evening meetings were held during the weeks beginning 7th and 14th October. The meetings were held in Abingdon, Banbury, Oxford and Witney. The combined attendance for the four meetings was 195. The meetings were attended by a wide range of people, including:
A wide range of concerns was expressed about the proposals in the ‘3 to 5s Learning’ document. These are set out in the notes of the meetings which are attached as Annexes A to D.
Overview People and organisations were invited to submit written responses to the consultation document by Friday 1st November. A response format containing six questions was provided at the end of the consultation document. The same format was also posted on the County Council’s website for completion in electronic form. In total, 192 responses were received by Thursday 14th November. This is almost double the 99 responses received earlier this year to the first round of public discussion on the ‘3 to 5s’ proposals. The responses were from the following broad groupings:
One anonymous response was also received. A full list of respondents is attached as Annex E. The 69 responses from PV providers come from 62 individual establishments. Of these 59 are registered with Oxfordshire’s Early Years and Development Childcare Plan. 31 of the 59 are from private sector providers (i.e. 23% of those registered with the Plan) and 28 of the 59 are from voluntary sector providers (i.e. 16% of those registered with the Plan). In addition, a number of responses were received from nurseries belonging to the Bramley’s Nursery Group. These are counted in with the responses received from ‘Countywide organisations’. Overall, the number of responses received from PV providers is significantly up on the 27 that were received after the first round of public discussions held earlier this year. The 62 responses from LEA primary schools come from 52 individual establishments across the County. They represent 23% of those registered with the County’s Early Years Development and Childcare Plan. Overall, the number of responses from primary schools is slightly up on the 56 that were received in response to the first round of public discussions. The 34 responses received from individual parents, professionals, governors and Partnership Members was up significantly from the 7 received in response to the first round of public discussions on the ‘3 to 5s’ proposals. As for the 14 organisational and combined responses, these were received from 7 different organisations/groups. Finally, 12 responses received from 6 LEA Nursery Schools. This is up significantly from the first round of public discussions when only one of the County’s 7 nursery schools responded. Two of the nursery school responses also have petitions attached which are signed by 49 and 35 parents respectively. In the rest of this report, the main points made in response to the 6 consultation questions are summarised. Question 1 In response to Question 1 (Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a single main point of entry of admission to primary reception classes in Oxfordshire in the September after a child’s fourth birthday, starting in September 2004?), support varied quite sharply between primary schools and the other sectors. Nearly 80% of PV respondents were clearly opposed to the proposal, as were 75% of respondents from LEA Nursery Schools. There was also clear opposition to the proposal from a majority of individual respondents as well as from the organisational and combined respondents. On the other hand, 66% of responses from LEA primary schools express clear support for the proposal. The County’s Parental Involvement co-ordinator also reports that all but one of the parents she spoke to before preparing her response agree with the proposal. The main points raised by those who were opposed to the proposals are as follows:
Those who support the proposals make the following points:
Question 2 In response to Question 2 (Do you have and comment on the proposal that the standard entitlement should be for half-time attendance until a child reaches statutory school age?), the tenor of the responses is very mixed. A significant proportion of primary school respondents prefer full-time admission to half-time. According to them, this is the only arrangement that will ensure that there is absolute parity of entitlement for all children in the reception year. Some primary schools also make the point that it will prevent large numbers of children having to be taken to alternative childcare settings for the remaining part of the day. A number of other respondents – particularly individual parents whose children currently attend nursery schools with wraparound daycare– put forward the same argument, but from a rather different starting point. By contrast, the County’s Parental Involvement Co-ordinator reports that all the parents to whom she spoke about the proposals support the idea of half-time attendance. Likewise, many of the PV providers who responded agree – sometimes reluctantly given their overall attitude towards the proposals – that half-time attendance is preferable to full time. Question 3 In reply to Question 3 (Do you have any comment on the ‘other important measures for implementing the Foundation Stage’ set out in the document? Which of these, if any, would be your highest priority?), many respondents agree that the highest priorities should be:
in that order. Primary schools tend to make the point that the proposals will only work if appropriate staffing and resources are provided through an increase in the age-weighted unit of resource. Many private and voluntary sector providers argue that the proposals should not be implemented at all until all the quality measures outlined in the document have been put in place. Question 4 Question 4 (Do you have any comment on the organisational issues for primary and nursery schools set out in the document?) elicits a wide range of responses. Some LEA primary schools - particularly those which do not have nursery classes – are concerned about extending their planning role ‘downward’ to include younger children and ‘outward’ to include other providers within their area. They point to the implications for workload that any extension of their existing role will entail. This point is supported by the teachers’ organisation NASUWT. Free standing Nursery Schools