Thoughts on this debate?

[User1234567891011]

Just wondering people's thoughts on this article on the debate of why parents on benefits are entitled to free childcare while those who work are not...

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/dads-rant-free-childcare-people-9271429

Can I just ask the people who say its to give the child a boost:

-Although the parents may now be as well educated surely theren's nothing a 2/3 year old needs to learn that they do not know? Not sure what they would be learning at this age but can't imagine its anything you need a GCSE for? Can someone let me know?

-Someone above said the people receiving the childcare may not be interacting with their child much but surely they should be if they are doing nothing else? They shouldn't be given the childcare because they are ignoring their child?

Thanks.

But they are.

It isn't just about interaction: the anticipating result is that while at nursery the child will develop her language, brush her teeth, play with toys and improve her fine motor skills, sing nursery rhymes and paint/draw.

It's true none of these things are rocket science but also true some parents just don't. I was in Primark yesterday when a mother advised her toddler to "stop chatting shit" - child was doing the 'ma ma ma ba ba ba' making of sounds that's normal (and vital) for that age group.

It's bloody depressing to see, but ultimately the subtext is 'some parents are so awful, let's try and minimise the amount of time the child spends with them.' I'm not convinced that works.

Sadly there are lots of parents who are not capable of the basics.
The early years funding from age two is designed to give these children a chance to match their peers during their school life. It can also offer the opportunity for early intervention when families are struggling or with undiagnosed SEN.

And yes there will always be people who managed to play the system to their advantage but that doesn't mean we should end the two year funding. It is designed to help the child and a by product of that may or may not be helping the parent.

friends That's just bloody sad.

I think we can all agree that going to nursery for a few hours a day is a lovely thing to do and for some children it surely is a welcome break from home.

But when millions of pounds go into something it is still acceptable to ask what the outcomes are, whether it is helping or hindering, and could it be improved.

I think the outcomes are too low. I think in some cases it is hindering to families and I certainly feel the system as a whole could be improved.

My child doesn't qualify for these free places. I totally understand why they offer them and the criteria. Yes it does bug me that I have to pay when others do not.

What bugs me more is that I cannot get my child in pre school on certain days as they are taken by these free places when a lot of the time they don't turn up. I have been told that if the weather is shit a lot of the children are not taken in.

Their parents are likely to be doing a good job but are less likely to be able to go to jo jingles , tumble tots etc may not go to toddler groups, buy as many books, museums, national trust memberships etc..

While I actually quite agree with the principle of early years education for 2 year olds from non-working/ deprived households.. I think you're completely off the mark with that one.

Yes, maybe in a nice breadwinner + SAHP family that may be the case, but a full time working single parent with time for toddler groups and a national trust membership? Rubbish.

I see the difference myself in my two DDs, one cared for by an elderly relative (no national trust though) and the other full time "KidzRus" nusery. While the nursery is actually great and I'm not complaining, you can't put a value time a child has constant one on one interaction.

Does make you wonder if the funding would be better spent on parenting classes...

And yes scrump thats a HUGE bug bear of mines, i went back to work at 4m (only breadwinner) and it took over a year to build days up enough to finally get a full time place due to all the funded places. Caused no end of stress.

If you want some anecdata: two particular children in the preschool I am affiliated with have been referred a funded two year olds. One has a chaotic home life and one has parents who simply had no idea how to interact with a small child.

The first has enjoyed some much needed structure, benefiting from the routine of preschool and the consistent rules and daily schedule and had just had as successful a transition to primary as anyone could have hoped.

The second is still at preschool and had been almost non verbal, without basic skills such as sitting at a table to eat, dressing himself or playing 'with' others as opposed to alongside them. He is now almost on a level with his peers in terms of language and can join in with the everyday activities which he was unable to before.

Perhaps more importantly these children now have friends of their own age and their parents are in regular contact with early years trained professionals who can offer advice and support. They are also in contact with other parents that they can talk to about their children, see how they interact and feel a bit less alone and adrift.

It may just be two cases, but neither of these children would have had the opportunities that have made a difference to their current situations were it not for the additional free hours they have had. If this is even vaguely representative of the outcomes for other children then I think it's a good argument for extending the funding to more families.

Ok just one area that EarlyYears education can help with, for starters.....The most important age for language development is between 2 and 4, communication and language difficulties are one of the most common difficulties that affect young children and can have a huge, and ongoing, impact on their lives, both throughout school and after.

Two year funding is available to children who suffer a disadvantage - it is a broad brush, but is not just about financial disadvantage - it is also available to children in receipt of DLA and other children who have statistically been shown to have poorer outcomes.

The government want to push it as childcare because this fits their agenda better, these hours are not about childcare - it is about early years education, something which can provide guidance for children and families, working together to support a Childs development, help identify any possible problems, support a Childs independence, social skills, communication and language, physical development, steps towards school and engender self esteem.

The problem is, as you identify yourself, that's anecdotal. Really, the children in receipt of the funding need to be tracked and compared to children who didn't receive it in order to properly measure the success of such an initiative.

