CEY1502

Written evidence submitted by the Sutton Trust

The Sutton Trust

The Sutton Trust champions social mobility through programmes, research and policy influence. Since 1997 and under the leadership of founder Sir Peter Lampl, the Sutton Trust has worked to address low levels of social mobility in the UK. The Trust works to improve social mobility from birth to the workplace so that every young person – no matter who their parents are, what school they go to, or where they live – has the chance to succeed in life.

Introduction

The first four years of children’s lives are a crucial period for social mobility, as this is when the gap in outcomes between disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers first takes hold. Quality early years provision, targeted at those who need it most, has the potential to tackle these gaps.

Yet at present, access to quality early education is unequal, with most of the country’s poorest families locked out of the entitlement of 30 hours of funded early education and childcare for three- and four-year-olds. Recent research by the Trust found that only 20% of families in the bottom third of the earnings distribution are eligible for the 30 hours.[1]  

There is a delicate balance between providing high-quality early education and affordable childcare for working families. The Trust is concerned that the current system is too focused on childcare at the expense of high-quality early education. There is some evidence that the 30-hour entitlement for working families may be contributing to the recent widening in the attainment gap, by doubly advantaging the better off with additional hours. Efforts to close the gap in outcomes for children aged 5 have stalled and the gap is widening again. The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile gap was slowly narrowing from 2007 to 2017, but by 2019 had increased back to 2015 levels.[2]

To improve the early years system and ensure it is providing high-quality early education for disadvantaged children, the Trust is calling for:

• Universal access to the 30 hours entitlement for children aged three and four. A universal offer has several potential benefits, including simplifying access for families, providers and local authorities, which would help to improve take up, as well as giving greater levels of financial security to settings. A targeted expansion of the 30 hours offer to disadvantaged families would be a cheaper alternative, but has downsides in terms of ease of administration, along with fairness to ‘just about managing’ families.
• An increase in the Early Years Pupil Premium, to bring it in line with the primary school pupil premium.
• A fair funding model for an extended 30 hours. A universal uplift to funding, such as the one introduced when the 30 hours policy was first rolled out, would have broader benefits to providers.
• A strong focus on quality. To offer an extended and better-funded 30-hour entitlement, providers should be required to meet certain evidence-based quality criteria, for example employing a graduate leader in their setting, employing a certain proportion of Level 3 qualified staff, and providing effective professional development. A ‘Leadership Quality Fund’ – a pot of funding to help settings attract qualified staff with enhanced pay and status, with the long-term aspiration of having a qualified teacher in every setting – should be introduced, and there should be opportunities for Early Years Teachers (EYTS) to achieve parity with teachers holding QTS.

How affordable and easy to understand is the current provision of childcare in England and what steps, if any, could be taken to improve it, especially in relation to families living within the most deprived areas in England?

Complexity

The current system is complex and confusing. There are different eligibility criteria for the two-year-old entitlement, the 15 hour entitlement for three- and four-year-olds, and the 30 hours for three- and four-year-olds.

Providers surveyed by the Sutton Trust felt that they were caught in the middle of two contradictory policy offers (the 15 hours for disadvantaged two-year-olds and the 30 hours for working parents) with different objectives.[3] Providers reported that the complex eligibility criteria for the 30 hours entitlement caused problems for them and for parents, and they argued for greater simplicity and more certainty.

Eligibility for the 30 hours has to be confirmed termly by a particular date, placing a burden on settings, parents and the local authority. Providers surveyed felt that the termly eligibility criteria means that some children’s learning and development can be disrupted as they move in and out of eligibility. It can make it harder for settings and families to plan, and also for parents to move into work, as they have to wait for the next application window so may not be able to access childcare as soon as they need it. Given current eligibility criteria for the 30 hours policy, those potentially moving in and out of eligibility are likely to be disadvantaged families. As highlighted above, the Sutton Trust is calling for a universalised 30 hours offer at age 3 (which is fairly funded and of high quality). This has the benefit of being simpler to access and ensuring that families who are on lower incomes don’t miss out.

Affordability

The existing funding rate does not help to create an affordable system. An FOI of the Department for Education by the Early Years Alliance showed that the funding rates paid to local authorities for the three- and four-year-old free entitlement places are just two-thirds of what the government estimated would be needed to fully fund the scheme.[4]

75% of providers surveyed by the Sutton Trust said that the per-hour funding they receive for the 30 hours does not meet their costs.[5] Some settings reported that this was forcing them to apply charges, including extras such as nappies, sunscreen and lunch, which undermines the intention of the policy as a ‘free’ entitlement, excluding some families. A universal uplift to funding, such as the one introduced when the 30-hour entitlement was first rolled out, would help to ensure that settings are able to cover costs without charging parents substantial fees.

