Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Expansion of free childcare

246 replies

Firefly2023 · 14/03/2023 22:21

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?

OP posts:
BootsTrapBootsTrap · 15/03/2023 10:13

Xant · 14/03/2023 23:21

YANBU, child mental health has collapsed and a huge part of why is babies and toddlers being dumped at uncaring nurseries 8am - 6pm. Yes some are great but many are awful.

Oh give over!

This thread is very disappointing, it's a massive working-parents shaming thread.

OP, YABVU. You do you and let others do what it right to their personal circumstances without judgement!

Plumbear2 · 15/03/2023 10:15

For every free place the childcare provider provides they effectively takes a pay cut. Now to also include 1 and 2 year olds this will make it worse. Pretty soon childminders are going to stop and look for work elsewhere.

ooheeoohahahtingtangwallawallabingbang · 15/03/2023 10:15

pbdr · 15/03/2023 10:12

@WigglyWigglyWiggly as one of the "ignorant" posters who described the situation as "tricky", if you were to read my full post you would see that I was proposing direct cash payments to parents in lieu of direct nursery funding to provide support to both families who want to use childcare, and families who want to keep their children at home in the early years. I am fully on board with taxpayer funded substantial financial support towards childcare, but not everyone feels that direct funding of nursery places is the best and only way of delivering that.

I havent read your previous posts, I'm just struggling to see where giving people cash payments for having their own children at home helps the economy in any way. The paid childcare is surely to help families keep their jobs and not have such setbacks which can currently happen when someone gives up work/goes part time because of childcare costs.

If someone wants to have children and be at home, they should be able to fund that themselves. They should also be able to fund childcare, but I understand the offer of help to childcare, but I don't understand the offer of help to stay at home. That's basically going on benefits.

WigglyWigglyWiggly · 15/03/2023 10:16

So you think that the government would achieve their aim in facilitating parents to work by paying them not to work instead? If you can afford to stay at home with your children then do, if you can’t then go to work. The aim of this funding is to fill the gap of people who can’t afford to stay at home and can’t afford to go to work. Going to work benefits others, staying at home benefits you - that’s why the government aren’t going to incentivise one of those options.

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 10:16

It's this kind of opinion which really let's women down! "Bundled in to childcare" Really? The fact is that he world has moved on and I will defend to the death the right for women to be able to work. You only have to look on mumsnet at how dangerous it can be for a lot of women in being financially reliant on a partner. Lets also not forget the cost of living has become a lot more expensive than it was when women could afford to stay at home. My little boy goes to nursery three days a week. I'm lucky that my work has been flexible enough to let me work part-time. The cost of my childcare for those three days is £860 per month! The nursery we chose with care and consideration and both of my kids have been very happy there and are very confident children. If I was to give up work when having my children then we would be in a much worse place financially for a long time whilst I built my career back up again.
I am also proud that my children see me working. It sets a good example for them, especially my daughter which I think is so important!
But hey let's just pile on to those women who either have little choice or actually make the choice to work with the usual bullshit of "You shouldn't have children if you don't want to look after them" it's so tiring and actually really does women such an injustice, especially when coming from other women!

Scottishskifun · 15/03/2023 10:16

Your being completely unreasonable I hope if it comes in Scotland mirror it. It makes a huge difference to working families by reducing cost and also gives women more choice then they currently have of not returning to work or work just about covering childcare costs.
If you have more than 1 child the benefits are even bigger.

Stop projecting your own feelings onto others. My children have both been in a amazing private nursery since 1. It's helped enormously with their development and they both enjoy it. All the staff are fully qualified and no high staff turn over. But we didn't look at oftsed ratings or reports when looking we looked at the staff!

Shinyandnew1 · 15/03/2023 10:22

I strongly suspect this won’t increase parental choice in any way.

I think it will lead to more settings closing due to the impact of higher ratios, huge waiting lists and a lot of people who can’t find a setting at all, as there aren’t enough places. There will also be prohibitively high costs for under 1s. If settings can’t get enough under 1s-to charge high enough rates to offset the government offering for the older children-they will fold anyway.

ScholesPanda · 15/03/2023 10:22

I don't think this has been done to help working parents, it's being done to ease labour force shortages and to boost the economy.
IMO a policy designed to help parents would pay one parent a 30 hour week minimum wage as a monthly grant, and the family could then choose whether to use that to allow one parent to stay at home, or to pay for formal or informal childcare whilst both parents work.
However, the current policy helps pay for itself because parents returning to work will pay more income tax, spend more on commuting, clothes, lunch and pay more VAT, and if it grows the economy then companies pay more corporation tax. It may even raise more than it costs.
It will be billed as parent friendly, and some parents will undoubtedly benefit, but that isn't the main purpose.

pbdr · 15/03/2023 10:25

WigglyWigglyWiggly · 15/03/2023 10:16

So you think that the government would achieve their aim in facilitating parents to work by paying them not to work instead? If you can afford to stay at home with your children then do, if you can’t then go to work. The aim of this funding is to fill the gap of people who can’t afford to stay at home and can’t afford to go to work. Going to work benefits others, staying at home benefits you - that’s why the government aren’t going to incentivise one of those options.

Hence my description of the situation as "tricky"; there is a conflict between what the evidence shows is most beneficial in terms of development for the youngest children (< around 2.5-3) and what will create economic growth. So if you were only looking at what will grow the economy then funding for nursery will do that, but should we only be looking at it from that perspective? Perhaps for you the answer is yes, but I still fall into the "tricky" camp as I think we should be prioritising best child outcomes too.

getgetgetruby · 15/03/2023 10:25

Cost of childcare has meant we've put off having a second child so I'd say it's a good thing. I know others in the same position or at least feeling they have to leave a 3/4 year gap.

Onnabugeisha · 15/03/2023 10:26

@WigglyWigglyWiggly
How on earth is funding something that parents are currently having to pay for supposedly forcing those who don’t want to use it to use it?! Just because something is free doesn’t mean you have to use it.

I’ll tell you how this budget is taking away choice. The Spring Budget has the theme of get people back to work. The more money for subsidised childcare is the carrot. It’s going to benefit those who have either already chosen to go back to work or are working because they cannot afford not to. This isn’t a bad thing if it were by itself.

But it isn’t. You have to look at the full picture

But most have missed the sticks said so far in the Spring Budget pre-release. These are new requirements such as the partners of working partners now being required to actively seek work even if they have children aged under 3. The minimum income to not have to keep looking for work or better paying work is also going to be raised, such that the days of a parent doing PT work with preschool children at home, will be eliminated. These parents will have to seek FT work or a much much higher paying PT job (which exist for only a few elites), even if they have a child at home under age 3. If they don’t do this, they are sanctioned. And to add to this stick, DWP is being given the authority to auto-sanction anyone which may or may not involve AI doing sanctions, then the families appealing as the inevitable computer errors mount up.

All of the above is going to force yet more low income parents into FT work. They won’t have the choice to stay home, and they will be punished via sanctions if they aren’t getting a high enough paying job regardless of whether or not such a job actually exists for them after accounting for qualifications and any disabilities they may have.

There also doesn’t seem to be any allowance or exemption said so far for having a child with special needs- you will still be forced to find FT work.

Shinyandnew1 · 15/03/2023 10:27

getgetgetruby · 15/03/2023 10:25

Cost of childcare has meant we've put off having a second child so I'd say it's a good thing. I know others in the same position or at least feeling they have to leave a 3/4 year gap.

And you think the current dwindling numbers of childcare providers will be able to cope with any sort of increase in children?!

I think some people really aren’t thinking this through.

Albiboba · 15/03/2023 10:28

@Blughbablugh But hey let's just pile on to those women who either have little choice or actually make the choice to work with the usual bullshit of "You shouldn't have children if you don't want to look after them" it's so tiring and actually really does women such an injustice, especially when coming from other women!

Agree. Plus it’s a line only aimed at women who use private nurseries. It’s never said when someone has a 4 year old in school. If being around your child 24 hours a day is so important why not homeschool?
Why have kids if you’re just going to ship them off to school for 14 years?!

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 10:29

getgetgetruby · 15/03/2023 10:25

Cost of childcare has meant we've put off having a second child so I'd say it's a good thing. I know others in the same position or at least feeling they have to leave a 3/4 year gap.

I do wonder if this may bring on a baby boom?

