< Previous | Contents | Next >

Interchange 68: All Day Provision for 3- and 4- Year Olds

3. Findings

(i) The nature of all-day provision in the case study settings

In the case study settings the availability of all-day provision varied across sectors.

• Private group care providers offered longer hours each day and were open for more of the year.
• Childminders and nannies cared for children beyond the hours available in most LA or private group care settings.
• The voluntary sector setting offered only a term time, morning session.
• At local authority settings provision beyond 9 am - 3 p.m. and during school holidays was limited.
• All-day provision was only available at some local authority provision if the family met certain 'in need' criteria.

Case study settings used accommodation that varied from a room in a private house, through purpose-built premises for LA nursery classes and schools to shared use of a village hall for the playgroup. A number of features were characteristic of the accommodation used:

• All-day children typically shared playrooms with children attending only for sessions (morning or afternoon) or until 3 pm.
• Furniture and equipment had to be re-arranged during each day to allow for meals and snacks to be served.
• All settings had outside play space but this varied in accessibility and equipment.
• No dedicated space to sleep or rest was set aside for 3- and 4-year olds staying all-day.

Whether children attended for sessions or stayed all-day, providers and practitioners considered the pre-school provision they offered to be a distinct educational stage, not just a preparation for school. The emphasis placed on meeting children's social and emotional needs and promoting their educational development varied across individual providers and practitioners. In general:

• Providers and practitioners offering group care considered that meeting the requirements of the Curriculum Framework for Children 3 to 5 was essential for satisfactory all-day provision. Staff in all the case study settings aimed to establish close relationships with families and considered it essential to offer variety in the activities and equipment offered during all-day provision.
• Childminders and nannies did not feel bound by curriculum guidelines, arguing that the children had received the necessary educational provision elsewhere. They aimed to respond to children's requests and to allow them to play freely when they cared for them after they had been to other provision.

(ii) Providers' and practitioners' perspectives on all-day provision

No one model of all-day provision was advocated but group care practitioners articulated conditions necessary for satisfactory provision:

• effective curriculum planning and observation of children;
• differentiation of activities for 3- and 4- year olds;
• communicating with parents in a way which suits them;
• ensuring staff continuity and low staff turnover;
• consideration of the requirements that arise from the 'all-dayness' of the child's experience (e.g. need for a change of pace, time outside);
• offering an appropriate environment and resources.

Childminders, nannies and staff in group care settings were in agreement that children needed a shift to a different style or atmosphere towards the end of the day. In group care settings this tended to be a move towards more adult attention and more directed activities while in home-based care it was a move to children choosing their own activities.

Providers and practitioners were ambivalent in their evaluation of the child's experience of all-day provision. Many staff recognise the developmental benefits that particular children derived from spending time in nursery beyond half-day sessions. A significant number considered that, for most children, the impact of all-day provision depended on both the nature of the child and the nature of the provision. Three respondents argued in favour of all-day provision but more than twice that number (from all three sectors) suggested that all-day provision had negative implications for children (such as missing out on time at home or with parents, not having individual attention from one adult), although some saw benefits for parents.

(iii) Children's Activities

In each setting children chose activities from those set out in the room by practitioners who were following curriculum guidelines and established practice. There were no significant differences between settings in the kind of activities that children selected in free play. Physical play was a regular activity either as a whole group activity or as a popular choice during free play in settings where there was ready access to outdoor play space. Group activities were a frequent part of children's experience in most settings.

In each setting children were offered activities and learning opportunities that were selected to cover the areas of the curriculum set out in the Curriculum Framework but children's own choices defined their experience on any one day. In all settings group activities were used to complement or supplement the range of curriculum areas that children experienced in free play.

Settings varied in the frequency with which children were observed as 'not engaged'. Features of the playroom and of daily routines e.g. the degree of structure imposed by adults may have contributed to this variation, along with factors associated with a particular child.

The evidence (across settings) does not suggest any clear difference between 3- and 4- year olds in the activities they were engaged in nor was there any evidence of gender differences in the activities children were engaged in.

Each case study setting offering all-day provision attempted to offer something different when a smaller number of children remained at the end of the day.

• Typically in all-day group care settings children were gathered together towards the end of the day when adults led a selected activity (often described as a 'quieter activity'.)
• Only at the Wraparound setting did children experience a different environment at the end of the day. At other all-day settings they tended to move to a specific part of the playroom at the end of the day.
• The emphasis at Wraparound was on giving choice at the end of the day but at other group settings choice tended to be more restricted during the last part of the day.

For children who received all-day provision from a combination of providers the way in which they spent their time at the additional provision depended on whether that setting offered group or home-based care.

• When their additional provision was a group care setting children were offered activities and learning opportunities across the 'Framework' areas. Children's choices with their additional provider reflected their particular interests (e.g. they might choose creative activities at both their main and additional provider) and the opportunities available in that setting (e.g. large block play or free play outside).
• Children cared for by a nanny or childminder were not offered planned activities but they were involved in some of the same types of activities as available in the playroom (e.g. role play, physical play, baking). Play resources were more limited at nanny or childminder settings but children were more involved in negotiating play possibilities with the adult there.

(iv) Parents' Perspectives

Parents were asked about their requirements for all-day provision in terms of the location of provision, the hours needed, and the costs involved. There views can be summarised as follows.

