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

Where have you got £200,000 from?

My friend's husband owns a dental practice and brings home just over £100,000 and they aren't entitled to thirty free hours.

Also to add educational achievement in modern times is v different.
In the past, ‘smart’ kids from deprived parents got into uni, ‘not smart’ kids had loads of options. Many started working as teens and worked their way up (quite a few senior staff in my org like this).

Uninvolved parents didn’t do THAT much damage. Sure, their kids might not have achieved their ‘full potential’ as research scientists or whatever. But they could make something of themselves.

These days many of those paths are closed. Evening classes etc are expensive. You can’t get an entry level job without a degree.

Time and effort would be better spent on re-opening said paths instead of forcing everyone onto an academic hamster wheel.

I’m not saying that kids shouldn’t be supported : of course they should. Free extracurricular activities, and ensuring that kids have decent literacy levels. Facilities like laptops at school so kids can watch science videos etc.

However for ‘exams’ richer ‘C’ kids are tutored and tutored until they get A’s and B’s. There’s not a lot of ‘naturally bright’ people and everyone getting A’s helps nobody.

I work in a huge childcare setting and there’s so much I can say on this matter. The children we get through the funding at 2 years very often need to be at nursery, even if it’s just for 1 day a week. I remember one little boy who’s mum told me she didn’t buy toys for him at home as his siblings just broke them so she’s happy he can attend nursery one day a week so he can play

I would never begrudge a child on this opportunity, but it’s very frustrating for working parents who struggle to afford childcare and have to wait till 3.

@Notoironing

It’s about the children not the parents.

I am so glad you made this point @Notoironing.

Why are children getting reduced (or privileged) access to education based on what their parents earn? We wouldn’t accept this for primary or secondary school children.

However I do somewhat agree.

If the parent doesn't work over 16 hours they don't contribute the full NI and tax. I may be wrong but that's why they offered the thirty hours in the first place wasn't it?

Free childcare encourages parents back to work and therefore increases tax. They're not going to just give free childcare if there's nothing in it for the government.

As far as I'm aware there are however exemptions? At risk children are entitled to the full thirty hours, children of parents with certain health issues, carers etc.

At times for children on child protection plans the places are funded but they should only be on these plans for up to 12 months so then to reduce nursery hours after this isn’t helpful. Also more nursery hours aren’t the solution to it not being safe at home.

Sadly increased funding and better opportunities for all won’t happen because there are still plenty of people who think free school meals, holiday meal payments and tax credits should be done away with 🙄.

It’s sad isn’t it? It’s not like it will benefit them if those sources of help are done away with either. It’s a combination of having a big chip on their shoulder, and they just want some satisfaction at seeing struggling people struggle even more. “That’s what you get for not working as hard as me”…

@endlesssighing

Where have you got £200,000 from?

My friend's husband owns a dental practice and brings home just over £100,000 and they aren't entitled to thirty free hours.

I think it’s the point that in the VERY UNUSUAL circumstance that two parents earn 99.9k each you could have a gross income of almost 200k and still be entitled to childcare. Any pay rise at all would remove the childcare entitlement completely. The 100k threshold was set some years a go and quite clearly 100k means very different things in different parts of the country anyway..

30 years ago, my mum was a child minder and she had a lot of "looked after" children who were placed with her by social services. She was paid by the council/social services not by the parent. The kids were on protection plans and being monitored by social services, the parents often did not work. They got funded childcare place with a vetted provider to keep the kid safe, so the kid could be checked on and to give the parents respite.
This hasnt changed. They still get that.

@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

You are wrong high earners do not get it. However, someone childcare should be available for when parents are working. If you work 16 hrs then that is the childcare you should get.

OfstedOffred
Its childcare though? Why do you need if if you aren't working?

I don’t see it as childcare, actually. I see access to nursery as an opportunity for education and development. You are right that the funding is labelled ‘childcare’, though.

@Kbyodjs

At times for children on child protection plans the places are funded but they should only be on these plans for up to 12 months so then to reduce nursery hours after this isn’t helpful. Also more nursery hours aren’t the solution to it not being safe at home.

