Ask Sam

Yesterday, the new Childcare Minister Sam Gymiah gave a speech to Policy Exchange about how he sees the future of childcare, and why he wants more schools to offer childcare provision for two-year-olds. At the moment, the school sector makes up a tiny percentage of the overall provision for this age group. To me, Mr Gymiah’s speech seemed very short on giving answers, and very long on raising (awkward) questions. So, given that I’ve never been one to shy away from asking awkward questions, here are ten questions Mr Gymiah might want to consider answering. (I have more, when he’s done with these.)

1. Was there a reason why you talked about the impact of preschool provision on lifetime earnings, on convenience for parents, on the number of GCSEs children achieve, on getting parents into work, but you completely failed to mention the vital importance of attachment at this age, and of meeting the emotional needs of children? This is both the most vital part of working with two-year-olds, and the hardest in terms of staffing and provision. Is it possible that you might be putting the cart before the horse?

2. You mention in your speech how “sometimes space can be a barrier”. I’d like to give you a feel for how massive that “sometimes” is. I live in a rural area, and when I think of the five primary schools closest to where I live, not a single one of them has sufficient space for two-year-old provision (or even for a nursery class, come to that). Where I see purpose built provision being added to schools in our closest city, this is usually on part of what used to be a playground or a field. Do you genuinely believe that there is space in our overcrowded schools for lots of new two-year-old provision? And are you concerned at all about how this will impact on outdoor provision for children at primary schools?

3. Are you clear about how the private sector works? (Since you’re a member of the Conservative Government, I’d assume so, but having read your speech I wonder.) A key element of the private sector is competition. In your speech you ask private daycare nurseries to work with schools, and this leads me to ask a fairly fundamental question: do you understand the ‘competition’ part of a market based system? I’m not saying that private daycare nurseries would not be willing to work with schools – the providers I know are keen to do the best for children. But it seems odd that you want private providers to support what is effectively their ‘competition’. Is it possible you have misunderstood how a market works?

4. As a voluntary run setting, located in a village hall, we’d be delighted if our local school said: “Hey, why don’t you move into this lovely purpose built provision that we’ve created for you?” (Although please see No.2 as to why this is not going to happen.) However, the clue here is in the term “voluntary run”. I struggle to cope with my role as chair of the management committee at the moment, and we are only open from 9.30am – 2.30pm for 38 weeks a year. There is no way I would be able to help manage a voluntary run setting that was open 8am to 6pm, 52 weeks a year. It’s hard enough to get committee members right now: do you expect parents to volunteer to run full day, year round provision?

5. You talk about how keeping all the provision in one place eases transitions for children. Intellectually, I understand what you mean – transitions are tricky, and our staff have to work closely with our local primary to manage them. But life is full of transitions, and helping children to manage these is part of helping them to grow up and learn to cope with change. Are you sure that it is such a good idea for a child to enter a school at two-years-old, and to pop out at the other end, at 18, topped up with just the right amount of exams? As a parent, the transitions from preschool to primary, and from primary to secondary, seem to me to have been a vital part of helping my children learn to handle change.

6. I understand that you have a problem with supply in the childcare sector – there just aren’t enough two-year-old places to go around. But here’s a thing: in the private sector, high demand for and low supply of a ‘product’ leads to only one outcome. The cost of the ‘product’ goes up. At present the sector is drastically under funded, with government paying around £5 an hour for places for two-year-olds, and only £3.50 an hour for three and four-year-olds. Have you considered the usual way of increasing supply in a market, which would be to stop asking providers to subsidise the ‘free offer’ and pay them a bit more money?

7. When I got to the bit of your speech where you said: “And as we know, parents trust schools”, will you forgive me for laughing out loud? Is this not just a tad ironic, given the overpowering nature of our current school accountability system, and the fact that Mr Gove spent his tenure as Education Secretary giving completely the opposite impression?

