Childcare
Policy and the Economy by
Maria Lyons
Extended
Version
The
North East coast of Scotland is admittedly not known for its
wonderful weather but we do have the occasional unexpectedly
beautiful sunny day, even in the autumn months. On one such day a few
weeks ago I took my daughter to the beach. The beach was deserted,
save for a handful of older people walking their dogs. As we were
digging and splashing in the breakers a woman came up to me to say
she was so happy to see a child outside, playing in the sand like her
children used to do. We chatted briefly about how one rarely sees (or
hears!) children in public spaces anymore, because even the very
young tend nowadays to be in nursery or some form of care during the
day.
This strangely silent
week-day world is of course a result of the fact that most parents of
young children either want to work or must work. Whether a desire or
an obligation on the part of parents, the gradual transfer of the
care and raising of children from families to paid professionals is a
socio-cultural phenomenon that is wholeheartedly encouraged by the
present Government. Indeed, at a time dominated by political division
and discord, there is one policy objective that is unanimously
supported by all the political parties in the United Kingdom; that is
the aim to increase provision of free childcare for three to four
year olds from the current 15 hours a week to 30 hours per week. The
impetus for this policy is economic. More affordable and flexible
childcare, the rationale goes, will enable more mothers to enter the
workforce thus boosting productivity as well as improving government
finances through a combination of higher tax revenues and lower
benefit costs.
In January 2018 it was
announced that the Treasury Committee had launched an inquiry to
investigate these claims about the relationship between childcare
provision and the economy. The inquiry aimed to “examine the role
high quality, accessible, flexible and affordable childcare can play
in supporting labour productivity”.i
As part of its evidence-gathering process, the committee invited
submissions from members of the public and I took up the invitation
to express my concerns.
My first comment was
that the title of the enquiry is in itself very revealing about
social attitudes toward children, parenting and work. Childcare
policy is being looked at in the context of how it can best serve the
economy. In my view we should be asking two entirely different
questions: How can our policies best serve the needs of children and
their families, and how can the economy best be aligned with those
policies? In a liberal democratic society that claims to value
individual freedom as well as take on social responsibility, the
relentless focus on labour productivity and ‘getting mothers into
the workforce’ is extremely disturbing. Not in the least because
the argument that national wealth leads automatically to national
wellbeing is increasingly unconvincing.
In the past the vast
majority of mothers were denied the opportunity to earn their own
living and participate meaningfully in the public realm. This was
rightfully challenged and has, thankfully, changed. However, where
once mothers were denied the opportunity to work, now many parents
are denied the opportunity to raise their own children. They are
denied the opportunity, that is, through the financial imperative to
seek paid employment. This raises the important question of whether
women, particularly mothers, are being offered greater freedom of
choice or are merely being forced to make different ones.
Instead of pressuring
mothers (through the tax system and other measures ii
) to return to the workforce, the Government should be exploring ways
to enable mothers to make the choice not to. It should be asking if
the funding available for subsidising childcare could not be made
available to support parents to provide their own childcare if they
so wish. This would not only ensure that women can make meaningful
choices and thus would be a fundamentally progressive policy, but it
would ensure children have the best possible chance of receiving high
quality care.
For the evidence is
quite clear on what sort of caring and environment helps children
thrive. While it has been established that formal care settings, in
very particular circumstances, can produce ‘better outcomes’ than
a home environment, the fact is that these circumstances are far from
the norm. Affordable childcare facilities are struggling, not at all
surprisingly, to offer very young children the consistency,
stability, attention, sensitivity, interest and affection that they
need and deserve. At the same there is an army of mothers (or fathers
or grandparents) willing to provide all of these things for up to 24
hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a formal care setting. It
seems utterly ludicrous that so much effort is being spent on
discouraging them from doing so.
Rather than pouring
public resources toward the frankly unrealistic goal of making very
high quality, affordable child care accessible for every child, why
not invest public resources in high quality parenting? In other
words, invest in the individuals, families and communities who
produce the children and want to care for them; enhance their
capacity to create richly stimulating, stable, healthy and supportive
environments by easing their financial burden and increasing
flexibility in their working lives.
Such a shift in policy
could potentially benefit not only parents and children but the
public purse and the wider economy. The Committee is examining how
childcare policy is influencing the labour productivity and
participation of today’s parents. The question that needs to be
asked is what influence existing childcare policy is having on the
day-to-day lives of a generation of children and how this might, in
the long-term, affect the future prosperity of the nation. For
today’s children are tomorrow’s labour force and any social
policy that directly or indirectly affects their social, emotional,
physical and intellectual development will also influence their
capacities to contribute productively and creatively to their
society.
