Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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 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.

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

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?

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!

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

I wonder why the powers-that-be decided that they'd only offer the 15 or 30 hours per week during school term times?

Seems a bit daft as nurseries are open all year round. And before anyone says that school nurseries take children at 3, some do but certainly not at 2.

To be fair, a lot of high earning parents do send their offspring to nurseries attached to prep schools, and yes, they do receive the same funding as others which they have to top up to cover the fees. From then on, for the next 13 or so years, these same parents are paying (after tax deductions) for their children's education thus saving the government £65k for educating each child. Times that by half a million or more children in private education! State schools would be in a terrible situation if they had to find places for all these children, and of course this would eat heavily into the education budget.

So, Mair, I'm sure no one will begrudge the wealthier parents a few terms of receiving the Nursery Education Grant like any other parents.

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

Yoour second point is true but the first simply opinion.

Youre using a fallacious argument of insignificant cause regarding the number of wealthy people. Even if the proportion spent on the children of the wealthy is relatively small this does NOT counter the point that it is wasteful use of tax payers money and should b spent elsewhere.

Its amusing to see leftist posters who one would EXPECT to favor redistributive use of money spent on childcare in favour of the poorest, not only hypocritically demanding it be spent on the better off, but also losing their tempers and making catty remarks.

This wouldn't be anything to do with the fact that their own grandkids are benefiting from the free 15hrs even though the parents can afford to pay, or would it?

administering means testing can cost more than it saves, so adding in a threshold doesn't mean there'll be more in the pot for anyone in need, it usually means the opposite: the poor get no more at all (except now they have to fight for what they're entitled to and prove they can get it and deal with "blips" like it being stopped inaccurately), the struggling fall through the gaps and don't qualify, and the admin costs shoot up - making the whole scheme too expensive and "unsustainable"…..

It can cost a lot but doesnt have to if its a simple measure of earnings like the new child benefit test.

if you overlay it on top of the child benefit test then you doubly shaft the people on the borderline.

I agree notanan I suspect that trying to means test it would be far more expensive than it sounds and a beaurocratic nightmare. People would certainly slip through the gaps. DS is having an awful time trying to sort out benefits, the last thing he would need would be having to fight for free childcare as well.

The other benefit of having a universal benefit, is that poor people who feel shame about "hand outs" are more likely to uptake the benefit if it's not "for poor people"

Case in point: hot school dinners: poor families didn't want their kids singled out: they were not uptaking the offer of free school dinners. Then they made school dinners free for all Key stage 1 kids and hey presto: many of the families they were previously trying to target, began taking up the free meals again (since everyone was having them and it wasn't singling out their family)