http://www.kirkintilloch-herald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/why_should_parents_be_forced_to_use_council_nursery_demands_angry_parent_1_2006445
A CONTROVERSIAL cost-cutting measure is ‘forcing’ parents to use council nurseries, a concerned parent has claimed.
Every child, aged three and four, is entitled to 12.5 hours a week at a nursery during term time.
East Dunbartonshire Council announced in October that it would not be funding any more places at partner – private and voluntary – nurseries for the school year.
Instead, parents are being offered places at authority-run facilities – generating business and saving cash for the council.
One Bishopbriggs dad who contacted the Herald said he was “appalled” at the decision.
He said: “As parents, we all understand that these are perilous financial times, but local private nurseries provide a vital service to the community.
“This change of tack by the council will have severe financial implications for such businesses.”
He suggested that funding be paid to parents as vouchers to be redeemed at the nursery of their choice. Scottish Government funding provided to the council for pre-school education is not ring-fenced, meaning it can be used for other purposes if required.
Partner nurseries were asked to tender for a set number of free places for this school year – which were duly allocated.
That process is set to be repeated next year, with nurseries being invited to tender again to provide free places.
A report into the issue of pre-school places was presented at a meeting of the education committee last week.
The report confirms the tendering process will proceed and reveals children not registered by July 31 will be given a pre-school place at a council nursery – not a partnership nursery.
A council spokesperson said: “We are about to begin the procurement process to secure private and voluntary nursery places for 2012-2015 and, as part of this year’s budget consultation with local residents, we will continue to review private and voluntary nursery/local authority nursery provision.”
She added: “This year the amount of money from the budget allocated for partnership centres was £1,316,845. The number of commissioned places at September 2011 was 1,059 compared to a total number of 1,038 last year for the full year.
“The situation for most families this year has therefore been broadly similar to that of previous years.
“Although there have been one or two placement difficulties since then, largely because some placement requests were received after the set number of commissioned places had already been allocated, in the main these have been resolved amicably.”
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Friday, 16 December 2011
Enormous shortfall in two year old places predicted
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/1108829/Enormous-shortfall-two-year-old-places-predicted/
Written by Catherine Gaunt - December 13th 2011.
Some of the largest nursery groups in the country are concerned that a shortfall in the number of nursery places for disadvantaged two-year-olds could hamper Government plans to expand free nursery education, Nursery World has learned.
It is understood that there is already likely to be a shortage of 40,000 places for the initial rollout of the scheme from September 2013.
The chancellor's announcement in his Autumn Statement to extend the number of nursery places for two-year-olds to 40 per cent of children, from 2014-15, means thousands more places will need to be found.
The Government says that it will be investing an extra £380m a year in the scheme, so that up to 260,000 two-year-olds will be able to access 15 hours of nursery education a week. However, it is understood that officials at the Department for Education have estimated that there could already be a shortfall of 40,000 places for the initial rollout, which will entitle 20 per cent of two-year-olds to a free place for 15 hours a week from 2013.
The DfE is currently consulting on the eligibility criteria for providers that wish to offer two-year-old places and has indicated that only providers that are judged 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted will be eligible for the two-year-old funding.
Based on the number of providers that currently meet this standard, it is understood that there is likely to be a shortage of 40,000 places. Now that the Government is planning to extend the scheme, a further 130,000 places need to be found.
It is also understood that although providers are willing to offer two-year-old places in settings where capacity is available, they are not considering investing in providing more places - by extending premises and taking on more staff, for example - without more Government investment.
'Question mark'
A number of the large nursery groups have told Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which chairs the Major Providers group, that they welcome the proposal to extend the scheme for disadvantaged two-year-olds and will use their spare capacity, but they are not prepared to invest further to create additional places. It is understood that nursery groups believe it is unreasonable of the Government to expect them to subsidise the two-year-old offer.
Mr Leitch said there was 'a massive question mark' about whether the number of childcare places could be accommodated by the sector.
As the two-year-old entitlement is being offered to the most disadvantaged children, there is likely to be a shortage of places particularly in deprived areas, where childcare quality tends to be lower, or in rural areas.
Mr Leitch warned that a policy to allow only 'good' or 'outstanding' nurseries to offer two-year-old places would 'eliminate a significant proportion of settings'.
