24 Comments

• Thomas Long 2nd Sep '13 - 12:11pm

  A number of the local authorities seem to be only broken down to county level. Are we able to get the data at borough or constituency level?

• g 2nd Sep '13 - 12:14pm

  So this a cut down version of Sure Start? Doing less with less?

• Peter Watson 2nd Sep '13 - 12:37pm

  Why does it cost £534 million to provide free childcare for 130000 children this year but only £760 million to provide free childcare for 260000 children next year?

• Dave Page 2nd Sep '13 - 1:26pm

  Peter, presumably that’s £150m to set up the scheme in the first place rather than the ongoing cost of keeping it running.

• Steve 2nd Sep '13 - 1:37pm

  “Liberal Democrats have long argued that a high quality early years education makes the biggest difference to a child’s life. ”

  Really? For two-year-olds? Where is the evidence that formal education for two year olds is beneficial?

  This is just neoliberalism on acid, where every human creature is subjected to rigorous assessment and target-setting from cradle to grave regardless of the lack of a useful outcome. Childcare for two year olds is beneficial for parents wishing to continue with their jobs rather than looking after their children at home, but do not pretend that there is a beneficial educational outcome from the state sending them to nursery at that age. Do you have any experience of bringing up kids, David? Do you have any experience of looking after toddlers? Can you provide a link to some research that shows formal education for two-year-olds is useful?

  “where a party chooses to spend says something important about that party’s values.”

  It certainly tells me a lot about your values.

  “so that in the future no one is held back by the circumstances of their birth.”

  Do you honestly believe that a two year old is held back by being looked after by their parent rather than a childminder? Astonishing.

  My wife’s giving up her job at the end of the year to spend time at home with our one year old. -he is currently at the childminders 5 days a week – we must be terribly irresponsible for wanting to hold him back! We’d prefer it if she were able to find a part-time job to provide a better balance between the natural desire to spend more time parenting our child whilst remaining in the workplace. That outcome is very unlikely, which is why she’s giving up her job. If you really want to do something useful then encourage employers to be more flexible about part-time working. However, the thrust of this coalitions policies has been to get parents working full-time. Why are you so wedded to a ideological dogma that insists on workers being as flexible as possible to the needs of the labour market whilst encouraging employers to be as inflexible as possible?

• Joe Otten 2nd Sep '13 - 9:32pm

  Steve, I understand your skepticism, but not the “neo-liberalism on acid” remark. The idea that early years are crucial in this way seems to be the mainstream view of the educational establishment. (Not, though that 5 days of childminding are beneficial, but that 1 or 2 days or more of nursery care are usually pretty good, giving toddlers more variety of experience and interaction with others.)

  I know of dissent on this from Steve Pinker in the pop-science world, who says that genetics are more important than is usually acknowledged. Difficult to judge myself, but I have some sympathy with the view that parents are overloaded with advice on things that are terribly important; that the suggestion that you’re a bad parent if you don’t tick all the boxes is doing more harm than good.

  But I don’t see how this debate is informed much either way by “neo-liberalism”.

• John Carlisle 3rd Sep '13 - 9:42am

  Sorry, Joe, you are wrong, and David Laws is terribly wrong. Steve is right on the button: where is the evidence for what Laws states?
  Here are some data to the contrary, from the Smithsonian Institution, which highlights the lamentable performance of the USA – which relies on competition – compared with the most successful education in the Western world in Finland.
  In 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science. In the 2009 PISA scores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide. The education system had been transformed through a massive consultation with the teachers and education researchers, as well as parents and children: not decreed by politicians who have not RESEARCHED the topic.
  There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians.
  Of particular significance to Laws’ main point of early education; compulsory schooling does not begin until age 7 in Finland. . The inspectorate closed its doors in the early ’90s, turning accountability and inspection over to teachers and principals. “We have our own motivation to succeed because we love the work,” is the most common comment. “Our incentives come from inside.” They all, however, have to have a Masters degree in education, paid for by the state; which puts them on the footing as lawyers, accountants etc.
  I challenge David Laws to provide evidence to back up his proposal.
  Joe, I find your dismissive comment about Stephen Pinker from the “pop science world” most puzzling. He is a Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. He is acknowledged as a world authority on education, having produced over thirty very well researched and papers on various related topics, and was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in the world in 2004. So, just who do you turn to for good information on education – David Laws?

• Helen Tedcastle 3rd Sep '13 - 12:39pm

  @ John Carlisle: ” I challenge David Laws to provide evidence to back up his proposal.” You’ll be lucky. Ministers in the DfE are good at neo-liberal economics but have a hard time with education philosophy. Laws is simply being a good economist.

