Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

See page 8.

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.

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.

......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?

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.

It already exists, 15 free hours of nursery education is already provided for all three year olds, and in my opinion that should continue. Why on earth would we remove nursery education from three year olds when we provide free education for older children? The early years are the most important in terms of education, I speak as a retired teacher, and my specialism was the Early Years. I have no problem with providing free education for up to 30 hours for poorer/needy families, but I find the idea of removing free education for three year olds who do not fit into this group appalling. Should we also remove free education from 4-16 year olds too? Of course not!

For all children to go to some form of structured nursery environment regularly will only benefit everyone. 15 hours will give a half day every school day and pay all sorts of dividends later. In a reception class of four year olds it is easy to spot those who have not been to any form of nursery. It may well seem to outsiders that they don't do much but in fact they learn a lot about co-operation and have an idea how to behave and what is expected of them within a classroom.
My own feeling is that we need to put more resources (mainly teachers) into the education of young children rather than the older level. Wales are going to implement class sizes of no more than 25 in Infant schools - a great step forward.The little ones need to learn so many new skills, lack of which will impact for a number of years. If they can read and comprehend much of what they are reading, form letters and numbers correctly and write a few sentences of correct English, and do some maths by the time they leave the Infants school they have a huge advantage. Those who have not grasped the concept of reading are of course the most disadvantaged as they are handicapped in almost every other subject. Infant schools normally have the best resources for making sure that reading skills are at an acceptable level.
It is the children from disadvantaged backgrounds who will benefit the most from this early years education and being disadvantaged can take many forms. Those from financially well off homes but who fail to be nurtured are just as much disadvantaged as those from poorer homes where there may be lack of knowledge or time. The attitude of the mother has a lot to do with this. The Headmaster of my grammar school always said that when you educated a boy you educated a person - when you educated a girl you educated a family.

gillybob, as maddyone says, nursery education is already available for 3 year olds. My children now in their early 30's benefitted from half days at the nursery school within the primary school they went on to attend. My young grandsons will have their names added when they reach the age of two, to the nursery school within the primary school they will attend.
I know we live in an age when research and experts are viewed with disdain by some but the research about early years education all points to the benefits for all children. People have the choice of sending their children to fee paying nursery schools attached the the fee paying primary schools they hope their children will be accepted by. I preferred my children to go to local schools.

Is this a rumour or a reality. I can see no link to anything concrete on here so how are we supposed to be able to verify it?

Iam64 it is not a few who use the 15 hours free childcare, parents of every child in the land are entitled to use it. I had 48 children a day in my class and every household earned a good wage (Armed forces) and had cheap housing (M.Q's) and every family claimed the free 15 hours. Parents these days have a lot of the financial pressure taken away, they have up to 52 weeks paid maternity/paternity leave, child benefit, child tax credits, 15 hours free childcare and their child will be fed for free at school until they are 7 and they ones that don't work get even more.So parents dont have to pay in full for their children.

You have a very hard attitude to today's young parents Grannypiper and seem to think they free-load on the state and their own parents. Forgive me for questioning the accuracy of your post, but parents these days most definitely do not have 'a lot of financial pressures taken away'. It takes two wages the days just to pay the mortgage.

No-one has 52,weeks maternity leave on full pay either and not all parents get child benefit and child tax credits.

You seem very bitter and ought of touch with the hard reality of bringing up children in this day and age.

Yes I realize that Iam64 and maddy I meant to say where was the money going to come from to increase the 15 hours to 30?

Thank you both for keeping me right though

Agree with Anya I feel sorry for most young parents these days. It usually requires 2 wages just to get a mortgage never mind continue to pay it whilst bringing up children. My DDiL had the bare minimum maternity leave/pay when she had my DGC. In fact she had to go back after only 6 weeks as her pay dropped so much. Mind you I appreciate that some in the public sector seem to have never ending maternity leave . My Grandsons teacher for one.

Welshwife That is absolutely spot on, your post has nailed the whole issue.