Ofsted Director calls to scrap nursery subsidy for middle income families

[Italiana]

Susan Gregory is calling for the 15 hours Free Entitlement to be scrapped for middle income families

This is a short preview in The Times today
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3618366.ece

A universal right? What, like free speech or the right to life? No, preschool, free or otherwise, is not a universal right.

If the benefit is worth the cost then it's worth doing. Those are the conditions - it's not a civil rights issue.

Presumably she meant a universal entitlement, like healthcare and education.

Which is easy to imagine, since it is education.

How will this impact on Foundation Units in school?
Would I have to pay school for my son's 15 hours?

I agree with the posters who say it should be available to all.

I wonder if instead of getting rid of 15 hours for some families they could cut sessions down to 2 or 3 mornings/ afternoons for all children. So that everyone gets a chance to go.
I am fortunate to be able to be at home (CM) and always felt that the 5 morning sessions we had at pre-school and now have at school were a little bit of a bind and I would've liked 3 sessions so I could do more at home/ outside / visits with them.

I do also think it is very dodgy ground assuming that middle income households always provide the best background for children. The stories I hear from other CM about Drs, Dentists, Nurses etc beggars belief!

Income is not always a determinant of good parenting practice. But I bet the authorities don't care because they can afford to pay for it. But what about that child whose parents choose not to. Why should he or she be disadvantaged?

I repeat - if the benefit is worth the cost, it's worth doing. It's easy to imagine it is worth the cost and easy to imagine it isn't. But what we imagine doesn't matter. We can't afford to pay for things we imagine will be nice.

I'll also repeat a recommendation earlier about tax relief for child care. THAT would do a lot more for working couples than this.

Yes I think lower taxes/tax relief would be fine as well. I think it's the perceived unfairness of the system that bothers a lot of people - you work hard, earn reasonably well, then give up a big chunk of it to pay for, among other things, other people to have children - leaving you unable to afford to have the family you yourself want.

I know life isn't fair etc, and we all benefit from the infrastructure and services our taxes pay for. I don't have a problem with that. But that doesn't mean there mightn't be a more fair and sensible way of doing things.

I think tax relief on childcare is the fairest way to go - it goes to "strivers" and it goes to people who need it for working purposes. The people it doesn't help are the people whose children should basically be out of their care for 15 hours a week in order to have a decent chance.

That is true, though as someone mentioned above, you have to question whether 15 hours a week is going to make a real difference to those children's lives.

Actually, does anyone know if there's evidence to answer that question? Or maybe it's too soon to say?

I think it would make more of a difference if it was focussed on children who "need" it and it was generally accepted that the whole point of it was to bring on children who aren't being brought on by their parents. You could really make a big difference then. Otherwise it's just throwing them out of a moving car through the door.

I understood that part of the rationale for funding two year old places for families on benefits was to allow parents to seek work or training and pull themselves out of poverty. If they succeed, and manage get off benefits, will they then lose their childcare because they have found work? Doesn't sound like much of an incentive to me.

So it seems like maybe we're confusing two things here: state-funded early interventions for children who are disadvantaged at home, and a fair taxation/benefits system that doesn't seem to penalise responsible hard-working middle-earners. Different issues which probably need different solutions.

If you read the link you would understand it. It was a comparison of targeted vs universal welfare. Targeted is found to increase inequality etc in it. Read the link, it is interesting. The people arguing that targeted welfare saves money are basing that on what exactly?

Yes Ephiny I think we are and I think that's where the problem lies.

Long of the short is universal provision is more effective and more efficient and reduces inequalities. Gender inequalities are reduced because targeted welfare is generally based on the more common male breadwinner model.

Offred - there's no argument there against tax relief for child care. And as for saving money - if children need to be removed from their parents for 15 hours a week in order to learn how to hang up their coats and sit still, then that is money well spent. I suspect the children of most mumsnetters don't.

Targeting means greater admin, error and fraud costs which eclipse any savings you might make. It is money for bureaucrats and lawyers and not for children. This targeting of services the govt is keen on is about cutting the service altogether not saving any money...

Read the link. It is an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of universal welfare which is what free preschool places for 3 year olds is, which is what the thread was about. Tax relief on childcare already exists in the form of childcare vouchers and I doubt it would be better than 15 free hours of preschool - many women in single Earner male breadwinner families would not be able to use it for a start.

Targetting a childcare provision for children who need it to bring them on is not the same as targetting a financial benefit.

and targetting is not the same as targeting

sp fail

It is exactly the same. It doesn't save money and it is based on a spurious assumption - that poor people's kids need "bringing on". The evidence for the long term benefit of preschool is exceptionally shaky anyway IMHO. 15 free hours is about getting women into work not benefitting the children. The research generally shows that nursery is only better than home if home is really awful. Really awful homes are not the same as poor homes.

Also I seem to remember that evidence shows children who are behind are brought on by being in a class with children who are ahead too, what would be the point in having a class full of children that are behind, who would want to send their children in those circumstances?

I'll give up if you think there are children from failing families who do not need bringing on and that there's a prevalence of those children in families where there is income and educational disadvantage. Your argument is based on a premise I don't accept.

Teachers and schools are always arguing that lower income and social disadvantage are reasons for failure. I don't accept they're reasons for failure; I think they are potential reasons for failure.

But I don't accept there is an equal number of children from wealthy families who need social services-type support as from lower income families, therefore from my point of view there's little to be gained from any debate based on that premise.

First of all I admit that I have not read past page 2 so this may have been said - BUT:
Good idea?? - words fail me.
my first child went to school in 2000 and my last in 2005 - I went back to work, admittedly to a good job, between 12 weeks and 6 months for all my pregnancies. i went back to work becasue I needed to - not beacuse I wanted to. I never had a penny of support/tax releif etc or what ever it is called except universal Child benefit as our household always just earned slightly over the limit. We really are the squeezed middle. I really really NEEDED that free 15 hours when it came around.

I know others in that situation now who depend of this to ease the cost of childcare.

Honestly, If I had my time again I would have taken a "carreer break", been a sAHM and let the government assit me in this dream

Doesn't matter whether there are equal numbers or not (i do believe social services etc assume wealthy families are ok when they arent often though) to be fair the assumption that being poor means you can't raise your kids and that having a nursery place means you aren't doing your job properly would motivate people to avoid using them at all costs. There is good evidence that the stigma of targeting results in low uptake. I think you should read the link.

There isn't much evidence to suggest much benefit to children in all but the worst cases of preschool education IMHO.