Early Childhood Education and Care services in England are in a bad way. As we wrote in Nursery World in September 2020, there are ‘deep-seated problems about how young children are educated and looked after…; [the system] does not work for children or parents, workers or society…The problems are not only deep-seated but well-known. They include a system split between childcare and early education; fragmented services; starting primary school too early; a devalued “childcare” workforce; a culture of managerial accountability, focused on standardised and measurable outcomes; and a large gap between the end of well-paid leave and an entitlement to early childhood education.’ Under the stress of the pandemic, the situation has gone from bad to worse.
The problems we wrote of were laid out in great detail in our recently published book, Transforming Early Childhood in England: Towards a Democratic Education. The book’s bold and far-reaching proposals for solving these problems added up to an agenda for fundamental change. Indeed, we concluded that the time was long past for tweaking our flawed and dysfunctional early childhood system; instead, ‘nothing short of transformation is now needed to give [young] children the all-round upbringing they have a right to and parents the support they need to both work and care.’
The book has aroused great interest. Free of charge online from UCL Press, where printed copies can also be ordered (www.uclpress.co.uk/products/128464), already 7,000 people have accessed it. Many, we believe, share our view that today’s early childhood policies, services and pedagogy are not fit for purpose. Something must be done. But what? How do we take matters forward?
We argued in the article that we are in this dire situation today because of ‘successive governments choosing to put sticking plasters on a deeply flawed system rather than conduct a thorough diagnosis and effective course of treatment’.
The time has now come for that diagnosis and treatment, not only because continued delay only makes matters worse, but because the Covid crisis has highlighted in stark fashion the inherent weakness and instability of the system. What we need now is a thorough and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of early childhood policies, provision and pedagogy.
ROOT-AND-BRANCH REFORM
What does this mean? We mean a review that analyses openly and honestly how current policies work, the functionality of the current system of provision, and the consequences of the current approach to pedagogy (including assessment and accountability).
This must include questioning principles and assumptions that underpin current policies: for example, reliance on markets and private, for-profit provision; starting children in primary school at age five (or earlier, in practice) and treating early childhood as a subservient readier of children for compulsory education; a ‘business model’ for childcare premised on a low-qualified and low-paid female workforce; the marginalised role of local authorities; and, last but not least, a national fixation with ‘childcare’, treating it as a separate and distinct part of the early childhood system.
We mean a review that looks carefully at alternatives, drawing on innovative experiences both in this country and abroad, and weighs up the best answer to the question ‘What do we want for our children and families?’.
We mean a review that while focused on Early Childhood Education And Care also includes parenting leave and other support for parents and carers, as well as acknowledging the importance of ensuring young children and their families have adequate incomes, housing and health.
We mean, too, a review that considers the relationship between early childhood and primary education.
HAVING YOUR SAY
Who should be involved in this ‘Early Childhood in England Review’? We only have one shot at it, so we need to get it right and we need to give everyone the opportunity to have their say.
It should encourage widespread participation from organisations and individuals, representing providers, workers, parents and also those involved in research and the education of the next generation of early childhood practitioners. Government and other political parties should contribute their views – though on balance we think the review should be conducted independently rather than by the Government itself. And, of course, children themselves should have a voice in proceedings.
The review should have a research capacity, with a University base; and be able to visit and study innovative services and service systems both in England and further afield. The review has to be an exercise in raising expectations and increasing awareness of what is possible.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
So, the review needs to hear from many voices, and it needs to consider many options. But while it should welcome diverse (and sometimes conflicting) perspectives and experiences, it must be guided from the start by a number of fundamental principles and assumptions, providing clear criteria against which the current situation and future proposals can be judged.
Without such reference points, it risks descending into chaos and confusion. On the basis of conclusions in our book, we suggest five key criteria:
- Adherence to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment 7 from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (‘Implementing Children’s Rights in Early Childhood’).
- Choosing an image of the young child as a citizen with rights and a protagonist born with a hundred languages and limitless potential.
- Acknowledging the need for a fully integrated system of early childhood education and care based in and recognised as the first stage of the education system, but which also supports parental employment and children’s upbringing as twin necessities.
- Commitment to services that are accessible, inclusive, anti-racist and democratic.
- Adopting a professional workforce that is well-qualified, well-paid and has parity with other educational professionals.
CHALLENGES
We acknowledge that such a review faces considerable challenges, as will implementing its proposals, assuming they are genuinely transformative and not just more tweaking of what we now have. These include:
Future funding
Despite increases in public funding in recent years, public spending on early childhood policies in England remains modest (according to the OECD, public expenditure on early Childhood Education And Care services is 0.6 per cent of GDP in the UK compared with 1.6 per cent in Sweden, while a similar large difference in spending applies to parental leave). Transforming early childhood would mean substantial future increases in public funding, especially if we are to move to an early childhood professional workforce having parity of qualification, pay and status with school teachers.
Vested interests
The English early childhood scene is very fragmented, with many and diverse positions and interests, making consensus on transformation hard to achieve or, worse, risking a consensus built around a lowest common denominator.
Getting from here to there
Transformation, meaning fundamental change, is bound to challenge and indeed despatch a number of sacred cows. For example, in our book we proposed a public, universal and fully integrated system of free or low-cost early childhood education in local Children’s Centres, with a graduate workforce and transfer to primary school at age six.
That means farewell to childcare services, farewell to poorly paid childcare workers, and farewell to markets and for-profit providers (at least in the public system). Of course, our proposal might not emerge as the review’s recommendation: but if it did, it would require a major transition from what we have now to a new system – a transition over a number of years and with many hurdles to be cleared.
COMPREHENSIVE SCOPE
Such challenges are difficult and need to be acknowledged – but are not insurmountable.
In calling for an Early Childhood in England Review, we recognise that much work is or has been recently undertaken on early childhood – there are a plethora of completed or still ongoing commissions, reports and other projects, plus at least three All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
These all offer something, but none has a comprehensive scope or has taken a transformative approach. Nor does our call for such a review replace the need for short-term action to support what exists today for young children and their parents.
As we wrote earlier in Nursery World, ‘England’s ramshackle and fragile system of marketised services needs short-term assistance to carry on – no-one wants children, parents and workers left in the lurch by the collapse of private childcare providers.’ Nor do we want to see the demise of more nursery schools for want of adequate funding here and now. But we must not allow the application of yet more sticking plasters, necessary as that may be, to distract from the longer-term and more profound challenge facing us: to create, at long last, early childhood policies, provision and pedagogy that we can all be proud of.
Claire Cameron is professor of social pedagogy, and Peter Moss is emeritus professor of early childhood provision, at the Thomas Coram Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London
- Let us know what you think about our proposal for a Review of Early Childhood in England. Contact us at c.cameron@ucl.ac.uk or peter.moss@ucl.ac.uk
