To think a lot of people without kids don’t understand how free hours work?

[whatkatydid2014]

I’ve seen so many comments on threads about costs of childcare asking what more do people want when they already get x amount free.

Just wondering for some of those posters do you realise the extent to which the way “free” hours are managed is problematic for those working full time.

Imagine you have 20 full time places for 3 year olds at nursery and the cost to operate is £100/day per place for a 10 hour day. Current funding allows £6/hour (it will go up but hasn’t yet) for 30 hours a week and it covers about the equivalent of 2 days a week across a calendar year.

Now imagine 30 kids in total use the places (10 full time, 10 2 days a week, 10 3 days a week). In total you get an income for 100 days/week across all 20 kids

All kids get their 30 hours (2 days) as it’s based on both parents working and earning above a certain amount. Thats 60 days a week you only earn £60/day for.

Over the remaining 40 days you have to get back to your average of £100/day so the rate for the extra days is now £160

So the parent who would previously have paid £500 for a full week now pays £480 for 3 days (basically no saving)

The parent who would previously have paid £200 for 2 days does now have free childcare

The parent who would previously have paid £300 for 3 days now pays £160 so has a saving but not equivalent to 2/3 off their bill.

The bigger the gap between actual cost to run nursery at a profit and the government rate the worse the problem. At the moment, in some cases the gaps are so big & cost of living rises so steep that parents end up paying more when they get the free hours than they were without them.

My kids are already finished nursery and when they went this was a much smaller issue as the funded rates were not so far off the actual costs so I’ve no skin in the game but for all the “what more do you want” people - I think a system where the government is transparent about what people are actually getting AND a fairer way to split the subsidy between part time and full time nursery places

Maybe you need to live within your means. Incredibly arrogant to say you can't live on 110k when that is in the top 2% of earners.

People who can't afford childcare don't work. Fulltime childcare is for rich people.

The people I’ve seen complain about it most are parents whose children are older than those whose receive funded hours in a ‘I didn’t receive this and I managed’ ‘I didn’t need this’

Because we were paid enough to afford it. You should be paid enough to afford it too instead you blame everyone except the employers short changing their staff because of minimum wage - meaning people aren’t paid their worth and can afford their own childcare - instead that praise the lord for free hours - you are being robbed and you don’t even know it.

Well most people need more than term time only as most jobs don’t give you every school holiday off and then most nurseries charge you for 52 weeks a year regardless of what you actually use.

my child is not brought up by someone else. They are looked after by others during the day in order for me to be able to work; it’s not the same thing.
i would love to be with them during the day but I need to work in order to earn money to be able to look after them.

Do you not think there is something wrong in fulltime childcare only being for the rich when it is necessary for people to be able to work.
there was someone saying that their childcare is now 90 a day. That 23k a year. For two kids it’s 46k.

with 110k salary take home pay is 76k, lose another 9k or so to student loan repayments and you are left with only 21k which isn’t that much if it needs to cover all you living expenses.

so by the rich you mean above the top 2% so fulltime childcare, an essential need for people to work should only be available for the top 2% earners? That is insane and will hold us back massively as a country compared to others.

Dgc’s nursery fees have just gone up by 15%.
He does 3 days a week. The free 15 hours in September will barely make any difference.

Are you seriously entitled to 15 funded hours even as a SAHP? That seems odd to me- I'm a non-disabled SAHM, so why would it be in the government's interest to fund nursery hours for my child, when they won't be getting any taxes out of me?

As you can tell, I'm another parent who doesn't understand how it works!

It's for the children. They decided that at 3 it was in the kids best interest to have some quality early years education.

Ah, that makes sense- thank you.

Yes, because it's origins was the Early Learning Grant, which was a universal provision to support early years learning specifically in nurseries/pre schools. Not childcare per se.

That started in 1996 with a voucher scheme and was for those aged 4+ (so DC qualified in the year before reception) and was initially 12.5 hours and termly.

