Childcare ratios: Lib Dems to veto planned changes

[SarahMumsnet]

Morning everyone,

For those of you who've been following the campaign to persuade the government to roll back on its proposed reforms to adult-child ratios for childcarers, we have good news. It was announced on Newsnight last night that Nick Clegg has told the Conservative party he will block the planned changes to ratios, which were expected to be brought in in September.

Due to opposition across the boards to the relaxation of the ratios - particularly evident in the recent webchat with Childcare Minister Liz Truss - Mumsnet gave its backing to the Pre-School Learning Alliance's Rewind on Ratios campaign, which called for the Government to scrap its plans and to undertake a full consultation with practitioners and parents on future proposals. The announcement from the Lib Dems looks like the first step in that direction.

Justine appeared on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning to explain Mumsnetters' opposition to the changes, saying: "There is a general feeling on our website that it will have a bad impact on the quality of provision. When we surveyed our members, only 5% said they would be happy to accept a relaxation of ratios, even if it meant lower costs" - which pretty much sums it up. Thanks to all of you who signed the petition: your support made a difference!

MNHQ x

[olgaga]

Tanith I think the problem is that no-one is going to get an expensive university education with a view to earning little more than the minimum wage in EY.

I know plenty of SAHMs and CMs with degrees and more who work in childcare, only because it allows them to earn at home or flexibly within EY settings while their children are young.

It's a shame that more isn't done to retain them in the EY sector, but most will drift away when they can earn more through teaching, retraining, or resuming a former career when their children are older - even if they go back in at a lower level.

But of course, if we paid EY workers a salary commensurate with their training, skills and experience that would push the cost of childcare even higher!

Also, this article points out that researchers say that, as far as children under three are concerned, having graduate-level carers will not undo the damaging effects of having more children for each adult.

For three to five-year-olds, however, the picture is different. Studies show that if early-years carers have better qualifications and the number of children per adult rises, the quality of the care will stay the same, rather than go down. It's hardly a ringing endorsement for the reforms.

[chedges]

Wow I am really surprised by this thread.

It would be lovely if we live in an era where cuts didn't have to be made across the board, there have been cuts in pretty much every other sector, and cost cutting in childcare is inevitable. Is not ideal by any means but we can't all campaign and protest about cuts and cost saving that needs to be done. It's no different to running a house- if things arent affordable then you have to make do. Childcare is already subsidised by the government with free nursery places. I think many mums would prefer to have a slightly different ratio than lose their free hours?

I think we are extradionarily luckily to live in this country, no it isn't the best but its near the top! Countries like Greece and Spain have youth umeployment of over 50%!! Imagine that!

Why can't we all support this country out of this recession rather than fighting against cuts that are very unfortunately necessary and simply a reduction of generous schemes we have all become accustomed to taking.

[Xenia]

Well said chedges. Not all mumsnetters by any means are against the new ratios. If you employ nannies as I have done there is no such petty minded Government interference and box ticking and we get better people than in the regulated child minder sector which just proves the state interference as ever is wrong and free markets work best.

[Pippenguin99]

Hi,

Very interesting thread, and I'm so pleased (and relieved) that maybe the govt "reforms" won't come in now. I'm a mother of two (both at school now ) and was a childminder for four years until recently - having had a good career before that, so I've really been on both sides of the fence and experienced all kinds of childcare. I absolutely agree that having the highest childcare costs in the world is unfair on parents, but I'd also like to mention there is an increasing scientific body of research proving (via brain scans, chemical tongue swabs measuring cortisol levels etc) that the under threes really need very low ratios, perferably more like one-to-one or two-to-one to get the emotional and intellectual inputs they need - this literally causes chemical pathways in the brain to grow. For that reason I'm slightly against under-threes spending many hours a week in nurseries, even good ones (again research shows these children are more likely to have behavioural problems or be more aggresive in the future). Statistically it's also true that it's the middle classes who are more likely to push their very young children out to nurseries - probably believing them to be more educational, but perhaps also part of the whole middle/upper class social values of trying to create more independant, self reliant kids - however, I'm going to stick my neck out here and say from what I've seen I think that's more often a rationalisation as middle class parents seem less good at providing unconditional emotional empathy to their kids.

