THE RESPONSE OF THE NUT TO THE DfE
CONSULTATION ‘TACKLING CHILD POVERTY
AND IMPROVING LIFE CHANCES:
CONSULTING ON A NEW APPROACH’
The NUT has made the following recommendations in its response to ‘Tackling Child
Poverty and Improving Life Chances: Consulting on a New Approach’:
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should keep and commit to meeting the
poverty targets set out in the Child Poverty Act.
RECOMMENDATION: The ‘socio-economic duty’ requirement of the Equality Act
2010 should be reinstated.
RECOMMENDATION: Child poverty in working households should be given the
same focus as out-of-work poverty. An important priority must be to increase the
number of working families with sufficient security, pay and hours to take them
out of poverty.
RECOMMENDATION: Any attempt to tackle child poverty must take into
consideration the disproportionate impact of current and proposed funding cuts
on the poorest households.
RECOMMENDATION: Additional strategies must be introduced to tackle the
complexity of poverty amongst children from black and minority ethnic groups.
Approaches to tackling poverty must be equality proofed.
RECOMMENDATION: Existing high quality local authority SEN Central Support
Services must be maintained and built upon in order to support disabled and SEN
children and parents who rely so heavily on the expertise of the staff working in
them. Additional strategies must be introduced to tackle the complexity of
poverty amongst disabled children and those with special educational needs.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings of PISA 2010, the Government should
review the evidence about the demographic distribution of students within the
current school system in England, as well as issues relating to the academicvocational divide in secondary education.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should identify how early intervention
programmes will be funded to ensure that children from poorer backgrounds are
properly supported.
RECOMMENDATION: Early intervention should be seen first and foremost as a
public good, not as a means of providing financial returns to investors, though it
would provide savings to society.
RECOMMENDATION: Early years settings which are situated in deprived areas or
which admit significant numbers of disadvantaged children should be funded
according to the model established for special schools, with the number of places
for each setting identified and funded.
Document1 - 1
RECOMMENDATION: The funding of full time nursery places for disadvantaged
children should be subject to urgent review and whilst this review takes place, no
existing full time places for this group of children should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should abandon proposals to allow
nursery schools and classes to charge for provision over and above the 15 hours
of free entitlement. This coupled with the fact that the Early Years Single Funding
Formula does not provide sufficient flexibility for local additional hours beyond
the free entitlement will further disadvantage children from low income families.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should prioritise improvements in the pay
and working conditions of early years staff.
RECOMMENDATION: Funding for early years reforms should be seen as an
investment which will provide savings in the longer term.
RECOMMENDATION: Rather than wasting time and money developing new
strategies or training programmes, the Government should first consider building
upon existing provision.
RECOMMENDATION: Where provision is deemed to be ‘education’, it must be
provided by a qualified teacher. Any attempt to replace qualified teachers with
those with Early Years Professional status would jeopardise the quality of
provision.
RECOMMENDATION: The ‘school readiness’ assessments and screening should
focus primarily on child’s social and emotional development, not on literacy and
numeracy skills.
RECOMMENDATION: Any attempt to align Early Years Foundation Stage
assessment with the Healthy Child Programme reviews must respect its formative
purpose.
RECOMMENDATION: Life Chance Indicators should not be seen as mutually
exclusive to the material income measure. It is essential not to understate the
pressures on families having to live on low incomes.
RECOMMENDATION: There should be an increase in both child-related benefits
and greater support for universal services.
RECOMMENDATION: The Life Chance Indicators should not be used for
accountability purposes.
RECOMMENDATION: Parenting and life skills should become part of the National
Curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION: Local authorities should be empowered, via adequate
central funding, to devise imaginative ways to target the most hard to reach
parents, who are usually those in most need of support.
RECOMMENDATION: Free school meals provision should be extended to all
pupils living below the poverty line.
Document1 - 2
RECOMMENDATION: The Education Maintenance
maintained or a similar scheme put in place.
Allowance
should
be
RECOMMENDATION: Universities should not be allowed to charge admission
fees. Raising tuition fees will result in a decrease rather than increase in social
mobility.
RECOMMENDATION: The introduction of all ages careers services must be
backed up by appropriate funding, resources and professional development
structures for all staff. It is vital that this new agency supports those vulnerable
young people who need particular help.
RECOMMENDATION: The Academies programme should be halted and existing
Academies should be re-integrated within their local authority community of
schools.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should review Academies’ admissions and
exclusions policies from a socio-economic perspective.
RECOMMENDATION: It is wrong that state funding should be given to small
groups of individuals to run schools that are unaccountable to their local
communities. The free schools programme should be halted.
Document1 - 3
THE RESPONSE OF THE NUT TO THE DfE
CONSULTATION ‘TACKLING CHILD POVERTY
AND IMPROVING LIFE CHANCES:
CONSULTING ON A NEW APPROACH’
1.
The NUT welcomes the opportunity to respond to ‘Tackling Child Poverty and
Improving Life Chances: Consulting on a New Approach’. The publication of not
one but two Government-commissioned reports on the prevention of child poverty
in recent months gives a clear indication of its political importance.
2.
The NUT believes that poverty experienced during childhood can have an all
encompassing impact on a child’s life, affecting their physical and mental health,
educational attainment, employment and social interaction.
3.
Children from high income families fair far better in school than those from low
income families. Poverty is the best predictor of a child’s success, both up to the
end of compulsory schooling and on into adult life. The impact of deprivation on
cognitive and educational measures is apparent from an early age and is
cumulative, so that children from disadvantaged backgrounds often fall further
behind as they move through the education system.
4.
A good school and committed teachers cannot compensate fully for the stress
that living in poverty places on a family or for the social exclusion, poor housing,
or a lack of books or a computer at home. This lack of resources means children
from low income families face an uphill struggle just to have the same type of
learning environment as their peers. Addressing the underlying financial
struggles many families have to deal with is essential for the success of more
targeted education initiatives.
5.
The NUT’s response to the consultation covers a wide range of areas, all of
which should be considered when attempting to tackle child poverty. Rather than
respond to specific questions, it has chosen to outline its views under the
headings below.
