Early learning and childcare funding: Primary 1 deferral pilot evaluation

3. Implementation and processes

Summary

• Overall, the pilot was implemented broadly as intended, and did not have a major impact on local authority and ELC resources (in terms of staff or finances).
• Both pilot leads and ELC staff felt the implementation had gone smoothly.
• At local authority level, it reduced workloads in areas where previously a panel would review each application and professionals may gather information and/or observe a child.
• The main changes in practice for frontline ELC staff were: spending more time talking to parents about the entitlement and whether it could be beneficial to their child; and adjusting pedagogical approaches to ensure older children who have been deferred are challenged.
• Capacity was only an issue in a small number of "hotspots" where spaces for younger children starting nursery were limited. There were concerns among local authority and ELC staff that capacity could be a problem in the future.
• Local authority and ELC staff raised other concerns about the implications of future increases in deferral numbers. These included: recruitment of ELC staff (especially in rural areas); the investment needed in infrastructure to create more ELC spaces; and planning teacher numbers when deferrals may not be decided on until the spring.

This section will cover the process elements of the evaluation. In particular, it looks at: whether the planned activities detailed in the logic model happened; whether they led to the intended short-medium term process outcomes; and the impact implementation had on local authority resources. It draws on interviews from pilot leads, focus groups with ELC heads and staff and interviews with parents.

Planning and set-up

The planning and set-up of the pilots was undertaken by local authority staff (pilot leads). Pilot leads were enthusiastic about the introduction of the pilot, feeling that it would, as intended, make the process less stressful for parents and support child-centred decision making.

Local authorities already agreeing all or most August-December deferrals pre-pilot noted that the pilot did not represent a great change in practice and felt confident about implementing it:

"Being part of the pilot really was just a logical step I suppose for us... because, for several years, we had been approaching deferral into P1 very much on a developmental basis for children and that was the approach that we had taken, so it wasn't a massive change."

(Year 1 pilot lead)

Others felt somewhat nervous because the impact on uptake was difficult to predict and they had little leeway on ELC capacity. They had found it helpful to liaise with other pilot areas in the planning stages, especially Year 2 areas who were able to find out how Year 1 pilots had gone.

The initial planning that took place focused on adjusting policies and procedures and planning new communications for both staff in ELC settings and parents. It included:

• application forms being updated to become shorter request forms.
• neighbouring pilot areas collaborating to create consistency in communications for parents and, in some cases, reach agreements on how the funding would work when families live in one local authority and use an ELC setting in another.^[12]

Pilot areas with larger populations, in particular, had also considered ELC resourcing and capacity at the planning stages, with one having attempted to model the impact on capacity.

Communicating with ELC staff

Effectively communicating the entitlement to ELC settings was considered an important stage of the process by pilot leads, given their role in supporting parents in decision making. Ways this was done included: emails to heads of ELC settings; briefing meetings with heads and other ELC staff (aimed at them cascading information to colleagues in their settings); and, in one case, a 'crib sheet' designed to ensure staff were aware of key information.

ELC heads recalled receiving such communications and felt they were provided with sufficient information on the practical elements of the pilots. The experiences of ELC staff were more varied. While they typically reported having information cascaded from senior staff within their team, and were clear about what the pilot entailed, there were examples of this not happening. This tended to be when there had been senior leadership team changes at their setting during implementation.

Furthermore, there were staff who felt they had not been given sufficient advance notice of the pilot.

Efforts were also made by pilot leads to ensure other professionals who might have contact with families were aware of the change (health visitors, family nurses, third sector organisations working with families and children, social work).

Pilot leads identified messages they felt were important to communicate with staff. Firstly, that ELC staff still have an important role to play in supporting parents' choices and helping them to weigh up the pros and cons for the child. This was to address specific concerns raised by staff who were used to playing an active role in providing evidence for deferral applications, and who were initially unsure what the pilot meant for their role. Secondly, that the pilot was not about promoting deferral, or debating its benefits or disadvantages generally – it was about supporting child-centred decision making:

"It was about saying, 'here is how this process is now going to work' […] We were saying, for that number [of children], we are going to remove the tension that is around the funding question. I don't really think we want this to become a different argument, which is an argument about how young children should receive their education."

