Fancy telling MNHQ what you think about the parties' childcare proposals?

LePetitmarseillais I thought you were judging parents who worked whereas you are actually just criticising parents who work but choose a different child care option to you. I've come across some terrible child-minders who kids hated going to with good reason, as I said before different options work for different families and quality of lots of different types of provision varies widely. My kids' after school club has use of the playing fields and they've been out playing football and cricket until pick up time today, they've got x boxes and craft areas and mostly it's popular with the kids because they get to spend time with their friends.

I don't think any parties are offering the wraparound childcare for free? Just ensuring it's actually available for all who need it.

It's the not paying the providers that has really got my goat from Labour! Either you fund children's services properly or they don't work properly. It is that simple.

It's really sad that none of the parties have discussed things like transferring the tax allowance for non-working parents to their partners, or giving the money spent on childcare directly to parents to care for their own children.

It's really sad that all the parties view children and their parents as units of the economy rather than people. And that the only way the state will support you to stay home is if you kick out your children's father and go on benefits.

If its education and not free childcare why can I use my 15 hours for my 4 year old with my childminder?

Free hours are a brilliant sound bite but in practical terms they don't really help working parents. I had to pay my childminder for the hours my children were at preschool because she couldn't fill their space while they were there. I couldn't use my free hours with her, because there is a shortfall and childminders end up out of pocket if they accept the government-funded places.

In my opinion, the voucher scheme as it is, is fine. It's great, in fact. Its only fault is it's a bit random to be only allowed to claim £243, and self-employed people can't benefit from it. Why the parties can't just extend that scheme so we can claim more before tax, and make it a tax-deductible expense for self-employed workers is beyond me. It's simple, it works, and it's flexible - we can use it to pay nursery/childminders/after-school club/nannies/whatever.

I work full time Peachy.

I agree with other comments. All the major parties need to get their house in order as to whether they are funding childcare or early years education. If it's childcare, it needs to be year round. If it is early years education, it may make sense that it is term time, but the issue of access for children of 'hard working families' needs to be addressed.

They also need to stop funding it at derisory rates. It is all very well saying that they will fund 25/30 hours of childcare. But the rate paid to providers varies drastically and, in some areas, is incredibly low. Our council sets the local rate almost £1 an hour lower than the going rate for a childminder. I know many who suck it up when the children turn 4 and take a £1 per hour pay cut for 15 hours. Would they be able to do that for 25 or 30 hours? I doubt it. You would end up with fewer and fewer private providers offering the free hours. Or you get the situation that other posters have flagged, where nurseries (who have more ability to do so) 'fix' their changes so that they don't lose out.

I suspect that these policies win votes from people planning families rather than those presently 'in the system'. As someone heavily involved in the finances of a community playgroup, my DH is pretty fed up already at me yelling at the tv when these policies come on.

I don't see how the country can afford 30 hrs pw free childcare tbh. have they published figures to go with the policy?

I like the idea of the wrap around care but I am sceptical that there are sufficient organisations in the country waiting to provide free activities for every child of working parents.

These policies wouldn't help me as my dc are older but I suspect, if they worked properly, they would help others.

It is the green party that's most interesting though, raising compulsory school age to 7? Well I think that could be fantastic for children but how are they going to make the education system work with that?

Good to see the usual disdain for working mums on the thread
LePetitmarseillais. Your description of after school care is an ignorant caricature fed by your own smug agenda and bears no relation to what my kids' club is like. Different solutions are right for different families but yes some time with parents is poor quality, can you really not understand that or is your vision so blinkered as to view SAHP always being the right option for every family?

Great mini not all do.Far from it.As I teacher I gave seen kids upset and crying at the thought of staying on.Some just simply need a change of scene.Would you want to stay in a crappy crumbling school building from 8am until 6 or later?

You can Google re teens in Sweden.They have no tax allowance and pay 57%.

Sorry most can afford wrap around.There are often free clubs and at 11 many don't get home from secondary until quite late.Yes it involves some outlay but do people really expect no cost to the care of their children which they chose to have?

LePetit:

And my children love going to their after school club. They both beg me to send them there more often!

LePetit:

They pay slightly more tax in Sweden than we do here.

Also, where does the information come from regarding the misbehaving teens? I've never heard this one before.

Poor quality time with a parent. So what are we unqualified to look after our kids now.

It doesn't take much.Kids chilling out,relaxing,down at the park,out on their bikes,reading or even lying on the sofa picking their nose etc is hugely preferable to hoards of kids of all ages herded into a school hall basically killing time. Older children hate it however good it is.Ours is Oustanding and my dc has begged not to go as her friends that do hate the noise,having to "do"activities and go with younger children.They just want to be with their friends or read in the peace and quiet of home.

