To be appalled by nursery funding for children living in poverty

[Crunchyapplez]

Re. The Times today:

If you work for less than 16 hours a week on the living wage (ie your children are being raised in poverty), then you get only 15 hours of free nursery hours.

If you are a 3 or 4 year old, living in poverty and on a child protection plan (when a child is regarded as suffering or likely to suffer significant harm), then you are STILL not eligible for more than 15 hours of funded nursery a week - even when it is formally recognised that your home is not always a safe place.

BUT a child whose parents earn as much as £200000 a year is eligible for 30 hours a week, fully funded by the government.

Please vote:
YABU: I find this an acceptable funding structure
YANBU: I find this unacceptable

The additional 15 hours (on top of the initial 15) is for the benefit of the family as a whole - so that the parents can work and provide for them.

It's also a benefit for the tax man, as it keeps women in work.

The more universal something is the more likely the it is that those who need it will be willing to access it - universal free school meals in KS1 springs to mind.

In more civilised countries, "childcare" for 3 to 5 year old kids is in fact called "education" (nursery school), so everyone gets the same number of hours for free.

I'm in Scotland where everyone gets 30h. I work in a school in a very deprived area who offers this. Apart from those actually suffering neglect or in abusive homes I don't think this is what's best for them if being at home is an option. Lots of the nursery staff agree

It doesn’t really matter. Those of us on lower incomes get very little benefit from those free funded hours anyway. We mostly work antisocial hours. Nurseries typically run 8am-6pm. That’s not helping if you’re on a till a Tescos till 10pm or pulling pints till midnight or on the nightshift in a packing factory or starting work at an Amazon depot at 6am.

It wouldn’t be that expensive @BoredZelda.

The IFS estimate that extending the entitlement to disadvantaged 3 and 4 year olds would cost an extra £165 million (the existing 30 hour entitlement costs £735 million).

There’s a school of thought that in order for true equality between the sexes there would need to be state funded open to all 24hr child care

When I first heard it my brain revolted but the more I thought about it the more I realised that it would to so much to prevent vulnerable children from being neglected without in anyway challenging the parents

Wether you’re not available to your children because you’re a high flying in demand surgeon or because you haven’t recovered from surgery or a traumatic childhood

It’s every child’s entitlement to have food to eat and to be nurtured, regardless of their parents economic status.

It should be offered to each child not wether or not the parents deserve it but because the child does

Early intervention prevents dysfunction in later life, mental health issues, stress related health issues and crime

It doesn’t make economic sense to punish the children for their parents failings even if you do think they deserve it

OP your argument is that the huge gap between wealthier kids and their poorer counterparts would be remedied by more free nursery hours.
That's not the point though is it.

Children benefit the most from being with a SINGLE primary carer. Who tailors their learning etc to their individual needs. All day, every day they're learning.
An extra 15 hours a week of nursery isn't going to close this gap.

@SomePosters

There’s a school of thought that in order for true equality between the sexes there would need to be state funded open to all 24hr child care

When I first heard it my brain revolted but the more I thought about it the more I realised that it would to so much to prevent vulnerable children from being neglected without in anyway challenging the parents

Wether you’re not available to your children because you’re a high flying in demand surgeon or because you haven’t recovered from surgery or a traumatic childhood

It’s every child’s entitlement to have food to eat and to be nurtured, regardless of their parents economic status.

It should be offered to each child not wether or not the parents deserve it but because the child does

Early intervention prevents dysfunction in later life, mental health issues, stress related health issues and crime

It doesn’t make economic sense to punish the children for their parents failings even if you do think they deserve it

That does exist! It's called foster care. Honestly we can go round and round and round but so much of a kids' future is determined by their surroundings.

The only way to REALLY give them equal opportunity is to take them away from damaging parents and put them in boarding school, nurturing environment, but we can't do that can we?

Again this is for vulnerable children.

Not be conflated with 'low-income' families. Many an immigrant family values education highly and push their kids to become high achievers. If the parents aren't abusive/incapable, just don't really know much about all the stuff MC parents do then helping them through things like Sure Start etc would be great

@SomePosters

It doesn’t make economic sense to punish the children for their parents failings even if you do think they deserve it

I find it difficult to understand why parental income is even part of the conversation when it comes to education. And you are right: widening the gap further between rich and poor makes no economic sense.

@dorkfink

Giving 30 hours childcare to everyone working less than 16 hours a week is an expensive sledgehammer

Do you think? It's max about 3.5k per child for the year, so I think it's affordable for children from bad homes personally.

How do you work out which kids get it though? You're saying it's worth it for the kids in bad homes but there isn't enough intervention to know who they all are

@liveforsummer could I please PM you re this? Don't want to hijack thread but I'm at home, with three under three. School being very pushy re nursery hours being increased and I don't want to.

@sanbeiji

OP your argument is that the huge gap between wealthier kids and their poorer counterparts would be remedied by more free nursery hours. That's not the point though is it.

Children benefit the most from being with a SINGLE primary carer. Who tailors their learning etc to their individual needs. All day, every day they're learning.
An extra 15 hours a week of nursery isn't going to close this gap.

I definitely don’t think that extra nursery would ^remedy^ inequality in educational outcomes for disadvantaged children.

But where you have a known gap of 11 months in attainment between a poor child and their wealthier classmate when they start school, I would be focusing on the addressing the issue of disadvantage (rather than exacerbating it by formally restricting access to nursery for those children).

By the way, I am not sure that you are totally correct that the extra 15 hours would not have positive impact (although quality of provision is more influential than hours spent).

@sanbeiji that's an excellent post I agree

@sanbeiji your post re foster care.

Most of us who have been in foster care will tell you it’s not. No real sense of family, shifted to another home just when you start to feel settled, most Foster parents haven’t got a clue about life from your background, never really fitting in, always being different, always waiting on some overworked or can’t be bothered social worker to approve this or do that. Nope. Foster care is no picnic.

@Peasandcabbage welcome to pm. I've no idea how it works as never done so before, assume will get a notification?

Do you think? It's max about 3.5k per child for the year, so I think it's affordable for children from bad homes personally.

But giving to to everyone isn’t just giving it to children from “bad homes” is it?

If we give it to everyone, that includes those who don’t need it. I’d rather provide more for the kids who really need it.

Children benefit the most from being with a SINGLE primary carer.

Source?

But giving to to everyone isn’t just giving it to children from “bad homes” is it?

If we give it to everyone, that includes those who don’t need it. I’d rather provide more for the kids who really need it.

The majority qualify for the extra hours as most mothers work & most people don't earn 100k so I don't think if it was universal it would be a huge cost.

@dorkfink I think you are assuming that children from "bad" homes have parents who will care about even getting them to childcare...a lot of them don't. They wouldn't be bothered sending them if it required work on their part. By that I mean...waking them, dressing them, walking/driving them to nursery. They are too selfish for that. Their children are an inconvenience...that's the reality.

However my point was extending it to kids already known to be in need would not be expensive

@qualitygirl ime there are dc that would benefit because not all "bad" homes/parents are as you say.

Plus there are plenty of parents who are engaged but don't qualify because they don't work enough hours & working more it's not cost effective or practical for them

Sessions outside of “education hours” are also not covered so pre 9am lunch times and post 3pm so the majority of families using nursery for full days pay for all these hours plus subsidies for a higher hourly rate than the government pay.

I wouldn't of wanted my kids in for 30 hrs at 2 or 3 whilst I was at home