Author Archive

The 30 Hours Debate – A Grandmother’s View   3 comments

As a retired childminder, and having being involved with the early years sector for over 30 years, as well as being a campaigner and advocate for children, families and early years settings – especially registered childminders; I fully understand the concerns around the Governments plans to provide 30 hours childcare to parents who meet certain criteria.

The Government are claiming it is ‘FREE’ but it is not as early years settings are having to find ways to cover the underfunding because the amount provided by Government is just not sufficient.

And I fully agree with these concerns – not only is the amount paid by Government often lower than the early years settings normal hourly rate that they change parents for non-funded hours, there are additional costs to settings in administration and ‘jumping through the funding hoops’.

Why should early years settings subsidise the Governments ill though out election promise?

Why should staff working in early years settings, despite qualifications and often years of experience earn a pittance for the highly skilled job that they do?

So yes, I fully understand the concerns around the level of funding, and agree it is not ‘free’

Part of the problem is, in my opinion that the Government have lost sight of why funding is needed and instead of focussing on those children who need it most, and ensuring that an ‘income poor’ family is not a disadvantage in terms of accessing high quality childcare, they have instead decided to impose criteria that means those who are ‘income poor’, are restricted in the help that they can get; while those who are in most people’s eyes ‘doing OK’ get financial help that they not only don’t need, but that really will not make a significant difference to them – or their children.

I really do not understand why those earning good salaries have to work less hours than those earning the minimum wage due to the Government requirement that is based on salary not actual hours worked. This seems to discriminate against those who often work long hours for very little in terms of take home pay, as they will have to work at least 16 hours at minimum wage rate, to claim the funding, while those who earn much higher salaries may only need to work 1 hour a week to qualify for the additional 15 hours of funding for working parents.

No one expects the Government to have a bottomless pot of money, and everyone realises that providing any funding for childcare is very expensive – but surely if the money available was used wisely to support those that need it most, not only would that money go further, it would help reduce the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. In the long term this would be beneficial to society as a whole, as those children supported in their early years reach their full potential will then as adults be able to support themselves and their families and contribute through their taxes to the country’s economy.

I hope that any early years colleagues reading this blog will realise that I agree with them and understand the difficult position that this Government has placed them in. I also understand that they need to remain sustainable and that many of them are worried that they might have to close their businesses – and as a result are desperately trying to find ways in which they can generate additional income.

I have read about, and been involved in discussions around early years settings thinking about charging for ‘additional services’, and also in restricting the hours that parents can use the funding.

And this is where my concerns as a Grandmother come in because I can see that once again it will be those who are ‘income poor’ who will be the ones who this impacts most on. And for me that means my family – my daughters and my grandchildren – not all of them because like all families, my daughters have taken different personal journeys – and so have different lifestyles, incomes and more importantly in this situation different age children, with some being over CSA and some under.

When I resigned as a registered Childminder at the end of March 2016, I planned to semi retire and to do more ‘me’ things such as campaigning and advocacy (as well be fulfil my role as a foster carer).

However, things did not go to plan as two of my daughters were struggling to pay for childcare, and even to find childcare to suit their work hours. So of course I stepped in, and started providing ‘Granny Daycare’ – completely free at the point of delivery. Some weeks I am only needed two days a week, sometimes 5 days a week depending on the days my daughters are working.

Although I love my grandchildren, and will do everything I can to help – it is not quite the same to volunteer to babysit when it suits me, as it is to be reliable, and available at the times and on the days my daughters require childcare. I find it restricts what I can do, and to do things such as going to London to attend events takes a huge amount of organising as on those days one of my daughters has to swap shifts so that they can look after their own child and the child of their sister. And it does not always fall into place.

However – there was light at the end of the tunnel because it was only going to be short term due to the 30 hours coming in – with one granddaughter being able to access from September 17 and the other from January 18.

So you may be wondering what my issue is as a Grandmother – surely the 30 hours is a good thing?

Well, it may not be!

As yet we do not know exactly how things will work out, as like many early years settings those in our area have yet to confirm details of what the terms of them providing the 30 hours will be. This is due to the rate paid by Government only recently being  known, the conditions set by Local Authorities not yet finalised – and so budgeting and working out if, and what ‘additional services’ need to be paid for are still ‘work in progress’

I am in general against ‘additional services’ charges because I think it will create all sorts of issues, and lead to a two tier system with some being able to afford these charges, and some unable to. Even things like lunch could become a big issue with some parents not being able to afford to pay extra for lunch, or some children having a packed lunch from home while others have a cooked lunch provided at cost by the setting. We could even end up with some children having ‘a value lunch’ provided by the setting, while others have the ‘extras lunch’ also provided by the setting.

But my biggest concern is that by having additional services charge and / or restricting when the funded hours can be accessed will mean that some parents may not be able to access the funding in full, if at all – and as a result not only will the parents and children be disadvantaged – so will Grandparents.

Let me explain by using my daughters circumstances as an example, however if should be remembered that in general Grandparents do provide a lot of free childcare, and often a taxi service ferrying grandchildren to childcare and other activities, and so I won’t be the only Grandparent that this will impact on.

One daughter currently sends her child to nursery two days a week, and I provide the other two days. Nursery days are set, while my days can change. My daughter requires at least 10 hours a day childcare, which luckily, the nursery does offer 10 hours per day – but on the days she needs to work longer or travel further – Granny provides support and if a nursery day will take or collect the child to / from nursery.

The plan was that when my granddaughter could access the funding that I would only be required occasionally for extra hours or if the child was too ill to go to nursery. My daughter planned to use her funding over 3 days at 10 hours per day, then pay for the fourth day – meaning her childcare bill would be halved – and Granny could get on with her semi-retirement. Everyone would win.

However, it now appears that this plan is not going to work.

Let’s say the nursey offer the funding as morning sessions and afternoon sessions of 3 hours each, 5 days a week – something I have heard suggested as a solution to the underfunding – because the nursery could charge for the hours before and after the funded sessions and for the lunch period and the lunch itself.

Because my daughter works 4 days she would lose out because the maximum hours she could use would be 4 x 6 – so 24 hours instead of 30 hours. Of course she could send her child for the fifth day just for the funded hours – but the whole point of working 4 days was to spend time with her daughter.

She could of course ask to stretch the funding over more weeks so that she does not lose the additional 6 hours – but it won’t make much difference when looking at the year as a whole.

If she is charged for the other 4 hours that she requires each day and for lunch she could have a bill of £20 or more per day. If she uses the 24 hours over the 4 days and pays for the additional hours this would cost her at least £80 per week – and at the moment she is paying £70 for the two days (to include meals) – so she would be £10 per week worse off !!! Of course she could continue to use Granny Daycare for two days until her child goes to school, and if she did, she would save £30 a week, which is significant and not much different to the saving she would make if able to use 10 hours funding for each of 3 days.

However the big difference is, as Granny I would not be able to close Granny Daycare, but would have to give a commitment to provide Granny Daycare until the child goes to school.

So because the Government are underfunding the 30 hours, my daughter won’t be able to use all the 30 hours and she will have a choice of paying more to use 24 hours than she does now paying in full for two days, or she is going to have to rely on Granny Daycare for at least another year- which she does not want to do, because she knows it restricts what I can do – and as she says ‘Mum, you have done your share of childcare, you should now have time to yourself’

My other daughter is in a slightly better position but will still lose out. She works shifts on a rota basis, including weekends. Weekends are fine as her husband provides childcare and costs are kept down. Currently I provide childcare via Granny Daycare for any weekdays that she works.

Really my daughter needs flexible childcare as her days are different each week, but with the 30 hours she will have to book set days – which means booking Monday – Friday every week. On the weeks she works Monday – Friday she will have a small additional charge for the extra hours in the morning of around £5 per day – so £20 per week (she is able to collect the child at 3pm) – not too bad for the benefit of not having to rely on Granny. But when she only works two or three days a week she will have to choose between sending her daughter 5 days and hardly seeing her due to weekend working, or not using all the funded hours those weeks by not sending her child. This of course assumes that the setting is able to offer the hours she requires.

Both daughters will (as will all parents) have to pay in full fees in holiday periods – even if stretch the funded hours over more weeks, and from what I have read this is another area where settings are thinking of ‘recovering’ some of underfunding – by charging a higher rate in holidays and for younger children who do not access funding. This of course means if either of my daughters have another child, the cost of childcare for the youngest child will be higher than currently charged for the under 3 year olds.

There are many parents with situations like my daughters – and bear a thought for those who are supply teachers, or bank staff, or have a zero hour contract, or work X number of hours per month that requires total flexibility – it is going to be a nightmare to try and meet Government criteria for number of hours worked. Although I know it is possible to submit regular claims / updates, this will involve a lot of extra paperwork, chasing up and trying to get the hours required in a childcare setting – and as we all know, errors can be made that then result in either parent losing out or funding being wasted.

It seems to me that not only is this an ill thought out election promise, the 30 hours is not going to help parents who really need the help, or support childcare settings to be sustainable – or enable Grandparents such as myself to actually have any time to themselves or even be able to choose when they look after their grandchildren.

And as a result ‘income poor’ families will remain so, and those with much higher salaries will benefit in such a small way (in terms of their income) that the Government may as well just burn the money or scrap the idea, and enable childcare settings to run their business in the way they traditionally have done, sustainably while offering a flexible service that parents require.

As with all things ‘One size does not fit all’ and certainly the 30 hour offer does not appear to really benefit anyone.

Safeguarding and Protecting Every Child – Conference Feedback   1 comment

The Preamble (Skip if you want to – but you might find it interesting!)

This conference was a landmark one because it was the FIRST national Early Years Safeguarding and Child Protection Conference. It was held on Friday 4th November and was the not only the brain child of my friend and colleague Laura Henry, it was also the result of a lot of planning, hard work, commitment and time on her part.