• Across settings a convenient location was helpful, although not the most important requirement. However, if care was shared with a childminder or grandparents then the location had to be convenient for them.
• Getting a good match between the hours offered by providers and each working family's needs was crucial.
• While some families would have appreciated an earlier starting time there was more concern about the time at which nurseries closed.
• In general, parents using private provision were prepared to pay for what they felt was a good quality service that allowed them to work.
• Some parents used private nurseries in combination with other provision to maximise the hours available and minimise the cost.
• Reaction to the cost of local authority provision varied with family financial circumstances. Some described the costs as reasonable but for others they were difficult to manage.

Additional evidence revealed that, in a rural setting with LA and private provision only available in a town some miles away, informal arrangements were used (often with family members) in addition to playgroup sessions to cover parents' working hours.

Parents tended to have preferences for a particular type of provision. The evidence gathered in this study suggested that a single model of all-day provision would not suit all parents. Some had a preference for local authority provision and they had divided views on childminding. Some saw group care as safer and better for social development. Others preferred the individual attention that childminders could give. In general, being able to achieve the hours needed at a manageable cost was the major influence on choice but other factors were involved too. Some parents thought that a change of location during the day was a positive feature that 'broke the day up'. Both the nursery's reputation and the parents' impression of the atmosphere on their initial visit were influential.

Parents who were satisfied with the provision they used far outnumbered those who mentioned any dissatisfaction. There were two dimensions to their satisfaction with provision:

• the match between the service available and the needs of their working lives;
• the way in which they perceived their child's experience away from home.

Most parents were satisfied with the particular type of provision they had access to and the hours during which it was available. They were more likely to comment negatively on the hours of provision available than on the location of the service they used. Cost was a factor influencing satisfaction, but most parents in the sample were managing to cope with the charges imposed and a few would have been willing to pay for more hours. Notions of what was an acceptable cost varied according to family income. Parents were universally confident that their child enjoyed the time they spent in all-day care and that the child felt happy and secure there. Moments when children expressed some dissatisfaction or reluctance to attend nursery were considered to be fleeting or due to a temporary state and did not appear to challenge parents' judgements that provision was satisfactory.

(v) The perspective of 3- and 4-year olds

The observations of children and the conversations with them suggested that their experience of all-day provision was predominantly satisfactory, regardless of the type of provision they experienced. There was no evidence to suggest that 3-year olds were more vulnerable or experienced less satisfaction than 4-year olds.

In the case study settings children were observed engaged in activities they had chosen from the range made available by adults or joining in group activities and games. The degree of individual variation in the learning activities selected during free play suggested that a broad range of activities was necessary in the playroom in order to maximise individual children's satisfaction. Observations in the playroom suggested that children were able to make choices in free play time that gave them satisfaction and that they were willing to be involved in the kind of group experiences offered, for instance they were generally enthusiastic about outdoor play or group games indoors.

It is more difficult to make inferences about the experience of children who were observed to be 'not engaged' or wandering for varying periods of time. They may have been dissatisfied with the choice available to them at that time, or with their experience in that setting in general. Alternatively they may have been exercising a positive choice to have 'time out'. Children were not noticeably more tired or less willing to be involved in adult-led activities later in the day.

Conversations with children confirmed that they had preferences about the way in which they spent their time while in all-day provision. They expected to play and were able to identify activities that would give them satisfaction. The activities that they talked about were 'free play' activities, not group activities. Most children indicated that they were happy at nursery and not sleepy, sad or cross. They said that they might be cross when they were not able to have things they wanted and sad when hurt. A few children acknowledged that they got tired at nursery. Other children were a source of satisfaction and fun, e.g. some children talked about enjoying jokes together and laughing with others. Occasionally other children were a source of dissatisfaction, annoyance or hurt. Nevertheless, adults were clearly important for the 3- and 4-year olds. Many of the observations of children in a positive affective state recorded them listening or responding to adults and interacting socially with them. The children needed adults to comfort them when they were sad, help them to cope when they were cross and to notice when they were tired.

(vi) The Perspective of Local Authorities

The evidence gathered from the survey suggested that:

• One third of the authorities surveyed offered little or no direct LA all-day provision.
• Authorities either offered direct all-day provision to parents who contributed to the cost or they offered free places to parents in need, according to established criteria.
• Authorities differed in the conditions they set for government-funded places taken in private and voluntary sector provision.
• LAs experienced problems arranging staff contracts to allow for extended hours and all year provision.

LA respondents were asked about the arrangements necessary for provision to offer children a satisfactory all-day experience.

• An appropriate 'educational' curriculum was considered necessary for satisfactory all-day care.
• There was no consensus about the appropriateness of grouping all-day children separately from sessional children.
• There was a consensus that children should not experience 'repeat' sessions.
• One third of respondents made explicit reference to the need for all-day children to have good opportunities for outdoor, physical play.
• Wraparound provision was thought of as care orientated and best offered in a more informal environment.

When considering plans for the future of all-day provision in their authority the respondents indicated that:

• Only three of the twelve authorities surveyed had plans to expand direct LA all-day provision.
• New models of partnership were under consideration in some authorities as a way of expanding provision e.g. joint working with the voluntary and private sectors, supporting childminders offering government-funded provision.
• Concerns about staffing, and staff contracts in particular, were a major constraint on direct LA all-day provision. A lack of suitable accommodation, especially with good space for physical play, limited expansion in some authorities.
• Matching supply and demand in particular locations was sometimes difficult.
• Managing money received for hours purchased was perceived as difficult in some areas.

< Previous | Contents | Next >