To not understand why Rishi Sunak shelving the 'childcare reform plans' as a bad thing

[Mummyof287]

Firstly because increasing the ratios would be unsafe and unkind for children, and and unfair for childcare practitioners.
(I used to be one)

Secondly because '20 more hours free childcare' would basically be the government pushing/encouraging parents to prioritise working before their children, and to be more likely to send them to daycare for longer than is emotionally healthy to be apart from their families at such a young age.

So why is it being seen as a bad move? Or is that just the media's viewpoint 🤨

Because is expensive and People are struggling

Because childcare is unaffordable and hampers parents’ (particularly women’s) options.

You can disagree about ratios and or hours funding but something has to be done

You think children are unsafe in the many other countries that have higher ratios do you? Where’s your evidence?

I think it's quite subjective to say that more hours in childcare would be "longer than is emotionally healthy". Plenty of parents and children are able to use childcare for more than 30 hours per week whilst maintaining emotional health.

It's also currently 30 hours per week for 38 weeks a year (or something like that). Once spread to the whole year it isn't as much per week.

It's definitely unsafe.

Why? What is the evidence that 3:1 is safe but 7:2 or 4:1 is dangerous for example

The economy is stagnant and women (usually women) can't afford to work. This is a sop to 1950s Tories who would rather have poor families with women at home.

The ratios issue was a concern but more childcare support is clearly needed in the UK, at a family level and a whole economy level.

Tories want us all back in the feudal system.

Most of the people the increased hours would be benefit are already using that many hours, however they are paying a lot for them, leaving them little money for food, electricity, children's clothes and shoes etc.

Availability of much more affordable childcare doesn't seem to lead to issues in scandinavian countries so I'm not why you think it would here.

Where’s your evidence?

I do agree about the ratios, however. For under 3s in particular i don't think ratios should be increased from current levels.

Secondly because '20 more hours free childcare' would basically be the government pushing/encouraging parents to prioritise working before their children, and to be more likely to send them to daycare for longer than is emotionally healthy to be apart from their families at such a young age.

🙄🙄

God imagine prioritising putting food on your table over spending leisurely afternoons with your children playing in the park and drinking hot chocs.

You’re right, most people do just choose to send their children to daycare unnecessarily and pay some of the nights highest rates in Europe to do so.

I don't really have an opinion on the ratios (gut feel it would be bad but apparently it works fine in Scotland and I haven't seen data either way hence no opinion).

BUT my understanding is that that was a headline and all aspects have been shelved so there will be no looking into nor support for what a terrible state the industry is in and how expensive it is for parents. That's not good.

It’s a bad thing for women who find it tough enough as it is to work with school aged children. For many it’s going to be nigh on impossible to work now until the kids are much older (secondary school aged). Women shouldn’t be made to feel like their only value comes from the home and raising children. It’s not the 1950s any more.

Secondly because '20 more hours free childcare' would basically be the government pushing/encouraging parents to prioritise working before their children, and to be more likely to send them to daycare for longer than is emotionally healthy to be apart from their families at such a young age. you don't HAVE to use it. Childcare basically saved my career and probably my mental health.

I agree though would be unlikely to admit that to anyone in real life!

The proposed childcare ratios would have been a huge backwards step. A civilised society invests more in children, not less.

I'd far prefer to see more Scandi style incentives for fathers to take paternity leaves and other breaks from work personally, which we know help women to take a more equal role both in the workplace and also at home because men do more on the domestic front.

Therr should be more recognition that some kids do better at home rather than trying to get everyone into nursery and mothers into the workplace, I think. My youngest is in childcare part time and doesn't love it so as much as I'd appreciate the extra hours, I'm not keen overall as I'd probably feel pressurised to use them. Some children adore full time nursery and thrive while others do not.

I'm thrilled it's been shelved. It was a stupid and ill thought out idea. I work in the sector as does my husband. We don't know anyone IRL or childcare worker Facebook groups who was open to the idea. Childminders (my area) were saying they wouldn't accommodate it full stop. Even nurseries were saying no with staff saying they would leave the sector. It would have crippled the sector further. Aside from anything else they were only proposing to change ratios and not floor space (you need a certain amount of floor space per child) so it was lip service and wouldn't have changed anything.

But. Something must be done. The whole model needs an overhaul. For working parents and for the sector which is on the brink of collapse due to lack of funding and a workforce on it's knees.

Aside from anything else they were only proposing to change ratios and not floor space (you need a certain amount of floor space per child) so it was lip service and wouldn't have changed anything.

It would have changed staffing numbers though - the same number of children would need fewer staff

The extra hours wouldn’t have been properly funded though- look at the 30hr system currently.

@motherfugga Therr should be more recognition that some kids do better at home rather than trying to get everyone into nursery and mothers into the workplace, I think. My youngest is in childcare part time and doesn't love it so as much as I'd appreciate the extra hours, I'm not keen overall as I'd probably feel pressurised to use them. Some children adore full time nursery and thrive while others do not.

Your post just comes across quite selfish though. So other working families who need to have their children in childcare full time shouldn’t receive additional financial help because you don’t want to use them and don’t want to be tempted to?

Making childcare more affordable doesn’t stop someone from keeping their child at home instead of nursery if that’s what suits the family, nor does it encourage it.

Plenty of mothers want to work, affordable childcare doesn’t force them.

My childcare works out around £5 an hour. Comparatively the firm I work as a fee earner charge me out at £235/hour…
childcare is cheap if you actually consider what you’re paying people to look after, the most precious thing in any of our lives.

As a childminder I'm not prepared to look after more children (as higher expenses as a result) for the same amount of money.

Therr should be more recognition that some kids do better at home rather than trying to get everyone into nursery and mothers into the workplace, I think. that’s fine until it takes 2 incomes usually to run a household/ probably more like 3 incomes in reality the way prices are going.

@luxxlisbon this from the poster who made an idiotic and unnecessarily divisive comment about stay at home parents leisurely drinking hot chocolate at the park!

I work to get a break and think stay at home parents are doing the work of gods. It's exceptionally hard work - especially in the early years - and nothing is more important.

If you are assessing risk, increasing ratios in settings that are well run will not pose as much safeguarding risk to children as where the setting is not well run.

In this scenario, some children will be more at risk of serious safeguarding failure if ratios are increased.

It was a shit plan that wouldn't have worked in practice so instead of consulting with stakeholders about what would work and what is needed, they've shelved it with no Plan B to replace it.

Yet another example of our weak PM and his weak government being absolutely useless. It appears that their plan for governance is to just hide away for the next two years, doing as little as possible while remaining in power.