Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

135 replies

Mummyof287 · 03/01/2023 21:54

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 🤨

OP posts:
Trymein · 03/01/2023 22:30

“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.”

It’s not pushing is it? Nobody is forcing this. It’s giving people an option. I’m going to ignore your ridiculous emotional crap. Facts are: women are paid less; women are more likely to be the single parent or bear the brunt of the childcare/custody arrangements. Making childcare unaffordable keeps women from getting a proper pension, not progressing in their career, and therefore have a more comfortable life when their children eventually leave home, etc.

As you can see on here, there are a lot of shit men who keep finances separate, make women fund the childcare and maternity leave, leave and don’t give proper childcare allowance, leave and go on to have more children leaving their others underfunded.

Women do bear the physical, emotional, and financial cost of providing a new generation un-proportionally to men. How would stopping the option of having affordable childcare benefit women in any way?

VestaTilley · 03/01/2023 22:49

Agree with childcare ratios - relaxing them would be horrendously dangerous.

VestaTilley · 03/01/2023 22:50

Sorry I meant I agree with OP that childcare ratios shouldn’t be relaxed.

greenteafiend · 03/01/2023 23:05

The ceiling on the maximum numbers permitted in the UK is exceptionally low by international standards; I don't see anything wrong with raising the ceiling a bit on what is permitted (to be more in line with other countries), and allowing childminders, nurseries and parents to make their own decisions on this. There is presumably nothing to stop individual parents and providers choosing to continue to offer lower child:adult ratios if they prefer to do so.

tiggergoesbounce · 03/01/2023 23:05

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

Am i missing something, if the idea is not to increase numbers of children into childcare settings, what you are suggesting is they are looking at ways at reducing the amount of workers (women mostly)?

Getoff · 03/01/2023 23:08

Confitofduckand · 03/01/2023 22:18

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.

If 3:1 is better than 4:1 because it's safer, then presumably 2:1 would be even better, and to go further, 1:1 would be the second-best you could do, the best being too completely ban childcare, thus achieving a 100% success rate at children not coming to harm while in childcare.

Getoff · 03/01/2023 23:11

Or maybe the fact that something is less safe doesn't automatically mean it should be ruled out, because there are lots of pros and cons that need to be weighed up.

tiggergoesbounce · 03/01/2023 23:14

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

Because surely if tiggernursery currently has 20 kids and 10 staff abd ratios are you need 1 staff to 2 kids, if the laws changes and i now only need 2 staff for 4 kids are you suggesting i then sack 5 staff (predominantly women) or am i going to just increase my children numbers if i can per square footage??

(all numbers are examples to keep it simple)

tiggergoesbounce · 03/01/2023 23:16

I am another one who thinks diluting the quality of care is a terrible idea by changing ratios.

RoseAndGeranium · 03/01/2023 23:17

motherfugga · 03/01/2023 22:17

@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.

From a stay at home mum taking a career break to look after her kids because the combined cost of childcare and a long commute made her job unviable, thank you for saying this. I adore my children and am grateful every day that we can afford this for a couple of years but my god it’s hard work.

tiggergoesbounce · 03/01/2023 23:20

thus achieving a 100% success rate at children not coming to harm while in childcare

Risk assessment isn't about eliminating risk its about guaging safe methods of working so you can safely deal with situations should they arise.
There is a risk with everything we do, its how we manage that risk.

Peacelily38 · 03/01/2023 23:20

RoseAndGeranium · 03/01/2023 23:17

From a stay at home mum taking a career break to look after her kids because the combined cost of childcare and a long commute made her job unviable, thank you for saying this. I adore my children and am grateful every day that we can afford this for a couple of years but my god it’s hard work.

Totally agree with this.

luxxlisbon · 04/01/2023 08:01

motherfugga · 03/01/2023 22:17

@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.

It was not a comment about stay at home parents. It was directly related to OP stating parents “prioritise” working over spending time with their children.
I’m sure many people would work less and spend more time with their children if they had the financial means but life costs money. Children cost money.
To say people work because they don’t want to spend time with their children is the divisive comment.
If I didn’t need to pay the bills I would be in the park every day drinking hot chocolate too.

