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

So those who choose to send our children to nursery for reasons other than childcare are not aspirational households and cannot give quality education at home. Pretty much what I said on my last post.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is... but time for twos can be given for a variety of reasons including health condition of the child so not just income related.

However it is also used for intervention as people have said - on many levels. It is a good thing but I understand how galling it can be for people paying out most of their salary on childcare.

Yeah sorry Spangly I didn't proof read, was multitasking.

It WAS that I understand its hard paying out for childcare because you work and therefore free (at point of use although obviously paid for by the tax payer) hours for kids of parents who don't work must grate but actually they aren't , despite what people keep moaning to me, free childcare so I don't have to look after him and can sit around doing nothing, and they aren't to enable me to get a job in a random two hours a day. They are designed to give early access to education that he wouldn't Letheringsett get as I'm not in work / not in a position to pay for nursery.

However this thread has reminded me that it's because I have no aspirations, and am a shot parent who can't do anything to help him academically so you'll have to excuse the poor initial post, I'm seemingly a bit thick and lazy

It's not that parents are feckless wasters, it's fact.

It's a fact that there is an attainment gap between children from low income families and those that aren't, in terms of reading and writing etc. This early experience and attainment massively affects a child's later achievement and outcomes - it's a fact that in general, there is an attainment gap. This affects future life and prospects. I for one think it's disgusting a large portion of our kids futures are already affected by the age they turn 7. It's a fact that early intervention and services help and decrease that attainment gap.

And it's not at all feckless parents. I had 15 hours after 3- my parents weren't feckless. Ok nursery under 2ish while fine isn't particularly of any benefit to the child. But from 2 upwards that changes and nursery helps a child's development. They meet other people, learn problem solving skills, learn how to wait their turn (esp in 1 child families or sahp, this may not be the case), they have a wide range of activities, they learn social skills - their development comes on leaps and bounds.

And let's be realistic. Just by being a low income family the opportunities you can give a child compared to high income families aren't the same. Before anyone leaps on me that isn't anyone's fault, nor is it 'feckless'. It's common sense. My parents were good with money and I didn't go without. But there wasn't money for journeys to local cities to museums for example, or tuition if I was struggling with maths. If you're a parent living in an area with crap transport links getting out and about may be difficult, and you wouldn't spend hours and pounds making unnecessary journeys. Toddler sessions may be inaccessible for lots of reasons. You're limited on what activities you can do, even if that activity is something relatively simple like going to a page. That's without considering things like my parents never finished school so while they wanted me to succeed, practical support wasn't really there. Again, not saying this is true for everyone and I'm sure there's lots of ex lawyers with degrees coming out of their ears who live in deprived areas to prove me wrong. But - studies have shown that in deprived areas, adults education levels are different to that of their peers. I did loads of work on this in uni and the research is there

Would you rather that support wasn't there? That because parents didn't want to be called feckless - which isn't what happens at all btw- children from lower income families didn't get that support. That they started school at 3 or 4 already developmentally behind their peers. That as a result they didn't achieve as many qualifications? That ultimately their lives and prospects were determined at age 3?

And obviously that isn't the case for everyone. Lots of children will thrive regardless of area, background, early support etc. But for every child that does that, there's an adult who never started off with a fair chance in the first place

@SleepingStandingUp ohhh right yes I'm with you.

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

@Cherries101 Wow that's really quite a stretch isn't it...to be quite that judgey.

You know I could post reams here but what this debate is really about is the resentment from some toward families receiving any kind of service which that haven't perceivably worked for.

Funded nursery education is a hangover from previous governments thinking that universal entitlements for young children were a worthy and rewarding way to spend money for the common good.

Cherries101 that post is quite staggeringly ignorant and plain inaccurate.

Nothing is as simple as you seem to believe. Yes, some children from "aspirational households" will have been coached and prepared for school by high-achieving parents. Other children from aspirational households will have been in nursery 8-6 every day and their level of school readiness (which by the way is a shit indicator of later outcomes) will be lower than that of children in SOME workless households where the parents will have spent lots of time with them, talking and playing and possibly even teaching. There are so many variables. Did you know, for example, that incidence of PND is lower in workless households because there is less chance of a mother being isolated from other adults and bearing the load of childcare alone? Some very educated and involved parents aren't "aspirational" in the sense you mean at all, but the mother's level of education is still a powerful indicator of children's educational outcomes, irrespective of other socio-economic or employment factors. It's not simple.

Nursery is suitable and a good idea for some 2yos. Parents are the best judges of that. Aspirational or otherwise

I think the thing is, there are vanishingly few families that have chosen to have an income low enough to qualify. Lack of qualifications, disability, caring responsibilities, single parenthood, housing issues, unemployment, whatever the reason for low income, there usually is a reason.

Whatever that reason is, it usually also has an impact on the children. Time spent at nursery goes some way to mitigating the impact of whatever circumstances mean the child qualifies.

I doubt the nursery workers treat the children any differently, and they won't go through life labelled, the whole point of this is that the gap gets closed so that they aren't any different by the time they get to school.

I know with Pupil Premium in secondary it's just something we're aware of. I don't expect any less from them academically, but we're aware they might need a bit of extra support because they may not have it at home, so if they don't have a pen, or they haven't done their homework because their electricity was off, or their parent is ill, or they left their book at their other house, they get a bit of extra support to rectify the situation for next time, or it's passed to pastoral who can find a way to offer support to the family.

I see plenty of PP kids whose families are fine, they don't have any of these issues, they just have a low income, so that extra support isn't needed, but it's better to be aware and not have to take action that not be aware and not be able to support if it is needed.

I really feel for kids whose parents work long hours to make just enough to pull them out of any additional help, but in doing so are less able to be present and supportive parents. I feel like those families slip through the cracks a bit.

I’ve benefited from subsidised play school: well, my children have, I mean but it helped me too. We are low income, and lucky enough to live in walking distance to some nice stuff for kids, and in busing distance to other things that are free or cheap.

But I’ve struggled with depression/anxiety, and found it hard to cope with DS2’s SEN. There have been days I have wanted to take them somewhere nice but been too anxious at the thought of another bus journey restraining DS2 while he smacks me in the face and screams and we get gawked at.

Preschool’s nice, as it takes a little pressure off me - he’s already been out and learned stuff and had fun that day, so if we just chill at home and walk the dog it’s not the end of the world.

And let's be realistic. Just by being a low income family the opportunities you can give a child compared to high income families aren't the same
This I agree with. I have a bookworm 3 yo despite being non verbal and unable to read. We have three local museums that we frequent and used birthday money to pay a subscription to a fourth. But there are numerous reasons why it'll be absolute years until we go abroad, or to the theatre, or football / dance lessons etc. The level of cultural enrichment my middle class friends can afford to provide is different to what we can offer. Any coaching for school exams etc will be courtesy of me and DH. I'm part way through a science degree so have those bases covered!!

@Queenofthedrivensnow ah, I hadn't realised it was only 30 hours if work conditions were met.

I receive the 2 year finding for my ds. It gives him a vital chance to socialise. We read lots at home, we go to parks and do crafts and he does rugby tots but I can't afford endless social meets so socially he is disadvantaged.

I have a 4 year old receiving the 3 year old funding and is also on dla so the 8 hours a week I'm completely alone I spend volunteering to fill a cv gap and catching up on degree work that I haven't done in the evenings so YES I use it as opportunity to better myself and our future but it is predominantly to give him the things I can't

Oh and I'm nor aspirationless or feckless. I was a 2 parent working household when I had children. Now I'm a single parent with zero contact from the other parent. Life throws lemons sometimes and we have to deal with them in whatever way we can but I sure as hell have loads of aspiration

Cherries101 you sound ignorant. Being a low income family does not mean you don't have aspirations or don't care about your child's education.

And nursery is a lot more than for educational purposes. It's good for socialization as well.

It pisses me off too op.

People are just too thick to realise that it benefits the child and that’s what is most important. They’re more interested on that huge chip on their shoulder to actually think.

Those worrying about a "label" being placed over a child's head going forward, I just don't believe that happens. Dh is a teacher in a secondary school, and they have a proportion of kids who are "pupil premium" - meaning that the school gets extra funding for those kids. The way Dh talks about it, there's no judgement attached, it's just a fact that those kids are given a bit more support due to a disadvantaged background - it's a fact of life, not something to beat the child or family with.

Dd2 got me too funding. Probably due to my income drop during Mat leave as a lone parent. Luckily the condition isn't that I have to stitch 'deprived child' to her school jumper until she's 18