I have been called many things, but being invited by the National College for School Leadership to be a provocateur was a novel invitation. I certainly know I can provoke my husband to distraction, but in this instance I was being asked to amuse, tell stories, harangue and cajole a group of nursery heads into a new way of doing and being. It was the first meeting where I was talking to a group of heads, each with a glass of wine in their hands. It was a cross between Loose Women and Live at the Apollo.

The point I wanted to make was that we tend to be too humble and modest in this sector.  Both humility and modesty are actually beautiful traits, but we have to balance them with getting our voice heard and listened too. I was keen that we have the courage to accept the importance of balancing confidence and the capacity to take risks with the humility to learn from our mistakes and from others.  I willingly shared our many mistakes, including that of our experience on the SEF/ECERS/ITERS roundabout, as one example of how we are constantly examining and continuing our attempts to improve and be better at what we do.

We all agreed that we can be too parochial and a bit domestic in the sector, which distracts us from the bigger picture.  My view is that we are a group of female leaders developing a new industry (the childcare one), and that we have to shape and lead it to get what we all want; namely the best service for all children. This means looking at how we do things differently; developing our combined business capability to be able to get and apply strategy; while at the same time understanding how we can create business models that involve profit, loss, revenue, expenditure, performance measurement, social impact, governance and compliance.

There was no dispute in the room that leaders of the Early Years sector need to invest in their ability to learn about themselves, and trust in both their knowledge and instincts. We must be able to develop systems that create a feedback loop, so we can learn about ourselves and our impact. We agreed that we need to share what we know in a much more coherent and collaborative way, so we are all aiming in the same direction; petty jealousies, egos and in-fighting will simply destroy us and in doing so destroy those crucial opportunities for children.

So the battle cry was up: be brave, be strong and develop a message that parents can understand and support; good childcare is good for all children and can have longer-term benefits for our society as a whole.  We as leaders in the sector need to get out there and embed this message every chance we get.  It will kick into touch the ignorant sound bite stories that float up to the surface every now and then, serving only to distract us from what we are doing and freak out parents everywhere.

You know you have grown up when you know the date of the budget, the Chancellor’s name and that of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Nowadays, I know all three!

The budget is of interest to me for two main reasons. Firstly, what will it do to help parents better afford childcare, and secondly would it do anything to help a social businesses like ours? Having trawled papers of all political persuasions, I found this budget has done at least something for parents, but nothing much for social businesses or charities.

Raising the tax free personal allowance to £9,205 next year is good for all staff working in Early Years, as this is historically a low paid sector, yet the drop in the higher rate tax from £42,475 to £41,450 will put many parents under even more pressure, with less again available for childcare.

Elsewhere I was pleased to see a fairer approach in the changes to child benefit.  I had already tweeted our disgruntlement about the initial unfairness of reducing it for families with one working parent, whilst allowing households with two working parents claim it even when their combined salaries exceeded the same limit. The new model seems fairer, although this first step towards producing a universal credit may be a retrograde one in the long term. Once a small snip makes it through, it will be easier for future Chancellors to trim away along the edge and soon the tablecloth has become a napkin.

I thought the Chancellor missed a trick by not improving working tax credits. It was a good move to exempt families with disabled children from changes here, but he could have done more to improve opportunities for all working parents – for instance letting them qualify for tax credits after 16 hours work. This would have meant fewer families would lose out when choosing to work part time, instead of being worse off than when they were on benefit.

Tax credits offer possibly the single greatest means to helping parents cope with the real cost of working when paying for childcare, and so much more could easily have been done here to make work pay.

The commitment to end child poverty by 2020 looks to be once again in jeopardy, especially if the Chancellor cuts £10bn from the welfare budget by 2016.  The promise to show us how our hard earned tax is used may be helpful here, so we can see exactly what the cuts will do to poorer families. Still, it remains grossly unfair that the poorest should bear the brunt of costs from the Government deficit.

Meanwhile, businesses were no doubt very pleased with the reduction in corporation tax, but sadly this makes no difference to social enterprises.  The Chancellor offered  no tax cuts for those of us in the social or charity worlds; nor did he improve access to social investment, which is key to helping grow and develop business in a way that has the potential to fundamentally change the way services are delivered to our communities. Access to social investment finance is the biggest barrier to business development in the social and charity sectors, but only the sixth barrier to ordinary businesses. Changes to the community investment tax could have made a massive difference here.

Finally, I do hope he keeps a lid on the reductions in UK planning laws. This country needs its green lungs.  We spend a lot of time finding ways to give children in our nurseries fresh air and space to be themselves, and it seems to be getting harder every day. Competing with cars and developers is no mean feat.  Allowing buildings on every site and squashing us all together will not be good for the aesthetic, physical or emotional well-being of anyone.

So what do we think of this budget?  A small glimmer of growth, whilst keeping a tight rein on the budget remains the watchword for households and businesses alike.

Either way, I know one nursery rhyme we might all be learning this week…

A dime and a dollar
Took me by the collar
And whispered this word in my ear:
“We must leave you to-morrow,
But prithee don’t sorrow,
We’ll come back to see you next year.