The Early Years Pupil Premium is currently much lower than the funding rate for school-aged children, despite the importance of the early years for tackling inequalities. The Sutton Trust is calling for EYPP to be raised to the same per-pupil level as it is for primary school children. The EYPP should also be reformed to make its administration easier and improve its impact. This could be achieved by broadening the eligibility period over a greater amount of time to capture families dipping in and out of poverty, as with the Pupil Premium in schools, and removing the onus from parents to repeatedly prove eligibility. The current system is time-consuming for both settings and parents, and the latter may not see the benefit in doing so and be wary of the stigma attached. The Trust would also like to see the funding applied across the full 30 hours.

If eligibility for the 30 hours were to be extended, funding should be linked to quality. Providers should be required to meet certain evidence-based quality criteria, for example employing a graduate leader in their setting, employing a certain proportion of Level 3 qualified staff, and providing professional development opportunities to their workforce. A ‘Leadership Quality Fund’, should be reinstated, a pot of funding which would help settings to attract qualified staff with enhanced pay and status, with the long-term aspiration of having a qualified teacher in every setting.

Are the current entitlements providing parents/carers with sufficient childcare, and to what extent are childcare costs affecting parents/carers from returning to work full-time?

Providers surveyed by the Trust felt the 30-hour entitlement was welcomed by families who were already working. For many parents, childcare is an enormous financial burden, and the enhanced entitlement relieves this financial commitment to an extent. Just over half of providers in the survey (52%) said the entitlement was helping families to work much or slightly more.[6] Those working in the most deprived parts of the country were 13 percentage points less likely to say parents were able to work more. Providers surveyed felt there is appetite from parents for more than 15 hours, with 87% saying more families would take up more hours if they became eligible.

Providers also highlight some experiences of 15-hour places for disadvantaged two-year-olds being withdrawn to prioritise delivering 30-hour places for children of working parents. This would lead to some families missing out on the 15 hours, which is both an education opportunity for their child and a potential first step towards employment. Indeed, the current funding system may incentivise providers to take children entitled to the 30 hours over those with universal 15 hours or disadvantaged 2-year-old provision. A quarter of providers in the Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector reported that the number of universal 15 hours places had declined at their setting after the introduction of the 30 hour entitlement, while 38% of councils reported that the introduction had caused difficulties for delivering places for disadvantaged 2-year-olds.[7]

The current eligibility for the 30-hour entitlement can limit parents’ ability to look for work, and the termly eligibility review could leave those in new jobs either having to pay for the extra hours themselves or having no support for several months until the next eligibility review comes around.

Whether the current Tax-Free Childcare scheme, and support for childcare from the benefits and tax credit system, is working effectively or whether these subsidies could be better used within other childcare subsidies.

N/A

What challenges do early years providers face in terms of workforce, including recruiting, and retaining qualified staff, and the barriers faced by individuals joining the profession? To what extent has the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated workforce challenges?

In 2020, the Trust published a follow up to the 2012 Nutbrown review, which identified a recruitment crisis in the early years workforce. The Trust’s research found that this crisis has worsened over recent years. Staff turnover in the early years sector is well above average employee turnover in the UK, at 24% compared to the UK average of 15-18%.[8] The workforce is losing more experienced and qualified staff, mainly due to low salaries and lack of career benefits.

The qualifications of the workforce are key to ensuring high-quality provision, yet 33% of staff in early years settings do not have either an English or a Maths GCSE or both. Just 52% of the early years workforce had a level 3 qualification in 2018/19, a sharp drop from 2015/16. The creation of the new qualifications of Early Years Educator (EYE) at Level 3 and Early Years Teacher (EYT) at Level 6 has not led to a boost in recruitment of higher qualified staff in the sector. In fact, recruitment to Early Years Teacher (EYT) courses has dropped dramatically from 2015 to 2020, limiting progress towards securing highly qualified leaders in all settings. Recommendations to government to give Early Years Teachers (EYT) full parity with Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) routes have been resisted.[9]

Barriers to accessing entry level (1-3) qualifications need to be addressed urgently to encourage new recruits, with a view to establishing a Level 3 qualification as the benchmark for the sector. As highlighted above, the Trust has also called for incentives for graduate leaders to be employed in all early years settings to be reinstated through a ‘Leadership Quality Fund’. Other steps to improve qualifications should also be taken, including introducing a route for QTS Early Years which includes access to the early career framework, bolstering conversion courses available for those already qualified as EYTs who wish to gain QTS, along with taking steps towards parity of pay and conditions for qualified teachers working in the non-maintained sector.