But it's all about a balance, and what's right for individual families - sorry to keep going on about scientific studies, but it's also been proven that children do better in external childcare if their parents suffer from depression, basically kids need to have their needs fulfilled and it's about who is best placed to do that - mums (or dads) who really don't want to be stuck at home are probably best employing good quaility external childcare rather than forcing themselves to stay at home, their kids will pick up on their resentment.

In terms of costs, I feel the only solution is to have some state funding - as mumsnetters have said, you simply can't have well-qualified staff (which is important - there's a lot more to child development than meets the eye) and lower costs and ratios. I think the current drive to make the rich pay the taxes they owe is great - even without raising taxes, surely if a lot of effort was put in to combat tax avoidance, this might raise revenue which could hardly be better used then subsidising early years care. Govt subsidises state education and elderly care, so why not early years care? I really hope as time goes on, people will increasingly join the dots and realise that so many of our social ills arise from the results of bad childhoods - for example over 80% of prisoners come from very broken families. Lets ditch the blame and focus on breaking the cycle of early bad experiences children have that so often cause so much pain for them as adults and indeed negative social consequences, whether they become immoral bankers or petty criminals in the future. Big statements I know - sorry to go on, I'll get off my soapbox now! I like most of what Oliver James says on these issues, please don't think he's about saying mums should stay at home because he really isn't. Also, read "Why Love Matters", best parenting book I ever read as it's all about the neuroscience, which is fascinating, and revolutionary I think.

Sorry, hope I haven't bored everyone silly! I just feel really strongly about these issues.

[Xenia]

Ooh good a class war on the thread. What fun. Well if the working classes are so brilliant at childcare how come their children do so much worse than middle class children on almost every score.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Xenia

Please define better and can we have some examples on the score you mention.
You do have an over inflated ego. As I've said before people who put others down to make themselves look good have some serious confidence problems

[racmun]

God this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent.

Fundamentally childcare is expensive, changing the ratio's isn't going to reduce the costs for the end user it will simply increase profits for the childcare provider as they are businesses. The only way to ensure cost savings are passed on would be to introduce state run nurseries which run at cost and not for profit.

As for subsidising childcare, we already get 15 hours a week from age 3 and some children get it from 2. Is it really realistic to expect even more subsidy when there is no more money and the country is virtually broke. We've just lost our AAA rating.

Choosing to have children is expensive and IMO you just have to suck it up for the first few years they go to school for years.........

Of course they need to crack down on tax avoidance but that doesn't lead to automatically subsidising childcare. The money would be better spent paying off the trillions of debt the country owes

[morethanpotatoprints]

Pippin

Are you suggesting that taxpayers fund childcare then? So how is that fair Also why do you presume that sorting out the ills of society can be done through childcare. My dc have/are turning out well and yet have never stepped into a childcare facility in their life. One did pre school for a short while.

[blondieminx]

MNHQ for all that you have done on this issue . Will try and catch Justine's interview on Today on iPlayer - what time was it on, please?

If anyone's interested here are the letters between Clegg and Truss, leaked to the BBC.

I work partly to pay the bills and partly to ensure that if I was ever left in the lurch like countless women are around the country (and indeed on this thread) by feckless arsewipes who abandon their kids and their responsibility for their upkeep, ...then I would have a better chance of keeping the roof over our heads and us all fed!

FGS please don't let this thread degenerate into infighting between us all instead of campaigning together about what is important here - safe, caring and affordable childcare available for those parents who need it (for whatever reason - work/study/the ability to spend a morning in peace just once a week!).

[Xenia]

Don't agree. Indeed it is the private sector schools who provide happiness lessons (Wellington) and if you look at the misery credit crunch threads on mumsnet I think it's fairly clear that you can be poor and miserable and if women earn a lot they can also be happy.

Plenty of working women who are middle class use nannies not just nurseries and nannies are cheaper if you have 3+ children anyway. The idea that children do better if mummy is at home is just not proven at all. It is a sexist myth to ensure women are never up to much and do not earn much and remain due to misplaced guilt 24/7 with their babies until they are 4.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Xenia.

Exactly the word is "can" not definitely.

Yes women can earn and be happy, they can also earn and be miserable. You can be poor and miserable and poor and happy like me . Not everybody sees success, happiness and fulfilment in terms of £ xenia.

