Nurseries say DfE ratio figures don't add up

One nursery owner, who has supplied his own alternative economic model, says that the figures would only work if 'children were an unlimited commodity'.

The DfE released the economic modelling last week in response to a Freedom of Information request.

It claims that changes to ratios would allow nurseries to cut fees for parents by as much as 28 per cent and allow nurseries to increase their revenue by more than £200,000 a year.

The figures given in the DfE example are based on an assumption that the nursery is operating at full occupancy with all the places filled on a full-time basis, 39 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and charges £4 an hour.

The department acknowledges that the example is 'stylised' and that most nurseries do not operate at full child occupancy and that there are 'other constraints'.

Marg Randles, managing director of Busy Bees, the UK's largest nursery group, said the DfE analysis was, 'An ideal scenario. It's not really a reality in terms of practicalities.'

She added, 'Most nurseries are set up and designed to fit the existing ratios.'

She said that the model did not take into account the fact that you would need to have rooms large enough to increase capacity and that you would also need to take into account the current welfare requirements, which stipulate a certain amount of floor space per child depending on their age, and so would not allow nurseries to increase the number of children.

Most nurseries, she said, are open 50-60 hours a week, and do not charge by the hour but by session or day rates. The analysis also does not take into account shift patterns and annual leave.

'It also assumes spare capacity, but most of our nurseries are full on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so we would not be able to accommodate more children anyway.'

Ms Randles said that Busy Bees had no plans to change ratios. 'We don't have any plans to make any changes. We could have been operating at the 1:13 ratio with a graduate, but it's not the direction we want to go. In some buildings we operate at higher ratios - for example, some nursery buildings are not suitable for 1:3 for babies, so we operate at 1:2.'

She added that the nursery group had recently carried out a survey of its graduates' views on the proposed ratio changes and found that they were 'very apprehensive'. Ms Randles said, 'They are committed to the EYFS and to giving children one-to-one attention. There is a concern with the younger children that you would not be able to give them the time to support their individual needs.'

Ross Midgley, director of PBD, the e-portfolio training company delivering the new early years Level 5, and of Blois Meadow Day Nursery, which has just received an outstanding Ofsted grade, provides his own alternative economic model.

Mr Midgley said, 'The DfE nursery (appropriately rose tinted) has children in just the right ratios and an unlimited supply of children of all ages waiting to enrol.'

His scenario, perhaps one that is more familiar to most nursery owners, 'has a slightly less convenient balance of ages, isn't able to trade its staff for graduates and has to work a bit harder to recruit new children.'

Spencer Thompson, research fellow at the IPPR, said, 'The DfE's modelling appears to show that increasing ratios will reduce the prices for parents, but on closer inspection some of their assumptions seem heroic. They assume none of the extra revenue will be retained as profits, even as the sector is struggling to stay afloat.

'The DfE modelling predicts workers that care for under-threes will take on more children, but with no increase in either pay or training. If that were to happen many parents would be justifiably concerned about the quality of care suffering.

'The wider point is that the majority of providers are not even interested in increasing ratios. Our survey evidence suggests 74 per cent of childminders don't plan to increase the numbers of children. With so many rejecting the change, the DfE's modelling may appear misleading.'

He added, 'Our work with childminders shows their commitment to driving up the quality and status of their workforce, preferring more stringent requirements and monitoring processes to less.

The sector consensus is that relaxing ratios would have a negative impact on the quality of childcare.'

Commenting on the DfE figures, Neil Leitch, chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, said, 'We are appalled by the cynicism of the DfE document. The model they have put forward is so far from reality, I'm surprised they saw fit to publish.'

Mr Leitch also pointed out that the report's economic model assumes the ratios will be used on an all-day full daycare basis, which is at odds with the department's More Great Childcare consultation, which states that the staff-to-child ratio for under-twos would 'most likely be for shorter periods of time, rather than for full-day sessions'.

Purnima Tanuku, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association, said, 'In reality nurseries currently have on average a fifth or more places vacant and a majority of places are used flexibly on a sessional basis by parents.

'The model makes no allowance for non-contact time for staff, a vital part of good practice to allow for planning, training and working with other agencies. In addition, while we fully agree with the need to support more highly-qualified and better rewarded staff, the model does not address the need to get graduates working with under-threes.'

A Department for Education spokesperson said, 'As the document states, this is a stylised model which looks at the potential impact of the ratios set out in More Great Childcare. Of course we recognise that every nursery is different but it is helpful to look at what ratio changes could mean for nurseries’ capacity.
 
'We welcome any providers willing to be transparent about their business models, so that we can have a helpful public debate about how to provide the best outcomes for children.'