5. NEWS
NDNA EVENT REVEALS THAT OFSTED REGISTRATION
FEES A CONCERN BUT NURSERIES POSITIVE ABOUT MOVE TO SELF-EVALUATION
National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA)
has revealed some of the key messages emerging from nurseries in response
to the current three consultations proposing changes to Ofsted inspections,
registration fees and the amount of information published by the regulatory
body.
Yesterday NDNA hosted a National Member
Forum so that nurseries could discover more about the individual consultations
and share their views to feed into NDNA’s consultation responses. Following
presentations from Sharon Russell, Childcare Act Regulatory and Inspection
Project Manager, Ofsted and Andy Davey and Amber Longstaff from the Inspection
and Safeguarding Team at the DCSF who revealed how the proposals could
impact upon day nurseries, attendees raised questions and shared their
reaction to the changes.
With a key theme of sustainability throughout,
many nurseries said that whilst they realised that the Ofsted registration
subsidy money would not end, they had concerns about how guidance about
its use would be translated by local authorities as part of the sufficiency
duty. Suggestions ranged from stringent guidance to ensure the money was
spent as intended and a banding structure according to size or occupancy
so the funding could be targeted where it was needed the most.
On the whole, delegates were positive about
the move to self-evaluation but raised concerns about their capability
to complete online forms, and questioned if nurseries who were using the
tool properly to identify issues could then trigger an Ofsted inspection.
Many agreed with reduced inspections for better performing settings, but
highlighted that there needed to be consistency on timings between inspections,
and a definition of what is an ‘acceptable’ level of consistent good performance
before a setting can move to a reduced inspection tariff.
A range of additional interesting points
were also raised, such as how with the move to EYFS all inspectors should
be required to have relevant early years experience or spend time in a
daycare setting, and how it could be possible for inspectors to carry out
unannounced inspections upon childminders by providing localised lists
so that visits could be conducted randomly.
Purnima Tanuku, Chief Executive of NDNA
comments: “The day was a very useful exercise and really highlighted the
thoughts of nurseries. We will now use this feedback to inform NDNA’s response
on behalf of members. Whilst nurseries are concerned about how the move
to localised funding could affect their sustainability, the vast majority
welcomed proposals such as online self-evaluation that will ultimately
help improve quality. There were also many helpful suggestions made as
part of the day, such as how removing registration numbers from the Ofsted
website could support the reduction of fraudulent tax credit claims. NDNA
will now take some of these suggestions forward, and we hope that as many
nurseries as possible will also submit their own individual response so
that we can build an accurate picture of views and ensure that the new
proposals can work for nurseries.”
WE NEED A FULL NATIONAL DEBATE ON SCOTTISH
NURSERY PROVISION
By Deepak Poddar
Everyone agrees our children deserve the
best possible start in life, and that our nursery provision should reflect
the critical importance of the nursery years in shaping young lives. Yet
it's a sad fact that in today's Scotland the quality of provision you can
expect depends to a very great extent on where you live.
Yet it’s a sad fact
that in today’s Scotland the quality of provision you can expect depends
to a very great extent on where you live.
Some nurseries, to be
blunt, can be dismal and depressing for adults to visit, never mind children.
It’s hard to imagine how children could ever feel relaxed or happy in such
places. Too often we hear of nurseries run in ramshackle buildings, or
customised out of spare office blocks in industrial estates – wholly removed
from normal society; impersonal, ugly, uninspiring and ultimately unsuitable.
There are periodic government
dispensations to local authorities to allow them to equip nurseries with,
for example, new play equipment, but too often policy – of whichever government
– can appear sporadic and ad hoc. Fundamental problems remain unaddressed.
I strongly believe it
is time to launch an initiative to engage with all stakeholders in the
sector including the Care Commission, local authorities, parents and private
sector providers to seek ways to raise building standards. We have come
along way already in developing a nursery care sector of which we can be
proud, but by harnessing council planning departments to take a strategic
role in the location and standards of properties used for nursery care
and by setting minimum criteria for the physical environment of our nurseries
to match the parameters we already have for key areas such as training
and qualifications, we can deliver a nursery care sector fit for the 21st
Century.
My company, Little Einstein’s,
sets what we like to think are high standards within the sector, but I
think it is time we entered into dialogue with the Government, both nationally
and locally, to help find the means of making this level of care available
to the broadest possible number of people.
The starting point should
lie in granting local authorities an oversight role in their work with
the private sector to develop a strategy on children’s nurseries which
steers providers away from locating children’s nurseries in patently unsuitable
accommodation. I am not saying that all nurseries have to be based in stunning,
wonderful properties, simply that certain basic criteria ought to be observed
– no child should have to endure an environment which resembles some sort
of industrial site.
