Rea Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Pilot areas for the 'free' 30 hours <_< http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1155788/dfe-names-30-hour-childcare-pilot-areas?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Hmm, North Yorkshire. I'll let you know what we hear! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Glad we're not - 'on the list'! Mr Gyimah says: - he wants whats best for our children. Personally I think thats staying home with Mum or Dad for the big part of the Day! Not being in a nursery for 30 of them - no disrespect to nurserys! Such pressure on Mums to return to work too! ( you may have read a previous thread - I have a potential Day nursery breathing down my neck in pursuit of the 30hours promised - so maybe I'm biased) : ) 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadOaks Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think this 30 hours is going to be a disaster. It was a pre election, desperation tactic, to gain support from parents. Now they are actually struggling to fund it and roll it out correctly. Some areas are now guinea pigs to this new scheme and it is going to cause problems. Many settings can not accommodate the hours and this will lead to children either not getting the full 30 hours or mixing providers weekly, or monthly. It might work well for some people, it won't for others. The extra funding needed to give children these increased free hours will not be enough to make it viable for some settings. The extra funding is now being taken away from other important sectors like Police and Health that i feel are just as important. Will this get more parents back to work or into longer employment? It might do in some cases and this is great, but i just feel some parents will just have more "me time" and not actually reduce the welfare bill that Cameron and co say they want to achieve. They say they want to achieve a lower welfare country yet allow many refugee's in that will potentially add a lot more to the welfare bill! They also want to give lot's more foreign aid to countries giving aid to refugee's! This is great for them of course but it won't stop them coming, it will just give them a better lifestyle before they come here! I'm all for helping people but Cameron shouldn't say he want's to save money then do this~!! rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperrabbit Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 , but i just feel some parents will just have more "me time" and not actually reduce the welfare bill that Cameron and co say they want to achieve. That is every funded child in our setting! I'm not saying mums don't deserve a little break from the children as full time mums work hard too - but it doesn't do what the Government think it is doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadOaks Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 At the end of the day i suppose the government's idea is a good one. Unfortunately they are disconnected from reality when it comes to more deprived areas for example. Even if this 30 hours childcare allowed a parent the chance to work, or to work more, with the unemployment rates and with the handouts at the moment, is it really in a parent's interest to work?! Anyways let's see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think this 30 hours is going to be a disaster. Is it terribly 'wrong' of me to hope it is a disaster 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louby loo Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Even the 15 hours 'when a child turns three' causes us enough problems. Had another disgruntled parent visit today wanted to take up her free 15 hour as it was her sons birthday yesterday :huh: I told her to write to Dave and take it up with him. (She was even more miffed when I told her we had a waiting list- but that a different story. I do forgive them for that when it's their first born :rolleyes: ) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I told her to write to Dave and take it up with him. :lol: :lol: :lol: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperrabbit Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Even the 15 hours 'when a child turns three' causes us enough problems. With you on that one too Louby Loo - to help settings (and parents that need it) it would be much more beneficial if the the funding kicked in the term the child turns 3yrs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadOaks Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 We have some settings that can take children from when they turn 3.. and they don't have to wait until the term after. I have always wondered how they can do this, but it is a School nursery up the road from us. Maybe they don't claim for the period and then start to claim from usual eligibility? In any case, it would be better. If a child is born on the 1st April, they have to wait until September to be eligible! They are missing out on a valuable few months i feel, 5 months in fact. How is this fair? It's on a similar level to why a child born late in August can be in the same class as a child born in early September but they are expected to achieve the same levels in Reception. Nearly 12 months difference in age, and this is true for my poor little son - but i guess they get there eventually. Psychologically it could make them feel inadequate in so many ways in comparison ie loses confidence, anyways that's a different topic sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts