Eisenstadt brands two-year-old free entitlement as ‘nuts’

By Gabriella Jozwiak, Thursday 24 January 2013

The former director of the Sure Start programme has described the government’s free entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds as "nuts".

credit-charlie-pinder

Eisenstadt said the entitlement would fail to make a difference to children's lives. Image: Charlie Pinder

Speaking at the first evidence session of the education select committee’s inquiry into Sure Start children’s centres, Naomi Eisenstadt said the 15 hours of free childcare would be of poor quality and fail to make a difference to children’s lives, because of a lack of adequate funding for the scheme.

She also suggested the government’s decision to offer the care to the 40 per cent most disadvantaged two-year-olds was too broad, arguing that targeted support for children and parents would be more effective.

“I think the two-year-old offer is nuts. I don’t think we’re in a position financially to offer a free service to 40 per cent, and I would much rather that the two-year-old offer be a conditional offer on a kind of support within a children’s centre,” said Eisenstadt.

“If it’s an offer that says: a mother who is not working and is in the bottom 40 per cent can go somewhere to leave their child for 15 hours, and that childcare is not particularly good quality. I don’t think it’s a particularly good use of public money. I don’t think we have the quality in place that will make a difference.”

Eisenstadt claimed that evidence from the two-year-old offer pilots had showed children only benefited from the scheme if the care they received was high quality.

Dame Clare Tickell, chief executive of Action for Children, also gave evidence at the meeting, but said she did not agree with Eisenstadt’s assessment of the scheme.

However, Tickell said that central government’s decision to offer the free childcare to 40 per cent of two-year-olds, measured using the same criteria as for free school meals, was less effective than a more localised approach.

“There’s a better question, which is which two-year-olds need that support and how do we find them?” said Tickell. “That will give you your percentage as opposed to the 40 per cent. That would be a qualitative response rather than a quantitative one.”

Education select committee chair Graham Stuart agreed, noting the programme went “completely” against the government’s localism drive and its focus on outcomes rather than “input”.

“Maybe those [two-year-olds] who need it, need 35 hours or maybe four months intensively, but you can’t find out because you’ve got to fulfil the national package,” he said.

The two-year-old entitlement will provide 130,000 two-year-olds with 15 hours of free childcare from September this year and expand to 260,000 (40 per cent) from 2014. 

Sign up to get the latest news by email

Latest stories from CYP Now

Article Tags

All comments

Free entitlement and increased child adult ratios

Margaret  wrote:

28 Jan 2013

Well, what a day! The EY professional hotlines are almost on meltdown! There are no prizes for joining up the dots between so-called free childcare for up to 260,000 two year olds and proposals to increase child:adult ratios.

Totally agree with Naomi Eisenstadt

Linda Sinclair wrote:

29 Jan 2013

It's like saying the mother is not good enough so hey, send your child somewhere else for 15 hours a week as they'll do a better job, that's totally wrong, if the Mum needs support give it to her, taking the child away for 15 hours doesn't help anyone.

Where do I start?

Sue Sanford wrote:

29 Jan 2013

Not suprised the EYP lines are in meltdown and how Graham Stuart can seriously suggest if 15 hours pw is good for a disadvantaged 2 year old is good 35 must be better is frightening, he clearly hasn't looked at the evidence at all. I do think Naomi Eisenstadt makes a valid point about linking the two year old provision to positive support for their parents, although as far as I'm aware that's how a number of areas have run the pilot schemes and presumably will continue to target those families

2yr funding

Karen Hawden wrote:

29 Jan 2013

Agree with Linda Sinclair, this is totally disempowering for parents and as Naomi Eisenstadt states the quality just isn't there and neither are the places. Where are they being conjured up from?

Add your comment

 

Ads by Google

Updating your subscription status Loading

    No matching document

More Jobs with Children & Young People

Search Jobs

Loading PollLoading