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.

OP, you have a job, savings and can afford to cut down your hours and still pay the bills.
The free 15 hours is for education for those children worse off than yours.
It is not free childcare and only available to the disadvantaged in some way.
Why not thank your lucky ass that you are not entitled to the free 15 hours, rather than moaning about the unfairness of it all.

I've recently found out we qualify (husband was in a good job, recently made redundant). Its a bit odd but I suspect I'll take it up as its offered. I have ill health and don't have a support network so it will be well appreciated, even though that wasn't treason we're eligible.

I'm not sure if it will benefit my daughter any more than being with me but I think it will it will help me get some voluntary experience so I canhopefully go back to work.

It does seem off we're eligible for it, and it doesn't get taken off us when husband returns to work (hopefully).

Off? Odd that we're eligible.

princess - on the plus side she's only getting 'lovely me time' because the gov deems her parenting lacking. think of that each time she gloats!! At least you have the satisfaction that you brought your children up yourself

Blimey, what a terrible, horribly judgmental thing to say. It makes me feel really sad that people like the woman that posted that buy into these false stereotypes - we're either middle class supermums doing a fantastic job, or we're feckless chavs sitting at home on benefits doing a shit job at parenting.

I now qualify for free early education for my 2 year old daughter. Earlier this year my husband left me, with two children under 4, neither of whom sleep properly - so I get between 2 and 4 hours sleep a night. I used to run my own business part time but have had to stop trading as I am barely functioning at the moment, and will therefore go onto Income Support and my daughter will get a free nursery place. This will give me some very much needed time to myself (I will be using my 'lovely me time' to catch up on sleep so that I can be in the right place mentally to be the mum I want to be - not to go shopping, get my nails done or watch TV) Life is pretty tough right now, but I know other people have a harder time so I'm not trying to tell my big sob story. Just want to point out that those people who qualify for this funding do so because they - and their dc's - need extra support. NOT because they have been deemed to be a crap parent!!
By the way dreamingofsun, you're not actually Katie Hopkins, are you?

My friend has been told that she'll be eligable for the free hours at 2. It will be a great help to her as being a wheelchair user, getting around with a young toddler is logisticly hard. That "me" time will make simple functions like appointments and shopping much simpler.

Another friend had it for her 2 year old due to her anxiety and aggrophobia issues.

We barely scrape by on my p/t hours and DH's f/t, but don't qualify for the 15 hours until DD is 3.

Frankly I'm glad! I imagine if we were in the situation of qualifying for that extra year we'd be in a much worse place than we are now, and I don't envy anyone who is.

I hope they take full advantage and their kids enjoy nursery.

ZOMBIE THREAD!

Pretty appropriate really given my sleep situation!

Wow this thread.

Tbh I completely see the annoyance in this. I'm a single mum struggling to get by, whilst the father of my child is progressing with his career, pretending his child doesn't exist whilst I raise a child single handed despite the fact I'd be better off on benefits than working.
I was given opportunity of a promotion but had to decline as if my pay increased I won't be eligible for the 2 year old funding in april, which is equal to thousands and thousands of pounds in free childcare a year.
Yet I know parents who want to do as little as possible and get to put their kids in to childcare. Yes it's for the children but why shouldn't my child be entitelted to the same?
Not to say every parent is like this but the criteria seema to be wacky and penalizing parents who are in difficult circumstances. Like I said financially I'd be better off on benefits because the cost of going to work is so high (childcare + trainfare) . And I've had to decline bettering myself for our future because I cannot possibly afford full time childcare right now or to not be eligible for the 2yr old funding.
This is exactly why their is a gender pay gap (I do understand there's single dad's out there too, just far fewer of you) because we're being forced out of the workplace and not supported by these government schemes.

@xcxcsophiexcxc you just dredged up a 5yr old thread. Why?!

ZOMBIE!!!!

@alphabravo is this against the law ?
It came up on Google.

I know it's a zombie thread, but 2 year funding isn't just about income.

If a child has health issues and early schooling is indicated, they will qualify for 2 year funding despite earning over the threshold.

Think of it as trying to break the cycle. The government wish to provide an earlier education for disadvantaged children, so that they will not be disadvantaged later on. Hopefully this will ensure that they have a good education and leave with more life choices, thus breaking the cycle of having their own disadvantaged children.

Oh FFS zombie! 🧟‍♀️

Don't necessarily agree that only kids who are really disadvantaged get the free childcare at 2 yrs. I know loads of people who get this, the criteria in our county don't seem too strict, think I qualified for it at one point? one is a single mum who works pt, one is a SAHM who's DP is self employed and has a declared income of less than about £15,000 and another because her DH is in the army gets free child care from the kids being babies

I know this is a very old zombie thread, but I agree with the above post. My 2.5 year old has recently started in an early years centre. My DP works full time, I work part time. We don't receive any benefits and our income was irrelevant.

It was a combination of my DC's speech delay and my mental health condition.

If you qualify for Income Support it flags your family as disadvantaged. It's a calculation applied, nothing more.

I was once able to apply for income support for a period of 12 weeks. I didn't feel I needed to claim this as I had the support of family and was quickly on my feet again.

But, this meant the school could apply for pupil premium and therefore extra funds for the school.
In the same way, preschool children are offered extra funded nursery hours.
In the same way, children going off to university get extra funding.

It's because nationally, children in a family where income support is claimed by a parent are disadvantaged. Its been statistically proven and It's part of the way to help bridge that gap. Thankfully this benefit hasn't been cut.

erm, cos sometimes those with the lowest incomes have more obstacles to learning and the free hours help the children. honestly!

Now that the 30 hours funding has come in to place it will all eve put in the end anyway. Non working parents will get 15 hours for 2 years, and working parents will get 30 hours for a year (or more deleting on when the child’s birthday is)

Not that OP probably cares after 5 years though 😂

Statistically, kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to grow up and end up disadvantaged themselves. It has been shown that sending these kids to nursery a bit earlier, massively improves their life chances. In general, disadvantaged kids aren't read to as much etc at home and if they wait til the 3 years like the rest of the population they can be behind their peers and never catch up. Sending them at 2 improves their language, social skills, numeracy etc much more than sending 2 year old from high income families who don't show much of a difference between those who stay at home and those who go to nursery.

So although families who work use it as childcare, for low income families it is used to educate the child and stop them being disadvantaged compared to their peers.

They have to draw the line somewhere so if you work and have a low income just over the threshold I can see how it feels unfair. I can also see how it seems unfair when the parents don't use their child free time to work. But if they tied it into work, the most disadvantaged kids probably wouldn't be able to go. There will also be plenty of families on benefits who are great parents and their kids won't be behind their peers and so don't actually need the nursery place for the kids benefit. But trying to identify the kids who will benefit from whose who won't would be impossible.

It's not a perfect system and it would be great if there was more help with childcare but there are limited resources so these are directed to the kids who are statistically more likely to need it