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.

This service does help the working poor! Dh is on minimum wage, and due to his hours we are entitled. In fact a large proportion of the parents in dc's nursery class (before summer) do work in lowly paid jobs. Because of the little money we earn, it is topped up with CTC.

I think a lot of people are resentful and bitter about people on benefits fullstop...being under the impression that we are all scroungers deliberately doing little or no work and playing the system. It couldn't be further from the truth in my family's case, and many others that I know now through the nursery.
We qualify for this service because of the CTC. If we did not get this we could not survive. Literally. It is not something to be envious of believe me.

"I wish defenders of this free childcare could look on my Facebook page and read the gloating hoard of mums who are planning to go to weatherspoons/ have alone time with their partner who has come out of prison and have more children /laze about now their various offspring are in nursery."

One of the purposes of this scheme is to get toddlers to spend less time with awful parents like this.

That's how you increase their chances of not being totally fucked by the time they are 4 (4! ) in terms of ever being able to catch up with their peers.

These parents you are talking about still go to Wetherspoons even if their toddlers are with them. They still spend "alone time" with their partner while their child is neglected.

Whether or not 15 hours per week of childcare can bridge the gap, I have my doubts. But it is cases such as the ones you mention where this kind of intervention can help outcomes for the child.

mustachio, perhaps their kids need a break from that kind of life so that they start school with the skills you have been able to give your children. Perhaps their parents wont bother...who knows.

Personally I'd be more in favour of intensive parenting support in the home but of course that would be costlier than this.

I know little about the programme, I wouldn't have been eligible for it even if it existed when DS was two....but then I could afford to pay for the childcare he had.

We had a similar system in place funded by charities and which paid for the most vulnerable children to have a nursery placement at 2. But there was also provision for families who needed short term support but couldn't afford to pay for childcare.....I was able to get a 2 year old placed for a term...10 hours a week as her Mum had twin babies. It gave everyone a break....I wish there was provision for this in the new scheme.

I also met other children whose parents had chaotic lives and who benefitted greatly from early nursery placement....out of the chaos of home

"One of the purposes of this scheme is to get toddlers to spend less time with awful parents like this.

That's how you increase their chances of not being totally fucked by the time they are 4"

Yes, I'll put a few knobs on this. V true. That's why we all have to pay for it, because if the next generation are better people, then we all benefit.

It is taking the most vulnerable families and offering support but not all children in low income families will be vulnerable...there are fantastic parents out there on all levels of income.

Unfortunately a significant minority of very poor families will be in that position because of poor choices.....not all families by any means as the majority of low income families will be effective and nurturing. But fact is that a number of families struggling will have other issues and their children need support.
Without screening every single family which would be extremely costly, it is hard to know which children are the vulnerable ones in many cases. I imagine that this is the most cost effective way of identifying and supporting the children who need it.

This scheme is nothing to do with the parents and all about trying to meet the needs of vulnerable children.

They aren't bad parents though - lazy with no drive to come off benefits yes, but bad parents? I don't think they are.

To them, it is 'free childcare' and is encouraging them to have more children and be irresponsible young people. Surely a better solution would be compulsory family workshops for those on income support etc.

I'm in a weird situation that as a young parent I went on to university. I received support open to anyone. They went on to get free houses and fall into a life where they just have another baby once the older ones go to school. I have very close friends in this situation, whom I am friends with based on their character, not their poor life choices and laziness.

They all have very little in their lives other than their children (no careers), so alot of their time is dedicated to their children. Its a stupid assumption that they need these hours more than someone like me. My DS will go into full time nursery when I work. It would be great if he could have a few hours a week to learn to socialise now.

Those friends of your are going to be well and truly fucked when the new rules around benefits and the universal credit etc come in. and eventually they wont be able to just keep on having babies. They will be stuck where they are. The vast majority of people are just doing whatever it takes to get by, but there are people who milk the system (because a section of people will always do that regardless of what system we are talking about). There's nothing to be jealous of there.

And surely laziness is a character trait?

*They aren't bad parents though - lazy with no drive to come off benefits yes, but bad parents? I don't think they are.

