Professionals fear reforms will jeopardise quality of childcare

When Professor Cathy Nutbrown’s review of childcare and early education qualifications was published last year, early years practitioners almost universally applauded its recommendations. But the government’s response to her plans last week has ?divided opinion.

Childcare minister Elizabeth Truss unveiled a package of reforms to improve the quality, standards and status of the early years workforce, while making childcare more affordable and relaxing the regulations around how many children staff can care for. They are contained in a report, More Great Childcare.

Proposals to alter ratios in early years settings have been the subject of heated debate since Truss first mooted the idea last May.

Under the plans, nursery workers would be allowed to care for four children up to the age of two, rather than three; and six children aged two- to three-years-old, rather than four. The current levels for children aged three and above would stay unchanged.

Childminders would be able to look after two babies, rather than one, and four children aged one- to six-years-old, rather than three. The maximum capacity for children aged over six would remain at six.

Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, is outraged by the ratios plans. He accuses the government of ignoring evidence and the advice of the sector.

His organisation’s own research showed 94 per cent of early years professionals were against the idea. He also doubts the consultation is “appropriately aimed”. “I’m fearful it will be like the announcement of the free entitlement – there was no engagement with the sector,” he says.

Anand Shukla, chief executive of the Daycare Trust and the Family and Parenting Institute, has raised concerns that increasing the ratios will lead to a reduction in quality. His organisation plans to carry out research into the proposals in order to develop a robust response to the government’s consultation on deployment of staff in early years settings.

“This will bring together the evidence on ratios – both research from this country and overseas,” he says. “But our starting assumption is that we have concerns about the direction of travel on ratio relaxation.”

One of the Department for Education’s arguments in favour of relaxing the regulations is that it will increase early years settings’ incomes, which will lead to lower costs for parents and higher pay for workers.

Boost to business
Armine Guzelian, director of the London-based Busy Bee Nursery School, believes that ratio changes will boost finances without compromising childcare safety or quality. “The ratio change will make a significant business difference in terms of the expenses I would pay out,” she says. “No practitioner would be left on their own with a child anyway – that would not be right in an emergency.”

She currently supplements staff numbers by offering unpaid work placements and says other settings could use the ratio changes to their financial advantage in the same way without diminishing services.

Her concern with the proposals is the lack of information relating to regulations outside of childcare premises. “There will be difficulties with the one-to-six ratio when you take children on outings,” she says. “In the park, you’ll need more than one pair of hands for six two- to three-year-olds.”

Ben Black, director of childcare provider My Family Care, which represents 200 early years workers, says the money generated by reduced staff numbers will drive nursery fees down. “It’s a pretty good market out there and it’s working at 80 per cent, which in itself is a tragedy,” he says. “Settings are competing for people. The money will reduce fees and go to higher pay and higher profits.”

But Ryan Shorthouse, researcher at the think-tank Social Market Foundation, says the jury is out on whether altering ratios would benefit parents. “Research on the effect of different staff-to-child ratios on quality is limited, so it is impossible to draw firm conclusions on optimum ratios,” he says. “If less strict ratios will pay for higher quality staff, where are the savings for providers to charge less? Even if providers did have a bit more money, there is no guarantee they would pass it on to parents in the form of lower fees, especially considering their tight margins.”

Despite this, Shorthouse says the government’s intention to improve quality by raising staff qualifications is a step in the right direction.

Ministers want more graduates to work in early years settings, and will introduce two qualifications to help achieve this. Early Years Teachers will be trained to the same standard as school teachers. Early Years Educators, who will need to have a minimum grade C in English and maths to train, will assist Early Years Teachers.

Sue Owen, director of programmes at the National Children’s Bureau, says it is essential that supervised practice is included in training for these roles.

But she suggests that the minimum GCSE grade C requirement is unnecessary. “There are some very good people who are not academic, who could evidence their ability in English and maths in another way,” she says.

Alongside the proposals to alter ratios for childminders, the government plans to encourage the creation of childminding agencies, to provide business support, training and matching services.

Registration will be optional, but simultaneous changes to Ofsted’s inspection of childminders have raised concerns that the move could lead to a two-tier system.

Increased costs
Ofsted will still inspect individually registered childminders, but in future, childminders signed up with agencies will not have to register with the watchdog. Instead, inspectors will check a sample of the childminders on an agency’s books.

“It’s going to make a very confusing situation for parents who won’t understand, without a lot of information, the difference between a childminder who is on an agency and a childminder who is not,” says Catherine Farrell, joint chief executive of the National Childminding Association. 

She believes the agency model will increase costs for childminders, who may have to pay a fee for registration as well as commission for family-matching services.

But Yvette Oliver-Mighten, who runs the childcare agency @Home Childcare, says it will save costs in the long run and drive more people into the profession. “A matching service is something childminders would pay for – in a sense they’re paying for that already by using directories,” she says. “This is similar, but it’s a more personal service as we know our families.”

She believes childminders welcome the support her agency offers in managing paperwork, preparing for inspections and complying with the Early Years Foundation Stage. “When local authorities were well-funded and you had a whole team of support workers, it was fine, but things have changed,” Oliver-Mighten says. “Some areas still have childminder support, but some have none. That’s where we come in.”

Meanwhile, the council role in early education looks set to diminish further. The government plans to transfer local authority responsibility for assessing whether providers should receive funding to deliver free early education to three- and four-year-old places to Ofsted.

Claire Dent, professional lead for the early years national committee at Aspect, is concerned that Ofsted lacks the capacity and expertise to fulfil this new role. “The early years people in local authorities know their areas very well, therefore they’re more able to offer support,” she says. “Our experience is that Ofsted hasn’t got the expertise for that – it’s a huge culture change.”

Dent would have liked to see a national pay scale introduced alongside changes to practitioners’ qualifications. Without this, she believes, the status of the profession will remain low. “Re-badging staff won’t ensure everyone knows what they do,” she says. “And calling them ‘teachers’ does not mean people understand how important they are to young children.”


‘More Great Childcare’ – Proposals at a glance