Division slows progress, standing in the way of collaboration and innovation. Division diverts time, energy and efforts away from finding and uniting around solutions.
Pre-Covid, it wasn’t unusual to see one type of early years provision pitted against another. On the one hand, nursery groups were sometimes painted as prioritising profit over people, championing corporate priorities over children’s needs. On the other, sole providers operating as one nursery, pre-school or childminder were sometimes painted as lacking professionalism, as behind the curve on requirements, research and rigour.
This binary division is at best biased and at worst divisive. During the pandemic and immediately after it, I thought we had moved beyond that. All in the storm together, albeit in different boats, but stronger together. Now I see a resurgence in opinion pieces reinforcing that binary division and taking shots at nursery groups.
It’s a flawed approach. Thereare some brilliant chains, and some questionable ones. There are some brilliant sole providers, and some questionable ones. Big isn’t bad, big isn’t better, but neither is small. Size alone is not the determining factor, it’s people, leadership, values, priorities and ultimately capability and ability to deliver for children, families and teams.
I understand what is triggering the concern – investment in groups that have grown at pace; but keeping that in perspective, the percentage of provision in groups is still very small. Yes, we’ve watched one group fall like a stack of cards, but not all groups are made equal and there are benefits to be acknowledged.
With a group you can really invest in quality and support for managers and teams. You can offer greater professional development opportunities; you can utilise economies of scale. When one nursery goes through a challenging time, you have the broad shoulders of the group to lean on. When one nursery is successful, you share their ideas and approach. I’ve seen the questioning of quality in groups, yet Ofsted data previously showed inspection outcomes being higher in groups versus sole providers. I’ve read the pieces referencing low pay in groups, but I don’t see that in the competitor analysis we conduct.
There are pros and cons with every type of provision. Binary division distracts from the real opportunities and the real issues that affect all providers, irrespective of size and scale.