He claimed that there could be an overall shortfall of at least 170,000 places, in the 'worst case scenario', and that if the Government adhered to this policy 'a fair chunk of the sector' would be excluded from offering the scheme.
Mr Leitch said, 'Something has to happen to accommodate those places. If funding is only going to "good" or "outstanding" settings, you could be a "satisfactory" setting and not have an inspection for three or four years, which puts you at a disadvantage.'
To counter this, the Alliance is proposing that 'satisfactory' settings should be able to ask Ofsted to re-inspect them after six months, so that they have a chance to show that they have successfully acted on Ofsted's actions and recommendations and believe that their provision has improved sufficiently to move up a grade from 'satisfactory'.
Mr Leitch suggested that Ofsted's costs would be covered by settings paying for the re-inspection themselves.
He said that such a move would drive improvement to the quality of early years settings, as well as leading to an increase in the number of available places for two-year-olds.
Meanwhile, Early Years Childcare, which runs nine nurseries in Sussex, is running a survey about the experiences of nurseries offering the pilot scheme for two-year-olds.
The group says that a number of providers say they are struggling to stay sustainable and that the situation is compounded by underfunding for threeand four-year-olds.
Business development manager Adeline Garman said, 'Most have expressed concern that they will be put under further pressure once the scheme is rolled out to eligible two-year-olds.'
To take part in an online survey visit:
http://www.freechildcare.org.uk/%202011/12/two-year-old-funding-take-part-in-our-survey/
Written by Catherine Gaunt - December 13th 2011.
Some of the largest nursery groups in the country are concerned that a shortfall in the number of nursery places for disadvantaged two-year-olds could hamper Government plans to expand free nursery education, Nursery World has learned.
It is understood that there is already likely to be a shortage of 40,000 places for the initial rollout of the scheme from September 2013.
The chancellor's announcement in his Autumn Statement to extend the number of nursery places for two-year-olds to 40 per cent of children, from 2014-15, means thousands more places will need to be found.
The Government says that it will be investing an extra £380m a year in the scheme, so that up to 260,000 two-year-olds will be able to access 15 hours of nursery education a week. However, it is understood that officials at the Department for Education have estimated that there could already be a shortfall of 40,000 places for the initial rollout, which will entitle 20 per cent of two-year-olds to a free place for 15 hours a week from 2013.
The DfE is currently consulting on the eligibility criteria for providers that wish to offer two-year-old places and has indicated that only providers that are judged 'outstanding' or 'good' by Ofsted will be eligible for the two-year-old funding.
Based on the number of providers that currently meet this standard, it is understood that there is likely to be a shortage of 40,000 places. Now that the Government is planning to extend the scheme, a further 130,000 places need to be found.
It is also understood that although providers are willing to offer two-year-old places in settings where capacity is available, they are not considering investing in providing more places - by extending premises and taking on more staff, for example - without more Government investment.
'Question mark'
A number of the large nursery groups have told Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which chairs the Major Providers group, that they welcome the proposal to extend the scheme for disadvantaged two-year-olds and will use their spare capacity, but they are not prepared to invest further to create additional places. It is understood that nursery groups believe it is unreasonable of the Government to expect them to subsidise the two-year-old offer.
Mr Leitch said there was 'a massive question mark' about whether the number of childcare places could be accommodated by the sector.
As the two-year-old entitlement is being offered to the most disadvantaged children, there is likely to be a shortage of places particularly in deprived areas, where childcare quality tends to be lower, or in rural areas.
Mr Leitch warned that a policy to allow only 'good' or 'outstanding' nurseries to offer two-year-old places would 'eliminate a significant proportion of settings'.
He claimed that there could be an overall shortfall of at least 170,000 places, in the 'worst case scenario', and that if the Government adhered to this policy 'a fair chunk of the sector' would be excluded from offering the scheme.
Mr Leitch said, 'Something has to happen to accommodate those places. If funding is only going to "good" or "outstanding" settings, you could be a "satisfactory" setting and not have an inspection for three or four years, which puts you at a disadvantage.'
To counter this, the Alliance is proposing that 'satisfactory' settings should be able to ask Ofsted to re-inspect them after six months, so that they have a chance to show that they have successfully acted on Ofsted's actions and recommendations and believe that their provision has improved sufficiently to move up a grade from 'satisfactory'.
