Osborne to announce free childcare for 2 year olds

[OliviaMumsnet]

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....

A major factor in comparing primary education provision across Europe is the proportion of GDP spent on education . The UK spent 5.9% of GDP on education in 2004 (OECD, 2007), which is slightly above the OECD average of 5.8%. The figure for the UK has significantly increased since the year 2000 when only 5% was spent on education. However, the very successful northern European countries are spending more on education as the following list indicates: Denmark 7.2%, Finland 6.1%, Iceland 8%, Norway 6.2% and Sweden 6.7%.

Oh and they nearly all have smaller class sizes and less testing - so they are not making it anything like the successful European countries at all.

you get what you pay for essentially. and we're busy stuffing all of our money into the back pockets of fat cats.

I think the Torygraph has the story wrong here.

I am looking forward to seeing what the statement actually says and how much emphasis is given to early years education v childcare...

This is an extension of the 15 hours brought in by Labour for 3 year olds and is part of the Lib Dems social mobility agenda.

I support the spirit of this but given the other cuts it doesn't seem to me to be the right thing to do at the moment.

I doubt that many children a HRT payer as a parent (who, therefore, would lose CB) will qualify for this scheme. Eligibility will be determined by receipt of certain benefits (and possibly with some kind of social service referral element too).

This is a way of trying to backtrack on the sure start cuts without saying that's what they're doing.

i don't care if they say oh we cocked up a bit and we've changed our minds about surestart. i would actually respect them more for it. don't know if that's just me.

i don't know why they think these games are better for their pr than admitting mistakes and remedying them. i know which kind of person/party i'd trust more.

But you are probably not the core Tory vote. Backtracking on sure start sounds dreadfully socialist to them, so they need to dress it up as a making the feckless* go to work measure.

• channelling the daily mail in this.

..and at this rate all the pre-schools will go bust if they are just getting the piddling £8 an hour or whatever it is per child, rather than a decent amount which will allow them to provide decent levels of staffing, and still pay their overheads. Grrr ( Ex pre-school committee chair here - taking the 'free session' kids caused us huge money problems even when it was back in the day of only 12hours a week for 3 year olds.

you're right of course. and whilst maintaining that 'face' wasting millions of pounds redressing a wound that basically has to be dressed so why pretend otherwise? boundless stupidity

Boundless stupidity would probably be a good title for the daily mail...

the daily BS in fact!

www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR021.pdf This tells you what the real purpose of the scheme is. You'll note there is no mention of childcare in the executive summary.

(link originally posted by Clemette)

Because that £5 per week via CSA is going to cover so much childcare

Tax breaks or credits for childcare should have nothing to do with whether both parents are working.

I am a cynic and think it is about pushing SAHM to work. I read somewhere that the entitlement may be able to be used flexibly from 7am-7pm and for example could be used over 2 full days. But how many playgroups and nurseries are open those hours or will have places? I think it is a bad idea. Group childcare for 2.9m or 3/4 year olds is of benefit but before that it's more about childcare rather than education unless the parent is dire. Dressing it up as education they may be trying to make it a social norm that we hand over our DC from babies to be 'educated'.

As people have pointed out, it often costs more for a SAHM to go back to work. Most jobs require flexibility which make it impossible with childcare arrangements. That is why I beleve a system such as increased child benefit for everyone would give parents a real choice. It could either be used towards SAH or childcare.

I also read it was a Clegg scheme.

insert have a look at the link I reported above. The scheme is nothing to do with childcare.

I think the issue of absent parents paying for their own children is important but until the CSA or whoever get some balls and start garnishing wages it's an irrelevant point.

Also childcare has to be affordable. In many cases it just isn't at the moment.

I'm so ashamed I voted this lot in I really am, I apologise

It's a load of Tory bollocks innit.

Just where will 140,000 new nursery places come from? Do they magic them up overnight? From those SureStart centres that have all just... erm... closed down? Twats.

My DD attends a council run nursery. I am not from a "deprived background"- two people in my household work, no drugs, not a teenage mum etc.

Thinking entirely selfishly, what is the betting that my next child won't be able to even join a waiting list to have a lottery chance of going to this same nursery, because it will all be filled up with kids under this initiative. Can't see the local council magically building c. 2000 child care spaces overnight, with no capital funds to go on, so they will need to dedicate existing council childcare places only for the most deprived families.

I know that there are arguments for and against that, but from where I am standing, the local private nursery costs more than twice as much, and the childcare voucher scheme has been slashed (thank you Government), so it won't make financial sense for me to work. Perhaps I ought to be all magnanimous about that and say, it's better I don't work so that other mums of two year olds get 3 hours off a day. But I don't. Instead I say, HUMPH.

Well having read the report I don't think the aims are stupid. Taking children who are not adequately supported at home to an environment where they get support they need is a nobel aim. I have reservations because it is so little and it doesn't educate the parents who need help.

Affordable, good quality childcare for all is a really important issue but not something this scheme is for. The childcare aspect is just spin in this case.

Stupid Old Etonian tossers.

They really dont have a fucking clue, do they?

InsertClever
It is not education as such, but support and stimulation, ie. children who are not read to at home, or given decent healthy food will be given a better start in life. It is not teaching reading and writing.

I think the idea is good, just don't think that it is well thought through. And it will not really benefit many families.

Making childcare cheaper should be the priority.

I worked out the cost of FT childcare (on average) in comparison to Germany. In UK approx £400 a month. Where I lived in Germany, it was means tested so those on low wage paid nothing (up to ?12k) and even high earners (over ?60k) pay around ?230 a month.

But Germany has many more state and church funded and run nurseries than UK.

I agree with another poster-I think this is just another ploy to try and get rid of sahp-from the party who used to trumpet on about "family values"

Wont help anyone as 1)-there just are not the jobs available and
2)3 hours-where are the jobs where you can work 3 hours?

Load of bollocks.

As someone brought up very staunchly conservative I am disgusted by the way that twit cameron is taking the party.

Sadly I think it will get a whole lot worse now that we are going into a double dip recession.

I still maintain they will take my cb over my dead body

Children don't even need to be read to at nursery to benefit. There are children who can barely speak a single language when they enter school in YR or Y1 because no-one has bothered to talk to them. One of my aunts is a Language Support TA who helps such children, and she is adamant that early intervention (nursery care) would be a lot more efficient than what she does, which she qualifies as too little, too late.