DEFINING POVERTY
6.
Whilst the NUT supports the view that the definition and measurement of poverty
should not simply focus on low income, it believes that it is vital to recognise the
impact that income has on families and consequently children’s lives. The effects
of low income do not just simply limit the material goods that a household is able
to acquire but have a much wider social impact affecting such things as child
health. For example, three-year-olds in households with incomes below £10,000
are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with
incomes above £52,000.
7.
The recent changes to Working Families tax credits has meant that many families
have received cuts to their household income. This has had a significant impact
on low income workers. NUT head teacher members have reported that for many
teaching assistants (largely women) the changes to tax credit system are making
Document1 - 4
it not worth while their working. Schools are consequently losing key members of
their workforce, many of whom have a vast range of experience and skills.
8.
The statement in the consultation document that “tackling child poverty is not
about primarily moving people about an arbitrary income line” raises concerns
that this is an attempt to move away from recognising the effects of low income.
The NUT believes that the importance of a reasonable level of income should be
recognised, one that does not leave children vulnerable to the effects of poverty.
It believes that the position of those living in poverty will worsen the moment
interest in their financial position fades.
9.
The consultation document refers to the Child Poverty Act and the income targets
contained within it. It says that the Government wants to take a broader
approach, “using our strategy to set out how we can work together to tackle the
underlying causes of intergenerational disadvantage as well as static income
based measures”. There is a danger that by pursuing a broader approach the
income targets will not be given the significance they should be. The NUT would
not want to see the abandonment of the poverty targets contained in the Child
Poverty Act.
10.
The costs of attending school can have a severe impact on low income families.
Families can face hardship and children are at risk of exclusion from school if
they are not in the correct uniform or unable to afford to participate in activities
and trips. A 2007 survey of parents by the Citizens Advice Bureau revealed that
three quarters of parents of secondary school children and two thirds of parents
of primary school children found it difficult to meet the costs of school uniform.
According to figures from the Child Poverty Action Group 12 per cent of those in
the poorest fifth of households could not afford to send their children on a school
trip at least once a term. The figures also showed that 15 per cent could not
afford a hobby or leisure activity for their children.
11.
When considering the meaning of socio-economic disadvantage the consultation
document states “we take it to mean that children lack parental resources and/or
opportunities to participate in meaningful activities, services and relationships”.
The NUT is concerned that there is undue emphasis on the actions of parents,
rather than broader socio-economic factors which might affect their behaviour.
Good and bad parenting spans all socio-economic groups and scrutinising the
parenting abilities of low-income families only is unfair.
12.
Attention must be drawn to the fact that it is primarily inequalities in society itself
that cause children not to realise their ambitions. The NUT is disappointed that
the Government has decided to scrap the ‘socio-economic duty’ requirement of
the Equality Act 2010. The socio-economic duty would have required all public
bodies to assess whether they were addressing inequalities caused by class
factors, encouraging them to improve, for example, health and education
outcomes in more deprived areas.
13.
The Ministerial Foreword lists ingrained patterns of worklessness as one of the
challenges to be faced. It is important to recognise that with more than half of all
children in poverty coming from working families, it is simply not possible to base
anti-poverty policies on the idea that work alone is a route out of poverty. Child
poverty in working households must be given the same focus as out-of-work
poverty. An important priority must be to increase the number of working families
with sufficient security, pay and hours to take them out of poverty.
Document1 - 5
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should keep and commit to meeting the
poverty targets set out in the Child Poverty Act.
RECOMMENDATION: The ‘socio-economic duty’ requirement of the Equality Act
2010 should be reinstated.
RECOMMENDATION: Child poverty in working households should be given the
same focus as out-of-work poverty. An important priority must be to increase the
number of working families with sufficient security, pay and hours to take them
out of poverty.
THE EMERGENCY BUDGET AND COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW
14.
Any attempt to tackle child poverty has to take into consideration the impact of
current and proposed funding cuts to public services and welfare benefits. The
decision to opt for 80 per cent cuts and just 20 per cent tax increases has
resulted in a range of cuts that have hit the poorest the hardest. Public sector job
loses, welfare cuts, a reduction in housing benefit and a 28 per cent cut in local
government spending will all have an impact on children.
15.
Early years provision, an area rightly identified as being key to raising children
out of poverty, is facing funding cuts. The removal of ring fencing to the Sure
Start grant means that councils can choose to remove funds from this vital area.
Changes to the Sure Start Maternity Grant, the ending of the Health in Pregnancy
grant, the abolition of the Child Trust Fund and the baby element of child tax
credit will all have an impact on families. Research shows the poorest families
will lose £1,735 over the period from pregnancy to the first year of a child’s life.
16.
The cuts to housing benefit are likely to lead to serious disruption to children’s
home environment as many families are forced to move to cheaper
accommodation. This might mean children having to change school or a longer
journey time to school. The cumulative effect of these disadvantages will work
against children’s development as effective school learners.
RECOMMENDATION: Any attempt to tackle child poverty must take into
consideration the disproportionate impact of current and proposed funding cuts
on the poorest households.
BLACK AND ETHNIC MINORITY FAMILIES
17.
When examining how to raise children out of poverty consideration must be given
to tackling the complexity of poverty amongst black and minority ethnic (BME)
groups.
18.
Research UK-wide consistently shows child poverty rates for black and minority
ethnic (BME) groups are higher than the national average. 1Statistics available
up to 2007 show children of black Caribbean and Indian descent have poverty
rates of 26 per cent and 27 per cent respectively, rising to 35 per cent for black
African children, and 54 per cent and 58 per cent for Pakistani and Bangladeshi
children. Contributory factors for this disparity include social class,
unemployment, housing, health and household composition, with institutionalised
racism playing a part.
1
Ethnicity and child poverty, May 2009 DWP research report No. 576
Document1 - 6
RECOMMENDATION: Additional strategies must be introduced to tackle the
complexity of poverty amongst children from black and minority ethnic groups.
Approaches to tackling poverty must be equality proofed.
DISABILITY AND SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AS A FACTOR
19.
