Free childcare to foreigners, unemployed and single parents

Originally posted by flipflop
reply to post by FreedomEntered

 

seems to me the free childcare should be for working parents, why would unemployed need childcare,,, are they too busy being unemployed to have time for their kids... ???

Because if childcare is made available for the unemployed, the idea is that they can get back into work without having to worry about that cost. Anyone who actually wants to work would be grateful for any childcare they can get either free or at an affordable price. To my knowledge, even working parents are struggling to afford the costs, its ridiculous. Something has to be done across the board.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


IMO childcare costs in the US are ridiculous! I mean you have to make $1000 bucks a week to afford childcare and to even have any take home pay. I had a friend who made 40k a year but 80% of her pay went to child care! So she quit her job. She didn't see the point of never being home with her kids just to pay for someone else to watch them only to have 20% of her pay left over.

I don't blame her one bit and I know many people who have done the same thing. Child care is insanely expensive. I know some who pay $250 a week that is $1000 a month which is some people's income!

You could pay for private school at that cost. Day care should not be that much.

I know they have assistance programs where i live for parents and i know a couple people who use it because they have no other choice. It's get the help they can get or they have no job which means no home or anything to support their kids.

I am a stay at home mom now. I will not go back to work til my son can go to VPK which is when he is 3yrs old. He will be in a class with my mom so I will feel comfortable with him being there and he will learn since it is structured. I will not put him in a day care not in today's society, too many horror stories and the cost is insane. If I were to work I'd be working to pay for child care and I see no point in that. If I am going to have no income I'd rather be home with him and have no income than work to pay another to take care of him and have no income.

The UK needs to give 9 - 10 months notice that it will no longer be paying out Child Benefit or benefits for anyone with more than one child. Children already born of course will continue to receive support.
Free child care for people not working is insane. They do NOT need it and the 15 hours a week is not enough, 3 hour slots for the parent to do anything constructive by the time the child is dropped of and then picked up again.

Things that people think are FREE in the UK are extortionately expensive, for example schools, funded by the tax payer at £9000 a year per child. The Health Service where the NHS pays many times over the odds for drugs and treatments and is ripped off by the drugs companies......funded by the tax payers. It is NOT free!

But, the benefit cycle can gradually be stopped by stopping entitlement gradually.

A former girl friend of my son's has a brother and sister in law, both unemployed with four children, pulling in £30 000 a year from the state. The children at 5 and 6 were not potty trained and went to school so as the parents were too busy playing computer games and going to the gym to look after their now feral children.

Time to STOP benefits for having children. Just STOP!

All children from age 3 in the UK are eligible for 15 hours free childcare a week anyway so all they are doing is extending the criteria. Childcare costs are ridiculous anyway, for example the nursery my daughter goes too for her 15 free hours, charge £45 a day!

To those saying why should unemployed people get free childcare I say this. Whilst they obviously have the time, it is good for a child's development to spend time with other children. Some of the parents may not know people with children to have "play dates" with.

I am currently a stay at home dad whilst my wife works. I spend all my time devoted to getting her the best start in life, but no matter how much I do I am not another child that she can relate too. So she spends 2 mornings a week courtesy of the governement playing with other children which helps develop her social skills and prepare her for school.

King

reply to post by snapperski

Dear snapperski,

I realize that we all have our own styles, but may we please step away from the campaign soundbites and misleading statistics? They're really not the basis for a fruitful discussion.

No, I don't want children to starve, nor do I want to push Granny in her wheelchair over the cliff, not do I want to make the earth so polluted that everyone will die, nor kill off all the species for trophies for my wall, not any of the other groundless accusations used in 30-second campaign ads.

And the idea "You didn't build that," while a favorite of the Democrat party when used in speeches, quickly turned on them and was the subject of ridicule and fierce criticism.

The US has the most imperialist army the world has ever seen? And how many countries have our military taken over and brought under our government? What's that I hear? None? Yep, right. Compare it to the British, the Germans, the Spanish, the Romans, the Muslims, all countries who were far more imperialistic than the US.

But the US is the largest military spender in the world! So, why not add that the US is the biggest education spender per student in the world?
www.cbsnews.com...

We're 13th on the Education Index? Had you looked more closely, you would have seen that the index is made up only of the number of years in school, not accomplishment or anything else. A hundred years ago, an 8th grade US education would be roughly equivalent to a year or two of college today.

I would have no objection to spending $10,000 a year educating students (well, actually, I think that's a little much) if at least we could say they were educated, but they're not. We're spending that money for little if any result. Look at how successful home schooling and charter schools have become. A better education for a fraction of the cost.

Everything is backwards, like footballers getting millions per week and doctors and nurse's struggling to get by.

