To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

Why on earth would we want to encourage even more mothers not to work by paying them to raise their own child. The state doesn't force anybody to have a child, it's down to the choice of the adult. Therefore only the parents should fund not working if that's what they choose to do. Some take years and years out of the workplace to have numerous children, their choice but then they should fund it.

We need working mothers, both for the economy and society. Doctors, nurses, social workers etc. Women hold many important jobs.

Paying people to parent would be bad for society, they should do it as its a responsibility they have chosen not because it makes money. Why do you think the benefit system has seen such reform?

"The proposal was to increase the number of children per carer. This would have brought us into line with France, Sweden and many other European countries. It was opposed on the grounds that it would undermine the quality of childcare. A side effect of the proposal being dropped is that childcare costs remain high in the UK."

It is hard to be in line because there are so many differences, the pre-school type of provision in (say) Sweeden goes up to the age of 6 - ratios in that age range are bound to be different.

Also looking at statistics from 2013 in Sweeden degree qualified teachers earn about 8% less than than primary age teachers and upper secondary school level qualified (roughly NVQ3) assistants earning about 23% less than than primary age teachers. The pay gap between primary school teachers and NVQ qualified early years practitioners is significantly more than 23% here.

I'm not using this to make recommendations, just to highlight that it is very hard to compare the systems and to know if there would be any savings in making changes of this kind. German early years workers have recently been (and may still be, I haven't checked) on strike because of changes to their system without what they feel is fair pay increases - it is complicated.

PrH47bridge- agree.

Whenever these discussions come up, the concept of the 'mother staying at home to raise her child' isn't helpful. We are living in an era (thank god!) where girls and boys are raised to have equality of opportunity, and most of us recognise that men and women are equally capable In the workplace and at home. Also, 'raising a child' embraces SO much more than whether a mother works or not, and it can be done in a million different ways... It is about the values a child is brought up with, the influences from wider society- it's not simply a matter of who wipes their bum 'raising them'!

I also think that there can be very good, personally productive reasons why an adult might choose to have some time out of paid employment, provided they have the financial means to do so. Why should the govt fund a parent to stay at home over and above other people who might choose to stay at home to eg: write a book, do voluntary work Etc etc?

You hear single people complaining that their tax benefits families. This thread has made me right wing at least on taxation. Most odd. Never thought I'd say it, but really low taxation seems the way to go. People keep as much as possible of what they earn and spend it how they please. This moaning about how others have access to some benefit or tax break that one is denied is so undignified.

How about investing in families so mothers can afford to stay at home to raise there own children at least till school age if they so wish

It is not the job of government to fund all possible lifestyle choices. If the government does something to help SAHPs there will be people complaining that the proposal discriminates against working parents. If the government does something to help married couples there will be people complaining that the proposal discriminates against single parents. If the government does something to help single parents there will be people complaining that the proposal discriminates against married couples.

The government does not have unlimited money. Governing therefore involves making choices as to how best to target that money. Given there have long been complaints from various groups that the cost of childcare is preventing mothers returning to work when they want to and is a source of gender inequality in the workplace I am not surprised the government is proposing to help those parents who want to work. Both Labour and the LibDems also want to extend childcare provision for working parents, although the details of their proposals differ from the government's.

Not read full thread but

During your 9 months of mat leave you'll still be classed as working so will be entitled to the 'free' childcare then.

So it's only 3 months you won't.

Soon - when childcare costs are subtracted it is often those working with the lowest incomes.

I would have less than a single parent with two children claiming IS, CTC and HB as a full time teacher with two in full time childcare.

Doesn't that surely indicate people need help with this?

The Government has already proposed changing the childcare ratios under the coalition and had to drop it when Nick Clegg intervened at the 11th hour

The proposal was to increase the number of children per carer. This would have brought us into line with France, Sweden and many other European countries. It was opposed on the grounds that it would undermine the quality of childcare. A side effect of the proposal being dropped is that childcare costs remain high in the UK.

It's clear from this thread that the extra hours would be very welcome to many people. Where is the op?

