Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

542 replies

AcademicOwl · 28/05/2015 07:29

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!!!!

OP posts:
VelvetRose · 28/05/2015 08:07

I really don't understand your objection to this. Surely if you decide to be a sahp you are doing so to look after your own children. Why on earth would you then be seeking 30 hrs childcare a week? That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

BeaufortBelle · 28/05/2015 08:07

You get 15 hours of free childcare/early years education for 3/4 year olds? Is this linked to their birthday or the school year I wonder as I have grown up children. Working parents will get this increased to 30 hours. Wow - I think that is fantastic actually.

My son is 20. We got 12.5 hours in a local nursery for one year and it started in the September before his 4th birthday. I was a SAHM. I felt very very lucky to have that. except the nursery attached to a local school wasn't very good so we pulled him out and paid and it was worth every penny

NRomanoff · 28/05/2015 08:08

Can someone explain how its discrimination against sahp? People wanted more free childcare, in addition to the early years eductation. That's what's happening. A sahp doesn't need child care, so why should it be provided at no cost?

HootyMcTooty · 28/05/2015 08:10

You want to have free childcare when you'll be a SAHP? Yabu.

Oh and for the people saying 30 hrs is nearly full time, it really isn't. Once it's adjusted to take off school holidays it will be more like 24 hrs, that's just over 2 days childcare for me, I work 38hrs a week and have an hours commute each way, every day. I'm grateful for any extra provision we get, but it's not full time.

Superexcited · 28/05/2015 08:12

I have already posted a couple of times but just wanted to mention this in case people are not aware:

In some regions children aged 3 -4 already get 30 hours free education. Manchester is one if the regions. Every primary school in Manchester (Central, not greater manchedter) has a nursery attached where children can attend from the term after their third birthday until they start school. The opening hours are generally the same as the attached school (9am-3.15). Children who are entitled to FSM get them whilst at these nurseries, other children just pay for school meals. All parents who want a place at a school nursery can apply for one (and almost everyone gets a place).
The theory is that manchester is a deprived area abductee children need the structure of starting full time education early. It's great for working parents but what does it say about the council and govt trust in parents to do the right thing by their children themselves?

Kampeki · 28/05/2015 08:12

What about sahms who study?
I did OU courses when my eldest was at pre school for his 15 hours.
30 hours a week would have meant I could have done a full time course.
Ditto voluntary work. But, of course, as usual, only paid work counts!

But if you're studying full time, you're not really a sahp, are you? And lots of students are eligible for help with childcare, or for heavily subsidised rates.

As for voluntary work, SAHPs already get 15 hours childcare, so there are already opportunities to volunteer if you wish. And many WOHPs spend time volunteering too - they don't get extra childcare hours in order to do this.

NRomanoff · 28/05/2015 08:14

OP if you feel its important to take time out when the kids are young, why do you want the middle one in childcare for 30 per week?

Baddz · 28/05/2015 08:15

If you really don't think that sahps are vilified dc then please check out some of the language used by IDS et al.
Only people who earn money count.
Sad.

Mrsjayy · 28/05/2015 08:15

My dds got 12ish hours but they are adults but dd1 got in nursery for a full term and a half because of her birthday she got the term after she was 3 till she went to school at 5 dd2 started at 4.5 so she only got a full term

GlitzAndGigglesx · 28/05/2015 08:16

I will welcome this with open arms! Once I return from mat leave I'll have to reduce my hours because of the extortionate costs of childcare - and that's with vouchers! This would allow me to work more hours and provide better stability. I don't think people in this country realise how lucky we are to even get the 15 hours which again has allowed me to work more hours

TarkaTheOtter · 28/05/2015 08:17

I'm a SAHM and don't think I have any need for free childcare. But I don't think families with two high earners need free childcare either. So if we're arguing on a basis of who needs it then it should be for those on low incomes only. If you've chosen to live in the SE and have a large mortgage and are therefore struggling with childcare despite earning two good wages etc etc. Why should the working partners of SAHP who have made different choices pay for your children's childcare?

Baddz · 28/05/2015 08:17

Sigh.
It's not free childcare.
It's education under the EYFS!
I studied with the OU so I was in fact at home when I studied.

AuntyMag10 · 28/05/2015 08:17

Yabu and sound so entitled like the world owes you everything to cater to your situation. Why do you want the benefit of staying at home and free childcare on top.

Mrsjayy · 28/05/2015 08:17

Again why would children of non employed parents need childcare

Baddz · 28/05/2015 08:18

Well said tarka!

TarkaTheOtter · 28/05/2015 08:20

Why do two parents, both earning a lot, need childcare paid for by the govt?

GoodbyeToAllOfThat · 28/05/2015 08:20

They don't, it should be means-tested. Naturally.

NRomanoff · 28/05/2015 08:21

Why do two parents, both earning a lot, need childcare paid for by the govt?

They don't, in reality. But many households where both parents work are not earning a lot between them

Tanith · 28/05/2015 08:22

If it is free Early Years education, then yes it is discriminating against SAHPs - in fact, all parents that do not work full time.
The fact that it is available to 3 and 4 year olds only, during termtime, points to it being education, not childcare.

If it's free childcare, then it's not discrimination. As others have said, it's not necessary for a SAHP to need childcare.
The fact that the Government is calling it childcare indicates that it is intended as childcare.

I'm not surprised people are confused: there has been very little information on how they intend to implement this, although there have been hints. Childcare providers are extremely concerned about it and many are saying they can't afford to provide it.

Personally, I think parents should be a lot more concerned than they appear to be about how it is to be provided and paid for.

TarkaTheOtter · 28/05/2015 08:24

But everyone with two parents currently working is managing to find/fund childcare. It might be difficult but they obviously don't need this to be able to work. For those people it is just a case of being "nice" not a necessity.

mumto3alexa · 28/05/2015 08:24

This will be brilliant for our family. I like the idea of a reward for working so hard. I really hope it passes

formerbabe · 28/05/2015 08:24

As a sahm, I'd have loved 30 free hours childcare a week! Could have used the time to go to the gym, get my hair and nails done, met friends for a coffee! Awesome!

Back in the real world...what a f+cking waste of money that would be!

sashh · 28/05/2015 08:25

I don't have children so don't get the free child care/education at all.

That's discrimination too isn't it?

So should I complain that I don't get something I don't need?

Maybe I should complain about paying taxes for your children to have free/subsidised childcare?

Except that I think as a society we should look after others and I think education is vital.

NRomanoff · 28/05/2015 08:25

Personally, I think parents should be a lot more concerned than they appear to be about how it is to be provided and paid for.

This was my concern. I haven't looked at it in to much detail tbh, because it won't change anything for us. Both kids will be in school by September., but that was the thought I had.

Hoppityhippityhop · 28/05/2015 08:29

Why on earth should the state pay for 30 hours a week childcare so a sahp can do voluntary work??

Also I don't see why the state should fund child care so the sahp can take elderly relatives to the GP. What about the wohp who also has elderly relatives?

Swipe left for the next trending thread