What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement? - Literature review and qualitative stakeholder work - Sutton Trust
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement? Literature review and qualitative stakeholder work Professor Chris Pascal, Professor Tony Bertram and Dr Aline Cole-Albäck, Centre for Research in Early Childhood
Key Findings – Literature Review
The 30 hour policy Take-up
• In England, there is an entitlement to • Take-up rates of the free entitlement
universal part-time early education for for two-year-olds and the universal offer
three- and four-year-olds, and targeted for three- and four-year-olds in all sectors
early education hours for less advantaged has declined over the last year, but
children from the age of two. take-up of the two year old entitlement
in the maintained sector has increased.
• Since 2017 there can be seen to be a
There is significant variation in take-up
policy shift in England to focus more on
by region and socio-economic status.
supporting ‘working families’, rather than
Take-up rates for children with special
families living in poverty or disadvantage,
needs and disability have been particu-
through extending the hours of funded
larly affected by the COVID pandemic.
places for three and four year olds from
15 to 30 hours and also offering childcare • Childcare choice and take-up is influenced
tax advantages and additional benefits, by both provider-related factors such as
for those in employment. sufficiency, cost/funding and flexibility
of provision and parent-related factors
• The introduction of the 30 hour entitle-
such as personal preference, awareness
ment has created a system in which the
of entitlements and eligibility. The issue of
very poorest children are given greater
quality does not appear to be a factor in
access to funded early education and care
parent choice and take-up, meaning the
at the age of 2, but where many of these
market is not driving sector improvement
same children are then given access to
or enhanced access.
fewer funded hours than better-off
children at the ages of three to four. • Parent-related factors are influenced
by socio-economic disadvantage, English
as an additional language (EAL), ethnicity,
population mobility, special educational
needs and disabilities (SEND) and employ-
ment status.
• Research suggests that with greater flexi-
bility of provision, support for parents new
to an area and those of children with EAL
and SEND, together with a better under-
standing of the benefits of early education,
parents would be more likely to take up
funded entitlements. Some parents will
still prefer for their child to start formal
early education when their child is older,
thus limiting take-up rates achievable.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Key Findings 18• For parents of children with SEND there
School Readiness
are additional barriers to take-up, includ-
and Attainment Gap
ing lack of awareness and understanding
with regard to eligibility; fear of stigma-
• The attainment gap between more and
tisation; and concerns over the ability of
less advantaged children is increasing,
staff to deal with a child’s additional needs.
after a period of improvement. It is sug-
• There is some evidence that a lack gested that the COVID pandemic might
of impact of the entitlements on child have further escalated this widening.
outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged
• Closing the gap requires a holistic,
children, may be due to lower hours of
complex and sustained approach,
access and lower qualifications of staff
supported by a highly trained and
in settings serving these communities. It is
stable workforce.
suggested that action on enhancing staff
qualifications across the sector is needed • There is some evidence that the 30 hour
if free entitlements are not to further extended entitlement for working families
disadvantage the less advantaged. may be contributing to the widening
in the attainment gap by doubly advan-
taging the better off with additional
Quality hours. Accessing fewer hours, com-
bined with attendance at settings with
• Despite a widening of the attainment lower qualified staff, can mean lower
gap in child outcomes in the last few attainment for the less advantaged.
years, Ofsted inspections indicate that
• There is some evidence that a strategy
the majority of the early childhood
to both increase the funded hours and
education and care (ECEC) sector
enhance practitioner qualification in set-
offers high quality provision.
tings for the less advantaged would lead
• A key factor in quality ECEC is the to better outcomes for the less advan-
qualification level of the workforce, taged and a closing of the attainment gap.
yet this is deteriorating across the sector
• There is evidence that the early
and means fewer children are accessing
years pupil premium (EYPP) could further
provision with a qualified graduate
enhance child attainment for the less
or teacher.
advantaged, but only if it is adequately
• Recent policy choices have emphasised funded, well targeted and easier
increasing the number of childcare/early to administer.
education places for working parents
rather than enhancing the quality of
education provision through employing
highly trained staff.
• It is suggested that a blurring of
the policy intention between childcare
and early education means the quality
debate is confused.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Key Findings 19• There is acknowledged government
Universal versus
concern about the loss of time in settings
Targeted Provision
and schools leading to learning loss.
The lower take-up of funded places since
• Evidence shows the benefits of universal
the pandemic is continuing to cause
provision above targeted provision in
concern for children’s learning potential
closing the attainment gap, as long as
and progress.
take-up rates amongst the less advan-
taged are high. It is suggested that • There is evidence that parental concerns
universal provision encourages a social about health and wellbeing are leading to
mix amongst children, attracts more a continued reluctance to allow children
highly qualified staff, removes stigma to engage in centre based ECEC, which
and encourages take up of places. again is more prevalent in less advantaged
communities and for children with SEND.
• Targeted provision has multiple barriers
to access for the less advantaged and
can lead to longer term problems for
Impact of Formal Hours
the beneficiaries and more inequality
in Childcare
rather than less.
• It is evident that access to high quality
ECEC can result in positive benefits for
Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic
all children, and especially less advan-
on the Development of Children
taged children, particularly in relation
to enhanced language and social skills.
• The pandemic has increased and
While evidence on the optimal number of
exposed the financial vulnerability of
hours is unclear, indications are that this
the ECEC sector, with many providers
is higher than the current universal enti-
suggesting their futures are no longer
tlement of 15 hours.
sustainable. This has implications
for the sector’s capacity to absorb • Evidence indicates a range of between
any enhanced entitlements. 15–25 hours a week after the age of two
years as being positive as long as provision
• The experiences and impact of the
is of high quality. There is also evidence
pandemic on young children have had
of a positive association with children’s
less visibility at policy level than for older
outcomes when attendance is for more
children, leading to a lack of awareness
than 15 hours in graduate led settings.
in policy responses.
