Is Britain's childcare expensive, and will reforms improve quality?
|
Version 0 of 1. Elizabeth Truss, the early years minister, has unveiled the government's long-awaited reforms to early years childcare. The measures announced include a relaxation of staff-to-child ratios for childminders and nurseries. For young toddlers, this will mean one childminder will be able to look after four children, rather than three at present. For staff with higher qualifications, higher ratios will be allowed. Truss said she hoped such reforms would lead to better-trained and better-paid nursery staff, and (potentially) a reduction of cost to parents. She said on Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday morning: One of the problems that parents have is not just the exorbitant cost, it is the availability [of childcare]. I personally have struggled to find a nursery place for love or money, and many parents say that. The pay level of staff at the moment – nursery workers are getting £6.60 an hour – it's barely more than the minimum wage. I do not think that is an acceptable wage rate for what should be a professional job. What I want to see [in nursery care] is something that is much more a continuum of the education system. But what does the evidence say: is Britain's childcare expensive? Will these reforms tackle the problem? And will increasing the ratio of children per staff member reduce quality? Staff ratios and quality Researching the quality of childcare is a difficult task: are we interested merely in how safe and secure young children are while their parents are at work? Or are we looking at educational outcomes? Or some quantity of both? The task is made still more difficult because we can't (or at least, don't) easily experiment on young children: we can't isolate the effect of children's backgrounds from their area, from their parental inputs, from different types of nursery care. Despite this, there are several pieces of evidence suggesting the ratio of staff to children is important. The Millenium Cohort Study found that higher staff-to-child ratios were correlated with better-quality childcare – but noted this was a less important factor than having larger groups of children (with more staff), better training for staff and mixed age groups of children. Another study, the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education Project, found the staff-to-child ratio had a particularly tight relationship with outcomes on numeracy. Gathering together these research papers (and a few others) led the EHRC to conclude in 2010: A smaller ratio of children per member of staff is associated with higher quality, although it is hard to separate this out from other factors such as staff qualifications and overall group size … [W]here there is a highly qualified staff member, ratios are less significant, and this points again to the interdependency between different factors. Indeed, in order to incentivise quality, ratios can remain lower where there are highly qualified staff. The score is a messy draw, with respect to the government's goals: a good staff-to-child ratio is associated with better learning outcomes for children – but it's not critical. The biggest factor for having more children per staff member, though, is significant staff training. At present, childcare professionals require only an NCQ level 2 (a qualification roughly equivalent to several GCSEs) in order to practice. In other countries (and in some settings in the UK), a large proportion of early-years staff have full teaching qualifications, or multi-year diplomas. Increasing qualifications to this level would, in all likelihood, offset (probably more than offset) the effects of changing staff ratios – but would substantially increase the cost of training and salaries alike. The net result could easily work out more expensive. International comparisons: staff ratios Truss is correct to note the UK's staff-to-child rules are more stringent than other European countries, including those known for good childcare systems. According to European commission figures, Germany averages more than six children per staff member for under-twos, while France has a cap of four children per childminder, and Sweden's pre-schools average five children per staffer. Most of these countries had – at the time of the European commission report – minimum training requirements not far different from the United Kingdom (in some childcare settings), but several offered more extensive training. In Sweden in particular, it was noted, around half of pre-school staff had teaching qualifications. International comparisons: cost of childcare It's on cost that the UK's system diverges vastly from its European neighbours. The UK's childcare costs, measured after subsidies by the OECD (using somewhat outdated figures, from 2007), amount to 43% of average incomes. In France, that's just 14.8%, in Germany 9.1%, and in Denmark (which has an average staff-to-child ratio of one-to-three for two- to three-year-olds) these are just 8.4%. The OECD calculates subsidies differently from other bodies: some cash which goes directly to parents (often means-tested) is counted, while other direct state spending isn't. Still, there is one clear conclusion: staff ratios alone come nowhere near explaining the UK's childcare costs – and so, on their own, are unlikely to make a substantive difference to what parents pay. The European commission report does concur with Truss on one other key issue she names, however. The UK does have a childcare "mismatch": Despite the expansion in formal childcare services there are still problems with availability. There is a mismatch of supply and demand across the country, with sizeable vacancies in day care, out-of-school and childminder places in some areas and heavy shortages in others. Moreover, the universal right to free pre-school for three- to four-year-olds is for a part-time place only. Conclusion The UK's childcare system doesn't stand up brilliantly to international comparison: it's expensive for parents, take-up rates (particularly for young children) are lower, and the staff-to-child ratios and qualification levels are not commensurately better for all of the extra cash. Research suggests relaxing the staff ratio doesn't necessarily have to affect quality – if staff are better qualified to compensate. But this ameliorating step may cost more than the savings provide – and it seems as if this measure alone wouldn't come close to closing the cost gap between the UK and some of its European neighbours. But, as commentators note, it could prove cost-neutral, or even save some money. As xpeters said: Nowhere does the article say that fees would rise. It states, correctly, that nursery staff should receive higher wages and child minders would expect to earn higher incomes. Fees per child can fall and wages rise provided the increase in the number of children per staff member or child minder is proportionately greater than the reduction in the fees. For example, if the number of children permitted per child minder rises from 4 to 6, the breakeven position is an increase in total income for the child minder of 20% and a cut in fees per child of 20%. (4 x 1.2 = 4.8 and 6 x 0.8 = 4.8). Have we missed any key research? Any further questions? Let us know in the comments below, or drop an email to james.ball@guardian.co.uk. Key statistics We've pulled together some of the key statistics used in this piece for five European countries. The figures are collected from the EU and OECD, and reflect the situation at the time of those reports (international data often lags behind national data, but does ensure the figures are roughly comparable). Sources: use of childcare: EU-SILC (2009); Fees: OECD (2007); ratios and qualifications: European Commission (2009) |