to be completely confused about the new childcare scheme for these reasons;

[PlayingHouse]

Firsty The news is saying children aged between 3 and 4 already receive 15 hours a week. DD2 doesn't. She is in a nursery attached to a school and is off every six weeks - including 6 weeks in the summer. Which means that averaged over a year she receives far less than 15 hours a week. Can I put her into a different childcare setting during the holidays to continue receiving her 15 hours? I'm guessing no. Which means this whole scheme is pointless to me - its childcare during the holidays I need help with.

Secondly, How could she receive the supposed 30 hours in the setting she is currently in? Her nursery has morning and afternoon children and neither the room or the staff to have both sets at the same time. Does this mean I could receive the extra 15 hours in a different setting? Wouldn't this just unsettle her even if it was an option.

Next, if I change her to a private nursery, would the 30 hours a week be every week with no breaks for half terms etc?

Finally I work around dh hours. Does this mean we are not entitled to the extra hours as there is always someone alvaliable to look after the children - because of how often they are on holiday.

Say I'm a commercially unsuccessful artist like Van Gogh, working a 50 hour week but earning very little? How can I prove I'm working?

Totally agree with this.

It will be impossible for some parents to prove they are working. Self-employed people who are paid in lump sums infrequently, self-employed people who are not making a profit but expect to in future, seasonal workers, term time/ part time employees. Those returning to work who don't have evidence of work history as they are only just going back into employment. Voluntary staff who are technically working just not getting paid as a stepping stone to employment.

There are so many people who won't neatly fit into PAYE and it will be very difficult to administer.

It will not need double the places, most couples where both parents work use 30+ hours a week anyway

Yes, but the Nurseries won't be able to afford to keep them on the pittance they get from the Govmnt - considerably less that you pay per hour. Therefore, it's likely that fewer places will be available.
Also, the thinking behind this is to get more parents back into work, so there ought to be more people wanting the places.

To be honest I think that it might make more impact if they plough more money into improving before and after school provision and holiday provision. So many parents seem to be able to tap into private nursery etc but then find school a problem with childcare. Once children are in school it should be easier to work full time. This seems to be lowering the school age by stealth.

mugglingalong I see your point, but the overall annual childcare bill for families are lower once all children are in school; they will still be better off than families with young children so will need less help from the government. Many schools run after-school clubs and the costs per hour are much lower because the staff:child ratios are lower due to their ages.

30 hours a week free childcare is as useless as 15.

I still can't afford to work full time because of the cost of childcare during the holidays.

I am working part time around dh hours and will be for the foreseeable future.

So if this is aimed at getting people back to work full time, it won't make any difference to low earners with 2+ DC

I hadn't thought through the implications for school nurseries. Ours has a morning session for 30 and an afternoon session for another 30. No way have we the room for 60 in each session. And also, parents might only want the 15 hours. When they apply to the school will the required hours have to be available? E.g. Wanting 30 but too many want 15 so not available. Remember school nurseries allocate on siblings/distance not first come first served. I can't see how it would work!

Also parents might prefer to leave their children at a pre-school that can provide 30 hours instead of moving them up to a school nursery for a year that can only provide 15.

I don't necessarily mean to cut the cost for families but to extend provision in schools where it might otherwise be not profitable. The early years are expensive but at that stage many parents choose to work part time anyway. It would enable parents to work for one year (or five terms at most). Putting the money into school age children will enable parents to work more sustainably for seven years. I agree that childcare is crippling but if this is about getting parents back to work then it needs toextend beyond nursery age. If it is about free childcare then it would be fairer to extend the provision down to younger children. If it is about more education then I am not convinced that 3-4yr olds need more formal teaching and that money might be more usefully put into catch up sessions for disadvantaged children once they are in school.

thanks for the expansion on your argument mugglingalong hadn't thought about it like that and very valid points made. I don't have much knowledge of what is available after-school wise, but good point re: financial viablity of wraparound school support. Labour proposed to offer AM and PM extended school provision, but said it would be staffed by volunteers!! Tories have been quiet about extended school provision

Will it follow the current system of the term after the 3rd birthday? Having an April child means that he will be 3y 5m before the 15 hrs education reduces our nursery bill due to the summer holidays following a full term.

3-4 years is such a narrow window of childcare need. Rtw with a 10m old and 3y old left my PT professional salary as pocket money. I work more for the professional benefit and my wellbeing rather than for financial gain. Work should be financially worthwhile for all.

