Sector airs views on red tape

The Government’s Cutting Red Tape review, which closed for comments last month, was a chance for the sector to air concerns about legislation and its application. It certainly took the opportunity – with space here to highlight only some of the key areas.

PACEY highlighted how providers are ‘highly motivated by the work they do, and highly respected and relied upon by parents, but on the verge of making decisions about whether their businesses are viable for the future’.

The overwhelming majority of providers, including childminders, are rated Good or Outstanding, despite rising costs, low pay and a dramatic decline in local authority support for training and development, respondents said.

There are of course those regulatory requirements which the sector accepts are vital to high-quality care, and those which threaten its sustainability.

Ofsted registration and inspection
The sector has seen an increase in responsibilities placed on settings by government and regulators.

Appeals
The National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) called for a ‘strong and independent voice’ in the Ofsted appeals process.

The organisation suggested evaluation of the new Ofsted Regional Scrutiny Committees and forthcoming small business appeals champion, and ‘further powers considered to ensure access to genuine challenge and redress for the sector’.

Chief executive Purnima Tanuku said, ‘Consequences of an incorrect judgement are extremely serious for businesses, jobs and continuity of care for children.’

Ratios
There is a need for guidance on ratios and how they are evaluated by inspectors ‘in specific circumstances’. While ratios are understood, according to the Pre-School Learning Alliance, there is ‘very little clarity’ in cases such as whether or not a member of staff who accompanies a child to the toilet is still to be counted in the ratio while they are out of the room, and how many staff are required in the sleep room when babies and toddlers are asleep.

These queries have been raised with Ofsted which, according to the Alliance provided no clear advice. ‘Instead, the response was “staff ratios must be met”.

‘This raises the possibility that two settings could be doing the same thing and two different inspectors will take a different view as to whether or not that practice meets the minimum ratio requirements,’ it said.

Asked to comment, an Ofsted spokesperson told Nursery World, ‘We know about the red tape challenge on childcare and look forward to working with the Department for Education to address the issues that will be raised later this year.

‘In the meantime, our approach to staff:children ratios is clear. They must be maintained because that is set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage. Ofsted early years inspectors have experience of early years settings and fully understand this issue.

‘If the Pre-School Learning Alliance has a complaint about a specific setting then we will look into the matter carefully.’

Monitoring and recording of children’s progress
This is an accepted crucial part of supporting learning and development. The Alliance commented, however, that ‘the volume of paperwork is excessively lengthy and time-consuming’ and ‘despite taking time away from direct work with children, it is not always clear how this supports children’s learning’.

The organisation flagged a lack of clarity over the level of detail required, and concerns over time-consuming duplication across different reports, and claimed that an increasingly ‘tick-box’ culture is a hindrance for professional development and knowledge of child development.

Paid-for inspections
Ofsted carried out a consultation on paid-for inspections in 2013, which appears not to have been acted on by the DfE, despite legal changes allowing it. ‘Paid-for inspection was enshrined in law more than two years ago and yet it is still not available,’ said the NDNA. ‘We would urge Ofsted and DfE to prioritise this issue.’ When asked, Ofsted said the matter was with the DfE. The DfE did not respond to a request for comment.

Nominated person
A new requirement for group settings to appoint a ‘nominated person’, who must also be a member of the governing body, means a chain needs to have one point of contact for
Ofsted, responsible for all correspondence.

In addition, a small pre-school with a board run by volunteers has to provide a volunteer contact ‘when they may not be the most suitable person,’ said Pacey’s communications director, Victoria Flint. ‘It is something that a number of settings have raised with Ofsted, which has been trying to resolve the issue, but it is down to the DfE to change its requirements,’ she added.

The Pre-School Learning Alliance also stated that these rules may cause small charitable providers to choose a parent trustee, because their constitution may not allow staff to be trustees. The issue is exacerbated by Charity Commission delays regarding constitutional changes. The Alliance suggested closer working between Ofsted and the Charity Commission.

Funding and payment
Local authorities have reported a decline in available free places, which Pacey described as ‘worrying’. The body said that the national funding formula needs to iron out regional disparity ‘in order to incentivise as many providers as possible’.

The consensus is that funding rates need to keep pace with inflation, the cost of living and increased staffing costs due to new pension requirements, a minimum wage increase and the introduction of the national living wage.

Two tiers
Despite the flexible provision offered by childminders, a tiny fraction of parents are taking up a free place with a childminder. It is often not financially viable for childminders to deliver the entitlement due to different funding rates for the two age groups, with the older group receiving less. Childminders, who operate a 1:3 ratio for all children, generally charge a flat rate.

‘The DfE clearly acknowledged this key difference in its funding review,’ stated Pacey, ‘but appears to be maintaining the two-tier system for the extended entitlement.’
Some local authorities already pay a single rate with a positive impact on childminder involvement. The body called for this practice to be adopted widely.

Ban on funding for related children
Childminders are not permitted to claim the free entitlement for their own children or blood relatives. ‘It is already a major barrier to engaging more childminders in the delivery of the free entitlement, but it will become even more significant when the entitlement is doubled,’ stated PACEY.

The submission added, ‘Pacey believes there are already sufficient safeguards in place to ensure government would not be “paying parents to parent”, if it allowed childminders to deliver funded places to relatives, notably the Ofsted registration and inspection process which require that the same standards are required of all childminders, whether they care for a related or an unrelated child. For an additional reassurance, however, government could limit the number of related children for which a childminder could claim the free entitlement.’

Costs deducted at source
Nursery employers can find themselves technically in breach of the minimum and living wages when deducting childcare costs from employees who have their own children in the setting.

The NDNA’s Ms Tanuku said, ‘We believe the approach of deducting agreed childcare costs from pay is a simple and common-sense arrangement. We would only support this approach where the employee has consented to the arrangement.
 
‘Employees are not being deprived of pay. The naming and shaming is particularly unfair when there is no clear guidance available from government. Low Pay Commission reports have urged government to develop guidance further in partnership with stakeholders and NDNA has offered to contribute to this work.