Recent study of children joining reception class

DD was poorly last week and was at home. DH and I were tag-teaming looking after her (with our bosses' permissions), and it was VERY difficult to get work done. And that's with a kid who just wanted to rest most of the day. It would be almost impossible to WFH without childcare I think.

No. Plenty of people are just doing it on the sly

Assuming some combination of straight up lying, having childcare for part of the day only to avoid paying wraparound, having a job that doesn't have video calls and/or can be quietly finished up later in the evening, etc

Also, if circumstances change at any point after the funded hours have been approved, the funding remains in place. So a parent could actually increase their hours or go back to work if they haven't been employed and earn above the income limit and still receive the funded hours for their 2 year old.

This isn’t quite true, they are only approved for 3 months at a time. So maximum someone could continue to use the hours is for 2.5 months. It’s hardly gaming the system, no one is getting a job to get 3 months of funded hours approved and then quitting.
And again if they are earning over the threshold they need to reapply every 3 months for the funding so they wouldn’t continue to get it.

I think that must be it, then - apologies to the PP for getting it wrong.

I remember being told that the first disposable nappy ever made is still in landfill somewhere.

I dread to think how many there must be if kids aren’t being potty trained by 4 or older.

Happysack Possibly re the after school club, especially if it's run by external people.

It's supposed to be about special needs but at that age few are diagnosed so they can't turn away children whose parents haven't bothered pottery training either.

I don’t know anyone with an employer who allows wfh without childcare in place. Are you talking about self employed people?

London.

Interesting - maybe I’m wrong? I know a friend got a call because their kid had an accident but it may have been during after school club, which I guess is different?

Nursery definitely refused enrolment unless potty trained, but that is private but part of the state school.

It makes sense that it would be considered discriminatory - presumably kids with additional needs?

The 2 schools I have experience with won’t deal with accidents, let alone nappies.

Where are you? State schools and nurseries in the UK aren't allowed to do that because of parents campaigning that it's discriminatory. I think private can but I'm not sure.

how can you possibly know that 20% are still in nappies?!

if that information is being freely shared, I’d suggest there are more important issues at that school.

The 2 schools I have experience with won’t deal with accidents, let alone nappies. We had to potty train before we were allowed to enrol in pre-school nursery (3).

I agree ofsted isn’t perfect (understatement!) but I have friends with kids in all of the schools and they all seem happy with the provision. I imagine it is very variable with area, though. Sorry to hear about the difficulties at your school - really unfair.

The claims about reception teachers encountering 4 year olds with American accents due to too much TV have been around since I was doing teacher training - in 2006! It's either a really old urban myth or a really longstanding issue. It's not a new thing. In reality, I've never met a British 4 year old with a US accent apart from a couple of autistic children.

I also don't see how not toilet training children can be a laziness thing. Changing nappies is revolting. Why would anyone do it a second longer than necessary?!

And I can definitely see the temptation of screen time, especially for single parents. I don't have children but I had my 1 year old nephew for an entire Sunday (so no classes etc happening) with no company recently. I love him to pieces but after 5 hours of meals, reading, singing, playing, going to the park and practising walking I was ready to cry with relief by nap time. Then after a couple of hours respite it was more singing, reading, playing and eating. I was going out of my mind with boredom. Half an hour or so of CBeebies or Youtube would have made the day a whole lot easier but I know my sister has a thing about him not seeing moving screens so I didn't do it. And that was just one day. How people spend all day every day with a baby or toddler, no adult company and no screen time just blows my mind.

Unfortunately that's not the case in Scotland. It would be much better if it was as everybody would feel the benefits.

In England everyone now gets funding from 9 months. Or at least if you earn up to 50k or thereabouts

Agree. COVID is a red herring. It's parents and children both being on screens that is causing this. Along with breakdowns in mental health, attention span, behaviour, resilience, physical health and fitness.

I wouldn't rely on ofsted ratings to know the schools are doing well. Ofsted outstanding are only rated every 5-6 years and lots can change in that time.

My daughters outstanding infants school, had 20% of the children joining reception still in nappies. My daughters year 1 class used to have 2 TA's and there was rapid progress, now their 2 TA's are spending most of their time helping out with nappies and behaviour challenges in reception, to the point my husband was called into school last week to support with an activity usually done by a class TA, or my daughter would have been unable to participate.

I didn't know the 2 child benefit limit had been lifted. I know it had been spoken about but didn't realise it had been confirmed as going ahead. I wasn't sure how they could implement that with UC as that's supposed to be the same across the whole of the UK. Are they scrapping UC in Scotland and replacing it with something else which has no limit on the amount of children people can claim for? Although I don't really think the amount of benefits given are linked to children having delays in essential ife skills really. I don't think the government give people benefits to try and tackle those kinds of issues? I don't see the connection really.

As for the 2 year old funding, again I was under the impression it was across the whole country and every council I've looked at has the same criteria for qualifying for it. It can be a household income up to a certain amount (so ot just for unemployed) or other factors such as being an asylum seeker, child in care etc would also mean qualifying for the hours. I have 4 children under 6 so believe me I've looked into it all 😂

That can be an autistic trait.

Extra benefits as the 2 child cap has been lifted which is estimated as going to be costing a huge sums of money every year in Scotland. Whilst I don't disagree with supporting families I think the money could have been better utilised for support services as these have been decimated by cuts.

I don't know what the criteria is in other parts of the country for 2 year funding but the criteria is very low income parents "maybe" eligible. The only people that I know that get the 2 year funding are those that don't work or have drug of alcohol addictions.

It's more done in Scotland for closing the attainment gap which is theory is fine but in reality means working parents are penalised again.

The 3 year funding is much easier to get and open to everyone. I couldn't afford to work until we got the 3 year funding as we didn't qualify for 2 year funding but my wages didn't cover childcare either as I had 3 kids under 7 at one point.

I really agree with this! I’ve seen so many toddlers in buggy’s with phones / tablets strapped to the front! Same in restaurants. I think everything in the world is going down hill but that’s another thread!

Throwing money at parents how?

Also, parents can work and receive the funded hours from 2 years old. There is just a limit to the amount of earned income a household can receive and still qualify for the hours. Also, if circumstances change at any point after the funded hours have been approved, the funding remains in place. So a parent could actually increase their hours or go back to work if they haven't been employed and earn above the income limit and still receive the funded hours for their 2 year old.

I refute your suggestion that schools are currently a mess. Some are, most aren’t. Of the 5 or 6 primaries in my area of London, all are outstanding apart from 2 which are good.

You tried to shoehorn VAT on school fees into a thread about neglectful parenting.

Labour aren’t trying to push kids anywhere - they are simply removing a tax dodge that a tiny minority of parents have benefited from for too long.

You appear to have a lot of judgemental opinions about UC.

FYI, you only have no work related commitments on UC until a child is one year old and are expected to be working by the time they are three. There's only so many children a person can "churn out" before they reach their time limit. Also, you only get paid for 2 children if they are born after 2017 so anyone having them now would also be limited in that sense. But let's just continue spouting nonsense about people who claim benefits. Next you'll be talking about huge TVs and spending all the dole money on drugs and alcohol 🙄

It's funny that on this page alone we have posters talking about diapers and panties. Maybe children are learning Americanisms from their parents rather than YouTube.

@Happysack I wasn't suggesting that it was state school parents, I was saying that schools are currently a mess and this is the system that Labour want to push MORE kids into.

If kids aren't potty trained / can't read, you don't think they demand even more than already stretched teachers can provide?

Teachers are now basically parenting in addition to teaching

@CarolinaWren I hope this is true that's adorable 🥰