MaverickSnoopy · 04/01/2023 08:56

tiggergoesbounce · 03/01/2023 23:14

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

Because surely if tiggernursery currently has 20 kids and 10 staff abd ratios are you need 1 staff to 2 kids, if the laws changes and i now only need 2 staff for 4 kids are you suggesting i then sack 5 staff (predominantly women) or am i going to just increase my children numbers if i can per square footage??

(all numbers are examples to keep it simple)

Either they increase the number of children on the existing levels of staff or they decrease the number of staff for the existing number of children. With the former each child under 2 requires 3.5m2 of floor space, 2 years require 2.5m2 and 3 and above 2.3m2. So it automatically rules out a lot of Childminders increasing the number of children they care for as they wouldn't have enough floor space. It also applies to some smaller nurseries. So if you can't increase the number of children, you decrease the number of staff.

Decreasing staff just isn't sustainable. The sector is burnt out. Totally burnt out after being treated despicably during the pandemic and not much better before that. High quality professional early years workers are already leaving for supermarkets because they are exhausted, treated badly and overworked and won't accept it anymore. They have already said they don't want to care for more children.

I don't know what the childcare models are in other countries, so I can't compare but the British model is to provide an early years education alongside looking after children. Professionals must know their key children and plan activities across the areas of learning in line with child development and track the children's development accordingly. The more small children you look after the more that's diluted. Then add in safety aspects and consider the fact that looking after several small children is bloody hard work. They have to consider behavioural difficulties, sen and individual children's needs eg potty training, separation anxiety etc.

Even if it did go ahead on a loose basis in the sense that people can decide for themselves, it's worth pointing out that the current ratio for Childminders is 3 children under 5, with potential to have 5 children under 5 IF you can meet the needs of all children, for example to meet continuity of care. At present if a Childminder charges £4 an hour for a child that rate stays the same regardless of whether they look after 3 or 5 children. It would be an unsustainable business model to reduce the rate to say £3 an hour because you had 5 children (never mind more work for less money) because any of those children could leave at any point - remembering some parents will even leave without paying the notice period, or even with unpaid owed fees. So then you have less children on the lower rate and you can't fill the spaces and are suddenly taking a huge pay cut and now need to close your business and find a job. So yes you could have more children (if you have the floor space) but not at a saving to parents.

Nurseries are a bit different in the respect that the people who run them will make the decisions and not the staff on the ground. But imagine you're an early years worker, you're burnt out or even just managing and then 40% of your colleagues are sacked and you're told you suddenly have to look after their key children, giving you an extra 2 children on top of the 3 you already have. 2 of these children have behavioural issues and 1 of them had been unsuccessfully potty training for 3 months, your Manager tells you that the activities you're doing with the children aren't broad enough meeting the needs of the children, but part of the problem is that you're struggling to help one of the children with behavioural difficulties and so you're not giving enough focused attention to the other children. For all of this you haven't been given a pay rise because fees have been reduced for parents. Thankfully you're on holiday next week and are desperate for the rest - but then a colleague phones in sick and so some of your holiday is cancelled as they don't have the staff to cover your holiday (this happened to someone I know before Christmas and is very common already). If staff are off ill you all have to cover each other because nurseries can no longer afford agency staff (because of lack of funding for the 30 hours), this of course would really cause problems if you've cut staff and people have 2-3 more key children each, potentially having to close the whole room if people are off sick and staff are well over the newly increased ratio.

This is quite similar to the current strikes that are going on for better pay and working conditions. Early Years workers are saying no to more work for less pay and essentially worse working conditions. They're saying no for themselves and for the quality of care for the children.

I get it. I'm a parent and have paid huge childcare fees myself in the past. It's part of the reason I became a Childminder. But piling pressure on a sector that is already broken and underfunded is not the answer- although looking at the NHS it seems this is our government's go to solution. The whole childcare funding system needs an overhaul. The tories won't manage that because that's not their business model, they won't deliver anything suitable for the industry and working parents. I do think that the cost of childcare has only become "such" a bone of contention since people started struggling more - I remember complaining about it 10 years ago but it was a little bit more feasible then, but people are being squeezed from every angle now so it's logical to look to childcare (when it's the next biggest cost to housing). I just think there's a bigger picture here and that it's the general cost of living - not the cost of living crisis as such - but the cost of living in general and how salaries perhaps haven't kept up with everything else. Our government needs to revise how our country works.

