|
 |
www.ncne.co.uk |
|
| ||
|
 |
|  We believe that:
 THE Nursery EDUCATION CAMPAIGNOur aims are to:
Separate nursery schools and combined centres (offering both care and education) are essential to provide centres of excellence which can be used as a training resource and source of inspiration by parents and other early years workers. NCRNE campaigns to raise awareness of what constitutes good quality nursery education by:
In addition NCRNE offers:
What is local authority nursery education? Local authority-funded nursery education is to be found in nursery schools, nursery classes or units attached to primary schools and in a small number of nursery centres (which offer both education and day care). Children aged 3 and 4 attend on a full or part-time basis. There are no fees to pay. Nursery education premises are staffed by qualified teachers and NNEB/BTEC-trained nursery nurses. Information about nursery education in your area can be obtained from the local authority education department. Why Nursery Education? Nursery education offers children the best possible foundation for their later school education. Teachers and nursery nurses provide a carefully planned and structured learning environment which encourages the all round development of young children. The essential characteristics of high quality nursery education are:
if you agree please consider JOINING US  These Resolutions were passed unanimously at the AGM in June 2009Resolution 1NCrNE calls on the Government to urgently monitor the implementation of the single funding formula to ensure that it does not threaten the viability of maintained nursery provision: Background Information on the change to a single funding formula From 2010 local authorities will have to use a single local formula to fund all ‘early years provision’. To date nursery schools and classes have been funded through the Dedicated School’s Grant, while PVI settings have received the Nursery Education Grant. Funding will be based on occupancy rather than places. Primary legislation (the Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learners Bill) recently introduced in Parliament will change funding arrangements for PVI settings to more closely mirror those for maintained settings. Following passage of the Bill, both maintained settings and PVI settings will be funded from the Individual Schools Budget. In addition, relevant parts of the School Finance Regulations will apply to PVI funding. The stated intention of the single formula is to support the extension of the free entitlement from 12.5 to 15 hours and to ensure that decisions about funding for both maintained and PVI settings are transparent,and based on the same principles. The government’s expressed aims are to increase quality in all settings, improve skills in the workforce, reduce the gap between the lowest achieving 20% and the rest at the end of the early years foundation stage and end the distinction between day care and education in the nursery sector. Although the government has said that ‘… the change to a single formula is not intended to threaten the viability of maintained nursery schools’ (Interim DCSF Guidance July 2008) there is growing anxiety about its impact. DCSF guidance a year ago offered some comfort: ,B>‘The single formula does not mean that all provision must be funded at the same cash value: rather it means that the same principles must be applied to all settings within the formula. Therefore, where there are obvious unavoidable additional costs in a particular type of provision, it is perfectly legitimate for that cost to be recognised in the single formula’. And, ‘It is understood by the DCSF that (maintained nursery schools) tend to be more expensive than other types of provision because of a range of unavoidable costs that they incur, for example the costs of a headteacher, of dedicated premises, and of other overhead costs that, because of the relatively small size of most nursery schools, make them appear to be expensive on a per pupil basis.’(DCSF Guidance, July 2008) Reassurances from ministers endorsed this guidance: ‘There is no intention to amend staffing levels and qualifications in the maintained sector and the single formula will be expected to fund schools to maintain these statutory staffing levels.’ (Letter from Beverley Hughes, Minister for Children, Schools and Families, June 2008). In maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools, the Early Years Foundation Stage requires one member of staff for every 13 children, including at least one who is a school teacher as defined by section 122 Education Act 2002 and the Education (School Teachers’ Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003. In August 2008 Ed Balls wrote in response to a query: ‘…the Department is clear that the teachers’ pay and conditions continue to apply and that teachers may only work within their directed hours and require the full PPA time due to them under contract.’ In spite of this, the most recent DCSF advice to local authorities about how to construct a single formula indicates capacity for variations may be limited. ‘Authorities who set one base rate for all PVI settings and one for all maintained settings are continuing unacceptable differences between settings which cannot be defended in a single formula’. ‘Rates must be set to enable a level playing field in the market and encourage quality of provision through raising the qualifications and training of staff regardless of where they work’. (March 2009) It will be compulsory to include ‘deprivation’ as an additional factor in the formula and there is a strong recommendation that supplements for quality and flexibility are also applied. This raises questions as to how quality is to be measured, and how the possible conflict between quality and flexibility is to be resolved. The experience of the 12 pilot authorities was that agreement to measures of quality had proved difficult. Ofsted was considered unreliable because of the time between inspections and other measures such as attendance at local training schemes and signing up to a local quality assurance scheme are to be used. In other pilot authorities the distinction between graduate and non-graduate employees has been used as a factor in the base rate. Although some authorities are reassuring nursery schools that they will not be adversely affected unless they have empty places, in other parts of the country no such assurances have been made. A recent meeting of Heads of Education Finance in local authorities in the South East revealed that many nursery schools were likely to face drastic reductions in their funding as a result of the introduction of the single funding formula. It is important to provide real incentives for the employment of the most highly qualified staff in all settings, but, a single formula that results in the loss of skilled and specialist staff cannot improve quality or outcomes for children. Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) will offer some protection to schools but this is unlikely to continue in the longer term. Implementation of the formula will have serious implications for those local authorities presently funding full time places. The effect of ending place led funding may be to reduce the weekly hours for children who currently attend full time. The increase of hours for some may result in a loss for others. The proposal, in the report of the Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum (Rose, 2009) that all children should enter primary school the September immediately after they are four years old will, if adopted, reduce numbers and compromise sustainability in those nursery schools in local authorities which have retained two or three points of entry. There are some local authorities that are clearly committed to their nursery schools and recognise that though they may be more expensive than other forms of provision they represent outstanding value for money. Indeed, Ofsted reports often highlight this.However, despite the cheer offered by advice from the DCSF to local authorities that the ‘intention is not to achieve the closure of nursery schools’ nursery headteachers are reporting a rather different atmosphere on their local School Forum groups. When faced with figures that appear to show that the hourly cost per child of a nursery school is three times that of a playgroup, all the accurate and recent Ofsted quotes about the school representing excellent value for money may be received in stony silence by those representatives of the private and voluntary sector sitting round the table. Headteachers from some authorities report that the officers most closely involved in working on the funding formula do not themselves appreciate the distinctive features of maintained nursery schools. They lack experience of what nursery schools do, or understanding about how they are organised, how they provide for children with special educational needs and children with English as an additional language or how they manage a range of other services. There has been no strong voice in the national debate that questions the probity of redistributing public funds away from state schools to private, profit making, nursery businesses. Nursery schools do cost more than most other provision but are not necessarily more expensive; they are open to all children, provide highly effective early education, extended services for families and support for other settings. Most local authorities have not yet produced a single funding formula. There is still time for the Government to remind local authorities of their clear guidance that the single funding formula does not mean a single rate for the maintained and PVI sector.  Resolution 2: The presumption against the closure of nursery schools contained in the school closure guidance should be rigorously observedNCrNE urges the Government to monitor potential closures and give a clear directive to local authorities which raises the profile of nursery schools and promotes an understanding of their distinctive role.Background Information Nursery School Closures The Secretary of State’s current guidance to local authorities who are considering the closure of a nursery school is as follows: In deciding whether to approve any proposals to close a nursery school, the Decision Maker should be aware that nursery schools generally offer high quality provision, and have considerable potential as the basis for developing integrated services for young children and families. There should be a presumption against the closure of a nursery school unless the case for closure can demonstrate that: a. The LA is consistently funding numbers of empty places; b. full consideration has been given to developing the school into a Sure Start Children’s Centre, and there are clear, justifiable grounds for not doing so, for example: unsuitable accommodation, poor quality provision and low demand for places; c. plans to develop alternative provision clearly demonstrate that it will be at least as equal in terms of the quantity and quality of early years provision provided by the nursery school with no loss of expertise and specialism; and that d. replacement provision is more accessible and more convenient for local parents. In spite of this local authorities are continuing to close nursery schools. Some 100 nursery schools have closed since 1997. There are currently proposals for closure in Stockport, Sunderland and Blackburn with Darwen. Sunderland proposes to reorganize two primary schools with falling rolls and open a new nursery class. The closure of Hetton-le-Hole nursery school in Sunderland is a casualty of this. In the past the schools adjudicator could, in some circumstances, intervene and overturn such closure proposals. Prior to 2007 School Organisation Committees (SOCs) took decisions on proposals to close schools. These committees represented local education stakeholders and had to reach an unanimous decision in order to approve or reject a proposal. If they were unable to do so the proposal was passed to the schools adjudicator. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 abolished SOCs from May 2007 and local authorities now take all decisions about school closures themselves. Local authorities must, of course, consider guidance issued by the Secretary of State when reaching their decision, but the current proposals to close maintained nursery schools in Stockport, Sunderland and Blackburn with Darwen make no explicit reference to the conditions of the Presumption against Closure in their consultation documents. The case made by Stockport and Sunderland is that the proposed new nursery classes in primary schools, which will replace the nursery schools, represents a positive improvement Stockport argues that ‘there will be no change to the provision itself-simply a change in management…..the best way to ensure long-term high-quality nursery provision is to take the opportunity to move the management of the nursery provision to the primary school.’ Evidence does not support this. Nursery classes do not provide the same educational experience for the youngest children as do nursery schools. The staffing ratio, routines and learning environment of the nursery school create an ethos very different from that of a nursery class or unit. The infrastructure of a nursery school cannot be dismantled and reassembled without loss. Amalgamation with a primary school removes the specialist nursery headteacher and dilutes the knowledge base for early childhood education within the local authority. A much used justification for amalgamation of a nursery into a primary school is that it removes a potentially stressful transition from nursery school to reception class. However, nursery schools have given a great deal of thought to the transitional points in children’s lives and plan carefully to help children face change confidently. Children’s transition from home to school as well as that from nursery school to reception class is a consistent thread in nursery school curriculum planning. The generally more favourable staffing ratio of the nursery school allows for home visits as well as extended visits to the primary school. Ofsted noted that the Stockport nursery school had ‘Highly effective liaison between school and home which ensures vulnerable children are given the best possible chance to succeed at this stage in their learning. Preparation for the transition to Reception classes is equally impressive, as links with the local primary school are well established. Parents say they are kept well informed of their children's progress.’ Evidence about the quality of learning achieved in nursery schools is powerful and consistent and has been confirmed annually by Ofsted inspections; “nursery schools are particularly effective: 96% of those inspected are good or outstanding”. Of these, 49% were judged outstanding in 2006/7 and 47% were outstanding in 2007/2008. (Chief Inspector of Schools Annual Report 2007/2008) The closure of maintained nursery schools must stop and stop now. We cannot afford to lose more of what we have that is truly effective. In a time of rapid expansion we should protect what early years expertise and excellent practice there is, for its own sake and to offer a model for others. Nursery school closures have a double impact. Closure affects the children, families and communities served by the schools and the local authority as a whole; the loss of specialist knowledge and of a model of excellent practice.  Resolution 3The National Campaign for real Nursery Education urges the Government to reject unconditionally Recommendation 14 of the Primary Curriculum Review which proposes the lowering of school admission age to the beginning of the academic year in which children turn 5. Be part of the NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR REAL Nursery EDUCATION Nursery Education cannot be left to chance  OUR BRIEFING PAPERFor over forty years the National Campaign for real Nursery Education has campaigned for the right of every 3 & 4 year old to a state funded nursery education place. For most of that time the meaning of the term ‘nursery education’ was uncontested, and the campaign pressed for an increase of places within a coherent national structure of policy and funding.Since 1997 there has been a national focus on childcare, the investment of billions of pounds, and such rapid expansion of places that the majority of 3 and 4 year olds are now able to take up a free, part time nursery place. In the face of all this why do we still campaign? The Government’s rush to increase nursery places as part of its social welfare agenda has taken little account of the uneven quality of those places. The term ‘nursery education’ has been so widely misused that its real meaning has been all but lost. WHAT NCrNE MEANS BY NURSERY EDUCATION Nursery education can be defined by: This form of early education has been best developed within maintained nursery schools. But, many of these schools have closed as the Children’s Centre programme rolled out. The government’s own major research project, EPPE, (The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education, Institute of Education, 2003) endorses our view that maintained nursery schools, and those integrated centres that grew out of nursery schools, provide the highest quality and most effective early years settings, and this is confirmed annually by OFSTED inspections. The EPPE research also found ‘evidence that demonstrates that having a trained teacher as leader/manager and a good proportion of trained teachers on the staff are key indicators of quality’. Associated research, the REPEY project (Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years, Institute of Education 2002) found that children’s progress was linked to practitioners sharing educational aims with parents, and having good knowledge and understanding of; This confirms NCrNEs long established definition of what constitutes nursery education, but, in spite of the weight of research, it is still far from being realised for all children.  