Agenda item

Lisa Lyons, Director of Children’s Services, Annette Perrington, Interim Deputy Director of Education and Inclusion, Jaswinder Didially, Assistant Director – School and Settings (Sufficiency), and Kim Wilson, Assistant Director – Schools and Settings (Standards, Effectiveness, and Performance) have been invited to present a report on Early Years provision.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

to follow

Cllr Sean Gaul, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Lisa Lyons, Director of Children’s Services, Annette Perrington, Interim Deputy Director of Education and Inclusion, Jaswinder Didially, Assistant Director – School and Settings (Sufficiency), Kim Wilson, Assistant Director – Schools and Settings (Standards, Effectiveness, and Performance), Jessica Dawson, Manager, Early Years Centre, Georgina Newbould, Manager of Early Years Sufficiency and Access, and Michelle Jenkins, Early Years Quality Improvement Manager, were invited to present a report on Early Years provision.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People apologised that the Early Years paper had been published later than it ought to have been owing to ongoing discussions on tackling inequalities in early childhood development. Three interconnected strands of work were outlined: the Best Start in Life plan, Early Years sufficiency, and improving the Good Level of Development (GLD) at age five. Although the Council performed above national averages overall, outcomes for children from deprived backgrounds remained significantly lower. The Cabinet Member emphasised that national targets were not sufficient to close this gap, and the Council had therefore adopted more ambitious local objectives.

 

The Interim Deputy Director of Education and Inclusion introduced the presentation by describing the governance supporting the Best Start in Life plan. The Children’s Trust Board oversaw both the Early Years Board and the Early Help Prevention Board, making it the most suitable body to lead the work. Early Years activity extended across safeguarding, early support for families, quality improvement, sufficiency planning and wider partnerships, including public health and the Oxford Education and Inclusion Partnership (OEIP) The final plan was required to be submitted to the Department for Education by 31 March 2026, and membership and supporting infrastructure continued to evolve.

 

The Assistant Director for Schools and Settings (Sufficiency) provided the framework for the sufficiency strand, noting that the detailed childcare sufficiency report was nearing completion. A balance was needed between expanding provision and supporting the sustainability of existing settings, particularly in the context of changing duties and financial pressures.

 

A detailed overview of childcare sufficiency was given by the Manager for Early Years Sufficiency and Access. Oxfordshire delivered Early Years entitlements through nearly 800 providers, the majority within the private, voluntary and independent sector. Whilst overall take‑up exceeded national averages, participation among disadvantaged two‑year‑olds had fallen sharply. Targeted actions had already raised this from 59% in the summer of 2025 to 77% in the autumn. Geographic gaps in provision for younger children were highlighted, alongside ongoing capital projects, efforts to repurpose surplus spaces, models offering extended hours, and challenges around workforce recruitment and retention.

 

Technical and operational insight was added by the Early Years Centre Manager, who reinforced the importance of careful, forward‑looking planning to meet the expanded entitlements.

 

The Chair then invited the Committee to explore the issues further.

 

Discussion opened with the potential to expand sensory provision beyond formal educational environments. Suggestions included developing sensory gardens and community spaces using Section 106 contributions. Officers welcomed the proposal as an example of innovative thinking and confirmed that work with planning colleagues was ongoing to ensure developers were challenged appropriately. They agreed to take forward the suggestion, recognising the value of community‑based sensory environments for children with additional needs.

 

The Committee considered rural provision, where pockets of deprivation existed but population levels were too low to sustain larger group settings. Officers explained that the Council’s focus included supporting and expanding childminders, offering grants to employ assistants, and working closely with school‑based nurseries, which were often the only local option. Efforts to repurpose existing spaces in rural schools to create capacity for younger children were also underway. These approaches aimed to ensure that rural families were not disadvantaged by geography.

 

Members explored the realism of the revised GLD targets and the associated timescales. Officers noted that GLD improvement tended to progress slowly, as outcomes reflected children’s development across several years and were an annual snapshot. Whilst some impact could be achieved with children already in Reception, the most substantial shift would not be visible until 2028, when younger children currently receiving enhanced support reached school age. Annual measurement of GLD limited short‑term indicators but milestones would be included within the Best Start in Life plan, supported by multi‑agency governance and robust stress‑testing.

