Free nursery care for 2 year olds. OnLy if you are not working?

14
Posted 24th Sep
our child is coming up to aged 2. was looking at what free hours we could get
it appears as both of us are working we can get 30 hours once she is 3.
however if you are not working you get it from aged 2!!
I'm no tory right winger but why would non working parents need nursery hours for Thier 2 year olds
is to be able to watch Judge Rinder
Community Updates
Misc

Groups

14 Comments
Don’t get them started.
totally agree! just one of the many ridiculous policies. They should be supporting mums back to work
The free 15 hours of 2 year old provision is to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds, not give their parents some free time. Of course not every 2 year old from a family where the parents don't work is 'disadvantaged' but some are.

If you both work, you will be entitled to 30 free hours the term after your child turns 3.
Well the chavvy parents need extra nap and time to buy fags and go down the local boozer.

But as above, it might benefit single parents in helping to go back to work on top of 70% of fees paid anyway and some kids to break the cycle of parents never working.
AMaky24/09/2019 15:48

Well the chavvy parents need extra nap and time to buy fags and go down …Well the chavvy parents need extra nap and time to buy fags and go down the local boozer.But as above, it might benefit single parents in helping to go back to work on top of 70% of fees paid anyway and some kids to break the cycle of parents never working.


If it's for single parents working than it makes perfect sense but if parent or parents are not working than why do they need nursery hours?
adamderak24/09/2019 15:57

If it's for single parents working than it makes perfect sense but if …If it's for single parents working than it makes perfect sense but if parent or parents are not working than why do they need nursery hours?


To encourage them to better themselves with starting work, studying or volunteering.
The idea is good, but it's abused a lot just like the rest of the benefit system.

At least you now get 30hrs at 3, we got 15. nursery fees are high plus pre and after school clubs too.
adamderak24/09/2019 15:57

If it's for single parents working than it makes perfect sense but if …If it's for single parents working than it makes perfect sense but if parent or parents are not working than why do they need nursery hours?



Where does it say on a local council web site that free education is possible for parent(s) not working (except for SEN, child in care, disabled...)? Can you quote a link?

Edit

The reason for this 2 year-old free education is not because it is a benefit for the non-working left or right, low income left or right people, disabled left or right ...blah blah. It is a benefit for all of us, as children are our future, it is a child centered government (left, right, and middle, cross spectrum) policy, likewise in other European countries, a two year-old child's opportunity for the future should NOT suffer because of their parents' situation, rightly or wrongly:

"Evidence suggests that children from less advantaged backgrounds often start school 19 months behind their peers, but also reveals that good quality childcare can reduce this gap and have a significant benefit in terms of a child’s development."

This is founded on a general wisdom and common decent men/women that a two-year child cannot control the will of their parents. And, that for the national good, these 2 year-olds are better educated, so as to be more developed for the society as a whole earlier. Additionally, once a child is behind, the degree of delay may get accumulated, thus resulting in a less developed 18 year old at the end of the free educational cycle to adulthood.
Edited by: "splender" 24th Sep
Some people abuse "the system". But many do not. The majority do not. You're probably not aware of what the Job Centre makes you do on threat of suspending payments on perfectly legitimate claims.
The time in day care/nursery for them is useful contrary to what you might think. And Nursery isn't just a place to get rid of the kids for a bit. Children that go to nursery tend to ease into school life much better, and generally develop better and faster. I assume that's at least one of the reasons you'd like to send your own kid there. So even if non working parents were not watching Judge Rinder all day (which by and large they absolutely are not), they'd probably still want to send their kids to nursery.

I repeat, the majority of people that lose their jobs and have no choice but to register with the Job Centre, are not abusing the system. They are not lazing around all day. They are not using all their "free" money on alcohol. They are not purposefully avoiding work. They are not "chavs" (an absolutely disgusting term to describe those less fortunate than ourselves). They are not cheating the system. They are just ordinary people that for one reason or another are going through a time where they need some assistance. And most of them will go back to full time employment rather quickly.
It's easy to punch down. Don't do it.

Not all of this is aimed at the Asker. Just general points.
Edited by: "ra786" 24th Sep
ra78624/09/2019 19:18

Some people abuse "the system". But many do not. The majority do not. …Some people abuse "the system". But many do not. The majority do not. You're probably not aware of what the Job Centre makes you do on threat of suspending payments on perfectly legitimate claims. The time in day care/nursery for them is useful contrary to what you might think. And Nursery isn't just a place to get rid of the kids for a bit. Children that go to nursery tend to ease into school life much better, and generally develop better and faster. I assume that's at least one of the reasons you'd like to send your own kid there. So even if non working parents were not watching Judge Rinder all day (which by and large they absolutely are not), they'd probably still want to send their kids to nursery. I repeat, the majority of people that lose their jobs and have no choice but to register with the Job Centre, are not abusing the system. They are not lazing around all day. They are not using all their "free" money on alcohol. They are not purposefully avoiding work. They are not "chavs" (an absolutely disgusting term to describe those less fortunate than ourselves). They are not cheating the system. They are just ordinary people that for one reason or another are going through a time where they need some assistance. And most of them will go back to full time employment rather quickly.It's easy to punch down. Don't do it.Not all of this is aimed at the Asker. Just general points.



OP's thread headline is : Free nursery care for 2 year olds. OnLy if you are not working?