Our firm currently has
six nurseries and we also run a care home – a sector in which the physical
environment is obviously just as important. We have major expansion plans
in hand for 2008, both for nurseries and in the care home sector, and a
key element of our plan centres on newbuilds which we fully intend will
act as exemplars of how modern services – care and nursery – should be
operated.
Few would really consider
it suitable that a nursery should be sited on an industrial estate or a
run down building – and yet it happens all the time. The staff may be excellent,
the interior well organised and the children well cared for, but what sort
of signal does it send out if the building where they will be spending
such an important part of their lives is second or third rate?
Perhaps the strongest
demand for the highest quality of care is from professional people, but
of course all parents who work want to know their child is getting a great
deal more more than a mere minding service – a concept which has no place
in 21st Century Scotland.
So it is, I think, time
for a fresh approach on the physical environment and this is, ideally,
one which sets new national operating criteria across all authorities,
making the system transparent and logical.
Private and public sector
working together, we need to develop a system which allows nursery care
providers to broaden the scope of their admissions without being trussed
in red tape, or forced to run at a loss. And we need a proper dialogue
about how we can take the whole concept of nurseries a step forward.
Too often we hear debates
about education which don’t appear to consider nurseries as part of the
equation – whereas I would argue that how children are treated at the very
start of their progress towards school life has a vital impact on how they
will perform later on.
The whole point of the
debate I am seeking is to “raise the game” for nursery education at all
levels, and it must start with the basic question of what the minimum criteria
should be for buildings which house nurseries.
On a related track we
should be taking a long, hard look at where we expect senior citizens entitled
to proper care are expected to live. Again, by integrating the issue wholly
into the planning process and engaging with experienced private sectors
operators with a track record of providing high levels of care we could
make a great leap forward in standards.
So much is rightly made
of the crucial importance of education to Scotland’s economic and moral
wellbeing, at all levels – but we simply don’t hear enough about nursery
provision, where progress remains slower than it could be. We would all
benefit from more decisive action now.
Deepak Poddar is Managing
Director of the Little Einstein’s children’s nurseries across Scotland
IF YOU ARE A PARENT OR WORK WITH CHILDREN,
THIS CAMPAIGN MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU.....
Save Kids' TV is a coalition of parents,
producers, artists, educators and others concerned about screen-based media
for children in the UK. We are allied to organisations representing
the media industry, the audience and cultural groups in a campaign to persuade
the Government to acknowledge the value of children's television, and protect
it in the face of growing financial pressures.
n its Review of Children’s
Broadcasting, Ofcom identified that parents feel strongly their children
need television which reflects their own culture. But they’re concerned
at how few programmes offer that. They’re right to be concerned. Despite
a proliferation of channels, providing thousands of hours of content per
year, Ofcom’s report reveals that only 1% of those hours are new programmes
made in the UK. Repeats and imported programmes fill the schedules.
Ofcom has also highlighted
a huge funding gap that cannot be filled by commercial means. As advertising
revenues decrease and Channel 4, ITV and FIVE desert the children’s audience,
it’s clear the market will no longer provide the programmes UK kids need
and deserve. The BBC is also under pressure with budget cuts and threats
to the children’s content on BBC ONE.
UK children need a variety
of television programmes that reflect their culture, meet their developmental
needs and entertain them. To ensure these programmes continue to be made
in the UK, public funding needs to be found to support them. The children
who loved Muffin the Mule are now grandparents. Three generations have
happy memories of how television enriched and empowered their childhoods
with stories and games, reflections of their own lives and concerns, and
a window on the wider world. Remember Rainbow, Tiswas, Magpie, Press Gang,
Children’s Ward, How and Art Attack? Let’s not deny the next generation
their own stories and their own voices.
SKTV believes that the
Government must intervene. We have developed a detailed proposal for the
long-term, and we support the call for immediate tax-breaks for producers
of children’s programmes. But the Government will only take action if put
under public pressure. If you are concerned about the revelations in the
Ofcom report and want to see a revival of the best TV for our children,
please take action.
Sign the Petition on
the Downing St. Website:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/kidstelevision
Write your MP asking
them to support the Early Day Motion in Parliament:
http://pact.co.uk/campaign
Register your support
and keep in touch with the campaign at: http://www.savekidstv.org.uk
EXTRA £372 MILLION INCREASES
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL TO MAKE HEALTHIER CHOICES
A new £372 million cross-government
strategy to help everyone lead healthier lives was published today by the
Health Secretary, Alan Johnson and the Secretary of State for Children,
Schools and Families, Ed Balls.
The Government's groundbreaking strategy
supports the creation of a healthy society - from early years, to schools
and food, from sport and physical activity to planning, transport and the
health service.
