Helping disadvantaged young children - Ofsted research and analysis

[FSFRebecca]

A very interesting report from Ofsted

 

"If we get the early years right, we pave the way for a lifetime of achievement. If we get them wrong, we miss a unique opportunity to shape a child’s future"

"However, there were still around 80,000 children – nearly a third of all those eligible – whose families did not take up a funded place in 2015. That equates to a staggering £200 million worth of potential investment that has failed to reach the children for whom it is intended."

Early education has the potential to drive social mobility and improve outcomes for the next generation. We should not let them down.

Sir Michael Wilshaw

My question is this; So has the money already gone to the local authorities, in anticipation of there being children to fund? If so where is it now? Have they had to give it back? or has it been used for something else - surely it was ring-fenced? If the Gov't still has it, what are they intending to spend it on - if they had already budgeted it for early years then surely it should remain for early years children?

 

You can read the full report here

[mundia]

Hi Rebecca.

The key word I think in the report is 'potential' investment because the funding comes on use or lose basis.

The other thing to be aware of is that early years funding is not ring fenced. All the money goes into the schools grant to be divided up via the schools forum.

 

It does make you wonder if take up did reach 100% what wouldnt be funded instead?

[sunnyday]

Thank you for sharing Rebecca - will leave reading the full report for now - will add it to my summer holiday TDL :1b

[FSFRebecca]

 

It does make you wonder if take up did reach 100% what wouldnt be funded instead?

Yep, absolutely - it's a lot of money!

[catma]

It's a good report.

 

A key element is the uptake - if a child in reception is elibible for PP then they are counted so for 6 years, the ever6. If there was a system that identified vulnerable children earlier and then had a similar principle then funding would follow. If health were to get parents to have eligibilty checked when they do the 2 yr review maybe.

 

Also the use of the 2 yr old progress check more widely - settings should be required to pass this statutory info on to the next setting like schools are required to pass on info to another school. Then vulnerabilties would be better identified when entering school. The info is seen as just the preserve of the parent and setting who do it I feel.

 

Cx

[finleysmaid]

. The info is seen as just the preserve of the parent and setting who do it I feel.

 

Cx

not in my setting! All information about the children is passed on in their learning story...SALT reports/2 yr check and reports are all there for teachers to read.

[catma]

not in my setting! All information about the children is passed on in their learning story...SALT reports/2 yr check and reports are all there for teachers to read.

I would expect no less Finleysmaid!!! But unfortunately my experience tells me this is variable and with no requrement to share statutory info regardless of parental agreement, like schools must share data and info when a child moves then it will remain so I fear!

Cx

[SueJ]

I would expect no less Finleysmaid!!! But unfortunately my experience tells me this is variable and with no requrement to share statutory info regardless of parental agreement, like schools must share data and info when a child moves then it will remain so I fear!

Cx

 

Sadly all that is shared is not necessarily valued - this year I have shared mega folders of SEN documentation for 2 children - both valued by the receiving parties and two safeguarding folders - one of a couple of pages (recent episode) signed for and discussed with mainstream colleague DSL the other a monster folder with some two and a half years of reports, assessments etc. (some families are just more complex than others!!!!) signed for through the school office hatch by the DSL without so much as a k**s my a** !!

[Fredbear]

That's so sad to hear SueJ. I had hoped that all schools valued the input pre-schools and nurseries provide, whilst the children are in our care. It appears not.

[catma]

I guess I have always taken the view that my responsibilty is to pass on the information, and not stress about what someone does with it. My professional integrity is intact, I cannot be responsible for others'!

Cx

[FSFRebecca]

Nursery world have written about this report too today. You can read what they have to say here

[sunnyday]

Thank you - not sure what I make of the list defining 'disadvantage' :blink:

[FSFRebecca]

I was at the Ofsted 'Big Conversation' in London on Monday and Gill Jones HMI fed back regarding the 'Destined for Disadvantage' document.

(As always - I am copying up my notes for you - you may have to read between the lines or ask further, more specific questions, if I haven't made myself clear!)

Her main points were as follows:

• The 'Oh they'll catch up' belief regarding EY children is a myth and once children have been identified we need to be proactive in helping them,
• Parents are accountable for children 0-5 (because children don't have to attend early years provisions) so we need to be sure parents know what is available to them and how to access it
• This is problematic with the cuts to LA education and healthcare staff.
• The point was made here by representatives of providers who were present that this is a false economy because even though money is saved when the children are in early years they will need even more money (because the problems potentially get bigger) in the future as the child gets older - Ofsted didn't disagree
• Ofsted have been told that there is an increase in the number of Health Visitors and that the integrated review (IR) which should have rolled out fully in 2015 would identify the most needy children - However, information regarding the IR has gone very quiet.
• A question was asked - what is the status of the IR and the 2 year old checks as they seem to be different in different areas of the country - There was then discussion between providers agreeing that this was the case
• There was a question then for Ofsted asking about the problems that providers had with EYPP money - some settings didn't get it in time and some didn't get it at all when they had assumed children were eligible
• Ofsted asked that issues with EYPP funding be shared with inspectors as it was only by feeding this back that Ofsted knew whether the scheme was having impact and the DfE will ask them about it - Providers need to be clear with inspector what the issues are - ​Inspectors have been told to 'dig around' in this area to find out what is 'going on' with EYPP money
• Ofsted are keen for the EYPP and the IR issues to be raised as part of the education agenda because this pushes it up the agenda for the Department of Health

[mundia]

Thanks for that Rebecca, I didn't get to one this time around.