argue that their role as beacons of good practice is not sufficiently acknowledged in the document and that it should be given much greater prominence when any future proposals are taken forward. Many respondents comment on the suggestions regarding nomenclature. There are a number of objections to the continued use of the term ‘reception class’. In most cases, respondents prefer the term ‘Foundation Stage Class’. Similarly the term ‘Foundation Stage school’ is favoured by most Nursery Schools, particularly if the current admissions arrangements could be altered so that children could remain in these schools until the end of their reception year. However, there are also a number of objections to the terms ‘Foundation Stage Class’ and ‘School’. Those who object to these terms say that they sound like educational jargon and that parents will not understand what they mean. Question 5 Many PV sector providers respond to Question 5 (Do you have any comment on the on the organisational issues for private and voluntary sector providers set out in the document). Quite a number of them are wary of being drawn into LEA-dominated partnerships and insist that they must have parity of esteem in any joint planning arrangements that may be developed. However, a significant proportion of PV providers are also either very positive about, or at least open to, the idea of closer partnership working with their local primary school(s). A number of private sector providers point out that developing meaningful partnership links will be particularly difficult for them as they serve a large number of different primary schools. Some PV providers also make the point that they have spent several years investing in and improving their provision to bring it into line with the early years standards required by Ofsted. This investment of energy and resources is now being placed in jeopardy by the LEA’s proposals. Question 6 A wide range of issues are highlighted in the response to Question 6 (Do you have any other comments on the issues set out in the document?). Officers of the County’s Environmental Services Department recommend that a transport assessment of the proposals is undertaken before any planning applications are submitted. They also warn that the proposal for a single main point of admission may require the County Council to secure additional developer contributions in areas where new housing is being built. Finally, many respondents urge the LEA to be mindful of the real needs of children and their families and not to fall into the trap of imposing a ‘one size fits all’ solution. They argue for continued choice and flexibility in the County’s arrangements for early learning.
Rick
Harmes November 2002 3 – 5’s Learning Public Consultation Meeting Corn Exchange, Witney 8th October 2002Chairperson: Teresa Broad, Senior Early Years Advisory Teacher Speaker: Rick Harmes, Head of Lifelong Learning Teresa Broad (Senior Early Years Advisory Teacher) chaired the meeting and introduced Rick Harmes (Principal Education Officer, Lifelong Learning) and Marion Evans (Business Support Manager, EYCS). Notes of the meeting were recorded by Ann Stone (Early Years Consultant). 63 people signed the attendance sheets (including Marion, Teresa) and a headcount showed 67 people (including Rick, Teresa, Marion and Ann) present. Rick thanked everyone for attending and then outlined the content of the "3-5’s Learning" consultation document including the strategy, key measures to promote quality, organisational implications for schools and organisational implications for the Voluntary, Independent and Private sectors. He emphasised that these were proposals and that the county wants to hear everyone’s views to enable children to have the ‘best possible educational start’. The main part of the meeting was taken up with questions from the floor and responses. Q. David Smith, Cygnets – What proportion of young children go into Early Years Units compared with ‘normal’ primary schools? A. A fairly small proportion of the overall total. Not all Primary Schools conform to early years unit standards. Quality in early years provision is important for the County Council. A lot of training and support is being invested in the Foundation Stage at present. It’s a ‘mixed picture’ – but the County Council has decided that it’s now appropriate to move to the next step as far as admissions to primary schools are concerned. Addressing quality issues is an important part of that. Q. Why doesn’t the County Council sort out ‘quality’ in primary schools first before admitting younger children? A. Can any of us honestly put our hands on our hearts and say that private and voluntary sector providers have universally high Early Years quality standards? Some do have, but trying to improve standards in the Voluntary, Independent and Private Sectors is just as big a task as it is in the schools sector. Q. Maggie Honey, Filkins Nursery School - Lots of people feel quite insulted by that remark. A. Apologies. No offence was meant, I can assure you. Q. Ken Norman, Governor ACE Centre - As a parent, it's difficult to understand how the quality of Foundation Stage provision will be improved by allowing children to move into Primary Schools earlier. What are you trying to improve the quality from and to? A. In our previous public discussion document, 'Learning 3-5' we quoted the national EPPE research. This concludes that the quality of provision offered in LEA settings (Nursery classes and nursery schools) tends to be higher broadly speaking than that which is offered in the Voluntary and Private sectors. Having said that, we are also convinced that it is essential for us in Oxfordshire to work together across all sectors to improve the quality of early years provision. Q. Sarah Smith, Clanfield Pre-School - Our Pre-School numbers have risen from 8 to 20 children in 3 years. All settings in the Voluntary, Independent and Private sectors are inspected by OFSTED according to clear criteria. I don’t see how Primary Schools can offer the same level of quality that we provide. A. Primary Schools also receive OFSTED inspections, but using rather different criteria. Q. Geoff Crompton, Hailey School (Headteacher) - We have a very good relationship with our local pre-school. We have looked into creating a Partnership Early Years Unit but we have insufficient children.
