Developing Policy for Early Years Education - Assignment Example

CRITICALLY DISCUSS THE PROGRESS MADE IN DEVELOPING POLICY FOR EARLY YEARS EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE UNDER THE NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Critically discuss the progress made in developing policy for early years education and childcare under the new labour government Introduction The progress made in developing new places for childcare as well as in offering early education since 1998 has been extremely impressive, but according to NAO (2004) disadvantaged areas where both children and parents would most benefit are yet to benefit. In this case, the investment by the UK government will be exhausted if the recent policy is not feasible. Waldegrave and Lee (2013) suggest that more training is essential, in particular for childminders, and education providers require more backing from the government so as to run their early education or childcare centres. By 2001 almost 100,000 new centres for childcare had been created and the then Government was still on the track to meet the set goals in offering free part-time childcare for children aged between 3 and 4 years. Undoubtedly, early childhood is a vital age of a human in growing to be biologically mature. Therefore, high quality education as well as care has widespread effects, particularly for underprivileged groups, whereas childcare of pitiable quality may have a harmful impact (NAO, 2004). Ever since the introduction of National Childcare Strategy in 1998, Melhuish and Petrogiannis (2006) claim that there are adequate centres for early education to provide a place for free part-time to every child aged four years whose parents wish for one. Scores of areas across UK at the moment have adequate centres for early years education and childcare. In this essay we critically discuss progress made in developing policy for early years education and childcare under the new labour government Critical Analysis The UK’s childcare policy has progressed noticeably since 1998, but in several ways, the policy remains incoherent and disjointed (Penn, 2007, p.6). The UK as mentioned by NAO (2004) has diverse systems for funding, which are run by distinct departments, and sometimes tensions can crop up between what distinct policies they are endeavouring to accomplish. Early years education and childcare in the private sector, particularly corporate childcare in UK, has per Parker-Rees and Willan (2006) risen considerably in the last decade. This is because the sector has not just been supported by diverse measures set by the government, but also the sector has securely been regulated. According to Parker-Rees and Willan (2006), this regulation has resulted in exceedingly higher fee charges, as well as reduced earnings, given that the costs of sustaining the levels of staffing to employees and families is passed on by the providers. However, the private sector expansion has not been equalled by the considerable rise in the numbers of mothers working. Evidently, the childcare industry is heading for a crisis, and is putting forth a substantial pressure on the new Labour Government to loosen up regulations as well as to heighten financial assistances (Hartas, 2013, p.2). The new Labour Government is about to experience an protest if it loosens up regulations, even though other EU nations, most particularly the Netherlands who have succeeded to do this through the 2005 Netherlands Childcare Act and as a result childcare has become inexpensive. The best course that the labour Government can follow is to realign welfare taxation as well as benefits, in order that it is more cost-effective for mothers who are poor. However, this course was floated due to much public resentment, but Lewis (2008, p.100) thinks that if the present Labour Government is defeated in the coming elections by the Conservative Party, then childcare in the private sector is on the verge of further stiffening its hold. Netherlands, for instance, is successful because it proposed a strong idea of a childcare that is focuses, impartial, and collectively reachable, and also its early years education was publicly funded (Lewis, 2008, p.100). The UK Government initially seemed to also subscribe to this plan, but according to Penn (2011, p.153) it is no more a viable alternative due to the size of the private sector as compared with the public sector. This state of affairs implies that more in depth research with regard to corporate as well as single trader for-profit sector is now required, both concerning its day after day running as well as its fiscal impact. The Labour Government view is that private sector has generated more suppleness as well as improvement as compared to what the government could ever offer, and their services are more efficient and cheap than services provided by the government (NAO, 2004). This is factual since most nurseries for early years education were instituted as innovative small-scale investments started by nursery nurses and teachers, who were dedicated to escape from oppressive rules of government. Certainly, the market needed to grow extremely fast, as anticipated by the government, but the corporatisation as well as consolidation of early years education and childcare indicates that profitability in the market are at the moment vital. In 2002-03, the Government used £3.6 billion and had used up £14 billion on early years education and childcare since 1998, essentially through local authority financial support for early education as well as proposals to increase the ease of use of childcare in UK (NAO, 