Blog

On 4 July 2022, a range of ministers from different departments launched a well-intentioned drive to support parents by reducing the direct costs of securing childcare.  Some of the ministers did not retain their posts by the end of what was a turbulent week in UK politics. Those distractions aside, we must consider these proposals in the round.  I agree that the burden of the costs of childcare for working and disadvantaged families is hugely significant, and one that government can do much to help with by unblocking the obvious barriers.  The onus has also fallen upon the sector with all sorts of costs associated with the pandemic, inflation, energy, pensions, and annual national minimum wage rises to name a few. 

The Government’s drive contained five main proposals, under the principle of achieving support without extending budget spending, one of which might just work – a bit. 

1. Changes to the regulatory framework by increasing adult to child ratios (1:5 for two-year-olds, from 1:4) are proposed.  The intention at best is to give settings flexibility in the construction and delivery of their business offer.  But it is a risk and compromise to their quality and safety, regardless of how able a setting is able to protect these pillars of practice.   The idea is it could reduce the cost charged to parents by 15%.  It won’t.  First of all, the consultation response, I predict will be massively in favour of protecting current ratios.  Second, the vast majority of settings won’t easily or readily take the opportunity to deploy the flexibility on offer.  Thirdly, that 15% reduction in costs, if it is indeed realised, will be retained by settings and not passed on to parents.  Why?  Because of their rising costs of delivery and the need to support the sustainability of their businesses.  It is also needed to resource a workforce where supply is lower than demand.  Settings will continue to need to up their terms and conditions to attract, retain and develop their workforce at this critical moment, and keep up to speed with the velocity of increases in all delivery costs, alongside what can be described as a stagnant early years funding rate.  Likely chance of reducing costs for families: 2./10 (it may help settings at a push). 
2. Childminders are an incredibly valuable component of the sector.  We need them.  I have always said that.  It has been at best regrettable to watch how their numbers have dwindled as fast as the need for flexible, affordable and available childcare has risen.  The proposals are many, including: the reduction of upfront costs to become a childminder, with financial support (grants I hope, like we used to have); flexibility on where they can operate in community buildings (building on some flexibility that already exists); rethinking approaches to ratios when including their own children and siblings of other children (a risk of blurring of important professional boundaries here I think); reducing the Ofsted inspection of childminders (which is already a reduced service); and slimming down the EYFS by one-third for them (a step in the wrong direction when we need sector unity and parity).  Will these achieve the aim of reducing costs?  I am not convinced for the same reasons above.  I predict the impact will be more on the sector’s morale, motivation and status – already too low.  I think many established and experienced childminders will leave the profession completely, or move to find work in group care settings and schools, all perhaps able to offer better terms and conditions.  Some may be picked up by childminder agencies (CMAs), which have the slow to gain momentum.  The goal is to do more with CMAs.  There are exciting pioneers out there and I really do wish their ambitions take flight.  However, the impact upon quality and perceptions of quality being slimmed down in childminding will be felt by parents who prioritise quality over and above all else, and this will in turn reduce demand, which inevitably will reduce supply.  It will be a vicious circle that even the best agencies may struggle to counter.  Likely chance of reducing costs for families: 3.5/10 (but it will take too much time). 
3. The next proposal appears to make it easier for more providers to register with Ofsted, with the aim of increasing the amount of supply registered and eligible to receive additional financial support via Universal Credit and Tax-Free Childcare.  It is clear there are many providers out there who need to be motivated to register and unlock the potential for families to access often under-claimed additional financial support.  The registration process is not too onerous, it is about meeting the national minimum standards, and this is good for quality, safeguarding and for bringing a sector together under common goals and objectives.  Providers though will need to be motivated to make these changes in other ways through other incentives.  It will need to make business sense for them.  Likely chance of reducing costs for families: 6/10 (where it opens up supply in areas where it is insufficient). 
4. £10m for maintained nurseries (MNS) will be welcomed by many, but not all.  There is always a place for excellence, and we must be able to afford it.  But continuing funding MNS at a higher rate does not fundamentally address the role of them here and now, and their place in the childcare market alongside PVI provision.  We all need to agree their aim and purpose and what we all need and want from them.  Instead, the issue could again be kicked into the long-grass for the foreseeable future without answering these very important questions.  They are not widely considered to be the most flexible of childcare providers for working families, rather better for quality interventions for relatively small numbers of disadvantaged families instead.  With any generalisation, there will be exceptions.  Forgive me.  But these proposals do not include enough change or reform for a modern MNS service as far as I can see.  Likely chance of reducing costs for families: 2/10 (this is more about maintaining the status quo). 
5. A renewed campaign for driving up take-up of Tax-Free Childcare is the proposal with the most potential.  But the campaign must reach the parts previous national campaigns haven’t reached.  There needs to be a strong balance of new and differently presented, clear and accessible information, awareness raising, myth-busting, and support, interventions and motivations for providers and parents alike to take another look at this scheme.  More radical reform of Tax-Free Childcare isn’t on the cards here, but anything to reduce the labyrinth of process it contains would be very welcome indeed.  Likely chance of reducing costs for families: 6/10 (I know it will help some more families, but it could be far more wide reaching). 