Not the solution, no, but I struggle with knowing that children on a Child Protection Plan don’t get (for free) what my child gets for free.

‘Free’ hours? Not really free if you need childcare for the full year and not term time only (if you have a job for example..)

Our ‘free’ days at actually £28 a day. So £28 a day term time, £60 a day out of term time.

The system is broken at all levels. Let’s not pitch eligible parents against ineligible parents and direct the ranger at the government- who do not value women in the work place.

@endlesssighing

Where have you got £200,000 from?

My friend's husband owns a dental practice and brings home just over £100,000 and they aren't entitled to thirty free hours.

Both parents can earn up to £100 000 each before they cease to be eligible for the 30 hours funding.

That is why your friend’s husband, the dentist doesn’t get it (is he upset about that, @endlesssighing?).

@Chillyseadippin

‘Free’ hours? Not really free if you need childcare for the full year and not term time only (if you have a job for example..)

Our ‘free’ days at actually £28 a day. So £28 a day term time, £60 a day out of term time.

The system is broken at all levels. Let’s not pitch eligible parents against ineligible parents and direct the ranger at the government- who do not value women in the work place.

The ANGER.. Not the ranger. Oops.

From my work one of the issue with at risk children is parents being reluctant or unable (due to chaotic lifestyles) to access the childcare. The places can be there but if the parents struggle to get the children to attend that’s an issue. It can be part of the things SS require from parents and try to support.
That was one thing I found hard about lockdown, people said “oh well the vulnerable children have school places” but many of the parents I worked with were relieved not have to take them everyday, as they struggled so much getting the children in.

@Soontobe60 it will depend on how their income is split. If they each earn under £100k then they will get 30 funded hours. My husband and I earn £120k jointly (£60k each) and we got 30 funded hours.

I disagree with the upper income threshold too on the same basis. It’s about the children not the parents.

Tax free childcare should also be available to each individual person based on their own income and not that of their partner or spouse.

The current system crosses over the line in terms of the principle of independent taxation, where married women are entitled to their own tax allowances and thresholds. Not introduced until 1990 incidentally.

@Thefaceofboe

God forbid working parents are entitled to help with childcare

It is actually quite hard to find work if your child only becomes eligible for the fifteen hours’ nursery at two.

You may have smaller children, health issues, other dependents.

Also, why penalise the child for this?

I do think the 30 hrs childcare is one of the only policies that helps the squeezed middle. Otherwise people like us on middle incomes are pretty much forgotton about.
I found it strange that if you were unemployed your child got 15 hrs childcare at age 2 whereas the employed who are struggling and needed it get no assistance.
But I agree some others would benefit from the 30 hrs who don’t currently get it, in the same way some would benefit more from the hours starting at age 2.
This country needs a huge overhaul in how we support working parents because it’s incredibly hard for all.

You don't get no help at all as working parents of a 2 year old - we saved around £150pcm via tax free childcare.

I think op you are trying to point out that those households living in poverty may not always be able to afford for example: Ample heating, lighting, electric, food at any given time so the children living their may suffer and at nursery they should be kept warm and fed etc. ? If that is what you are trying to point out I whole heartedly agree with you. Thank you for caring about these children. I am NOT suggesting that other posters don't care and I am NOT suggesting that those households can't provide a good upbringing just they make struggle to make an end meet at times.

There aren’t many posts on educational disadvantage, here.

The Sutton Trust found a gap of 11 months between the lowest income children and their wealthier classmates by the time they start school.

Nursery is not just childcare.

And actually I reconciled that the full paying parents of the 1 and 2 year olds allow the nursery to make up for the funded 3 year olds, since the funding is so low per hour. If we offer funding for all 2 year olds for 30 hours it also needs an hourly increase!

The whole thing is to help parents go back to work so makes sense in that way…

Of course there are groups who would benefit from greater support earlier (including parents of multiples). We just about break even each month after paying for childcare for twins, even though we are both above average earners.