The NUT is disappointed to note that a consultation concerned with tackling child
poverty and improving life chances makes no mention of children and families
with disabilities or special educational needs. This may relate to families where
one or more parents are disabled or where there is a disabled child. Where
parents have a disability they often find themselves unable to work or working for
a shorter period each month. Where families have a child with a disability or
special educational need, which requires additional support, one or both parents
can find themselves having to give up work in order to prioritise the care of the
child. These are clearly situations in which a family may find themselves
vulnerable and facing poverty. For the consultation to effectively capture the
breadth of groups and families in poverty and to address ways of assisting them
the disabled and SEN communities must not be forgotten.
20.
The NUT is concerned that in the same way that the poverty of black and minority
ethnic groups is complex so is that of those with disability or SEN. These groups
are not always facing economic poverty, although that is often the case as
outlined above, but children in particular can face social poverty where they are
unable to participate fully in school and after-school activities with other children
due to societal and practical barriers. The restrictions of transport to and from
school, for many children, serves as a common example of such a barrier.
21.
The decimation of many local authority SEN support services, including CAMHS
and the educational psychology service, and direct funding to schools will
diminish the support for the children and families living with disability and SEN
and the schools working to support them and improve children’s life chances.
With the increase in schools becoming academies and free schools the likelihood
of maintaining high quality Central Support Services for SEN will diminish greatly
as each school becomes effectively an independent body. The existing expertise
within the system will be lost and the government aim of tackling poverty and
improving the life chances of all children will be detached even further from these
groups. The effective practice built up between communities of schools is
essential to the sustained support and progress of disabled pupils and those with
SEN.
RECOMMENDATION: Existing high quality local authority SEN Central Support
Services must be maintained and built upon in order to support disabled and SEN
children and parents who rely so heavily on the expertise of the staff working in
them. Additional strategies must be introduced to tackle the complexity of
poverty amongst disabled children and those with special educational needs.
THE EARLY YEARS
22.
There is much to welcome in both Frank Field’s and Graham Allen’s reports.
These include Frank Field’s assertion that improving the life chances of underfives is the key to cutting social inequality and Graham Allen's analysis of the
research evidence which shows the long term social and economic benefits of a
preventative approach to support services. No-one working with children and
Document1 - 7
young people and their families would disagree with the over-arching philosophy
or rationale underpinning both reports, that early intervention is a moral
imperative if all children are to fulfil their potential, regardless of background.
Concerns arise, however, from some of the specific proposals contained within
the reports.
Definition of ‘Early Intervention’
23.
Both reports rightly focus on the importance of the early years of children’s
development and supporting parents to ensure the best possible start to
children’s lives. However, recognising the inter-generational cycle of dysfunction
and under-achievement and promoting interventions that operate at the earliest
time in a young person's life is just the start. To break this cycle, an intervention
continuum that responds to the needs of young people throughout their passage
into adulthood is needed.
24.
According to the reports, whatever funding is available should be focused on the
first few years of children's lives and specifically on improving parenting practices.
Although the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children is
significant by age three, it keeps widening up until age 16 and beyond. Closing
the attainment gap and breaking the link between family background and
educational outcomes will take action well beyond the age of three. Graham
Allen's report does reflect this, highlighting intervention programmes from ages 018, but much of the document suggests that ‘early intervention’ means the underthrees or under-fives only. Given the immense pressure on funding at the
moment, this matters if it means, even unintentionally, that funding for older age
groups is downgraded.
25.
The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project shows that the
strongest effect comes from putting good quality experiences together. Going to
a high quality pre-school plus an effective primary school has an enormous
effect, balancing out differences by family background. Likewise, the quality of
secondary education can have a profound effect on outcomes, regardless of
social background. Narrowing the attainment gap for young people is a matter of
importance, both in terms of the national economic and social structure, but also
for the life chances of the individual. Given its importance, it is surprising that
neither report considers the findings and conclusions of the latest PISA report.
For example,
“Systems that show high performance and an equitable distribution
of learning outcomes tend to be comprehensive, requiring teachers
and schools to embrace diverse student populations through
personalised educational pathways. In contrast, school systems
that assume that students have different destinations with different
expectations and differentiation in terms of how they are placed in
schools, classes and grades often show less equitable outcomes
without an overall performance advantage.” (pg13)
26.
If we are to "change the shape of the distribution of income in this country by
eliminating the larger numbers of people who currently leave school to face, at
best, a lifetime of low pay and, at worse, unemployment" , as Frank Field argues,
then a key part of the national strategy for tackling child poverty must be a review
of the evidence about the demographic distribution of students within the current
school system in England and the impact of concentrating groups of
Document1 - 8
disadvantaged students in certain schools, as well as issues relating to the
academic-vocational divide in secondary education.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings of PISA 2010, the Government should
review the evidence about the demographic distribution of students within the
current school system in England, as well as issues relating to the academicvocational divide in secondary education.
Funding
27.
If the reports are to go beyond merely describing problems and potential
solutions, the Government must identify how programmes will be funded to
ensure that children from poorer backgrounds are properly supported.
28.
A new early intervention grant was announced by the Government in last
October’s Comprehensive Spending Review. The grant will be worth £2,212m in
2011/12, 10.9 per cent lower than the aggregate of the previous separate grants
that make it up, such as funds for teenage pregnancy, substance misuse/alcohol
misuse, young people at risk of not being in education, employment or training or
of committing antisocial behaviour. In addition, the grant will not be ring-fenced.
29.
Directors of children's services will therefore have to argue strongly for
investment in prevention services outside children’s early years provision,
otherwise ‘early intervention’ could become the means by which the withdrawal of
funding and resources from other essential mainstream public services is
rationalised and justified.
30.
Central Government’s cuts to early intervention funding go much further than this,
however. Sure Start, the service which sits at the heart of current children’s early
intervention work, is also receiving a cut of at least 10 per cent of its budget
because the Government put that budget into the new single budget for all early
intervention services. The Government’s pledge to pay for more health visitors
by taking the money from Sure Start has only compounded matters.
31.
