Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

FFS, Government making loads of cuts but now they are giving extra funding to...

155 replies

CrazyPlateLady · 15/10/2010 19:57

the most deprived familes so their children can have 15 hours of free nursery from the age of 2 and extra help all the way to university.

AIBU to think that this is really unfair?

We don't earn good wages, but there is no way we will come near the poorest families. Why should my children have to wait an extra year to get nursery? If you aren't working I don't see why 2 year olds need 15 hours a week of nursery anyway. I'm happy to have DS at home with me now but I can see that next year he will need a bit more and nursery will be good for him.

There are going to be sooo many families that 'lose out' because we are in the middle somewhere (and by that I mean DH's wages of an amazing £16500.00 and my In Cap benefit).

What a waste of money when we all have to tighten our belts!

OP posts:
Original poster
CrazyPlateLady · 15/10/2010 20:15

Kerala I think they mean the homes where the parents just don't bother with taking their children to places like this.

DS used to go to a creche for 3 hours a week. I started it as we were at home by ourselves a lot and I wanted him to socialise a bit more and to be ok with being without me, this is in addition to the toddler groups etc.

I can't get him a place anymore as all available spots are taken by referred children (SS insist certain children have a spot available at all times). They don't use half these spots so they go to waste but they have to be kept free for them, just in case the parent turns up with the child one week. I am assuming these nursery places for 2 year olds are going to be for similar children.

OP posts:
sweetkitty · 15/10/2010 20:17

At our nursery there already are places god health and social work referrals from birth practically. DD3 went at just over 2 as I was pregnant and had SPD, other children went early as their mums had PND, some had special needs/speech difficulties/family problems so it's not a new thing.

I reckon the next cut will be to the free 15hrs for 3 yos, it will be cut for "the rich" you know if you dare to be a higher rate tax payer.

GypsyMoth · 15/10/2010 20:19

why does everyone assume poor=unable to care/teach basics??

is there not some idea that poorer families all living in one area,have access to only the failing/bad schools anyway? whats the point in giving them extra time and support in school if the school is no good in the first place

i suppose i'm generalising a bit there about deprived areas,but have moved around uk a fair bit and seen that regularly

choufleur · 15/10/2010 20:22

If parents are not bothering to interact with their children will they bother to take them to nursery though?

FreudianSlippery · 15/10/2010 20:22

I don't know if we'd qualify for that. But IMO it's a good idea, some (not all) kids from really poor homes get virtually no chance to see other children, play games, do craft etc and maybe have discipline and structure. They deserve the opportunities that kids of wealthier parents get. Of course it's a shame for those in the middle (which may include

us) but the cut off has to be somewhere.

I can see how it seems patronising (I'm poor and of course I resent the idea that I'm therefore inferior) but FFS we are very lucky to live in a country that tries to support us.

choccyp1g · 15/10/2010 20:30

Where I live, most of the pre-school places gets "bagsied" by the better off parents who pay for their children to go at age 2. So when the poorer people come along looking for funded places they get told, "sorry, we are already full up". On that basis, I think it is a good thing.

scottishmummy · 15/10/2010 20:33

if be definition you arent deprived or in need why begrudge someone assessed as needing nursery place

DomesticG0ddess · 15/10/2010 20:38

Is it from when they turn 2, or when they are 2.9 months which is when they can attend our (and many other preschools)? If the latter then that stops the issue choccyp1g mentions, although our preschool is not like that - you apply and your place is held until you want it during that academic year - all the places are funded from 3, you pay extra if you want more hours.

If it's the former, then I really don't think its necessary for a just-turned-2 year old to go to nursery from a social point of view. Is it an attempt to make getting a job easier??

PaisleyPumpkin · 15/10/2010 20:41

I might be mistaken, but weren't they talking about doing this for all children. I thought they were so I'm seeing this as a cut.

HalfTermHero · 15/10/2010 20:44

Do you know what? I don't begruge the little children qualifying for this help one single penny. Have some compassion Sad

GypsyMoth · 15/10/2010 20:44

perhaps someone can find a link?

it was a tiny snippet on the news. we're all concentrating on the nursery place aspect....but there was more to it. up to university

usualsuspect · 15/10/2010 20:47

I find it incredibly patronising tbh ..poor parents = shit parents

HalfTermHero · 15/10/2010 20:49

I don't think you should equate poor with shit. I think it is intended to help poor parents to better their circumstances for the sake of their children. Free childcare frees up a parent to study or to try to train/volunteer/learn a trade/get a job. I should add that I am a labour supporter.

thefirstmrsDeVeerie · 15/10/2010 20:52

My DC4 has a funded place. He got on the pilot scheme. I am astounded that its being rolled out rather than stopped TBH.

