An alarmist article in the Guardian (8 July) suggested that nurseries were taking in two-year-olds and churning out anti-social, aggressive children. The Government, the newspaper claimed, was poised for a rethink. Four days later Chancellor Gordon Brown demolished that notion in his spending review and announced plans to extend pilots for nursery education to 12,000 two-year-olds in 500 areas.
The anger over the Guardian's selective use of research has been matched by the warm response from early years practitioners, at least in general terms, to proposals to integrate childcare and education, extend nursery education and develop quality, affordable childcare for all families by 2015.
The Chancellor promised to spend an extra 100m and increase the proposed number of children's centres providing integrated services to children and families from 1,700 to 2,500 by 2008 in the 30 per cent most disadvantaged wards. This could mean that 70 per cent of families living on low incomes, rather than the original projected figure of 50 per cent, could access such services. He also pledged to create an additional 120,000 childcare places (see box for details).
He was hailed as the 'childcare champion' by the Daycare Trust, while the charity 4Children said he was championing the interests of the poorest children.
'The Chancellor is recognising the importance of viewing the needs of children and young people as a whole - crucial if we are to tackle the most complex problems of poverty,' says chief executive Anne Longfield.
Shortcomings
But, as always, the devil is in the detail - or rather, in the eyes of many leading figures in the sector, the lack of it. There are ambitious plans in the five-year education plan, which preceded the spending review, for greater flexibility in delivering nursery education to three- and four-year-olds, and a vision of integrated education and childcare - educare - from 8am to 6pm, 48 weeks of the year, which primary schools will eventually be expected to offer.
All laudable aims. But there are concerns over the level of funding, the absence of clear mechanisms for delivery, a perceived yawning gap in staff training and an unrealistic timescale, with some warning that implementing the children's centres proposal requires a ten-year plan. That timescale becomes all the more problematic with the Chancellor's unexpected announcement of an additional 800 centres.
Early years partnerships are being increasingly sidelined and strategic control resides with local authorities, who are being told in the five-year plan to develop integrated services through children's trusts. But trusts are still at an embryonic stage and have only been trialled in 35 pilot areas.
Early years consultant and trainer Margaret Edgington says that currently there is an insufficient number of trained staff to work with three- and four-year-olds, let alone two-year-olds. 'The needs of two-year-olds are much more complex, they are more vulnerable,' she says. 'What is the Government offering? Is it nursery education, is it childcare? If these two-year-olds are put in with three-year-olds, there is a real concern that they will be getting a watered-down version of the Foundation Stage curriculum.'
The National Day Nurseries Association, which has warned of the erosion of the nursery education grant for three- and four-year-olds, has called for a more robust funding mechanism to underpin any expansion. It cautioned the Government not to create 'more childcare on the cheap, subsidised by the inevitable acceptance of low wages'.
Gill Haynes, chief executive of the National Childminding Association, argues that home-based childcare, such as registered childminding, must play a role in delivering educare. She says the Government should ensure that children's centres and primary schools offering the childcare guarantee 'integrate home-based childcare into their service provision'.
While welcoming the Government's pledge to create children's centres and extended schools in every community, Anne Longfield says that they will take ten years to develop and require a doubling of investment.
Eva Lloyd, a senior lecturer in childhood studies at Bristol University, also queries the cost implications of setting up integrated centres on school sites, warning that they may be forced to look for private finance initiative deals to pay for these facilities.
She challenges the Government's targeting of designated areas of disadvantage, as even the DfES accepts that 44 per cent of those on the lowest incomes do not live in these areas. 'I would be more interested if they had a plan to focus on young children and their entitlements and not just on compensatory education for children in disadvantaged areas. They should pilot these programmes in different types of areas,' she adds.
Scepticism
Scepticism about the funding of the proposed centres, which are intended to combine childcare, early education, health, family and employment support, is also expressed by the Social Market Foundation. Lead researcher Vidhya Alakeson warns, 'The sums just don't add up on children's centres. There isn't enough investment, so the price of childcare will have to be kept relatively high to make ends meet for providers. The kinds of prices we are talking about just aren't affordable for most low-income families, even with full entitlement to the childcare tax credit.' So the very people this service is designed for may not be able to afford it.
The problem with the Government's strategy, says Margaret Edgington, is that 'it is all about numbers: how many children and how many centres. Rather than developing 2,500, let's have more pilots and see whether they really work. There is evidence that they are getting too big and the staff are so busy keeping all the plates spinning'. She doubts that such large facilities will be suitable for very young children.
Helen Penn, professor of early childhood at the University of East London, describes the five-year plan as 'extremely muddled, superficial and self-congratulatory'. She says the DfES has stated the principle of educare but given no indication of what it means and who is going to deliver it. 'It's not a case of small adjustments in policy, but a major rethink about what children need and the best way to deliver it,' she adds.
In a rhetorical flourish, Gordon Brown concluded his Commons speech with a sweeping pledge that 'the early part of the 21st century should be marked by the introduction of pre-school provision for the under-fives and childcare available to all'.
But if this vision is to be realised and scepticism among practitioners on the ground is to be overcome, the Government will have to move on from making grandiose pledges to providing sufficient funding, better training and a clearer perspective.