Despite the Government’s statement on 13 December 2010 that there is enough
money in the early intervention grant to maintain the existing network of
Children’s Centres, due to these funding changes and under the guise of
‘localism’, local councils are now starting to cut Centres. According to research
published by the Daycare Trust and 4Children at the end of January 2011, 56 per
cent of managers expect their Children’s Centre will provide a reduced service in
a year’s time and 28 per cent of Centres have issued ‘at risk of redundancy’
notices to staff. This is hardly a sound foundation on which to base the national
‘early intervention’ strategy and highlights the extreme pressure under which all
public services which support disadvantaged children and their families must now
operate.
32.
The discussion of funding within the reports also seems to ignore the potential
impact on families of the very broad cuts currently taking place in local authority,
welfare and other budgets. Given the reductions in welfare benefits and benefits
payments the Treasury has announced, the need for measures to alleviate child
poverty will be even more acute.
33.
Although detailed recommendations on funding will be made in the second part of
Graham Allen’s report later this year, the NUT does not believe that this should
Document1 - 9
be reliant on private sector investment or philanthropy, as suggested in his
current report. Given the clear economic benefits of early intervention outlined in
the report, this must be seen first and foremost as a public good, not as a means
of providing financial returns to investors. The recent history of private sector
investment in early intervention work is not good. The Neighbourhood Nurseries
initiative is a case in point. This was devised by the previous government to meet
its targets that by 2004, there should be a childcare place in the most
disadvantaged areas for every lone parent entering employment.
34.
When initial funding for set-up was available, private providers were extremely
keen to participate in the initiative and in many disadvantaged areas were directly
responsible for the closure of maintained nursery school provision, as
government encouraged diversification of the market. As soon as the central
funding started to be withdrawn, however, private providers left areas where
parents were not able to afford top-up fees, exactly the same areas which are
now being targeted for action by the Field and Allen reports.
35.
The national evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative published in
2007, for example, found that “higher income families (and the least
disadvantaged neighbourhoods) are also more likely than low income families
(and the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods) to use childcare, whether for
educational or economic reasons”, even though the nurseries were situated in the
most deprived areas. It was also reported that many of these nurseries run by
the PVI sectors closed or changed their admissions and charging policies as
soon as the government subsidy for establishing them ended.
36.
An important consideration for the Field proposal that Sure Start Children’s
Centres should be offered to private sector providers to run or, indeed, for the
funding arrangements of early years places in general, must be, therefore, the
track record of the provider and their ability to benefit genuinely the most
deprived children. We must learn from the experience of previous relevant
programmes in this country, rather than base the sustainability of future early
intervention schemes on theoretical models from the USA, which has a very
different culture of both public services and private philanthropy.
37.
The NUT would also caution against tying the state, or local authorities, into
contracts with the private sector which would “protect their investors’ money over
a long period of time from the instability of central and local government
accounting arrangements, subject as they are to changes in political priority”
(Allen, page 53). The ability of a new government to change policy direction is a
key feature of democracies; it is why voters bother to vote. This fundamental
democratic right should not be signed away for the short term political expediency
of raising funds for essential social projects. The Government must acknowledge
that some things are a public good and, as such, should be given priority in terms
of public resourcing.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should identify how programmes will be
adequately funded to ensure that children from poorer backgrounds are properly
supported.
RECOMMENDATION: Early intervention should be seen first and foremost as a
public good, not as a means of providing financial returns to investors, though it
would provide savings to society.
Document1 - 10
Early Years Single Funding Formula
38.
The NUT is particularly concerned about the impact of the Early Years Single
Funding Formula (EYSFF) on the quality of the provision children experience,
especially the most vulnerable children who are supposedly the impetus behind
all of the Government’s child poverty reforms.
39.
The decision to make a deprivation factor a mandatory part of the formulation of
the EYSFF locally, with the express aim to “narrow the achievement gap” was
extremely welcome. It would appear, however, that full time nursery places
which are currently made available by local authorities for this group of children
are unlikely to be able to continue to be offered because of the introduction of the
EYSFF, as this is based purely on the delivery of the 15 hours of the free
entitlement.
40.
The new provision within the Education Bill that would allow maintained nursery
schools and classes to charge for any provision over and above the 15 hours will
only compound matters. Schools serving affluent areas will be able to charge
parents for additional hours, schools in disadvantaged areas will not, and will thus
become financially unviable, despite the greater educational benefit derived by
this group of children.
41.
Until recently many local authorities have given high priority to supporting
deprived young children and have made a political decision to fund additional
hours beyond the free entitlement because of the social long-term benefits it
brings. These include the fact that it encourages participation in early education
where parents would not be able to afford to pay for ‘top ups’ themselves.
However, the EYSFF does not provide sufficient flexibility for local authorities to
continue with this practice, however much they might wish to.
42.
The removal of full time places and the impact on the children who receive them
has been a common theme in responses to the NUT’s surveys of members on
the EYSFF, as approximately 62 per cent of maintained nursery schools are
situated in areas of disadvantage and others are used as training hubs for such
provision because of their expertise in working with deprived children and their
families. The following quotes are typical of those received from members in
2010:
“Losing full time nursery places for our inner city EAL children will
be extremely detrimental to their education.”
“Many children will now lose their entitlement to a free school
meal.”
“Parents will be forced back onto benefits because of the loss of full
time places.”
“We may close. Like many other Birmingham nursery schools we
offer only full time places. Birmingham is effectively ceasing to fund
the vast majority of full time places. We cannot fill our places with
part time children because of other provision in the area. Will
definitely have to make staff redundant and ultimately may close.
(We are part of a Children’s Centre).”
Document1 - 11
“We also provide for many of the most disadvantaged children and
families, who will be further disadvantaged by loss of full time
places and free school meals. This policy will also impact on
parents’ ability to go to work or attend courses.”
“A negative impact on some of the UK’s most deprived children.”
43.
It would be unacceptable if the introduction of the EYSFF meant that, in practice,
the hours of free early years provision for the most deprived and vulnerable
children were reduced rather than maintained or enhanced.
44.
The NUT recommends that the funding of full time nursery places should be
subject to urgent review and that whilst this review takes place, no existing full
time places for this group of children should be removed.
45.
