Agenda item

Penny Kenway, Head of Early Years and Childcare, introduced the report which provided an overview of the quality and usage of early years provision.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Committee noted that outcomes data was not directly correlated to data for quality and reach; as outcomes data related to children aged 5 and the majority of early years services were accessed by children aged 3 and 4.

·         The Committee noted that engagement with children’s centres was lower for families involved with Children’s Social Care and queried if this was acceptable. In response, it was advised that around 70-75% of families engaged with social care were also engaged with children’s centres, as opposed to 93% of the overall population. It was commented that this was a relatively small cohort and a small number of families not engaging with children’s centres could significantly impact the figures. Registration with children’s centres was voluntary and it was reported that some families disengaged, only to register again at a later date.

·         Islington was below the national average for the number of children achieving a good level of development by the end of their reception year and it was queried if these children tended to catch up at a later date. In response, it was advised that the majority of children caught up, however some Turkish children continued to underachieve later on. The service was concerned by this and was engaging with the Turkish community to improve access to integrated reviews.

·         The number of Black Caribbean children achieving a ‘good level of development’ was below the overall average. The number of Somali and Bangladeshi children achieving a ‘good level of development’ was also below average. It was commented that Somali and Bangladeshi children often did not have English as their first language and this could be a contributing factor.

·         Members with young children reported that they had not received regular information about the services and activities available. Officers commented that this would be followed up.

·         It was noted that neither the Department for Education nor Ofsted had an agreed definition of sustained participation and this was not helpful when compiling statistics.  It was commented that sustained participation did not necessarily indicate the impact of early years services, although a higher impact would be expected from a greater number of visits.

·         It was suggested that communication and language skills, particularly speech, was the key to improving childhood development. It was commented that new teachers were increasingly skilled in supporting language development.

·         Members expressed concerns that the number of children achieving the expected level in Literacy and Maths was below the national average, however acknowledged the difficulties of assessing these skills in children aged 5.

·         The service was pleased that child development in the prime areas of personal, social and emotional development, communication and language and physical development were around the national average given the level of deprivation in the borough. 

·         Concern was expressed that the number of Islington children achieving the expected level of Literacy development at age five was four percentage points lower than the Inner London average. Officers thought that it was realistic for Islington to achieve the average level over time, however further work to improve engagement, particularly within the first 21 months, and quality of services was required.

·         The Committee queried the barriers to 2 year olds accessing early education. It was advised that some families struggled to access services due to family routines or geography and some families chose not to engage. It was commented that two years old was considered to be too young to begin education in some cultures. The number of 2 year olds accessing early education was increasing year on year. The service would continue to promote services by communicating the benefits of early years education.

·         The service did not yet know the impact of the Department for Education plans to divert the Direct Schools Grant from London to other areas.

·         The service worked with early years settings to target support to groups of children who did not tend to do as well as others. For example, girls tended to out-perform boys in prime areas of development and officers were considering if services could be tailored to improve the performance of boys. However, tailoring services to under-performing groups was not always possible, for example it was not possible to close the achievement gap between summer-born and autumn-born children.

·         The service was working to increase the attainment of those eligible for free school meals by providing cultural opportunities and experiences for children that they may not otherwise have access to.

·         A member reported the comments of some local parents, who considered primary and early years education to be “feminised”. It was noted that the majority of staff working in primary schools and early years settings were female and the need for young boys to have positive male role models was recognised.

·         The Committee noted the detailed equalities impact assessment.

·         It was not possible to compare the attainment of Islington children from specific ethnic minorities to children of a similar background in other local authority areas as this data was not published by the ONS for foundation stage children. It was known anecdotally that BME children in Hackney had similar levels of attainment.

·         It was queried if the methods used to assess children at age 5 disadvantaged some BME children. For example, children were assessed on their level of independence, whereas this was not a trait encouraged in children from some cultural backgrounds. 

·         A member of the public queried the capacity of early years provision. It was advised that Islington had additional capacity, particularly with child-minders, and further places were being developed in primary schools. Work was underway to increase parental confidence in child-minders in order to increase take-up.

·         It was noted that child-minders rated as inadequate did not differentiate their fees from those rated as outstanding. Child-minders were private businesses and the council had no control of fees, however it was known that those rated inadequate found it more difficult to attract parents.

The Committee thanked Penny Kenway for her attendance.

RESOLVED:
That the report be noted.