• There is some evidence of the negative
• There is emerging evidence that the
impact on socio-emotional outcomes
lack of experience in early years settings
of children spending too many hours and
due to the pandemic has impacted
starting too early in formal ECEC.
significantly and disproportionately
on the development and learning of less • There is some evidence that the negative
advantaged children and children with effects can be mitigated by a more highly
SEND. This is particularly in the areas of qualified workforce.
Communication and Language, Personal,
• The number of hours and the timing of
Social and Emotional development,
these hours can also impact on positive
and Literacy.
or negative outcomes for children.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Key Findings 201
Introduction and Methodology
Introduction However, there are two key and different drivers
to each of these funded programmes: early
The early years 30 hours policy, (also known as education for the universal and the two-year-old
the ‘extended entitlement’), was introduced for targeted offer; and childcare to support working
eligible three- and four-year-olds of qualifying parents for the additional 30 hours entitlement.
parents or carers in England in September 2017
(for more details on eligibility, see Box 1 below). The introduction of the 30 hour entitlement has
also created a system in which the very poorest
The policy was primarily designed to support children are given greater access to funded early
access to affordable childcare for working education and care at the age of 2, but where
parents, and was provided additionally to the many of these same children are then given
universal free entitlement of 15 hours of funded access to fewer funded hours than better-off
early education for all three- and four-year- children at the ages of three to four.
olds, and to the 15 hours available to 40% of
the most disadvantaged children from the
age of two years.
Box 1: Eligibility for the 30 hour entitlement
Eligibility for the 30 hours entitlement Self-employed parents and parents on zero-
is determined by a means-test based on hour contracts are eligible if they meet the
minimum and maximum earnings. Under average earnings threshold. Parents can still
the extended entitlement, eligible children be eligible if they usually work but:
of qualifying parents are provided with
570 hours of funded childcare in addition to • one or both parents are away from work
a universal entitlement of 15 hours of early on statutory sick pay;
education from the age of three, or two if
• one or both parents are on parental,
you are disadvantaged.
maternity, paternity or adoption leave.
To qualify for 30 hours of free childcare, each
In addition, parents are eligible if one parent
parent (or the sole parent in a single parent
is employed, but the other:
family) needs to earn on average, the equiv-
alent of 16 hours on the national minimum
• has substantial caring responsibilities
wage per week and no more than £100,000
based on specific benefits for caring,
per year. A family with an annual household
is disabled or incapacitated based on
income of £199,999 would be eligible if
specific benefits.
each parent earns just under £100,000.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 1 21This policy analysis and literature review sets out • What is the nature of gaps in education
to generate an evidence base which can inform development and school readiness, and what
future priorities for government early childhood impact has the current 30 hours policy had
and care (ECEC) policy, with a focus on improv- on these?
ing outcomes for children from lower socio-
• How has the prevailing government
economic backgrounds. Specifically, it aims to:
view of early years provision as childcare
rather than early education impacted
1. summarise existing research on the
on the quality of provision, for example
30 hours policy;
through lack of funding?
2. look at potential impacts of the Covid-19
• What impact has the pandemic had on
pandemic (both on the early years sector and
the development of pre-school age children,
on child and family needs);
with a particular emphasis on socio-
3. summarise some of the policy options for economic gaps?
reform and identify pros and cons of each.
• How many hours are enough? Does it need to
be 30, and in what pattern of delivery, what is
known currently about this?
Review Methodology
To allow for a rapid turnaround, the review of
The literature review and policy analysis was
literature and policy primarily focuses on:
desk based and conducted in line with a
methodical review as defined by Cole-Albäck
• existing reviews and sources;
(2020) to allow for a rapid turnaround, to help
inform spending decisions coming out of the • evidence from 2017 to 2021 (and beyond
pandemic. A methodical review is similar to a this time frame where appropriate);
systematic review (Booth et al., 2012) in that it is
• evidence from England and the rest of the UK,
comprehensive, rigorous and transparent fol-
especially Scotland.
lowing a set protocol of established timeframes,
base criteria, agreed keywords and a synthesis
The review includes literature from websites,
of the evidence base. Published studies were
peer reviewed articles from the ERIC and BEI
included depending on their relevance to the
database, sources from reference lists (snow-
aims of the review.
balling) and grey literature. For the ERIC and BEI
database searches, the following base criteria
The policy analysis and literature review set out
were used: full text; peer reviewed; academic
to generate an evidence base to inform future
journals; from OECD countries; from 2017 (when
priorities for government policy. To meet the
the early years 30 hours entitlement for some
review aims the analysis of the evidence on
working parents was introduced). The keywords
England’s ECEC policy was framed to address
used can be found in Appendix 1. Results for
these four agreed questions:
searches using Research Indexes (BEI and ERIC)
can be found in Appendix 2.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 1 222
Review of Early Childhood Education
and Care Policies in England
Before going on to look at the 30 hours policy to be meant as a temporary solution to an
in detail, the next section briefly summarises insufficient number of places in state provision,
early childhood and care policies in England, this arrangement has largely remained until
to give context to issues related to the today, with inherent problems as raised by Chen
30 hour entitlement. and Bradbury (2020), and discussed further in
Section 3. The legacy of this policy history is
Key policies in England can be grouped under very evident in the current ECEC system, which
four broad areas according to Stewart and is diverse and fragmented and still largely split
Reader (2020): parental leave; support for between ‘education’ and ‘care’ providers.