2004). Additionally, parents had to pay an additional £3 billion every twelve months to childcare outlay. In 2004, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) managed to offer centres for free part-time early education, particularly for children aged between 3 and 4 years whose parents need it (Miller & Hevey, 2012, p.110). According to NAO more centres for childcare have been built since 1998, but the government has experienced net losses several forms of provision and the sustainability of this policy is experiencing some threats. Besides that, there has been an improvement in affordability for those aimed by the policies of offering centres for free part-time education and tax credit costs for childcare have increased (Hirst & Nutbrown, 2005, p.97). The DfES has set up a comprehensive measures framework to improve the childcare quality. Proportionally, early years education and childcare is less accessible for underprivileged groups (like children from aboriginal groups or those with special needs). However, the state of affairs is getting better; and the DfES has run campaigns for recruitment to draw employees to the education sector, but according to NAO they are yet to attract enough employees for the coming days. Ever since the introduction of the National Childcare Strategy, NAO claim that more than 600,000 new centres for childcare have been opened, but over 300,000 centres have as well been shut. Several types of provision have experienced net losses and also there is lots of variation at local and regional level. Furthermore, since the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, Cusworth (2012, p.20) posits that over 236,000 families are now claiming it. According to Melhuish and Petrogiannis (2006), DfES realized the 1998 target of offering adequate centres for early years education to offer a place for free part-time to every child aged four years. DfES also succeeded to offer equivalent centres for children aged 3 years by 2004, and by 2000 DfES had offered grant support to local authorities to allow them to meet the policy goals. Therefore, by 2003 sufficient centres had been created all over the country to realize the policy goals, even though there are still several gaps in a number of centres. DfES under the new labour Government continues to identify where these gaps subsist and is doing something to offer adequate centres for early years education and childcare. Since 1998, more centres for childcare are accessible, but there several forms of provision have experienced net losses and also there exists large discrepancies between areas (Cornille et al., 2006). With the goal of creating new centres for early years education and childcare that can be of benefit to more than one million children across UK, DfES kept in mind the projected turnover of centres and also presumed that a number of centres would benefit more children than others. Since the introduction of the measures almost 626,000 new centres for all ages were built in UK by 2003, but the number of centres closed surpassed the expectation of DfES. In view of the 2003 projections by the local authority, by 2004 there was an overall increase of 520,000 centres (NAO, 2004). The majority of the new centres are primarily financially supported by the New Opportunities Fund, and the sufficiency of meeting the then Government's target relied heavily on the mix of out of school, part-time and full-time places. Hitherto there exist some gaps in early year education and childcare provision for a number of groups as well as geographical areas. For instance, in OECD (2005, p.4) study only some parents had admitted that insufficient provision of childcare had stopped them from utilising childcare; however, about 15 percent of respondents alleged the non-existence of local option for their child. Furthermore, during flexible hours there is inadequate provision accessible to meet the desires of a few mothers, particularly single mothers, and also there for underprivileged groups and geographically there exists early year education and childcare provision gaps. In spite of the drastic increase in centres for early years education and childcare, variation at local and regional level is too much. But still, a number of progresses have been witnessed amongst providers, particularly childminders who are at present can provide for children with special needs. However, scores of providers are not qualified for this undertaking; and even though underprivileged children benefit a lot from this provision, the provision is low in most disadvantaged areas in UK as compared to other areas. But the new Labour Government has concentrated much of funding most disadvantaged areas, to narrow the gap in provision. Even though the DfES has looked for more progress in the sector by 2006, providers had already planned to get bigger. This is because providers believed that insufficient space as well as the desire for larger premises was the key obstacles to expansion. Besides that, the size of labour force was also seen as a possible obstacle. The growth of labour force since 2001 seems to be below the estimated 8-10 per cent, and that is why it became hard to meet the policy targets. According to Harker (1998, p.459), the new policy began using the funding from the government, even though this was inconsequential for growth of the then providers. Additionally, the policy sustainability with regard to early years education and childcare, and just 50% of new providers understood what they had do when they exhaust their start-up funding. Noticeable threats experienced during the development