Thoughts on this debate?

(69 Posts)
User1234567891011 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:12:44

Just wondering people's thoughts on this article on the debate of why parents on benefits are entitled to free childcare while those who work are not...

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/dads-rant-free-childcare-people-9271429

BannedexPIPassessor Wed 16-Nov-16 21:14:24

Are you a journo?

User1234567891011 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:15:51

No, just genuinely curious about people's feelings on the subject. confused

BannedexPIPassessor Wed 16-Nov-16 21:17:49

You first, then!

ragz134 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:19:31

Do they actually mean free early years education? Which is what the 15 hours a week term time is. Not childcare. Though of course some of us used it for that so we could work, but that isn't the intention as far as I know.

ghostyslovesheets Wed 16-Nov-16 21:20:02

well he's just a big arsehead who doesn't understand it's not free childcare it's early education for the most disadvantaged children

Sirzy Wed 16-Nov-16 21:21:24

It's not childcare, it's education.

There are certain groups which have been found to consistently be behind their peers upon entering school. The 2 year old funding is to try to help bridge that gap and stop children from these groups being as far behind, therefore requiring interventions, when they start school.

friendswithacat Wed 16-Nov-16 21:21:31

I understand why it's there but I think there needs to be more transparency.

Really, they are saying that these children are better at nursery than at home.

User1234567891011 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:21:32

Alright, I just didn't want to set the tone for the thread by making my opinion too early.

I think working parents should have free childcare as should those who are on benefits with sickness/disability. The gentleman who made the argument also made a good point that not only does he have to pay for childcare but also school dinners or packed lunches etc.
Those who are on benefits and not working should not have free childcare if they are choosing not to work (not affected by certain factors etc) - they are home full time and shouldn't have a need for it.

Sirzy Wed 16-Nov-16 21:24:49

I don't think there is a need for more transparency. There has been no hiding what it is or why it is in place, the problem is so many people deliberately misunderstand because they like to be offended

friendswithacat Wed 16-Nov-16 21:26:35

People do misunderstand because education for a two year old is just basic self care, songs, reading stories and interaction.

If they aren't getting that at home then there is a reason and that reason is generally poor parenting.

MyGiddyUncle Wed 16-Nov-16 21:27:03

It's not childcare, it's education

Bollocks IMO. There is no education a 2 year old gets at a nursery that couldn't be given at home. It's care/childcare IMO.

I agree with a pp - I think the translation of the scheme is 'you're a useless parent so we think your kid will do better in nursery'.

Personally i'd rather the money was put towards the parents, in additional support/parenting classes/whatever - something likely to have a bigger impact on the child than a few hours sat in the toddler room of the local KidsRUs will.

StarUtopia Wed 16-Nov-16 21:28:04

He (and a lot of others like him) completely miss the point.

The point is this. Generally speaking, people who work (and want to work) are bright, capable people. Their children will be interacted with. During the day, they're at a nursery/childminder etc who is stimulating the child and providing a great start to early years education.

People who choose not to work (don't want to, happy to be on benefits etc) are generally not as educated and may not interact with their child. As they haven't been out working, their child hasn't spent any time in a formal childcare setting.

So. Come the age of 2, those children need the free hours ( I hate the use of childcare, it's not childcare, it's education) to have any chance at all of actually catching up with those lucky children whose parents have paid for them to be at a nursery etc.

As for the bit in the article, something along the lines of, if we had more kids one of us would have to pack in work (can't afford childcare for two etc) ...well...welcome to the real world! That's exactly what happened in this household. Childcare for two kids just for 2 days a week was more (substantially) than I would earn. So. Obviously, a given I would have to pack in work. But we chose to have more children. We chose to drop our standard of living by having to live off one wage and not two.

I really do get a bit annoyed when people say, it's not fair, why do they get free childcare etc etc.

It's not for them - it's for the child! Basically, it's so their child stands half a chance of actually making it in life.

I actually think the reason most working people get pissed off is because they think that if they got the free hours at age 2, they would have substantially more income left over to buy those luxuries/holidays/clothes etc etc. Why on earth should all the other tax payers pay for this?

Generally speaking, people I know with two incomes (and paying nursery costs etc) still have far more disposable income left over than our family does. Nice cars. Holidays once a year etc. So why on earth would you begrudge a 2 yr old from a deprived background getting a chance in life?

friendswithacat Wed 16-Nov-16 21:30:56

I'm not altogether convinced long term that it makes much if any difference, although I don't have any statistics to hand about the impact of the free hours for two year olds.

The influence of familial backgrounds is such that a few hours in nursery is likely to make little difference to eventual outcomes.

User1234567891011 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:31:04

Giddy That was my thought too - although I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject hence why starting this thread. I've love people more informed to see what they think or what others think generally smile

friendswithacat Wed 16-Nov-16 21:31:15

Not everyone has two incomes, or two parents.

Thirtyrock39 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:34:01

It's about giving disadvantaged kids a boost a year before their peers. Their parents are likely to be doing a good job but are less likely to be able to go to jo jingles , tumble tots etc may not go to toddler groups, buy as many books, museums, national trust memberships etc.. that's not being patronising it's honest and who would begrudge a few mornings at playgroup a few months before the other kids?
Also who's going to pay if 'free childcare for everyone' not very realistic is it

Champagneformyrealfriends Wed 16-Nov-16 21:35:07

It is childcare. My sil and BIL run a small business and fudge the books so they can benefit from this. Their two youngest get 2 days at nursery free a week each.

I know not everybody uses it like this but I certainly know people who do.

friendswithacat Wed 16-Nov-16 21:35:37

who would begrudge a few mornings at playgroup

I would. Not because I'm a sadist who hates toddlers but I have not seen anything that indicates it makes a difference to outcomes.

MyGiddyUncle Wed 16-Nov-16 21:37:34

The influence of familial backgrounds is such that a few hours in nursery is likely to make little difference to eventual outcomes

This. I think the scheme is short-sighted and misguided.

YelloDraw Wed 16-Nov-16 21:38:16

Early years intervention to try and reduce the social divide? Superb idea. Exactly the kind of thing we should be focusing on.

Sirzy Wed 16-Nov-16 21:38:18

It hasn't been in place yet long enough to show fully any long term impact. There has been enough research to show the eligible groups are significantly behind their peers upon entering school AND that carries on Into school to justify taking steps like this to try to bridge the gap.

From people I know who work in early years education they seem to believe that in the cases they know it is beneficial.

sleepy16 Wed 16-Nov-16 21:38:34

I'm in two minds about the funding, it does imply that parents who are in receipt of this funding are not capable of the basics.
I do agree that there are some parents who can not/do not give for what ever reason the start a child needs to be able to go into nursery/school as independent with the basic skills they need.
I don't think in the long term it helps the parents though, it seems they have shut down all childrens centres which a lot of people (no matter what the background) relied on for help and support.
But the children come first and that should always be priority, they can not help or choose the situation they are born into.

WaitrosePigeon Wed 16-Nov-16 21:40:49

It's not for them - it's for the child! Basically, it's so their child stands half a chance of actually making it in life.

Agree with this.

MyGiddyUncle Wed 16-Nov-16 21:42:01

And for all those bleating on that ^it's not childcare, it's education' - have a look at the Gov.uk website.

The scheme is explained under the main heading of 'Help paying for childcare'.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now