parents and parenting; high quality Early
Childhood Education and Care (ECEC); and In 1996 the Conservative Government had
financial support through cash benefits. It is introduced a free entitlement for part-time
the latter two that are of particular interest in early education for all four-year-olds. In 1998
this report and whether the balance is right in the Labour Government extended this free enti-
England between investing in affordable child- tlement to all three- and four-year-olds. By 2005
care for working parents, and supporting child take-up of this extended offer meant that access
development by investing in high quality early to free, part time early education for three- and
education. This section summarises key polices four-year-olds had almost become universal.
in each of the UK nations in relation to these The entitlement was initially for 2.5 hours a day
two ECEC agendas. (12.5 hours a week) for 33 weeks a year, but was
expanded to cover 15 hours a week (which could
be taken flexibly over fewer days) for 38 weeks
Changes over time a year. The Labour government also promoted
childcare as part of a National Childcare
Policy concern for the youngest children can Strategy, its flagship policy of Sure Start local
be identified in legislative changes made programmes (announced in 1998) and through
throughout the 20th century. In the early 1900s the tax and benefit system. The Sure Start pro-
the ‘new’ nursery schools were promoted as the gramme was superseded by the establishment
solution for the education of poor children and of Children’s Centres, a universal programme
although the idea that nursery education may be rather than one for disadvantaged areas as in
beneficial for all children was there in the 1940s, the case of Sure Start local programmes. The
this did not take off as nursery schools contin- intention of this policy was to create a ‘double
ued to be seen primarily as needed for the most dividend’ by promoting good quality childcare
deprived or neglected children and children of which would enhance children’s development
working mothers (West, 2020). It was not until and encourage parental employment (Strategy
the 1970s, after the Plowden Report (DES, 1967), Unit, 2002). The provision for places was not
that the idea of universal nursery education secured through an expansion of maintained
begun to take hold, as proposed in the White provision but rather through stimulating the
Paper Education: A framework for expansion private market for childcare and early education
(DES, 1972), but with recognition that private and that had grown significantly. The free entitlement
voluntary providers would need to ‘fill the gap’ in could be accessed at a local authority nursery
state provision (West, 2020). Although it seemed school, a nursery class in a maintained school,
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 2 23or at a private, voluntary or independent setting 2. The two year old entitlement is intended to
or with a child-minder (Lewis, 2011). broadly cover the 40% most disadvantaged
children and to offer them access to 15 hours
In 2013, the Coalition government commissioned of funded early education. Eligibility targets
two new early years policy documents, More families on low incomes (those on Universal
Great Childcare and More Affordable Childcare, Credit or who receive tax credits) and chil-
which focused specifically on extending child- dren who are vulnerable for other reasons,
care to support working parents. It is argued that such as looked after children or children in
this policy illustrates the switch of early years care, and children with Special Education
policy to focus almost entirely on extending Needs or with a disability. These funded
childcare rather than early education (Lloyd, places can be provided by registered child-
2015). However, from September 2013, the free minders, private and voluntary day nurseries,
entitlement to 15 hours of early education was preschools, maintained nurseries and schools.
extended to two-year-olds from low income Again, the focus is ensuring these less advan-
families by the Coalition Government. It is argued taged children receive early education that
that this inability to reconcile competing early can help boost their attainment and ‘close
years policy rationales has led to a lack of coher- the gap’ in their development and learning.
ence and progress in social mobility (Moss, 2014;
3. Since September 2017, three and four year
Brewer et al, 2014; Paull 2014).
olds with working parents are entitled to a
free nursery place equivalent to 30 hours
per week over 38 weeks of the year. This is
Recent policy in England
known as the extended entitlement (DfE,
2018). These funded places can be provided
By 2017 the government supported universal
by registered childminders, private and volun-
and free entitlements had been extended signifi-
tary day nurseries, preschools, maintained
cantly, as described below, to meet the needs of
nurseries and schools (see more details in
40 percent of disadvantaged two-year-olds and
section 1.1). The extended entitlement is
all three and four year olds (West, 2020). The
specifically targeted at working families to
30 hour extended entitlement for three year olds
enhance their access to affordable childcare.
built further on this developing system of ECEC
support. In summary, there are currently three
In addition to these three policy initiatives, in
main funded programmes:
2017 the Early Years National Funding Formula
(EYNFF) was set up for delivering the universal
1. The universal entitlement for all three-
and additional entitlements. The Department for
and four-year-olds to 570 hours of free
Education (DfE) provides Local Authorities with
early education provision per year, typically
six relevant funding streams for the free entitle-
taken as 15 hours per week over a minimum
ments as follows (ESFA, 2020b: 4):
of 38 and a maximum of 52 weeks of the
year. Children are eligible from the start of
1. The 15 hours entitlement for disadvantaged
the term after they turn three until they start
two-year-olds;
Reception year. These funded places can be
provided by registered childminders, private 2. The universal 15 hours entitlement for three
and voluntary day nurseries, preschools, 3- and four-year olds;
maintained nurseries and schools. The
3. The additional 15 hours entitlement
focus of this policy is to ensure all children
for eligible working parents of three-
have access to quality early education
and four-year olds;
to ensure school readiness prior to entry
to compulsory schooling.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 2 244. The early years pupil premium (EYPP); above, due to Covid-19, Local Authorities this
year have not been paid based on January 2021
5. The disability access fund (DAF);
census data but in 2021–2022 will be paid based
6. Maintained nursery school (MNS) on actual attendance (DfE, 2021a).
supplementary funding.
