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

[PrincessNikla]

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 only working up to 16 hours, then you have time to spend teaching your child by going to groups, and other activities.

Or, you could work more hours and take the advantages that that offers

[Sartre]

I think this system makes sense. If one parent is not working or only works PT, why do they need a FT nursery place? The FT places should only be for those where both or a single parent works FT. Just makes sense.

[BoredZelda]

But if you are a min wage worker, working full time hours, likely still quite poor, you get the full 30 hours.

I’m not sure why you think someone working less than 16 hours needs more than 15 hours childcare?

[coachmylife]

If this were 'childcare' it could perhaps be acceptable. But it is NOT. It is early education. It's SO important for children born in more deprived circumstances to have the benefit of this from age 2.

[SleepingStandingUp]

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?

So what's your actual suggestion op? Free child care from 6 months for 40 hours a week all year round?

[Crunchyapplez]

@PrincessNikla

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 only working up to 16 hours, then you have time to spend teaching your child by going to groups, and other activities.

Or, you could work more hours and take the advantages that that offers

You’ve solved inequality @PrincessNikla !

[MooSakah]

The free 15 hours are for the kids the next 15 are to help the parents

[andysgirl22]

@sanbeiji your post is very interesting , thankyou for putting it. I will be honest i have a partner whom is very clever naturally , he did not have opportunities to go on courses etc. As he was caring for numerous very disabled siblings. He has looked into part time jobs etc. And courses and it does seem that even entry level jobs are requiring more and more certificated education if you will and also tgat trying to obtain this as an adult is very difficult. Apologies op as tgat is not entirely on topic but i think there are many young people whom are carers etc. And in previous timès would have been able to work up in their training but can't now.

[Gardeniafleur]

In Northern Ireland you only get 12.5 hours for 3 or 4 year olds and that. Is. It.

Oh, and term time only (we have almost fifteen weeks holiday time).

Despite being one of the poorest regions of the U.K.

WTF the money goes here I do not know.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Its childcare though? Why do you need if if you aren't working? 15 hours early education is the amount the government thinks is necessary/beneficial to children in terms of development/educational outcomes. The additional hours provided to parents who both work reflects the need for longer childcare to enable them to work and to match school hours, thus slotting in better with other wraparound care that working parents use

Exactly this
I totally get the benefits of children having the provision, but it's not as if they're taking it away - they're simply offering the optimum 15 hours and expecting non-working parents to step up for the rest

[hariborabbit]

No system will ever be perfect - and I cetainly don't think this one is - but I actually think it gets it right for the majority of people.

Amongst my friends who are middle income earners the 30 hours funding is a godsend and we'd struggle to afford to live without it.

Lower income earners often get additional childcare help from UC.

30 hours childcare isn't the solution for children in unsafe homes so I think that's a bit of a red herring. One of my family members has a child who is on a child protection plan and their child was referred for free full time (school hours) nursery by the HV from the age of 2.

[Liverbird77]

If you're not working and are at home with the children full time, there are lots of free things to do to complement the 15 hours.

I am a stay at home mum, luckily not disadvantaged financially, but we still do lots of free stuff each week (and could do more if it was the only option).

Examples:
Library story time, plus weekend events at the library e.g. Lego/coding/classical association.
A "prepare for school" weekly free two hour session run by SureStart at a local primary school. Free fruit is also provided.
Two free Little Superstars sports sessions per week.
All of these can be used alongside the 15 hours.

My son goes to a preschool at an independent prep. 15 hours equates to 1.5 days there. They don't specify a minimum number of hours, so that could indeed be totally free with no top up.

What I am saying is that there is a lot out there.
The problem lies with those people who will not engage. An extra 15 hours is not going to mitigate for that.

[Crunchyapplez]

So what's your actual suggestion op? Free child care from 6 months for 40 hours a week all year round?

My solution @SleepingStandingUp would be universal access to nursery, additional funding for disadvantaged children and improved quality of provision.

A child on a Child Protection Plan should automatically be eligible for 30 hours. That’s a change that would have a positive impact on those children’s lives and potential outcomes that really wouldn’t cost much.

… and a separation of ‘childcare’ from ‘education’ in terms of culture and attitudes.

[Hospedia]

Library story time, plus weekend events at the library e.g. Lego/coding/classical association.

Not much good if your local library is closed, on vastly reduced hours, or not within easy travelling distance.

A "prepare for school" weekly free two hour session run by SureStart at a local primary school.

Again not available in all areas. SureStart was decimated by this government, many of the centres are either closed or operate restricted services.

Two free Little Superstars sports sessions per week.

See above.

All of these can be used alongside the 15 hours.

Only if you can access them.

[MaryShelley1818]

[quote 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

[Mycatsgoldtooth]

There’s the usual disparagement of high earners on this thread. Earning 100k a year people are paying a lot of tax, which is used to fund the childcare places and all the other support vulnerable children need. I don’t think there should be an upper limit on childcare places.

