STATES OF JERSEY
r
INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE: A Vision for Early Childhood Education and Care for Children in Jersey
Presented to the States on 5th July 2005
by the Education, Sport and Culture Committee
STATES GREFFE
CONSULTATION
Investing in Our Future sets out for consultation, the Education,
Sport and Culture Committee’s vision for early childhood education and care in
Jersey. It contains plans to develop and extend high quality early learning
opportunities for young children by investing in private sector provision to
complement nursery classes in provided primary schools.
The Committee is
interested to hear the views of States Members, community groups, private
sector providers and members of the public about these proposals. Responses
should be sent to:
Investing In Our
Future Consultation
The Department for
Education, Sport and Culture
P.O. Box 142
Highlands
St. Saviour
JE4 8QJ
Email responses may
be sent to ecec@gov.je
The closure date for consultation will be 30th September
2005. All the responses received will help in the formation of more detailed
options for the future which will be published later this year.
Every child in Jersey should have the opportunity to grow up in an
Island that values children and families. The realisation of this is dependent
upon government which recognises that the education and care of children is a
shared responsibility between family and the community. A quality early
childhood education and care experience can supplement good parenting and have
positive long-term benefits on children’s lives. This is in turn leads to
significant benefits for society.
Objective 3.7.1 of the States Strategic Plan 2005 – 2010, documents a
commitment to increase the number of three to five year olds accessing ‘early
years’ programmes and assigns lead responsibility for this to the Education,
Sport and Culture Committee. The proposals outlined in Investing in Our Future are designed to give effect to this and to
remove some of the barriers which currently prevent children accessing high
quality provision. The implementation of these proposals will make early
education and care more affordable, accessible and equitable for all.
The focus of Investing In Our
Future is primarily three and four year olds. However, for maximum effect,
these proposals should be implemented in the context of broader and more
coherent family policy which supports working parents in the choices they make,
particularly in respect of children under the age of three. To this end, the
Education, Sport and Culture Committee is committed to consult with its
strategic partners, the Employment and Social Security and Economic Development
Committees as well as the Health and Social Services and Policy and Resources
Committees. Working together we can ensure that every child in Jersey has the
opportunity to grow up in an Island that truly values its children and
families.
Senator Mike Vibert
President of Education, Sport and Culture
INTRODUCTION
We know, from research, about the value of
high quality early childhood education and care for the healthy growth and
development of children. There is compelling evidence from studies conducted
throughout the world to suggest that it contributes fundamentally to the
physical, emotional, social, intellectual and linguistic development of
children[1].
This is particularly true for disadvantaged
children from high risk, low income families, where quality provision has been
shown to have strongly positive effects that can partially compensate for home
circumstances[2] and improve educational attainment even into
adulthood.
The Education, Sport and Culture Committee
recognises that, all too often, parents struggle to reconcile work and family
life. High quality early childhood education and care facilitates female
employment, boosts tax revenue and minimises expenditure on social benefits. It
supports education and training whilst promoting the equality of women by
enabling them to retain career and work continuity.
Good parenting is fundamental to child
development and the Committee realises that its strategy will inevitably play a
crucial role in helping families find an appropriate balance between work and
family life. Nevertheless, child development and early education are at the
heart of the Committee’s vision for the future. A child’s early years are the
most influential. Children who are well-cared for in early life are more likely
to be emotionally and socially well-adjusted and more successful at school.
They enjoy better health, employment continuity and higher earnings.
This, in turn, has long term benefits for
society. Better health means a reduction in health costs borne by the public.
Higher skilled workers positively influence productivity, earn higher wages,
pay more taxes and need less support. Socially well-balanced children grow up
to be better citizens and parents. Good citizenship and parenting is the
foundation of a socially balanced and cohesive society.
The Committee believes that investing in our
youngest children is one of the best ways to positively influence the long term
social and economic future of our Island. This paper outlines the Committee’s
vision for early childhood education and care.