As to provision for babies and infants under two,
The average hourly rate for three- and four- there is no free entitlement for this age group
year-olds across the Local Authorities is £4.99 (EURYDICE, 2020a). In addition to the universal
(EFSA, 2020a), up two pence from 2020–2021 and extended entitlements there is targeted
(EFSA, 2019a). The average rate however does childcare support through the benefit system
not recognise the variation between inner city (Universal Credit) and/or tax-free childcare.
London rates (Camden, £8.51) and, for instance,
Yorkshire (York, £4.44). Due to Covid-19 Local According to Stewart and Reader (2020), the
Authorities have not been paid based on more recent focus on investing additionally in
January 2021 census data, but for 2021–2022 affordable childcare for working parents can
will be paid based on actual attendance, with be seen to have contributed to the gradual
supplementary funding for maintained nursery shift away from supporting child development
schools (DfE, 2021a). through investing in high quality early education.
In the Nutbrown Review (2012) it was identified
Stewart and Reader (2020) highlight that the that quality of provision requires staff with
EYNFF risks undermining quality as it threatens higher qualifications than are currently required.
the viability of nursery schools, thought to offer A review by Mathers and colleagues (2014) for
the highest quality as they are led by qualified the Sutton Trustexplored international evidence
teachers, because they are now, with the on the dimensions of quality which support the
EYNFF, funded at a much lower rate. The fact learning and development of children from birth
that there is also regulatory requirement to pass to three years old also suggested that Level 3 (A
through a set amount of the DfE funding to level equivalent) should be the minimum require-
providers poses an additional challenge for local ment that should be considered, especially
authorities to support professional development when working with two-year-old children from
and quality improvement. challenging circumstances. The lack of highly
qualified staff in early years settings continues
A two-year-old child meeting eligibility criteria to be the case and workforce supply challenges
is entitled to 570 hours of free provision per have increased (Pascal et al., 2020a).
year, typically taken as 15 hours per week over
a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 52 weeks Over recent years, school-readiness has also
of the year (DfE, 2018). As mentioned above, become a more prominent consideration with a
the DfE provides Local Authorities with the growing shift away from a play-based curriculum
funding for the free 15 hours entitlement for towards more formal learning through a focus
disadvantaged two-year-olds; however, there on literacy and numeracy as key aspects of
are no regulatory requirements to pass through school readiness, according to Stewart and
a set amount of the DfE funding nor is there a Reader (2020). This shift in focus, together
compulsory supplement or a special educational with the introduction of the Reception Baseline
needs inclusion fund (ESFA, 2020b). Assessment (STA, 2020) and the Phonics
Screening Check (STA, 2019) in Year One, puts
For 2021–2022, the average hourly rate for two- into question what we mean by ‘quality’ in early
year-olds across the Local Authorities in England childhood education. According to Stewart and
is £5.62 (EFSA, 2020a). This is down from £5.82 Reader (2020: 20) recent policy commitments
in 2020–2021 (EFSA, 2019a). As mentioned have been framed “mainly as improving childcare
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 2 25for working parents, with very little attention to early education for children and childcare for
early childhood as a life stage in its own right”. working parents. In Wales there is an entitle-
ment to universal part-time early education for
three- and four-year-olds, and targeted early
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland education hours for less advantaged children
from the age of two. (For further details see
Reflecting on early childhood education and Appendix 3).
care policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland alongside England, we can see that all
four nations in the UK have a level of universal Summary
funded entitlement for three- and four-year-
old children, motivated mainly by supporting In summary, all children in England are entitled to
children’s development and learning. The part-time (15 hours) of early education from the
amount of hours offered is part time, between age of three, and for less advantaged children
10–15 hours a week, other than in Scotland, from the age of two, and additionally, children
which has recently extended its universal offer from working households are entitled to a further
to 30 hours a week term-time from summer 15 hours of childcare (ie 30 hours total) from
2021. In each nation there are very different the age of three and other subsidies before
approaches to supporting parents into work, this. It is evident that rather than ensuring an
study or training and more varied levels and extension of universal access to high quality
types of support for this, with Northern Ireland early education, the policy focus since 2017 has
offering the least support for childcare, concen- been on affordability of childcare and reforming
trating its focus on offering early education prior the benefit system to encourage employment.
to compulsory school entry, and England the Of significance is that with this policy focus,
most support for working families. In Scotland government support in England has shifted away
there appears to be a more holistic, integrated from targeting low-income families towards
approach in ECEC policy which foregrounds targeting support at working families.
quite generous initiatives which blend both
It is worth noting that the new Biden adminis-
tration in the United States has introduced in
2021 a transformative strategy for early years
embedded within the American Jobs Plan
and the American Families Plan (The White
House, 2021). The American families plan aims
to provide universal, high quality preschool to
all three- and four-year-olds. It is stated that
pre-school and childcare providers will receive
funding to cover the true cost of quality early
childhood care and education, including a
developmentally appropriate curriculum, small
class sizes, and culturally and linguistically
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 2 26responsive environments that are inclusive of programs and Head Start will earn at least $15
children with disabilities. The plan also aims to per hour, and those with comparable qualifica-
provide more affordable childcare by ensuring tions will receive compensation commensurate
that low- and middle-income families spend with that of kindergarten teachers.
no more than seven percent of their income on
childcare, and that the childcare they access It is also noteworthy to consider the pattern
is of high-quality. The plans will also invest in of free entitlements available internationally as
the childcare and early education workforce by shown in Figure 1 below. This data reveals that
providing scholarships for those who wish to most of the listed OECD countries offer a level
earn a bachelor’s degree or another credential of free entitlement that begins at a younger age
to become an early childhood educator. And, in most cases, and is generally unconditional or
educators will receive workplace based coach- universal from two to three years of age. The
ing, professional development, and wages that universal hours offered from two to three years
reflect the importance of their work. The inten- vary from 15–60 hours with most in the range
tion is that all employees participating in pre-K of 20–25 hours.
