2 Year Old Entitlement

[Guest]

This morning I received an email from the LA saying that the two year old entitlement was to be extended out county wide on a first come first serve basis. Brilliant I thought - we are in an area of deprivation and I have at least 4 mums who could do with the help.

 

However having read the form it is not good! First it asks about financial stuff - fair enough then it goes on to additional criteria a whole list of things ranging from lone parent, sufferer of domestic violence, suffering from disabilities, speech and language needs etc etc but the final one is black and minority ethnic families!!!!

 

Basically this means that if I have two, two year olds in my setting and both families are on child tax credits but they have no other needs (ie lone parent, violence, SEN speech etc etc) but if one was white and one was Asian the Asian child would get the funding but the white child wouldnt.

 

Now I have re read this and re read it again I have also checked with the LA and this criteria has come from central government!!! I said to the LA that I thought that there would be a major backlash over this, where equality and diversity is key in delivery the Early Years Foundation Stage, it strikes me that white children are not receiving the same opportunities as children from an ethnic minority

what are your thoughts on this?

 

I have written to my LA asking for them to pass my comments on to central government and I have also contacted the local MP - but this surely cannot be right can it?????

[hali]

i think this is a very tricky one - and dont know what to say - each LA (evidently can make its own criteria!!!) im going to some SFF meeting tonight and being told its not going to go down well - all depents on your LA to what criteria is governed!!!! - no help i know

[Rea]

If what you're saying is right, then no, its not fair or equal, but didnt it happen with the police force a few years ago? Its called 'positive discrimination' same as when they feel there arent enough women in parliament or police officers arent all 6' 4" and women firefighters dont have to be able to lift as much as a man.

Putting the word 'positive' before 'discrimination' doesnt make it right, but it happens all the same.

Hope your LA have got things mixed up but I bet they havent.

[Guest]

I think its terrible and defintely discrimination!!!

 

Who can tell whose need is greatest just by knowing their ethnic background.

 

What is the world coming to???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

If what you're saying is right, then no, its not fair or equal, but didnt it happen with the police force a few years ago? Its called 'positive discrimination' same as when they feel there arent enough women in parliament or police officers arent all 6' 4" and women firefighters dont have to be able to lift as much as a man.

Putting the word 'positive' before 'discrimination' doesnt make it right, but it happens all the same.

Hope your LA have got things mixed up but I bet they havent.

 

Well according to the LA the reasoning is that children from an ethnic minority are not taking up spaces or progressing as well as white children. However, my pre-school currently has at least 30% ethnic minorities and sometimes we have more children in from an ethnic minority than white children so this just does not ring true.

 

I dont want to been seen in the LA as a trouble maker however I really believe that this is wrong - and if that statement had been that you had to be 'white British' people would be up in arms over it.

 

Sorry i keep ranting about this but I am really frustrated...

[Guest]

I think its terrible and defintely discrimination!!!

 

Who can tell whose need is greatest just by knowing their ethnic background.

 

What is the world coming to???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I agree Indeed what is the world coming to where you are deemed more needy due to your ethnic background! I just think it is terrible!

[Shiny]

Also being from Essex I got this email too. I feel the same as you deejay. How do I explain that to my White British families!!

 

I too, have a large amount of EAL children, most of them do decide to wait until they are funded to access the provision, but in this financial climate a large majority of parents are doing this.

 

The schools in our area all have one intake in September too, numbers are low and so finances at the preschool are currently very tight. We could really do with 2 year old funding but for all children!!!

[SueJ]

It's not just an Essex thing - same applies in my LA deep down south.

[Sue R]

Hm, this is interesting.

 

When the two year old funding came in (and we helped pilot it) it was to encourage uptake amongst families that traditionally don't access childcare (to give every child the chance of a better start!).As has been said, there was also the element of encouraging the less well-off to participate. Because of the nature of extended families and childcare habits etc this automatically seemed to include quite a lot of asian families and this was reflected in our initial experience. As it has extended the uptake has levelled out to be more balanced; we have had no indication that we should be considering ethnic minorities over white families.

 

I will have a sniff around and see what else I can find out,

 

Sue

[Guest]

Im glad I am not the only one who sees this a problem - I explained the situation to a mum this morning and was trying to encourage her to write a letter of complaint but she didnt want to because she didnt think she would be listened to. The fact of the matter is though, if enough of us dont make a fuss about it, then they wont change it.

 

Please dig around Sue R - from our end the ethnic minority children do take up the places and access our services even when they have to pay, because we are right next to the hospital and many of these families work there as Drs and nurses and we are cheaper than the hospital onsite nursery.

 

Grrr I just feel sorry for all of our parents that are not eligible and I am the one having to tell them they cant get the extra money because their child doesnt fall into the correct ethnic catagory.....

