AIBU to take the full time nursery places?

[CoffeeDog]

Just had a letter that have said the twins have been offered full time nursery placements in September (they were 3 in dec and currentley go p/t 15hr a week) The Nursery id fab and is massivley over subscribed the DT only just got in despite being december babies.

A little smug mummy-ish but they are bright little lads they know number shapes colours animals and love learning new things - they dont care if its great grandpa telling them about steam engines or their big sister teaching them the names/attacks of pokemon. They are hard work as Everything is why mummy what is /what if... I dont get any family help with childcare.

My friends little girl also goes to nursey with the DT but is a little older and started back in september - she has not been offered a full time place. My friend has said she will be 'having a word' with the office as its not fair as she works and could do with her DD being at nursery 9-2 m-f (free as gov funded) and i should think about leaving the twins pt to make room for those who have to work.

When we go there today there will be at least 30 kids that didnt get the coverted ft placements and will remain pt- Some of the parents work - I don't (DH does) there will be a big hooha about what selection process etc were used and i expect more than 1 mum/dad to suguest i dont take the 2 ft places for the twins as i am 'at home all day'

AIBU to take the places

9-2 is not a very long day.

You've been offered a (free) place, it's a great opportunity - take it!

The children of working parents aren't more deserving.

And whoever mentioned it - the primary purpose of pre-school/nursery is early years education not childcare. Working parents who need childcare are much more likely to be using daycare nurseries, not 3 hours a day, term-time only pres-schools.

If I could get a "full-time job" from 9-2 every day, I would be incredibly happy! One of my good friends has twins, they are great boys but utterly exhausting very high-spirited!

at all the ubermummies who can't possibly understand how someone could be away from their children for five hours a day. Shock! Horror! My son didn't sleep before 12 or 1 for the first year, many of my friends' children were asleep by 7. I don't think the extra five hours a day did much for our relationship or my sanity!.

Go for it, OP. No one else would give up a place for you if you were more deserving. I'd probably look into a course or something like that for enjoyment or that might lead to better work, really maximise the free time.

I'm only on page 2, and I'm irritated that however it's funded (government or FFA) you're moaning at having to pay just £80 a month for their lunches when you're getting around £1k a month's childcare for FREE. I should be so lucky.

If you're allocated the places then it'd no-one's business but yours.

But please don't complain about the lunch money.

Take the places, it's nothing to do with anyone else.

We have some full days funded for DS's nursery, by our local council through Children's Services. Do we 'need' all those days? No, my DH works shifts and his rota means that sometimes he's off during the week when DS is in nursery sometimes not. I am going through cancer treatment and can't work right now, so I'm claiming ESA which is a pittance. Some days I am ok and could look after DS, some days I'm not. We technically don't 'need' all those days for childcare purposes so why do we get them? Oh yes - because it was deemed very important for DS to be kept in the routine he's used to and otherwise we couldn't afford for him to carry on going. Also to help me out, but DS's well being was the main reason.

I am using taxpayer's money when I don't technically need to all the time (and yes, I'm a taxpayer - ESA is taxable and when I return to my job, I will end up paying tax on the ESA I've received while I've been ill). Flame me, all those posters who think working parents should get priority. I DARE you.

9 till 2 is not full time, I fail also to see how that would help a working parent as they will need cover from probably 2 till 6.

They are offering 25 hours a week, full time is more like 40 hours.

To be honest I don't understand why you would want to put your children in a nursery for five hours a day when you do not work. 3 hours I can understand it gives you time to do things at home without them interrupting etc., but five hours a day without them when you are home alone? hmmm sorry not understanding why you would.

Of course, a woman at home could do nothing worthy without her children... Perhaps it's better for the kids to be at nursery? It's education, not just childcare... They are preschool aged, not tiny tots.

An HV recommended that I put my twins in nursery, last time I went to the clinic, actually, to benefit their development. And I'm an SAHM.

I've actually forborne this, because I worried about other mothers needing the places more.

This thread has made me reconsider my decision. The kind of person who would resent their presence at a nursery isn't someone worth putting over my children's needs.

If you've been offered if there's no reason why you shouldn't take it if you want it. You could get some PT work, or some volunteer work to help you back into work later (charity shop = retail experience), pick up a college course.

Sorry if this has been answered but how does a state nursery get funding for 25 hours a week for a rising 4 year old? I thought it was 15 hours.

