United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
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.