As we recover from the shock announcement of June’s “snap” election, our thoughts turn quickly to what we expect of the next government. Whichever party holds power, will it ensure children are ready for school by delivering high-quality early learning?
It goes without saying that in an election framed around the all-consuming challenge of Brexit, there will be precious little airtime for social policy. But we must not be discouraged.
This is the time to speak out for children. Though they have no formal say in what happens, the decisions taken in the coming months and years will affect them, their families and communities, for a lifetime.
How do we decide which issue to hone in on? The children’s sector (like many other sectors) has a long wish-list, but fundamentally there is one strong and unifying objective – to improve the lives of children. We believe all children should be able to access their rights and entitlements and to grow up safe, happy and healthy, with good universal services for all, and a focus on supporting vulnerable groups.
In theory this objective is shared by all the major political parties, who usually describe their policies using terms such as “life chances”, “social mobility” and “social reform”. But here’s the rub: agreeing to something in principle is not the same as choosing to prioritise scarce resources and invest political capital to make it a reality. And beyond this, even if everyone – children’s sector and politicians – agrees on the problem we need to address, we do not always agree on the solutions.
Perhaps the clearest example of this is that on the question of how to break the link between a child’s background and his or her outcomes, politicians tend to reach first for school reform, despite evidence that by the age of four or five, the die is often already cast. As Alan Milburn’s Social Mobility Commission has pointed out, 32 per cent of variation between pupils’ GCSE grades can be predicted based on indicators observed at or before age five.
In other words, if you are serious about improving children’s life chances, then school (and especially secondary school, where political attention is most often focused), is just far too late. What we really need to do is focus on early years, or to be precise on early education.
Of course the government would say that significant progress has been made in this area with the introduction of 30 hours’ a week free childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds (up from 15 hours previously). It’s important to say at the outset that in principle the 30 hours policy could represent a positive step forward – it could help parents (often mothers, including single mothers) to return to work, lift their families out of poverty and pave the way for a better future for their children.
In reality, however, it is beset with challenges. According to a recent survey by the Pre-school Learning Alliance, less than half of childcare providers are planning to offer the 30-hour free entitlement, with many claiming the funding rate simply doesn’t cover their costs. There are also fears that nurseries will be forced to introduce stealth charges – such as for food.
Beyond this, the real flaw in the 30 hours offer runs much deeper. The stated aim of the policy is to help parents get into work, but this is a missed opportunity to be ambitious on behalf of children. The early years sector was unified through the Early Years Foundation Stage that defined a free, universal early years entitlement. At the sweep of a pen that has been undermined by redefining this as “childcare”.
What happens in early years must always be high-quality and aimed at facilitating healthy development and early learning.
The current policy leaves the most disadvantaged children with 15 hours, and those with working parents with 30 hours if they can find it. Unfortunately by extending the eligibility upwards, to higher earning parents, the money that could have paid for quality early education, for real investment, will be diverted.
In the run-up to the election, the major parties have an opportunity to correct this. In their manifestos they could pledge to invest in ensuring that all children are ready for school. This wouldn’t mean going back on the 30-hour offer – but it would mean ensuring children have access to a high-quality, well-funded early education and services that give them the best possible start in life, as well as allowing their parents to go to work. But it would mean other things too – in particular support for parents of young children to build confidence on what they can do at home to help their child along.
Through our early literacy programme Making it REAL, we have seen the tangible benefits that can come through supporting the home learning environment, and we are applying these insights in other early intervention projects, such as the Lambeth Early Action Partnership.
But whether it is through a service such as these or a children’s centre, we must give parents access to the advice and support they need to promote their children’s health, development and first steps in learning. The 30-hours offer is important, but no party should think it’s a case of “job done” when it comes to early years education. In fact, it’s just the beginning.
- Debbie Moss is head of policy and public affairs at the National Children’s Bureau. Visit www.ncb.org.uk
Further information
Making it REAL: http://bit.ly/2onot7A