to find it depressing that two year olds qualifying for free childcare are the latest victims of Facebook bashing?

[JenniferYellowHat1980]

Twice today I've seen two friends like posts calling for the government to scrap funding for childcare for the poorest two year olds - because it's expensive for working parents.

Funded places for two year olds are supposed to begin to address social and educational disadvantage aren't they? One of the friends who apparently approves of the sentiment that low income families shouldn't get extra funding is a senior teacher. Quite apart from the fact that she can well afford childcare if anyone can, as both she and her DH choose to work more than full time, I would have thought she'd be aware of the reasons behind pupil premium in school. The other is a SAHM who doesn't need to work and pays peanuts for a couple of mornings' playgroup. How can they begrudge disadvantaged two year olds a few hours of early education a week?

It feels to me like selfishness is becoming more and more the norm. I was a free school meal kid and hate to think that basic provision is becoming so resented.

I had kids before tax credits existed and I have kids now they do exist.

My childcare costs between the two times have not chaged anymore than you would expect they haven't sky rocketed at all.

It is my understanding that the two year funding is not just for unemployed people. People earning less than a certain amount also get it as do LAC's and children with ECHP's

It's about bridging the gap between disadvantaged kids and advantaged ones.
Jolly sensible in my eyes

the government them insisted that all take exams and qualify and introduced the early education program

Sorry Astro, can you clarify? I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that education for childcare workers (managers, I think you're saying) is unnecessary or that they're overpaid because they have that qualification. Either interpretation is astonishing.

I was told that my ds didn't qualify for the 2yr old free funding (despite us being a low income family) because it was only for those who had a referral from SS or the HV who had specific reasons for needing it.

YANBU. It's to support vulnerable child to access early education.
I was particularly saddened that it was one of my teacher friends (who works in a deprived area) who shared one of these posts on Facebook.

That's interesting LastLeaf. Makes it even more likely that the funding is very precisely targeted.

I do wonder when people will start moaning about pupil premium / deprivation grant and free school meals.

Sorry I have 3 neighbours who qualify for this 2 of them use it for an afternoon drinking sesh and the other sleeps her time away. The money would be better spent on getting the parents parenting classes, rehab or jailed for neglect. The kids might get a couple of hours at nursery but it does not make up for having a lay about parent.

They need to think about ways to stop the problem of poverty and neglect not enable it.

Whilst I wouldn't post anything on FB about it I don't agree that stay at home jobless parents get free childcare whilst working parents don't.

I might be wrong but I'm sure that for the new free 30 hours childcare being trialled in our area you have to be working.

Will they moan at that being free to those working or is it just non workers who cannot get it free?

I am so grateful my 3 year old gets s funded place at my excellent preschool. Sadly it looks as though it might close down before my youngest gets to go there but I don't think that's due to fees, more lack of committee members and the manager possibly having to leave due to s chronic health problem. It's been absolutely fabulous for my son who was very delayed. He has now caught up.

kiki whatbhas it got to do with you what the parents do while the children are at nursery? It's the latter who are supposed to benefit after all.

I was talking to a mother of 5teenage children who was complaining about this. Aside from blaming a politician in a different govt for introducing the policy, she claimed it was nasty feminists trying to force women to return to work earlier. She had no understanding about qualifying criteria or that it was a U.K. Govt policy.

I have just double checked.

The new 30 hours free being trialled is for parents working at least 16 hours earning under 100k according to our council.

I don't have a problem with disadvantaged kids getting free education. I do have a problem with the way it's done. As I understand it anyone on JSA is eligible for the free place for two year olds. My problem is that I can't afford to return to work because of childcare fees, if I return to work I don't think I'm eligible for any help/tax credits/etc, yet if I don't return to work I'm eligible for free childcare? financially I'm better off not working, whilst I'm desperate to return to work. That doesn't seem fair to me.

If children have crappy parents then it's all the more reason for them to get a funded preschool place. It's not about the parents, it's about helping children. Trying to stop the cycle where the children of poor, uneducated parents end up poor and uneducated themselves. This can only be a good thing for society as a whole.

It's NOT childcare! That's not the intention of it. It's to support children who may well be disadvantaged at home due to poverty of both money and aspiration. If you've ever worked with kids who at age 4 don't know how to use cutlery or how to sit and listen to a book or to interact with other children, you might see why it is needed. If you hate your neighbours because you think theu are lazy or whatever, fine. But don't take away the option that might help their child break out of that cycle.

