Do you have a 3- or 4-year-old and can’t access 30 hours of funded childcare? Would you be willing to share your experience?

[TheSuttonTrust]

A child’s early years play a significant role in determining their chances later on in life. Currently, all three- and four-year-olds in England are entitled to 15 hours of early education and childcare per week. Some families meeting certain requirements are also entitled to an additional 15 hours, making a total of 30 hours.

Often the children and families who need childcare the most don’t get access to the full 30 hours. This could be because they aren’t working enough hours, aren’t earning enough money or their shift patterns mean they don’t qualify.

Currently under the current eligibility criteria for the 30 hours entitlement, it is predominantly children in better off homes who are eligible for a full-time place. This means many families are ‘locked out’ of extra childcare.

The Sutton Trust has a campaign called A Fair Start which aims to influence the government to reform the system to allow better access to the 30 hours entitlement and ensure that families who could really benefit from extra childcare are able to access it.

The Sutton Trust is looking for parents willing to share their stories to help with their campaign, which aims to give all children access to great early years education.

They are looking for parents who:

• couldn’t access the full 30 hours childcare support for whatever reason. This might be they weren’t working enough, earning enough or their shift patterns meant they didn’t qualify
• wanted to go back to work or increase their hours, but it wasn’t financially viable as they couldn’t immediately access the 30-hour offer.

We’re hoping to find parents willing to share their experience to help us get the policy changed. If you’ve struggled to get 30 hours of childcare, please email with a short explanation about your experience to [email protected]

You can find out more about the Trust’s campaign here: www.suttontrust.com/a-fair-start-equity-in-access-to-early-years-education.

So frustrating when people refer to the 30 hours as free. A huge proportion of families do not have this experience. The hours are partially funded, at best.

My own experience is that we pay the nursery a top up to fill the gap left between what they charge for a non funded place (for a example what it costs for an under 3 year old), and what they get from the council as funding. There is a £28 per day gap, and we the parents pay it (plus full price for all non term time of course)
It’s far from free.

A lot of the problem comes from the funding amount, the pressure needs to be removed from settings and on to the government to increase the payments.

As a childminder (IE working parent just like you) I can't afford to offer all my spaces to funded children and either; not charge a top up or increase the price for younger children. I chose the first option.

Happy to show anyone my tax return if they think childminders are taking it in! I often see the maths people use to try and work out what we earn but expenses are huge in this sector, my turnover does not equal my profit (ie my income to pay my own bills!).

There are some childcare settings that are thinking about dropping out of these schemes, because the rate they get paid is so low.
Although I see from a parents point of view that they want to save money, I can also see that if too many people are eligible, settings will close due to lack of funds, or leave the scheme and only take paying customers.

So the more that become eligible, the less places there will ultimately be.
And that's not good for any parent.

It all boils down to if we value women in the work place doesn’t it (both mothers in their careers and nursery providers in theirs)
It’s not looking good…

@Chillyseadippin this is a very good point.

I couldn't access the 30 hours for my dc, just the 15. Part of my income if from property letting and as it's considered "passive" and makes my family ineligible. It isn't passive in the sense that the money magically appears in my account, especially when I'm doing end of tenancy cleans including cleaning vomit from bathroom walls.

We aren't eligible for the 30 hours because DH set up a business 6 months ago and needs to reinvest all his current profits into the company, so he doesn't pay himself a salary. The business is a limited company - if he were a sole trader we would get the 30 hours as it would be his first year in self-employment, but as it's a limited company we don't qualify. It's ridiculous. He works very hard and isn't dodging tax. My child has some developmental delay and is being investigated for possible neurodiversity - he would really benefit from getting 30 hours in nursery instead of 15.

Surely the reason you have to be working & earning to qualify for 30 hours is obvious? If I didn’t work, I wouldn’t need 30 ‘free’ hours. I could access 15 hours and be at home with my child the rest of the week 🤷🏼‍♀️ But I work almost full time so I need more ‘free’ hours..