Laura had mentioned to me much earlier in the year (well before it was generally public knowledge) that she wanted me to be a speaker for one of the workshops. I agreed – and from then on started to panic!

By September requests for my presentation to be emailed over, were made by Juliette (Laura’s admin person) and suddenly it was all very real – I knew that the website information was available, I knew that people were booking, but I had been hiding behind the ‘it is not until November’ shield and had convinced myself that I had loads of time.

So presentation was written and sent – and I went back to having my head in the sand about my workshop but also to being very busy with general life, article writing, foster care, grandchildren and so on.

Roll onto Wednesday 2nd November – should have been graduation day for me – but it didn’t happen due to other people messing things up. I was very upset, very emotional and not at all in the mood for facing my own personal fears about going to London and speaking at a national conference – oh, or meeting with colleagues from Save the Children (which was planned for during my London Trip).

However, I am not the sort of person to let people down, so I packed my bags and put on my best smile, and on Thursday 3rd November was en route to London via various trains and a total of 4 hours travelling. On this occasion my destination was Euston – which is not my normal arrival station. However I have used it before and have a fairly good idea of where things are. First was the meeting with Save the Children colleagues (blog available if interested) and then I headed off on the underground to Canary Wharf. I have been to Canary Wharf once before but it was quite a while ago and once I got there I realised that I was not going in the same direction as last time and did not really know which direction to go in!

So I wandered about a bit and looked at several maps and my printed directions. It all looked straight forward – but I was lost! I crossed a road thinking it was in the general right direction – and lucky for me a very nice Police Officer (with a dog) stopped me and asked if I needed any help because he had noticed me walking up and down a few times. Once I had explained, he kindly walked me a little way towards where I needed to go, and then pointed and gave me very good directions. I am glad he did because I am not sure I would have found the hotel if he had not.

I checked into the hotel that had been paid for by Laura as part of my expenses for attending – and was soon in my hotel room on the 4th floor. I was on a bit of a mission because I wanted to write a blog about my meeting with Save the Children and get it published before I went out to dinner in the evening – and I did succeed. I also was busy via text – to Laura, to home and to a colleague- Rachel Buckler who was staying in the same hotel.

By 18.30, I am changed and ready to go downstairs for prearranged drinks with Laura and Rachel. We were joined by others connected to the conference and we all enjoyed a pre-dinner drink and some networking before walking the short distance to the dinner venue – but via the long route!

Once at the venue we meet up with John Carnochan whose name I had heard of but who I had never met before. Over dinner I was to have several conversation with John and I discovered I really liked what he had to say both personally and professionally, but I am jumping the gun a bit!

Others joined us for dinner – Dr Eunice Lumsden, Debbie Alcock, Ann Marie Christian and Laura’s admin Juliette – plus of course Laura, Rachel and myself. We were sat at a window table overlooking the Docklands – all those high impressive buildings, the 02 arena and the Thames; I had to pinch myself a few times – what was I, Penny Webb doing in such a place with those experts? I never think of myself as an expert or of being worthy of being involved in these sorts of things – self-doubt of course and all as a result of my own life experiences.

The life experience bit was reassuring in a way – because it links so closely to the reasons why this conference was happening – and why I was involved. Despite my lack of confidence – others do seem to think that I am knowledgeable and should be involved. I guess I will never really change – I will always be nervous, I will always have self-doubt, – but one thing is certain, I will continue to be driven by my passion to do whatever I can to make a difference.

Over dinner I did a lot of listening, and a bit of talking. I found the dinner table conversations to be fascinating – so many personal stories, so much experience, so much knowledge – and to my surprise I could contribute, I could add my own stories and my own experiences – and people were interested. John was interested in my stories connected to fostering, Eunice was interested in my journey to gaining my degree and my work within early years; Rachel, Anne Marie and Debbie were interested in what I thought about things. Maybe I should have more faith – lots of people tell me I should, some even tell me off for not ‘selling’ myself enough (or at all). I have a lot to be thankful to Laura for – because her support, and her encouragement have opened a lot of doors for me – including starting my blog, being a speaker at the conference – and for lots of introductions to the people I now engage with.

There were a few issues with the dinner as the venue was unable to meet my dietary requirements – despite having forewarning. The service in general was pretty rubbish with delays and people not having things like spoons to eat soup or forks to eat mains, or even all being served at the same time. I know Laura will have raised this as an issue and I hope the bill reflected this – as Laura paid as part of the ‘package’ for speakers. However, it has to be said the poor service did not have an impact on networking between us.

We returned back to the hotel – this time via the short route (which really was VERY short), and were joined by Jennie Johnson, a colleague known to many of us via the Ofsted Big Conversation and of course her MBE awarded by the Queen in the 2016 Birthday Honours. We chatted for a while before people (including me) started heading off to bed – although I believe some stayed chatting into the early hours.

 

The Main Event (welcome to those who skipped the preamble)

I was up early – well before 5am, something to do with nerves and not wanting to be late. I showered, had a coffee, checked emails, and text Laura who was also up at silly O’Clock. By 6am, I am downstairs having another coffee and some mini pastries (as full breakfast not available until a bit later). By 6.50, I have checked out and I am ready as promised to travel with Laura and Juliette to the venue for the conference and to help set up. Only thing is when the taxi driver arrived, I was ready and so was Juliette – but Laura was still having her breakfast! I wish I had thought to take a photo (but guess Laura is glad I didn’t) as it was quite funny to see Laura clutching drink and food in her hand while rushing out to get in the taxi. Even the taxi driver was concerned about Laura and her hot drink on the go. Still we arrived at the venue without any drink spillage, and entered the very impressive venue. Juliette and I checked in and were handed our conference badges- but there was a problem – Laura could not check in because there is not a badge for her!!!

The badge issue was quickly sorted and we headed to the lifts and to the 32nd floor – due to my fear of heights, my dislike of closed in spaces, and my difficulties with fast moving anything – this was not something that I enjoyed. We got out of the lift and walked the short distance to the conference space – which I discovered after a quick ‘get your barring’s’ walk round – was HUGE. I also discovered that there were huge windows to one side of all of the rooms being used taking advantage of views across the docklands. I am sure everyone who attended would have not failed to notice this – in fact I know they didn’t because of the number of photo’s on social media. However for me it was a bit of a problem because of course I don’t like heights.

Anyway there was no time for looking out of windows at this point because there was work to do – and the reason why we had arrived just after 7am. I got stuck into helping sort out the Goody Bags by putting the last minute things into the bags. I should have also helped arrange them on the tables in alphabetical order – but as usual my inability to do this, without going through the alphabet song in my head for every bag meant I was far too slow – so I let others do this! Throughout this time other people were arriving to help – many of whom I knew, so hugs were exchanged. Speakers were also arriving – and so workshop rooms were found, the main conference room found – and of course the restrooms and cloakroom. Laura had arranged for breakfast to be provided for all delegates (as many will have had an early start) but she also arranged for those helping to have breakfast earlier during the set up time. I say Laura arranged – what I meant was Laura thought of it and Juliette made the arrangements.

Once the Goody Bags were finished – I went to see the room that I would be using – it looked great – but – yes you have guessed right – one whole wall was a window! I did venture towards the window and took a photo, but regretted it because I felt sick, and my legs were wobbling. I checked the equipment (with the help of Juliette and an IT man from the venue) a few issues were resolved, and I was shown how to use the Walkie Talkie should I need to call for help during my workshop.

Luckily by now delegates were arriving in their droves, so I was busy saying hello to people, giving directions to new arrivals and it has to be said spending a fair amount of time in the breakfast area because this was the one space without a window!

Time was already going quickly, and before I knew it, we were being asked to take our seats for the conference to start.

As usual, I will not be giving a word for word account of Keynotes or the workshops because that is not fair to the speakers or to those who paid to attend. However, I will be giving my personal overview – and where possible links to information about the speakers, so that readers can find out more if they want to.

We were welcomed by the Chair of the conference Dr. Julian Grenier. I have met Julian on several occasions, including on the trip to Keilhau in Germany to ‘re discover Froebel’. For those of you who do not know Julian this is the link to his Linkiedn profile which tells you a bit about him, and gives links to his posts etc.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/grenier1

Julian’s job for the day was to ensure everything kept to time, to give a brief recap of the events – and to introduce the speakers – the first of which was Laura. Many people call Laura ‘Lovely Laura’ because she is such a lovely person – but also because she always looks so smart – and today she was wearing a lovely orange dress and her ‘trademark’ red shoes.

Laura welcome us, and explained why she had organised this this conference – and why it had taken 4 years to get from first idea to today’s event.

KEYNOTE ONE – John Carnochan

Those paying attention to my ramblings will know John was one of my dinner companions – and that I had found I liked what he had to say. However by the end of John’s keynote, I more than liked what he had to say – I loved it – and I noted he even included a few words that I had mentioned over dinner.

John is from Scotland and was an active Police Officer for about 40 years – he is not an early year’s trained person. However, during his work with the Crime Reduction Unit, he realised that everything can be traced back to a child’s early years’ experience.

This next bit is taken from the information on the conference website – so not my words

A child who is the victim of any adverse childhood experience will be significantly disadvantaged throughout their life. Knowing and understanding the circumstances that impact negatively on children’s well-being provides an opportunity to increase protective factors and reduce risk factors.

Primary prevention through the development of safe, stable and nurturing relationships between children and their caregivers must become a key component of national strategy and be placed at the heart of all our collaborative efforts.

 I totally agree with John – and I also believe although early years education, and the quality of early years settings is important – it is not the only factor that needs to be considered.

For those of you who like me have heard of the name John Carnochan – but don’t know much about him – the following link gives some information

http://www.respondingdifferently.co.uk/about-me

John spoke with passion and conviction that all though he may not always be ‘spot on’ he is going in the right direction – and making a difference.

One of the things that I have remembered from John’s speech is a recall from him about a conference that he attended – where a group of young people who are in the looked after system or are care leavers all stood up holding their paper hearts. Their message was simple – we want to be loved – we want to live as normal family life as possible with our foster families – we do not want ‘services’ provided, we want to be loved.

So very powerful – and I personally think this message of wanting to be loved applies to all children and young people. It is the most important aspect – even those who live in poverty can (and do) achieve good well-being and achieve their personal outcomes (which please note are not the same as Government imposed outcomes)

I could say a lot more about John’s keynote – but I will say no more – other than if you have opportunity to hear him speak – I recommend that you do so.

Next on the programme of events were the morning workshops – which included mine – and also Debbie Alcock of Influential Childcare Training on the subject Disqualification; and Susan Taylor of Tailormade Training Solutions on the subject of Working with Children Subject to Child Protection Plans. Of course I could not attend either Debbie’s or Susan’s workshops as I was busy doing mine.

For those who want to find out more here is a link to Debbie’s Linkedin Profile

https://www.linkedin.com/in/debbie-alcock-39431677

and one for Susan

https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-taylor-30470463

 

My workshop was – even if I say so myself was a success. It was about

Looked After Children/Transitions and Safeguarding.

This is the description (that I wrote) from the conference website

Safeguarding children is vital and all adults have a duty to safeguard all children. However, as shown through serious case reviews (SCR), not only do adults sometimes fail to work together and to share information to safeguard children; many also do not look at the bigger picture or consider safeguarding in the widest sense. Lack of knowledge, understanding and in some cases even common sense, can lead to children being expected to undertake academic tasks, daily routines, and even play experiences that they are not yet ready for due to gaps in their development, their emotional well-being and resilience levels – and most importantly their ability to trust adults who have, in generic terms, let them down in the past. This workshop will explore how we can support all children, but in particular those who are in the Looked After system, and those who experience difficult home lives.

 

I am not going to say any more about it – other than to say if people would like me to do a similar presentation for them (it would be similar but not the same) then please do get in touch.

The reason I know it was a success is because people asked questions and I could see most were paying full attention (rather than looking out of the window), and several came up and spoke to me about how the workshop had already made them reflect and start to think about various things that I had spoken about.

OH and that ‘window wall’ – I did not cope well! I felt sick, my legs were wobbly, I did my best not to look out of it or stand near it – but it still had an impact. I ended up stood as far from the window as possible – and leaning against a table – in fact two tables that were in a ‘L’ shape. However, the point is I did cope – and although I did not move about as much as usual I don’t think it affected my presentation too much (well I hope it didn’t)

After morning workshops there was a refreshment break, I grabbed a coffee and had a quick look at the stalls, but time was short due to the number of people who spoke to me at the end of my workshop (and I am not complaining, as I love feedback)

 

We took our seats in the main room, and Julian did a quick recap before introducing up to Eunice Lumsden – who of course was another of my dinner companions the night before – and as it happened Eunice was also sat next to me in the front row of the main room in our reserved seats, so I had spoken to her briefly several times while waiting for the conference to start.

I loved the title of Eunice’s keynote –

What has the Early Years got to do with it? EVERYTHING!

I totally agree – and so of course did John in his keynote earlier.

This is the blurb from the conference website about Eunice’s keynote

Children are more likely to experience a range of traumatic experiences in the Early Years, including child abuse and the consequences of living in environments where domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse are prevalent. These experiences can impact across the life course and the cost to the individual and society can be immense.

This presentation challenges us to think about the rights of our youngest children to a professionalised Early Years workforce that understands their role in all areas of early childhood trauma. A workforce that proactively creates safe, nurturing environments and that promotes aspiration and life chances for all children.

As always just a few words from me about Eunice’s keynote – the thing that stuck out to me was that Eunice although supporting professional development and degree level workforce, she was also saying that we need practitioners at all levels and that all should be valued. She said that level 2’s should be the best they can, same for level 3’s and so on. I thought back to my conversation with Eunice over dinner about the route I had taken and my late (in terms of career development) gaining of my degree.

I was also interested in Eunice’s experiences as a social worker and how this helped inform her about the importance of early years.

For those of you who would like to read more about Eunice – this is the link to some information from the University of Northampton

http://www.northampton.ac.uk/directories/people/eunice-lumsden/

 

Julian then did another quick recap before we all headed off for lunch, networking and opportunity to look at the stalls.

There was a huge array of lunch available but unfortunately none of the mains were suitable. Laura made sure that I did get something to eat – and I was directed to the chef who rose to the occasion and provided a plain pan fried chicken breast and some vegetables. Desserts were also plentiful, and met my dietary needs. I ate my lunch with Wendy Baker and Carmen Powell – both of whom I had engaged with on Social Media but never met before – thank you ladies it was really good to chat in person and share our thoughts about the conference and early years in general.

Straight after lunch we were treated to Keynote THREE – this one was by Professor Dame Donna Kinnair – Head of Nursing, RCN and on the subject of ‘Lessons learnt from Serious Case Reviews’

I loved the way Donna started her keynote – it was with – Well Laura has asked me to speak about this – and the quick answer is ‘not a lot’ !

Donna’s point was we have learnt what happened, and have some thoughts about why these things happen, but we really have not learnt that much because of our culture to blame people. This she says is not helpful as none of those blamed – family members or professional woke up with the intention for those things to happen, and each person is different and would do things differently – so how can lessons be learned?

Of course – things are learned – what works (and how come no one talks about the things that work) and these include all those things we know are good practice and support well being and improved outcomes. Donna drew on her work as a health visitor and working in the communities. I shall say no more about Donna’s keynote – other than it was fascinating and made me reflect in a different way about the Serious Case Reviews.

If you would like to find out more about Donna and her work, here is a link to her Linkedin profile – actually it does not say a lot but it is a starting point

https://www.linkedin.com/in/donna-kinnair-1b32a322

It was then time for afternoon workshops – I was going to sit in on one, but admit that by now I was starting to flag – and so I sat in the refreshment area (which if you remember did not have a window) and had some more coffee and some cake.

The afternoon workshop presenters were

Rachel Buckler of Safeguarding Training Ltd on the subject of Leading and Managing Safe Practice in Early Years. Here is a link to information about Rachel

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-buckler-02762a4b

Ann Marie Christian who is a Specialist Education Safeguarding Consultant on the subject of Safer Recruitment in the Early Years. Click on link for information about Ann Marie

Home

Andrew Ellery of AE Social Care & Education Limited on the subject of Effective referrals – Maximising response. A bit more information about Andrew via link

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewellery

 

The final Keynote (number FOUR) was by Jane Evans. I have met Jane before and engaged via social media, so I knew we were going to have a great keynote – and we did!

This is what it says on the conference website about Jane

Jane Evans is widely known for her TEDxBristol talk on childhood anxiety, ‘Taming and Tending Your Meerkat Brain’. She began her career with children and families over two decades ago working in pre-schools and as a childminder, family support and parenting worker, and as a foster carer. Jane is now a renowned TV, radio and social media parenting and childhood trauma expert.

Jane combines her vast experience of working with families with complex needs with her knowledge of the latest neuroscience and attachment research. She regularly speaks to, and trains, others to understand and use this in their direct work with children and families. Jane is a sought-after parenting and anxiety coach and an acclaimed author of four books for children, which support complex needs.

And about her keynote

A child’s brain and body is created and constructed by daily experiences of nurturing and self-soothing. When this is absent, erratic, aggressive or detached it causes stress and fear in the developing child, which increases their vulnerability in daily life. It is important to understand this when we look at protecting children and increasing their physical and emotional safety.

 

I am going to add very little about Jane’s keynote – it was filled with facts, passion and a good deal of moving about and being expressive. Jane is a big one for advocating ‘grounding’ for adults and children – by physically moving your feet and connecting with the ground – it is excellent advice as are all the other things she says. I recommend you watch her TedXtalk

For some more information about Jane click on the link

https://www.linkedin.com/in/janeparenting

There was a short panel session – which was good but time was against us. Julian brought the conference to a close, and Laura had a few words to say as well, and received a well-deserved round of heartfelt applause.

There was just time for me to write my reflection words on one of the pre cut butterflies and hang it on the tree, before saying my goodbyes, collecting my things from the cloakroom and heading off in the rush hour with Rachel as my travelling companion – well at least as far as Euston. I always think I am a bit of a novice at the whole tube thing, but when with someone like Rachel who uses the tube less than I do – I realise that actually I know quite a lot now about tubes!

I had time for a drink with Rachel at Euston, before she had to catch her train. I had another hour to wait and a slow journey home – but arrived home before midnight tired but motivated by all the inspirational speakers – and quite pleased with my own small part in it.

Huge thanks to Laura for organizing it all, to Juliette for all the support she gave, to all the speakers and those with stalls – and to everyone who attended.

Already looking forward to the next one – maybe see you there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted November 11, 2016 by psw260259 in My thoughts on current childcare issues

Meeting with Claire and Keyan from Save the Children   Leave a comment

Today – Thursday 3rd November 2016, I met with Claire and Keyan from Save the Children to discuss their latest report ‘Untapped Potential’ and the blog I wrote about that report,

If you have not read my blog yet – you can do so by clicking on the link.

https://pennysplacechildminding.com/2016/11/01/7692/

The meeting was only for about an hour but to be honest it was surprising that a meeting was arranged at all , because I gave very little notice of my availability.  However – Claire and Keyan fitted in with me and we met at Euston Station  due to my other commitments for the day.

