The on-going controversy over Government early years policy hit the national headlines once again last week, when the Daily Mail published an interview with education and childcare minister Elizabeth Truss in which she launched a scathing attack on the childcare sector
It may come as a surprise to those who have dedicated a large part of their lives to caring for the very youngest children with compassion, kindness and commitment that they have, in fact, been "breeding a nation of unruly toddlers".
The minister says that "we want children to learn to listen to a teacher, learn to respect an instruction, so that they are ready for school". I can only assume by "we", she is referring to the Department of Education, as I can’t think of many childcare professionals – those who actually understand the importance of free flow play and a combination of child-led and adult-led activities – who would share many of the Minister’s views on what constitutes "good" childcare.
"I have seen too many chaotic settings, where children are running around," she says. "There is no sense of purpose." I’d be interested to know exactly how many Ms Truss defines as "too many", given that she has made a grand total of six official visits to childcare settings, which includes breakfast clubs and other wraparound provision, during her time as minister – a fact only revealed in response to a written Parliamentary question put to her last week.
If you look at the most recent Ofsted reports of the visited settings, the minister’s description of "chaotic settings" suddenly looks like, to put it bluntly, absolute rubbish. "Children’s behaviour is exemplary," said an inspector of one of the settings, Chapeltown Children’s Centre in Leeds, in 2011. "They listen, take turns and work harmoniously together," said another of Loughborough Children’s Centre in 2012.
And according to the inspector visiting Marsham Street Children's Centre in central London, the children there are "consistently busy and interested in what they are doing which results in respectful, calm and good behaviour". Chaotic, indeed.
It beggars belief that a minister for childcare could make such an insulting, baseless, sweeping statement about the state of the sector, particularly when you consider the Ofsted reports of those very few settings deemed worthy of an official visit. Perhaps she could enlighten us as to precisely which settings she found so "chaotic"?
Of course, the Department for Education has defended Ms Truss's statements by arguing that she has visited "many nurseries and other childcare settings as a parent, before she became a MP, as a backbencher, and as a Minister". Unsurprisingly, that’s as much information as they are willing or able to provide.
It’s time for the minister to stop being so vague and evasive when questioned on her engagement with the sector. Remember the ill-fated Mumsnet webchat earlier this year? When asked by one user how many parents and practitioners the DfE had consulted with over the ratios proposals, Ms Truss answered, "Lots and lots." Is this what passes for evidence in the Department these days?
And lest we forget that this is the very same Department that described the National Children’s Bureau childcare survey, which found that 95 per cent of providers are opposed to ratio changes, as "unscientific and self-serving" (though I highly doubt that many officials genuinely felt this was the case).
In the minister’s defence, it’s really quite a smart strategy in some ways. Launch a completely unwarranted attack on the childcare sector, but don’t bother to back this up with any actual evidence (personal views are fine). Then, as the general public begin to despair at being lumbered with a nation of inadequate day nurseries which are "breeding" a generation of ill-mannered children, present a simple solution that requires absolutely no effort or investment on the part of the Government: let’s copy France.
"What you notice in French nurseries is just how calm they are," says the minister. "All of their classes are structured and led by teachers. It’s a requirement. They learn to socialise with each other, pay attention to the teacher and develop good manners, which is not the case in too many nurseries in Britain."
I take it the minister hasn’t had time to read the Economic Intelligence Unit’s 2012 Starting Well report, which ranks the UK’s early years sector as one of the best in the world.
Strange, given that a DfE press release published last year to support the launch of the Government’s Childcare Commission states, "Starting Well, produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked the UK fourth out of 45 countries in terms of quality, availability and affordability of early education for three- to six-year-olds, ahead of Denmark, France and the Netherlands."
There may well be elements of French provision that would benefit our own settings – and undoubtedly the reverse is also true. But to suggest that the way to improve the quality of early years in England is simply to emulate another country’s childcare system, without taking into account cultural, economic or social differences, is beyond belief.
