ITEM EX10 - ANNEX 3EXECUTIVE – 7 JANUARY 2003DEVELOPING THE FOUNDATION STAGE OF LEARNING IN OXFORDSHIRE
3 to 5s LEARNING
Notes of Recent Committee Discussions
The Teacher Organisations expressed the opinion that although they welcomed the proposals before them, it was hoped that they would receive adequate funding for implementation. The TOs sought clarification over the quality of staffing and provision that reception-year five year olds would receive whilst awaiting the increase in the age-weighted pupil unit of resource which, in the words of the proposal, could be achieved over a period of time. They also raised concerns regarding the proposals for staff/child ratios as these ratios had been proposed on the assumption that the County Council would agree to fund an increase in the unit of resource for reception-year five year olds.
In response to these concerns, Mr Harmes acknowledged the need for sufficient resourcing and quality measuring adding that organisational change would not be possible without adequate quality measures being put in place.
The Teacher Organisations further commented that priority should be given to funding the final key measure of meeting children’s special educational needs with a focus on identifying children with potential SEN problems at the earliest opportunity, as a preventative measure.
Individual members of the Forum made the following comments:
Roger Gates: Shenington School had a total entry of 13 in its reception class and would find it difficult to find the money and space required to accommodate pupils. As a voluntary aided school, they would not be against implementing the proposal but would need more time to implement.
Helen Bridge: Her local school had an early years unit and would have no problem in implementing the proposal. However, she was aware of the problems that the proposal would cause other providers.
David Smith: Expressed concern about putting small children (4+) into classes with older children (up to 7 years old). Oxfordshire had a high number of private sector providers due to the lack of provision offered by OCC. He spoke of an expectation in the private sector that provision in the maintained sector would increase, but they would be against implementing the proposal if sufficient funding was not available.
Olivia Denson: Asked how the LEA would find the increase funding. Rick Harmes confirmed that the OCC would probably not wish to implement the proposals until sufficient funding had been voted to schools. She also confirmed that SCEA had implemented a single point of entry admission system into all its schools last year.
The Scrutiny Committee had before them a copy of the consultation document and a report from public consultation.
Prior to discussion the Scrutiny Committee was addressed by Elaine Smith, Headteacher, Grandpont Nursery and Roger Fell, Headteacher, St Nicolas Primary School, Abingdon.
Elaine Smith spoke about the adverse implications for stand-alone nursery schools in the county in terms of the reduction in pupil numbers and the devastating effect on the quality of provision with the loss of role models for the younger children. She urged the Council to retain the present provision and partnership arrangements in order to maintain parental choice and quality.
Mr Fell supported the proposals and spoke about the positive implications for primary schools in terms of improvements in planning the education framework/national curriculum, continuity of provision, links with the government’s "wraparound" care initiatives and the benefits for children with for example special educational needs. He considered that the Quality and funding aspects of the proposals were crucial.
The following key points arose in debate:
Consultation The consultation paper addressed some concerns, but others remained Comments from the consultation should be used to develop the proposals further
Quality In moving forward we should preserve/combine the best of the quality which we already have It was important to provide support/training for staff to ensure that quality was retained Our ‘mixed economy’ should concentrate on the quality of provision
Parents Concerns about the implications for parental choice were recognised It was essential to fully inform parents about the proposals
Reception/Nursery Concern was expressed about:
General Were the proposals too formal for early years? There could be opportunities for nursery schools if funded adequately Neighbouring authorities were understood to have full-time provision in the reception year Clarification was required about the role of provision in terms of childcare/education Differences between nursery/primary education were recognised
Implementation Any proposals should be introduced with as much flexibility as possible The importance of timing, implementation, flexibility and resources was recognised to maintain quality
Rick Harmes spoke to his report. The consultation process was now coming to an end and various documents had been circulated covering the background and proposals. If the proposals are approved by the County Council, they will take effect from September 2004.
