30 APRIL 1998

Purpose of the Report

1. To report the outcome of the consultation on the nursery policies discussed by Education Committee on 11 December 1997 and 22 January 1998.

2. To seek the Committee=s agreement to introduce a revised admissions policy with effect from September 1999.

3. To agree that further work is done on a Service Level Agreement.

4. To agree that further work is done to progress a common application form and registration database.

5. To seek the Committee=s agreement to defer any changes in staffing ratios for nursery classes and for nursery schools.

Background

6. The Education Committee at its meetings on 11 December and 22 January agreed to consult on a number of key issues affecting early years provision in the City as part of the wider process of ensuring consistency and equality of provision for the education of young children in Bristol. Members asked for a report on the outcome of discussions to date to be brought back within three months. A series of meetings have been held with nursery schools and with schools with nursery classes providing an opportunity for discussion and to seek views on the following issues:

i. Introducing a revised admissions policy for nursery schools and nursery classes from September 1999. (11 December Education Committee report refers).

ii. The endorsement and application of the formal requirements of the Guidance accompanying the 1989 Children Act as part of a move to a more transparent resource system.

iii. The possible content of a Service Agreement for nursery schools to cover minimum entitlements such as the number of hours per session, number of days, as well as the level of clerical support and ratio of SMSAs and the respective responsibilities of the LEA and the nursery school.

iv. Whether we should work towards a registration database for all nursery provision.

7. The Education Committee at its meeting on 22 January also requested that officers prepare a report for consultation on how a quality nursery curriculum can be applied more widely to all children under 6 years. In discussion with the Chair of the Early Year Joint Sub-Committee and the Advisory Service it is agreed that the first step should be to conduct a focused survey of current provision within the maintained sector in the city. The Advisory Service plan to conduct this during the summer and autumn terms 1998. There are also links with the work currently being undertaken with respect to the review of the Local Management Scheme.

8. All but two of the nursery schools attended one or both of the meetings specifically for nursery schools and of the 42 schools with nursery classes, 29 were represented at one of the three meetings. All of the schools at the meetings have been invited to submit written views and those schools not present at the meetings have been contacted separately and invited to submit written views. Headteachers were invited to bring a Governor to the meetings though it is acknowledged that a separate invitation was not sent to Chairs of Governors. All of the written views received are available in the Members= rooms.

Revised Admissions Policy

9. The draft revised policy as agreed by the Education Committee on 11 December was circulated and the comments invited.

10. Generally there was support for the revised policy and the matrix for identifying Achildren in need@ was welcomed.

11. The following points were raised by the schools and have been incorporated into the policy:

- regular attendance will be required in order to retain a nursery place;

- suggestion that there should be a common date when all schools will send out their nursery places. Although some nursery class offers are sent out as early as February, the general view was that the date should be the first week of May, and that schools should enclose a form for parents to return within a specified period of time indicating whether they wish to take up the place. Officers suggest that period should be two weeks (ten working days);

- parents should only take up the offer of a place from one LEA provider even if several providers make an offer. Although it was felt by some schools that it would be preferable if only one provider offered a place, other schools felt that this would be unrealistic to manage and could limit parental choice.

12. Clarification was sought about when places could be offered to non-Bristol children and the suggestion is that if places remain after all the Bristol children known of have been allocated places, then places can be allocated to non-Bristol children. A particular issue was raised about the admission of non-Bristol children who have older siblings in the infant or primary school and it is recommended that these children are treated as other non-Bristol children, i.e. only allocated places if places remain. A key issue is when this line should be drawn B whether the end of August, September or October. It is suggested that, bearing in mind the growing importance of the September count date, that we start with the end of August. We will need to review how this works and if need be, be flexible.

13. Some concern was raised about not being able to give priority for places in the nursery class to children who were likely to continue in the infant/primary school. The point was made that some schools use the mainstream school budget to subsidise the running costs of the nursery class and if priority cannot be given to children likely to continue in the same school then the level of funding for the nursery class should be adequate to cover the costs. If the class is full the level of subsidy will be minimal.