Figure 1: International Comparison of Free Entitlements
Hours/week the Hours/week the
Age of Entitlement to child has access Age of Entitlement to child has access
Country child Free Access to free childcare Country child Free Access to free childcare
Austria 5 Universal 16–20 Korea 0–5 Unconditional 30–60
3–5 Unconditional 20–25
Belgium 2.5–5 Unconditional 23.3
(Flemish) Luxembourg 0–3 Conditional 3
3–5 Unconditional ≤26
Belgium 0–2.5 Targeted N/A
(French) 2.5–5 Universal 28 Mexico 0–2 Targeted N/A
3–5 Unconditional 15–20
Chile 0–2 Conditional 55
4–5 Unconditional 22 Netherlands 0–4 Targeted 10
Czech Republic 5 Unconditional ≥40 New Zealand 3–5 Unconditional 20
Finland 0–6 Conditional 50 Norway 1–5 Conditional 20
France 0–2 Conditional 40 Portugal 0–2 Conditional N/A
2.5–5 Unconditional 24 3–4 Unconditional 25
5 Unconditional 25
Ireland 0–5 Conditional 15–60
3–5 Unconditional 15
Slovakia 3–6 Unconditional N/A
Italy 3–5 Unconditional 40
Slovenia 1–5 Conditional 45
Japan 0–2 Conditional 55
3–5 Conditional 20/50
Sweden 1–2 None N/A
3–6 Unconditional 15
Kazakhstan 1–6 Unconditional 50–60
Source: Data extracted from OECD Starting Strong 2017, Table 2.2 Characteristics of legal access entitlement (p80)
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 2 27Key Points: UK Policy
• In England, there is an entitlement to 15 to 30 hours and also offering childcare
universal part-time early education for tax advantages and additional benefits,
three- and four-year-olds, and targeted for those in employment.
early education hours for less advantaged
• The introduction of the 30 hour entitlement
children from the age of two.
has created a system in which the very
• Since 2017 there can be seen to be a poorest children are given greater access
policy shift in England to focus more on to funded early education and care at the
supporting working families, rather than age of two, but where many of these same
families living in poverty or disadvantage, children are then given access to fewer
through extending the hours of funded funded hours than better-off children at
places for three and four year olds from the ages of three to four.
3
Review of Research on the 30 hours Entitlement Policy
In this section research evidence on the take-up, 3. What impact has the COVID pandemic had on
quality and impact on children’s development the development of pre-school age children,
and school readiness of the 30 hour extended with a particular emphasis on socio-economic
entitlement policy will be presented, along with gaps?;
evidence about the positionality of this policy
4. How many hours are enough? Does it need to
against other current ECEC policies, such as
be 30, and in what pattern of delivery?
the two year old funded entitlement. It will also
include evidence addressing the following four
specified review questions:
Competing Goals
1. What is the nature of gaps in education
West (2020) provides an historic account
development and school readiness, and what
and analysis of legislative provision of early
impact has the current 30 hours policy had
childhood education over the twentieth century,
on these?;
starting with the 1918 Education Act and up
2. How has the prevailing government view to the 2017 free entitlements, detailing the
of early years provision as childcare rather shift in policies and provision from providing
than early education impacted on the quality nursery education specifically for poor children
of provision, for example through lack and disadvantaged families to universal early
of funding?; childhood education for all three- and four-
year-old children. It should be noted that whilst
Government funds early education, they share
provision of this service with private, voluntary
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 28and independent providers that have been (2020: 244) point out that although the EU has
vital in “’filling the gap’ in preschool provision” been advocating an integrated system for over
(ibid.: 582). two decades, few countries have fully integrated
ECEC systems “widely seen as important in
Cohen and Korintus (2017) look at the ECEC developing quality across services and ensuring
situation in Europe from the 1970s and it is that services meet the needs of children, fami-
interesting to note that the driver behind ini- lies and society”.
tiatives and the expansion of ECEC provision
was very much for enabling mothers to work as West and Noden (2019: 153) recognise that
opposed to providing for disadvantaged children when Labour came to power in the UK in 1997,
as was the case in England, as mentioned above. they inherited a mixed market economy of
Cohen and Korintus (2017: 238–239) recog- providers and that it was retained for pragmatic
nise, referring to work done by the European reasons; “the PVI infrastructure was already in
Commission Childcare Network (ECCEN) in the place so facilitating a rapid expansion of places”.
1980s, that many EU countries are “prisoners They were in a sense ‘prisoners’ of previous
of their historic roots, with one set of ‘childcare’ policies when they introduced the entitlement
services often developed as a welfare measure to free early education as part of their National
for working-class children needing care whilst Childcare Strategy and Sure Start local pro-
their parents worked, and another set of ‘early grammes. The aim was to offer choice and
education’ services developed as kindergartens flexibility for balancing work and family life (DfES,
or nursery education or play groups prior to 2004) but the mixed market economy came with
formal schooling”, what was referred to above as inherent problems as discussed by Chen and
a split system (DEPP, 2020). Cohen and Korintus Bradbury (2020) below.
