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!!!!

Reading on the BBC website they admit they are looking at the funding on this. Without proper funding, i will be surprised if everyone who wants or needs to will be able to access the full 30 hours.

Proper funding is essential. It's not fair nor is it financially viable for childcare providers to fund the shortfall. Quality childcare needs proper funding.

Preferably by increasing the hourly rate provided by the government (PLEASE not by increasing ratios).

Cotswold Surelty the 30 hours will than become education and in theory sah children could lose out.

All childcare settings are educational to one extent or another. All childcare providers have to show what they do to help and encourage the children in their care to develop. Children of SAH won't 'miss out' on the extra 15 hours unless you believe they are all missing out already by not being in FT childcare.

Yes, surely you are a SAHM because you feel your child is better off with you than with other childcare providers? I sent my DC to a nursery where they did get some level of education that they benefitted from. It also happened to be childcare. Of course if a child is in nursery for longer, they will get more of that than one that is there for less time. The SAHP needs to be doing the edfucation or whatever they feel is right for their child vat home.
Funny how the high earning husband's who love their jobs so much they have to work from 6 am to 10pm so theiir wives can't possibly go to work aren't accused of working to pay for luxuries, and that if they worked fewer hours and earned less money they may be able to spend more time with their children...

They're not talking about quality childcare, Tilder. They haven't mentioned quality at all

I don't understand this at all. It's like your implying that as a working family we don't deserve a bit of extra help? Surely if your at home you don't need any additional free hours? I believe that it is vital children have experience out of the home with other children and adults to prepare them for school but 15 hours is sufficient for children with SAHPs.

There is absolutely no right or wrong answer to whether you work or stay at home with your children. We both work but only because if I took a career break my sector would be nigh on impossible to get back into.

It work four days a week. I consolidated my classes so that I taught a weeks worth in four days. This was to save us money because currently for two days. Yes two days, I am spending well in excess of £500 a month on nursery bills. So OP yes, you are being very unreasonable.

I spend that on food for my dc a month.< shrug >Sahp give up way more than that in salary to care for their DC.

Kids cost.

Sorry but care for your children however you do it will cost,kids being a financial drain comes with the territory. Not sure why there is such a sense of entitlement as regards the care for children you choose to have.

Seriously ivybean? Am really struggling with a polite response to the utter lack of empathy there. Not to say lack of appreciation of the financial realities.

Kids are expensive. That's not exactly a revelation. Making it financially viable for women who want to work to be able to work, now that would be a revelation.

Yes I get some financial support with childcare at the moment. That support means it is financially worth working. The tax I pay more than covers the amount I get in support. As a result, I get to maintain a professional career for which I trained for several years (at taxpayers expense). Win win.

I have no sense of entitlement here. The changes won't even effect me directly. They will, however, hopefully enable more women to choose how to live their life. That will include my daughter, should she choose to do so. If you see that as entitlement, then frankly am not sure what else I can say.

namechange re the menopausal thing I thought it was really off too. It's a really weird thing to use as an insult, if that's how it was meant (although sometimes it's hard to know on an Internet forum I guess...) maybe it was a compliment?

I also agree with your comments on NHS 24/7. It's a bonkers idea; how the gov are going to magic enough staff out of thin air to do this inconceivable. Staffing levels need to be safe at weekends and nights, but anyone who think routine elective surgery at midnight is a good idea needs their bumps reading...

panda yep, hear what you're saying; think I've covered that...
A) I'm keen on anything which supports families
B) I work too!
C) childcare in my area for two DC 3 days per week =approx £50 more than I earn a week/£200 per month more. So not sustainable for any length of time on our family income...

My concern is about the 15hrs being lost; and then the knock on for children who have a SAH parent. That hasn't been alleviated yet...

I don't begrudge any help for parents, even if I don't benefit.

How is it a sense of entitlement when most of the posters of this thread agree with this for other people ???

I wont benefit but I think it will really help low income families and women to stay in work if they want to

But who has said that the 15 hours for all children will be cut? Its all conjecture.

Agree fancy
No-one has even mentioned this but I do wonder where the cash will come from.

I thought Nursery was free for all for all DC for 15 hours a week, especially if on benefits?

Exactly! The whole point was to help with childcare to enable parents to work, not provide free childcare, which already exists, when there is a parent already at home to care for them.

Hey, I'm a parent who doesn't need to go to work but I expect the government to look after my child while I stay at home, just because? Absurd.

I was a stay-at-home parent during my child’s formative years so that I could pass on a second language, impart my own cultural/religious values, and most importantly spend time with him (playing, reading, travelling). Thirty hours of nursery care would have been counterproductive to that. The reason a lot of parents become stay-at-home parents is because they don’t want their young children spending their formative years in an institution cared for by strangers who are not family.

If you’re not bothering to work into the system, why do you expect the same back from the system that working people get.

Look after your own children.

Erm, this is a thread from 2015!