Thank you all who responded to my blog ‘Colleagues, it’s time we finally took control’ calling us to stand up together and Reclaim Early Years from the toxic grip of our politicians. I was overwhelmed by the response.

The Government plans to loosen the ratios of adults to children as well as various changes including reducing quality support measures – it convinced me that our sector needs to find its voice, take over the Early Years debate, and communicate our concerns to the public.

more »

Our Minister has done us a favour, although she may not have realised it. She has thrown down the gauntlet by challenging the sector, so now we need to take control of our own destiny. Her ill-informed and contradictory facts beg us to tell our story, so every individual – especially parents – is left with a clear understanding of what we as a sector want for the children in our care.

UPDATE: for more recent developments on this topic, please join our new group ‘Reclaim Early Years‘ on LinkedIn.

more »

(While I am desperate to blog about our work with Europe and the recent Wave Trust report Conception to age 2 – the age of opportunity, which I will do next week, I feel first of all obligated to comment on last week’s budget.)

I am no economist, but as an ordinary citizen I remain worried by the time it is taking to turn around this great juggernaut of a recession. More and more, slowly but surely, parents are falling into debt as many women continue to lose their jobs. The story is told every day in the shape of occupancy here at LEYF. For those who do not run nurseries, hotels or airlines, occupancy is the main measurement of our business survival, so something we watch with hawk like intensity. And it’s noticeable how its fluctuations have played a significant part in us having to ask managers to turn all their warmth and enthusiasm for the job into a saleable offer to parents. (The importance of sales is a live conversation at LEYF, in particular how we pursue such an overtly commercial goal whilst staying true to our core social values; to understand how these have helped us deliver 110 years of great childcare, click on the image below.)

With a Dan Pink lecture at the RSA on this very topic fresh in my mind, the budget’s big childcare announcement was the introduction from 2015 of a childcare tax subsidy (in the form of vouchers) giving working parents up to £1,200 a year to help with childcare costs. We knew about those on Tuesday as we had ITV and Channel 4 visit our Bessborough and Marsham Street nurseries to talk with parents on the matter. As you can imagine, the majority of our parents are in the lower income bracket, so are unlikely to see much immediate benefit from such breaks. The Budget also announced an additional £200 million for the childcare element of Universal Credit. This will be equivalent to 85 per cent of childcare costs for those parents who qualify. However, this new source of funding will only go to families where all adults are taxpayers. This will be phased in from 2016 to coincide with the implementation of the childcare element through Universal Credit.

The childcare vouchers will replace the current Employer Supported Childcare system. There has been lobbying for a more simplified funding system that would pay providers directly. As ever the devil is in the detail and consultation with nursery operators, voucher providers and employers will commence shortly. The key success criterion will be making sure the payment system does not negatively affect cash flow; it’s a problem now, so if we’re to avoid debt accruing further, ensuring successful implementation is critical. The new scheme will be overseen by HMRC.

Elsewhere it was confirmed that the Dedicated Schools Grant will be exempt from changes made in the spending round announcement scheduled for June 2013. This will mean free entitlement funding for Early Years will be protected from any cuts, although the funding is not ringfenced, so remains at the mercy of individual local authorities.

Certain broader announcements designed to stimulate the labour market may benefit small struggling nurseries, such as growth vouchers for small businesses to fund business advice; and Employment Allowance of £2,000 relief against their employer NICs bill from April 2014. It is thought this will benefit up to 1.5 million employers and will see businesses able to hire up to four workers on the adult National Minimum Wage without paying any employer NICs on their wages. (Despite this, I truly hope all employers based in the capital will aim to provide the London Living Wage to staff.) In addition, the personal tax allowance threshold was raised to £10k from 2014 – one year early.

More general pointers include the fact that State sector pay rises are capped at 1% in 2015-16. There will £3 billion additional departmental efficiencies (excluding health and schools)  to be spent on capital projects, so we may yet get more Two Year old capital funding.  Apparently there will be £1.6 billion industrial strategy funding, including apprentices in line with recommendations from the Richard Review. Apparently, the National Apprenticeship Service figures show that childcare is one of the most oversubscribed apprenticeships, with more than 13 applications per vacancy. We have yet to see this: maybe it’s how they calculate this figure, including initial forms from those so unsuitable the chances of them been appointed on a course are nil. We will need apprentices with an A to C in Maths and English – and I wonder how many of the 13 have those qualifications?!

