Policy issue: Childcare THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT ON EARLY YEARS CHILDCARE PROVISION

Should the main responsibility of childcare provision be with the state or the parents? THE QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY

‘Parents in severe poverty are cutting back on key essentials simply to pay for childcare: Nearly half of families living in severe poverty have cut back on food to afford childcare compared to one third of families on higher incomes. Families living in severe poverty were more than twice as likely to have cut back on household bills just to afford childcare costs as families on higher incomes. Parents in severe poverty were more than twice as likely to cut back on after-school activities such as swimming as parents on higher incomes. Parents in severe poverty are making very difficult financial choices simply to pay for childcare: Almost one in ten families living in severe poverty said they have moved home as a result of difficulties finding suitable childcare, twice as many as those on incomes over £30,000. The cost of childcare has caused a third of parents living in severe poverty to get into debt compared to less than a quarter of parents living on higher incomes.’ The Daycare Trust (2011) Making Work Pay – The Childcare Trap, London: The Daycare Trust, p. 3. THE LEFT’S WORRIES: CHILD POVERTY

‘We are calling on the UK government to: Ensure a minimum of 80% of childcare costs are covered under Universal Credit up to current weekly limits. Over time, as the economic situation improves, increase this support so that it covers 100% of costs, increase the maximum limits in line with inflation and introduce an additional higher band for families with three or more children.’ The Daycare Trust (2011) Making Work Pay – The Childcare Trap, London: The Daycare Trust, p. 2. THE LEFT’S GOAL: AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE NOW

‘This paper has argued strongly that the government is correct to emphasise the importance and efficacy of providing support at the earliest stages in a child’s life. In particular, it has commended the coalition’s willingness to embrace the firm evidence on the central importance of the Home Learning Environment for child development by advocating a strategy that urges “a much wider culture shift towards recognising the importance of parenting” and looks to enable “parenting advice and support to be considered the norm”. As an examination of the science behind early brain and skill development makes clear, what parents do with their children in these vital early years is of fundamental importance to all that follows. This evidence in turn creates the imperative for greater efforts at intervention directed at the family sphere to prevent the squandering of so much individual potential (particularly among children from lower-income backgrounds), however counter-intuitive this may feel from a traditional liberal perspective. Indeed, if a core element of liberalism is to allow each individual to realise their full potential, such a squandering is in fact itself deeply and fundamentally illiberal.’ Paterson, C. (2011) Parenting Matters: Early Years and Social Mobility, London: CentreForum, pp THE RIGHT’S WORRIES: BAD PARENTING

‘A core mantra repeated consistently by leading politicians in the coalition to explain the policies being implemented to restore financial stability is that “it is unfair to burden future generations with debt”. By the same rationale, it is equally unfair to future generations (both morally and, in terms of wasted potential, economically) to burden them with an ossified society in which, more so than in almost any other developed nation, where a child will get to is in such large part dictated by where they have come from. It is in this context that the government must be willing to explore inventive and even potentially controversial mechanisms by which its laudable willingness to focus on the crucial area of the Home Learning Environment and parenting can go beyond being a general tool for child development and become an active weapon to counteract disadvantage.’ Paterson, C. (2011) Parenting Matters: Early Years and Social Mobility, London: CentreForum, p. 62. THE RIGHT’S GOAL: SOCIAL MOBILITY FOR THE FUTURE

 What do you think?  Is it the parents or the system that is the problem?  If you sit on the fence and say both, do you still feel as if one of the options we have covered (subsidised childcare or parental guidance) is the better option?  If so, why?  Do you think it makes sense for the government to make decisions based on the future career prospects (or social mobility) of toddlers?  And do you think that poor parents being forced to do courses to receive their benefits is ethical and would even work?  On the other hand, is it fair to children to subsidise childcare, so that parents can work and spend more time away from their children?  And is it fair that our taxes should be spent on supporting parents who do not look after the children they could presumably not afford to have in the first place? FIX THE PARENTS OR THE SYSTEM?

 An extreme right wing perspective on childcare might be to suggest that children are absolutely the responsibility of their parents.  Thereby, if they do not know or cannot afford to look after them then they should not have had them.  An extreme left wing perspective might be to put childcare absolutely in the hand of the state, as opposed to the parents  Thereby attempting to ensure equality in the child’s experience of upbringing and an alignment in the values and education of citizens.  What would be the problems or benefits of these extremes?  If you HAD to chose one, which would it be and why? GREATER EXTREMES

The Daycare Trust (2011) Making Work Pay – The Childcare Trap, London: The Daycare Trust. Paterson, C. (2011) Parenting Matters: Early Years and Social Mobility, London: CentreForum. REFERENCES