Hard lessons for early years

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.

What is to be done about childcare?

Hardly a day goes by now, without the issue of childcare featuring in the headlines. It’s an indication of the attention being given to the topic, that rumours abound about what is going to appear in the Budget.  What measures are there to address a crisis in affordability for parents, and the sustainability of services in an early years sector stymied by fragmentation and low pay? While I have been writing this blog, a proposal to extend ‘free’ childcare hours in England to more young children has apparently been rejected – but exactly which options are being considered remains unclear.

Back in July 2022, in the end days of Boris Johnson’s premiership, the government launched a consultation on childcare policy, but the results of this exercise have yet to be published.  Views were sought on changing minimum staff:child ratios in childcare settings (i.e., 5 2-year-olds per staff member, instead of 4), and increasing the attractiveness of childminding. Policy to relax ratios is a favourite of ex-PM Liz Truss, who saw it as a way of reducing the cost of childcare.  However, it is not supported by either early years professionals or parents, who are both concerned about its potential to reduce the quality of childcare services.  Recent reporting suggests that this measure will not now be included in the Budget, but controversy rumbles on over what else to do.

For the last decade, the centrepiece of childcare policy in England has been the provision of ‘free’ hours in early years settings.  All three- and four-year olds are entitled to 15 hours free childcare each week, for 38 weeks of the year.  Children whose parents are both working for at least 16 hours per week, can claim 30 hours free childcare – up to a high income threshold.  Two-year-olds in low-income households in receipt of certain benefits, are also eligible for 15 free hours each week. These ‘free’ hours are funded by the government, but the hourly rate of cover passed on to childcare providers, has long fallen short of true costs.  Therefore, nurseries often cross-subsidise in order to stay afloat: parents who work more, pay increasingly high fees for the hours beyond the 30 that they use each week, and many settings now charge extra for activities which used to be included in fees.  The government has looked at expanding the provision of free hours to include more children under 3. Affordability of childcare has become a hot button issue, as middle-income families are increasingly constrained by the costs, and lower-income families struggle to find affordable childcare at all.

Like the nursery rhyme, ‘There’s a hole in my bucket’, the early years sector finds itself in a situation where its capacity to patch up the current system has become so challenging, that the water (staff, funds, parents who can afford their services) just keeps flowing out.  If the government does not invest more to support a viable level of service, the proposal to extend ‘free’ hours to include children from nine months old, could end up being a potentially damaging one.  To use another nursery metaphor, there’s a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Without additional investment, many providers could simply collapse, leaving young children without the developmental support they need, and working parents unable to reach their potential in the labour market. The government seems to have ruled this policy option out on the grounds of cost.

Of course, the parents most affected by the inadequacies of childcare provision in this country, are mothers.  In spite of notable progress in the labour force, women embarking on parenthood are still likely to earn less than their baby’s father, and where they bring up children alone, they may struggle to find jobs that generate sufficient income to cover childcare costs, or which offer flexibility to accommodate holiday or emergency care. There are growing reports that women are reducing their hours, or forgoing employment altogether, in order to square these circles.  Stagnating wages and amongst the highest childcare costs in Europe simply do not add up.  The Labour party has signalled that it wants to go big on improving childcare.  Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Education Secretary, has proposed funding breakfast clubs in all primary schools as a first step.  She is inspired by Estonia, where a nursery place for every child is guaranteed from the end of parental leave. 

The government, meanwhile, aspires to encourage more people into to work to ease widespread labour shortages, and foster economic growth. The media is full of examples of mothers saying childcare costs are pushing them out of the workforce. The notion that childcare can be ‘free’ is all too often an illusion which masks a profound lack of investment in caring work.  If Rishi Sunak wants to improve the affordability of childcare for all, he needs to put a functioning early years sector on his bucket list for government. And he needs to fund it. Time, like the water in the bucket, is running out.

The Birds and the B’s …

One of the strangest British summers is now drawing to a close.  I’ve been on staycation, and it seems that in our polarised world, even this concept has been a cause of division.  Newspapers used ‘staycation’ to describe the Prime Minister’s Scottish hideaway, among other UK-based diversions, while some people insist it should only be used to describe remaining at home while at leisure….

Several weeks back, in that working-from-home limbo before the staying-at-home-on-holiday, our resident teenager asked on a walk, ‘How has lockdown been for you?’. I realised in answering, that most of the things that symbolise this pandemic period for me, begin with B.  So here, for what it’s worth, is my list of Covid-era phenomena.  I’m all too aware that I’ve escaped the worst impacts of Covid-19 – the summer has been a time of thinking about what might prevail when the particular pressures of the here and now begin to resolve into something new (or at least the next thing). Plan B’s start here:

 

Birdsong

City dwellers rediscovered it – but even in the countryside, there has been conspicuously more of it. The benefits of nature in all its forms, as something to be shared and valued, have risen up the agenda. Uneven distribution of access to outside space has been highlighted by the unequal effects of lockdown. In Spring, when the world was at a standstill, I was regularly waking up at dawn chorus time, when the cacophony rang out above, well, nothing – the ambient silence noticeable even away from town…

 

Broken sleep

… hearing birds at dawn was part of the widely-shared trend of broken sleep.  As well as waking early in the morning, intense dreams seem to be a common response to existential threat, and a lack of novelty in daily life. Sleep has already become an activity increasingly assessed through self-monitoring, and the pandemic has only underlined its significance for wellbeing…

 

Beards

Like many office workers now working from home, my other half’s step away from the commute has been symbolised by dropping daily shaving.  If mass working from home has achieved anything (and I and many others hope it’s more than a fly-by-night fad, opening up new opportunities for flexible working) it has loosened working dress and grooming codes, possibly for the long term.  When friends on Zoom call asked us ‘Who’s the sailor?’, I realised how much difference a few weeks not shaving can make…

 

Booze

… and we laughed over our communal drinks.  The ‘quarantini’ has been a mainstay of online chat – as the drinking at home tendency has battled for supremacy with self-improving health trends.  No-one seems to think these virtual events match up to real-life get-togethers, but they have at least kept relationships going while normal socialising has been on ice.  The ‘Great British pub’ has been a major symbol of re-opening society, sometimes seeming to eclipse other priorities (as I wrote here).  Boris Johnson even said that the communal spirit of mutual aid during crisis was something to ‘bottle’ and ‘swig’.  Britain’s drinking culture looks unlikely to transform in a hurry …

 

Bread

… but the food system has come under new scrutiny as supply issues have emerged, when consumption patterns have changed, with more people eating at home all the time. Foodbanks are busier than ever, as poorer families have struggled to cope.  If there’s one food that has epitomised catering for those who have been able to cook at home, it’s the home-baked loaf. Making bread – the process of kneading and resting – has an engrossing quality that has been appealing in an age of uncertainty. Our oven has been busy – turning out loaves and banana bread, and, yes, the ubiquitous sourdough. Will the starter survive any return to school and office? Who knows, but it has a name to guard against being taken for granted…

 

Blooms

If you’re lucky enough to have a garden, it’s been hard to avoid doing something in it. Apart from supermarkets, the garden centre was the only place to go for a while. Getting out and planting a few things has been good for body and soul, and the flowers that have come up have lifted spirits, and have their own routine – water, feed, weed repeat (oh, and bee-friendly pest control). Never has the window box or neglected bed been riper for improvement, or more appreciated

 

Byways

Good weather – and need to get off the desk chair – has led me, like many others, to explore local walks – another aspect of staying well in the time of Covid. I’ve even persuaded nearly-grown-up kids to join me sometimes, which has been one of the pleasures of this strange time –

 

Borrowed time

–  and we’ve all been around each other so much more than would normally have been the case.  It’s been all about remote learning for them, and far more time at home, rather than being out and about with friends.  This hasn’t all been easy, but a side-effect of the pandemic has been valuing the extra family time, while realising that the nest will soon be empty. For the worst of reasons, there has been the opportunity to re-appreciate young adults and their view of the world. In uncertain times, it’s been a useful reminder that the future could be in good hands, in a generation where the ‘unprecedented’ is what they know…

 

 

 

 

Women and children second …

I recently wrote about how the government’s recovery strategy for Covid-19 indicated that it had no time for kids.  While pubs and golf courses prepared to open, schools and childcare remained closed to most children, and women were bearing most of the burden of home schooling and baby care.

