Free pre-school will include means testing
Thursday 21st March 2013, 4:00PM GMT.
AN ENTITLEMENT to a minimum of 15 hours pre-school education will inevitably lead to some form of means testing, Education’s deputy minister has said.
The States will be asked to approve a scheme in principal by the end of this year.
Andrew Le Lievre, pictured, said it was a project the whole board was passionate about. However, little progress had been made on defining how it would work and how it would be funded.
Deputy Le Lievre agreed that the entitlement would inevitably require some form of means testing.
‘But what kind of means testing? You can have the very invasive means testing as we see for those claiming supplementary benefit or we could have a less invasive tax-based system,’ he said.
Friday 24 May
- Aurigny looking at jet option
- Win a holiday in Paris
- Lookback - Wrecked on Gross Rocque
- Channel Islands news
- Simpson beaten by squash no. 1
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Mr. Le Lievre today:
“AN ENTITLEMENT to a minimum of 15 hours pre-school education will inevitably lead to some form of means testing”
From Education website today:
“The provision of a universal entitlement to free, quality, pre-school provision for up to 15 hours per week is one of the Board’s main priorities for development”
Well make-up your mind – is it universal or is it means tested?
Left hand, please allow me to introduce you to right hand…
Report abuse
Typical States come up with an idea with no clue how it’s to be funded. Personally I would rather my taxes go towards the Health service or other important sectors of society, and not on the luxury of looking after other people’s children so parents can go off to work. If you can’t afford to look after your own children don’t have them you have a choice. I do wonder how many parents would have children if they had to look after them 24/7.
Report abuse
Castiel,
I can understand where you are coming from, but the rationale behind this scheme is not designed to provide free childcare so that parents can go back to work, it is for the benefit of the children.
I believe research has shown that children who have been exposed to some form of structured pre-school education (note the word ‘education’) are more socialised, settle in better to school and generally have a head start in their school life, thus avoiding potential (expensive) problems to solve through the system later.
Yes, a bi-product of giving parents this ‘free-time’ is that some may be encouraged back to work, or can increase their hours but this is not the not the fundamental reason behind proposing the scheme.
Report abuse
They giveth, they taketh away. Make up your bloody minds.
Report abuse
If 15 hours free pre school is to be based on a means test, it will once again mean that hard working parents will be found to earn to much an so therefore won’t be entitled to it. The states have got it all wrong, they are more than happy to hand out money to people who stay at home an don’t want to go to work, yet the people who end up working two jobs to support themselves and their children get nothing. Surely it would be more of an incentive for those who don’t have a job to go out an find one if they stopped getting everything for free. If 15hrs of free pre school is to be introduced to the island it should be for every one, for the parents who work an struggle to pay child care on top of their mortgages and bills, as well as the people who claim supplementary benefits.
Report abuse
Perhaps they’ll follow the UK plan whereby the UK will be giving a £1,200 allowance per child towards child care to any couple EACH earning 150K or less per annum
Report abuse
AGREED!!
I think it is ridiculous that those who do not work, and make no effort to work will, as usual, get this for free, whereas those who would like to send their children to preschool will have to pay for it, together with a mortgage and other bills and struggle to make ends meet.
If they REALLY want to improve the future of the island, then they should invest in ALL children, and NOT just the ones who are at the lowest end of the income scale!
Report abuse
Spot on Unhappy Islander. It also raises the point that those who don’t work and stay at home are the ones who DON’T need this service. Yet people such as my sister and her husband, both of whom have to work to pay the bills, will be found to be “too well off” to use this service.
I am perfectly happy to have my taxes used for this universal service as long as it is just that; universal. Let’s start giving back a little to those who are actually putting in for a change.
Report abuse
Those who don’t work and stay at home need this service just as much (and I’m sure in some cases probably more) than those that work to pay the bills and support themselves.
This scheme is supposed to provide free pre-school education and not free pre-school childcare. Just because a parent stays at home to look after their children, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be encouraging and helping their children to learn and socialise in the manner that they would at an approved pre-school.
If this is the true intention of the scheme, then the only fair way to implement it is to offer it to ALL children to ensure that they ALL receive a basic minimum standard before they start school.
Report abuse
I think it’s fair that it should be means tested.
The 15 hours / week is designed primarily to achieve a level playing field among all children, as low income families may not have enough money to send their children to pre-school, which is shown to benefit children educationally.
I cannot really see why all taxpayers should be required to pay for 15 hours / week of pre-school for the rich?
Report abuse
Low income families already get free/low cost preschool. It is around the £3 per morning as opposed to £6.50 per hour for other people. It is middle income families who are struggling, frankly – those who are a couple of quid over the limit for help from the States, who are always losing out to those who have surplus children and no inclination to work.
Incidentally, don’t discriminate between rich people and poor people. Both sets of people may not work, but one will ultimately be “keeping” the other.
