qualifications than parents of two-year-olds in the general population. Each of these are known to be key factors associated with poorer child development outcomes. For most parents, the ELC setting attended by their child was accessible – almost two-thirds could make the journey within 10 minutes. Whilst settings were less accessible for parents in rural areas, half of these parents were still within 10 minutes’ travel. Parents were routinely engaging with settings. The most common forms of engagement were those perhaps most expected: visiting the child’s room and/or discussing the child’s progress with staff. However, a small number of parents – a little more so amongst those living in more deprived areas - are also engaging in other ways including receiving advice about money and learning useful new skills – each potentially important in achieving greater parenting efficacy. Parents also recognised the benefits of ELC for their children including through supporting their social and educational development.
Aspects of process quality, particularly interactions between adult and child, are increasingly recognised as the key to supporting children’s outcomes. In Wales, for instance, during the pilot of the Foundation Phase, ratios were lowered across all provision for 3-5 year olds to 1:8, yet the quality of interactions and early literacy fell (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2006). This was largely because trained graduate teachers, who were expensive, were replaced with lower qualified or unqualified individuals in larger numbers who were paid less. So while improving adult:child ratios (a structural variable) could potentially improve quality it does not do this if the extra adults fail to provide the skilful adult-child interactions (process quality) necessary to support learning. This showed that structural and process quality are linked, and that policy around this has to be devised carefully – and implemented even more carefully. 5.3. Links between structural and
disadvantage brings to educational outcomes. At the same time as increasing the free entitlement to earlylearning and childcare (ELC) with the aim of this rising to 1,140 hours per year by 2020, there has been, over the last 10 years in Scotland, a 29% reduction in the numbers of GTCS-registered teachers employed in such services, but only a 4% drop in child numbers, which gives a ratio of 1 teacher to 84 children at this important stage. The numbers of GTCS-registered teachers in prior-to-school services face further reductions. At a time when early experiences and learning are recognised to be critical to children’s later outcomes, this report presents the findings of a study that set out to explore the contribution to children, families and fellow practitioners, now and in the future, of GTCS- registered teachers as part of the earlylearning and child care workforce in Scotland. The core message from the audit is that although their roles are fluctuating, changing and sometimes not well understood by others, specialist GTCS-registered nursery teachers are an essential part of the ELC workforce, bridge the early level of curriculum and make a strong contribution to leadership in the sector: these are important messages for policy makers.
First and foremost, thanks are due to the 191 partner providers who gave up their time to take part in the survey on which this report is based. We know that for some of you this was a considerable ask, and we are very grateful. We would like to thank the various provider organisations that supported this study – particularly Jane Mair at the National Day Nurseries Association, Jean Carwood-Edwards at Early Years Scotland, and Maggie Simpson at the Scottish Childminding Association. We are very grateful for their comments on drafts of the questionnaire and report, and for their help in promoting the survey to their members. Sasha Maguire, the project manager for this study at the Scottish Government, has been unfailingly helpful in his comments and advice. The survey could not have happened without the input of our Ipsos MORI colleagues in scripting and telephone, and we are particularly grateful to Geoff Wilson for his work on the online questionnaire and to Alan Emerson for making hours of phonecalls to providers to persuade them to take part.
Very few parents had not accessed any childcare at all in the last year (11% of all families). Where they had not used childcare, this was often because families had older school-age children or because they preferred to look after their children themselves. A small minority (10%) said they were not using childcare because they could not afford it, and very few parents mentioned problems with availability, transport or quality. This suggests that for many, although not all, families not using childcare in the last year was mainly due to choice rather than constraint. As a result, for the majority of families not using any formal childcare in the last year, it appeared that there were no potential changes to childcare provision which might change their mind. In terms of informal care, most (86%) of these families said it was available to them if they needed it for one-off occasions but fewer (56%) said it was available to help them on a regular basis. Parents of younger children (0-2 years) who had not used nursery education largely attributed their decision to personal preference, with 60% saying their child was too young and 32% expressing a direct preference for keeping their child with them at home. Only a minority mentioned problems with affordability and availability of childcare, although there was an indication that these might have been more of a concern for working lone parents. Overall, 8% of selected children had a longstanding health condition or disability; 6% had a health condition or disability that affected their daily life – 2% said it did not affect their daily life. Children with an illness/ disability which affected daily lives were as likely as other children to have used childcare in the last week. However, substantial proportions of parents with disabled children felt that local childcare provision did not adequately cater for their particular needs. For instance, only 43% of parents agreed that there were providers in their area who could cater for their child’s illness/ disability; only 39% felt that hours available at those providers fitted with their other daily commitments and 21% said it was difficult/ very difficult to travel to a suitable provider.