It is also important to recognise that settings which serve the most disadvantaged
communities frequently experience a high level of mobility. Termly ‘headcounts’,
on which the setting’s funding would be based, could therefore vary significantly
and would make it extremely difficult for the setting to plan ahead, which could
act as a significant disincentive for settings to admit such children. The putative
contract between settings and parents, which forms part of the revised Code of
Practice for the free entitlement, is unlikely to have any impact on the turbulence
experienced by settings serving disadvantaged communities.
RECOMMENDATION: Early years settings which are situated in deprived areas or
which admit significant numbers of disadvantaged children, should be funded
according to the model established for special schools, with the number of places
for each setting identified and funded.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should abandon proposals to allow
nursery schools and classes to charge for provision over and above the 15 hours
of free entitlement. This coupled with the fact that the Early Years Single Funding
Formula does not provide sufficient flexibility for local additional hours beyond
the free entitlement will further disadvantage children from low income families.
RECOMMENDATION: The funding of full time nursery places for disadvantaged
children should be subject to urgent review and that whilst this review takes
place, no existing full time places for this group of children should be removed.
Workforce
46.
Both the Field and the Allen reports call for improved qualifications among the
early years workforce, but say nothing about how to pay for it. The most
significant barrier to recruiting staff with appropriate qualifications in the early
years has been the relatively poor pay and conditions experienced by the
workforce at all levels, particularly in the private and voluntary sectors, which
account for the majority of early years provision in England.
47.
Research22 has shown that the use of Job Centres within local recruitment
strategies has not been particularly successful in terms of drawing high quality
staff into the sector:
2
Rolfe, H., Recruitment and Retention at Childcare, Early Years and Play Workers: Research Study,
National Institute of Economic and Social Research/DfES, 2003
Document1 - 12
“Job Centres were used by most organisations, but in general were
not found to attract suitable candidates in terms of experience or
motivation.
Some providers had the impression that some
applicants were under pressure to prove their willingness to work
and had no real interest in the job.”
48.
This research also highlighted the extent to which early years and childcare
providers faced stiff competition from retail and call centres when recruiting (and
retaining) staff.
49.
Lack of progression opportunities and career structures for early years staff has
meant that pay remains low despite the accumulation of experience, training and
qualifications. Many are acutely aware of the possibilities that other jobs, such as
those in supermarkets, can offer – better pay for a fraction of the pressure, skills
and responsibilities that are inherent in their current jobs.
50.
Whilst low pay and poor working conditions remain the norm for the early years
workforce and the reduction in working tax credits make it less attractive or
worthwhile to work, it is unlikely that there will be significant movement from the
poor levels of qualification, recruitment and retention reported in the HM
Government consultation on the Children’s Workforce Strategy in 2004.
51.
The Daycare Trust, which worked closely with the previous government on the
development of its Ten Year Strategy for Childcare, has estimated3 that between
£210-£320m every year for at least ten years would be needed if radical
improvements to the early years’ workforce, including the Allen recommendation
that all settings should be led by a graduate or post-graduate, are to be achieved.
52.
This figure is based on its estimates of total spending on early years’ education
and care in the UK, including parental leave payments and would mean that
spending would need to increase from the current 0.8 per cent of GDP to 2.6 per
cent if the ambitions of the Field and Allen reports are to be implemented
successfully. In this context, it is important to note that both Sweden and
Denmark spend between 2-2.5 per cent of GDP on early education and care,
excluding parental leave payments.
53.
The Daycare Trust concludes that “the net impact on the public finances would
be significantly less than the gross costs”, given the well-established contribution
early years’ education and care makes to eliminating child poverty (Sweden and
Denmark are the only countries close to achieving this at present); boosting the
life chances of disadvantaged children; reducing future spending on remedial
education, health care and criminal justice costs; and increased economic
activity, which would boost tax revenues and reduce social security spending.
Although the financial climate is difficult, Government must prioritise further
funding for its early years reforms as an investment which will provide savings in
the longer term.
54.
The Allen recommendation that a Workforce Development Strategy should be
established is puzzling, given that the Children’s Workforce Strategy was
launched by the previous government in 2004 and was ‘refreshed’ not long
before the General Election last year. Similarly, the Allen recommendation that
3
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Universal Early Education and Care in 2020: Costs, Benefits and
Funding Options, Daycare Trust/Social Market Foundation, 2004
Document1 - 13
the National College for School Leadership should provide training for Children’s
Centres leaders (page 48) seems to ignore the National Professional
Qualification for Integrated Centre Leaders (NPQICL), which has been offered by
NCSL since 2005.
55.
If Allen’s wish that “ongoing cross-party support” is secured in order to ensure
that early intervention strategies and programmes are not subject to repeated
change every electoral cycle (page 101), this would seem to be an excellent
place to start – why waste time and money developing and launching a new
strategy or training programme when one which has the same aims and is midway through implementation exists?
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should prioritise improvements in the pay
and working conditions of early years staff.
RECOMMENDATION: Funding for early years reforms should be seen as an
investment which will provide savings in the longer-term.
RECOMMENDATION: Rather than wasting time and money developing new
strategies or training programmes, the Government should first consider building
on existing provision.
Early Years Professionals
56.
The NUT is extremely concerned by the Allen recommendation that “all early
years settings employ someone with Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) on
site” (page 52). The development of a new qualifications and career structure for
the early years workforce, via the establishment of the Early Years Professional
(EYP) status, was recognised by the NUT as a positive step towards improving
the skills and status of those working in the early years sector. Such an
approach recognises that entitlement to high quality professional development
and clear and accessible career progression routes are vital for recruiting and
retaining all those working with the under fives.
57.
This is very different, however, from equating the EYP directly with a qualified
teacher or, as Allen suggests, replacing a qualified teacher. EYP training might
take as little as three months to complete. Professional knowledge about the
variety of pedagogical approaches or assessment mechanisms which might be
employed in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) could be dealt with in, at
best, a superficial way, given the total number of Standards which candidates
have to meet during their training, which is predominantly work-based.
58.