of the new policy consisted of competition posed by other providers, high staff turnover, and management burden. Scores of available providers did not manage to cover their expenses, and some of them lacked adequate knowledge of their expenses to evaluate their future feasibility. Therefore, to simply access provision for parents, DfES was compelled to make information services for childcare batter. These information services have been set up in all local authorities as well as in online platforms, and providers, particularly childminders, continue to depend on them to advertise their services. However, until the surfacing of social media in 2007, most parents did not use the online platforms. According to Hirst and Nutbrown (2005, p.97), there has been an improvement on affordability for a number of parents but expenses have increased for other parents: The affordability of providing childcare and early years education has a say whether parents will make use of it or not. Evidence suggests that households with that lower income utilize early years education services less as compared to other households. Furthermore, the costs of childcare as per Oldfield and Bradshaw (2011, p.131) have been an obstacle for parents desiring to train or work. For this reason, the labour Government made part-time provision accessible for free, but only for 3 and 4 year olds. But importantly, the government subsidised childcare for a number of low-income parents by means of tax credits. The Working Tax Credit, which is an element of childcare managed to subsidise childcare for more than 200,000 families, particularly single parents. Based on NAO (2004) study, almost 40% of parents under low-income received free early years education provision; but about 20% were able to meet the costs themselves. Besides that, the childcare cost for other households has increased in the 21st century, but the costs vary between the various age groups and extensively across the country. For example, a nursery offering early years full-time services for children below two years costs £107 per week in the West Midlands as compared to £168 in London. According to Osgood (2013), the DfES had to develop an in depth measures framework to advance the quality of childcare provision. Numerous studies proves that since introduction of policy, the quality of early education and childcare provision had positively impacted child development in UK, even though the value of the home learning setting is as well fundamental for the development of the child. Notably, early years education has been extremely of assistance for children aged three upwards, particularly for those coming from needy backgrounds. This is recognised by the new government targeting of childcare and early years provision on most disadvantaged areas through the launch of Children's Centres. Action has been taken by the local government to secure developments in areas with less provision of early years education and childcare. For this reason, the government set national standards, which according to Ball and Vincent (2005, p.559) tackle issues related with child special needs, care as well as education. Therefore, every year the childcare providers are inspected against the aforementioned standards by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (Naughton, 2014). Since the introduction of these inspections, the providers have embraced them positively and this proves that the standards are satisfactory. Most parents acknowledge the fact that provision of early years education has improved drastically, but most of them lament that the quality of childcare services has been so low. This has prompted the DfES to work with local partners on a campaign for national staff recruitment, and also develop new routes for training, which includes Foundation degree in Early Years. Furthermore, the government developed a framework for supporting children in their earlier years such as Birth to Three Matters. Besides that, additional progresses to quality as well as accessibility have heavily relied on the rapid growth of the childcare labour force. NAO holds the view that heightening the number of experienced as well as skilled childcare workforce has been the key facet of improving the provision of early years education as well as childcare. However, lack of qualified workforce continues to be the obstacle to expansion of early years education provision and for that reason the DfES has experienced a setback in heightening the skills as well as size of the staff in relation to its policy targets of building more centres. Furthermore, the government failed to meet its plan of recruiting 175,000 new workforces by 2006. The new Labour Government has failed to create real inroads that could have been different from the early years practices it inherited from the Conservative Government, which viewed early years education as an appurtenant to schooling and where childcare could be purchased from the marketplace. When Labour Party won in 1997 it had promised not to elevate the taxes, which clearly was a broken promise. Still, there was acknowledgment, subsequent to several years of pressure from specialists in the field of early child development and also from activist inside the Labour that the insufficient coordination amid such different grounds of early years provision was unsustainable. For this reason the Government decided to carry out major managerial amendments, and slowly every task related to early years education and childcare was transferred to DfES and also the government created a Minister for Children. As aforementioned such