(Year 2 pilot lead)

The communications appear to have successfully conveyed these messages, with ELC heads and staff being clear on these points. There was, however, an instance of a staff member being unclear that the intention was for this to be an ongoing change in practice, assuming instead that it was a temporary measure linked to Covid-19 recovery. Furthermore, while heads and staff who participated in the evaluation were well informed, there were parents who perceived that there was not a high level of awareness among staff in their settings.

Support for ELC staff

ELC heads and staff felt that the communications they had received were sufficient to enable them to support parents in their decision making. They did not view the pilot as being a significant change in practice that necessitated specific training. Where they needed any advice or support, staff were able to get this from their team at their setting. Once again, the exception to this was where there had been senior leadership team changes:

"I think really supported. I've got […] a fab headteacher and we've got our early years team that works with [local authority] and they're on the end of a phone, which really helps. That's been really beneficial for me, just to know I can pick up that phone and somebody is there to either listen to me have a little moan or actually answer that question."

(ELC practitioner)

"I'm in a slightly different position in that we've just got a new head and I don't know that she's even aware [of the pilot] because she's come from a different authority. So, it's pretty much myself that leads that."

(ELC practitioner)

Changes in practice and training for ELC staff

While the pilot was not seen by staff as requiring major changes in practice, there were two areas they felt the pilot had had an impact. The first was the increase in the number of deferral related conversations with parents, reflecting that many more were now entitled to an additional funded year.

The fact that the pilot was implemented at a time when there is a focus on play-based learning helped in terms of staff confidence to support parents' decision making as they felt they had the knowledge required to provide an informed view. Staff emphasised the need to take a careful and sensitive approach to these conversations.

One head said they had run some internal training to ensure the team were using appropriate language and were prepared for parents potentially being taken aback by the suggestion of deferral:

"I think trying to step away from the words, 'They're not ready yet,' or… having parents become alarmed that you're asking them to stay for another year. I knew that we'd have to have that conversation with staff, so that they were managing those dialogues with parents really carefully."

(ELC head)

The support provided to parents by ELC staff, is covered in more detail in Chapter 4.

The second area of practice that changed was pedagogical. In settings where staff had seen an increase in deferrals, they introduced aspects of the P1 curriculum to ensure older children were stimulated and challenged.

"I think what we're doing as a team is we're quickly identifying our children who need challenging or children who need support… so different practitioners then go and learn how to challenge in literacy and numeracy. Then you would take the targeted groups. That [way] everybody gets their needs met."

(ELC practitioner)

Staff spoke about these pedagogical changes as presenting new opportunities for their professional development, and as supporting transitions into P1.

"It's extra training for us but actually, it's really good for our CPD, we've learnt so much because we're having to do different things, that we think, 'Well, yes, I'm actually going to learn how in P1 they do X because we could bring that back to some of the children in nursery'. Then it helps the transition from nursery to P1 when they do."

(ELC practitioner)

Area for consideration:

Support settings to provide training, resources and new development opportunities for staff on pedagogical approaches for older children.

Impacts on local authority resources

This section covers the impact delivering the new entitlement had for local authorities and ELC settings, including the effect it had on capacity, planning and staff development. It will also discuss the way in which the changes worked alongside other parts of ELC policy. In summary, the overall delivery of the pilot was not seen as requiring significant additional resources (at setting or local authority level).

Capacity

As mentioned above, pilot leads were worried about a spike in uptake resulting in a shortage of ELC spaces. However, this did not transpire to be a significant, widespread issue. Deferral "hotspots" were mentioned by pilot leads. These were described as being in affluent locations, where January-February deferral rates were higher than average already:

"Our kind of hotspot area has always been [town] which is more affluent families generally, but that has always been the case, and I don't think anything has changed because of the pilot."

(Year 1 pilot lead)

While staff who took part in this study did not experience capacity issues at their settings, they reported being aware of other settings which had struggled to provide the spaces required for younger children starting nursery. This had resulted in a small number of parents being dissatisfied because they did not get a place in their first choice setting for their three year old children. This was considered more problematic for parents when older siblings were already at a setting or school:

"It does impact them on the waiting list and we've got parents who have children with us and younger children who are having to then access other establishments […] Again, not ideal for drop off and pick up and things like that."

