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 do think this is the first tentative step towards a system whereby the country offers good quality and heavily subsidised childcare.

With that, there will be other sacrifices - there can't not be. I imagine lone parents will be expected to seek work when their youngest child is preschool age. I imagine eventually CTC and WTC will vanish.

There will be upsides: new jobs will be created; the barriers to working will be theoretically at least removed and I certainly think that for some children spending the day away from their parents is a good thing, although it is sad to have to concede that.

But, there is an emotional cost - it's up to families to decide whether that emotional cost is worth it for them.

15 hrs at present remains because that is education.
Additional hours are for childcare for wohms.

Agree with others, why would a sahm need childcare? Part of reason for being a sahm must be that you don'twant to put your kids in child care. Or would the government pay for extra hours so sahms can have a little nap?

If your a SAHM you really shouldn't need 30 hours free childcare, 15 hours is perfect amount of time as it give children a chance to socialise with other children, do early years education and give SAHP a break for a few hours.

I would welcome this with open arms, I currently work FT and DH is PT, DH would probably have to give up work when we have another child as the childcare costs would cripple us.

To pick up on something else the OP has mentioned though - why is being a SAHP so undervalued? OK we live in a society where this is often not possible due to finances but many women and men choose to stay home and care for their chidren themselves but these people (mostly the women) are made to feel lazy and like they don't matter. It is almost like saying that the economy is more important than family.

Why would the government pay for extra hours so my two professional friends can have a third holiday each year?

That was in answer to morelikeguidlines

LEM, unless you have multiple children or live in London then after school care is not that expensive and easily covered by a days work with profit on top. There are at least six hours a day when then children are at school so thirty hours a week where childcare is not needed. It's about £6-7 a night here.

Holidays are different but employed adults get at least four weeks each plus the bank holidays so that's eight weeks at least covered leaving only five to cover. That's not much over the course of the year.

It's also a household cost not just one that belongs to the woman. No different to any other bill.

It's the cost of pre school childcare that's expensive hence the help in the form of 30 hours. It seems to come as a shock to many that if they have more than one child that childcare outweighs a salary, it's like it comes as a huge surprise and is somebodies else's fault.

I think it's great that woman can stay in the workplace, we educate our daughters and encourage them to aim high. Little point if they don't plan to work for the bulk of their adult life. Both sexes should have the same choices and opportunities.

What does it look like for SAHP-hood to be valued, though? Is it through taxpayer funding?

No-one is going to really care much what decisions you make for your family. You're going to be looking high and low for the government or random strangers to value your role within your family.

Thanks Mrs, I was getting a bit muddled because some are calling it childcare and some are calling it education.
My eldest DC is only starting their 15 hours later this year so I'm not as on the ball as I should be in this area.
I can't see why this should be opposed though? The fault isn't with this policy, it's like PP have said, the school age wrap around care that needs addressing. That and extortionate holiday prices as well as every working parent trying to get holidays at the same sort of time.

Lem - I agree, if you look at the comment over the page about 'contributing to society'.

However, I think politicians need to consider things purely from a financial viewpoint. It's up to individuals to decide on morals, emotions and a thousand other factors that come into play. My marriage has ended and my children are clinging to me as if I am God at the least. Suddenly expecting them to adjust to childcare would be to high an emotional cost. Understandably, however, the government doesn't see it like that - it's for me to work out myself what the 'right' thing is to do.

Tarka - you could take that logic and apply it to anything government funded. Why should the government pay for me to have my tonsils whipped out four years ago so we could go on holiday? Why should the government pay for my DS to be in state school so I can have highlights and a gym membership? There are things that are funded for the government for everyone - no matter how little or much they contribute to the economy - can appreciate and benefit from. I see that as a positive.

Because many working parents are struggling. I agree that possibly this could be means tested alalthough.

Ultimately it is to make the workplac/society a fairer place for women though.

Going back to my Manchester example. Every 3 year old is already entitled to 30 hours weekly term time in a school based nursery (thus has been the case for decades). Manchester has very poor school results in comparison to neighbouring Trafford and Stockport so clearly providing this 30 free hours is not raising the academic levels of the children. So given that providing free early years education doesn't seem to work in the way intended what exactly is it's purpose other than free childcare?

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 with this (written by a pp). I think the current system of providing means tested help with childcare is the tight approach. Perhaps the thresholds need to be changed to ensure the cut off points are not too low but I don't agree with universal free childcare.

Surely those requesting after school care to be paid for expected some bills as regards care for their primary aged children.

Seriously before ttc you had no idea that you would have to provide before and after school care during the primary years.

Why on earth should the state fund that?

Tarka I think your friends are in a minority. Sorry but what does that word mean....what was it?....holiday, yes that's it......what is that?

I think if we are all going to work to age 68...70...72... Then 5-10 yrs working less (or not at all) should be ok, if it's for caring.

Don't start me on the school thing. I can't work school hours; and nope, annual leave doesn't cover school holidays.

And I just don't get the SAH vs Working divide. We are all doing valuable and important stuff (sometimes with choice, sometimes not). We should all pull together and support each other.

LEM, a SAHP may be valued by the family but economically they don't put anything into the system whilst taking from it IE healthcare, local services etc. Many also claim IS or CTC so the state actually has to cover the cost of the choice not to work. It makes sense to have as many people in work as possible and those that choose not to having to fund the option themselves.

Whilst I'm sure some do volunteer work, many WOHP do too. It's not something just done by SAHPs despite what MN would have you believe.

Thats the point I'm making five. Why is it so horrendous that SAHP might be eligible for something they don't need but it's fine for high earners? Those high earners don't need free childcare anymore than SAHP.

Won't the 30 hours be school hours and term time? If that's the short working day and school holiday problems will still be there for parents of three year olds.

A lot of working parents (and really it is mothers) are stretched. Financially as well as practically. It can be tough hanging in there when childcare costs are so high. And here is some sort of break for them. Why would anyone mind? So, it doesn't benefit you personally. Neither do lots of benefits probably. We can't have everything and nor should we want to.

The thing is, nursery isnt just childcare, it is pre-school. A child that doesnt attend will begin school lacking the socialisation into a classroom setting, as well as some levels of early education. A parent can make up some of the latter, but not the former. They then begin school appearing to have learning or behavioural issues, as the goal posts get shifted to reflect the training the kids in daycare/nursery have received. Happened to my son (in the US).

Years ago, part-time nursery was deemed desireable from a long term education view. Working parents needing more childcare doesnt change the long term educational needs of the children of at home parents.

AO....very true!

I know it isn't a benefit. I am using benefit in the sense of good thing rather than the bashing sense.

Littlemonsters I expect this free provision will push quite a few working families into the no net-contribution category too especially if they have several children close in age,

Little hoards of working parents don't contribute anything.

Many don't pay tax and others pay so little it most certainly doesn't cover what they cost the state.

Yy to questioning the funding of childcare for wealthier families who don't need the help. Just why?

And seriously you have to be a mega high earner not to worry about childcare costs. They turn a good salary into hardly anything and make low ones impossible. Many people are paying the equivalent of a mortgage in childcare costs. But then you all know that.