Advanced search

Free early years education or free childcare ( it's all in the wording)

(12 Posts)
Mycarsmellsoflavender Wed 28-Jun-17 16:48:39

Has anyone else noticed that the free 15 hours entitlement for 2 year olds from poorer families is usually described as early years education, but the additional 15 hours for eligible 3 and 4 year olds is being described as free childcare? But since most nurseries are offering both of these schemes within the same setting, surely they're either both childcare or else they're both early years education?

insancerre Wed 28-Jun-17 20:21:52

The universal 15 hours are early education offered to help children teach their full potential
The reasoning is backed up by theory and research
It's available to all children because it's been proven to be of benefit to all children
The 30 hours i.e. The extra 15 is only available to working parents i.e. Those earning money
It's childcare to enable parents to work
It was a bribe by the Tory government to buy votes
It's not proven by any research tat doing 30 hours will have any benefit to children's development
So it's not early years education
It's a very badly thought out scheme
And extremely underfunded

AnniesTurn Wed 28-Jun-17 20:24:40

Think OP is more talking about the wording they are using

When it's poor kids it's "education"

All kids "childcare"

watchingitallagain Wed 28-Jun-17 20:28:32

I think it was Nick Clegg that wanted 'education' based on evidence that it improved outcomes.

Tories just want 'childcare'. Cheap as chips childcare so everyone is economically productive.

I don't think the language used, or distinction made, is unintentional. angry

overmydeadbody Wed 28-Jun-17 20:29:30

Well it is different. All 3 year olds get
15 hrs, same as the eligible 2 yr olds, of early years education. On top of that, working parents can get another 15 hrs childcare for their three year olds. Yes it is still early years education, what else would those three year olds do? But it's provided so parents can work, so it's child care.

overmydeadbody Wed 28-Jun-17 20:31:56

I think it's easier to view it as who it is meant to benefit. The 15 hrs for 2 yr olds is to help the children, the extra 15 hrs for 3 yr olds on top of what they already have is to help the parents.

insancerre Wed 28-Jun-17 20:32:58

There is no distinction between care and fixation
It's all learning and development and has been for several years

Mycarsmellsoflavender Wed 28-Jun-17 22:41:23

But the 15 hours for disadvantaged 2 year olds was introduced to try to narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and the rest, which is already apparent when they start school. But once they turn 3, most of the non-disadvantaged children will be benefiting from 30 hours of free education whilst the disadvantaged group stay on 15? So surely, this is going to widen the gap? *
If they're going to offer it to parents earning up to 100k each, surely it wouldn't cost much more to make it universal, so that the children who need the extra education most would benefit from it?

Mycarsmellsoflavender Thu 29-Jun-17 08:01:48

Also, if it's supposed to get parents, mostly women, back to work, surely they need the childcare in place before they can start work? But it appears that you have to be working already in order to claim the extra. I don't know how long it will take to set up once it's up and running, but you can bet it won't be quick (For example DLA takes about 6 weeks from when you send in your application). So the parent who has just started working will have to fund the childcare for those first few weeks out of what? So much simpler to make it universal if the purpose is to allow mothers to work.

Snap8TheCat Thu 29-Jun-17 19:16:14

It is all in the wording- it should be 'funded' not 'free'.

Mycarsmellsoflavender Fri 30-Jun-17 14:01:41

Very true, snap8the cat, my mistake blush

Although I'm pretty certain that is how I have seen it worded in some places.

Coming back to my OP, a couple of years ago, there was a poster by the council in our local library saying FREE CHILDCARE and then underneath went on to explain that this was for 2 year olds whose families were in receipt of certain benefits. I don't know if it's still there as it was in the rhymetime area which I don't go to now. I can imagine it pissed off a lot of working people because of the way it was worded.

jannier Sun 02-Jul-17 22:28:59

I cant understand why a parent working 16 hour for example needs 30 hours childcare imagine what could be saved if it were the lowest working hours in a family plus travelling time. And who picked a limit of 100k each those families really don't need the extra 15 hours free.

Join the discussion

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

Get started »