Has the minister forgotten what she wrote in her paper on childcare regulations for the think-tank Centre Forum last year? "It is not appropriate to import an entire model from another country." Change "not appropriate" to "nonsensical" and I might be inclined to agree.
If Ms Truss actually made the effort to truly engage with practitioners, she would realise that the particular aspects of the French system that she holds in such high regard – the rigid structure, the formality, the focus on "obeying instructions" – are not ones to which we as a sector aspire.
When June O’Sullivan, CEO of the London Early Years Foundation, visited France earlier this year, she found that practitioners there "do not like the [French] ratios" because "it limits their opportunities to educate children under the age of three years". Similarly, in a recent article in the Guardian, the manager of Les Petites Etoiles, a bilingual French nursery based in north London, admitted that the English system is "more creative and listens to children's needs more carefully".
Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but arguably relevant to the debate, given the complete lack of any credible evidence provided by the Government on this issue.
In an interview earlier this year, the minister said, "The more I’ve looked into childcare and the more evidence I have studied, the more convinced I have become that it is the quality rather than the quantity of staff that is most important in delivering a high standard of childcare."
I confess that I am at a complete loss as to what has led her to the misguided belief that quality of staff and low staff ratios are a trade-off of sorts; that as long as you have one (qualifications), the other (low ratios) is unimportant.
It’s an assumption that Professor Cathy Nutbrown completely rejected in her Shaking the foundations of quality report, published in March. "I fear that any positive effects for children that might have come about through enhancement in qualifications will be cancelled out because there will be too few early years professionals working with them," she said, later adding, "Trading staff-child ratios for higher qualified staff is nonsense."
A report authored by early years experts Professor Kathy Sylva, Naomi Eisenstadt, Sandra Mathers and Brenda Taggart also concluded that lowering staff ratios would have a detrimental impact on the quality of childcare, even if staff qualifications are higher. Citing the 2011 Evaluation of the Graduate Leader Fund study, the report notes that, by relaxing ratios for under-threes, "quality is likely to go down; with the evidence pointing to reductions in the quality of care routines, health and safety, and the extent to which settings are able to provide for children’s individual needs".
The minister is yet to directly respond to either report.
And what about the paper authored by Dr Eva Lloyd and Professor Helen Penn which concluded that "deregulation in the UK would lead to a reduction in quality"? The one commissioned by the DfE itself? Sunk without a trace, it seems.
So exactly what evidence is there in support of the plans? Listen to any speech by the Minister on the proposals and you’ll hear her referencing the same two supposed supporters over and over again: Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted and Andreas Schleicher of the OECD.
But when the Alliance contacted Ofsted to confirm Sir Michael’s support, we were told that the issue was "outside of Ofsted’s remit" and so to describe the Ofsted chief as a supporter of ratio changes was "inaccurate".
And when we contacted Andrew Schleicher, he admitted that much of the OECD’s data on the relative importance of qualifications in comparison to staffing ratios "relates to formal schooling" – that is, "primary, lower secondary and upper secondary schooling".
So what are we left with? Ms Truss’s assertion that she has consulted with "lots and lots" of organisations on the proposals, and that she has seen "too many" settings of sub-standard quality.
Exactly how long can the Government allow their reputation to be tarnished by the formation of policies that have no substance or basis?
One of the most disappointing outcomes of all that has happened in recent months is that we have been brought to the point where the only way to get our voices heard is via public forum. We have spent years in dialogue with successive Governments creating the quality of childcare we have today and we now risk it all being undone by a few sweeping uninformed statements.
Just a few months after coming to office, the Coalition Government released its vision for the early years, Supporting Families in the Foundation Years, championing "co-production", as a new approach of working with the sector. Co-production, they said, would ensure that "practitioners, leaders and commissioners can contribute at an early stage in the policy development and implementation process" and that "policy is informed by those who best understand how to implement it". We were told it wasn’t "just for the now, but for the future".