WHAT DO WE HAVE NOW?StaffThere is a scarcity of highly trained and qualified early childhood practitioners. At present 40% of the workforce in childcare and early years holds a qualification below or at NVQ level 2, there is consequently a continuation of low pay and low status. We know that the quality of the learning environment increases with childcare qualifications but, although targeted funds have been granted to the private and voluntary sector to increase the qualifications of their workers, it is highly improbable that enough general funding will be put in place to properly remunerate graduates to lead and staff all settings. The new Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) does not carry a nationally agreed salary, and, indeed, is not properly a qualification at all. It is possible for a graduate, in a subject unrelated to early education, to achieve EYPS in one year and then be able to lead practice in an early years setting. The nursery specialism within teacher training has been eroded. Requirements for the early years phase of teacher training to cover not only the Foundation Stage but also Key Stages 1 & 2 has squeezed out child development and any in depth study of the theory and principles of early learning. The opportunity offered by the new Early Years Foundation Stage, which spans an age range from birth to five, to restore these elements to Initial Teacher Training has not been taken: instead, a new category of early years professional has been devised. Opportunities to observe good practice diminish as maintained nursery schools continue to close. Within many of the nursery and reception classes of primary schools pressure downward results in over formal approaches to learning, while in others the chance for teachers to develop their specialism is undermined by the habit of moving teachers to new classes each year. The requirement laid on headteachers to provide qualified teachers for each group of children at the Foundation Stage is widely ignored. Yet, teachers remain the best qualified and most highly paid practitioners in early education and care. Children’s Centres are required to have at least one, part time teacher, but this is clearly insufficient to raise the standard of professional practice, and even these are not always employed to work directly with children. The former Early Excellence Centres, most of which were based on maintained nursery schools, are headed by qualified teachers and have a ‘good proportion’ of trained teachers on the staff but, as funding decreases there is a danger of redundancies. Teachers are likely to become a declining minority within these centres, to be replaced by the, cheaper, early years professional.  Buildings & outside spaceThere is no statutory requirement in the Early Years Foundation Stage for early years settings to have any outside space or natural light. Children delight in movement, and through it they learn more than bodily skills. Restricting spontaneous activity puts at risk not only physical development and health, but also cognitive, social and emotional development. There is an intimate connection between movement and brain development, while physical action is the earliest way in which children express andcommunicate ideas and feelings. Simultaneous access to stimulating learning environments indoors and out is a prerequisite of good nursery education. Such education also has regard for children’s individual approaches to learning, and many children (including a significant proportion of boys) learn best out of doors. Curriculum & pedagogy: In the new curriculum framework (EYFS) only the content of early learning is made a statutory requirement and that content is dominated by the Early Learning Goals for five year olds. Young children’s entitlement to be educated in the way best suited to their age and stage of development, acknowledged by successive governments since the Rumbold Report (1990) no longer has legal weight. This is of even greater concern when we recollect that the new statutory guidance applies from birth. Young children’s development is distorted by this goal oriented approach and by the close link between the EYFS and the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies for Primary Schools. A number of the goals for Communication, Language & Literacy are over prescriptive and cannot be achieved by most children at the end of the academic year in which they become five. There is enough authoritative research to substantiate this and to make it remarkable that the goals relating to linking sounds to letters, reading, writing and letter formation, have been made more exacting. The findings from Foundation Stage Profile data and the anecdotal evidence of Foundation Stage practitioners is that the current goals are pitched too high. The stated justification for the EYFS is that it will guarantee quality across the wide variety of early years settings, and ‘deliver better outcomes’ for children. But, no curriculum document can do that. The highest level learning is initiated by the child, and sustained with the help of adults who are able to observe and recognise children’s persistent interests and present understandings, and who can open the way to new worlds of knowledge.  Parents:Differences between nursery ‘settings’ have been obscured, and the government’s own research findings ignored or misinterpreted in order for all new places provided to be presented as of equal quality and effectiveness. This makes it hard for parents to make meaningful choices.Three & Four Year olds. The move to one point of entry to primary school means that nursery schools lose the consistent presence of four year olds and their important influence on the learning and social behaviour of younger children. Meanwhile four year olds struggle with the increasingly abstract tasks of the reception class. WHAT NOW? We continue to campaign for the right of all children to enjoy an early education which allows them to play with ideas and possibilities in the company of highly skilled adults who are able to provide the materials, space, time, and new experiences they need in order to develop their learning. The closure of maintained nursery schools should be halted. We cannot afford to lose more of what we’ve got that is truly effective. In a time of rapid expansion the government should protect what early years expertise and excellent practice there is in order to offer a model for others. If disadvantage is to be overcome and the life chances of children transformed it can only be done through the highest quality integrated services. Poor quality childcare is not neutral in its effect. |
© 2010 National Campaign for Real Nursery Education :: powered by PHDi Websites |