to not understand why those with lower income get free childcare even if they don't work

[PrincessScrumpy]

2 mums from a toddler group I go to are on income support and their DC start their free 2 days a week at nursery at the age of 2. I have dd1 age 5, and dtds 2. We couldn't afford childcare for 2 babies so I had to cut my hours by more than half and work from home around dc which is hard but we wouldn't cover the bills if I didn't. obviously twins was a surprise and a huge financial hit so savings are very low/almost non existent.

Anyway, I have another year until my dtds get free childcare while a lady with one dc gets it at age 2 despite having no intention to work. This feels really unfair and I just don't get the reasoning.
I'm not trying to benefit bash but it's hard not to feel angry. Willing to accept iabu, but can't help feeling this way.

There is good reason to give some vulnerable two year olds some free nursery provision. It has nothing to do with "free childcare" and everything to do with helping the two year olds in question have a chance of reaching Reception on a more level playing field with their more fortunate peers.

Hope that info is useful to those who feel they are missing out in some way.

I am a provider of the funded hours - we offer 3 hour sessions, 4 or 5 mornings a week. Children go home for lunch. You would be hard pressed to use that time as childcare to work! It's for the benefit of disadvantaged children, most of whom aren't going to get the opportunities to go to baby sign or tumble tots or often even someone to read stories to them otherwise.

Of the children I cared for this past year many of them finished the year within the development band best fit for there age range 22-36 months. Many of them started well below there age band 8-20 months. The biggest leaps in progress were in language and personal, social and emotional development and understanding of the world. But forgetting all that "assessment" stuff it's the little achievements that really count.

Confidence to approach an adult and ask for help... Trying to hang their coat on a peg.... Increased eye contact... Enjoying a book...outdoor play...preparing their own snack... Trying new foods....being sung to.

These small things will be done routinely at home by lots of parents regardless of their income and social status but believe me there is plenty who do not. The children who attend from homes where parents interact positively with their children are great role models for those children who don't get much interaction at home. Children pick up language best from other children during play.

Their not there! Gosh my grammar is terrible! I blame trying to type with false nails quickly on an iphone.

Only on MN do people bleat on about how unfair and unjust the education system is for children aged 4+ (which it is!) but disagree with a scheme that is trying to address some of the inequalities.

I would have qualified for the free places if they had been an option in the 80s. My mum was a single mum with 2 children and my dad had severe mental health issues.

My mum had loads of friends ( who were single mums) we had the most amazing childhood. We went out at least once a day. We went camping for bike rides, we went to the beach and made bonfires to cook sausages on, we climbed mountains and made dens in the woods. At home we played games, we made a slide down the stairs out of our mattresses, we made hammocks out of blankets for tge cats, we "parachuted" from the chest of draws with sheets.

There were always lots of kids around and also different mums. We'd join in discussions with our parents. The single mums I grew up around are some of the most articulate interesting people I know. They all had degrees.

We ( the children of single parents) used to feel sorry for our 2 parent friends. We had no tv or computer so our lives were full of adventure, creative play and communication. We had the most amazing spontaneous holidays, we pack up a tent and go and camp by the river the night before school or go to the beach and swim in the sea when it was a warm evening.

Without exception the children I grew up with ( around 14/15 kids) have taken degrees and most of us are dotted around tge world.

I think that saying that a child with a single mum needs extra early years education is very offensive. Just because someone is a lone parent or unemployed does not mean they don't talk or play with their children. In my experience it is tge opposite.

Quite right froken most of the families I work with are 2 parent families.

7 years ago I was a single mum to my daughter when I started work at the childrens centre I still work at. As I was studying and working part time I would have
Qualified for a place in the nursery room I was working. It would have reduced my childcare fees if the 2 year old hours had been deducted but I was already receiving tax credits which covered 90 percent of my childcare fees anyway.

Another flawed argument about it being 'free childcare' if you qualify for the place chances are you would be getting most of your childcare costs paid by tax credits anyway.

My ds turns 2 soon and it would be wonderful if I got
15 hours knocked off my weekly childcare bill but there really is families out there who need these places so much more than me.