14. The nursery schools put forward a proposal that summer born children born between 30 April - 31 August (inclusive) should not be admitted to reception class provision until January with one school suggesting that children born between 1 January - 31 March should have the choice whether to transfer in September or January. Written views submitted highlight concern that these youngest children often fail when they have to enter reception class provision in September. It was argued that such an arrangement would provide time for a firm foundation and establish positive attitudes to learning. It would address issues of children=s maturity and emotional well being, allow reception classes to start the year with smaller numbers and free places within nursery provision for three year olds in a January intake. Such an arrangement would enable a rolling programme of admissions to nursery provision but would require amendments to the existing formula funding arrangements and to the policy of not holding places vacant in reception class provision. There is to be an in depth survey of quality in Year R undertaken later this summer and when the outcome of the survey is analysed, it is suggested that these issues about the achievement of summer born children with the supporting research is taken into account if considering any changes to provision.

Children Act Guidance

15. The Education Committee agreed to consult on whether the recommendations of the Children Act Guidance and Regulations (Volume 2) should be endorsed and applied.

16. In relation to maintained nursery schools and classes the guidance states.

ATo allow both for the teaching and the administrative workload of headteachers of nursery schools, the minimum staff/child ratios recommended for these institutions is 2 : 20, one being a qualified teacher and the other a qualified nursery assistant. The corresponding figures for nursery classes are 2 : 26.@

It should be noted that that the minimum staffing ratio suggested for 3 to 5 year olds in private daycare settings is 1:8 and with childminders 1:6 though the staffing qualifications are less stringent. This essentially allows LEA provision to be more cost effective.

17. Since the consultation meeting the DfEE has also issued a Consultation Paper on the Regulation of Early Education and Daycare (copies are not yet available). Comments are sought by 31 July. Whilst the consultation provides an opportunity to try and take forward the Early Years Development Plan key objective of a single inspection regime, also relate to staffing ratios and staff qualifications. It is suggested that the comments below, together with comments from Social Services and from the Bristol Early Years Partnership should form the basis of the Council=s response. A copy of the documentation received so far is available in the Members= Rooms.

18. Our consultation focused on staffing ratios. Our survey in the summer will examine qualifications of staff (and thereby inform training priorities).

Staffing Ratio of 1 : 13 for nursery classes

19. The Children Act Guidance recommends as a minimum a staffing ratio of 2 : 26 for nursery classes. At the present time there are some nursery classes in Bristol operating with a ratio of 1 : 13 and others with a ratio of 1 : 10. The current funding arrangements are not based on formula funding arrangements in the usual sense but are designed to deliver resources to ensure that nursery classes of certain sizes should be able to employ a certain number of staff - (this is set out in the chart below). In order to do this there are variable lump sums allocated.

20. However part of the focus for consultation on adopting the minimum staffing ratios suggested in the Guidance was to look to see how one might move to a more transparent funding basis i.e. a basic staffing element and then factors for additionality such as special needs.

This can be compared to the cost range of ,2,200 to ,2,900 allocation per FTE place in a nursery school (including the Head Teacher allocation) and the former nursery voucher figure of ,1,100 per part-time place.

21. From the chart one can see generally ratios in Bristol nursery classes are above the guidance minimum. Most respondents wanted to adopt a 1 : 10 ratio across all nursery classes, which would be above the current Children Act Guidance recommended minimum for LEA nursery settings.

Children Act Guidance

22. Views were sought on whether a ratio of 1 : 13 would be appropriate for all nursery classes and the general consensus was that a ratio of 1 : 10 should be adopted in all nursery classes. The current national standards make no differentiation between children aged 3 and aged 4 in nursery settings.

23. It was felt that nursery classes would be unable to employ the Highscope approach or to achieve the Bristol Standard with a ratio of 1 : 13. It was felt that a ratio of 1 : 13 would have an adverse effect on achievement in each of the dimensions within the Bristol Standard in terms of reducing the adult time available to develop relationships and promote quality interaction, potentially reducing the breadth of experiences, staff expertise and opportunities for language and communication experiences. In addition it was felt that opportunities for working with children as one to one, in pairs and small groups would be reduced, it would make it harder to meet and plan for children=s individual needs, particularly for Achildren in need@. Increasing the ratio from 1 : 10 to 1 : 13 would limit the time to develop partnerships with parents, develop home and community liaison, monitor children=s development and ensure children=s safety.

