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?

notgivingin789 - maybe a nursery was not the right environment for you Lo and it would have been better in a smaller setting, I have a child with me who achieved nothing in a nursery and would just scream in a few weeks we have got him to relax, to understand a few signs and to start to use one, he's throwing less and is now accepting of walking outside, will let children sit nest to him and will come for cuddles making more eye contact, but we had the ability to control the noise and atmosphere and allow a gentle transition and give one to one targeted time, most nursery's cant do this until a need has been identified and funded.

Weve had children who were unable to play with others and ones with no communication who over time have been able to join in and go into normal mainstream school, but it is a slow process and for some attending a setting early is a start so that once they go to school its easier if your expecting a child who can not socialise and communicate to automatically be able to after 32 weeks in a setting you are missing the point that these things can be slow, I've spent 8 weeks with one Lo encouraging them to hold a spoon, at the moment we are at the point of me holding the spoon with them but by the end of the year I am hopeful that they will be doing it themselves.
You can not tell what your child would be like now if they hadn't had that intervention, but research shows that in like for like groups of SEN early intervention over none improves outcomes.

MrsBendyBake.....
You will not be subsidising 2 year olds, that is a totally different scheme and has its own funding at a higher rate, The parents may well be at home but in my experience they are not lapping it up, they are getting treatment, sleeping after being up for 4 days on little sleep due to the needs of their sen child, still caring for bed bound other children or busy dying in hospital. I have yet to have a child who does not have a desperate need for this funding.
The main problem with the funding is that often these children need more support one to one or parents need help and that is not provided once they turn 3 when we are supposed to carry on doing this hard demanding and emotionally upsetting work on less money than we would normally charge.....but only for 15 hours that everybody gets.

My son greatly benefitted from his 2 year old funding, I had to attend with him for a long time because of chronic separation anxiety. He was completely non verbal and had delays in all areas, along with health issues. He had a 1-1 keyperson, they learnt Makaton with him, helped him be around other children, helped him communicate, helped him take part in the routine of the setting, helped him play, and helped him to be happy to be away from me. They worked with outside professionals, and most importantly worked with me, they helped with the transition to and helped with the setting up of an ehcp for school.

I now work for the same preschool as a 1-1 for children in the setting who need 1-1 support, 2 of the children I work with have 2 year old funding - I do all of the above with them and support whatever needs they have. I think it varies greatly from setting to setting, I know that I visited every other setting in our area, and was not made to feel as though ds would be welcomed in any of them (even the 2 outstanding settings).

DNo.....In any system you get someone who takes the micky and can play it, but this is not the norm.
I personally don't understand why people have children and then find that they cant afford them and moan (unless life has taken a cruel turn) If you go back 20 years ago it was the norm to return to work at 12 weeks because you got no more money, to pay all or most of one wage on childcare and to have a mortgage or rent to pay that left little from the other to go without holidays nights out clothes haircuts etc that today are deemed essential and to pay for that childcare in full for 5 years. Parents now get more than ever before and its not enough. I resent paying for their holidays, nails, hair, clothes and me time by subsidising their childcare as I would rather subsidies the ill and disabled and care homes where this money really could make a difference to people who had no choice in what their outcomes are.

Tumbleweed101

The problem with paying the parent the fees direct and letting them pay childcare is that as with existing tax credits a percentage of those don't pay their childcare and a further percentage pay it late causing the providers problems. This then makes it hard for the paying families as the settings are struggling to chase funds and certainly with child-minders its not unusual to find that every one of their customers has paid late meaning no money for the cm to buy next weeks food and activities (or pay their own bills plus overdraft charges)....even more common at summer holidays and Christmas.

MrsBendy wow I didn't realise it would be as high as 40% although I wonder if the full 40% take it up.

I agree that it's very frustrating when people are not responsible & there are feckless, selfish parents out there. However I feel uncomfortable with punishing the children in those circumstances & if nursery is a better environment for them I'm ok with paying for it.

DH and I bring in £150,000 between us. Our childcare bill for our 2 children under 3 year olds is £3000/month for 5 days full-time care. That requires one of us to earn over £50000 before tax to just cover childcare. This is the average cost of childcare here (circa £73-£75/day). We live just outside of London, so once you add on the extortionate cost of mortgages and basically everything where we live compared to even where I grew up in the midlands we are lucky to break even. That's why people who earn up to £100k need it. Once I factor in my £400/month train ticket I almost work for nothing. People are quick to state that those who are well off don't understand poorer folk, but there are a lot of people who misjudge the well paid and still skint in the south too (I say that as someone from a v v working class background).

You really really can't say you are skint!!

Remember too that soon tour childcare bills will be less and you can return to well paid work where's someone on minimum wage for whom it's not "worth" working will just return back to minimum wage work.

16 hours is also a minimum, when I worked retail I had to really pull in favours to get my minimum 16 hours some weeks so that I still qualified for the childcare funding otherwise I wouldn't have been able to work at all. Some weeks I had 18 hours or 20 or even up to 30 but other weeks it was only just at that minimum because they didn't have any more hours to give me. Technically I was on a zero hour contract, so if they wanted to be difficult, they could have been, but luckily they weren't.

Sorry, but at the concept of earning £150k and needing childcare help - when you earn £150k, regardless of mortgage costs, (um, mortgage, what mortgage?? We'd be lucky! ) you have the luxury of being able to save and plan for childcare costs, even if not completely cover them, whereas many families who are really struggling are living hand to mouth, and don't have the money spare to save at all. And as PP mentioned working for "almost nothing" is completely different when there is value other than money in that work - training, experience, promotion possibilities, keeping a foot in the door - most people on minimum wage literally work just for the money and perhaps partially for the social/self esteem benefits (but these begin to feel like luxuries when you're counting it all out TBH).

