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

They don't, it should be means-tested. Naturally.

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

Well said tarka!

Again why would children of non employed parents need childcare

Yabu and sound so entitled like the world owes you everything to cater to your situation. Why do you want the benefit of staying at home and free childcare on top.

Sigh.
It's not free childcare.
It's education under the EYFS!
I studied with the OU so I was in fact at home when I studied.

I'm a SAHM and don't think I have any need for free childcare. But I don't think families with two high earners need free childcare either. So if we're arguing on a basis of who needs it then it should be for those on low incomes only. If you've chosen to live in the SE and have a large mortgage and are therefore struggling with childcare despite earning two good wages etc etc. Why should the working partners of SAHP who have made different choices pay for your children's childcare?

I will welcome this with open arms! Once I return from mat leave I'll have to reduce my hours because of the extortionate costs of childcare - and that's with vouchers! This would allow me to work more hours and provide better stability. I don't think people in this country realise how lucky we are to even get the 15 hours which again has allowed me to work more hours

My dds got 12ish hours but they are adults but dd1 got in nursery for a full term and a half because of her birthday she got the term after she was 3 till she went to school at 5 dd2 started at 4.5 so she only got a full term

If you really don't think that sahps are vilified dc then please check out some of the language used by IDS et al.
Only people who earn money count.
Sad.

OP if you feel its important to take time out when the kids are young, why do you want the middle one in childcare for 30 per week?

What about sahms who study?
I did OU courses when my eldest was at pre school for his 15 hours.
30 hours a week would have meant I could have done a full time course.
Ditto voluntary work. But, of course, as usual, only paid work counts!

But if you're studying full time, you're not really a sahp, are you? And lots of students are eligible for help with childcare, or for heavily subsidised rates.

As for voluntary work, SAHPs already get 15 hours childcare, so there are already opportunities to volunteer if you wish. And many WOHPs spend time volunteering too - they don't get extra childcare hours in order to do this.

I have already posted a couple of times but just wanted to mention this in case people are not aware:

In some regions children aged 3 -4 already get 30 hours free education. Manchester is one if the regions. Every primary school in Manchester (Central, not greater manchedter) has a nursery attached where children can attend from the term after their third birthday until they start school. The opening hours are generally the same as the attached school (9am-3.15). Children who are entitled to FSM get them whilst at these nurseries, other children just pay for school meals. All parents who want a place at a school nursery can apply for one (and almost everyone gets a place).
The theory is that manchester is a deprived area abductee children need the structure of starting full time education early. It's great for working parents but what does it say about the council and govt trust in parents to do the right thing by their children themselves?

You want to have free childcare when you'll be a SAHP? Yabu.

Oh and for the people saying 30 hrs is nearly full time, it really isn't. Once it's adjusted to take off school holidays it will be more like 24 hrs, that's just over 2 days childcare for me, I work 38hrs a week and have an hours commute each way, every day. I'm grateful for any extra provision we get, but it's not full time.

Can someone explain how its discrimination against sahp? People wanted more free childcare, in addition to the early years eductation. That's what's happening. A sahp doesn't need child care, so why should it be provided at no cost?

You get 15 hours of free childcare/early years education for 3/4 year olds? Is this linked to their birthday or the school year I wonder as I have grown up children. Working parents will get this increased to 30 hours. Wow - I think that is fantastic actually.

My son is 20. We got 12.5 hours in a local nursery for one year and it started in the September before his 4th birthday. I was a SAHM. I felt very very lucky to have that. except the nursery attached to a local school wasn't very good so we pulled him out and paid and it was worth every penny

I really don't understand your objection to this. Surely if you decide to be a sahp you are doing so to look after your own children. Why on earth would you then be seeking 30 hrs childcare a week? That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

This won't benefit me as my ds will be just turning 5 when this is supposed to be rolled out and I am not having another dc but I am actually thankful it's going ahead.

My OH and I fall into the 'forgotten' category, we both work FT and are not high earners by any means but earned just over the threshold for TC. We rely heavily on nursery as we have no other option, up until very recently our childcare bill was over £500 pm for 3 days. We couldn't afford any more so OH and I have to work opposite shifts so our dc is cared for. Even 15 free hours has made a massive difference to us and we can now afford things we haven't been able to for years.

It was soul destroying having to place dc into nursery for an extra day as my shifts were moved around, only to realise the extra day I worked was the same amount in wages as the extra day in nursery.

I have no idea why people are getting upset that this isn't extended to SAHP, surely it was a choice to stay at home looking after the children (I understand that's not the case with everyone but a majority of the time it is) so why the need for a full week of childcare? You are their childcare.

You would get your 15hours free why would you need 30 hours if you are not working childcare and preschool hours is different, and if it works out then its a blooming good idea my friend works 20 odd hours her childcare costs is ridiculous

Fiveacres has nailed it for me.

im not sure I understand it fully and probably wont affect me.

but I agree I chose to be a sahm and thats what I am doing, dd1 went to her free 15 hrs for a year before school and it was v beneficial for her and worked out well as dd2 had just been born so could take her to baby groups. dd2 was eligible for her hours at 2 and was in need of more socialisation so we put her in for 6 hours p/w then increased to 8hrs 6 months later. we are now debating whether to increase to full 15 hrs as she is 3 next month. she may benefit but as she is our last I want to make the most of time we have before school.

what im clumsily trying to say is why should someone who chooses to stay at home get free childcare? in my opinion the 15hrs is for the benefit of the child but if it increases, the additional free hours should be for working parents whose income wont cover the extra costs. not those who stay at home or those with a huge combined income.

Yes....it's not free childcare it education!

Badz - helping parents who do work does not vilify anyone.

Your circumstances mean that for your family it makes sense for you and allows you to be a sahm, many people have frail parents and dc but can't afford not to work.

Not for me!
Dh earns too much (hahahaha)
I don't expect any help from the govt tbh.
It's my choice and there are very compelling reasons that I am a sahp.
But this policy does denigrate sahps and carers.
Not doubt about that.
I agree with the pp...if childcare was more affordable then more parents would have the choice about wether to be a sahp/pt/ft/wohp.
As it is so many are forced back into jobs that are not family friendly and mean their dc are in full time childcare from weeks old at crippling cost.
Not a great system, is it?