Children's Views on Childcare Quality - Communities and Local ...

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the children and young people who participated in the study, thechildcare staff and childminders for their co-operation, all Early Years Development andChildcare Partnerships who responded to our survey and development officers whohelped us find childcare providers. Collette McCarthy at the DfES managed the projectand we would like to thank her for her support. Finally, colleagues at Thomas CoramResearch Unit, particularly Alison Clarke and Annabelle Stapleton, who offered theirhelp and for which we are grateful.2

six that were used by disabled children; three which served largely African andAfrican-Caribbean families and three where black children were in the minority;three services serving predominately South Asian families and three where SouthAsian children were in the minority. In total, children from 93 families wereinvolved.3.5 Method: With older children, a semi-structured interview was used to explorechildren's out of school lives and the role played by out of school services. Foryounger children, a series of brief conversations at the setting took place. A childmight be asked to show the researcher the service pointing out favourite places oractivities. The aim was to ascertain what children enjoyed or disliked aboutattending the service.3.6 Findings: A recurring theme was the salience of relationships with other childrenand with staff and the activities that the service offered. Space to 'do their ownthing' without adult intrusion was valued and children enjoyed playing withfriends, 'messing about' and 'hanging out' with friends. Staff characteristics thatwere appreciated were: kindness; caring; ability to protect children from bullying;ready to listen; treat children seriously; offer interesting activities and be 'fun'.Older children particularly liked the familiar, informal style of relationships withadults. Activities that are seen as 'fun', are freely chosen, age appropriate andinteresting are important. Staff who shouted or were too controlling were disliked.Children also disliked being bored, which was associated with over-familiaractivities. The environment was important too, particularly having space, beingoutdoors (even when wet) and the condition of the toilets. For example, childrentalked about there being too few toilets, no toilet paper or warm water, no meansof drying hands and infrequent and inadequate cleaning.3.7 Services were generally appreciated and the majority of children enjoyed going tothese services, though the researchers noted that the sample did not include youngpeople who had dropped out of the service and who may be more dissatisfied.6

Age, gender and social class, however, contributed to how young people viewedthe service. For example, older children sometimes felt restricted to activities,which they considered more suitable for young children. Younger children couldfeel threatened by the size and physical strength of older children. Problemsbetween age groups were associated more with day care and with more organisedactivities than with open-door or free play services.Children Have Their Say. <strong>Children's</strong> Perspectives on Out of School Care(Smith and Barker, 1999)3.8 Aim: The study considered children's experiences and preferences of out ofschool care, how to involve them in the planning and development of out ofschool services and the geographical and social factors affecting the use of theseservices.3.9 Sample: 347 children aged 4-11 attending 25 out of school schemes in six areas ofEngland.3.10 Method: A variety of methods were used including Polaroid photographs, videodairies, drawings, interviews with researchers and child led interviews. The focuswas placed on the activities available, the staff, rules, friendships, participationand how the service could be improved.3.11 Findings: As in the above study, the majority (86 per cent) enjoyed attending theout of school club and, in particular, having a diverse range of activities. Mostpopular was playing outside, art, football, eating food, craft and other ball games.Going on trips/outings was especially popular in clubs with no outdoor space.Boys generally played football and other physically active games outside, whilstgirls tended to want to talk to friends, listen to music and participate in arts/craftsinside. Most did not want to do homework at their club, although it may havebeen promoted and space set aside. Out of school clubs were seen as places to7

play and be with friends, an important feature of clubs. Staff who facilitated playand enjoyment, who were caring and listened, were liked, whereas those whoraised their voice or were unfair in their treatment of children were disliked.Older children felt staff spent too much time with children who were younger.Older children (8-12) were less satisfied than younger children because it wouldseem that staff structure the service for younger children. More girls (60 per cent)than boys (49 per cent) liked staff and boys tended to believe that staff had morein common with girls and treated them differently, which they attributed to thefact that the majority of staff were female. Boys wanted more male workers,which they said would enhance the time they spent in the club. Participationvaried from choosing activities to involvement in longer-term decision making,but the majority of clubs did not consult with their users.Perspectives on Good Quality Out of School Care: Discussion Groups withStakeholders (Munton et al., forthcoming)3.12 Aim: To establish the range of views, and consistent themes, held by registrationand inspection officers, parents, children and staff concerning good quality out ofschool provision.3.12 Sample: Children attending 44 out of school clubs drawn from 12 authorities andincluding 3 schemes offering a service for children with special needs anddisabilities.3.13 Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with children over the ageof eight covering what they liked and disliked within the following topics:programme and activities, staff, rules, premises and participation. For youngerchildren and those with communication difficulties, a Polaroid camera was leftwith staff in each club and a children's tape recorder in the mainstream clubs.Staff were asked to help children using this equipment to express their views8

