30 hours has overshadowed vital out-of-school child care

Given crippling cuts to local authority funding for children's services, this seems a difficult time to increase free entitlements that are chronically underfunded, and can only reduce quality of what is on offer. Providers are almost universally agreed in their arguments about the inadequacy of the funding for the expanded offer. And the government's plan to fill the gap in funding is to take resources away from nursery schools and nursery classes attached to primary schools, putting at risk the high quality associated with maintained provision. Levelling the playing field in funding has been requested by the voluntary and private sectors for at least a decade. The PVI sector was asking for their funding to be increased to that of the maintained sector, not reducing the "generous" maintained funding to prop up a struggling PVI sector.

Dr Jo Blanden, a senior lecturer in economics at the University of Surrey, produced research on the impact of the huge expansion of childcare over the past 15 years. She found there was little impact on school readiness. This was unsurprising, as most of the expansion was in the PVI sector, with fewer qualified staff and quality that is not in general as high as in the maintained sector. Evidence continues to show that improvements in school readiness depend on high quality, more often, but not exclusively found, in the maintained sector.

What was more surprising was how little impact childcare expansion had on female labour market participation. So the promise of a double dividend - poorer children better prepared for school because of the free entitlement, and fewer poor children as childcare availability and affordability made work more feasible - was not realised. Indeed, work as a route out of poverty also failed, as now there are more poor children living in households where an adult is working than living in workless households.

Labour market participation has tended to increase as children enter school. Low wages linked with high childcare costs makes it less likely that entering employment will improve family finances enough to compensate for the complexity of combining work and caring for young children. The increase in free hours is intended to reduce the cost of childcare, thereby giving stronger incentives to work before children are of school age. Rather than increase free hours for very young children, why have we not considered the needs of families with school-aged children?

There has been no expansion of free childcare for school-aged children, and a reduction in childcare tax credits that could help with the cost of childcare for school-aged children. The average cost of out-of-school term-time childcare is about £50 per week. Many families will be struggling with two or more children of primary school age. Data from 2014 on the DfE website shows that only about half of primary schools offer out-of-school care in term time, and 15 per cent of primary schools offer before- and after-school cover as well as holiday care.

The arguments for support for out-of-school care seem to have disappeared from the agenda. A 10-year childcare strategy, Choice for Parents the Best Start for Children, was published by the government in 2004, promising comprehensive care for under-fives. It also committed all schools to either directly provide or offer practical support to access out-of-school care. While the coalition government and the current Conservative government continued to express support for early years childcare and the wider family support promised in 2004, the provision of out-of-school care has not attracted interest.

As Universal Credit is rolled out, and the pressure to enter employment increases, this part of the child poverty story should not be missed. Indeed, the three-part commitment on pre-school care - accessibility, quality, affordability - should be easier and less expensive to deliver for school-aged children. After-school care based on school premises requires little of the capital investment needed to expand free childcare for two-year-olds. Nor is the requirement for graduate leadership as crucial for school-aged children, who have spent most of their day in teacher-led classrooms. It is a time for children to relax and to have helpful adults not under pressure for exam results and league tables. Likewise, school holiday cover could include the kind of outdoor activities and outings that so many children from better-off families experience during their holidays.

The expansion of free childcare for underfives is not good policy. It is unlikely to be of sufficient quality to improve school readiness. It may improve female labour market participation, making it less costly to return to work, but without better wages, these gains could be marginal. We need a louder voice for quality for early years and a louder voice for quantity and flexibility for school-aged children. Family policy needs to be attuned to the needs of all members of the family.

Naomi Eisenstadt is senior research fellow at the University of Oxford