Truss's ambitions are admirable, but her understanding is lamentable

The row over ratios took a surprising turn last week, with Nick Clegg's decision to make public his view that he "remains to be persuaded that this is the right thing to do for very young children ". The public bickering that followed, including the leaking of Clegg's original comments which supported the proposal, and Michael Gove's suggestion that Clegg was "showing a bit of leg" to strengthen his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats, has hardly been edifying. Is Clegg using the needs of young children as a proxy in a party-political battle? No matter, so long as this misguided policy proposal is stopped.



Gove: Clegg "showing a bit of leg"
over adult:child ratios

I've already blogged about the research evidence about ratios, and concluded that there is no robust, peer-reviewed research published anywhere in the world to support of the proposal that you can maintain quality whilst you cut ratios. The government's own adviser, Cathy Nutbrown, summarised the evidence very neatly in her final report - there is strong evidence in support of improving the level of qualifications, and also improving the content and delivery of those qualifications. 


"Quality falls as ratios rise"

But, as Nutbrown states in her response to the government document More Great Childcare, the proposal on ratios will simply mean "too few adults with too many little children." Or, as the Association for the Professional Development of Early Years Educators (TACTYC) put it, "quality falls as ratios rise" [PDF]. 

Leading researchers warn that government proposals will "lead to an unintended reduction in quality"

Four of the country's leading researchers into early education have produced a detailed analysis of the proposals in More Great Childcare, which they have evaluated against the best available evidence.

Naomi Eisenstadt, Professor Kathy Sylva, Sandra Mathers (University of Oxford) and Brenda Taggart (Institute of Education, London) applaud the aims and ambition of the government proposals. But they are sceptical, and suggest that they are most likely to "lead to an unintended reduction in quality".

Their review of the proposals speaks for itself [PDF] so I won't quote too much from what they say. But here are a few salient points:

• For babies and toddlers, ratios were much more important for quality than were staff qualifications. Therefore, relaxing ratios for this age group will lead to a reduction in quality; and improving qualifications would not lessen the impact.
• The introduction of a new qualification - the ‘Early Years Teacher’ - to replace existing Early Years Professionals (EYPs) will not necessarily enhance the status of those working with young children because they will not have comparable training, or Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), and will not be eligible for teacher pay and conditions. They will simply be second class ‘teachers’.
• "very worrying are proposals to reduce the quality improvement role currently offered by local authorities (LAs). This may lead to a direct reduction in quality as currently local authorities do far more than simply ‘inspect’ quality."

Overall, the tone of this paper is even-handed and sober, determinedly non-ideological.

For me, the message is clear: there is no serious evidence to support most of the government proposals. More Great Childcare is nothing more than a reckless gamble with the wellbeing, development and futures of our youngest children.

Read more of my posts on the More Great Childcare proposals:

Professor Denise Hevey's comments on More Great Childcare

Can we afford not to provide high quality early education and care? Cathy Nutbrown responds to More Great Childcare

When is a teacher not a teacher?

Liz Truss on ratios and qualifications - an ill-considered announcement

Elizabeth Truss and nursery ratios: why there is no case for change

Professor Denise Hevey's comments on More Great Childcare

Whilst most of the early years sector has been strongly critical of More Great Childcare, it's been interesting to find a statement from Professor Denise Hevey on the BECERA website in which she welcomes "much of its content". Her statement is interesting, and worth reading alongside Professor Cathy Nutbrown's powerful attack on government proposals this week [PDF].

Professor Denise Hevey

Cathy Nutbrown strongly opposes the plan to worsen adult to child ratios. She highlights the failure, to date, of the government to accept her recommendation that the early years workforce should be more highly qualified overall, progressing in steps towards everyone being at level 3 or above (if they are to count within the prescribed ratios; others could work as supernumerary assistants). Nutbrown also notes that the government has not yet accepted her recommendation to commission research in order to learn more about the experiences of black and minority ethnic staff, who may be under-represented in the numbers of level 3 practitioners, and amongst managers. 

So when Professor Hevey welcomes "much of the content" in More Great Childcare - does she include the proposals on ratios and the decision not to accept proposals on upskilling with workforce and looking more closely at the experiences of BME staff? Or does she agree with Professor Nutbrown? It isn't clear.

Can we afford not to provide high quality early education and care? Cathy Nutbrown responds to More Great Childcare

Professor Cathy Nutbrown

Have no doubt - More Great Childcare is not an adequate response to the Nutbrown Review. On the other hand, Cathy Nutbrown's paper, Shaking the Foundations of Quality [PDF] is a thoughtful and often stirring critique of the government's proposals.

Cathy Nutbrown writes: 

At the heart of early childhood education and care are children and their families and, again, it may be a truism but it is worth reiterating that no changes in policy should be made unless they are demonstrably beneficial to them. It is not possible to provide good foundations for life and learning for the youngest children on the cheap. But it should be possible, with political will, to provide quality experiences for children that are affordable. When the budgets are set the question to be asked is not "Can we afford high quality early education and care with well qualified professionals?" Rather, when we take account of the strongly evidenced benefits of high quality and appropriately caring early learning experiences to later life, the question to be asked is "Can we afford not to provide high quality early education and care with well qualified professionals?"

Please email, share, Facebook and post Professor Nutbrown's paper wherever you can - it's that important.

Read more of my posts about More Great Childcare:


Leading researchers warn that government proposals will "lead to an unintended reduction in quality"

Professor Denise Hevey's comments on More Great Childcare

When is a teacher not a teacher?

Liz Truss on ratios and qualifications - an ill-considered announcement

Elizabeth Truss and nursery ratios: why there is no case for change

IOE Doctoral School Poster Conference 2013

I learnt one big lesson from the poster conference at the IOE ... make sure that the text on your poster is big enough for people to read it comfortably. Although a kind visitor said that the advantage of my too-texty poster was that it drew people in and then they could talk to me.

Thanks to everyone who stopped to ask me about my research. I have now reformatted the poster into a PDF.

BECERA 2013 Conference - my presentation

I was lucky enough to get the chance to present some of my research findings at the 2013 BECERA conference in Birmingham alongside Jennifer Colwell from Brighton University. You can download my presentation to see it full-size [PDF]

When is a teacher not a teacher?

I've been puzzling for a while about the government's proposal in More Great Childcare to create the role of "early years teacher". What would being an EYT mean?

After digging around quite a bit, I've found that EYTs will not actually be qualified teachers. They will not be able to lead a nursery or reception class in a school as a qualified teacher. There is also nothing to suggest that the new EYTs will have anything like the same salaries or terms and conditions as other teachers have.

In other words, the preface of "early years" to the term "teacher" actually means less pay, less status, and less professional recognition. Nothing unusual there, then - because in general, anything to do with the early years in England is seen as less important than work with older children.

However, there are also further implications which we ought to be just as worried about. The proposal to create EYTs is a Trojan Horse for the whole deregulation agenda, both in nurseries and in schools.