Conservatives & Nursery Top Up Fees

[gravelchops]

The Conservatives will allow nurseries to charge parents of three- and four-year-olds millions of pounds in "supplementary fees" if they form a government after 6 May, the Observer has learned. Campaigners have described the move, which would end the guarantee of a free place for every child that age, as "a huge blow to parents".

The party has kept the policy out of its election manifesto.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/25/conservatives-charge-nursery-places

I'm with Francagoestohollywood.

maybe the government should just take all babies from birth to make sure they all have the "same opportunities" and no one gets special treatment, e.g., breastfeeding or baby yoga.

Top up fees aren't so bad, anyway, our local paper keeps going on about how the state nurseries in the area not attached to schools are all under threat of closure due to funding issues.

Are you being facetious again ?

that was to chandellina

Franca - perhaps if the "civilised country" wasn't hundreds of billions of pounds in debt, then maybe.
But we are, and we've got to start sorting it out. If that means some parents making more effort to "give their children access to creative things/books etc" without expecting the taxpayer to fund it, then that's fine by me.
And while they're at it, they can stop the £250 payment to new babies as well.

I agree though; its not the governments job to provide free childcare; state education yes. But not childcare.

And what's with this idea that the earlier and longer we can get kids into school the better opportunities they'll have? What about other opportunities?

I agree with targeted interventions for children in the most need - but not universal free/subsidised provision of childcare and education practically from birth. Unless its done through a standardised state system like school is, and if you go private you foot the bill in return for extra choice and the government butting out (ie; EYFS compulsory ONLY for state nurseries)

And before the Tories get blamed for cutting funding for 1:1 tuition for struggling kids in schools, I'll point out that Labour have already stopped it. The last few kids are just finishing their course of 10, and there's no more coming.

I'm not talking about better opportunities in later life. I'm talking about opportunities and experiences that should be the norm for a 3 yr old. Trust me that they aren't. Not to mention the opportunity to learn the language for many children, before they hit reception age.

ANd the tax payers, why do they mind their money to be spent on young children? And aren't the majority of these children parented by tax payers?

It's about priorities.
And for me, that's not a priority. So the prospect of cuts in that area (whichever party is responsible) does not faze me.

Exposure to books, for instance, can easily be achieved by the parents taking their own children down to the (free) library. Don't need to be at nursery for that.

But lots of parents don't do this. Because they themselves don't have the habit to do so. Nor do they consider it as important.

Anyway, never mind.

Sorry, posted too early.
I understand the reasons why you don't see it as a priority. I do though, I think it is important.

Well if parents can't be arsed to take their own kids to the library (for instance), why should we taxpayers be expected to fund an expensive alternative to do it for them? Particularly if they don't consider it as important.

I don't know. I fund lots of things I don't find paramount with my taxes. Or things that could be done by the family, like care homes for old people.

People are always going to disagree about what they think is an essential use of tax payer's money but surely most would agree that children all deserve a decent start in life as far as possible. If parents for whatever reason, cannot afford their child opportunities, the children are the ones who suffer. And that isn't fair. When 4/5 year old start reception, if they have not attended a pre-school setting, they have not only missed out academically, but also crucially on developing social skills. I do not think that pre-school is a luxury - it's actually very important imo.

Lol, Chandellina.

So, so, so many questions are being begged here. Particularly the casual bandying around of the 'nursery equals opportunities' equation. What a shame my children missed all this opportunity by being at home with me for five years.

Of course I would say that because I'm posh and take them to museums . But when I look at the battery farmed children in our local day nursery, I'm really not convinced by the whole 'free childcare for all' argument.

[Oops, forgot the 'dons hard hat' bit].

Exactly Electra.
Not all children have fluffy MN parents who provide them with all sorts of stimulations. (and I'm not talking about academic achievements here)

But yes, I guess the main problem is that people will never agree on which priorities should be met by the tax payer's money!

but how far do you take it electra?

Reception used to be an introduction into school. Now pre-school is an introduction into reception. Will we have preparation-for-nursery-year starting at 2 next because research shows children who start nursery after this year are more prepared for nursery.

That's because it is allowed to have crap nurseries. And btw I'm talking about nursery schools, not early yrs childcare.

And yes, your kids haven't missed any opportunity because you are most likely an attentive parent, who plays with them and do stuff with them, and chooses age appropriate games etc etc. (but they'd have fun in nursery school too...).
By the way, have you spent time in your local nursery?
But not all children have these opportunities in their families.

but thanks to the Labour government early years early years childcare and early years education are now completely interlinked.

(oooh, I meant that in a bad way - I don't think its a good thing; not thanks, yay!)

2 1/2 hours of free nursery is a joke anyway. Taking the child to and from those sessions is more trouble than it's worth... unless you have a job that you normally do between the hours 10:00 and 11:30am.

It's a big waste of money if you ask me and does virtually nothing for working parents.

In fact, Gordon Brown on the whole does virtually nothing for my childcare needs. Ungraetful tax and spend monger.

I don't think it is government's job to ram a society down parents throats if parents don't wat to be art of that society. I mean, if Joe Bloggs down the street can't be arsed to take his kid to the library why should I have to work longer to pay more tax to be unavailable to see my kids so the government can try and do Joe's job. That's a bit creepy nanny statish for me.

Why, isn't Joe paying taxes then?