It will bring together employers, individuals
and communities to promote children's health and healthy food; build physical
activity into our lives; support health at work; and provide incentives
more widely to promote health. It will also provide effective treatment
and support when people become overweight or obese.
Having been at least 30 years in the making,
the obesity trend will not be halted overnight. This strategy is a first
step and will be followed by an annual report that assesses progress, looks
at the latest evidence and trends and make recommendations for further
action. A panel of experts will assist the Government, with input from
a new public health obesity observatory that will develop our understanding
of what changes behaviour.
Alan Johnson said:
"Tackling obesity is the most significant
public and personal health challenge facing our society. The core of the
problem is simple - we eat too much and we do too little exercise. The
solution is more complex. From the nature of the food that we eat, to the
built environment, through to the way our children lead their lives - it
is harder to avoid obesity in the modern environment.
"It is not the Government's role to hector
or lecture people, but we do have a duty to support them in leading healthier
lifestyles. This will only succeed if the problem is recognised, owned
and addressed in every part of society."
The five key elements of the strategy are:
First, the healthy growth and development
of children.
* Early identification of at risk families
and plans to make breastfeeding the default option for mothers.
* Investment in healthy schools, increasing
participation in physical activity, and making cooking a compulsory part
of the national curriculum.
* A £75 million marketing campaign
to support and empower parents to make changes to their children's diet
and increase levels of physical activity.
Second, promoting healthier food choices.
* Setting out a Healthy Food Code of Good
Practice to be finalised in partnership with the food and drink industry,
including proposals to develop a single, simple and effective approach
to food labelling, and to challenge the industry (including restaurants
and food outlets) to support individuals and families reduce their consumption
of saturated fat, salt and sugar.
* OFCOM to bring forward its review of
the restrictions already introduced on the advertising of unhealthy foods
to children.
* Promote Local Authority planning powers
to limit the spread of fast food outlets in particular areas e.g. such
as close to schools or parks.
Third, building physical activity into
our lives.
* Investment of £30 million in "Healthy
Towns" - working with selected towns and cities to bring together the successful
EPODE (Ensemble Prevenons Lobesite Des Enfants) model used in Europe, using
infrastructure and whole town approaches to promoting physical activity.
* Set up a working group with the entertainment
technology industry to ensure that they continue to develop tools to allow
parents to manage the time that their children spend watching TV or playing
sedentary games, online and much more widely.
* Review our overall approach to physical
activity, including the role of Sport England, with the aim of producing
a fresh set of programmes to ensure that there is a clear legacy of increased
physical activity before and after the 2012 Games.
Fourth, Creating incentives for better
health.
* Stronger incentives for individuals,
employers and the NHS to prioritise the long-term work of improving health.
* Working with employers and employer
organisations to explore how companies can best promote good health among
their staff and make healthy workplaces part of their core business model.
* We will pilot and evaluate a range of
different approaches to using personal financial incentives to encourage
healthy living.
Fifth, Personalised advice and support.
* Developing the NHS Choices website so
that it provides advice for diet and activity levels, with clear and consistent
information on how to maintain a healthy weight.
* Increased funding over the next three
years to support the commissioning of more weight management services,
where people can access personalised services to support them in achieving
real and sustained weight loss.
In England alone, nearly a quarter of men
and women are now obese. The trends for children are even more cause for
concern, with 18 per cent of 2 to 15 year olds currently obese and a further
14 per cent overweight.
The Foresight report on obesity, published
last year, indicated that on current trends nearly 60 per cent of the UK
population will be obese by 2050 - that is almost two out of three in the
population defined as severely overweight. If this trend continues, millions
of adults and children will inevitably face deteriorating health and a
lower quality of life and we face spiralling health and social care costs.
Ed Balls said:
"Tackling obesity in the adults of tomorrow
requires winning the hearts and minds of young people today.
"Every parent wants their child to be fit
and healthy - what we want to do is help them make informed decisions about
their own children's lives.
"And giving young people the lifelong education
they need - more sport and exercise in and out of school; ending the 'no
ball games' culture with more play and sports facilities; equipping children
with cooking skills and understanding of diet; and stamping out unhealthy
and junk food in schools."
The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson
said:
"This cross-government strategy on obesity
has come at a vitally important time. It has never been more challenging
to maintain a healthy weight as it is today. A unified solution must be
found and this is an important first stage in engaging the whole of society
in this issue. As mentioned in my annual report of 2002, physical activity,
healthy eating, balanced marketing and promotion of food to children and
clear and consistent food labelling are all key components in beating the
obesity time bomb."
CHILDREN IN SCOTLAND WELCOMES DISCUSSION
PAPER ON NATIONAL FOOD POLICY.
