Does everyone think childcare should be paid for?

Terrible idea. It also will cost the generation who use it in the future as pensions will have to be scrapped. The country can’t afford everything

Yes, me too. But not for the state to organise. They don’t appear to be able to manage anything competently. Our state education is an appalling mess with teachers overworked, underpaid, undervalued; overstretched. It’s a miracle that some of them manage to teach - crowd control seems to be all the government are paying for. I wish we could do the Australian system. Each child gets an education passport and it’s spent each year at whichever nursery or school the parent chooses. It is topped up by the parent as necessary. It gives a lot more children access to outstanding education. Schools have to do well in order to attract children. In the UK it’s basically dependent on your address, meaning that the wealthier can buy houses in areas with better schools. I’m afraid devaluing everything (NHS, education) lowers the expectations and therefore the quality. Clearly the people who say the NHS is the envy of the world have never sought medical care in another country. The NHS is a third world service now, and our education is going the same way.

The problem is that traditional women's work is invisible and unvalued. The Wages for Housework campaigners were onto something. www.huckmag.com/perspectives/why-the-wages-for-housework-campaign-is-still-vital/

Childcare, cooking, cleaning, caring, some nursing - they're not seen as part of the economic system but they are essential to its functioning.

A child who is given a decent home, education and food will be happier and healthier but also, to be frank, less of a drain on the state so it's in the nation's economic interest to invest in young children. Eg poor nutrition will lead to worse lifelong health so a child will be less productive as a worker, require more healthcare, etc.

I'd be happy to fund that through tax. Same with tuition fees. We all benefit from investment in the next generation. Fund it through lifestyle taxes.

Yes. I did a research paper on this. The term ‘childcare’ and the fact that it’s seen as women’s work are two factors. The other (and main one) is the deficit view of children. Something as an obstacle to work rather than deserving of an EY education that could set them up for life and save the government billions in the future. Once we put children’s rights at the centre of our planning the answers are all incredibly simple.

Apologies for using the term ‘childcare’ and ‘childcare workers’. You’re right it really does give an undervalued impression.

Working with young children in a skilful way is very, very different! When people think that they can do our jobs but would prefer not to, we get treated as little more than skivvies.
Agree with this.
It's why I struggle with people who claim that being a SAHP is the same as being an early years educator. It really isn't. Most of what most parents do day to day wouldn't come close to the skill of good early years educators.

I'd consider myself an engaged parent and we have a resource rich home, lots of opportunities for open ended play, a language rich environment and so on, but being a half decent mum isn't the same as being a trained professional promoting early education for a range of children, with a range of needs, supporting them in growing independence and managing their peer relationships.
I take my hat off to start who've worked with DC. Give me a class of 32 teenagers to teach any day over early years. Early years is an under-valued line of expertise.

Although we probably get paid less because we're seen to be kind, loving types who don't mind.
I suspect it's because it's viewed as women's work.

@rightsforunderfives I agree with you and I hadn't considered the implications of calling it childcare.

We'll only get to that point when people stop referring to it as 'childcare'. They don't in other OECD countries. You're clearly not a childcare worker, and you're doing far more than childcare. Please don't put up with that awful word! My 13 year old son can do 'childcare' and the understanding is that 'anyone' can do childcare. Working with young children in a skilful way is very, very different! When people think that they can do our jobs but would prefer not to, we get treated as little more than skivvies. Although we probably get paid less because we're seen to be kind, loving types who don't mind.

Got it in one!! Plentiful, flexible, high-quality 'childcare' (which anyone who works with small children knows is a totally offensive word for what we do). Who do they think is going to actually provide this? No-one wants to be called a 'childcare worker'. And what about the children? They appear to be being 'done to' with no voice at all. It's a travesty.

@rightsforunderfives as an Oxford educated early years teacher, I agree with you. But it's a slightly different issue. We need childcare to be high-quality AND affordable for parents. It is possible, but it needs political will.

I totally agree with this. We have to pay tax for all sorts of things which aren't in our interest. We should get more say in where it's spent and get tax relief for ALL education/children's activities etc.

There aren't enough people wanting a career in 'childcare'. If it was a respected profession as per other countries (EY teacher) we may have more luck. Here it's 'hair or childcare' for people who aren't academic. We NEED people who understand brain development in the early years. Not babysitters. Is this a service for parents, or a service for children?

No one wants to be a 'childcare worker'. Not really. Early Years Teacher yes, but childcare worker isn't really aspirational for staff OR the children that they educate.

Yes, agreed.

Cynical is the perfect word to describe the hatchet job Truss wanted to implement to ‘help families, provide more free hours’

All the while de-regulating childcare settings, worsening quality and making childcare workers work doubly hard for the same money.
This!
Keep everyone, especially those on lower incomes, in precarious employment, get the children in settings from a young age where they won't get a good quality experience.

If you wanted to be really cynical you could argue that this is a deliberate attempt to prevent social mobility and to keep generations in their place.

The people who can afford to choose a setting that keeps good ratios will continue to do so, and others will cut back to make it so, and the gaps between the haves and the have nots gets bigger and bigger.

Yes exactly, they want to appear to be helping parents and at the same time not have to spend a penny on improving the Early Years sector.

All the while de-regulating childcare settings, worsening quality and making childcare workers work doubly hard for the same money.

There is an unspoken sentiment that every woman deserves a good wage and to be able to work, except if they’re in childcare that is.

Then they should gladly work long hours and low pay, increase ratios so they can work harder with more children and do it gladly because they’re affording career women/women in other professions cheap childcare.

Many women complain of a daily rate of childcare which they wouldn’t dream of being paid themselves and it’s wrong.

misslonglegs
That's a good point.

The proposed changes in ratios was absolutely nothing to do with providing high quality childcare at affordable rates and everything about trying to push more parents back into work.

Wages in places are too low, they don't allow families to have a good standard of living and yet the solutions proposed are never about making employers pay better wages to people.

We've got people on benefits because the government would rather spend taxpayer's money than push companies to pay proper wages. In-work benefits are actually handouts to companies so they can avoid paying a decent wage.

Changes to childcare are the same. The government would rather erode the quality of childcare and education for most of the nation's children, than push for workers to be paid an acceptable wage.

It's a rush to the bottom in order to push more parents into working poorly paid jobs.

The blame is being squarely placed on “high childcare costs”. Even Justine from mumsnet said so in the Telegraph article.

It seems there’s outrage that parents have to fork out 29% of earnings on their child being looked after while they work.

What’s not mentioned is, that childcarers and nurseries need to charge that hourly rate to survive in the same financial crisis.

This is what happened in Romania. The state should never, ever be responsible for children. The way that EY and schools are funded is a tiny glimpse why. Parents have to protect their children at all costs.

Thé Heckman Report is the one that did the research on this. It talks about the return on investment due to healthcare savings, crime, tax receipts etc. However, other papers show that unless the Early Years Education is EXTREMELY GOOD, nurseries can, in fact be detrimental to the child's future. This is why talking about 'childcare' (pretty sure my 13 year old son could do that) is unacceptable. We need to be investing in proper EY education FOR THE CHILDREN. We need to take the focus away from it being a service for working parents. The countries you cite call it ECEC. Early Childhood Education and Care.

My child was at school in France. It was awful.

These countries just don't talk about childcare though. They talk about early childhood care and education. This is because it's a service FOR the children. The UK narrative forgets about the children and the focus is just on a service for parents. Don't fall for it! What about the children!!

"Affordable childcare" does not raise a child. Simple. If we focus on what the child needs, rather than tax receipts and careers we would realise that the term affordable should never, ever be applied to nurturing our youngest citizens. It should be heavily subsidised and accessible to parents, yes, but it should be early childhood education and care. For them. It's for the children, NOT for the parents.

Such truth. A child becomes a person in their own right as soon as it's born (I personally feel that it's before this, but I'm not sure at what point babies are sentient in the womb). This whole fact is missing in the whole conversation about 'childcare'. Childcare remains a service for parents. Early years education and care is for children. The narrative needs to shift to what's best for the child, not what's best for everyone else!