8. You say you are ‘living the early years’ at the moment, now that you have a child of your own. It’s lovely to hear that you and your partner (I’m assuming you’re not a single parent) have a new baby. I’m not going to be so impolite as to pry into your private life, but I’m happy to share some aspects of mine, to give you an insight into what childcare looks like for ordinary people. When we were new parents, our thought process went: give up work (not financially viable); hire a nanny (not financially viable); find a childminder (no one locally); find a part time preschool/nursery place (phew). We are lucky that we can work from home, so we could spend as much time with our small children as possible, which for us was part of the joy of having them. Your vision seems to be of parents dropping off their tiny children at schools, from the age of two, so that they can work full time (often in poorly paid jobs). Does this sound like ‘living the early years’ dream to you? You mention ‘choice for parents’ in your speech. Is there a reason why you didn’t mention childminders (often a vital part of the childcare picture for ordinary folk) and the fact that the number of childminders has reduced drastically in the past few years? What about those parents who would like to care for their own two-year-olds? What are you offering them?

9. You note the sector’s concerns about the ‘schoolification’ of the early years (it’s more than “some people”, Mr Gymiah, it’s LOTS of people, and it’s those people who are already working in the sector). You mention some examples of learning through play – yes, that is what play can look like. But if this is your vision of ‘learning through play’, then why does your regulator have these videos of ‘learning through play’ on its website as examples of good practice, videos that very clearly show adult directed learning (what you might call ‘teaching’)? (See also my blog here.)

10. Now, the elephant in the childcare room is, of course, babies. And here, I begin to wonder about the government’s long term, unspoken, aims. By moving two-year-olds into school based provision, the government would make it very hard for other settings to remain financially sustainable. The sector has grown up organically over the last 50 years (our preschool is about to celebrate its 50th year in service to the local community). At present, full daycare nurseries usually cater for 0 to 4 year olds, and settings such as ours for 2 – 4 year olds. If school nurseries take children from 2 years old, then you do not widen choice, you narrow it, because settings such as ours would have to close. So my final question is this: do you envisage a time when full daycare nurseries cater only for babies from 0 – 2 years old? Or is your long-term aim to get those babies into schools?

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Children, Early Years, Schools. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Ask Sam

  1. Simona Mckenzie says:

    Spot on Sue on your starter for 10…here are some more questions for the Minister
    1 Can he clarify what he means by parents having the best of ‘both worlds’ with the flexibility of nurseries…I hope he means the EY sector including CMs….. and the experience of schools?

    2. Is there not a conflict in PVI providers having to register for 2 year olds while schools have had this requirement removed?

    3. Most schools open 9-3…6 hours…opening 8-6 is an increase but how does the minister get to 60% increase in opening hours?
    If schools open 8-6 that is not flexible…again some CMs open well before and after those hours and also offer overnight care for atypical hours. Does he expect schools to do the same and have children boarding?

    4. The minister’s vision on space is rather blurred…EYFS does not require specific room for children to rest in schools?

    5. It is widely reported that some schools are bursting at the seams and unable to cater for children of compulsory school age…where will schools find all this additional space for nurseries?

    6. If this is a push to put 2 year olds in schools due to lack of places the minister should look at the reason why.
    Funding is an issue and how can the minister say ‘providers have to be creative’ as funding it is what it is?
    In some LAs funding has not risen since 1997. His predecessor asked LAs to pass £5.09 to the frontline.
    Why is this not happening?
    Will the Minister use the existing DfE online tool to compare funding between LAs rather than ask for more clarity?

    7. The minister has announced a £25 million grant for innovative services to disadvantaged children, followed by another £5 million for Teaching Schools Alliance.
    Would this new found money not be better spent in funding ALL providers adequately so more come forward and care for 2 year olds?