Children in Scotland has welcomed the launch
of the Scottish Government's discussion paper aimed at developing a national
food policy.
The discussion paper,
Choosing the Right Ingredients, covers a wide range of potential areas
for change, including teaching children how to cook and helping them
learn about taste and
nutrition at a younger age.
The food policy, which
would be the first of its kind in the UK, aims to join up government policy
on every part of the food chain.
Commenting on the launch
of the paper, Children in Scotland's chief executive Bronwen Cohen said:
"We welcome the government’s initiation of this timely discussion of food
policy in Scotland. Encouraging children to have a sense of ‘ownership’
of food from the earliest age is vital if we are to counteract some of
the health problems associated with unhealthy eating in later life.”
“This is particularly
true in pre-school settings, where lifelong attitudes to food may be first
established. In Scotland, many three and four year olds go to school nurseries
parttime and do not stay for lunch. However, in other countries in Europe
where young children are offered full-time services they have more opportunities
to eat with their own age group and learn how to enjoy food. Starting eating
meals in a social setting with peers and participating with food from the
early years is likely to offset serious problems arising in later life,
such as obesity and eating disorders.”
6. INTERNATIONAL NEWS
AUSTRALIA
ABOUT THE AUSTRALIAN EARLY DEVELOPMENT
INDEX:
Building Better Communities for Children
project
Who is running the Australian Early Development
Index Program?
The Australian Early Development Index
(AEDI) program is conducted by the Centre for Community Child Health, a
key research centre of the Murdoch Childrens research Institute in Melbourne
in partnership with the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in
Perth.
What does the AEDI measure?
The AEDI is based on the Canadian Early
Development Instrument (EDI) and is a population measure of young children's
development from a teacher-completed checklist and measures five developmental
domains:
Physical health and wellbeing
Social competence
Emotional maturity
Language and cognitive skills
Communication skills and general knowledge
The AEDI provides data on populations
of children and is interpreted only at the level of suburb or postcode
of the child’s residence.
How many communities have completed the
AEDI?
From 2004 to 2006 a total of 414 local
communities and 54 geographic areas across all Australian States and Territories
with the exception of the Northern Territory have been involved in the
AEDI. 31,929 children and 1,868 teachers from 870 schools have completed
the AEDI.
Why is the AEDI important for communities?
The purpose of the AEDI is to measure
the health and development of populations of children to help how well
they are doing in supporting young children and their families. Previously
there has been no way to monitor early child development at a community
level or to understand how local circumstances might be changed to improve
children’s life chances.
By using the AEDI to map children’s development
it is possible to begin to identify and understand the influence of socio-economic
and community factors on children’s development. The AEDI can also be used
to monitor changes over time.
How was the AEDI Checklist developed?
The EDI checklist was originally developed
in Canada where it has undergone extensive pilot testing and has been compared
with direct assessment results and with parent reports. It has also been
repeated on the same group of children within a short space of time. It
has demonstrated reliability in all these tests. In the process of the
development, the EDI checklist has also been refi ned using detailed input
from teachers. In Australia, the EDI checklist was first successfully used
in the Northern Metropolitan area of Perth in 2003, with around 4,300 children.
A national Technical Advisory Group consisting
of leading experts, researchers and government policy makers was formed
to advise on the development of the AEDI Checklist. The AEDI checklist
has been further adapted and validated for Australia.
Why use a population measure?
A population measure is used to report
on all individuals within a defined population. In the case of the AEDI,
the defined population is all children in the first year of fulltime schooling
within a community or a geographic area.
A population measure places the focus
on the population rather than the individual. Individual children are part
of societies, communities and populations. Focusing only at the individual
level means that we may lose sight of the other important factors that
impact on a child’s health and development, such as community factors and
the broader social environment.
How does the AEDI help children, families
and communities?
Supporting children in the years before
school greatly increases their chances of a successful transition to school
and better learning outcomes whilst at school. The AEDI provides community
members and families with the opportunity to understand the health and
development of local children, and facilitates increased collaboration
between schools, early childhood services, and local agencies supporting
children and families.
The AEDI data and maps can help identify:
Where the children who are developmentally
vulnerable live.
Variations in child development within
different parts of the community.
Where the strengths and vulnerabilities
lie across the domains of child development.
The influence of socio-economic and community
factors on child development.
How well the community is supporting young
children and their families.
Where there have been successful early
childhood programs.
Where change is still needed.
How does the AEDI influence planning and
policy?
The AEDI can influence planning and policy
by:
Providing an evidence base for the development
of community initiatives that support healthy child development.
Supporting more effective allocation of
existing resources.
