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

[Notoironing]

I recommend ‘The politics of mothering’ by Vanessa Olorenshaw for anyone who is interested.

[Dogsandbabies]

The 15 free hours were introduced by a labour government with the explicit task of equalising opportunities for all children and readying them for school.

It was extended to 30 hours by a conservative government in order to help parents return to work.

Different governments and ideologies and different agendas.

Some children in circumstances such as the ones you discuss are allowed 15 free hours from the age of 2.

In fairness to both, there is a valid reason for the existence of both policies.

[TheYearOfSmallThings]

15 hours a week seems plenty if the parents aren't working? Plus they will 15 hours funded at age 2, whereas working parents don't get anything until age 3, and then only get the 30 hours if they are working enough hours to need it.

[Trinxsy]

Just thought I'd put my thoughts across as we are in this position. My son got the 2 hours free childcare. Not for me, although I was at home with him, but for him. I sent him for 3 hours a day for his development.

He's flourished and come along so much in an environment away from home. He's met so many other children and it's the best thing I did.

In terms of the 3/4 year old funding, I'm completely happy for him to continue on 15 hours and I know that if I want him to do the 30, I would have to work full time. I think it's completely understandable.

I'm at home most of the time (although will be all the time when twins are here) while partner works so of course my son will spend most of his time with me but he also needs the socialisation with other people apart from his mum...but it doesn't need to be 30 hours a week when I'm at home!

[tfresh]

Working parents fund their childcare via taxation + supplement via salary.

Someone working 14 hours a week is not doing the same, yet will still be receiving 15 hour free. Sounds great to me

[Trinxsy]

That's meant to say 2 year old free childcare

[Hospedia]

It's not free childcare, it's early years education. It's only available in term time too.

[Winniemarysarah]

In my area (north west England) any child aged two or above living in poverty is entitled to 30 hours free childcare. You can get referred by your health visitor.

[Lockdownbear]

In Scotland all 3 year olds are entitled to 30 hours term time. Fab for private nurseries and working parents.

Council nurseries decided to double their capacity by doing sessions 8am-1pm and then 1pm-6pm who wants to be dropping off at 8 or collecting at 6 if they don't need too but parents feel they should use the hours allocated.

[ToykotoLosAngeles]

The 15 free hours were introduced by a labour government with the explicit task of equalising opportunities for all children and readying them for school.

It was extended to 30 hours by a conservative government in order to help parents return to work.

This. And it's not 30 free hours, it's 30 hours in termtime, so in fact 22 hours if you work year-round as most jobs require, plus a weekly surcharge and any extra hours on top.

I work 21 hours a week and have just spent 2 years paying half my salary on 27 hours per week childcare, with DH and I both paying income tax and national insurance. Plenty of households have one parent at home by choice - not really seeing why they should be getting 6 hours a day 5 days a week for nowt.

[Gemini6]

My daughter couldn't start preschool until she received her funded hours at 3 years and 3 months because I work so she wasn't entitled to 2 year old funding and I couldn't afford to send her. That doesn't seem fair to me either. So then being able to do the 30 hours allows children like mine to catch up on the year they missed out on due to having a mother that works!

[EllieQ]

You’re conflating funding for two different things.

Every child from the age of 3 is eligible for 15 hours funding for early education. As studies have shown that children in low-income families are already behind (educationally) when they start school, this was extended to fund children age 2 from low income families. Think of the stereotype of children who get very little interaction at home/ don’t get taken to activities or playgroups for whatever reason - the government thinks that being a nursery will improve things for these children (learning letters and numbers, being ready for school).

The additional 15 hours was brought in a few years later with the aim of reducing childcare costs for families where both parents work. It is term-time only and didn’t cover all our nursery costs (we still got charged extra per day), but was a great help.

The assumption is that if you’re working

[Itstime1]

Just to say you’re not eligible for the free hours if you earn over 100k.

Which is annoying as everyone assumes you are but your not. You also don’t get the tax free childcare.

