- Only high quality provision has a positive impact on children’s learning, development and wellbeing and contributes to narrowing the achievement gap. But high quality is expensive - most parents spend more on childcare than on the average mortgage[1]. Politicians are increasingly trying to wrestle with the issues involved. In response to accusations that the Government is not taking early years seriously[2] the Chancellor in his 2014 Budget announced more detail of the Government’s tax-free childcare scheme. Childcarewill be a key issue in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
- Since 2010, the number of children's centres in England has reduced from 3,631 to 3,116; and some of these centres are information hubs open in name only. The House of Commons Education Select Committee reported in December 2013 that "many maintained nursery schools have closed in the last decade" (over a hundred in England) despite robust evidence to show that they offer the best outcomes to disadvantaged young children[3]. The benefits of attending a maintained nursery school last right the way through the school system: their closure represents the worst sort of short-term thinking.
- Research has shown that the poorer the area, the more scarce and less affordable the childcare. The Family and Childcare Trust recently found that a quarter – 30,000 – of the most vulnerable two-year-olds will not be able to take advantage of the Government’s commitment of free, quality early year’s education by September 2014 because, despite extra funding, there aren't the places[4]. IPPRresearch showed that while take-up of 15 hours' free care for older children is good, the cost of further hours is too high[5]. In December the Government's own research showed that more than 60% of children in affluent areas used some kind of formal childcare, but only 44% of children in the poorest ones. Affordable, available childcare remains a myth for too many families.
- Ratios are a key determinant of quality of provision. For babies and very young children, one to one interaction is critical to development. The optimum ratio for under two year olds in education and care settings has been shown to be 1:3 consistently[6] - it is no surprise that the majority of countries which offer good or better quality early years provision adhere to roughly the same ratios. Parents understand this and prioritise it when they make their childcare choices. A Mumsnet survey in 2012[7] showed that only five per cent of parents supported a reduction in childcare staffing levels, even if it meant costs were reduced.
- The DfE document More Great Childcare, published in January 2013, stated there is no basis for the current ratios, ‘even four decades ago they only reflected common practice of the time, rather than firm evidence that they were best at protecting children’s safety and promoting learning and development’. This is patently untrue.
- The current ratios, and their contribution to quality, have ensured that England’s early years’ provision is world class. The DfE document was full of references to international practice.So it is inexplicable that no reference was made to the 2012 report ‘Starting Well’ by the Economist Intelligence Unit[8], which rated this country fourth out of 45 countries, behind Finland, Sweden and Norway but ahead of France, Germany and the Netherlands, all of which are used as examples in support of the consultation’s proposals. The one area of weakness noted for the UK was in its ratios for over threes.
- The Government has now rowed back from their policy to relax ratios but Ministers persist in talking in terms of “removing the barriers of red tape” when addressing issues of making childcare more affordable[9].
- The costs of childcare in many European countries are broadly comparable with those in England, the difference is the level of state support for childcare, which is much higher in other countries, thus reducing the price that parents are asked to pay.
- In Norway, for example, childcare is heavily subsidised and parents pay no more than NKr 2,330 (£267) a month for a full time place for their first child, with a sliding fee scale for any additional children. Government subsidies mean that parents only pay about 15 per cent of actual costs. In France, government is the main source of funds for crèches and it also subsidises “nounous” or nannies, which are employed either on a shared or individual family basis. In Denmark, poorer families pay nothing for childcare, others pay 10 per cent of their income. The rest is funded by central block grants, taxation and employer contributions.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]