What could the alternatives be I wonder?  That is another blog.  Or indeed, see previous blogs. 

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend (in person) the launch of new research: Implications of COVID for Early Childhood Education and Care in England, a study funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that was carried out by the Centre for Evidence and Implementation, the University of East London, Frontier Economics, Coram Family and Childcare and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. 

It revealed “considerably more” children from ethnic minority and disadvantaged backgrounds have missed out on formal early learning during this time.  It also found the number of children attending ECEC in the autumn 2021 had dropped to 90% of expected levels based on pre-pandemic patterns.

Having dedicated all my time to thinking about, developing solutions, and supporting local authorities and early years and childcare providers – socially during the past two years, I was eager to take this amazing opportunity to reflect upon what has happened, think about the current temperature, identify the risks and impacts, and consider what needs to be done next.

Much of what was found will be familiar territory to providers, LA early years teams, and anyone in a position like mine.  Many of the risks we had feared have been manifested.  That said, there are some surprises and even reasons to be cheerful.  The bounce-back-ability of children, families, employment, practitioners and providers, and local authorities has been impressive overall.  Helped by an enormous human capacity to change, professional commitment to doing what is needed and what is best, and the things that central and local government was able to do to support.  Let’s pause to recognise and celebrate that. 

With any positives, there are also flipsides, and many negatives do exist – of course they do.  The provider base has remained relatively static.  Trends seen before the pandemic have persisted.  Regrettably, the numbers of childminders have continued to decrease.  More and more group settings have been acquired to become new links in ever-expanding chains.  

We have been building up to this point for some time.  And this extraordinary pandemic-fuelled episode has shone an even brighter light on what is wrong with all things early years.  Top of the list is the unhelpfully complex and unequitable structures and processes we experience in the sector.  That really must change.  But it can only change through root-and-branch review – not by chipping away at this massive marble monolith with a toy chisel.   

Naturally, children’s desire and ability to attend provision was dramatically compromised. Provision was closed or prioritised for keyworkers, constrained by guidance that did not always feel connected, consistent, or fair across all provision in the private, voluntary, independent sector and schools.  Employment was clearly a major stimulus in families’ engagement and re-engagement with society at large and using ECE in particular.  The more vulnerable or disadvantaged a family was or felt, the greater the likelihood they maintained a distance from ECE through the various lockdowns and the periods before and after.  This lower use by disadvantaged children has found to widen inequalities, and the risk of them being maintained or even exacerbated.  Low use is a matter that demands careful scrutiny.  Children may be coming back (90% by autumn 2021) but it is the type, frequency, and duration of use that is critically important.  And the characteristics and demographics of who is attending.  Inequalities were exposed by the research.  Notably of the likelihood of settings prioritising the placement of children who either needed longer hours or had greater capacity to pay fees.  PVI providers are more than aware of the effects and impacts on families’ capacity and demand in relation to the reduced payment of fees.  It is a vital business issue, and it removes their opportunity to change the lives of all children and families for the better.