We would like to support these proposals, but we don’t know how they are going to work. A. We understand the pressures. It's good that the Primary and the Pre-School in Hailey are working together. As part of these proposals, the County Council is keen to give financial support to Partnership projects like yours to enable them to operate successfully. Across the county, some 30 potential Partnership Early Years schemes are being worked on at present. Q. Joanna Cave, Faringdon Pre-School - In our situation there is mutual respect between school and playgroup. If these proposals are implemented, many parents will not have a choice. We are concerned that our Pre-School will cease to become viable and that it will close. Q. Linda Goddard, Edith Moorhouse Nursery Class - As schools, we don’t consider ourselves ‘superior’ to our local pre-schools. Children need the wider experiences of a playgroup, where there is often superb provision. A. How would these proposals affect Edith Moorhouse do you think? Q. There’s sufficient accommodation available in our school for children to come in from the beginning of The Foundation Stage. Q. Barbie Thorne, Brize Norton Pre-School- I am concerned about the proposed staff ratios in primary schools. In our pre-school we have three staff for sixteen children. I don’t understand the language of qualifications in this document. What does ‘EYSW grade 2’ mean? A. It stands for ‘Early Years Support Worker’. Grade Two is Nursery Nurse equivalent. Q. That would not provide enough adults for the young children in primary school setting. Q. Jackie Overton, Broadshires Pre-School - We didn't receive the first consultation document. The parents that were featured in the Council’s survey, what sort of age were their children? The proposal is for half-time funding. That isn’t sufficient for many families. A. The parents featured in our survey were specifically those of children aged 2-6. The survey was carried out by a reputable survey organisation with experience of working in this field. The survey sample was a representative cross-section of all parents across the county. Under our proposals, parents will still be able to choose the precise combination of early learning and childcare that they require to meet their needs. Q. Ken Norman, Governor ACE Centre. - I’m not convinced by that. I am the father of a rising 5 who was offered a place at St. Mary’s Primary School, Chipping Norton. I was told that if the place was not accepted for the term in question, then no place would be available for my child at that school. From that, it would appear that there is no choice in effect. A. This is a complicated issue, but in most cases parents do have the right to exercise choice in these situations. In fact, there is now more choice of funded early years provision available to parents than there has ever been before. Before vouchers were introduced in 1997, parents had to pay for the Pre-School option. The new system has brought a much more level playing field and huge benefits to parents and providers. Q. Angela Buckingham, North Leigh Pre-School - Some children don’t attend for 5 sessions a week e.g. they may go swimming. Under these proposals will children be expected to attend primary school for 5 sessions as well? A. No, certainly not. It’s currently the norm that many three year olds and some younger four year olds do not take up their full entitlement of 5 sessions a week. And parents are not obliged to take up five sessions. However, if parents choose a school setting, then on the whole it’s likely that that will be for five sessions a week. But it's an entitlement, not a compulsory requirement. Q. Maggie Smith, Headteacher Faringdon Infants School – The County Council has published two documents within the last year, 'Learning 3-5' and '3-5s Learning'. The first document showed that Oxfordshire is one of a relatively small number of Local Education Authorities which doesn’t have a single-term entry admission policy. Can anything be learned from other authorities? A. Milton Keynes recently changed to a September admissions policy. But Milton Keynes is a relatively small authority and has fewer private and voluntary providers than Oxfordshire. The transition to the new arrangements in Milton Keynes was relatively smooth. However, Oxfordshire is different from Milton Keynes. There are many Voluntary, Independent and Private providers. That’s why it's essential to consult carefully in advance before any decisions are cast in stone. Q. Barbie Thorne, Brize Norton Pre-School - My sister’s child has experienced the Gloucestershire pattern of September entry. She wouldn't send her children to a Gloucestershire primary school again after her experience. Q Owner of a Nursery