  In Finland, children are allowed to play and allowed to develop without rigid and formal learning styles being imposed before they are ready.

  The problem is that because so much formal learning begins at a relatively young age in England already, children will have to go into formal learning from two in order to be ‘made ready’ for later – so the argument goes.

  Taken together with the Laws/ Gove proposal that children should be nationally ranked in order by the time they leave primary school, one can can see this is all part of the same hard-right ideology.

• Geoffrey Payne 3rd Sep '13 - 1:28pm

  I read David Laws article very carefully as I always do and I could not find anything to disagree with. The only thing I am not sure about is whether the numbers are big enough.
  The article does not say anything about education for 2 year olds being competitive, and in itself greater public spending cannot be said to be neoliberal.
  It looks like a good policy based on admittedly not very much detail. I just hope it is and that people will notice the difference.

• Caracatus 3rd Sep '13 - 1:32pm

  “When money is tight, where a party chooses to spend says something important about that party’s values”
  So we will not be replacing Trident then ?

  It has long been recognised by Liberals and Liberal Democrats that there is more holding people back than the circumstances of their birth – apart from the orange bookers who thought Gladstone had gone a bit too far.

  “Liberal Democrats have long argued that a high quality early years education makes the biggest difference to a child’s life.” well i recall supporting rising fives, I don’t recall anything about education for 2 year olds.

  “Do you honestly believe that a two year old is held back by being looked after by their parent rather than a childminder? Astonishing. ” agree entirely – what on earth is this about ?

• Roland 3rd Sep '13 - 2:51pm

  I broadly welcome this funding of “15 hours free early education per week” for 2 year old’s from families on very low incomes. I also note that although only 20% of two year old’s benefit in 2013, this is being enlarged to 40% in 2014.

  However, what is not clear from the headline information is what exactly is being funded – attendance or full sessions (including all meals), I would hope the latter given that a qualifying criteria for this assistance is “meet the eligibility criteria also used for free school meals”.

  Also what is not clear from the government websites is when families are assessed and whether the award is made for the full year (I would hope) or if it is clawed back if family income exceeds £16,190. given the current state of the tax credits system, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that few families are actually prepared to jump through the hoops to get access to the monies.

• John Carlisle 3rd Sep '13 - 5:11pm

  @Geoffrey and Roland
  The children need developing, not education, at below five, e.g. they need to be able to talk properly, socialise, play with real things (not TV games), run around and use up physical energy and be curious. Please, please read up on Finland’s education success, where it takes five years of HE to produce a teacher. David Laws is a banker, what on earth does he know about pedagogy? You would not put a teacher in charge of banking would you? On the other hand . . . . . .

• Tabman 3rd Sep '13 - 7:28pm

  Steve – bash anything written by Laws without thinking.

  Unfortunately, when many disadvantaged children arrive at school completely unsocialised, it falls to the education system to pick up the pieces. Nursery places may help that process earlier. Not a problem with engaged parents (though exposure to socialising does help) but we’re looking at kids who are still in nappies at 5 in the worst cases.

• Chris_sh 3rd Sep '13 - 8:13pm

  We live in Wales and we are “lucky” enough to qualify for the flying start/sure start programs. If this announcement means that a similar program is going to be set up in England, then I would say that it is worth it.

  In Wales eligibility is set by post code, this can obviously cause some anomalies but for the most part seems to catch a lot of the right families (i.e. those on low income). Unfortunately not everyone takes advantage, but that could be for a variety of reasons. When it first started in our area, there were occasions that the only parents there were us 2 (this was for children up to age 2 and was joint parent/child sessions). But since our children (twins) have started going to the 2+ sessions a lot more children attend (perhaps word has got around about how much the kids enjoy it).

  Again, if the scheme is similar, we have the option of booking them in for 5 mornings a week (2.5 hour sessions). It can not be classed as formal education (in answer to Steve), it is a couple of hours of play, singing, dancing etc which our children love (and talking to other parents, they aren’t the only ones).

  In answer to Roland, the sessions here do not cover meal times but the kiddies do get fresh fruit during the session. As you may guess, they also work up quite an appetite and devour their lunch. I would hope that the system will be similar to here (i.e. by postcode), I think one of the reasons it has picked up in popularity is that there isn’t a need to claim as such (you have to register and there can also be a waiting list), our local set up is actually run by Barnodos.