A reduction in funded Continuing Professional Development (CPD) has led to a lack of funds for staff progression to more advanced training. CPD, which follows on from initial training, should be a requirement for all staff throughout their careers and be properly funded to ensure access.

Across the workforce, there is a need for a clear, overarching vision. There should be a restatement of the crucial importance of making the early years a well-qualified, high status and better rewarded profession.

Whether the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system is meeting the needs of pupils with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND), and the improvements that could be made to better support young children with SEND within early years provisions.

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have above average levels of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Yet only 2% of families taking up a place for a 2-year-old do so on the basis of their disability.[10] This may reflect the barriers to accessing places for children with SEND: a child must either be in receipt of Disability Living Allowance or already have an Education, Health and Care Plan in place to qualify. Yet many children, particularly those with complex educational needs such as autism, do not have an official diagnosis at this age. There may be a case for a more flexible criteria for allocation of places on the basis of SEND, such as the support of a professional working with the family who believes the child would benefit from access to a place.

An average of 6% of three- and four-year-olds with SEND take up the universal entitlement, and research indicates that children with SEND often have difficulty accessing their full 15 hour entitlement, or to access any early education at all. For the 30 hours, DfE data in 2018 showed that only 2.6% of children taking up the extended entitlement were identified as having SEND.[11] This may reflect the difficulties settings face in getting additional funding for children with SEND eligible for the 30 hours. It underlines the difficulties facing the parents of children in accessing work, potentially leaving children doubly disadvantaged by reduced opportunities for early education and constrained family incomes.

To what extent does the early years system adequately prepare young children for their transition into primary education, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Several decades of research has found that early education and care can have a positive effect on children’s cognitive, behavioural and social outcomes,[12] particularly if it is of high quality,[13] and particularly for disadvantaged children. The early years are a vital period for tackling inequalities between disadvantaged children and their peers. 93% of senior leaders in primary schools surveyed by the Sutton Trust said more time spent in early years provision before children start in reception helps to support school readiness, with 71% saying it helped ‘considerably’.[14] Gaps between disadvantaged children and their peers grow throughout their time at school, so providing high-quality early education is key.

The Trust is concerned that the system isn’t currently getting the balance right between supporting child development and providing working parents with access to affordable childcare. Between 2007 and 2017 there was a gradual reduction of the school readiness gap, but it is widening. While total spending on the early years has risen since 2007–08, the profile of spending priorities has changed: universal services still account for just under half of the early education and childcare budget, but subsidies explicitly targeted at low-income families have fallen – from 45% of the total then to under 30% ten years later.[15]

Ensuring that all young children from disadvantaged families have access to high-quality provision is vital. Boosting funding for disadvantaged children through the EYPP could also enhance attainment for the less advantaged but only if it is adequately funded, well targeted and easier to access.

The pandemic has also impacted on school readiness. Over half (54%) of primary senior leaders surveyed said fewer pupils were ‘school ready’ when they started reception this year than they would usually expect.[16] At schools with the most deprived intakes this was 67%. Senior leaders were worried about the impact this reduction in school readiness will have, with 59% concerned about increased strain on teachers, 51% about the long-term impact on children’s attainment, and 42% about increased staffing costs. Positive impact was identified for those children who continued to access provision during the pandemic.[17] There are still young children in early years settings now who will have missed out on vital developmental experiences during the pandemic, who are in need of additional support.

The extent to which the reduction of Sure Start Children’s Centres has affected children and families, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the role of Family Hubs.

The Sutton Trust has highlighted a postcode lottery in provision of children’s centres across the country.[18] In 2018, research by the Trust found that 1,000 Sure Start centres had closed since 2009. There are large disparities in the closures by area. By 2017, sixteen authorities closing 50% or more of their centres accounted for 55% of the total number of closures nationally. Six authorities had closed more than 70% of their centres. The proportion of centres in the 30% most disadvantaged areas remained constant, but provision across the country was patchy. Financial pressures came top in 84% of local authorities as a principal driver of change in recent years. 

Other evidence has highlighted a better home learning environment (HLE) as an impact of children’s centres.[19] Research has consistently revealed that a high-quality home learning environment is beneficial for children, with higher family HLE scores associated with better verbal ability at age 5 for both disadvantaged and better-off children.[20]  A better home learning environment is also associated with better behavioural self-regulation at age 5. Children’s centres provide an important opportunity to improve the home learning environment, which is particularly difficult to influence.

January 2023

7