Expansion of free childcare

[Firefly2023]

I am too old to benefit from this but I do wonder if we are heading in the wrong direction. The expansion of free childcare to one and two year olds is obviously to encourage more people back to work. Is this really such a good thing for the children?

I know that women want to continue their careers and staying at home is detrimental to that. Also in current economic climate, two wages are necessary to survive in most households now, but I am concerned. I think it is a shame that children are all bundled into childcare at a young age and feel sorry for parents being pushed into work when they may prefer to stay home.

I always felt that I missed so much by going back to work very early and I regret not taking more time off in those early years. I wonder if there is a better way. Maybe parents should be encouraged to look after their own children if they want to rather than handing over their babies to childcare. Maybe spend some of the money on incentivising employers to give more paid leave/shorter working hours to support SAH parents. AIBU?

Realise that last sentence isn't quite right - I mean incentivise employers to support parents working shorter hours or having more time off (not completely staying at home).

Doesn't help the economy to have people home with kids though does it?

I agree maternity leave should be better funded (eg paid for the whole year).

My son has been in nursery since 9 months and there are plenty of benefits - lots of opportunities for him to become more socially aware, learn new things, become comfortable with being away from me.

As you said, most homes need the two salaries and women don’t want to be adversely affected by taking a long career break. We probably also need the social/adult interaction that gives us an identity other than Mum.

I currently work 3 days a week. It’s far better than 5 days, but in an ideal world I’d love to merge work and childcare. I’d love my workplace to have an on site crèche where I can drop him off, see him at lunchtime, then again at the end of the day.

In other countries it’s fairly common for crèche facilities to be available within workplaces. It would also really help with the “sorry to bother you but xxx has bumped his head” calls that pull us away from work at time to time.

There’s already two threads on this. I agree with you. I’m not a sahm but I work evenings so my toddler doesn’t need to go to nursery. I could earn more if I worked daytimes and up to now my excuse has been the cost of childcare. I love being with my child and having this time while they’re still so little. If they introduce funded hours I know my dh will want me to change things so I can’t say I’m over the moon at this news

People who want to stay at home with their children still can if they can afford it. It's literally not stopping that.

I can't afford to stay home, so my child goes to nursery and benefits from all the play and developmental games and messy play that, lets face it, I wouldn't do with her at home anyway.

I get to go to work, have adult interactions, expand my brain, pay into my pension and keep food on our table.

YABVU

If we were somewhere like Germany where maternity leave is full pay for a year and you can take up to 3 years, or had that kind of opportunity, then yes. Would be great to stay home longer. As it is I would have to work for us as a family to survive, as mat leave is so badly paid. If I’m working then I’d rather childcare costs were lower so we could live comfortably, rather than have to scrimp and save because so much is going on nursery fees.

They can extend it like this, get loads of kids in but then be unable to staff it. So everyone will be celebrating tomorrow ignoring the very small topic of a severe recruitment issue and qualified staff....

I’d go mad if I stayed at home with my toddler full time. And actually, I think it’s good for young children to be socializing with others. It’s lower income families that miss out on the learning opportunities that childcare facilities provide and that reflects in the assessments done at the end of the EYFS.

My DD absolutely loves her childminder and the other children there and has never once fussed at being left . Besides, it’s nearly always women that take the career break to find out that the workforce has moved onwards and upwards when they return, while they are still where they were when they left. Which is why we have the gender pay gap and a paucity of female representation at the top in nearly every field.

I think there’s a happy medium and an initiative that supports women’s choice is to be welcomed. I’d also like to see the state subsidy to the care facility increased so parents aren’t hit with the top up fee. Anyway, the devil will be in the detail…

I agree with your every word!

I think it is a shame that children are all bundled into childcare at a young age and feel sorry for parents being pushed into work when they may prefer to stay home.

In what way is access to more affordable childcare doing that?

Maybe parents should be encouraged to look after their own children if they want to rather than handing over their babies to childcare.

Hard disagree. Firstly I don’t remotely feel like I’m not looking after my own child, nor am I handing her off like she’s an item.
Early year’s education is so beneficial to children. My DD has come on so much due to nursery and the wonderful staff who look after her. I know she wouldn’t have picked up half the things as quick as she has done if she had no access to nursery.

Your problem is you don’t have an honest relationship with your husband and you aren’t on the same page. Wishing you could drag all other working parents down and preventing them from accessing more affordable childcare because it’s your “excuse” to your husband so you don’t have to work more is pretty shitty.

I wouldn't worry about being forced back into work, there will be less places as more providers will be forced to close. The funding is a pittance and many places only stay open because of the younger children paying a proper fee.

Clever way to make the government look good and providers look bad.