 

Since then, Rishi Sunak has delivered his Summer Statement, outlining the state of play in the progressive reopening opening of the economy.  In spite of the widespread recognition that Covid 19 has made gender inequality worse (e.g. here) and that children’s education and wellbeing has been set back during lockdown (e.g. here) the Chancellor’s speech made barely any reference to women or children.  In fact, women were mentioned only to acknowledge that along with young people, and black and minority ethnic groups, they are disproportionately likely to work in hardest-hit sectors such as retail and tourism.  Children got a shout-out as eligible for the ‘EatOuttoHelpOut’ vouchers for restaurants, while the plight of the large fraction of school pupils who are in families using food banks, was not brought up at all.

 

The children’s sector has found itself low on the government’s priority list since the beginning of the pandemic, and although a group of nearly 150 charities wrote to the government to plead for greater attention the children’s issues,  their voice seems to have gone unheard.  The proposals relating to Universal Credit in Rishi Sunak’s speech, were concerned with increasing resources for coaching to help the unemployed.  The Child Poverty Action Group was one of a number of organisations advocating for uprating of child benefit, and for an end to the 2-child cap, which prevents support for third and subsequent children.  In the current scenario of growing unemployment, and low wages in employment, child benefit will be crucial to many more families, and is currently at a level which makes family life a struggle.  Food banks and voluntary sector bodies do what they can to plug the gaps.  But these proposals, and others in the #ChildrenAttheHeart campaign – which asks for more protection for vulnerable children and more resources for preventive services for children – have been overlooked so far.  This is deeply disappointing for children who have missed out on so much during lockdown.

 

Meanwhile, the people who have been trying to keep kids’ show on the road are predominantly mothers, many of whom are still juggling working from home with childcare.  Others are furloughed, and at risk of future job losses.  Less than 24 hours after the Chancellor’s statement, John Lewis and Boots, two large high street employers with majority female workforces, announced job cuts.  As administrative workforces begin to move back to offices, it is likely that those working from home – many still unable to access pre-school or after-school care – will often face greater risk of redundancy, than those who can get back into a shared workplace.  There is very likely to be a gender gap in parents’ capacity to make that return, which is why the government’s lack of priority for children’s services means that women find themselves on the sharp end of the economic downturn to come.

 

It could be that women’s and children’s concerns will rise up the agenda as the Chancellor prepares for Phase 3 of recovery, the re-building phase.  However, there is the risk that by then many more employers will have made cuts or hit the wall, and that the beleaguered childcare sector will be much diminished.  Already women endeavouring to return from maternity leave are finding that they can’t readily secure places in nurseries.  Meanwhile schools’ re-opening remains full of doubts around how learning gaps can be made up, how to respond to possible future local lockdowns, and how to timetable next year’s public exams.   With so much up in the air, families look to the government for reassurance.

 

And this reassurance might seem more solid, if the measures that were introduced in the Summer Statement were universally well-regarded.  However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is among those critical of some of the Chancellor’s policies.  The IFS warned that the voucher scheme for restaurants, and VAT cut for hospitality, may be poorly timed – social distancing measures mean that businesses cannot open at capacity, and there is still widespread reluctance to go out while infection rates remain high compared to other countries.  Furthermore, the bonus scheme announced to encourage employers to retain staff once the furlough period ends in October, may simply go to jobs that would have been maintained anyway, rather than offering a major incentive against more lay-offs.  These policies may offer ‘too little, too early’ to transform prospects for the most vulnerable employees, a group where women continue to be over-represented. Let’s hope that Phase 3 is not too late to turn the tide in women’s and children’s favour ….

 

 

 

 

 

A period of enforced inactivity ….

The Prime Minister’s speech to the nation at the weekend included a phrase with stuck out for me: he described lockdown as a period of ‘enforced inactivity’  – but I’m not sure that’s really an accurate description of what has been going on in many households.  For people in families, the labour of the household has if anything increased, as more people are around in the house all day, with all the extra meals and cleaning up that that involves.  Add in home-schooling and working from home, and ‘enforced inactivity’ seems a little fanciful… As I quipped on Twitter ‘if your activity was inside and you weren’t paid for it, it didn’t happen’ …

 

The veil of ‘enforced inactivity’ makes all the work going on inside households to keep the show on the road invisible.  Of course, this work is predominantly done by women for a multitude of economic and cultural reasons.  There are widespread reports that where mothers and fathers are living together under lockdown, women do the majority of childcare and housework, even where both partners are continuing to work from home.  Often this is because the men are higher-paid jobs, which lack flexibility around online meetings, so that women work around their needs, rather than the other way round. There has also been coverage of the situation in academia, where female researchers are ceasing to submit work to academic journals under pressure of childcare, while men have carried on – sometimes even increasing their submission rates – during lockdown.  As journal publication is key to promotion, this is a worrying trend in a sector which is already far from gender-equal. It’s likely that these patterns are also occurring elsewhere.

