Primary schools and childcare arent designed for 2 full-time working parents

[Greywall2]

In 2019, 7 out of 10 households with dependent children had two working parents - ons survey . After covid and with the cost of living crisis, it's likely there has been an increase.

Primary school opening times are between 9am and 3pm (give or take 15 minutes), but a standard working day is 9 till 5. For children with 2 working parents this means that without wrapping around childcare or very flexible working agreements in place, both cannot work full time hours.

Reasonably priced wrap around care is in place for some schools, but in many schools the only option for out of hours care is to employ a childminder or kids club to care for children out of hours. Nurseries tend to be open 8 - 6 and give more flexibility and by secondary school children are able to go to and from school by themselves.

AIBU to think that the government should assist primary schools to allow them to provide wrap around care? I am NOT saying that teachers should be available between 8am and 5 or 6pm, but that there should be a childcare option available.

Children are (rightly of course!) are legally required to have an education, but the timings of the provision mean that parents can't work in certain jobs and financially support their family. The parent/parents who can't afford wrap around care may get fired for not being at work on time and the parent/parents who don't drop off and pickup their children on time are punished as there is no one to look after them (of course as teachers have gone home).

Of course life is unfair and people should budget for childcare costs, but unexpected things happen such as the rise in energy prices or interest rate rises and the childcare options for primary aged children are seem very restrictive.

As other PPs have said, it's totally normal on the continent for kids to be at school the whole day ( and for both parents to be full time). And there is actual learning taking place most of the day, not 9-3 . Everyone s fine.

Anyone else got a full bingo card yet, now that the 'why have children if you'regoing to put them down a mine' brigade have arrived ?

7.30 or 8am to 6 or 6.30pm in childcare is perfectly fine.

Breakfast clubs are fun and get children off to a good start in the day. Our school's after school club -which is not particularly innovative or well-funded - offers casual sports and ball games with friends, plenty of imaginative play, downtime in chill-out areas, healthy snacks and craft projects. Children are very relaxed there and know and trust the adults in charge. No phones, tvs or games consoles in sight.

The mind-set that parents of healthy, NT children need to be at home for them is not based on best outcomes or well-being of children. Or women.

By all means, if you can afford to be p/t, then be at the school gate at 3.30. It's lovely to spend more time with the dc if you can. But picking them up at 6 is no disadvantage. At all.

I see parents twisting themselves in knots to avoid childcare, not because of the cost of breakfast clubs, but essentially because they think it's [condescending sad-face] for their dc. It's too bad.

My sons attend a school and we have to use their breakfast club and after school club for wrap around care due to the hours we work.

Breakfast club opens at 7.30am and after school club is available until 5.30pm.

My youngest son used to go to a childminder and she was open from 7am until 6.30pm which was fantastic for us.

Now both children are using wrap around care it costs us about £450 a month. We understand that’s just the way life is but sometimes we really wish we had done grandparents on hand just to help out for 1-2 days a week to try and reduce that cost a little.

The hospital I work at does have an on-site nursery and pre/school but it still only opens at 7.30am and closes at 6pm.

I don’t know who they were designed for but certainly not nurses.

No, they're not.

They're designed for hours best for the kids becasue school is FOR THEM!

The hospital I work at does have an on-site nursery and pre/school but it still only opens at 7.30am and closes at 6pm.

I don’t know who they were designed for but certainly not nurses.

But the nurses I know work 12 hour shifts and surely 12 hour shifts (probably 13 with travel time) are just too long for young children?

I’m not suggesting otherwise, I was just responding to another poster who had suggested hospitals provide childcare to match the needs of the nursing staff.

And most nurses generally work 13 hour shifts, probably closer to 14 by the time they actually leave anyway.

I honestly wonder how nurses who are single parents cope - it must be very difficult.

I know a few parents who work night shifts (children sleeping at the grandparents usually) and then look after their young children in the day and basically live off no sleep…..I just don’t know how they manage.

And most nurses generally work 13 hour shifts, probably closer to 14 by the time they actually leave anyway.

Childcare aside, I've always thought this set-up very strange. Surely the medical staff must be exhausted the last few hours of their shift and this must negatively impact on the care they can give their patients? It just sounds dangerous.

@AppleKatie I was going to post something similar. Both of my children go to childcare, eldest is in wraparound.

Whenever someone posts “those poor children out of the house for such long hours” I get annoyed. Plus on a personal level I would hate to have my kids all day every day, I’m not equipped to be full on all the time (and when I read threads on here, it seems I’m not alone, I’m knackered after the weekend!). As long as you have good provision, it’s most times the better option and the time I spend with them is quality time.

Some teachers are also parents and have this challenge.

The adrenaline and work load keeps us going and it’s only when we get home at the end of the shift, and for the following two days that we can’t function 😂

Im fortunate that I didn’t have to do night shifts but the nurses who work nights and days interchangeably throughout the week with no real down time deserve a medal as they are the ones who are truly exhausted.

We both work, but different hours, thereby allowing us to do school runs and childcare etc. But we've organised it that way

But that doesn't work - because you either pick the kids up, go home, and ignore them because you need to log on again OR you do play, dinner, bath, bedtime and THEN log on eating into your only downtime of the day when you're aleady exhausted.

