Scandal of pre-school carers who can’t read or write

This headline appeared on the front page of The Times on Saturday 24^th March over a piece by their Chief Political Correspondent on the publication of Professor Cathy Nutbrown’s interim report on her review of early education and childcare qualifications and career pathways.

Other media reports on the same day echoed The Times:

Nursery workers so illiterate they struggle to read stories aloud (Daily Telegraph)

Childminders barely Literate says DOE – Sarah Teather MP, Minister for Children (BBC News)

Sky News and the Guardian, reproducing a Press Association report, were more temperate but still focused on the same issue:

Concerns Over Nursery Staff Literacy Skills (Sky News)

Nursery staff skill concerns raised in Nutbrown review (Guardian)

Laying aside the fact that Sarah Teather didn’t use the words attributed to her by the BBC–what was it in the Nutbrown report that triggered these lurid headlines? What does the report actually say about the literacy of childminders and nursery workers in England? Cathy Nutbrown certainly expressed ‘substantial concern’ on this and other issues but her interim report sets her concerns in the context of a soberly conducted review of the way the people who deliver childcare and early education in this country are recruited, gain qualifications and develop their careers. These broader findings about the shortcomings (and merits) of the system were barely mentioned in the media reports – and what was said by the more measured contributors was virtually drowned out by the ‘illiteracy’ charge.

Remember, this is an interim report. What we have at this stage is an account of the present state of affairs and of possible ways of remedying its shortcomings based on responses to a call for evidence, what was said at consultation events around the country and the results of an online survey with Netmums of more than 1,000 parents. Criticism is directed at the qualifications system rather than at the personnel who rely on it to equip them with the knowledge and skills to do their job and to help them develop rewarding careers. Introducing her report Professor Nutbrown said that it “sets out the shared concerns among the workforce about their qualifications system, but I also hope it reflects the pride they take in their work and the hugely positive impacts they are having on the lives of our young children.’ Sometime this summer, she will be presenting her final recommendations as to how a more effective qualifications structure can be put in place so as to ensure that people are better prepared for working in the early years sector and have more clearly defined career pathways to follow. In one word, the review is about the professionalisation of the early years workforce. How can this be achieved? What obstacles stand in the way?

The obstacles holding back the drive towards professionalism which are identified by Nutbrown include:

• The diversity of the 400,000-strong early years work force – it includes homeworkers , owners, managers, employees, and volunteers working in a range of settings (homes, nurseries, children’s centres, nursery schools and reception classes of primary schools) spread across the voluntary, private and public sectors and providing care and early education within the EYFS framework;
• Low entry levels – this is what triggered the Times and Telegraph headlines. As the Times put it: “Nutbrown found that ‘competence in English and maths’ was often not required to complete qualifications. Pupils with the ‘poorest academic records’ were being steered on to childcare courses as an alternative to hairdressing. She wrote that ‘the hair or care ‘ stereotype still exists for many considering a course in the early years, yet many other sectors have raised their expectations in relation to enrolment”;
• Considerable variation in the qualification level of the paid staff in childcare and early learning settings – 8% have no qualifications, 50% have a level 3 qualification (equivalent to A-level) and 14% have a qualification equivalent to an Honours degree or above. (The qualification level across the board has been improving over time, but it is not possible to establish how many of the qualifications achieved are directly relevant to early years work);
• Failure to recruit from across the whole population – in particular, men are hugely under-represented forming only 1-2% of the workforce across all types of early years settings, while black and minority ethnic groups are under-represented in managerial and leadership positions.
• A chaotic qualifications system – this is Nutbrown’s main concern. There is an open market in early years qualifications. Many of the qualifications on offer are not known to or trusted by employers and are of little or no use to the people who achieve them;
• The limited content/insufficient length/poor quality of some of the available courses –they do not deliver the core knowledge, skills and experience required for early years work, some tutors are themselves under-qualified and some settings do not provide students with the support and supervision they need while on placements;
• The lack of clearly marked and progressive career pathways for early years workers;
• Low status, poor remuneration of early years work – this both a reflection of the other shortcomings and their root cause.