THE
VISION
Within three years:
· there
would be more coherent family policy, based on clear values which recognise
that the States needs to actively support parents in the choices they make in
the best interests of child development;
· all
three and four year olds would have access to affordable high quality early
education and care for up to 30 hours per week for 38 weeks per year;
· an
integrated children’s centre would provide free early education and extended
childcare for vulnerable children under 5 years old, family support, adult
education and outreach services. It would also provide a base for the existing
Parenting Team, the Jersey Child Care Trust and the Youth Action Team and
operate as a one-stop-shop providing information on all aspects of early years
provision.
To support this vision:
· a
new partnership would be established between the public and private sector to
include private providers who commit to quality and a fair value contract;
· a
clear set of principles would be developed to underpin all funded provision and
address key child development issues relevant to Jersey;
· the
current evaluation framework would be expanded to complement existing good
practice in registration and ensure the highest standards of provision;
· funding
would be channelled to accredited private sector partners to support high
quality provision for rising four year olds;
· the
Jersey Child Care Trust would become a more powerful champion for quality and focus on raising income to support
childcare, encouraging the development of family friendly policies in the
workplace and providing information to the States, parents and partners.
DEVELOPING
THE VISION
Recognising the complexity, significance and
cost of early childhood education and care, the Education, Sport and Culture
Committee commissioned a comprehensive review of its investment in this area in
February 2004. The review was conducted by Jenny Spratt, Head of Early Years
and Childcare in Peterborough, a Local Authority recognised for excellence in
early childhood provision. The terms of reference were as follows:
‘To
undertake a mid-term review of the Jersey Child Care Trust Five Year Strategy
and the funding, responsibilities and purposes of the Trust in relation to the
overall strategy for early years and childcare in Jersey and to make
recommendations to the Education, Sport and Culture Committee with regards to:
The
need for an overall strategy based on integrated working to support children
and families;
Creating
clarity and focus regarding the roles and responsibilities of different
departments and organisations in developing the strategy and achieving its
aims’.
The ensuing report, A Vision for the Future of Early Education and Childcare in Jersey, was
received by the Committee in July, published to the States as R.C. 35/2004 in
August and presented to members of the public at a Town Hall meeting in
September. In summary, the report concluded that:
Whilst
there is a clear strategy for Early Years Education in Jersey, there is no
overall States strategy for integrated early education and childcare.
The
JCCT at the mid-term of its Five Year Strategy has become too broad and is no
longer focused on its original objectives.
The
JCCT is perceived as being effective in some areas of its work but lack of
transparency and consultation has resulted in the duplication of roles and
responsibilities.
A
perceived lack of investment in early education and childcare services has
resulted in criticism of current policy.
During the consultation period that followed,
121 responses were received from individuals, groups and organisations.
Figure 1: Responses to ‘A Vision for the
Future of Early Education and Childcare in Jersey’
Groups and organisations who contributed
included:
· Centre
Point Trust
· Jersey
Child Care Trust
· Jersey
Early Years Association
· The
Partnership Group for Early Years Education and Childcare
· The
AMOS Christian Trust
· The
Group for the Eradication of Poverty
· The
Primary Head Teachers Association
· Parents
Action Group from the Parish Nurseries
· Parents
from St. Martin, First Tower and Plat Douet primary schools
The Committee is grateful to the many
individuals and groups whose contributions to this debate have been of great
value and much appreciated.
This vision has been influenced by their contributions
as well as research from other countries into the nature and benefits of early
childhood programmes for children at different phases of their development and
key demographic, social and economic trends in Jersey.
THE
STRUCTURE OF EARLY YEARS PROVISION IN JERSEY
Background
Prior to 1996, childcare in Jersey was mostly
a private concern. The Report of the
Working Party on Childcare (1996) recognised the benefits of high quality
childcare for children in the early years of development and presented the original
childcare strategy to the States ‘to
extend the current range of child care provision for children up to 12 years
through partnerships between all interested parties whilst ensuring high
standards in all provision’.
The working party also made recommendations
which led to the formation of the Jersey Child Care Trust, the enhancement of
tax allowances for childcare costs and the introduction of child care
allowances for low income groups. The Trust was established to co-ordinate,
promote and facilitate the expansion of child care provision.
Policy in relation to early childhood
provision has been overseen by a number of Committees. These include Education,
Sport and Culture, Employment and Social Security and Health and Social
Services.
