Transcript UEL is…

Early childhood education and care
under the UK’s Labour Government:
tensions and contradictions
Eva Lloyd, UEL
Wellington, NZ
11 February 2008
The UK’s Labour Government
• After 18 years in opposition, the Labour
Government assumed office in 1997.
• Labour administrations to date: 1997-2001,
2001-2005; 2005 onwards.
• ‘Third Way’ politics positioned ‘New’ Labour as a
centre-left party rather than a democratic
socialist party.
Continuities with the past
• New Labour operated within Conservative
spending limits, at least for the first two years.
• New Labour continued Conservative neo-liberal
approach to welfare and education policies by
encouraging welfare, health and education
‘markets’.
• New Labour continued targeted policies
including means-tested benefits, and separate
service systems for the poor and better-off.
Breaks with the past
• Much higher profile for children. Integration of
administrative responsibilities for childcare and
education within Department for Education and
Skills.
• HM Treasury sets public service delivery and
quality targets in biennial Spending Reviews.
• Devolution: 4 Acts in 1998. For education and
social welfare matters now separate jurisdictions
in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and
Scotland; (already were for criminal justice in
Scotland and Northern Ireland). London gets its
own Assembly.
Three key policy drivers
•
•
•
Public sector reform aims to create a
sustainable welfare state via the mixed
economy of welfare.
‘Rights and responsibilities’ and ‘welfare to
work’ agendas. Women encouraged to join the
workforce, lone mothers in particular.
‘Education, education, education’: boosting
educational performance in the interests of the
knowledge-based economy.
Eliminating child poverty: 1 in 3 children are
living below the poverty line in 1997.
The position in 1997
Labour inherited a fragmented early childhood
service system:
• Uneven publicly funded early education for 3
and 4 year olds, primarily in Labour local
authorities.
• Over 50% of 4 year olds in primary schools,
most 3 year olds in private not-for-profit preschools/playgroups.
• Publicly funded childcare for ‘at risk’ children and
some disadvantaged children only.
• For others full cost day nursery or family daycare
in the private for-profit and not-for-profit sectors.
The 1998 National Childcare
Strategy
• Free early education entitlement for 3 + 4 year
olds: 12.5 hours weekly for 33 weeks annually.
• Early education grant: a supply-side subsidy to
private for-profit and not-for-profit settings,
provided the early years curriculum is used.
• Pump-priming funding, a short-term supply-side
subsidy to encourage the set up of childcare
businesses to provide school-age and ‘wraparound’ childcare and care for children under 3.
• Tax credits, a demand-side subsidy, to help
parents who are employed over 16 hours buy
registered childcare.
Other pertinent developments
•
•
•
•
Introduction of a national minimum wage,
ensuring better pay for early childhood
practitioners.
Sure Start initiative to provide family support
services for children aged 3 and under growing
up in disadvantaged areas. From 2003 Sure
Start Local Programmes also deliver childcare.
More support for the training of the childcare
workforce, still largely unqualified.
Introduction of national minimum quality
standards for childcare, regulated by the
Office for Standards in Education, Ofsted.
Tensions and contradictions
• Interface problems between free early education
and ‘wrap-around’ childcare for 3/4 year olds.
• Childcare sustainability problems in poor areas,
once supply-sided subsidies are phased out.
• Parents prefer informal, and thus unregistered,
care for their youngest children, aged 0 to 3.
• Tax credits problematic: overpayments clawed
back, forcing low-paid parents into debt.
• Sure Start programmes fail to reach most
disadvantaged children, Black and minority
ethnic communities and children with disabilities
and/or special educational needs.
(Kazimirski et al. in press; Lloyd, forthcoming)
Refocusing early childhood policies
During the second Labour administration:
• The Child Poverty Review (HM Treasury, 2004a)
advocates greater convergence between the
child poverty and national childcare strategy.
• A National Audit Office review (NAO, 2004)
identifies a lack of progress in accessibility,
choice, affordability, quality and sustainability of
childcare and early education provision.
• The Ten Year Strategy for Childcare (HM Treasury,
2004b) addresses these issues and announces a
raft of new developments.
What happened next?
• Commitment to mixed economy of childcare
reaffirmed in the 2006 Childcare Act.
