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?

When I was a SAHM, by the time ds was about 2.5 he needed a couple of afternoons of nursery and the break it gave me allowed me the space to regroup my own self so that all the other time with him was better quality. By three he was doing five mornings and two afternoons and needed every bit of it, as did I as I was pg with dd. DD did exactly the same.

I can't remember how much it was now, about £12/15 an afternoon (1pm-3.30pm) and £750ish a term for 5 mornings? 9.15-12.15. Our DC were in that window where nursery vouchers were withdrawn although I might have got something back for dd.

They could have gone to the state nursery for 2.5 hours mornings or afternoons but somehow 9-11.30 or 1-3.30 just didn't seem very helpful.

30 free hours is term time only, it’s actually around 21 hours once it’s for the year so with a commute it seems about right to me.

Most nursery will add extra costs on top too

@RobotValkyrie

Fucking hell (zombie thread, I know...), why do people keep calling it free "childcare"? It's called Early Years Foundation Stage: www.gov.uk/early-years-foundation-stage It's about children's education. All developed countries have some form of educational provisions for their under 5s. But the UK is the only country I know of where it's not referred to as schooling. Why the fuck??

The implicit disrespect for education is sickening. It's always all about money.

People call school childcare too. They don't actually seem to care about educating kids, just that someone takes them off their hands for a bit. It's an eye opener into what kind of parents they are when you actually think about it.

Its not just childcare. It is nursery education and routine and fun for the child.

It also gives the parents the option to increase their hours, which many do.

It also allows for the parents to change jobs if needed without having to drastically change the child's nursery hours to fit around the job, this also allows for shift change and agency workers.

I don't think nurseries would be willing to change the child's days every week if you were on a zero hours contract, they have more staff on busy days and less on quiet days.

I think it's more for the child than the parent? If a child is from a very low income household its likely they don't have the means to provide toys, books etc which would enrich the child's life. I have wondered the same about why I have to fork out thousands on childcare but then someone on benefits and working minimal hours at the most get free childcare from age 2. The amount of money this would have saved us is phenomenal. But then I think about it from the child's point of view and what it provides them with and I realise actually this isn't to benefit the parent (though it does!) but is for the child's sake. Plus like others have said 30 hours is only term time so it's much less when spread over 52 weeks.

I work 12 hours but qualify based on my income reaching the threshold (in Wales, so may be slightly different small print), but I don't use my full entitlement, and neither do other parents where one is part time. It's just nice to have what we do need paid for by the government. In the first term she was eligible we used 12 hours and now she is a bit older we use 18.

I think if parents who don't really need the full 30 hours choose to put their kids in for the full entitlement then it's probably in their kids best interests to be in professional childcare/early years education anyway.

It’s 30 hours term time only so for all year round kids/workers it actually works out at 24 hours pw and most nurseries charge a subsidy for food/materials etc.

16 hours at nmw is the qualification criteria, giving more hours than this actually gives working parents a reasonable chance of increasing hours to a reasonable part-time working pattern. It would not cover childcare for full time workers. Ultimately it keeps and helps parents (mainly women) get in to work, increase their hours and progress ahead of their kids going to school. Why would you begrudge that?

I got 15 hours
Sahm
Husband (now ex) on >£150k

I did housework, pottered, met friend for coffee

@Pawprintpaper

It’s 30 hours term time only so for all year round kids/workers it actually works out at 24 hours pw and most nurseries charge a subsidy for food/materials etc.

16 hours at nmw is the qualification criteria, giving more hours than this actually gives working parents a reasonable chance of increasing hours to a reasonable part-time working pattern. It would not cover childcare for full time workers. Ultimately it keeps and helps parents (mainly women) get in to work, increase their hours and progress ahead of their kids going to school. Why would you begrudge that?

In Wales is 30 hours for 48 weeks a year. But I'm not exactly sure how the free childcare over the school holidays works as DD only goes to playgroup/preschool in term time.

I dont care if its called early years education or child care.

It should be free to encourage women to stay in work and not have their career fucked up. It would benefit society so much more. People would be able to buy houses, gain financial security and come away from government top ups.

“I m all for...” But
“In my day....”
“Totally excessive”.

You are talking about childcare. UK has some of the most expensive childcare in the world. This is bad for parents. It is also bad for children. These free hours help the most vulnerable children.

But I’m guessing you think child poverty is also parental responsibility.

Where I am you only get 30 hours if you work over 25hours. Otherwise it’s just 15.

As I recall when mine were pre-school age, we got 15 free hours once they were 3, for which we were very grateful

And when mine were children there was no free childcare and maternity rights even in large organisations were minimal.

You are arguing about cutting up an undersized pie in different ways instead of arguing that the pie itself is inadequate (which it is). Its depressing how often on a women centred parenting site posters fall into the trap of arguing how to cut up inadequate funding rather than fight for better overall solutoins. But its very convenient for austerity politics that divide and rule is so effective.