& I’m certainly not remotely wealthy. I chose to have my kids years apart in age because I couldn’t afford to put two through private nursery at the same time. I have very little spare cash at all once I’ve paid for nursery and before & after school clubs, plus holiday clubs cos kids get millions of weeks holiday but I get 27 days a year.. 🥴

@Bobholll that was the point I was trying to make before... that I was confused by the fact that people who can't access it "need childcare the most" as if they needed it due to work they would qualify. I think what is meant is that those children often make most progress in early education? I think the words childcare and education are being used interchangeably when primarily the tax relief is aimed at working parents.

Sorry the funded hours I mean

I think though that the arguement is that sometimes families who don't meet the working requirement need the help for other reasons, such as the provision being to benefit the child and not just the parent. Much like the provision of childcare to 2 yr olds.

@ohnowhatyougonnado, has he considered paying himself the bare minimum hours at minimum wage? More tax efficient too.

Arguement 🙄

@Hb12

I think though that the arguement is that sometimes families who don't meet the working requirement need the help for other reasons, such as the provision being to benefit the child and not just the parent. Much like the provision of childcare to 2 yr olds.

@ohnowhatyougonnado, has he considered paying himself the bare minimum hours at minimum wage? More tax efficient too.

Thank you so much for replying. We had already had this thought and may start doing it later this year, once we've got a big capital expense out of the way. The business has a very respectable income - we just want to plough the money back in to expanding and developing for now, and we can afford to live on my income. Thanks for an alternative perspective.

I know it's not a popular view on mn but once one partner earns over £100k, there be omes a cliff edge in regards to tax (start g to loose personal allowance) etc. I appreciate that it sounds a very generous salary but if the second of you is a lower earner then it becomes a much lower sum. I believe it should be based on joint income rather than 1 earner, with potential for additional funding for critical workers eg front line in the NHS

The only people I know who cannot access the 30 hours entitlement are in a two household couple where neither work. They get the two hour funding but nursery next to their eldest’s school will only accept 2 year old funding for one 10 hour day per week. Ideally, the parents would have liked 2 x 7.5 hour day or 5 morning. However, the nursery cannot afford to take children with 2 hour funding for just mornings or afternoon as the cannot find working parents to who just need the opposite.

The funding rate for 2/3 year olds is a massive problem in my area as it’s so piss poor. I’m living in a mainly working class area that is a childcare dessert! Covid forced almost all childminders locally to close forever as they all went and got different jobs instead. The few remaining have no places and are term time only so not suitable for most parents. There are a couple of pre-schools. Again, these are term time only and open from 9-3pm so again not suitable for most families. There is one nursery in my area which accepts children all year round but is only open from 8am to 5:30pm. Whereas, in the more affluent areas there are multiple nurseries open all year round from 7:30am to 6:30pm. It’s not that people on low incomes struggle to access the funded 30 hours it’s that it’s nearly impossible to find childcare that will cover working hours to enable someone to work!

@TheSuttonTrust Children on Child Protection Plans are not automatically eligible for the 30 hours. How much would it cost for those children to be funded the extra 15 hours?

As a family with more income than another may have, because we both work full time, I don’t feel we are less deserving than a family with one parent who either doesn’t work or works too few hours to be entitled to the 30 hours funding. “Better off” families are in many cases only better off precisely because they are working more so I don’t see any problem with them being entitled to the 30 hours and others not.

Childcare has benefits in some cases but first and foremost it’s for taking care of children so their parents can work. If one parent isn’t working or works very few hours they don’t need childcare for its primary purpose.

I feel for families who can’t find a childcare setting which will accept the 30 hours funding, but not for families who aren’t entitled to 30 hours because of choices they have made.

And how will nurseries afford all these extra funded hours when they are way below what the real cost is?
You will just have nurseries pulling out of the scheme altogether.
I work in a nursery and I'm sure most children given the chance would rather be at home with their main carer given the chance. The main benefit education wise is when they start school we are basically minding children so parents can work.
Harsh but true.