[SueJ]

In our area children must also be registered with a local children's centre on top of ticking all the other boxes!

[Sue R]

Im glad I am not the only one who sees this a problem

 

Just to make my views perfectly clear here - I am sure the intention is not to discriminate against white families. Not having seen the documentation you refer to I can't make any comment regarding that. My comments are purely from my own experience and understanding of the initiative.

 

Sue

[JacquieL]

Sadly money is finite so funding is finite, therefore criteria need to be set on government priorities, which ensure that funding goes to where it is needed most. At present there just isn’t enough money to go around to support a place for all 2 year olds, so something has to be put in place to ensure that those most in need are given an opportunity to benefit. The criteria I have seen seem to be in place to tackle the poorest in society and/or those who live under stress, for example families meeting the income criteria with a disabled child, or a place for the sibling of a disabled child, or lone parents being prioritised over two parent families. I think it is hard to have to make these judgements but they have to be made. Criteria that everyone understands must be put in place. I don’t think we can pick out one group, such as an ethnic black group, as the reason for objections. Some of our ethnic children are black, but by no means all as some of our white children are from ethnic minorities as well. Just picking out colour as an issue confirms the discrimination and prejudice that these families face everyday, which on top of poverty, places them under enormous pressure. This is why we have positive discrimination, positive being the opposite to negative. Equality here is about giving positive encouragement to support people out of poverty, and give their children a better start and a better future. Equality does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. It is about helping people to become equal.

Having seen how funding for three year olds pans out in areas of deprivation, I can see that there are people who slip through all the nets and more often than not it is these people who need support the most. For this reason I can see where this criteria is coming from for two year olds. Registering with CC’s means that these families are known about and can access other services such as health, counselling, parenting classes, language classes, basic skills, fitness, cooking skills, family learning or whatever the CC offers or can access. Families can meet up with other parents and support each other and make friends. There is still the choice of setting as long as the setting chosen is deemed to be good or better. CC’s have link workers, and may be at the centre of clusters of schools and settings. One part of our role as practitioners is to try to make supportive relationships with these families build up confidence and direct them to access what they need.

 

Child Poverty and its effects are a topical issue this month as November 20th was the 20th Anniversary of the Human Rights of the Child

 

Kate Green Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group said: “Children’s rights are central to the work that we do. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that 'the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for governments, as well as enshrining in law children’s rights to benefit from social security.

http://www.cpag.og.uk/ Makes interesting reading.

I would like to think that all children have a right to appropriate love, care and education but until this is possible I would like to see funding going to those who need it most.

[mundia]

I think what needs to be remembered with this is that the two year old funding is not an entitlement but a way of targeting a group of children in any given area. The firest criteria for receipt of funding will be families with a low income, usually families in receipt of benefits. You could then immediately argue that this is discriminatory because it excludes families that are just above the bread line but are not getting benefits.

 

The next list of criteria are more likely to be slightly different in different LAs. The information will have been gathered from the EYFSP and the children who are in the lowest 20% of children scoring 6+ in CLL and PSED. Other measures (eg multiple deprivation indices) are also used to identify the children most from risk of poor outcomes and least likely to access childcare. They will also be likely to be located in certain geographical areas and so the funding may also only be available to people from a certain postcode. Other family circumstances that are eligible are having 3 children under 5, Roma and traveler families or asylum seekers and refugees, as well as those mentioned above. All of these criteria have the potential to seem 'discriminatory' and so it is not a case of saying 'your child isn't eligible because they are white'. They are not eligible because they don't meet ANY of the criteria. In fact families who do meet criteria could well be white, eg if they are lone parents, have a child with a disability etc

 

In addition as already said, families must register with a Children's Centre, need to referred and may only attend a setting that has a good or better OFSTED grading, and with a graduate leader or acces to a CC teacher (again there may be local variations to this)

 

I dont think the final criteria has yet been published in its absolute final state, but each LA has to be very clear about how it has used it's data to identify the families in the greatest need. It is therefore not, in my view anyway, discriminatory or racist.

[Sue R]

Oh,

 

Well Jacquie and mundia have had my say, too!!

 

I was going to report back with pretty much the same stuff, but they have put it all far more eloquently than I could have!! Well done ladies.

 

Hope things are clearer now,

 

Sue

[anju]

I agree, well said Jacquie and Mundia, these policies are trying to redress imbalances in society and create more of a level playing field for all children, not discriminate for the sake of it.

[Upsy Daisy]

I can understand why you would feel that it is wrong to discriminate against any child on the grounds of race, deejay. It just doesn't feel right does it?

 

Sadly we live in a society where children from ethnic minority backgrounds are subject to negative discrimination and this does put them at a disadvantage in a similar way to the other criteria you mention. It's a shame that it happens but it is also a fact of life. Policy makers have a duty to acknowledge this fact and do something to redress the balance.