 

For the moment, childcare and schools are closed to most – only the children of keyworkers and children who are vulnerable are currently in their usual settings.  On Monday the government’s latest advice to workers began to unravel, as guidance on public transport use and what defined a ‘Covid-secure’ workplace was not immediately available, though Tuesday saw the publication of raft of documents and clarifications.  Issues around childcare were slower to rise up the agenda, with guidance for childminders to open in a limited way published overnight.  The proposals to re-open schools in June only apply to children in certain years for the moment – and it’s still a couple of weeks until then.

 

So, how can workers reconcile their childcare obligations with employers who may follow the current advice and ‘encourage’ them back to work? This question was put to the PM, and he responded ‘if people don’t have access to childcare and they have a child who isn’t back in school… then I think that’s only fair to regard that as an obvious barrier to their ability to go back to work. And I am sure employers will agree with that’.  I’m not sure how much time the Prime Minister has spent thinking about this, if he really believes that all employers are always entirely reasonable about granting flexibility for parents.  The 54,000 women laid off  each year during pregnancy and after returning to work may have something to tell him about this. Why does he think there are so many consultancies working with companies to embed flexible working policies? Why does he think there are more women with qualifications than ever, and yet relatively few at senior levels in most sectors?  A pretty major reason is that not all employers are equally persuaded of – or equally skilled at – taking caring responsibilities into account when designing jobs and retaining staff. If childcare is a problem, it is often the employee’s alone to solve. Men find their requests for flexible working turned down more often than women, and fear career damage if they take time out. The culture remains one where family life and domestic labour largely remain invisible while we’re engaged in paid employment.

 

As if to stress the inconspicuousness of caring work within families further, the latest guidance – to widespread bewilderment – allows for paid cleaners and nannies to begin to return to those households which employ them, but it remains against the rules for family members outside a household to perform such roles. Granted there is concern that grandparents (made vulnerable to the virus by age) should not be exposed to people they don’t live with – but the priority given to economic rather than social relationships rankles with a lot of people.  And of course a good proportion of working parents rely on at least some informal care in order to go to work (a third of parents use informal childcare according to the ONS) – and so will be having to put themselves at the mercy of their employers, should the ‘encouragement’ to return to work come. If Boris Johnson thinks his lockdown modifications are ‘baby steps’ he should at least recognise that someone has to be there to lend babies support.

 

 

 

What next for parental leave and flexible working?

It’s National #WorkLifeWeek , and appropriately enough, responses are due on elements of the government’s consultation on its Good Work plan to support families.  This is seeking views on parental leave and flexible working policies. Views on Neonatal Leave, where parents need to attend hospital if their newborn is ill, and on transparency in employers’ publication of flexible working and parental leave entitlements, need to be submitted by 11^th October.  Meanwhile, questions relating to government policy on parental leave, require responses by late November.

 

In bold contrast to other areas of current policy, the government is keen to emphasise trade-offs in choosing between different options in these schemes. There are a lot of questions about the relative merits of different lengths of parental leave, and of levels of pay entitlements and capping.  It’s like that bit in an eye test where they ask about whether you see better with lens A or B, but without the part where you get the sum of all the options for your best vision.

 

Like the Gender Equality Roadmap before it (cited in the Good Work plan, and which I blogged about earlier ) there’s a lot of observations about things we already know, without much sense of an overarching commitment to resources in the area.  This is an issue when the choices being asked about, often seem to boil down to ‘do you want people – especially fathers – to be able to access additional periods of leave, or would you like them be better paid?’.  As the status quo is widely viewed as inadequate in terms of length and pay, it all feels like a bit of a damp squib.  To its credit, the plan does look at international evidence, and it addresses the importance of wider culture change in enhancing mothers’ ability to return to work, and fathers’ ability to spend more time with their children.  But it doesn’t seem to provide much direction with what it sees – it’s all a matter of trade-offs, you see.  This might seem fair enough in a consultation, but options to extend leave and pay entitlements together, tend to be couched in terms of risks to labour supply, winners and losers in different groups, and concentrating on the economic costs, rather than social benefits. There’s an implicit feel of ‘this is going to cost’, without much attention on how costs of extending fathers’ leave may be partially offset by more mothers in the workforce.  If you want something closer to Nordic policies – and many do, and they have the benefit of being relatively effective in getting mothers back to work and Dads on parental leave – then you need to commit at a national level to put resources in.  This means financial support, but also assistance with practical ways of encouraging behaviour change in the workplace.  Without  resources, we’ll be consulting ad infinitum on why take-up of shared parental leave is so low…

 

The plan also discusses options around publishing flexible working and family leave policies, and advertising flexible working at point of hire.  Mumsnet has been running a campaign to #Publishparentalleave so that employees can make informed choices about jobs. A proposition to make employers’ flexible and parental leave policies accessible via gender pay gap reporting, has been welcomed by a range of organisations.  The consultancy Timewise has sounded a note of caution regarding enforcement of advertising flexibility, as it may raise the prospect of ‘flexwashing’ – that is, employers stating flexible options are available, without meaningfully providing them. They argue that employers need additional resources to implement flexible working properly, and that government could fund guidance and support.  The options for reforming parental leave and pay raise similar issues: without an infrastructure of universal, high quality, affordable childcare, and resources to provide better levels of pay for periods of leave, and without tools to encourage senior managers to take leave themselves – and to manage and promote others who do so – we could end up stuck in the spin cycle…

 

 

 

Spending more time with our families …

As Ruth Davidson steps down from the Conservative leadership in Scotland, citing the primary reason as being her commitment to her young son and the family life that top-flight politicians so frequently find it hard to balance with the rigours of campaigning, travelling and irregular working hours, I was struck by the difference that her being a woman has made to the accompanying discussion.

When male politicians resign ‘to spend more time with their family’ it is often treated as a kind of euphemism.  We routinely assume that they have committed politics. Or, find out that they have had an affair, that makes their position somehow untenable.  Either way, the ‘excuse’ is seen as standing for something else.  And in the case of affairs, it’s often met with a collective eyeroll, and the schadenfreude comments about how the wife must be delighted to have him around more …

However, when Davidson remarked that her son’s arrival in November had made her reassess her feelings about leadership and the possibility of future campaigning, with all the separations from home that that entails, the one thing people do not seem to have done, is disbelieve her account completely.  Sure, she’s known to disgree with Boris Johnson on a range of issues, and may even disapprove of his decision to prorogue Parliament, though she did not overtly say so.  But the pull of a child aged under one for its mother, has largely been viewed as a ‘real’ element of the story, in a way that is not broadly characteristic of treatment of men resigning for ‘family reasons’.

In the event, Ruth Davidson entered into the current Brexit crisis only in so far as to say that MPs should back PM Johnson’s (somewhat opaque) efforts to secure a new deal with the EU. In this way, she said, they could avoid the spectre of No Deal.  No criticism was made of the Prime Minister’s strategy – possibly another sign that a General Election may happen, and Davidson would be aware of the significance for her UK party, of retaining a Conservative presence in Scotland.

Over on Radio 4, towards the end of the PM programme, two women who happen to be mothers and involved in political commentary – Hannah White of the Institute for Government, an authoritative think tank, and Zoe Williams, the Guardian columnist – took part in a discussion about the issues in balancing career and family life.  They noted that there is still much more to be done to support female MPs in the midst of early parenthood, as the template of of work assumes a level of availability that is hard to maintain without resources of alternative care, and – especially relevant for Scottish and other far-flung representatives – proximity to place of work.  Making full parental leave available to both male and female parliamentarians would potentially mitigate against all these factors impacting female politicians disproportionately.  I have often written about these structural issues, and they do bring us back to some of the geographic and economic inequalities which have some role in how we got into the wider political turmoil we are all now part of …

Back with Ruth Davidson’s announcement, and the coverage it has received, which provides yet another example of the differential treatment of men and women in public life: she as truth-telling about work-life balance, men as finding an expedient getaway.  We could, alternatively, believe, that Davidson, like her male counterparts, is using ‘family reasons’ as political cover.  And if we did, that might be viewed as very of the moment ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 hours free childcare: still complicated

Figures newly released from Wales, show that take-up of 30 hours free childcare per week – available to 3 and 4 year olds with parents in work – has been considerably lower than expected.  For a flagship government policy, aimed at improving outcomes for disadvantaged children, and at enhancing mothers’ opportunities in the labour force, this must raise questions in the corridors of power.

