The Guardian view in free nursery places: risks should be monitored as well as rewards Editorial

WIn changing the season, the ministers know that they must return to the front foot after weeks that made their opponents the political weather. The launch of a new system more generous for financing education in early years in England. The first of September was awaiting hundreds of thousands of parents working for children between the ages of nine and four. As of now, they are entitled to have 30 hours to care for children or free custody per week.

The Minister of Education, Bridget Philipson, is right to emphasize that this is the greatest expansion in providing the first years-which the Institute of Financial Studies described as “A new branch of the welfare state”. That is, the equivalent of about 7500 pounds per year, for each child, this deserves more, for most women in working full time, from canceling the income tax and national insurance contributions. Parents have been dealt with at work age, especially those who have larger families Less Through taxes and interest systems in recent years compared to Blair and Brown governments. The UK has the costs of child care higher than most of the leading economies. So it is right for young children to be targeted with support.

Implementation will need close monitoring. Most of the new financing will flow to private service providers. MS Phillipson is a strong defender for the new nursery role associated with primary schools, but its number is small. Families are given additional financing, but not a new public service. New support will not cover the entire fees. Many custody houses face a shortage of trained employees, while The number of children – usually working women at home – continues to fall.

While there are many private and non -profit nurseries, as well as the general workers supervised by the councils, there is a reason to worry about the way this market has developed. As in social welfare for children and special needs, companies owned by special classification control the increasing number of settings. Last year, academics published research showing that the care role of the private sector was likely to be closed inappropriately by the organizers. In the social welfare of children, the Competition and Markets Authority has ruled that private sector owners make excessive profits and carry a lot of debts, which leads to unacceptable risks.

The ministers must ensure that such horrific failures are not repeated in the nursery sector. As a first step, searches must increase over six years of six-year courses to a four-year step-such as schools. The current contrast sends a terrible reference to the modest situation in the early years.

There is another issue, which is the effect of changes on the poorest children who do not meet the criteria of eligibility because their parents do not work or do not pay the sill of profit of 9,518 pounds. While some weak families are already qualified for additional care for children, experts are worried that the current collection gap may grow as a result of a policy that gives additional financing to hikers from the richest homes.

This is the logical but disturbing result of a policy whose main goal is to enable parents to work, rather than investing in teaching early years as a substantial commodity. Hope must be that the rules change if these concerns are achieved, and that “family centers” – which were brought by conservatives after the start of a confirmed sabotage – contributes to the welfare of these families in the meantime. Mrs. Philipson has a lot on her dish. Additional spending on early years is welcome – but it needs appropriate supervision.