House of Commons
Education Committee
Foundation Years:
Sure Start children's centres
Fifth Report of Session 2013–14
Volume III
Additional written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be published 11 December 2013
Published on 8 January 2014
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
The Education Committee
The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine
the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Education and
its associated public bodies.
Membership at time Report agreed:
Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) (Chair)
Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud)
Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North)
Bill Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central)
Pat Glass MP (Labour, North West Durham)
Siobhain McDonagh MP (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)
Ian Mearns MP (Labour, Gateshead)
Mr Dominic Raab (Conservative, Esher and Walton)
Chris Skidmore MP (Conservative, Kingswood)
Mr David Ward MP (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative, Calder Valley)
Charlotte Leslie MP (Conservative, Bristol North West) was also a member of the
Committee during the inquiry.
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No
152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press
notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/education-committee
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Dr Lynn Gardner (Clerk), Katy Stout
(Second Clerk), Martin Smith (Committee Specialist), Claudia Sumner
(Committee Specialist), Ameet Chudasama (Senior Committee Assistant) and
Caroline McElwee (Committee Assistant).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Education
Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone
number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6181; the Committee’s e-mail address is
[email protected]
List of additional written evidence
(published in Volume III on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/educom)
1
Play Therapy UK (PTUK)
Ev w1
2
National Union of Teachers
Ev w1
3
Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust
Ev w3
4
Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships
Ev w4
5
Andrea Leadsom MP and Sharon Hodgson MP (Parliamentary Group for
Sure Start)
Ev w5
Save the Children
Ev w6
6
7
Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition
Ev w10
8
Family Action
Ev w14
9
Association of Senior Children’s and Education Librarians
Ev w17
10
The Early Childhood Forum
Ev w18
11
Ofqual
Ev w19
12
The Children’s Society
Ev w20
13
Lancashire County Council
Ev w24
14
The Communication Trust
Ev w26
15
ATL
Ev w29
16
TACTYC
Ev w33
17
Mrs Claire Oldham
Ev w35
18
NHS England
Ev w35
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w1
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by Play Therapy UK (PTUK)
1. PTUK is the professional organisation for Play and Creative Arts Therapies. Our members work in a
number of Sure Start Centres.
2. PTUK supports the evolution of Sure Start children’s centres.
3. PTUK has always urged the measurement of the effectiveness and impact of Sure Start children’s centres
to date and welcomes the role of Ofsted inspections
4. PTUK urges that provision must be made for Play Therapy and Filial Play Parent Coaching services at
Sure Start children’s centres. Our evidence based on over 10000 cases shows the effectiveness and efficiency
of these interventions with younger children. Between 74% and 83% of children show a positive change. Our
experience also shows that many of the existing staff at the Centres may be trained to carry out this work. (We
are prepared to provide detailed reports supporting these statements).
5. PTUK has used three measures of effectiveness: the Goodman SDQ, the ASQ:SE and Hopes and
Expectation questionnaire. These have been effective and also been shown as easy to use. We have also
developed special software to process the data. We suggest that these are used to increase the use of evidencebased early intervention in children’s centres.
6. PTUK has developed a manual for Head Teachers in Primary Schools upon how to introduce and manage
services for the emotional well-being of children. This could easily be adapted for use in Sure Start Centres.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by the National Union of Teachers
Introduction
1. The National Union of Teachers welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee
Inquiry, Foundation Years-Sure Start Children’s Centres. Children’s Centres provide essential support,
signposting and guidance for many families and their children and should continue to be at the heart of
communities.
The Importance of Teachers in Children’s Centres
2. The NUT believes that all children are entitled to a high quality education in their early years. For
Children’s Centres to deliver such an entitlement it is important that where they provide early education,
children have access to input from a qualified early years teacher.
3. Teachers play a key role in improving outcomes for young children. The Core Purpose document itself
supports this assertion. The NUT argues, as does a significant section of the early years’ community, that
qualified teachers and early years’ professionals serve different roles within Children’s Centres and one cannot
be substituted for the other. The Review of Early Childhood Qualifications, carried out by Professor Kathy
Nutbrown, also supported this view. The NUT welcomed Professor Nutbrown’s recommendation that an Early
Years QTS qualification should be introduced to replace the Early Years Professional Status.
4. One of the findings of the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE)1 research was that having
trained teachers working with children in pre-school settings for a substantial proportion of time, and most
importantly as the curriculum leader, had the greatest impact on quality. Teachers must be seen as integral to
the work of the Centre and not an “add-on”. Where teachers are “hands-on” and work alongside colleagues to
deliver and support children’s learning, the outcomes are most significant.
5. The NUT is extremely concerned that where provision is being outsourced by the local authority, cost
cutting pressures on budgets will lead to a further reduction in the role of teachers and well qualified support
staff delivering early education in Children’s Centres.
6. The NUT urges the Select Committee to recommend to Government that, as part of the remit for
outsourcing Children’s Centres, a statutory criteria should be the guarantee of qualified teacher input where
early education is being offered.
The Core Purpose
7. The core purpose of Children’s Centres should be the provision of high quality services relevant to
children’s education, health, social care and welfare from birth to five years old. The NUT maintains, as it has
always done, that early education and childcare should be at the heart of any legal definition or defined core
purpose of a Children’s Centre. This does not detract from the importance of the other services for children
1
Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Taggart, Sammons, Melhuish and Elliot (2003) Technical Paper 10-Case studies of practice across the
foundation stage, EPPE.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w2 Education Committee: Evidence
and families offered by Children’s Centres. It does, however, retain as a central element of the purpose of
Centres the premise that they were set up to primarily benefit children and to provide them with the best start
in life.
8. Early intervention measures in Children’s Centres must be of the highest quality, at all times delivered
by professionals.
9. The current Core Purpose document is weak in this area as it simply says that “all Children’s Centres
must directly provide some activities for young children, for example stay and play sessions”. The NUT, as
stated above, believes that the educational element of Children’s Centres is crucial to the enhancement of life
chances for young children. An hour’s “stay and play” is not the same as high quality input from well qualified
staff over a sustained period of time. Loss of the early education element from many Children’s Centres will
weaken the core purpose and detract from potential outcomes for some of the most deprived and vulnerable
young children and their families.
10. It is hoped that any revised version of the Core Purpose document would include an appropriate definition
of “school readiness” or preferably remove this phrase completely.
School Readiness
11. School readiness is a phrase about which most early years sector professionals feel uncomfortable. The
early years is a distinct phase of education and should not merely be seen as a stepping stone to “school”.
Many professionals would consider that a child ready to move to year one would be able to socialise with
peers, be comfortable with key adults, be able to happily separate from family members, be able to use the
toilet independently and dress and undress independently. For some children with special educational needs
these milestones may be reached later than their peers.
12. School readiness should relate to attitudes and dispositions to learning and not specific targets being met
such as phonic knowledge or the ability to operate in numbers up to twenty. The NUT remains concerned that
the “too formal too soon” approach being embedded into the EYFS with the introduction of Early Learning
Goals, which stretch children further and steer them towards a learning style which is developmentally
inappropriate, will be used to judge Children’s Centre provision.
International Evidence
13. Research from the OECD2 suggests that in looking at the purpose of early education, France and the
English speaking world have adopted a “readiness for school” approach, which focuses heavily on cognitive
development in the early years, and the acquisition of a range of knowledge, skills and dispositions.
14. The OECD, Starting Strong, research suggests that the disadvantage in this approach is the use of
programmes and approaches that are poorly suited to the psychology and natural learning strategies of young
children. In countries inheriting a social pedagogy tradition (Nordic and Central European countries), the
kindergarten years are seen as a broad preparation for life and the foundation stage of lifelong learning.
15. Government must consider such evidence in looking at the role of Children’s Centres in early education
provision. The recent legislation which allows independent schools exemption from the EYFS may well lead
to a more formal approach too soon for young children, which as the evidence quoted above suggests is
wholly inappropriate.
Ofsted Inspection of Children’s Centres
16. In submitting evidence under this heading the NUT reiterates its opposition to the current Ofsted
inspection model. A key area of concern across the early years’ sector and particularly relating to Children’s
Centres is the lack of specific knowledge and experience in the early years possessed by inspectors. Anecdotal
evidence from members in Children’s Centres indicates that the intense focus on paperwork and tick box
exercises by inspectors mean that they sometimes miss capturing the core work of the centre with families.
17. Of equal concern is the payment by results element of setting targets for Children’s Centres. Whilst it
cannot be argued that English language classes for parents are not useful it seems that they are also an
easily measureable target so therefore given prominence over other areas of work which relate more closely
to children.
18. It is important, for example, for children to gain confidence and learn to play appropriately with their
peers. Children’s Centre staff may work closely with parents to support them in the behaviour management of
disturbed children and success with one child would make a significant difference to that child’s life chances
and future opportunities.
19. The current inspection process does not allow for such success stories to be recorded as part of the
judgement on the work of the Centre. This is disappointing as it means that the current inspection process,
which is effectively a tick box exercise, is missing so much of the excellence of children’s centres and the
small things which make a huge difference to families.
2
Starting Strong ll: Early Childhood Education and Care OECD 2006.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w3
Outdoor Space
20. In reviewing Children’s Centre provision the Select Committee should consider as one of its
recommendations the statutory requirement for outdoor play space. Early years settings often provide the main,
or only, opportunity for children to play and learn outside, on a regular basis. Evidence3 shows that changing
urban and rural landscapes and lifestyles limits children’s opportunities to go outside and play.
“…children are disappearing from the outdoors at a rate that would make the top of any
conservationist’s list of endangered species if they were any other member of the animal kingdom…
”—Gill (2005)4
21. Playing outdoors can inspire and enable children to learn more effectively, become more active, develop
their motor skills and connect with nature. The NUT agrees with the vision of “Learning through Landscapes”
that all children should have the opportunity to experience outdoor play space and learning opportunities.
Family Involvement
22. Whilst the clear importance of the involvement of families in engaging with Children’s Centres has been
proven, this does not mean that volunteers can ever substitute for professionals delivering key services.
23. Cuts to local authority support services and local health provision have meant that Children’s Centres
find it increasingly difficult to secure the services of behaviour support teams, SEN specialists, health visitors
and midwives, all of whom provide essential support to families and none of which can be replaced by an
unqualified volunteer.
Conclusion
24. The Select Committee, in considering the evidence submitted for the Inquiry into Sure Start Children’s
Centres, should take into account the real costs of high quality provision and recognise that it requires dedicated
appropriate funding and cannot be provided “on the cheap”. For Children’s Centres to really make a difference
to young children and their families’, significant funding commitments must be made by the Government. This
must be backed up by a commitment to employ well qualified staff who may nurture and work alongside
volunteers but who should not be reliant on them to run services.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust
1. The needs of the families within the Sure Start Children’s Centre’s are increasing as the economic climate
impacts. As a result we are seeing damaging effect on poverty and lower social wellbeing, mental health of
families is becoming one of the symptoms that Family Support workers are dealing with on a regular basis.
This is a progressive cycle of depression that the communities in the Children’s Centre areas are struggling
with on a daily basis. Generations of families are being effected by job loss, worklessness and reduced capacity
to go out and earn money. Thus having sub-sequential impact on children’s and adults social and emotional
well-being making it hard to motivate and offer aspirational guidance to adults and children.
If the parent no longer has to wake up in the morning to go off to work then there is no urgency to get the
children to school. The families’ routines become irregular and normal patterns become hard to maintain.
Whilst parents are preoccupied with coping, the children’s needs are not always the carer’s main priority.
The quality of work is not easy to maintain whilst increasing work load and capacity from ever decreasing
budgets. Previously Sure Start Local Programmes were able to concentrate the budget into particular areas,
supporting families faced with debt, housing crisis, unemployment, etc. and target work around these factors.
The budget now only covers the staffing cost leaving little or no funding for additionality or creativity. Our
partners in the local community are in exactly the same position and therefore being able to act responsively
not reactively is becoming more difficult.
The complexity we face now is how we support many families through such difficult times when faced with
job losses and cuts to our own services. The proviso that one worker can offer family support to a vast amount
of families in crisis is unrealistic and also draining on the worker. There is no certainty on the Sure Start
Children’s Centre’s and staff are feeling as demotivated and demoralised as some of the families they are trying
to support. The constant deluge of short lived initiatives that are supposed to alleviate families problems are
not long enough to support them out of the crisis and back onto an even keel, thus perpetuating the cycle of
concern, involvement and patching up the cracks before the next serious issue to affect the family.
2. The Ofsted inspections in my opinion are a good measure of the effectiveness of the impact of Sure Start
Children’s Centre’s but consistency is paramount to enable informed inspectors to make robust judgments and
recommendations about Children’s Centre work. The local knowledge of trained professionals is often
overlooked and can be key to understanding why certain priorities are not always achievable eg knowing that
3
4
Learning Through Landscapes Website-www.ltl.org.uk/wecanhelp
Gill, T., (2005) Let our children roam free, The Ecologist www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=481
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w4 Education Committee: Evidence
in an area with a transient population of Roma Slovak families hospital attendance will be higher as these
families may well not be registered with a GP’s surgery and the cultural norm would be to present at A&E.
The percentage target representing the Ofsted grading is not conclusive in its evidence to say whether a
Children’s Centre is outstanding or good. I feel that more evidence should be based on actual impact of
services, case studies, progression pathways the actual ground work that makes the difference, quality rather
than quantity.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships
1. In relation to questions 1 and 3 in particular, TCCR welcomes the focus of the “Core Purpose” document
on Children’s Centres aiming to reduce inequalities in child development and school readiness through
“supporting personal, social and emotional development”.
2. However, TCCR finds the document’s statement that such reductions are to be supported by improved
“parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills” and “child and family health and life chances”
somewhat problematic; not because we do not agree with the potential for improvements in these areas to lead
to better child outcomes, but because the document should also acknowledge the beneficial impact which
improvements in the quality of the relationship between parents can have on children’s well-being and
outcomes.
3. While we accept that the Core Purpose document subsequently notes that “the quality of the relationship
between parents is linked to positive parenting and better outcomes for children”, it does so only in the context
of “families with the greatest needs”, referring to parenting and family support as a “targeted service”.
4. We believe that the Core Purpose should therefore include relationship support as one of the bullet points
under point 1 (i.e. the Core Purpose). Relegating relationship support to the section on targeted interventions
for families in greatest need—as the document currently does—will do nothing to change the culture around
relationship support, something which is one of the Government’s own objectives
(http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/families/relationship/a00212569/relationship-supportfirst-time-parents-trial ).
5. After all, it is not only “families in greatest need” who can be helped by relationship support. Focusing
only on “parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills” as the means to improve child development
and school readiness will mean that the opportunity for services for help parents whose relationship is running
into difficulty before such problems become entrenched (http://tccr.ac.uk/policy/policy-briefings/273relationship-difficulties-tccr-policy-briefing) will be missed, with all the negative consequences that parental
relationship distress, conflict and/or breakdown can have on children’s emotional, social and cognitive
development
(http://tccr.ac.uk/policy/policy-briefings/267-impact-of-couple-conflict-on-children-tccr-policybriefing )
6. Regarding the delivery of relationship support services through Sure Start centres (“Using evidence-based
approaches to deliver targeted, family-centred support”), notwithstanding the points made previously about this
needing to be seen as part of a universal offer, TCCR believes that the workforce implications of the aspiration
contained in the document that relationship support could be provided on a targeted basis are significant.
Despite evidence showing that parenting work which specifically focuses on the parental couple relationship
is more effective in improving outcomes for children than parenting work that focuses on parenting issues alone
(http://tccr.ac.uk/policy/policy-briefings/276-parenting-work-tccr-policy-briefing), how best to support parental
relationships does not form part of the training of frontline workers such as health visitors and children’s centre
workers
(http://tccr.ac.uk/research-publications/practitioner-guides/200-a-short-guide-to-working-with-coparents). Until and unless such skills form a core part of the training of these professionals, it is difficult to
envisage how Sure Start centres will actually make relationship support part of their offer.
7. In answer to question 2, TCCR believes that Ofsted should be required to appraise the extent to which a
focus on the parental relationship is embedded in the work of the centre. Given that the Core Purpose document
states that “the quality of the relationship between parents is linked to positive parenting and better outcomes
for children”, it would surely be reasonable to expect an effective and well-functioning centre to take the
quality of the relationship between parents as a focus of its work. Furthermore, measuring the degree to which
centres adopt this approach would be measurable and act as a spur to improving practice.
8. In answer to question 5, please see this document—Finding and using effective measuring tools—which
sets out a range of tools for use with children and young people: http://pelorous.totallyplc.com/public/cms/115/
237/85/6728/Evaluation%20tools%2015%20Feb%202012.pdf?realName=uKkLx6.pdf And this document for a
discussion on the subject of measuring school readiness: http://www.idocshare.com/pdfview/khxj7k/children/
school-readiness-eugene-m-lewit-linda-schuurmann-baker-i-n-05_02_Indicators.pdf
December 2012
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w5
Submission of evidence on behalf of Andrea Leadsom MP and Sharon Hodgson MP, Chair and Vice
Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Sure Starts
Introduction:
Since
—
—
—
the 2012 AGM this summer, the Sure Start APPG has been holding evidence sessions as to:
collect evidence of best practice from Sure Start centres and the services operating within them;
highlight areas where improvements are necessary;
contribute to delivering better services for families across the country.