Back in 2015, when 30 hours free childcare was first slated in the Queen’s Speech, I wrote a blog outlining some of the issues which were likely to open up in the gap between rhetoric and practice.  In the intervening period it has remained one of my most popular pieces.  It’s a policy area where the solution offered seems simple, but which encompasses an impressive range of potential pitfalls.

Three main factors demonstrate the problems with the offer.  First, 30 hours free childcare is offered to children where parents are working – it is not a universal offer.  While children in some of the most disadvantaged families can access 15 hours free child care from the age of 2, and all 3 and 4 years can access 15 hours per week over the school year, the enhanced 30 hours offer is limited, at the lower end, to those earning at least the equivalent of 16 hours National Minimum Wage per week. The lack of universality is an issue, as some of the families where early childcare might be most beneficial, may not be eligible, due to lower or no earnings for at least one parent. Secondly, there is a timing issue.  As parents are not eligible for free childcare from the end of maternity or parental leave, the 30 hours can be viewed as too little, too late.  For parents who have had to go it alone in the period between their child’s first and third birthday, some may be unwilling or unable to change existing providers when eligibility eventually kicks in; others may have already done the calculation of costs of childcare (rising at rates of 7% last year) versus wage packet (stagnant), and left the workforce altogether.

Thirdly, providers are struggling (as was warned from the start) to meet the conditions of the offer without cross-subsidising the free hours through new charges elsewhere.  The hourly rate paid to providers by the government, may not reflect full costs, and has not been uprated this year.  The funding rate is complicated still further by interaction with other policies. Increases in the National Minimum Wage mean that staff are now more expensive, and auto-enrolment in pensions will make employer bills still higher, as outlined here.  Of course, such employment policies are positive in a relatively low-paid sector of the economy, but if funding for children’s places does not reflect these costs, a hole remains to be filled.  Some may bridge the gap by employing cheaper, less well-trained staff; others lower staff to child ratios.  Meanwhile, parents working longer hours will pay more for cover of hours above the 30 provided free. Some nurseries now charge for items (e.g. meals) and excursions that were previously included in fees.  Moreover, commentators have started to raise concerns that large-scale providers could go bust if the funding pressures become  greater. As local authorities provide fewer childcare services directly, private sector organisations are increasingly important.  A recent Guardian piece noted that commercial providers may be less accountable in terms of how they use government money, and distribute costs between themselves and parents. They also need to bring profit to investors. In more deprived areas the pressures may be magnified, as quality childcare is more patchily available, and there may be little capacity to cross-subsidise the free offer through additional charges elsewhere.

In her feminist takeover of the New European, Caroline Criado Perez today makes the case for universal free childcare as an integral part of achieving gender equality.  She points out that 25% of mothers in the EU cite unpaid care work as the reason for their lack of participation in the jobs market (compared to only 3% of men).  The UK has amongst the most expensive childcare in the region, so it is perhaps unsurprising that the partial solution on offer here is proving unpersuasive for many.  The generous policies of countries like Sweden, which provides daycare for all children at an enviably subsidised rate, alongside relatively well-paid parental leave, is beginning to prove a pull for workers from Britain, other parts of the EU, and beyond.  In an article for Swedish radio, an Irish woman talks about how being in Sweden means she can be with her child in the early months and not worry about costs when she returns to work, or about having to give up work altogether.  Thirty hours free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds in the UK still risks failing to meet this test for many parents.

 

 

Dad skills are from Mars ….

Buried in the headlines the other day (but not sufficiently interred to avoid mention in the Today programme’s papers slot) was a story about ‘Dad skills’.  A survey was conducted to find the top 50 skills for the modern father.  Even the king of low expectations could not have masked a little disappointment that the number 1 skill was identified as ‘keeping calm during family arguments’ – because women and children are always just losing their shit – and in the case of mothers, cleaning it up afterwards too, obviously….