(ELC head)

One parent participant had first-hand experience of this issue at her child's nursery, and questioned the logic of enabling more children to stay in ELC longer:

"Yes, because my son's two and he's meant to be going in January, but he's not been able to get a place. So, we've had to reapply. So, if they're already under pressure, why are you deferring quite a lot of the kids?"

(Parent, did defer)

Heads also mentioned that younger children who do not attend their parents' first choice of setting may have a different transition experience into P1 if they are in a setting that is not part of the school they will go to.

Whether they had experienced capacity related challenges as part of the pilot or not, pilot leads had some concerns about capacity in the future. The issue of the pilot funding covering places on the basis that there are enough ELC settings was raised. It was suggested that investment is needed in infrastructure as well as increasing capacity across all types of ELC providers:

"However you organise your nursery admissions process [capacity is an issue] […] The extra funding we got from central government, would not go any way to building anything, but that's the issue, and so therefore you are reliant in that instance on maximising capacity within partner services, either in the private voluntary sector service or childminders as well."

(Year 2 pilot lead)

ELC staff agreed that capacity may become an issue in the future but, having experienced the first two years of implementation, were not overly concerned. They expected parents to continue to make informed decisions with support from ELC staff as long as messages were appropriate and did not 'promote' the funding as something all children in this age group should do.

Workloads for staff

The pilot had reduced workloads for local authority and ELC staff who were involved in assessments and decisions. In pilot areas where the policy had previously been to put mid-August-December deferral requests to a panel of professionals, processes became much simpler. This was because there was no longer the need to undertake home visits, assessments, panel meetings and report writing. In areas where most August-December deferral requests were approved pre-pilot (and fewer people were involved in the decision), there was less of an impact on processes and workloads for local authority staff.

ELC practitioners did not feel the pilot had created much additional work. The only additional task mentioned was the time put into supporting a larger number of parents in deferral decisions, as noted above.

Recruitment

Recruiting and retaining ELC staff was flagged as an issue in pilot areas where there has been a shortage of spaces for children starting nursery. One pilot lead said they had purposefully over-staffed in the previous year, to mitigate absences caused by Covid-19, but still had difficulties finding enough staff:

"All local authorities are in exactly the same position that we are, we struggle [to recruit]. […] Because of the deferral process and jobs, we offer positions to as many people as we can who we feel meet the criteria, but also that means there is a lack of supply staff coming through."

(Year 2 pilot lead)

Recruitment and retention issues were felt more strongly in rural areas.

Planning

A further challenge mentioned by pilot leads was planning school teacher numbers. Deadlines for parents to submit deferral requests tended to be in the first three months of the year. Headteachers usually make their staffing requests around the same time. Given some parents may put in late requests and others may change their mind about deferral, pilot leads said predicting numbers for P1 pupils and teachers could be challenging. There was concern that this could become a greater issue over time, should deferral uptake continue to rise.

Interactions with other policies

When asked about the interaction of the pilot with other policies, pilot leads spoke of the pressure the sector has been under generally in recent years because of the expansion of ELC funding to 1,140 hours. The commitment to future expansion of ELC provision to more two year olds, and also one year olds, added to pilot leads' concerns about future capacity and staffing, should deferrals increase further. This point relates to the recruitment and retention issues mentioned above:

"That flexibility when somebody is off or got Covid or anything else, there is a lack of people to call on to come to plug up those gaps. That has been the case during the past few years [during] the expansion, and it is going to continue for the next couple of years along with the deferral process because it is having an added impact on the staffing requirements to facilitate service delivery."

(Year 2 pilot lead)

Plans for funded school age childcare were also mentioned as being likely to further impact capacity and staffing issues.

At the setting level, staff also spoke about the expansion of funded spaces. The impact of this was the increasing need for them to cater for a wider age range overall (including older children who have deferred, but also more two years olds). This challenge was seen as being heightened by the number of children requiring extra support when starting nursery, because of lost time in ELC due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Area for consideration:

Continue to review capacity issues across ELC settings as the new entitlement is rolled out alongside other policies which mayrequire additional spaces.