Speaking at the Neil Stewart Associate’s conference on Early Years Inspection and Funding yesterday, Neil Leitch of the Pre-School Alliance, said, ‘The content of More Great Childcare has massive implications and challenges for our sector.
‘There are of course many things that we would applaud, but here is where we differ. I fear some of the mechanisms to achieve this could have such damning consequences that it could take a decade to repair.’
The chief executive said that he believed many providers would eventually be forced to use the new ratios, not through choice, but to compete in a crowded market place where parents will be influenced by cost.
‘I come from a banking background where there is plenty of evidence that relaxation in regulation can lead to the lowest common denominator becoming the norm,' Mr Leitch said.
‘If Government genuinely feels this is about choice and only a few providers will follow this path, I would ask why they are so determined to introduce a policy that is vehemently opposed by both the sector and parents?’
He went on to criticise the Government for not listening to the sector and dismantling every co-production group, apart from one that has nothing to do with shaping announcements.
The Pre-School Learning Alliance chief executive also highlighted inconsistencies in what the Government claims it spends on the early years. Mr Leitch said in May 2012, Ms Truss wrote in Nursery World that the Government spends £7bn on childcare, this fell to £6bn last November, according to the Department for Education website, and £5bn last month, as quoted on Ms Truss’ s blog.
Other speakers and delegates at the conference also raised issues about the implementation of proposals set out in More Great Childcare.
John Proctor, director of South Hills School, a group of four nursery schools who provide care for a number of vulnerable children, asked David Fitzgerald, deputy director of free early education and funding provision at the DfE, how he expected early years staff to be able to attend safeguarding conferences when working to the new ratios.
Another delegate, Karen Frost, head of prevention and early intervention at Bracknell Forest Council, also raised the issue of safeguarding when working to the relaxed ratios, and how nursery staff will get to training and support families when there are fewer of them.
In his response, Mr Fitzgerald said that children’s safety is paramount and providers should use their professional judgement on how they wish to use the flexibility in ratios.
There was also heated discussion about the new requirements for practitioners to have at least a GCSE C in Maths and English, and the introduction of the new early years teacher qualification.
June O’Sullivan, chief executive of the London Early Years Foundation said she didn’t know what to do with her apprentices, who are turning out to be good practitioners, but don’t have GSCEs in Maths and English, as there isn’t enough time for them to upgrade their qualifications as well as train in childcare.
Ms O’Sullivan and the chair of the conference Michael Freeston, director of Quality Improvement at the Pre-School Learning Alliance, questioned whether an NVQ could be considered as an equivalent to GCSE.
One delegate said that her staff, one who has completed her EYPS and another her foundation degree, felt very disheartened as the new proposals mean they will have to train for longer to become early years teachers.
Along with debate about the More Great Childcare proposals, delegates also raised concerns about funding for the free two-year old-places, which will come into force in six months time.
Several providers argued that the funding provided by their local authority will not cover the true cost and that they will have to rely on top-up fees if they are to offer the places.