Sorry, I can't see why you have free state funded childcare you don't need when thousands are struggling to pay for childcare they do need. To all those posters bleating on about the benefit to the children, three year old will get plenty of benefits from 15 hours a week, it is not going to significantly benefit them to have an extra ten hours. You would be unreasonable and selfish to take up the place.

'but five hours a day without them when you are home alone? hmmm sorry not understanding why you would.'

Well some people may not understand why someone would work 10 hours a day and see their child for an hour before bed? Point is you don't need to understand why they would, it is their choice.

I have twin boys and found 3 the hardest age. I agree that people don't understand if they don't have twins. For me they were numbers 3 and 4 and my others were all under 5. We also were advised nursery as twins can be delayed and also because it is stressful. In some areas, they may have funding for vunerable children. There also used to be people with more than 4 children under 7 on the priority list. I am guessing that the twins got priority because they are twins.

'You would be unreasonable and selfish to take up the place.'

That's abit daft though. If it is on a scale of need, does someone who HAS to work to pay the bills get priority over someone who just WANTS to work? Crazy!

Why is it crazy to prioritise need over want in a state system jellybean? I think you'll mind most state services are allocated on that principle...

Hocus - it's all been explained earlier in the thread. Do you have your customise set to highlighting the OP's posts (and your own)? It's really handy. If not, ctrl & f give you a 'find' box, you can put the OP's name in there and it will highlight all of her posts.

still raging on i see all i want to say is IT ISNT CHILDCARE !!!

'Why is it crazy to prioritise need over want in a state system jellybean?'

It isn't, I didn't say that; but if it is about early education then twins will rightly get priority in alot of areas.

What I said was if it is about NEED, not everybody needs to work. If you are going to scrutinize who needs a place where would you start? Some working people can easily afford childcare so it shouldn't just be about working people get it, SAHM don't.

Maybe these twins do need the places more than the children of working parents who can pay for a place anywhere they want (and get tax credits towards it if they are struggling to pay).

A child of parents who don't work might actually need the free place more than the child of a parent who can pick and choose a paid-for place.

"Why is it crazy to prioritise need over want in a state system jellybean? I think you'll mind most state services are allocated on that principle..."

Indeed they are - and full time nursery places are allocated with the children's needs in mind. As has been repeatedly pointed out, these are nursery education places, not childcare.

What are your qualifications for challenging the nursery's decision, based on their knowledge of the individual children and their situations, grobags?

coffee dog, i don't think yabu whatever you decide, having twins is a totally different ball game, and alot of people won't be able to understand.

but personally i'd rather enjoy the last year with them as much as poss before they start school.
unless you feel a break from them would do you and them more good

Yes, thanks chippingin, I was reading OP's highlighted threads but I didn't see what I was asking. If I had a child at a nursery where full-time places were offered and were free I would want to know the rules for those places. Do they make them up as they go along? What's to stop them offering them to friends in that case. After all the whole point of free places (for rising 3s at least) was to enable parents to find part-time work without childcare costs. 25 hours just seemed to be very generous when I expect some parents at the nursery would appreciate the basic 15 hours.

"After all the whole point of free places (for rising 3s at least) was to enable parents to find part-time work without childcare costs."

Really? How does 3 hours a day term time only make it possible for anyone to get a job It wouldn't even work for dinner ladies.

The Nursery Education Grant is to provide Nursery Education. If it was about childcare, parents would just be given a voucher to spend at a childcare providers.

Hocus - from what I can gather the nursery is part government funded and part privately funded (by fundraising)... if there is additional govt funding it may be earmarked for children/parents with 'additional needs' - so twins, mothers with PND, children on SS register etc Is that what you were asking?

Totally agree - 5 hours a day is not going to help any working parent unless they are extremely lucky and have a job with those hours

Also, I am not aware of any parent whose DC has turned 3 and got 15 hours of nursery/pre-school and thought 'great, I can go back to work now'

To the OP, ignore the other parents and just ride it out. FWIW, when DS2 was born, I was off work for almost a year on maternity leave - DS1 was 2.4 when DS2 was born and I kept him in nursery 4 days a week as if I had been at work throughout my maternity leave - a lot of people were about that but it worked for me and my family.

Thanks chippingin. Rita - seriously that was why free places were provided! Us parents of teenagers had to pay for all nursery/playgroup places until they were old enough for school nursery. They brought in free places to cut down childcare costs for people (read mums) looking to go back to work. If there's no point then maybe we should go back to the old days and just means-test free places.