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.

I would not be happy with higher taxes for this as the people who would benefit most are middle-class. People on lower wages are much more likely to work outside 9-5 and would largely not benefit from this.

DH and I are both full time and not WFH until Covid. We had a very reliable childminder. She was brilliant and if I was delayed on the commute, she knows without me having to ring her while stuck on the motorway. There are also breakfast and after school club but they aren’t as good with commute delays. So glad we can WFH now.

It's interesting to me how peer pressure affects how you feel about wraparound care. My kids were in 8-6 nursery (we usually pick up by 5 though) and it felt absolutely fine, we socialised mostly with parents of their nursery friends who were doing the same obviously.

We get to reception and even though the school has a great wraparound offer -7:30-6:30 - our son is the only one in his year who goes, he enjoys it but it makes us feel self conscious and different and stressed about whether it's ok.

Now we will just get over it as neither of us is interested in giving up work but it was an eye-opener the impact that peer pressure has on how you feel.

@sjxoxo Thanks! Fortunately earning the big bucks means I could afford to buy childcare but I appreciate how unaffordable this is for many other professions.

I agree with many that better childcare options combined with flexible working where possible is the answer. We both work full time and do a mix of before school club, nanny after school and me on Fridays as I work from home on Fridays and negotiated an early finish (swapping for a longer day which my husband covers the morning). We also occasionally use after school club if my nanny is off. We're lucky the school has lots of places as it's held in the hall, run by the YMCA.
And as for those posters bleating on about "poor kids" and how horrible it must be for them to not have their parents after school etc - give it a rest! Given lots of parents have to both work, you're just making people feel guilty! Well done you for having whatever set up you have - but for parents who chose continue their career, have to work, or don't have the option of any flexibility, they can only do their best with what they have! And their kids will be totally fine.

I think the point that people are trying to make is that kids need downtime. They get this when they go home after school. They can relax and be themselves after spending all day concentrating and behaving. School is very tiring for young children. After school club is fun and they’re with their friends but they can’t just switch off and relax. And by the time they get home it’s often dinner time and then bedtime with very little time to just relax and spend some time with parents.

Agree with the point made above saying that parents want quality childcare with well qualified staff but complain about the cost.
I know people who don't think twice about paying their cleaner a good hourly rate but will complain about paying the nanny or wraparound care provider. 🤔
There's childcare vouchers as well which help pay for wraparound care and can often make huge savings.
I am personally able to have Fridays off work and DH often a day in the week so we only use wraparound care 3 days a week. The kids love it, much more so than when we had an after school nanny.

Just to add that the government funded thirty hours means the childcare professional gets below minimum wage, so I would have absolutely no faith that any scheme extended from early years wouldn't try to pass costs onto childminders and nurseries, like they have with the funded hours.

Sadly, childcare professionals are mostly in it for the right reasons so generally do suck it up but it's absolutely criminal that people pay dogsitters more than adults qualified in childcare.

@OperaStation What’s downtime? Sitting in front of Netflix while their mum writes judgemental comments about full time working parents on MumsNet? I’d rather my kids were in after school club to be honest.

Downtime is watching TV, sitting in the sofa with your parents, listening to an audiobook, playing with your toys.

I think you know what downtime in the context of children is so I don’t know why I’m telling you.

Yes, I also think people don't seem to see that childcare workers deserve to be paid well and valued for what they do. They are very looked down upon and I can very much see why there is a recruitment issues in childcare. It's very poorly paid, stressful and not valued as a profession despite it being such an important job role.

I totally agree. I was full-time pre having DD, but now part-time. I have had to alter my hours again when she starts school in a couple of weeks time. It feels it is the woman who has to sacrifice career etc.

In addition, a friend of mine with a DD going to another school has said that afterschool wraparound is a bun fight. I am not saying you should discriminate against parents that don't work, but parents who do work should be offered wraparound 1st.

Agree with this. And government subsidy is probably the only real solution. I for one would be very happy to pay taxes for this, even if it didn’t benefit me personally.

Its a huge win for society to free women up to work and focus on their careers rather than having to limit everything in order to be the default childcare provider.

If people then make a decision that they would prefer to be at home and have the resources to do so then let them crack on. But why wouldn’t you want a solution which benefits parents overall and supports women in gaining financial independence. I can’t see why anyone would oppose that.

Because current government subsidies mean nurseries and childminders run at a loss.
And I'd resent paying more taxes to just pip myself and other childcare workers over minimum wage.
But would be happy if either we were paid as professionals or current taxes were used effectively.
Obviously pigs will fly before that happens.

