How extending free childcare could harm social mobility

I blogged at the Sutton Trust website and HuffPo on problems with the government's free childcare plans

It is nearly twenty years since a long-cherished goal of early years campaigners was delivered by the Blair government: the right to free nursery education for all three- and four-year olds. Since then, much has changed in early years policy: mothers are entitled to more time off and families have benefited from tax credits. Sure Start children’s centres brought many services together too.

The free entitlement was to 12.5 hours a week of early years education, planned locally but largely delivered through private and voluntary providers (at the same time as vouchers were scrapped). That universal entitlement increased to 15 hours in 2010, and was extended in 2013 to less advantaged two-year-olds. The latest figures show that 93% of three year olds and 97% of four-year olds are taking advantage of the free provision. This month, children in working families had that entitlement extended to 30 hours a week.

But while extended access to childcare may do a lot to help the labour market and working mothers, and certainly represents a major increase in the state’s commitment to childcare support, it may make it harder to improve social mobility through such early interventions. The government is trying to introduce this at a time of austerity, so quality could suffer.

And that’s the nub of the problem. A third of eligible children – those from the poorest 40% of society – don’t currently take up free provision at age two and a tenth of poorer families don’t take up their entitlement at age three. The government has halted a commitment to improving the qualifications of those working with young children even though a third of such key workers haven’t got decent GCSE passes in English and maths.

Sure Start and children’s centres are being closed or stripped of many of their functions. Some benefits are being reduced for children, particularly in larger families. And funding is being reduced for the higher quality more expensive providers – maintained state nursery schools and reception classes – alongside the removal of a requirement that they should have a qualified teacher in the classroom.

The combination of these changes could see a reduction in quality and a widening of school readiness gaps just as there is some evidence that gaps have started to narrow. In particular, the restriction of the 30 hours to working parents could make it even harder for the children of mothers not in work to gain the developmental skills that could help them escape a cycle of disadvantage.

That’s why today’s new Sutton Trust report, Closing Gaps Early is so timely. Prof Jane Waldfogel and Dr Kitty Stewart praise the progress that has been made under successive governments but sound a strong cautionary note about what’s happening now.

There has been a growing recognition of the link between good quality nursery provision and school readiness. Our Sound Foundations report identified four key dimensions of good quality pedagogy for all children under three: stable relationships and interactions with sensitive and responsive adults; a focus on play-based activities and routines which allow children to take the lead in their own learning; support for communication and language; and opportunities to move and be physically active. Crucially, it stressed the importance of knowledgeable and capable practitioners, supported by strong leaders.

With gaps still as high as 17 percentage points between rich and poor children on the foundation profile when they start school, we can’t afford to relax the drive to improve the quality of early years staff and access for disadvantaged children to good provision from the age of two. One suggestion in today’s report is that all children should have three terms of very high quality provision prior to reception class, as the benefits of the longer entitlement are going disproportionately to children who are already doubly advantaged, by birth month and family background. If money is limited, it shouldn’t be spread too thin.

There is no doubt that the extended access to free childcare for working families is a real boon for those in work, especially those from modest incomes facing cuts in other family and tax credits, but as the new policy comes into effect it is vital that we keep a close eye on all its impacts, and ensure that lack of money doesn’t lead to loss of quality. If that happens, the progress of nearly twenty years could be placed in jeopardy and it Is the poorest children who will be the losers.

Improving social mobility

Like David Aaronovitch, I have always been a bit puzzled by the way the social mobility debate has been conducted in recent years, largely reliant on data about a generation educated under the Conservatives. I have seen the impact of the extra investment in nursery education and schools, and the effect on outcomes, including national test results and GCSEs, particularly through the Youth Cohort Study. So, yesterday's characteristically comprehensive report from the Downing Street Strategy Unit, pointing to signs that social mobility has been improving since 2000, was no great surprise.

But it is vital that the government understands that these improvements are about more than mere investment, important though that is. Nursery education spending has been accompanied by controversial but vital (if excessive) outcome measures. GCSE improvement has been greatest in academies and in schools where accountability has led to individual goals and higher expectations. In other words, this is the product of investment, accountability and reform. If social mobility is to continue to improve, it is crucial that ministers recognise the importance of continuing with this approach without needless distraction.

Teachers back early curriculum

Some of our newspapers and children's authors have been making a huge fuss about the the early years - or foundation stage - curriculum. But a poll in today's TES shows that teachers back it, with 88% of 1480 teachers polled supporting it in principle, and 64% believing it will improve the overall experience of children in the early years, against 18% believing it won't. Remarkably, many teachers even believe it will mean more time playing outside with no change to the time spent on reading and writing. This is a huge boost for children's minister Beverley Hughes, who has doggedly defended the curriculum in recent years. And a sharp rebuke to those critics who would prefer to limit a decent early years education to those who get it in supportive home environments.

Why we should not confine early learning to the middle classes

Today's Times rails against the curriculum that ministers have approved for children under five. The normally sane leader writers on the paper seem to have been hoodwinked by some child psychologists into believing that it is 'a threat' for children to learn some of the basics of the alphabet, phonics and how to count while they are enjoying the taxpayer-funded early years education that this government has made a free entitlement for all. It is - let us remember - not compulsory to attend school before the age of five; and any nursery wishing to rely solely on fees is free to do so and set its own curriculum; these proposals are also rather more flexible than the Times report suggests. Moreover, they are informed by a very substantial research project, which has at least as much weight as the academics quoted in the Times, and which has already shown that the benefits of a good early education are long-lasting.

Given that the differences in achievement in later years which it and other papers bemoaned are all too often evident by the age of five - by which time it can be too late to rectify them - what would really threaten toddlers would be for the government to agree with middle class parents and those who oppose education for the under-7s, most of whom happily introduce their three and four year-olds to the alphabet and numbers at home (apparently without 'untold damage') through costly educational games, and deny poorer children the same developmental and educational opportunities. There may well be a case for cutting the 72 goals; there may also be a case for enabling a more proportionate inspection system. What there is not a case for is stripping the educational element from early years education, and making the taxpayer-funded experience entirely a matter of childcare or play. Nursery education is about ensuring that all children are ready to learn; it must continue to be.

Sure start?

Our friends at Durham University have damned the government's investment in Sure Start on the basis of their baseline tests in a mere 124 (out of 18,000) primary schools. Beverley Hughes, the children's minister, was right to be sceptical on Today this morning. However, the early Sure Start programmes lacked sufficient emphasis on pre-literacy and numeracy skills, and were an excellent example of what can go wrong when 'a thousand flowers' are allowed to bloom unchecked with government money wasted on recreating the wheel. Fortunately, Bev Hughes has corrected most of the deficiencies and embarked on a programme to improve the educational calibre of those running and working in children's centres. She has also worked to ensure that the programme does more to help those families most in need. None of this started while the survey of schools was happening; and even if did, it is meaningless without proper assessment of what children were in Sure Start and how much they benefited from the programme. The proportion of children receiving nursery education was actually fairly stable over the period of their research (though we don't know that from their research). There's plenty of evidence that good nursery education does make a real difference. Sure Start does in some places and can do so universally with the right infrastructure across the country.