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!

Really tired, there is a rock-solid correlation between poverty and educational failure. Children from the poorest homes come into school at least a year behind those from better off homes, and never catch up. It is a tragedy. This is a Lib/Dem policy, and it is a good, humane one. Of course not every single poverty-stricken family means failure for children, but this isn't about YOU, it's about all those children. Why begrudge them? Nobody's forcing you to put your child in nursery. Nursery can be a haven for some children.

I understand what you are saying, 2shoes, really I do. You have to step back though. You are intelligent and regardless of financial circumstance you will love and assist your children, putting their needs before your own. Not all children are lucky enough to have you as their mother though . For those whose parent's are loving and nurturing but money is tight, assistance can only benefit their positions.

"the poor" aren't going to be forced to use this service are they ? As somebody else said the children themselves might be very glad of the respite from their parents nevermind the other way round.

How can any government 'force' care though? To do so would be dictatorial. You can only put it there and hope the funding is taken up.

however much I put my childs needs before my own the sodding LEA won't

I grew up in poverty, in that my family was poor (eviction notices on the door when rent wasn't paid, potato soup for supper because it was all we could afford) but with an artistic, ambitious mother who made the potato soup, so I was lucky. Not all children are this lucky. There have been threads by teachers on this board about poor, dirty, neglected and hungry children in reception that should break anyone's heart. How COULD you begrudge those children some tiny little bit of help? How could you?

2shoes, come on. If I stood up with my placards and campaigned against childhood poverty I know you would take one off me and wave it over your head. You don't fool me

Well if they link the up take to people getting their benefits then they will be forced and is that a bad thing ?
Just thinking of a family member who's mother forced her to take good care of the baby she had at 17, without the mothers influence there could have been a very sad ending, what if the family support kick up the backside isn't present.

Coldcomfort - if people knew the half of what so many little children in the UK face day to day they would feel physically sick.

DD qualifies for this, she has had a funded place since 7th June.

This is on the basis that she has additional needs comprising (amongst others) social and communication issues - paed not sure if it's autism yet - but the preschool place (5 hours a week) is to try to help with her social interaction.

As my other two children also have additional needs and random appointments sadly I cannot commit to regular toddler groups.

DD has really benefitted from her place and I firmly believe it will set her in good stead for her planned mainstream education (with relevant support). I don't know if mainstream could have been an option without this.

And one of my children has an ASD and is statemented etc, and I don't begrudge a penny to these very poor children. We are not rich - put it this way, no problem with our child benefit - but our children have a warm, comfortable home, trips, good food, love and books. They, even with an ASD, are lucky children.

IMO it is a good idea to get children that are not being parented properly into nursery.

It will give them positive experiences, prepare them for school.

I also think it means they can be monitored and social services can be alerted if their
they are at risk.

The problem is that these children cannot be identified by the income of the parents.

It is quite insulting to anyone struggling to make ends meet.

There must surely be a more cost effective way.

Coldcomfort, why are you assuming so much about anyone that disagrees with this particular policy? What makes you think that anyone would begrudge help to poor, dirty, neglected and hungry children just because they think there must be a better way of administering support than sending 2yos to nursery for 15 hours a week?

I'd rather the parents of these children were better supported to make the difference to their childrens lives themselves. And yes, forced if they have to be, because what you are talking about is neglect, not just poverty.

What good would it really do for a 2yo to go to nursery hungry and dirty, and therefore not in a position to fulfil their learning potential anyway, to then have to go home to dirty neglectful parents who still don't know enough or care enough to bring up their child properly? Imo, at 2, support for those children should come via the parent.

"The problem is that these children cannot be identified by the income of the parents."

Well statistically they can unfortunately.

The whole point is that the parents aren't supporting the children! There is a two-pronged approach - targetted SureStart outreach to parents, and nursery opportunities for children who are right at the bottom of the heap. The thread title is an utter disgrace. To be envious and resentful of babies in poverty? What kind of freak feels like that?

Exactly, mama. The statistics are overwhelming.

you know. Yabu.
Think about the bigger picture.

I was reading through ofsted reports of many london schools today, and this is very descriptive of what I found for many of the schools:

"Some pupils come from areas with high levels of deprivation and this is reflected by the higher than average number of pupils who are entitled to receive free school meals. Almost one third of pupils find learning difficult; this is much higher than average. These include pupils with behavioural, emotional and social needs, speech, language and communication and specific learning needs. The number of pupils who have a statement of special educational needs is average. The proportion of pupils who come from minority ethnic backgrounds is extremely high as is the proportion of pupils who require support in learning to speak English." (excerpt taking from Roehampton Church School)

Think what 15 hours of nursery per week from the age of 2 would have done for these children, and for the schools in questions, and in turn for the other children in the school. Evening the playing field is GOOD for all the children concerned.

A wise move.

Good point Quee, even if you have no compassion for other people's children, think how much easier it will be for your child's teacher to teach your kids if she isn't facing a class full of kids who have never had to sit still or speak or listen to English?

HalfTermHero sorry I will be too busy fighting the f ing LEA who seem to put money above my dd's safety and well being,
but i get what you mean.

Curly, you are wanting enforced taking into care? If the truth be told the UK could not cope with the cost of this not to mention the human rights/eugenics issues brought to bear. Is a child better off with a junkie parent (who may be on methadone rather than heroin) or in care? It is a tough question with no easy answer.

2shoes-

Free school meals = crap parenting then? thats bollocks

usualsuspect - that is your conclusion.
Not mine. Not ofsteds.

The summary is describing children from deprived areas with an ethnic minority background, who are just beginning to learn English when they start reception, and this is holding all the children back. There is nothing about crap parenting, which I am sure there isnt!

I don't believe they hold all children back ....I don't believe free school meals is an indicator of all bad parenting

Half term, I have not said, or implied anywhere that I want children put into care!

I mean that parents should be taught the importance of good hygiene and diet, be given information and opportunities to learn, be supported though ss if that's what it takes. The targeted surestart thing that coldcomfort mentioned is a good idea. Providing the nursery places to families that will obviously benefit like Glitterknicaz said is a good idea. I realise doing this properly would be expensive, probably more so than just giving out free places to everyone on a certain income level, but imo, that's what it would take to make an actual measurable differnce to the lives of the children you talk about.

A parent that is on methadone is possibly trying to sort themselves out and should be given the chance and the support, one that is on herion shouldn't have children in their care.

Someone suggested earlier (sorry, can't remember who) that it would be better to give more support children that have difficulty learning, for whatever reason. That I would wholeheartedly support, a blanket assumption that children whose parents don't earn enough must need to go to nursery from two years old, I don't support.

And like I keep saying, one of the reasons I don't support it is because it would put settings in a position that many of them simply can't cope with. My nursery would have to close if this comes into force, unless the parents of these two year olds also choose to pay what is effectively a top up fee, or the government doubles what they pay for a 3yo place when they grant them to 2yo's.