It has been great for us and I am very greatful to the (labour) government for introducing it.

We are eligible because my OH is disabled and so is my DS2. Its lovely for my DC4 but not because he is made to sit in a box room with a bare light bulb and a shoe to play with at home.

It helps us because it allows my OH to wake up slowly and get himself together on the days I work, instead of having to wake up at 6.30 and cope with a lively toddler. The nursery place allows me to drop him off and not worry about my OH's health whilst I am work. In other words it allows me to work.

If we didnt have the place my DS would still be stimulated and would be potty trained and able to hold a fork by the time he starts school.

On paper my family looks like a car crash, parental disability, two kids under 3 and another with ASD plus other disabilities, the loss of a child blah blah yadda yadda.

We are NOT. We are a nice family and we love our children. My children are not deprived, I object to my family being patholagised (sp) in this way.

There is one problem though. I assumed that when DC4 turned 3 the 2 year funding would stop and the 3 year funding would kick in. It does but that does not mean he will get a place in the nursery he already attends. This means he may have to leave which will be very disruptive and sad.

It wasnt thought out that well.

blueshoes · 15/10/2010 21:25

Agree with other posters it does not sounds like a new thing. I am sure social services can make such referrals already.

If it is not already in place, it bloody well should.

ArcticRoll · 15/10/2010 21:28

yabu

MaMoTTaT · 15/10/2010 21:34

yes I believe if referred this already existed. This time last year my Carer Support Worker indicated that if I'd fitted under certain criteria (I didn't - despite being on benefits) they could have referred DS3 to get some funding for nursery places - aged 2 1/2yrs.

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 15/10/2010 21:38

I agree about putting the money into schools. Many will be in deficit budget come April. All children will need help then because class sizes will increase, many buildings are in a piss poor state, staff will be cut and resources stretched. Oh joy.

Journey · 15/10/2010 21:39

Agree with op it is unfair.

curlymama · 15/10/2010 21:52

I agree with the OP too. Shit parents will still be shit parents, and the effect of that will be exactly the same whether a 2yo gets to go to nursery for 15 hours a week or not.

The money would be better spent making the free hours for 3yo's a system that works properly. The strain that this will put nurseries under is ridiculous, as it is with the free hours for 3yo's. My nursery couldn't afford to stay open with what the government pays for a session, parents have to pay a ridiculous amount for lunch club instead, or lose the nursery all together. Thankfully we have very supportive parents that can afford this, but what about the ones who can't? Who's going to pay for the extra staff members so that nurseries can stay within adult to child ratios? Or is a session for a 2yo going to cost more than one for a 3yo, even though they should get the same level of care? What about all the nurseries that couldn't operate without parent support? Are these parents that are supposed to be helped by this really likely to help out in a setting if they can't even read to their child at home?

HalfTermHero · 15/10/2010 22:07

Quite how anyone can argue against funding to children who would benefit from assistance, I don't know. Children are not born equal and it is sickening that the pathetic and petty would keep anyone 'beneath' them down in order to make their own wannabe middle class lives seem more safe, worthwhile and rewarding.

Have you stopped to consider that asylum seeker children learning English from 2 yrs will also benefit your own precious dc as the strain on their Foundation staff will be less once they reach school? It is for the good of all that the burden of second language teaching starts sooner rather than later.

curlymama · 15/10/2010 22:16

But children that aren't on the breadline could benefit too. That's why it's unfair. If one family is just over the cutoff for being entitled, they may have to choose between the youngest child going to nursery like lots of his 2yo peers, or the older child being able to do swimming lessons or something.

It's not argueing against funding children that could benefit from assistance, it's about delivering that assistance fairly.

Families with English as a second language would probably benefit more from something that they could all attend together.

blueshoes · 15/10/2010 22:27

curly, the only way to deliver a benefit fairly without people falling on the wrong side of a cut off is to have universal benefits. I'd be very happy with universal benefits but I would say that because I am not entitled to any means tested ones.

It is not just families with English as a second language. It is families headed by shit parents.

It is hardly the children's fault their parents are shit. Unless you want to perpetuate the underclass.

HalfTermHero · 15/10/2010 22:27

It is not about swimming lessons though! Teach your child to swim yourself. Don't use it as an excuse to deny those in genuine need. This is what all the people kicking off re the loss of CB are complaining about. The point is totally missed really.

HalfTermHero · 15/10/2010 22:29

Could you hold another's tiny newborn baby in your arms and think 'I begrudge you a chance in life as my ds 2 would like swimming lessons?'. Seriously, get a grip.

Swipe left for the next trending thread