Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

But the first thing you need to know is that this is 30 hours free for only 38 weeks per year - not 52 weeks of the year. It's basically equivalent to school term times

That's already sort of how the 15 hours work, you either take them all in school term time or you can stretch them over the whole year

Frankly I find your arguments ridiculous Mair you bring up an extreme case and then drivel on about it ad nauseum without listening to what anyone else is saying.

Shades of grey dear!

Mair the Jesuit quote may be chilling depending on how you interpret it, but the fact remains that a child's first seven years are when their natural curiosity and thirst for learning are at their greatest and what happens to them during this time can have lifelong effects in terms of their future.

You keep reverting to this idea that 'wealthy' parents are in some way being subsidised and that vast amounts of money would be saved by denying these children 15 hours of free nursery education.
Have you any evidence for this?
Do you know a) how many families are in the category you define as wealthy and b) how many children of such families benefit from subsidised nursery education?

Mair Don't you ever get tired of posting all day?

Mair The free nursery places for 3+ year olds are intended to get them used to doing the sort of activities they will encounter in schools. It is not compulsory but in general the children really benefit educationally from attending. It is essentially part of our the education system

www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/nov/26/children.schools

My DGS's attended a day care nursery from 10 months partime as DD had to return to work.
She is a nurse does shift work and needs to keep her skills up to date. As do many teachers etc. Given the shortages of these skilled sprofessionals we need as many as possible back into the work place. Childcare is very expensive but staying at home was not an option. She just about earns more than the nursery fees. DGS1 will be 5 in September which will help them but there will be pre and after school fees.
To shut down this free pre-school provision will damage our childrens potential.

Jane
You are basically asking how should state spending be prioritised. If anyone knew the answer to that, they would be a clever person indeed.
It was a rhetorical question making the point that there ar many better ways to spend it

All I am saying is that in my view, early learning is an investment of fundamental importance to our society
The children of the wealthy parents who would lose this would NOT miss out on learning! LOL

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"
A chilling advocacy of brainwashing by the Jesuit extremists! Eek!

Every child deserves an opportunity

And no child would miss this opportunity because wealthy parents would have to pay.

Mair There are so many other areas where the nursery give away to the wealthy could be better spent - mental health services, social care for the elderly and long term sick, child protection, supportt services for disabled children, where do we stop?

You are basically asking how should state spending be prioritised. If anyone knew the answer to that, they would be a clever person indeed.

All I am saying is that in my view, early learning is an investment of fundamental importance to our society.
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man"
Every child deserves an opportunity.

here is Nick Robinson on how taxpayers' money is spent
"Some 60% of households are net recipients from the Treasury - though it may not always feel that way. The top 10% of households contribute, on average, five times more than they get back."

There is certainly a case for a small fee for visiting your GP jane especially if it'ss for "a trivial reason". Most EU countries do make a charge. Only the NHS is absolutely 'free at the point of delivery', again a lovely ideal.

There are so many other areas where the nursery give away to the wealthy could be better spent - mental health services, social care for the elderly and long term sick, child protection, supportt services for disabled children, where do we stop?

So what is a useful way of spending taxpayers' money, Mair, if education isn't?
Many people use NHS services who could well afford to pay for them. Do you advocate charging 'well off' people every time they see their GP for what may well be a trivial reason?
If not, why not?

Has it occurred to you that that any family earning in excess of £200K per annum is actually contributing in taxes a sum far in excess of the cost of their child going to nursery for 15 or even 30 hours a week?

Yes of course I realise that but that is not a reason to return a benefit to them of around 3K a year, a benefit they certainly do not need!

Have you any idea of how many families are in this happy position? None I know is

This 'numbers are small' argument doesnt hold water, we are talking about the principle of spending money on those who do not need it.
Furthermore the lower the cut off the more it applies to. Arguably a family with a joint income of even 100k or even 60K a year shouldnt be getting it.
.
Means testing is divisive and as maizie has said, not cost effective

A simple means test as applied to child benefit is cheap.

We should be giving all children the benefit of high quality pre-school education, not excluding some because their parents can't afford it, or others because their parents are too rich.

In an ideal world.
Giving free pre school to children of those who would pay for it anyway is a wasteful use of tax payers money.

Mair Has it occurred to you that that any family earning in excess of £200K per annum is actually contributing in taxes a sum far in excess of the cost of their child going to nursery for 15 or even 30 hours a week?
Have you any idea of how many families are in this happy position? None I know is.
Means testing is divisive and as maizie has said, not cost effective.
We should be giving all children the benefit of high quality pre-school education, not excluding some because their parents can't afford it, or others because their parents are too rich.

I agree that children 3-4 do benefit from the interaction that nursery provides it also teaches them to share and prepares them for big school. I don't agree however that well off parents should get free child care whether they are working or not. There should be an earnings cut off although this should be thought out carefully to ensure that it is still worthwhile to work. I could never understand how parents who do not work were given (very early years) free nursery places to enable them to look for work laze around. My friend worked a Sure Start program in a poor area where children of just a year old were actually picked up and brought there still wearing the nappy they went home in. Although I suppose you could argue that at least the Sure Start program looked after them and fed them properly while their parents watched Jeremy Kyle.

