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 don't begrudge it. But I don't begrudge financial support for SAHP either. Particularly single parents with young children. And I can't understand how some people find that idea so distasteful yet are happy for two parents who earn a lot of money either separately or combined (where the free hours will not make a difference to their decision to work, and who do not need it) get it.

32% is confusing her argument I think... The outcomes for children from working families is better than from workless. As in, homes with A parent working...not both. To my knowledge, there are no stats showing kids with both parents working are better off, in fact many theories would prob state the opposite. There is nothing beneficial for a child to be in a form of childcare more than with their parents, unless the parents do nothing with them.

I don't know why people talk about begrudging. You pay your tax, the money is gone. The government decides what to spent it on. You don't like the government's decisions, vote for another party. They don't get in. Better luck next time.

I think it's wrong to see pay outs as personal. I pay tax so I get to feel cross about what other people get. Apart from landlords getting HB. They're my pet hate.

Not really interested in quoting 'surveys' back and forth,'which can prove or disprove any argument you choose.
At the end of the day, the govt Is widening access to work for parents who want it.
It won't make any difference to parents who don't

There is no specific mention of it being pre school but there was an American report recently that found that daughters of working mothers (no mention of dads) get better qualifications and had higher earnings than daughters of non-working mothers and that sons grew up to do more in the home if their mothers worked so it was presented as a positive for equality in society. There are way too many other issues for it to be seen as universally preferable though.

Yanbu.
I planned to get dd settled into preschool and then begin the job hunt.
If I don't get the hours of free childcare getting someone to watch dd whilst I go to interviews is going to be a nightmare. And im not overjoyed at having a mad dash to find a preshool before I start work.
I'm not sure how this will affect me if I'm self employed either as that is an option. But I can't work at home whilst caring for a three year old.

I realise this is a bit of a first world problem but I am narked. My plans are going to be laid to waste.

I realise that this is similar to a situation when my children were young. I could have used childcare vouchers for an after school club, but I preferred nanny type care which isn't covered. I quite see why the benefit isn't available for private arrangements. I might have pad my mother after all, Or some psychopath. But that was an example of a benefit I didn't get because the access wasn't widened to suit my choices. Never occurred to me to moan about it.

f I don't get the hours of free childcare getting someone to watch dd whilst I go to interviews is going to be a nightmare

Why would you assume preschool hours would fit in with an interview anyway? they most likely wouldn't.

You cannot seriously expect how ever many hours free child care a week on the off chance that you might get one or two interviews, which most likely would be at different hours anyway.

If you get work, you then find child care that fits with it. You can't do it the other way around, that just wouldn't work!

I don't understand your post at all.

But Odd surely most mums end up working.

Having a period as a sahp doesn't mean you never work.

The extra 15 hours if you divide them by 52 weeks rather than term time are only worth £35 a week in my LA.

The thing I don't get is that it's termtime only - how is that useful for working parents who aren't school/academic staff?

Term time only is ridiculous-
And I say that as a teacher!
Mind you- there were no free hours at all when mine were small, and we paid fully for nursery 51 weeks of the year (only Christmas week when the nursery shut was there no charge) so tbh I'd be bloody grateful for any subsidies at all. It's all a lot better than it used to be (old gimmer emoticon!)

you made me worried for a minute Owl

of course 15hrs will not be scrapped. they are not free childcare hours but first step to introduce kids to the ed system and preparing them for school.
They are for the kids.
And round here you still pay a top up fee (3.00 - 10.20 per session!)

DD is 3 and starting playgroup next Thu because she needs it and up until now I wouldn't have been able to manage extra journey at lunchtime to pick her up.
she will go Thu & Fri only, 3 hours each week until end of summer term. it will be a PITA for me to do it, but she desperately needs it for various reasons. with baby at home i will not be child free.

I'm a SAHM and as we have 7 kids, who collectively exhaust me, it would be wonderful to have 6 child-free hours every weekday to catch up on endless tasks and lost sleep and perhaps go for a swim or do a bit of exercise (I have no energy or time to look after me atm) and have a little breathing space.
Trust me, if anyone, I really would appreciate a little break.
but why on Earth should it be free, beyond the 15 hrs that are set up to benefit the children??

*3 hours each session (so 6 hrs/w)

This study is looking at the children as adults, I think now most mums end up working but that wasn't always the case, many in my mum's generation didn't, maybe that is the difference - most SAHPs see it as a career break not a career ending these days.

I imagine the term time thing is because they don't want to set up a system that gets worse at school age, this way parents are used to it only being for some of the year.

I just feel like this govt really hates me. When I had my 1st child and wanted to return to work no support with childcare was available as dh earned too much yet my colleague who lived with her parents got 80% paid. So I decided to pretty much sah. Than we lost child benefit. Fair enough but still a hit with 3 dc. Than fsm brought in but surprise surprise our dc are too old or too young to benefit. Now the 30 hours free comes in. Great I can go back to work and finally benefit from a policy but it comes in just as youngest starts school.