School - We have had an OFSTED inspection recently. The inspector found that we were providing quality care. What percentage of Heads could say confidently that they would be subject to OFSTED and gain a similar result? Many parents are disappointed with F1 provision in primary schools. Children are 'bullied' into learning. Children want to move with their friends. But quality issues are often a secondary consideration. Q. Christopher Flynn, St. Hugh of Lincoln Nursery School, Witney. - Parents are very pleased with our Nursery and so are the school Governors. The nursery is closely linked with the school. The adult/child ratio in the Nursery School is 1:8, and our staff are fully qualified. Staff undertake their duties thoroughly. No actions were required from us after our recent OFSTED inspection. How can you honestly say that the quality in a Primary School can match what we provide? Where will the funding for training coming from? A. There are different OFSTED criteria for the Local Education Authority provision and Voluntary, Independent and Private sector providers. The OFSTED inspection framework for primary schools has a specific focus on the Foundation Stage. And the vast majority of primary schools do come through their OFSTED inspections successfully. The County’s Early Years Team supports both LEA settings and those in the PVI sectors. Much of the funding for the Team’s work comes direct from the Government. Q. What are the main differences in the quality standards between the two sectors? Can you comment? A. Under current legislation the required staffing ratio is qualified one adult to 8 children. In the Voluntary, Independent and Private sector providers. In a Local Education Authority Nursery setting, it's 1:13. But in the latter case the requirement for qualifications is set at a higher standard. Q. But we have staff who are qualified early years teachers. A. I’m glad to hear it. But this is something you have chosen to do not something which you are required to do. We are proposing in this document to establish an adult child ratio 1:10 in F2/F3, the first two years of the Foundation Stage. It would be a considerable step forward if the County Council could put sufficient funding into schools budgets to enable them to achieve a 1:10 ratio. Q. Jackie Overton, Broadshires Pre-School – Where children attend small rural primary schools, would this be in their own separate class with an outdoor area? Some of these four year olds could be in a class with Y1 children. A. Yes they might be. But it’s not just about facilities, it's also about teachers and their particular skills. Primary schools are now receiving direct Government funding (known as ‘devolved capital grant’) for buildings/premises. They are asked to take early years provision into account as a priority when spending this new grant money. Some primary schools are using it to create new and more suitable outdoor learning areas. Q. I am still concerned about the physical well being of a small child moving into a primary school class. Q. Claire Francis, Governor Chipping Norton Nursery School - We would like to keep children with the Nursery School for the whole of the Foundation Stage. We don’t think these proposals will improve parental choice. Parents and children will experience ‘peer pressure’ to move their children into primary school earlier. A. I think we can trust the Heads and staff of primary schools, who are well trained/briefed to meet the needs of the youngest children. Q. Maggie Honey, Filkins Nursery School – I am concerned if our oldest children go into primary school earlier, we will be forced to close down A. The County Council does not want to see private or voluntary settings being forced to close. We want to see more and better working together across all sectors. We value the mixed economy. Q. Kirsty Day, North Leigh Primary School - We need proper funding for our youngest children now so that we can provide a suitable outdoor learning area for them. A. We are working towards that through these proposals. The School can save up its devolved capital grant over a period of years to meet priorities like this. Q Clare Wright, Blackditch Bunnies Pre-School - If parents wanted to make use of childcare facilities at the school, could early years classes be used for this? A. Yes, we hope they will. Childcare can be organised in a number of ways. In some circumstances it could be organised separately from early education and in partnership with other providers. Teresa Broad brought the meeting to a close at 9.15 pm. She emphasised that all views will be taken into account. Respond in written form by 1st November 2002. She encouraged everyone to write what they feel and send in a written response.