It is good the Government is looking at supporting childcare, but as I pointed out to Gary Gibbon – the debonair political editor of Channel 4 News – to make a real difference, funding needs to go to services rather than pumping more money into the market via parents, which only leads to greater cost inflation with little change in affordability.

There is much to be learned from Australia which operates a mixed market model like us. When they put more money in the hands of parents, it did not lead to greater purchasing power, nor did it keep prices low and stable; instead it increased childcare costs to parents, with prices rising in 2012 by almost 10 per cent. It’s pretty impossible to make a profit from childcare, especially if you want to pay staff a reasonable wage and maintain a high level of qualified staff as the baseline of quality.

In Ireland they are arguing for a National Early Years Strategy to deliver a childcare and after school service that is best for children.  They want the Irish Government to invest 2.0% of the GDP, which currently looks like a £2 billion investment; they see it as an investment with a reliable return. (Heckman, Starting Strong and the raft of other economic arguments.) They are rejecting the market-led approach as they believe controlling the cost to parents directly, and offering a longer-term and more predictable source of funding to providers, is the best and most effective model.

Our three Kit Kat loving leaders share a view about the importance of childcare: they all agree there is a role for the tax payer to help make it affordable. What they need to do now is be brave and lead a revolution that takes us out of the current market-led failure and into a more innovative but efficient long-term investment mode.

The Government’s new childcare report was launched last week by Elizabeth Truss MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State (education and childcare) and generated quite a flurry of twittering.

However I feel it merits a deeper look, especially as I have had to tolerate articles produced by ill-informed journalists and commentators all weekend pronouncing on this report from a position of ignorance. It’s true the Minister shares laudable ambitions with the sector, not least the view that:

Every parent wants the best for their child. They expect childcare to be safe and of good quality, because high quality childcare promotes children’s development in the early years. The availability of affordable, safe and stimulating care is crucial in supporting families by enabling parents to work. It is equally crucial to the development of babies and young children as the foundation for their future success at school and in life.

(Childcare report, 2013).

However, it is the Minister’s rather clumsy attempt to use same single stone to solve the complex issues of childcare costs and quality that is her undoing. The report is her response to two reviews; the Nutbrown Review which examined the robustness of childcare qualifications and the Childcare Commission which looked at cost of childcare.

By using the same stone, the Minister risks killing both birds (the issues of childcare qualifications and the cost of childcare). The problem is the birds are very different; one a swan and the other a skylark. The swan represents childcare for parents, helping them glide into their return to work and masking all the busy paddling underneath to balance the often competing challenges of the working parent.  The skylark on the other hand is high quality childcare, which helps children soar, find their voice and expand their horizons. Re-read Gerard Manley Hopkins‘ beautiful poem The Caged Skylark which captures the consequences of being caged and trapped.

I have tried to simplify the report by highlighting what I consider the eight key points:

1. We need more qualified staff to improve the status and quality of the workforce.

Indeed we do. We have been saying this for an age, and fully support Professor Nutbrown. However, 84% staff have level 3 diploma so let’s not demotivate them.

2. Many staff lack basic skills, so the entry level will include English and Maths A to C.

I agree.  Again we have been saying this for a long time and I recall being lambasted for suggesting such. I continue to believe we need to introduce basic teaching for staff, so they spell and clearly articulate in a grammatically correct way.  How can children learn a minimum of 5000 words if staff cannot string a sentence together? What are some schools doing I wonder??

3. Introduce Early Years Teachers.

OK, but make sure we don’t abandon the 11,000 EYPs and ensure all graduate staff are able to complete this if they want. Most staff cannot afford post graduate training. Employers cannot fund this either, as about 70% do not expect to make any profit this year according to NDNA Business Survey.

4. Deregulate so we can decrease the number of staff to children, particularly under 3s. This means up to one staff member with 6 toddlers and 1 staff member with 4 babies. There are provisos to applying these ratios, such as needing a qualified staff member. A consultation will be launched to decide what qualifications staff should have and the findings will be implemented in September 2013.

This will lead to big problems, not least in the UK where education is child led and based on quality of engagement and suitable environment. There is a genuine fear that we may see lines of chairs with children strapped in for large portions of the day. In addition there are real risks of accidents and an increase in stress levels for both children and members of staff. Children coming from poor families are at particular risk. We know the right pedagogical approach ensures we can play a huge role in helping them soar like skylarks. I could go on…

5. Reduced ratios will mean we can charge less to parents and free up more places.

We absolutely cannot make the figures work here. Reducing the number of staff will only affect the quality of output and standards (see above point).

