Osborne to announce free childcare for 2 year olds(337 Posts)
In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor will outline a £650 million scheme to provide free early education for about 40 per cent of two year-olds.
Just wondering what MNers think about this....
Well, with regards to teaching parents to become better parents - do you really think that that's really going to be cost effective very quickly?
Also, how do you propose doing it? Forcing every parent to attend - that's going to cause a lot of people (and probably the same ones who don't like nursery for 2 year olds) to get upset at being patronised.
How do you ensure that whatever has been taught will then really be done? It's not so much about knowledge I guess - most people will be aware that ignoring their child all day is not a good idea - it's more about giving them support to break through behaviour in which they end up ignoring their children. And that's not cheap, easily implemented (again, how do you identify those at need? Blanket solutions will a) be costly and b) again annoy those who don't need this support). I don't think that surestart alone was or would be enough to tackle this, as it only reached people who actually actively chose to go there.
A good nursery environment, in my eyes, is probably the most easily implementable blanket solution, with immediate effects, as it doesn't hinge on parents altering their own behaviour.
I see your point Widow - I agree that it benefits many children but it would be so much better to engage parents early to be better parents - it in't rocket science really. And it would save money in the long term.
I think DS2 would have been entitled to this if he'd been younger (he's 3.5 now) as he has physical disabilities. However he wasn't ready for pre-school/nursery at 2 and even now he is only there 8 hours a week and he struggles with that towards the end of term. So it wouldn't have benefitted us at all. Not sure if it would be more useful to other families though.
Her e's an example why early childcare can be a very good thing. Should these children be left behind just to avoid offending parents who do do the right things at home.
As I see it this is not only about getting mothers into the workplace, but also about giving children the chance to experience a quality childcare setting and learn and do lots of fun things from an early age, as - let's face it - not every child which is kept at home will be baking cupcakes with mummy and do educational things every day.
A child is not a mother's pet, it's a little person with rights and needs, and as unbelievable as it sounds to some of you, not every SAHP ensures that these needs which go further than being clothed and fed are really met.
everyone benefits from quality wraparound affordable options - the majority of sahms will return to work one day, working mums in partnerships need it, single mum's need it more than anyone if they're to have any chance to get out of poverty, etc etc. this is a unifying issue not one to squabble about.
the divide and rule BS that gets imposed just clouds the issues.
personally i would like to see it preserved that a parent can choose to sah with their child till school age. that is really important to some people. to others not. fine! sometimes you fight to preserve things that don't mean much to you personally but still matter.
the idea of mothers being forced back into work 12months after giving birth regardless of the temperament of that child or that mother or the issues they have faced etc etc etc. is shit. those who want to fine! go for it and i believe you should have support in being able to afford to do it and have quality options. but those who don't want to should not have to.
NO! this is not a sahm/wohm debate.
absolutely WW - we need wraparound care that is affordable, decent affordable childcare and wages that match the cost of living better than at present. no one would argue that. and for women who want or need to work it should be possible to do so whilst having their children in quality care.
at present however we lack these things, even more in some areas of the country than others i'm sure, so forcing women who can't get childcare or jobs to work or be punished is just setting them up to fail.
for those who want to stay home with under school kids they are in doing so saving at least £600pm in childcare costs (that's if they have one child only) so it's not like they're costing money by not working you know? 2 kids £1200 - so she'd have to earn £1200 after tax just to pay the childcare let alone bills, rent etc on top. in a climate where their aren't enough jobs why force those who are busy taking care of their own children and often also doing things in the community that others working can't to go and compete for the few jobs that others are so desperate for? why punish them for not being able to find a job that fits with their childcare hours or allows them to pay for the childcare?
this is not a wohm/sahm issue. this is a female issue. all women who want to work should not be barred from the workplace by having children (particularly children old enough to be at school) but currently a lot are by our massively inept and yes misogynistic system that doesn't see quality affordable childcare as a priority and likes to pretend that we don't face these issues.
Is this child minding but under a different name?
Childrens school years have been extended to 18 and now the powers that be want to have them start school at 2
We could have huge child warehouses where parents could visit their children and borrow them like you would a book from a library.
And as mentioned further up.
Where are these jobs?
(The misogynism in your post lies in your theory that it's somehow unfeminine not to want to stick to traditional roles, and instead of only baking the cake also wanting to eat it)
Maybe because she enjoys work...
Who's now turning it into a SAHM debate, pretendhousewife?
Why would a mother want to work if she has 3 children under 5? Why bother having them at all if you are just going to farm them out and only see them at weekends?
There lies the negative policy, it's in the assumption that having children disturbs the order of one's working life. The misogynism lies in the fact that they keep on and on about this, relentlessly pursuing the idealistic endgame where women become the same as men.
I think a step into the direction of making it economically viable (or at least neutral) to go back to work is a more positive policy than the status quo of condemning lower earning mothers to staying at home.
Also, the lack of term time and school hours only jobs shouldn't mean mothers can't work - but just that there's need for affordable wrap around care.
That's not a negative policy, nor a misogynistic one, but rather the opposite.
Nobody said that Widow - please don't turn this into a SAHM debate, it isn't. But the policies to force women into the workplace are becoming irrational because there is no work and it is not economically viable for one woman to pay another woman to look after her kids when she could be looking after 3 of her own. For instance.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
don't think anyone here has been proposing that myth AT ALL widowwadman. many have been discussing the realities that act as barriers to that though such as childcare cost and inflexibility and oh you know the simple fact of their not being any jobs or affordable childcare means telling women you've got to get a job from when your child is a year old is a tad....?
"'Actually there's something decidedly misogynistic about this relentless policy to push women into work at all costs as though nobody has a right to spend too much time with their kids. Probably FFJ are behind it.'"
Actually there's something decidedly misogynistic about this stubborn myth that women need to stay at home at all costs as though no woman has the right to strive for a career and a family at the same time.
Toody, I hope they do well with their business, sounds like they will do very well. I personally know some very good childminders, some who were former nursery nurses, and think they are far more preferable to institutional care for little ones (Just my opinion of course, each to their own) The good ones are always busy.
Yes one of my daughters has a child of her own the other doesn't they are both qualified to level 4 with over 10 years experience of nursery working but wanted to start their own business together. Ofsted gave them good and stated once the landscaping on garden finished (soft tiles being laid at the time now complete) they would be outstanding although this cannot be given until next inspection (if still of same standard).
'both my daughters are childminders free nursery places for two yr olds will effectively put them out of business'
I personally think the gov prefer institutional care rather than childminders. After all, many childminders are also watching their own kids. I don't think they like that part.
'Actually there's something decidedly misogynistic about this relentless policy to push women into work at all costs as though nobody has a right to spend too much time with their kids. Probably FFJ are behind it.'
That is an interesting thought.
yes. also the targeting of single parent households - what's so unique about them? 90% don't have a man in them.
Actually there's something decidedly misogynistic about this relentless policy to push women into work at all costs as though nobody has a right to spend too much time with their kids. Probably FFJ are behind it.
Actually pretend I'm thinking of giving it all up and sitting back with my feet up all day. 'Cause it seems the only way
I'd like some free childcare for my dts please, they are soon to be 10 so it wouldn't be all the time. Thankyouverykindly.
both my daughters are childminders free nursery places for two yr olds will effectively put them out of business, they already lose children at 3 because obviously parents take up the free places which my daughters can't offer. They have looked into being allowed to accept the vouchers but nobody can tell them how to become eligible, always told we'll be in touch then don't.
Join the discussion
Please login first.