Childcare
The Education, Sport and Culture Committee is
the political sponsor and primary source of funding for the Jersey Child Care
Trust. It is also responsible for the registration of childcare providers.
The classification of providers, for the
purposes of registration under the Children’s (Jersey) Law 1969, Part VII, is
as follows:
Day
Nurseries provide full day
care for children of a wide age range which may include babies. They tend to
offer an all year service on weekdays, closing on Bank Holidays and for short
periods at Christmas and Easter. Hours of opening usually accommodate the needs
of working parents.
Playgroups
provide specifically for
children between the ages of two and five years and offer care sessions for
periods up to five hours. Such groups may refer to themselves as nurseries, nursery schools, kindergartens or
pre-schools. Some playgroups are open
all year round whilst others follow school terms.
Playcare
is provided primarily for
children from the age of school entry up to twelve years and is designed to
meet the needs of working parents before and after the school day and during
school holiday periods. Playcare may
be offered in a variety of settings such as school premises, children’s
centres, community centres or church halls.
Play
Schemes provided by the
Committee deliver a form of playcare
during the Easter and summer school holidays for children aged between 5 and 11
years. They are usually based on school premises.
Family
Day Care offers care to
children in the family day carer’s own home. Family Day Carers may, at any one
time, cater for a maximum of 6 children under the age of 14 of which no more
than three may be under the age of five years.
Early
Education
It has been the Committee’s policy to
provide, in the long term, a nursery class place for every three and four year
old whose parents want one. This has been driven primarily by child development
concerns rather than the provision of child care places to facilitate mothers
taking up or returning to employment. Provision is up to 30 hours per week,
term time only. No fees are currently charged for children attending nursery
classes although a facility exists in the Education (Jersey) Law 1999 for the
States to introduce fees if deemed appropriate.
Special
Needs
The Committee also provides additional
support for children with special needs. There are resourced nursery provisions
at provided primary schools which cater for children with hearing impairment,
physical disability, language disorders and attention and communication difficulties.
THE
DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF PLACES[3]
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of
nursery class and registered childcare places in Jersey between 1970 and 2002.
Figure 2: The Distribution and Availability
of Early Years Places 1970 - 2002
Certain significant trends may be drawn from
this data. There has been a continued growth in the number of nursery class
places in provided primary schools, giving effect to the former Education
Committee’s policy[4] agreed in October 1989.
Following a period of growth up to the mid
1990’s there has been a decline in the number of playgroups. The demand for
family day care places has remained fairly stable, possibly because family day
care is a parental preference which is largely unaffected by the development of
other kinds of childcare provision.
Whilst the number of playcare places has
increased following the introduction of registration for playcare providers, the
demand for places available in play schemes has declined significantly.
Although it is difficult to isolate one
factor, apart from demographic growth, that has affected trends in relation to
childcare provision, it is reasonable to assume that the Committee’s policy in
respect of nursery classes in provided schools has had an impact on the nature
and distribution of other provision. However, it is important to emphasise that
the increase in the number of places available in the Committee’s nursery
classes since 1984, has been matched by a similar increase in the number of
places available in Day Nurseries, the majority of which are privately
provided. This growth in the private sector is unsurprising since strong
economies are often associated with labour shortages which attract mothers into
the work place and provide a natural stimulus for the expansion of private
childcare provision[5].
The growth in nursery class places has meant
that 49% of three and four year olds now access free high quality provision for
up to 30 hours per week, 38 weeks per year.
THE
CASE FOR CHANGE
The main issues in relation to early
childhood education and care in Jersey are about affordability, equity and
access.
Affordability
The cost of childcare in Jersey presents a
challenge for many parents. This is especially the case for single parent families;
where there is a child with special needs or for families where there is more
than one child under school age. Parents responding to the consultation on ‘A Vision for the Future of Early Education
and Childcare in Jersey’ made the following comments:
“At
the moment my nursery fees are £1,490 per month, from September this will
increase to £1,566. I earn £1,900 per month …. We want to give them the best we
can but I don’t know how long we can go on paying these amounts each month.
There will be only one option open to us, to go back to England after seventeen
years. I feel this is so unfair.”
“My
nursery tries to keep fees affordable they are non-profit making. Not easy to
meet fees of £536 per month. I need all year nursery.”
