Opinion: Letters

The Government's plan to scrap tax relief on employer-supported childcare is just another proposed change to what is already an unnecessarily bureaucratic system of funding childcare.

There are too many forms of funding: tax credits; employer-assisted childcare, including vouchers, which favours higher-income two-parent families; 'free childcare' for 390 to 580 hours a year (when to qualify for the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit, parents have to work 16 hours a week, or 832 hours a year); as well as direct contributions from parents, grandparents and others.

There are also far too many channels for funding: from Government to parents to provider (tax credits); from employer to voucher company to parent to provider (employer assisted); from central Government to local government to providers (free hours); and so on.

All of this confuses and annoys parents, frustrates providers as it takes up our time when we could, and should, be concentrating on children, and sets statutory and private providers against each other.

Childcare is now accepted as a quality-driven necessity to aid development, rather than just a babysitting service. The sector, currently in its adolescence, needs to consider how it can grow into adulthood.

For many years to come, the sector will remain a mixed economy of state, private, voluntary and independent parties, with PVI settings forming the vast majority of the sector.

Quality can and must be provided and so costed. The real cost of quality provision has to be met by a combination of our taxes and parental contribution. There is no alternative.

The playing field must be level, with both quality and finance being the same for all providers (and those that cannot or won't meet standards shouldn't be in our sector).

Unless taxes are increased significantly, universal provision cannot become a reality, so means testing to determine parental contribution is the only option, and one that needs tackling.

All providers - irrespective of whether they are state or PVI - should be paid directly, not through second or third parties. And there should be a single funding stream, with one funding form for one child to cover all their needs and requirements - perhaps a single 'voucher' for every child going direct to the providers of childcare.

Let's not bicker or tinker but seek a single system to providing high-quality, accessible, affordable and sustainable childcare and development.

Tom Shea, FRSA, childcarer

Letter of the Week wins £30 worth of books

STARTER FOR SIX

In light of the publication of the Cambridge Primary Review, I am inclined to agree that there is a strong argument for the extension of the EYFS up to the age of six. Evidence from other European countries suggests that when children start school at the age of six or seven, standards are often higher than in England. Therefore, we should take the outcomes and recommendations from this report seriously.

In order to prepare children for school and life in the wider world, the EYFS helps them to learn and develop at their own pace. It also provides a structure by which they learn to communicate and form opinions and attitudes. I am fully supportive of the EYFS and its focus on the child at the centre of learning; the EYPS provides a solid foundation for delivering its principles.

My group recognises the importance of play in early childhood and how, through play, children develop invaluable skills such as problem-solving, maths, science, basic literacy and social skills. A child's early years are vitally important for their lifelong emotional and educational development, and any way of encouraging a positive attitude towards learning will always be high on our agenda.

We look forward to further debate regarding this matter and the eventual outcomes.

Abi Golland, head of early years, kidsunlimited nurseries

Send your letters to...

The Editor, Nursery World, 174 Hammersmith Road, London W6 7JP

letter.nw@haymarket.com

020 8267 8401