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 understand your situation however I didn't say I wanted free childcare while I was working. I said my daughter was disadvantaged due to me working. Which I think is unfair. It doesn't mean I begrudge your children from it, but think its unfair that my daughter didn't get the same access to early education because I couldn't afford to be a stay at home Mum. In fact I would have sent her while I was at work so that I could still spend as much time as possible with her, not used it for a break so I could sit around doing nothing!

I do see what you’re saying. It’s just the 2 year funding is for children whose lives are disadvantaged due to their low household income.
If a parent is earning over a certain amount then their child is deemed to not need that help with closing the gap between them and their peers. Did you get help with childcare costs in other ways available eg via universal credit?
I’m not arguing by the way.

YABU

Children could be in child protection plans for rusks outside the home.

[quote Peasandcabbage]@Hugasauras if you look at let them be children page it explains where now and dates for roll out. [/quote]
Brill, thanks! Will send to my friend as think dates mean she is in luck

@Crunchyapplez

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.

I don’t buy that at all sorry. I bet that for the majority of people who send their kids to nursery it is for childcare not education.

Well I can only speak from my own experience, as a mum of an 18 month old and a three year old. I've managed to find a hell of a lot to do for free or cheap, including church toddler groups as well.

Please don't take this the wrong way but you've obviously got the get-up-and-go to find these activities. You gave access to a way of finding them (e.g., Internet access), you have the means to travel to them, you have the education to know that these experiences are import for your DC, you have the motivation to go, you have the confidence to walk into the venue, and so on.

Not everyone does and just because you're able to doesn't mean others can.

Sorry I did forget to add too. Disadvantaged not only because of the low income which restricts their lives as it is, but in many other ways too if their parents aren’t working. They don’t get the same social opportunities and learning opportunities amongst many other things as a child of working parents does.
I did lots of learning activities with my children at home, but there’s no denying that nursery really brought them along. Especially my DS who couldn’t speak properly until he was 4.

In Scotland everyone gets 1140 hours a year, so about 30hrs a week term time. Having worked with vulnerable children I 100% agree with you - nursery hugely helps vulnerable children living in complex situations and gives them a massive advantage compared to young children who don't.

Also in Scotland, some child protection plans fund under twos.

Disadvantaged not only because of the low income which restricts their lives as it is, but in many other ways too if their parents aren’t working.

And also children who are disadvantaged by being in care or who have disabilities and/or SEN.

It's not about being able to work, or being able to find free groups - sometimes trauma for the parent is so complex that they are completely unable to use initiative and seek these things out. Many parents who have children on child protection plans have incredibly low self-esteem and confidence. Having children in nursery gives them a chance to begin to work on themselves during the day and attend support groups/therapies/parenting classes etc. 15hrs a week doesn't give that enough time. The extra time is crucial not just for the child but for the parent's chances of staying with their child.

And remember the care system is a cycle, so the vast majority of adults who have children on protection plans won't know that what they're doing is harmful as it's how they were brought up too. It is so ingrained in them that they need that extra time to undo it. 30hrs free supports this.

And also children who are disadvantaged by being in care or who have disabilities and/or SEN.

Yes exactly. My DS qualified when he was 2 because of his life being restricted due to his disability and SEN. He’s 8 now and they still affect him. Any extra help offered to him over the years I’ve grabbed with both hands.

@FairyLightQueen

It's not about being able to work, or being able to find free groups - sometimes trauma for the parent is so complex that they are completely unable to use initiative and seek these things out. Many parents who have children on child protection plans have incredibly low self-esteem and confidence. Having children in nursery gives them a chance to begin to work on themselves during the day and attend support groups/therapies/parenting classes etc. 15hrs a week doesn't give that enough time. The extra time is crucial not just for the child but for the parent's chances of staying with their child.

In those circumstances, extra hours could be beneficial for both the parent and the child.

I'm not in those circumstances and I had two days at preschool for my two year old, it was enough for them for socialising with other children and getting them ready for school, it wasn't much time to get anything done.

