Why do parents working 16 hours need 30 hours free childcare?

[shaggedthruahedgebackwards]

Even if you have a long commute then I can't see why more than about 20 hours should be necessary?

Surely it would make more sense to fund a smaller number of hours properly instead of promising 30 hours but not funding it properly?

As I recall when mine were pre-school age, we got 15 free hours once they were 3, for which we were very grateful. We needed 3 full days childcare so obviously paid the difference from our income.

I'm all for supporting parents to work but 30 hours seems totally excessive for the majority of parents.

I know there are plenty of parents who do work full time and therefore do next 30+ hours childcare but it seems fair that parents should have to pay a chunk of the childcare themselves and somewhere between 15 and 20 hours free is a pretty generous subsidy surely?

In my day we ate lumps of coal and were very grateful.

I think they want child free time to shag and have more children 😒

Because it's cheaper to give everyone 30 then working out and administrating per person 16 hours plus commute.

I agree that it would be fairer on everyone including the nurseries to fully fund 20 hours than expect nurseries to manage the current system.
To be honest this is unlikely to be a long term thing anyway. People seem to think they are entitled to this already though so when it doesn't work out there will be uproar.
I actually saw someone on fb asking if they can use the 30 free hours for before and after school clubs!

I used to be on a 16 hr contract, four four hour shifts. As I had to rely on public transport I could be out of the house for eight hours. There was also overtime, which usually had little notice.

How would you fund childcare for 2 or more kids? Often it costs 2k without funding - I know parents on full time 40k per year jobs who are struggling, so god knows how low earners cope. The full time funding is necessary.

16 hours is a minimum qualification isn't it? I presume it's 16 because that correlates with tax credits?

Anyway, childcare providers don't necessarily allow you to pay only for the precise hours you need though, do they. If you worked four mornings (9-1) and sent your children to my DSs' nursery, you'd have to book them in 8.15-3.30. That's 7.25 hours per day/29 hours per week. For full time working parents you're looking at a minimum of 50 hours childcare a week.

Do you actually qualify for 30 hours on 16 hours a week? I know there are rules but I'm not sure what they are.

I'm sure it's also to benefit the children from low incone households.

isn't the point that its 30 hours of nursery education for the child rather than 30 hours of childcare for the parents?

isn't the point that its 30 hours of nursery education for the child rather than 30 hours of childcare for the parents?

The original 15 hours was pitched as early education funding, but I think the extension to 30 hours is a direct appeal to working/middle class parents to contribute towards the cost of childcare. Which means it makes even less sense that it's term time only.

Thanks for the sensible and informative replies all

( user and ten clearly not included in my thanks!)

I wasn't trying to be goady just heard something on the radio about it and was confused

It annoys me more than if you are unemployed and have a 2 year old then you get 15 free funded hours. Why do you need funded childcare if you're not working?!?

I think it's because it's easier and cheaper to administrate with fixed figures/numbers of hours than to tailor it to everyone's individual circumstances.

In order to qualify you have to earn the equivalent of 16 hours at NMW, so technically it's possible to access the 30 hours if you work less than 16 hours per week but earn more than NMW.

I would imagine the logic behind it is that the Government want to encourage / enable parents to increase their working hours and thus tax contributions to the State.

Also, it will give people a chance to do a training course or further education of some kind so as to improve their work situation.

We qualify and I don't even work 16 hours. It's based on earnings, not work. If you both earn at least the equivalent of 16hpw@NMW (which is £120pw ish) but neither of you earns more than £100kpa then it doesn't matter if you're working five hours at £25/h and sitting on your arse for the other 25h. It's ideological, not practical.

Also note that 30h is term time only but earnings/work are based on 52 weeks a year. So it's more like working 16h for 22h childcare, which you might consider rather more realistic.

Fwiw I will be using about 24h a week (term time) and non-working hours will chiefly include wifework, volunteering and exercise. 30h/w is full time at pre school and IMHO preschool is too intense for full time - day nursery has more peaks and troughs and planned rest time.

KitKat, I found that frustrating too but its not for unemployed it is for disadvantaged children who are likely to need support due to difficult home, additional needs etc. It is to give them a head start so they are not behind their peers at preschool.

I couldn't do any courses when I was a lone parent as I wasn't earning enough to pay for extra childcare. So I was pretty much stuck where I was, whether I wanted to be or not.

TenForward82

In my day we ate lumps of coal and were very grateful.

Huh, think yourself lucky, back in the olden days we couldn't afford lumps, only coal dust.

Oo, will no doubt be slapped on the wrist by OP for posting something frivolous

2 year old funding is not about the parents its about the improved chances for the child to get a good education and not be trapped in the benefit system and it is education not childcare. Research has shown that these children have a much higher chance of having poor communication and socialisation skills as their parents can not afford the same experiences as children from more affluent homes or their are difficulties of access and special needs.

A family earning £199,999.99 a year is not making a can I afford to return to work decision, even in areas where house prices are higher what we are actually supporting is do we have a holiday.

As others have said it's for the children not the parents. I know it can feel unfair when you're struggling to work and pay for childcare and it feels like others are getting something for nothing but it's no good punishing these children and letting them get left behind.

With the child care learning bit, it was just so nice to not have to ask someone to give you a break, as a single parent many moons ago with toddlers, the fact I could actually do stuff with out having to BEG someone to take my child meant I could actually enjoy being a person instead of a mum for a little while some days.

It's not really 30 hours though, is it? It probably works out more like 20 hours if it's spread over the whole year. Plus the nurseries are having to be quite creative in how they implement it, so I don't think many people will be able to use only the free hours, unless their working hours are very flexible

It's not all about the childcare. Successive governments seem to have taken against parents and family members caring for children - they seem to think that children are best cared for by professionals. So the funded hours make sure that as many children as possible are vacuumed up into professional childcare.