Consultation Meeting on the ‘3-5s Learning Proposals’ Corn Exchange, Witney, Oxfordshire Tuesday 8th October 2002 Attendance List
3 – 5’s Learning Public Consultation Meeting East Street Centre, Banbury 10th October 2002Chairperson: Kris Tutton, Early Years Team Speaker: Rick Harmes, Head Lifelong Learning Q. David Mendham, Childcare Development Team OCC – I’m told by many people that schools put undue pressure on parents to start their children at primary school before they’re ready. Is that correct? A. Parents have the right to defer their child’s admission to school until the child reaches compulsory school age. In these circumstances the child’s place will be reserved. However, for summer-born children, admission cannot be deferred because this could mean going into a new school year. In this case schools may legitimately say to parents that if their child does not take up their rising five place in the summer term, a place cannot be guaranteed for them when the child reaches statutory school age in the following September. It’s possible that some parents may perceive that as undue pressure, and sometimes it may be true. It depends on how sensitively and professionally it’s done. Q. Ace Centre representative – Parents will see these proposals as having OCC’s seal of approval and will feel pressurised to move their child into a pre-school place. Parents will be steered in the wrong direction. A. Where parents want to move their child into school early – and many of them do - these proposals will help. Where the parent does not, the partnership approach we are advocating should help to ensure a more sensitive approach to the needs of particular parents and families. The partnership element is a very important part of our proposals.
Q. Please add to the OCC proposal that where there is very good nursery school provision/foundation stage provision, parents should be encouraged to keep their child there. A. Yes, where there are centres of excellence we want them to play a central role, working with the local network of early years providers.
Q. Pre-School in Chipping Norton – We will lose a lot of funding if our older four year olds leave. Our fees will have to go up. A. Our previous experiences of reducing the school starting age have shown that despite some turbulence at the time of the change, pre-schools can usually adapt to the new circumstances that follow. OCC will be considerate of this. As some of the older children leave pre-schools, more potential places for 3 year olds will be freed up. At the same time, the quality of overall provision in both sectors should continue to improve. Q. Why will putting 4 year olds into reception classes improve quality? A. There has been a lot of work done in Oxfordshire to improve quality in all early years settings, including the County’s primary schools. Q. The increased early years provision in primary schools will be at the expense of the provision that already exists in other sectors. A. We are trying to do this is a way which also meets the needs of providers in all sectors. We do not want to see private and voluntary sector providers going out of business. We value the mixed economy and through our partnership proposals we are keen to develop it further The 3 year old sector is changing. Entitlement to publicly funded education is being extended rapidly. Soon all 3 year olds will have 3 terms of entitlement to publicly funded early education. This may help the financial position of many providers. If a large number of providers goes out of business, this will be a real problem for OCC as ultimately we have to ensure that sufficient provision is available. The County Council’s view is that if extra provision is made available in primary schools there is more likely to be sufficient provision available across the system as a whole to meet entitlement. We also want to ensure that there is some choice for parents as well. For example - settings offering full day care are important to working parents. At OCC we are trying to respond to the rapid change in the sector.
Q. Village pre-school – It will be very difficult for this to work for us. We would lose our children. Could pre-schools run in school settings? A. Yes, certainly.
Q. We are Ofsted quality-assessed so we must be of good quality. Schools have a section 10 inspection. A. It is unfortunate that there are two different regimes of inspection, one for schools and one for private and voluntary sector providers and that neither is directly comparable with the other. Q. If this proposal went ahead, children would be getting the same amount of time in a different setting, so what is the net benefit? The final year continues to be called a ‘reception year’ which some parents see as attractive. A. Yes, that’s true. Many parents see the possibility of establishing their child early in the school of their choice as attractive. What we have to make sure of is that the child’s transition to school is as smooth as possible. We are proposing to do this by ensuring that there is good communication between settings across all sectors.
Q. Would like to see a level playing field regarding staffing levels. Private and voluntary sector settings have to meet a ratio 1 to 8, LEA schools at best will have ratios of 1 to 15 in reception classes. A. Schools and PV providers have to work to different national standards. Schools have qualified teachers.