“Far
too expensive, nearly half my salary is devoted to providing a full-time
nursery place when I have two other children to support as well as general
living expenses.”
The average cost of a private sector nursery
place for a child under two years in Jersey is 63% higher than the average cost
across England and 30% higher than the cost of a similar nursery place in
London. For children over two years of age these figures are 52% and 26%
respectively. Although, in making these comparisons, no adjustments have been
made to Jersey figures to take account of variations in average earnings, costs
of goods, services and property rents, the minimum staff to child ratios are
the same as in England. However, salaries paid to childcare workers in England
are generally poor compared to Jersey.
Figure 3: Average Weekly Cost
Per Child of Nursery Places[6]
|
Area |
Under 2 Years |
2 Years + |
|
Jersey Average |
218 |
187 |
|
Inner London |
168 |
149 |
|
Outer London |
169 |
147 |
|
England
Average |
134 |
123 |
Whilst parents have access to financial
support, specifically through the Child Tax Credit and the Childcare Allowance,
the Committee recognises that childcare needs to be more affordable. Conversely,
the Committee does not believe that the injection of public funding into the
private sector, either in the form of subsidies to parents or providers, would
guarantee affordability, unless other mechanisms were place to ensure fair
value.
Equity
A two-tier system currently exists. Nursery
classes provide half of the total capacity for 3 and 4 year olds and the
parents of these children enjoy free access while the rest must pay for places
in the private sector. Whilst some parents will always choose private provision
and expect to pay the market rate, others find that their choices are
constrained by their capacity to pay.
“Finance
plays a huge role in my decision making process on whether to move my child
from [nursery] to a free States run nursery. I feel very strongly that I do not
have freedom of choice on this issue …”
The equity issue is further exacerbated by the
fact that nursery classes are staffed by qualified teachers who receive better
pay and conditions of service than their counterparts in the childcare sector
where higher and more costly staff to child ratios are required.
Access
Day nurseries provide childcare for up to 50
hours per week for 48 weeks per year. This private provision better suits the
needs of many working parents. Nursery classes, on the other hand, provide for
a maximum of 30 hours per week during term time, leaving some parents, who work
longer hours, to find complementary forms of provision. A further complication
arises when parents who predominantly want an educational experience for their
children are unable to access a free place whilst others, whose prime concern
is childcare, may secure one. Also, as most nursery class provision is currently
offered on a full time basis, some parents who only want a part-time
educational experience for their child may be unable to access one.
“The
current plan by ESC to provide a nursery class in every primary school is
admirable but does not meet the requirements of many parents. For those who are
working full-time, the school day is at least 2 hours shorter …”
EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development’s definition of early childhood education and care includes:
‘…
all arrangements providing care and education of children under compulsory
school age, regardless of setting, funding, opening hours, or programme content
… to include policies – including parental leave arrangements – and provision
concerning children under age 3, a group often neglected in discussions in the
educational sphere’.[7]
The Committee sees its responsibilities for
under threes predominantly in terms of protection through the administration of
the childcare registration process for which it is legally responsible.
However, it recognises that there is a need for more coherent family policy, based
on clear values which recognise that the States needs to actively support
parents in the choices they make in the best interests of child development.
Research suggests that maternal and parental
leave during the first year of a child’s life, is associated with better
maternal and child health[8] which in turn impacts positively on child
development. On the other hand there is also strong evidence that high quality
childcare alongside parental care at home is similarly beneficial, although the
case in favour of childcare for children under 18 months is less compelling[9].
Whilst the Committee has chosen to focus its attention on provision for
three and four year olds, it recognises the need to consult with other States
Committees on wider family policy issues.
THE
CASE FOR INVESTMENT IN EARLY YEARS EDUCATION AND CARE
Although child development is at the heart of
the Committee’s vision for early years, other factors such as work life
balance, income and family context also influence normal child development. Therefore
the case for investment is based on an analysis of needs in Jersey and the potential
long term benefits to society of investing in early child development.