concerning their likes and dislikes, staff, activities, premises, friendships, andrules.3.14 Findings: Overall, having the time and space to play with friends, a safe andsecure environment, and outdoor play space were important. A wide choice ofage appropriate activities (activities were often structured for younger children)and freedom to choose activities were also important as was the food they wereoffered and having a wide choice. Children wanted staff who were friendly, kind,listened to them and got involved in activities, but who also knew when to givethem space. Staff who shouted or who were too controlling were disliked. <strong>Views</strong>about their environment included having sufficient space, clean toilets, a quietarea for homework and free access to an outside play area.What we really, really, want (Steir, 1999)3.15 This is a review article, which reflects upon the lessons learnt from 12 children'sconsultancy projects undertaken as part of the Article 31 <strong>Children's</strong> ConsultancyScheme (see p12 for more details of this scheme).3.16 Sample: Over 100 children aged between 8 and 12.3.17 Method: Children were trained by the Article 31 Action Group as consultants andto formulate their ideas into reports and recommendations covering the servicesand facilities used by children.3.18 Findings: Children want: 'nice' toilets in play and care facilities; water fountainsand dispensers installed both indoors and outside; improved access to facilities forthe disabled. They also want staff who listen to them and can organise andfacilitate games and activities. Finally, they want celebrities invited to their playprojects.9

Listening to Children (Daycare Trust, 1998)3.19 Aim: This consultation was undertaken to inform a guide to help parents lookingfor childcare that their children will enjoy.3.20 Sample: 45 children aged between 3 and 4 years drawn from three nurseries.3.21 Method: Used a small teddy and asked children how they would make sure theteddy enjoyed going to the nursery.3.22 Findings: Friends and food are important to this age group. Mealtimes should bea fun time and they like helping themselves and having a choice. They enjoy avariety of games/activities including role-play, story time, books, art/craft andhaving their work displayed. Outdoor play space is highly valued and is usuallyat the top of the list of what they like best. These children saw adults as beingthere to help them and to play with them. They also liked being givenresponsibility to do things for themselves.Listening to Young Children. The Mosaic approach (Clark and Moss, 2001)3.23 Aim: The aim of the study was to find practical ways to involve children inservice development and which recognised children's competencies.3.23 Sample: Children aged between 2 and 4 attending an early years centre.3.24 Method: A number of methods were utilised to gather information to build up apicture of what it is like for children using the service. Methods includedobservation, child conferencing, and the use of cameras, tours, mapping and roleplay. Listening to children, their parents and care workers was an importantaspect of this work.10

3.25 Findings: This study primarily focuses on the way in which children areconsulted but three case studies illustrate how the Mosaic approach can illuminatewhat is important for children. For one boy what was important were places tohide, outside space for imaginative games, playing with friends, visiting hisbrother (who was in another part of the centre), playing with the bikes and adultswho keep order. These findings may lead care workers to consider whether theyare meeting this child's needs by for example providing space to hide; allowingtime for making up games, allowing his use of bikes and allowing him to visit hisbrother.4. Conclusions from the literature review4.1 The findings from these studies tell a similar story in terms of quality in childcareand out of school services. Children value friendships and want time to be withfriends. They want a range of activities, but they must be age appropriate andinteresting. Interest is likely to wane if activities are not regularly rotated orchanged. How the space and activities are structured to take account of thedifferent age groups that may be attending should be considered. Older childrenhave different needs and interests than younger children. Children have clearnotions of the characteristics staff should possess. Staff should be caring, willingto listen, take children seriously, and facilitate and support children's games andactivities. There should be ample space, comfortable places to relax, free accessto outside play space, places where children can 'hang out' and clean, properlyequipped toilets.5. Survey of Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships5.1 Many Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) haveundertaken formal consultation with children as part of their childcare audit and toinform their EYDCP Plan. According to the 2000/1 survey of 95 EYDCPs, 84 percent had consulted with children (DfEE, 2001). We therefore undertook a survey11

of all 150 Partnerships in England to establish the extent of formal consultationand, where consultations had occurred, to obtain the results. Given the short timescalefor the project, electronic mail was used for the survey. Lead officers wereasked whether or not the Partnership had consulted with children and, if so, if theycould send a copy of the results. With a reminder, 82 Partnerships respondedrepresenting a response rate of 55 per cent. Of these, 20 had not consulted withchildren, though many said they planned to do so in the near future, 7 were in theprocess of consulting and 55 had done so, 47 of whom sent reports. Altogether,76 per cent of EYDCPs responding to the survey had sought, or were seeking,children's views.5.2 As can be seen from Table 1, consultations varied in terms of sample size, theages of children and young people consulted, and methodology. As might beexpected, the quality of reports also varied. The work was undertaken either byindependent consultancies, by children's or childcare organisations such as The<strong>Children's</strong> Society or Daycare Trust, and by members of the local authority orEYDCP. Several authorities or EYDCPs had set up children's consultancyprojects under the Article 31 <strong>Children's</strong> Consultancy Scheme. The scheme is aninitiative developed by the Article 31 Action Network and co-ordinated byPlay●Train. Children are trained to act as special consultants to arts, media andleisure service providers. This is considered important to improve the quality ofservice provision and "at the same time, helps to implement the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child, by enabling children's views to be takeninto account in decisions that directly affect them" (Article 31 Actionetwork,2002: 1. www.playrn.demon.co.uk/a31ccs.htm).5.3 The purpose and focus of the consultations varied. Most were carried out toinform the EYDCP Childcare Audit, but some were consultations for the<strong>Children's</strong> Fund or for Leisure and Play Services within the local authority. Somesought to find out what children thought of the childcare services they wereattending, others focused on what children did outside of school and their12

preferences, whilst some consultations involved children's views on services andfacilities within their community and how they could be improved.5.4 What is clear from this survey is that there is much variability. However, manyPartnerships are using innovative methods to give children and young people avoice as evidenced by the following examples.5.5 In Norfolk, facilitators consulting with children using summer holiday playschemes utilised seven activities designed to be "varied, fun and enjoyable" toencourage children of all ages to participate voluntarily (Gadd and Cable, 2000).These included questionnaires where children drew faces to record how they feltabout specified activities; taped interviews with children interviewing each otherif they so wished; taking photographs within the setting, mounting these on aboard and using coloured stickers to indicate favourite and least favouriteactivities; children decorating plates with happy and sad faces and using them ona tour of the facility to indicate how they felt about the environment and activities;discussion groups with older children about how adults could consult with them,and asking children to record their favourite activity on a 'leaf' and pinning this toa 'tree of wisdom'.5.6 The authors of this report discuss which methods worked well and which did not.For example, questionnaires could be difficult for some children to complete,whilst some children are not used to being asked for their opinions. They suggesthow facilitators need to be spontaneous and flexible and how noise levels andwhat children were or had been doing before affected interest or energy to beinvolved in discussions.5.7 In Oldham, a group of children were asked to think about what things they wouldlike to know about a club to decide if they thought it would be good and whetherthey would like to go there (Oldham Play Action Group, 2001). This resulted in aquality checklist, which they thought other children could use when they go to13

look at a club. The following are some of the items from the checklist suggestingwhat is important to these children:• Do adults find out what you like and try to find out about you?• Do adults eat their tea with children and talk to them about their day?• Are there adults who don't shame you in front of people if you get thingswrong and make mistakes?• Is the building big or small?• Is there a chance of being in charge of something or having turns at beingresponsible?• Are the toilets nice?• Can you do activities you can't do at home?• Do children here look bored or excited?5.8 The Larch Project undertaken by the <strong>Children's</strong> Society in Leeds for the LeedsEYDCP childcare audit (Gladwin, 2002) also has a quality checklist in theirreport, based on the results of their consultation (see Table 1). They too used awide range of methods including asking children to describe their 'dream' and'nightmare' playworkers to access desired characteristics of staff; photographs anddrawings of favourite activities; asking children if they agreed with statementsabout the facility; tape recorded interviews and 'graffiti' walls where children wereinvited to write comments about the provision.6. Survey conclusions6.1 Despite the variability, recurring themes arise from these consultations, whichmirror the results of the studies identified in the literature review. These include:importance of friendships; having fun; concerns about safety, particularly bullying(children want to feel safe); having a range of activities and equipment; havingchoice both in terms of activities and time; sport is the most popular activity forsome (usually, but not always boys), but can also be the least popular; outsideplay space; differences in age groups in terms of their preferences; younger14

children tend to be more positive than older children who tend to be more critical,reflecting perhaps the way in which activities and space are often structured foryounger children; caring, interested adults who listen; opportunities to put theirviews across and have them taken seriously; the importance of food and of fairrules.7. Consulting children about childcare qualityStudy design7.1 The study was located in two contrasting English authorities: an inner Londonauthority and a unitary authority in the South East. The aim was to consult withchildren attending an out of school club, day nursery, a pre-school playgroup andchildren with childminders in each of the two authorities. One visit was plannedfor the out of school clubs where children are generally of school age. Two visitsto each of the other types of provision were timetabled. The first visit enabledchildren to become acquainted with the researcher before the second visit, whichinvolved the consultation, since young children are more likely to talk freelywhen they are familiar with the adult involved.7.2 In each authority, early years and childcare development workers were contactedand asked to assist in locating a day nursery, pre-school playgroup, an out ofschool club and childminders who might be willing to participate in the project.One or two providers were suggested for each type of provision in inner London.In the unitary authority, the development worker nominated an out of schoolprovider, but the pre-school playgroup and nursery were randomly selected fromthe database held by the <strong>Children's</strong> Information Service (CIS). Accessingchildminders poses more challenges because of data protection issues. It wasdecided to contact childminders through ‘drop-in’ facilities organised by localchildminding groups or development workers.15

7.3 Each provider was contacted by telephone and agreed to participate. This initialcontact was followed with letters and project information to the providers andparents of children using the service. Nursery providers at first voiced someconcern about a researcher being alone with the children, but were satisfied whenit was explained that this was not necessary. The majority of parents seemedhappy for their children to be involved, some showing great interest in the projectas reported by staff.7.4 Pre-school playgroups, nurseries and childminders were sent letters and consentforms to pass on to parents, who were asked to sign and return the consent form tothe provider before the research visits. Unfortunately, in one of the two nurseriesnot all parents received the consent form and consent was given for only a fewchildren. The parents of children attending the out of school clubs were asked tosign a consent form held by the providers.7.5 Although parents may have consented to their child’s participation in the project,children themselves could choose if they wanted to become involved. In the outof school clubs, staff informed children about the project, explaining that theywere free to choose whether or not they wished to take part. It was also madeclear to children attending other forms of provision that they had a choice aboutwhether to help with the project.Sample7.6 In Inner London, providers included a small, sessional pre-school playgroup inthe voluntary sector, a large, private nursery offering full-day care and a mediumsized out of school club run by the local authority. Although the organiser of achildminder ‘drop-in’ centre had agreed to help and information had beencirculated to childminders who used the centre and to parents of children usingthese childminders, the consultation with children was unable to proceed. Visitswere cancelled due to the facility moving to another location.16

7.7 In the unitary authority, visits were made to a small, charitable pre-schoolplaygroup offering sessional care; a large, private day nursery offering full-daycare, a large out of school club in the voluntary sector and to a group ofchildminders. At the visit to the childminder drop-in centre in this authority, thechildren attending with their childminders were all under the age of two.Although children this young have been consulted (see literature review) themethods involved take more time than the project allowed. Childminders,however, were keen to help. Consequently, individual childminders agreed to bevisited at home after school when school-aged children in their care would bepresent.7.8 In total, 62 children participated in the study (31 in each authority): 37 girls and25 boys. Thirty-three children were aged under five years, 13 children werebetween 5-7 years of age and 16 children were aged between 8-12. Childcareproviders told us that 7 of the children we talked to had learning difficulties, butwe collected no further information about the children's background such asethnicity and the socio-economic status of their families. If time had allowed, wewould have gathered more information about the population that the childcaresetting served and information from parents.Methods7.9 Different methods were used to explore the views of younger children (under theage of 5). These methods were adapted from similar studies involvingconsultation with young children about their childcare provision (e.g. Clark andMoss, 2000). These included small group and individual interviews, drawings,photographs, tours, role-play using telephones, and story telling using a puppet.7.10 Interviews: Sitting with the children and using a tape-recorder that the childrenthemselves could operate, the researcher asked about their likes and dislikes,about activities, friends, food, staff, equipment/facilities and rules. Children17

ecorded their answers, some even took on the role of interviewer, asking thequestions and interviewing the younger children.7.11 Drawings: Children were invited to draw themselves at their childcare settingdoing things they like and talking about their drawings with the researcher.7.12 Photographs: Children were shown how to use a Polaroid camera and took theresearcher around the setting taking photographs of what they liked and disliked.Children then talked about the photographs they had taken.7.13 Tours: Children took the researcher on a tour of the setting as a means toencourage children to talk about why they had chosen particular places andactivities.7.14 Role-play: Children could use the telephones to talk to the researcher about theirchildcare setting.7.15 Story telling using a puppet: Children were introduced to a puppet and toldhe/she was just starting at the setting. Children were asked how the puppetwould be feeling, and what they would do to make them feel better and happy atbeing there. They were also asked what sort of activities the puppet would like,and about the staff, food and building.7.16 Not every method was used with every child in every setting. The researcher usedwhichever seemed the most appropriate for the maturity, abilities and interests ofchildren. The number of methods utilised in each setting varied from 1 to 4, withan average of 2. Children had the choice whether to participate or not andapproached and left the researcher as and when they wanted.7.17 With older children (5-12) and those using out of school clubs, the main methodused was semi-structured interviews either individually or in small groups. For18

children in the age range 5-7, children could choose to complete a work sheet,which asked them to agree or disagree with statements about the facility. Forexample: “At the out of school club, children should have a choice of things todo”. Topics covered in the interviews and by the worksheets included: importantthings about the provision, activities, staff, rules, food, size of club and ages ofchildren, involvement in running of club, friendships, facilities and equipment.The interviews with the 5-7 year olds were shorter (on average 15 minutes) thanthose with children aged 8-12 (on average 25 minutes). Examples of questionsincluded: “What would you like to change about your out of school club?” and“What makes a good playworker?”7.18 Staff and childminders were friendly and helpful. They ensured that all childrenwhose parents had consented had the opportunity to participate if they so wished.Nursery and playgroup staff frequently checked that there were enough or not toomany children speaking to the researcher at one time.8. Results from the consultation with childrenMethodology8.1 For the under fives the most successful method or tool was the tape-recorder.They particularly liked recording and listening to their own voices. Thephotographs and tours were also successful. These activities drew the attention ofother children, who also wanted to participate. The puppet worked well with somechildren and not with others. The toy telephones were not so successful. Somechildren did not want to use them and when they did, simply said hello andgoodbye. Toy telephones are common in pre-school settings and this method hadno element of novelty or creativity.8.2 The older children enjoyed the interviews and talking about their experiences atthe out of school club. They had plenty to say, although on occasions boys19

