Reading the isos Partnership report on nursery closures filled me with a sense of frustration and futility.
How many reports does the Government need to understand that the issues facing our sector are really quite simple?
Our hourly rate is insufficient. The report is unsurprising, and probably unnecessary - unless it’s taken seriously by the Government. After all, we have been saying this for years!
The main points of the report are hard to disagree with. However, there are one or two things that could be unpicked further.
Closure crises
Although the report suggests that closure crises have not transpired in the past previously, I dispute this. Lots of settings have closed, and while some settings remain open, lots are being bought up by investor-based groups.
These groups are well placed to take advantage of off-shore tax loopholes, and are likely to encourage the increased ratios and put pedagogy at the bottom of their priority list. Not all chains are like this, but unfortunately, they are being tarred with the same brush.
Many of the settings that are closing are owner-operated settings. These are usually run by extremely committed and trained individuals (often women), rather than investors who can be totally removed from the welfare of the children. Squeezing owner-operators out of the sector will have terrible long-term impacts on the quality of the children’s experiences.
I also tried not to scream at the suggestion that ‘bespoke financial advice’ would help. Most nursery owners are experts in managing a frugal, insufficient budget. They’ve had to be. They don’t need advice. They need proper funding, weighted towards those that need it most.
'It's not 'free' its subsidised'.
They need honesty from the Government, that this is not a ‘free’ offer, it is subsidised.
The report pointed out that supply was poorer in areas of deprivation and rural areas, and that those with disabilities were more likely to be impacted.
There now seems to be general acknowledgement that settings will likely close if parents are unable or unwilling to pay more than the Government’s ‘free’ amount.
Some local authorities have been very supportive, removing the word ‘free’ and using the word ‘funded’. No-one has quite dared to use the word ‘subsidised’ yet, which is a more honest reflection of the current system.
'The word childcare is one of the biggest contributors to the issues we face today.'
The authors refer to making ‘childcare’ a truly valued profession. Yet staff salaries are squeezed by the National Minimum Wage, increasing at 200 per cent, while funding has risen by 53 per cent.
Sadly, as long as we refer to pedagogy, or early childhood development (ECD) as ‘childcare’ (often done by neighbours, or granny, to help out), then we will continue to be thought of as babysitters.
Anyone can do ‘childcare’, in the way that lots of people can cook, but that doesn’t make them a chef, or experts in nutrition, or necessarily any good at it. The word ‘childcare’, in my opinion, is one of the biggest contributors to the issues we face today.
Pedagogy, the art and science of educating, is the word that we should be using!
Will the penny drop soon?