Readers of my blog will know that I have met with Claire before, and that she has sent me copies of Save the Children’s last two reports, via email, so I could write a blog about my opinion. Both with no strings attached and no hidden agenda – Claire genuinely wanted my opinion and gave me freedom to write whatever I wanted to.

On both occasions she thanked me for my honesty in my blogs (well to be fair that is what you get in my blogs – my honest opinion – I would not have it any other way).

However, ahead of the meeting Claire had told me she was moving on – still within Save the Children but within the school section. Hence the reason for Keyan coming to meet me – Keyan is to be my new contact and will be working with me in the future – him in his paid role with Save the Children, and me in my volunteer role. Being a volunteer is essential to me – I have no intention of charging to attend meetings like these, or being sponsored by anyone. I just want to express my opinion and also act as a bridge between organisations like Save the Children and my colleagues.

So to get to the content of the meeting

First I was introduced to Keyan and given hard copies of the last two reports (Claire tells me I can get extra copies if needed for colleagues). Then while Claire was getting drinks for all of us, Keyan and I got on with introductions, finding out a little bit about each other. Keyan is a policy sort of man but is new to early years and only been with Save the Children for about 4 months. He admits he has a lot to learn and that it is all a bit confusing at the moment. However he mentioned the support of colleagues including Claire whose new office is just across the corridor, and Jerome who wrote ‘Untapped Potential’ and who is a research sort of person.

I expressed my opinion about the limits of research especially small scale, and large  scale that is now outdated. Claire came back with the drinks and we got down to the serious side of our meeting

Claire wanted to know what I thought about the media coverage of the report – I told her that I was not impressed with the media coverage and disappointed that other more positive aspects of the report had not been mentioned,

I also told her of the negative impact on my colleagues and the despair of  yet more negative press, and feeling of depression that early years (and in particular the PVI sector) is yet again the bottom of the pile and ‘not good enough’. I mentioned that moral in the sector was at an all time low (although plenty of passion still there) due to the funding issues, the qualifications confusion and constantly changing goal posts, and the academic push for children to be rushed through their childhood and required to achieve things earlier and earlier. I told Claire and Keyan that the sector feels no one is listening or taking their concerns seriously. I mentioned that some people had been in touch with me and that I had some questions to ask on their behalf. Claire said she was happy to hear those questions and would either answer herself today or get back to me with the answers.

To me Claire and Keyon seemed genuine in their desire to work not only with me but with the early years sector as a whole. But then Claire said something that made take a deep breath – and I will be honest I have thought about this and not sure it sits well with myself and my ethos.

 

So what did Claire say that made me pause and reflect?

She said ‘ To get media attention we needed to be negative and question the government’s policy’ We said a lot more about lack of government funding and lots of other things  BUT we had to use something that would get attention’

I explained that the whole early years teacher bit had got the report attention, but at what cost to the early years sector? Colleagues are not happy, so would it not be better to work with the early years sector? Claire said just asking for more money would never get us anywhere – we needed to target government policy and shortfalls.

Those who know me well, will now know why this does not sit comfortably with me because I always say it as it is – I never have a hidden agenda. However, maybe I am rather naïve and too honest?  Maybe that is why I am not rich or famous? (not that I want to be either)

I do tend to believe that Claire and Keyan do think this is a good way to draw attention to the plight of the Early Years sector – but I would not do it this way.

I then asked some of the questions I had been asked to raised

Q. Why the sudden interest in early years children in England?

A. Actually Save the Children started out working with children in poverty in England almost a 100 years ago, and this remains part of their manifesto. They do a lot of work ‘behind the scenes’ such as parenting programmes and things like helping parents buy things they need such a fridge, or a bed for their child. Claire said a lot of this is not in the public eye.

I suggested that it should be.

Claire said she would send me some stuff about their work. I will share this when I get it.

Q. Where does their funding for their early years work come from. Are they funded by Government or others, and do they use money donated for other projects such as Syrian refugees?

A (Claire smiled a little) Most definitely NO to all those questions. They do get some corporate funding such as from Fisher Price but this goes into a general pot not just the early years work. They also get funding from some others – but this is all stated clearly in their annual reports which are available to anyone.

I admitted that annual reports bore me – however Claire said she would send me the link for the annual report for those that are interested.

Q. Are they linked to some sort of product – say for early years literacy and language – that they will generate an income from

A. NO – but we do work in partnership with others

Q Would it not be better to work with early years settings?

A This is what you have asked Penny – and yes we do want to work with more people like you. We already work with organisations but want to work with those on the ground floor.

Claire then asked me if I knew anyone that might be interested in meeting with them or in having email communication. I mentioned a couple of names but did warn Claire and Keyan that people were quite likely to be angry and / or upset with them at the moment – but Claire said that was fine, she welcomed all comment.

So colleagues this is your opportunity – Do you want to meet with Save the Children in person or via email? Do you want to communicate through me? If you do let me know – I will pass on your details – or if you prefer comment on this blog.

 

Further discussion then took place about what Save the Children need to do (in my opinion)

  • Sell themselves to the EY sector (ie give information about what they do)
  • Promote the things the PVI sector do well (value the experience and knowledge)
  • Push forward the play agenda not the academic agenda
  • Promote the home learning with parents and grandparents
  • Include childminders and other home based settings in their reports
  • Work directly with the EY sector
  • Work more with me – after all my opinion is free
  • Try to ensure people find out about the things from their reports that do not make the headlines – maybe produce their own media release

 

To finish we talked about how to help people out of poverty, and that benefits, or places in grammar schools, or even EY funding was not the answer. We talked about changing the language used that there was no such thing as free childcare, and that in any case did not reach those that really needed it due to barriers including government criteria. Actually Claire agreed with me that a subsidy for all would be better – so say £2 per hour from Government and the rest from parents. We discussed the failing of the tax credit systems (old and new) and those slipping through the systems.

By then it was time to part.

We parted on good terms with promises from me and them to continue to work together.

As I have said I am not sure about their methods – they do not sit well with me, nor am I happy about the distress caused to colleagues BUT I do think they do want to improve outcomes for children, so really it is up to all of us to work more closely with Save the Children, not just in expressing our disappointment but also in providing information and opinion.

 

Over to you colleagues ….. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted November 3, 2016 by psw260259 in My thoughts on current childcare issues

Save the Children report – ‘Untapped Potential’   1 comment

Save The Children have released their latest report today (1st November 2016) called ‘Untapped Potential – How England’s nursery lottery is failing too many children’ and is written by Jerome Finnegan

If you have not read it yet, you can request a copy  via this  link

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/2016-11/new-report-highlights-acute-shortage-nursery-teachers-across-england?hootPostID=52d3ee5b34ea5367061cc210c4d5394e (under notes to editors)

 This follows on from the Save the Children previous report ‘The Lost Boys’ which was written by Claire Read. If you have not read my blog about The Lost Boys’ report you can do so by clicking on this link

https://pennysplacechildminding.com/2016/07/18/the-lost-boys-no-not-peter-pans-lost-boys-boys-that-you-and-i-know/

It is worth mentioning that whilst I have met Claire Read (and she did have some input to this latest report) I have never met Jerome Finnegan, and so I have no idea what his personal or professional thought processes are, and therefore I am going to be unpicking this report from my personal understanding of what is written rather than with the benefit of having had any personal discussion with Jerome.

As always my blog will be full of personal opinion which some may agree with and some may disagree with. My opinion is based on my personal experiences and my personal values and principles about what young children need to flouish, as well as my view about research which I always take with a pinch of salt, because I know research can support any view if you cherry pick it enough, or read in a way that you want it to read. Not saying I am right – just saying this is my opinion.

 

So to start at the beginning

This report looks at what high quality childcare looks like in terms of qualified staff, and outcomes for children at various stages of life. It is examines partnership with parents and the use of songs and games to build the foundations of learning. As well as looking at the challenges and putting forward some ideas for investing in the childcare workforce so every child has the best start.

 

The Executive Summary gives lots of facts and figures about ‘good level of development’ achieved by children both before starting an early years setting and on starting school. To be honest it is all rather confusing to try and make sense of from the executive summary – but a quick scan of the rest of the document shows all will become clearer once you read the full report as there are some charts that show this information.

The executive summary also talks about the role of high quality staff and the difference this makes – some of it really is not very convincing to me but maybe that is because of my personal view on such things – as I have already said, we will all read research and reports differently and in line with what we want to read!

As an example the report states, children who attend a high quality early years setting are 3 months ahead in literacy and language skills than those who attend a low quality early years setting – and 8 months ahead of those who do not attend any early years

In my opinion this could be worded differently and say

‘attending any early years setting results in children being between 5 and 8 months ahead in language and literacy, than those who do not attend any early years setting’.

I think though this is a more realistic view and shows it is not the quality of the early years setting that makes the biggest difference, it is if a child attends an early years setting or not. The difference between low and high quality settings is of the less significance – just 3 months in development of language and literacy levels.

 

However, I also think there is not enough in depth research that shows all angles – for example children who are cared for by grandparents, or are only children, or have siblings, if English is their first language / when they started to learn English, if they were premature or suffered ill health / had operations in their early years – and so much more. To be fair, Save the Children have tried to consider some of these aspects but I still feel the research is not sufficient to draw any conclusive evidence.

 

There is the usual reference to the difference highly qualified staff – that is those with degrees and in particular Early Years Teacher (EYT) status, being the biggest indicator of quality in a childcare setting. There are facts and figures that suggest that it is the EYT’s that make the biggest difference. The report suggests that because there are less EYT’s within the Private, Voluntary, and independent (PVI) sector, it is why they have poorer outcomes than other settings. There is also a suggestion that lower requirements from Ofsted for staff qualifications in the PVI sector also leads to poorer outcomes.

