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?

double
another case where well targeted use of the funds would be much better

Children being at a disadvantage because of the financial status of the family, or because their patents are solely on benefits is not some random piece of supposition plucked out of the air.

It is also not because it is assumed that unemployed parents will be feckless, lazy and crap. Some people may want to believe the 'Benefit scum' shite they see in the Daily Mail and on channel 5, but it is shortsighted to assume that buying into this is the reasoning behind children from very low incomes being able to access funded ey at the age of 2.

I work with lots of children who get 2 year old funding, for a whole range if reasons, my own child had 2 year old funding. They all benefit from the time they spend in our setting - and it is not because their parents can't be arsed.

The gap in attainment between children from lower income families and higher earners is because the way this sometimes frustratingly divisive society is set up. Trying to in some way close this gap by giving these children 15 hours free ey education is not there to insult the families.

hazey
but the current 30 hpw policy is reducing funds for those in need

Yes, I completely agree, it is (I think I said that in my first post) our setting is being completely squeezed by the 30 hours, and the children losing out are those who have the highest needs, and who have benefitted from 2 year funding. I was just responding to Kitkat and others, and the idea that the 2 year funding for the children of unemployed parents (and others) is an insult to those parents.

Sorry if I'm not making sense, I have had 2 glasses of prosecco and no sleep!

We have registered for the 30 hours and have submitted our code to nursery, although the nursery doesn't yet know how it is going to be implemented and is going to do refunds come October. I do feel bad though as my DH earns just under £100k and may well go over this shortly (he's self employed - anyone know what happens if he goes over it? Will we just not get the code next time round?), and I earn about £30k. So we really don't need the help. Our nursery is a Sure STart one and I'd like to give them some of the extra money back as a donation but it feels a bit weird. It is such a crazy way of doing things.

Well, oddly enough it used to be things like schooling were given to everyone regardless of income and as the well-off paid higher taxes no-one thought twice about it.

I think they want it to be like schooling. honestly after a few years of universal childcare at 3 it will just be assumed your child starts school at 3 full time :(

You will be odd if you stay home with hlur child.

They want it to be like schooling but it's not. Nurseries vary hugely. Some of the staff in our first nursery barely spoke English.

Offering proper schooling from 3 - like France does for example - would be the best thing to reduce the attainment gap between rich and poor. And would avoid all these over complicated, unfair schemes -- which cost a lot with varying outcomes for children.

Bit shocked by comments on this thread about people using the scheme for "wife work" (what the fuck is that!?) and exercise. I'm not entitled to the scheme, work full time, am exhausted and certainly don't have time for exercise.

I think the UK system is just needlessly complicated and it would be much simpler to just properly subsidise childcare and have the fees on a sliding scale so everyone pays what they can afford and make sure that all childcare is of decent quality so every child can benefit from it.

I'll need it to work my 22 hours and continue my studying so my son and I have a chance of a better life. I'm a lone parent if that makes me more "deserving" in your eyes OP
I find it easier to keep my beak out of other people's business. HTH.

I personally don't want proper schooling from 3 to be the norm. I think 4 is too young as it is.

The setting is very much like a nursery, the schools follow the children's rhythm, they nap... the big difference is the quality of the activities, which is pretty consistent from school to school. The teachers are university-educated, highly trained. You don't have to send your children if you don't want to. But I don't know anyone who turned it down: High quality activities in a safe setting, available to all, enabling parents to work without breaking the bank.

And the system brings people together instead of pitting them against each other.

I work 35 hours a week. Term time only. My son gets the 30 hours funded. We use 22 of them due to my husbands job.
My childcare fees are still £330 per month inclusive of top up fees and my younger daughter.
It massively helps us

I stretched my 30 hours funding which worked out as 22 hours per week. Oh worked 30 hours per week and I did 20. The 16 hours is a minimum

And may I add that there is 2 year funding of 15 hours for single parents, or those on an income lower than £16,000. The incentive is so they can work without childcare costs. Some do, many don't.
It's nice to see working parents being helped on this scheme

I am part time (officially 19 hours but that only cover contact time) and I will be using all of my 30 hours plus needing to pay extra.

