subscribe: Posts | Comments

Childcare changes queried

0 comments

childcare-1No doubt children can be kept safe, fed and reasonably clean if ratios increase. But there’s a but.

Last week Elizabeth Truss MP, the early years minister, announced government proposals to overhaul the childcare system.

By increasing the number of children that nurseries can care for and setting new requirements for staff levels of education, the government plans to bring a ‘cost-effective childcare’ service to UK families.

The existing system demands that for every four two-year-olds in the care of a nursery, there must be at least one member of staff.

The new proposals increase that ratio to six two-year-olds for every member of staff.

Which means that two pairs of hands would be deemed capable of not just dealing with twelve two-year-olds, but also of providing high quality childcare for each and every one of those children.

The announcement that a single nursery worker could look after up to four babies under one or up to six two-year-olds, and childminders could care for four under-fives including two babies, faced criticism from across the spectrum.

“No matter how well qualified the members of staff, there are practical considerations when you increase the number of children that they have to look after,” said Anand Shukla from the Daycare Trust, a national childcare charity which acts as a resource for parents, childcare providers, and local authorities.

He continued, “For one person to look after six two-year-olds, for one person to talk to six two-year-olds, to help their language development, we think is going to be very difficult.”

The new ratios, as Truss highlighted in the policy announcement, are lower than many European countries; however, her reference to overseas figures is disingenuous.

For example, in the case of Norway where the ratio is 1:8: that figure does not include unqualified nursery assistants, and in those instances where a child just wants to be picked up or needs a nappy change, those ‘unqualified’ hands have a vital role to play.

While the minister stressed that the changes to ratios are a voluntary measure, in an industry with notoriously low profitability can nurseries and childminders really be expected to turn down the 50 per cent potential increase in revenue that this change affords them?

And will this increase in revenue, then, help nurseries break even?

Not according to Truss, who claims that this money will be passed back to parents.

No doubt it would be welcomed by British families, who face some of the highest childcare costs in the world.

Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that 25 per cent of the average British wage goes toward childcare.

This compares with 17 per cent in the Netherlands, 9 per cent in Germany, and 5 per cent in Sweden.

The annual Childcare Costs Survey from the Daycare Trust, revealed that nursery costs increased by 6 percent in 2012.

And if family budgets weren’t already being stretched to breaking point, the report also revealed that 44,000 families lost help with childcare costs when tax credits were cut by the coalition in April last year.

Certainly the funds raised by increasing ratios would be welcomed in the pockets of parents facing this bleak picture.

But hang on a minute.

It seems that this money has also been promised to nursery staff in the form of a significant pay rise which the government hopes will raise the status of those in the industry and the calibre of those attracted to work in early years education.

The new proposals also require that more childcare providers hold at least a C grade in GCSE English and maths, and a new qualification for early years teachers will be set up at level 3 – approximately A level.

However, with average rates of pay at only a fraction above the minimum wage, any wage increase will surely need to be significant.

In any case, by now you see the glaring problem with the new proposals.

Do the government really plan on paying for all this just by increasing nursery ratios?

Childcare should be more affordable and primary caregivers should be able to return to work, if they want to return to work, at a time of their choosing.

Those that are responsible for nurturing and instructing the youngest members of our society should be able to communicate using the correct grammar, but they should also receive due recognition from the wider community, and adequate remuneration for what they are doing.

In the end, everyone’s targets for childcare are the same, we hope, but increasing the national ratios will only stretch childcare professionals to the limit and diminish the existing quality of care.

As Polly Toynbee wryly suggested in the Guardian recently, ‘No doubt children can be kept safe, fed and reasonably clean [if ratios are increased] – but this risks becoming warehousing, not care.’

So can we reach these targets, to which we are all agreed?

Research from the Institute for Public Policy and Research (IPPR) has shown that a publicly funded system – such as those implemented in Nordic countries – is the best way to provide and sustain a high standard of early years education for all.

By restricting tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate, by means-testing winter fuel payments, free travel passes and television licences so that they can continue to help the poorest pensioners, the cost of establishing a high quality universal childcare system could – and should – be met.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *