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.

I have some sympathy with the OP, as someone else who would have to pay more in childcare than I was earning after I had dc2. It seemed mad to me that I had to pay in order to work, but other people didn't work and got free places. As it happened, I've been extremely lucky and got work I can do from home with kids around, but that's beside the point.

I just wonder why it's based on income, not needs - if a child needs to go to nursery, they should be offered a free place regardless of family income. And from your responses, I wonder if I've got the wrong end of the stick and it is assessed on needs, rather than just being given to anyone on benefits. I know my friend with a child with SEN was offered a free place and they are certainly not poor. So, is it a dual thing? Some places go to poorer families, some go to families of children with particular needs? Am genuinely interested to know.

Some places go to children with SN and some to poor children. This is based on need. It's just that the needs is assessed at population level rather than on an individual basis. As with everything else, it's cheaper to base it on something like whether you receive certain benefits than it is to screen everyone and determine need. Of course, the alternative would be to make it universal. But that's very expensive too.

Thanks, Arbitrary!

"Stop bloody moaning and just be happy for people why can't you?"

I'm not sure it's really fair to demand that people be happy for people they see benefitting from something that would really benefit them but that they don't qualify for because they are too diligent.

The OP works herself. She obviously doesn't earn a lot if she has had to cut her hours and work evenings and weekends to avoid having to pay any childcare.

Of course it feels (and is) unfair that someone just like her who doesn't work can put their child into childcare and spend the child-free having some leisure time.

Designing a welfare system involves trade offs between offering useful services to those that need them and encouraging people to be self-reliant and hard-working.

The OP is on the sharp end of a scheme which is supposed to even out educational disadvantage.

The "early years education" on offer is indistinguishable from what working people use as childcare.

So that is obviously going to create a problem when those working people are having to work less because they can't afford childcare that people who don't work are getting for free.

That is an obviously problematic situation and insisting that people should be happy about it strikes me as quite bizarre.

I think it's fair if the child is in need ie not meeting milestones. However, why should a family on benefits automatically get it?

Nope I won't be happy about it.

Its not a case of not getting it because you are too diligent, it is not getting it because you are lucky enough not to be in such a shit position.

I know one person who gets the free childcare for her 2 year old, given her life I wouldn't resent them a second of it.

My DD qualified for 15 hours of free childcare from the age of 2 because she had (and still does have) severe speech delay and learning difficulties.

What a lucky, jammy bastard I am.

I think it's fair if the child is in need ie not meeting milestones. However, why should a family on benefits automatically get it?

Because they are more likely to be isolated from their peers. No soft play. No baby/toddler swimming. No bus rides to the park. No afternoons annoying chatting to the waitress in the cafe. And so and so on.

Turn it around.

The hours that those children are away from their feckless mothers they are being taught life skills like sharing, speaking clearly, waiting in turn, sitting still
so that when they start school with your DCs they are not disruptive in the classroom.

Would you rather any issues were identified at age 2 or wait till age 4 when you are trying to get your kids up the reading levels in the same room?

westiemama I know what your saying, however we can't afford baby swimming lessons, baby signing etc but we don't get fuck all anything. I have 4 children, very little support and dh works long hours.

In my whole district there are 20 places for this scheme. I had to jump through endless fucking hoops to get my son one of those places. As a single parent with no support locally and no free childcare opportunities it's pretty essential for me... And I work part time whilst he's at nursery.

My son is thriving, has friends, has a brilliant educational start.

It's my understanding that this is to be rolled out to everyone with a child aged 2-3 in due course.

I'm sorry if you are feeling left out OP but you really have no idea how hard it is being on your own 24/7 and not being able to give your child even a little bit of nursery time or play group access because you can't afford it.

And before anyone jumps on me for not planning financially before I had a child; I didn't have a choice.

I love son dearly and I will fight for him to have every opportunity he can and if anyone thinks 11 hours a week to work is a luxury, then you must be fricking joking.

I'm a jammy bastard too. I've been told by my HV that my son will get some provision from when he's 1. This is because I'm autistic and struggle with verbal communication and they don't want him to be held back by it. I'm very willing to give this place to anyone who wants it so long as they take the autism too. Any takers?

There is a thread on AIBU about Jon Venables and people were lamenting the fact that early interventions had not sorted his situation out before he took out his issues on James Bulger.

The sort of scheme that OP is complaining about is exactly what Jon Venables did not get.

Make your minds up ladies.

But Charlotte. There are people an awful lot worse off than you, people for whom being able to not go swimming with their child is the last of their worries. Life may be hard for you but you can gurantee that for those who get this extra support it is a hell of a lot harder.

It sounds like a very good scheme to me. I wish it could be extended to anyone who wants it. But just because not everyone gets it doesn't mean that some shouldn't get it, iyswim.

I bet if the OP's children were eligible, she wouldn't be querying the scheme.

"Do you really think that is why some people work and other don't or some people qualify and other's don't?"

Um, no I don't think that, so not sure why you put the "really" in there.

You've just entirely invented what you imagine I think.

I used the word "diligent" because the OP works.

She lives the kind of life our society claims to value - she works hard and tries to support her family without resort to benefits.

Of course it smarts if she sees other people who don't work (for whatever reason) getting help that she could really do with but can't get BECAUSE SHE WORKS.

It seems to her (quite rightly in this case) that working is putting her at a disadvantage.

And far from thinking that there are people who don't work because it is not worth it financially for them to bother, I know for a fact that there are people who make that choice. I'm related to some of them.

And TBH I don't think there is anything particularly problematic morally about choosing not to work if you can claim benefits that leave you better off.

Acknowledging that a benefits system can lead to unfair outcomes doesn't in any way imply a criticism of the existence of such a system or of the people who use it (pretty much all of us in one way or another).

'I have 4 children, very little support and dh works long hours.'

This is why a lot of people limit their families.

"Yet those in comfortable positions still moan about it."

No.

It's not (generally) people in comfortable positions who moan about this kind of thing.

It's people who are struggling (such as the OP) and for whom it would really help.

Another thing to add. One home visit I went on the child was in the early stages of being assessed for autism also mum was a lone parent with 3 other children one being a young baby. Anyway the house was beautiful... Massive tv corner sofa, electrical gadgets etc. It had all being bought from bright house and doorstep lenders whatever it's called before her partner walked out and left her... She looked as if she had it all to an outsider but she had loan sharks and debt collectors knocking on her door everyday.

Haha expat.....or have loads of kids and claim benefits and get free childcare. stepping away from thread.