There are many good reasons for making benefits universal, particularly when focused on women and children. Surestart and similar succeeded because they were universal with reduced costs to admin and no stigma. Who wants to be the mother taking their child to the "poor" nursery? But all access playgroups will bring all comers and if they open a few eyes amongst the "haves" then so much the better.

This isn't just a feminist issue either. Good early years and parental leave policies keep more people economically active with long term net benefits to the wider economy.

@KitKat1985

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?!?

My neighbours don't work at all because apparently they don't want to and their 2 year old goes to nursery every day. Why the bother having children when they don't want them at home I don't know.

They are now expecting their 4th child!

@usernameinfinito

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

This is sad but true. People who don’t work or work full time seem to need more free time than those that do.

It’s even more ridiculous that someone who doesn’t work even get 30 hours when someone who works full time that wouldn’t qualify for the full 30 hours may have to go part time or leave work altogether because they couldn’t afford childcare. If you don’t work, look after your own children and let those that do work and pay into the system, make use of the resources - to allow them to keep working.

Isnt it so the child gets nursery education rather than “baby sitting” for the parents to have a jolly?
When mind had the 30 hours, i worked 20 hours, commuted, did chores and sometimes sat down and had a coffee! I dont think it’s exesive at all. In most european countries the state takes care of Early Years. It gives the parents an opportunity to work more and all children have access to the same learning opportunity (rather than here when you need to pay £100 per day for nursery!)

It's for the child's benefit, not the parents.

@sst1234

It’s even more ridiculous that someone who doesn’t work even get 30 hours when someone who works full time that wouldn’t qualify for the full 30 hours may have to go part time or leave work altogether because they couldn’t afford childcare. If you don’t work, look after your own children and let those that do work and pay into the system, make use of the resources - to allow them to keep working.

There are lots of children of non working parents who would massively benefit from professional early years interventions and education, arguable these children are disproportionally represented in the unemployed parents group.

This may be because their parents want "child free time to shag" and are generally shit parents, but in these cases it is not the childs fault their parents aren't that interested in them and these kids would benefit hugely from a professional childcare setting. But in reality the kids of non working parents that would benefit, are due to much more genuine needs, parents with additional caring responsibilities, SEN siblings, disabled/ chronically ill/mentally ill parents, parents with sensory issues or SEN, poor and can't afford to heat the house all day let alone pay for toys or activities. These children would benefit, from early years education, so much more than the children of middle class double income families, yet they currently loose out.

Also if ALL children were included in the free childcare scheme it would take strain off social services/health visitors as more kids would be in professional settings with staff trained (and seeing them frequently) in safeguarding and identifying additional learning needs, which would save money and backlog in those other areas.

MN will hate me.

I work 16hrs pw over 2 days but 3yo goes to preschool 5 full days with the 30 free hrs. He loves preschool! Originally I put him in for the two days I work plus another day so I could get housework/errands done in peace but he was enjoying it so much and asking to go every day. Plus, what with the lockdowns, I was really worried about catching him up with social interaction so we upped it to the full five days. I tried to get more daytime shifts at work but there aren't any, my job is and evenings and weekends type of job.

DH works 50-60 hour weeks and we have no other help with childcare. And I mean NO other help, no doting grandparents, no friends or family to watch them for a few hours, nothing. Its just me and workaholic DH.

To be completely honest preschool is much more fun than being stuck at home with me. I am a loving and caring mum but I'm really not a "fun" mum. I try but I'm just a bit shit at that sort of thing 😂 I love reading them stories, singing nursery rhymes, teaching them new things etc. But crafts, messy play and running round the garden playing muddy games all fill me with dread. The latter are the things that DS enjoys the most so he happily goes to preschool and does them there. And yes I chill out at home, get the drudge work done in peace and treat myself to calm, solitary shopping trips. Sorry not sorry

@SellFridges

"Why on earth should the tax payer subsidise those earning £100k"

Because universal provision is a good leveller? Because the people paying more tax are funding these schemes in the first place and it's unfair to expect them to receive nothing in return. Because someone earning £100k a year is taking home somewhere around £4.5k a month and very likely has childcare costs of over £1k per month per child (I know my own are just north of £1k for the one in full time nursery). So could easily be spending 50% of Take home pay on childcare.

I love it when I see comments that say it’s unfair for higher rate tax payers to receive nothing in return for funding childcare schemes, when what is meant is higher rate tax paying parents. Higher rate tax payers that aren’t parents are expected to pay without receiving anything all the time.

(And I’m fine with it - a well-educated healthy society benefits us all. I just find it funny that wealthy parents have to get something back whereas wealthy non-parents don’t.)