Search

This paper examines how the quality of early childhood education and care accessed by 3- and 4-year-olds in England varies by children's background. Focusing on the free entitlement to early education, the analysis combines information from three administrative datasets for 2010-2011, the Early Years Census, the Schools Census and the Ofsted inspections dataset, to obtain two main indicators of quality: staff qualification levels and Ofsted ratings. These data are combined with child-level indicators of area deprivation ( IDACI scores) as a proxy measure of children's background.The paper finds that children from more disadvantaged areas have access to better qualified staff, largely because they are more likely than children from richer areas to attend maintained nursery classes staffed by teachers, and less likely to attend services in the private, voluntary and independent ( PVI) sectors. However, within both maintained and PVI sectors, services catering for more disadvantaged children receive poorer quality ratings from Ofsted, with a higher concentration of children from disadvantaged areas itself appearing to reduce the likelihood of top Ofsted grades. This may be in part because Ofsted ratings reflect levels of child development, and therefore reward settings where children enter at a more advanced starting point, but it may also be that it is genuinely harder to deliver an outstanding service to a more disadvantaged intake. The results point to the need for funding to support better qualified staff in PVI settings in disadvantaged areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we examine different aspects of the inclusion debate, including how it has been shaped by the political context in England over the past 30 years. We then give consideration to the key argument that has dominated the inclusion agenda over the last decade: should effective inclusion be considered only as placement in mainstream school settings, or can one consider inclusion in a specialist placement as successful? Research studies examining the views of children, parents and teaching staff are also discussed. Consideration is given as to whether a 'universalist' view of inclusion (in which special schools should not be offered) is one that is feasible and desirable. The key arguments highlighted include those relating to 'quality' in education, academic and social inclusion, human rights, parental choice and teachers' attitudes and skills. The role of some professional groups in supporting inclusion, such as educational psychologists ( EPs) and Special Educational Needs Coordinators ( SENCos), is also examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]