I suggested that the
scope of the enquiry should be much broader and more fundamentally
questioning of prevailing policy and its underpinning ideology, since
it has by no means been unequivocally established that the public
interest is best served by the greatest number of citizens being
employed for the greatest number of hours in the formal labour
market. In fact, the nationally accounted economy could not function
without the enormous contribution of unpaid labour and nothing is
more valuable to the economy than the freely gifted time, effort and
love parents offer their children. If we continue with current trends
we will end up with a society where all caring is outsourced to
private interests. In other words, all caring is for profit and no
one has any time for any type of activity that is not measured in
terms of GDP. I ended with a plea that we take a moment and think
about what we are doing, lest we forget that the economy is supposed
to serve the needs of the population and not the other way around.
Of course I was aware
at the time of writing that this was far more an exercise in ‘getting
it off my chest’ than it was a submission of evidence in the usual
sense. However, upon reading the final report of the inquiry
published in March I was surprised and extremely pleased to see that
not only did the inquiry question the effectiveness of the
Government’s policy on its own terms but it made two important
acknowledgements. First of all, it noted that not all mothers want to
pay someone else to look after their children. Secondly, it noted
that labelling mothers who do look after their own children as
economically unproductive is a matter of accounting, and accounting
systems can be changed. This might not seem like much, but it does go
a little way towards challenging the assumptions underpinning the
political consensus described at the beginning of this piece.
Most interestingly,
that these two points were given prominence in the final report is
down to the number of submissions the inquiry received from
individuals making much the same arguments I had attempted. In other
words, submission after submission presents, either through facts and
figures or personal experience, the case for moving beyond purely
economic definitions of social value, of a purely contractual basis
for caring relationships, of purely materialistic ways of
understanding wealth and wellbeing and of purely cognitive criteria
for measuring human development. Submission after submission
emphasises the importance in childhood of love, freedom, personal
connection, a sense of security, a sense of community and a
connection to nature. What I found so striking, reading through the
written evidence of the enquiry, is how much the experiences of
people from all walks of life resonates with Rudolf Steiner’s
teachings on education and social life.
Using the power of
less
Although today’s
policy-makers are unlikely to make any significant changes to their
social programme in response to these submissions, there are signs
that at long last parents and teachers are recognising that our
social structures and cultural norms not only do little to encourage
opportunities for outdoor play, they provide little or no protection
for what ought to be totally sacred: childhood itself.
Kim
John Payne argues in his book Simplicity
Parentingiii
that the wealthy industrialised West is an increasingly hostile place
for children and young people, albeit in far subtler ways than in
other parts of the world. The effects are not necessarily subtle. If
you are familiar with educational debates you have probably heard a
great deal in recent years about anxiety, stress levels, attention
deficits, challenging behaviour, depression and even self-harming in
young people. Payne expresses the underlying problem in a
particularly striking way: many children in the United States and
United Kingdom are suffering from a form of post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Not as a result of a single traumatic event, but a
gradual build up of stresses and strains as they are rushed through
every aspect of learning and development, with no time to simply be,
to rest, to process or to experience in their own natural ways.
Education is entirely adult-driven, co-opted by commercial and
political interests, and parents are literally buying into an
approach to learning that is wholly dictated by people whose
expertise lies in cultivating financial profits, not well-rounded
human beings.
Building
on his work with children in Asian refugee camps, Payne describes how
youngsters are showing signs of a ‘cumulative stress reaction’
to immersion in the ‘media rich, multi-tasking, complex,
information overloaded, time pressured’ existence we now call
normal daily life. This is manifesting in all varieties of health
problems. We have all experienced how periods of high tension can
dramatically alter our physical or mental state. It can also alter
our personality, morphing us in mere seconds from our ordinary selves
to our worst selves, with sudden outbursts of negative emotion or
behaviour. Thankfully these moments are usually short-lived and as we
return to calm we regain a sense of self control.
Payne asserts that in children if even
moderate levels of excitement or stimulation become a permanent
feature of daily life, never counterbalanced by interludes of
peacefulness, predictability and even boredom, stress can act as the
catalyst which turns what might have been only a quirk or tendency
into one of the dreaded ‘disorders’.
Filtering
out the adult world
Seen
in this light, the solution becomes obvious. First and foremost we
must reduce the stress in the daily life and environment of our
children. This can be done by a process of ‘simplification’. He
describes this process in terms of four areas that can be dealt with
in turn: the environment, rhythm, schedules and filtering out the
adult world. As with any transformation the first work is inner work.
He advises parents to attempt to recover their dreams, to re-acquaint
themselves with ideals of family life held dear before reality and
its inevitable rush and clutter took over. This imaginative picture
can be used as inspiration for change. From there, one can begin with
what is do-able and capitalise on success in small steps to progress
to the bigger, more important ones.
Modifying
one’s physical environment is the most tangible and perhaps
manageable step in the process of simplification. When it comes to
stuff, the first order of business is quite simply to get rid of it.