24. It was also suggested that the quality of education would fall with a ratio of 1 : 13, the value of play would be reduced with less adult support, and the phasing in of children to the nursery would take longer with a ratio higher than 1 : 10. Many responses commented on the provision which can be made for children with particular needs with a ratio of 1 : 10 enabling early intervention strategies to be put in place. It was also felt that two adults in the nursery class was insufficient, if a child was in need of individual attention, this would leave one adult with 25 children.

25. Concern was expressed at any proposed adoption of a common staffing ratio for all nursery classes as those classes in buildings separate from the main school building require a higher level of staffing to cope with outside play, telephone calls, injuries etc. and also that whatever ratio is adopted will continue to differ from private provision.

26. Some schools however could see advantage in adopting a basic ratio of 1 : 13 with additional funding allocated on the basis of additional needs, whether free school meals, special educational needs, or children with English as an additional language.

Establishing nursery classes in multiples of 13 FTE places

27. As there was very little support for a staffing ratio of 1 : 13, it was generally felt to be inappropriate to be considering organising classes in multiples of 13 FTE places.

28. Many schools commented that the level of demand for places was such that there would be no advantage in reducing 30 FTE place classes to 26, and yet the existing accommodation would prevent any expansion to 39 FTE places unless additional accommodation was provided.

29. However, it was accepted by both nursery classes and schools that consideration might be given to redistribution of provision across the city, and it was accepted that proposals would be brought forward after analysing the provision of places in the city in both local authority and non-local authority provision.

Staffing ratio of 1 : 10 for nursery schools

30. The current ratios in nursery schools including the Headteacher range from 1 : 9 to 1 : 12. Headteachers responding to consultation felt that the Children Act Guidance ratio of 1 : 10 (including the Headteacher) did not provide time for Headteachers to undertake their management duties, particularly in the smaller schools, when the Headteacher may well have to take on other roles in addition, for example that of SENCo, curriculum co-ordinator.

31. It was felt that if the Headteacher is timetabled to have a regular teaching commitment, as currently happens in many nursery schools with the existing staff ratios, the Headteacher cannot always guarantee to be available for her group of children and the secure environment and continuity is affected.

32. The argument was put forward that many of the nursery schools have a very high proportion of children in need with behavioural, social or language difficulties, and a ratio of 1 : 10 including the Headteacher is inadequate to meet the needs of these children particularly in a small school. In small schools the existing ratios also make it difficult to provide non-contact time for staff, and in all schools it is difficult for the Headteacher to work alongside staff monitoring performance and supporting staff development.

33. Members are already aware of the significant pressure on the nursery SEN statementing budget, and the assistance given to early intervention.

Establishing nursery schools in multiples of 10 FTE places

34. If all the nursery schools were to be organised in multiples of 10 FTE places this would only require changes to the place value of five schools of 4 or 5 FTE places each which could be determined after an assessment of the building capacity and the demand for places.

Ratio of SMSAs to full-time pupils

35. The consultation also included discussion of School Meal Support Assistants (SMSAs). It is considered that the basis on which SMSAs are allocated to schools should form part of a Service Level Agreement.

36. All of the nursery schools felt that the current ratio of one SMSA for every 20 full-time is inadequate. They argued that the children who attend full-time are often children with particular needs and the ratio of unqualified staff at 1 : 20 is higher than the ratio of qualified staff during other times of the day. However, SMSAs are allocated as additional cover for lunchtimes rather than sole cover. In several schools, staff are providing cover at lunchtime and then taking a break of 45 minutes which affects the ratio of staff to pupils for the first 45 minutes of the afternoon session. It was also felt that the lunchtime period is a continuation of the children=s learning and social development with opportunities for language development and therefore an appropriate adult : pupil ratio should be available during this period. In one school OFSTED had expressed concern about the ratio of 1 : 20 for SMSA provision.

37. The schools argued for a ratio of one SMSA for every 10 full-time pupils. Several schools have suggested that SMSAs could be employed on fixed term contracts for one year in order to adjust staffing on an annual basis in accordance with the number of full-time pupils each year. However many schools are not even reaching the 1:20 ratio at present.

Allocation of clerical support in nursery schools

38. Whilst additional support would obviously be welcomed, it was generally felt that other issues such as the need for additional SMSA support were of higher priority. If a new allocation was to be considered it was felt that this should take account of the total number of pupils on roll (not just the fte number) and of the paperwork associated with processing lunches.

