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.

[LimitedEditionLady]

Im all for the free hours for the kids but not for the parents to have a break.If your partners earns well and you are a sahm or a sahd you dont get a break.Its not a break when my ds goes to nursery,i go to work.This is my point its not for a break for parents.

[Sokmonsta]

Ask your HV. With twins you may become eligible for some funding if they have capacity. I've been told to ask when my dts turn 2, purely because there are two of them and our local services recognise the impact this can have in generally getting out and about and socialising two small children, as well as giving parents a short break from the demands of two small children.

[Sirzy]

Sometimes though it will provide a much needed break for the parents. If you are struggling with a child with additional needs and have no support beyond the nursery and the 15 hours then yes the parents deserve it for a break. Even if thats just to clean without disruption, or catch up on sleep because their child never sleeps.

[LimitedEditionLady]

Im not referring to parents with SEN there sorry.Of course thats different,im sure its very different.

[Sirzy]

Even without SEN though often the issues that mean the child is eligible will impact upon the parents too.

[LimitedEditionLady]

Well i still maintain that it is for the child.The parents arent what its meant for,Im not going to change my thoughts on that,I dont know of every home situation so i will stick by that i agree its good for the children.

[LimitedEditionLady]

The op wasnt talking about SEN i doubt she would say parents of a child with additional needs dont deserve a break too.

[Sirzy]

Yes it is for the child without doubt, but the posters that have been judging what the parents do during that time are being unfair.

and the OP has admitted she doesn't really know the circumstances

[LimitedEditionLady]

I know they are i expressed the same?

[SlobAtHome]

Holy crap, I was on income support for being a lone parent. You're telling me I could have had 15 hours free from the age of 2? :(

Instead of being sat at home all day long, totally alone, with a small child, completely depressed and struggling? damn :( Wish I had known. My mental health only started getting better once I got the break of DS at preschool.

[SlobAtHome]

DS and I both suffered from my mental health issues. We both needed the break, and it's only since working that I am completely ok.

[OddBoots]

SlobAtHome some areas had pilot projects but this has only come in for most of the country now, it's a fairly new thing.

[LimitedEditionLady]

Yeah you wouldve qualified with mh issues and on income support

[diaimchlo]

When will people stop stereotyping????? Every time I see a thread on MN where an OP says they are not 'benefit bashing' you can guarantee it happens, maybe not by the OP but the stereotypers come out in droves.

To to reiterate THIS IS FOR THE CHILDREN NOT TO GIVE THE PARENTS A BREAK.

[Phineyj]

Yes it is for the children but the side effect is, it gives the parents a break. I can see that might be annoying if you are struggling and don't qualify.

YANBU for feeling that way but YABU because if there wasn't such a policy the DC probably wouldn't go and there would be knock on problems later.

[sashh]

I would be interested to understand the reasoning too!

Because children from disadvantages families have been entering school totally unprepared and a year developmentally behind your little darling(s).

So it is for your benefit too, so the nasty children from the council estate don't drag your children down in reception.

[LimitedEditionLady]

Thats a bit harsh,the nasty kids from the council dragging your kids down?whats wrong with kids from.council estates?im from a council estate.I was not a nasty child or had feckless parents.My parents brought me up very well thanks,i was by far never behind in any way.Dont say things like that.That is very narrow minded and offensive.

[brdgrl]

Limited, if I may speak up for sashh - I believe she was being sarcastic - it is a very nasty attitude, one that underlies the sort of benefit bashing seen on this thread and many others, and one (I think) that she was responding to, not endorsing.

[LimitedEditionLady]

Dont like seeing that at all.That really gets my goat.

[alemci]

YANBU - it would irritate me too. If they don't work, why do they need to get free childcare when working parents have to pay for it.

I do understand that it is to socialise their dc Perhaps if the parent had to do some sort of voluntary task whilst their dc were cared for in nursery then it would seem fairer.

alot of working parents are struggling to pay for childcare so it doesn't seem right.

[hettienne]

Disadvantaged children are getting one extra year of 15 hours early education alemci, to help them catch up with their more advantaged peers. It's not about the parents.

[Sirzy]

Alemic - try reading the thread!

[alemci]

I can't read it all but I do still agree with ops take on it.


ooh I take your point about helping the dc catch up.

[alemci]

yes I can and it is a good thing in those scenarios chunderella