Free childcare for two year-olds: why the rollout should be delayed

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

Most parents would love a free childcare place for their two year-old.

For some, this is already possible. For children growing up in the most disadvantaged families, the government offers a free early education place of 15 hours a week, either at a nursery or with a childminder.

The two year-old programme is based on sound research showing that starting childcare before three can give children growing up in difficult circumstances an extra boost. Poor children are already 19 months behind their more affluent peers by age five, and this gap continues and often widens as children move through school.

The government is now planning to expand the free offer to 40% of all two year-olds. From September 2014, many low income working families will be eligible, as will two year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities.

This is a good thing, right?

Then why on earth are we recommending that the government delays expanding the programme?

We know that early education and care can help these children overcome the odds, and narrow the achievement gap. Some of the best evidence comes from the evaluation of the pilot programme, which offered free places to around 13,500 low income two year-olds before the programme was rolled out nationally. The results showed benefits for the children who attended, with a boost to their language skills equivalent to a child at risk of entering the bottom third improving to almost typical development for their age.

But as always, the devil is in the detail. The evaluation of the pilot programme showed that the benefits were only seen for children who attended a good quality place. For children who experienced low quality, the free place did nothing to improve their language and learning. So, if the two year-old programme is to be successful in narrowing the gap between disadvantaged children and their better off peers, the quality of the care is critical.

We have been exploring what quality should look like for children under three, and the implications of this for the two year-old programme. Our findings on ‘what children need’ will hold few surprises for parents: young children need close and affectionate relationships with adults they know and trust, support to develop their language skills, opportunities to be active and to develop physically, and the freedom to learn through play rather than through formal teaching.

But how exactly do we achieve this quality? And is current childcare provision up to scratch?

Good quality staffing is essential. Early years workers need to be well qualified so that they understand how young children develop, and how they can best support that development. They also need to be paid a decent wage. Pay for early years practitioners also tends to be low: average pay for workers in nurseries and preschools is £13,330 per year, compared with £19,150 for an equivalent role in Germany.

Without decent pay, nursery managers can struggle to recruit well qualified staff and staff turnover is often high. This has serious consequences for young children, for whom constant changes in caregivers can be very disruptive. Worryingly, our study suggests that qualifications and pay are not yet as they should be to ensure quality. For example, only 6 out of 10 childminders have a childcare qualification equivalent to A levels.

The result is that in 2012, only 74% of early years providers nationally were graded as good or outstanding, with 26% graded as satisfactory (now known as ‘requiring improvement’) or inadequate.

This is why we have recommended the government delay the expansion of the two year-old programme, to fund improvements to training and pay for the early years workforce. Relieving the pressure to expand would also allow the quality criteria for allowing providers to take part in the programme to be tightened. At the moment, providers graded as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘requiring improvement’ can offer places in areas where there is a shortage, with obvious consequences for quality. A delay would make it possible to allow only providers graded as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted to offer places.

One option might be for the government to expand to cover 30% of two year-olds in 2014, and then move to 40% by 2015 or 2016. This would mean some families having to wait for their free place, but we believe a delay is needed to make sure that all places are of a good enough standard to support children’s development. The programme has huge potential to help the most disadvantaged children succeed. But if is it expanded too fast we risk it not succeeding for any of the children it is intended to help.

*MNHQ edit: Sandra has expanded on the points she makes about Ofsted ratings, further down the thread.

I don't believe 40% of parents earn less than 16k
How would that work with the average wage of over 22k
And if so it doesn't at all reflect regional variations.
Ie a couple earning that in London should still be entitled to a place.
It does seem a bit odd as the lower the earning the less likely it is that they are working full time and needing to put the child in nursery.
An incentive would be if you go to work and both earn a combined 25k and up you will get free childcare
So like the 3 year places free for everyone is much more sensible,
i was going to return to work then realised I would get only 3k a year for the 2 years until she was 3 rediculously no working tax credit.(3days) Who wants to work for that. I was only going to do it to keep my job . I rather take care of my child myself.
Luckily I have my oh to take care of us until I can return to work.
I understand that it would be helping the children in need but I'm not convinced it helps all 2 year olds, certainly I never saw any teaching of the 2 year olds at my nursery, they mostly wandered around the room I thought they were losing out on the adult interaction to improve their vocabulary.
Childcare is so expensive especially if you can't get vouchers or tax credit. It will only go up if the gov pays for all 2 year olds as there will be more demand

It's not just for teaching. It's to experience routine, social interaction, toys etc that they may not have at home.

The parents income category will include those out of work
Average wage is only for those in employment

I can understand the social interaction though a lot of sure start schemes run stay and play and there are toddler groups so the idea would be that something extra to that would be offered for the money.
It's just a bit sad so many kids are being brought up with so little earnings

This is why my local authority are frantically training up more child minders - for the 2yo places. If what the children need are secure attachments to known childcare providers, CMs are a logical choice! And they have to meet all the same Ofsted requirements as a nursery in terms of EYFS.

naty - there was a really interesting prog on a couple of years ago about wages and what people earned, it showed just how small the numbers are of people earning bigger salaries, but if you start talking about 'average wage' it takes a lot of people on £14K a year to average out the one single person on £160K or whatever.
I totally believe that 40% of parents earn less than £16K - I've seen the influx into Nurseries and the overwhelming demand for places in many areas I work in.