YANBU. It is absolutely ridiculous. Why assume that the children of people who do not get income support are any less disadvantaged than the children of those on benefits? We really struggle with both in work and have to pay in full for childcare because we have the "privilege" (getting up at 6am in the rain and not getting home till gone 7pm) of working long hours for the same take home pay as my neighbour who chose to have 4 kids, lives in a big, low rent council house with a garden while we are stuck privately renting, they get free school meals and the youngest is getting free 15 hours at 2 years old because she is on benefits. Work hard and you will get on in life = what a crock of shit!

It isn't assuming anything, it had been proven that statistically the children who are eligible for such support are more likely to struggle than their peers. Of course there are exceptions to any rule but statistically that is the case which is why they are offered support.

I sympathise, but problem for working parents is that this is absolutely not about freeing you up to work or making it more economically viable or being "fair".

It is solely about the kids from non-working homes- all the research shows that they do so much worse at school from the get-go: even upon entry they are less likely to be toilet-trained, able to sit quietly even answer to or recognise their own name! Agree it seems unfair but those kids need all the help they can get outside of their home-setting to compensate for shortfalls within it.

My dh has been recently out of work for 11 months, in that time i was offered a free 2 day placement for my then 2yo dd, but i felt unable to accept it as neither of us were in work and she would starting at 3 anyway. I was rather annoyed that working people were not given the same oppurtunity as surely workers need these placements much more than i did.

Now dh has started work we are not entitled anymore which i find ludicrious! But dd will be starting her 3yo free placement soon.

I just don't see why this is something given away to the unemployed when they have time on their hands to take their children to toddler group to socalise them, when a working family has to pay for the privaledge.

My nearly 3yo is getting 15 hours free a term early as we were referred by ss- not due to bad parenting and we don't qualify under low income rules but we have two troubled teens and I think they look at the whole family and try and help.
It's not always low income.

I admire pumpkinsweeties view on this.

I am absolutely not moaning about my DS not going to baby classes because we can't afford them because a lot are crap and overpriced.

I think it is fantastic that free early years education is available to so many children.

Try not to feel too hard done by if your child doesn't qualify, they will at 3. Trust me, as someone who works with poor families, these children need those places - and it can be the making of them.

Be proud to live in a society which looks out for its most vulnerable, and have faith that you will manage.

The OP has my sympathy. This is yet another example of government failure to grasp the reality of family economics.

"we offer 3 hour sessions, 4 or 5 mornings a week. Children go home for lunch. You would be hard pressed to use that time as childcare to work!"

No you wouldn't.

It would reduce your childcare costs by 15 hours per week.

My 3 year old starts nursery school next week. My childcare costs are going down considerably, despite the fact that I'm not just going to be working for the 2.5 hours a day she is at nursery.

"Try not to feel too hard done by if your child doesn't qualify, they will at 3. Trust me, as someone who works with poor families, these children need those places - and it can be the making of them."

Well said, baddriver :)

Some settings do not allow top ups, they only open 9-12 and 1-4

Chunderella, It is not childcare. She is in education.
Parents of older children should not view their child's time at primary school as childcare either.
Yes, I can work for two hours while she is at nursery. What I do while she is there is irrelevant. It's a service for her, not for me.
Where people are moaning because they'd like free childcare because they feel that they should be entitled to more child-free time - how selfish - it's not about them, it is about their child.

It is not there for childcare. It is (for those who don't care about other peoples children) a way of reducing the chance of those children causing a disruption to your childs education later on.

Join - great if someone can actually afford the childcare to work beyond that 15 hours.

That said it doesn't change the fact that its still nothing to do with free childcare, it's about giving children the best start possible. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I employ a lot of cleaners who work under 16 hours and so retain part of their income. I have never seen one of them partying it up on some benefits bonanza. In addition my husband was on income support when I met him as he is blind so cannot do a manual job due to health and safety and does not have the academic ability to get a desk job. Has it never occurred to you that not everyone on benefits is lazy? What would happen to you if your ihusband left you and you became disabled? Stop bashing people on benefits or if you are so bloody jealous quit your job and go on the rock and roll yourself and see how easy it is to cope...not.

Bred girl, howconvienent