Views of the EYDCP were as follows:-
Cllr Margaret Mackenzie: Had attended one of the consultation meetings and observed that some professionals had difficulties assimilating change. The main anxiety was the lack of resources. She commended the proposals, but only if sufficient resources are put in place to meet the quality standards.
Cllr Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor: Felt it was an exciting time for Early Years but she noted the concerns raised in consultation. With good working practices, most of these could be overcome. She had discussed the proposals at the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee and there was an overall positive reaction. With cooperation and flexibility, the goals will be achieved. However she echoed Cllr Mackenzie’s concern regarding lack of resources. Nationally as a County we lag behind many areas in our investment for early years.
Cllr Lesley Legge: Although absent at this time of the meeting, the Chair tabled copies of Cllr Legge’s views which were in support of the County Council’s proposals.
John Hulett: The net effect of current policy is a very fragmented final year of the Foundation Stage for most 4 and 5 year olds. The proposals had a particular focus on how partnership working across sectors can be maintained, improved and strengthened. He endorsed Cllr Mackenzie’s views with regard to resources but re-assurance was needed that resources are aimed at the right needs. The time is now right to reorganise admission arrangements in the County.
Jo Milham: Early Years Units can admit children in September but parents don’t always take up the offer. Changing the admission arrangements for all primary schools would be an improvement. Staffing ratios of 1:15 (for F1 Children) would be an improvement. 1:10 for F2/3 children would be excellent. Currently schools need to employ temporary staff to teach children in the Foundation Stage. The proposals would impact on Primary Schools with Nursery classes. They could be encouraged to retain all children in the Nursery setting for the Foundation Stage. Clear guidelines would be needed about the organization of groups.
Elaine Smith: Stand alone Nursery schools recognise the potential benefits of the proposals for children who do not have access to LEA early years provision. However Nurseries are likely to become full of 3 and young 4 year olds. There was need to protect Nursery schools as models of good early years practice.
Helena Mitchell: Concern with regard to quality and the real needs of children. The focus should be on quality rather than on organizational issues.
Neil Grady: Spoke to David Smith’s letter circulated with the agenda papers. There had been great concerns over the development of children aged 3-5 and about moving children from 1 educational establishment to another. The ratio 1:10 would be excellent, but current statutory requirements mean that the private sector already offers 1:8. He thought that the introduction of earlier entry into school should be delayed until it could be offered on a proper basis to all children across the Country.
Liz Ashby: Raised the PLA’s concerns. The impact of the proposals on the sustainability of pre-schools should not compromise the Partnership’s aspect of the report and integrity of the sector. Pre-schools offer opportunities for parents and other members of the community to be involved. Resources are needed and there are a lot of fears, but there were also lots of ways of working more effectively together in Partnership. The PLA was not against proposals per se, but was keen that the Partnership element should be real and sustained.
Cllr Paskins: Agreed that the resources issue was critical. He wanted to know if parents from ethnic communities would be made fully aware of their entitlement and if developing, services for children with special needs would be considered in these proposals.
Rick Harmes: acknowledged that most of the comments made by Partnership members spoke for themselves. If the proposals go ahead, there would be 18 months before they take effect and in that time guidance and information will be prepared for providers and parents. Special Needs was a high priority for the Partnership and it would be a priority to make extra resources available. These proposals should not be detrimental to children’s current entitlements to Special Educational Needs.
Julie Fisher: stated that considerations of quality must underpin the proposals. The ratios were an integral part, of the proposals but quality and qualifications of the staff and workforce should be high with training and support needed. It was important to make the Partnership arrangements work well.
Annie Davy: The main concern which brings providers together is their shared aspirations for the welfare of the children. Organisational issues do need to be addressed, however, in order to be able to improve services.
The Chair thought that the Partnership had a strong basis for going ahead with the proposals in this exciting time for the education of 3-5 year olds. Change is coming but it will take time to take full effect. She emphasised the need for adequate resourcing.
The Committee agreed to advise the Executive:
|