The updated charging guidance from the Department for Education has sparked confusion, frustration, and – let's face it – unintended chaos. As providers, we constantly think through the impact of our actions, weighing risks and benefits. That same level of thought doesn't seem to have been applied to the new guidance, and who loses?
Let's take food as an example. The guidance says meals must be optional, with parents free to bring their own packed lunches instead. On the surface, this seems reasonable – children take packed lunches into schools and some pre-schools. But picture the reality: a baby in nursery all day with a packed breakfast, snack, lunch and tea. Children at an age where they'll lunge for another child's food, especially when allergens aren't controlled. And let's not even talk about the health impact of sending a child in with food that doesn't meet the nutritional standards nurseries work hard to maintain. The DfE suggests we might encourage parents to opt in or out of food with a term's notice. But if fewer children opt in, the cost per child of high-quality food goes up. Should parents face fluctuating meal costs based on other parents' decisions? Isn't this just another policy that deepens the disadvantage attainment gap?
It doesn't end with food. The new guidance also extends to extracurricular activities, which must be optional. Here we go again – another policy that risks creating a two-tier system, where children from lower-income families miss out on important learning experiences like music classes and trips. These activities aren't just ‘nice-to-haves’ but are crucial for a child's physical, social and emotional development. Imagine a child who misses out because their parents can't pay – it's a divide that shouldn't exist in 2025.
And let's not forget the impact on nurseries. The ‘guidance’ creates a minefield of red tape, leaving providers scrambling. With each new rule, more time is spent on admin and less on educating children. Instead of support for high-quality provision, nurseries will be buried in paperwork and compliance nightmares. And what happens when local authorities go above and beyond, creating a postcode lottery with more bureaucracy on top of an already complicated system? The intention to avoid extra charges is admirable, but it overlooks the real cost: the time and energy spent on managing bureaucratic burdens, and the cost of failing to get it right in the early years.