Encouraging schools, early childhood services,
and local agencies to explore new ways of working together to ensure children
get the best possible start.
Providing schools with the opportunity
to reflect on the development of children in the community as they enter
school and to consider and plan for optimal school transition.
Providing teachers with the opportunity
to reflect on all aspects of children’s development in the first year of
school.
Supporting efforts to reorient community
services and systems towards children.
Increasing awareness of the crucial importance
of the early years for children.
Facilitating the development and evaluation
of effective community-based responses.
Examples of how the AEDI has been used
It has been shown in Canada where the
EDI has been used for many years, and in the National Evaluation of the
AEDI conducted by the Centre for Community Child Health between 2004 and
2006 that there are many significant benefits for the community.
These include:
Providing a common language for the community
when discussing and planning for optimal early childhood development.
Strengthening the relationships among
services.
The AEDI mapping can promote other community
mapping exercises, for example locations of local programs, resources and
assets.
Providing an evidence base for the development
of community initiatives in a range of fields such as parent support, family
and pre-school literacy, and nutrition.
Supporting funding applications.
Supporting organisational change to address
children’s outcomes.
For more information visit http://www.australianedi.org.au
START EARLY TO BOOST INDIGENOUS STUDENT
SERVICES
Child health expert Fiona Stanley says
effective action to break the cycle of disadvantage for Aboriginal children
must begin well before they start formal schooling.
Professor Stanley, who heads Perth’s Telethon
Institute for Child Health Research, said most interventions were a case
of too little, too late.
“The evidence is overwhelming that by
the time most Aboriginal children start school, they are already behind
the eight-ball,” she said.
“We can’t just address the crises without
asking how we can prevent many of these problems from starting – and most
will agree that education is a critical factor.
“Aboriginal communities want sustainable,
long term improvements and that means putting resources into early child
development so we can make sure they’re ready for school and that schools
are geared up and ready for Aboriginal children.”
Professor Stanley was speaking at the
launch of the Indigenous Australian Early Development Index (I-AEDI) which
is being developed by the Kulunga Research Network at the Telethon Institute
for Child Health Research with the Centre for Developmental Health (Curtin
University)
The project is receiving vital funding
from Shell Australia and the Federal Government’s Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
The I-AEDI project is adapting the highly
successful Australian Early Development Index to ensure it takes into account
cultural differences in child development.
The Index is a teacher-completed checklist
of over 100 questions, which measure five key areas of development as children
enter their first year of school: physical health and wellbeing; social
competence; emotional maturity; language and cognitive skills; and communication
skills and general knowledge.
Shell Chairman Russell Caplan said the
company was pleased to be involved in a project that will provide such
powerful information to communities and policy makers.
“The I-AEDI is a tool that will show where
the focus needs to be – what the vulnerabilities are for children in that
community and then what services there needs to be in place to address
those vulnerabilities,” Mr Caplan said.
“Through our support of the AEDI, we’ve
already seen many Australian communities improve resources for early child
development and our hope is that this project will make sure that the process
is as useful and valid for Aboriginal communities and families.”
Kulunga Research Network Manager Colleen
Hayward said the Index would set a benchmark against which the effectiveness
of strategies and interventions could be measured.
“The official WA data shows very limited
improvement in educational outcomes for Aboriginal children over the past
30 years – at some point, there has to be an accountability for that failure,”
Associate Professor Hayward said.
“The I-AEDI will enable communities and
schools to monitor how their children are doing at this critical stage
in their learning career. This will mean that preventive action can be
based on solid evidence as to what the local needs are and what strategies
will be most effective.”
Associate Professor Hayward said in addition
to helping teachers have a better understanding of Indigenous children’s
learning needs the project would also help in educating parents about the
skills children need to be ready for school.
“There is a perception in many Aboriginal
families that schools will teach the children what they need to know –
but in reality, children need to be exposed to a range of learning opportunities
much earlier for developing their pre-literacy and fine motor skills,”
she said.
“We know from our WA Aboriginal Child
Health Survey that children who participated in kindergarten or other early
learning programs had better long term educational and behavioural outcomes,
so I’m optimistic that properly targeted support will deliver real improvements
for communities.”
The first stage of the I-AEDI project
will start this year.
USA
BILLION BROKEN PROMISES: EXPERTS
WARN "CRIPPLING CRISIS" LOOMS FOR HEAD START DUE TO CUT IN APPROPRIATIONS,
HUNDREDS OF NEW UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS
White House, Congress Criticized for Head
Start Cut in Face of $20 Billion in Appropriations Earmarks; $1 Billion
Shortfall in Funding Seen Since 2002, $360 Million "Catch Up" Sought in
Each of Next Five Years.
