To think it's free nursery not free child care

[SleepingStandingUp]

Sat through another rant about how unfair it is unemployed parents get free childcare from 2 years when they will just sit around anyway vs to parents who actually deserve help aka working parents.

I get how hard it is to pay for childcare around work but the 15 free hours are meant to give kids of sahp some opportunity not afforded to them being stuck at home with parents so actually THRY benefit not the parent

The issue is that it should be the same for both. Just because I HAVE to go back to work, why should I be worse off for it? I'd love to be at home with DD but I can't afford it but I also have to be out of pocket for an extra year.

Oh FFS some of these comments.

It is funded to try and help those children who are disadvantaged in some way.... why the hell would you feel jealous of that?

We're entitled to funded hours for our eldest once he turns two. Let me tell you, it really is a very low income. Trust me, don't be envious of it. I work evenings as I can afford to find childcare to work days

I work within this two year funding. It's for families on very low incomes or claiming certain benefits. Most are very disadvantaged children so are offered the 15 hours so they can be supported with things such as speech and language.

It's nothing to do with giving kids of sahm opportunities. It's to do with the fact that children from families on certain benefits are more likely to need extra support and supervision from trained childcare workers. Usually these children 'do worse' in life. I was a sahm for a while, we didn't get free hours because we don't claim any benefits so we're not seen as a family who's children require support.

I agree it is not meant to be 'childcare' and it's for the child's benefit, not the parents.

Speaking to someone at DDs old nursery she said many of the children who come for the free hours desperately need it. There have been a few who really didn’t even know how to play. This then has a huge knock on effect when they start school.
I’m so sad sure start centres have closed down as some of these issues were tackled there.

It’s to close the attainment gap, isn’t it? Children entitled to the free hours are more likely to be disadvantaged academically/emotionally so the nursery hours are meant to change this.

I always thought it was hugely unfair tbh ee could never afford nursery when both of us were working as we earned to much for help but not enough to afford nursery fees ds2 has complex learning disabillities and autism(he goes to a special school) so early nursery would have benefited hugely he was diagnosed though at three and a half so only qualified foe rhe three year funding ,.

I've got to admit that I for one got the complete wrong end of the stick on this one, so I'm wondering how many others have - certainly mainly of my friends thought the same, that the 15 hours were for parents of those children could get back in to work.

I can completely see the benefits of offering these children the 15 hours for their development and don't begrudge that at all, but maybe the reasons behind it should be better publicised. I can see also that it's very difficult to find work around 15 hours of childcare so in practice even if that was he idea it wouldn't be very helpful anyway, but it wouldn't be the first or last thing the government brings out that doesn't make much sense in real life.

Battery died.

Sorry stuck at home was reflection of conversation language than kids being literally home all day although I know for some families it's hard to find groups etc which they can afford

I think the financial cut off for assistance is way too low - we have very little money and don’t qualify for help and can’t afford childcare for twins. We will now get funding for one as he receives DLA I think it's really unfair thry don't mirror the offer with twins.

Its also, and has never been, 'free' hours. They are subsidised hours. In most cases subsidised by both the local council and by fee paying parents as the amount the council pays doesn't cover the cost of the place I appreciate they aren't any more free than school is or the NHS, simy free at point of us by the service user. Do we really need to qualify that point every time we talk about the 15 or 30 hour provision?

Lots of people think it's 'to get parents back to work' or something. A friend of mine was saying it was sickening I had to pay almost my whole wage out on nursery fees while xyz gets some for free.

He didn't realise it was to close the gap until I explained about low incomes and poor vocabulary and some children being really far behind before they start school.

My child does not NEED to be in nursery to get a good start (or so say the metrics, I actually think being stuck with me all day would be shit for her, I'm not a natural entertainer), I do think it's benefited her hugely though.

