无码天堂

By Rachel Lawler

 

A new report from the Sutton Trust has argued that the government鈥檚 30-hours scheme could widen the gap between the disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers.

 

The report, by Dr Kitty Stewart and Professor Jane Waldfogel, says that the 30-hours offer is not designed to increase social mobility and argues that it is being implemented at the expense of quality early years education for disadvantaged children.

 

The report also says that funding for disadvantaged two-year-olds and the early years pupil premium do not do enough and have a limited impact.

 

The Sutton Trust has argued in favour of focusing on quality over quantity and suggests that the 30-hours offer be 鈥渞eversed鈥� unless the government is able to adequately fund the scheme and prevent a reduction in quality.

 

Sir Peter Lampi, chairman of the Sutton Trust and of the Education Endowment Foundation, said: 鈥淚t is understandable that the government wants to improve access to childcare for working parents. But this must not be at the expense of good early education for disadvantaged children. It is the quality of provision that matters. Focusing on getting it right for the poorest two and three-year-olds would make a much bigger difference to social mobility, by improving their changes at school and in later life.鈥�

 

The Sutton Trust also noted that the government has recently cut funding for graduate training for early years professionals and removed the requirement for nursery and reception classes to have a qualified teacher.  It called for funding to be secured to ensure that qualified teachers remain in place and to support greater career opportunities for early years professionals.

 

Neil Leitch, chief executive of the 无码天堂, commented: 鈥淲hile investing in a highly-qualified workforce, as this report recommends, is certainly one piece of the puzzle, qualifications in and of themselves are no guarantee of quality. There are plenty of years practitioners who may not have formal qualifications but are experienced, passionate, caring and have an excellent understanding of child development.鈥�

 

However, Neil also said that the report was right to warn about the government鈥檚 focus on quantity over quality through the 30-hours offer. He said: " The government talks a lot about the need to 鈥榗lose the gap鈥� between the most disadvantaged children and their peers, and yet its flagship childcare policy actually risks making things worse. Research has shown that the 30-hour offer disproportionately benefits more well-off families, while those at the bottom end of the income ladder 鈥� whose children often gain the most from accessing quality early years provision 鈥� risk getting left behind.鈥�

 

Neil added: 鈥淯ltimately, the government needs to decide what its priority is when it comes to early years policy: supporting children鈥檚 learning, or just getting parents back to work. Because it鈥檚 easy to talk about the importance of improving social mobility, but without the action to match those words, it鈥檚 all just empty rhetoric.鈥