The White House and Congress put Head Start
-– the nation’s first and most successful comprehensive early-childhood
education program –- on a path to crisis in December 2007 after first reauthorizing
the program with hundreds of costly new requirements and then failing to
appropriate the funds needed to pay for current program operations, much
less the expensive new rules and regulations. Funding for Head Start was
cut in the same appropriations bill that included more than 1,300 controversial
earmarks for unrelated programs and projects totaling an estimated $20
billion.
Many of the new Head Start requirements
–- including easing the eligibility guidelines for Head Start children
from 100 to 130 percent of the federal poverty line, increased credentials
for teachers and other staff, and priority enrollment for homeless children
–- were supported by National Head Start Association and local Head Start
officials on the assumption that the hundreds of millions of dollars needed
to pay for them would be appropriated. Other requirements were included
in the reauthorization bill as well, including mandatory enrollment of
special needs children, extensive new training and related procedures,
and a huge jump in new recordkeeping and reporting requirements (including
HIPAA-like privacy rules).
The White House and Congress reauthorized
Head Start (with the addition of the numerous new requirements) yet then
proceeded in late December to enact appropriations containing a net $10.6
million cut in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 funds for Head Start. While some friends
of Head Start in Congress fought for the necessary extra funding for the
program, the White House prevailed in holding the line on the appropriations
package that included the cut.
The new cut is only the latest example
of the chronic shortchanging of the Head Start program, according to NHSA.
The hundreds of new requirements and the reduction in FY 2008 spending
compounds the woes created by five years of failing to provide the funds
needed for Head Start to keep pace with inflation. When NHSA officials
speak of a “billion broken promises,” they are referring to the failure
of Washington to deliver the promised full federal funding for Head Start.
Hundreds of Head Start programs across
the United States had no choice in 2006 and 2007 but to scale back days
and hours of operations, bus service, support staff, and other critical
services and manpower. With cash-strapped Head Start programs already having
slashed operations to the bone (and beyond in some cases), the FY 2008
funding cut means that Head Start programs will have experienced a real
decline in federal support of 11 percent since FY 2002 (inflation-adjusted).
The result: A Head Start program that received $1 in FY 2002 is only receiving
89 cents in FY 2008. If federal support for Head Start had kept pace with
inflation over this period, it would have risen from $6.54 billion in FY
2002 to $7.77 billion in FY 2008 and $7.95 billion in FY 2009 – putting
the actual shortfall well over the “billion broken promises” level. (Note:
This huge and growing gap does not take into account the hundreds of millions
of additional dollars not provided to implement the extensive new rules
and regulations included in the reauthorization bill.)
In order to regain the lost ground, Head
Start officials said they will press for additional “catch up” appropriations
of $360 million per year for FY 2009-2013. According to NHSA, those additional
funds would help to pay for the new rules enacted in 2007 and erase the
more than $1 billion shortfall.
National Head Start Association Board
Chairman Ron Herndon, also director of the Albina Head Start program (Portland,
OR) said: “The reality is that this White House and Congress have made
and broken a billion promises when it comes to full funding for Head Start,
which has been proven to work. Things were bad enough heading into FY 2008
when we were losing ground relative to inflation, but now we are stuck
between a rock and a hard place. How can Head Start programs cope with
the double whammy of a real cut in appropriations at the same time as hundreds
of new unfunded requirements? We intend to make sure that Americans know
that this outrage happened and what now has to be done to fix it.”
California Head Start Association President
Lucia Palacios, also director of the Orange County Head Start program (Santa
Ana, CA) said: “Head Start programs led the way in pushing for many of
the changes and improvements – including higher teacher credentials and
raising eligibility to 130 percent of the federal poverty line – but we
did so on the reasonable assumption that Congress would pay for the changes
it made in reauthorizing the program. Now, we have been put in a 10-foot
hole and given a ladder that is only six-feet tall to get out of it. We
hope that when the president’s budget is put out next month, Congress will
hold him accountable for the appropriating the necessary funds to support
the quality programming that Head Start provides to children and families.”
Region 3 Head Start Association President
Mary Gunning, also director of the St. Jerome’s Head Start (Baltimore,
MD), said: “I am particularly concerned about the many unfunded mandates
that are in this bill, particularly as they relate to staff qualifications
and training. I certainly am a proponent of having a well trained staff,
and 75 percent of my lead teachers and Family Service Coordinators have
bachelors’ degrees. However, this bill requires all Head Start teacher
assistants to have a CDA and 50 percent of teachers to have a BA or advanced
degree by September 30, 2013. There is neither money allocated to pay for
these credentials and degrees nor is their funding to cover the accompanying
salary increases. The other point to consider is that many Head Start staff
-- including me -- must work a second job due to the low salaries they
command. This will make it very difficult for staff to juggle the many
demands of family, two jobs and attending college or otherwise working
on their degrees.”
