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.

My two issues are that it isnt going to the right people for a start.

Seondly, taking a child for 15 hours is not helping a family that does need help. Resources would be better spent giving parent/families education and information that will help them for the rest of their lives. There are too many external factors outside of 15houra nursery for it to make a lifelong difference.

Sorry, pressed send too soon. Some parents are not shit but are living in less than ideal circumstances and those children need as much help as we can give to ensure they actually get the outcomes their parents hope for them.

When your children are struggling at school because half their class did not have access to any early years education and the school can't fund the support to make up for how behind those kids are and so your children are suffering, then I imagine you will care slightly more.

Exactly hopalong.

Of course the vast majority of families who get this support aren't shit parents, they are parents and families who for a whole host of reasons are having a shit time and this can help those children not be at a disadvantage because of that, or at least reduce the gap between them and their peers upon starting school

moustachio how do you know that? You have made two very sweeping statements not backed up by evidence.

There is good, valid and robust research behind this initiative that has been linked to in the thread which refutes all your points.

moustachio as strange as it may seem, the free early years programme was approved on the basis of research. Your assertions rather pale by comparison.

I think you have been bitten by the green eyed monster and really, your energy could be better spent.

Well like I said bad driver & k8middleton come and see how my friends and their children react. I haven't read a lot of research on it. My science direct subscription had ended now I've dinished

*finished uni.

There is also lots of children in very chaotic homes whose parents are entitled to this place who will not bring their children. They are classed as hard to reach families whose children probably need it more than anyone. The only time we get those children in is if its part of the child protection plan but even then their attendance is not great.

"Seondly, taking a child for 15 hours is not helping a family that does need help. Resources would be better spent giving parent/families education and information that will help them for the rest of their lives. There are too many external factors outside of 15houra nursery for it to make a lifelong difference."

It's not about helping the family; it's about helping the child.

Reception teachers are increasingly reporting that children arrive at school not knowing how a book is held or that you read from the left to right in English. They have never been read a story, they have never learnt to sit still and listen to an adult, they have never been taught basic self care like how to dress themselves. These are skills that can perfectly well be taught by a good nursery on 15 hours a week.

But if they are not taught, then the whole class will be disrupted and held back, including all the children of parents who have meticulously prepared their children in all possible ways.

Of course the government can't know exactly which children are going to need this extra teaching so it will necessarily be a case of offering it to the groups most likely to contain the largest number of such children.

And benefits is one way to to: the group on income benefit is statistically most likely to contain parents who are ill or stressed or depressed or very badly educated themselve or have learning difficulties or MH issues.

And again, these parents are statistically most likely to struggle with teaching their children all the necessary skills at home.

So no evidence then Moustachio. Thought so.

I don't understand why it is relevant for people to know the ins and outs of someone's life, just because they have 15 hours funding for nursery?

Is it somehow anyone else's business how people's parenting skills are, what they do with the 2.5 hours a day that their child is at nursery, what type of house they live in, why they are not working, why they don't earn "enough" money?

All this speculation about whether people are single parents, what their home life is like, whether their children have additional needs is very distasteful.

It seems as though some people think because some people are entitled to receive benefits, additional help and support, that means they are somehow entitled to question all aspects of their lives. I don't see why that is.

There is a scheme in existence that provides nursery funding for 3 year olds, for everyone I think.

So does everyone who takes that up need to be questioned as to why they are doing it, why they don't pay for their own childcare, what they are doing with their free time, why they are not working, why they aren't working more hours?

"any other less effective, more expensive alternative anyone comes up with to avoid giving parents a secondary benefit."

:o

Yes, it's incredible the bizarre things that get suggested just to make sure that poor people who need support don't get any enjoyment at all out of their benefits.

One of the advantages of offering free childcare IS the secondary benefit.

For some families that means that people who need a break get some time to themselves.

For others it means that feckless parents see the chance to get rid of their kids for a few hours and jump at the chance to go to the pub.

These parents wouldn't show up to parenting classes in a blind fit. Or let someone come into their home to show them how to look after their kids.

The "secondary benefit" to them is the thing that makes it possible to get the children into the programme.

And you know what?

It's OK that people get things that are nice for them as benefits.

We don't have to pretend that it is not a nice perq to get 15 hours of free childcare a week.

It is important to recognise that it will create perception problems amongst people who can't qualify if they are struggling to pay for childcare so they can work.

As far as possible, we should be trying to ensure that nobody is ever in that situation.

tantrums actually I think it is relevant why people get these things as this thread has shown - people who are not aware they are entitled to this support have discovered that they can access it. Without understanding benefits people are regularly missing out on extra support. I think we should be open about these things. If a child has sen and gets support at 2 because a hv told the parents then I don't see why the parents would keep that secret - another parent in a similar position may not have had a good hv and may not know what help is out there.

Anyway, the lady in my original thread seems to be a brilliant mummy which is why I didn't understand but like many have said I don't know the full story and I don't begrudge her the support.

I guess it'sseparate thread that I think parents of multiples should get more support but didn't realise the issues until it affected me.

It is relevant to know the criteria in general but not details of why each individual gets that support. That is often going to be something very personal and they shouldnt have to tell every Tom, Dick and Harry that just to stop them judging (and they would probably be judged anyway!)

It is very relevant that everyone understands the criteria to receive the funding....in general.

It is certainly not right or relevant to pick apart and speculate on someone elses personal circumstances, to discuss the type of home they live in etc because you are somehow jealous that you have to wait a whole 12 months for your free child care.

Like I say, shall we speculate as to why you need these 15 hours and what you are going to do with it?

This has turned into yet another benefits bashing thread on which we watch people embarrass themselves trying to convince the world that schemes to help children are really just encouraging people to have more offspring

Although i said earlier about working people should be allowed the same scheme i don't condone benefit bashing and general intrusions into what people do for those 2.5 hours.
I have been on each side and it's ok but not brilliant, it's a phalicy that those on full benefits live the life of riley.

And i don't see how these scheme gives any incentive to have more children as after all, it is just 2.5 hrs break. The rest of the time the parent has to look after and care for that child aswell as deal with tantrums.

pumpkin but the children of working people are entitled to the free hours. There had to be a cut off point though.

Thank you for posting that brdgrl.Unless people live next to nursery or can somehow afford a car on a low income its not much time is it.A lot of parents will make a genuine effort to get their child there.

When my son gets his fifteen hours shall i justify that to everyone?
Well ill probably be going work if they will give me some more hours,or i may find myself a college course that fits in with it or i may just clean my home and prepare dinner.So does anyone have a criticism of what im going to do when he gets fifteen hours at three?

You can force parents to attend parenting classes unless their parenting is extremely bad. In my area a lot of the parents had no interest in parenting classes, singing sessions at the children's centre, baby massage or what ever takes a middle class parent's fancy.

However the take up of free nursery places is good. Personally I don't think that any two year old needs 15 hours a week if its for education purposes. I would prefer that most low-income-family two year olds were given 6 hours a week and prehaps children with special needs/ social problems have the full 15.

Maybe because they deserve a break too and thechild needs to learn social skills and have exposure to new environments.

That's the thing limited no one gives a toss what anyone does with their time when they turn 3.

It's just when somehow has the sheer audacity to get those 15 hours a year earlier that people think they have the right to dissect their lives.