    Thank you

    Like

  2. Kate Martin says:

    Re. Q10 – this is exactly what happened to our local, voluntary-run playgroup in Scotland. The council removed partner-provider status from all the smaller voluntary settings so that parents who wanted to take up funding for 3-year-old places could only access it at school-based nurseries. The number of 3-year-olds attending playgroups understandably fell sharply. We almost closed but managed to keep open by changing our provision, providing a playleader-led parent and baby session one day a week, a lunch club for 3- and 4-year-olds one day a week and traditional playgroup sessions for 2-4 year olds 3 days a week. Provision for 2 year olds in the area was therefore reduced from 5 to 3 sessions per week.
    As an aside, we found it even harder to recruit a management committee – parents of the lunch club children felt they had moved on and belonged to the school nursery; parents of the babies only came one day a week and didn’t feel it was their job to run the group; parents of the playgroup age children felt they were getting less of a service from the setting and so were less inclined to give up their time to help out.

    Like

  3. Kathy Brodie says:

    An excellent critique and analysis of the speech, Sue!
    My biggest practical concern – after your first and most vital point on psed of 2 year olds – is that the vast majority of NQTs do not have the qualifications, knowledge or experience of working with this age group.
    Is the proposal to ‘import’ teachers who are able to support the children? If so, where from, on what terms and conditions and how?
    Or will it be left for the teachers to ‘take turns’ in the 2 year old class (as most teachers tend to rotate through year groups in schools at some point)? How do the teachers feel about this? And what would this do for ‘smooth transitions’?

    I am absolutely committed to having the best qualified of professionals working with our youngest children. These policies seem to reduce the support for our 2 year olds in many, many ways.

    Like

  4. littlemavis says:

    Just a quick note on transitions and why I would not want to see “all through” schools.
    Whenever a child is in a school, they build up relationships with others. Other children, the teachers/playworkers and so on. They also build up a “reputation” of some sort. This can be good, bad or neutral, but in any case it creates a set of expectations around that child. Not just in terms of the level of expected achievement but in far more subtle ways, similar to the expectations that can be placed on younger siblings. Teachers can avoid this to some extent but other children don’t.
    Moving to a new school is a chance for a fresh start, a chance to meet new people and to widen your circle of friends. Both my children looked on moving school at 11 & again at 16 as a positive thing. And they liked their schools & college. It would be a shame to lose this.

    Like

  5. hooperj says:

    Spot on Sue, especially the implications for our young children if schools were to rush forward. The early years sector is not broken and doesn’t need fixing it is just independent. This is the problem for government. They say jump and EY folk say why do you want that?

    I suspect this is also just a new boy in his 1st promoted post needing to keep busy and be a visible presence even when it is just political posturing. 24 schools is hardly a viable project and they started out with 48. Usually the next stage gets bigger not smaller. Schools have enough to do already, as his boss Nicky Morgan knows from her workload survey.

    What inspires me though is how vocal and confident the early years sector is, no chance of being brow beaten by government. Waves to all you fantastic people.

    Like

  6. Nicola Morris says:

    So scary – let’s set up factories where you put the child in at 2 (or 0?) and let it out at the other end as a fully formed adult? It seems to be a case of no choice, or as if they assume that every parent actually wants to wave goodbye to their child as soon as possible and leave someone else to deal with all of their needs. Most of the time, it is financial necessity which means parents have to do this but, given the choice, they would happily spend more time with their children. Yes, there are some parents who are happy to give up responsibility but that shouldn’t make it the norm. And if everyone is expected to put their children into these ‘new’ settings, will they all then come out, as Mr Gymiah suggests, with zillions of GCSEs and into high-earning jobs? No other factors involved?

    It saddens me that child minders are becoming more scarce. We chose a childminder for my son, when I had to go back to work, and the reason was that we wanted a ‘home-from-home’ environment, which I would’ve provided myself if I could have. I really didn’t want him to start ‘school’ at 6 months old. I was really happy with the results, and the relationships that he was able to build with the child minder and the other children there. If all of these plans begin to come to fruition, I can see that child minders will be lost completely. Different people have different wants and needs from a pre-school setting and that should be accounted for. One size does not fit all.

    Like

  7. Marie says:

    Thank you Sue. We would like babies to spend as much time as possible at home cared for by special people in their lives. And up to as long as this is practically possible before school. It’s a complex issue but thank you for challenging their proposals for toddlers – it’s way too much too soon.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s