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.

Oh OK, that makes more sense then, thanks MrsD and Mum

I have four children. I am a married, SAHM and have been since before dc2. Dc3 was a handful. Under the health visiting team after his two year check up due to his excess energy and issues. Including the fact the little monkey wouldn't sleep, had no sense of personal danger and kept me so exhausted all the time that I genuinely didn't think either of us would make it to him starting school.

Other than fortnightly visits from the hv who gave useless advice we were not offered any valuable support even though I had dc4 and at the time NO ONE would have him for me. Our whole family would have greatly benefitted from those 15 hours but they were never offered. He eventually started preschool on his third birthday and I paid for it until he got the funding three months later. The improvement for everyone was almost instant.

I also am against free childcare being offered to families who are on benefits. Perhaps a better idea would be free play sessions with the parent to encourage socialisation. For both parent and child.

I agree with notinthemiddle, the assumption that low icons families cannot educate their children is insulting as is the need to patrol them in this way- as another poster pointing out is a cheaper way to uncover those who are being abused as if child abuse doesn't touch higher income families.

I myself would have being entitled to this as a single parent on a low income a few years back when dd was little but I was also educated to degree level and quite capable of stimulating my child. Plus I returned to work part time when my daughter was 12 months old and did receive tax credits to help with childcare.

However my own circumstances aside, in general it is good to offer this to parents who cannot afford childcare. As many higher income families send their children to nursery for a few sessions a week to help their child develop and to give themselves a break tbh.

Fast forward to our current situation My son is 2.6 and my partner has been a sahd to him since he was 7 months he would have liked to be able to send him to nursery once or teice a week but finances will not allow it but we are also over the 16k to be entitled to free place. The government can't afford to give every child a place.

froken but there isn't an infrastructure of parent and child play songs like there is of conventional nurseries.

Also isn't supervising how parent and child interact more controlling than giving the patent a few hours break and the child different apps teaching them things in a different way?

Especially as its entirely voluntary.

Wow princess, you sound delightful - are you really envious of someone who is on benefits?

I think I'd find parent and child play sessions way more insulting/patronising than 15 hrs a week nursery sessions.

One is educating/socialising my child, the other is casting aspersions on my parenting capabilities.

In Scotland the funding is categorised from birth for family centres/nursery is prioritised for band 1 - social work referrals/child protection band 2- health needs/Additional support needs/ multiples, band 3 - anyone who has attained the age of 3 can be considered for a place who lives in the catchment area band 4 - as above except outwith catchment areas.

I got a place when DS turned 3 and I was able to use it for childcare as they put two 2.5 sessions together in one day and also had a meal session in middle. Meant Ds was there 9-3.30 with the meal break. They were provided with meal too free of charge but did have a discretionary top up option for the wrap around care at lunchtime. No one ever paid this. I was also lucky in that I had put names down from birth but not "lucky" enough to be admitted until band 3 kicked in.

cantsleep, have you been in contact with your children's disability team? dd was given 15 hours a week from 2 (so shoot me) because of her severe disabilities at the local sn school. She didnt sleep and screamed 18 hours a day ad I was ready to jump off a bridge. They provided transport too.
But it all had to be done via a SN social worker.

I think it would be better if parents were given free play sessions for them and their toddler.

Not as useful if the parent has younger DC and needs time to focus on these DC, or catch up on sleep if the DC in the session doesn't sleep, or access help for them or their DC in this time when the DC aren?t around. All of which people I know who got these session from 2 did these activities did at some point.

From what I understand from sure start workers I know - the parents you'd want to turn up to the kind of session you propose don't - but are more willing to leave their DC by themselves though not always regularly.

Also the setting I know that gave sessions from 2 - is a children centre with attached nursury and it also did toddler sessions with accompanying staff, who would jump in and offer support and ideas, were free to people on benefits anyway.

I agree with the OP, and she hasn't said a word about the people - they are her friends. She's querying the system. That's allowed without being called "nasty" isn't it?

Hi I run a nursery room in a childrens centre that is exclusively for the 2 year olds receiving free 2 year old offer places.

I see it from both sides. I home visit every one of the 32 children before they start. It is a mixed bag. Some of the children have additional needs and due to their age are at the early stage of diagnosis and are their parents are often coming to terms with their child's needs so the free place is a lifeline for them as we can help get other agencies involved and help parents find support as well as a well deserved break.

Most of the children are referrals and are receiving family support for a variety of issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol, mental health issues. Some families are asylum seekers who can have a discretionary place as they are sometimes are not entitled to state benefits.

A few families are not being totally honest and are probably claiming to be single parents when they have a working partner but if they have the paperwork to say they can have a place then they get a place. They are committing benefit fraud and are risking being caught.

Most of the houses I often don't see any toys let alone books. Some children arrive to us at 2 never having said a single word. Some are starving at snack time. Lots come dressed in inappropriate clothes for the weather. Lots are poorly due to damp housing. After some home visits I feel that no children should have to live the way some of them do.

