CEY0953

Written evidence submitted by Paint Pots Pre-School and Nursery Ltd

How affordable and easy to understand is the current provision of childcare in England and what steps, if any, could be taken to improve it, especially in relation to families living within the most deprived areas in England?

The continuing cost pressures on providers has resulted in the withdrawal of services in less affluent areas and this is set to accelerate as more provision closes with the increase in minimum wage and business rates for those affected. Childcare providers have few options in mitigation. Where parents are able to pay fees, they will continue to experience an increase in their bills. Where the provider relies solely on government funding and families are unable or unwilling to pay any voluntary contribution towards the costs of childcare, it is likely that the provision will become unsustainable and close, reducing the availability of provision in the area. We now have a 2 tier system with high quality provision for those who can afford to pay and reducing availability of any provision in areas of deprivation.

The very obvious solution is for government to properly fund the childcare hours its contracts out via the local authorities.

The principle and the rhetoric regarding “free” childcare is a misnomer and misleading. As the grant provided does not cover the cost of provision, it is not free. Providers and other parents are subsidising these hours through cross charging.

Policy and decision makers must be made aware of the need for high quality early years education as an investment in our next generation. Political debate focuses on “childcare” as an expensive option for parents / carers preventing them from engaging in the workforce and contributing tax revenues. This is not the primary reason why we should invest in service for young children. The well-known Heckman equation provides the evidence for return on such investment Invest in Early Childhood Development: Reduce Deficits, Strengthen the Economy - The Heckman Equation   

Are the current entitlements providing parents/carers with sufficient childcare, and to what extent are childcare costs affecting parents/carers from returning to work full-time?

Current entitlements for both 2 year olds and 3 and 4 year olds do not match to parental requirements. It seems illogical that those on combined salaries up to £200K are eligible for 30 hours funded childcare hours for 38 weeks a year whilst those unable to work above 16 hours are only entitled to 15 hours. Similarly the eligibility for the 15 hour entitlement for 2 year olds needs to be reviewed.    

Any review should consider first and foremost the needs of the child. In particular, there are an increasing number of children experiencing behavioural and development difficulties post-covid. The funding and support services for these children are insufficient to enable providers to meet their needs and are one of the reasons staff are leaving the workforce due to the stress of having to contain these children in an early years setting without the necessary support and resources. This is a serious and increasing issue.  

Whether the current Tax-Free Childcare scheme, and support for childcare from the benefits and tax credit system, is working effectively or whether these subsidies could be better used within other childcare subsidies.

I understand that take-up of tax-free childcare by those who are eligible, is significantly below the total entitlement. This in itself is an indication of the ineffectiveness of the current system. Commentators have suggested that the current range of subsidies and entitlements is overly complex and unclear. Consequently, families are certainly missing out on financial support. A review of these with a view to making it easier for families and providers, would seem to be necessary. 

Early years provision

What challenges do early years providers face in terms of workforce, including recruiting, and retaining qualified staff, and the barriers faced by individuals joining the profession? To what extent has the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated workforce challenges?

The covid-19 pandemic and subsequent inflationary pressures have accelerated the exodus of staff from the sector. Retention is a major issue with providers unable to offer salary levels commensurate with other sectors e.g. retail. Staff are leaving because they are relatively underpaid, the job role has low status, with increasing stress and workload. Consequently, we are losing qualified individuals with skills, knowledge and experience. Many owners / leaders of individual settings and other senior managers are ageing and have or will shortly leave the profession. Covid experiences have prompted early retirement or job changes for many.    

Recruitment is an issue because there is a reducing pool of qualified staff and few new staff entering the profession. The qualifications requirement of the statutory framework make it very difficult for providers to adequately staff settings. This has led to partial or full closure of settings.

Whether the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system is meeting the needs of pupils with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND), and the improvements that could be made to better support young children with SEND within early years provisions.

It is not usual to refer to those attending early years settings as pupils nevertheless, as noted above, there has been an increase in the number of children presenting with additional needs in early years settings. Support is poor in terms of finance, systems and specialist advice services and skilled and experienced staff available to provide one to one support. Assessment takes far too long. Providers and parents are having to advocate very strongly on behalf of individual children to access any funding or support from finite and insufficient local authority budgets. Too often, children are left until they start school, partly because early years voices are often not taken seriously and it is felt that children don’t really count until they start ‘proper’ school.      

To what extent does the early years system adequately prepare young children for their transition into primary education, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Early years should prepare children for life not just school. Schools should match their provision to the needs of the children not the other way round. Some schools are good at this, others less so. The pressure for children to start a formal academic curriculum ever younger is in most cases developmentally inappropriate and damaging to their wellbeing, cognitive and social emotional and personal development. We should take a serious look at the notion of extending early years or kindergarten through to age 7 as many of our European neighbours do, with much success. NB the Scandinavian countries. This enables children to continue to learn primarily through experiential play and positive warm relationships with specialist early years teachers.      

The extent to which the reduction of Sure Start Children’s Centres has affected children and families, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the role of Family Hubs.

The fact that Family Hubs have been introduced, as effectively rebranded Sure Start Centres, shows the mistake in removing the funding from Sure Start. Yes, there were inefficiencies in the way many of these were run but they undoubtedly provide a centre for community support, education and cohesion for families, benefitting children and carers alike and linking agencies to provide improved and more effective services to communities. We clearly need to review and build on current provision. Once again, it would seem to be a no-brainer to invest in prevention through adequate support rather than picking up the pieces further downstream at a significantly great financial and social cost.    

January 2023