[racmun]

Xenia
Some women (myself included) actually enjoy looking after their own children. Shock horror not through guilt or due to believing an urban myth.
I've got a degree, i'm middle class and was/am a solicitor.
Just because I'm currently not working and choose to be a SAHM doesn't mean that I'm miserable or believing a myth. For me enjoying quality time with my ds everyday far outweighs any satisfaction I would get pushing a pile of files round a desk!!
It's personal choice atbh I don't actually give a shit what other people want to do for their children. I do what i feel is right for our ds but I would never castigate another parent for making another choice.

With regard to money = happiness. I don't think it's that simplistic. Choices = happiness. Money can mean you have lots more choices so can in that way make you happier but it's not a guarantee.

[Xenia]

It was only the suggestion in a post above that it was a class issue and the working classes were better as parents that seemed interesting. People have argued to death the issue of how beneficial it is for children to have full time working parents.

On the thread issue is it about libertarians and British freedom v interfering meddling socialist control. These are massive and important issues. The left likes to walk around with its ridiculous rule book and checklist making jobsworths of us all. The rights tears up the rule books and lets common sense prevail. If you think leaving your baby with 15 others in a dirty back room you need your head examining and would not do it. If it is forbidden you can probably still find someone to do it so the rules themselves are pretty pointless. If you find a loving 18 year old who is great with babies and never passed an exam in her life you may well want her to help care for your child or you might want a norland trained nanny or ex nurse - let the parents decide amnd the state budge out of all this.

[Pippenguin99]

Yes, lets stay on track and agree that (most of us anyway) feel that Mumsnet and indeed we mumsnetters have done a good job in getting the govt to rethink it's plans.

Morethan pot - I just feel that childcare is so expensive in this country it's a bit unfair on parents, I'm not suggesting it should be fully funded just a bit more so than at present as I certainly know people who are considering not having children at all/not more than one due to cost which seems a bit sad. Yes, this country is in a recession and I agree cuts have to be made, but I feel childcare is a bad place to do so, given the future consequences for society (and those children themselves) - I just wonder if tax was collected properly how much revenue would be generated.

Also what I meant re: ills of society - basically it doesn't matter who by or where children are looked after really as long as their needs are met - so it's not a question of childcare vs home parenting at all, just looking at what is best for that child, which will be different for all families. People get emotional about the working parents vs SAHP isue, but really I think it's missing the point - as I said, it's about what's best for individual children and families.

Hope that makes sense - let me know if not!

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

catinhat said "babies are the fastest learners and they learn from interaction and cuddles, not from clever graduates"
Only clever graduates, who've thought carefully about how to interact with children, can do both at least as well. They're not intrinsically any less cuddly either, even if they do know some long words !

[morethanpotatoprints]

Xenia.

Its amazing how people feel the need to justify their own choices and even go as far as to say their choice is better.

People have argued to death the issue of how beneficial it is for children to have full time working parents
I would argue that so is having one working parent.

[olgaga]

Excellent post Pip.

[Xenia]

Some choices are better than others. There are objective rights and wrongs in this world. Not everything is relative.

The left likes rules. The right likes freedoms.

Mumsnet tends to support fairly left wing interventionist policies as they sit well with low earning women adn will be popular on the site - and of courese that is crucial. You cannot support causes that puts your readers off - although in this case they are clearly happy to alienate Xenia (I am weeping into my pillow) and I am against Clegg on this.
It would be similar with my stance on lowering the age of consent to 14 - they would be fools to support it as most mothers aer against. Same with laws against particular clothes for children - most posters would want those. Same with internet porn. However there are loads of libertarian mothers who believe it or not do not want a whole load of new things banned and want people instead to exercise choice.. mind you I would support them in a campaign to outlaw the housewife.

[AmandinePoulain]

So Xenia you support choice...yet you want to 'ban' housewives?

And I can't be the only one to find the idea of 'happiness' classes for schoolchildren a little sad .

[morethanpotatoprints]

Xenia.

"left like rules and right like freedom". What utter tosh.
Right wing are typically rich meaning unless they inherited a whole heap of money, they worked hard to earn all their money. This more often than not involves following many rules, policies, procedures, jumping through hoops and giving a pound of flesh. Hardly freedom.
How would you outlaw housewives, a group of people who existed in the 1950's. Do you mean you'd force women to work rather than raise their children, as some sahm's aren't married