There are a number of factors that work against fragmentation of early years care and education, notably the EYFS and Ofsted’s inspection system. Following the Tickell review a new Early Years Framework will be in operation from this coming September and Ofsted has already put in place a revised inspection framework for the sector. Complementing these initiatives, Nutbrown will be coming forward this summer with recommendations as to how early years qualifications might be upgraded and made fitter for purpose and early years careers made more attractive and rewarding. In this interim report she has identified the issues she will be addressing:

• Are the present one year courses too short? Should more time be found for students to learn more about child development and learning theories? Do present qualifications try to cover too wide an age range (0-19)? Shouldn’t the content of early years qualifications focus on babies and young children? Can ways be found to ensure that learners are able to gain experience from a variety of settings before they qualify. How can the quality of tuition and placement supervision be guaranteed;
• Should entry requirements be raised? The Tickell review of the EYFS recommends that level 3 should be the minimum qualification standard for the whole workforce. This could lead to improvements in practice and raise the status of the sector, but ways would have to be found to protect the position of those already in post without a level 3 qualification, particularly members of black and minority ethnic groups;
• Should students be required to demonstrate competence in English and mathematics in order to complete an early years qualification at any level?
• Given that the EYFS is the beginning of the education system, should ways be found to recruit more qualified teachers into the early years workforce? Should we go further – despite reservations about introducing formal learning into the early years – and create an Early Years Initial Teacher Education (ITE) route, leading to Qualified Teacher Status, which covers ages 0-7.
• Finally, should we seek to go the whole way down the professionalization route and, following the example of teachers and social workers (and of the early years sector in Scotland), require all those working with babies and young children to be licensed?

Nutbrown’s interim report:

Newspaper, radio and TV reports cited at the beginning of this entry

“There are plenty of potential education policy time bombs primed to go off during 2012: teachers’ pensions, school budgets, university applications and reform of the exam system. But overshadowing them all is an issue that has so far received relatively few headlines, but which it is already too late to defuse: the shortage of primary school places in England. … The Department for Education is watching it happen like a slow-motion car crash. It has thrown some extra money at it recently, but it is too late to prevent casualties.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/16/michael-gove-shortage-primary-places?INTCMP=SRCH

So says Mike Baker, formerly the BBC’s education editor, now a freelance education consultant and dedicated blogger (at www.mikebakereducation.co.uk). Professor John Howson, an authority on the teacher recruitment market, agrees with him. Last week he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that the shortage of places for five-year-olds was the “biggest problem” facing schools in England. He added that although we have seen the problem coming – after all, the children entering primary school for the first time this September were born four or more years ago – the government’s response has been “tardy”.

Just how big is the problem? What is being done about it? What will it mean for parents, children and schools?

The numbers

The number of pupils in state-funded primary schools began falling in the mid-1970s. With a couple of ups and downs it reached a low point in 2009 but, as result of a rising birth rate and the effect of immigration on the age-profile of population, started growing again in 2010. By 2015 the number of 5- and 6-year-olds in will increase by 10 per cent. By 2020 the overall number of children under 11 in state education is expected to be 20 per cent higher than in 2011 (an additional 799,000 pupils), returning to the levels last seen in the early 1970s. This rise would be sufficient to fill around 3,260 average-sized primary schools or 26,600 classes of 30 pupils.

The latest figures show that that there is some spare capacity in the system, or rather in parts of the system. In 2010/11, before the surge in pupil numbers had really begun, one-fifth of primary schools in England were full or over full, while four-fifths had unfilled places. The number of unfilled places (444,410) was more than ten times greater than the number by which the over-full schools exceeded their capacity (36,850). So there is spare capacity but there are two problems. First, currently unfilled primary school places amounts to only half of what would be needed to accommodate the projected rise in pupil numbers. Secondly, and in a sense worse, such spare capacity as there is, is concentrated in the wrong areas  – the 440,000 unfilled places are not in the areas expected to experience the greatest rises in pupil numbers. The demand for school places is rising fastest in precisely those regions – parts of London, the West Midlands and the South West – where many primary schools are full and Local Authorities are already having to find ways accommodating classes that cannot be squeezed into existing buildings.

What is being done?

Soon after it came to power the Coalition Government closed the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. The 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review cut the Department for Education’s capital budget by 60% over the five years of the current parliament. At the time the government remained confident that it would still be providing enough funding (starting with £800mn for 2011/12) to meet the projected rise in pupil numbers across the school system. However, last year it made an extra £500 million (coming from efficiency savings identified in those BSF projects that are continuing) available for school building in those areas with the greatest need for new places. In the statement announcing the additional funding the Education Secretary Michael Gove said that the total capital grant of £1.3bn for the 2011/12 would be used mainly on small primary school projects by the most hard-pressed local authorities who were already in a position to get projects underway. He added that over 100 LAs would be receiving a share of the extra £500mn, and that future capital allocations to all LAs for basic need and for maintenance will be announced later in the year.