Mr Leitch suggested that Ofsted's costs would be covered by settings paying for the re-inspection themselves.
He said that such a move would drive improvement to the quality of early years settings, as well as leading to an increase in the number of available places for two-year-olds.
Meanwhile, Early Years Childcare, which runs nine nurseries in Sussex, is running a survey about the experiences of nurseries offering the pilot scheme for two-year-olds.
The group says that a number of providers say they are struggling to stay sustainable and that the situation is compounded by underfunding for threeand four-year-olds.
Business development manager Adeline Garman said, 'Most have expressed concern that they will be put under further pressure once the scheme is rolled out to eligible two-year-olds.'
To take part in an online survey visit:
http://www.freechildcare.org.uk/%202011/12/two-year-old-funding-take-part-in-our-survey/
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Parents put off by 'Cliques' in parent & toddler groups
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/1107457/Parents-put-off-cliques-parent-toddler-groups/
Research carried out by the University of Bristol found that a quarter of parents decided not to go back to a group after one visit because they found it ‘cliquey’ or did not know any of the other parents.
One in five parents in the study was described as ‘group-phobic’.
The study - funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and Barnardo's - found that rather than cost or location, the key reason which determined whether parents went to pre-school groups was how well mothers thought they would get on with others in the group.
Parents were much more likely to keep going back to a group if they were told about it by a friend or relative, than if they saw it advertised on a leaflet or a poster.
Researcher Dr Sue Jones from the university’s School for Policy Studies interviewed 30 parents from a deprived area of Bristol to find out why some parents use early years groups regularly, while others do not.
Dr Jones said that despite concern that "hard-to-reach" parents do not use early years groups, there has been little research into the social and psychological factors that influence parental attendance.
‘Going to a group can be a daunting experience, especially if a mother doesn’t know anyone there. The mother and group need to "fit" together. Mothers need to feel that others in the group are her social equals, with similar values and attitudes to childrearing. Mothers need to feel their age, social class, and their or their child’s ethnic identity will not isolate them in the group,’ she said.
Dr Jones interviewed 29 mothers and one father (the father had not attended any early years groups).
Between them, they knew of 97 early years groups and had tried two-thirds of them.
The early years groups included were those where attendance was up to parents, and not because they needed to attend for childcare reasons. They were run by both volunteers and paid staff and included mother/ parent toddler groups, baby drop-ins and playgroups.
Of the 30 children in the study, 11 of them had either never been to a group or had only been once.
However, seven mothers had been to three or more different groups and four children had been to early years groups more than 200 times.
Lacking confidence was found to be a major barrier to attendance, with even confident mothers preferring to go to groups with friends.
‘Knowing someone usually resulted in regular and enjoyable attendance, not least because it often meant the mother had someone to go with,’ the study said.
Mothers who had attended ante-natal classes before their child was born were significantly more likely to attend groups regularly and were less likely to have attended council nurseries before their child was three.
What mattered most was whether mothers ‘fitted in’ with group members.
Although only one mother used the word ‘class’, nine of them commented about 15 groups in class terms. Different mothers could describe the same group as ‘friendly’ or stuck-up’.
Mothers who had bad experiences going to a group described how they felt the group was cliquey, with other mothers ‘bitching and gossiping’, or giving them ‘dirty looks’. Seven of the mothers interviewed said that their experiences had put them off groups permanently.
Sure Start services appealed to a wider range of social groups that the others.
Fewer parents complained about Sure Start being cliquey, which Dr Jones said could be because Sure Start used early years staff to welcome newcomers, and also set up some groups to run for just six to eight weeks to give less chance for cliques to form.
Of the 42 Sure Start groups in the study, just two were described as ‘cliquey’, compared with 13 of the 55 other types of group.
The report concluded, ‘It would seem that few resources (educational, financial, mental health) balanced against high needs (large family, many problems) and an accumulation of abuse, stress and trauma can severely dent a mother’s confidence, whereas warm encouragement, pleasant group experiences and appropriate help from workers can increase it.’
What parents said
‘[I] wouldn’t go to a group where I didn’t know anyone. I can’t make conversation with people and things like that.’
‘I wouldn’t go to any groups round here…Went to one or two and they are too cliquey.’