That was long!

BaileySharp · 04/01/2023 09:42

Pregnant then screwed seemed glad about it being scrapped - I think the ratio change was seen as the problem. They do need to do something to make childcare more affordable to parents. I'm not sure increasing "free" hours is the answer either. Most parents can't take a career break until child is 3 so it needs to start younger. I hear what the government pays the settings hasn't increased so I can see that more of this would just make things unaffordable for providers.

LemonSwan · 04/01/2023 09:52

I think it’s short sighted. We just had our first, we now will have to wait until they are 4 to have a second. That’s then 8 years until second are in primary and we are working half speed for nearly a decade.

Productivity isn’t just the physical hours you are at work. It’s do you have the mental and physical energy to excel at work, gain promotion, move job, start a side hustle/ business etc.

Or are we all barely functioning adults just doing what we need to to survive for what should be our most productive decade.

And before everyone goes oh well you don’t have to have two kids. Well that is what we would like and we will make it work. But the gov/ country have just lost a fair amount of potential productivity there. And I will be much older second pregnancy so over the country that’s way more money spent on older riskier nhs pregnancy.

SEND2022 · 04/01/2023 09:55

Increasing ratios would have been devastating for SEND children who already find it difficult accessing early years settings. The higher the ratios, the less likely a setting can meet an individual child's needs without harming the child or others. I'm glad it has been scrapped.

Dancingdragonhiddentiger · 04/01/2023 09:59

Confitofduckand · 03/01/2023 22:18

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.

Having recently looked after 6 children with two of us (which due to ages was max ratio) I’d say it’s pushing the limits of safety already. There is no way it wouldn’t impact children. Already the evidence is that for most children in good homes it’s at best not helpful for them to be in nursery before age three. We should do more to facilitate parental care up to age three. No one thinks it’s weird or odd that women take a year’s maternity leave. So why not slowly year by year increase the allowance (ensuring a large chunk is use it or lose it for father) until we hit the age when nursery is actually good for children. Rather than implying that babies and toddlers are better off in nursery than at home, which in the majority of cases (all things being equal) isn’t the case.

Pinkbananas01 · 04/01/2023 10:00

In Scotland all children aged 3 get 30hours funded childcare so this is correct. Although funded payments appear better up here they still do not cover actual costs of care, which is a huge issue re sustainability of any childcare business.
Re ratios they are actually much stricter here - childminders can only look after 3 children below school aged whereas in England they can look after more already & can vary this themselves which is not allowed here. There are no plans to increase ratios here so d9nt know where this has come from.

TheMagicSword · 04/01/2023 10:02

I think shelving the plans on the table was a good thing. But shelving the entire question of childcare and how it can be better is a bad thing.

LittleBearPad · 04/01/2023 10:16

Dancingdragonhiddentiger · 04/01/2023 09:59

Having recently looked after 6 children with two of us (which due to ages was max ratio) I’d say it’s pushing the limits of safety already. There is no way it wouldn’t impact children. Already the evidence is that for most children in good homes it’s at best not helpful for them to be in nursery before age three. We should do more to facilitate parental care up to age three. No one thinks it’s weird or odd that women take a year’s maternity leave. So why not slowly year by year increase the allowance (ensuring a large chunk is use it or lose it for father) until we hit the age when nursery is actually good for children. Rather than implying that babies and toddlers are better off in nursery than at home, which in the majority of cases (all things being equal) isn’t the case.

So with two children, a parent will be out of work for up to 5 years?

Do you think that’s economically viable or even desirable?

schratching · 04/01/2023 11:42

Looking after children is also work. It's just unpaid.

fajitaaaa · 04/01/2023 12:01

schratching · 04/01/2023 11:42

Looking after children is also work. It's just unpaid.

It also counts for shit all on most CVs unless you pick a good employer

schratching · 04/01/2023 12:24

100%. I did mention it on my cv and subsequently got an excellent employer.

Dinosaurpoopy · 04/01/2023 12:33

I think reforms are needed, just not those ones
I'm pregnant with my second and full time childcare for both would be 33k, well as a secondary school teacher that's my wage
So I guess I'm leaving teaching for a few years..