15 hrs goverment childcare for 3yr old

[luckybun]

Just wondered if anyone new if ofstead registered childminders should allow me to use the 15hrs free childcare for 3yr olds. My childminder is saying that she doesn't do it. She's a brilliant childminder and I wouldn't want to change but it would be a big chunk off my monthly bill if she should allow it.

Thanks

Helping working parents, pull the other leg. How many parents work such short hours which would let them drop off at preschool, go to work and collect again by end of the funded time.

But this isn't about free childcare. There are government initiatives to help with childcare (what people may think of that is another whole thread!)

This is about giving ALL 3 year olds access to free early years education, in a variety of settings, whether it be accredited childminders, nursery, playgroup etc. Whether you take up the offer of the free education is entirely up to you.

It has nothing to do with working parents. All three of my DCs got access to 15 hours of free preschool, for 38 weeks for the year. I was (at the time) a SAHM.

I'm with strix, the rules are stupid. Even more stupid is that you can't have a nanny opt in to some kind of network (accepting that it would bring inspections and all that malarkey) and use it for a 3yo. It might be below the nanny's hourly rate but if you've got other children cared for at the same time you're also paying for them so nanny isn't effectively charging you a top up fee. The attention/focus on education argument doesn't work as the CM will still have non-funded children. So really it's not about education if the child is already in childcare, unless it's about putting children into a group setting, in which case why are CMs offering it? And so it goes round in circles. It just hasn't been thought through.

A couple of CMs round my parents' way seem to have day fees of 10hours which are higher for 0-2yos than 3-5yos but not 15hours difference. Presumably by charging a day fee whether the child is taking up the funded hours or not it's allowed to have a different rate for 3-5yos?

3 year olds need childcare not education. I realise there is a wide shade of grey between the two. But no one uses this grant because the need their child to learn something. They use it because they need someone else to look after their child for a period of time. Safe and happy is my goal. If he learns to read along the way, fine. But it isn't a priority for me at 3.

Education at 3. Oh please.

But no one uses this grant because the need their child to learn something. They use it because they need someone else to look after their child for a period of time.

I didn't use it because I needed someone else to look after my child. I was a SAHM and was perfectly capable of looking after my children full time. I also had PIL nearby who were wonderful and could step in to help on occasions when I had to go out, was ill etc.

I sent my children to preschool because I believed it was the best thing for them. OK, maybe 'education' sounds a bit over the top, but they definately learned. They learned to socialize, make friends, share, they learned through play, they created, painted, learnt colours, numbers, they learnt to be (slightly) independant of their parents, when the time came they were ready to go to school because they had learned to be in a semi formal environment, where they had to help each other and follow a routine so that they could all enjoy themselves.

Of course, some of those things were just reinforcing what they learned at home, but some were skills I could not teach them, they benefited from being with other children their own age. And of course there are numerous places they can learn these things, including some CMs, playgroups, preschools etc.

But for me it was certainly NOT an issue of needing childcare. This grant is offered to ALL children, not just those of working parents. And it is offered for 38 weeks of the year, not the full year.

I do agree though that if a CM can demonstrate that they can offer this kind of education/childcare (call it what you will) it is unfair that they are penalised as they get less than their usual hourly rate.

But no one uses this grant because the need their child to learn something. They use it because they need someone else to look after their child for a period of time
and you know this for a fact, do you?
just find that statement strange as in the nursery where I work- which is more of a pre-school,the parents who use us for childcare are in a minority
most of our children come to us because we have excellent links with the local school and we offer the grant
most of our children only do the free hours
that might change as we are taking more 2 year olds now
and early years education is not just 'education' it is about learning through play and yes, some children have excellent opportunities when with their parents, but some children do not
the 15 hours free education is more about levelling the playing field for all children than allowing parents to go out to work
and its called the early years foundation satge because it is buliding the foundations for future learning
research has shown that the first three years of a child's life are in fact the most crucial when it comes to later learning and therefore life chances
so that 'education' that you say is not necessary, is actually the most important stage of a child's life

Talk to me about this please. I have 3 kids, 7, 5 and 2 and never got any free anything for the first 2. I'm in N. Ireland in case thats relevant. My kids got a pre-school place (nursery) but that sounds like something else...

Well, I don't really subscribe to the theory that the government (including but not limited to OFSTED) are better qualified to organise appropriate education for a 3 year old than parents, nannies, or childminders who chose not to work for a negative "profit".

I didn't say childdren don;t need educating at 3. I said I didn't need the government to organise it.

What I do need (and I'm quite sure I'm not alone) is a tax break so I can pay the childcare, so I can go to work, so I can support these intiatives for all those underpriviledge kids (whose mums can afford not to go to work ).

Happyhugs - I'm not sure if it is different in NI, but if your kids got a pre-school place from the age of 3, and you didn't have to pay for it, then that sounds like the same thing.

3 year olds need childcare not education. Education at 3. Oh please.

