To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

[AcademicOwl]

Ok, Queen's speech.
Proposal to increase 'free'* childcare to 30hrs for 3-4 year olds.

BUT only if all parents working.

As I understand, the current provision for 3-4 yo there are no caveats re parents working. So ok for SAHMs & SAHDs. Gives children chance to socialise pre-school, parents to find feet again and possibly find work.

I've got 2 DC under 5, and worked 3 days a week, so understand costs of childcare (I.e. Two in childcare = more than I earn by about £200pcm). Expecting DC 3 in Oct, so was considering a year out on a career break... Help make costs manageable, support family whilst they are titchy, etc. but DC 2 prob wouldn't be eligible for 'free' childcare if I do that.

Can't help but feel this is discriminating against SAHPs & again undervaluing the importance of parenting choices and the family unit...

What'd you want to bet they'll remove current 'free' provision?

*'free' because in our patch it isn't. The nursery work out how much money it contributes to your monthly bill, then you have to make up difference.and, yes, they are allowed to do that... I investigated at length a couple of years ago.

Grrrr!!!!

I agree that the current thresholds are too low, I think I said that in an earlier post. I do think we need means testing but with more people being eligible for help due to the thresholds being set at a more realistic level.

It's a bit like the universal free school meals for infants thing, that is a waste of money too. Not everyone needs a free school meal for their child but the thresholds for getting free school meals is currently too low and creates a situation where some families have a lower disposable and can't get FSM but other families with a higher disposable income are eligible.
I don't know if I am making much sense to anybody but myself though.

Working parents are contributing to the economy

Not all working parents are contributing to the economy.

Care to elaborate superexcited?

I don't think SAHPs need free early years education or free childcare. The Manchester example (which I mentioned earlier) shows that it doesn't improve educational outcomes for the child.

Once again superexcited, where is your evidence for this? Because, as I mentioned upthread, Manchester City Council are under the distinct impression that it does. If the only thing you're basing this on is the fact that Manchester's children don't do as well as those in the considerably less deprived neighbouring boroughs, that is not evidence that it doesn't improve educational outcomes. It's just evidence that it doesn't manage to close the gap entirely, which is hardly surprising given the vastly different demographics of the area. If you've any other reason to think this, I would be genuinely interested to hear it, honestly. It would help me in my role as a governor. But if you haven't, the approach you're taking is totally flawed.

chicken how long has the programme been going in Manchester?

They've provided more school nursery hours than the legal minimum for decades. In the 80s, my siblings and I got 15 hours a week from the term after our 3rd birthdays, then 30 hours from the term after our 4th. This was at a time when some councils provided nothing. There was more flexibility then though, and schools also did January and April reception entry too (iirc the last April entry was in 1990). I'm not sure how long they've been doing the 30 hours for the academic year a child turns 4 though- note this isn't the same as the term after they're 3. I think about 10-15 years.

I actually prefer the system we had in the 80s though, because not all parents of children at preschool age want them in full time, but that's what nearly all the nurseries offer. And if eg your child turns 3 in October 2015, you still don't get the school nursery place until the academic year afterwards ie September 2016. Meaning they potentially end up doing their 15 free hours from January 2016 somewhere else, private nursery or wherever, then have to get used to another setting again soon after.

I found one of the primaries in Manchester that only offers the 15 hours nursery.

northendenprimary.co.uk/admissions

So they will be using the other funding that the council provides for something else.

Also, on checking my notes from training, I see that the council funds 25 hours not 30 hours (I am quite a new school governor so didn't know this before!). The kids are in the nursery school for 30 hours, so I guess the 25 hours is either the amount of hours over 52 weeks rather than 39 weeks, or they don't count the break times?

Nolim I suspect she is referring to the fact that many don't pay tax and many that do pay so little they take out far more than they contribute.Niether contribute to the economy.

Working parents are contributing to the economy SAHP's are not

weeeeelll, they sort of are -- it's just that masculine-oriented economics, and ways of calculating GDP and all that sort of stuff, don't include what has traditionally been seen as "women's work."

What we see, in the costs of childcare, is just what that "women's work" actually costs.

But look, historically, the luxury of being a SAHP has been available only to the very few. Over most of history, most women have worked most of the time. And I think this is a good thing (one only has to read some of the more distressing threads here or in Relationships, to see what happens when women give away their economic independence).

And you only have to read the stories autobiographies, poems, novels of lots of women in the 18 and 19 century to see that NOT being "allowed" to work as equals to men, was very damaging to women. To their mental & physical health.

A parent having 5-7 years out is working most of the time.

I know very few mothers who are sahp their entire lives.

It's seriously sad that our society begrudges families a sahp for such a relatively short amount of time particularly in those cases when it benefits the children and families hugely. In many of these cases the wp may well be paying more in tax than families with 2 wp( if we're going to put revenue coming in above all else).

I think some people are taking this too personally. It's not about society - or the govt- 'begrudging' a family having a SAHP if that's what they want. Its a personal choice- and as such, the value is in what you attribute to it. Just as if i decide to take a couple of years off work to write a book (with my dh's agreement to be sole earner) I would be doing it to enhance my own well being and life . I wouldn't expect a handout for it.

But that goes both ways.

Perhaps others shouldn't expect a hand out for choices they have made.Not being frugal enough and saving enough before dc,not spacing them out better,perhaps having a house they can't really afford which leaves little left over for childcare ........ and so on.

We all make life choices.

But you're still taking it as if it's some kind of personal issue! The govt aren't providing more free chhildcare out of the kindness of their hearts to help Mr and Mrs Smith who both work! Neither are they punishing Mrs Jones who is choosing to stay at home! They are putting money into areas which are economically beneficial.

And the fact remains that the evidence shows that having people in work is beneficial. Not just directly because they are paying tax, but outcomes for children from homes with parents in work are better.

Of course there will be individual exceptions to the rule- there are some families who geneuinely believe their children won't do as well if both parents work, so they cut their cloth accordingly and have a parent at home. And there are many other families where they know that they could both work and it wouldn't be detrimental to their children, but one parent has a strong desire to be at home (for their own sake) and they too cut their cloth accordingly.

Err no I'm not I am part of a family with 2 x wp thanks.

Outcomes are better for families with somebody in work.I'd like to see the stats saying outcomes are better for families with 2 xfrazzled wp parents along with parents and children who would love and benefit from a sahp for a period of time.

I simply don't see how paying for childcare for somebody who isn't paying tax is economically beneficial.Surely in these situations it is quite rightly provided because some families need help.I also don't see the economic advantages of paying for childcare at the other end of the scale ie on wealthy families who simply don't need any help what so ever.

Society doesn't begrudge having a SAHP, it just thinks the person should fund that choice themselves. Choosing to not work means opting out of financially assisting the household, other tax payers shouldn't have to make that up. It's perfectly possible to parent and work.

32percent is right, outcomes for children with working parents are far better which is surely what every decent parent wants. This gives people more choice, it's better to subsidise childcare if we have to help parents than give them money for not contributing.

btw I have no intention of turning this into a WOHP/SAHP debate! I had a very brief period as a SAHP And I also worked p/t for a few years. But I'm under no illusions- the main beneficiary of that was me. I could have continued working f/t but I wanted to be at home. It certainly wouldn't have occurred to me to expect some kind of financial reward.

Is it going to replace the free 15 hours pre school education? This isn't childcare, but education?
If so, that is discriminating against dc from a family with a sahp.
I agree that sahp's may not need childcare, but their children should receive a free education the same as every other child.

Are outcomes for children with two working parents better littlemonsters? At preschool age in particular?

It is not replacing the present provision morethan. It is additional.

oddboots

That makes more sense then and seems fair to me.
I'm a long term sahm but I do think there should be temporary free 30 hours, maybe linked to job centre for parents looking for work.
It must be hard to meet job centre rules when you only have those 15 hours to attend meetings, job interviews etc. Not everyone has alternate childcare arrangements.

It's workless families.Most families with a sahp have a parent in work.They aren't workless.

Also it depends what you read.Joseph Rowntree did a study that said pre- schoolers with a sahp did better long term.

So there you go,stats come and go.Families should do what is best for them.

I think when you start arguing about who benefits emotionally, you stray into very personal waters. And claiming that one's own personal choices are right for society as a whole or even for other individuals is also a bit dodgy. Who's to say that your family is better off by you working/not walking/doing volunteer work/etc. We make our choices based on what we value and what we can afford. And we evaluate and judge them ourselves. The quibble is about money. If we can't afford what we find desirable, what can we reasonably expect the state to provide?

I am a sahm and wouldn't have wanted that much childcare even if it was free. Doesn't bother me if others want it though.

Well I am in scotland so it won't apply to us. Bairns not bombs my arse, Nicola sturgeon.
But if it did, I would be pissed off about it only applying when both parents work. There are massive job cuts coming where I work and if I lose my job I won't be able to afford to keep ds in nursery. But the waiting lists for nurseries here are a year plus long. For example, My son's current nursery has 42 places and over 300 kids on the waiting list. So if I lost my job how am I meant to look for another one? I can't exactly say to a prospective employer, 'thank you for offering me a job, can I start in a year's time so I can find a nursery place for my son?' Being able to have free childcare whilst I looked for a job would mean I wouldn't have to lose the current nursery. Losing my current place effectively means I won't be able to look for work till ds starts school. That sucks.

But some people it seems do begrudge it, jellybeans, even though they don't want it themselves.