I suspect part of the problem selling this is that childless people already pay a great big whack of tax and are rarely entitled to anything in return, whereas parents are usually net takers not contributors, and of course they’re up for it because it means they’ll pay less to a childcare provider. For childless people with little interest in the mechanics of caring for primary school children, the benefits are there but far more abstract and we’re already forking out a lot for other people’s kids. Don’t get me wrong, I’m up for being a high tax, high provision society like Sweden. but I can see why many would be like, no, pay for your own sodding childcare.

Those childless people will one day rely on the current generation of children who will be creating tax revenue, providing necessary services and generally keeping the country going.

This. It really doesn’t benefit society to have two full time working parents who can’t afford high quality childcare. I’m very fortunate to be able to work 3 days a week spread over 5 and so do all the drop off and pick ups if needed. But when I’ve had to use ASC it’s been dismal. I really feel for families forced to use it. Staff are paid minimum wage. It’s hardly surprising.
If you are in a high flying career with your very own Mary poppins or have family help then it’s a different matter.
But family help will be few and far between for the next generation - how many millennials will be rich enough to retire in our 60s?

I work full time nights and partner full time days.

There is no reason why it has to be the woman who sacrifices their career, legally dads have as many rights as mums to request flexible working hours. We just have to make it happen! I did, there was no way we weren't sharing the childcare burden equally. We happened to be earning about the same, but even if we didn't then it's short term thinking to only consider current salary and not earning potential. I earn more than my husband now, having earnt slightly less than him for years.

@Thepeopleversuswork Because there is still a lot of men out there who firmly see it as the womans place to stay at home and male chauvinism is still in abundance. There needs to be a lot more successful women in positions of power, influence and money and they need to be in equal or a majority number to make a difference.

Yep. And a lot of women who have internalised the idea that it's their job by default. Hence all the "poor kids" comments about children in daycare. Because that's the mother's job. Obviously.

There is no way I would have sacrificed my career to the benefit of my husband’s
And to be fair he would never have wanted that either

That’s a very simplistic view of the tax system and society as a whole.

Parents are only net takers from the tax system if you think there is no benefit to the UK from people having and raising children. Someone who chooses not to have children still need others to have children. Who do they think will provide their care in old age? Who are the people who will be paying taxes to keep the country afloat in 20 years time? The falling birth rate in the UK presents a very real threat to the future wealth of the country and is bad news for all of us unless we relax our immigration laws.

Most people are net takers. You have to be a very high tax payer to not be.

Those childless people will no doubt expect care, services, state pensions and everything else these children will provide in years to come? Then public funding to make sure people continue to have children and they can be raised with the right care provisions isn't a big ask.

A falling birth rate is a disaster for everyone.

I knew I’d get a million comments about how your kids are paying my taxes etc etc etc.

A few points on that.

1. Childless people are already paying towards services that we get no direct benefit from. We pay tax for maternity provision, schools, child healthcare, etc. That’s why we then expect those kids as adults to pay taxes to support us in our old age. That’s part of the social contract etc., and it’s already happening. This thread is about providing even more of taxpayers money to parents to assist with childcare. Essentially what we’re saying is that childless people should be happy to pay even more tax for anything which bolsters the birth rate, and I’m saying that that’s a hard sell.

2. Falling birth rates are a thing in many countries now, and it isn’t all about subsidised childcare. In my view people have babies if they want them or they don’t if they don’t. Environmental concerns are putting people off, as are housing prices and general cost of living issues. Are we saying that taxpayers should be paying even more tax to subsidise the housing costs and bills of childbearing age couples? If not, why not? It’d help the birth rate, wouldn’t it?

3. I’m hoping and praying that voluntary euthanasia becomes legal and your child doesn’t have to wipe my bum in my care home. I’m not reliant on a state pension or NHS as I don’t believe either will exist, and I’d much rather we weren’t locked into a pyramid scheme of endlessly creating more and more babies just to keep people like me alive beyond any enjoyment of life.

4. Most people do not have children that go on to be carers anyway. I don’t care about this as taxes will be spent to help raise them regardless but acting like we need to be paying everyone’s childcare because all of these kids are going to be future carers and nurses is nonsense.

Anyway as I said I’m not actually against it in principle but I can see why it’s a hard sell. Childless people are already paying disproportionately more than parents and asking more of us is bound to sow discord.