The curious incident of the country where childcare funding doesn't follow the child

As of 1st of August, the Scottish Government has introduced a childcare/early education model which is meant to reduce the cost of childcare and make childcare more accessible. The free hours of early years education have been increased to 600 and 3 and 4 year olds are eligible for these free hours. As childcare is a mixed economy in Scotland, the statutory free entitlement can be accessed at local authority nurseries or private nurseries that partner with local authorities in delivering the free entitlement.

This all sounds good so far. As ever, the devil is in the detail.

First of all, while we are talking about an entitlement for all 3 and 4 year olds, guaranteed by the Scottish Government (SNP led), it needs implemented locally by local authorities, which in Glasgow is Labour led.

Secondly, the funding for free hours goes to nurseries. It does not follow the child.

So Glasgow City Council has been told by the Scottish Government that as of 1st August 2014, it needs to increase free provision for early education, but it's left to do this as it pleases. I don't know if there's extra money that was made available, but regardless, again, each local authority gets money and then has to allocate as it wishes.

So far, local authority provision either worked on the basis of offering free 3 hour childcare sessions 5 days a week to 3 and 4 year olds. Most of these establishments are closed over lunch. Some are day centres and offer limited wrap around care - but experience shows that they hardly ever offer 8-6pm places (I've seen offers of 9-4pm a lot, and if parents don't take this up because they work 9-5pm, they were dismissed with "well, we did offer and you didn't want it". The idea is that magically as of last week, more wrap around care should be available and flexibility of how the free allocation is taken up by parents is increased (so that instead of 5 days of 3hrs parents can take 2 days of 8 hours each or something like that). As for private nurseries, they get an allocation of free places (if they pass care commission standards) which they then pay out to qualifying families.

If a family uses a childminder for the remainder of the day, they pay the full childminder day fee even if the child spends half the day at nursery (because understandably the childminder can't take on another mindee and has to survive somehow as well).

I haven't got evidence yet if local authority nurseries which so far operated with 3 hour sessions are offering more flexibility. What I have seen and heard about by rather a lot of people now is that those who had to choose a private nursery (because local authority nursery doesn't have a place or only offers insufficient hours), their allocation of fee statutory sessions has been withdrawn. Private nurseries, who had an allocation of free spaces, suddenly don't have them anymore and are as flabbergasted as the parents who are back to paying full day rates (which can be as much as £45, or £900 a month per child). When the parent complains to the council, they get rather arrogant responses along the lines of "if you choose a private nursery that doesn't offer free sessions, there's not much we can do".

Let's be clear: parents don't "choose" private nurseries that have "no funded spaces". There is no choice. The parents I'm talking about here have had her child on the waiting list of the council nursery for over 2 years and the only offer that was ever made did not allow to work 9-5pm. They then took a space at a nursery that did have funding for the statutory free sessions. But that was last term, and strangely, although additional free hours have been introduced, that funding has disappeared. The wording of GCC letters even suggests that parents should just move their children to another nursery, which is blatantly not in the developmental interest of the child.

Which leads me to think: maybe Glasgow City Council is financing the additional hours they have to be seen to offer by only offering them at local authority nurseries, while withdrawing funding from private nurseries. In effect, rather than ensuring a more flexible approach and increasing free childcare, it has been taken away from working families. Now, it's not just low income families that can't access childcare in nurseries (because state nurseries don't offer full days and private nurseries are too expensive), but also middle income families are pushed out of work because they can no longer afford childcare fees. And if I say "families", this usually means "women".

This new childcare promise was meant to help get low income families back into work by making quality childcare cheaper and more accessible. It appears it hasn't just failed to do so, but also had the unintended consequence of pushing middle income parents out of work.

Remember, we are talking here about statutory provision. Every child should be able to receive 600 hours of free nursery education.  A lot of children are currently missing out. Of course I can hear those cries for independence, just that education is already devolved and we have to deal with this mess in Scotland anyway. Is there an element of Labour protest in having to implement Scottish Goivernment policies? I hear it's not so bad in other local authorities? But really let's focus on a solution: It could be all so easily turned around if only the funding followed the child. So why not give that a go?

