To the point - The most urgent reform
Helen Penn, professor of early childhood studies, University of East London
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The coalition Government has a long list of policies it wants to review and rewrite. That's what new Governments do, even though it is an exhausting exercise, and may not in the end lead anywhere.
As usual, I half agree with some of the proposals. The welfare-work balance is out of kilter, and people (especially mothers) need to be able to come off benefits without losing out financially.
Regulation is always a problem. We have a draconian and over-centralised system of regulation in Ofsted, and local authorities, who are on the spot, have little say over what goes on locally. It would be better to set higher levels for qualification and training and for premises, so standards do not need to be constantly patrolled through inspections - we could expect and trust that any nursery would be a decent, stimulating place for children to spend their time.
The EYFS needs revising. It manages to be prescriptive and vacuous at the same time.
Overall, there is a real need for improvement and change in early years.
But one reform overshadows all others. Whatever system of early years we have in place, we need to reduce poverty and inequality. There are three incontrovertible facts about inequality. The first is that inequality is increasing, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. The second fact is that inequality and poverty are bad - very bad - for children. Poor children do less well, and have fewer opportunities. They get ill more often, and their expectations and prospects are invariably worse. In the long-term, society suffers as a result of all those wasted opportunities. We believe in equality of opportunity and in individual success and striving. Yet we also appear to accept that children born at the bottom tend to stay there.
But the third incontrovertible fact is that we can do something about inequality. It is possible to reduce child poverty to less than 10 per cent, rather than our present 20 per cent. It is not enough to provide targeted services for some poor children, and hope that will compensate for wider inequalities. We know that it won't. Equality means an equal chance for all children. So my measure of the coalition's success would be the extent to which it can reduce child poverty and take a moral stand on inequality. At the moment it does not even seem to be on their agenda.