Key Points: Policy Focus
• Early childhood education and care • In England, funded (maintained) provision
(ECEC) expansion as a policy priority began predominantly as educational
can be seen across Europe and elsewhere support for less advantaged children,
over recent decades with mixed goals; in with the PVI sector developing to fulfil
some countries it is primarily viewed as the need for childcare for working parents.
providing childcare for working parents, These twin goals continue to challenge
for others it is seen as a means to support the efficacy and quality of the multi-sector
less advantaged children educationally, delivery which continues in England.
for others it is a mix or blend of both of
• The educational value of ECEC is increas-
these goals.
ingly recognised in most European coun-
tries, even those who continue to have
a split system.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 29ECEC Take-up • 88% of 3- and 4-year-olds taking up the
universal 15 hours, down from 93%;
Stewart and Reader (2020) note that take-up
• A 5% fall in take-up of the 30 hours enti-
rates of the free entitlement for two year olds
tlement, estimated at around 3 in 4 of
peaked in 2018 and has declined slightly from
eligible children;
72 per cent to 69 per cent in January 2020 and
that that take-up rates of the universal offer • The number of children in receipt of Early
for three and four year olds has also declined Years Pupil Premium has risen by 6%;
slightly, from 93 to 91 per cent for three year
• Take-up of the 30 hours is lower for children
olds and 98 to 94 per cent for four year olds.
with SEND than the universal entitlement
There is also evidence that take-up by children
(2.8% compared to 6.3%);
with special needs or disability has been particu-
larly affected by the COVID pandemic (Disabled • The number of providers delivering the two-
Children Partnership, 2020). One explanation put year-old offer has fallen, although the number
forward by the Disabled Children’s Partnership of maintained nursery and primary schools
is that the 30 hours offer may have pushed delivering the offer has increased;
some children out of ECEC altogether but they
• The proportion of staff delivering funded
do not elaborate on why this would be the
entitlements with a graduate level qualifica-
case. They do however point out that despite
tion remained at 9%. 36% of PVIs (including
a steady increase in take-up of funded places
childminders), delivering 51% of children’s
by two-year-olds in the maintained sector, that
funded entitlements, contain at least one
of three- and four-year olds has declined, and
graduate member of staff.
overall, data from the National Pupil Database
shows maintained nursery provision is down by
Chen and Bradbury (2020: 297) highlight the
5 per cent. This decline is attributed to children
dysfunction and inequalities of the English
who will later claim Free School Meals (FSM),
childcare market, when they state that “parental
indicating that those in poverty are less likely to
choosing behaviours do not conform to the
take up their entitlement. As Chen and Bradbury
market logic of competition and choice”. They
(2020) point out, despite maintained settings
further (2020: 287) point out that contrary to
offering higher quality provision, parental choice
findings by Grogan (2012), working middle-class
seems to be guided by practical considerations
parents in England can feel they are at a disad-
such as the age of the child, opening hours and
vantage as they are “tightly constrained to day
availability; this may result in nursery closures.
nurseries and childminders because of extended
According to Stewart and Reader’s (2020) data
service age and the opening hours they provide”.
about 63 per cent of three- and four-year-old
In other words, practical considerations such as
children not on FSM and 45 percent of children
the age of the child, term time opening hours
on FSM attended PVI settings in 2017.
and availability limit their choice of provision
and level of take-up and are often a priority over
Figures released from the DfE in July 2021
education quality and staff qualifications. The
(DfE, 2021) and analysed by Early Education
parents in Chen and Bradbury’s study tended to
(Early Education, 2021) reveal the significant
judge quality emotionally and subjectively on the
impact of Covid-19 on take-up with:
general feeling they had of a setting, rather than
taking Ofsted ratings, staff qualifications and
• 62% of vulnerable two-year-olds taking up
education quality as drivers. Chen and Bradbury
their entitlements, down from 69% the previ-
suggest childcare choice and take-up is, as such,
ous year, and the number of two-year-olds of
an emotive issue rather than a rational choice
Asian origin has fallen by a third;
and high-quality nursery schools have not acted
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 30as a market incentive to motivate quality in a system where the childcare market is not
improvement as was expected. This problem, only split between full-time working parents and
according to the authors, is not limited to the part-time working or stay at home parents, but
English context but is prevalent in marketised also has a split provision for children under three
approaches to childcare in Anglophone coun- and children three to five, as the English system
tries in general. has. Chen and Bradbury (2012: 297) conclude
that there is in effect “little real choice for
Albakri and colleagues (2018) also discuss parents, whose choosing processes are limited
the take-up rate for the free entitlement and by practical concerns, including those inherent in
group them under provider-related factors such the ‘free hours’ policy”. Practical considerations
as sufficiency, cost/funding and flexibility of include its location, reputation, affordability
provision and parent-related factors such as and opening hours in relation to their employ-
personal preference, awareness of entitlements ment needs. Degotardi and colleagues (2018)
and eligibility. They state parent-related factors remind us that parents should not be treated
are influenced by disadvantage, English as an as a homogenous group but their research on
additional language (EAL), ethnicity, popula- factors influencing choice of setting in Australia
tion mobility, special educational needs and showed that working parents needing what they
disabilities (SEND) and employment status. call ‘long day care’ were also mainly guided by
Albakri and colleagues (2018: 9) identified great pragmatic factors. Degotardi and colleagues
variation by region with take-up lower in London conclude providers and policy-makers should
than other regions; however, across all areas still be guided by children’s right to high-quality
“children from the most disadvantaged families, early childhood experiences.