appeared to want to dominate the discussion and it was necessary to curb theirexuberance and encourage the girls to put their view across. Only a small numberof children wanted to complete the worksheets.<strong>Children's</strong> views8.3 Friends: Friendships were particularly important for all age groups and to bewith and play with friends was one of the things they most liked doing as onethree-year old said "I like it best when I play with my friends". Many childrenvalued caring for younger children, although older children referred to howyounger children could disrupt games, which could be irritating. Older children(8+) thought it important to have other children of their own age attending andliked the fact that they could make friends with children attending other schools.8.4 Activities and equipment: Children want their childcare setting to be fun. Theyenjoy a variety of activities, which vary according to age and gender. Youngerchildren (under 5) like imaginative play, gross motor activities (e.g. bikes, slides,swings, ball games), books and story time, construction toys (e.g. lego, bricks),board games, art and craft. Older children (5-12) like sport, boys particularly likeplaying football, playing outside, art, reading, going on trips, cooking, doing theirhomework and watching videos. In the EYDCP survey, the report from Oldhamhighlighted the fact that the interests of older children (8-11) are moving towardswhat was once regarded as teenage territory, suggesting the importance ofregularly canvassing children's views about activities.8.5 Younger children (under 5) were more likely to complain about not havingenough toys or having to sit on the carpet too long (a particular feature of preschoolcentre-based settings where children sit on carpet squares or a rug for storyor circle time) and not being able to go outside. Older children (8+) were morelikely to complain of being bored due to insufficient choice of activities, no one oftheir age to play with or activities that were not age appropriate. There is a feeling20

that they do not have enough to do because the club is structured for youngerchildren (5-7). Some considered they were not given sufficient freedom andresponsibility for their age.8.6 Children like playing outside, which is very important to them. All childrendisliked restrictions being placed on outdoor play, which meant there were timeswhen they could not go out. However, older children (5+) had more freedom ofchoice in this respect than younger children who had to wait for staff to tell themwhen they could go outside. Older children mentioned the importance of havingsufficient space in which to play outside. Outside play includes gross motor (e.g.slides, swings, bikes), playing with balls, imaginative play, and for youngerchildren, sand and water play.8.7 Food: Children like eating together, with meals and snacks being opportunitiesfor socialising with adults and other children. The type and amount of food thatchildren were offered varied, with younger children (under 5) generally moresatisfied than older children (5+). Some of the younger children at a nursery didsay that they would like more choice and suggested having a menu. Olderchildren wanted more choice, more hot food and to be involved in planningmenus. They also wanted access to drinks and snacks as and when they wantedthem, rather than having to wait for a pre-set time. It was suggested that a weekcould be devoted to food from different countries.8.8 Staff: All children said how much they liked the staff or their childminder.Younger children want staff who are caring, friendly, helpful and playful.Children in centre-based care said that they do not like staff being in the office toomuch. Older children prefer staff to have the following characteristics: are fun,play and join in with them, are nice and kind, help them, give them freedom andresponsibility, treat children with respect and fairness, take children seriously, likeand get on with children, be interested in lots of different things, look after them,be their friend, listen and talk to children. They dislike staff who talk among21

themselves, do not participate in activities and who are restrictive and controlling.There should be sufficient staff to enable staff to be involved with all age groups(not just the younger ones) and to facilitate trips and outings. Continuity was alsoan important aspect, since children talked about having adults who stayed withthem and who they could get to know well.8.9 Safety: A few children mentioned how they disliked being hit by older childrenand become unhappy when their friends are absent. In the survey of EYDCPconsultations, bullying was sometimes a problem for children in out of schoolprovision and safety more generally, both within out of school facilities and thewider community, was a concern for children.8.10 Rules: The younger children did not have much to say about rules, except thatchildren shouldn’t hit other children. They described how children were told offand given ‘time out’ when children misbehaved, which they seemed to accept.Older children, apart from those with childminders, were usually involved insetting ground rules. Some said that staff should explain to children why they hadmisbehaved so that they could learn from the incident.8.11 Participation: Older children want a say in how their club is run. A children’scouncil was thought a good idea by some children. They also suggested havingfund-raising events so that more equipment could be purchased.8.12 Facilities: Children had clear ideas about their environment and how it shouldlook. Having plenty of space, both inside and out, was considered very important.Younger children attending nursery or playgroup seem to most like the quiet/bookroom. They like reading books and having stories read to them there. This roomhad carpeting and cushions, which they liked to sit on. The nursery children alsosaid how much they like the home corner, the art room, and any secret hidingplaces. The younger children at childminders are not allowed to go upstairs, butthey can go anywhere downstairs, which they like, and enjoy the use of a garden.22

