Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

The Institute for Economic Affairs is a Right Wing, Free Market Think Tank. Very influential in the Thatcher era. Ideologically opposed to State intervention.

Free nursery places for pre-school children will be complete anathema to them.

Just saying.

......and the money is going to come from where maddyone?

Or is this going to be the next meal ticket for local authorities to fleece the council tax payers?

That is as it should be, we should provide free education for ALL our childre

In your opinion. That view is not universal. IMO it would be nice, but there are other priorities.

I believe that the 15 hours of free nursery education should be just that, nursery education. All children should be, and are, entitled to receive it. It should be provided by nursery classes within a school, or registered nurseries, not, in my opinion, child minders. If the 30 hours is rolled out, it seems it will be provided only for families in need, however, all children should still be eligible for the free 15 hours. That is as it should be, we should provide free education for ALL our children.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219660/More_20Great_20Childcare_20v2.pdf

See page 8.

So the Institute of Economic Affairs thinks efforts to raise standards, with better staffing ratios and qualified staff, are a bad idea

Our ratios are very high, higher than even other advanced Northern European countries like Germany and Sweden.

Thanks for the link Ana

"While branding the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) a "backwards extension to the national curriculum," the report also claimed overarching regulations such as staff-child ratios and occupational qualifications have pushed many lower-cost providers of childcare out of the market."

So the Institute of Economic Affairs thinks efforts to raise standards, with better staffing ratios and qualified staff, are a bad idea.
Let's hope Mrs May doesn't take any notice.

Here's an article which refers to the report, janea.

www.daynurseries.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1581790/Think-tank-urges-Government-to-abolish-funded-childcare

Yes, gillybob, I was in the same position in the early 80s and could never have afforded disposable nappies - they were so expensive! So it was steeping and washing the endless terry ones for me...those were the days, eh?

My son was in full time childcare in the early 1980's as I was a single parent and had to work full time. I can't remember exactly how much I paid or what proportion of my small wage went towards childcare but I do remember getting some kind of subsidy plus a very small rent rebate and milk tokens. I do remember that after I had paid nursery, rent, rates, gas and electric and bus fares I could hardly afford to eat and virtually lived on beans. A friend of a friend knew someone who worked in a nappy factory and I used to get the "seconds" for a pittance plus a roll of the tape. It was such a luxury after boiling and steeping terry nappies.

jess the OP has still not obliged us with a link - which makes it rather difficult to have any meaningful discussion, as we don't know exactly what is being proposed in this report.

I am not sure how we managed to bring our children up without much help. If we had two we had child allowance for one, but we paid for any pre-school care, and our children grew up being well behaved (on the whole) and I know my friends and I enjoyed their company when they were infants, but of course I understand there is greater stress on parents these days, and no doubt I will be the focus of some argument, but we have I fear used to 'allowances' and seem to take them for granted. It is of course the generation gap.

Those people who are "just managing" are often the poorest of them all JessM as they earn just a bit too much to attract any help and yet are forced to pay the full amount for everything.

It always annoyed me that virtually all of my DDiL's salary went to paying for childcare and yet someone, who for want of a better way of describing it, could sit on their lazy backside all day and have childcare for free via Sure Start.

In my DGC's school I would guess that a very high percentage of children are probably free dinners, free milk, free trips and treats. Meaning it is often very hard for those parents who do have to pay as a school outing that may have cost £3-4 per child costs £5-6 for those who have to pay (or as they carefully word it, donate). My DGC have brought notes home to say that trips are cancelled because they are unable to raise the minimum amount from donations to enable them to go ahead.

Was this a manifesto promise? Can someone remind me?
And what about the PMs pledge to help those who are "just managing". These days this no doubt includes parents who have to both work to manage any kind of mortgage (PM specifically referred to people with mortgages).
The difference between the 70s and now is the relative cost of housing. I was able to afford to stay at home and look after kids for a few years with a husband on a basic teaching salary and a mortgage to pay. We didn't have much money to spare but we were not impoverished. Experienced that the year he was just on a mature student grant!
Someone said that if bread had risen in price as much as housing, since the 70s, a loaf would now cost about £70.

Though the 15 hours will still be available for all.

And will the children of those parents benefit from the 30 hours free childcare when it comes in? I understood it was for children of working parents only, which will exclude many of the most vulnerable?

Can't.

those children whose parents are drug/alcohol dependent, neglectful, of such low IQ that managing daily life is difficult - they're the ones most in need of good quality child care

SO why waste tax payers money on those children who's parents are well able to pay themselves?

Oh dear granny piper, what makes you believe that the majority of parents don't "put their had their own pocket and also take responsibility for the care of their children". Most parents do, the few who don't aren't going to bankrupt us by using free childcare. In addition to that, those children whose parents are drug/alcohol dependent, neglectful, of such low IQ that managing daily life is difficult - they're the ones most in need of good quality child care. The research is unequivocal on this.

What do parents pay for these days ? Our country cannot afford to bring up every child that is born here. In some cases a parent doesnt spend a single penny that they have gone out and worked for.Yes pre school is important but the argument that 15 hours a week will cure the problems we have with literacy,numeracy and behaviour in our schools falls down when we look at the length of time free childcare has been in place and the numbers of children who cant read, write, count or behave in schools.
We cant pay for everything, parents have to put their hand in their own pocket and also take responsibility for the care of THEIR children

f77ms I presume you're talking to me.
I did say it would be political suicide to stop the 15 hours.
But I didn't say that was the reason it shouldn't happen. That was your own conclusion.
If you read my subsequent posts you would see that I was arguing that the benefits of early education should be made available to all children irrespective of their parents' income.

The school lunches at my DGC's school are very poor indeed and even worse the higher age group you get. My eldest DGD (year 6) had to wait until 1pm to go into "dinner" at which point the was little left and she was presented with a bland dried up sandwich and an often very overripe (pas it best) piece of fruit. Disgusting considering the cost.
My DDiL has complained many times but she is told that they find it hard to know who will be having lunch from one day to the next.
Subsequently they all take packed lunch to school but are only given 10 minutes to eat it, which is also disgusting. DGS cannot eat and enjoy his lunch in 10 minutes.

....and don't get me started on the packed lunch gestapo.

iam64 absolutely correct

JessM, yes I remember the things the monstrous regiment of women set out as essentials in the 70's. I find it hard to believe that over 40 years later, the argument about the benefits of early years education and who should pay for it continues in the UK. Look at the positive outcomes for children in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Of course this country should subsidise/pay for good quality nursery time for all children. Working parents pay a lot of money is tax if they're earning decent amounts, if they are earning the minimum wage, they'll struggle to pay for child care.
We all benefit from investment in our children.