How have the local authorities reacted?

Compare two cases which have attracted media attention:

The Hampshire Chronicle (Hampshire was the main focus of the Today piece) in an article on the ‘Race on to create primary school places’ reported in January that County officials believed that they would need at least 19 more primary schools by 2022 and were drawing up plans to tackle the issue. They and their counterparts in Southampton appeared to think the task was manageable within the present resource constraints. http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/education/9473796.Race_on_to_create_primary_school_places/

The problem in London looks to be on a different scale. According to London Councils (a cross-party body speaking for the 33 London boroughs) the shortfall in places across the capital is expected to be around 70,000 over the next four years, largely concentrated in primary schools. London Councils contends that the Government allocation of funding is failing properly to take into account the existing capacity of schools in an area to meet any increase in pupil numbers. Because of the much higher pressure on school places in London in recent years, it has significantly fewer surplus places than other regions – already around 11,000 pupils, mainly in Reception to Year 2 classes, are being taught in temporary classrooms. And yet, In 2011/12, London has only been allocated 26 per cent of the available funding for school places despite having 64 per cent of the shortfall in places. If the Government listens to London and changes its funding formula, councils in other pressure areas will feel the pinch. http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news/current/pressdetail.htm?pk=1281

How will families and schools be affected?

Nationally, capital funding, already severely cut over the 5 years from 2010, will be steered towards creating additional places in the areas of greatest need – meaning that for refurbishments and routine will be even more severely restricted. The impact of government support for free schools is uncertain – only a third of free schools in the pipeline are primaries, and few of those which have so far been opened are in areas with the greatest shortage of places.

In the areas with the greatest gap between pupil numbers and available places there will be an increasing proportion of over-subscribed schools making it more difficult to meet parents’ preferences. There will also be upward pressure on school and class sizes. Opinion seems generally to favour small classes and to be suspicious of larger schools.

Primary class sizes (KS1 and Reception classes averaged 26.9 in 2011) have been falling, but remain larger than in other comparable countries (in the 30 OECD primary classes contain on average 21.2 pupils) – also, unusually they tend to be larger than classes in Secondary schools. In London, Sutton LA has responded to the ‘numbers’ crisis by seeking support from the other boroughs for a campaign to lift the legal cap of 30 on Reception and Key Stage 1 classes. A recent study commissioned by the Department for Education while acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of parents, as well as most teachers and headteachers, believe that the number of children in a class affects the quality of teaching and learning, research evidence shows that “a smaller class size has a positive impact on attainment and behaviour in the early years of school, but this effect tends to be small and diminishes after a few years.” The report concludes that “increasing teacher effectiveness has greater value for money than reducing class sizes.” http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001012/sfr12-2011.pdf

Given the pressure from Councils and In light of evidence such as this It seems very likely that the Government will reverse the policy of recent years and allow class sizes to start drifting back up, despite parental opposition..

Much the same can be said for school size. In England, the majority of Primary schools have between 100 and 300 pupils (overall average 237), but larger schools have been growing (those with 400-600 pupils showing the greatest rise) while the numbers in smaller schools have been falling. There is, then, already an upward pressure on school size, and this can only increase over the next decade. As David Simmonds, chairman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board, says much bigger primary schools are now going to become “less unusual”.

Mumsnet has recently hosted a lively debate on the issue. Here again opinion is divided between those who hold that ‘small is beautiful’ and those who argue that large gives better value for money. See. http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/720355-shortage-primary-school-places-creating-supersize-schools.html

In June of this year all Year 1 children in Primary schools in England will be given a ‘reading test’. It will focus solely on their phonic knowledge – their ability to link letters to sounds, and to read (pronounce) written words by recognising the letters which make them up and blending the sounds associated with them. Specifically, the test is designed to show whether, at this early stage in their learning, the children can

• Give the phoneme (sound) when shown any grapheme (letter or combination of letters) that has been taught
• Blend phonemes in order to read words
• Know most of the common grapheme-phoneme correspondences
• Read phonically decodable one-syllable and two-syllable words

The introduction of the test is a key part of the Coalition Government efforts to raise standards of literacy. It reflects the belief that acquiring this skill in decoding single words is a necessary preliminary to learning to read (and understand) the strings of words that make up sentences and texts. The test is described as a screening check: it is designed to “confirm whether individual pupils have grasped the basics of phonic decoding by the end of Year 1 and identify those pupils who needed extra help, so the school can provide support.” The implication being that many of the one in five children who leave primary school without having reached  the expected standard in reading could have been helped if any shortcomings in their phonic skills had been diagnosed and remedied at the start of their schooling.

