We have been disappointed to see the government messaging around their announcement this week of 300 ‘new’ School Based Nurseries (SBNs). The implication that SBNs offer a higher quality provision than existing Private or Charitable providers is both frustrating and untrue, and the push to have younger and younger children in the school system is concerning.
We welcome the expansion of Early Years places, particularly in areas where there is a lack of provision and for the lowest income households when we know that these children will most benefit from attending provision at a younger age. Unfortunately the current funding system favours those from households where both parents are working, missing out on the very children that need Early Years provision most.
The assumption that children are best served by schools is an insult to the hard working staff already in the sector. All early years settings are held to the same standards as enforced by Ofsted and follow the same statutory guidance in the EYFS (childminders have a slightly different EYFS but the standards are the same). All settings are required to have their own curriculum which Ofsted assess on. In fact, early years provision which is part of a school (i.e. registered within the school’s provision) is subject to a much less rigorous Ofsted inspection than a similar provider (perhaps even on the school grounds) which is registered separately. A stand-alone provision Ofsted inspection is usually 6 hours minimum, whereas early years provision registered within a school will be a tiny part of the school’s overall inspection.
We also question the financial viability of provision being run by schools. Unless they are going to exclusively use the Qualified Teacher ratios of 1:13 for 3 and 4 year olds (which still requires a fully qualified Level 3 practitioner to be present) it is hard to see how the numbers will stack up once the initial ‘set up’ grants have been exhausted. In our county we have many charitable settings and for some years the Local Authority advised settings who were struggling to form a committee to consider being taken over by the local school. This policy changed in the last few years as those schools who had taken on provision found it unaffordable as staff had to be on LA pay scales and pay into expensive LA pension schemes. (see the Childcare Sufficiency Duty Report 2024 page 33 paragraph 2). The numbers only work if staff are kept on low pay and statutory benefits.
Bridget Philipson stated that “School-based early education tends to be more inclusive – with a higher proportion of children with special educational needs than other settings.” Whilst this might be the case compared to some private day nurseries (particularly the large chains) this is certainly not borne out in our experiences of our PATA Members and our own settings. In our settings we have a high number of children with significant needs and it is very unfair to suggest that we do not cater to and support these children. We spend a huge amount of time completing the meetings and paperwork required for additional support, often without any additional funding. This most benefits the school later receiving the child as the legwork of getting an EHCP has already been done.
We agree that quality early education is the key to school readiness but we don’t believe that this is better delivered by school based provision. All early years settings work hard to ensure that their preschoolers are prepared for the move to Reception, but it should be noted that School Readiness is a goal for the end of Reception not the start (see EYFS page 7). Reception is part of the EYFS and the EYFS Profile check is carried out at the end of this year not the start. We already hear of Reception teachers under pressure to get children sitting for long periods and undertaking activities that are not in the spirit of the Play based focus of the EYFS and we have grave concerns about the ‘schoolification’ of nursery provision where it is run by teachers who have little or no real understanding of the differences in the EYFS. June O’Sullivan of LEYF co-wrote a report on the Twoness of Twos (see here for a podcast discussing this) and it’s really important for SBN leaders to understand that 2 year olds (and younger children in some cases) are not just smaller 6 and 7 year olds. They are at distinct developmental stages and require distinctive care and education support which may be completely alien to a school setting.
Overall the messaging of the government this week has been that School Based Nurseries are good and anything else is substandard provision. We strongly dispute this and encourage the government to reconsider their messaging. Early years educators work extremely hard for low pay and to be told by the government that they are not doing enough or not supporting children is doing them a great disservice.
Considering the crucial role PVI providers will have in the continued implementation of the early entitlement expansion for younger children, we are calling on the government to reconsider their messaging and recognise the vital and valuable contribution of early years educators and reflect this with investment in the sector.
We are contacting our local MPs about this and encourage you to do so too.