Economically
Active Parents
Figure
4: Working Mothers with Children Aged 0-5 Years in Jersey[10]
|
Hours Worked Per Week |
Number of Working Mothers |
Percent of Working Mothers |
|
1-5 |
22 |
1 |
|
6-10 |
84 |
5 |
|
11-15 |
125 |
7 |
|
16-20 |
313 |
18 |
|
21-25 |
376 |
21 |
|
26-30 |
173 |
10 |
|
31-35 |
209 |
12 |
|
36-40 |
361 |
20 |
|
41-45 |
71 |
4 |
|
46-50 |
35 |
2 |
|
>50 |
16 |
1 |
|
Total |
1,785 |
100 |
Discussions about childcare are predominantly
associated with patterns of female employment and the potential discriminatory
impact of child-rearing for mothers in employment. Women often have to consider
the consequences of having children on career continuity and progression and,
where maternal earnings form an integral part of a family’s income, some
mothers may be faced with a difficult choice. This is an issue for Jersey: the
proportion of women working in Jersey is higher than in the U.K. and is amongst
the highest in Europe[11]; the proportion of part-time employees who
are female is particularly high at 90%; 39% of all working women with children
under five years old are working in excess of 30 hours per week; 70% work in
excess of 20 hours per week and about one in eight working mothers in Jersey,
with children under five years old, are single parents.
Low
Income Families
Even though early education and care is
viewed by many as a good thing, some parents struggle to afford the cost. A
widely applied measure of relative low income in Europe is the proportion of
households whose equivilised[12] income falls below 60 per cent of the median
income in a particular country. Although this is not an absolute measure it
does provide a way to compare jurisdictions. After the inclusion of housing
costs, about a third of children aged less than 16 years, in both Jersey and
the U.K.[13], live in households below the respective
relative income thresholds. In Jersey this corresponds to some 5,100 children.
Single families are particularly susceptible to relative low income in Jersey;
almost two-thirds of single parents with school age children fall below the
threshold measure.
Figure 5: Comparison of
proportion of population living below low relative
income threshold in Jersey and
the U.K. (% of each age group category).
|
|
Before
Housing Costs |
After
Housing Costs |
||
|
Age group |
Jersey 2002 |
U.K. 2001/02 |
Jersey 2002 |
U.K. 2001/02 |
|
Children |
22 |
21 |
33 |
30 |
|
Pensioners |
31 |
22 |
33 |
22 |
|
Other adults |
11 |
14 |
19 |
19 |
|
All persons |
16 |
17 |
24 |
22 |
Inclusion
Quality early childhood education and care is
often critical to help families who originate from outside Jersey to settle,
integrate and become self-sufficient. It can provide all children with a
cultural orientation. For children from non-English speaking families, it can
stimulate language development and promote social inclusion.
At the time of the 2001 Census, almost half
of Jersey’s resident population had been born outside of the Island; 36% were
born elsewhere in the British Isles or the Republic of Ireland whilst 6% were
born in Portugal or Madeira. Portuguese was the second principal language
spoken by 8.4% of the resident population. Of those residents who did not speak
English as a first language, 71% spoke it as a second language whilst 1.6% of
residents (corresponding to some 1,400 people) were unable to speak English.
Migration
The Actuarial Profession[14] is considering the extent to which
government policies influence population changes in the U.K., particularly in
respect of birth rates in the context of an ageing society. It recognises that
parents ultimately decide whether or not to have children, but accepts that
many factors, health, social and economic, influence this decision. Government
policy is capable of influencing these factors.
Although, the impact of such intervention in
Jersey may be far less significant, it is important to recognise that, with the
benefits provided through its childcare strategy, England might prove to be a
more attractive option for young families who would otherwise return or migrate
to Jersey, where the cost of housing and the cost of living is already high.
The U.K. Government’s 10 year strategy
promises to –
· extend
paid maternity leave to one year by the end of the next Parliament;
· raise
childcare tax credits for middle and low income families;
· extend
free nursery places for all 3 and 4 year olds to 20 hours per week, 38 weeks
per year;
· provide
2,500 children’s centres by 2008 and 3,500 by 2010.
Current
Investment
It is debateable how far government should
intervene to support non-statutory early childhood education and care. The
Committee takes the view that, measured and focused intervention can provide
considerable benefits for children themselves and, in the long term, for the
Island as a whole. There is clear evidence that high quality early childhood
education and care programmes actually work. However, high quality programmes
tend to be expensive.