Leroy F. Jackson

My Grandmother always said that a little of what you fancy does you good. Sadly, according to recent medical press, we are all too often unable to stop at a little and these days consume far too much of what we fancy. As a result, we are fast becoming one of the most overweight nations in the world, with all the health issues that accompany such obesity. Every week it seems there is a new report about the damaging effect of some familiar sugar laden food – the most recent being a link made between aggressive behaviour and fizzy drinks, and their tendency to heighten the risk of heart disease.

Of course, Children are particularly at risk, and given that prevention is better than a cure, I began to look at how nurseries might do their part to educate children and families about food by serving the best. Interestingly, despite all the TV coverage gained by Jamie Oliver with his admirable campaign to rid our schools of turkey twisslers, he rarely focused on the chefs and cooks actually preparing and serving the foods (aside from Nora, his trusty dinner lady). No effort was made to look into the qualifications available for chefs, which could be used to up the ante and go some way to ensuring and embedding high quality procurement, preparation, presentation and delivery of food to children, while also informing staff and parents of what makes healthy eating.

The history of chefs and cooks in both nurseries and schools tells a random tale, from those simply helping out as an interested parent to an agency chef from a local restaurant. Either way, most nursery staff will tell you that having a good chef – one who likes cooking for children and is both interested and motivated – is a joy and sadly not as commonplace as we would like!

When I began my research, what I soon found (though on a smaller scale) was not dissimilar to what Professor Cathy Nutbrown found about Early Years qualifications: a myriad of organically developed courses of varied quality with no core set of standards. The situation for chefs was worse inasmuch as there were generic qualifications which taught the basics, but no effort made to develop anything that would apply their knowledge to cooking specifically for children. CPD courses tended to focus on health and safety, food safety and manual handling – which though relevant did not lead to better teas and sauces or greater motivation and knowledge about what children love to eat.

Driven by this baffling discovery, I searched out individuals with similar interests and found a group of nutritionists, dieticians and others passionate to improve the food experience for small children. (At this point, the School Food Trust was focused unsurprisingly on schools, so Early Years had not been given any attention at all – despite national fears about obesity and heart disease amongst the young as a direct result of their awful diet.)

When I then surveyed the sector – including colleagues in Wales and Scotland – to see if there was any interest in a qualification for chefs in Early Years, the  overwhelmingly positive response that came back led me to dip my toe into the deep and mysterious waters of national standards and qualifications development. And quite frankly, given the complexity of process and language, I am amazed so many qualifications exist! Fortunately for me, People 1st (the skills sector for hospitality) and City and Guilds fully understood what I was after and so supported my efforts – especially useful, since my learning curve included regular viewing of Master Chef, Saturday Kitchen and Two Hairy Bikers. (I liked these most of all, particularly as they could rustle up a good curry by the side of the road – no Curly Wurly breakfasts for them!)

On Monday, 19 March (tomorrow, as I write this), we hope to take the final step on the long ladder of getting approval of the draft National Standards in order to formulate a set of Level 3 Qualifications in Professional Cooking for Early Years Chefs. We will present the key elements of a qualification to employers and will be sharing the same premise as Professor Nutbrown, namely that employers must be able to tell what skills and knowledge they can expect when employing someone with that qualification. It will include everything from basic knife skills to a real understanding of child nutrition.

At the very least, I sincerely hope this single step will be one more to help professionalise a growing industry which exists to provide a support service to children and their families, and in so doing will show yet another critical added value we have to offer society.

Sensible organisations try and ensure that staff are involved in developing policies and practices at every level.  Indeed, much is written about the inefficiency of top down approaches to making change happen.  However, in my opinion, the challenge is less in the initial engagement and more in maintaining interest and ensuring behaviour is embedded unconsciously, so that it becomes fundamental to everything. This becomes even more important if, like LEYF, you want to grow and need to ensure that policies and practices are securely embedded and repeated consistently in every setting.

Many years ago a manager came to me in despair, having discovered that a can of Coke and a Curly Wurly amounted to breakfast for some staff .  While she worried about their health, she became even more anxious when she realised these were the very staff who would be role models for children and their parents when it came to healthy eating. Her conversation sparked a large piece of work across LEYF,  involving staff at every level – as managers, practitioners, chefs, apprentices and parents all became part of the process to create a consistent and recognisable ‘LEYF approach’ to food.  We researched, examined and created new ways of procuring food, training staff, supporting parents, changing the curriculum and most importantly defining the role for our chefs. Our resulting LEYF Food Policy captured the outcome and was laid down as the basis of practice right across our organisation.

Children enjoying fresh fruit at a LEYF community nursery

Initial enthusiasm was positive and effective, but falling back into old habits happened as if by osmosis. Nothing big, just little things that showed the unravelling of an agreement. Little clues emerged such as a random plastic vegetable in the role play area when it’s meant to be fresh, not serving fish twice a week or forgetting to make sure that cooking was a weekly activity.