changes were reflected locally, whereby services of local authority were reorganised, with the intention that one senior administrator became in charge for all services related to children, instead of there being different welfare as well as education services. On this account, these changes were legitimised in 2004 by the Children. Subsequently, the DfES created a national curriculum as well as enacted policies for training and staffing in the field of early years, and this as mentioned by Munn (2006) was implemented by UK audit and inspection regimes. Munn (2006) further notes that, this regulatory framework was not seen just as a crucial step in making sure services in early education and childcare are more efficient, but also as an effort to create an unbiased environment in both the public as well as private sectors. However, Fenech (2012, p.329) thinks that a more rigid regulatory framework is essential to secure the needed quality of early years services provision in the midst of the various providers, and observance to regulations is should be prepared and supervised nationally not just by Ofsted, but also by DfES. Conclusion Conclusively, DfES must concentrate more in development of integrated provision for early years services as well as making sure it is sustainable. Even though, DfES has succeeded in creating centres for full-time and part-time early education, there is indication that parents, especially single mothers need more provision at flexible hours. Besides that, the government plan for further expansion must make be prioritised to sustainably sustain provision of early years education and childcare. We established in the literature that getting appropriate premises remain to be the only obstacle to expansion, and so DfES decided to develop the new provision in schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to prevail over this setback. However the policy was in danger for the reason that some schools had no plans to offer more early years services, and so DfES had to work with local authorities to persuade schools to offer these services, particularly for schools with accessible facilities. Besides, since 1998 the cost of early years education and childcare has increased drastically, and as a result low-income families are having challenges to meet the day-after-day needs. Even though, the labour government has done much to solve these issues by creating more provision centres, more is needed especially on the side of disadvantaged groups. References Ball, S.J. & Vincent, C., 2005. The 'childcare champion'? New Labour, social justice and the childcare market. British Educational Research Journal, vol. 31, no, 5, pp.557-70. Cornille, T.A., Mullis, R.L., Mullis, A.K. & Shriner, M., 2006. An Examination of Childcare Teachers in For-Profit and Non-Profit Childcare Centers. Early Child Development and Care, vol. 176, no. 6, pp.631-41. Cusworth, D.L., 2012. The Impact of Parental Employment: Young People, Well-Being and Educational Achievement. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd: London. Fenech, M., 2012. Discerning Childcare Quality: Parents as Potential Informants of Policy beyond Regulation. Critical Studies in Education, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.327-45. Harker, L., 1998. A national childcare strategy: Does it meet the childcare challenge? The Political Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 458-463. Hartas, D., 2013. Dyslexia in the Early Years: A Practical Guide to Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge, 2013. Hirst, K.M. & Nutbrown, C., 2005. Perspectives on Early Childhood Education: Contemporary Research. London: Trentham Books. Lewis, J., 2008. Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Melhuish, E. & Petrogiannis, K., 2006. Early Childhood Care & Education: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Miller, L. & Hevey, D., 2012. Policy Issues in the Early Years. London: SAGE. Munn, P., 2006. Mathematics in Early Childhood--The Early Years Maths Curriculum in the UK and Children's Numerical Development. International Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 38, no. 1, pp.99-111. NAO, 2004. Early Years: Progress in Developing High Quality Childcare and Early Education Accessible to All. National Report. London: The National Audit Office Comptroller and Auditor General. Naughton, L., 2014. Teaching toddlers. Community Practitioner, vol. 87, no. 6, pp.14-16. OECD, 2005. Babies and Bosses - Reconciling Work and Family Life (Volume 4) Canada, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom: Canada, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 4th ed. Paris: OECD Publishing. Oldfield, N. & Bradshaw, J., 2011. The costs of a child in a low-income household. The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.131-43. Osgood, J., 2013. Narratives from the Nursery: Negotiating Professional Identities in Early Childhood. London : Routledge. Parker-Rees, R. & Willan, J., 2006. Early Years Education: Policy and practice in early education and care. 3rd ed. London: Taylor & Francis. Penn, H., 2007. Childcare Market Management: how the United Kingdom Government has reshaped its role in developing early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 8, no. 3, pp.192-207. Penn, H., 2011. Gambling on the Market: The Role of For-Profit Provision in Early Childhood Education and Care. Journal of Early Childhood Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp.150-61. Waldegrave, H. & Lee, E.b.L., 2013. Quality Childcare: Improving early years childcare. Policy Exchange. London: Policy Exchange. Read More