My DD goes to a CM 2 days a week and there is 20 hours used! 7am til 5pm as there is an hour travelling time either side plus work to be done before school starts (I am a teacher). Then she will go to nursery 3 days a week so there is 9 hours used in that. Before any asks "Why is she going to nursery on your days off?" Why shouldn't she???? It's pre-school, luckily a class within the school that she will be attending and it prepares them well for school life. Plus my DS LOVED nursery.

It isn't always about childcare but about giving a child the opportunity to learn, develop, make friends etc. The 30 hours is only for 2 year olds when they come from a disadvantaged home financially as all research points to these children needing it. After that it is for 3 and 4 year olds and used within a pre-school setting plus then extended to childcare IF needed. I know many parents who will not be using the full 30 hours but it's there if needed.

I can see your post OP. There will be some parents who 'abuse' it for their own selfish needs. But most won't.

I will be using 29 hours which covers nursery education plus the childcare needs for my days at work.

I think it would make better sense for a set amount to be given to parents depending on income levels and then just pay the nursery fees direct. The nursery could send proof the child is using the setting. Could even carry on the 15 funded hours by all children at 3 being given a termly fund to the parent who can then choose which setting to use.

The nurseries would then be able to run as businesses instead of being restricted by so many funding rules and regulations while parents could still afford to use them.

The 30 hours is only for 2 year olds when they come from a disadvantaged home

2 year olds are not eligible for 30 hours childcare. They are only entitled to 15 hours.

another case where well targeted use of the funds would be much better

But targeting the funds, by means testing and assessing income, ability and need, costs a fortune. It's more cost effective to make the policy universal and use additional sources of funding (such as EYPP) for additional hours etc. for those who qualify.

I think we can all agree that looking to remove, or at least reduce, the attainment gap between kids from low income (in some cases no income) families and better off families is a worthy aim. I'm not convinced all families with one non-working benefits claiming parent need it though.

I also think it's reasonable for low-medium income earners, who earn too much to qualify for free childcare when their kid is 2-3, but still struggle to cover childcare costs, to resent the scheme. Someone else who doesn't work and isn't contributing to the system is getting more help than they are, even though they are working and contributing.

I'm currently pregnant with my first child and have just started looking at nurseries. They are crazy expensive in our area. The cheapest decent one I've found is over £1200pcm full time. We want two children, and due to our ages we haven't really got time to wait 4 years between them. So at some point we will probably have two in full time nursery. We won't qualify for the 30 hours free childcare at 3, just 15. The long and the short of it is that, on my current salary, post tax etc, after paying two sets of full time nursery fees, I'd have about £100 per week left. And I'm on okay money! Obviously nursery costs will come out of our joint budget rather than just me paying, but my point is in this part of the country, with the current level of financial assistance from the government available, the lower income earner in a couple would have to be earning well over £40k per year foR it to be cost effective for that person to go back to work. And even then, the financial benefits are marginal. So yes, seeing someone else get something for free which you are working your arse off for is going to annoy a lot of people.....if I was on £35-35k it would sure as hell annoy me.

I think we all realise the free childcare is to benefit the child, not the parent, but in terms of which parents benefit and which don't, the effect is still the same.

When my eldest had speech therapy assessment at 4 the clinician told me that although they were largely unintelligible (not her exact words) it wasn't sufficient to require assistance as they had social skills and could interact positively etc. She said there were many children she sees who rarely leave the family home until they start school, no contact with other small children sometimes and whilst not actively neglected, parents don't engage with them sufficiently for them to develop early skills in communication, and as such they are disadvantaged as they go into school. I imagine a few hours at a nursery would bring them in a long way. Also where English isn't the primary language having the opportunity to play and learn with English speakers might help those kids adjust to school more easily too. I don't have a problem with it at all. Just wish it wasn't such an administrative pain for the nurseries.

MrsBendy If you don't qualify for 30 hours & are not left with much yourself then your partner must be earning over 100k?

Don't you only qualify for free care from 2-3 if your income is less than 16k & you work. I definitively do not begrudge those people getting help with childcare in order to continue working.