Although children’s development at the age of five has improved - and the gap between the lowest achievers and their peers has narrowed – there has been hardly any change in the results for children at the end of Key Stage 1, since 2007.
The NAO's report, Delivering the free entitlement to education for three- and four-year-olds, looked at whether the Department for Education is providing value for money in delivering the offer.
The first children to be eligible for two years of 12.5 hours of free early education a week reached the end of Key Stage 1 in 2009.
According to the NAO, the department does not yet have robust data to demonstrate whether the expected benefits of free early education makes any difference to children’s educational attainment.
The report said, ‘Although there have been changes in the scope and nature of the entitlement, and its relationship with Key Stage 1 results is not straightforward, the department did intend that the entitlement would have lasting effects on child development throughout primary school and beyond.’
As KS1 results have hardly improved since 2007, the report said it was ‘not yet clear that the entitlement was leading to longer-term educational benefits.’
Disadvantaged families
The number of three-and- four-year-olds using the free entitlement continues to have a high national take-up rate but there are wide variations across England.
It found that while around 95 per cent of children have been accessing the free offer since 1998, take-up varies with take-up among the most disadvantaged families
lower than overall take-up.
The DfE acknowledges that this is a problem. A 2010 survey found that take-up among disadvantaged three-and-four-year-olds was nine percentage points lower on average in 2008-09 than for other children, with poorer families less aware of the free offer.
Families are also less likely to have access to high quality provision in poorer areas.
According to an analysis by the NAO for each local authority the percentage of good or outstanding providers ranged from 64 per cent to 97 per cent in March 2011.
Funding variations
The report also found that local authorities that give more funding per hour to providers for the free entitlement were not necessarily those areas where provision was high-quality.
The NAO’s analysis found large variation in the percentage of funding from the Dedicated Schools Grant that was spent on the free entitlement, ranging from between 3.5 and 9.8 per cent of education funding for three-to-16-year-olds.
The report found some evidence that there was a link between LAs spending more on the free entitlement and higher deprivation levels and higher median wages, but there was no link between the percentage of funding spent on the entitlement and quality and take-up.
The NAO’s survey of local authorities revealed that around ten per cent estimated that funding was sufficient to cover the costs of only a few or none of their providers.
Rates remain higher for maintained nursery schools at £6.83 an hour per child and £3.97 an hour for nursery classes in primary schools, while non-maintained providers receive an average of £3.77 an hour.
The DfE does not monitor the impact of extra funding of £69m in 211-12 given to local authorities to support them in increasing take-up.
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said , ‘The Department for Education needs to do more to put itself in the position to assess whether the forecast long-term benefits of free education for three- and four-year olds are being achieved. It also needs to understand how the arrangements for funding providers of that early education drive its availability, take-up and quality.
‘Both of these are necessary if it is to get the best return for children from the £1.9 billion spent each year.’
In January 2011, 831,800 children were receiving the free entitlement.
The free entitlement cost the Department for Education £1.6 billion in 2010-11, and forecast spending has increased to £1.9 billion in 2011-12, with the increase from 12.5 hours to 15 hours a week.
Purnima Tanuku, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association, said, ‘The NAO highlights the huge contribution made by private, voluntary and independent providers, who account for 59 per cent of provision and the high quality of the sector which is the same as that of maintained nursery classes.
‘Ensuring Government gets the most from its investment in early years is vital, especially with the additional commitment to extend free early education to 40 per cent of two-year-olds and the pressure that a rapidly-growing population of under-fives will bring in the coming years.’
She said the findings echoed NDNA’s own evidence of a wide variation in how the free entitlement is funded locally and the differences in levels of funding between maintained and private, voluntary and independent provision.
‘However, the report does not look at how much of the investment that goes in from central Government reaches the front line in early years provision,’ she said.
‘It underlines the need for reform to the way Government funds the free entitlement, with clear identification of how much is allocated to early years and user-friendly information for parents and providers so they can understand their local authorities’ spending and hold them to account.
'The NAO calls for Government to address variations in quality of early years provision, particularly in areas of disadvantage. A well-qualified workforce is essential to quality and funding must enable this – too many of our members still tell us that they are underfunded for the free entitlement.’
'Early years investment essential'
The National Association of Head Teachers said that ongoing investment in early years was essential and there should be no question mark over its value.
