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 government is abandoning the 'early years education'.

I am irked that they talk about 'extending' childcare, as the current 15 hours was never officially described as childcare, but as early education.

The change seems to have gone unnoticed by the mainstream media.

Which is a pity, as it's easy to see this as a salami slice to remove all state funded provision from those who do not WOH.

The 50k earners aren't a huge majority of the population though.

It would cost more to process the means testing paperwork than it would to make the benefit universal to working parents.

Makes perfect sense to me, why do sahps need this?! 30 hours means you aren't a sahp anymore because your child isn't at home!

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.

Whats you definition of managing. Because I know some that are only just managing, despite both parents going to work. They are managing, but if something was to go wrong...car breakdown for example they have nothing left to cover it.

It will also enable some people who want to go back to work, to do it. As the moment there are many people who are sahp because the cost of childcare is too high and they don't come out with anymore money, rather than because they want to be a sahp until the child goes to school.

This will benefit dbro and sil, she wants to go back to work, but the cost of childcare is more than she can realistically earn.

It's a mixed message. Term time only suggests it is education. 45+ weeks would definitely be childcare.

If it's education, then it is vital and should be available to all children, sashh.

The government is abandoning the 'early years education'.

Can you link this? as I have not seen this said anywhere by the government.

If its an extension of the nursery education grant which it appears to be on the surface (only available to 3-4yo and during term time) then why should children with a sahp lose out on that vital early education purely because one of their parents doesn't work? And if neither parent works then that early education is even more vital, isn't it, since those children statistically do not achieve as well as their peers from families where one or both parents work.

From the viewpoint of the government, that may be true Baddz, but personally I don't want the government heartily patting my back and telling me what a fabulous job I do. Do you?

Generally speaking, is is better for families (as a unit, not necessarily two parents) to work rather than rely on benefits, whether that's exclusively benefits or benefits that are 'topped up' to enable a family to live.

We ALL know that childcare, or rather childcare costs, prevents many of us from accessing work. Therefore, this is a proposed solution to this particular problem.

Other problems - elderly parents, studying mums, frazzled SAHPs - are not the job of the government to solve.

Tarka

In some cases, they don't 'need' it. However, even for families earning a reasonable salary, childcare costs are a barrier. I will have two preschool children by autumn 2015. I am also a qualified teacher. Teaching full time would just - just - cover childcare costs for my youngest two. When I factor in travelling costs, it would actually cost me money to work. Teaching isn't badly paid at all - of course it isn't 'up there' with some highly paid professions but nonetheless its a solid enough middle class sort of profession. If Mrs Jones, earning £40,000 a year as a teacher, is only just breaking even with her baby and 1 year old in FT childcare, it doesn't take a genius to work out that Mrs Smith, who earns half that as a TA, isn't going to bother as she'd lose significant amounts of money.

Even people who earn more need a carrot in this respect. If your 'profit' after childcare costs are £300 it might be easy to conclude the stress and the worry just isn't worth it. If that £300 is more like £800, it might be.

I can really see the validity of the 'squeezed middle' in this respect and sympathise hugely with it. It is frighteningly easy in the setup at the moment that when housing and childcare costs are subtracted for a working and professional couple to quite literally be left with nothing at the end of the month. Giving all, or most, working families something in this respect is a nod towards that. I don't see anything wrong with that, any more than I see anything wrong with parents who earn a lot using state education or healthcare. Arguably, they are the ones who disproportionately contribute to it as high earners and as such have every right to access it.

The original intention, by labour, was to ensure that young children had better starts in life - not to provide free childcare.

Tories have now decided to turn it into that. So yabu because sahm don't need childcare.

However those young children who are in disadvantaged homes - if they lose out as a result then more fool the Tories.

If I was a SAHP there is no way I would want my 3 YO in nursery for anything like 30 hours, 15 is just right IMO.

I think this is a great idea. But only a SAHP would think 30 hours a week is full time.

You are missing my point sash
If I don't do it, who will?
Either way the tax payer will end up paying for elderly care.
Anyway.
ALL education should be free.
"Targeting" any one group will cause division and Ill feeling.