Our childminders take their charges to the local park after school or to club pick ups,far preferable to wrap around whatever label Ofsted give it.Many school buildings are in a dire state and frankly not designed for this kind of care.

not

Lots of families use wrap around 8 - 6pm, I do on several days, it's the only way that I could work. It's not the same as a 10 hour school day, the kids get to do sports, crafts and play with their friends at afterschool club. Poor quality wrap around care may be damaging but then so is poor quality care with a child-minder or parents at home.

You can't compare us to Scandinavia.We're not Scandinavian and bitting and bobbing with polices doesn't work.They pay a lot more tax than us for one thing.There are also concerns re the Swedish system not being all it's cracked up to be due to immense pressure on mothers returning to work and behaviour issues now appearing in teenagers.

I wonder what Labour would have to offer in terms of its 8-6 childcare for children with complex special needs. My 7 year ild is severely autistic and we do not have any access to childcare for her. She needs 1:1 in any childcare setting.

How would Labour guarantee that children with disabilities have the same access to suitable childcare as typical children. I cannot see this happening as even at this point in time children with SN are unable to access most wrsp around childcare settings. Will parents like me loose out once again?

The idea of free child care from a younger age definitely appeals to me as my baby is due in September. For that reason the Green Party plan appeals, though I would want my child at school before they are seven. The expected Lib Dem plans would suit me perfectly as I plan to take 8-9 months mat leave & 15 hours free childcare would be an enormous help as my employer can't allow me to go back part time. It would cut my care bill by over a third . I'd love to be a stay at home mum but my husband is self employed so we need the security & regularity of my income. The current shared parental leave scheme frustrates me as my husband can't take advantage of it because he works for himself. Childcare from a young age works very well in Scandinavia & avoids the awful situation of women essentially working to fund childcare so that they will be better off later on & can keep their careers.

Like sleepyhead has said, I think all the parties need to be clearer about what they mean by "free childcare". Many people think it's great until they read the small print - i.e. it's term time only, not all childcare providers will offer the places, some parents have to pay top-ups as the government only pays the childcare provider a set amount per hour, leaving many nurseries (particularly in the South East) out of pocket. I'm lucky in that the nursery my children go to are flexible with the hours and will average out the hours over 52 weeks and then simply knock that many hours of payment off the bill (they're not eligible yet, but I know this is what they do with children 3+), but I don't think this is the norm.

I think it's a good thing, but I also think they should make sure everyone is able to access the current entitlement of 15 hours before increasing to 25 or 30. What use would 25-30 hours be if the places aren't available?

In N.I. children get 1 YEAR of free non compulsory education before they start school. I.E. Nursery. It's called the Pre-School Education Programme. So it's pretty much the same deal as the half days (15 hours a week) that England gets.

It's not meant to be childcare to be used however the parent wants to use it. It is education for the benefit of the child.

As a SAHM to twins who left work because the cost of having two in childcare would have made it not worth it for me to return to work i would honestly prefer the wrap around care. As i'm pretty sure I won't find someone to employ me for 2.5 hours a day. But i'll be surprised if any of it is implemented.

Don't think putting 3 year olds into childcare for 30 hours a week should be encouraged.Other measures which would help parents to have more time with their very young children would be better.

Poor quality wrap around for hours a day in shoddy school buildings with little outdoor space( thanks to the selling off of school fields) would not be in the best interests of the children themselves.Also frankly I don't think tax payers should be held responsible for wrap around up until what are we talking -13. The vast maj can and do afford wrap around,they don't need the tax payer pulling resources from the needy.The care of children belongs to the parent who should plan accordingly.Full time nursery if absolutely necessary I have some sympathy with but sorry a few after school hours I don't.Cut back in other ways,it's temporary.

The Labour policy is full of holes. Which arts and sports education professionals are going to provide free services? Utterly unworkable. Wraparound childcare would be amazing were it universally available. And the poster above saying it's ten hours in school - many children are used to long days in nursery already, and vanishingly few children would be there 8-6, 5 days. I would use something like 3 sessions of after school. Others might choose 4 of the morning session.

And yes to what everyone else said about it being not free in the slightest. My DD attends a private nursery so that I can work. None of the free preschools would work as they are 9-12, 5 mornings. Nursery take the funding happily and increase their fees for the compulsory additional hours, so 2 days a week still costs me £300 a month. Free my arse.

It hasnt been thought through. If we double (or nearly double) the amount of hours then anywhere that can currently facilitate 2 cohorts of 15hr children (I'm thinking about schools and playgroups, not PVIs) will only be able to facilitate 1 cohort of 25/30 hr children. There'll be a shortfall of places and the setting could also (possibly) lose out on 5 hrs of funding per child if Labour are elected.

boyScout

who wants to think about that? Just give us more money, and more money and somebody to look after the kids

Sorry, 10 hours? you wouldn't surely?