Got views on free early years education (AKA 'free childcare hours')? Parliament wants to hear from you

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Parliament's Public Accounts Committee is going to be holding some sessions examining the free early education offer - that is, the 'free childcare hours'* that three and four year olds (and some two year olds) are entitled to before they start school.

At the moment most parents are entitled to 15 free hours for each child each week during term time; the government has promised to increase this to 30 hours for households where parents meet certain eligibility criteria.

(If this is news to you, you can find out more about the free hours here and here.)

The Public Accounts Committee regularly inquires into various aspects of government spending (see previous reports here) and wants to know what stakeholders think about the early education offer.

Their questions are copied in below; please reply on the thread to let us know what you think about any or all of the points they raise, and we'll pass on your views before their session next week.

Thanks
MNHQ

*We know, we know it's early years education! but almost everyone calls it childcare

----

"On Wednesday 20th April, the Public Accounts Committee will look at the government’s implementation of ‘free entitlement to childcare’, speaking with the Permanent Secretary and a range of education witnesses to understand how the policy is achieving value for money for the country."

"The Department for Education has made progress in providing 15 hours of free childcare to more parents of 3- and 4-year olds and parents of disadvantaged 2-year-olds, according to the National Audit Office. It has not yet, however, achieved full value for money because it cannot track the effectiveness of its substantial investment of £2.7 billion."

"Most parents of 3- and 4-year olds take-up free childcare places for their children. The Department’s measure of children’s outcomes at age 5 has also shown steady improvement. In 2015, 66% of children reached a good level of development compared to 52% in 2013. However, the Department cannot link this data to the quality of individual childcare settings, and from 2017 the current measure of development is being halted."

"The review found that funding for free childcare has stayed the same since 2013-14 meaning that providers have faced real-term cuts. The Department has announced new average funding rates at levels which are designed to encourage efficiency, however, it does not know how efficient providers currently are, following the freeze in funding in recent years. In 2017, the Department will also double the number of hours of free childcare that working families with 3- and 4-year-olds are entitled to, from 15 to 30 hours per week."

"The Public Accounts Committee would like to investigate how the policy is achieving value for money for the UK and would like to hear your views on the implementation and understand how free entitlement to early years education has had an impact."

"§ Some parents have reported that there is confusion about entitlement to childcare and better information would help many of them. Do you think that there is currently enough information provided on free entitlement to childcare?"

"§ What have been the advantages for parents of the provision of free entitlement to childcare?"

"§ Are there any reasons why there might be lower levels of take-up for the entitlement to childcare for two year olds?"

[sleeplessbunny]

The NEG funding rate is so low in my area (3.50 where real rates vary between 4.50 and 5.50) that very few setting can afford to accept it. The only 2 settings that accept NEG funding are the local preschool, which is in a difficult location and has sessions that cannot realistically be used by working parents, and a nursery that copes by inflating non-NEG rates. The result is that most children of working parents in this area see no benefit from the NEG. The only kids who are seeing a real benefit are those who can access the local preschool, which, due to its session times and location means only children of parents with a SAHP who can afford to run a car. Not sure this is the intended demographic

[AdorableMisfit]

For us, the "free hours" were completely useless. Our Local Authority has decided that the hours have to be taken as five 2.5 hour sessions (morning or afternoon, i. e. 9.00 to 11.30 or 1.00 to 3.30) at a nursery attached to a local primary school, the one in your catchment area, near where you live. No flexibility at all even if you work far from home. How is that supposed to work when you have to go to work full time? Some friends of mine would drop their dc to the state nursery for 2.5 hours, then spend their lunchbreak driving back to pick them up, drop them to private nursery for the afternoon and come back to work. Some used a child minder who they had to pay for a full day even though the child wasn't there for 2.5 hours. We chose for our daughter to remain at the expensive private nursery (where we got no discount as the local authority doesn't let you use your 15 hours in a private nursery) near my workplace full time until she stated school as there was just no practical way for us to use the "free hours".

Meanwhile, friends in other local authorities were able to use their free hours as two 7.5 hour sessions at a nursery of their choice. Seems rather unfair.

[NotCitrus]

Agree with all the problems above - the rules of the schemes need to be made clear but also nurseries need to be funded for the full costs of providing childcare so that they don't have to resort to workarounds like charging for compulsory lunch, etc.