It's not cutting it

Admittedly, I'm not exactly on top of all the news at the moment. So when the big cuts were announced I neither managed to look in depth at the emergency budget nor in depth at the recently announced budget (though it's still on my to do list). It was a bit of a surreal experience, this maternity leave bubble. Everybody talking about cuts, and all that I feel of it was debates on the radio. Of course I knew that the voluntary sector would be hit hard, but how exactly, and when, seemed a bit more elusive.

Now however, I've experienced cuts even in my little bubble, and without particularly looking out for them. I'm not surprised but still very disappointed. Services for Refugees and Asylum Seekers were first to go - the housing contract Glasgow City Council held wasn't renewed, so rather a lot of support services are on the way out. This is hitting refugees hard - as well as everyone working in the sector. The cuts affect support for the most vulnerable, support for English language tuition and thus affects integration.

In another area, I tried to apply to volunteer as a breastfeeding peer supporter. However, the programme is stalled because the NHS has withdrawn their training element from the programme. So there you have a service which is actually all big societyish with volunteers doing the work, but the necessary training to enable them to do a good job has been cut. Again, it hits the vulnerable in our society, but also society as a whole because low breastfeeding rates are linked with poorer health in later life, increased risk of obesity and general health inequalities. It's short sighted and will in fact incur a delayed cost.

I have strong views on the suggested privatisation of forests and libraries. Again, I think it's the wrong approach. And the list goes on of course.
This is not to say that I'm all opposed to cuts, or opposed to all cuts. Muddling Along Mummy stirred up a bit of a debate on those who seem to think unrealistically that we can just not have any cuts at all.

However, I think we need to start with the right vision and not cut where it's quick and easy, but which will incur additional costs in the future.
So how about we look at what is costing the country money?

1. Crime. Crime is expensive because of the justice system, more so than the actual damage (though that counts too), and it also costs our society morally (in the sense that people feel insecure and don't use public spaces - a real detrimental effect on communities). Prison doesn't get rid of crime. I'm not suggesting that prison is wrong, just that it doesn't actually do anything to remediate the problem, however is important to show there are consequences to wrong behaviour.

2. Addictions. And I include tobacco and alcohol in this - alcohol in particular costs us an awful lot of money. The damage caused by people who are drunk, the violence caused by drink both outside and in the home, the consequences addictions have on the children of addicts.

3. Poor health that is caused by lifestyle choices. Most of us know what is good and bad to eat, yet bad food is cheap and convenient and it takes knowledge, real effort and conviction to make healthy choices.

4. Unemployment/worklessness.

All of these are linked to inequalities though it's a chicken and egg situation. Social inequality causes higher crime rates, poorer health and addictions, which in turn cause social inequalities. It's a vicious circle and I don't pretend there are any easy solutions out there because if they were, we'd have made appropriate choices.

There are two factors though which I strongly believe will make a sustainable positive difference to alleviate the malaises of our society. One is to aim to make our society more equal because it has been demonstrated that societies are happier and have less violence, crime, addictions and health problems if the gap between rich and poor is not as wide as it is in the UK (the widest in Europe, and it even beats the U.S. which surprised me).

Secondly it's about the early years and good and responsible parenting, as well as a recognition by all parents that they are the people who will set up their children for life. Hence it's absolutely essential to support parents to do a good job. I'm not talking about pushy parents here, just about parenting that respects the child, that gives the child love and attention, and ambitions. Education will then add to this foundation, but education cannot bridge the attainment gap caused by growing up in poverty and deprivation; in fact school has been shown to increases the attainment gap. I'm not suggesting that poverty has to lead to low attainment at school, just that children growing up in poverty are more likely to be low achievers at schools, that there is a very real link, for many reasons. Some to do with the parents, some to do with the environment and lack of facilities. It's complex as all of these issues.

With these two principles in mind, it may become clearer why libraries, breast feeding support (breast feeding is a health indicator of deprivation - some areas of Glasgow have breast feeding rates of only 8% at the 6 week check-up) and children's centres (in England, we don't have Sure Start centres in Scotland) in my view are cuts that are very wrong. I would go further and propose a whole reassessment of value of professions. Because, if a child care worker earns less than a car mechanic, does that not show that we value cars more than children?