Or at least, as much of it as possible. While acknowledging the
pressures that are pushing them in exactly the opposite direction,
Payne urges parents to drastically reduce the amount of possessions
their children have or have access to. Whether with toys, books,
clothes or food, decreasing amount and variety in a child’s
surroundings can help to instil the lifelong lesson that it is
‘relationships, not purchases, which sustain us emotionally’.
After all, ‘nothing in the middle of a pile can be truly
cherished’. With fewer choices and fewer distractions children have
both physical and emotional space in which to develop their powers of
attention, concentration and imagination, a greater depth of
engagement with and an appreciation for what they have.
By
gently turning our family’s attention away from the temptations of
passive entertainment and instant gratification and toward more
hard-won yet meaningful experiences, we encourage qualities and
capacities that will be of both immediate and lasting benefit. These
qualities can be further strengthened by increasing rhythm in daily
life. Payne points out that any regular activity, event or chore can
be made more rhythmical. The certainty of rhythms and rituals create
‘islands of consistency and security’ which punctuate the day and
ground the child in space and time and within the family world. They
are like the ‘place set at the table. An unquestioned invitation to
participate, connect and belong’.
The
same principles apply to how we organise and fill our children’s
time. As with too many toys, too many scheduled activities,
particularly ones with fixed rules, can stifle a child’s ability to
be creative, independent and self-motivated. We have become so busy
‘enriching’ our children we have forgotten to allow them free,
unstructured time in which to discover what they really love to do.
Here again, balance is the key concept. It is not the particular
activities themselves which cause problems, but pursuing too many at
once, too intensely, or at an age which is not developmentally
appropriate. Sports, for instance, can be a wonderful education in
teamwork, cooperation, leadership, skill and self-discipline. But if
imposed too early, organised sports can lead to burnout and young
people can be robbed of pursuits that at a later stage would have
been immensely rewarding. When it comes to our children’s
schedules, then, we must pay attention to what, when and how much,
remembering that as much as programmed events can be ‘enriching’
the spaces in between them can be equally so.
Worry,
always a part of parenthood, seems in the last few decades to have
come to define how parents relate to their children. As Payne
observes, our ‘fears and concerns for our children have eclipsed
our hopes for them, and our trust’. One of the key contributors to
this is over-exposure to media and the hyper-sensationalism of bad
news. Anxiety sells, and it is being delivered, nicely packaged for
maximum impact, right into the heart of our homes and bursting out of
multiple screens all clamouring for our attention. The diet of fear
and exaggerated risk to which so many of us have become addicted is
compromising our sense of perspective, and that in turn is polluting
the way our children see the world. ‘Too much information doesn’t
‘prepare’ a child for a complicated world; it paralyses them.’
Much has been written about the harmful effects of television in
recent years and Payne makes as convincing a case as any of the
merits of ‘kicking out’ that ‘black hole of a house guest’.
Unrestricted television and other forms of screen media work against
simplification at every turn.
A
decade ago Simplicity
Parenting
inspired a movement. Very accessible and brimming with valuable
insights, it can be dipped into and out of as a reference or read as
a comprehensive step-by-step guide. it will appeal to parents who
are uneasy about the status quo but need practical suggestions for
change. Likewise it will appeal to those dealing with specific
problem behaviours but seeking a different set of answers from the
conventional, frequently medication-based approach to child health.
Payne’s observations and recommendations are made with great
empathy and respect for the challenges parents face, as well as their
motivations. Harnessing ‘the power of less’ is certainly an
important step in re-attuning to the true needs of children today, to
seeing the world from their perspective and ensuring that perspective
is allowed to matter.
The task ahead is for
parents and teachers – those with immediate responsibility for
every individual child – to review their rights and
responsibilities so that “A child may be a child in order for him
to become a complete human being”.iv
Universal
Childcare: Is it good for children?
for
CIVITAS
Maria
Lyons
4
February 2024
I have just had a
report on childcare published, I thought it might be of interest and
please circulate to anyone who might find it useful.
https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/universal-childcare/
The Daily Mail wrote an
article about it which you can see here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13030585/Childcare-does-not-youngsters-best-start-life-love-attachment-absent-discussion-best-children-report-claims.html
Maria Lyons
Email:
maria.s.lyons@gmail.com
Mobile:07928 370 696
iHouse
of Commons Treasury Committee, Childcare, Ninth Report of Session
2017-19
(https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtreasy/757/757.pdf)
ii
For more information and analysis on how the tax system penalises
parents who choose to remain with their children rather than seek
employment outside the home, see the excellent organisation and
campaign group Mothers At Home Matter
(https://mothersathomematter.co.uk/).
iii
Kim John Payne
(2019) Simplicity Parenting:
Using the power of less to raise happy, secure children,
Hawthorne Press.
ivEvelien
van Dort (2018) Why Don't Children Sit Still? A Parent's Guide to
Healthy Movement and Play in Child Development, Floris Books.
p93