The European Union recommends that member
states annually invest approximately 1% of GDP on early childhood education and
care. In practice, there is considerable variation with, for example, the U.K.
investing 0.4% and Sweden 1.7%. For jurisdictions such as Jersey, dominated by
the financial services sector, GNI is the more appropriate measure of the size
of the economy[15]; 1% of Jersey’s GNI in 2003 corresponded to approximately
£29m. Although no estimate of the State’s overall expenditure on early
education and childcare according to the OECD definition is available, in 2003,
Jersey compared less favourably with other European countries in respect of
children aged 3 years having access to free education.
Figure 6: Investment in Early
Childhood Education and Care[16]
|
Measure |
Jersey Performance |
Lower Quartile |
Median |
Upper Quartile |
|
Children aged 3 with access to free education % |
33% |
51% |
60% |
66% |
In 2005, most four and all five year olds now
have access to a free place in reception classes at provided primary schools
and 49% of three and four year olds to a free nursery place for up to 30 hours
per week, 38 weeks per year. By providing all three and four year olds with
access to an affordable, high quality early years experience, the Committee
believes that the States would be making a sound investment in the future of
the Island.
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED CHILDRENS’ CENTRE
The case for interventions which improve the
life chances of disadvantaged children from high risk, low income families is
compelling, even from the first year. High quality provision has been shown to
have strongly positive effects that can partially compensate for home
circumstances and significantly improve the educational attainment of
disadvantaged children even into adulthood[17]. The delivery of integrated services,
health, education, childcare, and welfare can improve life chances
dramatically.
The Bull Report (2000) identified levels of
emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) amongst young people of school age
in Jersey which exceed national norms. Unlike the U.K., where general learning
difficulties feature as the most common type of special educational need, in
Jersey SEBD (severe emotional and behavioural difficulty) is perceived to be
the most prevalent.
‘For
the island … EBD is not only perceived as the most significant SEN, it is also
represented at a level which supersedes national norms.
‘… when
combining visible types of SEN across the age groups, SEBD is the most
prevalent in primary and secondary years with SEBD representing closer to half
of the total SEN visible population than any other special need.’
The States currently commits significant
funding to support children and young people who present with severe emotional
and behavioural difficulties, in an attempt to remediate problems which often
have their roots in the early years.
The Committee’s vision for the development of
an integrated children’s centre acknowledges that the most significant factors
which affect child development are the home and parental behaviour. Often,
disadvantaged parents themselves face challenges which affect their parenting
behaviour. The benefits of constructive and supportive intervention to promote
positive parenting are already evident through the work of the Parenting Team
originally established with funding from the Substance Misuse Strategy. This
team works intensively with disadvantaged and teenage parents and has become an
integral part of the Youth Action Team established through the Children’s
Executive to work with young offenders, young people presenting SEBD and
families at risk.
The Committee sees these services being
offered together with pre-school language support, special needs provision,
adult education and other outreach services in an integrated children’s centre.
The centre would also become the base for a restructured Jersey Child Care
Trust and operate as a one-stop-shop providing information and support to
parents on everything that affects child development. It could also become a
base for childminder networks.
PARTNERSHIP
In pursuing its vision for early years, one
challenge which the Committee faces is how to work effectively in partnership
with the private sector without compromising the educational philosophy and
intentions which underpin the development of nursery classes.
Free or more affordable provision could be
made available by continuing to invest solely in public sector provision, i.e.
nursery classes at provided primary schools. This would guarantee uniformity in
terms of cost and quality but would take a long time to achieve and, in all
probability, have an adverse effect on private sector provision. On the other
hand, more affordable provision could be achieved without the expense of
further capital development by cementing a truly cohesive partnership with the
private sector and using subsidies, grants or vouchers to channel funds.
Figure
7: Hypothetical Impact of Free Nursery Class Provision on the Private Sector
2005 – 2010
Using mean population predictions it is
possible to predict the number of children who arrive in provided primary
schools to within 3 percent. Using the same model and assuming that all nursery
class places are taken up on a full-time basis, figure 7 illustrates
simplistically, the potential impact of nursery class expansion on the private
sector. This position would be exacerbated if significant part-time provision was
reintroduced in the public sector.