Let's not forget all this is to keep the worker bees working and paying their tax, not for the benefit of all children or all families. It's right for some it's not for others.

I would wonder why you'd want to send your child off for 30hrs a week if you had the choice?

I think this is fantastic.

Everyone gets 15h for school readiness and socialisation etc for the benefit of the child - great.

Working parents get an extra 15h for childcare cost reasons - great.

It's one of the great tragedies of modern England that so many educated and professionally trained women exit the workplace at 35ish never to fully return.

Does childcare x2 really add up to £40,000 (or the net income that provides)?

This 'high earner/low earner' thing is really not helpful. There is such a massive grey area, one that we have sat in from day 1, where someone earning just over what is classed as low gets shafted. We earn £2000pm between us but that is classed as too much for any kind of assistance. When you factor in our rent (£725) childcare as was (£525) it didn't really leave a lot but we were shown 2 fingers when asking if we could have some help. I understand there haa to be a cut off point but I do think, as it stands, it's too low.

The additional hours are about childcare, and not education. At least, that's what my MP kept banging on about during the election campaign.

And baddz, you seem not to realise that many, many WOHPs also have caring responsibilities for elderly relatives etc. And many employers allow them to work flexibly around these responsibilities. It isn't only SAHPs who do that kind of stuff.

I have no problem with SAHP not getting the extra 15hrs childcare. I just don't think giving high earners free childcare is a good use of money either.

Does childcare x2 really add up to £40,000 (or the net income that provides)?

My sill wouldn't be able to find a job that pays £40k especially after being out of the workforce for 3 years. Which she will have been by the time her youngest will be able to get this.

I have no problem with SAHP not getting the extra 15hrs childcare. I just don't think giving high earners free childcare is a good use of money either.

I agree to a point. But I suppose they can argue that they are paying more in tax as higher threshold earners.

I believe there will be a cut off.

Five...no, I don't want a pat on the back
But I also don't want to be treated with contempt or derision.
I agree re squeezed Middle.
That is Dh and I exactly.
He works away. I have school age dc. Elderly parent. Health issues of my own (menopause. Lovely :)) and the reason I didn't go back to work after ds1 was simply that...I would actually have been out of pocket at the end of the month! (Albeit I only had a job, not a career)
The plan was to do a degree whilst dc were young and then re train.
Then they raised HE fees. OU courses went up by 400% for example.
Just not feasible anymore :(
We can't take on more debt.

It is a good question, Baddz, who will?

I presume, if the parent in question was without a doubt incapable of managing herself and if there were no family available to help a SS assessment would be done. However, if you were to be working, the likely conclusion would not be that there were no family available to help at all, but that no family were 'available' at certain times.

You, or your mum, would probably have to contribute to her care in the day or to care for her outside of your working hours.

Believe me, I am not unsympathetic to this dilemma as I have a strong suspicion it drove my own mum into an early grave quite literally - she only outlived her own elderly mum by three years - but she worked full time and managed her father's decline almost immediately followed by her mother's. The 'tax payer' didn't pay for elderly care - she did, most gravely.

My point there is that it's idealistic to think the government will step in where family do not but in my experience this is not true. In fact, the people who get the most in care are the ones who have vocal and demanding families - 'squeaky wheels get the oil'.

Yes 40,000 less tax, NI and pension is about 2,300 I can well believe that 2X full time nursery fees in the SE are more than that.

Baddz many many people have to juggle children, paid work and caring for elderly relatives. Why should the state pay to care for your children so you can do something else?
And if you are arguing that the whole 30 hours is for education not child care you might as well campaign for the primary school age to be lowered to three and surely nobody wants that?

We are not at that stage...yet.
I am sorry about your mum. Happens all to frequently ime :(
We have lost 10 family members in the last 2 year inc my dad.
I have seen, first hand, the "help" available to families with terminal and disabled family members.
It's a disgrace.
People really do think that there is a "safety net"...
Not from what I've seen.
Or at least, not where I live.