This has got muddled up with giving free childcare - but the original reason was to reach disadvantaged children, ie help the children themselves not to get parents back to work
That's my point. I don't get free childcare and I don't need it, but due to his additional needs I don't work and we do spend a lot of time not in groups etc because they're hard to access. He got "free" nursery for that (didn't realise the financial cut off, I thought at least one parent had to be out of paid employment).
I wonder if there's just more stigma to having "free" nursery to "compensate" them for what their missing that it's preferable to style it as free childcare?

I think OP is trying to explain, albeit badly
If oy thry had a review and edit option 😂

Which means ime that actually children with high levels of additional needs can miss out (nursery will accept easier and cheaper children) took 9 months to sort but we were lucky that state school nursery offering 2's provision took us fairly willingly lol

I get why it's in place. The reason it frustrates me, is because the cost of the fees for me, actually means that I end up with less disposable income than some of the families who are entitled to the help. But I continue to send my child, because I know it's not forever, and that hopefully I'll still have a job when childcare costs reduce to wrap around care, and because of how beneficial it is to my child. It's a hard slog though!

People denying it benefits them as parents are annoying Well it depends how you spend the time. Yes it benefits me because I study /drink coffee 10 hours a week but no one would offer me free at the point of contact subsidised by the tax payers nursery time to benefit me

It is to close the attainment gap and I personally agree with it although I understand it’s frustrating when working parents struggle so much to pay childcare. I have just given up working during the week and the sad reality is we are better of financially me not working during the week than working. I do work on Saturdays through personal choice as I enjoy working. However I am a little perplexed at the stay at home comment my oldest goes to school and my youngest isn’t old enough for nursery. We go to toddlers 4 times a week, meet friends, go out to the park, play lots and both me and my toddler socialise plenty. For me it’s a choice to ensure we go out lots as my toddler will not learn to socialise unless I give him the opportunity to play with other kids.

I volunteer in this arena and there is a big problem with lack of take up of the free hours. It's a tricky one to resolve. I suppose if you can't be bothered to take your kids to groups etc then you can't really be bothered to send them to nursery either, even if it is 'free '

Lots of people think it's 'to get parents back to work' or something. A friend of mine was saying it was sickening I had to pay almost my whole wage out on nursery fees while xyz gets some for free

Yes this was the kind of conversation I'd had, yet again. As if I can find work locally between 9 am and 11.15 am. The go to solution is cleaning but where I live the only cleaners are ones in offices and therefore not in the middle of the morning. If I travelled out to a posher bit of town where people have cleaners I'd get about an hour a day which I'd spend on bus fare.

The "it's for disadvantaged poor children whose parents don't even teach them how to play" alternative message did make me consider not sending him because of people looking down their nose at us. It seems to be one rod or another to be beaten with

Agree with others that it was originally subsidised education for the child, not childcare for the parents (even without the fact that it's term time only).

It really pissed me off when the goverment redefined it as childcare, particularly because the education should be something that the benefit bashers should like - helping those children who have parents who don't give a fuck.

Even Corbyn refers to it as childcare, which actually pisses me off even more. If he'd spent his backbench time actually listening to what was going on rather than opposing it all, maybe he would have noticed this sleight of hand.

(Not accusing anyone here of being a benefit basher BTW, talking about the general public)

Yes it should be referred to as funded hours - free does imply that the money provided actually covers the cost of a place, which it doesn't.

It is available to children from very low income families, or if the child is in receipt of DLA (so it should be available to children who dont have a diagnosis, but it does mean it isn't available to all children with SEN).

It is very frustrating that the 30 funded hours rolled out aren't available to the children who could benefit from those hours most, ie those with additional needs and those who come from very low income families.

...I would add, I hate the idea that the children from very low income families are disadvantaged because all the parents are feckless wasters who can't be arsed to play with their children - this has not been my experience at all.

And, if it is childcare rather than education, it's pretty shit childcare if I can only access it in term time, or if I can find a childcare provided willing to stretch it out over the year (in which case it's not 30 hours a week).

And then we're told that it's a benefit for us, that it's to help us. Like a pat on the head.