Hiya!

Goodness - apologies to those who asked where I'd gone... It'd be that darned work stuff; can't spend all day on the Internet looking at mumsnet!

Ok. So I come back to the potential threat to the 15hrs (which is unclear at the mo); the underlying narrative about the value of working over and above stay-at-home & carers in general.

Looking into the 30 hrs a bit more, the office for national statistics (ONS) apparently cites 30hrs as full time (which links minimum wage for 30hrs to the £10k tax threshold... Details looked up by DH).

Interestingly, I work in a professional job where full time would usually be nearer to an average of 48hrs (allowing for nights & weekends). At the mo, I don't do that (I work three 'normal'/office hours days a week). Would I need to prove I was full time to claim extra 15hrs? Who knows....

And several ppl have assumed that astronomic childcare costs are limited to the SE; they aren't. (Based in SW; nursery approx £56 per day; after school about £12). And, yes, preschool childcare for 2 was more than I earned...

I've looked a little into the evidence base on childcare vs SAH & outcomes for children. It's mixed. And v political (very few academics are prepared to say that childcare at an early age is detrimental to children; I know only one and she regularly gets shot down because what she's saying is so unpopular). (DOI; I've been v critical in the past because I think it feeds the notion of "working mums" being less good than "SAH mums", which I don't think helps the debate - we all need to support each other - esp in complex lives where many have relatively little support given the increasingly fragmented nature of families).

So. IF the detail of this bill keeps the 15hrs; that's ok. IF only full time working parents benefit, that's not great (I still don't think that's unreasonable esp if the over-the-year average is much less than 24hrs, which wouldn't come close to a full-time week for anyone much - I can't work that out in my head!).

Still come back to the narrative, tho. SAHP seem to be not part of the "hard working family", which I find, frankly, bizarre (& I'm a working parent). If I'm honest, I think this should be focussed around the needs of the child; and yes, bunging DC in for 30hrs when you're SAH does seem quite a lot (think I've said that before). Gap between preschool education and childcare. But I guess children don't vote for a long time, so maybe it doesn't matter...

And, finally, looking at an economic model which doesn't place a value (in monetary terms) on childcare would be, to say the least, shortsighted. As would a model which didn't consider life-time earnings; or a failure to try to capture something on the intangible benefits of work and stay at home. (If that sounds crazy, it's done in academic research quite a bit and used in practical settings; an example would be a QALY or a DALY, which are used to help determine healthcare spending).

In general I think 15 hours education for all and then 15 hours childcare for both parents working is ok. I don't think 30 hrs for children with severe sn will be possible because there is no one to provide it. Most children I know didn't get the full 15 hours. So those families will miss out.

Im a sahm at the moment would love to have a little job without worrying about childcare have now had to leave 2 jobs since becoming a mum due to financially worse off. I think its a good thing that at last that working families could be getting some recognition.

If the provision is 30hrs, I'm not sure they can state both parents have to work 30+ hours, as otherwise who exactly would be collecting the child at the end of the session?

Maybe 25+ hrs would be the maximum as half an hour commute from nursery to work would be reasonable although im sure some would say they have 1hr plus commute, but maybe then it would be necessary to look for childcare near work rather than home.

What 32%charged said. Most initiatives of last 15 yrs we haven't benefited from.

In supposed austerity times I'd rather this change wasn't coming in at all. Along with the tax cuts promised (how do they fit??).

Both parents working makes economic sense for the government. In our family we both work and because we both work we pay our cleaner, childminder who also then get to work and have more disposable income to put back into the economy, both pay taxes and have savings and pensions to be more self sufficient and less likely to depend on the government. There are of course lots of families in different circumstances but I believe this is the general economic argument which means it makes sense to assist families with childcare. People in work fuels the economy.

I have been SAHM as well as being old enough to to have paid most of my salary in childcare because of no subsidies. I am delighted about this initiative and I think it's a good thing for children that both parents work.

I think it will be 15 free hours for those who qualify because of need (like the two year old funding) and 30 hours if you work. So we wouldn't qualify. I wouldn't want 30 hours at 3 anyway. We are thinking of 2 mornings a week for DS so not taking the whole entitlement as it stands. I am home to spend time with my children. They are only young once!

I don't think 30 hrs for children with severe sn will be possible because there is no one to provide it

Being parent to a child with severe SN I have to say that you are spot on, there often isn't anyone /any facility which can provide suitable childcare for children like my own child. Perhaps the focus (and additional funding) would be better spent on improving access to childcare for those children with severe SN or complex needs. I didn't really want to give up work but I had no choice, I would have happily paid the going rate for childcare even if it left me at a deficit in earnings for a few years, but I would have had to pay £35 per hour for two specialist carers and we couldn't afford that from both mine and DH salaries combined (we both would be in deficit).
It really grates on me when people (not the one I am responding to) imply that being a SAHM is always a choice because for people in situations like me it isn't a choice.