I do want to propose alternatives though. There is a lot of waste of money, resources in all walks of the working life. Business trips, special VIP treats etc to me are spitting people in the face who are unemployed and struggle to make ends meet. Most larger organisations have an inflated management structure - and managers are paid more than the actual front line staff. I also very much believe in a progressive tax system (ours is regressive at the moment due to the effect of VAT). While I realise that there are too few high earners and thus taxing them more doesn't change the world, it would contribute and make our society more equal.

On top of that, waste is also in physical resources. How much paper is wasted, how much stuff produced that we don't need? How about taking this age of austerity as an opportunity to reduce and reassess what is needed from what is not? If everybody cut out their waste of resources in their professional and personal lives, surely it would be a revolution of sorts?

What we cannot do is talk big words of big society and then withdraw the necessary support for this. If I, as a volunteer, want to provide a service (that really should be provided by a statutory body in the first place) it is simply stupid to withdraw the funding needed to provide a few hours of training.

Oh yes, and bring on fuel duty. If it can be cut, the deficit can't be all that bad. Fuel is not going to become any cheaper any time soon unless we build a few more nuclear power stations. Better get used to the real cost of fuel and prepare sooner rather than later that we have to rethink our worship of the car.

Early literacy, bilingualism and different scripts

My recent post on how to best support early literacy in bilingual children brought about a few comments on the topic of different scripts.

This is an interesting one because it adds a new dimension to literacy; a new worry about potentially confusing the child. I'm sure it is a worry we all have - whether it's between the two languages spoken, the two languages read and written, or the two scripts used.

Therefore, as a starting point, my gut feeling is that there's no difference between spoken bilingualism or written bilingualism with two scripts. Yes, it's more to learn. Yes, children will mix. Yes, children will end up being proficient in both.

When I was a young child (maybe 8 years of age - I'm not sure) I got interested in the Greek alphabet. I'm not sure where I saw it, but I saw it, and wanted to learn it. I didn't give my dad peace until he taught me the whole Greek alphabet (I can still recite it now!). Considering I only learned to read and write at 7 (which is normal in Germany), it was close to acquiring literacy. Did it confuse me? Not at all. I remember that I found it reasonably easy to learn because the script was similar in principle and shape. Many years later, when I learned Russian (which has a script based on the Greek alphabet), it helped me learn to read Russian and enabled me to skip a full term of tuition (the script is usually taught first) through a mere 2 weeks of self study.

From the anecdotal example of how I felt about these scripts, learning a second script in early childhood, like learning a second language, is an asset rather than a hinderance. So I wouldn't worry about confusion - there may be some at the start, but it'll be so worth it.

Cubling's nursery is lucky to have some speech and language support and they actively support bilingualism. Part of their early literacy development is actually showing other scripts and letting all children be creative and "write" in that script. So for Chinese New Year, they drew Chinese characters that they made up. There are also a few other bilingual children in Cubling's room, with at least 4 language pairs. The teachers have produced books with images of everyday objects and asked the parents to write the word in their language underneath. These booklets are on display for all children to see. This way, the bilingual children realise there are others like them (the realisation for Cubling has had a positive impact on her attitude towards German), they feel recognised and the monolingual children develop an interest in other languages. All of which is good, everybody wins. I think it's good practice because early literacy is not just about learning your letters, sounding out and reading - it's about the letter as a sign, the realisation that we can represent speech and use these representations in enhancing ways, and creating an awareness of literacy which will then result in a motivation to become literate.

And this can happen in as many scripts as you want I would think.

Parent engagement - room for improvement

The nursery is trying to engage parents, and it's an interesting experience seen from the other side. Having two hats on is sometimes quite useful, and can be enlightening. It's also awkward - as someone who works in the voluntary sector close to a parental engagement project, you know the theory and policy and practices underlying the attempt to engage with parents. The theory is that educational outcomes improve if parents are engaged in their children's education, especially if this happens in the early years - because parents are their children's main educator and the input of an early years centre/school is minimal in comparison.

So my older daughter's nursery is trying to engage me, alongside with all other parents of course. I'm on maternity leave, so I have time on my hand, an interest in getting a bit involved in the nursery too, which makes me a very easy target. What I'm about to write is not about a specific nursery, it's meant as constructive criticism which could be useful for any early years centre wishing to engage parents in a meaningful way.