6. Ofsted is now the sole barometer of quality.

Risky it offers little more than a snapshot once every 47 months.

7. Set up Childminders’ Agencies like Denmark.

I know little about this except Denmark found its methods were cumbersome and expensive and are changing their model.  Ask Birgitte Nyborg from Borgen!

8. Make it easier for schools to take younger children.

Why? Being in school does not in itself guarantee quality. Is this a move towards universal childcare? Better check on the Nursery Education Grant rates then, as schools may prove quite expensive.

So there is much to debate, and I would urge we all respond to the consultation. In the meantime, I would challenge the Minister to continue investigating how the full £5 - £7 billion is spent on childcare (it seems the figure changes depending where you read it). Page 16 of the childcare report is too vague in my opinion.

In the meantime, perhaps those of you caring for under threes should consider recruiting Michael Rosen‘s Mary Anne…

She would leave the room
And you wouldn’t mind
But then you’d discover
She’d left her eyes behind

 However even Mary Anne could not keep up the pace (no matter her qualifications)…

It was a terrible shame
That it was all so drastic
But that’s what happens
When you are made of elastic!

Michael Rosen, Book of Nonsense

I went to the Conservative Conference because I was invited to speak at a couple of Fringe events.  Having done a day and a half at the conference last year, I felt more able to navigate my way around this time; plotting a pathway through the oodles of fringe meetings, networking and general schmoozing. I laughed out loud when I realised I was wearing my red autumn coat and sporting an equally red sore nose.  Amid the greys, blues and muted lilac, I think I may have stood out just a little!

The Fringe meeting I was speaking at was organised by Policy Exchange and centred around four questions. The panel was chaired by Eleanor Mills, the Associate Editor of The Sunday Times. She was very relaxed and, like many successful career women, is a governor at the school of her own young children. The MP representing the Conservatives was Claire Perry who sits in Devizes and had been on the Parent Committee of her local Playgroup when her son was little. Lucy Lee is the new Head of Education at Policy Exchange, also has small children and is governor of a secondary school. Finally, there was Professor Helen Penn from the University of East London… and me!

Q1: Who should pay for childcare?

Well that is the big question, and I continue to argue that no one can answer it until we decide what childcare is for and what we as a society want for our children.  Childcare expanded when Tony Blair made the link between working and getting out of poverty, in which case lack of childcare was seen as a barrier. It has since been tacked on to the social mobility agenda. In the meantime, we have become increasingly aware of the long-term benefits of early education for all children and how it can ease their path to a successful economic and emotional life. We all know about the economic benefits this brings to society as a whole, and those who don’t know should read James Heckman as a starter for ten.

Much was made of the differentials between the UK and the other OECD countries; the fact we seem to spend 1.1% of GDP on childcare, yet parents still make the highest proportion of the cost.  The question was tackled with a raft of statistics from Professor Penn, who said much needs to be challenged about what we put into current figures, how this skews the actual money spent and would explain why we seem to be getting very poor value for taxpayer’s money. She has just finished a report waiting for approval at the DfE which will no doubt be both enlightening and informative.

As you would expect, Scandinavia came up and the fact that children age one to six can access childcare there as a universal right; that parents manage to pay less towards the cost (as little as 10%) and the quality of service given to all children remains high.

Q2 Are we over-regulated?

The issue of deregulation came up, and as ever we found ourselves having to de-mythise the notion that registration was a major factor in our high costs. (It was something I heard at another fringe, Britannia Unchained; a mishmash of clichés and reflection which, despite the efforts of one, provided a solid historical framework to shape a future debate.)

Of course we have regulation, but the challenge is not the actual regulations (which are light compared to the rest of Europe), but the many and varied interpretations that local authorities make around the guidance in their role as keeper of the public purse:what we need is a reduction in the more general red tape that allows us to speed up business decisions.  Making us VAT exempt would also help, alongside sorting out rents and lease arrangements.  I suggested they look at Ontario and how they subsidise childcare salaries – especially in nurseries serving poorer neighbourhoods – and how this seemed to have a good impact on retention, quality and morale. Yes, you spotted it – the debate is rather depressingly focused on all the same old chestnuts! We so need to just get on and get an overall strategy sorted; the cost of regulation is really not the issue.