8.13 Older children wanted clubs in purpose built premises, which ensured that theyand their belongings were safe. They wanted to be able to put displays on the walland have a space that was ‘theirs’. Their preference was for clubs not to be run inschools because it restricts what they can do. They want a large, safe outside playspace, with a shaded area, and rooms for different activities and age groups. Theserooms include: a room to relax which would be quiet and comfortable wherepeople can read, do their homework and relax; a games room, an art and craftsroom, a playhouse, a TV room, and a kitchen that they can use. Children withchildminders also wanted plenty of play space, particularly a large garden, andspace that was welcoming, comfortable and relaxing.9. Conclusions from the consultation with children9.1 Although children expressed many views regarding the quality of their childcareprovision, there were some methodological difficulties. Consulting children whowere with childminders was challenging, since they do not frequent one venue atone time. Drop-in centres, as the name suggests, do not guarantee sufficientchildren in the appropriate age range. Since parental consent was needed beforeconsultation, it requires that the same childminders and children attend the centrewhen the researcher has arranged to visit. In fact, arranging to visit childmindersin their own home proved much more successful, though access to them was viathe drop-in centre. However, interviewing children in the childminder’s homepresented difficulties too. Childminders tended to be present or within earshot.They often wanted to answer for children or prompt them. There was also thepossibility that children felt less able to be critical if the childminder was present.9.2 The study emphasises the point that consultation with children, particularlyyounger children, undertaken by people the child does not know can take time.Getting to know children is important, particularly when consultation involvesyounger children. This requires spending time in settings so that positive23

elationships can develop. Children appeared more relaxed with the researcher onthe second visit than on the first.9.3 The structure of the setting can also influence consultation exercises. In one preschoolplaygroup, it proved difficult to hold children’s attention and encouragethem to talk about different aspects of the setting. This was due to the shortduration of each session, and that children attending this facility were youngerand had shorter concentration spans. A significant number also had speechdifficulties. This is not to suggest that such children cannot participate inconsultation. Rather it highlights the need to visit the settings more frequentlyand find ways in which children can contribute. Several consultations undertakenby EYDCPs included children with disabilities and special educational needs.9.4 Despite these methodological difficulties and that the sample from each settingwas small, the results closely mirror those from the literature review and survey ofconsultations undertaken by EYDCPs. A good childcare setting from theperspective of children and young people, irrespective of age and type of setting,seems to be one where children can have fun, play with their friends, where theyare given a choice over what they can do and where interesting activities areprovided in a safe, relaxed and welcoming environment. Their views haveimplications for which indicators of quality are assessed in childcare settings.9.5 <strong>Children's</strong> preferences for activities will vary by age, gender and interests, butimaginative play, gross motor activities, art and craft, books, and going on tripsare particularly popular. To participate in such activities, children need a plentifulsupply of age appropriate toys and equipment. To avoid children becomingbored, staff need to rotate activities and introduce activities which are new andchallenging to the ages of the children in their care. Out of school clubs more sothan pre-school settings, can cater for a wide age range. Although children valuemixing with children of different ages, and generally like having younger childrenaround, the setting needs to consider the very different needs, interests and24

maturity of such a mixed age range. Organising activities and space to takeaccount of this situation may be one indicator of good quality.9.6 Adults play an important role in children’s experiences of their childcare setting.Children and young people can clearly articulate what they like and dislike aboutthe adults who are responsible for them. Several quality indicators with respect tostaffing arise from this consultation. For example, adults who are caring,attentive, like and respect children, and can interact appropriately for the age ofthe child. Interactions with children approaching their teens will be different inmany ways to those with children of a younger age. Children wanted staff whostayed in the setting for some time to enable relationships to develop. Staffstability is affected by working conditions, which may be another indicator ofquality.9.7 <strong>Children's</strong> views about their environment also suggest quality indicators, such assufficient outside space both indoors and outside. Children like having placeswhere they feel ‘out of the eye’ of adults. Creating corners or as childrenthemselves describe, ‘hiding places’ could be important for quality. Secure andclean toilets were another feature of the environment important to children andwhich should be given due consideration in quality assessments.9.8 Finally, children would like to be consulted about the organisation and structureof their provision, though this was voiced more so by older children. They werevery pleased that they were being consulted for the study and wanted a greater sayin making rules and the choice of food and activities that the setting offered.Assessing the quality of a setting should therefore include if and how children areconsulted. It is important that consultation with children is meaningful. Askingchildren what they think, but taking it no further will send a message that there islittle real interest in their view. Many would argue that children and youngpeople should play an active role in assessing the quality of their provision.25