Other measures in the Government’s literacy policy reinforce this emphasis on phonics: matching funds have been made available to enable schools to buy approved classroom teaching and training resources to support phonics; from September 2012 those teaching early reading will be required to have a clear understanding of systematic synthetic phonics; and Ofsted’s expertise in assessing the teaching of reading is to be enhanced with appropriate attention being given to the quality of early phonics programmes.

None of this is exactly new. The notion that the teaching of reading is likely to be most effective if children are started on a crash course of phonics, conducted away from (but not instead of) any reading for meaning became a central theme of government literacy policy in 2006 when the then Labour administration endorsed the recommendations of Sir Jim Rose’s Review of Early Reading, built them into the renewed Primary Framework for literacy and the Early Years Foundation Stage, and published their own phonics  study programme, Letters and Sounds.

The Primary Framework has gone, the EYFS is being slimmed down and the National Curriculum refocused, but the introduction of the Year 1 screening test indicates the ‘phonics first and fast’ strategy lives on – as, indeed. does the scepticism with which Rose’s central claims were met at the time.

Rose’s critics (drawn mainly from university schools of education) challenged two of his key recommendations. He proposed  that children  should begin short, concentrated teacher-led sessions in phonics as early as 5, or at least as soon as they have mastered the alphabetic code and acquired sufficient phonological awareness to be able to discriminate between the sounds associated with letters. He also argued that as phonics teaching was aimed specifically at word recognition, it should be conducted apart from, and ahead of, efforts to help children to read for meaning – to understand and enjoy whole texts.  Against this, his critics accepted that phonics is a necessary skill for learning to read but argued that the case for treating it as the prime skill which must be acquired  “‘first and  fast’’ had not been made in the report, rather, they claimed, the evidence from ‘best  practice’ points in a different direction. As one academic critic, Henrietta Dombey, a past President of the United Kingdom Literacy Association, put it:

‘‘The most successful schools and teachers focus both on phonics and on the process of making sense of text. Best practice brings these two key components together, in teaching that gives children a sense of the pleasures reading can bring, supports them in making personal sense of the texts they encounter and also shows them how to lift the words off the page’’.

In this, the new screening check is with Rose: it prioritises phonics, and excludes comprehension – as signalled by the inclusion of completely meaningless ‘pseudo-words’ in the list of words that it asks children to decode. It is also a test, and as such it has attracted criticism on a second front, from those who oppose the imposition on schools of centrally inspired, government-led performance testing. The Government has responded by insisting that this is to be a ‘light-touch’ affair. Schools and teachers have nothing to fear. It will take only two or three minutes per pupil to administer; children will enjoy it, parents will find it reassuring. Moreover, its results will not be included in school league tables. They will be made available to Ofsted, and recorded on the RAISE online website so as to make inter-school comparisons possible. This means, the government argues, that it will not only allow teachers to check the progress of individual children and identify those who need extra help, but also “provide a national benchmark for phonic decoding, so that schools can judge their performance against the national average, and set high, but appropriate, expectations for their pupils to achieve by the end of Year 1”.

Opponents of testing will have none of this. They contend that teachers will learn nothing from it about their own pupils that they don’t already know, that it will add to bureaucracy, use up scarce resources and time, and generate mountains of data that will be open to multiple interpretations.

Notwithstanding this barrage of criticism, the tests will go ahead. As a company who has produced online resources to support a systematic phonics course and with our plans to develop it further up to the end of key stage 1, we will be watching for the results and – looking for signs of the longer term outcome – with interest.

You can find the latest Government statement on the test, with links to the main supporting documents here

You can read an open letter to the Education Secretary sent by the UK Literacy Association following the publication of an independent report on the piloting of the test here

You can read the contribution from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers to the public consultation on the Governments proposals here