who stand to gain the most, are less likely to
access the funded entitlements”. They suggest In the US, Bassok and colleagues (2017) noted
that with greater flexibility of provision, support that there was little difference in preferences
for parents new to an area and those of children across pre-school types in Louisiana but dif-
with EAL and SEND together with a better ferences in search processes between parents
understanding of the benefits of early education, looking for a place in publicly funded pre-
parents would be more likely to take up funded schools, state funded pre-schools or subsidised
entitlements. Albakri and colleagues do however private settings, that varied between relying
point out that some parents will still prefer on personal networks, local public schools or
for their child to start formal early education using advertisements and the internet. Bassok
when their child is older thus limiting take-up and colleagues therefore recommend, taking
rates achievable. parental needs and experiences in the choosing
process into consideration, that policy makers
According to the Starting Well report (EIU, need to address two points in particular: firstly,
2012) the UK was rated as offering one of know better if and what information parents
the best pre-school programmes globally by have access to in making choices, and sec-
ranking 4th out of 45 countries rated. The ondly, improve eligibility to and affordability
Starting Well Index assessed social context, of provision.
availability, affordability and quality along 21
indicators. The report stated that the UK was, Newman and Owen (2021) examined factors
in 2012, ahead of many countries by offering preventing eligible families from taking advan-
the universal entitlement for three- and four-year tage of the two-year-old entitlement, especially
olds together with subsidies for disadvantaged barriers that parents with children with SEND
families. However, as the research by Chen face and possible solutions to these barriers.
and Bradbury revealed, league tables may They revealed three themes:
hide inequalities or lack of choice, especially
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 311. lack of awareness and understanding in any impact, understanding access is crucial.
regards to eligibility; There are many factors influencing access, one
of them, according to the research by Campbell
2. fear of stigmatisation; and
and colleagues, is the availability of different
3. concerns over the ability of staff to deal types of settings. In England the free entitlement
with a child’s additional needs. can be accessed in:
Lack of awareness is again an aspect as in the • maintained nursery schools and primary
study by Bassok and colleagues (2017). Newman school nursery classes, collectively as ‘main-
and Owen (2021) suggest that if providers want tained provision’;
to overcome identified barriers they need to:
• day nurseries run by the private, local author-
ity or voluntary sector, some of them within
1. Restructure how they approach the families
Sure Start children’s centres;
by being more aware of the unequal power
relation between them which may involve • childminders; and
using parent ‘ambassadors’ to share their
• sessional, part-day providers.
experiences of the free entitlement.
2. Address the ‘othering’ of families who take The availability of these different types of provid-
up the two-year-old entitlement, that maybe ers varies widely across England but noteworthy
only true universal access, irrespective of dis/ is that most new places created since 1997 were
advantage, can solve. in private and voluntary settings (Blanden et al.,
2016). This is an important point as there are
3. Build trust that the system can cater
“tendencies among some families to attend some
to specific needs.
types of settings” depending on opening hours,
fees or simply by preference for one type of
The evidence indicates that policy needs to
provision over another (Campbell et al., 2016).
be more explicit about its intentions; Is it to
support child development and learning? Is it
In their study, Campbell and colleagues looked
about helping parents into work? Or both of
at the extent of take-up of the free entitle-
these aims? It is argued that a lack of coherence
ment for three- and four-year-olds using data
in policy intentions over time has led to a lack
on 205,865 children from the National Pupil
of impact and outcomes from the investments
Database (the Early Years Census and the Spring
made (Moss, 2014, Brewer et al, 2014, Paull,
Schools Census datasets). The focus was on
2014). To overcome barriers a strength-based
children accessing the full five terms they were
approach rather than a deficit approach is
eligible for before compulsory education. They
needed, according to Newman and Owen,
looked into three pupil characteristics:
where the onus is on the service provider in
making services accessible. This means promot-
1. children eligible for free school meals (FSM);
ing benefits of accessing provision for children
and families rather than a remediating approach 2. children with English as an additional
to counter disadvantage. language (EAL);
3. local factors such as nature of
Campbell and colleagues (2018) recognise the
provision available.
dual purpose of investing in ECEC; to support
maternal employment and child development
The results showed that almost one in five
through early intervention in the lives of dis-
children did not take up their full entitlement of
advantaged children in particular. However,
five terms before starting compulsory education
they point out that for interventions to have
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 32with a clear income gradient of non-attendance. “unequal duration of attendance between groups
Only 15.7 percent of children ‘never on FSM’ did in the terms preceding the immediately pre-
not attend on the study’s cut-off date compared school year. Non-attendance at the beginning
to 27.4 percent of children on FSM. Among most of their funded entitlement may be diluting
ethnic groups’ figures showed a similar pattern the potential effects of the policy on low-
of children more likely to have accessed the full income children.”
entitlement if they had never been on FSM. There
was a however a stronger effect on low income in Quantity together with staff qualifications may as
English-only than EAL households (Campbell et such be important factors. Blanden and colleagues
al., 2018: 526). FSM status, EAL and ethnic back- recommend higher quality requirements, particularly
ground are as such important factors influencing in relation to staff qualifications, are needed for
take-up. “Having English as an additional lan- private nurseries serving poorer children in England
guage, or being English-speaking and persistently if the free entitlement is to have greater effect. If
poor, are both predictors of non-attendance” this does not happen, Blanden and colleagues, as
(Campbell et al., 2018: 526). Campbell and colleagues (2018: 537), fear the free
entitlement to 30 hours for children of working
As to local factors such as provision available, parents will further disadvantage children from
“over-all, the picture suggests the value of a mix low-income families by “increasing the extent to
of different types of provision in promoting take- which subsidies for early education are concen-
up, and particularly the importance of having trated disproportionately on children who least
even a small share in the voluntary sector and need a head start”. In the policy review by Akhal
in Sure Start children’s centres” (535). and colleagues (2019), they recognise there is a
wide variation across local authorities in the take-up
The above points are important for understand- of two-year-old places where in some authorities
ing take-up; however, Blanden and colleagues there had been a slowing down of the take-up of
(2016: 718) found when comparing child out- the two-year-old entitlement, possibly due to the
comes of children taking up the free entitlement difference in delivery costs and the prioritisation of
for three- and four-year-olds (at the age of five, the three- and four-year-old entitlements.
