The Children’s Partnership Strategic Partnership for Early Years and Childcare Sue Robb

1. The Children’s Partnership Strategic Partnership for Early Years and Childcare Sue Robb Head of Early Years, 4Children

2. The Children’s Partnership – DfE’s strategic partner • Adoption and Children in Care – NCB and Barnardos • Early Years and Childcare - 4 Children • Families – Families and Childcare Trust • Safeguarding - NSPCC

3. More Affordable Childcare Building on from “ More Great Childcare” Triangulation of – QUALITY AFFORDABILITY FLEXIBILTY

4. What does quality, flexibility, affordability mean to you

5. The EYFS requires early years practitioners to review children’s progress and share a summary with parents at two points: In the prime areas between the ages of 24 and 36 months (the Progress Check at Age 2) Integrated review - 2015 At the end of the EYFS (the EYFS Profile). Consultation on Primary Assessment and Accountability Statutory Assessments

6. The Integrated Review:Update on progress

7. Recap on the Integrated Review July 2011 - DfE and DH jointly published “Supporting Families in the Foundation Years” It includes the commitment for DH/DfE to explore integrating health and education reviews for children aged 2 to 2 ½ by 2015

8. Background: Why an integrated review? Early intervention is a key focus for the Government Age 2 – 2 ½ is a crucial stage – problems with speech, behaviour etc. become visible, yet there is time to make a real difference Currently the two reviews can be very different – but parents need a whole picture of the child There can be confusion and duplication between the health and education systems for 2 year olds

9. The Context DfE policies mean there will be more 2 year olds in early education (free places for most disadvantaged 40%) and they could take advantage of an integrated review Increase in Health Visitors will mean integrated review can be provided universally Commitment to a public health outcome measure at 2 – 2 ½ - which will be measured during/as part of the integrated review Report of Information Sharing Task and Finish Group due shortly

10. The Integrated Review Development Group The Integrated Review Development Group (IRDG) includes: health and education experts five Development Sites (a subset of the Health Visitor EIS sites) The IRDG has been in place since autumn 2011 and has been considering the complex issues around integration Working groups reported in July 2012, and a draft resource pack has been developed.

11. Timetable

12. Content Development • The Child - looking at: • speech, language and communication • personal social and emotional development • physical development • learning/cognitive development, and • physical health • The Child in Context - taking account of: parenting, home learning environment, family circumstances, social/community circumstances, etc.

14. The Community The Child The Child in the Family The Child In Context The Family

15. Testing models for the Integrated Review From January, our five pilot sites will start testing models of the Integrated Review across their area for 12 months. Islington Leeds Medway Norfolk Northamptonshire

16. Testing models for the Integrated Review Alongside the pilot sites, we have five Pilot Partners whose role is to Stay close to the testing process Share good practice Act as a sounding board There will be regular meetings for pilots and pilot partners to share progress Bristol, Hackney, Manchester, Rotherham, Warwickshire

17. Designing a local model Sites need to consider: WHO will undertake the reviews? (health visitors, early years practitioners, a combination) WHERE the reviews will take place? (SSCCs, the child’s home, early years settings, health clinics, etc) HOW to arrange the integrated reviews (coordination by SSCCs, HV teams, etc) – getting this right can be key to moving towards greater integration. How to communicate and train staff to undertake the testing How Information Sharing will work

18. What will the output of pilot testing be? The evaluation will be carried out by an independent third party. The approach is expected to be: Collecting the number of integrated reviews completed (as a proportion of the total number of 2 year olds) In depth interviews with 5 health and 5 early years practitioners Focus groups with parents, and with health and education staff An understanding of the costs and benefits Ultimately provision of a case study for the area, offering a narrative on how the model is performing.

19. Consultation: Primary assessment and accountability under the new national curriculum Launched: 17 July Respond by: 11 October https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-national-curriculum-primary-assessment-and-accountability

20. Question 6: Should we introduce a baseline check at the start of Reception?

21. Key stage 1 tests, at the end of year 2, are not a genuine baseline for primary schooling. Measuring a baseline from the end of key stage 1 gives schools no credit for the crucial work they do in reception, year 1 and year 2. There is also a perverse incentive for schools not to focus resources on early interventions, in order to maximise their progress measures. We could instead take a baseline shortly after pupils entered reception. Progress measures would therefore reflect the whole time that a pupil spent in a school, and would reward schools which taught well from the very start. It could also provide valuable national information on the effectiveness of different types of early years provision. • We could introduce a simple check at the start of reception, to be used as a baseline to measure progress and to inform schools about each pupil’s strengths and weaknesses on entry. Schools often assess what pupils can and cannot do when they begin school. The baseline check could be administered by a teacher within two to six weeks of each pupil entering reception and would be subject to external monitoring similar to that used at key stage 1. The results of the check would be collected to provide the baseline for progress measures. We would develop or procure a statutory baseline check.

22. Question 7: Should we allow schools to choose from a range of commercially-available assessments? Question 8: Should we make the baseline check optional? .

23. Another approach we could consider is to allow schools to choose and administer a baseline check from a range of providers, and report the results to be used as a baseline. Research studies would be required to ensure that the available baseline checks were comparable and consistent. We could also consider whether the reception baseline check could be optional for schools. Schools that were particularly concerned about the assessment burden at the start of primary could choose not to administer the check to reduce the amount of testing. These schools would be judged by attainment alone in performance tables and floor standards. They would still track pupils’ progress internally and make this data available to Ofsted

24. Question 9: If we take a baseline from the start of reception, should end of key stage 1 national curriculum tests become non-statutory for all-through primary schools? .

25. If we measured progress from the start of reception, the need for key stage 1 assessments to provide school accountability measures would reduce. End of key stage 1 tests would continue to provide an important accountability measure for infant schools and should remain statutory for them. Infant schools’ key stage 1 test results would provide the baseline to measure progress in junior schools. However, we could consider making end of key stage 1 national curriculum tests non-statutory for all-through primary schools. Since key stage 1 tests provide an important way for schools to benchmark themselves nationally and identify pupils at risk of under-performance, the Standards and Testing Agency would continue to make them available for use on an optional basis

26. www.foundationyears.org.uk

27. Contact • Email us: foundations@4children.org.uk • Visit our website: www.foundationyears.org.uk Do not throw the baby out with the bath water!!