this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4091 readers
378 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

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/

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.