It's not term after 3rd birthday, it's term after age 3 on qualifying date. Which for the moveable Easter is always 1 April, even if that falls before the end of the spring term.

Currently, it's a maximum of 570 hours early education (3 hours a day over 38 weeks, sameumber of days as school year). They seem to be scrapping that in favour of 1140 hours childcare

Or will it be 570 education + 570 childcare?

Anyone know?

But in all likelihood, children with two working parents will already be at a setting that provides full time care, i.e. a private nursery. So the additional 15 hours in term time will be a further reduction in the cost spread over the year. Working parents who use nurseries don't tend to use school nurseries or settings who only do morning or afternoon sessions, because they need all day childcare. Or at least longer childcare than 3 hour each sessions. So the reality is that the private nurseries will just charge more to compensate.

I am really lucky - my job has grown with the dc. It is generally based around the academic year and if I need to work in holidays or if one of them is ill I can plonk them in front of a DVD. I know lots of parents though who managed during preschool years but gave up when school came around.

School seems still very much modelled on one parent at home. Bring a parent to school - next Friday. Have a dressing up outfit by Thursday. Listen to your 4, 6 and 8yr old read for 20mins a night. Homework for your 7yr old will be set on Tuesday and due in on Thursday, it will involve researching a topic on the Internet and presenting it in an interesting way. Anyway - whole other thread!

Proper after school care, not staffed by volunteers! !! Which means that dc have an opportunity to do homework and also relax and unwind would help with primary school.

I don't disagree that preschool parents need more help too but a blanket 30 hours a week will be a blunt tool. More tax breaks for childcare across the preschool years would be more flexible and would mean that those who need it more get more help.

Well that was my question in the OP, will school nurseries be expected to offer 30 hours and if so, how will they manage this?

I think irrelevant as a lot of nurseries wont be able to offer up these 'free places' anyway as they are to offer the same places as before due to floor space/teachers and helps.

Our nursery attached to my dc school has place for 66 children as allowed by the local authority. So do we offer 33 children '30 hours' a week or continue as we are.

So unless they can double the amount of place the country has already only those people who already have fulltime places will benifit.

The government conveniently forget about all the holidays, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Clutterbugs you would continue as you are as, in general, families with two working parents who will benefit from the 30 hours will in likelihood, need more than 30 hours and therefore will continue to use private day nurseries etc. that can provide that. Of all my friends who have two working parents, not a single one uses school nurseries or providers who only provide the 15 hours because they need full time childcare. Even those who have one parent working part time still cannot work around 15 hour sessions (often 3 hours per day) term time only.

I agree CoperCabana the only children in our area who attend school nurseries have a SAHP or nanny if both parents work. Everyone with two FT/PT working parents uses private nurseries or childminders. Our nursery just transfers the money from the government direct into our bank accounts. Very pleasant reduction on fees

Wheras in our area it's seen as very unusual for a 3 year old not to be attending a school nursery.

On the education thing, all providers (childminders, pre-school and nurseries) have to follow the Early Years Foundation Stage so childcare and education should be one and the same at this age.

On another note, as a childminder I won't register for the current 15 hours because I can't afford the cut in hourly rate (I work on ridiculously tight margins as it is) and I certainly can't afford to work for 12 - 22 weeks before being paid. In my local authority they pay 50p per hour less than my hourly rate and pay these hours at the end of the half term following the hours being used - so end of Feb for hours worked Sept - Dec. I know quite a few childminders who feel the same and are refusing to register and lots who are withdrawing from funding.

So genuine question balletgirl, what do the working parents do for wraparound childcare for their 3 year olds, assuming the school doesn't offer it?

I find it more concerning that they are no longer talking about "good quality" provision.

First they removed the word "Play" from the EYFS, then they interchanged "childcare" with "education".

Now it's simply childcare. And no quality qualifier.

They just put arrangements into place 12 months earlier so either childminder, one parent part time or lots of local private nurseries do after school care (I see one near to where I work walking a crocodile of children from school nursery to private nursery.

But as I said in my earlier post, all school
Nurseries here do 8.30-3.00 or 8.45-3.15 or similar.

Sorry I missed your earlier comment balletgirl. So presumably the school nurseries in your area that already offer full time will not have a capacity issue under the new scheme?

You're lucky then Balletgirl, all school nurseries in my area are either 8.40 to 11.40 or 1.45pm to 3.45pm.