Not complaining as we are fortunate enough to plan for this but still!

[LindaEllen]

I don't understand why you want more childcare than your working hours.

You do realise it's YOUR responsibility to look after YOUR child, right? Whether that's physically, or paying for other care.

Why should you get anything for free? Luckily you are, but you want MORE? Grabby.

Don't have kids if you just want them for the free stuff.

[JustWonderingIfYou]

@Notoironing

It’s about the children not the parents.

Well most studies show that children benefit most from being with primary carer until 3 years old. So if its about the children they are best off at home when 2.

[Handsoffreturns]

I would welcome any increase in hours for children in poverty / vulnerable situations. We shouldn’t be punishing children for the situation that they inadvertently find themselves in. I do get annoyed when the free hours are used (particularly for 2 year olds) just because the parents cannot be bothered to do anything with the children themselves (I worked in this area so have some insight). Plenty of people (mums & dads) are sending children to nursery ‘for development’ on the back of free hours because they can’t be bothered to parent. We had people that never took their children anywhere and if it wasn't for the free nursery hours the children would be stuck in their living rooms 24/7. It was very sad.

[Soontobe60]

@OfstedOffred

Fuckery if either parent earns over £100k you only get 15h but both earning £99.9k would get 30h.

Not correct. My DD and her Dh earn £150k approx between them. They are not eligible.

[Handsoffreturns]

Disclaimer before I get shot, I am fully aware that the majority of people use the free hours for the right reasons, be that working, busy with other children or just needing a break. Totally get that, I’ve been there. It just irked me providing 2 yr funding and paid for 25-30 hours a week care for children with useless parents that should have been parenting better. That being said, I don’t for one second think that the children should be denied the childcare.

[Hospedia]

I do get annoyed when the free hours are used (particularly for 2 year olds) just because the parents cannot be bothered to do anything with the children themselves (I worked in this area so have some insight)

If you've worked in this area then you'll understand that the background issues in situations such as this are complex and not as easy to resolve as "parent your child yourself". You'll also understand that in this situation the child is going to be better off in nursery where they are going to receive a higher level of interaction.

You do realise it's YOUR responsibility to look after YOUR child, right? Whether that's physically, or paying for other care.

The funding is to improve outcomes for children from groups that tend to have lower outcomes than other groups - children from low income households, looked after children, children with disabilities, and children with special education needs. The early years education is to give these children a 'leg up' and to improve outcomes for them.

Well most studies show that children benefit most from being with primary carer until 3 years old. So if its about the children they are best off at home when 2.

See my above post. These children are best off in early education as studies show early intervention is the best way of improving their outcomes.

[ToykotoLosAngeles]

@Handsoffreturns

Disclaimer before I get shot, I am fully aware that the majority of people use the free hours for the right reasons, be that working, busy with other children or just needing a break. Totally get that, I’ve been there. It just irked me providing 2 yr funding and paid for 25-30 hours a week care for children with useless parents that should have been parenting better. That being said, I don’t for one second think that the children should be denied the childcare.

I know what you mean. You can be pleased the poor kids get some socialisation while also being annoyed that the system enables those parents to do even less parenting outside nursery hours.

[Hospedia]

It just irked me providing 2 yr funding and paid for 25-30 hours a week care for children with useless parents that should have been parenting better

How would "parenting better" resolve the issue of a child receiving 15hrs funding due to being disabled?

[Hospedia]

How would "parenting better" resolve complex and systemic social issues?

[3peassuit]

I would like to see 30 hours of funded care for disabled single parents on full PIP. It would make a huge difference to both parent and child.

[Notoironing]

Soontobe60

If either of a couple earn £100k or more, the 30 hours are not available and tax free childcare is not available to both, even if the other person earns a low wage.

Lots of issues with this particularly for women but that isn’t a popular view.

[RegardingMary]

Well if they want 30 hours free childcare they should probably pick a few more hours up at work