ELC should come with a high cost – but not to parents, says Lorna Kettles, Early Years Scotland Policy & Engagement Manager.

I’ve had the pleasure of working in ELC policy for six years now, and one of the things that drew me most to this sector was the incredibly positive ELC experiences my two boys had. Despite challenges—such as house moves, setting closures that meant my eldest attended three different nurseries, and the impact of COVID creating a significant gap in my youngest’s ELC experience—the solid foundation they received made a real difference. The way my boys have turned out is, in many ways, thanks to that strong start.

These high-quality experiences, however, did not come cheap. The remittance from A’s first nursery, which he attended from the age of 9 months to just under 3 years, was just over £19,000. His pre-school setting cost more per month than our mortgage each month. The narrative within society always focuses on the high costs of childcare and the negative connotations around that – families are forced to shell out large amounts of money for their childcare or decide not to go back to work because sometimes the costs are just too prohibitive.

But here’s the thing – ELC should come with a high cost, but not to parents. For too long, ELC has been undervalued – misconceptions about the nature of the work and the skills needed, as well as the overwhelmingly female workforce and notion of gender roles within society, contribute significantly to this. However early years professionals are not “just changing bums and making macaroni pictures”, they are nurturing, developing, loving and educating our children. They so often witness the milestone moments – first steps, first words – which they share with levels of joy and pride only matched with our own. The costs for this should be properly and evenly distributed via fair and equitable funding for all parts of the sector and not fall on the shoulders of parents.

As it stands, there is a pervasive gulf which already exists, where early years practitioners within local authority settings are paid significantly more than those in the Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector. It can often be the case that a manager in a PVI nursery is paid the same as a local authority practitioner level in a Local Authority (LA) setting. LA settings tend to offer less flexible ELC opportunities than PVI colleagues, with many only taking the 3-5 age range. PVI providers are therefore often relied upon to look after younger children as well as ‘topping up’ the 1140 provision by being able to offer sessions which fully support working parents. This part of the sector is, however, struggling to recruit and retain staff nationally, who are understandably moving into LA provision because the current financial climate means individuals and families are having to maximise income opportunities where possible. As a result, highly trained, high-quality staff are even leaving the sector altogether because they can be paid the same or a higher amount working in a local supermarket with significantly less stress and pressure. That is a critical indictment of where we are at present and should be concerning for policy and decision makers.

EYS will always support measures to ensure that the lowest paid workers in Scotland are provided with an appropriate wage. The announcement, therefore, in the Programme for Government in early May of the continuation of funding for the payment of at least the Real Living Wage to early learning and childcare workers delivering funded hours is welcome to a point– however, this should not be the level a qualified early years professional receives. Everything possible must be done to support workers and their families at what is an extremely challenging time for everyone. Working with families in communities throughout Scotland, our practitioners see first-hand the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on our youngest children. We are, however, extremely concerned that this focuses on paying early years professionals the lowest rates of pay possible. Because that’s what the Real Living Wage is – the minimum that people should receive in order to be able to survive. Is that really what we as a society want for those who provide these vital experiences for our youngest children?

As it stands (under the National Standard and Funding Follows the Child guidance) it is entirely possible to pay those who look after 3-5 and eligible 2-year-old children more than those who care for our youngest, unfunded babies and toddlers. The reality, however, is that few settings do implement this as fair employers, and in fact pay all ELC staff the same pay, with relevant increases and increments accordingly. Payment of the RLW to only those providing funded ELC could, in theory, lead to either further disparities based on the age of children staff are supporting, or an increased strain on providers with the payment of higher wages overall, without the guarantee that local authorities will honour this uplifted rate.

Parents of babies and 2–3-year-olds already pay more in fees due to the higher ratios required for this age group. PVI settings, who provide a significant amount of ELC for this age group, have increasingly no choice but to charge parents more to balance the books – something that we’ve heard from our members that they absolutely do not want to have to do, given the cost of living crisis we are all living through.

Fundamentally, there are real and valid concerns amongst PVI ELC providers as to how they can continue to meet the RLW rate with the variable funding amounts they receive at present. There are 32 separate councils making individual funding decisions, despite the expansion to 1140 hours being a national policy governed by a range of national documents which all providers must adhere to. Yet the gulf between the funded rate given to PVI settings vs Local Authority settings means we have equality in expectation, it seems, but not in resource to be able to provide.

What is imperative in all of this is the recognition and value attached to the importance of the early years, supported by relevant and robust policy ambitions. Our youngest citizens, who were born into a world turned upside down in recent years, affected by a lack of engagement with their peers during periods of restrictions, cannot be guaranteed the positive early years’ experience they both deserve and are entitled to. Given everything the sector has gone through in recent years, we fear, and already see evidence of, an ever-increasing national shortage of qualified ELC staff to provide these vital services.