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

The additional hours are about childcare, and not education. At least, that's what my MP kept banging on about during the election campaign.

And baddz, you seem not to realise that many, many WOHPs also have caring responsibilities for elderly relatives etc. And many employers allow them to work flexibly around these responsibilities. It isn't only SAHPs who do that kind of stuff.

This 'high earner/low earner' thing is really not helpful. There is such a massive grey area, one that we have sat in from day 1, where someone earning just over what is classed as low gets shafted. We earn £2000pm between us but that is classed as too much for any kind of assistance. When you factor in our rent (£725) childcare as was (£525) it didn't really leave a lot but we were shown 2 fingers when asking if we could have some help. I understand there haa to be a cut off point but I do think, as it stands, it's too low.

Does childcare x2 really add up to £40,000 (or the net income that provides)?

I think this is fantastic.

Everyone gets 15h for school readiness and socialisation etc for the benefit of the child - great.

Working parents get an extra 15h for childcare cost reasons - great.

It's one of the great tragedies of modern England that so many educated and professionally trained women exit the workplace at 35ish never to fully return.

Let's not forget all this is to keep the worker bees working and paying their tax, not for the benefit of all children or all families. It's right for some it's not for others.

I would wonder why you'd want to send your child off for 30hrs a week if you had the choice?

You are missing my point sash
If I don't do it, who will?
Either way the tax payer will end up paying for elderly care.
Anyway.
ALL education should be free.
"Targeting" any one group will cause division and Ill feeling.

I think this is a great idea. But only a SAHP would think 30 hours a week is full time.

If I was a SAHP there is no way I would want my 3 YO in nursery for anything like 30 hours, 15 is just right IMO.

The original intention, by labour, was to ensure that young children had better starts in life - not to provide free childcare.

Tories have now decided to turn it into that. So yabu because sahm don't need childcare.

However those young children who are in disadvantaged homes - if they lose out as a result then more fool the Tories.

From the viewpoint of the government, that may be true Baddz, but personally I don't want the government heartily patting my back and telling me what a fabulous job I do. Do you?

Generally speaking, is is better for families (as a unit, not necessarily two parents) to work rather than rely on benefits, whether that's exclusively benefits or benefits that are 'topped up' to enable a family to live.

We ALL know that childcare, or rather childcare costs, prevents many of us from accessing work. Therefore, this is a proposed solution to this particular problem.

Other problems - elderly parents, studying mums, frazzled SAHPs - are not the job of the government to solve.

Tarka

In some cases, they don't 'need' it. However, even for families earning a reasonable salary, childcare costs are a barrier. I will have two preschool children by autumn 2015. I am also a qualified teacher. Teaching full time would just - just - cover childcare costs for my youngest two. When I factor in travelling costs, it would actually cost me money to work. Teaching isn't badly paid at all - of course it isn't 'up there' with some highly paid professions but nonetheless its a solid enough middle class sort of profession. If Mrs Jones, earning £40,000 a year as a teacher, is only just breaking even with her baby and 1 year old in FT childcare, it doesn't take a genius to work out that Mrs Smith, who earns half that as a TA, isn't going to bother as she'd lose significant amounts of money.

Even people who earn more need a carrot in this respect. If your 'profit' after childcare costs are £300 it might be easy to conclude the stress and the worry just isn't worth it. If that £300 is more like £800, it might be.

I can really see the validity of the 'squeezed middle' in this respect and sympathise hugely with it. It is frighteningly easy in the setup at the moment that when housing and childcare costs are subtracted for a working and professional couple to quite literally be left with nothing at the end of the month. Giving all, or most, working families something in this respect is a nod towards that. I don't see anything wrong with that, any more than I see anything wrong with parents who earn a lot using state education or healthcare. Arguably, they are the ones who disproportionately contribute to it as high earners and as such have every right to access it.

If its an extension of the nursery education grant which it appears to be on the surface (only available to 3-4yo and during term time) then why should children with a sahp lose out on that vital early education purely because one of their parents doesn't work? And if neither parent works then that early education is even more vital, isn't it, since those children statistically do not achieve as well as their peers from families where one or both parents work.

The government is abandoning the 'early years education'.

Can you link this? as I have not seen this said anywhere by the government.

If it's education, then it is vital and should be available to all children, sashh.

It's a mixed message. Term time only suggests it is education. 45+ weeks would definitely be childcare.

But everyone with two parents currently working is managing to find/fund childcare. It might be difficult but they obviously don't need this to be able to work. For those people it is just a case of being "nice" not a necessity.

Whats you definition of managing. Because I know some that are only just managing, despite both parents going to work. They are managing, but if something was to go wrong...car breakdown for example they have nothing left to cover it.

It will also enable some people who want to go back to work, to do it. As the moment there are many people who are sahp because the cost of childcare is too high and they don't come out with anymore money, rather than because they want to be a sahp until the child goes to school.

This will benefit dbro and sil, she wants to go back to work, but the cost of childcare is more than she can realistically earn.

The 50k earners aren't a huge majority of the population though.

It would cost more to process the means testing paperwork than it would to make the benefit universal to working parents.

Makes perfect sense to me, why do sahps need this?! 30 hours means you aren't a sahp anymore because your child isn't at home!

The government is abandoning the 'early years education'.

I am irked that they talk about 'extending' childcare, as the current 15 hours was never officially described as childcare, but as early education.

The change seems to have gone unnoticed by the mainstream media.

Which is a pity, as it's easy to see this as a salami slice to remove all state funded provision from those who do not WOH.

Why on earth should the state pay for 30 hours a week childcare so a sahp can do voluntary work??

Also I don't see why the state should fund child care so the sahp can take elderly relatives to the GP. What about the wohp who also has elderly relatives?

Personally, I think parents should be a lot more concerned than they appear to be about how it is to be provided and paid for.

This was my concern. I haven't looked at it in to much detail tbh, because it won't change anything for us. Both kids will be in school by September., but that was the thought I had.

I don't have children so don't get the free child care/education at all.

That's discrimination too isn't it?

So should I complain that I don't get something I don't need?

Maybe I should complain about paying taxes for your children to have free/subsidised childcare?

Except that I think as a society we should look after others and I think education is vital.

As a sahm, I'd have loved 30 free hours childcare a week! Could have used the time to go to the gym, get my hair and nails done, met friends for a coffee! Awesome!

Back in the real world...what a f+cking waste of money that would be!

This will be brilliant for our family. I like the idea of a reward for working so hard. I really hope it passes

But everyone with two parents currently working is managing to find/fund childcare. It might be difficult but they obviously don't need this to be able to work. For those people it is just a case of being "nice" not a necessity.

If it is free Early Years education, then yes it is discriminating against SAHPs - in fact, all parents that do not work full time.
The fact that it is available to 3 and 4 year olds only, during termtime, points to it being education, not childcare.

If it's free childcare, then it's not discrimination. As others have said, it's not necessary for a SAHP to need childcare.
The fact that the Government is calling it childcare indicates that it is intended as childcare.

I'm not surprised people are confused: there has been very little information on how they intend to implement this, although there have been hints. Childcare providers are extremely concerned about it and many are saying they can't afford to provide it.

Personally, I think parents should be a lot more concerned than they appear to be about how it is to be provided and paid for.

Why do two parents, both earning a lot, need childcare paid for by the govt?

They don't, in reality. But many households where both parents work are not earning a lot between them