The literally hundreds of unfunded new
rule changes in the 2007 Head Start reauthorization process include the
following costly items:
1. Increased credentialing requirements
for teachers, family service workers and other staff.
2. New employee standards and in-service
training.
3. Coordination with state collaboration
offices and boards.
4. Priority enrollment for homeless children.
5. Mandatory enrollment of children with
disabilities.
6. Imposition of new HIPAA-like privacy
requirements.
7. Re-competition requirements and extensive
year-one monitoring for new programs.
8. Extensive new record-keeping and reporting
requirements.
9. Some States's Regulations Don't Protect
Children in Home Care Settings
NACCRRA's New Report Ranks and Scores
States Based on Current Family Child Care Standards and Oversight Policies.
Fifteen States Received a Score of Zero
The National Association of Child Care
Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) released its newest report today,
ranking states on their current family child care standards and oversight
policies. The report, entitled Leaving Children to Chance: NACCRRA's Ranking
of State Standards and Oversight of Small Family Child Care Homes, reveals
that many states fail to protect the health, safety, and well-being of
children. According to the report, only one state is meeting 75 percent
of the basic requirements needed to ensure that children are in care that
safeguards their health and safety and promotes development and learning.
The report ranks every state, the District
of Columbia, and the Department of Defense (DoD) child care system, on
14 different standards focused on ensuring the health, safety, and well-being
of children while in home-based child care programs serving six or fewer
children. States were ranked based on a point system with states earning
a possible 140 points – 10 points for each standard examined. (Scores were
adjusted if states allowed more than six children in care before applying
any regulations). Standards included: frequency and type of monitoring
visits; requirement of background checks, provider education, provider
training, parent-provider communication/education, quality of learning
environment; availability of learning activities and literacy opportunities;
group size limitations; and health and safety requirements.
"The average score was a 59 and 15 states
scored a zero on our score card, which means most states are not doing
nearly enough to make sure that our children in family child care are safe
and healthy," said Linda K. Smith, Executive Director of NACCRRA. "These
are really small businesses being run out of homes. With the security of
nearly 2 million children at risk, it is crucial that states revisit and
improve their regulations, to guarantee children are safe and learning
in family child care, and that their parents can enjoy peace of mind."
Fifteen states received a score of zero
on the scorecard because they either do not regulate small family child
care homes, do not conduct an inspection prior to issuing a license, or
allow more than six children in care before applying any state regulations.
In 41 states, a child care provider can care for an unrelated child for
pay in her home without licensing - which means he/she is conducting a
business without a license and could be failing to meet health codes or
have no training to do the job. And only 24 states and the DoD conduct
criminal background checks of family child care providers using federal
fingerprinting - which means potentially, convicted felons could be working
with small children.
Of all the states scored and ranked, including
the District of Columbia and the DoD, only one (Oklahoma) received at least
75 percent of the maximum points allowed. The top 10 were: Oklahoma (105);
Washington State (103); Massachusetts (101); the DoD (95); Alabama (93);
District of Columbia (87); Maryland (85); South Carolina (80); Colorado
(76); and Connecticut (69).
States with a score of zero included:
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana,
New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Care offered in a family child care home
is one of the largest segments of the child care industry. Nearly 2 million
children are in some type of family child care setting each week. With
children of working mothers spending an average of 36 hours per week in
some type of child care setting, including family child care homes, it
is imperative that regulations and policies are in place to protect their
safety and encourage their development and growth.
To ensure children's safety, NACCRRA recommends
that Congress require all adult child care providers who care for one or
more unrelated children on a regular basis for pay to undergo a comprehensive
background check that includes fingerprinting and a check of the sex offender
and child abuse registries. Additionally, NACCRAA calls on Congress to
grant the Child Care Bureau the authority to assess state child care plans
for content and compliance and withhold funds from states with insufficient
policies and oversight. NACCRRA also recommends Congress increase Child
Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) subsidy funds and set aside a
specific percent to regulate and monitor all forms of child care and require
providers receiving CCDBG funds to be inspected to ensure compliance with
basic health and safety practices.
The Child Care Bureau administers CCDBG
funding, which is the primary federal funding source for child care in
the United States. It provides $11 billion in funds for quality investments
and subsidies, and each state determines how the funds will be used within
broad federal parameters. In order to receive funds from CCDBG, states
must have policies in place designed to protect the health and safety of
children. The federal government must do more to ensure states do what
is necessary to protect children.
To download a copy of the full report,
visit http://www.naccrra.org
WEST AFRICA
WEST AFRICA: Why is child development
stalled?