[Alayalaya]

‘ What do you need childcare for if you're not employed? ’
Think about why people might be unemployed. It could be due to physical and mental disability, lack of education, drugs or alcohol, living in poverty, etc. In such circumstances it’s better to remove the child from the home and send them to nursery. The parents don’t need childcare - it’s for the benefit of the child, to get them away from the parents.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

... a separation of ‘childcare’ from ‘education’ in terms of culture and attitudes

While I don't disagree, OP, I suspect that one might be a struggle
In a culture where some insist that even school is childcare, and when it's become a verbal shorthand for so much, it could be very hard to row back now

[Wam90]

I think YABU.
Yes the child shouldn’t suffer because they live in poverty but what about the children that are suffering who don’t. They don’t see their parents all week because they’re working full time to provide for them and they may still only be in nursery for 17 actual “free” hours a week because it’s based on school terms so the parents are still having to pay for 20 hours of childcare a week to actually be able to work in their full time jobs.
It’s not the children’s fault but it’s all messed up. Work 16 hours a week or less and you get lots of financial support in other ways.
I think if you’re thinking of this as a safeguarding concern then these children won’t necessarily be sent anywhere even if they do have funding.

[Alayalaya]

‘ If you're not working and are at home with the children full time, there are lots of free things to do to complement the 15 hours.’
That assumes you’re capable of doing them. Depending on your reason for not working, you may be unable to do those things. If you’re an addict, depressed, uneducated, etc - you aren’t going to be able to engage with that. You’re also assuming the activities are within walking distance, which is rarely the case, and people with difficulties probably don’t have money for bus fares.

[Booboobibles]

The government should not be providing funding for rich families to become even more rich.

If they provided free places to poor people who are not working, maybe it would give those people a bit of time and space to improve their lives.

[MrsR87]

The 15 hours are more for the child than the parent.
If you are working less than 16 hours a week why would you need more hours?

Everyone will have their own ideas and stories but I feel there should be more to help full time working parents who have one year olds. I am at my place of work from 7.30-5pm every weekday, sometimes longer and the nursery fees for my one year old are a lot more than my mortgage! I’m lucky that I earn a good enough wage to still bring home a reasonable amount but for the amount of work I do ( I also have to work at home at weekends to complete my duties) it makes me question whether it is all worth it.

[endlesssighing]

@Crunchyapplez

Why would they be 'upset?'
30 free hours of childcare is a tax credit, not an entitlement. They don't need the assistance therefore they pay for it. He's more upset he doesn't see his children as much as he'd like but so is life. He himself was raised in abject poverty like the children you are referencing to and he doesn't want that for his own children, so why the sneering?

You've stated nursery is not 'just childcare' and you are correct. Every child age 3+ (parent, working or not) is entitled to fifteen hours free early years education. That's 2+ when said child meets a 'disadvantaged' criteria. The additional 15 hours is to assist parents who are working and many preschool schedules have fifteen hours a week directed learning with the rest free play so yes - 'childcare'.

If your argument is that ALL CHILDREN are entitled to free childcare and the education that comes with it then that should include children whose parents earn £200,000.

According to Nuffield Health three year olds who access childcare do marginally better than their peers in certain tests but that the educational benefits are temporary and wear off by the age of five.

The argument could additionally be made that children who attend nursery for fifteen hours a week are at a greater advantage than those who attend nursery full time.

Children who attended a low quality childcare facilities full time (which are RIFE) have statistically been found to make delayed social, emotional and cognitive progression in comparison to their peers, regardless of economic background.

If there is an increase of ALL children 2+ attending nurseries full time then spaces are going to become even more scarce than they already are. Additionally that draws into the question of what legislation and governing bodies are then going to be enforced to ensure that an equal standard of care will be provided to avoid this?

[Crunchyapplez]

‘People are getting confused and not understanding the funding or purpose of funding.’

@MaryShelley1818 it was an election pledge from David Cameron. That was its purpose.

The two years’ provision replaced funding for Sure Start / children’s centres. Those children who get the two years’ provision (with a purpose of closing the gap of educational disadvantage, don’t then receive the same hours’ as their more affluent peer (widening the gap still further)).

[Peppapigforlife]

The issue for me personally I'd that the system of nursery hours makes it almost impossible to find a decent job. I've got my 15 hours, which is great if I want to find a few hours of minimum wage work, but if I want to find a better paid full time work, it's impossible, because you don't get the 30 hours until you're already ready to start that job, but the nurseries and childminders in my area have waitlists until September. There's no job out there that would let me start in September and when September comes, I won't be able to take one of those 30 hour funded places without already having secured a job. I have to wait until my DD is in school. Then the funded hours are only in term time.