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

I am surprised that few MNetters on this thread find the divisive nature of the policy unacceptable.

When government policy treats rich and poor children differently in the same educational setting, what do you think that looks like?

I don't understand why 30 hours would be needed if the parents don't work.

I understand the sentiment but I think the council deal with exceptional cases on an individual basis.

@Crunchyapplez

I am surprised that few MNetters on this thread find the divisive nature of the policy unacceptable.

When government policy treats rich and poor children differently in the same educational setting, what do you think that looks like?

Would the answer be to have GP/SS/HV recommendations for 30 free hours for children who would benefit from it? It would then target the children who need it? There will be children who are better off at nursery for more hours than at home, due to their family situation. Sometimes primary carers are not able to provide the level of care needed.

It needs to be about the best interests of the children, not down to whether the parents "deserve" another 15 free hours of childcare. If it's better for some children to get the 15 extra hours, they should get it. Economically, it's cheaper to invest in their futures.

this is not true. Someone earning £100k+ is excluded. And the idea is, if you're working less than 16 hours a week, why would you need 30 hours of childcare???

@Pinkrose1111

this is not true. Someone earning £100k+ is excluded. And the idea is, if you're working less than 16 hours a week, why would you need 30 hours of childcare???

Both parents can earn up to £100 000 each @Pinkrose1111 before they cease to be eligible.

Everyone should have a right to 24/7 childcare as required.

Funding should be generous with small contributions from those who can well afford it.

Basically, what I have learned from this thread is that a lot of people view ‘nursery’ as ‘childcare’, and that ‘nursery’ is unappreciated as an educational setting.

I sent my dcs to a state maintained nursery. It wasn’t childcare. It was a school (… an excellent one).

At the time, I didn’t realise that other families only got half the provision that my dcs received because they were poor. This is so clearly unacceptable to me, but not so with over half the people voting on here.

Basically, if you think ‘nursery’ is ‘childcare’ then you see the practicality of allocating extra hours to working families and it all makes sense. If you see it as ‘education’ then you might think that this policy disadvantages the already disadvantaged (… and find that unacceptable).

YANBU in what you say, YABU only complaining about this now. That has been the way it is for years. The idea is that it is because working parents NEED the childcare whereas parents that aren't working full time dont.

@felulageller required for what though?

@Crunchyapplez Well the idea behind it is to incentivise both parents to work. So they can tax both parents. And If it was £100k per household and say 1 parent is earning £80k and the other is earning £20k, but childcare is £1k+ per month, then parent 2 may aswell not work. Because there salary is pretty much going to childcare. But with the 30 hour funding, both parents can work put their kids in nursery for pretty cheap. This is better for the government because they're getting taxes off 2 people as oppose to just 1 person.

isit right? No, but these policies are put in place majority of the time for the benefit of the government and not the people.

@Snaketime

YANBU in what you say, YABU only complaining about this now. That has been the way it is for years. The idea is that it is because working parents NEED the childcare whereas parents that aren't working full time dont.

It is only really now that the impact of the policy can be considered. In the summer, the Sutton Trust did a report on this called ‘A Fair Start’, where they found evidence to suggest that this policy was widening the attainment gap between the children of poor and wealthier families.

There was an article on it in The Times today (‘Early Years Provision is a Mess’), which is why I started the thread @Snaketime.

This is better for the government because they're getting taxes off 2 people as oppose to just 1 person.
Exactly, but people think the gov are just being nice & generous 😆

Not true, if one person earns over £100k you are both ineligible

I get 15 hours free for my son, but he does 16 hours at nursery so I have to pay for that extra hour, add that to having to pay for my DD's school lunches it is crippling.
I dont think it is as much the rich vs poor that is causing the attainment gap, more the parents that care/don't care.

@Crunchyapplez ask yourself would you have sent them at 2 or 3 if you wasn't 't working though ?
I wanted to be at home with mine at that age and only went to nursery/ preschool for some extra mixing
Its not all education at 2 it is childcare first and foremost
Maybe we should look at why parents are unable to provide basic fun education at home
Many schools complain more about children being unable to dress , toilet use cutlery etc as opposed to if they can read or write
I dob't think children need formal education at 2/3 and in many European countries they don't start school until 6 for formal education

Its not all education at 2 it is childcare first and foremost

I do agree with you on the 2 year provision @worriedatthemoment. But the excellent Sure Start / Children’s Centre funding, that was designed to target vulnerable/ disadvantaged families as a parent-child unit, was replaced by that 2 year provision.

… but I do believe that nursery at 3/4 is education rather than childcare. My dc’s nursery wasn’t childcare.

And I don’t think poor children should receive half the nursery that their wealthier peers do.

ask yourself would you have sent them at 2 or 3 if you wasn't 't working though ?

I sent mine for more hours when they were 3/4 despite being at home. I had their younger baby siblings to look after & made sense to me.

"Its not all education at 2 it is childcare first and foremost"

My child went at 2 to get evidence for an ehcp. Otherwise he may have started school without any support.

The trouble is the 30 hours are supposed to help parents get back into work but you can't get the 30 hours unless you work certain amount of hours and you can't work a certain amount of hours if you don't already have childcare in place and so really it doesn't help to get people back into work. That's the reason that it would be better to have the 30 hours available to all 3 year olds - those 30 hours would allow for job hunts, interviews, and actually starting work. What I've found is that there are alot of people who will complain about the poorer members of society and their bad choices, but at the same time want to do everything in their power to keep them down.

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.

I’m which case, there is no real issue and the OP is way off base.

And I don’t think poor children should receive half the nursery that their wealthier peers do.

They aren’t. Their families are receiving less childcare. A child, unless identified as requiring it because of family issues has no need to be in a nursery.

What you’re doing is assuming anyone who works less than 16 hours is a failure as a parent. Why is that?

I’m which case, there is no real issue and the OP is way off base.
how you have extrapolated that? Because the ones that don't qualify will be the ones on lower incomes.

The point is funding wise it's not too expensive as you claim.

I know 3 mums who are SAHM because their husbands earn enough so they don't need to work (which doesn't require a £100k salary as they don't live in Mumsnetland). Should we be funding them for 30 hours as well? If not, what's the salary limit on which families should pay to top up from 16 to 30 hours?

15, sorry. Typo.

Should we be funding them for 30 hours as well?

Why not? If they are on maternity leave they would get it, or they could set up a business. They won't be receiving any child benefit & they probably wouldn't consistently use the full additional 15 hours anyway.