seven and eleven) that “disadvantaged children
do not benefit substantively more from the free A study conducted in Scotland on the take-up of
entitlement than their more affluent peers”. They places for eligible two-year-olds revealed that:
suggest it may be because all new places created
under the policy were in the private sector which “the major barrier to uptake is lack of aware-
is less regulated with lower levels of graduate ness – rather than opposition to the concept,
staff. Blanden and colleagues (ibid.) state: problems with the application process or
dissatisfaction with the nature of the provision”
“There is evidence that private nurseries (Scottish Government, 2017: 4).
which serve poorer children are particularly
bad on these measures [employing graduate The study also noted that the offer was promoted
teachers], helping to explain why the policy through professionals (mainly health visitors),
did not have the expected success in reduc- advertising and word of mouth, and of the three,
ing gaps in cognitive development between the importance of contact between the profession-
children from different backgrounds.” als and eligible families was the most important
means. All the above findings have important policy
Campbell and colleagues (2018: 536) suggest implications in that extending universal provision
another explanation may lie in the fact that is important in creating a more equitable start for
there is: children of low-income families.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 33Key Points: ECEC Take-up in England
• Take-up rates of the free entitlement for • Research suggests that with greater flexi-
two-year-olds and the universal offer for bility of provision, support for parents new
three and four year olds in all sectors to an area and those of children with EAL
has declined significantly over the last and SEND together with a better under-
year due to Covid-19. There is signifi- standing of the benefits of early education,
cant variation in take-up by region and parents would be more likely to take up
socio-economic status. Take-up rates for funded entitlements. Some parents will
children with special needs and disability still prefer for their child to start formal
have been particularly affected by the early education when their child is older
COVID pandemic. thus limiting take-up rates achievable.
• Childcare choice and take-up is influenced • For parents with children with SEND there
by both provider-related factors such as are additional barriers to take-up, includ-
sufficiency, cost/funding and flexibility ing lack of awareness and understanding
of provision and parent-related factors with regard to eligibility; fear of stigma-
such as personal preference, awareness tisation; and concerns over the ability of
of entitlements and eligibility. The issue of staff to deal with a child’s additional needs.
quality does not appear to be a factor in
• There is some evidence that lack of
parent choice and take-up, meaning the
impact on child outcomes, particularly for
market is not driving sector improvement
disadvantaged children, may be due to
or enhanced access.
lower hours of access and lower qualifi-
• Parent-related factors are influenced cations of staff in settings serving these
by disadvantage, English as an communities. It is suggested that action
additional language (EAL), ethnicity, on enhancing staff qualifications across
population mobility, special educational the sector is needed if free entitlements
needs and disabilities (SEND) and are not to further disadvantage the
employment status. less advantaged.
ECEC Quality initiatives, overall qualification levels in the ECEC
workforce are declining (Pascal at el 2020).
Campbell and colleagues (2018) point out Stewart and Reader (2020) also note there has
that following the roll-out of funded places, been a general decline in children attending
the introduction of the statutory early years voluntary pre-schools and an increase in children
foundation stage (EYFS) (from birth to five) and attending private day nurseries, where qualifi-
the development of the ECEC workforce are cation levels are comparatively low but as this
examples of how successive governments have trend started long before the free entitlements
tried to improve the quality of provision in all in 2017, see Figure 2, this cannot be attributed to
sectors. However, despite successive workforce the policy from 2017.
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 34Figure 2: Three and four year olds in PVI sector by FSM status
Three- and four-year-olds who go on to receive free school meals
(excluding those in Reception class)
35%
attending funded early education
% of three- and four-year-olds
30%
(excluding Reception class)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
All other three- and four-year-olds (excluding Reception)
35%
attending funded early education
% of three- and four-year-olds
30%
(excluding Reception class)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Private day nursery Private pre-school Voluntary pre-school
Other including childminder Voluntary day nursery
Sure Start (main or linked)
Source: Stewart and Reader (2020: 58) interpretation of the National Pupil Database
Of concern is the fact that, “the falling share of a mixed economy of providers has come at the
children eligible for free school meals attending expense of staff quality, a prerequisite for long-
maintained settings means a substantial drop in term benefits for children”.
the share of children from low-income house-
holds with access to a QTS [qualified teacher]” Child development as identified through the
(Stewart and Reader, 2020: 60). This is impor- EYFSP data can be used to measure cogni-
tant as level of staff qualification is an important tive and social development and in how the
indicator of quality. The EPPE study showed attainment gap is narrowing or widening by
that provision needs to be high quality to ensure comparing children on FSM and children who
it promotes children’s development (Sammons, are not. Evidence reveals that the gap in the
2010; Sylva, 2010; Mathers et al., 2014). West EYFSP scores had been closing up to 2017 but
and Noden (2019: 163) believe “the government has since started to widen again (Hutchinson
focus on increasing the availability of places via et al, 2019; Stewart and Reader,2020). The gap
A Fair Start? > What do we know about the 30 hour entitlement > Section 3 35You can also read