Q. The teachers concerned may not be suitably qualified for the age group. A. Across the system as a whole, we are working towards this. The national standard requires that by 2004 early years educators in all settings must undertake specialised training in early years education Q. In the private and voluntary sectors we still have nearly twice as many staff as schools do. Parents do not understand this. Also in schools children get a 2.5 hour place and not a 3 hour session. Parents move their children into school because they feel that they will lose their child’s place in school if they don’t move them. A. If you have a clear example of undue pressure being applied by schools, we want to know about it so that we can make enquiries of our own. Under our proposals we are keen to ensure that schools and private and voluntary sector settings talk to each other regularly about how communications with parents should be carried out. Q. David Smith, Private Provider – You have acknowledged that there is not enough quality provision in the LEA sector at the moment. Surely OCC should wait until there is enough quality provision available across all of its schools before this policy is implemented? A. Reception classes in Oxfordshire are improving rapidly, partly because of the major investment the Government has put in. With this proposed admissions policy, some children will go to schools earlier. This will bring extra funding into schools concerned. This will enable them to have better qualified staff on a year-round basis. We also want to establish a universal adult/child ratio of 1:15 in reception classes with a qualified early years teacher and early years worker. One reason for this is the great expansion of provision. There is currently enough provision for 4 year olds in the county, but not enough for 3 year olds. Private and voluntary sector providers are needed to cater particularly for the three year olds. Maybe the balance of the mixed economy needs to change slightly now towards schools, but a mixed economy is still needed. With this in mind, both sectors will need to work even more closely together in future. Q. Why make it a countywide policy that a large number of 4 year olds have to be forced into inappropriate provision? Keep the status quo until there is sufficient provision.
Q. Would like to know what number of children travel out of Oxfordshire into Northamptonshire for their primary education? A. Generally speaking, more travel out of the County than in. Q. Explain the reason for the final year of the Foundation Stage being called ‘reception’ and not F1. A. F1,2 and 3 are useful terms. Maybe F1 would be a better term than reception, but would parents see it as jargon? Q. ‘Reception’ feels old fashioned and out of date. Q. Whatever the outcome, how do you intend to tell parents about the decision? A. There will be more than a year of preparation and lead-in time, after the final decision is taken. Q. There are still a lot of parents who do not know about their child’s entitlement. Q. Will Partnership working be formalised if this proposal is adopted? A. Yes we want to see regular meetings taking place between pre-schools and schools. Q. There needs to be good communication between private nurseries and schools. Schools are not always good at working in partnership with nurseries. More needs to be done to improve this. A. That’s true. We want to hear about these issues and respond to them effectively. 3-5s Learning Public Consultation Meeting East Street Family Centre, Banbury Thursday 10th October 2002 Attendance List
3 – 5’s Learning Public Consultation Meeting Cricket Road, Oxford 14th October 2002Chairperson: Dorothy Selleck, Senior Advisory Teacher, Early Years Team Speaker: Rick Harmes, Head of Lifelong Learning After the presentation by Rick Harmes the meeting was invited to offer their responses, questions, expectations and to suggest alternatives where they were not in agreement with the proposals in the document. The following people contributed to this discussion as well as seeking clarification. Q. CARA LANGFORD EYCCDW (Cherwell) - Why does the document propose that the adult: child ratio for F2 is changed from a 1:8 ratio to 1:10? Does this mean that the more qualified you are the more children you can look after? They are the same children wherever they are and the younger they are the more care they need.
Q. MRS CLITHEROE, ST.THOMAS’ DAY NURSERY- Is it legal and is it proper to teach/ work with 2 year olds in such a high ratio of children to adults? They require more support from adults not less.
Q. HELLE ANGELESI, HUNSDON HOUSE NURSERY - Younger children need to have close caring relationships and this ratio is just too high. What is the thinking behind it? Q. ROBERT PAYNTER, PARENT - Are there sufficient trained staff to support this initiative? There seems to be a shortage of staff. Do parents really want this and what research has been done to find out what people want for their children? Q. BARBARA ISAACS, MONTESSORI NURSERY WANTAGE - If people are going to work with young children then learning about Child Development is crucial and this cannot be learnt in one week on the EYSA course. Recruitment of specifically trained staff is a big issue. NNEBs do not earn enough to take on even more responsibilities such as planning so why aren’t they paid more? Q. SALLY THOMAS, EARLY YEARS TEAM - It is now being addressed by the expectation that people working in all settings have qualifications equivalent to NVQ Level 3.
