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 7^th and 14^th 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 available in the members’ resource centre.

Overview

People and organisations were invited to submit written responses to the consultation document by Friday 1^st 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 mid-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 came from the following broad groupings:

One anonymous response was also received. A full list of respondents is available in the member resource centre.

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 varies quite sharply between primary schools and the other sectors. Nearly 80% of PV respondents are clearly opposed to the proposal, as are 75% of respondents from LEA Nursery Schools. There is 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:

Some responses to these concerns are set out in Annex 2 of this report. 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.

Return to TOP