My daughter has been attending this nursery for about 9 months now. When I drop her off or pick her up, there is hardly an acknowledgement of my person. There is no feedback volunteered, even when she had displayed separation anxiety in the morning - no reassurance even that she had a good day. Now that she's in the big room, parents are expected to drop off and just leave, they don't enter the room, the staff don't even bid the time of day to either parent or child. The interaction is by newsletter and through a wall which is filled with information on what children have been up to. I'm ok with that, it gives me a fair idea.

So far we had one item of written personalised feedback, which looked rather meaningless to me. We've had no one-to-one feedback (although her key worker in the first room was quite good at informal feedback). A parents evening was scheduled but cancelled. There was a fund day in the summer which was nice and I felt obliged to support it (it also raised funds for the nursery) but I didn't really get anything out of it for me or my child.

Then there are letters sent to me through my daughter. Reminders about sponsorship forms, the toy fund donations - neither of which are donations, which the wording of the letter makes more than clear. In fact the wording seriously pees me off, it's patronising and threatening, as well as disrespectful.

A parent group was offered, on a weekday morning at 10.30am. I was the only parent who turned up. Apparently, the idea was to get feedback from parents. Hm, that was a fail then.

I offered, now that I have a bit of time, to share some of my daughter's culture through exploring German festivities. This was welcomed but instantly I was reminded of all the rules and regulations in relation to child safeguarding (which I know too well, if only they asked me before starting the litany!). I got a general sense of an attitude that is reluctant of exploring new opportunities, where a "we can't" is more easily uttered than a "let's see how we can do this".

Then there's a bookbug week, where parents are invited to read stories with their children in the nursery. I can see where they're coming from, knowing from various primary school teachers that some children start school without ever having seen a book or having heard a story. I went along, to be interrupted while I was reading a book to my daughter (I thought it was about reading books?) to be told how important it is for literacy development to regularly share books and how to incorporate it into a daily routine, a routine which in itself gives security to the child. The tone was patronising, though I also noticed that the nursery teacher wasn't entirely comfortable in her role. All the parents who were there clearly do read books with their children, because if you don't, would you bother coming to this event? If you yourself had low levels of literacy or weren't confident to read books to your children, would you not shy away from such a public display? Would you in fact know about the event, not being able to read the newsletter? Just wondering. It felt daft to be told such basic advice, and I'm sure the other parents felt much the same.

I commend the efforts of the nursery to engage parents, but as it stands, I have a feeling it's not very successful. I suggested to run the parent group just after drop off at 9am so that parents with commitments don't have to lose too much time. But it's not about getting some parents involved in this group - parental engagement is about creating an ease of interaction between nursery staff and parents, which isn't there.

-To start with, I'd recommend to start with a brief exchange with parents at the start and end of their child's day. Be friendly, and get to know the families a little over time.

-Once you know the families, explore real opportunities of exchange and sharing. Think about what parents can add to the education of all the children. Pursue how to do this in a creative way. Don't find excuses why something is too complicated, instead acknowledge the rules but work with them.

-If you want a parents group, explain to parents what the remit of this is, and what they or their child gets out of it. Parents have busy lives and don't want to waste precious time. If you need MY participation to tick YOUR box, I'm likely not to turn up.

-Improve written communication to parents. You see, I may forget the toy fund one month, but I really just need a gentle (even spoken) reminder, not to be told off as if I don't care about my child!

-And as for sponsorship, oh please don't expect me to go around my neighbours to collect money for my child's Christmas present. It's not my neighbours' responsibility or interest. Just tell me what you want off me and I'll pay up, just don't call it sponsorship and give me a form.

-I also don't like giving to charities that I haven't chosen myself, animal charities are already getting enough, why don't you support a children's charity, being a nursery?

-If you knew me a bit better, you'd know that I don't need told about how good sharing books is. Tell me something I don't know, like how to deal with a whinging pre-schooler who won't feed herself. The reading books bit I'm quite good at, it's the other stuff I could need a bit of help with.

-Treat parents as equals who are effective contributors to their children's education, not as people needing educated about how to raise kids.

