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.

There kind of is, but it doesn't stop some people being unable to work because they can't afford childcare. Or some children from being unable to access nursery, even if it would benefit them, because they're not yet at the term past their 3rd birthday and they've got one SAHP and one working parent who earns slightly too much. As I said, I support the hours, but it's a highly imprefect system.

Yanbu. Far better for vulnerable kids to be in a stimulating, fun and nurturing environment for a few hours every week than some of their home environments.

yet if I don't return to work I get free childcare?

It is NOT childcare.

It's fifteen hours per week over five days, so three hours a day, and it is in term time only because it is early years education. In all of the literature it is described as early years education a day not childcare. It is also accessible by people who are working provided their income is under a certain amount and by children in foster care, with SEN or other specific circumstances. Basically, this early years education is targeted at demographics who - statistically - have been shown to benefit from early years education.

I'm not saying that people outside of the current criteria shouldn't receive help with childcare but that is an entirely separate issue to the current early years education offered to certain 2yo's. The new scheme of thirty hours a week free childcare from age three aims to help working families as both parents must be working in order to claim it.

None working parents claiming benefits get free childcare, while they sit at home and their child is at nursery.

Working parents struggling to make ends meet go to work and struggle to pay the cost of childcare and make enough money to live.

How is that ok? It makes no sense.

All children should qualify not just those with none working parents.

YANBU. Research shows that early years is the absolute place to target in terms of increasing the life chances of disadvantaged children. I think that the free early years education (not childcare!) for two year olds is a real step in the right direction.

However, I think it's easy for me to understand and support the policy as I have gone back to a relatively well paid job and can afford the high fees that I pay for my son's nursery. I can understand the frustration of someone who was less well off (but didn't qualify) and unable to afford to send their child to nursery at all seeing the children of people around them being given a place for free. I don't agree with the aggressive Facebook bollocks, but I do understand it to an extent.

I posted on this Facebook page. Asking for the government to look at more support for working parents. I was then told rather rudely by a keyboard warrior that my place is not at work but at home. Home should be my full time job! Just like his wife.

Some people

It seems to be the case of two different groups of society being rallied against each other.

YES, disadvantaged children should get free childcare. But why assume that all children of unemployed parents are disadvantaged?

And YES, working parents should get more help with childcare costs. They are absolutely crippling as they are now. It is also damaging gender equality as it is often the mothers in relationships that decide to stay at home, often because they are the lower earners (and because it is not seen as "manly" to be a SAHD, might damage some dad's egos).

This is fine if you're in an ideal, well functioning relationship where you can discuss things and listen to each other. However if you're in a relationship where the man keeps you under his thumb he can quite easily force you to stay at home using the cost of childcare as an excuse. And after a few years of not working it's not that easy to get back into your career.

Imo, you should only get free childcare if you actually WORK! Why should tax payers fund free nursery places, for people who don't work, don't pay tax and don't actually need childcare, because they are at home all day. Ridiculous.

Huskylover did you read this comment?

It's not 'childcare'. 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.

I thought it answered your question quite well.

That whole page is a total mess.

Working parents bashing parents who don't work/qualify for the 2-year old funding.

Childcare providers complaining they don't get paid enough (and in some cases bashing parents for not paying more).

There's even people complaining that their kids get more/less funding depending on the time of year they're born etc., etc.

It's a complete car crash.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of children, whose parent/s are in receipt of out of work benefits, receiving free early years education.
However, the free places are also available to families who earn less than around 16k a year. I can think of a few families (usually with a self employed father and a sahm) who openly admit to working for cash, claiming maximum tax credits and being entitled to the free 15 hours. Their children want for nothing, and don't need the early years input as such. It does gall me a little that we're shelling out for a couple of mornings of preschool and there not, but there has to be a way of deciding who is entitled to what and there will always be those who work the system.
The funded 2 year olds are the most 'lucrative' (for want if a better word) to settings, who are often on the bones of their arses financially at the moment.

I don't need early years because i know to read to my toddlers, teach them to say please and thankyou and wipe their own arse, some people don't! They all get 15 hrs the September after they turn three anyway. All those up in arms do you really want your precious child held back in reception while the 'disadvantaged' kids take up limited teachers time as they lack basic life skills?

It is NOT childcare It is early years education. I suspect the parents insisting that its childcare also see school as childcare too.

The sub text is 'for such bad parents that they need to be away from them at nursery' I suppose.

I understand objectively why it exists but - yeah.

It shouldn't be a race to the bottom and the attitude of "I'm not allowed it so why should they have it!?" is sad.

The current offer to eligible 2yo's is nothing whatsoever to do with childcare. It is early education targeted at the groups shown to benefit from early interventions and is there to enable those children to have a better outcome than they'd statistically have without it. Yes, it presumes all non-working parents aren't stimulating or educating their children however the government needs to base the criteria on something and that something is the fact that studies show these children are more likely to start school at a disadvantage and are more likely to have worse learning outcomes than children from families where at least one parent works.

It is education. Not childcare. The children are learning from activities and opportunities that meet the EYFS curriculum and they're socialising with other children their age.

