Ministers said today that their proposals to increase the number of two-year-olds staff can look after from four to five could potentially reduce the cost by up to £40 per week, for a family paying £265 per week for care for their two-year-old - if providers adopt the changes and pass all the savings on to parents.
However, survey findings show there is little appetite among providers to implement the changes, while parents have launched petitions and campaigns against the plans.
The announcements follow visits by children’s minister Will Quince to the Netherlands, Sweden, France and Scotland – whose staff: child ratios for two-year-olds the consultation launched today seeks to mirror.
Since the plan was announced earlier this year, the proposals to allow one member of staff to care for five two-year-olds rather than the current four, have been widely derided by the early years sector.
Many providers have already said that if the changes go ahead they will not implement them, and that it will not make a difference to the cost of childcare for parents.
Just 2 per cent of nurseries and pre-schools in an Early Years Alliance survey of 9,000 providers said they believed that parental fees at their setting would lower as a result of changes to ratio rules.
Meanwhile, parent groups, such as Pregnant Then Screwed, have campaigned against the plans, which they fear will lower the quality of care in settings and lead to safeguarding concerns.
The petition against the proposals on the Parliament website started by Zoe and Lewis Steeper, whose son Oliver died in September, days after he was believed to have choked at nursery, has so far received 64,700 signatures.
Today, the Oliver Steeper Foundation, tweeted:
The Government consultation seeks views on proposals to:
- change the current statutory minimum staff: child ratios in England for 2-year-olds from 1:4 to 1:5
- allow childminders to care for a fourth child under the age of five, providing one is either a sibling of another child they care for, or their own child, whilst continuing to only allow childminders to care for a maximum of six children under the age of eight
- make the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework (EYFS) explicit that ‘adequate supervision’ while children are eating means that children must be in sight and hearing of an adult
Education Secretary, Nadhim Zahawi said, ‘Every child deserves a great start in life and that means giving families the support they need.
‘Childcare is an integral part of our economy, and these reforms prove again that this government is on the side of working families. I’m hugely grateful to the thousands of dedicated early years professionals who provide daily care and education to our youngest children, which is why I am determined to support them by giving them greater flexibility in how they run their services.
‘This in turn will support thousands of families across the country, helping to develop children’s skills while also supporting parents into work.’
'No meaningful difference to cost of childcare'
Purnima Tanuku, Chief Executive of National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA), said, ‘From when this was first mooted, the sector has been saying that altering ratios for two-year-olds from 1:4 to 1:5 won’t make any meaningful difference to the cost of childcare for providers or parents. That can only come from the Government paying the full rate for funded childcare places for children under five.
‘We would be interested to know what calculations have been made to arrive at a potential 15 per cent saving.
‘Many children are coming into early years settings with additional needs having been impacted by Covid restrictions. More children are struggling with language acquisition and with their personal, social and emotional development as a result. This is why now is not the time to be giving young children less support.
‘The proposed new ratio would bring England in line with Scotland, although the early years framework in Scotland is very different in terms of qualification levels, staff training and support from their regulators.
‘We are pleased that the minister is consulting with the sector on these proposals - early years staff are best placed to use their professional judgement as they know their children best. The minister also promised us that he would not jeopardise children’s safety or the quality of their early education. We look forward to responding to the consultation and will also encourage our members across England to give their responses too.’
Neil Leitch, CEO of the Early Years Alliance, said, 'Given the scale of the challenges facing the early years at the moment, it is beyond frustrating that the government is wasting its time consulting on relaxing ratios, rather than just admitting that if we want to have affordable, quality, sustainable care and early education in this country, we need to invest substantially more into the sector that we are doing at the moment.
'Our own research has clearly shown that the proposal to relax ratios for two-year-olds in nurseries and pre-schools from 1:4 to 1:5 will not only fail to lower the cost of early years places, but in any settings that do adopt the new ratios, will drive down quality and worsen the already catastrophic recruitment and retention crisis the sector is already experiencing.
'Given that data from the parenting group Pregnant then Screwed has also shown that the vast majority of parents wouldn't want this change even if it did save them money, the question is: who exactly is this proposal supposed to benefit - other than politicians who can use the changes to claim to have done something to tackle the "rising cost of childcare"?'
Professor Eva Lloyd, Professor of Early Childhood at the University of East London, and director, The International Centre for the Study of the Mixed Economy of Childcare - ICMEC, 'I do fear for the safety and wellbeing of children in nursery care if the proposal to relax the child/staff ratio goes ahead.