Yes I know that , it was one option to help single mothers with the lowest incomes.

Not all single parents are in receipt of those benefits Soon.

Fiveacres single parents eligible for full childcare working tax credits receive more money for childcare than they would in income support. If they are basic rate tax payers in it hardly cost effective for the economy. Single mothers could receive the equivalent childcare money and choose whether to work and spend it on childcare or as a top up for IS and stay at home.

And on the subject of ML- certainly at the moment, when on ML you are considered to be employed. This would mean your child would get the 30 hours. This is why people on ML can eg keep getting tax credits for childcare even while they're still at home. Obviously it's possible this could change, but since the whole aim seems to be to get more mothers working, it would be a surprise if they excluded mums on ML since that would be entirely counter-productive. And potentially also function as a barrier back to work eg if you'd had to give up your older DC/s place/s while you were on ML due to lack of tax credits to pay for it, then couldn't get childcare once ML ended and you wanted to go back to work.

How about investing in families so mothers can afford to stay at home to raise there own children at least till school age if they so wish

Well, I'll be straightforwardly political here and say I don't think the relegation of mothers to SAHPs is healthy for the mother, the child, or our society.

And like others, I'm hardly a Tory! I just believe that parenting needs to be shared, and that the inequality all women still experience is in large part because of the assumption that our maternal role is more important than other things we do.

And if you want to know about discrimination ? I've been a lone parent since my DS was 3. 20 years & counting ... Try that for discrimination. Thank the goddess I never gave up my job.

Tarka had the key point for me I think. If this is childcare, then all their spin about the 15 hours being education and best for the child was crap. But extending it to 30 hours for working parents for the sake of the parents and GDP makes sense under that circumstance.

But if it is genuinely education Then it should be available to all.

That said, I don't believe it wouLd be in the interest of all children and certainly wouldn't use it. We didn't use the 15 hrs for the eldest as she hated being away from home, and are undecided as yet for the youngest, he will be eligible in Sept.

Tanith we were discussing whether this will happen at the school governor training I mention in my last post. The council said they didn't know yet how it was going to shake down, but the 30 hours are a manifesto commitment and they expected it to be kept. This was a few days after the election. There isn't actually capacity for every 3 year old to attend a school nursery in our area, but the council historically take nursery education very seriously and have done since the 70s. So I expect they will aim to provide. Interesting times...

OP - I'm no expert but if you are on maternity leave then you are technically still employed and therefore I see no reason why you wouldn't benefit from the 30 hrs per week unless there is a distinct carve out if you are receiving MA/SSP at the same time. Flipping headache to manage though

If you take a career break / resign to take a year off with a vague intent to return to work then you are presumably no longer on HMRC records as a taxpayer and your employer is no making NI contributions on your behalf, then you will get the standard 15 hours.

I don't see anything unfair in that.

I believe there will be a cut off
There is, sort of - a joint income of £300,000 or a single parent income of £150k is what has been proposed for the new Tax free Childcare benefit of £2000k a year which is a small drop in the ocean of £40k pa. No idea if that initiative is now going ahead or will be replaced by the 30 hrs one.

but soon who would cover the cost of that? It isn't propaganda.
SAHP is a choice. Whoever makes that choice has to determine whether they can afford it.
I would imagine that govt thinks the additional free childcare hours will be funded by increasing ratios (so no additional staff costs) and by the extra tax coming in from more people working or somesuch.

Going back to my Manchester example. Every 3 year old is already entitled to 30 hours weekly term time in a school based nursery (thus has been the case for decades). Manchester has very poor school results in comparison to neighbouring Trafford and Stockport so clearly providing this 30 free hours is not raising the academic levels of the children. So given that providing free early years education doesn't seem to work in the way intended what exactly is it's purpose other than free childcare?