This submission of evidence to the Education Select Committee will reflect the early findings from the
APPG, and jointly offer our thoughts on the points of consideration raised by the Education Committee.
Summary:
1. Conception to the age of two is the most important period of a child’s life. The services available to
families in Children’s Centres should reflect this fact, and work to achieve strong early relationships
and secure attachments. We recommend that the Core Purpose of Sure Starts makes specific reference
to this specific period of a child’s life as providing the best chance to improve outcomes.
2. Signposting is a vital part of the work that Children’s Centres do and therefore must be effectual and
well-informed.
3. The front-line workforce (health visitors, social workers, midwives) should be properly trained in
spotting relationship problems between parents and their infants, and be able to confidently on-refer
to the correct service
4. Centres should commission evaluated services with good outcome measures, all with a view to
improving outcomes for families and building stronger parental bonds.
1. Sure Start Centres are a vital part of the lives of children and families across the country. The new Core
Purpose of Sure Starts makes clear that Children’s Centres should “improve outcomes” for children and their
families. Therefore Sure Starts must ensure that the parent and infant/child relationship sits at the core of
everything that a Children’s Centre offers. Whilst children from disadvantaged families deserve particular
focus, as the new vision outlines, it is important to realise that relationship difficulties and parenting problems
can occur within families of any background.
2. We would recommend ensuring that the Core Purpose makes specific reference to the period of conception
to two years as providing the best opportunity to improve outcomes for all children.
3. Louise Harrington of the NLH Partnership, conducted a 6.5 year research project into Children’s Centres,
in over 40 local authorities. She found that not enough clear guidance is available on who “hard to reach”
families are. Louise recommended collaborative work with parents which delivers services that people really
need. Joanna Tucker from OXPIP also noted that parents should be involved in decision making, meaning that
services are much more likely to be effective.
4. George Hosking of the Wave Trust has highlighted the importance of the first year of a child’s life. “In
every second of a child’s life, one million new neural connections are formed.” The quality of the parent-baby
interaction is therefore essential. 30–40% of babies don’t form secure attachments, leading to social issues and
service costs later down the line.
5. Sure Starts must be able to signpost on to vital and relevant services to parents and families. This might
include therapeutic support for the relationship between the parent and infant, employment support, legal
advice, or a number of other relevant services. Partnership work is therefore crucial to ensure that families and
children receive the appropriate service, and that agencies work in a joined up fashion.
6. Louise Harrington has noted that best practice involves strong signposting to key services. Jo Hardy from
Contact a Family has also highlighted that the best Children’s Centres will provide help with accessing other
services such as benefits and healthcare.
7. To this end, integrated work between health, social care and education staff can be achieved through the
improved training of front-line staff. Peri-natal, post-natal and early year’s workforces must be aware of the
critical importance of secure early attachment. Training provision for professionals is not yet good enough, and
awareness of the critical period from conception to age two must be more widely understood in our front line
services. Confident on-referring can only be achieved if health and social care professionals are aware of the
benefits of early year’s intervention. This will also encourage a more joined-up approach between social
services and Children’s Centres.
8. Jo Hardy from Contact a Family has stated that Children’s Centre staff require more training and support
to properly engage families with children with addition needs, and provide appropriate care for them. Whilst
Contact a Family are a national charity who support families of disabled children, this point will resonate with
staff who work with all families with relationship difficulties, but with nowhere to turn. George Hosking from
the Wave Trust noted that the quality of the workforce must be suitable to provide the necessary support.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w6 Education Committee: Evidence
9. If the focus of Sure Starts is to create the most secure relationship possible between parents and their
baby, it is vital that the services being offered are evidence-based. This can be done through the commissioning
of evaluated services which show quantitative and qualitative improvements in the relationship between parents
and their baby. If social workers are aware of the services being offered, which look to secure parent-infant
attachment, this will encourage them to work more closely with their local Children’s Centre.
10. Joanna Tucker from OXPIP suggested that centres must use good outcome measures, and set
understandable and achievable goals with parents. Both the NLH Partnership and OXPIP have expressed
concerns about Payment by Results, which they saw as creating a “tick box” culture, squeezing innovative
practices, and that excludes potentially valuable interventions.
11. Previous APPG inquiries into the un-ringfencing of the Early Years Intervention fund have demonstrated
concern over a reduction in funding for vital early years work. A reduction in universal services will be
detrimental to Sure Starts if they are to provide a gateway for more targeted interventions.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Save the Children
Save the Children believes that it is unacceptable that the learning and development of children living in
poverty is often stunted before they even set foot in school. We believe that no child should endure poverty
and no child’s life chances should be shaped by the accident of birth. Policy and practice must shield children
from the effects of deprivation by preventing problems and inequalities before they occur (rather than seeking
to solve or redress them after they have taken hold). Save the Children believes that Sure Start Children’s
Centres have a crucial part to play in ensuring that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have the very
best start in life.
While the brain continues to grow during adolescence5, it is from the pre-natal period, up until five years
of age, that it undergoes the most rapid growth6. Evidence shows a) substantial developmental inequalities
emerge during these critical early years and b) these early indicators of skills and abilities can often reliably
predict outcomes right into adulthood7. In other words children’s life chances are limited by poverty and
deprivation before they even properly settle into primary education.
1. Core Purpose
Save the Children supports the core purpose of Sure Start—”to improve outcomes for young children and
their families, with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged, so children are equipped for life and ready
for school, no matter what their background or family circumstances”8.
However, we strongly urge that access to Sure Start remains universal. 4Children argues that there are a
number of risks if Sure Start Children’s Centres are restricted to low income families:
—
Stigmatising those families who use children’s centres.
—
Vulnerable families who are living in poverty, but not in official “areas of deprivation”, falling
through the net.
—
Preventing parents from accessing help for problems that are not related to income, such as breast
feeding and post natal depression.
—
Denying children and families the social mobility benefits of interacting with children from a diverse
range of social backgrounds9.
We also know from our FAST programme that adopting a voluntary access or universal approach improves
recruitment and retention rates with low income and isolated families in particular.
Whilst we support a universal approach, we believe that Sure Start should remain a core service provider
for low income families, providing high-quality services and care for children and families who are most
in need.
5
6
7
8
9
Feinstein (2009). Secrets of the Teenage Brain: Research-based strategies for reaching and teaching today’s adolescents. CA:
Corwin Press.
The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2004). Children’s Emotional Development is Built into the Architecture
of their Brains. Working Paper #2
Feinstein, Centrepiece 2003—Very Early, Centre for Economic Performance.
Department for Education website [Accessed 15 October 2012] http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/
earlylearningandchildcare/a00191780/core-purpose-of-sure-start-childrens-centres.
4Children website [Accessed 15 October 2012] http://www.4children.org.uk/News/Detail/Ofsted-Reports-Show-Sure-Start-IsHelping-The-Most-Vulnerable
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w7
2. Funding
—
Save the Children is concerned about the removal of the ring fence funding for Sure Start children’s
centres, and believe that this is a serious threat to the viability of the early years infrastructure. We
are extremely concerned about recent reports regarding further cuts to the Early Intervention Grant
(EIG) and the devastating impact this would have on early intervention services and children’s
centres10.
—
We were supportive in 2010 of the move to combine a range of previously separate funding streams
as one Early Intervention Grant. However, removing all control over the funding of children’s centres
risks diversion from children’s services into other areas perhaps suffering more severe cuts.
—
Without sufficient funding, there is concern that while children’s centres may not actually be closing,
staff numbers have had to be cut, staff time is therefore stretched, and this in turn means a reduction
of the services that centres are able to offer.
—
There is a danger in children’s centre managers having to be responsible for “clusters” of children’s
centres. This leads to difficulties in that individual knowing what is happening in each centre, or
what the local needs are in that particular area.
—
Further to this, as better qualified staff are given the task of running a number of centres, less
qualified staff are left on their own to do the front line work with families.
—
The fundamental question should not be how many children’s centres do we need, but what is a
sensible service for families and young children depending on the complex needs for family support
and childcare, making best use of the investment in children’s centres.
3. Evidence-Based Early Intervention
—
Save the Children would like to see a broader remit for children’s centres as commissioners of areawide early years support, coordinators of prenatal and antenatal care and providers of birth
registration and community outreach services.
—
Evidence-based early intervention ensures that high-quality programmes benefit children and families
and represent good value for money.
—
We would like to see an increase in the number of parent support programmes that are focused on
children’s education. The main focus of most evidence-based programmes is on helping parents to
develop parenting styles that support positive behavioural development in their children. Their
origins were typically in concerns about children’s behaviour and the relationship with less effective
parenting styles.
—
This support is clearly necessary and important, but it needs to be available to more parents and
combined with interventions that have a broader reach if we are to improve the life chances of all
children affected by deprivation.
—
In its 2011 response to the government’s child poverty strategy consultation, the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation argues that “tackling child poverty and the rich-poor attainment gap requires significant
changes to the outcomes of around 20% of the population- not just the bottom 5%” (Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2011, p.3). It says we must act to “expand the evidence for broader groups”.
Role of government
10
—
Government has a responsibility to set the right strategic direction. Evidence-based early intervention
currently is not the norm, and therefore changes need to occur.
—
We believe the Government’s role should be to set the strategic direction. This means a.) supporting
the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) so that a repository of best practice can be made available
to local authorities and children’s centre management so that they can commission from endorsed
lists of programmes, and b.) creating a financial incentive for local authorities and children’s centres
to commission and implement evidence-based programmes and practice from within existing funds.
—
At the moment, the incentive is for local authorities and children’s centres not to divest from
historical ways of working that are unlikely to involve evidence-based early intervention. Financial
incentives could relate to a higher proportion of funding being given via the existing EIG to local
authorities that implement EIF endorsed programmes in future.
—
As mentioned above, we are aware of proposals to take away the EIG ring-fence. We would like to
see a proportion of it to be allocated in future to implementing evidence-based programmes. Local
authorities would only be able to access this proportion of funding (relevant to local need) to
implement these programmes. This could encourage the change we need to see happen and ensure
that future spend does not get sucked into only covering existing statutory duties.
The Guardian website [Accessed 15 October 2012] http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/27/free-nursery-placesfunded-sure-start
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w8 Education Committee: Evidence
—
—
We do not believe that the Government’s role should be to determine which programmes local
authorities can select from. It should be the role of an independent EIF to suggest particular
programmes. Local authorities would then select evidence-based programmes which relate to their
context. This financial incentive could help to solve one of the main barriers to implementation
at scale11.
In terms of payment-by-results, over time if the market matures, local authorities could and should
reap dividends from improving outcomes via more effective evidence-based practice as per agreed
early intervention investment contracts between the private sector, local and central government.
Role of local authorities
— Ensuring that senior management within local authorities buy into evidence-based programmes and
promote an under-pinning prevention philosophy. This could mean agreeing to re-position resources
to focus on evidence-based programmes rather than historical ways of working.
— More efficient and effective local commissioning practice based on cyclical re-investment in services
that achieve expected outcomes and social return on investment. For example, new funding vehicles,
such as social impact bonds, that are able to frontload investment in skilling-up local workforces in
evidence-based programming.
— Firm commitment to fidelity and quality assurance mechanisms of evidence-based programmes, such
as, supervision and evaluation, so that any temptation to change models locally to reduce expense
is resisted.
— Shared standards of evidence need to become part of core business for local commissioners.
Standards of evidence are a much needed tool that would enable the identifying and disseminating
of best practice, alongside, smarter commissioning and more sustainable planning. In this way, every
local authority could have access to a common language and collective vision on which programmes
are most likely to deliver the best outcomes for children and families, as well as, a decent social
return on investment both individually and as part of a pipeline of services. While this kind of
guidance would clearly promote interventions with the most robust evidence of impact,
commissioners would still be able to select from a range of high quality programmes so that any
intervention will serve their area’s specific needs.
Role of children’s centre management
— To prioritise training for staff in evidence-based programmes and child development.
— To imbed a prevention philosophy focussed on outcomes and high retention rates rather than red
tape and outputs.
— Focus on partnerships with health and education to ensure that families receive a joined-up service
focussed on children’s on-going development.
— Focus resource into identifying best practice via evaluation and into manualising it so that others
can replicate. Not every programme could or should be an evidence-based programme as these tend
to produce specific outcomes and have very limited reach. Centres need to strive to adopting
evidence-based programmes where appropriate, but at the same time to evaluating on-going work
and innovations in order to decide what to continue investing in or divesting from. By identifying,
quantifying and training best practice, centres can implement a strategic approach that encompasses
EBP and programmes more adapted to the local context and families’ needs.
Role of practitioners (in centres and outreach)
— There is a need to imbed a culture of monitoring and evaluation. While we want to remove
unnecessary bureaucracy, we should collectively emphasise that evaluation is core practice.
— Save the Children has experience of training a number of Families and Schools Together (FAST)
teams, who are made up of local parents, school, health and early years professionals, and other
local authority staff and community leaders. Anecdotally, we have found that there is sometimes a
resistance to adopt evidence-based practice at the start, as it challenges ingrained ways of working.
4. Defining and Measuring Good Practice
— Good practice can be defined by the achievement of positive outcomes and high retention rates,
particularly of low income and isolated families. Therefore all delivery needs to be monitored and
evaluated in order to understand which practice areas are most effective at improving outcomes, as
well as being measured using standardised measures so that attribution can be proven.
— We need to enable wider implementation of evidence-based family and parenting programmes, where
appropriate. But, the biggest change in family and parenting support in terms of reach and outcomes
would come from supporting commissioners to fund and practitioners to implement evidencebased practice.
11
Children and Young People Now website [Accessed 15 October 2012] http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1072992/children-scentre-intervention-schemes-lack-evidence-base
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w9
—
This is because evidence-based programmes have been designed for specific target groups on the
whole and will not necessarily be suitable for population-wide delivery. However, normalising
evidence-based practice within children’s centres and through outreach, ie recognition and
manualisation of, as well as adherence to, the fidelity of core practice components that lead to
predictable outcomes and the use of monitoring and evaluation to continuously improve practice,
will lead to true early intervention at scale and improved life chances for many more children.
—
Save the Children’s Scotland Office recently commissioned a piece of research called “Thrive at
Five”, which sought to produce a Child Development Measure that compares the development of
children from different socio-economic backgrounds12.
—
The Child Development Measure is a holistic, population level instrument that gauges the
development of children across a range of indicators at around the time they start primary school.
—
It reveals that children born into poverty are twice as likely as other children to face developmental
difficulties when they enter formal schooling, severely damaging their future educational
achievement and life chances.
—
This large disparity is evident across all developmental areas included in the Measure—physical
wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, social skills, cognitive development and communication.
—
The instrument is an example of the type of comprehensive measure of child development that is
required to guide and monitor the various early years policy and legislative initiatives currently being
pursued. The findings of the Child Development Measure reinforce the need to provide additional
support in the early years for children in poverty13.
—
We are also supportive of the Tickell Review’s recommendations to slim down the EYFS and to
provide parents with a formal summary of their child’s development, alongside the health visitor
check at age two, to help identify any early problems or special educational needs.
—
We also agree with the recommendation that a greater emphasis should be placed on making sure
that children have the basic social, emotional communication and language skills they need to learn
and thrive at school—like being able to make friends and listen effectively (The Strengths &
Difficulties Questionnaire is the most well-known measure for socio-emotional and The British
Ability Scale works for Language).
—
The main barrier is not agreeing which measures to use as there is broad agreement on the three
themes (as referred to in the Tickell’s Review) and internationally recognised indicators, but there is
a need to incentivise and enable the statutory workforce to administer the age two developmental
checks as there has been understandable resistance from an already stretched health visitor workforce.
5. Integrated Services
12
13
14
—
We strongly welcome the emphasis on children’s centres to work in an integrated way with other
services. We believe that the key to tackling child poverty and improving children’s outcomes is for
all agencies engaged with children and families from disadvantaged backgrounds to work in a holistic
way to tackle the often multi-layered causes and effects of poverty.
—
We would like to see this integrated approach to working go even further and for local authorities
to include Children’s Centres within a larger community-based model of support to the most
disadvantaged children and families within a community. Locally-driven partnerships could bring
together early years settings, schools, health agencies, housing services, and family support providers
to design and implement a pipeline of cradle to career supports so that every child can overcome
disadvantage and realise their potential.
—
Indeed, as stated by Naomi Eisenstadt: “For particularly poor children, a combination of quality
interventions with mothers and fathers around birth and for the first three years, combined with highquality early education and encouragement towards employment, all need to be in place to have the
maximum impact”14. There are pockets of best practice across the UK where such a package is
being delivered, but this is not consistent everywhere.
—
Save the Children has recently published a new piece of research with the University of Manchester
called “Developing children’s zones for England”. We wanted to find out what could be learnt from
the incredibly successful Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) in New York. HCZ is a geographically
based non-profit organisation. It currently serves around 100 blocks in Harlem which is
predominately home to low-income black families. It offers them access to an interlocking network
of education, health, family and social welfare services. These are not simply wrap-around services,
but have been designed to create a “pipeline” of support for children from cradle to career.