 

I wouldn't enjoy having the conversation with the parent of the hypothetical white child who is disadvantaged by this policy but at the same time I understand the reasons behind it. Wherever you draw the line it will feel unfair to someone.

 

Thank you for starting such a stimulating topic!

[Guest]

Some of our ethnic children are black, but by no means all as some of our white children are from ethnic minorities as well. Just picking out colour as an issue confirms the discrimination and prejudice that these families face everyday, which on top of poverty, places them under enormous pressure.

 

I think you have taken my comments thre wrong way - I made it clear that they mentioned ethnic minority families and used an Asian child for an example. I wasn not stating thay it was only black or Asian children that would receive the funding I made it quite clear that is was Ethnic Minorities.

 

I have a parent that is debating on whether to claim or not, her child is half slovakian and therfore would be entitled to claim however she herself doesn't believe it is fair, that she can claim for her child, but her friend cannot claim...

 

I totally agree that the funding should go to the children and families that need the most support and I wholly agree that there needs to be some criteria such as other disabled children, SEN or looked after children etc etc. What I am saying is that you cannot decide as a blanket that children from Ethnic Minorities are more deserving of the funding than the other children.

 

You will note in my first post I said either all children should receive the funding (if they match the financial criteria) or none of them. It is not fair to offer this funding to children just because they are from and ethnic minority beacuse it will mean that those children who are white British will not be getting the same opportunities.

 

I do not want ANYONE to think that I am being prejudiced in my post, had it been the other way around that it said that children from white British families would receive the funding I would be fighting the cause the other way for the Ethnic Minority children.

Edited November 26, 2009 by deejay

[Guest]

Just to make my views perfectly clear here - I am sure the intention is not to discriminate against white families. Not having seen the documentation you refer to I can't make any comment regarding that. My comments are purely from my own experience and understanding of the initiative.

 

Sue

 

I was not referring to you when I said I was glad I wasnt the only person to see this as a problem there are others members further up the page who are agreeing with me

[Sue R]

Wasn't suggesting you were but needed to make myself clear. Have had a difficult situation on another forum recently through misunderstandings, so very aware at the moment!

 

Sue

[Guest]

Wasn't suggesting you were but needed to make myself clear. Have had a difficult situation on another forum recently through misunderstandings, so very aware at the moment!

 

Sue

 

OK Forums are quite difficult sometimes - where you are not speaking to a person face to face you are not seeing expressions and hearing the tone of voice and it can sometimes be read differently to how it was intended ...

[lynned55]

I have to agree wth deejay here,and also say I feel she made it quite clear it was the Ethnic Minorities she was talking about and not black or white. I think it's dreadful to use a blanket criteria such as this. 'You're Polish, so your child deserves funding more then this child who is from the UK? Because that's what it amounts to, call it positive or negative it's still dicrimination and unfair. I have used Polish as an example as we have a lot of Polish in our area. I cant help feling that if the funding was to go to only British children, we would all be in uproar over it and quite rightly so, We have a few parents who would have benefited from this funding so much, but under the criteria deejay says would never have got it, I do feel the fairest way would have been to have waited until it was available to all.Or even to have given funding to all 3 year olds the term they are 3, instead of having to wait until the term after. In our borough the criteria was so stringent they couldn't find anyone who met it! They have now relaxed it a bit and managed to find half a doz children who meet the criteria, but it's only going to be available for something like 26 weeks.

I'm not having a go at anyone, but just agreeing with deejay and expressing my (humble!) opinion

[anju]

why is is more unfair and discriminatory than 'just because they've got SEN' or 'just because they live in a particular postcode area'?

Edited November 27, 2009 by anju

[Guest]

why is is more unfair and discriminatory than 'just because they've got SEN' or 'just because they live in a particular postcode area'?

 

As far as I am aware in our area it has nothing to do with post codes, this was being piloted in Basildon and then rolled out Countywide.

 

As for the SEN comment children with Special Educational Needs require early intervention, the sooner you can ID support is needed for a child with SEN the sooner they can progress and have support in place for both families and children.

 

Why does an Ethnic Minority child need more support that a white British child? Im sorry but it just does not make sense you would not be able to make such a statement in the reverse so why is it OK to say because your family do not originally come from here (somewhere along the line) you are going to get extra money. In what ever way you fluff it up it is discrimination. A number of our children in our setting are indian and so I am going to use them as an example...

 

As I said before we are based near a hospital and so many of these parents have jobs within the hospital - Nurses, Radiographers etc etc their children will receive this funding, because their parents are not on a particularly high income being a nurse etc (so they will probably have the tax credit requirement) but those children who are from white British families whose parents are working up the road in Argos wont get the money. It is not fair...

