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

[CrazyPlateLady]

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 children from the most DEPRIVED families do the worst educationally so need extra support.

the poorest child need the 15 hours of nusery care for themselves - not their parents to work. No the next level up will not lose out as they will sit with their chidlren and read and play.

yes this is a whole generalisation but go and look in the poorer areas and see the mums drop of the dc to school and then stand ont he street and tout for business, hear about the residents complaining about the mums doing this and then perhaps you may understand why the goverment is doing this

If you want to see this first hand try hillfields in coventry

There's a huge pressure on places in schools for 5 year olds (and more to come). Some point putting children in nursery when by the time they come to compulsory education they're struggling to get a reception class place.

Just because the parents are shit - does that mean the child has to have a shit life too? So they can grow up to be shit parents too. And so the cycle continues...

What else do you suggest you do?
Forced sterilisation? Cut the benefits to discourage breeding like rabbits...and then the children will suffer.

Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are a terrible parent - but not many wealthier parents tend to be terrible parents - so how else do you target it...

It actually annoys me that my children are 'taught' certain things at school/nursery and there are financial implications. We live in a nice semi rural area - the vast majority of the children here are far from deprived - yet the playgroup/nursery are encouraged to regularly take the children to play in the woods/outside ...which mean increased staffing levels (you need higher adult/child ratios to take children out) ...now if we were in the middle of a city it might be important - but all the children here get to go for walks in the countryside/woods any way ....and don't start me on free toothbrushes and toothpaste...

I worked in an inner city primary school 15 years ago and we had 3 year olds turning up at nursery who didn't understand how a book worked...didn't know you turned the pages...they have so much catching up to do when they start...and they are hardly going to be supported by their parents throughout their schooling/life - they don't stand a chance and I don't think that will have improved...
Those children need help...or nothing will ever get better...
I agree the biggest problem will be actually getting their parents to take them to use their place...maybe some benefits should be dependent on that?
Or perhaps the best solution would be to take the children away at birth?

Dh has just come in from v long day at his school and takes wind out of my indignant sails by stating there is a correlation between students on free school meals and low attainment/exam performance. Whether nursery at 2 will help, I don't know. Maybe?

Good on your Dh, Dinah. Compassion on the frontline

Imo, the best solution would be to deliver the support differently. Not take it away completely! I just don't think that sending 2yo's to nursey for a small amount of time each week will have the desired effect. Parenting courses or free swimming lessons might. Things like that could help parents and children see that there are other ways to live a life. Sending a toddler ro pre school at 2 rather than 3 is not going to help that much. Attending a year earlier isn't going to make any difference to the child that doesn't know that there are pages in a book, they would learn that at 3 anyway. It's going to create huge problems for the settings, without having the outcome it's meant to achieve.

tbh I would rather see money spent on this than the Olympics or policing demonstrations.

but I do object if this is also in place for non deprived families as well(unless they pay of course)

You cannot imagine how bad homelife can be for some very young children in this country - I am thinking of those referred by social services. These are the children who don't know about books.

Short of removing them from their families (where it could possibly be much worse for them in serial foster care), nursery can be the refuge for them to get a normal life. Any break from their home life is a sanctuary and safe haven.

I could hardly begrudge that. I just wish it was more than 15 hours.

We have children coming to nursery at 3+ who have no idea how to use a knife and fork or have never been introduced to the concept of a potty but I'm not sure that putting them into nursery is the answer. I agree with curly - if we're talking about the best way to improve poor parenting (and I'm not saying that low income automatically = poor parenting, IME it doesn't) then putting children into nursery at 2 isn't the answer.

Utterly disgusting and grotesque to hear the wails of the privileged complaining when the very poorest and disadvantaged babies in our country are being helped. It turns my stomach. Shame on you!
It's like the repulsive people who moan about disabled parking spaces. Ugh.