Q. SUE BAKER, ST.ANDREWS SCHOOL - Why does the ratio differ during the child’s 4th year? 1:15 is not good enough for 4 year olds and they should have 1:10 as well. Q. ANNA BROOKE, AREA SENCO - Welcomes the fact that SEN will get more support in PVI sector. Concerned about funding implications and if the maintained sector will continue to receive current support (5 hours etc). Q. ROBERT PAYNTER, PARENT - Can you afford to pay all these people if you manage to recruit them? Q. MRS. CLITHEROE, ST.THOMAS’ DAY NURSERY - What about recruiting of staff other than teachers? There are fewer people around who are prepared to do low paid care with high demands. Where are all the NNEBs? Can we really reserve the right to defer the offer of a place at school when we risk losing the place to someone else? As a working parent I need a longer day for my child than a part-time Nursery /school place can give and if I take up the offer that means my child will have several changes of care which I don’t want. The ideal place for him would be in the same Nursery with extended care provision. Q. SUE FISCHER, PARENT/GOV.GRANDPONT NURSERY SCHOOL - There are already excellent Nursery schools which provide a blue-print for dealing with these issues such as wrap-around day-care. Why not use these examples to get it right? Q. MRS. CLITHEROE, ST.THOMAS’ D.NURSERY - Schools do contact parents and put pressure on them to take up places which really is difficult for all concerned in day care settings. Can they do this? Q. CLAIRE WHITE, LYDALL’S NURSERY SCHOOL - If Primary schools take in younger children where does that leave Nursery Schools? At Lydall’s they would have 120 3 year olds starting if 4 year olds go into school. Q. JO SPILLANE, PARENT - Concerned about continuity of care and support for children. Summer-born children and their needs a particular issue. What would they be eligible for in this proposal? Q. SUE BAKER, ST.ANDREWS SCHOOL - Continuity is very important and research shows that children shouldn’t be in a range of settings every day so we should remember this when looking at these plans Q. BARBARA ALLAN, OCCEYCCS - Explained the options available for her child when in New Zealand. Advocates a combination of care and education in one setting without transition until the Primary School at the end of Foundation Stage to ensure stable relationships and secure children and higher achievement. Q. LORRAINE CLARKE, PARENT AT OXFAM NURSERY - Nervous of losing the right for her child to get into the school of her choice and having to make decisions about day-care/or part-time place. Are we just bringing down the age of starting school? What about people who want to look after their children at home? Should they feel guilty? Are our children being deprived of the Foundation Experience? Q. AMANDA PAYNE, TEACHER, JOHN HAMPDEN NURSERY SCHOOL - What is meant by ‘blurring’ traditional organization between nursery and reception? Q. KATHERINE HUGHES, PARENT - In situations where there are already good facilities for children why and what is the motivation behind getting children onto school earlier? What is the advantage? Q. ANN FUSSELL, GOVERNOR ST.NICHOLAS’ INFANT SCHOOL, WALLINGFORD - How will these proposals affect Nursery classes in primary schools? How will we deal with the issues about numbers and ratio’s? Would like to talk with others in similar position. Q. FRANCES TAYLOR, HEAD TEACHER ST. NICHOLAS’ INFANT SCHOOL WALLINGFORD - If the children go into school earlier, where does this leave Nursery classes? Needs some help to sort this issue out? Q PAM SAWTELL, NURSERY, TEACHER EYNSHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL - What is going to happen to pre-school settings if this goes ahead? If the children go into school earlier the pre schools may not survive. Q. LIZ VAN SANTEN, EYAT - Explained about Partnership Early Years Units and though in early days they are looking very positive and promising. Q. ELAINE SMITH GRANDPONT NURSERY SCHOOL - How will Nursery School status remain the quality provision if this goes ahead? Why is the emphasis put on Primary Schools throughout the document?