Service Agreement for Nursery Schools

39. The idea of a Service Agreement was generally supported by nursery schools although it was felt that an appropriate Agreement should be drawn up which could apply to both nursery schools and nursery classes setting out school, parent and LEA responsibilities and entitlements.

40. Appendix B outlines the framework for a Service Agreement drawn up with some of the Headteachers which would need to be the subject of further consultation.

Establishing a Registration Database

41. The proposal put forward for discussion was that the existing system should continue with parents applying direct to the school concerned and the school sending out the offer of nursery places. We should however establish a common application form. In addition it was proposed that a database should be set up which would identify those children for whom applications had been made at more than one provider, those children who had been unsuccessful in obtaining a nursery place, and which places in the city were still vacant. A database of this kind would provide accurate information about the demand for places and would enable a simple referral system to be introduced referring unsuccessful applicants to vacant places. The database would be available electronically in all nursery schools, schools with nursery classes, Avon Parents Network and the education department.

42. It was emphasised that the database must support the current admissions process and not create additional work for the schools.

43. This proposal was widely supported by all of the nursery schools and classes with the suggestion made that it might be beneficial long term if the Health Visitors, Social Services, the voluntary and private sectors also had access to the database (subject to Data Protection regulations).

Conclusion

44. The draft admissions policy has been amended in light of the comments made during the consultation and the final version is attached as Appendix A for approval.

45. The draft outline of a Service Agreement has been drawn up with a group of nursery school Headteachers. This will require further discussion with schools and parent groups following the Committee decisions and consideration whether it should apply to both nursery schools and nursery classes.

46. There is widespread support for establishing a registration database for all nursery schools and classes.

47. With regard to the issues surrounding staffing ratios and the basis for funding nursery classes and nursery schools it is fair to say that not surprisingly there are very strong feelings amongst Headteachers, Governors and parents that they would not want to see a reduction in current staffing levels. It is clear that Bristol Nursery Schoolsand Nursery Classes are already providing staffing ratio=s above the minimum required by the Children Act Guidance. The responses will form the basis of the authorities response to the Consultation Paper on the Regulation of Early Education and Daycare.

48. There is also a strong case put by the Professional Associations and Trades Unions and supported by Officers that more time should be given to this discussion before any recommendations for change are considered.

49. There are three main reasons for this. Firstly, the focus for consultation was not intended to be proposed reductions in staffing ratios but clarifying whether the Council was meeting the Children Act Guidance and the establishment of clearer more transparent funding mechanisms. More work needs to be done on this and then further consultation undertaken.

50. Secondly the national consultation on standards and regulations is proceding.. The work will provide the basis for responding to this.

51. Thirdly the outcomes of the survey to be carried out in the summer term into Year R provision should be considered before proceeding further.

Resource Implications

None as a result of this report.

Personnel Implications

None.

Other Approvals Necessary

None.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Education Committee decides:

1. to adopt the revised admissions policy as attached at Appendix A to apply to both nursery schools and classes with effect from September 1999;

2. that further work should be carried out on a Service Agreement in consultation with schools and parent groups which could apply to both nursery schools and nursery classes, and which seeks to establish a maximum ratio of 1:22 for SMSA=s.

3. to move towards establishing a common application form and registration database for all LEA nursery provision as soon as possible;

4. that further work be undertaken regarding the development of more transparent system for funding nursery classes and schools.

5. to note the comments on staffing ratio=s as the basis for responding to the Consultation Paper on the Regulation of Early Education and Daycare.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 Background Papers

Author: Vanessa Harvey-Samuel, Divisional Director (Children and Community), Education Directorate - 903 7736

Version: 9

November 23, 1998

G:\EDCTTEE\30APR98\DRAFT.RPT\FINAL.RPT\NURSPOL.FIN

News | What's On | Policies | Guidance | Quality |  Links | Info on Bristol | Parents Page 
98 Plan | Key Issues for 99 Plan | Emerging 99 Plan | The Bristol Partnership | APN

Send comments or questions or information for inclusion.
© 1998/1999 - but feel free to print & circulate 
Site Version 0.3 Last modified 10 January 1999