That's really not the appropriate way to look at it superexcited. If you know the City of Manchester well, you'll know that it contains some quite stunning levels of deprivation, considerably more so that the relatively affluent Trafford and Stockport (both of which have their own very deprived pockets, so it tells you something about how well heeled the naicer parts are). All the early years provision on the planet wouldn't neutralise the levels of poverty, EAL, SEN and every other thing you can think of that makes it harder to get good results. These factors exist in much, much greater number in the City of Manchester than nearly anywhere else in the country. Didsbury and the more upcoming bits of Chorlton isn't nearly enough to make the demographics of the area anything close to Trafford or Stockport.

I'm really glad the Manchester example was raised in this thread though, was going to do it myself til I saw you beat me to it. I'm a school governor in the area, and we were discussing early years funding and provision at some recent training I attended. I, like you, was under the impression that all City of Manchester primary schools provide the 30 hours for children turning 4 that academic year. In fact, this changed a year ago, and the council gave the schools the choice about whether to provide 30, or 15 and use the extra 15 hours funding (the council gives all schools 30 hours worth) elsewhere in the school. Most of them have stuck with the 30 hours. They didn't say which ones hadn't, but I suspect it's the more affluent ones. They mentioned in the training that the reason Manchester does this, and has historically provided more nursery hours than the minimum, is because of the levels of deprivation. Basically the greater that is, the more likely that doing more hours of education earlier will be beneficial. They said the correlation was very clear, however I did not see the research myself although it chimes with what I have always understood. I should add that I won't be availing myself of the full 30 hours for my own child when the time comes, though. And Manchester has more option to do this than many areas because, due to the high levels of deprivation, the funding per child is higher here than nearly anywhere else in the country. Apparently it's only a few areas in London and then Salford that come close, in England and Wales.

Another 'oldie' here ... We had to pay every single penny of childcare as our children were born before any free hours were available, and before tax credits existed. Like others have said, just because WOHP have managed, it doesn't mean it was easy. Nursery fees nearly broke us - and we were two professionals, who didn't rush into having kids, we planned our family and both had good jobs, but it was still a massive financial drain.

Long term a very good investment- not just for us as a family, by enabling our children to go to an excellent nursery and enabling us to both remain in our careers, but also for wider society- we are both trained professionals working in socially very necessary roles.

I can't relate to this 'sour grapes' attitude whereby some people begrudge others having something which they themselves don't need. Like I said, the tens of thousands of pounds we paid in childcare came out of our own taxed income, but I don't begrudge the help that parents get now. I know how tough, but also how important it is, to enable parents to keep a foothold in the working world, and this policy is about making this achievable for more parents

And single parents, Soon?

I'm lost as to how you interpreted Chimney's post in that way I must admit.

UptheChimney your post is a great example of government propaganda having its desired affect.
How about investing in families so mothers can afford to stay at home to raise there own children at least till school age if they so wish. This could partially be done by allowing couples to share a tax allowance so 20k per couple. Then increase CB to families not using the 30 free hours.

Whatever they are planning, I doubt very much you will simply claim for the free hours with your chosen childcare provider.

While we're having fun speculating, let's put all those hints together and see what we can come up with

It's 30 free hours during school hours only.

The Government has already proposed changing the childcare ratios under the coalition and had to drop it when Nick Clegg intervened at the 11th hour.

The Government are keen to put ever younger children into schools (Gove and Wilshaw were particularly keen).

Gyimah (Early Years minister) has previously said there is no funding issue and that more settings should introduce 1:13 ratios to address any shortfall.

Providers have said they cannot afford to offer 30 free hours at the current funding levels. Their concerns have been dismissed (see above) -perhaps because they're not expected to offer it? There has been a half hearted promise to look at the funding.

Any ideas?

As a previous sahm I feel that govt policies are not sahm friendly especially the unfairness of child benefit.

why is child benefit unfair to sahm?

I think it's great - and am anything but a Tory. I had 3 under 5 in childcare at one point that cost way above my salary - and got into serious debt, I did it, however, as investment in my future career as I would have struggled to return at the level I was when I returned following mat leave.

The free hours would have made an enormous difference, esp as my nursery did as yours and so shaved about £150 off the cost per month - not that much.

Another thing they could do is allow the childcare vouchers per child - it's ridiculous that £243 between three kids is nowhere near as useful as £243 per child.