Schools cite lack of space and financial barriers
A new report into the government’s School-based Nursery programme (SBN) reveals a ‘sizeable reality gap’ between the programme’s intentions and results, according to researchers.
The SBN programme is a government policy aiming to address two goals in the early years: expanding available childcare places so that more parents can work, and improving children’s development and school readiness. It aims to create 3,000 new or expanded nurseries in schools, making use of spare space on existing sites. The SBN policy has evolved across 3 different application phases. Phase 1 saw a focus on rapid expansion through school-led bids, but early analysis suggests it did not adequately target disadvantaged areas and populations, as well as often funding the expansion of existing provision rather than entirely new nurseries. Phase 2 and 3 have seen a greater focus in the government’s funding criteria on disadvantaged areas and children. Phase 3 has also seen major changes to the policy, including giving local authorities a much larger role in the application process. Phase 3 has also seen the programme expanded beyond schools, with the funding now also available to create new early education and childcare spaces in Best Start Family Hubs.
The new research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and supported by the Centre for Research in Early Childhood, was carried out by a team of researchers from the Sutton Trust and the Social Market Foundation. The project used a survey of 1,372 primary school leaders, case study interviews with 13 school-based nurseries, DfE data on the roll-out of the expansion and a review of existing evidence of best practice. In their report, Room to Grow, the researchers say there is a limited appetite among schools to set up on-site nurseries if they don’t already have one. 70 per cent said they were unlikely to do so, with just 20 per cent either being likely to open one, or already having a plan to do so. Even if all of this 20 per cent followed through, the programme would still be likely to fall significantly short of its target. The most common issues cited by those who currently don’t have an early years setting as being a barrier to opening one were: no suitable indoor space (51 per cent), high start-up costs (50 per cent) and financial viability (46 per cent). Key financial barriers were the cost of staff-to-child ratios (73 per cent), ongoing staff costs (67 per cent), and the capital costs of converting school space (65 per cent).
The research also found that the number of children eligible for free school meals (FSM) supported in all nurseries had barely increased between phase one and phase two of the SBN programme, moving from 25 per cent to 26 per cent. Pre-existing school-based nurseries averaged 28 per cent of children eligible for FSM, while entirely new nurseries funded through the SBN programme had only 23 per cent of pupils eligible for FSM. These new nurseries were also around a third less likely to be located in the most disadvantaged schools compared to pre-existing school nurseries (16 per cent for new nurseries, 24 per cent for existing sites).
Researchers also noted concerns about the impact of new school-based nurseries on the local early years market more broadly. If parents flock to school-based settings as high quality options, this could lead to closures by private providers and fewer options for parents who need wraparound and out of term childcare, as well as reduced provision for children under two in particular – a cohort rarely served by school-based nurseries. The report’s authors are calling for the government to prioritise disadvantaged areas in the roll-out of school-based nurseries, and examine ways to improve relationships between schools and local private nursery providers.
Dr Rebecca Montacute, research director of the Social Market Foundation, commented: ‘Government should use lessons from the school-based nurseries programme to look at the structure of the early years system more widely, including the potential to further expand state run settings, whether in schools or elsewhere. Longer term, if the government does continue to move towards greater state involvement in the sector, they should be careful to ensure private providers remain viable where needed – for example for wraparound care – and that existing expertise from the private sector is brought into state run settings.’
Also commenting, Tiffnie Harris, Primary Specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said: ‘There does appear to be a limit to what can be achieved through the government’s nurseries policy. Many schools simply lack the necessary space requirements and clearly there remain concerns around funding and financial viability. Where schools do have capacity there is no guarantee this correlates with local demand for childcare places. For this reason, it seems sensible for local authorities to play a greater role in proposing locations for new nurseries, in conjunction with schools and based on the needs of the community.’