And where are we today? Every single early years co-production group has been dismantled. Why? Because, as is becoming abundantly clear, our opinion is valid only when it fits in with the minister’s predetermined agenda.
The minister says that "we want children to learn to listen to a teacher, learn to respect an instruction, so that they are ready for school". I can only assume by "we", she is referring to the Department of Education, as I can’t think of many childcare professionals – those who actually understand the importance of free flow play and a combination of child-led and adult-led activities – who would share many of the Minister’s views on what constitutes "good" childcare.
"I have seen too many chaotic settings, where children are running around," she says. "There is no sense of purpose." I’d be interested to know exactly how many Ms Truss defines as "too many", given that she has made a grand total of six official visits to childcare settings, which includes breakfast clubs and other wraparound provision, during her time as minister – a fact only revealed in response to a written Parliamentary question put to her last week.
If you look at the most recent Ofsted reports of the visited settings, the minister’s description of "chaotic settings" suddenly looks like, to put it bluntly, absolute rubbish. "Children’s behaviour is exemplary," said an inspector of one of the settings, Chapeltown Children’s Centre in Leeds, in 2011. "They listen, take turns and work harmoniously together," said another of Loughborough Children’s Centre in 2012.
And according to the inspector visiting Marsham Street Children's Centre in central London, the children there are "consistently busy and interested in what they are doing which results in respectful, calm and good behaviour". Chaotic, indeed.
It beggars belief that a minister for childcare could make such an insulting, baseless, sweeping statement about the state of the sector, particularly when you consider the Ofsted reports of those very few settings deemed worthy of an official visit. Perhaps she could enlighten us as to precisely which settings she found so "chaotic"?
Of course, the Department for Education has defended Ms Truss's statements by arguing that she has visited "many nurseries and other childcare settings as a parent, before she became a MP, as a backbencher, and as a Minister". Unsurprisingly, that’s as much information as they are willing or able to provide.
It’s time for the minister to stop being so vague and evasive when questioned on her engagement with the sector. Remember the ill-fated Mumsnet webchat earlier this year? When asked by one user how many parents and practitioners the DfE had consulted with over the ratios proposals, Ms Truss answered, "Lots and lots." Is this what passes for evidence in the Department these days?
And lest we forget that this is the very same Department that described the National Children’s Bureau childcare survey, which found that 95 per cent of providers are opposed to ratio changes, as "unscientific and self-serving" (though I highly doubt that many officials genuinely felt this was the case).
In the minister’s defence, it’s really quite a smart strategy in some ways. Launch a completely unwarranted attack on the childcare sector, but don’t bother to back this up with any actual evidence (personal views are fine). Then, as the general public begin to despair at being lumbered with a nation of inadequate day nurseries which are "breeding" a generation of ill-mannered children, present a simple solution that requires absolutely no effort or investment on the part of the Government: let’s copy France.
"What you notice in French nurseries is just how calm they are," says the minister. "All of their classes are structured and led by teachers. It’s a requirement. They learn to socialise with each other, pay attention to the teacher and develop good manners, which is not the case in too many nurseries in Britain."
I take it the minister hasn’t had time to read the Economic Intelligence Unit’s 2012 Starting Well report, which ranks the UK’s early years sector as one of the best in the world.
Strange, given that a DfE press release published last year to support the launch of the Government’s Childcare Commission states, "Starting Well, produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked the UK fourth out of 45 countries in terms of quality, availability and affordability of early education for three- to six-year-olds, ahead of Denmark, France and the Netherlands."
There may well be elements of French provision that would benefit our own settings – and undoubtedly the reverse is also true. But to suggest that the way to improve the quality of early years in England is simply to emulate another country’s childcare system, without taking into account cultural, economic or social differences, is beyond belief.
Has the minister forgotten what she wrote in her paper on childcare regulations for the think-tank Centre Forum last year? "It is not appropriate to import an entire model from another country." Change "not appropriate" to "nonsensical" and I might be inclined to agree.