The Government needs to decide what it's priorities are (education, or trying to force parents to seek work, and the latter will need availability to be created for childcare in many areas).

We're a reasonably well-off family but without the 15 free hours I wouldn't have been able to stay in work after maternity leave with dc2. If they want people to work then childcare needs to be available to cover commuting time.

[cleanandclothed]

Agree 100% with everyone else about the funding issue. Our (private, non-chain, outstanding) nursery charges between £8 and £9.50 per hour depending on the age of child. It also sets a minimum attendance of 16 hours per week (2 days minimum 9-5) although I expect most children do 30+ (3 days 8-6). At the moment the funding is just knocked off the bill so the nursery don't lose out and the parents benefit. As I understand it this is allowed, and I have no problem with this as the nursery needs to be able to run, and it wouldn't be able to do this on the government funding. It does however mean no-one who can't afford to pay for childcare can access the nursery due to the minimum hours and the fee structure.

I have spoken to the nursery and if the 30 hours 'free' funding comes in they won't offer it. They can't afford to run the nursery on that funding, and they probably don't want to set a minimum of 4 days attendance.

[AndNowItsSeven]

Cleo81 the free hours are not limited to five hours a day that must be the individual nursery making that requirement. Ds1 is three and attends nursery one full and one half day / ten hours and five hours.

[SaltySeaBird]

There needs to be a more uniform way in how this applied.

At some private nurserys where friends children attend, they get the first 15 hours of sessions free each week and pay for anything in addition to this.

Others have set "free" session times.

Mine however is very limited - my daughter, who has been there 2.5 years attends 20 hours a week but only gets 3 hours "free". We then have to pay a top up for the remaining 2 hours of that free session at a higher than normal rate (as we don't get a full session discount) so actually since she turned three six months ago, we've seen very little in the way of saving.

This is because:

1. Only a certain number of children can claim a free session at any one time - there is a waiting list. As she is a September baby, when she became eligible for free hours in January there were no "spaces" for a free session (despite the fact we weren't changing her hours).
   

1. "Free" sessions are only available at certain limited times, useless for childcare purposes. She can only claim her full 15 hours if she attended everyday, despite attending 20 hours a week (previously 30 but we dropped it as I am on maternity leave - she still couldn't claim them all when doing 30 a week as it was over 3 days and you can only claim a max of three per day).
   

These are the reality of some of the rules in place by nurseries. I work (when not on leave) 30 hours a week, my husband works 40 hours. We aren't high earners - just average wage. We struggle with childcare costs which are over £500 per month. Our nursery have already said they aren't opting into the 30 hour scheme.

[Quodlibet]

"§ Some parents have reported that there is confusion about entitlement to childcare and better information would help many of them. Do you think that there is currently enough information provided on free entitlement to childcare?"

I think that this confusion has been deliberately and cynically propagated by the government, who have in their own press releases and websites referred to '30 hours of free childcare for 3 year olds'. This was done to win votes, and very few people, apart from those wrestling with the bizarre distortions to the childcare landscape and trying to make the sums add up as they go back to work, actually realise how far away the policy is from the promise of 30 hrs free childcare (which would actually be enormously helpful, if that's what it was).
It isn't supposed to be childcare. It isn't actually 30 hrs a week - it is the equivalent to 30 hrs for 38 weeks of the year.

In my case, as a working parent, the only way to access my 'free' hours in a way that actually allows me to go to work is to use a local nursery that unashamedly treat the 'free' hours as a reduction on your bill, equivalent to £47 a week.

It's a ridiculous policy - the subsidy level, as others have said, is far too low to provide quality childcare OR education, and as a result, many providers who have a choice choose not to accept the subsidy.

[sleeplessbunny]

Also agree with pp that communication from the government regarding "30hrs free childcare" is at best misleading and at worst a bare-faced lie. Trouble is, only those doing battle with the current crappy system understand how desperately inadequate it is. Worse still, parents of 1-2 yr olds (including myself 2 yrs ago) believe that they will get a significant reduction in childcare cost when their DC turns 3, and sometimes make financial decisions based on that information. And then they find out they can't access the free hours after all.

