The government’s scheme to give working parents 30 hours of free
childcare could harm social mobility by widening the gap in
school readiness between disadvantaged children and their more
advantaged peers, according to a new report published by the
Sutton Trust today. Data analysed in today’s report finds that
one third of staff working in group-based care still lack either
English or Maths at GCSE, or both, at grade C or above.
Closing Gaps Early, by Dr Kitty Stewart of LSE and
Professor Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University, examines the
current state of early years policy in England in light of
evidence about ‘what works’. It finds that the government’s
childcare offer is not well-designed to improve social mobility
because it is being implemented at the expense of quality early
years education for disadvantaged toddlers.
Previous Sutton Trust research found that high-quality early
years provision – delivered by qualified professionals - is
crucial for boosting the development of the poorest two and three
year olds.
However, the new research finds that recent policy developments
have put this in jeopardy, axing financial support for graduate
training for early years professionals; lifting the requirement
for Sure Start centres in disadvantaged areas to offer
graduate-led early education; and most recently, by proposing to
remove the requirement for nursery and reception classes to have
a qualified teacher.
The Trust is concerned that the focus on quantity over quality
could put at risk the progress that has been made in closing the
gap in school readiness between disadvantaged children and their
better-off peers. In 2007, there was a 21.2 percentage point gap
but in 2015, this had narrowed to 17.7 percentage points.
The report notes that while targeted places for disadvantaged
two-year-olds and the early years pupil premium are important
tools for closing the attainment gap, these limited policies are
not enough to change the bigger picture, particularly in the
context of reduced financial support for parents.
Since 2010, many aspects of financial support for parents have
unravelled. Notably, benefits for babies have been scrapped and
the tax credit system has been more narrowly targeted. According
to the report, the ‘benefits cap’ and the two-child limit have
introduced a separation between family needs and the level of
benefits received, with devastating consequences for families
affected.
The Trust is recommending that the government’s shift in focus of
childcare policy away from quality towards quantity is
ill-advised and should be reversed unless there is the funding to
ensure that quality can be maintained.
The Trust would like to see funding secured to ensure that
qualified teachers remain in place in school nursery and
reception classes, with support for continuing professional
development and greater career opportunities for early years
professionals.
The report also calls for parental leave policies to be extended
to provide enhanced entitlements for fathers, to increase father
involvement and promote greater gender equity.
Sir Peter Lampl, Chairman of the Sutton Trust and of the
Education Endowment Foundation, said today:
“Good quality early years provision is vital to narrow the gaps
that leave too many youngsters behind by the time they start
school. But it’s unlikely that the government’s policy to provide
30 hours of free childcare will provide this.
“It is understandable that the government wants to improve access
to childcare for working parents. But this must not be at the
expense of good early education for disadvantaged children. It is
the quality of provision that matters.
“Focusing on getting it right for the poorest two and three
year-olds would make a much bigger difference to social mobility,
by improving their chances at school and in later life.”
Kitty Stewart, associate professor of social policy and
associate director of the centre for analysis of social exclusion
(CASE), said:
“Recent changes to funding for early education look set to
have further damaging effects on the quality of provision. The
new 30-hour offer is not adequately resourced, meaning money will
be spread more thinly.
“To make up some of the funding gap, a new funding formula
reallocates resources away from state nurseries
disproportionately attended by disadvantaged children, and they
may in the future struggle to afford a qualified teacher. To
remove this advantage must be expected to have negative effects
on social mobility.”
Professor Jane Waldfogel, professor of social work and
public affairs at Columbia University, said today:
“We are also concerned about the proposed cuts to family benefits
- since we know that economic security is critical for children,
especially in the early years.”