A lot of the parents have low levels of numeracy and literacy and are able to attend basic skill classes whilst their children attend their nursery place. Some go see the debt advisor, some attending counselling appointments or go to a sewing class to meet other parents who become friends.

I believe these free sessions make a difference to families that need it. There will always be some who technically meet the criteria but don't really need it but that's the same with all benefits I suppose.

Me and my dp work full time and get no help with childcare so I can see why people think its unfair. But I can honestly say the majority of children accessing the places really do need it and it does improve their outcomes.

Sounds stupid to me. You don't need to go to nursery at the age of two. Why can't you wait until the age of 3 when you know, everyone goes?!
I don't get the "disadvantaged kids need extra time at school." That actually sounds quite patronising and insulting to those on benefits to me.
"You're on income support so your child is disadvantaged being at home and needs to go to school quicker as you're obviously incapable of raising him/her properly and they're obviously going to fall apart and to pieces and have the social skills of a flea if they don't go a year early.

I've no issue with the scheme in principle. I just don't get the argument that it's to socialise the child.

Surely there are just as many parents out there where one partner works but due to their income being low, can't afford costly hours for their under 3's. Do these children not need to socialise then.

My sisters neighbour has 3 under 3's (2d pregnancy was twins) her DH works two jobs just to pay their mortgage and other outgoings. He is out of the house for most of the day/evening plus week-end. She has no family to support her and is living on her nerves mainly.

I appreciate she isn't a LP, but can see how she would feel angry about not being deemed in need of this scheme, when she clearly is.

The problem is there isn't the funding to provide the scheme for everyone so it is given to those deemed to have the greatest need. That means that someone will always miss out unfortunatly but that is no reason to not allow it for those who need it more.

generally it is about a lot more than just socialisation.

Dollyclothespeg, but it's true that workless households generally have a poorer education level. That's a generalisation and is obviously not true of every workless household. But the idea is, I'm sure, that if such children are brought on, then it benefits everyone. I'm sure that is what's behind it. No question.

Thankyou for that post MissOtis

I had one of these places for my son and I have to say it probably saved us both. It's bloody hard work being a single parent with a child with difficulties. This place probably stopped me going seriously mad and gave him space he needed.

Now things are good three years on and I run my own business. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to have my struggles just to get a few hours free childcare.

I was offered something similar for my second child but turned it down because at that point I felt there were other people who needed it more.

I agree sirzy. If you live in an area of low deprivation people who are not "needy" will get the places as they can
Qualify by having a low income that doesn't necessarily mean low parenting skill.

I work in an area of very high deprivation and most of the 84 places go to families where there is either family support, social services involvement or health needs so nearly all "needy" families.

Lovely post bake

I agree with bubbles.

It is because child care is so expensive that it can cause resentment. Silly though as only children in need get it. It's not because the mum would like some time off. Helping kids get on helps everyone in society so it's definately worth it.

The 'socialisation' argument is principally about the need to develop children's language skills really. Statistically*, children from deprived backgrounds are likely to start school with considerably less developed language skills than children from more affluent homes. This is a massive problem because it makes it very difficult for them to access the curriculum at all, and contributes to lower attainment throughout the education system.

So the government target educational provision for 2 year olds from deprived backgrounds (as determined by eligibility for certain benefits, because it's very difficult to develop more nuanced tools in social policy) and offer them free places in early years education. The idea is to develop these children's language skills so that they start school at less of a disadvantage than they might otherwise have. The hope is that this will mean that they leave the education system with far better outcomes because of this 'early intervention'.

This is also why children with disabilities are (sometimes) eligible for this kind of funding, although the aim will be to develop more than just language skills.

It has absolutely nothing to do with child care. And whether it is 'fair' or not is caught up in bigger questions about social justice than 'why are they getting something I'm not'.

*Note: the fact that this is based on statistics means that it is generally true, even if your DC were taking on the local university debate club at 4 / writing their own novels despite you being in the category being targeted. Individual cases do not disprove a statistical relationship.

I see the reasoning behind the scheme...

However there have been a number of people post on this thread stating their dc have qualified and they certainly don't sound like their dc would be disadvantaged in the language department. I get that they might be in the minority though.

I appreciate there will be always be a line in the sand whereby you qualify or don't, and I really don't have any issue with the scheme I was just pointing out that I could see how some would feel penalised when there was a clear case of need.

They may be disadvantaged in other ways. People shouldn't have to reveal their private lives just to stop people being jealous that they are getting a service provided to help their family.

There is good research evidence that children from low income families suffer disproportionately from language delay, and have considerably less well developed vocabularies than children from high income families (some research suggests poorer children are 16 months behind those from more affluent families by the time they get to school). It is a big problem and there are quite a lot of initiatives in place to address it (e.g. Every child a talker, as well as the funded early years places for 2 year olds).

The main difficulty is in explaining what the scheme is without alienating those it is aimed at. The end result is that you get resentment from those who don't qualify and confusion over what the purpose of the scheme is.