Is extending 30 hours childcare to parents on benefits fair?

[GimmieABreakOr3]

30 free hours of childcare to those in receipt of benefits is not fair.

Currently, the 30-hour childcare scheme requires parents to be in work to qualify. However, the UK Education Secretary has called for this to be extended to parents on benefits.

Many argue that those who are unemployed don’t need childcare. I agree. How is it fair that those of us in work are always propping up those who are not? It’s proper two tier Britain if you ask me when it comes to those in work compared to those who are unemployed and on welfare. I think Labour are ruining this country.

‘Rush to the jobcentre’
Hahahahahaha

But surely they already get the 15 free hours which have been universal for years? Did the parents not use those hours, or is it that 1-2 years of 15 hours a week is not enough to teach these children basic behaviour? (Appreciate you may not know the answer, just musing!)

They already get the 15 free hours. It’s not 30
hours or nothing.

They should be universal, but not for the reason OP thinks:

www.the74million.org/zero2eight/study-finds-preschool-programs-reserved-for-disadvantaged-children-not-as-effective-as-universal-programs-that-include-higher-income-families/

There's a lot of assuming here. People may have family or a partner. Bottom line is we cant afford it. How did anybody manage before the 30 hours? They managed.

The Country will be run into the ground at this rate.

The Education Endowment Foundation published a report in June about the disadvantage gap. This shows that by the end of EYFS (reception) the gap is 4.6 months and the gap is only getting bigger as they go through school.

Trying to close that gap needs to start in pre-school children so this may be one thing the government think will help. It may not be the only solution but might be the quicker fix than trying to restart the Sure Start programme.

This might not have to be private nurseries but trying to get more into school based pre-schools which we will see more of as primary school rolls start to fall.

Why presume they are unemployed?

I don’t think this will be the thing that runs the country into the ground. Studies have shown that childcare funding usually pays for itself through increased taxation.

I think the bottom line is actually if it becomes universal there would be a lot more tipped in by way of tax. People would take the pay rises and promotions, more people move up the ladder and create jobs lower in the chain, partners can go back to work.

People could afford it previously because they weren’t subsidising the whole system. Nurseries start at £140 a day here. Prior to any wrap around provision.

The country cannot afford everything that would be good or beneficial to everyone. Government should think like a business deploying budgets - I have £x to spend, where is it going to give me the biggest return?

is this the most effective spend to improve the prospects for children? If yes, what less beneficial measure is being cut so we can invest in this? It doesn’t need to be education related, it could be healthcare or NHS or arts funding or whatever.

or we could say, actually the best thing for the country as whole would be economic growth so for a few years we’re going to reduce spending on x things to invest in growth and then that will increase the overall tax take and then we can afford to spend on x things in this order.

Of course it is, but what are you going to do? This is a way of reaching all children who need it. It’s not perfect, but at least those children get care and food. Child abuse and neglect is as old as time, it’s a huge issue that shouldn’t exist in society but unfortunately it does.

If they are going to overhaul it then they need to stop term time funding. Most parents need childcare all year, the system has moved on from preschool education which was for the child to mimic school and is now primarily so parents can work.

Pay the parent rather than the nursery, that way all parents get the same and can choose a nursery without the nursery jumping through hoops about how to get the money they need for running costs.

They also need to make it easier for parents to change/start a new nursery mid term. If parents got the money direct this would be easier.

Also people really didn’t manage well before the free hours came in. I know a lot of women who couldn’t return to work because childcare fees were so high.

Pre free hours we were paying £1,400 a month for a nursery place 4 days a week. The system was unsustainable and didn’t work. 2 children in nursery is very easily a whole salary or more. This is why it was changed in the first place.

People would take the pay rises and promotions, more people move up the ladder and create jobs lower in the chain, partners can go back to work.

I would say that this is false. People taking pay rises and promotions and moving up the ladder does not create jobs lower in the chain.

Wise.

At least the children will benefit.

And meanwhile people on benefits can flout the hosepipe ban -utterly wrong

I would tend to feel that non-working parents (whether on benefits or not) don't need 30 hours funded childcare. I've been a SAHM (without claiming any benefits) for a few years now, both of my kids have used the universal 15 funded hours from 3-4 years to go to preschool for a year before school. This gave the kids a great learning experience, and the 2.5 days a week free time has given me the chance to do some online training, a bit of voluntary work and start working on my CV.

Whether or not people think it's fair, I think it simply wouldn't work. There aren't enough nursery places in a lot of areas. Since the government funding became available from 9 months old for some parents, I've heard many nurseries and childminders are struggling and have to ask for top up fees anyway. It's never really 'free' unless you go to a school nursery.

On the other end of the scale, I do think it's unfair that the 100k cut off for 30 hours is per individual parent. Perhaps it would be more realistic to increase the cut off income, but make it per household.

My 2 managed fine with a year or so of preschool before they started school, neither were sent for 30 hours as quite frankly I valued my time with them. Nursery is not an essential.

Since people have not been prepared to post any evidence of the benefits of 30 hours
which is unusual for mumsnet not to do that

heres a quick Google

‘ No Extra Academic Gain for All: Studies, including evaluations by the Education Endowment Foundation, show that for children in general, the optimal learning window is between 15 and 20 hours a week. Increasing hours beyond this does not necessarily translate to higher academic achievement.’

‘The Importance of Quality: Any learning gains from extra hours are entirely dependent on the quality of the provision. Sutton Trust research indicates that highly qualified staff and graduate-led settings are essential to mitigate risks and sustain development into primary school’

So 15/20 hours seems to be the right level

Thank you for taking the time to share this.

https://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/26/04/child-care-investments-really-do-pay

psacunion.ca/new-study-shows-universal-child-care-would-help

Investments in universal childcare pays for itself, Canada did the research.

That has nothing to do with my post which is about the kids

As people here have been pushing that it’s all about the kids

Your link is about the effects on mothers earning power

No one is disputing that if women have childcare they can obviously work more and then earn more and ultimately climb up the ladder

I posted info upthread of the real time benefit in tax income of providing it for upper earners aswell.

The second link by Canadas study does not dispute that the childcare needs to be high quality and does not say anything about the hours that are necessary

Never the less. Interesting info

Sorry I was responding to the general comment about the lack of research posted!! I knew that Canada had done a lot on this.

Yes
apologies !
I thought you were disputing the post initially

I’m just a mumsnet in waiting for the backlash and really wasn’t expecting a supportive one
🙏