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

As a working parent I support the 15 hours for everyone. I know lots of kids that it has made the transition to school much easier.

The current 15 hours is for early years education, not free childcare. YANBU to want that to continue - it's for the child's benefit regardless of their parents working status.

Yabu to want 30 hours of free childcare as a sahp though. What on earth would you need it for?

I wish they'd help with ALL childcare, not just preschool

Then they would be accused of trying to force all parents into work when their babies are young. Again, they can't win.

I'm not sure I even agree with non working parents having 15 free hours as it isn't necessary and just removes the responsibility for socialising ones child from the parent and onto the govt at huge cost. Only children who have SN or a family member who is disabled need 15 free hours if the parents are not working.

Actually, although I sort of agree with you, I support the 15 free hours for SAHPs, as I think the evidence base suggests that many children do benefit from good pre-school provision. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be necessary, as all SAHPs would do a good job of socialising their kids and making sure they're ready for school, but the reality is that some SAHPs don't do this very well, and the children then lose out. However, I think 15 hours is enough.

I don't get what your problem is. You want to take a year out to "support family while they are titchy" but you want to put them inti childcare for 30 hours a week .

The extra free provision is meant to help those who are struggling to continue working or find work because they can't meet astronomical childcare costs. If you're not working, why do you think you should get it?

Your children will have their free 15 hours for early years learning and socialisation, if you want more than that, why shouldn't you pay the difference?

You seem a little misguided.

Yabvu - if you are sahm then your DC don't need childcare. If you wanted to go back to work though then obviously you'd be entitled to the free childcare.

You can't expect free childcare when your DC already have you at home to care for them? how odd!

It's there to help parents who are both working and need it. You wouldn't need it.

Baddz, there is financial help available for studying parents.

It is not the job or the responsibility of the government - any government - to make decisions regarding who and how parents will care for their children and to pay for our children to be cared for to enable us to do what we wish.

However, given that so many families are not in a two parent unit and given that the costs of childcare are astronomical even for those on a 'good' salary, it makes sense for any government to look at how to address this.

Working people are good, for, the governments POV. Therefore, if a major barrier to people working is childcare fees, then pay the childcare fees.

It is not for the government to contemplate whether a child is best with her mum or at nursery. That's for the individual to decide.

It is not for the government to decide what SAHMs should do as well as caring for their children - again, that's for individuals.

It's not for the government to be concerned if SAHMs might be depressed or finding the children a bit much and need a break - that's for individual families to work out and decide.

Financially, there is a problem and there is a solution.

The other elements have to be considered by families based on what's best for them.

....And IDS made his views on sahps very clear when he said they "contribute nothing to society"
It's a view shared by many im afraid, even on mn.
If I worked who would help care for my frail mother?
Who would take elderly and vulnerable people on hosptial visits/Dr visits etc?
Who would care for my dc when they are ill/on school hols etc?
Someone who would have to be paid, of course.
Which is all this govt care about.
And don't get me started on all those caring who do not claim dla/carers allowance!
They save this country millions of £ but they are looked down on and vilified.

The purpose of the 30 hours is to help working parents who need childcare in order to work. If you think that helping wohps is the same as discriminating sahps then that is your opinion. But then yabvu in my opinion.

You know what? I'd LOVE to be a SAHP, or have a little job doesn't quite cover the childcare.

But I can't, or we'd end up under a bridge.

I'd also LOVE to be able to be sympathetic with those that earn over £50k who don't get a few quid in child benefits as a result.

Nope, sorry, can't do that either.

30 hours free childcare is designed to help parents into work. If you are a STAY AT HOME PARENT, it's kind of obvious that you won't qualify. As it goes, 15 hours looks set to remain available.

I wish they'd help with ALL childcare, not just preschool.

2 years that should be.

Settings have 2 ears to work it all out but it is going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

Many settings find the current hourly funding insufficient to cover what are pretty fixed costs despite paying staff minimum wage (or something near it) so have to charge more for the unfunded hours to make up the difference. If there proportion of funded hours increases I'm not sure how they are going to resolve things without an increase in the rate.

Other than that there will be practical implications, the chances are there will be quite a few families 'only' using the hours that are funded so if a family getting 15h becomes entitled to 30h where is that extra space for that child meant to come from? Settings are only just keeping their heads above water without keeping spaces empty to allow for this. Lots of good settings have waiting lists.

To add: I think it would be better to restore child benefit to being a universal benefit and getting rid of free childcare for non working parents. That way non working parents would have the choice about whether to use their CB ton pay for some childcare or whether to use it for other child related things.

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!

Why shouldn't murseries charge the extra, the rate you are given by the borough is significantly lower than the normal rate! Staff would still like to be paid.

If the government continues to push lower rates for services many murseries will simply opt out

Also confused as to why a SAHP would need nearly full time childcare?

Cost of childcare is a huge barriers for mothers returning to work - this can only be a good thing, surely?

Can someone please clarify this for me:
the first 15 hrs is just for Early years learning and the remaining 15 is for 'childcare'?

Yep. I wrote to both parties when their policies came out and neither would deny this was the case. Spoke about it to friends and no one was interested.

I always understood that the 15 hours was introduced as education, not childcare, hence being term time only (as is the 30 hours). Our preschool, which is free, does a great job preparing children for school but I think might struggle to keep going without the children of sahps, so where are the extra preschool places coming from for the children who do qualify if places like this fold?

It is discrimination against sahps, but more than this, if it happens, it is discrimination againstt children and a cut in their education.

Its about time working parents got something to help them with childcare.

Surely the point of being a sahm is that you don't use or need childcare??

And also its 15 hours free. So how you describe the nursery situation os completely reasonable. Why you are mad it, I can't work out.

Ds was in a private nursery, 2 days a week. We moved him to a school nursery where he gets 15 hours a week, free. He gets 5 mornings. He will go to that school in September. The free 15 hours is for the kids, not for the parents to find work. Its incredibly hard to find a job that lasts 1.5 hours in the morning or afternoon.

Doc, that would mean two parents each earning £15,000 p/a.

Hardly a fortune.

Household income of what, £1700 pm? Of which around £700 at least would go on a nursery place if it all had to come out of the parents' pocket. Leaving £1000 for rent or mortgage, council tax, petrol, groceries, clothes, shoes, insurance and so on?

I repeat: a fortune it isn't. You'd get more as a single parent who doesn't work.

I think you are confusing childcare with early education.

A child with one parent at home doesn't need 30 hours childcare, they have their parent to care for them. As I understand it, the 15 hours free early education will still be available for all children, but those needing childcare around that (ie if parents are working) can be eligible for free childcare to help get them back into work.

It's like th difference between school (education) and breakfast club / after school club (childcare)

Two different things. I cannot understand how a stay at home parent could justify needing childcare for their child on a regular basis.

I'm a SAHM and I think you are being unreasonable. Your children do not need to be in childcare if you are not working. You could take them to toddler groups if you are concerned about socialisation as you have the time to do that.
I'm not sure I even agree with non working parents having 15 free hours as it isn't necessary and just removes the responsibility for socialising ones child from the parent and onto the govt at huge cost. Only children who have SN or a family member who is disabled need 15 free hours if the parents are not working.

And the government clearly want all women to work - but that isn't a surprise to anyone educated on their policy is it?

You do know that the point of free childcare is to remove barriers to work - not to be nice?