Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

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"

It doesnt have to be universal to avoid a stigma, just have a cut off point high enough that the majority will still benefit from it.

I dont think the suggestion is that families on average incomes should lose it.

But that DID happen with school meals. The lunch box became a status symbol, and there were kids being sent in with lunchboxes to save their parents pride, but when they got there there would be barely anything edible inside!

Not sure about the free school dinners notanan. For a brief period my DD was entitled to them, which I was very glad to claim as a single parent working full time.

She was never stigmatised in any way, none of her fellow-pupils knew. If you're really on a cripplingly tight budget, you don't turn down 'free' anything.

well, not so much that the lunch boxes themselves became a status symbol, but there was a stigma attached to school dinners for a while there.

There isn't any more. Everyone except the very fussy or very allergic tend to have them now, which means that within that, kids who wouldn't otherwise are getting at least one proper meal a day.

Oh yes, 'taking a lunch box' did become a sort of fashion, but nothing to do with pride, the kids just didn't like the school dinners!

Not sure about the free school dinners notanan. For a brief period my DD was entitled to them, which I was very glad to claim as a single parent working full time. But Ana, you might be nice! and just be glad that your child was being fed, there WERE others who were very "no son or daughter of mine needs school dinners" and their pride mattered more than the child getting well fed!

There are harrowing stories of lunchboxes from school staff from before universal school dinners for KS1. There was a really really shocking thread about it posted by school staff on MN, even if you think you can imagine how bad it was for some kids.. it was worse!

well, not so much that the lunch boxes themselves became a status symbol, but there was a stigma attached to school dinners for a while there

Were there no children paying for school dinners then/

If not perhaps the stigma was more due to the low quality of the dinners than the fact that those eating them got them free.

no they went very out of fashion

and yes part of that was that they were poor quality

Sadly there may be a correlation between everyone (and not just the needy families) getting them, and calls to improve quality actually being listened to for a change?

There may have been an element of "beggers can't be chosers" and we shouldn't complain because it's a hand-out/freebee that deminished when it became a standard school service for everyone so people demanded more quality?

Anyone else remember that in the 70s, free universal childcare was one of the demands of the the women's liberation movement?
Ah - here was the list:

Equal pay for equal work
Equal education and job oportunities
Free contraception
Free 24-hour community-controlled childcare
Legal and financial independence for women
An end to discrimination against lesbians
Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of male violence.
An end to the laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and men's agression towards women

The issue of targeting benefits has been a minefield from the start of the welfare state. It inevitably involves some sort of means-testing and this is very controversial, especially when the cost of this outweighs the cost of the benefits.

I guess the only way to target it would be to hitch it to some other benefit as a qualifying condition.

hitching it on doesn't allow for any step down as you move from qualified to not qualified. Also if there's a muck-up with one then you lose both!

Benefit admin can be so inefficient, hitching them together could leave people entitled and needing them with nothing at all for weeks on end while "blips" get sorted out

Here's the thing however: it's not compulsory!

I don't agree with taking away bus passes, but I do agree that people should think twice before applying for /using benefits just because they can

We didn't use all of our free hours with one of our kids, I know lots of people who don't use their free hours at all!
I know even more people who wish they didn't have to use it and could afford to go part time for more of their children's early years…

if there was more flexibility with regards to working (or not) and parenting, the uptake in free hours might drop anyway?

Mair Youre using a fallacious argument of insignificant cause regarding the number of wealthy people Sorry, could you explain this sentence? I have no idea what you mean.
I think your accusations of hypocrisy, whoever they are levelled at, are quite uncalled for.

In our area not everyone will get the additional 15 hours anyway because it will be based on postcodes. I assume this means the more deprived postcodes have been identified as needing it more??

There are also implications for the provider who currently makes more money by charging a higher rate for any additional hours of childcare. They are not going to be very happy.

Jean I don`t think policy should be determined on whether or not it is political suicide . Surely you are saying the May should not implement this in case causes less people to vote for her . What about whether or not it is the right thing to do for the country.

I think free child care should be means tested also bus passes . winter fuel allowance and DLA (PIP) which all are not at present . David Cameron applied for (and got) DLA for Ivan which is a disgrace which ever way you look at it .

JessM, yes I remember the things the monstrous regiment of women set out as essentials in the 70's. I find it hard to believe that over 40 years later, the argument about the benefits of early years education and who should pay for it continues in the UK. Look at the positive outcomes for children in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Of course this country should subsidise/pay for good quality nursery time for all children. Working parents pay a lot of money is tax if they're earning decent amounts, if they are earning the minimum wage, they'll struggle to pay for child care.
We all benefit from investment in our children.

iam64 absolutely correct

The school lunches at my DGC's school are very poor indeed and even worse the higher age group you get. My eldest DGD (year 6) had to wait until 1pm to go into "dinner" at which point the was little left and she was presented with a bland dried up sandwich and an often very overripe (pas it best) piece of fruit. Disgusting considering the cost.
My DDiL has complained many times but she is told that they find it hard to know who will be having lunch from one day to the next.
Subsequently they all take packed lunch to school but are only given 10 minutes to eat it, which is also disgusting. DGS cannot eat and enjoy his lunch in 10 minutes.

....and don't get me started on the packed lunch gestapo.

f77ms I presume you're talking to me.
I did say it would be political suicide to stop the 15 hours.
But I didn't say that was the reason it shouldn't happen. That was your own conclusion.
If you read my subsequent posts you would see that I was arguing that the benefits of early education should be made available to all children irrespective of their parents' income.

What do parents pay for these days ? Our country cannot afford to bring up every child that is born here. In some cases a parent doesnt spend a single penny that they have gone out and worked for.Yes pre school is important but the argument that 15 hours a week will cure the problems we have with literacy,numeracy and behaviour in our schools falls down when we look at the length of time free childcare has been in place and the numbers of children who cant read, write, count or behave in schools.
We cant pay for everything, parents have to put their hand in their own pocket and also take responsibility for the care of THEIR children

Oh dear granny piper, what makes you believe that the majority of parents don't "put their had their own pocket and also take responsibility for the care of their children". Most parents do, the few who don't aren't going to bankrupt us by using free childcare. In addition to that, those children whose parents are drug/alcohol dependent, neglectful, of such low IQ that managing daily life is difficult - they're the ones most in need of good quality child care. The research is unequivocal on this.

those children whose parents are drug/alcohol dependent, neglectful, of such low IQ that managing daily life is difficult - they're the ones most in need of good quality child care

SO why waste tax payers money on those children who's parents are well able to pay themselves?

Can't.

And will the children of those parents benefit from the 30 hours free childcare when it comes in? I understood it was for children of working parents only, which will exclude many of the most vulnerable?

Though the 15 hours will still be available for all.