Finally, as we spoke about the importance of quality, we touched on issues such as the fact that children go to school too early in the UK; how if we kept them in a nursery setting (using an appropriate nursery education model), they might end up like Finnish children, top of the literacy and numeracy tree. What is more, we would no longer have to spend £9billion annually on addressing basic literacy issues. We might also solve some of the issues re the shortage of school places too.

I think now more than ever we need to examine the UNESCO Caring and Learning Together report, as recommended by Peter Moss, and use the structure to reconsider what we are doing in line with a discussion with members of the public about what we need for all children (a message that could be easily translated for other sectors such as elderly care).

So let’s think about an integrated model which is supported by Government, not supplanted by it; a model that weaves together all the factors below so we can achieve a vision like our friends in Scotland, and  make the UK the best place to be a child:

• Policy
• Regulation
• Curriculum
• Access
• Funding
• Type of provision
• Workforce

Not forgetting how helpful it would be if it were led by an integrated set of Government departments with real power, funds and decison-making responsibility,  not always looking over their shoulders for the veto from the Treasury.

This was a busy week for Early Years with the announcement of the Government’s Childcare Commission, the publication of the final report from the Nutbrown Review and the annual two-day NDNA conference which I always attend (partly because I am a Trustee of the NDNA and the London regional representative, but mostly because I also like to take some LEYF staff along with me as my guests).

This year’s conference was in Birmingham, a city which has some gems but is yet to benefit from a visionary urban architect. Julie from Colville, Connor from Katharine Bruce and Nicky from Micky Star (above, starting second from the left) joined me to catch the train from Euston and we spent the first evening walking and bussing around Brum. Finding somewhere to eat proved quite a challenge.  Nicky, our delegated map reader, used her iPhone to great effect, as we traipsed through the labyrinthine streets of Birmingham. (I only wish little Brum had appeared to drive us around in his little yellow car.)

The weather was generally wet, which was good as we were indoors the whole time cogitating, debating and considering all the issues facing the sector. I decided to tweet throughout, although I have to admit to being unsure if any of the hash-tags I used got as far as New St Station, let alone out into the wider world.

Minister of State for Children and Families, Sarah Teather MP, opened the conference and was generally welcomed. The NDNA audience is quite discerning, but I guess as practical business people there remains some sympathy for a Government with good intentions but no money. The main Government initiative at present is the Two Year Old programme, only the challenges remain the same: inadequate funds for the free offer, cost of training, demise of local authority support, challenging occupancy and cost of childcare to parents.

The Minister announced that Mott MacDonald had won the contract to provide strategic support for this programme  to the sector, stating that we would need to work with them to ensure they had our input in how they approach the work.

I asked the Minsiter about the Childcare Commission, as yet no more than a title. I suggested it might be the perfect place to have a proper discussion as to what we want as a nation for everyone’s children. Later in the day, John Carnochan, Director of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit,  remembered with fondness speaking at the LEYF Staff Conference last October as he opened his speech at this event with a bold statement:

We want Scotland to be the best place to bring up children.

John Carnochan

If anything, we should be saying this across the whole of the UK, as we then link and weave all our policies and practices to the same vision, rather than our current approach which is to fire fight and apply sticking plasters; some of which are so random they have little more effect than those plasters with cartoons, designed to stop children crying but not necessarily healing the cut.

The Minister said that an official response to Nutbrown will not appear until September, much to the relief of the civil servants in the audience, who must all be on overload with the number of reports and reviews they have been drafting of late. There will be training costs associated with the Nutbrown recommendations, especially getting the whole sector to Level Three. There will also be at least a few challenges, as we work out the perfect diploma and develop pedagogical leadership programmes. On the plus side, we are not without experience, knowledge and ability. I loved Nutbrown’s theme all the way through, that the sector is a maturing industry and as such must lead some of this development. Let’s take some control for our destiny and shape our own future, before someone else shapes it for us.

For me, one of the most interesting presentations of the day was from Kathy Sylva, following some research done with NDNA nurseries (including LEYF!) on parent engagement. So much so, it deserves a blog all of its own, which I promise to do next week.

So, if day one of a conference is this good (and it was), the real challenge is then to maintain that level of engagement and enthusiasm for day two, especially when  the subjects include a business forecast and an update on the new Ofsted. Either way, it starts slightly later, if only perhaps to help those who attended cope from the effects of the Awards dinner the night before. (The band that played at the Edgbaston Stadium was so loud that it was a wonder any of us could talk the next day. Still, for an oldie like me, it’s great to be able to dance to songs which have rhythm and to which I can sing along.)