As if it wasn’t difficult enough, families have felt an enormous strain on homelife and their parenting role in the pandemic.  This has been found to have increased their recognition of the support and benefits they enjoy from ECE.  Without it, many have noticed how their children’s development has been slowed in the areas of socialisation, speech, language and communication, physical development, and self-regulation.  All a result of spending less time with others, fewer stretch-engagements with early years professionals, reduced time outdoors, and engaging in more sedentary activities etc.  There is a developing sense of the right to access, and the critical importance of, the ECE entitlements.  And in parallel parents’ have are building a deeper awareness of the artificial inconsistencies and rules and regulations surrounding its supply, including the already controversial issue of free v. funded v. charged for ECE.  They will, I imagine, continue to challenge these and demand the change we all need.

Local authority early years teams’ support for parents (FIS and brokerage), and providers (business, funding, training) pivoted and was found to have helped.  Well done them.  The critical presenting provider issues were reduced income, increased demand on existing roles and functions (safeguarding, welfare, food, home learning), rising staffing costs and hours, workforce availability, and the risk of reduced Ofsted inspection outcomes. 

Where it has been most effective for providers, it has strengthened relationships and trust between the LA and the local sector.  This was a welcome development for me, having observed an erosion of this relationship in recent years and the LA role has become smaller and more constrained by multiple factors (financial, political, legal).  There was inevitable inconsistency, what some LA areas could easily achieve was an unsurmountable challenge for others.  Unfortunately, providers in some areas were highly critical of what was considered to be a lack of effective support.  We did whatever we could at Hempsall’s to bring LAs together online to freely share our analysis and models of delivery, and for the facilitation of peer support and idea and resource sharing.  We all did what we could. 

What would the clever next steps be I wonder?  There are three:

• New strategy and inputs: Naturally, the report asks for more funding.  Let’s rephrase that so it lands better with those that hold the purse-strings:  We need a clearer, simpler model for all ECE, and one that strips out the unhelpful inequity in supply and demand.  We also need to streamline the labyrinth of process that seeks to protect the public purse, but instead deters equal access to a service that can only have best outcomes for children and families.  That can save money, it can redistribute it by spending it in better ways, we will need more funds as well – but we will deliver more for it. 
• Wider vision and outcomes: I agree that ECE needs to be attached to all of its outcomes, not unnaturally and politically-lazily adhered to one over all the others.  This is a cross government, multiple-outcome strategy for learning and achievement, health, safeguarding and child protection, social care, family/parenting support, tackling cycles of disadvantage, and economic and employment opportunities for children, young people, the workforce and parents.  Some may say ‘levelling up’ in short. 
• Local leadership and partnership: When it comes to the LA role.  Much (not all) already exists, especially in legal statutory duties.  What is missing is the enablers for them to make this happen.  The resource, funding, and remit that combines to form the energy for achieving results.  There is a need for more in all parts here, including new approaches to working with a sector that has matured considerably over the past 20 years. 

Read the report here: Concern for the inequality gap has increased as children from ethnic minority and disadvantaged backgrounds missed out on “considerably more” early years educat | Family and Childcare Trust

Said Lord Laming in his report of the Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie in 2003 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-victoria-climbie-inquiry-report-of-an-inquiry-by-lord-laming  Since then, I have carried that mission, wholly and completely.  I committed myself to that principle, and have shared it with countless organisations, professionals, and practitioners whilst delivering child protection and safeguarding consultancy, policy development and implementation, and training ever since. It was an excellent and thorough report that shaped mine and a generation’s work. 