There is certainly no guarantee that this qualification involves a much greater
depth of theoretical knowledge about child development than QTS, as has been
argued in the past. There is considerable variation in the level of candidates’
prior knowledge of these matters, given the wide variety of backgrounds and
disciplines from which EYPs might be drawn. Its final assessment does not even
require the candidate to be observed interacting with children.
59.
For these reasons, the EYFS statutory guidance currently requires qualified
teachers to lead practice in maintained nursery schools and classes, whilst other
settings may choose to employ either a qualified teacher or an EYP. It would be
a retrograde step, and definitely contrary to the EPPE evidence cited in the
report, to attempt to replace qualified teachers with EYPs throughout the early
Document1 - 14
years. It is ironic that Allen decries “lack of fidelity” to research evidence and
initiatives based on research and cites this as a key reason for patchy
implementation or unsuccessful scaling up, yet conveniently ignores the EPPE
finding that qualified teachers are the professional group most closely linked with
superior outcomes, with the effect more profound for the most socially
disadvantaged children. The Field report, however, accurately reflects this
finding and expounds on the ways in which qualified and experienced teachers
may support children (page 46).
60.
Where provision is deemed to be ‘education’, it must be provided by a qualified
teacher.
There is a wealth of research evidence to support this view,
complimented by the evidence of practice in a number of other countries which
are generally regarded as having high quality early years provision, such as the
Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. To minimise the importance of QTS
within the EYFS would be a retrograde step which could jeopardise the advances
made in the quality of provision over recent years.
61.
It would certainly not contribute to either of the Field and Allen recommendations
that the Foundation Years stage should have “at least the same status and
recognition as primary or secondary stages” (page 42) or “not just become
another form of child-minding” (page 51) if different staffing arrangements applied
to each stage, based on an underlying assumption that it is somehow easier and
less academically or professionally demanding to work with younger children.
Ensuring that education is provided by a qualified teacher, regardless of the age
of the child, would do far more to achieve this recommendation than numbering
all year groups from birth rather than from the start of primary school, as Field
proposes.
RECOMMENDATION: Where provision is deemed to be ‘education’, it must be
provided by a qualified teacher. Any attempt to replace qualified teachers with
those with Early Years Professional status would jeopardise the quality of
provision.
School Readiness
62.
The NUT has some concerns about the proposed ‘school readiness’ testing, a
range of assessments and screenings at least up until the age of three. Although
many of these assessments would seem to be focused on social and emotional
indicators, with support provided for children where indicated by the assessment,
it would be essential to ensure that this does not become too formal and rigid, for
example, setting specific age-related targets for early literacy and numeracy
skills. It is also important to note that much of the research referred to in support
of these tests is from the USA. There are equally valid, but very different
approaches taken to early years monitoring in the Scandinavian countries for
example, which are not mentioned at all in the evidence base for the Allen report.
These respect the child as an individual and the different rates at which young
children may develop and, whilst having a diagnostic purpose, do not attempt to
push young children into behaviours or activities for which they are not yet
physically, emotionally or cognitively ready.
63.
In addition, clarification is needed about how the Allen report’s suggestion that
EYFS assessments would link with the Healthy Child Programme reviews (page
51) would work in practice. Other than the formal assessment undertaken for the
Profile at the end of the EYFS, aged five, assessments are typically based on on-
Document1 - 15
going observations of the child engaged in regular learning activities, rather than
specially-devised situations and are used to inform the next steps in the child’s
learning or development. This is the most important function of early years
assessment, so any attempt to align it with the Healthy Child Programme reviews
must respect its formative purpose and not become a proxy for accountability
purposes.
64.
EYFS assessments may also be made by more than one setting, as the free
entitlement to early education for two, three and four year olds may be split
legitimately between two separate providers and some parents may use even
more complex arrangements to suit their childcare needs. Careful consideration
needs to be given to how such diverse patterns of provision could be brought
together with health services to combine the different assessments into a
coherent whole and who would take responsibility for making this happen.
65.
The focus on ‘school readiness’ also implies that what happens before
compulsory schooling is somehow less important, although both reports clearly
make the case that this is not so. Nevertheless, acknowledgement of the worth
and value of the early years as a distinct phase in its own right is essential to gain
support and ownership of any national strategy by early years educators.
RECOMMENDATION: The ‘school readiness’ assessments and screening should
focus primarily on child’s social and emotional development, not on literacy and
numeracy skills.
RECOMMENDATION: Any attempt to align Early Years Foundation Stage
assessment with the Healthy Child Programme reviews must respect its formative
purpose.
LIFE CHANCE INDICATORS
66.
One of the main proposals in the Field report is the establishment of a set of Life
Chances Indicators that would measure how successful we are as a country in
making life’s outcomes more equal for all children. These would measure
cognitive, physical and emotional development between the ages of three and
five, which the report rightly says determine outcomes later in life. However, the
indicators would replace the previous Government’s anti-poverty measure, based
on material income as “the income transfer approach incentivised by the current
monitoring framework is not at the present time the most effective way to tackle
child poverty” (page 31).
67.
A Unicef report on child inequality in 24 developed countries, which was released
at the same time as the Field report, concluded that low income was the key
factor in why children were left behind educationally. On this most vital indicator,
the report put Britain in the bottom 40 per cent, alongside Hungary, Slovakia and
the Czech Republic. The research on which the report was based was
conducted just before the recession took hold, which suggests that British
children might be faring even less well now.
68.
Whilst the proposed indicators are individually extremely relevant and would
provide valuable diagnostic information, they should not be seen as mutually
exclusive to the material income measure. Frank Field may be correct to assert
that simply throwing money at it will not solve the problem of Britain’s deeply
unequal society, especially if basic services are inadequate. The country does
Document1 - 16
have an exceptional high level of economic inequality, however, and it is
essential not to understate the pressures on families having to live on the
breadline.
69.
Similarly, the NUT disagrees strongly with the Field report’s recommendation that
money spent on increasing child-related benefits every year could be better spent
in other ways, such as supporting nursery education and more flexible childcare.