A request was made to Ofsted to provide information for all records in the “childcare on non-domestic premises” category (excluding those classified as inactive and those appearing on the Voluntary Childcare Register (VCR) only) from their July 2017 monthly snapshot of the database; this snapshot was the most recent iteration available for the 2018 survey. The data was provided in two stages, with stage 1 providing the variables necessary for drawing the sample and stage 2 containing provider contact details (address, telephone numbers and e-mail address).
This bulletin provides important information on childcare and early years provision in England from the Department for Education (DfE)’s Survey of Childcare and Early Years Providers. This includes representative survey data on: attendance and spare capacity within childcare settings; use of funded places; staff qualifications and pay; and the reported costs of providing childcare.
The 2018 Survey of Childcare and Early Years Providers included a telephone survey and a mixed mode (online and paper questionnaire) short survey. Fieldwork took place between March and July 2018 and covered: group-based providers (childcare providers who operate on non-domestic premises); school-based providers; and childminders (practicing childminders on the Ofsted register of childminders; not including those registered with an agency). The sample was drawn from two sample frames: group-based providers and childminders registered with Ofsted as of July 2017 and school-based providers from the January 2017 Schools Census, which were the most up-to-date sample frames available at the time of the survey in 2018. The surveys were administered by NatCen Social Research and this bulletin prepared by Frontier Economics.
Similarly, there has been an increase in the proportion of after school provision run by schools or colleges (rising from 27 per cent in 2011 to 40 per cent in 2013). The large scale of this change suggests that these data have been influenced by the change in the definition of after school provision in the 2013 survey and no firm conclusions can be drawn about whether the ownership profile has genuinely changed since 2011. However, looking forwards, the Children and Families Act 2014 removed the requirements set out in sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the Education Act 2002 for the governing bodies of maintained schools in England to consult with the local authority, teachers/staff and parents of pupils registered at the school before making school facilities available outside of the school day to the wider community. The Government introduced this measure to simplify procedures for the setting up childcare and play facilities on school sites and it is therefore possible that schools will play an increasingly important role in out of school provision in years to come. 29
The 2013 Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey was commissioned by the Department for Education and conducted by TNS BMRB, collecting a wide range of information about childcare and early years provision across England in 2013. The survey covered topics including the number and characteristics of providers, and the number of children attending provision. It also measured the composition and
In order to inform policy development, the Government needs reliable information on the key characteristics of provision in the early years and childcare sector. Robust information on the workforce, the providers operating in the sector and the number of children attending are vital inputs to the policy decision making process. The Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey provides a very broad range of measures that help to address information needs in these areas.
In the interview there are a number of questions about staff qualifications. Please note the level of the highest childcare related qualification for each member of staff. If the qualification was taken prior to the introduction of levels, please look through the examples listed under each level heading to find the relevant qualification. If you are unable to find the qualification and don’t know the level, please give the full name of the qualification to the interviewer.
5. Data on provider type are taken from the end of the reporting period rather than at the point of inspection. As such, graded outcomes from Early Years Register inspections can occasionally be shown against providers that would not normally receive these inspections (such as home childcarers) if they changed provider type after their inspection but before the end of the reporting period.
Childcare providers care for at least one individual child for a total of more than two hours in any day. This is not necessarily a continuous period of time. They must register to care for children under the age of eight, unless under exceptional circumstances; and can choose to register to care for older children. The early years and childcare sector comprises four main categories of provider: childminders, childcare providers on non-domestic premises, childcare providers on domestic premises and home childcarers.
We report a relatively small Salmonella Saintpaul out- break linked to a childcare facility, with 15 confirmed cases in total who all made a full recovery. The outbreak proved unusually challenging to manage due to its par- ticularly mild and almost subclinical presentation in many confirmed cases, with over a third having only slightly loose stools compared with their usual and being other- wise well, despite several children becoming unwell enough to require hospital attendance for dehydration. The standard evidence-based control measures for Sal- monella were insufficient to control transmission and a pragmatic and iterative approach to incident management was required, with gradual scaling up of control measures to the eventual voluntary closure of the facility (Table 2). This was relatively straightforward to arrange due to the co-operation of the facility and the fact the closure spanned an existing holiday period, but would have been more problematic in other circumstances.