That was almost 20 years ago.  Not enough has changed.  Mistakes and oversights remain a feature of the landscape.  Family-facing, management and leadership capacity is stretched to the limit within a climate of increasing demand.  Yet we must continue to be vigilant, observant, demanding, and assertive when working with children and families, or coming into contact with them through any of life’s various activities.  It still is, and so it should be, everyone’s role and responsibility.  And within that principle we should all have equal power and place.

Theory and policy is one thing.  Practice is the most important.  This is the frequent pattern and trend of inquiries or reviews when things don’t work as they should in this field.  It is taking appropriate and timely action that makes the biggest difference. 

Today was one of those days when I stepped up.  I had developed a concern and I made a personal report of the concern of a child, having taken what now feels like too long to do so.  Watching and observing from a distance I had witnessed an extended period of unhealthy household behaviours through a lens of distant sceptical analysis.  Being fully aware of the details of rising intervention thresholds and increasing caseloads and pressures on services, I was more than a little deterred from taking the action that I instinctively knew to be right and proper.  That cannot be right – it doesn’t help any of our resilient agency.  I hope that we all can work together better to encourage more of such dialogues, particularly around the fundamental basic right of children to be cared for and for them to thrive through their formative years.

Today I reported my concern about the welfare and possible neglect of that child.  The process (of course) was careful, right and appropriate.  I was supported to share my concerns, and to describe them specifically, accurately, and objectively.  All information shared was confirmed.  The next steps were outlined, and the important consents agreed.  I was thanked for playing my part in sharing information, that would in turn be given to the relevant children’s services.  The phone call ended.  Then I cried, sat alone in the private room I used to make the call.  I wondered why?  It felt like one of the most important things I had done for quite some time.  Because it was.  It was also a difficult thing to do, even though I have done it before.  An action that felt full of judgment, accusation, assumption, and raw emotions.  Sentiments I recognise were around anger, and a sense of injustice, helplessness, and despair.  All things that can get in the way of anyone, no matter how confident and experienced, taking the time to make a referral their business and to realise Laming’s mission.

Come on in.  All are welcome.  It is great to see how all things LGBTTTQQIAA are so much more recognised, varied and included (these days).  But it takes a whole lot more than a rainbow lanyard to fully appreciate what is happening here. 

I never in my wildest dreams thought the world would catch up as much as it has in my lifetime.  Thank goodness it has, in part.  Thank you to everyone who played a part in making that happen for me and for everyone else.  The pioneers, the campaigners, the advocates, the politicians and the lawmakers, too many to mention all of them.  I have special regard for the ones that stand out for me: Sir Ian McKellen, Peter Tatchell, and Boy George.  And for the other real people who have lived their lives, died for basic human rights, put themselves at risk, and helped society to leave fear and prejudice at the door, and recognise, value and protect individual liberty and love. 

The fearless, courageous, direct-acting, visionary and politically astute, and confrontational Peter Tatchell, deserves an extended mention.  He has been countering head-on the constructed narrative, hypocrisy and collusion of general society and of those in power.  He is someone who has literally diced with serious injury and death.  A man clearly ahead of his time.  He is a “performance artist”, said Stephen Fry.  Which for me are perfect accolades.   I would dream of such epitaphs.  Aren’t all great people ahead of their time?  It’s those that follow convention that disappear into history.  Tatchell has challenged my thinking very many times.  Sometimes I have been shocked by his actions and I haven’t always approved and appreciated them.  I do now, on reflection.  In ‘Hating Peter Tatchell’, his life story of controversial human rights campaigning was told – his provocative acts of civil disobedience had rocked the establishment, revolutionised attitudes to homosexuality and exposed tyrants in the fight for equality.  The Executive Producers were Elton John and David Furnish.  Crikey, in that film, even the Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey) conceded his “assessment of Peter, now, is that he has been a figure for good, and for equality, here is a man with deep conviction, he’s rocked the boat, and there is a sense in which there is a parallel to Jesus Christ.  Jesus was prepared to stand up against the powerful people in society and represent the smaller people [dreadful phrase] where some of us might question his tactics, no one can doubt he’s on the right side of history”.  An appraisal coming from the recent establishment like that, was truly mind blowing to me.  Late, but welcome, nonetheless.  Especially when I remember Carey frozen to the spot, confused about what to do, allowing his security guards to tackle Tatchell when he stormed his pulpit at Easter 1998.  Something for which Tatchell was fined a measly £18.60.