[jellybeans]

Yes there are reasons for the low take up of childcare for 2 year olds:

Some parents want to be with their own child whilst very small and see this scheme as an insult making assumptions about their parenting. They may see it as nanny state interference. It seems to infer that poor parent, lone parent etc equals bad parent and low paid workers can do a better job.

Some parents feel that the aim is to push them out to work when they want to stay home with their child.

My own DC attended nursery from aged between 2 and 3. The eldest full time and the rest part time. My youngest onky doing 2 mornings a week until the year before school. Believe it or not, many parents can decide for themselves how much childcare they want or need.

[chibsortig]

So free childcare from 2 for more families. Great for those that need it like the people that work oh wait that only works if you earn x amount of pounds to qualify. People who arent working who dont always need it qualify.
Surely it would make more sense making it more accessible to working families who are already stretch financially.
Also I am in an area where they have just shut all the sure start nurseries so thats at least 60 nursery places in my immediate area gone thats lots of families that have had to find other placements. Mostly childminders are all the other nurseries are full or do without, which is fine if you dont work but if you work you are stuck.
Now you want to increase nursery hours and places - where?
I cant put my two year old anywhere there isnt a space ive to wait until he is 3 and be offered a place in the school nursery for his 15 hours.

You could pay the providers monthly and promptly even in advance if possible and a fair rate.

The people that thought up this plan wasnt really thinking all that well if you ask me. You dont shut nurseries and then offer people childcare thats backwards if ever i heard a plan.
Pay the people doing the caring proper rates not just what you imagine it costs.
And offer it to people that really need it.

[Happygoluckyy]

I think the nursery funding is fine as it is and theres no need for the 30 hours? Children may struggle with longer separation times from parents, it will also put a huge weight on nurseries to be able to provide it to all those eligible i.e not enough staff to children ratio. How about funding playgroups? I know a lot of autism playgroups that have had to close due to lack of funding. Why dont you look into that?

[Cleo81]

Seven- yes, sorry you are right ds's nursery have said its limited to 5 hours a day. Each place differs. It was the best we could find as other places were only 2/3 hours a day. So my point was there should be much more flexibility, parents should be able to use the hours as they like and decide if they want 7.5 hours two days a week or 5 hours over three days etc without the nursery dictating to them. For us it's not 15 free hours a week as we only use 10 (5 hours for two days) and we pay for the extra hours. It's not as good as it seems. Plus, it's term time only at our nursery so not set up for working parents

[AllMyBestFriendsAreMetalheads]

I agree with PPs - the 15 hours of education in term time for preschoolers is NOT childcare. It is a benefit that the child receives, not the parents.

If they want to increase that amount of education, or offer child care in addition to the education, then great. But they aren't the same.

[SaltySeaBird]

I'd like to see it applied as £x value with 15 hours available for all and 30 hours available to families where there is no stay at home parent. Families can then use the £x value as a straightforward deduction from their nursery bill, whether that represents £45/week or whatever. I don't think it should be in terms of hours as that is misleading where the majority of nurseries don't apply it in this way.

It could be done in a similar way to childcare vouchers - you just log in and can use the funds to pay a registered childcare establishment / individual.

[BackforGood]

Cleo that's because it was never designed as being anything to do with childcare. The Early Education Entitlement (as it is now, previously Nursery Education funding, then Fair Education funding) was always there to provide a Nursery education. That happens in terms times, to stay in line with schools. That's also why a lot of Nurseries consider 3 hours a day to be far more beneficial to the children than longer sessions then a big gap before their session the following week. It's never been about convenience or money saving for parents, it's always been about improving the 'starting point' of dc starting schools.

The new 30 hours they promised in the election run up, is about free childcare, but that is completely different from what has been happening over the last few years.

This is why the Gvmnt needs to sort out in it's own mind what it is funding, and why.

[Akire]

They should make the 15-30 h as a fund for you to use not set only X hours which differ from
Nursery to nursery. There is no need for your average 3-4y old to have 30h unless both or single parent is at work. I think 15h work fine and the money could be better used to support those who need to work.

It's going to cause even more resentment for a single parent who chooses not to work and gets 30h say and someone who is marginally better off working full time and having to pay for the rest.

I used to work in a nursery least 3 times a parent would ring the doorbell then point to small child dating she's three when can we have our free hours. When you showed them the price list/waiting list/deposit/abd top up fees you would have to scrap them off the pavement.