Edited November 27, 2009 by deejay

[Guest]

I have to agree wth deejay here,and also say I feel she made it quite clear it was the Ethnic Minorities she was talking about and not black or white. I think it's dreadful to use a blanket criteria such as this. 'You're Polish, so your child deserves funding more then this child who is from the UK? Because that's what it amounts to, call it positive or negative it's still dicrimination and unfair. I have used Polish as an example as we have a lot of Polish in our area. I cant help feling that if the funding was to go to only British children, we would all be in uproar over it and quite rightly so, We have a few parents who would have benefited from this funding so much, but under the criteria deejay says would never have got it, I do feel the fairest way would have been to have waited until it was available to all.Or even to have given funding to all 3 year olds the term they are 3, instead of having to wait until the term after. In our borough the criteria was so stringent they couldn't find anyone who met it! They have now relaxed it a bit and managed to find half a doz children who meet the criteria, but it's only going to be available for something like 26 weeks.

I'm not having a go at anyone, but just agreeing with deejay and expressing my (humble!) opinion

 

Thank you

[JacquieL]

I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. I think mundia’s post explains it very well. This is not about free funding for all two year olds to enable their parents to go out to work. It is an intervention strategy. An intervention strategy is something put in place to support children with problems. Deejay you mention parents who work at your local hospital as being eligible, I don’t understand why they are eligible for 2 year old funding unless of course their child has a disability, this is about those living below the poverty line, and therefore not likely to be working. It is not for people in work, we are talking about people on benefits. That is the first criteria.

 

Imagine if it was your child in school and they were having difficulties with CLL for example, not even beginning to read at the end of reception. The school would be looking at the cohort and then looking at the underachievers. They would put in place intervention strategies and support for those children, often in small groups or even on a one to one. Would you think this is unfair to the other children? Should they all have small group support or one to one and if so why if they are doing well? As mundia has stated very clearly the intervention is based on analysis of data at the end of the reception year across a local authority. This information is analysed according to a large number of criteria, income groups being one, and therefore poverty, free-school meals, gender, ethnicity, disablilty etc. etc. and then the LA will decide where the funding for this intervention should be prioritised, but in line with Government guidelines, the more boxes ticked the higher up the list the family will go. This will be different depending on area and there will be some postcodes where there are huge problems, interventions will focus on supporting families and those who live under the most tremendous stress, which ultimately affects their young children. I would imagine there are priorities where there is gun crime, street gangs and families live in perpetual fear, where there are families with young children with disabilities, where there are looked- after children who consistently underachieve because, as we know, children under stress find learning difficult, and just need that extra boost, with security and care provided by experienced practitioners and support services.

[anju]

don't know if this will work but it is a recent example where the issue of white children underachieving was publicly debated - thought it might be of interest

 

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-mi...65233-24747114/

[JacquieL]

Yes I had seen that report and this is a change from previous outcomes which is interesting. I have not seen a year by year analysis. It suggests that intervention for ethnic groups has worked as this has been a focus, but now that they are doing much better than previously other working class boys are lagging behind, so this needs addressing now. That is what happens across the board, statistics are collected and interventions put in place. Next time it will be something else, and so it should be, a continuing cycle of improvement for those who underachieve. I wish we could do the best for everyone and the world was a different place.

[anju]

Thank you JacquieL for putting this across so well.

[Guest]

Child A is from a working class background, they are SEN, their father is absent, their mother is disabled and on benefits.

 

Child B is from a working class background, they are SEN, their father is absent, their mother is disabled and on benefits.

 

The authority only has enough money left to fund one place. Child A is white British, child A is from an ethnic minority. Child B gets the funding because ethnicity is being used as a criteria. Is it fair that their ethnicity was taken into account?

 

Children from ethnic minority families are traditionally an under performing group. However, can this be generalised to these two children? Factors not being considered may also have an impact (parenting skills for example!) Of course not every factor can be considered and some things aren't measurable. A line has to be drawn based on some sort of generalisation for these things to work.

 

Is it appropriate though to draw a line based on ethnicity on the basis of a generalisation? If the generalisation was "white British children under perform" would anyone ever consider drawing the line the other way (ie. white British children get funding priority). I suspect no one would dare even with the evidence to back it up! Why then is it fair to draw it this way?

 

I don't really have an answer to this and I find it very difficult even to resolve my own opinion on the matter. With limited funding available some sort of criteria must be drawn up, but I'm not sure ethnicity should come into it at all. What would happen if both children in the above example happened to come from ethnic minorities? Would the one funded place then be allocated on a 'first come, first served' basis? In that case, why not first come, first served regardless of nationality? Or alternatively, enough funding that all ethnicities can be covered equally - wishful thinking!

Edited November 28, 2009 by Guest