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?

The extra 15 hours is childcare not education. My council won't provide any extra support for children with sen during those hours because it is classed as childcare so frequently if your child is disabled you cannot use them unless you pay a lot extra.

Janier Slight generalisation there - 'these children' 'parents cannot afford...'.
There are other reasons why children can qualify at two years. Our DS will because he's adopted. I think (?) a DC will qualify if they have an ECHP too. Neither is dependent on parental income or inadequacies.

It's because pre-school has been shown to be important for socialisation and early education, and if parents can't afford it, they won't send their DC.

What about commuting? My commute is 45 min and childminder charges by the hour. So my 36 hour working week plus 1/2 hour unpaid lunches and commute is 10 hours a day total of 50 hours a week at cm.

So a 16 hours over 2 days plus lunch and commute would be 21 hours at least and jcp mandates that you have to apply for jobs within a 90 min radius so could be up to 25 hours

3 x 6hr shifts = 18 hours work - BUT where I worked they closed for an unpaid lunch break of 1hr. so already up to 21. then an hour commute each way each day adds another 6 hours - that is IF the buses are on time and you don't have to stay late and miss one - so 18 hours work for a minimum of 27 hours of time... for me.

(kids are teens now so it is immaterial, but the time still adds up...)

Just because someone may on paper only work 16 hours a week doesn't mean they're any less entitled to this time than someone working full-time hours, nor do they necessarily need it any less than a full-time worker either.

I'm currently expecting my first child, and by the time my child is 3 and I qualify for these hours, I will still be working towards my degree which will allow me to change career entirely, whilst also working part time. Including my study hours and the hours I'll be working then, this will be close to a 50-hour week which doesn't include my 2 hours of commuting to work and back each day.

Why would my child be less entitled to those hours than a child of someone who works a 36 or week, or doesn't work at all for that matter?

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

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

The 30 free hours isn't to do with benefitting children from low income households or early years education. In many cases it is making it more difficult for children who could be benefitting from early years funding (those from very low income families or with sen for example) to benefit, as the spaces are being filled by children who are doing the 30 free hours. It is a system that I can't see being sustainable in the long term, and I think unfortunately it may have a knock on effect on the quality of early years education with regards to staff:children ratios, numbers of qualified staff etc.

I work 37 but will need the full 50. What about peoples commutes? Lunch breaks?

I do understand that the free 15 funded hours for 2 year olds of unemployed parents is supposed to be for the benefit of the children. But to be honest, I think as a parent you're probably doing a pretty poor job if you can't manage to create a suitably stimulating environment for a 2 year old even if things are financially really tight, and yes, I've been in that boat. When I've had a financially rough time and had DD1 to look after at a similar age, I still took her out to the library and we read lots of books, and went to free / very cheap baby groups and parks to socialise with other kids. And we did long walks and talked about all the things we saw. And we spent many hours doing colouring and making things with all the usual household rubbish (loo rolls, plastic bottles etc). And she built up a nice collection of hand-me down toys or cheap items from charity shops. And I'm actually pretty left wing but I do think if you have kids then you need to take a bit of responsibility for their emotional and mental development and not just expect the state to pay and do the work for you.

I work 20 hours but it's split across 3 days. Some of my hours are trapped, so I am paid 8-12, then 2-3 for example.
I need 3 full days childcare for my 2 preschoolers, which is 30 hours each. Our 30 hours for our 3 year old are very much appreciated.

I work 3 days and DS2 is in nursery for 9 hours on those days as I have a 90 minute commute. But because of the way the nursery are implementing the 30 hours we will still have to top up. Our nursery is spreading it over the whole year not just term time and charging for food on top.

We are very grateful for the help of course as fees for 3 days works out at nearly £800pcm some months. I haven't worked it out to the penny but I think we'll still need our vouchers to cover nursery even when the 30 hours kicks in.

I think we are lucky to get any free childcare tbh.
It's only a very recent thing and people had to pay or do without in the past.
isn't it for pre school education and not childcare?

Is this free childcare universal or means tested?
Genuine question as there was no such thing when I had young children and my salary went entirely on childcare, I carried on working in order to keep my job for when they were at school.

Why did you need 15 hrs OP? When mine were little we didn't get any and if we wanted anything before school we ran out own playgroups in the village hall or scout hall or similar. I think ours used to cost 25p a session.

Times change, my mother couldn't see the point of playgroup, I daresay my great grandmother would have had us all down the mines.

The 30 free hours isn't to do with benefitting children from low income households or early years education. In many cases it is making it more difficult for children who could be benefitting from early years funding (those from very low income families or with sen for example) to benefit, as the spaces are being filled by children who are doing the 30 free hours. It is a system that I can't see being sustainable in the long term, and I think unfortunately it may have a knock on effect on the quality of early years education with regards to staff:children ratios, numbers of qualified staff etc. That is interesting, I hadn't thought of it from that point of view. One of my GC will be getting the 30 free hours and his parents can well afford to pay so it is a shame if will have a negative effect on other children. Thank you for explaining it.

chelseahotel 30 hours childcare is available to children for 39 weeks per year, from the start of the term after they turn 3. It is available to families where both parents earn the equivalent of 16 hours per week at national minimum wage but both parents earn less than £100,000. I know there are exceptions around single parents but not sure of the details.

15 hours per week, 39 weeks per year, are still available universally in the term after the child turns 3.

chelsea every 3 year old is entitled to 15 hours early years education irrespective of parent s income or working hours. 3-4 year olds are entitled to 30 hours a week free (but only term time and most spead it out over a whole year) if parents earn £120/week-£100000/year. Some 2 year old are entitled to funded hours but certain criteria have to be met for instance their parents or in receipt ofncertain benefits, they are taken care of by the local authority, have disabilities etc. The main problem is that the state doesn't fully fund the 30 hours so nurseries are struggling to offer them. It is fag packet policy making at its worst.

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

I work 16 hours term time only. As much as I'd like free time to shag I'm not using all of the hours available. You don't have to take the full 30 hours.

I am so delighted by this news though, until now I've basically paid to work.

I think we are lucky to get any free childcare tbh.
It's only a very recent thing and people had to pay or do without in the past.
isn't it for pre school education and not childcare?

Really? Are you sure? My parents got 15 hours for me when I was 3 and I'm 38 now!

I'd love to know who imposed the just under £200k pa limit 😱 When child tax credits first started it was 30k, why not use that figure with a bit added on for inflation. I don't care how much it costs to administer, the message it sends is wrong. As pointed out on another thread, someone who desperately needs the 30 hours because they are looking for work but can't take the job until they know they can get the 30 hours, but they can't actually qualify until they are working. If that makes sense.

Luxury! In my time we thought of coal dust and that was our meal.

it's also to try and close the attainment gap between children from high and low income households

Mumoftwo - my youngest is 18 and it was implemented after that. So possibly only 15 years ago at the earliest?

....youngest is 19