As the relentlessly stereotyped list wandered on through barbecuing and DIY via the gift of bonding with kids through sport – which is, of course, a male preserve – my pink brain wondered what a list of mum skills would look like.  Since my kids’ Dad has set up wi-fi* (skill no 14) I was of course compelled to Google it.  And I have to say I wasn’t quite prepared for what I found – if you  Google ‘mum skills’ what you get is a range of lists which are all about how to put mothering stuff into that awkward gap on your CV.  I was so slack-jawed that I was almost late for picking up my children from after-school activities (I thought that was a task, but as ‘taking children to after-school clubs’ is no. 29 on the Dads’ list, I’m upgrading) ….

‘Mum skills’ are about transferring domestic and child-rearing competences to the workplace, so it’s all time management and negotiation skills (after all, how else do you get 3 year olds to cars?), and how you too can get teams to do what you want.  Now, I know as well as any parent that bringing up children is a profound learning experience, and that you can transfer all sorts of things to the workplace, but the idea that ‘Mum skills’ evoke a kind of marketization of relational stuff, while contemporary ‘Dad skills’ are mainly about outdoor activities and technical fixes, should give us all pause for thought.

Since the majority of mothers are employed outside the home, it seems remarkable that ‘Mum skills’ are discussed in terms of long-term career breaks. As it’s 2016, even Dads need to be ‘skilful’ in meeting their children’s emotional needs.  And apart from the odd nod to ‘counselling’ and ‘negotiation’ these needs seem strangely absent from the lists.  It’s enough to make me want to go and lie in a heap on the sofa with my offspring while discussing their day, or chatting about what’s on the telly (just as well Dad configured it- skill no 8 – but then I do no. 15, plastering holes in walls).

The ‘Dad skills’ survey was conducted for the people behind Bob the Builder – slogan ‘Can we fix it?’ And the answer is, ‘Yes, we can’. How? With less gender stereotyping of tasks/skills, decent shared parental leave, and listening to children, no matter what our work-life balance happens to be.  Meanwhile I’ll carry on blogging while doing other things – after all, ‘multi-tasking’ is pretty high on all those ‘Mum skills’ lists …

 

*he’s a geek, it makes sense

 

Universal Credit – for men?

Last month I wrote a blog about the Prime Minister’s speech on supporting families, where he referred to parenting as a ‘job’, and families as ‘the best anti-poverty measure ever invented’. Where in all this material and professional concern, I asked, was an acknowledgement of caring work in family life?

Seeing the discussion of the projected impacts of Universal Credit on different family types, I have to ask the question again. For today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that working single parents will lose the most income through the Universal Credit system, and second earners in couples will have reduced incentives to work, in contrast to the overall impact of the scheme, which will apparently do more to make work pay for recipients. While transitional arrangements will shield current claimants, the impact assessment looks at what will happen in the longer-term.

So why is this a gender issue? Well, in spite of increasing numbers of hands-on fathers and breadwinning women, 9 out of 10 single parents are still women, and dual-earning households most often have male chief wage earners. Secondary earners are often working part-time and doing most of the childcare in families. So we have two groups of working mothers (single parents, part-time employees) who are likely to find it hard to compensate for the reduced income or reduced incentives to move into or stay in employment, which Universal Credit will present. Because of their caring responsibilities, they are likely to find it difficult to increase hours or pay, in order to make up for any losses, alongside paying for additional childcare.

The government is likely to respond that the offer of 30 hours free childcare, along with rises in income tax thresholds, will help resolve these issues. But as I and many others have pointed out, the childcare proposals are underfunded, and quality childcare is least likely to be available in deprived areas, so that the poorest parents may have problems accessing it. And if you are amongst the lowest earners and/or work part-time, the tax thresholds may not make any difference to you. You will simply be left worse off, and your children will still need to be cared for.

Disincentives for second earners to work under Universal Credit are troubling because they may damage mothers’ future financial prospects. This is firstly because they make it less worthwhile to remain in work, so that more women may spend longer out of the workforce; and secondly because the Universal Credit system proposes making all payments to one person in every household, thus breaking the principle where child-related payments were made to mothers. This second feature may not matter if you are in a good relationship with access to a joint account, but it could be very disadvantageous where unsympathetic partners control access to family finances.

It appears then that the benefits of Universal Credit are not quite as universal as the name suggests. And without acknowledgement of the value – and constraints – of caring work, it is likely to give more credit to men’s work than to women’s.