I am not so sure about this because data about children is really difficult to unpick, as there are so many variants. Indeed I heard about some of these things when I attended the Early Education conference in October – yes attending an early years setting does improve outcomes, and yes a high quality setting does in general support better outcomes BUT there are other factors involved that have just as much impact on children’s outcomes – and can have a longer lasting effect. From my personal experience and the data I have from children who attended my childminding setting over a 30 year period, all those children achieved an excellent level of development, and I am not a EYT, and indeed I did not gain my degree until in the last months of my childminding career. So I have to question the conclusions reached about the impact of EYT’s – of course they will make a difference in many cases, but I do not think it is the only reason. As I keep saying we will read into research what we want to read – and will question it from our own perspective. I guess one of the advantages I have now I don’t run a setting, and I am also not employed by any one (so no boxes to tick) that I do not have a personal (or hidden) agenda. I just express my personal opinion – and I am not really bothered if people agree or not with my opinion, as we are all entitled to our own opinion.

Getting back to the executive summary there is one point I totally agree with in the executive summary. It is the suggestion that the Government need to invest in the childcare workforce and to ensure sustainability; to provide incentives to settings to invest in staff development; and to provide funding to ensure children in the most disadvantaged areas can access a good early years setting.

Actually this is not quite how it is described in the report – as it talks about EYT’s and nursery places (which always annoys me as this does not indicate the inclusion of childminders ) – why say nursery? Why not say early year’s provision or setting? By talking about the need for a EYT in every setting this does not value the very knowledgeable and experienced staff already working in the early years sector, who are often doing an outstanding job with very little recognition via pay or funding.

However before I get too ‘het up under the collar’ with my personal view – maybe I should move on from the executive summary to the main content of the report, as I may read things that I agree with, and things that demonstrate it is not all about EYT’s.

The introduction starts with saying that almost a quarter of a million children started school in 2014 / 15 without having reached ‘a good level of early development’, which means many children struggle with their early language skills, which then have an impact on all other areas of development.

Actually I do believe this is true and I have personally met children who do struggle with their early language skills. However, I disagree with the suggestion that it is low quality early years settings or lack employment of an ETY that is the reason behind this. I speak from personal experience based on my own childhood, that of my own children and all the other children I have looked after. How on earth did I, or my parents or my children develop our language skills? For my parents there was no early years provision before they started school, for myself there was some but it was not available to all, just to those who could afford a private nursery school, and for my children the most accessible early years provision was playgroups run mainly by mothers who did not have formal qualifications.

And yet most children started school not only with a good level of language development – but also ‘ready for school’ in that they had the skills required for reception classes of the time.

So I have to question what is really behind all this poor language development, what in fact has changed. And more importantly what can be done to ensure all children develop not just good language skills but ‘ a good level of development’

I would suggest that maybe it is to do with modern lifestyles, declining parenting skills due to lack of time to parent and constant worry of many just to survive. I would further suggest that constantly changing (higher) expectations of what ‘a good level of development’ is, means changing goalposts – even though children cannot be rushed through childhood and their development.

But that is just a personal opinion based on my experience, I am sure others will think differently.

My apologies for my side tracking from the content of the report – but I find it easier to comment as I come across things, rather than leaving my opinion for a conclusion at the end.

Reading on, I notice the rather depressing facts about disadvantaged children struggling more than other children. It states that half of disadvantaged children will fail to reach the government set level of development. I can’t help feeling this is more to do with higher targets set – and lack of valuing non-academic skills. From my understanding it is only academic levels of achievement that the Government is worried about, where as in my opinion academic skills are only part of the bigger picture. I agree more needs to done to support those who are classed as disadvantage – but we need to start with children’s very early development – pre-birth in fact and also their home lives.

 

By the way the report also says that children who are not classed as disadvantaged – also do not all reach the government set ‘good level of development’. In fact 1/3 of these children fail to reach the targets set. Surely this is a more worrying figure? Why are these children who have more advantages in life, and who are more likely to attend an early years setting (according to data in the report) not all flourishing? I would suggest that this also has to do with higher expectations – but also with the Government agenda of ‘one size fits all’ and ‘Too much, Too soon’. However, people will say that I would personally think that because of my personal views and my campaigning. It would be interesting to know what others think.

The introduction mentions the role of parents, and I am sure this will be picked up later on in the report – and therefore in this blog.

Finally to end the bit about the introduction – I agree we need to act now, and I agree the Government needs to invest in the early years sector, but I don’t agree with how this can be achieved.

However, I totally agree with Save the Children, about the bit highlighted in a box at the end of the introduction, which is about the 3 key drivers of low educational outcomes for the poorest children.

  • The quality of services that support children and their families, with children being the most crucial
  • The home learning environment(acknowledging the crucial role of parents in early childhood development)
  • Poverty and material deprivation

 

After the introduction there is a bit about childcare and education in England, which I don’t feel I need to comment on, as most of my readers are knowledgeable about this. However, if you are personally not aware, you can read about it on page 3 of the main report.

The next couple of pages contain some of those charts I mentioned, which I am not going to talk about as I have already expressed my views about some of these.

The EPPE research gets a mention, as you would expect – this research is now rather outdated as so much has changed since it was first carried out in terms of provision available through early years settings and the increase in the number of early years practitioners with qualifications – not to mention Government funding which enables more children to access an early years setting, and modern lifestyles. So although the research is still valid, it is only up to a certain point and should not be used to justify current education policy.

 

There is one point I want to pick up on though from this section – and that is a highlighted box at the bottom of page 6,. Where Diane who is an ETY talks about her work with parents. I am not knocking this work at all – it is very important BUT it is not just YET’s who do this – many other early years practitioners do this as well – in fact it is a requirement of Ofsted to work in partnership with parents and to support home learning. In addition the majority of childminders have always excelled at this, it is one of their strengths. Certainly going back in the mists of time, I used to be commissioned by Social Services to care for children who were struggling at home and to work to support the parent as well. This scheme was extremely successful – it is a shame that this is now generally not available because support could be given to parents, and to support home learning from when a child is born. Maybe this needs looking at and re-establishing as many children and families could be supported and therefore the ‘gap’ narrowed.

 

You see in my opinion ‘one size’ does not fit all – for some children 2 year old funding is too late, for some children a childminder could provide the most effective support, and for some a group setting would be right.

There is an interesting comment about research shows in England degree level qualifications were an important indicator of quality – but in other countries other factors were more important. I question if this because of the focus in this country of academic qualifications and therefore no real research into the other factors. Why should qualifications be the most important aspect in this country but not in others? Again ‘one size’ does not fit all, and in my opinion in this country we do not look at the bigger picture and do not value all the aspects that go into early years care and education.

Next I want to pick up the section about ‘Songs, Games and Partnership with parents’ In my opinion this is the one of the most important aspects of this report – all the things which support early language development. It might surprise you to know that recent conversations with colleagues have led me to believe that not only do children not know a wide range of song, rhymes and tradition ‘ring games’ or even know how to play games like snap or lotto – these are also becoming squeezed out of the early years settings in some cases. This is an area that could be supported both in settings and at home, and it is a shame that there are very few Children’s Centres left that offer a full range of services because the parent sessions could have been extended and included a lot more of these type of early language activities.

The report does mention the importance of interactions between adults and children, I totally agree, and personally think you do not need to be a EYT or have a degree to interact with children, to talk to them, to sing with them, to read to them, to listen to them, to show an interest to them – and more. This is a low cost way that more children could be supported, and so I am grateful it is included in this report from Save the Children.

Much of the rest of the report is about too many children missing out, and the need for more EYT’s – especially in deprived areas. I will not comment on this because I think the focus is wrong – we should be looking at everything and not just recommending one key aspect. It is not that I don’t value EYT’s because I do – it is just that there is so much more to consider.

 

To be fair to Save the Children they do also mention the need for continuous professional development of all early years practitioners, and this is something I fully support. A degree is ‘nice’ to have but it does not necessarily improve knowledge or understanding. I know as I have only just completed my degree – it taught me how to argue a point, how to include other people’s views (but I never did get the hang of referencing), it made me reflect a bit more on wider issues – but in my case due to the many years of experience I have in the early years sector – it did not improve my knowledge or my understanding. Of course for other people, especially those who gain a degree before working in the sector, it would be a different story. That is my point really, we need to value all skills – those gained by studying and those gained through experience – again ‘one size does not fit all’. So for me CPD is essential for everyone, you never know everything, you are always learning, but with CPD you can focus on what you want to learn and what you need to learn for your own pathway. Much the same as it should be for the children.

This blog is now rather long, and so I am not going to write any more – other than to say, I am not so frustrated now by this report, because having read it all (but not written about it all) I can see the report contains many things I do agree with.

I hope that a ‘common Sense’ approach is taken by those who read this report and that the bigger picture is looked at.

Hopefully this blog will have whetted your appetite and you will be motivated to read the whole report.

 

 

Posted November 1, 2016 by psw260259 in My thoughts on current childcare issues

An open letter to Government about the 30 hours   Leave a comment

Dear Government (and everyone else caught up in the funding debate for the 30 hours)

I thought I would write this open letter with my personal thoughts ahead of the results of the funding consultation about the 30 hours, and indeed the one about Maintained Nursery Schools.

I have been proven right in my own personal thinking on a number of things within the early year’s sector in recent years, and indeed I have seen a number of U turns and abandonment of ideas around the issues I have campaigned about.

So will my personal thoughts be proved right this time?

My point is not to say ‘Told you so’ but rather to say – ‘Why not carry out proper consultation without hidden agenda and closed questions?’ Why not allow time for engagement with the sector?’ ‘Why not think outside the box and be brave enough to make long term changes, not just short term policy changes that achieve nothing in the long term and in fact often have a negative impact on children and families?’

Having said that, I am pleased to note that the current Government led by Theresa May, appear to be consulting little bit more and therefore hopefully listening a bit more before policy is implemented. Time will tell.

