AS A member of the Labour Party I was recently berated by a comrade for suggesting that Labour needs to have high aspirations. Her view was that aspirations need to be adjusted downwards lest they “become an unattainable wish list that people have no confidence in.” 

Policy, however, is a process that begins with aspirations and proceeds to policy development, manifesto commitments and policy enactment.  

At the 2019 Labour Party conference, Angela Rayner said “alongside (Sure Start Plus) we will introduce a new service: free nursery education for all two-to-four-year-olds.

“Not childcare on the cheap,” she added, “but an early education service, led by professionals, designed to develop the whole child.”

This is a good example of high aspirations which were articulated in the 2019 manifesto as “Labour will radically reform early years provision, with a two-term vision to make high-quality early years education available for every child.”

Currently, the early years sector is chaotic. It suffers from low status, confused provision, inadequate funding and a generally poor level of qualifications within its workforce. 

There is far too much reliance on outsourced providers and a damaging divide between childcare and education with many disadvantaged and vulnerable children missing out.

In the political discourse surrounding early years, there exists a mythical divide between childcare and education. 

To be clear, subsidised childcare is an offer to working parents whilst age appropriate, play-based education is the right of every child. 

The divide is mythical because, obviously, good quality, age-appropriate education also encompasses and provides care.

Labour’s 2006 Childcare Act offered 15 hours of free childcare to the parents of children aged three. Once the benefits of this provision for children were realised, the offer was extended. Now 15 hours are also offered to the two-year-old children from disadvantaged families, often families where the parents were not working. 

The 2010 coalition government extended the offer of free childcare to 30 hours for working families with three and four-year-old children, the emphasis regressing to child care once more. Those children who would benefit most from more time in nursery, the three and four-year-olds from disadvantaged families, are confined to the statutory 15 hours. This deepens inequality and is exacerbated by the complex and confusing process by which the 15/30 hours are allocated. Parents must claim these hours in and there is a requirement for parents to re-confirm eligibility for their entitlement every three months. 

Some dysfunctional families never get to claim their entitlement and where parents may be self-employed and/or working in the “gig economy” their children miss out. Labour should aim to properly fund early years education as the right of every child and streamline the funding process.

The early years sector is seen as low status. It is characterised by a heavily gendered (mostly female), largely poorly qualified and low-paid workforce. The Graduate Leader Fund (2007) provided financial incentives to recruit graduates as nursery leaders and resulted in improvements. A graduate professional workforce within an early education service would be an appropriate long-term aspiration for Labour. 

In the short and medium term, a profession led by appropriately qualified graduates with well-trained support (following the model of teachers working alongside teaching assistants in schools) is attainable. These professionals should be appropriately rewarded. 

State provision of nursery places is thin – especially away from the big cities. Elsewhere an unorganised outsourcing system exists. Over 84 per cent of provision for children aged three and under is offered by for-profit concerns. Sixty per cent of provision for children between three and five is being run by for-profit operators. 

Some large nursery chains profit from this, charging high fees for “top-up” hours. Many small private-sector nurseries, on the other hand, rely almost exclusively on the government 15/30 hours funding. Because the level of this funding is low they are constantly at risk of financial failure, leading to closure.  

This chaotic, unreliable outsourcing model should be replaced. All children would benefit from a comprehensive, universal provision of state nurseries, funded centrally and under local democratic management would be a powerful long-term aspiration. Logically, this could start from the point where parental leave ends and continue until children progress to school. In the short to medium term, Labour should incentivise local authorities to provide nursery places and take over failing private-sector nurseries.

Keir Starmer and Kate Green (Shadow Education Secretary) have so far remained silent on this issue. Does this indicate an intent to adjust downwards Labour’s aspirations: to follow the uninspired path of managing this chaotic sector in a better way than the current administration, at best tinkering around the edges?

Or will Labour remain faithful to the aspirations of the former front bench? Will Labour in opposition plan for a comprehensive early education service? 

Tony Rea is a Labour councillor in Ivybridge, South Devon and a member of the Socialist Educational Association’s national executive committee. He is now retired, having worked in secondary schools and universities in the UK and overseas. Tony has a PhD in education from the University of Plymouth. All views expressed here are his own.