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?

I'm a bit worried this is going to drive the prices up. I always thought the baby prices subsidised the "free hours" a bit

Then I would be depending on UC to help for food. Not sure I would be able to win either way..

Sure I could go without eating...

I would prefer a childcare budget to be allocated to parents which could be used flexibly, either to enable a parent to stay home with the child in the early years, or to be used for childcare outside the home.

I think stay at home parents are incredibly undervalued.

Is the evidence really that it's detrimental? I thought it was beneficial from 2.5/3 and no evidence either way at younger ages.

Exactly this.

I wouldn't be cutting be cutting back on luxury. It would be more nesseties. We already depend on on UC top ups and my wage. How the other half live. 🤣

To be fair staying at home isn't for me.

I disagree with this. You’d just get loads more staying home and it’d cost a huge amount without getting much back in people working.

I think you need to value yourself instead.

It does. Hopefully they’ll also fund the existing scheme properly because otherwise the entire sector will collapse and nurseries will go out of business left, right and centre.

Well if you want to pay everyone’s mortgage/rent contributions until the child starts school @Firefly2023 then they can stay home.

Or magic us back in time before the married woman’s wage was taken into account on mortgage applications and stop it happening.

I mean either would work.

I do. This doesn't affect me. We can afford a SAHP. But I don't think it should be an option only available to those either financially well off or those on benefits, it should be an option for everyone.

In an ideal world both parents would reduce down to 3-4days and share the care.

Meaning the child would only need only need to be away from their parents 1-2 days a week. And their fees would be fully covered by 22hours a week.

But we don't live in an ideal word... and the mentality that childcare is a women's jobs is slow to change.

I agree with this.

This is always such an inflammatory subject, because we all want the best for our children.

I think choice should be key.

I totally agree with you OP. I am concerned about this too. It's well documented that children at nursery have higher levels of cortisol in their systems.

If you want to work, need to work then there should be affordable childcare. BUT looking after your children should be made easier too. It's important that the choice is there, I would have hated to been forced into work when I wanted to be SAHP.

Don't worry, it won't happen. I'm in London. I have friends on nursery waiting lists from August 2022.
Again, these rich people have no bloody idea that people DON'T WANT TO WORK in childcare for £10/hour and have this kind of responsibility. They will give money for childcare, but who will work at nurseries?

IMO this needs to go further. What's the point of accessible childcare until the age of 4 when they start school which finishes at 3.

To your original point, I do think that women being able to have a full 12 months off would help. I was lucky and was able to take 12 months and return to my FT position and flex to 4 days on a full time contract. Neither child has 'suffered' by going to FT nursery 3 days a week.

Before anyone gets too excited I'd wait to see who will be eligible to receive this 'free' childcare... for a wild guess it won't be any of the people already barely make going to work financially worthwhile for their families... it's all about pushing people on UC back to work. Nothing more, nothing less.

Think it will be a moot point when people realise there aren’t enough childcare places due to setting closing in droves because they are so underfunded.

In an ideal world OP but with two incomes needed to pay rent or mortgage plus bills it is usually necessary for both parents to work. Also lots of women do want to return to keep their jobs and careers on track, even if it is part time so this incentive will now give more options. I remember paying childcare for my DCs took up 80% of my salary at one stage and it really felt like it wasn't worth it. I am glad that I persisted because I managed to keep my job, maintained my skills which has paid off later on.

If you want to have a traditional family where you stay home and only men can work then you are free to do it.

If giving women the choice bothers you then what you want is control, not what is best for families.

It’s not the fucking handmaid’s take where we make childcare so prohibitive that women are forced to stay at home.

More sticking plaster policy.

Firstly, the gov are doing this to get women back to work. Most well paid women with good jobs will go back anyway, I think this is about the gov trying to fill the low pay/min wage jobs.

Reports use 'parents' and are sometimes honest with 'women' however they really just mean women. When is society actually going to accept that a child has 2 parents who should be involved? Why aren't there calls for men to be more flexible and pick up more childcare and when are companies (mainly run by men) going to adapt and be more flexible? Not in a long time imo. Men don't want this to change. Childcare is still 'womens work' and economists and society have taken choice away. Even if some women want to be sahp they can't. Women not having if it all but doing it all, still.

This is v true ^

When does the budget actually come in to effect though? Straight away or like next year?

Indeed this has not been addressed. There will also be parents who have concerns about the ratios and it could backfire if they feel that their DC will get less care than they do now.

Unless they are also upping the subsidy significantly to nurseries then this isn’t going to happen. If nurseries are struggling to provide the ‘free’ hours for 3-4 year olds with the cross subsidy of the baby room, there is no hope in hell they can offer it for 1 year olds at 4.85 an hour.