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!!!!

The little- ha,ha paying a cleaner,both paying tax,think you live in a different world to many and it certainly isn't the case for all.Frankly if you can pay a cleaner you clearly shouldn't be getting help from the government.It's bonkers.

Think I'd rather have more money going towards the NHS than enabling families to have cleaners.

We both work FT and 30 hours would really help us - is this what is really being proposed?

Yabu. Surely the 15 hours a week for early education is different from the additional 15 hours a week for work parents.

If SAHP think they should also be able to claim the additional hours, and put their dc on childcare for 30 hours per week, why are they staying at home?

put their dc on childcare for 30 hours per week, why are they staying at home?

To post on MN about how exhausted they are?

IvyBean, Don't worry the government doesn't pay for my cleaner, my salary does. My children are older.

I think you are confused if you think the government is paying for any cleaners. The government is paying for childcare which should make it worth working and give a family a bigger disposable income which is what should happen if you work. If you choose to pay for a cleaner out of the money you are earning them that is surely your choice

Government policies are not made based on anecdotes. Its never going to fit every individual family unfortunately.

Many childminders used to provide care for children with severe special needs. In my county, it was provided by the Network childminders, although other childminders provided care, too. We were properly trained and supported to provide it.

Unfortunately, the Daycare Trust published their fees (for sole specialist care of severe needs) in their annual report, making it look as though all childminders were charging the same. It started the "raking it in" backlash against childminders because the media jumped all the £10 fee without troubling to investigate the reason for it or even who was paying it.

The Networks are all but gone now in the Austerity cuts. Childminders are giving up in their thousands because they feel totally unappreciated.

You're right. Children with severe special needs won't find 30 hours free childcare because those of us who traditionally provided it either won't exist any more or won't be able to take the hit of subsidising it.

Personally, I've lost money long enough to the free entitlement scheme. Why should I subsidise other people's free childcare/education when all I get in return is a whole lot of extra work and a kick in the teeth from the Government? Where's my reward for working hard??

I think the 15 hours for sahps will have to go to provide spaces for the 30 hours. I'd like to know how they will define working parents as a wahm.

So 15 hours a week are still available for all parents of children 3 + and the Me 2 funding is available for lower income families for children 2 + and working families get 30 hours for children 3 +?
Is that most likely what will happen?

Thelittlebooktroll- agree!

It's a tad frustrating the way some people keep trying to make this personal, as if the govt randomly decide to be nice to WOHP and horrid to SAHP! It's simple economics. The govt wants to improve the economy and then there genuinely will be more money to plough into the NHS, education and so on, rather than continuing the depressing borrowing of money which plummeted the UK into deep recession.

As you rightly say, enabling wider access to work means that more people will have more money to spend- and whether they choose to spend it on services like employing someone to be a cleaner- well, that's up to them.

What's becoming increasingly clear is that some people are just entrenched in the politics of envy... They'd be ok with the idea of both parents working so long as those parents are having a really tough time, spending every penny on childcare, and certainly not having anything left over for a holiday or new dress or god forbid a cleaner. But the moment those parents have a bit of cash left over to spend, the resentment kicks in. Even though spending money and using services is what's going to create a stronger economy, and ultimately more money for public services.

Bonkers

I'm a SAHM and I don't really get why we would need help with childcare. Surely you are a SAHP because you're choosing to look after your own children full time? Nobody else gets help with childcare to attend interviews etc in advance of getting a job. The preschool education hours will still be available (15 hours in England, variable provision in Wales), should you wish to use it.

It is true however that families with a sahp are disadvantaged by the tax and benefits systems.

What rot.

We are in austerity,we don't have the spare cash to waste money on families who are already perfectly able to pay for their childcare and fund a cleaner on top.

littlejohnny your absolutely right, I do think the government should allow sahp to share tax allowances. Not 'pay' a parent to be at home but enable the choice of what's best for our families.

Although I know they wouldn't want to encourage it as they want to keep the worker bees paying taxes.

IvyBean, you are missing the economic point people here are trying to make. Funding childcare so both parents can go out to work and increase their income and therefore capacity to spend more as well as paying taxes back to the government is NOT a cost but an investment in the economy. That is the economic argument for the government investing in childcare for working parents.

Both parents working and paying for childcare and a cleaner will have created employment for the childcare worker and cleaner who in turn will have more money to spend in the economy.

You can of course understand this economic argument but still wish to SAHM.

tanith I do know one childminder locally who will take children with SN and charge reasonable rates but I don't know any who would be able to take my son. My son needs 2 carers to support him as his needs are very complex and very severe. He would also need one of those carers to be trained in administering his emergency meds. Unfortunately most childminders wouldn't be able to take on a child like mine because they wouldn't be able to look after any other children at the same time (which is understandable).
There is a child at my sons SN school who goes to a childminder before and after school and during some school holidays but his needs are less severe than my sons and he doesn't even need 1:1. The childminder charges £40 per school day for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon. In the holidays she charges £130 for the full day (she has other NT children at the same time who she charges normal rates for). Obviously his parents are paying the charges because they need the childcare but it would help if there was more funding available in cases like these.

But a cleaner won't be paying tax and will have the meagre salary you're paying topped up by the state.

There is no need to help families already perfectly capable of paying their own childcare in the same way there is no need for wfa for rich pensioners. Have a cleaner but frankly see no reason why the state should fund it.

Helping families who need it yes,wasting money on those who don't no.

The point you are now making IB relates to minimum wage and means testing.

Do you still not understand that the state is not funding anyone's cleaner?

I also agree with 32percent here. it seems of all the things this country spends money on, nothing makes people feelthan childcare. Then the government is spending THEIR money and God forbid should these parents who get some assistance with their astronomical childcare cost also have a cleaner or go on a couple of nice holidays because this is of course paid for by the tax payers

It's wasting money on those who clearly don't need it.

Same as free school meals and wfa for all do.

Why won't the cleaner be paying tax?
I pay my cleaner £12 per hour, the going rate. She only does 3 hours a week for me, but works a full week with private customers. Why wouldn't she pay tax?

HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO AFFORD SAVINGS AND A PENSION WHEN I AM EXPECTED TO SUBSIDISE YOUR FREE CHILDCARE SO YOU CAN PAY FOR A CLEANER?!

Your comment, Troll, is right up there with "Let them eat cake!"

Thelittlebooktroll- yeap I agree, the childcare issue always raises hackles. Sadly I suspect to some degree it's a hangover of the patriarchal society... Widening access to childcare means widening access to the workforce, which heaven forbid, means more women might want a slice of the action