The Committee acknowledges the contribution that
the private sector has made to early childhood education and care in Jersey
over the past thirty years and does not wish its policy to have an adverse
affect on private providers who offer a high quality, fair value, all year service.
In effect, this range of provision is
necessary to support parents who work full-time. Inevitably, its demise could
reduce the availability of needed childcare places for babies. Rather, the
Committee recognises that a partnership with the private sector could extend
the capacity of the system to provide a high quality place for every three and
four year old by 2009 (figure 8).
Figure 8: Projected Combined Capacity of
Public Private Sector
Provision 2005 – 2010
To work effectively this partnership would
need, from the outset, to involve key stakeholders who would then define clear
goals for the future, develop a framework for quality and accountability and
establish clear ground rules. Although some reorganisation might be necessary
to ensure that provision across the system better meets the needs of working
parents, the Committee is confident that a collaborative partnership would
provide better support for children and parents.
The Jersey Childcare Trust would have a
significant role to play in this partnership. It would continue ‘to coordinate,
promote and facilitate the expansion
of high quality and affordable childcare provision in the Island’[18] providing information to parents and
professionals, supporting training and passporting small grants to providers.
It would become a more powerful champion for quality and take a lead role
engaging parents in that process. Furthermore, it would seek to attract private
sector funding and encourage employers to develop more family friendly workplaces
which recognise the value, to the family and the employer, of flexible working
practices.
A
FOCUS ON EARLY LEARNING
“The accumulated findings of child psychology
and brain research suggest that sensitive learning periods occur at specific
ages and that adult interventions in their lives are more telling in these
periods than in others.”.[19]
The Committee believes that an opportunity
now exists for us to review our image of the experiences we want young children
to enjoy in their early years and to develop provisions that will deliver the
highest quality to all.
In recent years, early childhood education
and care has been the focus of much attention for researchers and governments
throughout the world. Some countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, define
clearly what publicly funded provision will deliver for young children. Other
countries are less prescriptive, enabling parents to choose what suits them
best and allowing market forces to shape the philosophy and structure of
resultant provision. The Committee believes that, if public funding is used to
support an early childhood education and care strategy, it is reasonable for
the States to take a view about the nature of provision and to maintain high
expectations in respect of quality.
The debate as to whether early childhood
provision should primarily be about childcare or education is often
misunderstood. Nursery classes are perceived to offer an educational experience
whilst Day Nurseries and Pre-Schools provide childcare. At one extreme these
perceptions conjure up images of ‘schoolification’[20] whilst at the other, of children who are
merely supervised and not stimulated intellectually. In reality, either
scenario is rare. Rather there is a growing realisation among professionals
working with young children that, child development and childcare objectives
are not mutually exclusive – good education involves good care and good care
involves good educational experiences.
From the Committee’s perspective, the
distinction between nursery classes and childcare provisions is important. The policy of developing nursery classes has
been driven primarily by child development concerns rather than the provision
of childcare places to facilitate mothers taking up or returning to employment.
This means that the emphasis is on providing good educational experiences
underpinned by good childcare practices. Even so, the Committee does recognise
that nursery classes, whilst providing a specific experience for children inevitably
provide childcare, although often not in a form that fully covers the needs of
working parents.
Nevertheless, by appointing qualified
teachers and investing in stimulating, purpose-built environments, the
Committee has sought to ensure the highest quality experiences for young
children; to provide a flexible structure which guides and supports both the
work and professional development of staff; to provide a common language which
facilitates dialogue between staff and parents about child development issues
and, from the child’s perspective, to ease transition from nursery into school.
This approach embraces the concept of ‘education in its broadest sense’. It is
about the holistic development of the child socially, emotionally and intellectually.
The pre-schools of Reggio Emilia in Northern
Italy are the embodiment of this approach. These nursery schools are hailed as
exemplary and the Reggio Approach, developed
by Loris Malaguzzi, has influenced
developments in early learning throughout the world. It is based very strongly
on a particular image of the child as a curious, imaginative and independent
learner and emphasises the role of the expressive arts as a vehicle for early
learning and creative discovery.
