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

@HighlandPony

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.

Apologies I wasn't trying to insinuate that foster care was great. My point was that well-off children are advantaged because of the highly individualised care they received from their parents. The only way to close that gap would be to give similar to kids, but you can't take people away from their parents just because they're not 'engaging' them. In extreme cases where there is an issue then kids are sent to foster care.. which as you said isn't a picnic.

@BoredZelda by primary carer I didn't mean a SAHP.
I meant an individual who knows the child intimately, and caters to their strengths weaknesses.
Even with two working parents + nursery, it's the parents' job to figure out what their kid needs, how best to engage them. Again normally one parent is more hands on but it doesn't need to be a 'single' parent, could be both.

Take my DP for example. Very good at what he does, having been exposed to it from a young age. But he's autistic, got into a practical uni course on the strength of his own projects. Wouldn't have gotten in with his A-levels.

If he had been born in a different family with less resources he'd have been fucked over completely. Yes, school gave him a lot of help, but that was only 9-4, it took his parents trying lots of things, encouraging his special interest etc etc.

For 'poor' but well meaning parents it's about poverty of aspiration, and chances. Like the sure start centers,lots of parents taking their kids. My grandmother couldn't read but she valued education, sat next to me when doing homework and insisted I draw straight lines, and please the teachers.

For neglectful parents, or SEN kids it's a different story.

@endlesssighing I agree.

I have a similar concern about the more explicit identification of children as ‘poor’, (who are grouped by this policy, potentially stigmatised for it, and given limited access to educational opportunity because of it).

Limiting or extending a child’s access to educational opportunity should have nothing to do with parental income or working status. Government policy should not have drawn this line.

@Rosesareyellow

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.

Literally no one has said anything even remotely like that. You may as well have a conversation with yourself OP if you’re just going to interpret bollocks out of what everyone is telling you.

Several posters have referred to childcare.

Again the point is not NO help.
The point is any help given by external sources won't generally yield results without home reinforcement, or someone else supporting emotionally. Of course 'some' people escape a bad home life. Like any challenge it makes 'some' angry, hungry and hardy, but demotivates others.
There hasn't really been any sort of study done as to whether more people are in the first or second group.
It's like trying to fill a jug, with holes. Pour as much water as you want, it'll still leak out.

@Rosesareyellow
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.
But is it in part. If I work, I send my child to nursery because I need them cared for. Bums changed, fed, kept entertained. It doesn't explicitly matter if they learn, why matters if they're looked after.
At a certain age, there's an expectation that PART of this time will be of educational value. But up until compulsory school age, it is still optional and therefore some parents will use it because they need their child cared for whilst they do something else

@Crunchyapplez

It should be abhorrent to us that rich children are entitled to more nursery education than poor ones, though (shouldn’t it?).

But the 30 hours is income based, it's employment based because THOSE EXTRA hours are childcare led. If me and DH both work 16 hours, we'd get the 30 hours, even if it's in minimum wage. If DH earns £47k and I don't work we won't. Because my child needs 15hours of education, which it gets, but doesn't need the extra hours of childcare.

And no it's obv not that explicitly cut (OK Bin, you've done 15hours of learning, go eat play Dough) but the principle behind those EXTRA hours is providing care for a child who has no one at home to care for them, essentially

And no, I'm not MC and privileged before you ask. We got the free hours for DS, won't for DTwins, actually do qualify for 30 hours but will only use 15 as I'm not in work (carer)

Nursery isn’t statutory, but schools leaders are increasingly worried that children are not school ready, and nurseries are instrumental in addressing that issue
Then the funding should go on educating the parents being better educators instead of paying for their kids to attend childcare whilst they get to be at home, childfree, for themselves. How is this going to encourage them to consider a job when the child goes to school?

@SleepingStandingUp @vivainsomnia

Completely agree with you both.

by primary carer I didn't mean a SAHP. I meant an individual who knows the child intimately, and caters to their strengths weaknesses

Source?

Limiting or extending a child’s access to educational opportunity should have nothing to do with parental income or working status. Government policy should not have drawn this line.

And it doesn't. All Children get 15 hours of education from the government. Parents who need additional childcare get additional hours.

