Childcare has risen up the political agenda, in part because the economic and workforce benefits of better childcare services are finally being properly considered, beyond the case for gender equality. It’s often said (e.g. here) that it’s significant that childcare has stopped being regarded simply a ‘women’s issue’.
Recently I heard the economist, Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, suggest that childcare was mainly a focus for dual-earner, metropolitan families, and that many parents did not use formal childcare in the early years, or not much of it. He has argued (as in this piece) that it therefore should not be seen as central to the cost-of-living crisis. While I agree with him that raising benefit levels is crucial for the poorest families, I’m less persuaded that low take-up of the 15 hours free childcare available to the least advantaged parents of 2-year-olds, is evidence of choice. Rather, studies show that a combination of patchy provision in low-income areas, lack of information for the most disadvantaged parents, and lack of opportunities to work to use the 15 hours effectively, has shut parents (mainly mothers), out of the system as it is. With stagnating wages and rising nursery fees, women are reporting being priced out of the labour market.
What would a better system look like? In an ideal world, the early years system would be coherent and functional throughout the country, and both women and men would have opportunities to be employees and carers when their children are small. The early years workforce would be better-paid and better-qualified, and all children, regardless of where they lived or what their parents did, would have access to early learning. But regrettably, we are a long way from this picture in the UK just now.
Early years expert, Peter Moss, has argued that it is verging on a waste of time for government ministers to go to Sweden to learn about their system, as it is light years away from what we have here. The Swedish success story has been achieved through substantial investment, not on the cheap. Moss summarises: ‘Sweden’s early childhood system, by contrast [to England], is not a mess and is not about ‘childcare’. It is a universal and integrated system of early childhood education.’
Sweden enjoys a well-qualified early years workforce, who deliver pre-school education to all children. Here, we have a mish-mash of provision and entitlements, which is often failing to deliver either for parents or for hard-pressed, undervalued staff. And Sweden – like other Nordic countries – also has a well-developed, relatively well-paid system of parental leave for both parents. This means that in the first years, it is a lot easier for mothers to take up employment, and for men to be involved parents, without huge economic sacrifice.
Elsewhere, early educators in Canada, assert that we need to ‘turn the narrative around: children are not in early childhood education to provide employment opportunities for educators and guardians’. Lest we forget, the main beneficiaries of quality early years provision are children themselves, encouraged to thrive by skilled practitioners. Or at least that’s how it should be.
The UK Labour party has been looking to Australia, where the recent election success of the Australian Labor party was put down, in part, to a promise to deliver better childcare. The challenges in Australia will sound familiar to British policymakers, as 35% of Australians are believed to live in ‘childcare deserts’. Provision is rated ‘really expensive’ for parents throughout the country. The Australian PM, Anthony Albanese, has set up commissions to look into childcare, and the government has pledged to increase the subsidy available to parents using these services. Interestingly, experts have pointed to a change in language, where government ministers have begun to talk more about child development and the long-term benefits of early education.
Another lesson from Australia, is that researchers have found that ‘activity tests’ are not working. There, the amount of childcare subsidy a family receives, depends on the hours spent in employment by parents. The activity tests have been shown to ‘lock out’ the families who could benefit most: low-income parents are less likely to use their entitlement, because of the restrictions on hours. This chimes with my thoughts about low take-up in the UK.
In a speech about childcare today, Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Education Secretary, committed to reform of the early years sector, suggesting a move away from the current free hours model. She was light on specifics beyond the existing pledge to roll out breakfast clubs in primary schools. She emphasised looking forward to new options, more integrated into education, rather than looking back to Sure Start, the scheme established by Labour in the Nineties. There was recognition of need for a better deal for early years staff – the devil will be in the detail.
Another factor in the equation regarding childcare is employers. When will we reach a point where flexible working is widespread and no barrier to promotion? When will men and women find that it is normalised for both of them to take some form of extended leave in the early years of parenthood? When will ‘women returners’ become just ‘returners’ viewed for their potential, rather than with a bit of suspicion as to why they want to be employed again after a period of absence?
The ‘childcare problem’, then, is not just about economics, but is also a complex social issue. All the relevant actors need to be on board to solve it. It will take a courageous government to set the tone. Are we likely to have one in the near future? That’s a question beyond the early years’ curriculum.
wonklifebalance 