info needed on benefits of having preschool provision on a school site

[redundant]

hi there, hope i can write this so it makes sense! In short, our local primary has given notice to the preschool provider that currently rents a room on its site. This will in effect cause the preschool to close, as there are no other suitable premises locally.

We are planning to challenge the school governors decision and ask them to reconsider, and I hoped that the wise people of mumsnet might be able to point me to any research or evidence on the benefits of having preschool/early years provision on the same site as a primary school.

Experience and common sense tells me it makes for a smoother transition to reception, a better experience for the child, and must also be a 'selling point' for the school, but I am just trying to find as many arguments/evidence as possible. Any pointers really gratefully received, thanks so much. Have also posted this in the primary education topic.

[BackforGood]

Sorry, but I can't see that being on the school site in any way makes it a good or better pre-school.
I visit loads of Nurseries as part of my job and there is certainly no correlation between being on a school site and being a better Nursery.

Are you the provider?

I don't see why it would be a selling point for the school either.

[MoaningMingeWhingesAgain]

our local preschool was in the same position recently.

The school kicked them out basically
but they didn't close, they managed to find new premises locally.
Your only hope IMHO is for there to be a strong business case for the school. which is unlikely. They may want to offer there own preschool provision, or use the room for a class. Both of which will likely make the school more money than letting the current preschool rent from them.
Continuity and community for the children comes way down the list unfortunately.

has the school become an academy?

[redundant]

hi both, thank you.

No, I'm not the provider, i'm a parent of a child that attends. I suppose I'm not saying being on site makes them a better nursery/preschool but I had thought (from my own experience only) that it would make the transition to reception class on the same school site smoother - familiarity with surroundings/environment etc. I know my kids interacted with older primary school pupils on their way to the preschool room etc - all positive stuff in my view.

I was hoping to find more evidence that early years provision on school sites is seen as the way forward by the education sector, but it seems maybe that evidence doesn't exist.

I do wonder if they do want offer their own preschool provision, but if that's the case I would have thought made sense to keep the current provider onsite till then, so there is no gap in provision. And maybe even look at employing some of the current staff, so there is continuity of care for the children. That's surely something to be valued.

There is no need for the room to be used for a class as far as I'm aware (school numbers for this Sept are down).

Really useful to see it from other perspectives, so thanks.

[redundant]

ps no not an academy

[Sirzy]

Why do they want to get rid of them? Surely if the school believed that it helped with the transition they would enourage them to say?

Does the current provision work with the school at all or is it basically just on the site but completly stand alone?

[redundant]

would having (good) preschool provision on the same site not be a selling point for the school? Only one drop off for parents, rather than multiple drop offs to different childcare providers? Perceived easier transition to reception? Genuinely interested to know views.

[redundant]

Does work with the school i believe, particularly in the run up to Sept obviously. Without boring you all and outing myself I think there's a bit of another agenda/conflict of interest but I don't really want to get into that when I challenge the decision anyway - hoping to stay out of the school politics and just focus on rational arguments!

[PlinkyPlonker]

I would be surprised if the school wanted to run their own pre-school if they already have an existing outside provider, as it's can be more cost effective to outsource mostly because the staff don't have to be paid on LEA rates/terms. Maybe they need the space to add a second class / bulge class?

[BackforGood]

Obviously I don't know this pre-school, but I know of more than one school that has asked pre-school providers on site, to leave, because of the poor quality of provision and not wanting to be associated with it. If it's on the same site, people assume it's managed by the school when they don't actually have any influence, and word quickly gets round if it's not great provision, and that reflects badly on the school.

[redundant]

Thanks. It's rated good by Ofsted, it's a good provider, but point taken.

No bulge classes - reception intake for this Sept is down.

Am slightly reassured that all the obvious reasons don't seem to apply in this case, but also now more confused. Have requested a meeting with Governors to appeal the decision.

[ShoeWhore]

The Governors must have a good reason for this.

I've been involved in making similar decisions and they weren't taken lightly but had to be made.

[LIZS]

From parents' pov it would be convenient for drop off/pick up if they have older children, from the school's there may be greater and earlier opportunity for engagement of those parents within the school community ie. to volunteer in classrooms or join pta or to encourage more interest and support for their children's learning - that may be something Ofsted have commented upon or the school advocate.

[redundant]

yes, more good points - thank you.

[redundant]

Miaow - that's encouraging to hear - this preschool has really struggled to find an alternative site off the school grounds but still hoping.