When studying, this is what parents sometimes have to do anyway. You put the children down with an activity. I'm still conscious, I can still take breaks and talk if I'm at the table and they're on the carpet. And staying up late on weekdays... there isn't much going on on a Monday night with children around. More than happy to watch telly and do a bit on the laptop

Part of the problem is that when school hours were established it wasn't 'the norm' to have 2 working parents and a family could live on one wage. It's another thing that has fallen behind while the cost of living increases, women having better rights and career options and a host of other societal changes.

I don't think teachers working longer hours is the answer, but I do believe that the entire system needs a practical review. Whether the answer is more funding for childcare, different school hours or something else entirely it's clear that what we have now is not fit for purpose.

Personally, I manage but appreciate that I am incredibly lucky that both me and dh have very flexible jobs and can do pick ups and drop offs for our school aged dc. The school offers free after school clubs and dc does 3 of them meaning on those days pick up is 4:20 so I can work 7:30-4 then collect. Breakfast club is £1 a day when we need it, however a friends DD in a school 2 miles away it's £10 a day for wrap around care and as friend is a teacher (at that school, no discount) has no option but to use it- £50 a week/£200pcm is a lot. I have seen other schools where that cost is higher, add in multiple dc and it's simply not affordable.

However preschool dc attends nursery which is almost £1000 pcm, more than our mortgage and bills combined making this out of reach for many families. While there are UC top ups and tax free childcare too many fall between the cracks.
would more funding to subsidise childcare help? Absolutely, but where does the money come from? Already with the 30 hours free it doesn't cover the nurseries costs.

My toddler deals absolutely fine with nursery 8:30 to 5:30, I’m sure an 8 year old can cope with wrap around care.
Why is it automatically better for kids to be at home after school but not ASC?
Is it okay to go to the park on the way home from school but not ASC?
Or should they go home and just be plonked in front of the tv?
I genuinely don’t understand the people painting wrap around care as this awful thing which is awful for children.

Schools are underfunded and it's getting worse, they are facing a difficult situation with rising energy prices and inflation.

We need the government to invest in children's futures and fund them better.

Agree that wraparound care is patchy, we need a better system. It's unrealistic on the part of some poster's to expect everyone to be a sahm until their youngest child is at primary school, who can afford that, or want to?

This. Yawn. Every thread like this yields lots of goady “poor kids” posts from people who invariably have the luxury of being mainly supported by someone else.

For the record, lone parents can’t support themselves without wraparound childcare. Our kids have survived and thrived. Being in ft childcare is always better than living in poverty.

Those of you who can afford to be fastidious and judgemental about it, please keep this in mind, thanks.

Bottom line is childcare is a profession that requires skill, trustworthy people and dedication. If you want decent childcare you need to be willing to value it and therefore play for it. It would be nice if the government would subsidise it but ultimately you would be asking childless people to foot the bill for your choice to have children. I'm not sure that's fair.

It always astounds me that people expect quality childcare for minimum wage then wonder why childminders, teachers and nursery workers willing to do it for life are hard to find.
Ultimately I think no one should be working the hours we are expected to work in this day and age, with the technology we have and understanding of mental health on productivity. Business needs to adapt for modern life, not expecting childcare experts to always pick up the slack.

I d

I'm a lone parent and I've managed to work full time for 7 years since DC was 7.

Oops, I think wraparound are works best when it is provided by an outside specialist provider. The school I work at tried to do it in-house and it was a disaster. They understaffed it and were constantly begging people to step in if the regular person was sick. They didn't have enough staff to keep the children safe and didn't spend enough on resources to keep the kids occupied because they were trying to save money. The office staff had to manage the admin on top of their everyday school work.

My DC's school use an outside provider. It is slightly more expensive but they have a proper staffing and booking structure. Bank staff are available if a regular staff member is unwell. Children are sufficiently fed and entertained.

When my DC started school there was no on-site provision and I had to use a mish-mash of private providers that would collect from the school (expensive) and childminders who had a space crop up.

"It would be nice if the government would subsidise it but ultimately you would be asking childless people to foot the bill for your choice to have children. I'm not sure that's fair."

Not this nugget again. Investing in services for children is investing in the long-term wellbeing of the whole of society, including childless people. Prosperous Scandinavian societies have recognised it, only here people seem to have an idea that it's not fair

Again, if you are happy with taxes going up then that's fair enough.
I doubt many people would be though and I would certainly resent paying more Tex so I could pay myself a fair wage(as childcare providers wouldn't be exempt from the tax presumably.)
I am very much in favour of not squandering our tax on pointless shit but that never seems to be a realistic option.

Remember wraparound has to be available so people who work in schools can work also! They can’t do flexible working for pickups.

My primary offered zero wraparound and there was almost nothing locally. One childminder did pick ups and that was it. It’s a massive barrier for lots of people to work.

I think the answer has to lie in better childcare options not in providing wages that means families only need one earner. Simply because that one earner is inevitably going to be the man and it will be regressive for women in the workplace and women's financial independence.