Childcare is a separate issue. The problem with childcare costs isn't that they've significantly risen, it's that wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. The funded places for 2yo's are paid for by the Department for Education, via the LEA, it is paid for from education funds (because it's education, not childcare). Removing the funding for these places will not magically make childcare cheaper.

It is not childcare. It is early education for children who are (statistically) likely to be disadvantaged by their upbringing. It is for children whose parents (statistically) don't take them out to the park, who don't read them books, who don't socialise with other children, who don't provide pens/paintbrushes for mark-making, who don't do cooking with them, who don't sing them nursery rhymes, who don't play imaginative games.

Yes, means-testing by income is a broad-brush, and you will get some children offered this early education who don't need it (their parents may be unemployed, but they provide their child with a rich early education) but surely it is better to over-provide than under? The ignorance and lack of compassion for these children seen on those Facebook posts (and sadly also on this thread) is astounding.

It is early years education, but in fairness the current govt are trying their hardest to blur the lines over free provision. It's not like the people confusing the two have come up with the idea 100% by themselves. It's also sometimes offered in longer blocs, and the reality is that some parents of children receiving the 2 years provision do use it to work. That isn't a matter of opinion. Of course, one can also take the attitude that it's a doubly efficient use of funds if it's also enabling low income parents to work, ie to also function as childcare, and I do.

And yy broad brush. Of course not all parents without jobs are useless, but the reality is that targeting provision more specifically is expensive. And poverty is both a cause and outcome of disadvantage. If anyone could explain a way in which it would be cheaper to assess then only offer where needed, I'd be all ears.

The statistics state that children in receipt of two year funding are behind of there peers who aren't entitled to it. Also since you need to ensure that your child isn't behind by 8 as this has a huge impact on life afterwards and how far your child will be.

In my area the free hours are postcode dependant - it's part of the flying start programme. My baby will qualify when he turns 2. Dh and I both work in professional jobs and have 5 degrees between us. In no way are we vulnerable or deprived.

Amongst my mummy friends are a child psychologist, social worker, dental hygienist, researcher, etc. Most of then will qualify for free hours as we are in a flying start area. This is in addition to cooking lessons, free days out at NT sites, free baby massage...

It's a joke. The flying start baby club is filled with breastfeeding, cloth nappy using, baby wearing middle class mums. Yet if a family in need lives 1/4 of a mile outside of the flying start area they don't get the extra support.

I'm sure it's a good idea but badly executed and probably very wasteful.

Sorry, I know that wasn't what was asked but that's been my experience.

It differs by country. Flying start is in Wales?

All 0-5 settings in England are required deliver the EYFS regardless of being a school or a day nursery. The last education secretary of state and her ministers routinely used the phrase childcare- prior to that it had been more commonly described as early education. It is officially called early education and childcare.

This is the national offer In England. Anything above this will be locally funded and probably quite vulnerable as LA funding is further squeezed.

Eligibility for 2-year-olds

Your 2-year-old can get free early education and childcare if you get one of the following:

Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
Universal Credit
tax credits and you have an annual income of under £16,190 before tax
the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit
support through part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act
the Working Tax Credit 4-week run on (the payment you get when you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit)

A child can also get free early education and childcare if any of the following apply:

they’re looked after by a local council
they have a current statement of special education needs (SEN) or an education, health and care (EHC) plan
they get Disability Living Allowance
they’ve left care under a special guardianship order, child arrangements order or adoption order

Free childcare for 2 year olds is met by criteria of either being on an income based government allowance such as ESA, IS, WTC etc or if the child is in a social care setting, so foster care, social care.

It can be deamed "unfair" when working families who are just over the limit by a few pounds have to pay, however it's not as black and white as it appears.

Would I begrudge a 2 year old education and social stimulation, no way, however I do begrudge families who take advantage of the childcare without educating themselves with the free time that's being provided to them.

perditalost explained it much better than I

perditalost I am on IS and I was told I don't qualify so maybe it varies on different councils?

Over here, we have a playschool set up with subsidised rates (so you have to pay something) for children from poor families which DS1 has been referred to by our HV.

No one's had the chance to make a comment about it, but if they do I will tell them to fuck off. I've had little digs about the fact we're in a (nice) social housing estate, and it fucks me off because we had to spend months and months in grubby, damp, tiny 3rd floor temporary housing after spending months and months in a tiny, extremely damp private rental with no hot water before we got our place. But ooh, we've got a garden now, so we've got to get put back in our place. Can't have poor people having decent homes or early education for their kids or anything that will lift the misery of poverty and deprivation.

My niece currently gets 2 year funding. It means that my sister who is a single mum can go to work with childcare only costing her the price of her daughter's lunch. She still has to rely on family for 2 days a week. But she certainly isn't workshy and sitting around.
Also, once you qualify for the funding it doesn't get withdrawn if your circumstances change. It knocks down a huge barrier to people returning to work.
If you've been unemployed since you had your child or even before. Not only have you actually got to manage to find a job you also have to find childcare and pay a week or month in advance before you start work. Out of benefits that is impossible. If your child is already in a childcare setting and receiving the 15 hours free you're much more easily able to go to work.