—
Save the Children would like to see children’s zones piloted in England, and believe that Sure Start
Children’s Centres would play a key role in this pipeline of support for children from deprived areas.
N.B. This research has not yet been published but we would be happy to send a copy of the report if this would be helpful.
N.B. Important to note here that we do have an equivalent of this in England with the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile.
Naomi Eisenstadt, ‘Providing a Sure Start’, (2011) p. 143.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w10 Education Committee: Evidence
6. Engagement With Parents
— Universal high-quality early education is key to improving the outcomes of children, particularly
those from low-income backgrounds. However, in particular, involving parents in this process is also
crucial in order to work towards creating a positive home learning environment. As stated in a Save
the Children report published last year:
“The universal skills that parents need to be able to deploy to nurture their children with
positive parenting are care, discipline and instruction. These elements are essential to the
effective and loving upbringing of children. However, parents’ capabilities in relation to positive
parenting are subject to their own circumstances and knowledge.15“
— The Sutton Trust states that “identifying effective parenting programmes is crucial, given the
prominent role that differences in parenting play in explaining cognitive gaps”16. Save the Children
believes that parents are children’s primary teachers and nurturers, and, ultimately, their foremost
prevention agents. There is a wealth of research that demonstrates the impact that parents can have
on their child’s outcomes (Desforges 2003, Feinstein 2003). A recent study by Jane Waldfogel (2009)
and colleagues suggested that half the gap between affluent and poorer households in the USA was
explained by the home environment and quality parenting.
— In particular, it is essential that guidance is acted upon, and that this is used as a way of enabling
parents to have a real opportunity to be able to choose from proven and quality provision that truly
suits their needs. Local authorities and Children’s Centres should examine ways of involving parents
by giving them access to all accredited options as recommended by, for example, C4EO and Graham
Allen’s reviews into Early Intervention, and for parents, local authorities and Children’s Centres to
be able to discuss these from an evidence point of view, and a user-demand point of view.
— Whilst there are a plethora of evidence-based parenting programmes that operate out of early years
providers, there are few that support whole communities of parents to engage with and support their
children’s early learning and development. Parents want the best for their children and they deserve
support so that they can best support their early development.
— Similarly very few programmes can claim to have high retention rates with low income and isolated
families (Save the Children 2009) and few facilitate multi-agency working and integrated service
approaches between statutory and service providers, parents and the local community. Further to
this, when programmes are accredited by various arbiters, such as, governments or national bodies,
this is based on outcomes data from various studies, such as randomised controlled trials. However,
there are very few studies that actually measure how well programmes are able to engage and retain
low income and isolated families in their service as one of the key criterion for success.
— Save the Children believes that early years providers and professionals have a duty to implement
programmes proven to really engage “parents as partners” in their children’s education. By this we
mean, evidence-based programmes and practice proven to reduce family stress, to empower parents
to create a stimulating home learning environment, to broker better home-school links, and, also to
demonstrate positive impact on children’s educational achievement and behaviour.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition’s
1. The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition (Coalition) brings together a variety of third
sector organisations to campaign on behalf of and with children and young people to effect change in policy
and practice that will improve their mental health and wellbeing. Zurich Community Trust has funded the
Coalition, whose core members are Mental Health Foundation, Rethink Mental Illness, Right Here, Royal
College of Psychiatrists, Place2Be, The Prince’s Trust, YoungMinds, Youth Access, Youth Net, NSPCC and
The Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships.
2. Executive Summary
2.1. Sure Start Children’s Centres (SSCC) continue to be important services for families and their children.
The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition (Coalition) generally welcome the Core Purpose,
but we still have some concerns. SSCC s are key to the early intervention of mental health problems in both
the parent and the child. We believe that the Core Purpose should include relationship support within the section
on universal services, as it is not only “families in greatest need” who can be helped by relationship support.
2.2. The lessons from literature on evidence based interventions indicate that it is not just what you make
available, but also the way that you make evidence-based programmes available (Fixsen, 2005; Centre for
Mental Health, 2012). For instance engaging people and preventing them from dropping out of the service is
vital; you need high quality staff; more integrated inclusive single needs assessment and outcome setting
involving all key partners; and you need stable funding.
15
16
Save the Children, ‘Bringing Families and Schools Together’, (2011) p.4.
Waldfogel and Washbrook (2010), Low income and early cognitive development in the UK.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w11
2.3. Children often communicate emotional or developmental distress through their behaviour; and research
shows that early behavioural problems have a huge impact on later outcomes. Therefore, behaviour should be
tracked just as you would track hearing or other developmental progress. There are a number of relevant NICE
guidelines and other evidence based/informed practice that could be implemented in SSCC to help these
children. There are some well validated tools, which will help SSCC measure children and families outcomes.
2.4. We are concerned that Early Intervention Grant (EIG), which can be used to fund SSCCs, has been
reduced already, and there are plans to hold back money from the EIG to fund free nursery provision. SSCCs
are part of the local provision to support children and their families. We know that SSCCs and other services
are facing cuts, and this will result in some children and their families not being able to access early intervention
services when mental health issues first arise. If these problems are not tackled early on, they are likely to
become chronic and entrenched and continue into adulthood. So cuts to these services do not make clinical or
economic sense.
3. Core Purpose
We generally support the Core Purpose for Sure Start Children’s Centres (SSCC) and are particularly pleased
to see that promoting child development and mental health is included in the overall aims of SSCCs.
3.1. Overall SSCC’s should focus on social and emotional learning outcomes in order to underpin the school
readiness aspect of the new core purpose. For example if parent child attachment issues are resolved by the
reception year, attendance at school is likely to be a less traumatic event. Also, if children have developed a
calm behaviour they are more likely to tolerate the demands of structure and focus at school and be able to
engage successfully with teachers and other children.
3.2. Parental, particularly maternal mental health is known to impact on child behavioural outcomes. Where
SSCC have good multi-agency working and strong use of the Common Assessment framework they are in a
good position to identify parents with mental health needs linked to pregnancy. For instance, if they identified
perinatal depression, they could start engaging the mother and her children, with the SSCC services as soon as
possible. Family Action does this through their volunteer befriending based Perinatal Support Project, which
is located in West Mansfield children’s centres. Islington Council has a First 21 months strategy whereby a
range of relevant health professionals for example midwives are based in all their children’s centres. Given the
importance of the first two years in child development a focus on parental mental health and well-being would
boost SSCC outcomes overall and in social and emotional learning and boost uptake in respect of the two-year
old offer.
3.3. The overall focus of the core purpose is on disadvantaged children, the higher flows of disadvantaged
children through the two year old offer, and the expectation that councils will link SSCCs to the Troubled
Families Programme would suggest increased engagement with families with multiple complex needs. This
will mean that SSCCs will need to provide a range of services—including intensive, outreach and group-basedthat can support parental and child mental health and well-being. This is particularly important given the
expectation of the core purpose that SSCCs should increasingly function as community hubs and that
disadvantaged parents should engage with activities and participate in the running of the centres. Better parental
mental health will need to support these levels of participation.
3.4. We believe that the Core Purpose should include relationship support as one of the bullet points under
point 1 (ie the Core Purpose). Relegating relationship support to the section on targeted interventions for
families in greatest need—as the document currently does—will do nothing to change the culture around
relationship support, something which is one of the Government’s own objectives
(http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/families/relationship/a00212569/relationship-supportfirst-time-parents-trial).
3.5. After all, it is not only “families in greatest need” who can be helped by relationship support. Focusing
only on “parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills” as the means to improve child development
and school readiness will mean that the opportunity for services that help parents whose relationship is running
into difficulty before such problems become entrenched (http://tccr.ac.uk/policy/policy-briefings/273relationship-difficulties-tccr-policy-briefing) will be missed, with all the negative consequences that parental
relationship distress, conflict and/or breakdown can have on children’s emotional, social and cognitive
development
(http://tccr.ac.uk/policy/policy-briefings/267-impact-of-couple-conflict-on-children-tccr-policybriefing)
4. However, there are some omissions in the current terms of reference. The lessons from literature on
evidence based interventions indicate that it is not just what you make available, but also the way that you
make evidence-based programmes available (Fixsen, 2005; Centre for Mental Health, 2012). So:
4.1.1. Engagement and stopping people from dropping out is key. All the literature makes it very clear that
some of the most powerful factors supporting engagement with interventions are the practical
facilitators (convenience of contact, crèches, ease of transport, venues etc). The Centre for Mental
Health’s recent evaluation of national practice in relation to evidence-based parenting programmes
highlighted that these were the areas of practice most likely to be cut by commissioners (Centre
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w12 Education Committee: Evidence
for Mental Health, 2012)—anything that interferes with your engagement and retention levels is a
false economy.
4.1.2. Research highlights that you need person-centred, therapeutically skilled and highly engaging staff
trained in delivery (otherwise in some instances you can make outcomes worse for children—(Scott,
et al., 2008); staff need a system of ongoing coaching and supervision supporting continuous
improvement and reflective practice to maximise their ability to turnaround children’s outcomes and
replicate promised results. This is also important as a support for paraprofessionals (Korfmacher, et
al., 1999).
4.1.3. More integrated working relies on more integrated and inclusive strategic needs assessment and
outcome-setting involving all key parties (midwives, voluntary sector, health visitors, social care,
speech and language therapist, EY workers, parents, CAMHS/IAPT, education, housing etc). Health
and Well Being boards must play a key part in drawing together a broad range of data and partners
setting clear messages about ambitions for local children.
4.1.4. Centres need stable funding in order to sustain good quality practice (Fixsen, 2005)
5. The early evaluations of the local Sure Start programmes found that often the most vulnerable children
and their families were not accessing these services. This is a concern as these children are potentially at
greatest risk of developing mental health problems and are likely to have negative outcomes more generally.
So, it is good to hear that the most recent evaluation has shown that SSCCs are now engaging with the most
vulnerable groups.
5.1. However, the national evaluation found that there were improved outcomes for parents, but not for
children. So it is important that SSCCs understand what the needs of the children in their area are,
and use evidence based/informed practice to improve outcomes for children as well.
6. Evidence Based/Informed Practice
6.1. Children often communicate emotional or developmental distress through their behaviour. Given what
research tells us about the dramatic impact of early behavioural problems on children’s long term prospects
(Fergusson, 2005); it is particularly essential to see children’s behaviour as a critical gauge for their
developmental well-being (Centre for Mental Health, 2012). Behaviour should be tracked just as you would
track hearing or other developmental progress.
6.2. There are a number of relevant NICE guidelines and other evidence based/informed practice that could
be implemented in SSCC. Evidence-based parenting programmes focusing on supporting positive parenting
have now been proven to support better outcomes for children with early behavioural problems through over
100 RCTs. They are suitable for use from three years of age, building on the important foundation of parental
risk/attachment-based work highlighted above. They also form an important part of core CC provision. Some
of these programmes are delivered in some areas by well-supported parent graduates.
7. There is a lot of potential for SSCCs to improve outcomes for children and their families, but it depends
on what services are available, and which professionals are employed and what grade they are. We have heard
anecdotally that GPs find SSCC really useful as a service to refer families onto regarding mental health
problems; but some SSCC have lost their clinical psychologists. The loss of these mental health professionals
from the SSCC has implications for the mental health support available within the centre, and can mean that
GPs can no longer refer families who have a child with mental health issues to SSCCs.
8. Measuring Outcomes
8.1. There are some well validated tools, which will help SSCC measure children and families outcomes.
8.2. The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire is a validated tool which tracks children’s behaviour and
emotional well being in relation to norms. In Wales it is used by Health visitors as a key part of standard
developmental health tests supporting children’s well being. Through this routine contact, health visitors build
up a whole population picture of where children sit in relation to UK norms. They can then also work with
Children’s Centres to assess to what extent these units are engaging these families (ie work out who you are
not engaging). In this way, Health Visitors can also identify children and families who may need extra outreach
support with parenting support or motivational help from voluntary sector or mentoring services to access
broader Children’s Centre services.
8.3. Collation of SDQ data also assists Children’s Centres in Birmingham evaluate the accuracy of their
outreach to vulnerable families in local communities; before using SDQ, estimates of accuracy were based on
guesswork and worker perception which often proved to be unreliable (Social Research Unit, 2010).
8.4. There are other tools available. More information about relevant tools can be found in the following
resources: Finding and Using Effective Measuring tools http://pelorous.totallyplc.com/public/cms/115/237/85/
6728/Evaluation%20tools%2015%20Feb%202012.pdf?realName=uKkLx6.pdf and a systematic review of
relevant tools from the Anna Freud Centre—http://www.ucl.ac.uk/clinical-psychology/EBPU/publications/pubfiles/Mental%20Health%20Outcome%20Measures%20for%20Children%20and%20Young%20People.pdf
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w13
9. Funding and Cuts
9.1. We know that local authorities have taken a big cut in funding, and for many this has resulted in their
child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) budget being radically cut (YoungMinds, 2011). This is
likely to result in early intervention services provided by the local authority, or by commissioned voluntary
sector organisations being reduced or cut. So, if a GP, for instance can’t refer a child and their parents with
mental health issues to a local SSCC, it is likely that there will not be any other services they could be referred
to. They are unlikely to be referred or have their referral accepted by a specialist CAMHS teams, unless the
child is in significant mental distress. If what might be minor mental heath, behavioural or relationship problems
isn’t addressed at an early stage they can get worse and potentially turn into chronic and entrenched mental
health problems that continue into adulthood.
9.2. We know that there are already a high number of young people with mental health problems. For
instance, 1 in 10 children and young people have a mental disorder; and many more have milder problems,
which haven’t yet reached the clinical threshold for a disorder. Having a mental health problem can have a big
impact on a child’s academic and life outcomes. For instance they are more likely to be excluded from school;
more likely to leave school without educational qualifications; Children with conduct disorders and severe
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) may be four to five times more likely to struggle to attain
literacy and numeracy skills (Green, et al., 2005) (Parry-Langdon, 2008).
9.3. We are concerned about funding for SSCC and the consequences this will have for the number and
range of services available. The 4Children’s SSCC Census (2012) found that there was a reduction of 281
centres since April 2010. Back then most were coping, but 10% were struggling. Funding can come from the
Early Intervention Grant (EIG), but this has been reduced already, and there are plans to hold back money
from the EIG to fund free nursery provision.
9.4. So it is likely that more SSCC will close or merge, and many more will struggle. Closing of SSCC is
likely to mean that it is harder for some families to access these services, so those families who most need
support may not access the help.
9.5. Closing SSCC is very short sighted as research has estimated that £4.60 will be generated in social
value for every £1 invested in effective Children’s Centres (Action for Children and NEF, 2009).
References
4Children (2012) Sure Start Children’s Centres census 2012. London: 4Children. http://www.4children.org.uk/
Resources/Detail/Sure-Start-Childrens-Centres-Census-2012
Action for Children and New Economics Foundation (2009) Backing the future: why investing in children is
good for us all. London: New Economics Foundation. http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/media/94361/
action_for_children_backing_the_future.pdf
Centre for Mental Health, 2012. A Chance to Change: delivering effective parenting programmes to transform
lives. Centre for Mental Health: London
Fergusson, D., Horwood, J. & Ridder, E., 2005. Show me the child at seven: the consequences of conduct
problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood.. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
46:8,, pp. 837–849.
Fixsen, D. L. et al., 2005. Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature, Tampa, FL: University of
of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research
Network.
Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., et al. (2005). Mental health of children and young people in Great
Britain 2004. London: Palgrave. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/GB2004.pdf
Korfmacher, J., O’Brien, R., Hiatt, S. & and Olds, D., 1999. Differences in programme implementation between
nurses and paraprofessionals providing home visits during pregnancy and infancy: a randomised trial. American
Journal of Public Health, 89(12), pp. 1847–1851.
Parry-Langdon, N. (ed) (2008) Three years on: survey of the development and emotional well-being of children
and young people. Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Scott, S., Carby, A. & Rendu, A., 2008. Impact of Therapists’ Skill on Effectiveness of Parenting Groups for
Child Antisocial Behavior. [Online] available at: http://www.incredibleyears.com/library/items/therapists-skill_
08.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2012].
The Social Research Unit, 2011b. Preliminary Findings from Evaluation of Evidence-Based Programmes
Implemented in Birmingham (updated), Dartington: The Social Research Unit.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w14 Education Committee: Evidence
YoungMinds (2011) Children and young people’s mental health services slashed by funding cuts. London:
YoungMinds.
http://www.youngminds.org.uk/news/news/430_children_and_young_peoples_mental_health_
services_slashed_by_funding_cuts
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Family Action
This response is based on the views of our senior children’s centre practitioners and Family Action’s general
experience of running and working with Sure Start children’s centres:
— Offering our core model the Family Action family support service, (FSS) as part of multi-agency
teams in children’s centres in Roehampton and Battersea, Wandsworth, and Edge Hill, Liverpool.
— Managing Sure Start children’s centres in Miles Platting Manchester; Southend, Essex; Islington and
West Mansfield, Nottinghamshire.
— Via staff who previous to working via Family Action worked in roles in local authorities establishing
earlier Sure Start programmes and centres.