Sure start stay and plays and toddler groups are not accessible to all parents. I can't go and sit in a toddler group due to social anxiety but I can walk to a preschool and cope with the handover. There's the routine too and getting used to being around other caregivers and large groups of children. There'll be lots of children with parents like me or parents with other issues that affect what services we can access.

I can't see social anxiety being a widespread problem among parents wanting to attend groups.
As most people work and have to deal with strangers everyday.
There may be other issues though.
I am shy myself but finding a group where the focus is on the children and the parents just about have a chance to say hello it's not too much a problem.
Probably why I attend the same group frequently.
In fact I find 1-2-1 more of a problem and awkward.
I have always found everyone very friendly.
For me transport to groups even nurseries is more of a issue living in a village luckily it has most facilities.
You can have a routine at home, that fits better around the child.
I always think wages are crazy so much for some jobs.
My manager was on twice as much and I disagree that he is worth 2 staff actually doing the job.
I think tax lends itself to people working part time especially when paying for childcare 5 days work for same money as 3 days.

Social anxiety was just one example of a barrier preventing socialisation (and being shy isn't in the same ballpark as social anxiety). Also, there'll be many reasons parents can't or won't access sure start groups or toddler groups. You are missing my point completely about routine too. Many children will come from families where the parents don't care about routine at home or about taking them to groups to socialise or giving them healthy snacks or books or appropriate toys. The funded hours gives those children a chance to experience what they don't get at home and get some sort of a boost to their development.

A min wage FULL TIME job earns around £12.5k Pa before tax.

How many people on £12.5k for a ft job does it take to average out one person earning £125k...

I'm surprised it's only 40% of people earning under £16k tbh.

If you think that only people working Part Time earn less than £16k, I'd have to ask if you are being deliberately obtuse, considering National Minimum a Wage is easily searchable online, and it doesn't take a genius to work out how it multiplies up to make a wage that is well under £16k.

My Ex-P has been working as a chef for 20 years. He trained for 3 years before that. His wage? £17.5k before tax. That's for a skilled job, working FT. That's classed as the best wage he can earn living in our town. He HATES his employer, but to take a chef job elsewhere in our town would drop his wage by £3k. £14.5k is average here (in the SE) for a chef with 20 years experience.

This is sidetracking from the discussion a little, but I'm beyond gobsmacked that anyone can be so blinkered as to not realise that £16k would be classed as an unreachable pipe-dream wage for many unskilled / low skilled FULL TIME workers.

And for them to seemingly not understand that it takes TEN FT workers on NMW to earn the same as, and average out, the wage of ONE FT worker on £125k.

Yes dolly I presumed it was very different I was saying if more people were affected it would probably be more shyness and also I did agree other issues could prevent them.
I see what you are saying about routine.
Couthy
I also see what you are saying. Never looked into the minimum wage just presumed I was above it.

I guess it just depends on who you know. I went to uni so all those people earn upwards of 20-30- maybe 50k don't know anyone on minimum although sure they exist.
However I also don't know many individuals earning 120k maybe 1. I had though not thought of the effect of say footballers wages on an average.

I think though that it is more due to lone parents and young parents who don't earn much yet.
The benefits system is picking up for the poor pay which people can't live on. Easier to pay them more and tax less if it is just given back.
I never liked the idea of a CM I am sure they are great but it is a safety thing, behind closed doors etc which has caused nurseries to flourish. Also not sure how they cope with 3 kids. I saw one refusing to put the kids in swings etc whilst then texting. Would they have done that in front of the parents probably not.

I don't think it should be delayed. it is already making a difference to children's lives.
I am a graduate working in a day nursery as an EYP. We have a lot of funded 3 and 4 year olds that only attend for the free hours. I KNOW we make a diiference to these children's lives.
In our area nurseries can only provide a funded 2 year old place if they are judged good or outstanding or have an EYP.
I think ALL 2 year olds shoud get free funding, so passionate am I about the positive impact of children attending a good quality early years setting. Also, many of thes 2 year olds come with a whole host of problems that require lots of work on the setting's part, that the funding dosn't even cover.
However, not all settings are good quality. Most nursery nurses only earn minimum wage themselves, or not that much above.
It just seems such a shame that those tasked with narrowing the attainment gap in society's children are not given the recognition they deserve.

I think it's awful that the people who look after my DS3 so well are so poorly paid.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say about more shyness naty.

"It just seems such a shame that those tasked with narrowing the attainment gap in society's children are not given the recognition they deserve."