10. Overall conclusions and indicators of quality10.1 The empirical work for this study was conducted within a short time frame, whichdid not allow for a large representative sample. Sufficient time is required toidentify childcare providers and to obtain consent from all concerned. If the studywere to be repeated it would be important to ensure that children with specialeducational needs, children from minority ethnic backgrounds, and from bothadvantaged and less advantaged areas were included. Examination of thesefactors together with age and gender would lead to a better understanding ofchildren's experiences of childcare. The views of non-users, particularly thosechildren and young people who have dropped out of the service, may also provideinformation about satisfaction and service quality.10.2 Although childcare settings can be selected to ensure that adequate numbers ofchildren within different groups are represented, selection of providers andparticipants is dependent upon consent. Not only do childcare providers need togive permission for the research to take place, but also participation withinsettings is restricted to those children who attend the session, whose parents haveconsented and who choose to take part in the research.10.3 Despite the limitations of the empirical work, the findings are remarkably similarto the findings from the literature review and survey of consultations undertakenby EYDCPs. The findings from these three sources of data have been taken anddeveloped in to a checklist of quality indicators.10.3 Quality indicators based on evidence from this study:• <strong>Children's</strong> friendships are encouraged and supported.• Older children can 'hang-out' with friends with minimum supervision.• There is a range of activities, which are regularly reviewed and changed ormodified to retain children's interest.26

• Activities and space is organised to accommodate the different needs andinterests of both younger and older children.• Children and staff appear to have a fun time.• Children feel safe in the setting and there is a clear anti-bullying policy.• Staff facilitate activities/play, and avoid interfering or telling older childrenwhat to do.• Staff avoid raising their voices when speaking to children.• Staff show respect for children, are caring and take time to listen.• In their interactions with children, staff take account of children's age,maturity and special needs.• Both male and female staff are employed.• Staff turnover is low to facilitate close relationships between children andadults.• Children have sufficient indoor and outdoor space.• Outdoor space is freely accessible for older children.• The setting is comfortable with places to be quiet and relax.• Toilets are secure, clean and equipped appropriately.• The setting offers places where children can be 'out of the eye' of adults.• Children have a choice of food, which is attractive and enjoyable to eat, andready access to a drink.• Children are encouraged to participate in decisions about the programme.Their views are seen as important and there is evidence that they are takenseriously.10.4 It is hoped that these indicators of quality, many of which would be endorsed byother groups of stakeholders, will be given due consideration in any qualityassurance scheme.27

ReferencesClark, A. and Moss, P. (2001) Listening to Young Children. The Mosaic Approach.London: National <strong>Children's</strong> Bureau.CYPU (2001) Building a Strategy for Children and Young People ConsultationDocument. London: Children and Young People's Unit.Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early ChildhoodEducation and Care: Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer Press.Daycare Trust (1998) Listening to Children.. Young children's views on childcare: aguide for parents. London: Daycare Trust.DfEE (2000) Communication and Consultation Strategies. EYDCP Report 18. London:Department for Education and Employment.DfEE (2001) A Survey of Early Years Development and Childcare PartnershipsFebruary 2001. EYDCP Report 36. London: Department for Education and Employment.Gadd, L. and Cable, C. (2000) Up to Children. Norfolk: Norfolk EYDCP.Gladwin, M. (2002) Assessing Quality in Out of School Play and Care - ResearchingChild-centred Evaluative Tools. Leeds: The <strong>Children's</strong> Society (Larch Project) and LeedsEYDCP.Landsdown, G. (1995) Taking Part. <strong>Children's</strong> Participation in Decision Making.London: Institute for Public Policy Research.28

Munton, A. G., Mooney, A. and Rowland, L. (1995) Deconstructing quality: Aconceptual framework for the new paradigm in day care provision for the under eights.Early Child Development and Care, 114, 11-23.Munton, A.G., Blackburn, T., Barclay, L. and Rosa Malardo, M. (forthcoming)Perspectives on Good Quality Out of School Care: Discussion Groups with Stakeholders.London: Department for Education and Skills.Oldham Play Action Group (2001) <strong>Children's</strong> Ideas on Childcare and Out of SchoolOpportunities. Oldham: Oldham Play Action Group on behalf of Oldham EYDCP.Pence, P., and Moss, P. (Eds) (1994) Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services: Newapproaches to defining quality. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Petrie, P., Egharevba, I., Oliver, C. and Poland, G. (2000) Out of School Lives, Out ofSchool Services. London: Stationary Office.Smith, F. and Barker, J. (1999) Children Have Their Say. <strong>Children's</strong> Perspectives on Outof School Care. London: Kids Club Network.Steir, H. (1999) What we really, really, want. Playwords, November 1999, Issue 10, p18-190.Tolfree, D. and Woodhead, M. (1999) Tapping a key resource. Early Childhood Matters,91, 19-23.29

Table 1: Details of consultations involving children based on information received from the survey of EYDCPsEYDCP Date Purpose Sample Method Key findingsBarnsley 2002 <strong>Views</strong> about c/c usedor would like to use100 aged 3-14 years Questionnaires to c/c centres, secschools, libraries, town centre,college and projects45% cared for by family/friends. All happywith c/c. 5-14 think environments should bemore age appropriate. 65% like to playoutside. Sport favourite activity for 5-14.Results not collatedBath & NE Somerset 2001-2 C/c audit 60+ in primary andsecondary schoolsInterviews in school (inc sp needssch) and after school clubsBexley No info C/c audit 151 aged under 11 Questionnaire to libraries, Results not collatedbrownies/guides, beavers (not c/cproviders)Bolton 2002 No info 15 aged 4-12 years Interviews in 2 oos clubs Quality was when ch fully consulted +involved, safe environment + availability ofequipmentBracknell Forest 2001-2 C/c audit - focused onwhat activities likedto do out of school43 aged 10-1176 aged 11-13Brent 2000 No info 41 aged 3-7 (9 ch with c/m +32 oos clubs)Bristol 2000-1 Article 31 <strong>Children's</strong>Consultancy Projectto report and makerecommendations onplay provision19 children aged 8-12trained as consultantsQuestionnaire to schools (sent to8 but only 1 primary and 1secondary responded in time)Interviewed at c/c setting ingroups of 2-3Consultants visited 6 facilitiesincluding oos clubs, playschemes, adventure playground,city farm - collecting information11-13 want more facilities for olderchildren, swimming trips etc. 10-11 wantorganised sports and art activitiesFun and friends are most important. Foodmarginally important. Problems of bullyingin oos provision. Would like to seechanges in behaviour management (e.g. notshouted at; not being made an example)Liked and wanted variety of age-appropriateactivities; fun; happy, nice and attractiveplayworkers who listen; facilities accessibleto all children; safety rules; trips; planting ofoutside space; variety of free food; hot/colddrinks; clean, fresh-smelling toilets; antibullyingpolicy; quiet area; separate playspace for different activities; rulesdetermined by adults + children.

EYDCP Date Purpose Sample Method Key findingsCornwall 2000 2 consultations, 1) onviews of NationalPlayday in Cornwall2) views of oos clubsCoventry 2001 Consultation for<strong>Children's</strong> Fund - notspecifically about c/c+ qualityCumbria 2001-2 C/c audit - focused onactivitiesDevon 2001 Consultation oninterests, play areasand clubs1) 195 of 700 attendingPlayday2) 190 aged 4-12 (10 ch ineach of 19 oos clubs)94 aged under 8369 aged 8-131) Questionnaire2) QuestionnaireSmall group discussions with

EYDCP Date Purpose Sample Method Key findingsHalton 2001 C/c audit. Focusedon activites andpreferencesLB. Havering 2001-2 C/c audit 231 (64 aged 10-11 (yr. 6) +167 aged 11-12 (yr 7))Kent 2001-2 C/c audit and<strong>Children's</strong> Fund -what ch do + wld liketo do out of schoolHerefordshire 2001-2 C/c audit - how chare consulted +involved in decisions56 (no information on age) Questionniare sent to schools andoos clubsOver 100 aged 5-14Feasibility study - Smallnumbers of ch in 4 c/csettingsKingston 2000 No information 7 aged 6-13 in oos clubs33 aged 4-11 with c/mKingston-upon-Hull 2000 C/c Audit 104 (71 aged 5-13 + 33 agedunder 5)Questionnaire to 2 primary and 1secondary schoolFocus groups - approx 10-12 witholder ch and 5-6 with youger chin schoolsConsultation with children was'superficial'Discussions with small groups ofch in holiday clubs. Ch with c/mcompleted questionnaireUsed tape recorder, photos +drawings with under 5 + talked toch 5-11 while played in c/csettings Small discussion grpswith 11-13 in schools.Would like to do more outdoor games andplay with friends. Those in holiday schemeswould like more trips and bike riding.Yr 6 like organised games/sport best. Yr 7have preference for TV/video. Girls morelikely to like drama + crafts. Yr 6 moreinterest in oos clubs than yr 7 and girls morethan boys.5-7: sporting activities and play at localpark. Enjoyed oos clubs.8-11: Used leisure centres - many preferredorganising own activities. Those attendingoos clubs liked them. Wanted morespecialist clubs e.g. art clubs, football, etc.Both age groups commented onenvironment, particularly wanting to feelsafeHappy and offered few suggestions forchange. Children listened to + their viewstaken into account and acted upon.Younger more positive than older ch whowere more critical. More separation ofyounger/older age groups. Sport mostpopular. Nice staff, tasty food, freedom tochoose activities and run around areimportant. Want greater autonomy,responsibility and to be trusted.

Copies of this publication can be obtained from:DfES PublicationsP.O. Box 5050Sherwood ParkAnnesleyNottinghamNG15 0DJTel: 0845 60 222 60Fax: 0845 60 333 60Minicom: 0845 60 555 60© Queen’s Printer 2003Produced by the Department for Education and SkillsISBN 1 84478 100 3Ref No: RR482www.dfes.go.uk/research