To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

Not a bad idea, Bonsoir. My DH was raised that way and it was brilliant for everyone. Kibbutznikim are the hardest-working, nicest and most well-adjusted people I know.

But I'll tell you what, even if children sleep separately from their parents (though they got 4 hours a day at home with their parents, which is a lot more than most British children get), the apple still doesn't fall far from the tree. You can live in as socialist a society as possible, children still learn from their parents and show the same traits, habits and learned behaviours.

I am entirely open to people choosing a kibbutz as a way of life. Not to them having it foisted upon them.

I cant think of much worse than being in school 7.30-6pm for any kid, any age

If you're thinking of non abused kids (ie the majority)I can't.

(State day) school was not designed to be an appropriate environment for children to remain in for 10 or 11 hours per day.

nor was a working salary designed to be not even enough to pay the rent let alone childcare.

I think they do need to help parents who work with childcare. I personally do not understand the 2 year old funding and the criteria for meeting that. Why do both parents who are not working need to put their 2 year old into childcare for 15 hrs per week

The purpose of 15 hours a week for the two year old child of two non-working parents is education for the child, not childcare for the parents.

Salaries and wages are not designed to cover the cost of living. They are market rate remuneration for carrying out a job

Most children I know go to private club after school. It has inbuilt soft play area, home cooked meals, wii, tv, homework help, toys, and best of all a massive gang of friends. It has made my dd very confident and sociable.

Bonsoir does your last message suggest that it is unreasonable for people to expect wages to cover living costs?

I don't think 2 year olds of 2 non working parents not in education need childcare or education.

3 and 4 year olds however do.

They do need childcare. Studies show that there are better outcomes for the child if they have 15 hours in a setting.

No studies show the benefits are for those children from disadvantaged,vulnerable families.

It is the education not the childcare that benefits the child.

It is not an issue of reasonable or unreasonable because the two things are not related.

When I price my services, I calculate their value to my customer, not whether they pay my bills.

Thats what the 2 year old funding is for. Its only if you are on below 16k. It means the children will have chance to socialise, learn to share, table manners, speech and language intervention etc.

Thats ok bonsoir as thats why we will always have government wage top ups in some form.

"I don't think 2 year olds of 2 non working parents not in education need childcare or education."

Well, studies show that children in certain circumstances are disadvantaged in the education system and I've seen 2 year olds from difficult home situations flourish. Fortunately, many disagree with your blinkered POV that 2 years do not need early years education and I'm glad. One 2 yr old that came to one of the nurseries I worked at for their 10 hours had never played with toys. It was really sad and heart warming to see their delight every time they came in the toddler room.

I love how these parents of 2 year old children find the energy and time to take their kids to FREE childcare sessions and get off their asses for that, yet they don't bother taking them to playgroups which cost a quid and allows their kids to interact with other children of a similar age, play with toys (some even provide free fruit and squash) .

And if anyone knows of 2 year olds without toys, it's the parents that need educating not the kids!! You can pick up toys in charity shops for 50p! Absolutely no excuse for not providing that for 2 year olds .

Such a simplistic view of the issues early years staff face

What are these issues? Or they above somewhere?

The thing is some just don't(a small minority)and the kids start to spiral down. In the long run I suspect it's cheaper and in the child's best interest to do the stuff they're missing out on in a nursery setting.

Some activities would be hard to provide on under 16k and no garden eg ride on toys,craft etc.

I thought all 2 year olds got it now but glad they don't. Sahp (even me with 3 under 18 months) didn't need it.They're babies at that age and best served at home in the majority of cases.

3 and 4 year olds are a different matter.

jasminerose- It is harder than you think to deal with the sheer amount of parents that struggle to parent because they often have poor models of a family. Also if you have them in settings they have access to speech therapists, social workers, family support etc. There are so many cases of families needing support its hard to balance the workload.

Its nothing to do with the toys they have at home retropear, thats a very simplistic view. It is extremely challenging working in a sector dealing with these groups of children and families.