The excellence of learning outdoors

This past weekend, we've been indoors a lot. Not all the time, but more than usual. There was football, tennis, a trip to the hairdresser being tied to a chair, then Sunday spent watching her first full length film followed by a car trip to granny and grampa and staying indoors due to heavy showers and granny's current reduced mobility. Over the course of Sunday, Cubling slowly but surely showed us that she was still a spirited child, as she let go of the accumulated energy while shopping. I waasn't on my own, had I been on my own, we would have had to abandon the trip and survived on porridge for the rest of the week. It was that bad. Not badness in the sense of naughtiness, just unbound energy and inability to respond to request of appropriate shop behaviour. She tried, she wanted to cooperate, but she was in overdrive. The following night's sleep was disturbed, the following day ended in unconsolable whining as the tiredness took over and was not to be alleviated even by the best mummy cuddles.

Lesson learned, Cubling needs more opportunity to let go of her higher than average energy levels. Which she usually gets both at the forest kindergarten which she attends two days a week, and our usual weekend activities.

The Scottish Government is very supportive of outdoors education, supporting it firmly in its Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning and I hope that this will in the near future translate into giving Glasgow's first forest kindergarten the status of a partnership nursery. With this status, the statutory entitlement to early years education for 3 and 4 year olds can be claimed through hours delivered at the kindergarten, reducing cost for parents but also sending out a clear message that outdoors education meets the curriculum for early years. So far, the process has been delayed, not because of any issues with the provision at the forest kindergarten, but the uncertainty of imminent cuts and how that translates into Early Years Services.

If I look at how Cubling sees it all, so far she has no preference for either indoor or outdoor nursery. She likes both. The difference I can see is that she does not report pushing or hair pulling behaviour of other children from the outdoors nursery. She seems to get on better with the children there, but also choose her interaction much more freely, while indoors, she can't avoid to interact with the children she'd rather not play with. The difference may also indicate that in an outdoors environment, behaviour of all children is more balanced and that children in general get on better, because they can make more choice, have more space, are more in control of their space. Alison Hammerton, in a blog post on a visit to outdoor education centres in Norway, observes that:

"The children were clearly healthy and resilient, and there was no evidence of any conflicts between children. Staff allowed them a great deal of time to engage individually in the nature around them, with plenty of opportunity for imaginative and creative play, cooperation and communication, and for developing balance and motor skills."

It seems that one of the benefits of outdoor education is a reduction in conflict and the development of individual interests, which would match my impression of Cubling's feedback. 

In more general terms, outdoor education has many lasting benefits.

"Research indicates that the use of greenspace or 'green exercise' improves health. In particular, learning outdoors generally results in increased levels of physical activity. In addition, interacting with greenspace (walking, gardening, etc) improves emotional wellbeing and mental health."

Outdoor education thus makes for more active children, healthier children, happier children. This is the obvious impact, but more than that it offers an opportunity to engage with the natural world, and a very different environment from that at normal child care centres. In Cubling's case, her indoors nursery is particularly keen on its eco status - so all toys are wooden or of natural origin (baskets of shells, pinecones, and not a single plastic toy), craft activities are done with recycled materials, the outdoor space has plenty of raised beds. However, compare the play materials (aka toys) of a "normal" nursery with those in the outdoors: Colourful, plastic, blinking, beeping items on the one hand, leaves, twigs, mud, trees, bushes, grass, flowers on the other. Outdoors education gives an opportunity to make things that occur naturally into toys, to modify the use, be creative with what's there and thus develop imagination, creativity and resilience. Children manage the risks they take themselves, they make their own decisions if they want to climb that tree or slide down that muddy slope, while nothing in the indoor space has a potential for risk that has to be assessed.

These are qualities which are transferable all the way into adult life:

"Outdoor experiences motivate our children and young people to become successful learners and to develop as healthy, confident, enterprising and responsible citizens."

 So, the bottom line is that there should be more opportunities for outdoor learning in its many forms. Bring on farm kindergartens in rural areas, forest kindergartens whereever there is an appropriate space, green spaces near and far that can be used by nurseries and schools on a regular basis, gardening project and bringing nature into nurseries.

In fact, Cubling's indoor nursery isn't doing too badly at all, with two projects happening soon: a greenhouse to be built out of recycled 2l milk bottles and a seaside mural. And of course Cubling is already collecting empty milk bottles and shells.