Am I being unreasonable to think that the Government's policy to make mums go back to work is misguided?

[mountaingoat]

Just interested in what mumsnetters think about this one. I've been a working mum and a SAHM so I have no axe to grind either way. It just strikes me that:
if mums want/ need to go back to work then they should be given every opportunity to do so. But, why should it be a policy that mums must go back to work? Why is it better for mums to go back to work? Surely it is just a matter of choice?
I would guess that Messrs Cameron and Osborne have (a) rarely spent a day looking after babies and pre-school age children and certainly not for months or years on end 24/7 - and actually have no idea what is involved; and (b) their experience of childcare for their own children is probably highly paid and qualified nannies or very smart nurseries. My kids have all been through nursery and there are wonderful nurseries out there. but there are also nurseries which are mediocre, and if there is a quick, ill thought out expansion of childcare provision, there will be more mediocre nurseries out there for sure. Why is it better for a mum of pre-school age children to leave them in a nursery with a crowd of other toddlers being looked after by a teenager with an NVQ2 in childcare, than to stay at home and look after her own children until they do go to school?
I don't want this to turn into a wm v sahm thread (yawn)
also, I'm talking about situations where one parent is working to pay for the family and the other parent is staying at home to do the childcare. Not talking about families where no-one is working and they are expecting to stay at home with the kids and for the state to fund it (think these people mainly exist only in the minds of Daily MAil journalists anyway)

[JaWellNoFine]

I don't think its the governments responsibility to look after our kids. I think that's our responsibility.

I definitely do not think it is okay that anyone can choose not to work, get no experience or skills and then,when forced to provide for themselves (something everyone should just do.. Unless disabled) they are 30 year old plus and capable of mimimum wage entry level (school leavers) jobs,which are not enough to support a family. Taking jobs away from the youth who haven't had the time or opportunity to get experience. 30 year olds should be experienced and skilled and earning a decent rate.

There are jobs for skilled experienced workers in the UK. I have no degree but have skills and experience. I get loads of recruitment calls a day.

Also. I think woman who are SAHM, unless truly kept and super wealthy, are slightly insane. I need to know I can support my family if something happens to DH. I would be unemployable if I was a SAHM, or at least very close to the bottom of the pile. I would never choose to make myself vulnerable (perhaps a throwback from my childhood)

5 years of being home with dc's OR 20 years of stability in their childhoods. ... Where's the choice?

Also. May be worth mentioning the school of thought that says your kids need you more as teens than infants. A skilled experienced employee has more opportunity for flexibility during these important years.

Anyway that's my 2p worth.

I know it's hard and we are all doing our best.

[PtolemysNeedle]

If the government pays someone else to look after your children then it's providing someone with employment therefore saving on their benefits and enabling them and you to pay tax. If they pay you to look after your children, then they have to pay that out for way more people, provide no employment out of it, receive no tax out of it and they effectively make you less employable. Childcarers tend to look after more than one or two children. SAHPs do not.

Can you really not see why it's better for tax money to be spent on childcare rather than spending it on providing any parent who fancies it with the luxury of staying at home?

[ghostspirit]

i think couple parent and single parent should be treaded as different to each other. their situations are to different and so are the needs.

[PtolemysNeedle]

I don't think single parents should be treated differently to couples, and I am a single parent. NRPs should just be made to pay towards their children.

People have different situations and different needs, and it shouldn't be assumed that all single parents are struggling with no family help, no supportive co parent, and no maintenance money.

[lem73]

There is no policy forcing mothers back to work but there is public money being spent to help them with childcare because 'the government wants to help working families'. Well my dh is a hard working taxpayer and I consider myself a hard working SAHM and I can think of quite a few things to spend public money on that would benefit our family. For example we are spending a lot of money on GCSE science tutors at the moment because the teachers at ds1's school are crap and we're worried about him failing next year. How about the government spends some money raising teaching standards in secondary schools? No lets spend money throwing more kids in childcare because it's a quick way to woo voters.

[fedupbutfine]

People have different situations and different needs, and it shouldn't be assumed that all single parents are struggling with no family help, no supportive co parent, and no maintenance money

by the same token, it shouldn't be assumed that all parents - single or not - have access to family support, a supportive co-parent or additional income (from a partner or an ex partner).

The problem with public policy is that it is a 'one size fits all' solution. Few of us fit within parameters. Many of us lose out as a result.

[LilyTucker]

A parent is always the best choice for a child unless it makes both parents miserable or they are unable to do the job properly which is thankfully rare.

We should be putting the interests of children first, stuff topping up benefits. The needs of children should always be the priority.Some sahp facilitate another parent to pay more tax as higher earners often contribute far more.

Forcing kids into crappy childcare in order to top up low paid jobs that pay no tax and make the parent miserable seems ludicrous as the tax payer is going to pick up the tab times three.

Parents with babies and toddlers should have far more help to facilitate a sahp for a period eg laws to protect jobs,flexi time,longer maternal and paternal leave,tax relief,help to get back into work etc.

Nobody is a sahp forever. There is far too much scaremongering normally from those that have never had one and want to justify their choices.