The new Core Purpose of Sure Start children’s centres, how this has evolved and is different from the
original design and purpose of Sure Start
1. The core purpose of children’s centres was stated by the DfE in April 2012 as r. Improving outcomes for
young children and their families, with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged families, in order to reduce
inequalities in child development and school readiness. This is to be supported by improved: parenting
aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills; and child and family health and life chances.
2. Some evolution of the core purpose is inevitable. The early days of Sure Start were about development
and experimentation in provision, now, following learning from the experience of Sure Start, there is a need
for the core purpose to address improvement
3. The new core purpose differs from the original which focussed less on school readiness, and more on
child-parent interaction and the role of parent as first teacher. The new document also places greater emphasis
on transiting parents to employment.
4. In some respects the core purpose is now looser, and more holistic. For example there is a greater drive
for more of the community to derive benefit from children’s centres by using them as social hubs and extending
their reach to older children.
5. At the same time, at a time of reduced children’s centre budgets, the reality is that implementation of the
core purpose is under greater scrutiny, and providers greater pressure to demonstrate that they are reaching
high proportions of groups targeted as disadvantaged, and that budget is being directed at these groups.
6. Despite the moves to extend children’s centres as community hubs the underlying reality is that children’s
centres are not for everyone in the community, and are in fact targeted at the most disadvantaged children and
families. Arguably this returns Sure Start to its original purpose and is where the focus must be at times of
restricted funding. At the same time the concern will be to ensure that families are not stigmatised for engaging
with children’s centres.
7. In practice many disadvantaged families contain older as well as younger children; and in line with Family
Action’s ethos and ways of working there is a need to work holistically with the whole family to tackle
disadvantage so the more holistic emphasis of the new core purpose is welcome. The concern will be to retain
the focus on excellence in early years provision even as children’s centres offer activities for older children;
also that as centres deliver helping parents access work this does not have unlooked-for, inimical impacts on
their parenting or the budget for directly working with children at a time of cuts.
8. There needs to be some thought given as to how all current providers of children’s centres are placed in
terms of skills to meet all aspects of the new core purpose, including the increased stress on targeting the most
disadvantaged. For example our experience is that school providers, while strong on learning outcomes, do
less well at targeting the most disadvantaged and safeguarding.
The effectiveness and impact of Sure Start children’s centres to date, including the role of Ofsted inspections
9. The children’s centres that we manage in Manchester, West Mansfield and Southend have been judged
good and outstanding in recent Ofsted inspections, including in terms of children’s learning outcomes.
Hometalk, the programme our West Mansfield centres operate with in partnership with the Nottinghamshire
speech and language therapy team, can cut the number of children requiring speech therapy by around 80% by
working with parents to make sure that they provide a more effective language learning environment at home
for their children. A similar programme, Narrowing the Gap, is being delivered in our Southend children’s
centre with the aim promoting parental support for children’s learning at home, and is also showing good
results. However adult learning and progression into employment are more difficult outcomes for all our centres
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w15
to reach given the low qualifications and literacy of very disadvantaged parents; and high unemployment. It
can take up to a year and sometimes longer to ensure some parents are job-ready.
10. Overall the National Evaluation of Sure Start found that:
— At age three, SSLP children had more advanced social skills—they were more independent and
showed more self-control.
— Parents living in SSLP areas showed less of the characteristics of “negative” parenting.
— Overall, there were positive effects relating to SSLPs in seven of the 14 areas assessed. (NESS
(2008), p.4).
11. Overall it is disappointing that research into Ofsted reports show that children’s centres remain patchy
in delivering on the core outcomes. For example they are generally doing well on safeguarding and supporting
families and parents, but less well on delivering improvements in learning.
10. Some of this may be to do with the data collection and trail. In particular the linkages to the EYFS
results are not always clear. Certainly it is our experience that the outcomes are optimised when local authorities
have clear strategies for structuring their delivery and measurement from the start. For example Wandsworth
had a clear strategy to reduce the EYFS gap between the most advantaged and disadvantaged wards, linked
Family Action family support into specific children’s centres with this aim and linked this into data collection
from schools so that it could be shown that our services were having an impact on reducing the attainment gap
in the reception year.
11. Overall there is a lot of emphasis on hard indicators but by themselves these do not enable effective
analysis or planning. For example one hard indicator used for children’s centres is the number of looked-after
children using centres. However a soft indicator for this group which does not exist is the number of children
being placed in the children’s centres out of area by other local authorities. Children under five with a disability
including SEN are a group for whom data or an indicator do not generally exist.
12. Another aspect of data collection that affects outcomes is that children’s centres do not generally operate
on an individual, but on a cluster, basis with children and parents registered at one children’s centre being able
to take up programmes and activities at other centres in the cluster. However children’s centres are limited to
measuring outcomes for children and parents registered with their centre only.
13. In recent years Ofsted inspections have changed to reflect the targeted reach of children’s centres and
inspectors require children’s centres to demonstrate that they are reaching the most disadvantaged. Inspections
are generally more rigorous.
14. While children’s centres are now being expected to act as community hubs and deliver for older children
Ofsted are only measuring outcomes for the under fives
15. In general Ofsted inspectors are largely drawn from teaching backgrounds, they are not drawn from the
early year’s sector and consequently they sometimes have poor understanding of the core purpose, the multiagency working with health which is so important to children’s centres and the presenting data. For example
Ofsted are generally accustomed to understanding educational data, not public health data. It is our experience
that unless centre managers provide a great deal of background information poor conclusions are reached.
16. The cluster based model of children’s centres as noted above gives particular challenges for judging the
delivery of individual centres; as does the fact that most work delivered in children’s centres is delivered on
group, rather than on a one-to-one, basis.
The range of services and activities provided at Sure Start children’s centres, and their desired outcomes, and
whether/how these differ from family centres, early Sure Start local programmes and early years settings.
16. Family centres are social care-focused whereas children’s centres are about early intervention. However
by focusing on disadvantaged groups and working with older groups children’s centres do risk some duplication
and similar levels of stigma.
17. In order to improve targeting of the disadvantaged Sure Start is increasingly moving out of children’s
centres to outreach in community settings. In this way it is returning to SSLP roots.
18. Overall children’s centres are becoming more focused on employment outcomes for parents and learning
outcomes for children than in earlier stages of Sure Start. Overall we consider these are the right outcomes to
look for. However, we believe it is vital that children’s centres retain general child development and the
reduction of child poverty at the forefront of their vision.
How to define and measure good practice in family and parenting support and outreach, including the
effectiveness of the Government’s payment by results trials, and what measures of child development and
school readiness might be used:
19. Family Action defines and measures good practice in family and parenting support and outreach using
the Family Star http://www.family-action.org.uk/section.aspx?id=13976. The Family Star is a visual tool
focused on improvement across eight key areas of parenting including “setting boundaries” keeping a routine
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w16 Education Committee: Evidence
“providing emotional support”, providing home and money; promoting good health, promoting learning,
keeping your child safe; and social networks. We use this because it is an assessment and monitoring tool that
is readily understood commissioners, parents and practitioners thus enabling a partnership approach with all
stakeholders. We have found that many clinical tools, while vital in some contexts, are not readily understood
by all and exclude parents from the process of engaging with the process of measuring their own progress.
20. In terms of child development and school readiness there needs to be a focus on social and emotional
learning; for example the resolution of attachment issues so that children can contemplate their first day alone
at school confidently; the calm and focus necessary so that children can tolerate the demands of structure and
attending to input from a teacher; and the emotional intelligence to interact with children and adults outside
the home.
How to increase the use of evidence-based early intervention in children’s centres
21. The question needs to be asked “what are we intervening in, why and how?” For example children with
SEN require intervention as early as possible but the issue remains that even when SEN is identified there is
usually little if any resource to respond to them before they leave children’s centres.
22. If we are talking about delivery of manualised parenting programmes then early years staff are often not
highly qualified and do not have sufficient skills or capacity to deliver evidence-based early intervention on a
programme basis. This is better delivered by family support workers and social workers who have the necessary
skills. It is also more readily scaled when delivered on a cluster basis. However it does require resourcing in
terms of monies available for training of staff and measurement of the delivery of programmes.
23. Family Action makes use of a number of evidence based parenting programmes such as Mellow
Parenting, Triple P and Solihull. But our experience tells us what is primarily needed is for disadvantaged
parents to engage with evidence-based programmes in the first place. As the British Psychological Society has
recently pointed out the usefulness of such programmes is limited if they are not socially inclusive and the
parents who need them most cannot engage with them in the first place (Davis et al, Technique is not enough,
British Psychological Society August 2012). There is also little point in adopting behavioral strategies if one
is unaware of the root causes of the behavioral issues. It is our experience that intensive family support carried
out in a partnership spirit with families in their own home can be vital to persuading parents to engage in such
programmes and understanding which evidence-based programmes will be of benefit.
How to strengthen integrated working between health, social care and education as part of a multi-agency
early help offer, including how to improve information-sharing and the proposal for children’s centres to have
access to a “named social worker”
24. Siloised training of the different disciplines ie education, health, social work early years) and the differing
outcomes looked for in early child development and learning by these professionals are presently obstacles to
integration and require addressing. The proposed integrated two-year-old check may be a useful step toward
this. However there are also resourcing issues which affect capacity for partnership working
25. The CAF (Common Assessment Framework) can provide a useful mechanism for assessing the risk to,
and needs of, the most vulnerable children and can improve multi-agency working depending on local
relationships and commitment to this way of working by all the parties.
26. A common risk assessment framework for new mothers judged to be vulnerable at the ante-natal stage
would be valuable in encouraging a range of professionals to work together at the earliest possible stage for
vulnerable families. Ideally joint working should start as soon a child is born because that is when parents will
be most receptive to help.
27. Our Perinatal Support Project, based in our West Mansfield children’s centres, is an example of a project
which promotes this co-operation on very early intervention. Our professional Perinatal Support Co-coordinator
trains and supervises volunteer befrienders to work with women at risk of ante and post natal depression to
reduce their social isolation and build confidence in attunement to the baby’s needs. This activity is backed by
multi-agency referral networks including midwives and health visitors and support groups for parents based in
the centre. This ensures children centres and health professionals work to respond to families needs at the
earliest possible stage and parents are encouraged to engage with the children’s centre as soon as possible
which should be beneficial to optimizing the two-year old childcare offer .
28. Data sharing by health remains an issue. We understand this will be tackled by a protocol that is
forthcoming from DH.
29. A named social worker could be helpful but only in so far as this individual is resourced adequately to
respond to the children’s centre and its service users.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w17
How to increase the involvement of families (especially fathers, disadvantaged families, minority ethnic
groups and families of children with SEN and disabled children) in the running of children’s centres and in
their regular activities
30. Family Action specializes in increasing the uptake of children’s centres by disadvantaged families and
children. In our experience the offer of home-based family support is vital to ensuring that families with
multiple complex needs are able to engage with centres. If parents do not have routines to manage family life
it is unlikely that they will arrive at centres in time for scheduled activities; children will not be able to engage
with other children successfully or parents may feel unduly stigmatised by their difficulties.
31. The experience of our Hornsey Road centre is that the offer of ESOL classes is vital to engaging parents
from diverse groups in the centre, and ensuring that they can volunteer and participate in the running of the
centres and they can take advantage of support with training and employment. Also creche support will be
vital to pay for their participation in this and parent fora.
32. It is vital to consult with parents as to what they need and want and to ensure appropriate scheduling of
activities. For example our Hornsey Road centre runs popular groups for fathers and children on Saturdays so
that fathers separated from their families can engage with their children and other fathers on weekend time.
33. In terms of the running of centres it needs to be recognised that disadvantaged parents are often coming
from a low base of education and skills, as well as needing to spend time to bring up their children. Typically
we start engagement with undemanding activities which are attractive to parents and children—Tip Toe Dance
sessions for example—we then look to engage them in more obvious learning activity. When they attend
regularly we may look to engaging parents in involvement in parent fora and volunteering. After this they may
be ready to participate in advisory boards alongside professionals and to begin seeking employment. But
generally by the time parents have the skills to run centres their children are ready to leave the centres; and
parents themselves are preoccupied by moving onto training and work.
How the overall level and quality of provision is being affected by moves to local funding.
34. Our experience is that funding is restricted while we as a provider are being pressed to do more for less.
This scenario presents challenges to all providers for investment in staff delivering in a quality way and has
inevitably meant the loss of some activities. We are deeply concerned that the changes to the Early Intervention
Grant will translate into effective cuts for early intervention activities in children’s centres.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by the Association of Senior Children’s and Education Librarians
The Library Service has worked closely with Sure Start Programmes since these programmes were developed
and in many cases library staff involved in the strategic development of the programmes. In some cases Library
staff were funded through Sure Start to work into centres, for e.g. in Derbyshire where these staff are now
employed through Children’s Services. This firm partnership has linked to the following Sure Start criteria as
listed in the call for evidence:
—
Outreach work with parents is supported in the partnership between libraries and Children’s Centres.
The activities that libraries offer through the group work of story times and rhyme times provide
parents with a social outing where they are able to talk to other parents and also talk to professional
staff from Children’s Centres. Some examples of work supported by Children’s Centre staff in
libraries include information on welfare benefits, local nursery provision, safeguarding issues.
—
Literacy support to children and families with direct delivery of literacy projects within libraries and
Children’s Centres. High quality book stock for all ages and abilities available free from libraries
stimulates a child’s desire to read.. They also offer books and universal resources in different formats
to Children’s Centres to support disadvantaged families, minority ethnic groups and families of
children with SEN and disabled children.
—
Integrated working through the Bookstart Programme, a multi-agency early years literacy focused
scheme brings together professional staff from health, libraries and Children’s Centres to share
information and expertise. In Calderdale research was carried out including interviews with parents
and teaching staff from Children’s Centres. Whilst parents described the value of sharing books with
their children as being invaluable, the Children Centre teacher describes the outcomes of this
experience in many other ways. She describes the fine motor skills practiced by children when
turning pages, the building blocks to reading. The vocabulary and hand/eye coordination which
develop. The value of talking about stories with all the communication skills this promotes, and also
the close, bonding one to one time between parent and child that book sharing supports.
—
Consultation with families about the provision of regular activities in their local Children’s Centre
often takes place in libraries where families are very comfortable sharing their ideas in a free, safe
and comfortable environment. Often parents all know each other as they meet together on a weekly
basis for story times and therefore they are for more confident in their responses.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w18 Education Committee: Evidence
One final comment links to the current economic climate. In light of the joint working that exists combined
with the location of both Children’s Centres and libraries with buildings in very close proximity, could the
future include some joint centres.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by The Early Childhood Forum (ECF)
The Early Childhood Forum (ECF) is a voluntary organisation hosted by the National Children’s Bureau
(NCB). It is a coalition of 61 professional associations, voluntary organisations and interest groups united in
their concern about the well-being, learning and development of young children from birth to eight and their
families. Its vision is to bring together partners in the early childhood sector to promote inclusion and challenge
inequalities, and to champion quality experiences for all young children from birth to eight and their families.
We welcome the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.
1. Children’s Centre’s provide the most cost effective way of supporting parents and children in the crucial
early years when interventions if needed are most effective.
Many of the services offered provide parents with support with parenting, breastfeeding, learning English,
understanding healthy eating and living and much more.
They provide easy access to professionals with expertise.
2. “Stay and play” sessions, which are offered in many Children’s Centres, are hugely popular and often
have long waiting lists. Parents are able to play with their children in a friendly and supportive environment
with staff who can help with any problems and identify issues which can then be resolved more easily. The
importance of children playing with their parents cannot be underestimated. Relationships are improved and
parents understand why play is essential for children’s health, confidence and wellbeing.
3. Outdoor play is particularly crucial for young—and older children- and can often be offered in Children’s
Centres. When children play outdoors they become more resilient to disease, develop a healthy connection
with nature which reduces stress and have exercise which means they are less likely to become obese. Too
many children suffer from mental health problems; this would not occur to such an extent if they had more
opportunities to play outdoors. The National Trust has recently produced a report on “Natural Childhood”
which provides “compelling evidence that...our children are exhibiting the symptoms of ‘Nature Deficit
Disorder’ through a lack of contact with nature”. The costs of not doing anything about this in the long term
are huge.
4. When health, social care and education experts work together as they do in many Children’s Centre’s the
outcomes for families and children are far better than when they work separately. Everything possible should
be done both nationally. Locally and in each Children’s Centre to make sure that this works well.
5. The cost of running Children’s Centre’s with all the services and support they provide is far less than the
costs of putting children into care or dealing with issues at a later stage when problems become more serious
and it is more difficult to find lasting solutions.
6. Evaluations currently being done by Children’s Centre’s show that parents through attending the groups
offered become more confident and are often helped to find work and childcare . Without this they would be
likely to be on benefits.
7. The over emphasis on requiring a lot of data needs to be addressed. This can distort the way in which
services are provided Of course there must be evidence of the numbers of families who are reached and the
services they attend but most of the work needs to be outreach work—finding the families who have young
children and encouraging them to be involved with other parents and children and to gain skills which will
help them not only to get into work but also to provide a better life for their children.
8. It is vitally important that those who run Children’s Centre’s are well qualified—teachers with good
experience and understanding of the early years and how children learn.