'Child safety would be a big concern of parents, as well as the early years practitioners themselves while looking after very young children. Anyone who has looked after a two-year-old knows you need eyes in the back of your head. The nursery workers also need to be very engaged with each child to help with language development in particular. This requires building up familiarity, especially if the child spends long hours there.
'Secondly, it would be a counter-intuitive and meaningless move, because the nurseries will have to pay their staff more to keep them as a result of the increased work with more children to care for. This will then mean parents end up paying more in fees anyway. We are currently in the worst recruitment and retention crisis the sector has ever known. Nursery staff are amongst the worst-paid of society already, and the increased workload and stress will cause even more to leave the sector entirely.
'I fear the UK government will try out this dangerous experiment before it too realises what a mistake it is.'
Unison head of education Mike Short said, 'Children will be put at risk and staff will be driven out of the early education sector by this government interference.
'Workers are already quitting due to unmanageable workloads. Attracting new staff will be near impossible if ministers heap ever more responsibility on employees.
'Claims that ratio changes reduce costs for parents are a smokescreen. The reality is that risks will increase as staff look after more children and support for the youngest will fall.
'Instead of seeking early years education on the cheap as a way of tackling the cost-of-living crisis, the government must improve funding for the sector.'
Do the figures add up?
Meanwhile, the Early Years Alliance has dismantled the £40 a week saving, saying it is fundamentally flawed.
The Government’s calculations are based on staff costs accounting for 74 per cent of overall costs in early years settings.
Moving from a ratio for 1:4 to 1:5 for two-year-olds would cut staff costs by 20 per cent. 20 per cent x 74 per cent = 15 per cent. The average weekly cost of early years places is £265 and 15 per cent of £265 is £40; therefore parents could save £40 per week.
The calculation operates on the basis that all nurseries and pre-schools are currently working to a 1:4 ratio at all times, that they will all move to a 1:5 ratios at all times, and that the entirety of any savings made would be passed onto parents in the form of lower fees. The Alliance said this is 'fundamentally flawed' for a number of reasons.
A recent Alliance survey of more than 9,000 early years settings found that only 51 per cent of providers delivering places to two-year-olds work to maximum ratios all the time, meaning that around half already have scope to work to more relaxed ratios more often than they currently do, but choose not to.
The same survey found that only 5 per cent of nurseries and pre-schools would always/permanently operate to looser ratios if the government’s proposal went ahead.
Overall, the survey found that just 2 per cent of nurseries and pre-schools believe that parental fees at their setting would lower as a result of changes to ratio rules.
For the government’s calculation to work, settings would have to only increase their child numbers in ‘ratio-sized amounts’ to move from a 1:4 to a 1:5 ratios.
So, for example, if a setting had 5 members of staff and 20 children, they would have to take on 5 more two-year-olds at once to move to a full 1:5 ratio. If they only took on two extra children (so 22 in total), this would be a ratio of 1:4.4, not 1:5.
The calculations assume that all settings have the physical space to be able to substantially increase the number of children they care for and educate, within the current legal limits on floor space per child, which the government has not indicated they are consulting on.
The Alliance pointed out that children and families minister Will Quince has himself argued that there is no expectation that settings will move to a 1:5 ratio all the time and that the change is unlikely to impact largely on costs. In an interview with Sky News on Sunday, he said: ‘The ratios change in and of itself is no silver bullet or panacea or magic bullet… it is not going to significantly change costs because what we don’t expect is setting to routinely or religiously go to 1:5. Most don't currently go to 1:4.’
Tax-Free Childcare
The Government is also launching a new £1.2 million campaign to encourage greater take up of £2,000 per year Tax-Free Childcare scheme and the Universal Credit childcare offer.
Tanuku added, ‘We welcome plans to increase take-up of Tax-Free Childcare but the £2.6bn unspent money earmarked for Tax-Free Childcare since it was introduced must be reinvested into childcare.
‘Universal Credit must include upfront payments for childcare to prevent this being a barrier for parents to be able to start work.’
Responding to the government plans, Bridget Phillipson MP, Labour's Shadow Secretary of State for Education, said:
'This is a pathetic announcement that fails to deliver the ambition families need to tackle spiralling childcare costs.
'Tweaking ratios is not the answer parents want and not the answer children need. The vast majority of providers have made clear this would make no difference to costs for parents. What’s more, parents have said the current system of tax free childcare is too complex to use even once explained. The government is out of ideas and failing children and families alike.
'Labour will put our children at the heart of our ambition for Britain. We'd be investing in childcare right now with a four-fold increase in the early years pupil premium plus before and after school clubs to help families with older children.'
- The Government online consultation runs from 4 July – 16 September