Yes, ideally that would provide the best insights. But realistically, the ethics of identifying a child who is beloved to need additional support but not offering that sorry in order to have a 'control' probably isn't that feasible. Given the short period during which the funding has been available, the outcomes wouldn't be measurable on a large scale for some years yet.

I think divide and rule is working, and that disgraceful.
If you are jobhunting you need childcare in place. A lone parent might like some time to do counselling, or a college course as well as jobhunt.

I dont get why that is so difficult to understand.

Heres an article about socialization and why it matters.

www.babycenter.com/0_toddler-milestone-socialization_11742.bc

''26 to 30 months
Kids tend to become even more self-centered between the ages of 2 and 3. They don't yet have the emotional maturity to be able to put themselves in other people's shoes, and assume that everyone feels the way they do. But as your child gains experience around other children, he can start to get the hang of sharing and taking turns.''

There would still be indicators of how well (or not) it is working, though I accept these would be incomplete.

Jelly, I don't think people don't understand but disagree.

For my part, I have concerns that go beyond the 'if Miss X doesn't work and child X gets childcare, that's unfair on Mrs Y because she has to pay for child Y.' Things aren't fair: we all know that. But flinging money at things without some form of measurable outcome rarely ends well.

When a setting receives funding for a child - it has to show how that money is spent, how this will benefit this specific child. They don't just throw it down a well and make a wish that everything will be tra-la-la.

Flinging money at things isnt how I'd describe giving children a good start in life. Its critical.
A child in one of my DC's class was unable to name colours, and the teacher discovered he had no concept of colour at all.

It seems that parents of 2 year olds who are not working need their children to attend childcare to meet their educational needs. Whereas the children of parents of 2 year olds who are working don't need the educational childcare provision. When exactly did we compare the educational needs of 2 year old children based on whether their parents are working or not? This seems the most ridiculous waste of taxpayers money to date. Either 2 year olds needs pre school education or they don't. You cant have one rule for one and one rule for another. The educational needs of 2 year olds are the same regardless of whether their parents work.

I could see the difference if some 2 year olds, who are "deprived" of parental stimulus were granted funding. But to differentiate on the basis of working/non working parents is a joke!

Yes I'm afraid thats what I find staggering about it all.

I agree with what people are saying about why early intervention is important... But its just strange that a "perfectly middle class family" could split up, and since the SAHP does not return to work their child would be automatically entitled to all this extra help and funding? Meanwhile Mrs Y who works 16hra a week sits on her phone and plonks the kids in front of the TV, child recieves no extra education and isn't even on the radar at all. Its a very strange way to have the system.

Id be lying if I said I didn't take his point. They're going out to work probably struggling to pay the childcare, yet parents who in his eyes who don't need it are getting free childcare. You can choose to call it education, but. It does boil down to free childcare in the end.
I was lucky I had my mum and grandad to look after my dd. So I didn't need to pay child care, but if I did. People who didn't strictly need it getting it for free. Then yes I'd be majorly pissed off.

I also think it's demeaningful to say that just because parents are on benefits children are intellectually disadvantaged. What's that got to do with how a child learns,

Again?....really?

It may be a good idea. We will have to see. If it does make a difference to those children then it is a good thing t do. Some parents are really useless.

But in helping the kids we are making it more and more attractive for parents to make the wrong choice - which in the end allows them to continue doing exactly that.

Ensuring the decision to have a child is something to be taken seriously and then educating parents might be a better way forward. I don't know.

I'm stunned that so many people are subscribing to the ridiculous notion that this is anything but free childcare. I know people that claim they can't work as the need to look after their kids but use the free 15 hours they get for their 2 year old to go shopping with their benefits and slob about! This bullshit regarding meeting their 'educational needs' and its ' for the children' is all bollocks as well. Why should I and the tax payer have to pay for other peoples kids to be basically 'brought up' and taught to speak, dress themselves etc when their feckless parents who don't work all the hours godsend can't be arsed! This is another example of how the benefits culture has bred a whole new level of stupidity. On what planet does it make sense to give free childcare places to people who don't need childcare! and FYI, if you look on the governments website this scheme is explained under the ' help with childcare' not 2 years old's educational needs. Perhaps if we stopped spoon feeding more and more benefits to people the culture may change. Christ, after free childcare, rent, council tax, school meals, uniforms, subsidised trips, prescriptions, milk/ food tokens, maternity grants etc etc etc whats left for these ' parents' to actually provide for their kids! Roll on April when it's all cut back to 2 children only and they have to live like the rest of us!

Er is this question really 'why shouldn't people with more money than average get even more money for nothing?' but the scheme is about giving help to children whose parents dont have any spare money at all. theres no point having a 'help the poorest' scheme that gives money.to the wealthier people . Thats like having disabled parking spaces equally available to people who arent disabled..or watering your carpets to make sure the lawn isn't getting more than its fair share.

you loon