Should ‘free’ childcare be for the most disadvantaged only?

‘We must offer everyone more, not less’

James Hempsall, chief executive, Hempsalls

The solution to this problem must be to fund early years differently and more generously. Rather than 15 hours for disadvantaged two-year-olds, 15 universal hours for three- and fours, and 30 hours for working families, we should be offering 30 hours for all two-, three- and four-year-olds for at least 48 weeks of the year (rather than the anachronism that is 38 weeks of the year).

What’s more, this new entitlement and funding regime should include an enhancement for disadvantaged families – and more of them too. This could be given through an increase of the funds and the scope of the Early Years Pupil Premium (EYPP).

The EYPP has worked well, but it could be better. It could reach more, if not all, eligible children; currently it does not. It needs to be either awarded automatically or streamlined – connecting entitlements together and simplifying funding would remove the need for parents to apply or reconfirm. These processes are real barriers to families whose circumstances change frequently.

The big take away [from the NAO analysis] for me is that early years provision supports social mobility. Therefore, we need to give funded access to it for all children. Yes, there is a risk the attainment gap will grow between those that access it and those that don’t. It is the issue we need to address. Those families that are better able to access it and extend it through paid-for hours are at a clear advantage. But childcare costs can be so huge, that all families need help with them.

The day when early years has an equal status with schools within the welfare state is what we should be striving for. This will not only close attainment gaps, it will help families financially, in their employment and wellbeing, and support children’s development and learning. It will support provider sustainability and a much-needed improvement to the terms and conditions and careers of our professional workforce.

Some families only need a little information for them to be able to take up their entitlements, but the NAO is right that low awareness is one of the biggest obstacles for others. They need a nuanced and differentiated package of information, outreach support and encouragement to overcome real and perceived barriers. They need help with finding and using provision, and access to other services and support alongside their children’s early years provision to meet the needs of the child of their family. This should be a key plank of the levelling up agenda, and councils, family-facing professionals and providers have a big part to play in that. All need the time and the resources to make that happen, and councils need to be held to account so take-up is measured.

We would all benefit from the outcomes of this through reducing the attainment gap, increasing social mobility, integrating services, getting rid of unnecessary hurdles, and giving the sector a much needed boost.

‘Solution is to simplify funding system’

Jonathan Broadbery, director for policy and communications, NDNA

There are undoubtedly problems with the government’s funded childcare policy, from underfunding leading to childcare providers closing, to hundreds of millions of pounds of funding, intended to support children and families, not reaching the frontline.

It goes without saying, hourly rates paid to providers need to be increased and keep pace with the rising costs that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Early years education has a huge impact on children’s development and their life-long learning. Given the impact of Covid-19 on children and families, now is the time to ensure we are giving them more opportunities in early years settings, not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We know that access to high quality early education is vital to close the attainment gap and 56 per cent of people believe Covid-19 has increased inequality in the UK, therefore a focus on early years is even more important for our children’s futures.

The Department for Education has a target of at least 73 per cent of eligible two-year-olds taking up funded hours – so the money has to be in place to do that even though current take up is only around 69 per cent. It’s important that the system is reformed to increase take-up and use existing budgets rather than reducing the overall investment in our youngest children.

Reform is clearly needed but the solution needs to actually reflect the problem. The National Audit Office identified that lack of awareness was a key barrier.

The funding picture is too complex for families, nurseries and local authorities. This leads to lower take up of support, additional administrative costs and funding not reaching those delivering the childcare places. NDNA has long argued for the simplification of the funding system through a Childcare Passport approach.

The government should work across departments and with the sector to establish a one-stop-shop for all funded entitlements, tax free childcare, and universal or tax credit payments, alongside contributions from parents. Families could then direct these payments straight to the childcare provider, or providers, of their choice. This would mean funding for that child truly follows them to whichever early years setting is delivering their place.

Other barriers have also been identified including up-front and additional costs of taking up places. Time and again evidence has been presented about the impact of underfunding on parents and providers. Until this is addressed, ensuring hourly rates cover the actual cost of delivering places will be a challenge, especially in disadvantaged areas. Our research on nursery closures has shown that these are the areas where settings are most likely to close.

If the government is truly committed to levelling up opportunities there are steps it can take without taking funding away from children on the back of the pandemic. Simplifying the funding system to ensure families better understand what they’re entitled to and can easily use to secure the childcare places they need, must be part of any recovery plan.

Current policy ‘flies in the face’ of social mobility

Megan Jarvie, head of Coram Family and Childcare

Childcare is a crucial pillar in tackling child poverty and increasing social mobility. Not only does it allow parents to work, increasing household incomes, but it can also help to reduce the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their peers that opens up before they even start school. High-quality childcare can make a real difference to children’s outcomes and the benefits are greatest for disadvantaged children. This could be a game changer in boosting social mobility, helping children to start school on an equal footing rather than trying to fix a stubborn achievement gap. But we are not yet fully achieving this potential.

Funding for childcare has increased over the last decade, but the main beneficiaries of this have been better off families. Tax free childcare and the extension to 30 hours funded childcare for working parents have both targeted working parents, and higher earning working families. We are now in the slightly strange situation where free early education for two-year-olds is targeted at disadvantaged children but they are excluded from the extended offer for three and four year olds in favour of children with working parents. This means that children from better-off backgrounds are getting more early education than their disadvantaged peers – surely flying in the face of social mobility aims.

Theoretically the 30-hours policy can reduce childcare as a barrier to work and help parents to move into employment, so supporting social mobility through raising family incomes. But in practice this is significantly flawed. Parents say that without childcare, getting work ready and looking for employment is near impossible. Even if they do manage to find a job, they won’t be able to use the extended childcare offer until the term after they start work.

It is clear that change is needed in order to achieve childcare’s social mobility potential, but further targeting towards disadvantaged children is not a silver bullet for achieving these goals. Uptake for the targeted two-year-old childcare offer is still significantly lower than the universal offer for those aged three and four. Targeting can create confusion and stigma and our current childcare system is riddled with complexity meaning too many families get lost in the system or fall through gaps.

Creating a simple system is key to supporting social mobility. We need a system where families can easily understand what they are entitled to, with free early education to support all children to boost their learning and parents only paying what they can afford beyond this free offer. Government funding should be paid directly to childcare providers, rather than to parents, to support the move towards simplicity, but also to give them the control to really push up the quality of provision right across the sector – this will make the biggest difference in helping to boost children’s outcomes. Reforms of this scale are ambitious, but if we are serious about social mobility, they are essential.

• Read more in CYP Now's Social Mobility in the Early Years Special Report