Onnabugeisha · 15/03/2023 10:29

ScholesPanda · 15/03/2023 10:22

I don't think this has been done to help working parents, it's being done to ease labour force shortages and to boost the economy.
IMO a policy designed to help parents would pay one parent a 30 hour week minimum wage as a monthly grant, and the family could then choose whether to use that to allow one parent to stay at home, or to pay for formal or informal childcare whilst both parents work.
However, the current policy helps pay for itself because parents returning to work will pay more income tax, spend more on commuting, clothes, lunch and pay more VAT, and if it grows the economy then companies pay more corporation tax. It may even raise more than it costs.
It will be billed as parent friendly, and some parents will undoubtedly benefit, but that isn't the main purpose.

I agree. The goal is to prop up the economy and how these policies are spun is window dressing.

Dinneronmybfpillow · 15/03/2023 10:31

getgetgetruby · 15/03/2023 10:25

Cost of childcare has meant we've put off having a second child so I'd say it's a good thing. I know others in the same position or at least feeling they have to leave a 3/4 year gap.

We left the sensible gap of 3 years (4 by the time maternity ends and childcare needed).

I had twins.... 🤦🏽‍♀️

Chickenly · 15/03/2023 10:32

I am too old to benefit from this… so I want to explain why I think something that

The expansion of free childcare to one and two year olds is obviously to encourage more people back to work.
Is it? Do you have any proof that funding childcare actually encourages returning to work rather than facilitating returning to work?

Is this really such a good thing for the children?
Even if we accept that it’s “encouraging” rather than “facilitating”, yes. Yes it is a good thing. There are many, many studies that show that. Each to their own and I won’t comment on other people’s parenting choices but, seeing as you started a shaming thread, we should probably look at this factually. When you neutralise for income and social parameters, children in childcare have better outcomes.

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.
So, you understand why it’s necessary and you know why it’s beneficial but you’re concerned because it doesn’t impact you personally in any way at all?

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.
It’s not. The children are happy. The parents are happy. No one is being “bundled”, no one is being “pushed”. You’ve invented a narrative to disguise your judgment as concern. No one is stopping anyone from staying at home. No SAHP has any less because working parents have support.

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.
Your personal issues are not how government policy should be decided. If you were supposedly forced back to work when there was no funding for childcare then how can you now claim that the funding is what’s forcing parents back to work? There’s no logic to this argument. Why didn’t you stay at home?

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
Why? Your first suggestion benefits no one other than the parents who want to stay at home and can already afford to. Your second suggestion benefits no one except SAHP and actively damages the economy, the job market, small businesses non-parents and working parents.

AIBU?
Yes. On every single thing you’ve said. It’s not really surprising that you’re bitter that childcare might be funded for other parents when it wasn’t for you but don’t try to pass your opinion off as “concern”.

BootsTrapBootsTrap · 15/03/2023 10:34

Chickenly · 15/03/2023 10:32

I am too old to benefit from this… so I want to explain why I think something that

The expansion of free childcare to one and two year olds is obviously to encourage more people back to work.
Is it? Do you have any proof that funding childcare actually encourages returning to work rather than facilitating returning to work?

Is this really such a good thing for the children?
Even if we accept that it’s “encouraging” rather than “facilitating”, yes. Yes it is a good thing. There are many, many studies that show that. Each to their own and I won’t comment on other people’s parenting choices but, seeing as you started a shaming thread, we should probably look at this factually. When you neutralise for income and social parameters, children in childcare have better outcomes.

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.
So, you understand why it’s necessary and you know why it’s beneficial but you’re concerned because it doesn’t impact you personally in any way at all?

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.
It’s not. The children are happy. The parents are happy. No one is being “bundled”, no one is being “pushed”. You’ve invented a narrative to disguise your judgment as concern. No one is stopping anyone from staying at home. No SAHP has any less because working parents have support.

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.
Your personal issues are not how government policy should be decided. If you were supposedly forced back to work when there was no funding for childcare then how can you now claim that the funding is what’s forcing parents back to work? There’s no logic to this argument. Why didn’t you stay at home?

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
Why? Your first suggestion benefits no one other than the parents who want to stay at home and can already afford to. Your second suggestion benefits no one except SAHP and actively damages the economy, the job market, small businesses non-parents and working parents.