  I would also echo the comment from Tabman, don’t knock these things just because you don’t like the messenger, it’s not compulsory. Anyway, it’s not about your feelings, it’s something that the Govt are trying to do to help kids and it should be welcomed (Labour definitely needs credit for starting the process though).

• Steve 3rd Sep '13 - 8:55pm

  Chris_sh
  “I would also echo the comment from Tabman, don’t knock these things just because you don’t like the messenger”

  I didn’t knock it because I don’t like the messenger, I knocked it based on the text of the article as written. You stated ‘ It can not be classed as formal education’ which is the exact opposite of what David Laws says in his article. From your description of your group it sounds like a parent/toddler group (and sounds rather good). If Laws had written an article telling us how the scheme is enabling those on low incomes to improve their work/life balance by enabling them to leave their kids with a childminder/nursery for part of the week whilst keeping a foot in the workplace and increasing their income then I wouldn’t have objected. If he’d written about the social advantages of parents and kids talking and playing with other parents and kids then he would have described something that I would regard as useful, but he didn’t.

  @Geoffrey Payne
  The scheme is redistributive to those on lower incomes so definitely isn’t neoliberal in that regard I’ll admit. What is top-shelf, hard-core neoliberal is the language of Laws:

  “disadvantaged two year old”: suggests that two year olds that don’t have a formal education are disadvantaged, given the references to formal education in the text.

  “This meant some children falling behind before they had even walked through the school gates.”: ‘falling behind’ implies competition and there is no evidence that formal education for two year olds is beneficial.

  “this scheme will mean a real, fighting chance for all children”: this implies competition (what else could ‘a fighting chance’ refer to) and wrongly implies that two year olds that don’t receive a formal education are disadvantaged.

  “so that in the future no one is held back by the circumstances of their birth”: being ‘held back’ implies competition and wrongly implies that two year olds that don’t receive a formal education are disadvantaged.

  Laws doesn’t explicitly use the word ‘competition’ but it is implicit from his other use of language. He also draws conclusions about toddlers that don’t receive a ‘formal education’ that are unfounded. Why? Why can’t he bring himself to deliver a message about helping parents (and their kids) on low incomes? Why can’t he describe the social benefits for the kids? Why does he have to dress it up in such nonsensical language about ‘formal education’ and all the implied references to competition?

  I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of parents would react negatively to Laws’ article as written. They would take it as a slight against parents that choose to look after their young kids who, in so doing, do no disadvantage whatsoever to the life chances of their kids. There seems to be a fundamental mismatch between what the policy actually does (according to some of the commenters on here) and how David Laws has described it. If I’ve made a mistake in interpreting the purpose of this policy then it is entirely down to reading and believing what Laws has written.

• Helen Tedcastle 3rd Sep '13 - 9:14pm

  “…six out of ten two year olds from the poorest families did not experience any formal early education at all – compared to just three out of ten who missed out in the richest families. ”

  I think that those who are a little suspicious on this thread may be referring to this comment from Laws. The implication is related to the general virtue proclaimed by Laws that ‘formal learning’ from a very early age is an intrinsic social good. It ignores good parenting at home even in poorer households. Lets not demonise the poor like the Tories.

• Tabman 3rd Sep '13 - 9:24pm

  Steve – competition is a fact of life. If we fail to equip our children with the skills to negotiate the competitive environment in which they will have to live we are doing them a grave disservice and helping to further entrench privelege.

• Helen Tedcastle 3rd Sep '13 - 9:41pm

  @ Tabman: ” competition is a fact of life. If we fail to equip our children with the skills to negotiate the competitive environment in which they will have to live…” Really? So from the age of two a child must learn the value of the ‘fact of life’ which is competition, ‘getting on’ and generally learning self-advancement.

  If this is what Laws means, this is truly appalling and I would oppose it tooth and nail as practically fascist.

  However, I think that Laws is simply showing himself to be an economist with little or no understanding of pedagogy (in this this he has a lot in common with his Tory colleagues in the DfE), and an implicit acceptance of Truss’ belief in imposing formal education on the very youngest. It happens in France.

  However, look further down the line. France is among the least well-performing western nation in the PISA tests.

  Highly centralised France is not a model to follow in education – Finland is a much more civilised and successful model.

• Roland 3rd Sep '13 - 9:53pm

  @John Carlisle
  Re: Is it Education or is it Development

  I note the DfE website uses the phrase “early learning for 2-year olds”, although GOV.UK uses the phrase “Free early education”, however before we get too hung up about semantic’s, although important, we need to look at the substance of what is being proposed. I’ve not seen any change to the focus of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) to make it more ‘educational’ rather than ‘developmental’. Although I’m totally prepared to be corrected by a knowledgeable practitioner.