If Ms Truss actually made the effort to truly engage with practitioners, she would realise that the particular aspects of the French system that she holds in such high regard – the rigid structure, the formality, the focus on "obeying instructions" – are not ones to which we as a sector aspire.
When June O’Sullivan, CEO of the London Early Years Foundation, visited France earlier this year, she found that practitioners there "do not like the [French] ratios" because "it limits their opportunities to educate children under the age of three years". Similarly, in a recent article in the Guardian, the manager of Les Petites Etoiles, a bilingual French nursery based in north London, admitted that the English system is "more creative and listens to children's needs more carefully".
Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but arguably relevant to the debate, given the complete lack of any credible evidence provided by the Government on this issue.
In an interview earlier this year, the minister said, "The more I’ve looked into childcare and the more evidence I have studied, the more convinced I have become that it is the quality rather than the quantity of staff that is most important in delivering a high standard of childcare."
I confess that I am at a complete loss as to what has led her to the misguided belief that quality of staff and low staff ratios are a trade-off of sorts; that as long as you have one (qualifications), the other (low ratios) is unimportant.
It’s an assumption that Professor Cathy Nutbrown completely rejected in her Shaking the foundations of quality report, published in March. "I fear that any positive effects for children that might have come about through enhancement in qualifications will be cancelled out because there will be too few early years professionals working with them," she said, later adding, "Trading staff-child ratios for higher qualified staff is nonsense."
A report authored by early years experts Professor Kathy Sylva, Naomi Eisenstadt, Sandra Mathers and Brenda Taggart also concluded that lowering staff ratios would have a detrimental impact on the quality of childcare, even if staff qualifications are higher. Citing the 2011 Evaluation of the Graduate Leader Fund study, the report notes that, by relaxing ratios for under-threes, "quality is likely to go down; with the evidence pointing to reductions in the quality of care routines, health and safety, and the extent to which settings are able to provide for children’s individual needs".
The minister is yet to directly respond to either report.
And what about the paper authored by Dr Eva Lloyd and Professor Helen Penn which concluded that "deregulation in the UK would lead to a reduction in quality"? The one commissioned by the DfE itself? Sunk without a trace, it seems.
So exactly what evidence is there in support of the plans? Listen to any speech by the Minister on the proposals and you’ll hear her referencing the same two supposed supporters over and over again: Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted and Andreas Schleicher of the OECD.
But when the Alliance contacted Ofsted to confirm Sir Michael’s support, we were told that the issue was "outside of Ofsted’s remit" and so to describe the Ofsted chief as a supporter of ratio changes was "inaccurate".
And when we contacted Andrew Schleicher, he admitted that much of the OECD’s data on the relative importance of qualifications in comparison to staffing ratios "relates to formal schooling" – that is, "primary, lower secondary and upper secondary schooling".
So what are we left with? Ms Truss’s assertion that she has consulted with "lots and lots" of organisations on the proposals, and that she has seen "too many" settings of sub-standard quality.
Exactly how long can the Government allow their reputation to be tarnished by the formation of policies that have no substance or basis?
One of the most disappointing outcomes of all that has happened in recent months is that we have been brought to the point where the only way to get our voices heard is via public forum. We have spent years in dialogue with successive Governments creating the quality of childcare we have today and we now risk it all being undone by a few sweeping uninformed statements.
Just a few months after coming to office, the Coalition Government released its vision for the early years, Supporting Families in the Foundation Years, championing "co-production", as a new approach of working with the sector. Co-production, they said, would ensure that "practitioners, leaders and commissioners can contribute at an early stage in the policy development and implementation process" and that "policy is informed by those who best understand how to implement it". We were told it wasn’t "just for the now, but for the future".
And where are we today? Every single early years co-production group has been dismantled. Why? Because, as is becoming abundantly clear, our opinion is valid only when it fits in with the minister’s predetermined agenda.