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.

I have checked and my council specifically wouldn’t:

• find and book a nursery place on the person’s behalf,
• pay ongoing childcare fees from council funds,
• require someone to accept work that they genuinely cannot undertake because suitable childcare is unavailable.

So that’s.. helpful. It brings us right back to “not having childcare so can’t work.”

I would concider this a safeguarding concern if parents can’t or won’t do the basics

This need goes far beyond any free hours at nursery
Its a whole other issue !

support through the careers / job seekers
Mentioned upthread

We’ve all had to work our way around this issue when finding a job whilst having small children
Its not a new scenario and
it doesn’t stop people getting into work

Yeah I’d be inclined to agree. In a fashion. Not reading your child a book isn’t even close to a social services referral.

But, when I was buying children clean uniform to keep in the classroom, or cleaning them and then giving them breakfast as soon as they walked in the door, or giving them a Christmas present because nobody else was, I wasn’t doing it for their parent’s benefit.

It takes an awful lot to meet social services threshold in this country, and in the meantime - I wouldn’t be punishing vulnerable kids for their parents.

Parents can't read to their children in English if they don't speak English themselves

Parents who struggle with chaotic lifestyles such as severe mental health issues, drug addictions etc

Parents who were poorly parented themselves such as care leavers

Parents who are carers to a severely disabled child who take up the majority of their attention

I could go on. Are you really a teacher?

@Kirbert2 These parents would likely be receiving additional support as is.
Like I said before - I agree with the 15 hours. I don't agree with the 30, not least because it is making it even easier for those parents who genuinely cannot be bothered to even try.

It seems the IMF have advised Burnham not to spend money the country doesn’t have
and look to pay off debts as a priority

I doubt this idea will happen

Speak for yourself.

I’ve never been to a careers or job seeking service in my life.

I put my son in childcare, paid for it because funding didn’t exist then, and asked grandparents to help where we couldn’t access childcare. We got on with it.

I’m pleased other people might get an easier financial ride.

But then I’m not retrospectively bitter that we didn’t.

Would they? In my experience, additional support is limited and many children fall through the cracks.

It should be about the children and doing what is best for them, not attempting to punish parents at the expense of the children.

@Kirbert2 I don't think 15 hrs free childcare is punishing anybody?

But social services should be looking at this
This thread is about nursery hours and
what you are describing id why it would be much better
to put funding into social services for vulnerable children
and not
30 hours of nursery

If I was asked which was a priority I wouldn’t hesitate for a second

Not wanting to extend the hours because of the parents is about wanting to punish the parents despite the fact that it would benefit some children.

30 hours nursery isn’t doing what is best for them
Its Nothing more than a Labour vote winner that isn’t even trying to get to the bottom of the problem

Its throwing money at a system that is failing the really vulnerable children
Put the money instead in social services

RTT on research on the hours

You’d prefer we referred parents to social services for not reading with their children?

Social services likely needs much more money involved than simply extending the 30 hours to include the more vulnerable children.

Especially if you think social services should get involved for things like not reading to children.

Being sanctioned for months because you became voluntarily unemployed. And then having to work anyway, both to feed your child and avoid becoming homeless during the sanction period and once that finally runs out because it'll become a condition of receiving UC that you go back to work on minimum wage because you've got no excuse not to with 30 hours of childcare funded.

You’re being extreme
I was referring to other examples here
drugs
mental health
no food at home
etc etc
Id SS had the funding they could help so many more children

Yes.

And do you know who usually puts those referrals in? Schools and nurseries.

Guess what they need? Evidence.

To get that evidence, they will have to be there.

We’ve already shown 15-20 hours is the best fit
not 30

So do the best for the kids at 15-20
( that’s pre schoolers 2 plus not babies )

Then increase funding to Social services focussing on vulnerable children
Nursery isn’t going to sort out the problems at home, social services is the best way to do that short of removing kids from their families

30 hours is not beneficial to young children and research has shown that
If we are going to improve the outcomes and support for very young children we need to spend it where it’s most effective

At my nursery a full time place is £28k.

Less 30 free hours and tax free childcare, it’s more like £15k so £1.25k a month.

I know some nurseries locally that are more like £1.6/8k a month inc the free hours though.

If we’re talking about the EPPE study, which I think we are…

That research actually suggests that* quality of care and the *home environment are far more important than the precise weekly number of hours.

Which is what we’ve been saying.

The only research I saw on this thread was American, have I missed some?

Nursery can help to provide early intervention to vulnerable children and their families instead of kicking the issue down to starting school age. It would also mean eyes on vulnerable children for longer periods of time and gathering more evidence for various outside agencies such as social services.

@Kirbert2 Do you think families of the most vulnerable children will choose to put their children in nursery at all necessarily?

All of them? No. Of course not but some would, maybe even more so if it was 30 hours.