@Albiboba I’m not wishing to drag other parents down. I realise it’s good for a lot of parents. My dh is well aware of my feelings. Also it’s not about not wanting to work more. At the moment I work and I look after a toddler all day. If I worked daytimes and my child was being looked after in nursery my life would probably be easier but I want to be with my child as much as possible.

You're coming at this wrong.

If you don't think childcare is sufficiently good for children, then you should be arguing for the government to fund it to the hilt (including paying staff as they deserve).

Then the choice of whether to go to work or not is a true choice for parents (mothers), and the children benefit regardless.

Personally, I work FT as does DH. Our DC are in FT childcare which has been great for them. I had a SAHM which was great for me. DH's mum worked part time which was great for him.

Nothing stops parents to stay at home if they want to; this should hopefully give the opportunity to re-enter the workforce to those who wish or need to do so.

DD is the light of my life and we are both loving and caring parents but would never choose to be SAHP as we like our jobs and personally I need something else other than motherhood in my life to keep me a balanced individual.

I share your concerns in that for young children there does need to be a balance between time in an institution (day care, nursery, preschool) and time at home with one of their primary caregivers.

I don’t think that has been adequately addressed as this is more with the economy being the primary objective rather than what is best for child development.

While I welcome childcare being free or subsidised for younger ages, I don’t like the idea of the State taking away lower income parents ability to choose what balance is right for their child. Because this announcement while a carrot also has the stick with it of low income parents with a working partner now being expected to actively seek FT work, and parents working PT also now having to actively seek FT or higher paying work. We all know what happens if the work coach isn’t happy with a persons efforts to secure work, and now more hours of work &/or higher pay- sanctions. UC top ups being withheld.

It’s like the government having swept away the “excuse” of high child care costs are now free to punish low income parents out of poverty.

Obviously. This will not affect the better off parents who can afford for one to either work PT or not at all. In fact, the expansion of free/subsidised childcare will be a big boost to their finances. That extra £1000/mo per child or so will buy lots of extra retail goods, luxury holidays and help towards deposits for upsizing homes- propping up the high street, housing market and tourism. So this will really benefit the most those who need it the least.

It’s a sticking plaster in an attempt to cover up massive failings in government policy on childcare for decades. If it were part of a wider investment/review into childcare (funding and provision) and maternity rights, giving families more and better choices it’d be great, but as it stands it’s shortsighted and is likely to send the sector into further difficulties.

Firstly, it's not 'free', it's funded. Secondly, nobody has to use it if they don't want it. Thirdly, there are a small number of vulnerable children who are safer if they attend a childcare setting for all sorts of reasons (access to heatjng, food, more likely for abuse to be identified). Fourthly, many parents - pretty much all the parents I know - like working and actively want to work. I am a much better parent because my son is in nursery four days a week.

Secondly, nobody has to use it if they don't want it.
Yes lower income parents will be forced to use it. Did you not read about the changes to UC?

I think it’s fantastic as someone who is pre DC.

We earn averagely- too much for government help but not enough to stay home. Both will probably always need to work FT. This means women can go back to work if they want to, it gives the freedom of choice. It also might mean families are more free to space children closer together rather than waiting for free hours as some of our relatives have had to do.

I think the crux of the issue with high unemployment in this country is women of childbearing age who are restricted by the current very expensive childcare system. With most jobs you wouldn’t have much left over after paying for one full time nursery place, which is why some women and men become SAHM/SAHD. Imagine what good it would do the economy if more 20-45 year old people could work freely, pay taxes and enjoy the benefits of dual income. Not to mention the sense of purpose gained from going to work.

The only glaring issue is how much this is going to impact nurseries and childminders financially. I know a childminder and funded hours represent not even half of what it actually costs to mind a 3 or 4 year old.

@Onnabugeisha you do make an excellent point I’d never looked at it from that lens. I hope they make the support fair and accessible to all regardless of income (unless your income is very very high obviously)

I hadn't, thank you for pointing them out.

I LOVE my job, the confidence it brings me, sense of self etc. Love it! but I wouldn't have given up that time at home for the first 4 years of their lives for anything. Even though at times it was dull and monotonous.

No way. In fact, I'd have been better off staying at home. I literally paid to go to work but did not want to give up my career. This is much needed.

It's a tricky one, because the evidence shows that until around age 2.5/3 centre based daycare/nursery is detrimental in terms of emotional/behavioural development and (for the youngest children) cognition in a way that is measurable years later. After 2.5/3 there are clear, measurable benefits.
It is not however realistic, nor for many parents desirable, for children to all be looked after at home until they are 3.
Providing direct payments to families rather than offering funded hours would help support those who wish to stay at home with their children, while funding childcare for those who wish to work. That doesn't solve the economic issues that are prompting the push to try to get parents of young children back into work, so it's not a fix-all either.