Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Osborne to announce free childcare for 2 year olds

336 replies

OliviaMumsnet · 28/11/2011 22:46

In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor will outline a £650 million scheme to provide free early education for about 40 per cent of two year-olds.

Just wondering what MNers think about this....

OP posts:
DamselInDisarray · 29/11/2011 09:37

I think the getting mothers back to work aspect would be minimal, but it may not be the real intention behind the scheme. Children from deprived backgrounds are (statistically) more likely to arrive at school with very significant language delays. This holds them back in their education right from the start. Putting money into so called 'early intervention' like this gives these children a better chance. That can save the government considerable sums of money over the long term (from all manner of budgets), far more than it costs to pay for some toddlers to go to nursery for a few hours a day.

However, that sort of thing sounds far too lefty for Osborne so he'd be very unlikely to say that. Instead, he can drone on about working and deficit reduction.

DamselInDisarray · 29/11/2011 09:39

Celebmum: it'll be the 'poorest' 40% of two year olds, probably determined by whether the parents are in receipt of certain benefits.

MmeLindor. · 29/11/2011 09:42

WidowW
That is not true. Are you in Germany? Perhaps it is so in some areas, but where we lived it was no problem to get the children into full time kindergarten. And with childcare provision from 7.30am to 4.30pm, full time work was possible.

I knew a lot of women who worked full-time or part-time. The reason many do the ?400 jobs is not because of childcare, but because they are taxed as a family and they are very highly taxed because of this.

When the DC go to school, it all goes to hell in a handcart, but the 3 years of kita is great.

GossipWitch · 29/11/2011 09:51

If someone without kids, lots of experience and can be very flexible, cant get a job how on earth will a woman find a job where she can only work for a couple of hours??? how about they put the extra cash into businesses that a flailing under this government, instead of selling the companies overseas, or shutting them down completely....

GypsyMoth · 29/11/2011 09:55

What's the point of this great start in life if it all falls apart for our children post gcse?

TheSecondComing · 29/11/2011 09:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WidowWadman · 29/11/2011 10:01

Mme Lindor I'm in the UK, but I am German, with friends and family in Germany. nursery opening times from 7:30 to 4:30 do not enable you to do a normal 9-5 job with any kind of commute involved - I'm just going by the experiences of the people I know there (plus German parenting forums), and fulltime work is pretty much either a case of grandparents helping out or parents working opposing shifts or hiring a Tagesmutter.

WidowWadman · 29/11/2011 10:02

Mme Lindor You also forgot to mention that most state nurserys if not all have set holiday times similar to schools (allegedly to give children a break from nursery), which also is pants if you don't have any alternative childcare in place.

YULEingFanjo · 29/11/2011 10:11

They should provide full time childcare/nursery provision for 3 year olds not extend it to 2 year olds.

MmeLindor. · 29/11/2011 10:16

True, WidowW, but if you are not paying a fortune for the kita and only have to hire a childminder for the hour or so in the evening, then you can work.

The problem in UK is that the basic cost for full time childcare is very high. We were paying ?300 for full time childcare. In UK for those hours, you would be paying double that. (going by £4/hour which is the average, I think).

In NRW you pay nothing for the second child, just the meals.

But there is no way that UK will ever see that kind of money going into pre-school education, so it is all hypothetical anyway.

lisad123 · 29/11/2011 10:18

thesecondcoming, sadly its true here, i have critria here, and aswell as certain benifits they have to have "something" else going on to get funding :(

TheSecondComing · 29/11/2011 10:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lisad123 · 29/11/2011 10:30

I know ours is the pilot scheme so assumed it was for this governements "new funding"

swallowedAfly · 29/11/2011 10:37

haven't had time to read all this yet but i think the thread title is very misleading in a way that it's important not to mislead. this is not free childcare (god knows many of us needed that) it's early years provision education. presumably with highly restrictive hours - say, 9-12 or 1.30-4.30 that pretty much rely on you being at home to deliver and collect anyway unless you already use a nursery full time who will agree to discount an amount in recognition of these hours being paid for from your weekly bill.

this isn't childcare - childcare implies a help to parents, this is early ed stuff with the focus on the child.