Absolutely insancerre - working conditions are not good either, with very poor job security and short term and zero hours contracts.
These have affected me in my recent work in pre-schools over the last 7 years, even though I am also an experienced early years practitioner, graduate and teacher.

But how are they going to do it? I assume by the same way they do it for 3 year olds. By paying the nursery an amount per hour on behalf of the child. Unfortunately, the hourly rate they pay is often lower than the cost of providing the place which means, as they can't ask for a top-up fee, the nursery subsidises the 'free' place.
By limiting the amount of money the nurseries can get in, they are also limiting the amount the nurseries can give out in the form of wages, equipment, food buget, etc. It limits the quality of the nursery.

More free places will lead to a 2 tier childcare sector: The government tier which is forced to spend little as it's restricted to receiving little, and the independent tier who are opt out of funding but are free to spend money on decent wages for the best staff.

I agree, I don't think it should be delayed either. Some of the home environments of the most deprived children are truly awful( I have seen them) and ANY time out of that has to be of benefit to the child. I agree wages/level of qualifications for nursery staff should rise too but that can be done concurrently.

As an aside couthy I don't think 14.5k is average for a chef in the SE especially with 20 years experience. My friend is a head chef and he makes over 100k, chefs in his restaurant START on 25k minimum. I know a lot of chefs and it is a good career if you are talented. My friend was making 40k before the rest of us had finished uni!

It IS average in my town. On that wage, he can't learn to drive, but until he learns to drive, he can't go for a (much, much) better paid job further away. Bit of a catch-22.

They pay what they can get away with, and with 300+ applicants for every job here, cheffing doesn't command a very high wage - too many of them for too few jobs!

But that's an aside to the point of this thread.

I can see the issue of the 2-tier system that would begin to form, due to funding.

Could it not be a prerequisite of getting an 'Outstanding' Ofsted rating that you can't get that rating if you DON'T accept the 2 and 3 year funding?

It might make private Nurseries HAVE to accept the funding if it was the only way they could get an Ofsted rating above 'Good'...

It would be about the Private Nurseries having to show that they can achieve good outcomes on the EYFS for DC's from ALL backgrounds, much as Primary and Secondary schools have to for those on FSM's...

Sandra Mathers has not mentioned childminders. I don't understand why not. Many of us already offer the 3/4 free entitlement and I have provided 2 places under the 2 year old scheme.

Sadly, even though I am registered with the Council for this scheme, I have not had any 2 year olds placed with me for some time.

Why?

Well, I think it's the Government's continued emphasis on teacher led provision that's discouraging the council from placing these children with us. They've shot themselves in the foot, really. Surely a childminder's setting is ideal for these very young children instead of clogging up nursery and preschool places?

But there you go. Government seems to be hell-bent on driving childminders out of business. It's depressing to see an organisation like the Sutton Trust ignoring the valuable contribution childminders can make.

I would have liked to look into childminders for the 2 year old scheme as I thought a more home-like setting with fewer children might have suited my shy 2 year old, but there were none listed locally in the list the council gave of 2 year old scheme providers.

Just a word for people eligible for the 2 year old funding - it covers lots of different situations and circumstances, so far from all or even most of the children eligible come form unhappy or less than lovely homes.

It is true that in general people with disabilities, single parents and people working long hours for low pay might be more exhausted and have more stress in life than people with high pay, so their children might benefit if the parents concerned have some time spare for rest, medical care and work/training etc..

Equally, children of a stay at home parent with a decent income might be isolated and lack stimulation (plenty of well off people are not particularly socially or emotionally literate (in fact, high income and lack of emotional awareness often go together according to some research!).

Most people I know eligible for the scheme are educated to postgraduate level and have happy, sugar-free children already learning to read at age 2.

But that doesn't mean they don't need respite from caring/parenting/jobseeking/health problems or that their children might not benefit from socialising and early years education too.

Naty1 re social anxiety - it is different from shyness; being shy can mean someone might be quiet and nervous, but with social anxiety some sufferers have panic attacks, breathing and heart problems, sleeplessness and other symptoms, which prevent people accessing services where shyness would not (usually). But the point, I think, that it is one example: 1 in 4 people has a mental health condition at some point in their lives and many of these would restrict access to services - travel, social interaction, organisation, focusing are all seriously affected by many mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, agoraphobia and others. Then there are learning difficulties, other disabilities that can affect someone's ability to cope in a busy group such as Asperger's, then the more obvious physical disabilities make it hard to travel and play with a child in a drop in too.

I'm sure you realize this - just reiterating it as many people forget how very common limiting conditions and circumstances are. unfortunately it is because people who are less able to get out and about are out and about less so less visible in society that they tend to get overlooked!

I think theres many for whom it wouldn't benefit to be honest. I dont like the undercurrent that within a few years it will be the "norm" to send a 2 year old to childcare. We had the offer of funded 2 year old place but I'm sure my daughter was better with me (as indeed the preschool leader told me when I asked her!) I know there ARE situations where the parent is struggling and it can be better for the child than being at home(hence the funded places) but that surely isnt the norm.