So what must we do to ensure that ‘buy in’ and engagement is robust and consistent, whilst still allowing us to review, shape and change things as the world itself changes?  For example, having spent two or three years developing our approach to food, we have now had to make changes to our kitchen management to fit better with the evolving needs of the organisation. Effective scaling and repeatability must equally allow action research to inform continuous improvements, and that can lead to change too.

How can we balance the non-negotiables, such as insisting on organic milk or fresh vegetables in the role play corner, with negotiated changes – such as a new management system – to better meet the needs of the children? What can we do to allow change into the mix in a way that does not start unravelling the whole approach? Can we as the proverbial leopards change our spots or are we asking the impossible?

There is a raft of management tomes telling us to think about communication, apply change management theory, get champions in critical places, give regular feedback and have solid processes that show up when things are not happening. The most telling approach though is simpler:

• Co- create guiding principles
• Define what is absolute and non-negotiable
• Put the necessary systems in place (and make them clear)
• Repeat the practice till you are blue in the face (and become as Freire would say unconsciously conscious)
• Use an action research model to continually improve but manage the change
• Get out there and see for yourself!

Finally, perhaps, buy lots of Curly Wurlys and distribute them generously to those embedding and sharing in our case ‘the LEYF way’. (But can I be first in line, since after fig rolls and walnut whips they are my next favourite treat!)

In stark contrast to last Sunday when I sat in a warm Havana, sipping cocktails and enjoying live Cuban music, today I could only muse on my recent trip which had all the elements of what I consider a good holiday: history, architecture, warmth, music and variety. Of course, the icing on the cake was the constant images of Che Guevara in his prime, undoubtedly the best looking politician ever in my book. Like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe who died too young, he is forever sanctified in his youth and spared the inevitable decline into middle age and all the jowls and paunches that brings.

For years, I have been fascinated by the ability of Cuba to hold off the Goliath that is global capitalism and manage the dislike of so many successive American governments; an island of socialism in a sea of apparent democracy and free enterprise. Being there has not explained everything, but two things did strike me quite forcibly – especially in the light of recent rhetoric from our politicians about finding newer, more palatable forms of capitalism. Firstly, the power of leadership to sustain the will and support of its people despite challenging circumstances. Secondly, the ability to embed the philosophies identified in 1959 by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro et al into a set of practical and effective policies; policies which have led to a highly educated Cuban population sustained on a very limited economy.

Before the revolution, 73% of the population were illiterate. In 1961, two years after the revolution and with the support of young student and already qualified teachers, one million people had learned to read and write. Later on, courses and other necessary steps were taken in a constant effort to bring literacy to 100% of the population, despite a shortage of school supplies, spending 10% of the GDP on education, which is 4 to 5% higher than that recommended by UNESCO.

Wilson and Pickett in their book The Spirit Level (2009) reminded us in no uncertain terms that the more equal the society, the happier the people. This seems to be a principle very much alive and well in Cuba.  Compared to those Latin American countries operating under a more Western influence, it certainly appeared more equal, safer and politically egalitarian. I personally found many things to appreciate, including a complete lack of billboards, marketing messages and advertisements, and the fact that not every street was dominated by shop fronts and that, right or wrong, people knew their history. I also saw children playing until late at night and families feeling very at ease everywhere they went. Cars were few which meant that the speed and stress of traffic was still absent.  No doubt, this is a frustration for the Cuban population, especially outside Havana, as they wait at the side of the road for cars to pick them up. (Car sharing is a must in Cuba and a system is in place to ensure it happens.)  There was chatting and conversation everywhere we went across Cuba, coupled with a real sense of community.

As for education, it clearly counts and is valued: all the same uniforms, all local schools, a national curriculum and life long education free at the point of entry till you die. According to Fidel Castro, the work of education is perhaps the most important thing the country should do.

When we popped into one rural school, the children had far less resources, but they were engaged, learning and calm. Action research is built in as a means of improving teaching and classroom performance, and 20% of teacher time is allocated to helping parents. (In particular, they appear to have recognised the importance of engaging with parents to embed learning at home.)

As we left, all the children stood up and sang us the National Anthem, verse perfect, which amused me no end and was a change from Guantanamera sung everywhere else. Despite the mutual dislike of America, maybe there is some common ground on education, especially if the thoughts of John F. Kennedy still abide:

Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource.

Congress on Education, February 1961.

Of course, Cuba has still got its issues: it’s hard to get in there and even harder to get out; food is not great and infrastructure poor, whilst some of the horses are far too thin and stray dogs far too frequent. But there are certain things to be found there which we would do well to re-consider. According to Wilson and Pickett, Cuba is the only country in the world that manages to combine acceptable living standards with a sustainable economy, and despite a much lower living income, its life expectancy and child mortality are the same as in the US.

So amongst other things, my recent holiday reaffirmed to me that money and celebrity does not bring happiness, real political engagement is something we must strive for and education counts.

Back home, despite news that child poverty is increasing, numeracy rates remain very poor among adults and the challenge of funding early childcare is picked up by Panorama, the story most read by the public was that Angelina Jolie has exposed her leg in a cut through dress. I rest my case…