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?

"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?"

Its to benefit the children!
There will be plenty of unemployed parents who do a really great job of preparing their children for school, but there are also many who really struggle to do so. There is a correlation between family deprivation and young children falling behind (not to say that all families living in poverty are he same, because of course they are not). The early years are so important, and it is much more cost effective to target those children then, then try to fix later problems. It might mean that some families who don't really need the help receive it too, but I can live with that as long as those children who will really benefit from time spent outside the home get the opportunity.

I'm not getting 30 free hours, my nursery is simply minusing what the council give them off our bill.

It has been proven that children from families with low incomes, have better outcomes when they get good quality early years education - for all sorts of reasons. The 2 year old 15 hours are also funded for children with sen, and looked after children. Some of these children would really benefit from those hours increasing when they get to 3, but they will not be eligible for the 30 hours.

Unfortunately, despite the proven benefits of good early years education, there is a complete lack of investment in early years.

It's 30 hours per week, term time only. Our nursery averages it out across the year, giving 22 hours a week (I think). You can only take this over 3 days, and you have to pay a top up too (they charge for the wraparound hours and early starts)

And yes, I qualify despite only doing 16 hours. I'm out of the house for 8 hours, 3 days a week though.

It's really complicated tbh, nursery is drowning in the admin for this, and it's only saving me about £7 a week. If the additional 15 hours is meant to assist working parents with childcare costs, why is it term time only. I agree with the poster that said that 20 hours, properly funded, would be a better plan. All year round too, not just term time.

I think that proper quality Nursery Education for children aged 3 years plus is good idea. Children at the age of 3 are beginning to socially develop and need to spend some time with their peers to ensure that they learn to interact with others. I question the need for 30 hours as they are still very young and need to build a secure attachment with a primary caregiver (parent ,if possible but could be granny or other individual who spends time with the child on a one to one basis.) If the Nursery Education is really just child care run by individuals with few qualifications then I really question its valve. I think sadly increase the hours from 15 to 30 and the funding pressures that will result may mean that a lot of the provision will be very poor quality. I understand that parents may need to work but I don't understand what benefit children of 2 years old gain from being in a Nursery. I think most 2 year olds would find it a noisy, frightening environment lacking in the individual attention needed for their development. 2 and under are best served by being in a more home from home environment. Finally, I am not sure as a tax payer that I am prepared to pay for a scheme that has limited benefit for the children and would see very small children being in effect 'institutionalised.'

Thanks to those who explained it. It sounds like a shambles and doesn't seem like the best use of resources to me . Why on earth should the tax payer subsidise those earning £100k .
Surely better to target families on low income where it will benefit the family as a whole as well as the child? A kind of pupil premium for nurseries?

This must have come in after mine started school (youngest is 19).
I do recall they were allowed to start school in a nursery class at four but I declined as they were in childcare (fully paid by me) for the two days I worked and felt that was enough.

I always thought it would make more sense to reduce the number of hours available but offer it from a younger age. I'd imagine most people would go back to work after mat leave end when the child is around 1, surely it would make it easier for working parents to have 10hrs per week funded from age 1 til school age.

*You would probable understand why the free funding for 2 year olds who's parents don't work is so important for some children if you spent a couple of weeks living in our area

Although why people find it so difficult to think outside of their own situation always surprises me.*

I live in one of the most deprived areas in our county actually. I am by no fucking means well off. But I think any parent should be able to provide a standard of educational stimulation appropriate to two years olds. We're talking naming colours, and counting to ten level of education here, not teaching fucking astrophysics.

Oh and I was very specifically talking about funded hours for 2 year olds with unemployed parents, NOT children with SEN.

I understand that parents may need to work but I don't understand what benefit children of 2 years old gain from being in a Nursery. I think most 2 year olds would find it a noisy, frightening environment lacking in the individual attention needed for their development. 2 and under are best served by being in a more home from home environment. Finally, I am not sure as a tax payer that I am prepared to pay for a scheme that has limited benefit for the children and would see very small children being in effect 'institutionalised.'

The 2 year old funding for 15 hours early years education includes children from very low income families, children with additional needs and looked after children, and it has had proven benefits for these children. It is not about being 'institutionalised', it's about children having lots of opportunity to play, learn, socialise, feel part of their community, develop communication skills, be introduced to resources they may not have access to at home, and, in the case of some children with additional needs, have targeted 1-1 support under the guidance of outside professionals. There are also valuable opportunities to monitor development, and provide support for families. It is A Good Thing!