Before I start recording my thoughts, I need to make it clear that I do not have my own setting, and that I support ALL early years’ settings because I am an advocate for children, families and early years settings. We need high quality settings but also choice for families, and children, as one type of setting will not meet the needs of all children and families.

One of my personal concerns is that we will end up with one type of setting – and most likely a school based one that will not meet the needs of all children or families. I am also concerned that the way the Government is treating different parts of the early year’s sector differently that divide will be created as early years settings will not stand as one to ensure every child flourishes but will be drawn into heated self-centred debates based on their own survival. This is not needed and will not benefit any one – and especially not the children

So the first issue I want to look at, is that of Maintained Nursery Schools (MNS) and the increased amount of funding that they have traditionally had.

First though, I must say I do think it is right that Government has agreed to protect the funding rate for MNS while full consideration is given to why MNS need an enhanced rate. It would be dreadful if funding rates were reduced and they all closed, and would be a huge loss to the early year’s sector.

However, why is the Government not responding to the needs of the rest of the early year’s sector and giving them the same opportunities to remain open and not be threaten with closure due to being unsustainable?

It does not seem fair – and as there are more children accessing funded hours through the PVI sector, this unfairness could impact on many families and limit choice for families, and places for children.

I realise that it would cost the Government more money to offer an increased rate to the PVI sector, but if this was time limited (like the offer to MNS) surely it would be worth it to ensure PVI settings do not close, while the whole funding situation is looked at.

Most PVI settings would be happy with a baseline rate paid of £5 per hour, per child plus the normal adjustments as needed and as per Government guidelines.

I know the Government want to explore why MNS have such good outcomes – but really it is not rocket science – and historic issues though important to consider, are not the only factors to take into account.

Things have changed so much over the past years, with investment by Government, higher qualifications, and quality across the early year’s sector. Therefore a complete overhaul is needed to have a system that works for everyone – parents, Government and settings.

A quick fix, or providing some with protection against cuts or increased cost (but not all settings) is not the answer.

A forward thinking Government should want to consider short and long term sustainability of all settings, ensuring high quality, and gaining best possible value for money.

Certainly expecting settings or parents to cover shortfall in Government funding for election promises is not good enough.

First, let’s look at the need for MNS to have their own Head Teacher. In principle this is wonderful because it means the person in charge has a full understanding of the needs of early year’s children, and can implement policy and practice that will ensure the best outcomes. However in my opinion the cost of this seems too high – and completely unfair to the settings and children who do not have such a qualified lead person nor the budget to implement ideas or employ the higher qualified staff required in MNS.

This aspect needs looking at and alternatives considered if better use could be made of these experienced and qualified heads

Maybe Heads of MNS could also act as Head for local school nursery classes – thus sharing the cost of that head – meaning the MNs would need less funding per child.

I know Heads of MNS do already have a role in leadership across settings, but I don’t think the cost of the Head is shared between the settings.

Maybe the Heads of MNS should be paid from other budgets and the actual MNS run on a daily basis by another lead member of staff?

If the cost of employing such a person was not directly linked to a MNS, then the funding per child would be fairer and easier to justify. Cost to the Government would be similar but how the skills of those currently employed as Heads of MNS were used to benefit more settings and therefore children would be completely different

But there is much more to be considered …….

Take colleagues in school reception classes, or in nursery classes within schools – they often have a Head Teacher with responsibility for the whole school, and who does not have any early years qualifications or experience. The staff often feel they are banging their heads on the wall as they try to get Heads to understand or release money from the budget for specific items.

Also these days some PVI settings are run by people with similar early years qualifications and experience to MNS Heads but are not paid anything like the same pay – in fact some leaders in the PVI receive no pay or very little because the setting cannot afford it. How is this fair – not just to the setting but to the children and families?

Now let’s look at staff qualifications – many PVI settings and individual childminders do now have a degree, some now have a Masters or are an EYT – but their pay does not reflect this. Many settings have more level 3 staff than is required under regulations but this is not reflected in their pay or rate of funding (some argue that MNS need more funding to pay for higher qualified staff). Please note it is not the fault of the PVI settings, as they simply cannot afford to pay more on the funding they receive – and that is the case now, when they are able to recoup some money through non funded hours, but with the roll out of the 30 hours this will not be possible.

To be fair to all – consideration for funding rates should include level of qualifications and equal pay for those with the same level of qualifications – and by equal pay I mean per hour worked – so for example if someone has a level 3 they should get say £12 per hour worked, if they have a degree they should get say £14 per hour, and of course they should also get an enhanced rate if they lead the setting – just as the Head of a MNS currently gets.

I am not naïve, and I realise the Government could not afford to cover these sorts of costs – I am just trying to raise the issues that need to be considered and to put forward the idea that a complete rethink is needed.

Oh and by the way what about the childminders? Childminders tend to lead their settings and have responsibility for doing everything – many have a level 3 qualification or higher (or have years of experience and knowledge without a formal qualification) and yet the Government can (and will) restrict their earnings whatever their qualification or Ofsted grade is. Each childminder can have 3 children under 5 – and although they can also have school age children before and after school, some are not able to due to space in the car, or routines of the younger children. This means with funded hours a childminder has a restricted income for some or all of the day. Even at £4 per hour, per child (and many will get less) after genuine expenses many childminders will earn less than the minimum wage, and have no sick pay or pension.

Let’s now consider the hours different settings are open for. MNS and some community based pre – schools operate within school hours and school terms – so the children will usually have a 3 hour session each day (meaning 15 hours a week), and they get school holidays of around 13 weeks a year. School based early years settings may provide up to 6 hours per day, but again only in term time. Ofsted just judge the setting on those opening hours. Children and staff get plenty of time to do other things, to rest and relax and go on family holidays. However most childminders and day nurseries are open for 9 or more hours a day (with some childminders opening for 12 or more hours a day) and 50 – 52 weeks of the year. Ofsted judge those settings on all the hours they are open. Staff and children are tired at the end of each day and week, holidays are less frequent and for some children maybe only a few days a year. In my opinion it is not fair that some settings are judge on 10 hour days and some on 3 hour sessions against the EYFS (all early years settings are judged against this). Would it not be fairer if all settings were required to implement 3 hours a day, term time only of EYFS based ‘curriculum’ and judged against this – and maybe a different judgement for any other hours provided. I am saying this because of the requirement to record and document the ‘learning’ for however many hours the setting is open – which means more work for staff and more pressure to ensure every hour is utilised to tick progress boxes.

Of course we all know that children are constantly gaining new knowledge and understanding – but it seems unfair to me that the requirements from Ofsted need meeting for such different periods of time. I am not sure my personal thoughts are valid, but I certainly feel this needs looking at. As an ex childminder I would have been much more relaxed if my EYFS recording did not have to be over so many hours and with an Ofsted expectation that I would have planned various activities throughout the day. By relaxing Ofsted expectations for inspections – many settings would then be able to implement other opportunities for more child led play without any targets. I would suggest that this would actually improve outcomes for children. Certainly research says that it is the first 3 hours of high quality education that makes the difference and that any additional hours do not significantly improve outcomes. Then there is the research that says holidays or days away from school or setting do not have a negative impact on outcomes, and the research that suggests children need to be ‘bored’ and not rushed from one activity to the next, as well as the research that children these days have high levels of mental health issues, and are unable to think for themselves, self-regulate or even motivate themselves.

I would suggest all these issues need considering when looking at early years care and education (the two cannot be separated but for inspection and funding purposes a difference could be made around focussed educational activities / experiences).

Please note I am not suggesting there should be a difference in funding rates for ‘education’ funding and non-education funding – just in Ofsted requirements. If every setting had to provide 3 hours per child, per day attending of Ofsted required EYFS recording then it would all be a lot fairer and flexible.

I think the Government do recognise something needs to change because they have been referring to 15 hours of education and an additional 15 hours of childcare (and the additional 15 hours only for working parents)

Of course there other issues that need considering;

Parents of under two’s, who get very little  support

Working parents of two year olds

Parents who work shifts (including weekends) or who have zero hour’s contracts

Parents who work long hours and have long commutes

As I have said, there is so much to consider, that the whole funding issue needs to go back to the drawing board – and while the Government are doing this they need to ensure settings – all types of settings – do not close by providing short term financial support.

So to finish, I am not suggesting I have the answers (although I do think a subsidy for every child would be fairer, rather than an offer of ‘free childcare’ that the Government cannot afford and settings cannot subsidise), what I am saying is the early years sector is at a crisis point and if we are not careful good and outstanding settings will close, parents will end up with less choice and limited options for hours that meet their needs, and settings that are not local but need transport to access.

In recent years the early years sector has risen to all the targets and changes despite the huge challenges this has created, but I seriously think the whole 30 hour election promise is a step too far and that ‘enough is enough’

Government have demonstrated a huge commitment to the early years – but the Government need to listen, to everyone involved, and they need to ‘get it right’ because once settings close, once highly qualified and experience staff leave the sector, it will be impossible to reverse these things. It will be too late.

So please Government, and everyone involved – lets discuss this and all pull together to ensure every child has access to a high quality setting that is right for them so they flourish, and that also meets their parents needs – so they can work if they want to, or study, or fulfil other commitments such as caring for elderly relatives or doing community work.

 

Penny Webb BEM

Advocate for children, families and early years settings.

 

Posted October 30, 2016 by psw260259 in My thoughts on current childcare issues

Using food in play is it good, bad, mixed messages?   Leave a comment

This morning, I picked up on a Facebook discussion about using food for play and the suggestion was that it was not ethical. There was a list of non food items that could be used instead for sensory play experiences – these things included pom poms, baby oil, and many other things that would indeed provide sensory play experiences.