I do wonder when people will start moaning about pupil premium / deprivation grant and free school meals.

People moan about free school meals here all the time. Not a single thread about low incomes or benefits is without a 'I work all these hours and I don't get free school meals!' comment.

YABU. I get that it's to provide an advantage to disadvantaged youngsters but it does seem unfair that parents who don't work can access this benefit whereas those who do are excluded on the basis of their income from working. It sounds like a disincentive to work to me.

If that makes me sound like a twat or whatever it is the poster upthread called people who disagree with this policy, so be it.

If they wanted to introduce this policy they should have also done something for working parents, maybe not the same thing but some sort of benefit/incentive to make them feel like they are not losing out by working.

the government them insisted that all take exams and qualify and introduced the early education program

The requirement to be qualified before being able to register as a childcare provider is for the benefit of the children and part of the Every Child Matters framework. It ensures that minimum standards are met, that education is provided rather than a child being plonked in front of the telly, that providers are inspected and so on. For example, providers must hold a level two paediatric first aid qualification. Would you like them to do away with requirements like this or would you rather your child was with someone who can stimulate them, educate them, and potentially save their life should an accident occur? And even then, none of these things have massively driven costs up as their main purpose is to regulate the industry.

The funded places from the government actually run at a loss for most providers. Our council pays less than my hourly fee (I charge £4 an hour which includes all meals, snacks, basic outings and groups) so I don't offer funded places because when I worked it all out I'd be making a loss.

Also, the funding for 2yo's is term time only and is not childcare. It's early education to improve outcomes for children from potentially disadvantaged backgrounds. The 30hrs childcare being introduced soon (currently running in my area as a trial) is for working parents, you must work a certain number of hours to qualify.

I also think it's incredibly insulting to infer that anyone on a low income must therefore be a bad parent. That's an insult to the millions of excellent low income parents out there who are doing a wonderful job of parenting.

Some low income parents are doing a good job. But we know that many parents who live in poverty are not able to provide an ideal environment for their children. Means testing is the easiest way of allocating places. If we had to assess the parenting skills of each family the costs of the scheme would rise massively.

I don't understand people who complain that others are using benefits, and then say they maybe wouldn't complain if the government gave them some benefits too.

Maggie by every metric, children from disadvantaged backgrounds have poor outcomes. It's just the way it is, and has always been. Of course it doesn't mean that every low income parent is sub par. Look at the bigger, overall picture.

These disadvantaged children benefit from early years education and that's why it's available to them. And if it means their parents get a break to watch Jeremy Kyle... So fucking what? It's not about them.

I'm a strong supporter of the free 15 hours for 2 year olds, for all the reasons others have listed. Even though my family have never been eligible for them.

However, it is a touch naive to expect the working poor who just barely miss qualifying and people who are paying the private fees that subsidise the low price paid to providers not to be annoyed at the state of affairs. The former because they're living a marginal existence and yet seeing other people, at least some of whom will have had an element of choice in the situation, get something that would make their own lives very much easier if they could have it. The latter because they're going to feel their childcare fees are more expensive because of it, so they're effectively paying twice. I imagine someone will come and say that the latter, at least, could choose not to send their children to facilities that offer the free hours, but that isn't always true.

I don't understand people who complain that others are using benefits, and then say they maybe wouldn't complain if the government gave them some benefits too. hmm

You don't understand why I complain that I can't afford to return to work because the cost of childcare is so high, yet if I don't return to work I get free childcare?

There should be a sliding scale, those on low incomes get some help, those on medium incomes get less, etc.

Ds got some free hours years ago as a 2 year old because of severe sn. There are lots of reasons why children get it.

It's three hours in the middle of a morning or afternoon. It's not 'childcare' and it does not enable work. It is not for the benefit of the parent, it's for the CHILD. If the parent uses the time to have a drinking sesh then it just goes to show how much that child needs the involvement of responsible adult role models in their life.

Children are not to blame for the fecklessness of their parents no matter how lazy or scrounging they may be (and examples of feckless parents are far fewer and far between than some media would have us believe anyway).

It makes me cry to hear people say that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds don't deserve x, y or z because of the behaviour of their parents, how do these kids ever stand a chance if they're judged just because they were born into bad circumstances.