Report abuse
The low income families already have a subsidy scheme if they want to send their child to pre-school. I know someone who pays £1.50 (I think) per session for her little one, and this is organised by the States.
If you don’t qualify for this scheme you have to pay between £13 and £17 a session privately.
And I will also say, should you have a childminder, you very often have to pay for your childs space while their at preschool, because you then need the holiday cover when the preschool is closed!
Report abuse
Oh right, I wasn’t aware that they were already subsidised. Fair enough then that it should apply to everyone.
That saids, from experience I know just how expensive 15 hours/week of pre-school is, goodness knows how they are going to fund this for everyone. I would have thought it may lead to a bit of a baby boom too, as one of the reasons to limit the number of kids you have is the sheer expense of nursery and preschool…
Report abuse
Once again the working class people lose out i thought it was for everyone but once again we pay for the single mothers to have it all everyone should be treated the same. Why cant they go out to work like the rest of us when their children go to school.The states passed that but can’t be bothered to see it through .
Report abuse
Won’t means testing be a disincentive to actually go out and find work or extra work?
Report abuse
Sorry but the phrase ‘hard working parents’ used above (and in the media/government) is very offensive to me and I’m certain to others. If you look at the application of this phrase, what is actually being implied (whether this view is taken by the person saying this or not) is that unless both parents are working (or the one parent in single-parent family) then by default the one that isn’t is not hard working and doesn’t deserve equal treatment to those parents that do work.
In my own family, my wife stays at home to look after our daughter, whilst keeping on top of household chores as well as volunteering for several hours each month for two local charities. Does this mean we are not a hard working family? Apparently according to the UK government and others, yes.
As a professional in the finance industry I would likely be classed as a high earner (over £40k). We have both been in full employment for the best part of 40 years between us paying full tax/stamp. We pay our modest mortgage and all bills with no additional debt and our only real ‘luxury’ is having two vehicles (worth a couple of thousand between them). Other than that we have no other vices and are left with virtually nothing at the end of every month. We survive on very little compared to my professional peers but for us it is worth it to enable our daughter to have her mummy at home for as long as possible (I absolutely understand not everyone is in the position to do this or would even want to do this and of course it is our choice).
Simply put, the States will likely end up funding this pre-school initiative by ceasing or means testing the family allowance in order to finance a means tested pre-school allowance.
So what does this mean? It means the middle classes (sorry but let’s call a spade a spade) will be the losers here… once again. For our family, we wanted to get our daughter into 2 days of pre-school when she turned 3 to prepare for school life, chances are my wife won’t find part-time work in her pre-child line work, that means we will probably have no family allowance, no pre-school allowance and little chance of additional wage.
Coupled with that, at the moment for a mother (or father) staying at home, minimum social insurance contributions are being made on her/his behalf – will this be stopped as well? I would imagine so.
I may be putting the cart before the horse but let’s face it, the above is very likely to happen, if not all then most – no doubt all of it through means testing. Those on low incomes (and I’m not begrudging here) will be entitled to everything, while people in my scenario who literally have nothing of our wage left after essential living costs, will be left to finance pre-school ourselves, if we choose to do this.
Either everyone receives something or nobody does.
Report abuse
Outstanding post Jeff. Our family is similar to yours in many respects and like you we made a choice; I fully accept others cannot make that choice and I am hugely grateful we could.
Personally I couldn’t care less what the UK government or anyone else says. As far as I’m concerned a full time mum works just as hard if not harder than any career woman….and their contribution to society is just as valid.
Actually, with jobs getting harder to come by, I think there is a case to encourage families that can get by on a single income to do so as it would help free up jobs for people who genuinely need the income.
Report abuse
Jeff / PLP
Totally agree!
My wife stayed at home until my daughter started school and went back to work part time. I became a house husband for five weeks when my wife had an operation and was bed bound.
I do a very manual job and believe me housework and running about after the children was not easy. I have full respect for full time housewives / husbands.
Free pre-school should be about getting the children ready for education not how much the parents earn. Should be available to all.
I met a couple on my election campaign who were both doctors, they were concerned about the struggling middle class and I agree with them. This group are suffering as they get little help and seem to be penalised for working hard.
Report abuse
As this is essentially an educational decision for children’s futures how can means testing be justified?
Could we means test primary eductaion and make some pay. Of course not. To be fair it must be available to all.
Some hard workers who earn an ok sum can’t afford pre school and will no doubt miss out on means testing.
Yet another incentive for the masses to quit work.
Report abuse
It will be interesting to see the figures for the funding.
I expect that there will be no allowance for the extra staff that will be needed to conduct the means test.
Whether it is a good or bad idea it is merely a distraction to talk about means testing as the cost of conducting the means test will negate any money saved by the test.
On the other hand it will increase the civil service and their burden on the tax payer.
Report abuse