There were changes to the scheme in 1998 extending it to 3yos taking it to 15 hours, remaining termly, and banning top ups.

That letter bit was the real start of the underfunding crisis, and led to a wave of closures or take-overs by large chains, because instead of charging the local market rate (and parents getting money off by voucher), they had to provide hours that were free at the point of use.

Since then the scheme has extended several times, but all the amendments have been on the 1998 model. And it doesn't add up for the providers. And the costs to the parents remain just as eye watering as they were back in the 80s and 90s.

What a great plan. Equally, why should the taxpayer be funding a state education? Parents should have to pay for their children to be educated, and when the vast majority can't afford it, well, we can just have a society full of illiterate people who are incapable of providing essential services. And if parents can't afford to feed their children, they can always starve, can't they?

Here's another bright idea- perhaps childfree people shouldn't receive a state pension, since they haven't produced the taxpayers who will be funding it?

Or we could just accept that, as a society, we need most people to have children (even though, as a planet, we need most people not to).

Judging by the posts on here, most parents with children actually at nursery don’t understand how it works. I suspect the government have made it deliberately complicated to confuse people as well.

It’s not free, it’s partially funded and nurseries are trying all they can to be able to cover their overheads and stay open. I know of three that have closed just this year, so the places are becoming more and more sought after and people can’t get what they want.

It’s sounding all very similar to nhs dental work-you may be entitled to free care/30 hours, but if you can’t find a dentist/nursery prepared to take you on, it’s all just meaningless.

Even if you think ‘Wehoo, I’ve got a place now and even if the government plan doesn’t save me hundreds a month, it’ll save me a bit!’ beware-your nursery might be forced to close completely. I work in a school and we have had a flurry of ex-nursery staff come to work for us recently as 1:1 TAs when their nursery closed.

Another brilliantly thought out plan, brought to you by…the Conservatives.

Yep, this, I have no children therefore no interest in childcare costs. I definitely wouldn’t click or comment on a thread about them (unless like this thread it was aimed at the childless/free)

If the government had just said "we will £2000 in a childcare account for eligible families" or, from the year before school you can swap this for a state school nursery place" it would have been a lot clearer.

(Note... the £2k was a randomly chosen amount)

I must admit, I thought free hours were free hours full stop.

However, DGS (4) is only in nursery one full day and one morning, yet his DPs say they are only £200 per month better off since the 'free hours' kicked in.

Now, I don't understand it at all.

Who's asking the government to pay 50 hours a week 52 weeks a year?

A poster upthread suggested it.

It does depend on the nursery and how they operate it.

It worked out fairly well for us. When we got 30 hours, we needed it for three days all year round. 30 hours all year round worked out for us at about 24 hours. The nursery used the 'free' hours from 9-5, so eight hours, so our three days a week were effectively free. They charged for 8-9am and 5-6pm. We did actually need the early drop off, but I think was only £6 an hour. Plus all food was free.

I've got no kids and zero interest in how childcare works. I also don't tend to realise (or care) when its the school christmas/easter/summer holidays or half term.

Why on earth would I!?

Well quite! Why would you?

I would imagine there’s loads of different complicated financial things I have no idea about because they are just not on my radar.

This is deliberately complicated and underfunded and will likely be a total shit show for those who understand it as well as those who don’t!

Here's another bright idea- perhaps childfree people shouldn't receive a state pension, since they haven't produced the taxpayers who will be funding it?

What an original comment, I’ve only seen it on 3 threads this week.

On that basis, some parents wouldn’t be allowed one either, having produced people who don’t pay tax…

You do realise that suggestion was deeply sarcastic, yes? I thought the rest of my comment made that abundantly clear!

The government have been very careful not to call them free hours anymore. But colloquially people still do which is the issue

If you look at the official sites for the funding they’re called ‘funded hours’ and it’s titled childcare support

yabu - why would someone child free have to understand it? The wording is not great but it's not really for the childless to understand. It has nothing to do with them.

You didn’t read past the post title did you