Curly, with all due respect, I think you are most likely a very good parent and therfore cannot even begin to grasp at the deprivation some children face. As mentioned above, a book is alien, stimulation from an adult is often not forthcoming and neglect is a daily reality. Lunch might be a piece of bread on the floor. Mum and/or dad might be heavily dependant on substances. For children speaking no English or those being left to drag themselves up, intervention at 2yrs makes their little lives a whole lot more rewarding and enjoyable. No child asks to be born into misery. For parents who earn a little but are decent then assistance enables them to work more/study more hence improving thier much wanted kid's positions in life. The help is all good as far as I am concerned

Why are all these discussions about how someone is annoyed because someone else is 'getting' more than them from the state?

Oh it's so unfair, all that money going to kids from really deprived backgrounds. Why amn't I getting it too?

There was a documentary on recently that showed 3 year old kids in Stoke who were already a whole year behind their peers in language development Apparently this is a substantial portion of the kids in the city. Clearly they should just leave them to fall further and further behind rather than do some early intervention so that they can actually learn something when they start school.

Just be glad your kids don't need that kind of help.

Our health visitor has just aplied for the grant for my dd she has just turned 2 we are hoping to get it on the grounds she as seperation anxiety (i cant go to the toilet at home nevermind playgroups with out her screaming and hurting herslf) and the fact that my ds2 has suspected asd and adhd and she is learning the worst of his behaviours and becoming aggressive with people but we have been warned theres a chance it will be turned down as due to the cuts that are being made the free nursey places for 2 yo's are bein stopped

So saggar - what is the answer?

i do think its a bit illogical, cutting from surestart which these people + anyone else can attend then giving funding for kids to go to nursery whos parents are at home so could have just took them out, and let them start @ 3.
2 is very young for nursery too...
op yanbu

And the parent/s of these said deprived children will love the extra free time.

You know, this kind of OP makes me want a bloody revolution, not a pittance for nursery places for children living in the kind of circumstances that would make any decent person cry.

Surestart isn't being cut, it's being targetted, so that there are more outreach workers going out and finding the children and families who NEED it, not like the Surestart art club that I took my kids to, that was all middle-class families (TV producer, fashion designer, journalist, accountant...) enjoying the free tea and biscuits. It was lovely, and provided a bit of money for two sweet artists, but did it benefit the disadvantaged? Fuck no.

Halftermhero - fair point, I do see what you are saying, but I still think there has to be a better way of getting support to those children whose parents could do some of the things you mention. I don't know what that is though! But those children would deserve more spent on them than the average poor family who do try their best with their children. The thing about assuming that all children from poor families need that level of help bugs me! I have two cousins that live on next to nothing with their very small children, they (rightly) get lots of help from the state, but they certainly don't need to be catergorised with families as dire as you mention.

Also, just to clarify, just because I have the opinion that I do, doesn't mean that me or my children are priviledged.

And I really do worry about the effect that this could have on already struggling pre schools if the government implement it in the same way as the funding for three year olds. It was/is a mess, and they should sort that out first. That was really the main point I was trying to make in my first post.

Coldcomfort - I am with you.

Maybe governant wants free nursery places so that the feckless single mums can forced to do community service for two hours a day in return for their benefits.

Similar programmes in the US have only had short lived benefits. School funding is being cut ruthlessly. Is it really a priority?

I would like to see more funding to support children with developmental problems, whether these problems are caused by poor parenting or bad luck.

I think this proposal is insulting to the poor. Last week my family was a low income family. This week my husband has a job after nbeing unemployed for 6 months. Have our parenting skills improved in the last four days? OR is it our luck?

reallytired well said

Curly - deep down you know what I say makes sense. It is hard though; to overcome the fact that you work hard to provide for your children yet others' kids get things for free. You have to be the bigger person though. Children are helpless and we all have a shared responsibility to look out for them. Our evolved and higher sensibilities are what make us human

touble is when you have to fight for every sodding thing, you do get rather heartless in the end.