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?

@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?!?

Could not agree more. I’ve given up work as a teacher- I occasionally do the odd day but that’s it. Given up a decent income but it works luckily as my dad has cancer so I support my parents etc. I have literally got my 2.5 year old two half mornings at nursery. Reason being he’s missed out with covid. He does two half days, perfect. On hearing I was a SAHM nursery asked if I had funding. Upon looking I found my husband would have to bring home £155 ( or there abouts) a week. Of course he earns more so no-no. I get no benefits etc nor do I expect any! 15 or even 30 hours is a lot of care- I feel guilty with 8 as I’ve given up work to care for my son.

@Kuachui

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.

Again sadly your right! You do need money for a lot of groups. My little one is the exception as I do lots with him - I’m at h9me with him that’s what I should do.

What @lokijet said!

It’s about getting children into education setting just as much as it is about childcare!

What bit of “ it would cost more to means test than would be saved” is so hard to understand. I realise it is ideologically attractive to some to weed out the tiny numbers of families who don’t need it, but come on people. In the thirties, much more was spent on means testing than on dole.

I know this is a zombie thread from 4 years ago - but whoever said

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

made me laugh -

@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?!?

To apply for jobs, attend interviews, and have a break.

Its 30 hours free education for 38 weeks out 52 a year. It’s not childcare, it’s education because children from deprived backgrounds do worse in school.

@lokijet

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

Exactly this. Misunderstood by many though as this thread demonstrates.

@usernameinfinito

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

Trying to stop laughing at this comment 🤣

Honestly don’t understand why someone would be annoyed about a disadvantaged child getting to attend preschool or nursery 😐

I teach 3 days a week. I have to be there at 8.30am and can leave at 3.30pm (some days) so I need nursery 8-4 minimum and they don't offer half days. I get paid for 20 hours a week as some of my trapped hours are unpaid. But I have to pay for nursery 8-6 three days a week.

I’m not angry about disadvantaged children going to nursery at all. I am annoyed as a parent who has to pay for nursery I have to subsidise it both through my taxes and through my incredibly high fees, while nursery workers still get paid minimum wage, because the scheme isn’t properly funded.

For the live of God, its for the benefit of the child.
Yes, by the time dd3 came along (born in 2007), she got 15 hours and because I worked, it was a cheaper childcare bill.
But my older 2, born 1995 and 1997, there were things called community playgroups run by volunteer parents which gave tots the pre school education and social interaction.
Let's not race to the bottom and moan about small children getting an education.

@sailorcherries

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

Exactly this!

Nothing like a good old Mumsnet “Fuck the Poor (and their kids)” thread. And a zombie one too. 🙄

@Fredstheteds, your a teacher but the free 15 hours annoys you? So you don't see the advantage of every child being able to access an Early Years setting and the safeguarding, in many ways that it brings? Surely when qualifying you look at the educational outcome differences across the income groups and learn how disadvantage impacts in every way? Or as a pp said is it a matter of 'fuck the poor'?

Just to add for the Torys to keep it, it must add massive value to the nation. If you read the research that prompted this policy and lead to Children Centre's being opened and the Every Child Matters policy, then you wouldn't question it.

The free hours also force out low income by not actually being funded properly. This means settings tend to charge unusual session patterns, charge for lunch, add ons etc to make up the funding shortfall. Or they limit the number of funded hours they offer, because they lose money on them and need you to take some paid hours or they would go bust.

So you end up where the settings that are accessible if you have no money & are reliant on only the funded hours, are the poorest quality ones. The ones who rely on young staff training to make up ratios, the ones with poorer resources and lower quality facilities.

@KitKat1985 they provide free childcare to those on a low income because research has shown that the developmental benefits are really significant.

@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?!?

2 year old funding is to benefit the child. It is to get them 'in the system' and to offer them opportunities they may not get otherwise. I do see your point but we need to keep the child at the forefront rather than the parent.

I was under the impression that it was to benefit the child, a pre school type arrangement.

Surely it’s a good thing? Support for parents, I don’t think we should be taking that away or getting worried about parents getting a few hours extra support than the exact number of hours they need. People are always screaming out for the government to fund things and now they have you’re saying it’s too much?

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.

if parents are working then all child care should be free.

@hidinginthenightgarden

KitKat, I found that frustrating too but its not for unemployed it is for disadvantaged children who are likely to need support due to difficult home, additional needs etc. It is to give them a head start so they are not behind their peers at preschool.

Exactly.

And that benefits everyone in the long run. I'm sure it's really hard to try and catch them up if they're behind and makes them less likely to be disruptive if they're used to routines etc, which some children from chaotic families might not be,