Why on earth should the taxpayer subsidise the childcare of parents earning up to 200K a year - probably at a nursery which is part of a private prep school? Madness!

Hilarious that lefties want this to continue so that their grands get the benefit one suspects...

Children are the future of the country but we also need full employment to keep the economy afloat. Added to that, we appear to want to drastically reduce the immigration that fills the deficit of home produced workers. Individuals and 'the state' are mutually dependent. It's good that 'the state' acknowledges that by offering some free childcare. It makes it easier for parents to work and it gives the state a chance to ensure that children, as in absent's example, acquire necessary skills.

The cost, in the overall scheme of things, would not be excessive. Much better value than bl**dy Trident!

I think the trouble with free childcare -or any sort of childcare in the UK -is that it's hit and miss. Even childminders are becoming subject to increasing regulation and I'm in no doubt that this is putting many would-be and existing childminders off.

Any serious intervention in this issue by Govt will involve heavy taxation and I doubt very much if taxpayers would be willing to stump up with the necessary funds, despite platitudes to the contrary.

If anything, I think any funding should go into supporting the people whose children could really benefit from some state intervention.

If you want to, or need to, continue to work once your children are born, then perhaps you should factor that into your decision to have kids or not.

Mair many nurses, teachers, etc returning to work struggle with childcare costs.

You only argue in black and white.

Somewhere between the 'well off' (who can afford to stay at home and don't need to return to work) and the 'negligent' are the average to poorly paid who rely on good free childcare.

A regressive move, if it goes forward. I know that the cost of good childcare was prohibitive when my DD and DiL needed to return to work which is why I had the grandchildren with me.

Thank goodness I don't have to worry about this, because I don't have young children.

Early education is taken very seriously in New Zealand, although the actual process seems to be packed with fun, discovery and creativity as part of learning. Pre-schools are run by and staffed by those with advanced training in early learning, plus assistants, and they have a formal curriculum. Children leave pre-school with a range of essential skills, such as going to the toilet on their own, using pens, pencils, paintbrushes and glue sticks, sitting quietly when required, such as story time, sharing, taking turns and teamwork and many others. They all have outdoor play areas and access to larger sports facilities. Consequently, five-year-olds are well prepared for their first and following years in school.

Thirty hours is free for three and four year olds. I think there be some conditions but the free hours are not dependent on both parents working and are also available during the school holidays.

Shaping the future in a positive way strikes me as good value for tax-payers' money, but then, of course, we don't have to replace Trident with another wastefully expensive unusable weapon, as NZ is a nuclear-free zone.

Not closing down Sure Start would have kept many poor parents supported.

I think it is generally recognised that means testing usually turns out not to be cost effective.

A problem from the childcare settings' point of view seems to be that the amount the govt. pays per child is not enough to cover the costs of the provision (staff, premises, resources etc.)

Each parent must have an annual income of less than £100,000

So even some of the richest 1% get it. Madness

notanan

Its a very inefficient unreliable way of ensuring children benefit from the money paid by tax payers. Free nursery places ensure the children benefit.

Meant to add this as my source

www.madeformums.com/news-and-gossip/30-hours-of-free-childcare---will-my-child-get-it/38143.html

This is the 30 hour deal which has been proposed. I can find nothing concrete about withdrawing the 15 hour deal. A link would be helpful. So what is the free childcare deal?
"In a nutshell, many working parents of 3 to 4-year-olds in England will be eligible for 30 hours of free childcare - rather than the current 15 hours.
But the first thing you need to know is that this is 30 hours free for only 38 weeks per year - not 52 weeks of the year. It's basically equivalent to school term times. In theory, you may be able to spread the free childcare out over further weeks, but this will mean you'll get fewer than 30 hours free childcare each week.
When will it start?
The Government has been rolling out a pilot scheme in 8 English areas: Wigan, Staffordshire, Swindon, Portsmouth, Northumberland, York, Newham and Hertfordshire. The scheme is scheduled to go nationwide later this year (2017).
Will my child get it?
Not necessarily as not everyone is eligible. But everyone will still receive the 15 hours free childcare that is currently available.
Eligibility rules for 30 hours free childcare:
Your child will be aged 3 or 4 when the scheme starts in your area
Both parents must be working - or the sole parent is working in a lone parent family
Each parent earns, on average, a weekly minimum equivalent to 16 hours at National Minimum Wage or National Living Wage
Each parent must have an annual income of less than £100,000
You live in England"

a lot of "neglect" is actually down to poverty. Ease the financial pressure and some cases of "neglect" are reduced.

There are "bad parents" in every level of the social strata who will be bad parents with or without support. However, there is more "neglect" due to poverty in the lower stratas.

Paying parents to stay home won't irradicate bad parenting, but it'll help those parents who are borderline because of lack of money/support to be better parents.