Yours is a fine opinion, but unless the government is controlling things, what a person earns is what another person is freely willing to pay them. If the mass of society thinks Lebron James (seen by tens of thousands of people a game, and more on television) is more valuable than Dr. Brown who has maybe fifty patients a week, perhaps they're right and you're wrong.

If you think it's right to impose your opinions of worth on the country, just wait until Sarah Palin gets elected and see if your opinion changes.

And it the mindset you have Charles, that has got us here, in this neoliberal post democratic society.

I don't know what my mindset is, and I really don't know what "neoliberal post democratic" means.

I hate the world were leaving our kids.

History will look down on us.

And here, finally, I am able to agree with you completely.

With respect,
Charles1952

The taxpayers are paying for play dates for kids that have 2 parents with only 1 that works?
Really?

reply to post by PlatinumShatinum

The taxpayers are paying for play dates for kids that have 2 parents with only 1 that works?
Really?

That's a typical Daily Mail narrative, telling you what to think and be angry about.

Whether both parents work or not, it's of no subsequence, it's about the child, and early social skills and developing skills, which are vital to a young child.

Thankfully you are not charged with education reform.

The UK educationalists have an unfortunate tendency to judge children's outcome by what they are achieving at age 1,2, 5, 11 etc, which is utter codswallop.
As soon as a child is considered 'low achieving' they are labelled and stuck in a low achieving catergory.

Children do not do better if they have been to nursery by the time they are adults.

I never went to nursery, could not speak english when I started school and within 6 months I was top of the class and stayed there throughout my education.

I had a cousin who could not write or read when he was 11 years old but had an excellent memory. He became one of the worlds most wanted and head hunted engineers.

Nursery provision is unnecessary and wasteful.

The money wasted on this silliness should be spent on older children who need a little more time, patience and support spent on them.

Scrap nurseries except for working parents and spend the money where it is needed.

reply to post by Elliot


That's what I was getting at what happens when they go to secondary school? Are they suddenly abandoned. It seems as if this is the case. I think they have said they want to " save" in the long run by getting them to be more institutionalised whilst younger, less rebellion later .. or so they say.

Originally posted by Elliot
The UK educationalists have an unfortunate tendency to judge children's outcome by what they are achieving at age 1,2, 5, 11 etc, which is utter codswallop.
As soon as a child is considered 'low achieving' they are labelled and stuck in a low achieving catergory.

Children do not do better if they have been to nursery by the time they are adults.

I never went to nursery, could not speak english when I started school and within 6 months I was top of the class and stayed there throughout my education.

I had a cousin who could not write or read when he was 11 years old but had an excellent memory. He became one of the worlds most wanted and head hunted engineers.

Nursery provision is unnecessary and wasteful.

The money wasted on this silliness should be spent on older children who need a little more time, patience and support spent on them.

Scrap nurseries except for working parents and spend the money where it is needed.

I cant help but get the feeling that because nurseries dont exactly work for you, you rule them out completely for everyone. This is not a one size fits all society - No society is.

reply to post by Elliot


I do see a lot of people having kids for no reason, I think the best solution would 2 children per family. And anymore than this will not be paid for and is punishment in jail.

Oh so cruel one might say. But its true parents do mess up lives when they have kids without " a thought!" sometimes.

But then again .. all the taxpayers money will then be going to these people in prison.
People are such morons.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Yes but 15 hours???.... 15 hours cannot help one be in full time employment and pay for all the bills.

A parent can however study in that time if they have the abilities to do so.

Or sit on their bottoms.

The hours are too much if you ask me. Say 4hrs and those left over are given to lower income families who NEED it ?
Do you think really these people will use up the 15hrs? I think most wont... to be honest.

Lower income families are the forgotten souls, their parents raise their toddlers, maybe their parents deserve a break?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc
I know many people who use nurseries. On the whole, they are somewhere to deposit your child with a reasonable expectation that they will still be in one piece when you pick them up after doing what you have to / want to do.
Education is not what nurseries are about. Education is a parent's responsiblity and too many abandon that responsibility to others because they really just can't be bothered / don't have the time / have no wish to spend unnecessary time in their child's company.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Also want to add the amount of working parents who have complained to me that they .. literally cannot afford childcare is astounding. They are the unheard struggling parents... I think, in many ways.

And because they have a lower income, minimal wage. They are ignored. In my experience.

My situations a bit different. The hubs had a stroke recently, a few months ago, at the age of 38, so we still have an 8 & 12 yr. old. We've never needed assistance before now. My boys are both honor students, I've been a stay at home mom since they have been born, I wouldn't call us poor, but, unfortunately, circumstances for our future, because of hubs health may change that.......having a real hard time getting life insurance on him now, because hes still so young, this wasn't a thought yet.....that's my biggest fear at the moment, for my boys......