It is a loaded question to insinuate an unpleasant (political or social) concept with no truth, data and evidence so that the readers are unable to be enriched with high quality knowledge.
Edited by: "splender" 24th Sep
splender24/09/2019 20:34

OP's thread headline is : Free nursery care for 2 year olds. OnLy if you …OP's thread headline is : Free nursery care for 2 year olds. OnLy if you are not working?It is a loaded question to insinuate an unpleasant (political or social) concept with no truth, data and evidence so that the readers are unable to be enriched with high quality knowledge.


I did put only of you are not working with a "?"
Re that surely can't be correct.
Not really been on state benefits but the criteria for recieving free nursery for 2 year olds seemed to suggest you had to be on benefits.
In contrast the free nursery for 3 year olds was available to working parents.
adamderak24/09/2019 22:48

I did put only of you are not working with a "?" Re that surely can't be …I did put only of you are not working with a "?" Re that surely can't be correct.Not really been on state benefits but the criteria for recieving free nursery for 2 year olds seemed to suggest you had to be on benefits.In contrast the free nursery for 3 year olds was available to working parents.


You said, "In contrast the free nursery for 3 year olds was available to working parents." <== this is a wrong statement, here is why:-

There are three separate money schemes, attached below are two summaries, then you may be able to find out where your misunderstanding is, I suspect that your incorrect insinuation may be due to your misunderstanding of the differences in eligibility criteria (working or non-working parents) between 15 hours funding (one scheme) and the additional 15 hours funding (another scheme) (taking to 30 hours in total) :-

workingfamilies.org.uk/art…ur/

which.co.uk/con…are

Every child in England who is aged three or four is entitled to 570 hours of free early education or childcare each year. (When the parents are working or non-working.)

This can be taken during term time only, which usually equates to 15 hours a week for 38 weeks a year.

The above is what I call: fact based evidence ( to make a point ), the original sources are from gov.uk
Edited by: "splender" 24th Sep
splender24/09/2019 23:24

You said, "In contrast the free nursery for 3 year olds was available to …You said, "In contrast the free nursery for 3 year olds was available to working parents." <== this is a wrong statement, here is why:-There are three separate money schemes, attached below are two summaries, then you may be able to find out where your misunderstanding is, I suspect that your incorrect insinuation may be due to your misunderstanding of the differences in eligibility criteria (working or non-working parents) between 15 hours funding (one scheme) and the additional 15 hours funding (another scheme) (taking to 30 hours in total) :-https://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/articles/free-childcare-for-children-aged-two-three-and-four/https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-do-i-need-to-do-to-claim-15-hours-free-childcareEvery child in England who is aged three or four is entitled to 570 hours of free early education or childcare each year. (When the parents are working or non-working.)This can be taken during term time only, which usually equates to 15 hours a week for 38 weeks a year. The above is what I call: fact based evidence ( to make a point ), the original sources are from gov.uk


Ok my main headline was for 2 year olds.
People on low income get 15 hours. Don't have an issue with that. Someone on a low income would be left with nothing if they were also having to pay for nursery costs. So they get 15 hours , which isn't a lot tbh.
But you have to be on a qualifying benefit. One of them being JSA job seekers allowance. I'm not well versed with the benefit system but JSA would be I presume someone not in employment. Why would they need assistance with nursery costs if they are not working.
Surely it would be better to cut nursery help for non working parents & use that money to give more hours to parents on low income who get just 15 hours
Surely a single parent working deserves the most assistance in respect of childcare.
adamderak25/09/2019 00:06

Ok my main headline was for 2 year olds.People on low income get 15 hours. …Ok my main headline was for 2 year olds.People on low income get 15 hours. Don't have an issue with that. Someone on a low income would be left with nothing if they were also having to pay for nursery costs. So they get 15 hours , which isn't a lot tbh.But you have to be on a qualifying benefit. One of them being JSA job seekers allowance. I'm not well versed with the benefit system but JSA would be I presume someone not in employment. Why would they need assistance with nursery costs if they are not working.Surely it would be better to cut nursery help for non working parents & use that money to give more hours to parents on low income who get just 15 hours Surely a single parent working deserves the most assistance in respect of childcare.



You asked again, "...on JSA...Why would they need assistance with nursery costs if they are not working."

Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) is paid to help people who are unemployed or on a low income that are out there looking for a job. Although there are cheats, in all walks of life from Prime Minister level to the down and out, in the main, the benefits system is now "hostile".

I already said to you above that it is because scientific evidence (social sciences mathematical analysis), suggests disadvantaged children at 2 years suffer disproportionately.

You said, "...Surely it would be better to cut nursery help for non working parents & use that money to give more hours to parents on low income who get just 15 hours Surely a single parent working deserves the most assistance in respect of childcare."

No, when there is scarce resource, it is typical for a fair minded person to distribute scare resources to meet the needs directly. It is the child who has the need, not the parent. Why are you stressing it is fairer to give a scarce resource to the parents? Of course, when there is more money and resources, we could also serve the needs of the parents too, if you like. This could then be named as an attendance (of the child) or support (the child) allowance.
Surely the need for nursery hours is greater for a working lone parent, than say a non working dual parented family. To put it simply if one has to work , than has a parent childcare becomes a necessity. If parents are not at work, than admittedly whilst it would still be beneficial but the need of the working parent for nursery care is greater. Resources will always be finite & as such fair apportioning should be needs led.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions

    Top Merchants