Young children need to be offered a range of activities both physical and creative, supported by adults rather
than “taught” by adults. Through imaginative play children learn many skills and grow in confidence. Formal
learning—sitting down, staying still does not help the brain develop. In most countries where children do far
better than in England formal learning does not begin before children are six or seven. Schools and teachers
need to be ready for children.
9. The early years are an important stage in children’s lives of growth and development, they are not a time
to “get ready for school”. The reason why we have so many children not able to read is because they start too
early and fail or struggle because the brain is not yet ready for abstract concepts. Evidence for this has been
collected in “School Readiness: a critical review of perspective and evidence” by David Whitebread and Sue
Bingham, University of Cambridge.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w19
10. Inspectors need to have a background, experience and deep understanding of the early years—and many
do not. A few days training cannot compensate for lack of experience and expertise in the development and
needs of young children. Inspections need to support the improvement of Children’s Centre’s. There will always
be variations in quality but help to get better is more productive than condemnation.
11. All Children’s Centre’s need to be of high quality and many are but the cuts which have been made in
local authority funding and the decision not to ring fence the funding for Early intervention has resulted in a
loss not only of services but also of quality. An increasing number of Children’s Centre’s have closed.
12. Successful Children’s Centre’s provide universal, rather than targeted services.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Ofqual
1. In relation to the scope of the inquiry, our interest and experience as the regulator of qualifications and
assessments focuses on the following points:
— how to increase the use of evidence-based early intervention in children’s centres;
— the effectiveness and impact of Sure Start children’s centres to date, including the role of Ofsted
inspections;
— how to define and measure good practice in family and parenting support and outreach, including
the effectiveness of the Government’s payment by results trials, and what measures of child
development and school readiness might be used.
Our role
2. Under the 2009 ASCL Act, we have a duty to review all aspects of National Assessment arrangements
which include statutory assessment relating to the Early Years Foundations Stage and the National Curriculum.
We review assessments from development to implementation in relation to their specified purpose as well as
their intended uses. Our goal is to safeguard the interests of the learner and we expect all children to have
access to assessments which are:
— appropriate to their age;
— an effective measure of their abilities, skills and concept development;
— fair to all irrespective of gender, language, religion, ethnic or social origin or disability.
3. We have two statutory objectives, one relating to the maintenance of assessment standards and the other
to promoting public confidence; these are detailed in our Regulatory Framework for National Assessments:
National Curriculum and Early Years Foundation Stage (Ofsted 2011):
http://www2.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2011-regulatory-framework-for-national-assessments.pdf?Itemid=198
Our contribution to the inquiry
Enabling practitioner judgments
4. With regard to evidence based intervention, we understand the importance of practitioners making accurate
and consistent judgments about children’s achievement and attainment. Our work in this area has led us to
identify the key aspects of a national system which enable more accurate judgments to be made. Our evidence
is both qualitative and quantitative and draws on small focus groups to large scale surveys of parents.
5. Where an equitable system is required, we would argue that evidence based intervention is enabled when
there is a clear process in place for:
— developing and publishing national standards—the criteria which practitioners can use to assess
children attainment;
— providing training, exemplification of standards and guidance for practitioners;
— creating opportunities for practitioners to work with colleagues to discuss and compare judgements;
— moderation of practitioner judgements by an external process and training for moderators;
— defining a clear purpose to the assessment and providing information on how any outcomes from
the assessment will be used;
— making available guidance and exemplar material for the information of parents.
Threats to accurate practitioner judgments
6. Effective evidence-based intervention is secured when practitioners’ assessment judgments can be
considered as valid, reliable across settings, Local Authorities and regions and comparable over time. Those
designing the approach to assessment should ensure it is manageable for practitioners and should have taken
steps minimise any bias so that it is as fair as possible for all learners.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w20 Education Committee: Evidence
7. Our work in relation to National Assessment has enabled us to identify a number of potential threats to
accurate and comparable assessment and hence to both evidence-based intervention and to ways of measuring
the effectiveness of practitioners and settings. It is important that perverse incentives are not introduced into
assessment systems. We recommend that, where practitioners are required to assess and keep records with a
specified purpose of ascertaining children’s attainment and achievement, accompanying information is made
available on the intended and appropriate uses of outcomes of such assessments. In relation to the focus of this
inquiry, this should make clear whether outcomes are suitable to be used as:
—
a measure of “value-added” impact which could, for example, be considered by Ofsted inspectors;
—
a measure for accountability purposes e.g. payment by results or the setting and achievement of
targets;
—
a measure of practitioner competency e.g. performance related pay.
8. We suggest that the use of national assessment outcomes in the ways listed above may introduce perverse
incentives and reduce the likelihood that the assessment is valid for its purpose and primary uses; that is to
make accurate assessments of the attainment of each child, to provide evidence for practitioners to plan for
and enable children’s future learning and to offer reliable information to parents.
9. We are also aware of current plans to develop and establish a “school readiness” measure based on the
outcomes of the newly configured Early Years Foundation Stage Profile, carried out in the final term of the
Reception year when children are around the age of five years. We are seeking to be kept informed of such
developments since we have a direct interest in terms of our statutory objectives.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by The Children’s Society
Introduction
The Children’s Society supports over 48,000 children and young people every year through our children’s
centres and specialist services. We believe in achieving a better childhood for every child but have a particular
focus on vulnerable and disadvantaged children. We seek to give a voice to children and young people and
influence policy and practice so they have a better chance in life. This response is based on the work of The
Children’s Society with children and families in 43 children’s centres across England.
1. The new Core Purpose of Sure Start children’s centres, how this has evolved and is
different from the original design and purpose of Sure Start
The Department for Education (DfE) are moving away from a “core offer” which children’s centres must
deliver, towards a core purpose, where outcomes are defined, and increased local flexibility is permitted in
designing and delivering services to achieve those outcomes. The DfE have now begun to set out the core
purpose of children’s centres, centred around child development and school readiness; parenting aspirations
and parenting skills; and child and family health and life chances.
We welcome the introduction of a “core purpose” for Sure Start children’s centres, in order to provide
increased focus on the desired outcomes of children’s centres, rather than just the specific outputs required to
achieve this.
However, we are very concerned that reductions in the value of the Early Intervention Grant which funds
children’s centre services, will undermine the ability of centres to achieve the very best outcomes for children.
The core purpose also reemphasises the focus of Sure Start on the most disadvantaged and reducing
inequalities (see question 3).
2. The effectiveness and impact of Sure Start children’s centres to date, including the role of
Ofsted inspections
We support Ofsted inspections of children’s centres as an important part of the accountability framework for
children’s centres. Our services often find that the inspections can be a useful tool for reflection, reviewing the
services, celebrating successes and identifying areas for improvement.
We understand that Ofsted is in the process of revising the framework for inspection of children’s centres.
Our children’s centres concerns around Ofsted inspections involve the high expectations inspectors have of the
data and information children’s centres can provide. Information sharing at local authority level can be a
particular problem with many of our centres reporting that they are not provided with key information like
new birth data from their local health service. Another issue is that Ofsted has high expectations of the
involvement of partner organisations in inspections. Our experience is that it can be difficult to get external
partner organisations to be involved in inspections.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w21
Recommendation: Local authorities should support further integrated working between children’s centres and
partner organisations in order to enable more effective Ofsted inspections. See section 7 for suggestions for
improvement to integrated working.
3. The range of services and activities provided at Sure Start children’s centres, and their
desired outcomes, and whether/how these differ from family centres, early Sure Start local
programmes and early years settings.
Children’s centres provide a range of services and activities that can be loosely divided into universal
services that are open to all in their reach area, such as stay and play sessions, and more targeted services like
family support aimed at supporting the most disadvantaged families17. The children’s centre core purpose reemphasises the need for children’s centres to focus on supporting the most disadvantaged children and families.
The originally principle behind Sure Start Local Programmes was “progressive universalism” involving
providing universal interventions alongside targeted work to support the most disadvantaged. These Local
Programmes were well funded and targeted at very deprived areas.
With the new core purpose and often less resources, our children’s centres report a greater pressure from
local authorities to focus on services targeted at particular groups of disadvantaged families. Some have had
to reduce universal provision.
The importance of universal services should not be underestimated as our practitioners report that they are
what get families through the door, enable staff to build relationships with families and identify any issues/
problems families may be facing before they reach crisis point. Children’s centres delivering purely targeted
services risk losing focus on early intervention/prevention, and becoming an extension of social care, or as one
of our practitioners stated, a “poor relation to the original Sure Start dream”.
Recommendation: We believe that children’s centres need to continue to be supported to provide a
combination of universal services open to anyone within the centre’s reach area, and services targeted at the
most vulnerable families.
4. The introduction of Payment By Results in Early Years settings18
The department for education are looking at introducing the use of Payment by Results (PBR) for Sure Start
funding. The key aims of introducing PBR are:
— Incentivise LAs and providers to reach families in greatest need, and improve their outcomes;
— Improve local transparency and data quality to inform commissioners and support parental choice,
and
— Longer term improvement of cost effectiveness so public money is focused on achieving results.
DfE have proposed that a proportion of the budget for children’s centres is linked to PBR, and that even at
low proportions of funding delivered in this way, this will encourage innovation and behaviour change in
service delivery.
The DfE have established 27 pilots of PBR for Sure Start children’s centres. The aim is to establish a final
set of measures so that PBR can be rolled out nationally in 2013–14.
We believe six principles must underpin the introduction of PBR in early years settings:
1. No children’s centre should find itself without enough funds to deliver their core purpose—incentives
of additional funds should be used to encourage a focus on outcomes, targeting of the most
disadvantaged, and fostering of innovative approaches to service delivery. However, a base budget
must be at a minimum level, sufficient to achieve the core purpose, and to ensure that children and
families retain access to key services.
2. Outcomes against which centres are assessed, and how these are measured, must be tailored to the
circumstances of individual children’s centres—generic measures based on absolute performance,
e.g. a particular Ofsted rating, risk a vicious circle with greater funding flowing to already highly
performing centres, reinforcing the quality divide between centres.
3. PBR must be linked to improved outcomes for the most disadvantaged groups—outcomes which are
not targeted at the most disadvantaged people could result in “cherry-picking” of cheaper and easier
to run services, which do not target support at the most disadvantaged people. However, for the
reasons given in question 3 above, care also needs to be taken to ensure a balance with supporting
Universal area based provision.
4. Children’s centres must be given support to ensure their data collection and evaluation techniques
are robust enough to assess performance otherwise they will be unable to design outcomes or assess
performance accurately and effectively, many centres may currently lack these methods and
expertise. We are pleased that the government has announced support for the trial areas to support
17
18
Such as families affected by domestic violence, mental health issues, those living in poverty etc.
Question 4 has not been addressed in this response as international interventions are not our area of expertise.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w22 Education Committee: Evidence
the introduction of PBR, and believe that this support should be extended to all areas following
national roll out.
5. Sufficient time must be given between local pilots and national roll out, to ensure that the impact of
the pilots can be properly evaluated. Evidence shows that for all services there is a relatively long
time lag between changes in services and the emergence of a measurable impact on outcomes.
6. PBR arrangements should be flexible enough to respond to ongoing changes of circumstances which
affect the ability of centre to meet PBR targets. Additionally, in assessing success at meeting targets,
the process would benefit from an independent appeals process so that children’s centres can appeal
findings regarding their success in reaching targets. For example, this could be done by peer review
by a neighbouring authority.
5. How to increase the use of evidence-based early intervention in children’s centres
The most commonly available evidence based early interventions in children’s centres are parenting
programmes which are widely used in The Children’s Society children’s centres. The main driver for the use
of evidence based programmes is from local authorities, many of whom encourage the use of a particular
evidence based parenting programme. For example one of our children’s centre’s local authority requires them
to use an evidence based parenting programme as one of their key performance indicators.
However, there can be some practical issues that make it difficult for centres to run evidence based
programmes. For example, some of these programmes require crèches as parents can only attend the course if
free childcare is provided. Some of our children’s centres struggle to run crèches alongside their parenting
programme as the staffing and additional costs of providing this childcare is an added strain on already tight
budgets. Another issue is that finding staff capacity and training for the parenting programmes has become
more difficult with less resources. Our children’s centre managers have reported that it is becoming increasingly
difficult to provide evidence based early interventions like parenting programmes with what one of our
practitioners has called a “skeleton staff”.
An increase in the use of evidence based early interventions requires sufficient funding to ensure there are
adequate staff levels and training to provide evidence based early interventions in children’s centres and enable
the running of crèches to support these interventions.
6. How to strengthen integrated working between health, social care and education as part of
a multi-agency early help offer, including how to improve information-sharing and the
proposal for children’s centres to have access to a “named social worker”
Integrated working should be at the heart of children’s centre practice as they have a positive impact on
children’s outcomes and are welcomed by parents where this means they can access a range of support under
one roof.
Integrated working can be over reliant on individual workers retaining personal links with different services.
Such over reliance can make integrated working unsustainable and create problems when staff move on. In
order to be sustainable, integrated working needs to be integrated into the centre’s strategy, with a strategic
lead, to ensure that it is built into the core practice of the centre.
One key form of service integration is the sharing of information. This can currently be inconsistent between
local authorities. We believe, in particular, that all children’s centres should have access to live birth data about
children born within their reach area. This helps to ensure that all families can be approached by the centre
from the very start of a child’s life to enable early engagement with services.
Recommendation: There should be an explicit requirement for local authorities to share live birth data with
children’s centres in their area.
Integrated working between children’s centres and social services is crucial. We welcome proposals that all
children’s centres should have a named social worker. However, this needs to be supported by a commitment
to ensure that that social worker is meaningfully engaging with the centre they are attached to. Practitioners
have reported that on some occasions children’s centres have had named social workers who do not regularly
engage with the centre.
Recommendation: All children’s centres should have a named social worker with a clear commitment to
maintaining regular contact with the children’s centre.
Recommendation: In order to maximise engagement with children’s centres amongst the most disadvantaged
families, social workers should be committed to ensuring that, where the family consent, they are sharing
details with their local children’s centre, of those families with children with children in need and child
protection plans in place.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w23
7. How to increase the involvement of families (especially fathers, disadvantaged families,
minority ethnic groups and families of children with SEN and disabled children) in the
running of children’s centres and in their regular activities
We support increasing the involvement of families in the running of children’s centres as this is essential to
providing effective children’s centre services and ensuring centres are embedded in their local community.
Parents19 face a number of barriers to getting involved in the running of children’s centres. Our children’s
centre practitioners have found that some parents state that they do not have the time to get involved with
work and other commitments taking priority. Our children’s centres support families to become involved in the
running of their centre in wide a wide variety of ways from offering volunteer opportunities, consulting with
parents about the services provided to having parents on advisory boards. Centres often find that providing
support with childcare while parents are participating and in some cases providing support with travel costs is
necessary to support involvement but can be challenging with tight budgetary constraints.
Recommendation: children’s centres should offer a variety of routes to engagement with governance, to
ensure that parents have the flexibility to engage with governance on the level to which fits their individual
needs.
Involving disadvantaged families and other targeted groups (including fathers, minority ethnic groups and
families of children with SEN and disabled children) in the regular activities of children’s centres is also an
important priority for our centres. We are currently undertaking research into the barriers disadvantaged families
face in engaging with children’s centres.
Initial findings suggest a range of issues creating barriers to disadvantaged families accessing children’s
centre services, for example:
— In some areas there is still a lack of awareness and understanding of what children’s centre are and
they are not widely promoted by the local authority and partners organisations. This can make it
difficult for particularly isolated disadvantaged families to know that these services are available to
support them.
— Similarly children’s centres are not always able to access all the relevant data and information on
the families in their reach area from their local authority or local partners like health. For example,
some of our children’s centres do not always receive information on domestic violence incidents
even if families in their reach area are involved.
— Practical issues such as the size and shape of a children’s centres reach area, make it difficult from
families (particularly if they are living on a low income) to travel to the centres especially in rural
areas with poor transport links.
Recommendation: Local authorities and partner organisations should provide children’s centres with
sufficient data and information to ensure they are able to identify disadvantaged families in their area and
provide effective outreach.
Recommendation: The government should consider encouraging local authorities to reassess the extent and
shape of the reach areas of their children’s centres to ensure all families are able to access the services of the
centre in their area. Local authorities should also ensure that they are supporting and promoting children’s
centres with these disadvantaged families and raising awareness of their services.
Specific groups such as fathers, minority ethnic families and those with children with SEN and disabled
children face specific difficulties particularly if they are also from a disadvantaged cohort.
— Fathers face barriers as children’s centres are often predominantly female environments with mainly
female staff. It can also be difficult for working fathers (as well as working mothers) to attend when
activities are during work hours. children’s centres must be able to adapt to the needs of fathers. For
example, some children’s centres have had father volunteers specifically to encourage engagement
with fathers.
— Minority ethnic families can also find children’s centres unwelcoming environments particularly if
they face language barriers. The importance of integrating with the local community is essential to
tackling these cultural/language barriers. Our children’s centres in Bradford have successfully worked
with a local Eastern European migrant charity and have a number of staff and volunteers from South
Asian backgrounds which helps to engage with families from these groups.
