I thought the coalition was meant to be saving money?

HappyMJ

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!

In the article it says it's over 4 years

and to quote
"about £300m would go towards early years support for two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds"

That's only £75m per year. There are around 350,000 2 year olds....so that's...let's get the calculator out here...75m divide by 350,000 divide by 52 weeks then divide by 15 hours equals....27 pence per hour per child. How many are disadvantaged I don't know but it isn't much to spend. If there were 10 kids in a playgroup 9 are paying and 1 the government pays for then the playgroup revenue is £27 per hour (assuming playgroup is £2.70 per hour-it's normally charged weekly at about £40) which is enough to pay for the building and staff. The media just makes it look like a big number.

michaels

And whilst I am all for personal freedom, feel that we do interefere too much in this country and agree that we start formal education too soon, in this case I can see that it would be money well spent. (Or be it that it might reduce the 'talent' pool for the aforementioned JK show in 20 {12?!} years time)

chewmylegoff

one of the biggest problems, as i understand it, that children from poorer families face, is that they are more likely to not be able to read when they get to school. the further behind their peer group they are in terms of reading age when they join school, the less likely they are to catch up to the norm. if they do not catch up to their peer group by the time that they are about 8, then statistically they are likely to leave school with inferior qualifications.

therefore there is some logic in this, i think, if it is going to address basic skills like reading, and also social skills.

tomterm8

One of the problems with Labour spending over the last decade was that they would announce spending as if it was the objective and not a means to an end. Spending more money isn't an inherently bad thing, if what you get as a result is worth more than the money you spend. But labour didn't really track the outcomes of spending. If spending this money results in people going back to work, spending this money now may result in increased tax money and so a net closing of the deficit. Even if it doesn't, if it improves educational outcomes it may result in less crime, less unemployment, and a happier and healthier population... and these things may eventually lead to improved productivity that provides a return for the money spent.

But at the moment, it sounds that like Labour they have no way of measuring the outcomes, and so we will not know whether the money they are about to spend was spent wisely or not.

de1amo

i wonder if there will be catchment areas to get this free education--i can see all the well off families applying for council flats under false pretences

carolt

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.

I think research has shown that for 2 years plus, some socialisation with other children is helpful - the jury is still out on whether full-time care is desirable/advisable for this age group. But part time is probably beneficial.

For little babies, it is just childminding rather than education in any formal or informal sense - children pre-age 2 just aren't up to that level of development yet; they play alongside each other rather than with each other.

At age 2 plus, though, as michaels says, it gives the child a chance to have a break from Jeremy Kyle and benefit from socialisation/play opportunities in a positive environment - but also a valuable chance for the parent to have a few hours of non-childcare time - to go back to work (I certainly worked all the time my kids were in nursery), or if they're lucky to sort the house out, study, etc.

I think the provision of limited childcare at this age is desirable. Ideally we would follow the Scandinavians and roll it out to all parents, in properly regulated, professionally run state nurseries.

Whether we can afford to take even the half-way measure that is being proposed here, at the presesent time, is another matter.

Also, given the v high cost of childcare, I imagine it will be yet another disincentive for low paid families to earn too much - if they earn too much they'll lose the free childcare, on top of the child benefit, LHA, etc.

silvercar

de1amo wrote: »

i wonder if there will be catchment areas to get this free education--i can see all the well off families applying for council flats under false pretences

:eek:NO way, they won't want their little princesses being "educated" with the chav offspring.

robin_banks

de1amo wrote: »

i wonder if there will be catchment areas to get this free education--i can see all the well off families applying for council flats under false pretences

I take your not au-fait with social housing trends.

LB Camden 14,000 waiting list, can't see any well off getting housed just yet.

Not meant to be a dig btw.

carolt

de1amo wrote: »

i wonder if there will be catchment areas to get this free education--i can see all the well off families applying for council flats under false pretences

How would a 'well-off family' qualify for a council flat?

michaels

But they used to pay people like me to find clever, low cost ways of measuring the outcomes and more importantly noticing where things weren't giving the benefits that were hoped for and seeing whether things could be tweaked (borrowing from those who were successful) to ensure that the spending was providing benefit. However now saving money means not playing 'consultants' (boo, hiss) to do things like that, saving in the short run but costing a fortune in missed opportunities and wasted spending in the medium and long run. And yes the savings were often a huge multiple of the cost of employing me and it is not only the public sector who sometimes put short term spending reductions over longer term searching for value for money.

tomterm8 wrote: »

One of the problems with Labour spending over the last decade was that they would announce spending as if it was the objective and not a means to an end. Spending more money isn't an inherently bad thing, if what you get as a result is worth more than the money you spend. But labour didn't really track the outcomes of spending. If spending this money results in people going back to work, spending this money now may result in increased tax money and so a net closing of the deficit. Even if it doesn't, if it improves educational outcomes it may result in less crime, less unemployment, and a happier and healthier population... and these things may eventually lead to improved productivity that provides a return for the money spent.

But at the moment, it sounds that like Labour they have no way of measuring the outcomes, and so we will not know whether the money they are about to spend was spent wisely or not.