Consultation Meeting on the ‘3-5s Learning Proposals’ Cricket Road Centre, Oxford Monday 14th October 2002 Attendance List
3 – 5’s LearningPublic Consultation Meeting St. Nicolas Primary School, Abingdon 15th October 2002Chairperson: Sue Hale, Senior Advisory Teacher, Early Years Team Speaker: Rick Harmes, Head of Lifelong Learning Introduction to 3-5’s Learning discussion document. Part Two of the County Council’s proposals to develop the Foundation Stage. The following discussion took place: Q. What is going to happen if the funding for the additional measures is not voted? A. The County Council would have to decide if it was possible to go ahead with the admissions changes without the total package being in place. If the worst came to the worst, the implementation of these proposals may have to be deferred. Q. What’s the main aim of these proposals? Better education for children; ease of school organisation; or to improve Oxfordshire’s statistics? A. The driving force behind the proposals is our wish to improve provision for children’s early learning. However, there are also a range of other objectives that we want to meet through these proposals, including a number of important organisational ones. Q. Isn’t the best place for children together with their parents at home? That no longer seems to be an option for mothers. Increasingly, they seem to be pressured to send their children into a group setting. This document sends out a very worrying message to parents. A. Parents have the right to choose to send their children to an early years setting or to keep them at home. The Local Authority is working to ensure that there is greater choice for parents in the system as a whole. This has been one of the main benefits for parents since the current arrangements for national Early Years grant funding were introduced a few years ago. Q. Will it be compulsory for under fives to go to primary school as a result of these proposals? A. No, parents will continue to have the right to keep their children in the pre-school setting of their choice. Q. Who loses out in these proposals? A. In our view, no one does. Some providers may experience temporary pressures as the changes outlined in the document take effect. But our previous experience over a number of years has shown that it is relatively unusual for providers to close. In Oxfordshire we are committed to the mixed economy and we want it to continue to flourish. Q. How can the LEA ensure that more money actually gets spent on proper staffing levels for the youngest children in school particularly when schools themselves can choose how to allocate money? A. The LEA sets - and will continue to set - clear expectations about the levels of staffing and other provision that have to be made. On the whole, schools can be trusted to work to these because they too want to make the best provision for children. In addition, there is regular external monitoring of schools by LEA staff and by OFSTED. Q. Spring-born children can have their places in primary school deferred. If parents choose this option, will the child’s place still be funded? A. Yes. This would work through the January pupil count and projection forward to following year. However, there would be a problem if children were taking up part-time places both at a pre-school and at a primary school. They can’t be funded for more than five weekly sessions in total, whichever setting they attend. Comments on: Low turnout for this evening Ratios: A lot is assumed re. 1:15. The examples at the end of the booklet give some very diverse scenarios. Q. In the private/voluntary sectors there are much more favourable adult:child ratios. Are these proposals merely an attempt by the LEA to get more funding into its schools? A. No, not really. In recent years Early Years provision in Oxfordshire’s primary schools has been improving with increasing staff expertise and the employment of a second adult in many classes. Q. Under the current grant system how will pre-schools survive, if their oldest four year olds transfer from pre-school to school all in one go? A. The majority of them should survive but that will depend to some extent on the impact of the new funding for 3 year olds. The increase in funding is now planned to include even the youngest 3 year olds. We would expect this to cushion any adverse effects there may be from our proposed change in the age of entry to primary school. Q. Are there enough places in the County for 4 year olds and 3 year olds in funded provision? A. Overall, there is a good level of provision for four year olds across Oxfordshire and sufficient provision for 3 year olds, but the latter is not spread evenly across the whole of the County. Often it is difficult to plan accurately for the provision needed because people are mobile. They often place their children with providers which are located some way away from where they actually live. Q. If there are enough places in the private and voluntary sectors, are the additional places in school really needed? A. There are areas of the County where there are not enough places at present. We can send you information. All this data is in the public domain. Q. Can we be mindful of need to make sure that there is appropriate provision for children and their special educational needs? Support and training for these children needs to be right. A. Across the County Area SENCOs are now training a lead practitioner for SEN in all LEA and PV settings. As a result, many more SEN children are likely to get the specialist support they need. Q. In a Primary School if all four year olds are admitted, it could mean that there will have to be more funding for new classrooms or for improving staffing and resources. How will the LEA go about determining the priorities for new buildings? A. We are looking at every primary school in Oxon to assess whether in each case the Early Years Unit standards can be met. As part of these proposals we are recommending the establishment of an investment programme to provide good quality buildings and facilities for the Foundation Stage of learning Q. Why refer to children as being in ‘F1/2/3’? A. We need a new professional language to describe the requirements of the Foundation Stage. This document suggests some initial ideas, but we would very much welcome further ideas about this from the various individuals and organisations that we are consulting.
3 – 5’s Learning Public Consultation Meeting St. Nicolas Primary School, Abingdon 15th October 2002 Attendance List
3 to 5s LEARNING List of Written Consultation ResponsesA. PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY SECTOR PROVIDERS
(69 Responses) B. LEA PRIMARY SCHOOLS
(62 Responses)
parents of young children
teachers, governors, partnership members County Council staff (34 Responses) D. COUNTYWIDE ORGANISATIONS AND COMBINED RESPONSES
(14 Responses) E. LEA NURSERY SCHOOLS
(12 Responses)
|