麻花影视

The Early Years 麻花影视has issued a response after the Department for Education pledged not use a statistic about the potential cost saving for parents associated with its proposed changes to early years ratios again. The change was made after a complaint from the 麻花影视to the Office for Statistics regulation about the government鈥檚 claim that relaxing ratios in early years settings in England could save parents 拢40 a week.

The Department for Education has made changes to a press release claiming that relaxing ratios in early years settings in England could save parents 拢40 a week in response to a complaint made to the Office for Statistics Regulation from the Alliance.  

Back in July, as part of the launch of its consultation on proposed ratio changes, which would see the maximum number of two-year-olds per adult in nurseries and pre-schools in England increased, from four to five, the government claimed that these changes could result in savings of 15% or 拢40 per week for parents of two-year-olds. 

However, the 麻花影视believes that this calculation was based on a number of flawed assumptions and so filed a complaint to the Office for Statistics Regulation. In response, the press release which originally made the claim has now been updated to include the required context. 

Today, the DfE has removed the reference from the earlier press release and told the Office for Statistics Regulations that it will not be using the figure again. The DfE has said that it is "working towards generating a more accurate figure".

While the 麻花影视welcomes the DfE's clarification of the claim, made after the Alliance's query, even if the claim鈥檚 calculations were made clearer, it remains fundamentally flawed. This is because the calculation operates on the basis that all nurseries and pre-schools are currently working to a 1:4 ratio at all times, that they will all move to a 1:5鈥痳atios鈥痑t all times and that the entirety of any savings made would be passed onto parents in the form of lower fees. However: 

• An Early Years 麻花影视survey of over 9,000 early years settings found that only 51% of providers delivering places to two-year-olds work to maximum鈥痳atios鈥痑ll the time, meaning that around half already have scope to work to more relaxed鈥痳atios鈥痬ore often than they currently do, but choose not to.鈥�

• The same survey found that only 5% of nurseries and pre-schools would always/permanently operate to looser鈥痳atios鈥痠f the government鈥檚 proposal went ahead.鈥�&苍产蝉辫; 

• Overall, the survey found that only 2% of nurseries and pre-schools believe that parental fees at their setting would lower as a result of changes to ratio rules.  

• The government鈥檚 calculations incorrectly assume that all settings have the physical space to be able to substantially increase the number of children they care for and educate, within the current legal limits on floor space per child, which the government has not indicated they are consulting on.   

• Former children and families minister Will Quince, who launched the consultation, himself admitted in an interview with Sky News that the change would be unlikely to impact largely on costs, saying: 鈥淭he ratios change in and of itself is no silver bullet or panacea or magic bullet鈥� it is not going to significantly change costs because what we don鈥檛 expect is setting to routinely or religiously go to 1:5. Most don't currently go to 1:4.". 
  鈥�&苍产蝉辫;

Commenting, Neil Leitch, CEO of the Early Years Alliance, said:  

鈥淲e welcome the Department for Education's response to our complaint and, in particular, their clarification of the calculations behind the 拢40 a week figure. That said, while the DfE is taking steps to make the assumptions that underpin its calculations more transparent, that doesn't take away from the fact that the claim remains flawed at its core. 

鈥淭o be clear, our view is that this saving calculation should never have been published in the first place. Given that Will Quince, the former children and families minister, publicly stated that relaxing ratios is not going to significant lower costs for parents, it鈥檚 difficult to understand how anyone in government saw fit to make such a ridiculous claim. 

鈥淭ime and time again, we have urged the government to rethink their plans on ratios. Instead, it is doing its utmost to convince parents that these changes will lead to savings that it knows full well will never materialise.   

鈥淭here is no doubt the high cost of early years provision is a problem that needs to be urgently addressed, but ratios are not the answer. The only way that this issue can be solved is by properly funding the sector in the long term. The sooner government accepts this, the better for everyone.鈥� 

The Early Years Alliance鈥檚 letter to the Office for Statistics Regulation can be found  and the Office鈥檚 response can be found  

Editors Notes

• The government鈥檚 claim that changing the maximum number of two-year-olds per adult in nurseries and pre-schools in England from four to five could result in savings of 15% or 拢40 per week for parents of two-year-olds is based on the following calculation:  

  Staff costs account for 74% of overall costs in early years settings. Moving from a ratio for 1:4 to 1:5 for two-year-olds would cut staff costs by 20%. 20% x 74% = 15%. The average weekly cost of early years places is 拢265 and 15% of 拢265 is 拢40; therefore parents could save 拢40 per week.