  On the basis that EYFS is broadly the same as when my children attended nursery 2 days a week (setting consistent rated ‘good’), I welcome the funding as I know what impact it can have on both the child and the parent with the primary care responsibility.

• Roland 3rd Sep '13 - 10:03pm

  @John Carlisle

  Just to add an explicit example of the benefit of early years development by a nursery or other such ‘professional’ provider. Because an independent person notes a problem, in our case a speech problem, they were able to refer our child to relevant experts, helping us to bypass all the usual hurdles that the ‘professionals’ put in the way of ‘pushy’ parents. Net result, my child was able to start school and talk normally – unlike some other children at the school they have not been bullied about their speech – I call that a result!

• John Carlisle 4th Sep '13 - 7:23am

  Now, all we need is for David Laws to pay attention to the range of views – and the evidence, e.g. France v Finland. I wonder who his adviser is. Probably another banker, just like Norman Lamb’s was another lawyer for a health portfolio!

• Helen Tedcastle 5th Sep '13 - 10:17am

  @ John Carlisle: An interesting article in the Guardian – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/early-years-educational-underclass-poverty – highlights the creeping rhetoric of demonisation of the poor. Leading Lib Dems in Government must surely be particularly vigilant in not falling into this set of conclusions from the statistics.

  Sadly, in this case, the Laws article above is an example of a set of assumptions which could easily be fed into the blame culture, so typical of the Tories at their worst.

• Malcolm Todd 5th Sep '13 - 11:26am

  I’m no fan of David Laws and I don’t think he should ever have been brought back in into government, but I think too many people are using this article as a mere palimpsest on which to inscribe their assumptions about what Laws must really mean, because there really isn’t anything in what’s been written to justify the outrage.

  He refers to children being “eligible for a free place with a nursery or childminder” — how this equates to forcing children to undergo rigorous formal schooling with competitive examinations and all the rest, I don’t understand. In fact, it seems to be offering exactly what Steve asked for (2 September, 1.37 p.m.). And what on earth it has to do with “neo-liberalism” I can’t imagine. Neo-liberals aren’t generally in favour of the state providing social services from general taxation. In fact, it’s almost their raison d’etre. (That plus reducing government interference in the economy — explain to me how this proposal advances that agenda?)
  It seems to me like a reasonable, helpful policy that will go some way to making some people’s lives a little easier (and giving some children a better start in life that they would otherwise have) without forcing anybody into a homogeneous pattern of child-rearing that may not suit them. If a similar approach were extended up the age range to cover, say, 4-to-6-year-olds, it would be even better.

• Steve 7th Sep '13 - 8:59am

  @Malcolm Todd

  I gave Laws the benefit of the doubt when I wrote my original comment. I stopped short of the conclusion that Laws thinks that the children of those on low incomes need rescuing from their parents who obviously can’t be good parents because they are poor. Others did arrive at that conclusion, including Tabman, who seems to think that the children of the poor need to go to nursery because their parents can’t be trusted to toilet train them. If I had come to that conclusion about Laws then I would have described him as a Dickensian conservative rather than a neoliberal.

  However, the I was spot on about my description of the language and attitude displayed by Laws. It is pushing ultra-competitive behaviour further in an area where it has no results and indeed could be damaging. not only that, but the message written by Laws implies that children looked after by their parents are at a disadvantage. Not only is this incorrect, but it is deeply insulting to the many parents who make financial sacrifices to look after their own children. Laws seems not to understand why people have children and his message is electoral suicide. It’s certainly not a one-off. Here’s another quote from him:

  “Funding free early education places for 2 year olds is a huge and expensive undertaking, and our willingness to do it in an era in which money is exceptionally tight demonstrates our commitment to educational success for all.

  There is an increasingly strong body of evidence that says that the quality of personnel is the most important factor in early years education, just as it is for people in school or even university settings. For that reason we are trying to move away from nurseries for three and four year olds being staffed by people with low skills, on low wages. Our reforms in this area have been controversial, but I am convinced that they are right.

  This combination of increasing quantity and quality of early years education is designed to ensure that all of our children are school ready when they start school.

  Early years education is crucial and it must be supported by proper funding, which targets additional resources effectively to the most disadvantaged children.”

  from:

  https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-laws-speaks-to-the-national-education-trust-on-raising-standards

  Laws comments are unambiguous, are insulting to parents, and are an expensive waste of money given his policy thrust is not evidenced.