“Don’t accept the world as it is.  Dream of what the world could be – and then help make it happen.” said Tatchell.  I happily and willingly accept that mission.  But to do so, one must have bravery and courage. 

Pride means different things to different people.  Do enjoy the party.  But don’t forget the battle scars collected along the way, nor the wars still raging, and those yet to come.  The liberties we enjoy here today still feel fragile and vulnerable and they are certainly not universal.  Things are changing politically and socially here and across the world, but people live under oppression even in countries where homosexuality is permissible.  Then there are over 70 countries of the world where it remains illegal, in some places it is punishable by death.  For me that all adds up to make PRIDE a bittersweet experience.  One not reconciled by shrink-wrapping corporate headquarters in rainbow flags, or by department store window-dressing, as well-meaning as that is.  None of it should be allowed to drown out the voices of those who know, who experience and feel the lived realities of identifying as LGBTTTQQIAA. 

I am reflecting on chairing a work webinar about supporting children’s healthy food and activity choices.  It finished moments ago.  The statistics from the NHS’ National Child Measuring Programme were shared and they are nothing short of startling.  There is a clear link with the pandemic.  It has made what was already a concerning picture even worse. 

Childhood obesity is a significant problem, we all know that.  We hear it often enough.  And children are soaking up the messages, the misinformation, the emotional anxiety and confusion, like sponges.  The rates in children have been fairly static since 2006.  For reception aged children (that’s those aged four and five years) around 23% were found to be obese or overweight.  Almost a quarter.  But since the pandemic they have increased to almost 28%.  That’s a five per cent jump upwards.  Those classed as obese have risen from 9.9% to 14.4%, and severely obese children have doubled and are now 4.7% from 2.4%.

What is even more depressing is things progressively worsen by the time children are in year six (aged 10 and 11 years).  By then the rates (2020-2021) are obese and overweight 40.9%, obese 25.5%, and severely obese 6.3%.  This data is staggering.  What was once atypical is now becoming the norm.  I wonder how long it will take for the norm to become the majority?    

The solutions are out there, we know that to solve the problem healthier food choices and physical movement are the answer.  The Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme is a wonderful way to achieve that for the most disadvantaged families. But I fear we are not all being bold and ambitious enough in changing the ways we all behave and structure the lives of our children and young people. This is a matter for HAF and all services for children and their parents.

Once a playworker, always a playworker I say.  And that indeed was one of my earliest jobs.  I learned then its potent power and how it could change lives.  I noticed how active learning is hugely impactful.  After all, it suits the learning style of so many of us.  But alas, too often the emphasis in schools is placed upon sitting down, making small marks on paper, walking not running, and tightly packed timetable crammed to bursting with ‘learning’ leaving creativity and activity on the cutting room floor. 

Can someone, somewhere please have the courage to reinvent this learning wheel?  I heard the other day a story of how a boy had been found to be unable to settle in class, no doubt wanting and needing to expend pent-up energy fuelled by whatever was happening in his life and psychology and physiology.  The response was to remove his opportunity for a breaktime.  I would have proposed a longer breaktime myself. 

I call for lots of running in corridors, for children to be seen and heard, for freer timetabling, for active and engaging learning, problem solving, outdoor time and learning, and breaktimes as rewards and solutions to needs (sometimes called punishments or detentions).  There should be better school food, that children will want to eat as they will be so ravenously hungry after all this activity.  It seems we need to change our language too.  I am not asking for much.  Pretty sure it would result in happier, healthier children to boot, and easily reverse that trend in those graphs and stats.