— Families with disabled children and children with SEN also can face barriers to engagement with
children’s centres. These can include parental concerns about the safety and accessibility of centres;
concerns about attitudes of staff and parents at the centre towards disabled children and a lack of
appropriate staff training and development. Our children’s centres provide welcoming and accessible
environments for children with additional needs and many run specific activities for these children
and their families. We are also part of the Early Language Development Programme for identifying
early signs of developmental delay and improving outcomes of children with SEN through providing
the Every Child a Talker (ECAT) programme in our children’s centres.
19
Particularly in disadvantaged families.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w24 Education Committee: Evidence
Recommendation: children’s centres should respond to the needs of their local population particularly target
groups like fathers, minority ethnic families and families with children with SEN and disabled children. These
groups should be consulted with to establish their particular needs and how they would like to be engaged,
and their children’s centre services to be provided.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by Lancashire County Council
Brief introduction to the respondent
1. This response has been formulated by the Early Years Lead Officer for Lancashire County Council. The
Lead Officer has extensive experience of children’s centres, children’s social care and the childcare sector.
Lancashire has 79 children’s centres. Of those centres 48 have been inspected by Ofsted to date—25% are
graded “Outstanding” and a further 67% “Good”. The County Council continues to prioritise early support to
vulnerable families and recognises children’s centres as a prime vehicle for bringing professionals together to
serve families and the community more effectively.
Factual evidence
Changes to the core purpose
2. Lancashire welcomes the focus of the core purpose on the most vulnerable families and on closing the
outcomes gap between the least well performing children and their peers. The Core Purpose, Statutory guidance
and the Ofsted inspection framework supports a move towards consistency of delivery of services and
outcomes, which were not, included in the development of the original Sure Start programmes.
3. It is however important that children’s centres retain a universal element to their service delivery to avoid
stigmatisation of children and their families, this model ensures that early support for vulnerable children and
families is effective and has a positive impact on outcomes and on strengthening communities.
4. Lancashire advocates that resources should be targeted to need regardless of a family’s income, postcode
or any other arbitrary factor. A good example is the development of a children’s centre on an army barracks
in an area that may potentially have been overlooked due to household income levels in the wider area.
5. There is a need to review the commissioning agreements for children’s centres but this is proving
challenging as the new Core Purpose has yet to be published.
Effectiveness and impact of children’s centres
6. Lancashire can clearly demonstrate the impact of effective targeting of children’s centre services by the
outcomes from Ofsted inspections of children’s centres and the increase in FSP scores across the county.
7. The approach of multi-agency working initially developed through Sure Start Local Programmes has been
further developed within children’s centres, with an emphasis on joint training, co-location of services, and
shared processes which have brought demonstrable benefits to frontline services to families. These are
evidenced in Ofsted reports, case studies and tracking systems.
The role of Ofsted inspection
8. Ofsted inspection of children’s centres has had a beneficial impact by supporting centre leaders to focus
services on the most vulnerable children/families/groups.
9. Centre leaders have become more proficient in monitoring outcomes and demonstrating impact as a result
of the introduction of Ofsted inspections.
10. A local and national benchmark for the impact/outcomes of children’s centre services is in place for the
very first time.
11. Prevention of family situations deteriorating is a vital element of many children’s centres’ impact, but
evidence to demonstrate this aspect remains challenging.
12. Without further support and challenge from the LA between inspections it is unlikely that inspection
alone would be sufficient to guarantee continued improvement in outcomes for children and families.
Range of services provided and desired outcomes, whether/how these differ from family centres, early SSLPs
and EY settings
13. Services continue to evolve in line with the core purpose, statutory guidance and local partnerships.
14. Services offered from children’s centres have become far more consistent and targeted than those offered
in the days of local sure start programmes. Systems are now in place which identifies cost benefit analysis and
evidence of impact/outcomes.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w25
15. Children’s centres are unique in what they offer to children and their families, unlike EY settings who
generally only support the child and family centres where there resources are mainly targeted at children subject
to CIN and CP plans. The Core Purpose and the Statutory guidance ensures that CC’s support the whole child,
in terms of meeting their Health needs, supporting their early education, offering one to one family support for
vulnerable families, offering access to training, employment and volunteering opportunities, therefore
supporting the whole family and not just one element of the child or family.
16. Children’s centres have a wide range of other professionals working from their centres that support
children and their families, a “One Stop Shop”. Where families can access a wide range of services under one
roof at the same time. These include health care professionals—midwives, health visitors, baby weighing
clinics, dentists, occupational health and paediatric consultants. Parenting programmes for all carers and
parents, including ante natal and post natal programmes, evidenced based parenting programmes and 1–1
outreach support. Services, support and advice for parents and carers of CWD and SEN. Access to support and
advice from Jobcentre Plus, voluntary sector providers such as, CAB, Domestic Abuse support and local
housing support and advice. All of these services would NOT be available in a family centre or an EY setting.
How to define and measure good practice in family and parenting support and outreach, including the
effectiveness of PBR and what measures of child development and school readiness might be used
17. Lancashire has developed a family support tracker which measures impact and outcomes for children
and their families linked to the Continuum of Need. This allows cc to measure the impact of services and
support offered to children and their families.
18. Lancashire has funded 1,500 two year old places for disadvantaged two year olds across the County
from September 2011 to September 2012. As part of this programme a two year old assessment tracker has
been developed and is used by all early years’ providers who provide a funded two year old place, to date
evidence shows that all children have progressed in their development beyond that expected.
19. Evidenced based parenting programmes are used throughout CC, these identify outcomes and distanced
travelled by children and their families. A number of CC have developed their own parenting programmes that
are equally as effective as the National ones and these should be taken into account in the future.
How to increase the use of evidence based early intervention in CCs
20. Where CC have access to other professionals and services as part of an integrated team this will increase
early intervention work and its outcomes.
21. Lancashire is currently moving towards a model where a number of it’s children’s centres will be based
at the heart of the early intervention strategy therefore enhancing the role and opportunities for centres in
the future.
How to strengthen integrated working between health, social care and education as part of a multi-agency
early help offer, including how to improve information-sharing and the proposal for children’s centres to have
access to a “named social worker”
22. A number of children’s centres in Lancashire currently have access to a named social worker; this model
has strengthened joint working and improved information sharing.
23. A number of children’s centre workers have access to the social care ISSIS recording system, this allows
CC workers to directly contribute to child/family records held by social workers rather than keeping separate
records on the same child/family. This further supports integrated working, information sharing and decision
making.
24. Where CC have concerns about a child/family they are working with they can gain advice and support
from a named social worker rather than making a formal referral to CSCS. This model supports early
intervention and ensures that children and families receive timely and appropriate support.
25. All children’s centre should have a named midwife and health visitor to support their work with children
and families. Where models are in place access to health services and outcomes has improved for children and
their families.
26. The Best Start Lancashire programme, funded by the efficiencies within the County Council to the tune
of £5 million over three years, is led by CC in partnership with all primary schools to support early support.
This has led to an increase in partnership working between schools and CC. It has also led to a year on year
increase in FSP scores across Lancashire.
How to increase the involvement of fathers, disadvantaged families, BME families and children with SEN/
disabilities in the running of centres and regular activities
27. Centres need to be at the heart of the community and ensure that they engage proactively with all groups,
the advisory/governance board of the centres needs to reflect the community they serve.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w26 Education Committee: Evidence
28. Centres need to establish parents groups to enable all parents to contribute to the running of the centre
and voice their views and opinions. Regular feedback to all centre users is essential in moving centres forward.
29. Centres need to use all available national, local and internal data and take the time to understand the
needs of the local community, its priority groups and then plan services in partnership with children, parents
and providers. Regular reviews and consultation with families is essential to keep centres moving forward.
There is not a one size fits all approach.
30. Offering services outside of the normal working week can be helpful for fathers, particularly where they
only have access rights to their children at the weekends and evenings.
31. Liaising closely with partners involved in families including children with SEN/disabilities can overcome
barriers into universal services.
How the overall level and quality of provision is being affected by moves to local funding
32. Lancashire has prioritised funding for early support and prevention throughout a tough settlement period.
33. Going forward, anticipated reductions to LAs settlements from April 2013 increases the likelihood that
the council will be unable to maintain funding for children’s centres at the current rate.
34. Lancashire has done a significant amount of work to reduce spend on management and administration
functions in all children’s centres. Any future reduction to children’s centre funding is therefore likely to impact
on frontline staff which families have come to rely on.
35. Possible reductions in children’s centre services, coupled with further changes to the benefits system and
withdrawal of other mechanisms of support give rise to concern for outcomes for the most vulnerable families
in Lancashire.
36. Quality of service delivery has remained high in Lancashire children’s centres, but capacity is minimal
as other services have withdrawn or shrunk due to funding reductions. Quality is likely to suffer if budget
reductions are implemented.
37. Increasing levels of funding for schools (Pupil Premium) and GP consortia (as commissioners of services)
are perceived as opportunities. However the extent to which GPs are aware of children’s centre services and
their impact on local communities varies considerably.
38. Lancashire has committed extra resource to the development of children’s centre services across a broader
age range through Best Start Lancashire. This initiative is targeted at raising the attainment and attendance of
pupils eligible for Free School Meals. It has supported centres to improve relationships with schools in
preparation for schools’ increased role as commissioners of services.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by The Communication Trust
Background to The Communication Trust and Speech, Language and Communication
1. The Communication Trust is the campaigning voice for children with speech, language and communication
needs (SLCN). We raise awareness, influence policy, and promote best practice among the children’s workforce
and commission work from our Consortium members. We’re a coalition of nearly 50 leading voluntary sector
organizations and an advisory group, which includes the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists,
Association of Educational Psychologists and the General Teaching Council.
2. Speech language and communication skills are the basis for other key life skills: learning, literacy, positive
relationships and regulation of behaviour and emotions20. Speaking and listening skills underpin pupil
outcomes; young people with good communication skills have a wider range of life chances21. As many as
10% of children in the UK, over one million, have speech, language and communication needs, which are not
caused by language neglect, or by having English as an additional language or other external factors. This
means that in the average classroom, there are two or three children with such communication difficulties.
3. Speech language and communication skills are the basis for other key life skills: learning, literacy, positive
relationships and regulation of behaviour and emotions22. Speaking and listening skills underpin pupil
outcomes; young people with good communication skills have a wider range of life chances23.
4. As many as 10% of children in the UK, over 1 million, have speech, language and communication needs,
which are not caused by language neglect, or by having English as an additional language or other external
20
21
22
23
Silva P, Williams S & McGee R, (1987): A Longitudinal Study of Children with Developmental Delay at age three years; later
intellectual, reading and behaviour problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 630–640.
Improving Achievement in English Language in Primary and Secondary Schools (2003) HMIE.
Silva P, Williams S & McGee R, (1987): A Longitudinal Study of Children with Developmental Delay at age three years; later
intellectual, reading and behaviour problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 630–640.
Improving Achievement in English Language in Primary and Secondary Schools (2003) HMIE
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w27
factors. This means that in the average classroom, there are two or three children with such communication
difficulties. Of this group, a large cohort—between 5–7% of the child population—have specific language
impairment (SLI), meaning that they have difficulties with learning and using language that are not associated
with factors such as general learning difficulties, or other conditions, such as cerebral palsy, hearing impairment
or autistic spectrum disorders. A child with SLI might be bright, but struggle to understand the language used
in the classroom, and thus struggle to attain and achieve.
5. The Department for Education annual SEN statistics for 2011 found that speech, language and
communication needs is the most common type of primary need for pupils with SEN statements in maintained
primary schools, with 27.9% of all statemented children in this age group having SLCN as their primary
need24. In some parts of the UK, those with high unemployment and poor housing, the prevalence rate of
SLCN rises. In areas of social deprivation upwards of 50% of children, equivalent to as many as 17%
classroom, are starting school with language delay25. There is also evidence of a high incidence of
communication difficulties (often unidentified) in those who are young offenders26, looked after children27
and those who have conduct disorder28 as well as other social emotional and behavioural difficulties29 30.
The new Core Purpose of Sure Start children’s centres, how this has evolved and is different
from the original design and purpose of Sure Start
6. Whilst there is no doubt that Sure Start Children’s Centres have had a positive effect on children in their
early years, the Trust are concerned that this has not translated fully into improving children’s speech, language
and communication development. An evaluation of Sure Start, The Impact Of Sure Start Local Programmes
On Child Development and Family Functioning31, recognised this problem and called for an increased focus
within centres on speech and language development.
The effectiveness and impact of Sure Start children’s centres to date, including the role of
Ofsted inspections
7. The Trust would like to see Ofsted inspect joint working arrangements between schools, local authorities
and local health services. We would also like to see inspections consider the contribution of community health
services and the effectiveness of local authorities support for educational establishments on improving outcomes
for children and young people with SLCN.
The range of services and activities provided at Sure Start children’s centres, and their
desired outcomes, and whether/how these differ from family centres, early Sure Start local
programmes and early years settings
8. Early identification and intervention for children with SLCN needs to become central to work of children’s
centres. Communication skills are fundamental to children’s life chances: vocabulary aged five is the best
predictor of whether children who experienced social deprivation in childhood were able to “buck the trend”
and escape poverty in later life.
9. The Trust are delighted that the revised Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), which began on 1
September 2012, puts communication and language as one of the three prime areas for children’s healthy
development. We feel strongly that an understanding of speech, language and communication should underpin
the work of the entire children’s workforce. We would like to see a skilled and confident workforce able to
ensure timely identification and appropriate support of children’s communication and SLCN at every age and
stage. It can also be achieved through the mainstreaming of SLC development in the initial training and
qualifications of the wider children’s workforce.
10. Within the early years workforce the Communication Trust supports the continuing rollout of Level 3
Children’s Workforce Diploma which includes mandatory and optional units based on the Speech, Language
and Communication Framework and we believe the Level 3 diploma should, over time, be the minimum
qualification level for early years practitioners to equip them with the skills and knowledge to support early
intervention. This is supported by the findings of Ofsted’s report on The Impact of the Early Years Foundation
Stage which demonstrated that developmental outcomes can be improved when an EYFS practitioner has
receiving specialised training in language development.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Department for Education, Special Educational Needs 2011: an analysis,
Locke, A. Ginsborg, J and Peers, I (2002) Development and Disadvantage: Implications for Early Years IJLCD Vol 27 No 1.
Bryan, K. 2004. Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders. International Journal
of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 391–400.
Cross, M. Lost for words. (1999) Child and Family Social Work 4(3): 249–57.
Gilmour, J; Hill, B; Place, M. Skuse, D. H. (2004) Social communication deficits in conduct disorder: a clinical and community
survey Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 45(5):967–978.
Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000), Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143–152.
Snow, P.C. & Powell, M.B. (2005). What’s the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders.
Psychology, Crime and Law 11(3) 239–253.
Bryan K Freer J; Furlong C Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders (2007) International Journal of
Language & Communication Disorders 42 2.
DCSF (2008) The Impact Of Sure Start Local Programmes On Child Development And Family Functioning.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w28 Education Committee: Evidence
11. The Trust would also like to bring to your attention the Level 3 Award in Supporting Children and
Young People’s Speech Language and Communication. This award has been designed for early years
practitioners, teaching assistants from all educational settings, support staff in a variety of childcare settings,
people working in health, social care, play work, youth justice, youth and support work settings. The aim of
the award is to make a positive impact on the communication development of children across the country. This
is done through enabling members of the entire children’s workforce to gain accredited continued professional
development in speech, language and communication.
12. In addition, whilst we welcome the Government’s plans to expand the health visitor workforce, we are
cautious about focusing solely on the role of health visitors in early identification (including identification of
speech and language difficulties), as many young children, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, are not
in early years settings or in any contact with such early years professionals. It will be important to ensure that
health visitors are equipped to identify children with SLCN, that there are clear and explicit pathways for
communicating and sharing of information between health visitors and early years workers, and that appropriate
referral mechanisms are in place to allow accurate and timely referral to specialists such as speech and language
therapists where appropriate.
13. The Communication Trust welcomes the proposal in the Children and Families Bill to replace statements
of special educational needs with an “Education, Health and Care Plan” to join up provision between education,
health and social care services in meeting children’s needs. However, we would like to see greater detail as to
how these plans will work in practice. The one step that would make single Education, Health and Care Plans
workable is pooled budgets and joint NHS/local authority commissioning of the range of services from which
a Plan would draw.
How to strengthen integrated working between health, social care and education as part of a
multi-agency early help offer, including how to improve information-sharing and the proposal
for children’s centres to have access to a “named social worker”
14. As the Government takes forward its reforms to the NHS, the Trust believe it will be important for the
Government to ensure effective joint working across commissioning bodies, not just within the health sector,
but also between education and health commissioners, including schools and special schools as they take on
greater commissioning powers. Arrangements need to be in place to ensure that commissioners are in a position
to commission in the round for services provided by NHS and non- NHS agencies, whether at the local or
regional level, and to ensure that local commissioners do not simply “shunt” responsibility up the chain. We
welcome the proposals in the Children and Families Bill to require joint commissioning between local
authorities and clinical commissioning groups.
15. The benefits of integrated working are clearly identified32, and strongly advocated as best practice in
supporting children’s speech, language and communication development33. Collaboration between agencies
and in turn professionals is a key identified element in supporting both children’s language and communication
development34 and in ensuring success in programmes which support children with SLCN Initiatives such as
the 2–2½ year check lead by Health Visitor teams means that good inter-agency work is essential.