Children’s centres provide a range of different childcare. Some will provide just one type of care whilst others provide multiple types of care. In order for the data to be meaningful it is important we are clear as to exactly what respondents are referring to when responding to the survey. It would also place too great a burden on respondents in children’s centres if they were expected to answer questions on multiple types of care. Therefore children’s centres were asked to focus on just one type of care. If a centre provided full day care, they were asked to focus on this type of care when answering the questions.
With the exception of sessional providers, there has been an increase in the number of paid and unpaid staff working in childcare settings since 2003. The number of staff working in full day care settings rose by 51 per cent. In after school clubs staff numbers increased by 80 per cent and in holiday clubs the number of staff rose by 127 per cent. Conversely, the number of staff in sessional settings fell by a third (33 per cent) over the same period. Between 2008 and 2009, full day care providers overall saw an increase of five per cent in the total number of paid and unpaid staff, while there was a 14 per cent increase in the number of staff in children‟s centres offering on site full day care. In contrast there were decreases in the number of staff in sessional providers, after school clubs and holiday clubs (nine, three and seven per cent respectively). Sessional providers and after school clubs both saw declines in both paid and unpaid staff, while holiday clubs had an increase in the number of paid staff that was counteracted by a large (31 per cent) decrease in unpaid staff. In 2009, the overall numbers of paid and unpaid staff in the different types of early years settings were at similar levels to 2003 (and 2008), apart from primary schools with reception but no nursery classes where there had been a decrease of 15 per cent in staff numbers between 2003 and 2009.
There is now a wide range of support for families seeking childcare. Since September 2010, when fieldwork for this survey began, all three- and four-year-old children have been entitled to 570 hours of free early education a year, accessed over a minimum of 38 weeks of the year (equating to 15 hours a week). This is largely delivered by nurseries and pre-schools, although some childminders also provide these places. New guidance in September 2010 made the offer more flexible by allowing parents to access the free hours over three days, rather than five days. During 2011 the Government consulted on allowing the offer to be taken over two days, with new guidance planned to be introduced in September 2012. The Government is also extending free early education places to disadvantaged two-year- olds, with an aim to cover 20 per cent of the cohort by 2013 and 40 per cent by 2014 (DfE, 2012), following a number of pilots involving much smaller numbers of children. However, this policy had not been implemented during the fieldwork for the 2010 survey. At the time of writing the precise definition of disadvantage is yet to be announced, but the Government has indicated that the initial 20 per cent will be based on children who meet the criteria for free school meals (families are on out-of-work benefits or a low income), and looked-after children, with local discretion to include other children. The Government has yet to announce how the definition will change when 40 per cent of children are eligible.
Additional care also needs to be taken when comparing the results for full day care in children’s centres from 2010 and 2009 with previous years. As noted earlier, the survey only covers on-site provision of full day care and excludes off-site provision. The Department’s early guidance for Phase1 (2004-2006) children’s centres took the line that all services, including full day care provision, should be delivered in the same location. This led to the vast majority of Phase1 centres developing their full day care provision on-site. Guidance on Phase 2 centres (2006- 2008), issued in November 2006, took the line that where it was not possible to provide all services in one location or where it is decided to build on good quality private, voluntary and independent provision, the full day care provision could be located in a separate building up to half a mile away from the main centre. Phase 3 centres, operating in the least deprived areas, had fewer requirements in terms of childcare provision.
Tables 7.23a and 7.23b show provider profitability broken down by the level of deprivation of the areas in which different types of setting are based. As was the case in 2010 (and 2009), providers operating in the 70 per cent least deprived areas were more likely to report a profit or surplus than those in the 30 per cent most deprived areas. This was observed across types of provider. Inversely, as one might expect, the proportion of loss making settings in the most deprived areas was generally higher than the proportion in the least deprived areas (the one exception being for sessional care, where the difference was not statistically significant). This pattern arose in 2010 and has continued in 2011. However, in 2009 there were no differences in the proportion of loss making settings in areas with differing levels of deprivation, apart from in after school clubs, where settings in the 30 per cent most deprived areas were more likely to be loss making. The decline in the proportion of loss making full day care and sessional settings between 2010 and 2011 was seen across both areas of high and low deprivation.