The amount per hour needs to go up or its working parents who will be asked to make up the extra costs. Ditto also a fund for extra costs with Special needs, there is often a long time between thinking is there something wrong here and finally getting a diagnoses and funding. Meanwhile nursery staff have to refer and do assessments and cope with behaviour I'm sorry to say IS at the cost to the rest of the group. Even a few hours extra a week mean a nursery can plan or observe or provide 1-1 activities that can make a huge difference.

[MsMommie]

Think of non working parents want to take up the 'free' childcare it should be on the basis that they spend at least half of that time studying or doing voluntary work.

[minipie]

Yes to the funding issue. DD does 16 hours a week at nursery, term time only and the govt funding covers about a THIRD of the cost. Pretty much all nurseries near me ask for a similar top up on top of the funding. We can afford to pay the extra but if people can't then effectively the funding is useless to them. And those are the people who need it most.

And yes, yes to this from BackforGood:

I think the Gvmnt needs to sort out in it's own mind, before going any further with this, exactly what it is trying to do. It needs to decide if this is about enabling parents to go to work when their dc are pre-schoolers, or if this is about trying to offer pre-school education and try to iron out some of the inequalities between dc starting school.

However, both scenarios need to be properly funded

[Quodlibet]

The problem with making the 15-30 free hours a 'fund' (which is essentially how it is being used by e.g. my and Minipie's nurseries, who are charging a top up on top) is that rates differ so much all over the country. In London, the 'fund' or 'free hours' will not go any where near the cost of care, and nurseries will still charge huge top-ups. Elsewhere in the country it may be more manageable. A friend of mine had her nursery bill drop from £70/day to £28/day when she moved from London to Norfolk for example. How can this be any use to the lower-paid workers in London who can't afford the high top up fees?

If this is genuinely a commitment to free/affordable childcare, then it needs to be free/affordable FOR ALL, including in London. Currently there's a 2-tier system developing, with the better nurseries - attended by children of parents who can afford them - charging £££ on top of 'free hours' and offering more flexible hours, and the other nurseries often ending up even more stretched as a result, because they have higher numbers of children from more deprived backgrounds who might need more support. And low-paid workers can't access the 'free' hours because, as people have pointed out, they are often only offered in 3 or 5 hr daily chunks, which is not enough time to enable someone to do a shift at work.

[Marzipants]

I wish the government would stop calling it FREE childcare. Nowhere I know offers the 15 hours free without asking for top ups. And I agree that offering "free" hours from 1 would have more of a positive impact for mothers. I'd like to go back to work for 3 or 4 days a week after my maternity leave (for DD, third baby) ends, but after crunching the numbers it looks like the only financially viable option is to go back two days a week. This means I'll miss out on biggest projects, and my skills will suffer. Once childcare and travel has been deducted my total pay will be a little over £150 a month. I'd be financially better off leaving my (professional) job and working Saturdays in retail, which has nothing at all in common with my profession, leaving a gaping hole on my CV. Or claiming job seekers allowance until DS2 starts school next September, but I'd rather not do that.

If the free hours are to enable women to go back work (and help reduce the gender pay gap), then they need to start earlier and be better funded.

And another huge thumbs up for what Backforgood wrote.

[RowanMumsnet]

Thanks so much for all your comments - hugely interesting, as always. We will pass them on to the committee and let you know if there's any feedback.

Meanwhile, for Westminster fans or those particularly interested in the issue, you can follow the course of the inquiry and get updates on evidence sessions here.

Thanks
MNHQ

[Obs2016]

I think the current 15 hours is sufficient. I don't think it should be increased to 30.
The system can't cope as it is.
It benefits a very small, specific set of parents.
I see this as a just another political bribery, similar to when they recently introduced the free school meals for ks1. If a child needs it, great, but it was offered universally, so wealthy families get it too. Silly.

[TiggyD]

Thr so called free hours are capped so nuseries make a loss on those 15 hours. They will soon be making a loss on 30 hours.
Nurseries will shut, stop taking funded children, or slash their out goings dramatically but reducing quality.
If you wanted to introduce something to destroy the entire nursery sector you couldn't do better than this government enforced income cap.