What would the solution of a left-wing government be?
I was involved in the running of a preschool about 20 years ago, and there was a big shift around that time. Previously, pre-schools had been able to employ (very good and caring but) unqualified staff to run pre-school - quite often mums whose kids had reached 5 and who fancied making some cash and re-enter the workforce in a fairly gentle way.
Around 20 years ago there was a big push to improve the equally of education that kids received in early years. Long standing ‘playgroups’ were ‘strongly encouraged’ to become ‘preschools’. To get a job you had to commit to study for a Level 3 NVQ in early years education.
These changes were made for good reason , but the result was a huge exodus of people who had been very happy looking after kids, reading stories, playing in sandpits who really didn’t want to study for an academy qualification.
This increased professionalisation reduced the size of the workforce and pushed up wages.
I mean generally the solution proposed by progressive countries is: use taxes on the wealthy to fund programs for the poor.
Universal Pre-K is a popular idea and works by just expanding school systems out to younger ages.
Your complaint here seems to be that existing Pre-K went from babysitting to requiring minimal professional qualifications because it received government backing. I’m confused as to where that caused unqualified babysitters to no longer be able to work? A government funded Pre-K does not preclude a paid independent Pre-K any more than normal schools preclude private schools.
What it sounds like is that you’re complaining that regulations pushed out unqualified and unvetted people who were previously receiving a publicly paid salary to spend all day in a sand pit. You also seem to claim that this represented an appreciable population of Pre-K workers, so much so that it disrupted the entire pay schedule.
I’m not an expert on the exact situation of 20 years ago that you’re claiming and it’s possible that you’re entirely on the money but it doesn’t smell right. It smells like hard economic times and inflation causing prices to go up or more laws with no funding or support. Because if it was just a public sector getting more government funding you’d see an increase in teachers, even if there was an increase in requirements.
If a government was making a push for universal Pre-K and not funding that push then it wasn’t progressive. At best it was liberal.
I’m confused as to where that caused unqualified babysitters to no longer be able to work? A government funded Pre-K does not preclude a paid independent Pre-K any more than normal schools preclude private schools.
Sure, I have no problem with taxing higher tax brackets. I was just explaining some of the pressures that have seen childcare costs jump in recent years.
We have. Hence the current expense of childcare. You could increase taxes to subsidise costs. But there are quite a few other services - health, education, adult and child social services also crying out for those funds.
What would the solution of a left-wing government be?
I was involved in the running of a preschool about 20 years ago, and there was a big shift around that time. Previously, pre-schools had been able to employ (very good and caring but) unqualified staff to run pre-school - quite often mums whose kids had reached 5 and who fancied making some cash and re-enter the workforce in a fairly gentle way.
Around 20 years ago there was a big push to improve the equally of education that kids received in early years. Long standing ‘playgroups’ were ‘strongly encouraged’ to become ‘preschools’. To get a job you had to commit to study for a Level 3 NVQ in early years education.
These changes were made for good reason , but the result was a huge exodus of people who had been very happy looking after kids, reading stories, playing in sandpits who really didn’t want to study for an academy qualification.
This increased professionalisation reduced the size of the workforce and pushed up wages.
What would you do?
I mean generally the solution proposed by progressive countries is: use taxes on the wealthy to fund programs for the poor.
Universal Pre-K is a popular idea and works by just expanding school systems out to younger ages.
Your complaint here seems to be that existing Pre-K went from babysitting to requiring minimal professional qualifications because it received government backing. I’m confused as to where that caused unqualified babysitters to no longer be able to work? A government funded Pre-K does not preclude a paid independent Pre-K any more than normal schools preclude private schools.
What it sounds like is that you’re complaining that regulations pushed out unqualified and unvetted people who were previously receiving a publicly paid salary to spend all day in a sand pit. You also seem to claim that this represented an appreciable population of Pre-K workers, so much so that it disrupted the entire pay schedule.
I’m not an expert on the exact situation of 20 years ago that you’re claiming and it’s possible that you’re entirely on the money but it doesn’t smell right. It smells like hard economic times and inflation causing prices to go up or more laws with no funding or support. Because if it was just a public sector getting more government funding you’d see an increase in teachers, even if there was an increase in requirements.
If a government was making a push for universal Pre-K and not funding that push then it wasn’t progressive. At best it was liberal.
You might be interested in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65aa5e29ed27ca001327b2c6/EYFS_statutory_framework_for_childminders.pdf which sets out the statutory framework under which childminders must operate in England. They aren’t unreasonable, but certainly sufficiently onerous to exclude many of the kind of people who were childminders before 2002.
Here’s a brief history of how things have changed https://thetrainingfox.co.uk/the-history-of-the-eyfs/
Got it.
So it was government regulations with 0 additional funding or support and not progressive at all.
It reads as conservative as it functionally requires traditional gender roles and serves as a tax on the poor.
What? Tax the rich to provide Pre-K funding, which employes licensed qualified folks
Sure, I have no problem with taxing higher tax brackets. I was just explaining some of the pressures that have seen childcare costs jump in recent years.
But that’s not a right wing solution! Heresy!
Install management that has all the bells and whistles and can direct their staff properly, with a pay worth their work and education.
So that pushes prices up more. What now?
Now decide what’s important and stick to it.
We have. Hence the current expense of childcare. You could increase taxes to subsidise costs. But there are quite a few other services - health, education, adult and child social services also crying out for those funds.
deleted by creator
And the lack of those other things exacerbates this one. It’s all the same problem, with the same solution.
“Increase taxes substantially” as a one-size fits all solution always feels a bit unimaginative
Governments have a magical income source called “taxes”. Weird, I know.