The High/Scope Project in America offers a
similar pre-school programme which is structured to provide young children with
choice and to foster their independence and autonomy. The Foundation Stage
Curriculum which is currently implemented in the U.K. and Jersey is another
approach designed to support children’s learning through planned and spontaneous
play. Again, the emphasis is on learning and the holistic development of the
child.
Whilst the Committee’s vision has been
influenced by such acclaimed curriculum developments in early childhood
education and care, it is recognised that public and private sector partners
will need to develop a shared philosophy and agree a curriculum that best meets
the needs of children in Jersey.
FUNDING
THE COMMITTEE’S VISION
The issue of how best to fund early childhood
education and care in the future poses a dilemma. At present, the Committee
provides 460 free nursery class places. The rationale for this provision is
based on the significant benefits that accrue to children. Based on the 2005
cohort, the estimated additional revenue cost of delivering free early
education and childcare 30 hours per week, 38 weeks per year for all remaining
three and four year olds would be approximately £2m per annum at 2005
values. This is based on subsidising
places at the current average private sector childcare cost per hour and takes
account of the costs associated with the administration, development and
implementation of a quality assurance framework.
However, whilst the Committee supports the
concept of free provision, it would be unable to meet this additional commitment
from within its existing revenue budget and would require additional funding
from the States.
An alternative would be to provide a reduced
free entitlement of 20 hours per week for all and to introduce flat rate
charges for additional hours provided in nursery classes. Whilst estimating the
savings associated with this model is subject to significant uncertainties, it
is anticipated that the additional overall costs would be reduced if the
revenue gained from raising charges for nursery classes was used to offset
expenditure on private sector places. Whilst it is difficult to accurately assess
the true impact of this, it would certainly make provision more affordable and
deliver an optimum minimum entitlement[21] similar to that which the U.K. Government
aspires to.
A third solution would be to introduce
graduated fees and means testing for all provision, including nursery classes. This
would offer a pragmatic and cost effective way to address the inequality of the
current two-tier system but it might also prove complex and costly to
administer. Again derived revenue might
be used to subsidise provision thereby reducing the overall cost to parents and
the States. Inevitably, it would mean the withdrawal of free provision for the
nursery class cohort which could be regarded as backward step. In any case, the
real argument against means testing is that it could make early years provision
less attractive to some parents and lead to the use of unregistered childcare.
In Denmark, Sweden and Finland early childhood
education and care is heavily subsidised. In the U.K., policy has been geared
toward providing some free entitlement. In Reggio Emilia, early years provision
is means tested and all parents are expected to contribute something. The
Committee, whilst favouring a free entitlement for all, is conscious that this
may be difficult to achieve in the current financial context and would welcome
the views of other States Members and the community on this issue.
In most jurisdictions where public funding is
used to support early childhood education and care, it is generally through one
or a mix of two methods. One way is for subsidies to be directed to families so
as to provide choice. This can be done through tax credits and child care
allowances but this mechanism does not necessarily guarantee affordability or
uniformity in terms of quality. Another method is to channel subsidies directly
to private sector providers by way of grants or vouchers but again this would
not guarantee quality or affordability unless a clear accountability framework
was introduced.
The Committee takes the view that the second
method is preferable but only where private providers are prepared to enter
into a fair value partnership which guarantees a quality experience and realistic
charges.
SUMMARY
The Committee’s policy to develop nursery
classes in provided primary schools is driven by child development concerns
rather than the provision of childcare for working parents. Since 1984, the
growth in public sector education provision has been matched by a comparable
growth in private sector childcare provision. This has led to a two tier system
whereby approximately half of all three year olds have access to a free place.
Although the Committee currently has plans to
develop further nursery classes at St. Clements’s School (2006) and St. Peter’s
School (2009) it recognises that it would be many years before this approach
would provide a place for every 3 and 4 year old.
Therefore in the best interests of child
development the Committee is proposing a collaborative partnership with private
sector providers who are willing to commit to a high quality and fair value
contract. However, recognising the current the financial context of the Island,
the Committee is aware that this may not be easily achievable without
additional funding from the States.