Courtney Donaldson from Christie and Co did her best to balance the economic situation with some good news. She warned us to keep our eye on the ball and use the right data to give real and timely management information (something I hope we will get better at doing across LEYF with our soon-to-be modernised systems). She pointed to an increase in distressed businesses (especially those in deprived areas), occupancy drop, increase in part time places (81%) and a reliance on NEG places which are causing fault lines to run through the sector.  Like the rest of the conference, she could see no easy solution to the shortfall in NEG payments. Doing her best to finish on an up-beat note, she said there were opportunities (31% expect to expand, especially in the South East) and those who had survived so far were more likely to do so in the continuing economic climate.  A quote shared by John Carnochan sums up how I feel about this:

The challenges we face converge, intertwine, and often remain largely beyond our understanding. Most of us suspect that the “experts” don’t really know what’s going on and that as a species we’ve released forces that are neither managed nor manageable.

Thomas Homer-Dixon

Finally, we learned that Ofsted is changing again in September. The audience was warned to go easy on the speaker as she was but the messenger. And of course, Ofsted is a quango which has lots of power and so always draws criticism from the sector. The biggest complaint in any case remains the differences in the way inspectors inspect, which was also mentioned, especially as Ofsted is busily recruiting new inspectors.  However, to get a real grasp of the changes, which is highly recommended, I urge everyone to examine the website in detail. Meanwhile, the changes essentially boil down to inspections every 47 months, unless triggered by a complaint, child protection issue or change of manager. The inspection will  now have a more powerful emphasis on leadership and management – along with learning and development – with a formal meeting with the manager and joint observations with the manager and the EYP. The issue raised questions for me about how we prepare the deputy and the rest of the leadership team to be able to manage this new inspection, which will continue to be a no notice event, so managers can go on holiday and not be constantly on tenterhooks once an inspection is due.
Conferences are great opportunities for learning, and I have come back with fresh ideas and suggestions for better communication and more effective practice. As a leader having quality time with staff is a very good idea, even if it means traipsing up to Birmingham.

Clearly everyone thinks parents have lost the ability to parent, but don’t worry – the Government which so despises the nanny state is rushing to save parents everywhere:

Parents are nation-builders. It’s through love and sheer hard work that we raise the next generation with the right values. That’s why this Government is doing everything possible to support parents.

We’re doing the big, long-term things to make this country stronger for our children – dealing with our debts; having a massive push for better schools; working to create more good, skilled jobs in our economy.

But we’re also focussed on making life easier for parents day-to-day, from extending childcare to increasing the number of health visitors. The parenting classes and films we’re launching this week are an important part of that, providing clear, professionally-led advice on everything from teething to tantrums.”

Prime Minister David Cameron

According to the Government’s Parental Opinion Survey (2010), 85 per cent of parents want more practical help caring for their baby, to provide the best possible start for their children. So, like any good Government, we now have a brand new digital service for parents-to-be and new parents, providing regular emails and texts with timely information as their pregnancy develops and their child grows; free parenting classes to all parents of children aged five years and under in three trial areas, as well as expert organisations to deliver relationship support for first time parents in four trial areas of the country from this summer.

I agree with this in principle, since being a parent is one of the most difficult jobs – unless of course you have been blessed with quiet, acquiescent and compliant children. (I have worked with children for 30 years and haven’t met too many of those.)

Either way, parents are nearly always on the back foot; you just crack a particular habit your child has acquired or a particular obsession, and by the time your techniques have begun to take hold and you are beginning to find a solution that works, they have moved onto the next stage and challenge. My eldest son would only eat if I put him in the pushchair, and then would eat only about ten different foods.  I was at my wits end, trying every ploy, and just as I thought I had got his mealtimes down to a fine art, he changed and was off on something else. I thought that I would be better second and third time around, but not a bit of it; all the habits I had cracked with son number one never materialized with son number two.  He brought a new set of challenges – especially about where he would sleep and how he coped with parting. My daughter then arrived with yet another set of challenges which required a completely different psychology, and although the most amenable and delightful young child, she turned adolescence into a story that could be the basis of a Palme D’Or winning foreign movie.