TheSecondComing · 29/11/2011 10:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bonsoir · 29/11/2011 10:42

swallowedAFly - I made a similar point somewhere down the thread, and I very much agree with you that the distinction between "childcare" (= a service that allows parents to work) and "education" (= a service that educates children) is not made nearly often enough. Childcare and education are not one and the same.

clemetteattlee · 29/11/2011 10:55

Exactly the point I was making last night. The only objections (apart from the valid ones that abhore how money has been moved from one pot to another) that people have to this is that
a) it won't benefit them personally
b) somehow those in economic need dont deserve help and intervention.

At the risk of sounding all hand-wringy this is all about the children - it is for their benefit, it has proven positive outcomes (as I linked to in the pilot report, which also specifies the criteria) and the long-term consequences are of benefit to the country.

When did we all become so blinkered that if it doesn't put money in YOUR pocket then it is a BAD thing?

Iggly · 29/11/2011 11:06

I read about this - not sure why a) the chancellor gets the credit given this was going to happen anyway and b) how is it decent childcare to help people get a job? Hmm

Childcare full stop is expensive. Give more tax breaks or something to bring the cost down overall, instead of tinkering for headlines.

swallowedAfly · 29/11/2011 11:28

not fussed about money in my pocket but i am fussed about the fact that a government forcing even women who want to stay and look after their kids out to work whilst totally ignoring the massive problems with childcare and the barriers to work for women/primary caretakers (still mostly synonymous even today) needs to address real fundamental issues in the system to make the economy actually work for modern conditions rather than offer out distracting pieces of cake.

swallowedAfly · 29/11/2011 11:29

absolutely iggy.

more short sighted bs spin and keep the dummies happy crap.

much like the youth contract shite.

do you think we can ever get a government that discusses things with us like adults and realises it's job rather than confusing itself with tabloid journalism.

fuck the fuckety fuck off. we're not dumb children.

swallowedAfly · 29/11/2011 11:30

when will i ever learn to stop making the its it's error. it's like a mental block!

EdithWeston · 29/11/2011 11:45

It's a very muddled announcement, as it clearly won't help in getting parents back to work (though I supposed it might reduce the bill for a few).

It is however squarely targeted at the most disadvantaged families, and has social mobility in mind. study after study finds that (at a population level) children of such households are slipping behind even at that age. Access to good quality preschools can mitigate this. (As well as boosting employment in at sector)

The Sure Start label has been abandoned, but this shows that the concept behind Sure Start continues. It is refocussing on the basics of early interventions to the neediest (something Sure Start had departed from). As the services are much more important to me than the name attached to them, then I welcome this.

But I am not so clear about the detail of how it will be implemented. The current mechanisms for EYFS are unsatisfactory (amount paid to nurseries, especially in London/SE is below actual cost, leading to all sorts of shenanigans around availability and high priced unavoidable additional hours). This may worsen those problems, so nurseries may be unwilling to participate, which would stall the initiative, or would erode quality of care/education which completely defeats the purpose (as it is only high quality care which has been shown to have beneficial effects in this group).

Iggly · 29/11/2011 11:46

Grin swallowed it's the rage you feel making you forget. Agree with your points. So patronising but it works because so many people only read a headline.

swallowedAfly · 29/11/2011 11:47

this is a terrible thing to say edith but you have to wonder what the point of children doing slightly better academically is these days given there are no jobs or chances of further/higher education for kids coming out of school and even university Sad

i was an educator and another one convincing kids to work hard, do their best, it's worth it, they'll have more options in life etc and actually now feel a bit of a fraud. what a sad thing to have to say.

KateMiddIeton · 29/11/2011 11:48

Much of what's just been posted was posted on the thread last night... in almost exactly the same way, a bit like this:

Looks good but not enough childcare, still it's a start.

No, it's not good enough and is a big con. It doesn't address the real issues and won't help people into work because there are no jobs and childcare is too expensive.

Hang on, looking at that scheme it's not even childcare! It's early years intervention in a nursery setting.

Whaaat? You mean like Sure Start was but without the parents?

Do they think we're too stupid to understand this is not about childcare? Why dress it up in this way?

What bastards.

So really they're robbing one person of help to do this scheme that looks more attractive?

What utter bastards.