It should not be an either/or situation – both are needed if there is to be a genuine
attempt at tackling child poverty. Measures should apply equally to the services
available to the public and to alleviation of private individuals’ circumstances. To
break long term cycles of deprivation and neglect, families need help that works
for them, does not label them and gives them the chance to seek help before
problems escalate out of control. Providing early years support to children whilst
not addressing circumstances of significance - their household's deep poverty
and deprivation - would be pointless and ineffectual.
70.
The proposal that Government would publish the indicators yearly at both a
national and local level and would use them as a way of holding providers to
account must be treated with caution.
The experience of the previous
government’s use of such targets illustrated clearly the ‘gaming’ which providers
may undertake in order to appear to be effective against the national measures,
which may not reflect the actual quality of provision overall, only those parts
which are subject to the targets.
RECOMMENDATION: Life Chance Indicators should not be seen as mutually
exclusive to the material income measure. It is essential not to understate the
pressures on families having to live on low incomes.
RECOMMENDATION: There should be an increase in both child-related benefits
and greater support for universal services.
RECOMMENDATION: The Life Chance Indicators should not be used for
accountability purposes.
PARENTING
71.
As the Field report rightly notes, “parents play the most significant role in
influencing their children’s future… There is a weight of evidence which shows
that a combination of positive parenting, a good home learning environment and
parents’ qualifications can transform children’s life chances, and are more
important to outcomes than class background and parental income” (page 37).
72.
The proposal that schools should teach parenting and life skills to pupils of all
ages is eminently sensible, although it needs to be aligned to the Government’s
emergent policy on the National Curriculum, which argues against prescription. It
is on how to engage with the most hard to reach parents, who are usually those
most in need of support, where both reports have little to say.
73.
Those working in early years services have consistently attempted to work with
such families, either individually or, more commonly, as part of multi-agency
teams. The results of this work are varied because of the individuals involved.
Without introducing some sort of statutory intervention or compunction, which
would be socially undesirable, there will always be some families which shun the
services established for their benefit and which resist any attempts to engage
Document1 - 17
them through out-reach work. This is the group which both reports conveniently
fail to address, but which have most to gain from any national strategy to tackle
child poverty.
RECOMMENDATION: Parenting and life skills should become part of the National
Curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION: Local authorities should be empowered, via adequate
central funding, to devise imaginative ways to target the most hard to reach
parents, who are usually those in most need of support.
CHILD HEALTH
74.
The NUT believes that any consideration of the effects of child poverty must take
into account the impact of health and diet related factors and the effect that these
can have on children’s physical and mental health and well being.
75.
Recent statistics have highlighted a rise in childhood obesity and consequent
illnesses such as type 2 diabetes. One in three children is now overweight or
obese. An unhealthy diet not only impacts on children’s physical health but also
on their mental health. There is a growing body of evidence linking poor nutrition
and food additives to disruptive behaviour, lower attainment levels and poor
mental health.
76.
Under-nutrition, even in its milder forms can have detrimental effects on cognitive
development, behaviour, concentration and school performance.
77.
The consultation documents notes that money matters when helping children to
have a healthy diet. The NUT is disappointed at the Government’s decision to
abandon plans to extend free school meals to all primary pupils living below the
poverty line. A recent report by Ofsted found that low income families are
struggling to pay for healthy schools meals. Ofsted found that in some families,
siblings were forced to take it in turns to have nutritious lunches for a week.
78.
Schools have an important role to play in encouraging children to make healthy
life choices. For many children, especially from low income families, their school
lunch is the main meal of the day and is therefore vital in terms of nutritional
content. A survey from the School Food Trust showed that nearly 410,000
children who live in poverty in England miss out on free school meals because
their parents earn low wages but do not receive state benefits.
RECOMMENDATION: Free School meals provision should be extended to all
pupils living below the poverty line.
ENGAGEMENT IN EDUCATION
79.
Youth unemployment has worsened, with one in ten students not being able to
find a job when they leave university and one in five 16-24 year olds being
unemployed. The unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds rose sharply to 19
percent in 2009 from 15 per cent in 2008. Youth unemployment has been hit by
the ending of employment programmes by the Coalition Government and the
cancellation of the Future Jobs Fund, which was established in 2009 as an
emergency response to the rise in youth unemployment in 2008 and 2009. In
Document1 - 18
May 2010, the Coalition Government cancelled the extension of the programmes
as a measure to address the public spending deficit.
80.
The severity of the recession has had its hardest impact on young people trying
to enter the job market. At the moment, 18 per cent of 16-24 year olds are not in
education, employment or training (NEETs).
81.
With the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), many young
people will struggle to stay on in education past the age of 16. The Education
Maintenance Allowance helps to pay for course costs: lunch, travel to and from
college or sixth form and for other essentials. Many lower and middle income
families will simply not be able to fill the financial gap scrapping EMA creates.
The Government has given no real details about what will replace EMA next year
except that the funds available to support such activity will be cut from around
£570 million to just £75 million.
82.
Young people who leave school with no qualifications, without experience of
work, or have difficult family circumstances, should have alternative provision
made available to them such as training and work opportunities. Thousands of
young people are leaving education without being able to find a job, or a job
relevant to their qualifications, with more than 150,000 school and college leavers
being unable to obtain a place at university despite many students achieving
maximum grades.
83.
If the 50 per cent target of young people attending higher education is dropped,
then opportunities to whole groups of students will be restricted. Raising tuition
fees will impact severely on widening university access to working class students
and BME students. Education is the major factor in social mobility. Raising
tuition fees will result in a decrease rather than an increase in social mobility.
84.
All young people should have access and an entitlement to free education and
training in employment, especially poorer students who will be priced out of the
Higher Education system.
RECOMMENDATION: The Education Maintenance
maintained or a similar scheme put in place.
Allowance
should
be
RECOMMENDATION: Universities should not be allowed to charge admission
fees. Raising tuition fees will result in a decrease rather than increase in social
mobility.
INFORMATION, ADVICE AND GUIDANCE (IAG)
85.
The NUT believes that equality of opportunity for all young people should
underpin good careers educational guidance. Good quality IAG can make the
difference for the life chances and opportunities that young people have access
to.
86.