16. For children with SLCN, this is particularly important as inter-agency collaboration is recognised as the
only effective solution to the management of complex problems35. We would therefore support disadvantaged
families receiving a guaranteed home visit from a trained health visitor which includes a discussion on
communication skills/support and signposting to further services at the local Children’s Centre.
17. In terms of reinforcing partnerships, we would like to see health and local authority partners working
together to identify potential speech, language and communication needs across the age range with particular
emphasis on key transition points. We would also recommend that the Healthy Child Programme is adapted
because it highlights a child’s speech and language development as one of eight priority topics for health and
development reviews of children.
How to increase the involvement of families (especially fathers, disadvantaged families,
minority ethnic groups and families of children with SEN and disabled children) in the
running of children’s centres and in their regular activities
18. We are concerned that there is still a lack of information about what Sure Start Children’s Centres offer.
For example statistics published by the Department for Education found that only that 22% of participants
were aware that centres offered advice and support around speech and language development36. In addition it
was found that this advice/support was only being accessed by 2% of respondents and 5% of all users37.
32
33
34
35
36
37
Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford,I. and Taggart, B. (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education
(EPPE) Project: final report. A longitudinal study DCSF.
Gascoigne M (2006) Supporting Children with Speech, Language and Communication Needs within Integrated Children’s
Services: Position Paper RCSLT.
Melhuish E, Belsky J and Leyland A (2007) Promoting Speech and Language: a themed study in 15 Sure Start Local Programmes
Sure Start evaluation report 002.
Law, J, Lindsay, G, Peacey, N, Gascoigne, M, Soloff, N, Radford, J, Band, S with Fitzgerald, L (2000) Provision for Children
with Speech and language needs in England and Wales DFEE.
DCSF (2009) Sure Start Children’s Centres Survey of Parents Research Report No DCSF-RR083.
DCSF (2009) Sure Start Children’s Centres Survey of Parents Research Report No DCSF-RR083.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w29
Talk of the Town
19. For many years now experts in the field of speech, language and communication have known that early
intervention and integrated working are vital components of improving services for children and young people
with SLCN. In responding to this challenge we would like to bring to your attention that The Communication
Trust has developed Talk of the Town (TOTT), a community approach to early identification of SLCN. TOTT
is an integrated, community led approach to supporting speech, language and communication in children from
0–19 which is being piloted in a small community in Wythenshawe, South Manchester. It aims to facilitate
early identification, encourage joined up working and improve outcomes for children with SLCN. It addresses
the worryingly high need of language delay that exists, especially in areas of social deprivation.
20. We have included alongside the submission a case study of TOTT and we think that the model can
become an exemplar to be used across other parts of the country.
December 2012
Written evidence submitted by ATL
ATL, the education union, is an independent, registered trade union and professional association, representing
approximately 160,000 teachers, head teachers, lecturers and support staff in maintained and independent
nurseries, schools, sixth form, tertiary and further education colleges in the United Kingdom. AMiE is the trade
union and professional association for leaders and managers in colleges and schools, and is a distinct section
of ATL. We recognise the link between education policy and members’ conditions of service.
ATL exists to help members, as their careers develop, through first rate research, advice, information and
legal advice. Our evidence-based policy making enables us to campaign and negotiate locally and nationally.
ATL is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), European
Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) and Education International (EI). ATL is not affiliated to any
political party and seeks to work constructively with all the main political parties.
ATL response
1. ATL strongly supports Sure Start Children’s Centres (SSCCs) as an important initiative to bring together
high quality early education and childcare for the benefit of all children, and in particular those from
disadvantaged backgrounds and those with complex needs. By privileging the needs of children in order to
provide them with the best start in life, we also welcome SSCCs’ provision of related services to help families
to support their children’s learning and development.
2. Children with three years of high quality (which ATL defines as integrated care and education, which
privileges play, real-world learning and talk, rather than formal skills teaching) early years provision have been
shown to be a year ahead in terms of cognitive and social skills by the time they start formal education.
Research from the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project38 also indicates that the quality
of provision is higher overall in early years settings that integrate early education and care. As the most
effective early years provision and outcomes are still largely found in the state-maintained sector, we believe
that the testimony to the strength of this sector establishes a clear rationale for well-resourced public services.39
3. ATL would welcome firm assurances from the Government that SSCCs will be fully supported to remain
at the forefront in serving children in poverty. Local authorities in deprived areas have already had to make
drastic reductions to their frontline children’s service provision due to a severe drop in their grant income.40
4. The Guardian has suggested, in an article on 9 October, that the Government intends to scrap the Early
Intervention Grant in order to fund the extension of free education to two year-olds. We are already concerned
about the impact of cuts on Sure Start provision and any further cuts are likely to put young children at
increasing risk of disadvantage or poor outcomes.
5. ATL welcomes the “particular focus on the most disadvantaged families, in order to reduce inequalities...”,
however we are concerned that this may result in SSCCs becoming more “ghettoised” and viewed as places
of stigma. The degree to which this is implemented may also result in less interaction between all elements of
society. EPPE also showed that “disadvantaged children in particular can benefit significantly from good quality
pre-school experiences, especially if they attend centres that cater for a mixture of children from different
social backgrounds.”41
6. The new core purpose also states that parents and carers ought to be involved in governance and
volunteering. Whilst we welcome this and the accompanying financial transparency, we would question how
parents and carers might be empowered and encouraged to do so and how busy working parents would have
38
39
40
41
http://eppe.ioe.ac.uk/eppe/eppepdfs/RB%20summary%20findings%20from%20Preschool.pdf
DCSF, Issues in Earlier Intervention: Identifying and Supporting Children with Additional Needs, March 2010 and House of
Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, The Early Years Single Funding Formula, Seventh Report of Session
2009–10, para. 8, p.4, (2010).
CYP Now, Children’s services bear the brunt of grant cuts, 26 January 2012.
http://eppe.ioe.ac.uk/eppe/eppepdfs/RB%20summary%20findings%20from%20Preschool.pdf
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w30 Education Committee: Evidence
time to volunteer. There also appears to be a lack of focus on pre-natal attendance of SSCCs and interaction
with Jobcentre Plus and other assistance, such as advice on financial support available through tax credits or
employer-supported childcare voucher schemes for example.
7. We note that the Government intends to re-consider children’s centre inspection arrangements, and we
would welcome a full and comprehensive public consultation on this issue. While the revised statutory guidance
makes reference to inspections by Ofsted, ATL would like to receive further information on whether any health
provision offered by SSCCs would also be inspected by Ofsted or whether there are alternative inspection
arrangements for this aspect of provision. We believe that this needs to be reflected in the revised statutory
guidance.42
8. ATL continues to maintain that setting out an inspection framework suitable for all children’s centres
assumes that they are set up and managed in the same way across the country. It also appears to assume that
a children’s centre manager is, or should be, responsible for all aspects of staffing, provision and outcomes in
a similar way to a headteacher’s responsibilities with regard to a school.43 We have reservations about these
assumptions not only on the basis of the Government’s own priority, however questionable, of promoting a
diversity of organisations to provide early childhood services, but also on the basis of children’s centres already
delivering a joined-up offer consisting of a range of services in the locality.
9. As regards impact, the second NESS found positive results from the survey overall. The reach of these
centres was good with 78% of parents and carers aware of their local centre and 45% having used or attended
their centre. Furthermore the profile of users was very similar to the profile of respondents overall, suggesting
that reach was good throughout the target population. There was no evidence of particular groups of parents
or carers monopolising the centres. Equally, the results suggest that no sub-groups are being excluded from or
failing to access the centres. Those who have used or attended their local centre were very happy with the
services they had used. When considering all of the services they had used at the centre, 92% of users said
they were satisfied (68% were very satisfied). Satisfaction levels were also very high with each of the individual
services used.44
10. However, little research has been conducted on measurable outcomes, and the methodology of that which
exists has been questioned. There is also little research on BME, SEN and other minority groups’ use of
SSCCs, beyond ethnic composition of baseline surveys and monitoring data, although there was some mention
of services as adult language courses, social meeting groups, and specific activities designed for BME groups.
No outcome evaluations were reported either for these activities or for the work of outreach workers.45
11. There are also concerns about the issue of staff appointments and roles and the dilemmas of hierarchy
and status between minority ethnic staff and other staff, explored in the NESS Implementation Report.46
12. Love et al. (2002) identified key messages from the positive impact of Early Head Start in the USA on
infants, toddlers and their families.47 Findings were:
—
Fully implementing the Head Start Programme Performance Standards resulted in stronger patterns
of impact on children and parenting.
—
Centre based programmes enhanced children’s cognitive ability and by the age of three reduced
negative aspects of social emotional behaviours.
—
Home based programmes contributed to enhanced language development at two (but not at three)
and the quality of parent/child play interactions.
—
A mixture of centre and home based programmes produced stronger impacts.
—
Enrolling parents on programmes before their children were born was more likely to engage them
in services.
—
There was less impact on the highest risk families with young children.
13. ATL disagrees very strongly with Government proposals to reward local authorities, as commissioning
bodies, and providers with payment by results (PbR).48 Where joint-working has been shown to be the key to
improved outcomes for the most vulnerable children, ATL believes that payment by results is likely to be
divisive and disadvantages providers, particularly in the state-maintained sector, that serve hard-to-reach
families and communities in the most challenging circumstances. We also fear that a PbR scheme would tend
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ATL, Revised Sure Start Statutory Guidance, consultation response, June 2012.
ATL, Ofsted Inspection of Children’s Centres, consultation response, September 2009.
http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk
Lloyd, N. and Rafferty, A. (2006) Black and minority ethnic families and Sure Start: findings from local evaluation reports.
London: National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS).
http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk
Love, J.M., Kisker, E.E., Ross, C.M., Schochet, P.Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., (2002). Making a difference in the lives of
infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human
Services.
House of Commons Education Committee, Sure Start Children’s Centres: Government Response to the Fifth Report from the
Children, Schools and Families Committee, session 2009–10, p.3.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w31
to create the wrong incentives and that many of the proposed measures, including parents’ aspirations, selfesteem and self-reported wellbeing cannot be determined, attributed and recorded in any consistent way for
and across different providers.49
14. ATL is concerned that the emphasis on the role of Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) providers
will not only lead to significant variations in “local offers”, a lack of transparency in determining local need
and in supporting any families who “cross the border”, but within the parameters of this Government’s budget
and the current economic climate, it is also highly likely to compromise quality at the expense of meeting the
needs of the most vulnerable children. We strongly agree with the House of Commons Children, Schools and
Families Committee’s Report on the Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) that the standards set by
the state-maintained sector in early years provision “are there for others to follow, and they should not be put
at risk by the implementation of the Single Funding Formula” nor by the removal of ring-fenced funding
for SSCCs.50
15. ATL recommends that the revised statutory guidance makes explicit reference to the need to implement
effective practice, and we welcome the APPG for Sure Start’s recommendation that local authority bodies
should work with the Government and the voluntary sector to produce guidance to this effect which will be
made available free of charge to local authorities.51
16. ATL does not believe in the concept of “school readiness”, instead we maintain that schools should be
ready for children, not children ready for schools. In Scandinavia, for example, children don’t start school until
the age of six or seven. Play-led pedagogy is far more suitable and enables children to develop curiosity about
learning, without being strait-jacketed by prescriptive formality.
17. Colocation of services and strong support for and promotion of SSCCs would improve multi-agency
working, as well as better sign-posting to relevant services. ATL believes that it is important for SSCCs to
focus on the provision of services for children, ranging from early education, childcare and health to social
care, and that this core purpose should be further strengthened and supported through effective inter-agency
working.52 This, in our view, is best achieved by building on existing public services provision through
SSCCs, including giving local voluntary and community organisations a platform for their services within a
state-maintained model as appropriate, rather than assuming that PVI providers should be a first choice for
meeting local needs.53
18. The rising cost of childcare is of great concern to all families, but in particular to those headed by lone
parents, those from BME communities, (whose rate of employment is 56.4%), and those with disabled children.
This may have an impact on their usage of SSCCs.
19. Overall, there are significant variations in the levels of formal childcare usage among families from
different ethnic groups. High childcare costs, a work-based entitlement to subsidies and variable levels of
maternal employment are clearly important, as are high rates of lone parenthood among Black African and
Caribbean families, and the typically larger family size of many Southern Asian communities. These issues
pose particular challenges to the Government’s current childcare strategy, especially given the relatively higher
rates of economic and educational disadvantaged faced by children from BME families.54
20. Daycare Trust’s Ensuring Equality paper found that BME families want childcare that reflects and
understands their culture. It also found that black families are more likely to use childcare because of economic
reasons and require childcare at evenings and weekends due to work patterns. Asian families are more likely
to use childcare for educational reasons, consequently free early-years provision is important for them.55
21. Their Listening to BME Families report highlighted the need for, “encouraging children’s centres and
other childcare providers to create more innovative ways of engaging the local BME community and prioritise
outreach; making base-line training in race equality and race/cultural awareness compulsory for all childcare
training courses for all staff; conducting local recruitment campaigns to encourage BME groups to consider
childcare as a career option…”.56
22. In Rotherham, one of six authorities invited to take part in a DCSF project to increase the take-up of
childcare by BME families, six free childcare sessions were offered to parents in pilot areas. Parents who
completed feedback forms stated that the sessions gave them the confidence to use childcare again, with 92%
of respondents stating that they would use childcare again either to take up their child’s free early education
place or to enable them to return to work.
23. The National Audit Office publication Sure Start Children’s Centres (December 2006) identified that
outreach remained a particular challenge for programmes, specifically with regards to improving services for
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
NCB/NFER, “Feasibility study for the trials of Payment by Results for Children’s Centres”, NCB: November 2011.
House of Commons, The Early Years Single Funding Formula, para. 8, p.4, (2010).
All Party Parliamentary Group for Sure Start, Sure Start Delivery in 2011/12, interim report (2012).
House of Commons Children Schools and Families Committee, Sure Start Children’s Centres, Fifth Report of Session 2009–10,
vol.2, memorandum submitted by Prof E Melhuish, (2010).
All Party Parliamentary Group for Sure Start, Sure Start Delivery in 2011/12, interim report (2012).
Equal Access? Appropriate and affordable childcare for every child, ippr 22.
Daycare Trust, Ensuring Equality in Childcare for Black and Minority Ethnic Familes: a summary paper, 2008.
Ibid., Listening to Black and Minority Ethnic Parents About Childcare, 2007.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w32 Education Committee: Evidence
fathers, the parents of children with disabilities, and for ethnic minorities in areas with smaller minority
populations. This observation has also been highlighted by Ofsted.57
24. ATL believes that SSCCs need to reach out to transient populations, train their staff in equality and
diversity issues and be sensitive to competing claims from different minorities and to recruit from the local
area and communities where possible. Activities need to be scheduled in a more inclusive way and employers
should take childcare seriously as an issue, by allowing parents to work flexibly in order to attend sessions.
Male carers need to be included more, so that they are not made to feel as if they are invading a women’s space,
perhaps through sessions for male carers only. In some SSCCs, activities come to a halt in school holidays.
25. The Childcare and Early Years Survey of Parents 201058 found that problems with finding flexible
childcare were strongly associated with families with a child with SEN. According to the survey, 46% of these
families accessed formal childcare and 52% of families with a child with health problems or a disability. It
also found that formal childcare was accessed by 62% of Black Caribbean families, 39% of Black African
families, 33% of Indian and Pakistani families, and 24% of Bangladeshi families, which correlates with
economic and cultural patterns found elsewhere.
26. A 2011 study by the Department for Education (DfE), found that private childcare providers often have
limited experience of catering for vulnerable children and will require training to provide a high quality offer.59
27. The Government’s presumption against the extension of children’s centres is reflected in the changed
role of local authorities (LAs), which are accountable for SSCCs under the Childcare Act 2006. The revised
statutory guidance no longer contains any specific reference to LAs providing information and advice services
for parents and prospective parents, which suggests an expectation that LAs will increasingly contract out the
management of SSCCs. This means that SSCCs are initially responsible for ensuring that parents are given
advice and support in accessing services that are not delivered on-site. With a greater diversity of providers,
or providers managing children’s centres on behalf of the local authority, together with some LAs already
lacking clarity about the offer for families in their areas, the quality of information and advice for parents and
prospective parents will inevitably differ amongst providers.60
28. Research has shown that lack of knowledge about local early years provision, together with low
awareness of the part-time free entitlement for three and four year olds, amongst the most vulnerable families
is one of the most substantial barriers to accessing early education and childcare.61 The revised statutory
guidance needs to be explicit in its expectations around the role of LAs in providing information, advice and
assistance to parents and prospective parents and of the local Families Information Service. This should
specifically include that information, advice and assistance will cover childcare and other child-related services
and facilities, and that LAs “should consider the needs of disadvantaged and hard-to-reach groups” when
providing this assistance and support.62
29. The inquiries by the APPG for Sure Start have further established significant concerns with regard to
the transparency in assessing the needs of communities and in consulting with parents and service users. LAs
need to be supported through national statutory guidance in how to report the number of SSCCs in their area
and the services they offer for families. The LA’s duty to consult when considering making significant changes
to children’s centre provision in their area must also be strengthened to ensure that parents and prospective
parents can make their views heard and influence any final decision made by the LA.63
30. In the interest of consistency of provision, ATL believes that the revised statutory guidance needs to
define more specifically what constitutes a “significant” change to the range and nature of services and how
they are delivered rather than leaving this entirely to LAs to determine. We also agree that children’s centres
should engage with their local communities in an on-going way rather than as a “one-off” exercise prior to the
implementation of any changes.64
Conclusion
ATL believes that the reduction of the Sure Start Children’s Centres statutory guidance, the lack of reference
to any “best practice” guidance and the lack of guidance on how parents and prospective parents can be
better informed and involved by service providers in their children’s learning and development is presenting
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Ofsted How well are they doing: The impact of Children’s Centres and Extended Schools and Ofsted report Extended Services
in Schools and Children’s Centres.