KitKat the parents have to want to do that ...

KitKat1985, the fact is that some parents can't, won't or don't provide the right environment for their children. The funded hours are to benefit children who don't get that environment. We can all talk until we are blue in the face about what parents should do but the fact will remain that there will always be parents who don't bother. I think it's great that the government doesn't just leave them behind and provides them with some time at nursery.

chelseahotel the 30 hours has literally just started on a national basis this month, it's been piloted in a few areas for 12 months before though. The 15 hours has been around longer but I suspect 10-15 years so not something you would have benefited from. I think it was a New Labour post-1997 initiative.

Sorry Kitkat but I would put support into the home and help the parent or other caregiver with techniques to encourage a child's development. (I have a older child with ASD and I was very grateful for the one to one support provided to my family from the Early Years Team (Local Council)! when my child was 2 years old.) Building a secure attachment between the primary caregiver and the child is the most important at this very young age. This 2 year old funding has very little to do with improve children's development and is all about the agenda of getting parents into work. It is not high quality Nursery Education that is being provided just cheap child care / baby sitting. I also think you have a limited funding pot that funding should be concentrated at 3 years plus rather than reduce the quality of the provision for all.

sarcasm mode on Because the government can do a better job of bringing up children than parents on a low income who always do a terrible job. sarcasm mode off

This 2 year old funding has very little to do with improve children's development and is all about the agenda of getting parents into work. It is not high quality Nursery Education that is being provided just cheap child care / baby sitting.
No, the 2 year old funding is not about getting parents into work - 15 hours in term time doesn't particularly help as childcare. Evidence shows the improvement in outcomes for the groups it is aimed at. Also I'm not sure how you can say that all early years settings are cheap child care, this really isn't the case.

I only work just enough to qualify. I'm a carer and work in hour blocks, sometimes only 3 per day but it's spread out over 9:30-2:30 so I can't manage that on am or pm sesssions only.

Why do you need funded childcare if you're not working?!?

I'm not a parent - yet even i can see the sense in funded childcare!

1. It's great for the child to experience a different environment to learn and socialise
2. SAHP have a chance to re-train, work/volunteer pt so they can keep their cv/skills updated....esp as we know how vulnerable being dependent on someone else's income is

Because the government can do a better job of bringing up children than parents on a low income who always do a terrible job.

They'll have based it on statistics which unfortunately show that children of people in lower incomes generally are the children who start off at a lower level and are in more need of the extra boost. They have to base it on something to decide who gets it.

Unfortunately, Hazey Jane, by extending the hours at 3 plus and having 15hrs at 2yrs without the proper funding then you will get poor quality care. I think that more would be gained from helping parents to provide better care to their very young children. 2yrs old don't need the stimulation of a Nursery environment but need to build secure attachments.

Universal 15h for all 3yos was pretty new when we took it up for my now-9yo.

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

Because means testing almost invariably works out far more expensive than delivering universal benefits.

I'd like to see more of a philanthropic movement from those on £100k plus to donate the money to a charity for poorer children. I know some wealthy pensioners do something similar with their winter fuel allowance.

I don't have children at all and am more than happy to fund high-quality childcare, because I see the correlation between countries with greater amounts of free childcare and countries with greater equality between the sexes. I think this is something all feminists should support!

It's great for the child to experience a different environment to learn and socialise

Playgroups used to fulfil this role but were all put out of existence when schools started to take in 3 year olds.

When my DC were 3 they went to the local playgroup. It was a couple of hours once or twice a week at the local village hall. There was a modest charge and a parent helper rota, but it wasn't childcare. They were largely mixing with other local children who eventually all went to the same school. I don't believe 2 or 3 year olds really need more than this.

I don't know but personally I think the way they have worked out the criteria for this funding is all wrong. I have two friends that each have a three year old child. Friend one both her and her husband work full time and earn I'd say around £70k between them and they are comfortable financially i.e. Mortgage already paid off and own a couple of other houses. They now get the thirty hours funding and she has said she doesn't know why as they can easily afford to pay for it themselves. Friend 2 works full time during the week and works Saturday all day too. She has a partner but he has developed severe depression and isn't up to mind their two young children all day on his own right now. She only earns 15k a year and works her arse off but she doesn't qualify for the funding because technically they have one parent at home. Friend 1 can afford childcare and has always worked so it isn't neccrsarily an incentive (what it's supposedly for) for her to go out to work. Friend number 2 is juggling two jobs, two kids and caring for her partner who hasn't mental illness yet they get no support. It isn't right.