Strix, you pretty much did say that children don't need educating at 3. I accept that how you choose to 'educate' your children is up to you, but for me, I did not need childcare, I needed somewhere for my children to reinforce skills or learn those skills that I could not teach them at home.

What I do need (and I'm quite sure I'm not alone) is a tax break so I can pay the childcare, so I can go to work, so I can support these intiatives for all those underpriviledge kids (whose mums can afford not to go to work hmm).

There are already tax breaks for childcare (whether these are sufficient is another thread), but don't make this about whether parents are working or SAH.

The beauty of this scheme is that it applies to ALL children, whether their parents are working, SAH, students or un-employed. Whether those parents choose to take up the offer of the free education is up to them.

But to infer that my children should not get this grant as I was a SAHM is a bit below the belt.

Basically how it seems to work is that it means SAH parents can access childcare, while working parents who don't use nurseries don't get the funding. Crackers.

It's not childcare, it's early years education!

All children have access to it. I accept for working parents it can be more difficult to access, due to the logistics, but there are CM and nurseries who do offer it. And just because it could be difficult for working parents, it doesn't mean that children who's parents are SAH or unemployed should miss out

Well, all working parents do not have access to it if some of them can't access it, surely? Whereas parents who don't work do have access to it. Might not have been the intention, but that's how it's ended up working out.

I think I'll just be grateful for nurseries and childminders who are offering the discount (with top up) and keep Schtum about it.

I am slightly outraged at the idea that working parents should pay for other people's childcare and not be able to access it themselves. Oh I'm sorry, I mean education. (No, I don't really)

I do agree that it can be difficult for the children of some working parents to get access to the early years education. As I said up thread I do agree that it would help if private nurseries and accredited CM who can show they offer an educational element (and I'm sure most do) could top up so they are not out of pocket.

However I disagree wholeheartedly that preschool education should only be available to the children where the parents work, which seems to be what Strix is suggesting. Are the children of the unemployed, or SAHP not entitled to a preschool education, should they miss out on a very important part of their development? What if one parent works, how much tax should they pay before they are allowed to send their children to preschool? What if they both work but in jobs below the tax threshold? Can their children go to preschool?

I don't think it should only be available for children of parents who work either, but I do think it should be available to working parents. And the way things are at the moment, it often isn't.

I'll agree with you there Wallison, it can be difficult for children of working parents to access it, it would help if top ups were allowed, I know some CMs and private nurseries do this anyway.

Yes, they do it, but in order to do so they're going against the rules which puts them in a precarious position, which is just crackers. Presumably the money has been earmarked to be spent anyway - why does it matter if people use it and then top up? The kid still gets the benefit, the parents still get the benefit, the provider still gets paid - everyone's happy.

"Oh, Tanith. I am sorry. "

You don't believe me?

Tanith, I'm puzzled by your post. You said you were going under, and so I expressed genuine sympathy with your situation. Perhaps I was not clear.

I have no problem with education for ALL. But, I do think this grant is used for childcare. If education if required, why does this scheme not operate through the establishment of nursery provision at local schools?

' If education if required, why does this scheme not operate through the establishment of nursery provision at local schools?'

Originally I think this was the plan, but there isn't the capacity. So CMs were included to make up the shortfall. And now it's been extended to 2yos they need CMs even more, but it starts to look less like encouraging children to acquire social skills and do a range of activities to prepare them for school and more like taking children away from parents because the parents are inadequate. I don't think that's what it's intended as at all but it's how it starts looking when you hear some of the things which are spouted about it. The funding is initially almost exclusively directed at children who have at least one SAHP because of the way the income bracketing works - statistically less likely to be the kind of SAHP who spends all day planning enriching and educational activities and so their children are more likely to benefit from EYE but its not going to working parents. Some working parents are using child are where their children receive about the same level of care and stimulation as those 'deprived' 2yos.

This all makes me cross. Reception classes are to prepare children for school. Going to some random other place will not prepare them for school.

I agree HSMM! Why do we expect children to prepare for school before they get there?

If education at 3 is required, it should be under the remit DfE, not farmed out to private nurseries/childminders/whomever.

I still think this provision is taxpayer funded childcare (and, yes, childcare does of course include some element of education).

Tanith.... I am clearly a numpty. I meant to say , and ot . Must brush up on my icon skills.

Sorry for the confusion

Not at all

I thought it might be that so I just wanted to check - the face was so at odds with the sentiment.

Can I jut say that childminders do the same work as a reception class teacher. We all use the early years foundation stage curriculum. Good childminders will have access to groups of children. I myself work very closely with two other minders and on a day to day basis my mindees can be socialising with 12-15 children! The EYFS is moving away from 'play' and stepping up the education side (ie we are going back to pre eyfs again) and good childminders will be doing all if this.
I don't just offer care, I offer education too!

I agree Bonkerz. My point was not that reception classes are better than CMs, but that Pre schools are not necessarily required to prepare a child for school.