To think schools should get with the times re working parents.

I’m interested to know how the employment of additional childcare staff in schools would work when there’s already a shortage of childcare workers in the current market.

You could say “oh but they’ll be employing teachers” if you wanted it to be teacher led but the same problem exists there, teachers are flooding out of teaching.

Why can't wages be increased so that one parent doesn't need to work or just work part-time? When I was young, my mum worked at night, my dad came home & took over, mum went to work either cleaning or on the twilight shift at a local factory. It meant that she was at home during the day, could do school drop offs & pick ups, was at home during the holidays & was able to get things like housework & shopping done during the day. She started work during the day once my brother started school, dropped him off at school, then went to work but was home by the time schools turned out, I was 12 by then & looked after my brother during the day in the holidays, my mum would go to work early with my aunty who she worked with & was home by 12.30pm, we didn't get up early during holiday time so would only have maybe a couple of hours to kill until she was home & she was on the end of the phone if we needed her. Lots of the local mums worked at night either at the factory my mum had worked at or at the local chocolate factory, there don't seem to be as many of that type of job around unless you work in hospitality or in the supermarkets, even then they usually have to include working weekends.

But how would it work in say a dental surgery where the receptionist, 2 dental nurses, the hygienist and one dentist all want to work 9.30-3 only? Who is going to want to work 3-6 or 7 only? Do you really think a practice would find a receptionist, 2 nurses, a hygienist and a dentist to work 4 unsociable hours a day?

@arethereanyleftatall will you answer my question about who you think should be having dc & what classes as enough time seeing them?

No real thought process in to the how's it will work, just a 'must do this' situation

You know people still have dc despite war, famine etc.

What are you talking about 'barely see them'?

Many long jobs (12hr+ shifts) do so many days on/off so the parents still get much of the week with their children. Education jobs, you get all holidays with your children.

The best thing for young children is to be around other children anyway. SAHPs were great in the 50s/60s when children could socialise freely, mum's went to local playgroups and made friends that they saw daily. But in modern society, young children maybe going to 2hrs worth of church playgroup and a couple of paid baby classes where they don't leave their mum's side or allowed free engagement with the other babies is actually quite damaging to development.

Obviously parental income is the greatest indicator of a child's outcomes, but in primary at least, there is a noticable difference between children who attended nursery and those that didn't. Children of 2 working parents (whether together or not) generally have much more emotional intelligence than those with a SAHP.

Education is the responsibility of parents, by law. Parents can choose to use schools to educate their child, and while the child is there, they are in the care of the school. So I see school as childcare. And I support the OP’s idea.

Not sure who is going to want these extra childcare jobs, currently our after school club isn't able to attract any applicants and is relying on the goodwill of TAs (paid overtime, but it's a tiny amount) and teachers (unpaid) to cover.

Even if it were easy to staff, that's a long day for children. Employers should be incentivised instead to offer more flexible options.

If you want them to 'get with the times' they'd be open 24/7 to accommodate ALL working parents. Seems even more unrealistic now. YABU & entitled to think anyone other than a paid nanny should accommodate your working hours

You would have to employ more people, the work day would probably extend in actuality but split between 2, 3 people.
It would just be another career option, you already have part time working, why can't there be a middle between that and full time?

”my question now still just stands for those who deliberately go in to it knowing they'll barely see them even from conception time.”

It doesn’t seem there was any attempt to disguise your judgement. As I said, I’m not in that target group so I’m not taking personal offence. Objectively, it is very judgmental.

Parents who work have to source childcare (usually from professionals but also from family). With the exception of homeschooled children, most parents outsource education to schools. In the same way you would look for the right school for your child, a parent would look for the right childcare for their child.

It’s harsh but the truth is that the reason fertility rates are dropping. People are assessing not only the quality of life they would have as parents but also the quality of life they could give a child and realizing the numbers don’t add up. Family isn’t at the heart of society or policy anymore and something has to give.

This makes me laugh!

The government won’t even find schools properly for during the school day - they care even less about the wraparound care!

Because that's not the change we need. We need things to change so that people can afford to live and raise a family without both parents working 40 plus hours a week.

Shoving kids into school 60 hours a week isn't going to solve anything, it will just make things worse.

Also, to fund these ridiculous hours, taxes would rise. You think childless people or parents who don't need their kids in 10 hour day settings want to pay for that? They don't even want to pay for services they actually use.

It's employers who need to get with the times and offer flexi time, WFH and shorter working hours, it's dystopian that people have to spend more time at work than with their own kids!

Brilliant answer. Thank you @VivaVivaa

Wow. That’s so harsh.

Okay. Well my average working week is ~36 hours across 4 days. Sometimes it’s way more, sometimes it’s way less, but that’s an average.

On those 4 days I don’t see much of my kids. But I know they exist. I know they are happy and cared for. I know they are learning about the world. I know they are forming opinions and likes and dislikes. They are becoming independent people whilst knowing I am coming back for them every single time. Selfishly, their sheer existence brings me great pleasure and I adore and prioritise the days I have with them. I don’t really do anything else on my none working days then spend time with them. They are too young to realise but we are able to save a little bit to hopefully pay for driving and university. Maybe that’s a choice we are making and we could cut a half day somewhere for more time. But having chances in life is exceptionally important to me as I grew up with nothing. HTH.

I tried so hard to remove the judgement @TorturedPoetsDepartmentAnthology! It wasn't intended, but I think the nature of the question means that people can't help but read it as if it was. I was just hoping someone would articulate why. And they did in the end. Thank you.

Great sentiment, but when the government require children of school age children to work a set amount of hours per week….they’re for childcare

Many doctors do work part time for family reasons. Their employers just have to support flexibility and job sharing etc to ensure the services are staffed. The issue isn’t workers like these imo it’s the workers who despite working fulltime hours can’t afford any support

And that sums up why the UK is having a crisis in education...

Ffs

Biological drive is what I was actually thinking too @RawBloomers. No real thought process in to the how's it will work, just a 'must do this' situation. Thank you for actually answering!

For the same reason everyone has children - they want to be a parent, to provide for them and to love them and all the other selfish reasons people have children.
Working parents see their children mornings, evenings, weekends and holidays.
Your posts are dripping with judgement and I’m not even in your target group!

You think the biological drive to have children is so that we can see them? That seems absolutely bizarre to me.

I had children because I thought the satisfaction of bringing up great adults who might go on to do great things (and I don’t necessarily mean in a famous, world changing way, could be being great friends or something similarly individual) would be more meaningful than better holidays. It wasn’t because I thought they would entertain or otherwise provide companionship for me while they were kids.