I mean, be grateful for it, absolutely, support it if you wish, but to say you "need" it is pretty ridiculous. And I say that as someone who has been poor and then been better off, admittedly not £150k better off, but the difference between now and us in the past is huge. We'd have been crippled and bankrupted by an unexpected bill or expense before whereas now it will constrain us for a few months depending on the amount or clear out our savings. We'll be tight when we do eventually get pregnant but it will be doable, and then most importantly of all, going back to work is going to be a twofold decision because it won't just be about money, there are all of the other benefits to going back to work that aren't money related in the short term but are about our family's security long term.

We did move out of the UK FWIW so not entirely comparable, but housing prices are about the same where we are, and in fact we're probably less employable in general due to the language barrier.

@LizzyAS @BertieBotts @pizzaexpressreview I think what we all need is for childcare in this country to be cheaper generally. If you read that report I posted the link to above, we have one of the most expensive systems in the world, relative to income, and things like staff to child ratios are part of that. Something needs to change, there are some curious anomalies with our system that other posters have referred to above, for e.g. two parents each on £95k will get the full 30 hours at 3, despite having a combined income of nearly £200k, whereas a couple with one earner on £100k and one earner on £20k won't, so the couple earning lower out of those two will be in effect supplementing the higher earning couple. There's also self employed people who game the system by declaring a tiny salary and then paying themselves most of their other income in other ways (bonuses and benefits etc) who contribute peanuts to the system but reap all the benefits. This is more common than you'd think. I know of plenty of self employed people who really take the piss when it comes to tax and how they pay themselves.....

You may roll your eyes at Lizzy's post, but I'm going to be in a not dissimilar position myself. We're not pleading poverty here, or ignoring the other, longer term benefits to remaining in work (in my case, the best argument for remaining in work once I've got ore school age kids will probably be my pension), but something does seem wrong with a system where you have to be on a salary of £40-50k as the LOWER earner in your house before you break even when you return to work after having a second kid. That's not the same as claiming hardship, it's just to me a sign that the system isn't working. A parent on £25-35k is probably in a reasonable job, but maybe at an early stage in their career, and I find it worrying that such a person may not be able to afford to return to work because of the prohibitive costs of childcare in this country. And if part of the reason for that is because they are having to directly supplement the childcare costs of non-working parents sending their kids to the same nursery, on top of the contribution they are already making through paying taxes....I find that troubling, tbh!

I do agree with MrsBendy that its unfair to not be done by household income, self employed peeps can fiddle things & also how someone earning 500k plus is probs paying less tax than someone on 100k. Not sure what we can do about it though.

Yes that's absolutely true and I agree. Childcare is much cheaper where we are now, though DS was older when we moved.

I work full time as does my partner. We both earn above the minimum wage. When I have our baby, I will have to return to work after 6 months in order to pay our bills. As far as I am aware, we wont qualify for any means of help towards child care. We will have to pay roughly the same amount as our mortgage for child care yet those who choose to be unemployed (at home all day) get it for free?!
The government want people to work and contribute to the economy but penalise those who do and encourage those who don't.
There have been times where I have been in agony with toothache but unable to go an see a dentist because I can't afford the fees but Joe Bloggs who doesn't work, doesn't contribute, gets it for fuck all.
I am not tarring every one with the same brush but the majority of those who get everything for nothing are not even grateful. They become expectant, they act like the world owes them a living.
Unless you are unable to work physically/mentally you should be out there earning a living, not sitting on the side lines, child free, blagging the job centre that you have been looking for work

I was raised by parents on a low income. I have gone on to have a successful career. My mum may have been on a low income but it didn't render her a useless or uneducated person.
The bullshit I have just read about children from low income families benefit from stimulation at nursery etc. A child will grow, learn and develop if someone takes the time to make it happen - it's about nurture not money

I don't know if this is mentioned, but 30 hours over the full year is around 22 hours per week as it only funds 'term time'. So my DS gets 2 and a bit days of funded childcare.
The nursery is losing out as the funded place loses a lot of income on what I was paying, so now we pay for meals etc. I am more than happy with this though as it's a fabulous nursery that our DD also attends (no funding yet). The free funding has meant I can work, as otherwise it would just cost too much. However if I was working very part time hours we would be getting the money back through tax credits which we aren't eligible to claim.

My mum may have been on a low income but it didn't render her a useless or uneducated person ...it's about nurture not money

The exception makes the rule. Lots of very bright and even educated people will be on low incomes, but the fact remains that the uneducated are more likely to be found in the low income bracket.

Moreover it is much easier to be a parent when you have disposible income. On a limited budget the stresses are much greater.

You have to qualify for the 30 hours funding. Many people won't get it, but will get the 15

@gillybeanz couldn't agree more!

Can I get 30 hours free childcare for my soon to be 3 year old? I get 15 hours free. I am unemployed but ex partner who works pays for nursery fee.

GHOST 👻

Zombie

@Amak1982 you need to start your own thread.
But the answer is no, you both need to earn £100 + a week to
Get 30 free hours. You’ll be entitled to
15

Sorry and thanks

its not free childcare. its free education, there are toddlers out there going without interaction, not being seen for years etc because they dont have to staft going school til 4 or 5 and the parents are leaving them indoors for years. its not just about the parents ots about the children, they get free nursery for those hours and then as they grow they then get to go into free schooling.