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

YY, rich people can be feckless wasters who can't be arsed to play with their children too!

It is to help disadvantaged children. Those first few years are so important for an individual's wellbeing throughout life it is a false economy not to invest as a society. That is why sure start was so massively important, although the present government felt differently. A child really only becomes visable at school age to professionals. Ask anyone working in child protection or youth justice, unfortunately a lot of damage has already been done.

YANBU the income for being entitled to this is extremely low. I’m not envious of someone on that income who is trying to bring up a family. As pp have said it is to help disadvantaged children, what the parents choose to do in that time is irrelevant.

And FWIW we have 2 pre school age kids and are not entitled to help.

@hazeyjane you may hate the idea but studies have shown it to be true - clearly not on the whole but the majority.

I will add my two pence worth, as someone who had free hours for my children from two.

Where I live in Wales is called a Flying Start area. It's a scheme run by the Welsh Government and it has recognised that kids from these areas generally are behind children from other areas. Mainly because of low incomes although other factors are involved.

The funded hours are available for all children after their second birthday regardless of income if you live in the postcode area. So we were entitled to the hours regardless of DH and I both being in work and bringing in a good income. There is also additional support like intensive health visiting, free classes and a good family centre you can drop into.

Personally, I wasn't planning on using the hours for my eldest. I'd just had my youngest and was on mat leave so didn't 'need' the hours. But then the childminder I'd been using signed up for the scheme and I decided to send him there each morning. It gave him time to do something with other kids his own age and I got a break with the youngest as well so benefited everyone. With my youngest, I did send him to a local nursery so I could have some time to myself (to do housework! ). But he also needed it because of issues with speech and to socialise with other children.

Apparently, according to childcare providers in the area I've spoken to, the uptake is low for the hours from 2. Because most parents are SAHP and don't see the point. Generally the ones who do take it up are working parents (obvious) and ones who have other school age children.

I must add not 'feckless wasters' but read to their children less, do less activities, tend to be less educated on child development etc

This argument is a bit back to front. So the facts are that the there is a universal benefit and a means tested one. 15 hours a week at nursery is a universal benefit for all children the term after they are 3 until they go to school. Slight disadvantage to those with birthdays later in the academic year.

Me too is a limited pot of money in each local authority to fund 15 hours a week from the term after the 2nd birthday until the term after the 3rd birthday. So around 540 hours total. Each local authority sets its own eligibility criteria so it varies across the country. Criteria are usually below an income threshold, sn, other vulnerabilities and so on.

I have posted the local policy for reference.

15 hours a week at nursery is a universal benefit for all children the term after they are 3 until they go to school.

It's 30 hours now (term time only).

@hazeyjane

It’s not just about feckless parents - it’s also about being able to afford the time, money and mental energy to give children decent opportunities!

@mostdays gosh really? I thought that was means tested against one parent working? Happy to be corrected my kids are too old!

It’s 15 hours for everyone, the term after they turn 3. 30 hours if both parents work more than 16 hours per week.

Eligibility in my area here

I absolutely agree that some parents on low incomes who qualify are perfectly capable of giving their children a great start in life. But on average, 'disadvantaged' children get less socialisation, have poorer vocabulary, and are behind their peers when they start school. Whether that's due to the education gap between parents, access to groups, or whatever. So without some sort of parenting test, which would be a moral and administrative nightmare it's better to offer this to all of them.

I teach secondary and some of my pupils can't access the curriculum because they don't know the words to understand (I'm talking about where English is their first language). Almost every child I've pulled up for 'insolence' - which is what's it's described as in our behaviour system - has said they don't know what that means. Ditto words like 'trend' and 'dimension'.

These pupils end up in classes with similar pupils, where time is spent teaching them the language and literacy skills to understand the content, so they get through less content, and end up behind in the curriculum.

If we can address the gap at age two, instead of five, or eleven, they have a much better chance of success.

Believeitornot - My post was saying that I don't think that parents in low income families are feckless wasters. The longitudinal study the findings relating to the attainment gap are based on, are far more complex than that - but I think people latch onto an idea of parents from poorer families being feckless wasters.

To be fair the intention behind the 2 y funding is not for the parents benefit at all! It is there to help bridge the gap between the children from the poorest families and their peers. It’s early education. No body should begrudge any child that chance

We are one of those low income families & I sent my eldest at 2 despite being a SAHM & we did pay through our tax credits that did go down until he reached the age of 3 so, in a way the low income families are paying.

I sent him as his best friends were there too & to help get him ready for school.
Most people I know even if they are SAHM have sent their children from age of 2 either one or two mornings a week regardless of if they’re working or not.

I posted above saying we will be entitled to the funded hours from two. The whole feckless wasters thing is interesting. I've made bad decisions and financially things are tough. I do genuinely believe my boys miss out to an extent. I read to them. We go places. But I often have to turn down invites to places because I can't afford it. I try my best to give them a good diet by cooking from scratch, etc, they want for nothing as we buy second hand and also have hand-me-down toys and clothes but there's no question, their lives aren't as enriched as children from slightly more affluent backgrounds. We don't have a TV licence, for example, so there's very little pop culture going on in this house.

I'm not yet sure whether the funded hours will benefit my boys. I guess they will. But it's hard to think that they've been labelled as the kids that are destined to achieve less when neither of them are even two yet.

@Frlrlrubert yes absolutely x

Sorry @hazeyjane I misunderstood and yes I completely agree.

I got the 15 free hours as I was on income support when DS was too. It benefited both DS and I to be honest. We did go to groups and I did plenty with him but to have something a little bit more structured was great and improved his confidence so much for when he started school. And yes, it was nice for me to get a couple of hours to myself although I'm sure there are a few who thought why should I get any free time when I'm on benefits I did a bit of volunteering as well which did help me get back into employment.

But it's hard to think that they've been labelled as the kids that are destined to achieve less when neither of them are even two yet
Agree. It was one of the things that made me think twice. He went to school nursery where he'll hopefully stay until 11. Will he have a label above his head saying "poor disadvantaged kid, parents must be shit, got those free hours didn't he?"

They do this at 2-3 because otherwise kids from (generally) low aspiration households would not have a hope to catch up with the kids whose parents actually care about their academic achievement. In a lot of areas, some kids will start reception light years ahead in maths and english (some already taking Kumon), while others may have parents who can barely manage to keep them fed and clean (and sometimes not even that). The free nursery is for the benefit of the child’s academic career and not for the child’s wellbeing — if it was then it’d be offered during holidays too.

@SleepingStandingUp eh???? Dd2 got her free hours I highly doubt it's caused her to be labelled

Queenofthedrivensnow

And I quote...
They do this at 2-3 because otherwise kids from (generally) low aspiration households would not have a hope to catch up with the kids whose parents actually care about their academic achievement

My point is people who think like Cherries who assume a child like mine or yours who got nursery at 2 for whatever reason is likely the product of a low aspirational home with parents who don't care about their a ademic achievement

That’s not what I meant. I mean that Aspirational households don’t need nursery — they can give quality education at home, regardless of income.