We are struggling with childcare at the moment too. If I were to go to work full time, and put my just turned 3 year old into full time day care - I lose any parenting benefits, and pay for daycare - meaning I would come out with less money for our family than if I remain a full time mother, raising my daughter at home (like I'd like to until school, and the same with this next one thats coming)

No matter what country you seem to be in, it seems like, like you said OP, the lower income families struggling with the same issues. I don't know, but it just seems like each year, we all work harder - wages don't go up all that much - yet food/fuel/general cost of living goes up and up.

I would support the free hours for those people - IF - they were job seeking part time, studying, or something like that. As it is, we were putting my daughter in daycare each monday - so I could edit photoshoots for clients (I'm a part time photographer on days where my partner can look after Bella) So basically, I personally think parents should not put their child into daycare for NO reason. If you choose to be a stay at home parent, I don't think you should be able to put them in daycare and just have a chill out. It's a bloody hard job, but those that work other jobs can't just not do their job for 15 hours out of a working week, you know?

reply to post by mblahnikluver


I totally get where your coming from.....I stayed home for years raising my kids, while the hubs went to work. He would make quadruple to anything I could bring in. I brought these kids into this world, only I'm going to raise them, not a daycare....I realize not everyone agrees, that's just how my household works. Maybe because I was raised by the old fashioned Italian ways?? The other worry is, if you have kids like me, who get sick for long periods of time throughout the school year, your gonna end up losing that job, cause who else wants to care for your sick kids?? Any free time I do have is spent at the school volunteering.....we've always agreed i would find a job when my youngest turned 13, but we never suspected my husband would have a stroke at 38 while the youngest is only 8...tough pill to swallow....

reply to post by Elliot


Elliot, your whole post is contradictory, and actually gives credence to, the obvious fact, all children should received nursery education.

The UK educationalists have an unfortunate tendency to judge children's outcome by what they are achieving at age 1,2, 5, 11 etc, which is utter codswallop.

Peer paper reviews and research proves you wrong, and if i wasn't at work right now, i put the time in to link you to these academic paper's and long term study's.

Children do not do better if they have been to nursery by the time they are adults.

But they do, you are wrong about this.

I never went to nursery, could not speak english when I started school and within 6 months I was top of the class and stayed there throughout my education.

I had a cousin who could not write or read when he was 11 years old but had an excellent memory. He became one of the worlds most wanted and head hunted engineers.

These two quotes by you, actually enforces the need for children to have access to early learning.
The fact your cousin could not read or write at the age of 11 is shocking, and counters what i wrote in a earlier comment about a British culture of child neglect.

The mere fact that, you could not speak English, let alone basic English before you entered full time school, and your cousin could not read or write just short of being a teenager, shows how wrong the right wing narrative actually is, that you are expressing here.

The money wasted on this silliness should be spent on older children who need a little more time, patience and support spent on them.

I can't believe you think money is wasted giving younger kids a chance to lean important life skills, and the fact you say, "it should be spent on older children who need more time and patience and support spent on them." enforce's the belief we should invest more at nursery/pre-school level.

Hence my comment of you contradicting yourself.

reply to post by bkaust


I completely understand what you are saying, this is why i said in a earlier post it, childcare/early education should be free for all children.

The point i'm trying to make, is it's not about the parents, if both parents work and earn a million pounds a week, or both parents are unemployed, what the parents chose to do in this alleged free time is of no concern, it's about the child and giving all children the head start in life.

It's the selfishness of the society we live in, were people are more concerned about someone getting more then them.

Why should a child from a poorer background be denied the right to education, why should a child be denied the right to education because the parents are alcoholics or drug addicts.

This is whats lost on people, it's not the child fault who they get for parents.

We have to put our children first, and i don't mean just your own child or children but all children of every background, otherwise we fail as a species.

reply to post by snapperski
It is the first duty of the parent to educate.

I would have learnt whatever and despite school.
My cousin too, would have learnt despite all his years at school.
Children learn at different rates and not all children are intelligent, as some will always be a touch on the slow side. Some are naturally gifted and need no one to educate them. I was reading encyclopedias by age 6. The school did not teach me to read. I remember clearly being given the red book, the blue, the yellow and out reading the whole class.

My cousin was not stupid or backward. he was an engineering marvel at age 6.......his mother would tell you!

There are 7 different types of intelligence. School only caters to one type.

reply to post by bkaust


I know a family whos mother actually had a terminal illness but because her children could not look after the toddler and go to work full time. Ie, they couldn't afford nursery. then it meant that the grandmother had the toddler...

Is that fair??

But I hear a lot of grandparent grumbling that they are raising their childrens toddlers.

And I think it is due to the government not taking enough into account regarding lower income t families and their needs.

They are looking after the vulnerable now apparently with the 2yr plan, but the vulnerable aren't always the obviously disadvantaged.