To them, it is 'free childcare' and is encouraging them to have more children and be irresponsible young people.*

Yes, it is easy to see that a scheme like this would provide those incentives all right.

Presumably that is what the OP is seeing too. Someone who is delighted to be getting free childcare that she doesn't perceive as being in any greater need than she is.

These are two of the problems with any benefits system -

1 it's very hard to target benefits exactly where they are needed, so as Chunder pointed out, at the edges there will be people who need it who aren't getting it and people who are getting it who don't need it

2 the availability of the benefits can create incentives for people to do things that are not necessarily advantageous to either society or (arguably) themselves

It's a very tricky balance to strike.

And I think it's important to listen to the views of people who feel aggrieved by the availability of this provision, because in many cases their perspectives are illuminating in terms of what is going on on the ground.

But the parents I mentioned in my last post do exist. And giving their children 15 hours of free childcare can help them to spend time in a nurturing environment that they otherwise wouldn't ever see until it was too late.

moustachio you are but one and perhaps do not understand that there are simply hundreds of thousands of children whose parents do not share your values or ethics. No one has taught them simple decency.

Educating the child from a very young age can have an enormous (positive) impact on their future and instil in them the decency that perhaps they can never learn from their parents.

I can understand your frustration but I think you do not appreciate that virtuous behaviour is simply not in the frame in many households, it has been absent for generations and it is only through education that things can change.

So your children are already privileged simply by being raised in a family which grasps the concept of personal responsibility.

I would also question whether they are good parents; surely part of parenting is about setting an example for your child. Actively choosing not to work and simply having more children as a means to get the things they want, is not setting a good example. I'm not saying they have to work, but children learn by what they see and not working and relying on help through choice is not something I would like children to see as an option.

I'm confused, moustachio. You seem to be saying that they are bad citizens (you use words like irresponsible, laziness, poor life choices), and yet they are good parents (and therefore in no more need than anyone else).

"You seem to be saying that they are bad citizens (you use words like irresponsible, laziness, poor life choices), and yet they are good parents (and therefore in no more need than anyone else)."

There's nothing remotely contradictory about being a bad citizen and a good parent.

Except part of being a good parent is teaching your child to be a good citizen...

15 hours a week term time only an incentive to have more childen? Really?

Part of being a good citizen is helping others to be good parents. Part of being a good parent is being a good citizen and protecting the society that your child will grow up in.

Compassion.

"Except part of being a good parent is teaching your child to be a good citizen..."

As you define it.

But I'm sure there are plenty of good parents who don't feel any loyalty whatsoever to the state they live in.

You can be compassionate and not think you should have to work a minimum wage job with no job security or satisfaction when there are other options.

"15 hours a week term time only an incentive to have more childen? Really?"

Do you ever get bored of the passive aggressive questions? :o

Who said the 15 hours a week was the ONLY incentive to have more children?

Answer: NOBODY

But go on, give us another one of your little posers! :o

Hint: Anything that makes parenting easier/cheaper is an incentive to have more children.

Join I am just laughing at the frankly stupid comments some people who are against this are coming out with. They seem determined to completely miss the reasoning and use it as yet another benefit bashing thread

So you can feel no loyalty to your state while also expecting it to subsidise your life 100%?

And I suggest you read the posts yourself as it says exactly that. That is is free childcare and encouraging them to have more children.

I honestly don't think that many people choose not to work, perhaps there are pockets of people in some areas who do think like this, I don't know. It shits on everyone else who are doing what they can to get by in shit circumstances. I would rather people didn't have to work MW with no job security and crap conditions. But the alternative to that is to just not work?

Children who get free playgroup/nursery setting are usually vulnerable children. It was mentioned about a child who came to my kids PG it was an initiative to help the child,.

Thing is that I can understand the OP's frustration, early trials of this scheme DID include short term support for families like the OP who wouldn't have ordinarily qualified.

It will be good if it includes low income working families as I gather it will.

It was not meant as free childcare. Some parents are just shit. They just are. Those children need every bit of support and intervention we can give so that they don't grow up to be a shit as their parents.