AIBU?
Yes. On every single thing you’ve said. It’s not really surprising that you’re bitter that childcare might be funded for other parents when it wasn’t for you but don’t try to pass your opinion off as “concern”.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Sqqueeeeeeee · 15/03/2023 10:35

Shinyandnew1 · 15/03/2023 10:27

And you think the current dwindling numbers of childcare providers will be able to cope with any sort of increase in children?!

I think some people really aren’t thinking this through.

Show quote history

It’s almost as if someone somewhere realised that the numbers are dwindling because of the lack of funding. Increase the funding, increase the childcare provision. Problem solved 🙄

getgetgetruby · 15/03/2023 10:36

@Dinneronmybfpillow ouch that must have been tough going from 1-3 kids. I know a few people it's happened to and it looks really hard.

Albiboba · 15/03/2023 10:36

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 10:29

I do wonder if this may bring on a baby boom?

Show quote history

I doubt it. For full time childcare it only equates to about 20 free hours a week, and then usually nurseries ask for a top up payment for consumables. So while it makes it slightly more affordable I can’t imagine many people will be rushing off to squeeze out a baby because full time nursery is now £3/400 cheaper a month.

Marghe87 · 15/03/2023 10:38

THIS👏

Marghe87 · 15/03/2023 10:39

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 10:16

It's this kind of opinion which really let's women down! "Bundled in to childcare" Really? The fact is that he world has moved on and I will defend to the death the right for women to be able to work. You only have to look on mumsnet at how dangerous it can be for a lot of women in being financially reliant on a partner. Lets also not forget the cost of living has become a lot more expensive than it was when women could afford to stay at home. My little boy goes to nursery three days a week. I'm lucky that my work has been flexible enough to let me work part-time. The cost of my childcare for those three days is £860 per month! The nursery we chose with care and consideration and both of my kids have been very happy there and are very confident children. If I was to give up work when having my children then we would be in a much worse place financially for a long time whilst I built my career back up again.
I am also proud that my children see me working. It sets a good example for them, especially my daughter which I think is so important!
But hey let's just pile on to those women who either have little choice or actually make the choice to work with the usual bullshit of "You shouldn't have children if you don't want to look after them" it's so tiring and actually really does women such an injustice, especially when coming from other women!

THIS👏

Marghe87 · 15/03/2023 10:41

Chickenly · 15/03/2023 10:32

I am too old to benefit from this… so I want to explain why I think something that

The expansion of free childcare to one and two year olds is obviously to encourage more people back to work.
Is it? Do you have any proof that funding childcare actually encourages returning to work rather than facilitating returning to work?

Is this really such a good thing for the children?
Even if we accept that it’s “encouraging” rather than “facilitating”, yes. Yes it is a good thing. There are many, many studies that show that. Each to their own and I won’t comment on other people’s parenting choices but, seeing as you started a shaming thread, we should probably look at this factually. When you neutralise for income and social parameters, children in childcare have better outcomes.

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.
So, you understand why it’s necessary and you know why it’s beneficial but you’re concerned because it doesn’t impact you personally in any way at all?

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.
It’s not. The children are happy. The parents are happy. No one is being “bundled”, no one is being “pushed”. You’ve invented a narrative to disguise your judgment as concern. No one is stopping anyone from staying at home. No SAHP has any less because working parents have support.

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.
Your personal issues are not how government policy should be decided. If you were supposedly forced back to work when there was no funding for childcare then how can you now claim that the funding is what’s forcing parents back to work? There’s no logic to this argument. Why didn’t you stay at home?

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
Why? Your first suggestion benefits no one other than the parents who want to stay at home and can already afford to. Your second suggestion benefits no one except SAHP and actively damages the economy, the job market, small businesses non-parents and working parents.

AIBU?
Yes. On every single thing you’ve said. It’s not really surprising that you’re bitter that childcare might be funded for other parents when it wasn’t for you but don’t try to pass your opinion off as “concern”.

You've said it all! 👏

CandlelightGlow · 15/03/2023 10:46

I also was surprised to see provision extended to one year olds. I know some people especially in better paid jobs do send their DC to nursery really young though, so I guess it's a good thing. Not a decision I'd make myself, but I also imagine the uptake won't be too huge and therefore shouldn't be too costly, relatively?