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001073/osr12–2012brief.pdf
Gibb, J., Jelicic, H., and La Valle, I., Rolling out Free Education for Disadvantaged Two Year Olds: an implementation study
for local authorities and providers, DfE Research Brief DFE-RB131, June 2011.
APPG for Sure Start, Sure Start Delivery in 2011/12, interim report (2012).
DfE, Towards Universal Early Years Provision: Analysis of take-up by disadvantaged families from recent annual childcare
surveys, Research Report DFE-RR066, (2010).
See ATL, Supporting Families in the Foundation Years: Proposed Changes to the Entitlement to Free Early Education and
Childcare Sufficiency, consultation response, February 2012 and Code of Practice for Local Authorities on Delivery of Free
Early Years Provision for 3 and 4 year olds, chapter 6, p.36.
APPG for Sure Start, Sure Start Delivery in 2011/12, interim report (2012).
DfE, Sure Start Children’s Centres Statutory Guidance, (2010), p.14.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w33
a considerable risk to the provision of high quality early childhood services for the most vulnerable and
disadvantaged families.65
ATL believes that more needs to be done to recruit and train an Early Years workforce which reflects the
communities they work in. Sure Start Children’s Centres ought to undertake more evaluation of the services
offered and the take-up of services by BME families and families with a child with SEN, health problems or
a disability. More multi-agency working is needed to encourage and signpost some BME communities to
SSCCs, as well as extra financial support from the Government for those in poverty and low pay to access
childcare.
We are extremely concerned that rather than acknowledging and building on the increasing evidence of the
link between children’s centres’ high quality provision and better outcomes for children, the Government
continues to assume that PVI providers are more effective at meeting the needs of the most vulnerable children
and their families. As some LAs already struggle to determine and meet local need, we believe that an increase
in the diversity of providers will only exacerbate this problem. Children’s centres which are accountable to the
LA should be at the heart of the provision of early childhood services and give local voluntary and community
organisations a platform for their services as appropriate.
Effective early intervention cannot be obtained on the cheap, and ATL calls on the Government to ensure
that SSCCs will be fully supported to remain at the forefront in serving children in poverty.
Written evidence submitted by TACTYC
The main reason that there is such widespread concern about the concept of school readiness in the field is
that practitioners and parents understand through their first-hand experience and observations that children’s
development is very variable—and the variation is within each child as well as between individuals and groups
of children. School readiness has a very different meaning to people looking from the perspective of home and
nursery, compared with the perception of people whose starting point is schooling. Although the ability to sit
still and take in information is important, it is by no means the only, or most effective, way of learning at
any stage.1
Expectations at the end of the EYFS
There is well founded anxiety that children will be forced into a mould designed to meet unrealistic and
simplistic expectations of their understanding and development. This is compounded by our very early school
starting age. In England, although statutory school starts the term after children turn five, in practice many
children begin school long before they are five, given that annual entry for all at the beginning of the year is
now mandatory.
Although the reception year is intended to be part of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), the Early
Learning Goals (ELG) for literacy our set very high. A smaller percentage of children reach the expected level
in the writing goal than any other since the Early Years Profile was introduced, with boys and summer born
children most likely to find them difficult. This should at least raise the question as to whether the goal is set
at a suitable level. Research published by the DfE in 20103 showed a weak correlation between points scored
on the writing ELG (which has remained substantially the same since the introduction of the revised EYFS in
2011) and achievement in writing at the end of Key Stage 1. The new Early Learning Goal for number in the
revised EYFS has been raised to the level previously described for children in Key Stage One, and is also
likely to result in increasing numbers of children finding this expectation challenging, with consequent
inappropriate pressure applied in teaching approaches. This inevitably undermines children’s motivation as
well as their understanding of key concepts underpinning their future mathematical development and logical
reasoning.
August born children’s achievement in the Foundation Stage Profile is significantly lower relative to those
born in September. Their lower achievement across several measures impacts on summer born children’s
perceptions of self-worth and their views of the value of school.2 It would be useful to introduce an analysis
of children’s achievement at the end of the EYFS by their month of birth, as has been done in relation to the
Year 1 phonics check. This shows a predictable drop in percentages of children reaching the expected score
for younger children, month by month.4 The long term effects of mis-identification of SEN in YR and Y1 is
of grave concern, when many children are diagnosed as having problems, although they are younger and less
experienced rather than less able than their autumn-born peers.5
The phonics check itself, which is based on questionable evidence,6 is having a damaging and counterproductive top down effect on the curriculum and morale of many children in Year 1 and also, regrettably, in
YR. Worryingly, this pressure is also felt in many pre-schools. The limiting effects of high stakes testing have
been recognised for older children, and are even more damaging in the EYFS.
65
ATL, Revised Sure Start Statutory Guidance, consultation response, June 2012.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w34 Education Committee: Evidence
Impact of Annual Entry to Primary School
Although the schools admissions code (2.16) states that “Admissions authorities must make it clear in their
arrangements that parents can request the date their child is admitted to school can be deferred until later in
the academic year or until the term in which the child reaches compulsory school age”, most parents are not
aware of this, and those who do want to defer entry often have a difficult battle. Some feel that the social cost
of separating their child from the rest of the cohort is too great, even at the expense of their learning. Others
are told by schools that due to the high demand for admission, a place cannot be guaranteed for a child to
enter the school part-way through a school year. Admitting up to 30 young children into class at one time
makes settling them very hard, for staff and parents as well as children, and this further exacerbates what can
be a difficult transition. Summer born children have a particularly demanding time as they are less mature and
less experienced than the older children in the cohort. At the age of four, even a few months’ difference is
significant. Although it is predictable and normal for younger children not to reach an arbitrary average
standard, they are too often perceived and labelled as “failing.”
Impact of Early Entry on Nursery Provision
The recent insistence on annual entry to primary school does not sufficiently take into account the effect the
policy has on the lives of individual children, parents and educators, nor the inevitable consequences for feeder
settings. Pre-schools have a large number of vacancies to fill each September. Financial considerations mean
that nurseries in all sectors need to admit children as quickly as possible, so the settling in process is inevitably
more demanding and stressful than it should be for all involved. The foreshortened time in pre-school education
leads to a lack of coherence in the experiences we are offering our youngest children, just at the time when
they need continuity, consistency and well-tuned stimulus and challenge in their social, emotional, intellectual
and physical development.
Countries with effective provision for early care and education keep children in pre-school for at least three
years, which enables staff to provide a coherent programme focusing on the skills that underpin later more
academic learning, and the building of secure relationships with families. In this country, early years education
is disjointed, and is undermined by the loss of five year olds from nursery settings. These older children provide
invaluable role models for the younger children, enriching social skills and the quality of play and learning.
Being the oldest in their group, even only for a term, gives summer born children the experience of being “at
the top of the class” at least once in their lives, and contributes to their ability to cope with the demands
of school.
It is essential that we make appropriate provision for all young children entering school so that they can
flourish in spite of the early age of entry in this country. This is why our schools must be ready to support
children in all their variety and vitality, and help parents to understand what they can do to contribute to their
children’s development as eager and effective learners.
References:
Whitebread D, and Bingham S (2012). School Readiness TACTYC occasional paper available on line at
http://www.tactyc.org.uk/occasional-papers/occasional-paper2.pdf
Institute for Fiscal Studies, (2012) “Does when you are born matter?” Presentation of The impact of month of
birth on the development of cognitive and non-cognitive skills throughout childhood project, Institute of
Education, 14th March 2012. Available online at http://www.ifs.org.uk/conferences/ioe_born.pdf
3. DfE-RR034 available on line at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFERR034.pdf
4. United Kingdom Literacy Association survey of teachers implementing the phonics test, reported in the
Daily Telegraph, November 2012, available on line at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9681475/Compulsory-reading-test-should-bescrapped.html
5. Sykes et al. (2009) Birthdate Effects: A Review of the Literature from 1990-on Cambridge Assessment
available on line at http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/172426_172417_Cambridge_Lit_
Review_Birthdate_d3.pdf
6. Professor Martyn Hammersley on R4 programme “Bad Evidence” broadcast on 1.1.2013. Comment available
on line at
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/01/robotically-following-the-results-of-one-trialcan-be-a-verydangerous-thing-says-author-of-bad-science/
January 2013
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w35
Written evidence submitted by Mrs Claire Oldham
I am responding as a parent who has used and much needed the Sure Start provision.
1. Having moved to the area whilst I was pregnant, I was at a very delicate point in my life where I could
have been left feeling very isolated. Although I had my newly married husband as support I was worried that
not having my work, friend and family network as support that I would be left feeling alone with my newborn
child. Thankfully I attended the anti natal groups provided by Sure Start which were not only very informative
and supportive but also gave me a chance to meet “mums to be” from the area, who of which I am still friends
with now, 18 months on.
2. Having breastfed my child, which I found very difficult to begin with, my husbands’ family had only ever
bottle fed so I found little comfort with their support. Again thankfully the breastfeeding groups provided a
network of much needed support, when I felt like giving up. From which I met a further two more mums who
were also breastfeeding at the time and we continued to give each other support, and again are still very good
friends today. Without the support from the staff and other mums I don’t think I would have continued to
breastfeed for nine months as I did.
3. Having resigned from my full time job in Stoke on Trent, I felt it took me a little longer to adjust to my
new lifestyle with my newborn. I hadn’t got the idea of maternity leave in my mind and the knowledge that I
would be going back to work in the imminent future. Therefore I felt the need to fill my days with productive
activities with my child, in order to gain some sort of routine. I was given the “Whats on” leaflet by my Health
Visitor and was excited to see lots of groups that I would be able to attend. As a result I have attended many
of the groups on a regular basis (Messy play, discovery play, tea and toast, babble and sign, baby massage and
HENRY) and my daughter has thrived from them, from this attendance I believe that they have contributed to
my daughters’ excellent speech development, confidence and general happiness. They give us a purpose to our
days, an opportunity for my daughter to learn and play safely, a chance for both of us to meet new people and
a comfort to know that there are educated staff who are supportive and available to help you if needed.
4. Although not formally diagnosed with post natal depression, I had completed a questionnaire with my
health visitor who advised me to see my GP. At the time I felt I could deal with my insecurities and worries
without the help of medication. It is only now 18 months on that when I have talked about it with my husband
that I can admit that I may have had mild depression. I truly believe that if I had not had the Sure Start groups
that were available every day, every week that I may have been a lot worse than I had been or may have needed
some kind of medication to get me where I am today, which thankfully is a very happy and proud mummy.
5. Not being from the area, attending the Sure Start groups has given me a real sense of community. I have
gained knowledge of the local areas, met people from different walks of life, and gained confidence through
speaking to fellow mums who have helped and encouraged me to gain employment in the area. I have chosen
a change in career and have gained employment helping the elderly in their homes and hope to possibly work
towards entering social care in the future. I really do feel that having the opportunity to attend the Sure Start
centres and meeting the warm natured and friendly staff have made me the confident and proud mum I am
today. They have given me the insight and confidence to help my family and to ensure my daughter has the
best start to life.
6. I personally feel that I am a very lucky and privileged person to be in the situation I am and I have found
the Sure Start centres to have a massive impact on mine and my daughter’s life. Therefore I am sure that there
are mothers/families that need a lot more help than I have needed and for them not to have the support of the
Sure Start provision would be to a massive detriment to the community and society as a whole.
May 2013
Written evidence Submitted by NHS England
NOTE FOR EDUCATION SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMISSIONING SERVICES IN CHILDREN’S
CENTRES
NHS England General Policy
1. NHS England is keen to promote integrated health and social care services wherever possible and where
it is designed to meet people’s needs. We know from our work with national partners on integrated care and
support that people want services that are tailored, seamless and relevant to their lives and their communities.
NHS England is also committed to encouraging Health and Wellbeing Boards and Clinical Commissioning
Groups to explore local partnerships to demonstrate its support of the value of early intervention and the
difference community partnerships can make to improve outcomes and long-term wellbeing for children and
their families, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
Local Determination of Services
2. Ultimately, Health and Wellbeing boards and their communities are in the best position to determine
locally what services should look like in their area. This includes the whole range of services for children and
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Ev w36 Education Committee: Evidence
where they may be delivered in a variety of settings, including Children’s Centres. Clinical commissioning
groups (CCGs), which commission local health services, are required to work with their local Health and
Wellbeing Boards to determine how best to meet local patients’ needs. Where integrated service provision is
the best local fit, CCGs are likely to decide to commission accordingly. Addressing health inequalities is a key
commitment of NHS England and the role of Children’s Centres in promoting health and wellbeing within the
community in partnership with others is one which we would encourage local CCGs and Health and Wellbeing
Being Boards to explore.
3. It is important to note that, although in some places the answer may be to co-locate health and social
care, it is known that a one-size-fits-all model dictated from the top may not always be the best solution for
local service users, children and their families or carers. For this reason the Health and Wellbeing Boards are
tasked with determining this with local partners, through robust planning processes that map local demand and
put at their heart what children and their families want from local services. Although some children with both
physical and social care needs might benefit from having their needs met on one site, many others with a need
for healthcare or social support but not both might be better served by services more accessible or appropriate
to them.
Children’s Services
4. Children’s health services are delivered in a variety of places in the community, including patients’ homes,
in primary care settings and in hospitals, and sometimes in schools. NHS England’s health visiting service
specification makes repeated reference to children’s centres as one site for provision of health visiting services
and the need for partnership with other services based there. The need for these services to co-locate and to
work in an integrated way is becoming more pressing as we approach 2015 and the transfer of commissioning
of health visiting services to local authorities, which also commission children’s social care which is provided
in children’s centres. Children’s Centres are based in local communities and provide a focus for a range of
children and their families and carers including those who are most vulnerable. Where they exist, their
community location makes them well placed for health services including maternity, health visiting, GP clinics,
speech and language, dietetics, infant mental health services and community Paediatric clinics to be located.
5. The value of bringing a range of professionals together in a child centred environment promotes
communication in a face to face manner and sharing of professional expertise. The benefit of strong
relationships between professionals from multi-organisations is critical in transforming outcomes. Focused
interventions such as outreach into homes where necessary and peer support for very young parents are
examples of services that make a difference in promoting longer term wellbeing of families by building
confidence in their parenting abilities to promote effective emotional and physical development of their
child. We recognise that GPs, paediatricians and other child health professionals in some areas of the country
are often not fully aware of the potential and opportunities collaboration with their local children centres and
the third sector could offer. Raising awareness of the ability to “think and do differently” in challenging
financial times utilising shared accommodation and greater collaborative partnerships is important. However,
as concerns about the economic viability of children’s centres are being considered by financially challenged
local authorities, this may become more of a virtual than an actual setting.
Co-commissioned Services
6. Another useful way of providing integrated services for users is to co-commission them. An example of
a co-commissioned service is the Family Nursing Partnership service. These partnerships can be commissioned
from a range of providers including the local provider of community maternal and child health services, and
social enterprises and charitable settings as long as they are able to demonstrate they can meet the requirements
of the licensing and fidelity measures that cover clinical delivery, staff competencies and organisation standards.
The programme crosses the boundaries of health and social care.
Safeguarding
7. The benefits of multi-agency working to safeguard children and young people have been demonstrated
through the establishment of integrated teams, for example, youth justice services, looked after children services
and partnerships with the third sector. Children’s centres are based within local communities and offer a broad
range of early intervention family support services to support young parents and parents who may not usually
access services. These parents particularly are vulnerable and may need additional help. The services provided
in the children’s centres provide a wide range of early intervention for families and the interests of children
are at the heart of the staff who work in them. Aligning services together promotes better communication and
information sharing; it offers opportunities for less duplication and ultimately provides a better experience for
families. The benefits for safeguarding children and supporting families through jointly commissioned services
would be welcomed. The new working together framework supports professionals to develop locally strategies
that offer early help to families to improve outcomes for children.
cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O]
Processed: [02-01-2014 12:39] Job: 034361 Unit: PG01
Education Committee: Evidence Ev w37
Conclusion
8. The benefits of close integrated working between a whole range of health and social care professionals to
identify and provide early intervention and support for children and their families and carers are fully supported
by NHS England. While this may be helped by co-location of services, there are parts of the country where
Children’s Centres may not be available or where there may be other ways of achieving integrated working
which work better for children and their families and carers, and local service commissioners and Health and
Wellbeing Boards should consider the views of their service users in determining how to commission services
which best meet their needs.
August 2013
The Stationery Office Limited
01/2014
034361
19585