Any extra help offered to him over the years I’ve grabbed with both hands

Same. I have two disabled DC and you never know when someone is going to decide they're suddenly somehow cured because they got a higher mark than expected. I make sure that when help is offered I take it because life is going to be hard enough for them without the system making it even harder.

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

I'm not saying you're (overall) not wrong, but it doesn't take any sort of enhanced education as an adult to be teaching toddlers their ABC or how to put their shoes on. That's why it's different.

If a child isn't safe at home then why are they being left in that home would be a better question
If you work 16 hrs and get 15 paid for thats not too bad is it
If your not working and get 15 hrs thats also not bad as your not out of pocket

Also i lived in a deprived area and due t postcodes and my dh wage my children were classed in that assumption
We had 15 hrs free nursery when 3 , we used it so they socialised etc
But i also took my children to toddler groups , parks and activities at home just because we were labelled didn't mean i wanted my child ar nursery for 30 hrs as i didn't 15 was enough and i did things with them too

The most disadvantaged children get most benefit from early education as they are less likely to have the same development opportunities as other children. So I agree with you - I’d open up the 30hrs offer to all children (and id fund it properly).

I don’t think nursery is the be all and end all by the way so it’s not the case that all poorer children miss out if they are cared for by their families as children get lots from that too. I personally used school nursery free hours, because I believe it’s beneficial for DC esp in the run up to reception but I didn’t use the full 30 hours as I think it’s a lot at that age and we had fun together or DC had a nanny. It was the right thing to do but an expensive choice so I can well understand why the 30 hrs is targeted at reducing families childcare costs.

I think the problem with the current system is the public policy objectives are blurred between early education and childcare when for tiny children these are very much the same thing.

I'm not saying you're (overall) not wrong, but it doesn't take any sort of enhanced education as an adult to be teaching toddlers their ABC or how to put their shoes on. That's why it's different

This. Lots of stuff toddlers are learning they simply learn from mum/dad/siblings and dont need to be in a childcare setting to learn. They also need lots of individual attention/care from an adult and usually get that more at home where it might just be mum/dad and 2 or 3 kids, vs a childcare setting with more children per adult.

I actually think 15 free when not working is a lot.
Mine only used 12h 3-4. Lots of kids dont go at all. Or until its free at 3 for 15h.
It's not education at 2 its childcare and mine hated going at 1. Even at 3-5 for one kids they had done no phonics or writing so just play , the advantage being mainly friends.

People who earn less money get more added to their UC to pay for it. This is one of those misrepresented issues.

@Hollyhead

People who earn less money get more added to their UC to pay for it. This is one of those misrepresented issues.

If you actually think that people on UC who do not get funded nursery house can afford themselves then you are deluded.

@HSHorror

I actually think 15 free when not working is a lot. Mine only used 12h 3-4. Lots of kids dont go at all. Or until its free at 3 for 15h. It's not education at 2 its childcare and mine hated going at 1. Even at 3-5 for one kids they had done no phonics or writing so just play , the advantage being mainly friends.

At 2 they were teaching ours to recognise their name, do mark making practice, looking at books and being read to, starting to learn colours etc. That's "education" at that age. If your child hasn't done any phonics or writing in reception that's definitely down to your school and not typicall

I think 15 hours is enough for nursery education. I work with disadvantaged families and it is often hard to get them to use the 15hours on a regular basis.
Lots of working parents need the 30hours of childcare.

@ToykotoLosAngeles

It's definitely easier if you keep working, rather than stop until they're 2. Which I rather suspect is the point given our current political party in charge.

Agree. I went back to work when my maternity leave finished and DD went to nursery (reserved a place before she was even born!). So when she turned 3, we were eligible for the 30 hours as we were both working, and she was already at a nursery that accepted the funding, so I wasn’t struggling to find a nursery place for her.

We’re not high earners, and money was tight for those first two years at nursery, but my income was enough to make going back to work and paying nursery fees worthwhile. Was very glad to get the funding and have our nursery bill halved!