I thought the coalition was meant to be saving money?

robin_banks

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11548062




OMG :eek: £7 bn. Obviously, everyone wants poor kids to be well educated but this seems mental.

Maybe it's not new money?

I'm so confused. The child benefit cuts only amounted to £1bn and this is £7bn!?

Which is money diverted from other areas, it's not new money.

The 'Bonfire of the Quangos' will result in little or no savings.

In other news the 'Big Society Roadshows' have been cancelled.
Smoke and mirrors, much of the 'cuts' are symbolic i.e. they cut back on the scope of the state.

michaels

I don't think it is all 2 year olds, if you read the BBC piece I think the 2 year olds in question were those who were not receiving the normal socialisation at home that the middle class take for granted.

Hauptmann wrote: »

Personally I reckon two-year olds won't benefit much from any kind of formal education. They'd be better off at home with their mums. Since the modern agenda (of all parties) is to get women to work as soon as they've delivered the child maybe this is just a back-door way of providing free child care?

setmefree2

de1amo wrote: »

i must be educationally 'challenged' how does 15 hours education for ALL the 2 year olds in the uk ever amount to 7bn--maybe they will develope some new quangos to waste money on!

Me neither- there must be something missing in this BBC article?

lostinrates

Hauptmann wrote: »

Personally I reckon two-year olds won't benefit much from any kind of formal education. They'd be better off at home with their mums. Since the modern agenda (of all parties) is to get women to work as soon as they've delivered the child maybe this is just a back-door way of providing free child care?

does it depend who the mums are? and whether hey have siblings etc. generally I'm very in favour of kids being at home, but time for informal learning, and socialising etc is not a bad thing surely, and might help relieve pressure on later formal education if any thing to challenge learning is discovered before formal eduction starts. TBH, I think it should be parent motivated thing...but if the parents aren't motivated perhaps those are the children that most benefit.

toby3000

Hauptmann wrote: »

Personally I reckon two-year olds won't benefit much from any kind of formal education. They'd be better off at home with their mums. Since the modern agenda (of all parties) is to get women to work as soon as they've delivered the child maybe this is just a back-door way of providing free child care?

I agree with you on this. I don't think there's any evidence that starting formal education younger has any benefit- in Europe I believe it's common to start formal education at 7ish.

I wish the government would be honest about it and say "we know lots of women would like to go back to work. The state will provide childcare for under-7s" and start primary education at 7. You could then either spend less or reduce class sizes for older children

setmefree2

lostinrates - sorry but how much formal learning can a 2 year old do? Most of them have just learned to walk and talk!!!!

lostinrates

setmefree2 wrote: »

lostinrates - sorry but how much formal learning can a 2 year old do? Most of them have just learned to walk and talk!!!!

That's why I referred to informal learning.

michaels

I think we are talking about being given toys and spoken too as opposed to being sat in front of a tv with a soother and as many crisps and fizzy drinks are needed for them not to interrupt Jeremy Kyle.

setmefree2 wrote: »

lostinrates - sorry but how much formal learning can a 2 year old do? Most of them have just learned to walk and talk!!!!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

michaels wrote: »

I think we are talking about being given toys and spoken too as opposed to being sat in front of a tv with a soother and as many crisps and fizzy drinks are needed for them not to interrupt Jeremy Kyle.

You know that is so true :eek:

daveyjp

setmefree2 wrote: »

Quite. 2 year olds need to play. I can't believe that the coalition are going to spend this money in this way?!:o

and 15 hours is only 3 hours a day - not enough time to seriously think about working. Enough time to go home, tidy up and back out to pick them (the kids) up again.

Having recently finished a period of 15 hours free at a nursery your post shows you have no clue how the system works.

If they want to get people back into work this is exactly the way to spend money. The taxes paid by a working parent and the multiplier effect of the wages being spent will more than cover the £15-20 or so a day the childcare will cost.