‘At Sure Start, you’re made to feel welcome, no strings, which put everybody equal…they always used to try and buddy up new mothers and a lot of family link workers used to bring a lot of new ones in. You don’t feel you were on your own.’
‘It was terrible. I walked in and they all gave you dirty looks. Looked at [me] like I was a down and out.’
‘I am quite a sociable person really, but it’s intimidating I find, going to a group where I don’t know anybody.’
‘You have got a few rough mothers who live in this area and it seemed like they went there.
Research carried out by the University of Bristol found that a quarter of parents decided not to go back to a group after one visit because they found it ‘cliquey’ or did not know any of the other parents.
One in five parents in the study was described as ‘group-phobic’.
The study - funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and Barnardo's - found that rather than cost or location, the key reason which determined whether parents went to pre-school groups was how well mothers thought they would get on with others in the group.
Parents were much more likely to keep going back to a group if they were told about it by a friend or relative, than if they saw it advertised on a leaflet or a poster.
Researcher Dr Sue Jones from the university’s School for Policy Studies interviewed 30 parents from a deprived area of Bristol to find out why some parents use early years groups regularly, while others do not.
Dr Jones said that despite concern that "hard-to-reach" parents do not use early years groups, there has been little research into the social and psychological factors that influence parental attendance.
‘Going to a group can be a daunting experience, especially if a mother doesn’t know anyone there. The mother and group need to "fit" together. Mothers need to feel that others in the group are her social equals, with similar values and attitudes to childrearing. Mothers need to feel their age, social class, and their or their child’s ethnic identity will not isolate them in the group,’ she said.
Dr Jones interviewed 29 mothers and one father (the father had not attended any early years groups).
Between them, they knew of 97 early years groups and had tried two-thirds of them.
The early years groups included were those where attendance was up to parents, and not because they needed to attend for childcare reasons. They were run by both volunteers and paid staff and included mother/ parent toddler groups, baby drop-ins and playgroups.
Of the 30 children in the study, 11 of them had either never been to a group or had only been once.
However, seven mothers had been to three or more different groups and four children had been to early years groups more than 200 times.
Lacking confidence was found to be a major barrier to attendance, with even confident mothers preferring to go to groups with friends.
‘Knowing someone usually resulted in regular and enjoyable attendance, not least because it often meant the mother had someone to go with,’ the study said.
Mothers who had attended ante-natal classes before their child was born were significantly more likely to attend groups regularly and were less likely to have attended council nurseries before their child was three.
What mattered most was whether mothers ‘fitted in’ with group members.
Although only one mother used the word ‘class’, nine of them commented about 15 groups in class terms. Different mothers could describe the same group as ‘friendly’ or stuck-up’.
Mothers who had bad experiences going to a group described how they felt the group was cliquey, with other mothers ‘bitching and gossiping’, or giving them ‘dirty looks’. Seven of the mothers interviewed said that their experiences had put them off groups permanently.
Sure Start services appealed to a wider range of social groups that the others.
Fewer parents complained about Sure Start being cliquey, which Dr Jones said could be because Sure Start used early years staff to welcome newcomers, and also set up some groups to run for just six to eight weeks to give less chance for cliques to form.
Of the 42 Sure Start groups in the study, just two were described as ‘cliquey’, compared with 13 of the 55 other types of group.
The report concluded, ‘It would seem that few resources (educational, financial, mental health) balanced against high needs (large family, many problems) and an accumulation of abuse, stress and trauma can severely dent a mother’s confidence, whereas warm encouragement, pleasant group experiences and appropriate help from workers can increase it.’
What parents said
‘[I] wouldn’t go to a group where I didn’t know anyone. I can’t make conversation with people and things like that.’
‘I wouldn’t go to any groups round here…Went to one or two and they are too cliquey.’
‘At Sure Start, you’re made to feel welcome, no strings, which put everybody equal…they always used to try and buddy up new mothers and a lot of family link workers used to bring a lot of new ones in. You don’t feel you were on your own.’
‘It was terrible. I walked in and they all gave you dirty looks. Looked at [me] like I was a down and out.’
‘I am quite a sociable person really, but it’s intimidating I find, going to a group where I don’t know anybody.’
‘You have got a few rough mothers who live in this area and it seemed like they went there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)