Discussion on this subject was wide ranging with different viewpoints being expressed. Some though using small amounts of say cornflakes was ok – but not large amounts; Some thought things like cornflour was ok; some thought out of date food was ok; some thought food should never be used because so many in the world are going hungry; some thought telling the children that give to food banks and so on, but also playing with food gave mixed messages.

So as you can see a wide range of opinions!

So here is my view – I have to admit this is one of those subjects that I have reflected on a lot – and changed my opinion over the years!

At first I did not really think about it in ethical terms and if I could afford to provide food for sensory experiences – I did.

Then I thought it was wasteful – so I used out of date food stuff

But then I thought actually that is not safeguarding the children in my care if they ate small (or even large) amounts of out of date food stuff.

So I went back to providing in date stuff, but tried to limit the amount used

But then I realised that if providing – say rice play – you need quite a lot certainly a large bag rather than a small bag – so I provide a lot of some items to create the play opportunities that I knew were needed.

Then I did a whole load of reflecting and have now reached this conclusion that I would like to share with you. Of course I may reflect again, but I don’t think so because my current thoughts are based on years of reflection and change and also on my own version of common sense.

I am not expecting everyone to agree with my thoughts on using food for play, as we all have our own ethos and personal values, we all have had different life experiences and been on our own personal professional journey.

Anyway – here we go …..

It is ok to use food for play!

It does not give mixed messages anymore than other things we do!

It is not wasting food that could be eaten by others!

Using food is a great sensory experience that is often safer to use than other non food sensory items!

Here are my thoughts around the issue and why I think as I do (re statements above)

  • Non food sensory items have a cost attached – and some use the earth’s resources to produce. How can it be right to use such items but not food which is a renewable resource – and often relatively cheap to buy. Would it not be better to use food and to give any savings made to charities or to providing items for foodbanks?

 

  • What about the clothes the children and adults wear – including logo wear? In this country we usually have far more clothes than we need – are people suggesting that it is wasteful or unethical because people in other countries do not have enough clothes, or wear clothes and shoes that do not fit, or not fit for purpose for the weather in their country?

 

  • What about the nice purpose made trays and containers that we put non food (and food) items in? Is this not wasteful? Is it not demonstrating to children that in this country we can have the latest all singing, all dancing ‘thing’ just because it is available? But those in other countries don’t even have a container to hold water or cook food in?
  • And water play? Is that not giving mixed messages? I know some limit the amount of water that can be used during a day – but surely this is still a mixed message when some people do not have clean water to drink? What about paddling pools, and sprinklers or hose pipes – all could be deemed unethical or giving mixed messages.

 

  • What about trips out using mini buses or cars – surely some would say that is wasteful of the earth’s resources? Why should we be able to just nip out in our cars or mini buses, when some people have to walk miles to get water or go to the market?

 

  • Then let’s think about food waste all around us – food not eaten at nursery, too many food choices, food seen on the floor in markets or in supermarket bins, or in the bins around fast food places ? What message is this giving?

 

  • What about our fundraising to buy the latest item for our settings – lets say a nice set of wooden blocks – is that not unethical when some people do not have wood to build homes or use on fires to keep warm?

 

  • What about all those craft materials (especially in the run up to festive period)? We could just provide recycled items, or we could do far less creative sessions – after all – How many different Diva’s or Santa’s or Witches does each child need to make? (and that is without considering  why the children are doing these activities to produce something to take home)

I could give loads more examples – such as the paper wasted in printing things we really do not need (including ‘learning Journeys’), what about social visits, or trips to cities to take part in training?

In fact just about EVERYTHING  we do in the western world could be described as unethical because we are using resources that others could make better use of, or spending money that could be used to support others through charities and so on.

So what should we do?

In my opinion we should not have a wasteful attitude, we should consider carefully everything we do, use and buy. However, we should not stop doing these things because it will not make any difference to those who lack sufficient food, or shelter, or clothes, or play items. Us using things in our settings will however support the development of the children in our care – who will flourish and go on to be citizens of the world.

However, we also need to support the children to understand how lucky they are (even those who are classed as living in poverty, have a lot more than many children in the world), we need to support giving things to charities. So items for foodbanks; clothes collections; going to charity shops to buy things, thinking do we need to use that much, recycling; fundraising for others, not just for our settings; being kind; being helpful and all those other characteristics that will enable the children to think about the needs of others.

In a nutshell, using food for play is not the issue – it is our whole lifestyles, and everything we do in our settings.

The bigger picture needs to be looked at – not just focussing on one aspect.

Of course if we decide to use food for play, we need to ensure we can justify why we have used food – and think about all the issues around it.

Each of us will have a different viewpoint – and that is fine. I am just not comfortable with the message that it is unethical.

 

Posted October 22, 2016 by psw260259 in My thoughts on current childcare issues

Improving Life Chances – My Reflections   Leave a comment

The title of this blog has been ‘borrowed’ from the Early Education conference that I attended on Friday 14th October 2016.

I have included a link to the conference page and hope it continues to work despite the conference now having taken place

https://www.early-education.org.uk/improving-life-chances-role-early-years

I must make it very clear that these are my personal reflections from the conference and therefore my opinion – it is possible – in fact likely  – that other people attending will have had different reflections and opinion.

I also need to explain that I was a tad tired after a busy few days – and a very early start to the day, and so I may have missed bits or not recalled fully. So it would be lovely to hear or read the views of others who attended.

The preamble                                                                                                                                              

 I have been a member of Early Education for a number of years now, and indeed within this blog site are a number of posts about events organised by Early Education that I have attended in the past.

I have always been made to feel very welcome despite the fact that as a childminder and now a retired childminder, I do not fit the usual criteria of members.

For those of you who do not know, historically Early Education has been the membership organisation for  Maintained Nursery Schools (and it is important to remember that when reading this blog) however these days they welcome all members including PVI settings, trainers, consultants and all those who are interested in supporting high quality early years education.

Just to be sure those reading this blog have a basic knowledge about maintained nursery schools – these are not the nursery classes within Primary schools. They are independent nursery schools with their own Headteacher, and historically have been funded differently to other early years settings and indeed nursery classes within schools.

My Reflections                                                                                                                                            

 I arrived a bit late due to the time of my train and getting a bit lost on the walk from station to venue, so I missed the arrival refreshments and the first bit of Beatrice Merrick’s welcome and introduction. For those of you who don’t know, Beatrice is Early Educations CEO.

The first speaker was Helen Stephenson, Director, Early Years, Child Poverty and Children’s Services Strategy, Department for Education. I was really interested to hear what Helen had to say about the subject of her talk ‘The Government’s commitment to early education: an update on 30 hours delivery, maintaining quality, and improving access for the most disadvantaged children’  because as regular readers will know, I do not agree with a lot of the Governments current education policy.

First, I have to say that I found Helen to be an excellent speaker who came across as genuinely wanting to improve children’s outcomes. She also was honest about the restrictions of budget cuts, delays in implementing policy and in setting up  consultations. She also explained the delays and changes in the direction of Government policy due to the changes in Government and Government ministers. She said that we are now entering a new era –  Ministers are listening  and really do want to get it right.

Of course Helen’s job is to implement Government policy and to be positive about it – so I can’t say if Helen is putting a positive ‘spin’ on things or if it is a real change. Time will tell, but certainly from my personal conclusions about what Helen said – I would not be surprised if there were going to be some changes – of course things could get worse as well as improve – but I am optimistic about some things.

Helen spoke about all the points in the title of her talk – and at some length, but I am only going to pick up on the points that struck a cord with me.

First around the difference in funding rates for Maintained Nursery Schools – there is a pot of money available to continue funding Maintained Nursery schools at the current rate – for at LEAST two years. It was the word LEAST that jumped up and hit me – does this mean that a substantial difference in funding rates will continue for more than two years?

Helen did however say that the historical system was unfair and it needed to be fair to all settings. So does this mean that the Government are looking at all funding rates and will be increasing PVI settings rates so they are inline or at least nearer to the rate paid to Maintained Nursery Schools?

Maybe I am being a little to optimistic – but other aspects of Helen’s talk have made me think.

I must make it clear  that I  do not think Maintained Nursery Schools should have a huge cut in the funding rates – but I do think PVI settings including childminders need an increase and that the system needs to be fair and sustainable  so that EVERY CHILD can access high quality early education. Maybe giving everyone around £5 – £6 per hour would be fairer? (In a previous blog my own mini research showed that PVI settings would be happier – not delighted but happier- with a rate of £5 per hour, per child)

I do have an issue with government calculations because the amount being reduced from Maintained Nursery Schools does not seem to being used to increase the rate for others – this also applies to  the cuts some PVI settings are seeing in the funding rate calculators. It appears to me that the Government are using these savings to help cover the cost of an ill thought out election promise.

Helen spoke a lot about the 30 hours  – and I don’t know if it was an intended message, a subconscious message  – or just me reading into things and hearing a message that I wanted to hear!

So what did I hear?

Well, I heard Helen mention:

  • That she did not want the roll out of the 30 hours to impact on the 15 hours or the two year funding
  • That if could not offer the 30 hours – stick to offering the 15 hours
  • It is the 15 hours that makes a difference (reference to research given)
  • That 30 hours will not increase outcomes – at least not by much

And the 15 hours being crucial was mentioned several times

So is the Government reflecting?

Will we see a change to policy around the 30 hours?

Another part of the ‘puzzle’ was Helen talking about Maintained Nursery School looking into wrap around care, so they provided the 15 hours and a PVI setting provided any additional hours required by the parents. What I did not hear her say was ‘ additional 15 hours funding’ – but maybe my attention had wandered at this point or I just did not hear it (there were a few issues around the sound system). I had my hand up to ask questions but I was not picked and so my question remained unanswered. However I was thinking – are the Government going to follow through with 30 hours or are they thinking that the additional 15 hours which they have always labelled as ‘childcare’ do not need to be delivered by the Maintained Nursery Schools, but could be offered by ‘anyone’?