 

The ambition of the GLD target for children eligible for free school meals (FSM) was debated. With current performance at 43%, the target of 50.8% required significant improvement. The Cabinet Member emphasised that his concern centred on the inequality gap, which would narrow only marginally, from 29% to 27%, even if the target were met. Officers noted that the local targets sought stronger overall outcomes and a more meaningful reduction in the gap.

 

Members asked how the new targets had been set. The Cabinet Member, and Officers, explained that the Government applied a national methodology that increased local baselines by a fixed amount. Oxfordshire’s revised targets, however, reflected the Council’s ambition to close the inequality gap, rather than a formulaic calculation. Supporting parents was essential to achieving these aims. Officers highlighted resources such as “50 Things To Do Before You’re Five,” which encouraged parents to enhance home‑learning, language and play. Simple, everyday activities remained central to boosting early development.

 

Further discussion examined how progress could be assessed before children reached the rising‑five stage. Officers confirmed that whilst GLD was measured only at the age of five, a range of indicators, including communication and language assessments, Early Years audits, targeted interventions and take‑up of funded two‑year‑old places, helped to track improvement earlier. Although visible change would take time, ongoing work in speech and language, workforce training and strengthened early‑help pathways was already showing positive signs. The Best Start in Life plan would formalise clearer monitoring arrangements.

 

The Committee considered how to incentivise Early Years providers in deprived areas to raise FSM children’s outcomes. Officers acknowledged national challenges around recruitment, qualifications and pay, noting that Early Years professionals often earned less than staff in retail roles. Work with Further Education colleges, secondary schools and careers advisers sought to promote childcare as a skilled profession and strengthen the training pipeline. The recent increase in Early Years funding passed through the Dedicated Schools Grant aimed to support quality and sustainability in disadvantaged areas. Officers emphasised that raising FSM attainment required skilled staff, strong partnerships and accessible community support.

 

Questions were raised regarding how Section 106 funding for Early Years provision was secured, tracked and ultimately spent. Officers explained that Children’s Services were part of the Section 106 board and worked closely with planning colleagues to monitor whether contributions were “held” or “secured,” as this determined when they could be drawn down. Local misunderstandings sometimes arose about the availability of funds, and clearer communication with providers and communities was being strengthened. Increasingly, the Council was challenging developers using precise locality‑level data and engaging with providers to ensure money was directed to areas of greatest need.

 

The Committee discussed opportunities for childminders to meet informally so the children in their care could socialise, reflecting past models such as Sure Start group sessions. Officers acknowledged the value of such opportunities but noted practical constraints, especially the difficulty of travelling with multiple young children. Work was underway to strengthen local, accessible support through family hubs and school‑based spaces, and further options for meet‑ups would be explored.

 

Members sought assurance that FSM children outside identified high‑need areas received appropriate support. Officers agreed that many FSM families lived in dispersed or rural locations. Practitioners were trained to identify children’s needs individually, regardless of postcode. Tools such as WellCom assessments, speech‑and‑language programmes and school‑based interventions were applied county‑wide. Data monitoring also highlighted schools with weaker FSM outcomes, allowing targeted support where required. The Best Start in Life plan would reinforce consistent support across the county.

 

Broader socio‑economic barriers were discussed, including housing, income, access to services and parental support. Officers explained that improved partnership working was underway through the Marmot programme, early help networks and family hubs. Work continued to improve data‑sharing, explore automatic enrolment for FSM eligibility, and to connect with welfare and housing teams to maximise family income.

 

The Committee examined the recent decline in take‑up of the two‑year‑old additional support entitlement. Officers reported that this was mainly driven by the introduction of the new working‑parent entitlement. Some low‑income families were eligible for both schemes but chose to claim only the 30‑hour entitlement to avoid perceived stigma. This meant eligible children were not recorded under the additional support measure. Significant work had since taken place to move families to the correct combined funding route, increasing take‑up from 59% to 77% between summer and autumn. Improving take‑up remained a priority within the Best Start in Life plan.

 

The Committee adjourned at 11:40, and reconvened at 11:51.