Russell Hobby, general secretary of the NAHT, said, 'Evidence is regularly emerging of a connection between investment in children’s education at a young age and their later progress. The report by the National Audit Office (NAO) adds weight to that evidence, particularly at age five, and should not be interpreted as running counter to that view.
'There is a lot in the report that is encouraging such as the high numbers of children now accessing early years provision.
'Some of the report’s findings are unsurprising and not unique to early years education, such as the fact that chaotic families find it difficult to source support and need more help to do so.
Equally, no one would argue that there is inconsistency of quality between individual providers and between local authority areas which needs to be addressed.'
Neil Leitch, Alliance Chief Executive, said, "This NAO report is valuable as it reasserts what we in the early years and childcare sector know already, namely that there is a link between high-quality early years provision and children’s developmental outcomes at the age of five.'The report also highlights a number of structural deficiencies that many of our member pre-schools and day nurseries have raised concerns about over the years.
"For example, the report says that although a major point of focus of the free early years entitlement should be on disadvantaged children, the take-up of the free entitlement is lowest in disadvantaged families. This is of great concern to the Alliance.
"Research by the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project shows that disadvantaged children benefit significantly from attending good-quality pre-school provision, especially where they can mix with children from different social and cultural backgrounds.
"The NAO report highlights that the early years and childcare sector is doing a great job at giving children a good start in life. But we are concerned that many children seem to lose this advantage in their first years of formal education as the NAO report has found that while children’s development at the age of five has improved, many children seem to lose this advantage in their first years of school.
'The Government says that early years should be about getting children ready for school but the Alliance believes that schools need to get ready for children and ensure that they continue to meet their learning and development needs. We have long argued that the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) should be extended to the end of Key Stage 1
The Alliance is also concerned about the NAO report finding that one-third of the local authority surveys of provider costs to inform their funding rates of the free early years entitlement "did not deliver useful information".
Mr Leitch said, "We share the NAO’s view that the provider costs analyses undertaken by local authorities were not on the whole useful or robust. This is clearly a challenge to the Department for Education, local authorities and the sector to improve this process.
"This supports our argument for an independent audit, for which we have lobbied for years. Until this is undertaken the debate about the quality of information and the basis upon which decisions are made will continue.
"Similarly the report highlights the differences in amounts paid to early years provision in nursery classes run in schools and by local authorities to the rates paid to private and voluntary childcare providers. This iniquity has long been a cause of anger to our members and in effect penalises parents who choose to use these day nurseries and pre-schools.'
'Extend the EYFS'
The Pre-School Learning Alliance said that the report highlighted the good work that the early years sector was doing but was concerned that many children seemd to lose the advantage gained by early education in the first few years of school.
Neil Leitch, Alliance chief executive, said, 'The Government says that early years should be about getting children ready for school but the Alliance believes that schools need to get ready for children and ensure that they continue to meet their learning and development needs.
'We have long argued that the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) should be extended to the end of Key Stage 1.'
He added, 'The Alliance is also concerned about the NAO report finding that one-third of the local authority surveys of provider costs to inform their funding rates of the free early years entitlement "did not deliver useful information".
'We share the NAO’s view that the provider costs analyses undertaken by local authorities were not on the whole useful or robust. This is clearly a challenge to the DfE, local authorities and the sector to improve this process.
'This supports our argument for an independent audit, for which we have lobbied for years. Until this is undertaken the debate about the quality of information and the basis upon which decisions are made will continue.
'Similarly the report highlights the differences in amounts paid to early years provision in nursery classes run in schools and by local authorities to the rates paid to private and voluntary childcare providers. This iniquity has long been a cause of anger to our members and in effect penalises parents who choose to use these day nurseries and pre-schools.'
'Better information'
Anand Shukla, chief executive of Daycare Trust said, ‘This report shows the clear benefits of free provision on children’s learning when they first start primary school. The worry though is that while the provision is universal, the benefits are not.
‘Children from disadvantaged families are much less likely to take up free nursery places, and also less likely to attend high quality nurseries that boost their achievement.
‘While the best local authorities achieve almost 100 per cent take-up of provision, in one local authority the take-up rate was only 62 per cent.
‘This should not come as a surprise to the Government, as Daycare Trust’s recent survey of Family Information Services revealed that nine in ten local authorities have cut their budget for family information, making it harder for parents to get the support they need to take up their entitlements. This is of particular concern for parents on low incomes who are less likely to use word of mouth to find out about local childcare services.’
‘We will only end this shocking postcode and income lottery by providing better information and outreach services.’