The NUT welcomes the introduction of all ages careers services which are being
set up to support young people as they make the transition to adulthood with a
focus on lifelong learning. These must be backed up by appropriate funding,
resourcing and professional development structures for all staff involved in this
new advice agency. It is vital that this new agency supports those vulnerable
Document1 - 19
young people who need particular help so that they participate in education,
training or employment.
87.
It is vital that there is the capacity to provide such advice for all young people
while ensuring that the most vulnerable or those from backgrounds where
achievements are traditionally lower on average than their peers, have particular
focused support.
RECOMMENDATION: The introduction of all ages careers services must be
backed up by appropriate funding, resources and professional development
structures for all staff. It is vital that this new agency supports those vulnerable
young people who need particular help.
THE EXPANSION OF ACADEMIES
88.
The NUT is greatly concerned that the expansion of Academies and free schools
will further exacerbate inequalities in society. A 2010 report by the Audit
Commission found that Academies are widening the gap between rich and poor
students. The Audit Commission found that, "On average, the gap in attainment
between more disadvantaged pupils and others has grown wider in academies
than in comparable maintained schools”.
89.
The invitation for all state schools – starting with the ‘best’ – will further fragment
education, making it harder to plan and deliver resources to schools and
communities in a strategic and equitable manner. It will encourage educational
inequality and segregation. These schools already have much more advantaged
sets of pupils and are likely to want to use their new freedoms over the
admissions to attract those pupils who are likely to keep their school’s place in
the league table. A report by Barnardos in 2010 found that the top secondary
schools in England take on average just five per cent of pupils entitled to free
school meals.
90.
In Autumn 2010 researchers at the LSE analysed the school level characteristics
of those schools which had ‘expressed an interest’ in becoming Academies.
Their analysis showed that these schools were very different to the academies
proposed by the Labour government. They showed that Academies that opened
in September 2010 – and the schools that have applied to the coalition
government to become Academies in due course are significantly more
advantaged than the average secondary school. The ‘coalition Academies’
contain far lower proportions of pupils who are eligible for free school meals, and
they are considerably better performing schools in terms of GCSE results. They
concluded:
“Under the coalition government, the Academies programme is
now likely to reinforce advantage and exacerbate existing
inequalities in schooling. At a time of budget restraint, it seems
natural to question whether the large expenditure involved in
converting these advantaged schools to Academies is justified.”
Centre for Economic Performance, London
School of Economics, ‘Academy Schools: who benefits?’ Stephen Machin and James
Vernoit, CenterPiece Autumn 2010)
Document1 - 20
91.
The NUT has long been concerned that Academies are using unfair admissions
procedures to change their school population. It believes that this is going to be
further exacerbated as more schools that are performing well become
Academies. Barnardos have criticised the Academies and free school initiatives
stating that schools that control their own admissions procedures are more likely
to be socially selective than maintained state schools. The use of unfair
admissions practices has lead to ‘skewed’ intakes that did not reflect the
population of the surrounding area.
92.
Academies are their own admissions authority and set their admission
arrangements to manipulate their pupil intake. For example, the use of ‘fair
banding’ admission practices based on national banding rather than on local
banding potentially enables a school to manipulate its intake so that it is less
representative of the local community. Academies in areas with a higher
proportion of Band 3 and 4 pupils than the national average will be able to turn
some of these pupils away.
93.
Another practise causing concern is selection by ‘aptitude’. Schools with
specialisms, such as music or languages, are allowed to select ten per cent of
their pupils by ‘aptitude’. All Academies are specialist schools and so have this
right. But a recent report by Ian Craig, the head of the Office of the Schools
Adjudicator (OSA), which hears parents’ complaints on admissions, has warned
that some schools are illegally selecting pupils according to their academic ability.
Craig says the difference between aptitude and ability is unclear.
94.
The NUT is extremely concerned about the high exclusion rates in Academies
which raises concerns over whether Academies are discriminating against some
disadvantaged groups of children such as those eligible for free school meals,
and whether some Academies are using exclusion to remove young people who
might depress the exam results at those institutions.
95.
Permanent exclusion rates in Academies in 2009 were almost three times higher
than those in schools as a whole and almost double the rate for local authority
maintained secondaries. (Department for Education figures for 2008/09 published July 2010)
96.
Children who are eligible for free school meals are around three times more likely
to receive either a permanent or fixed period exclusion than children who are not
eligible for free school meals.
RECOMMENDATION: The Academies programme should be halted and existing
Academies should be re-integrated within their local authority community of
schools.
RECOMMENDATION: The Government should review Academies’ admissions and
exclusions policies from a socio-economic perspective.
FREE SCHOOLS
97.
The setting up of free schools will further undermine educational provision for
children from low income families. The NUT believes it is wrong that state
funding should be given to small groups of individuals to run schools that are
unaccountable to their local communities. In Sweden, where the Free Schools
Document1 - 21
policy originated, three quarters of Free Schools are run by profit-making
companies and there is clear evidence that they have resulted in segregation.
98.
In a damning indictment of the free Schools the fourth report on Pisa (Programme
for International Student Assessment) said that countries that encourage schools
to compete for pupils do not achieve better results. The report found that,
“Countries that create a more competitive environment in which many schools
compete for students do not systematically produce better results”. “While
students who attend schools that compete with other schools for student
enrolment perform better than students who attend schools that do not compete
with other schools, the cross-country analysis suggests that systems as a whole
do not benefit from higher rates of school competition.” The conclusion fuels
criticism that free Schools will benefit middle-class parents who set up them up,
but do little for the disadvantaged.
99.
An example of this can be seen in developments at the Bolingbroke Academy, in
south London set up by 29 finance firms and Ark. The GMB has challenged the
proposed school over its admissions policy. GMB has highlighted the decision to
allow pupils from four schools in the catchment area but not pupils from
Falconbrook, a primary which is actually nearer to Bolingbroke. The proposed
admission policy would include pupils from households with incomes 185 per
cent of the London average while excluding pupils from households with incomes
76.2 per cent of the average 0.2 km nearer the selected site.
RECOMMENDATION: It is wrong that state funding should be given to small
groups of individuals to run schools that are unaccountable to their local
communities. The free schools programme should be halted.
Document1 - 22