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 🤨

Yes but parents looking after their children aren’t described as being ‘in work’.

If it will make it better change it to ‘out of paid work’

The question still stands however.

I don't think childcare is valued at all.

Out of paid work.

Well it costs a fortune which is what this this thread is about.

Agreed - and this is why the EY profession is on its knees. It's hard, hard work, often complex. Assessments previously done by HV are now done by EY professionals, safeguarding, parent education etc. But everyone calls it 'childcare' and treats the sector like babysitters. No one wants to do it any more. The money and recognition is just appalling. Soon there will be no EY sector.

Except that staff are already at breaking point. The government was suggesting making a poorly paid, poorly valued job even harder. Because IT won't pay the proper amount of funding. It's simply passing the buck. It could also remove business rates from nurseries and make them zero rated for VAT. Sign the petition and share it if you're worried about costs! petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628433

Sign and share this! It's a start!

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628433

There are lots of other options - increasing ratios or providing extra funding which doesn't cover the increasing costs in nurseries are not the answer.

Nurseries are closing down...i quit childminding over a year ago.. not worth it for the paperwork, expectations and money.

You seem to be very focused on the needs of the 'women' but what about the needs of the child?!

I agree that things are often imbalanced in that the women are expected to be the ones to work less, sacrafice more career wise, and men are rarely given the affordable option to be the ones to work part time and be home more.

But ultimately, we as parents need to be 'present' with our young children for a decent amount of time, for their emotional health, and attachment/relationship building and to not do so is doing them an injustice.And the government should not be encouraging/making it easier or more expected for parents to spend increasingly less time with their children.

Define ‘decent amount of time’? It’s not 24/7.

NB Paying a mortgage is also part of parenting.

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

What a nasty comment. I’m so glad I have a lovely stay at home mum and wasn’t shoved into a nursery for 45 hours a week

Goodness - how old are you?

Old enough to have done enough research to know it’s not ideal for children to be away from their parents and shoved into nursery for 45 hours a week. It’s why when I have children I’ll be the one looking after them. I have to be a certain age to care about the psychological effects of children being shoved into nursery all day?

As a nursery nurse the idea of raising ratios is a ridiculous one. Staff are already on their knees and massively overworked. This would just force even more out of the profession. I've also seen an increase in special needs and behavioural difficulties which is yet another reason to keep ratios the same.
There are so many issues to unpick. Childcare is completely unaffordable, qualified level 3 staff barely exist anymore and nurseries need them to operate safely, staff are paid peanuts for an incredibly stressful job and to be honest I see it getting a lot worse before it gets better.

Yes, and we also need to be able to feed and clothe them, and many of us aren't as privileged as you and need to return to work to be able to do that. Can you fathom that it's not actually a choice for a lot of us?

Reform is needed but Truss’ plan was bonkers. More help is needed BEFORE the age of three rather than an extra 20 hours at 3. Let’s see funded hours for all children when maternity or shared parental leave needs.

Ratios for two year olds need to stay the same.

Because spending £1400 on childcare each month is quite frankly a nightmare. Reform is due given there isn’t even enough childcare places in the city for everyone who wants one despite the high costs involved.

Thats because it was supposed to be pre-school education. Some bright spark re-named it childcare and managed to upset all the really highly qualified staff. Loads have left now. Fed up of being treated like babysitters. All the Montessori teachers, EY teachers and educators. Called 'childcare workers' and paid peanuts. If the UK continues to call it childcare it will end up as a babysitting service run by those who didn't do well at school. That's the demographic at the moment. Mostly girls who are doing poorly at school are told to do hair or childcare. It's a desperate situation. Especially for children with SEN. We should be recruiting the brightest and best who understand brain development in the u5s. Instead we're asking for stack it high, sell it cheap, low quality. Tragic for our children.

@Ineverwannabelikeyou it shouldn't be a choice. If the govt subsidised Early years education properly then it would be a win/win/win. Children, parents AND thé EY sector.

It shouldn't be called childcare either. As a qualified nursery nurse you do a lot more than that.

Being emotionally present doesn't feed, cloth nor house the child. Do you think the tories are going to pay, mostly women, to stay home in order to be emotionally present ? Given they're currently screaming lazy benefits scroungers get back to work, I doubt they're in the emotionally present mind set.

Yes, I agree, what I'm saying is a lot of us don't have a choice but to use childcare. It should be a choice really, as in you shouldn't need two fill time incomes to pay the bills but here we are. But yes, since that won't change proper funding is what we need, however I daresay that won't happen either.

I assume you have, or will, found/find a rich husband then. Otherwise you'll be working to pay the mortgage/rent and feed your child.

I don't agree with changing the ratios, at least for the under 3s. 3 babies or 4 toddlers is enough for anyone to look after!

But I do think childcare for the first child/twins should be tax deductible.

Yes, like so many other people, I was the perfect parent before I had children.

PS check your tenses next time.

I found it difficult to be a stay at home mum to twins. We couldn't afford childcare and we barely scraped by. I found it difficult because it was so undervalued. Nobody says wow you're a stay at home mum. I hated being apart from my kids as well though. It's strange. I would have liked more support to stay with them. Could we support parents that want to look after their own children in anyway? In addition to funding childcare.