[lem73]

Yes fedup you have said what I wanted to. Different families need different things but politicians go for the 'expanding childcare to help working families" option because it's relatively easy to deliver compared to raising academic standards in science for example.

[PtolemysNeedle]

I don't think it's true that a parent is always the best choice of childcare for a child sadly. It's true in most cases, but there are plenty of shit parents out there. There are also plenty of very loving parents who unfortunately aren't educated well enough to provide a decent early years education to their child who is then left to start school at four years old already significantly behind their peers.

Where is the evidence that it's better for children to have a SAHP than a working one? Shouldn't we have some solid evidence that it's better for children to have SAHPs and that they have significantly better outcomes than children of working parents before we start paying for what many see as a luxury?

[LilyTucker]

Um that's what pre schools are for.

Most children who had a sahp I know had the best option- a loving parent,home environment and several hours of outstanding pre school education.

We need to look at the happiness,security and mental health of children which the home environment will always facilitate better.

And what makes a shit parent?No parent is perfect.Bit dangerous if we're going down the route of saying only perfect parents are qualified to care for their own DC.

[PtolemysNeedle]

That's the experience of most of the SAHPs I know as well, but they all funded their staying at home from their own family income without expecting other people to do it for them.

You're talking as if childcare is actively bad for children. It isn't. It's a perfectly good way for children to be cared for during working hours.

[LilyTucker]

There is plenty of shit childcare out there too. Maybe going by your argument we should ban all childcare other than the Oustanding providers and do some research into the best option- grandparents,nanny,childminder,nursery or school nursery and then only permit the one that produces the most favourable outcomes.After all parents can't be trusted to know what is best for their own DC.

School nurseries have been proven to have far better outcomes and it has often been thought that grandparents,nanny and then childminder are preferable options to regular nurseries to young babies and toddlers. Funny how many in gov seem to pick nannies for their own DC then push pile em high,cheap nurseries that aren't even school nurseries for everybody else.

[lem73]

A few hours a day at a decent pre school from the age of 3 onwards is enough to encourage socialisation. I think most children aren't ready to engage in cooperative play before 2 and a half as a minimum. In my experience from working in a nursery, forcing children younger than that is just pointless at best and at worst may encourage aggressive behaviour. Moreover I really don't think any child should be spending 40 hours a week in a nursery. I can't understand how that is better than being in their own home with their own parent.

[PtolemysNeedle]

I expect those people in government that choose nannies pay for their childcare out of their own earned income though. There's the difference.

If you want to be a sahp then great, it's a good thing to do. It's just not something that is so valuable to society and makes so much difference to the country's children that it should be paid for by the government.

[LilyTucker]

Most working parents I know have funded their own childcare too and not expected others to do it for them.

Only the least well off,those that really can't afford childcare should be helped.The tax payer helping higher tax payers with childcare is bonkers.

[LilyTucker]

Many that work with young children and know young children think having a sahp for a period of time is valuable.It should be valued more by society.

[Babyroobs]

I don't really think it's right that families get paid benefits/ tax credits for one parent to stay home especially once all the kids are school age. many couples work around each other to avoid high childcare costs, in fact the vast majority of families I know with young kids do this. I don't currently see anyone being forced to work though?

[lem73]

Absolutely Ptolemy. I don't think the government should subsidise me to stay at home but I don't want to see millions and millions of public money spent subsidising women who work either.
I would make an exception in the case of single parents though. I have a friend who had to quit a job she was very good at when she got divorced because her ex had helped with the holiday childcare and without that, she couldn't afford to work. Now she's lost her confidence and her financial independence. I think someone like her deserved support.

[LotusLight]

No one ever funded our full time childcare - £30k a year out of income taxed at 40%.

[PtolemysNeedle]

I work with young children Lily, and I can see the benefits of staying at home to look after your own child, but I genuinely don't see that those benefits are so great that the state should pay for it. I can see there are benefits to going to nursery after a year old as well, but again, they aren't so great that it should be compulsory in the same way as school is.

Staying at home to look after your child is a 'nice to have'. It's not a neccesity. It's not so valuable to society that society should pay for it, but I'm still open to evidence that proves otherwise.

I see where you're coming from Lem, but I don't have a problem with working families recieveing support for childcare during the few most expensive years of their lives. I see it as something that benefits society because it enables people to stay in employment and pay taxes. There isn't anything wrong with government supporting people when they need it and when it helps the rest of society, but no one needs to be a SAHM to healthy children.

[LilyTucker]

I and many others strongly disagree Ptolomy.

Childcare in the early years is simply wrong for many families and more importantly for many babies and young children.Many do need to have a sahp at some point which is why they take the biggest financial hit of all to have one.

Sorry I see no benefits in nursery for over 1s. Quality pre school hours in pre schools linked to a school at 3 but nursery for under 3s sorry I simply don't.

[LilyTucker]

Oh and Lotus you had a nanny.

[MayPolist]

Nobody is being forced to work.
What they mean is they feel they are ENTITLED to have their living costs paid by other people ,people who do work.

[AuntyMag10]

Absolute entitlement to think the state should fund you to stay at home.

[tobysmum77]

Lily if you can afford it by taking a financial hit that's your choice.