Are they in fact having a rethink?

Are they thinking that if we pay Maintained Nursery Schools a higher amount we don’t want to reduce the number of children able to access these settings by ‘allowing’ Maintained Nursery Schools to offer ‘childcare’ as well, and which could be provided by the PVI sector at a lower funded rate?

I don’t know -these are just questions that were going through my mind – Who does actually know what the Government is thinking?

Of course lots of other thoughts rushed through my mind – and I have to say some of those thoughts were rather depressing.

However, rather than express those thoughts, I will wait until I have more information before I say anything, and before  I lose the will to keep trying to engage with the Government, to try and get them to listen, to discuss, to spend Government money wisely.

Not that they are engaging with me directly at the moment.

Just one other point about the 30 hours – another speaker (who arrived mid way through the day) asked what Helen had said about the 30 hours and if she had said if going ahead. Of course the reply was Yes – going ahead.

The person then said ‘Oh I had heard the Secretary of State was still not decided. Of course I have no idea if this was based on fact, was first hand or third hand information, just an opinion or idea, or just wishful thinking. However, it goes to show that people are still thinking and wondering if the 30 hour roll out will go ahead, if details have or will change, if will be postponed or even scrapped.

Before anyone gets too hopeful, I do have to point out that Helen also spoke very positively about the pilots and the things they were learning from them (although of course that could also be taken to mean that learning  things need to change).

Helen asked people to get in touch if they had any ideas how to support families with two years olds with home learning – I am afraid I despair – How about Health Visitors, Children’s Centre’s – and Childminders?

The next speaker was Naomi Eisenstadt, University of Oxford and Independent Adviser on Poverty  and Inequality to the Scottish Government and she was speaking about ‘The challenges of an anti-poverty agenda’

I was really interested in Naomi’s speech – I did not agree with everything she said BUT her main message about the impact of poverty of children and families and therefore on the outcomes for children, I totally agreed with. So a few points from my memory

  • People need enough money to live on – money does not buy happiness but not having enough can lead to mental health issues in adults and impact on children
  • The gap between the have and have nots is getting bigger
  • Living in poverty does not mean children will have poor outcomes, many living in poverty do really well.
  • There are many other issues that impact on children – such as parenting skills, housing, general health from poor diet and so on.
  • High quality early years education is important but so is the standard of Primary school and secondary school education, and parents level of education and life experiences (how can you inspire your child to do well at school if you have never been to university or did not do well at school yourself?).

There was more but those are the things that stuck in my mind (as usual hardly any notes). Naomi had charts and graphs and referred to research but those who know me well,  know my opinion about the limits to research – so I did not take much notice. However the personal  ‘stories’ based on real life and observations that Naomi told did have an impact on  me – and I thought she is right. Parents living in poverty do worry, do want the best for their children but often have to make difficult choices – and some may appear selfish to those of us who do not live in extreme poverty  (so we might need more money but we can manage on what we have) as an example why do those in poverty often still smoke despite the high cost of cigarettes? (My thoughts are, it is the way they cope, they way they hold themselves together because they have very little else in their lives. They know it is bad for them – but then again, so is hitting your children due to stress, or drinking to extreme and not waking to feed the baby, or taking drugs and ending up in prison. Yes extremes and I know some do all these things – but not all. Some are desperately trying to do their best)

I am going to sidetrack here – just briefly to give you an example of the difference just a bit more money can have.

Today when we returned from doing some food shopping, we could not get into our own house because when we locked the door – unknown to us the lock had broke. In our case we had a back door we could open, my husband went and brought a new lock (under £30) and had the skills and tools to fit the new lock himself.

Now imagine the same thing happening to a family living in poverty, but doing the best they can. First it is unlikely they have a back door (if a flat) – or  they can’t get to it (if a terraced house). So how do they get in? What if it is raining or the children need lunch? It is unlikely that they can buy a new lock, or that they have the skills or permission from a landlord to do this sort of repair.

So they have to wait until the landlord gets round to fixing it. Meanwhile the parents stress about keeping the children safe, worry about drunks entering the house and hurting them, about people taking their stuff. So they all stay in, the children don’t go to school or nursery, they push a chair against the door …. and on and on (leave it to your imagination what might happen) – all because they do not £30 to spare / in rented accommodation and can not afford to call out a tradesman to do the job to the landlords specification (which would cost a lot more than £30)

I can relate to this and the stress that not having enough money can cause – as a young mum, a health visitor told me I needed to buy some one way liners for my first born’s  terry nappies – they were only a £1 or so – but I did not have the money – the guilt was unbearable and I cried bucket loads. I had to wait until next pay day because I had spent that weeks money. I also know about not having enough money to pay an unexpectedly high electric bill and the stress that causes (this was another example Naomi used)

I am not sure those in Government (even those like Caroline Dinenage who had a fairly ‘average’ childhood ) can relate to this. How can the Government say the living wage needs to rise to £7 and then to £9 per hour, when some are having to manage on a lot less than this.

And getting back to the subject matter – how can the Government say one child can benefit from a setting that receives two or three times more funding than another setting in the same area. Yes, I know Maintained Nursery Schools are often in areas of disadvantage – but not all the children get a place – so how is that fair? How can those other settings, including childminders in areas of disadvantage provide the high quality early education needed, when they get less funding, have huge issues to overcome with buildings, attracting staff and so on.

As I have said this is not a anti Maintained Nursery School point of view – all settings need the higher rates of funding – at least  some mid point level between that which PVI settings and Maintained Nursery School get. If EVERY CHILD MATTERS then funding needs to be fair and sustainable for ALL settings.

Naomi raised the importance of the impact of Home Learning – and I thought back to the question from Helen and my ‘in my head’ answer.

So getting back to the Early Education conference, the next speaker was Professor Ted Melhuish, University of Oxford speaking on ‘Policy for the future welfare of nations: lessons from research’ .

Ted had lots of information and graphs based on research – most of it went over my head I’m afraid – and I will be honest it is because it is based on data from several years ago – and these days there are a lot more Outstanding and Good PVI settings, so although I am sure high quality early education does make a difference, we need more research and practise based observation to demonstrate the difference PVI settings are making – and not just at school entry point but throughout the education system.

We also need information about children who stay at home with parents, children who are home educated, children who attend a childminding setting, or spend a lot of time with grandparents. We also need to consider those children who access a range of settings in a week. I think the information would be very interesting. Personally I can’t help feeling that disadvantaged children will do well in most good or outstanding settings (including Maintained Nursery Schools) but that funded two year olds will do best in a childminding setting due to the lower number of children, increased social opportunities including language opportunities. (But I have said this many times before).

The next  speaker  (after a welcome refreshment break) was Professor Kathy Sylva, University of Oxford who was speaking about ‘Children’s Centres: lessons from the Evaluation of Children’s Centres in England’. Kathy also had graphs and facts which I don’t remember, however I found Kathy’s talk interesting and two points in particular

  • Evaluations show Children’s Centres had not had as much impact as expected – but had had a small positive impact
  • Much of the reason for lower than expected outcomes was due to budget cuts, and the parents who needed services often choosing not to access them or if they did not accessing them regularly.

As someone who had been involved with Children’s Centres in their early days – I can confirm that the potential was never fully used and indeed budget cuts have a lot to answer for. The potential was there.

Kathy also mention the importance of home learning and the impact and how it could be supported through Children’s Centre’s. (Provided not been closed)

The final session before lunch was by Bernadette Duffy, Head of the Thomas Coram Centre on the subject of ‘Delivering integrated services – how to make it work’. It was a shock to me that the Thomas Coram Centre is no longer a Children’s Centre – but it was also amazing how they had managed to retain many of the services by clever budgeting, using volunteers and asking for favours!

Of course more was said but by now I was really hungry and so not paying full attention, as breakfast had been at 4.20am, I had missed the arrival refreshments, and coffee break was just a drink – not even a biscuit.

Lunch was OK but I could not go back for seconds (as usual did not fill my plate so everyone had a choice) due to the fact that as members I (we) had to eat lunch while attending the AGM. Personally this did not work for me, as I needed to move around not sit still again, and I missed the important networking which is one of the reasons I attend this sort of events.

After the AGM we had to go straight back to the conference room for a panel discussion with Dr Eva Lloyd, University of East London, Alex Magloire, Ofsted, Dr Kirsten Asmussen, Early Intervention Foundation. This was quite interesting and we had opportunity to discuss briefly with those sat near to us. It was during the question and answer bit, that I raised the subject of childminders – in particular working in partnership – and all learning from each other rather than school leading (or should I say – telling PVI what to do and how to it). I also raised the issue of sufficient funding, childminders professionalism and more.

My comments went down well and Tony Bertram who was facilitating this session said I had made my point well. He also commented to me personally before I left about the importance of childminders. Two other people also came up to me and said how pleased they were that I raised the issue of childminders.

It was then time to go, I chatted with a few colleagues as we left, and with one colleague on the way to the station. I then had a long wait until my train, finally getting home at 21.30.

It had been a very long day, and worth it for the speakers at the conference. Lack of biscuits at break, lack of opportunities to network over lunch – and the cost of attending (even with the early bird discount and member discount) had been disappointing.

Being honest – if the cost remains the same, or increases, this sadly will have been my last Early Education conference, as the total cost of the day had been almost £180 and without any funding and very little personal income, this sort of expense will not possible in the future.

For those with funding, or who are able to attend in their work hours, and claim travel expenses, it is good value – but for those who have to take a day off without pay and /or pay for their own attendance and travel – it is a lot of money to find.

 

 

 

Posted October 15, 2016 by psw260259 in My thoughts on current childcare issues