Experts put the lack of progress on children's
development in West Africa down to pervasive poverty, chronic malnutrition
in many countries, piecemeal aid responses, and health systems broken by
protracted conflicts.
Nine of the 12 countries with the world’s
highest rate of child deaths are in the region, according to the UN Children’s
Fund (UNICEF) State of the World’s Children 2008 which was released on
22 January.
According to the report, the region is
the only one in the world showing “no progress” on reaching the Millennium
Development Goal to reduce under-five mortality by two thirds by 2015.
While the number of children dying before
their fifth birthday has declined by almost a quarter globally since 1990,
in West and Central Africa it dropped by only 1.2 percent, the report showed.
On average 18.6 percent of children in West Africa die before their fifth
birthday, while one in 10 will die by their first.
The reasons for such slow progress are
complex, but some factors stand out according to UNICEF’s Dr. Genevieve
Bagkoyian, UNICEF’s regional adviser on child survival and development.
High death rates among children are largely
a result of chronic poverty and the legacy of conflict in Chad, Liberia
and Sierra Leone; poor management of health systems in some of the wealthier
states such as Nigeria; and chronic malnutrition in parts of Sahel countries
of Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad, Bagkoyian said.
“Throughout the region, how many governments
do we have that are stable, have adequate funds and good governance to
tackle change?” she asked.
Malnutrition is a leading cause of death
in the region, killing half of all children under five, according to UNICEF.
This is because it weakens children’s ability to fight other diseases,
such as malaria or pneumonia.
"Poor nutrition in the first five years
of a child’s life combined with high levels of disease will lead to high
death levels," Greg Ramm, West Africa regional director of Save the Children,
told IRIN.
According to a previous UNICEF report,
malnutrition-related death rates in West Africa are double the global average.
Malnutrition also affects reproductive
health, leading to low birth weights and in some cases, premature births.
In Niger, of the 19 percent of children
who die by their first birthday, a quarter die on the day they are born,
mainly because of these factors, combined with a lack of access to skilled
doctors or midwives, according to Bagkoyian who estimated that across the
region 60 percent of women give birth at home without a doctor present.
Mothers
But giving birth also leads to death for
simpler reasons that are easier to rectify, such as the lack of a clean
blade to cut umbilical cords and cultural behaviours such as an avoidance
of breastfeeding Bagkoyian said.
“In many of these countries, if we changed
a number of taboo behaviours, we could save a lot of children even if they
are born at home,” she said.
The lack of trained medical staff points
to a need for stronger health systems that prioritises the health of mother
and child, she said, adding that aid agencies and donors have not had as
much impact as they could because they have not coordinated themselves
to tackle root problems.
‘’In the past we had one agency working
on a polio campaign, another on measles, when what is needed is commitment
from agencies and donors to come up with joint solutions to these problems,
rather than one by one.’’
She added that prevention efforts are
crucial. “Simple preventive actions, if expanded to reach higher numbers,
could reduce child mortality by 5 percent per year,” she estimated, pointing
to mass immunisation campaigns, working with donors to provide children
with Vitamin A and mosquito nets and spreading simple reproductive health
messages as good examples.
...What is needed is commitment from agencies
and donors to come up with joint solutions to these problems...
Government role
But building better health systems also
depends on governments, Save the Children’s Ramm said. Poverty can create
a major barrier to achieving this, because it leaves such a small tax base
for governments to invest.
“In many of these places, even when governments
have prioritised healthcare within their available budget resources, there
would still not be enough money to get the job done, because there’s simply
no tax base to fund it.”
“When addressing if it’s a question of
poverty or of priorities, the answer is both, but ultimately you can’t
prioritise what you don’t have,” he said.
But while some West African governments
channel a relatively generous proportion of their annual income to health,
some of the most marginalised give the least, including Chad, which according
to UNICEF allocated just 3 percent of its annual gross domestic product
(GDP) to health in 2007.
To reverse the situation in West Africa,
Ramm said, aid agencies and governments need to tackle change at different
levels: working on prevention efforts at the community level, working with
governments to set up stronger health systems, and lobbying donors to meet
their aid commitments.
But donors also have a responsibility
to increase the proportion of their aid budgets that goes to healthcare
and nutrition, he said, starting with meeting the UN target of committing
0.7 percent of their GDP to official development assistance. To date only
five countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg
– have done so.
“Even among donors who are doing better
at upping their aid levels, most of them not reaching these targets,” Ramm
said.
http://www.irinnews.org/
7. MORE EDUCATIONAL SITES
For more educational sites visit
Sites for Teachers
http://www.sitesforteachers.com/perl/rankem.pcgi?id=under5s
Kind regards
The Under5s Team
Http://www.under5s.co.uk |