• Childcare staff recruitment and ‘churn’
increasingly problematic.
• Day nursery occupancy rates of 75% insufficient
for financial viability.
• Rapid consolidation among for-profit providers
benefits the corporate childcare sector, which
increased seven-fold since 1997.
• Steep increase in childcare costs: more than
twice the rate of inflation in 2007.
• Mothers’ employment rates static between 1994
and 2004: this trend continues.
Implications of early childhood
policies under Labour
Early childhood policies under Labour have
impacted on childcare cost, quality and sector
status. (Penn, 2007)
This affects the experiences of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Children,
parents,
providers,
practitioners, and
policymakers.
Childcare costs in 2007
Annual cost in England of a typical nursery place
for 50 hours a week for a child aged two or
under in 2007:
£8,268.00
equivalent to $21,267.18 New Zealand dollars
(Daycare Trust, 2008)
The Childcare Affordability Programme is
devised by the London Development Agency to
help parents with the even higher costs of
childcare in the capital.
Childcare quality in 2007
Ofsted reports that in England in 2006/07:
• 54 % of all childcare and early education
inspected was ‘good’; 3% was outstanding.
• This was 4 % less than the 61% who achieved
this rating in 2005/06. (Ofsted, 2007: 6, fig. 2)
• Quality in private for-profit early childhood
settings used by the UK’s Millennium Cohort
children was lower than in the state or not-forprofit sector. (Mather, Sylva and Joshi, 2007)
Childcare sectors in England
In 2006 the private for-profit sector in England
delivered:
• 65% of full group childcare provision;
• 17% of full group childcare in Children’s Centres
targeted at poorer families;
• 44% of full, sessional and out-of-school group
childcare provision combined;
This compared with:
• 42% delivered by the private not-for-profit
sector; and
• 13% by the state sector.
(Kinnaird et al, 2007)
Conclusions
Recent developments in the UK suggest that:
• the mixed economy of childcare promotes social
segregation and hinders poor children’s access
to quality early childhood education and care.
• Consolidation in the undercapitalised childcare
market removes parental choice and increases
pressure for deregulation.
• The Government has misread the attitudes of
parents towards non-parental care in the very
early years, when informal care is preferred.
• The government has underestimated parents’
interest in the value of publicly funded early
education for their 3 and 4 year old children.
Some ways forward?
• Under the 2006 Childcare Act, 3 and 4 year old
children can get 15 hours free early education
for 38 weeks annually by 2010. This target
should be brought forward and increased to a
minimum of 20 hours; the entitlement should be
extended to 2 year old children.
• Under the Work and Families Act 2006, women
are entitled to 26 weeks paid maternity leave
and 26 weeks unpaid additional leave. The
additional leave should be paid.
• The Government should reconsider the
operation and impact of the mixed economy of
childcare.
References
Daycare Trust (2008) Childcare Costs Survey, London:
Daycare Trust.
HM Treasury (2004a) The Child Poverty Review, London:
The Stationary Office.
HM Treasury (2004b) Choice for Parents, the Best Start for
Children: a Ten Year Strategy for Childcare, London: The
Stationary Office.
Kazimirski, A., Smith, R., Butt, S., Ireland, E. and Lloyd, E.
(in press) Childcare and Early Years Survey 2007:
Parents’ use, Views and Experiences, London: DCSF.
Kinnaird, R., Nicholson, S. and Jordan, E. (2007) 2006
Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey, London:
DCSF (Res. Rep. 009).
Laing & Buisson (2007) Children’s Nurseries UK Market
Report 2007, London: Laing & Buisson.
References
Lloyd, E. (forthcoming) ’The interface between childcare,
family support and child poverty strategies under New
Labour: tensions and contradictions’, Social Policy and
Society, 7(4).
Mathers, S., Sylva, K. and Joshi, H. (2007) Quality of
childcare settings in the Millennium Cohort Study,
London: DCSF Res. Rep. 025
National Audit Office (2004) Early Years: Progress in
Developing High Quality Childcare and Early Education
Accessible to All, London, The Stationary Office.
Penn, H. (2007) ‘Childcare market management: how the
United Kingdom Government has reshaped its role in
developing early childhood education and care’,
Contemporary Issues in the Early Years, 8(3): 192-207.