They chuck them in to school ridiculously early aged 4 in England no matter what your economic status. It is laughable to pretend this is a policy excluding "the poor"

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.

A lot of people, like, Scottish Government who call it "Funded early learning and childcare (ELC)"?

Or UK Gov who call it "Free education and childcare for 2-year-olds"?

It is a combination of both.

It's a misconception that the "successful Scandinavian" countries go to school later - they have a universal high quality state nursery system where the children do a lot of pre learning skills. Like core and finger strength developing play etc.

In France it's the Ecole Maternelle from 3. Not completely compulsory but funded and expected.

If it's about enabling work then reducing the hoops to jump through enables work. All the hoops do is increase administration expenses.

How in any way are the children of working parents ‘rich?’

I know - check me out rolling in it with my £10 an hour job, before tax, when nursery is £5 an hour.

I am going to have to massively disagree with those of you who think that families earning £85k with one SAHP should not pay the £5 an hour for any extra above 15 hours that they want. Sorry.

@vivainsomnia

Nursery isn’t statutory, but schools leaders are increasingly worried that children are not school ready, and nurseries are instrumental in addressing that issue Then the funding should go on educating the parents being better educators instead of paying for their kids to attend childcare whilst they get to be at home, childfree, for themselves. How is this going to encourage them to consider a job when the child goes to school?

Funding did used to go on this (SureStart and Children’s Centres), and we were beginning to see evidence that these interventions were effective. Funding for antenatal, parenting support and services for 0-2 children has been significantly cut.

In the context of these cuts, David Cameron pledged the extra 15 hours of funded childcare for working families (in 2016).

I agree with you that very early intervention supports better outcomes for families (… and I also question why such a socially divisive policy needed to be implemented at nursery age).

@ToykotoLosAngeles

The numbers of "rich" SAHMs getting "free" extra childcare will be minimal compared to the numbers of not rich people that would benefit. I'd also agree with the PP who suggested that if someone who is a SAHM by choice uses all the free hours beyond a conscious effort to work on school readiness the child will be better off in nursery...

Cost benefit analysis here...

how you have extrapolated that? Because the ones that don't qualify will be the ones on lower incomes.

Because of the ones that don’t qualify due to hours worked, those who are deemed to require it will get it, i.e those from chaotic situations or who are vulnerable. But a family who happen to work fewer hours may well be perfectly capable of parenting their child, without the need for increased hours and to give it to them is wasteful.

Nursery isn’t statutory, but schools leaders are increasingly worried that children are not school ready

Source?

@BoredZelda

Nursery isn’t statutory, but schools leaders are increasingly worried that children are not school ready

Source?

www.suttontrust.com/a-fair-start-equity-in-access-to-early-years-education/

‘Over half of primary senior leaders (54%) think fewer pupils were ‘school ready’ this year.’

Yabu. The 30 hours is for working parents. If you work less than the required hours then take a second job or work more hours to get the funding.

I'm a single parent and work 40 hours a week. The 30 hours has been very helpful, it is a great policy to incentivise work.

When I was little, "school ready" wasn't a thing. Reception got kids school ready. Why does that have to change?

Over half of primary senior leaders (54%) think fewer pupils were ‘school ready’ this year.’

In 2021. When nurseries were closed for large parts of the previous year.

When I was little, "school ready" wasn't a thing. Reception got kids school ready. Why does that have to change?

It was when I was little. Over 4 decades ago we had something called “rising 5s” a playgroup where we went to learn all about starting school.

Over half of primary senior leaders (54%) think fewer pupils were ‘school ready’ this year.’ because they haven't bloody been there!! DS is year 2 so he missed chunks of year 1 and reception, when he should have been getting school ready.
The current year ones missed chunks of reception and nursery when they were getting used to being away from parents and getting school ready.
The current reception class have basically missed our most of nursery, of course they're not school reasdy. It keeps closing.
The current nursery kids missed all the casual socialisation and play groups where they learnt to share and sit on a carpet and not eat each others snacks because they were toddlers when covid hit.

If you’re not working or looking after your own children? What are you doing?

If your working less than 16 hours a week (15 or less) then it makes sense that you'd only need 15 hours childcare....