I like the idea of the parenting vouchers, only I wish what these paid for weren’t called parenting classes.  I think it will put people off, since whilst there’s no denying how hard it is to get parenting right, most people still somehow manage to struggle through and successfully produce the next generation. Putting your hand up to ask for help is very brave, and there may not be enough hands in the air to make the shift from parenting classes as a support to parenting classes as the norm.

The government naturally wants to support strong and stable families, and research clearly shows that the birth of a new child can be a major stress point for couples. Few would disagree, and I suspect more new parents feel able to ask for help at this point than at any other in the long and often bumpy road that is parenthood. And there is of course a collective sympathy from all parents who remember the panic, fear and terror of coping with a tiny mite, compounded only more so by a diet of exhaustion from sleepless nights.

I can therefore only hope that the vouchers, available from Boots, will  help the Government begin a wider conversation which publicly affirms the contribution of all parents to a successful society. Let this approach be as normal as collecting free vitamin drops. But what will it take to get the backing of our wider society to help frame the UK view about what we think needs to be done, and how we must behave as models for our children?

There’s surely been no better time to start thinking about codes of behaviour and expectations; about the rights and needs children have to grow, learn and succeed in a world with clear parameters of good manners, mutual respect, civic duty and humility; a sort of UK take on the Ubuntu philosophy (often referred in simple terms as the ‘essence of being human’). The Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee explained Ubuntu as “I am what I am because of who we all are”, whilst the people of Botswana define it as a process for earning respect by first giving it, or gaining empowerment by empowering others. Either way, it encourages people to applaud rather than resent those who succeed, whilst disapproving of anti-social, disgraceful, inhuman and criminal behaviour, and so encourages social justice for all.

So let’s hope this new Government initiative provokes the start of a philosophical conversation about how we create the right environment to rear our children, and what we all need to do to make this collective parenting approach one that works for generations to come.

I am very pleased to be able to represent LEYF as a member of Professor Cathy Nutbrown’s Expert Panel. The Panel is examining the standard and range of qualifications for those working in Early Years settings.  It’s a hot topic and one that needs calm, rational and measured consideration.  It’s also an issue that powerfully demonstrates that rhetoric and good intentions don’t always translate well into practice, and no solution will be perfect.  And it further requires a steady and pragmatic hand which Cathy certainly has.

Before anyone gets excited about being called an expert, the actual reality of being on a panel is that you are expected to do some work and research an issue or two.  At the last meeting, I agreed to examine the question of whether it is necessary for those entering the profession to have a grade C in GCSE Maths and English. In order to do it justice, I sought some support from my friend Sue, who put her considerable research skills to good use finding out whether or not having these grades leads to better teaching of the subjects, higher thinking skills and greater ability to apply abstract concepts in a range of situations. I also needed to know that if having a Grade C was essential, could we get everyone up to that standard through Continuing Professional Development (CPD), and would it create barriers to potential apprentices, trainees and other staff from diverse communities.

What we found was that although research from OECD and EPPE tells us that higher qualified staff offer a more reliable predictor of better quality – with a more positive impact on children’s future learning and development as a result – there is little data to securely support the correlation between the levels of formal qualifications in literacy and numeracy among Early Years practitioners and children’s achievements. The best we could find was the Millennium Cohort Study which stressed the links between quality of provision in a setting, the level of qualifications of the staff and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) analysed by subject, concluding that…

Continued priority needs to be given to strengthening the non-graduate early years workforce, who continue to make up the majority of staff. All practitioners need to have a clear grasp of how children’s understanding of mathematics develops; they need to be comfortable with mathematical language and able to support children’s play as outlined in the previous section on effective mathematical pedagogy.” Milleniun Cohort Study

The most interesting findings emphasised something our tutor for Key Skills previously said, namely how the psychological barrier people have created about Maths is often the greater hurdle to them getting a grade C.  I recently saw this in action among a group of otherwise experienced LEYF staff who needed to get a grade C in Maths as part of their degrees; the level of anxiety this generated, despite us providing specialist workshops, was such that even a chocolate fest could not reduce the waves of panic in the room. (Not even the promise of our favourite Curly Wurly!) The lack of enthusiasm for Maths, often acquired from poor teaching, creates a self perpetuating cycle which flies in the face of the Williams Review(DCSF 2008a) which found that…

One of the distinctive features that support high quality mathematical learning includes practitioners’ enthusiasm for, understanding of, and confidence in, mathematics.” Williams Review

For those of us running nursery businesses, the lack of mathematical confidence has greater implications, given the need to grasp Maths in action through an ability to understand and manage occupancy, staff deployment, pricing and basic income and expenditure; all critical skills needed to keep the business going.  (Sadly, I have seen far too many nurseries slip into disaster because of the manager’s inability to read the numbers.) And I know this statement will send Hitchcock shivers down the spines of some LEYF staff, in fact I’m sure most would much rather sit through the Director’s Cut of Psycho in a dark room on their own than do the books.

But if we see our job in Early Years as being the educators of the youngest children, and therefore needing to inculcate in them positive attitudes about Maths and literacy (especially Maths), then we have to look at the bigger picture and the costs to society. The CBI Education and Skills Survey 2011 reported that employers found widespread weaknesses in the core skills of their employees, with almost half reporting problems with literacy and numeracy. KPMG estimates that the cost to the public purse each year from failure to master basic numeracy skills is up to £2.4 billion.

So what to do? Luckily I am not Cathy Nutbrown, and my task was to merely present ideas and information, whilst Cathy gets to analyse and draw a conclusion.  Still, she is ably assisted by our Civil Servants, who I am sure have all the relevant C grades. In the meantime, I suggest we all ensure we have regular planned Maths activities, lots of Maths in the routine and that we practise our timetables while we do our Pilates.  If all fruit fails then watch Dara O Briain’s School of Hard Sums (formerly called ‘Dara O Briain’s University of Practical Mathematics’) where humour and numbers mix. Why not? Have a laugh, do a sum!

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

The National Audit Office report  Delivering the free entitlement to education for three- and four-year-olds has sent the press into pessimism overdrive, telling us the £1.9bn spending on provision of the free entitlement by local authorities in 2011-12 (providing  places for  831,800 in 28,630 settings) was a waste of  money, with apparently no measurable benefits to children.

Absolute poppycock! The report actually said that it was probably too soon to tell, adding how there has been improvement in the Foundation Stage but this has not carried on into Primary School. Dare I say it’s maybe the hallowed Primary Schools that need addressing; or perhaps we need a serious conversation about what we as a country want for our children?

Unlike our contemporaries in Europe, we have never fully considered what we want for our small children; instead we simply react to external reports and anecdotal observations. What does measurement actually tell us if we are measuring the wrong or non-compatible things with the same set of measurements?  Apparently, we want children to be happy, whilst at the same time ‘school ready’ and successful.

Perhaps, someone should listen to the many commentators suggesting that maybe schools are not the right place for children as young as three, and that if they were in nurseries for longer (like their apparently more successful counterparts in Europe) there would be even more improvement, sustained for much longer.

In addition to improvement, the report looked at the hoary chestnut of funding, unsurprisingly concluding that the Department and its partners do not yet sufficiently understand the relationship between this and local performance – including how far variations in rates paid to providers reflect legitimate local factors – to be confident that funding arrangements are efficient. For example, certain local authorities use funding to provide limited incentives for providers to improve quality, despite finding no links with take-up rates or quality. It’s no surprise to see the report noting how funding formulae are complex, yet despite this, transparency and fairness of funding was improving. (Although funding remained insufficient to cover the costs for some providers, nursery schools received a much higher level of payment than the rest of the sector.)

The report concluded that the Department for Education (DfE) needs to address variations in take-up when it comes to accessing high-quality provision – along with the impact on attainment in later years – if it is to achieve value for money and get the best possible return for children from its annual investment of some £1.9 billion. I vote this should become a central strategy to the current work being done and the reviews being undertaken, so that every DfE activity weaves together to deliver a coherent service, one which parents can both understand and buy into without all the confusion that is raised by so many emotive headlines.

I would caution that if we are to truly measure the longer term benefit, we must remember what we are measuring. Our children (including the two-year-olds) are babies and must be allowed to enjoy their childhood.  Value for money is important, of course, but if we are showing improvement already let’s start from that premise; measure the right things in the right way.  What we want is for children to have a happy childhood; Early Years is a crucial step towards that, but not a stick to be beaten with if children do less well in Primary Schools.

Mr Gove, I urge you again to take more interest in the Early Years and stop assuming that Primary Schools are perfect.  Be as critical of them as you are of Secondary Schools, and let’s have a more in depth look at transition. Remember what this report says: there has been improvement in the Foundation Stage.