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?

@Chickenly
When you neutralise for income and social parameters, children in childcare have better outcomes.

I have only seen one outcome that is better across the board for all children and that is educational attainment. So not sure you can make such a generalisation by saying “outcomes”.

For example other studies have shown high # of hrs per week in childcare from a young age (below age 1) is linked to a higher risk of juvenile delinquency and poor mental health.

The outcomes also vary by age of the child when they start childcare and the average number of hours/week they spend in childcare. A commonality I have seen is that a better outcome is often associated with older children going fewer hours per week, and a worse outcome with younger children going for more hours per week.

One year old isn't really young for nursery - maternity cover ends at one year, so of course children go to childcare from that age. I can think of one woman in my circle who didn't work in some capacity when her DC were one, and even she went back to work after DC1 so it was only DCs 2&3 she was home with.

The judgement dripping from some of these posts.

I'd love to stay at home with my (nearly) one year old - I simply cannot afford too.
After childcare I'll be taking home about £45 a week - but we cannot afford to be without it..

Though, I do feel "free" childcare for 1 year olds is also the wrong way to go, I dont mind paying - just not the excessive amount that is charged!!

Yes this! Are people really that out of touch with how maternity works? The pay drops considerably over time down to nothing and then if you want to keep your job you have to go back to work. But let's not let that stand in the way of a bit of snearing!

@Shinyandnew1 not sure why you're comment is so condescending. I appreciate there isn't enough childcare provision. We know first hand as we found it hard to get a place. Eventually went for a CM over a nursery which has been a blessing in disguise as I've realised the benefits of a smaller homely setting. But in general the current system and not getting the hours until 3 is complete bollocks. The cost of our childcare for one child at its highest was the same as our mortgage (over 1000 pm) we had no financial wiggle room or ability to save for emergencies. Side note it was hard enough getting a mortgage in the first place but yet again there's no stability in renting so we felt we had to do that before having a baby. Seemed the sensible going to do. Ultimately I don't trust the Tories with a policy like this and hope to see the back of them at the next election. They have presided over a huge increase in equality in this country. Things have got worse and worse for families. We have a falling birth rate and yet it feels like there is so much resentment towards supporting families in this country. So expanding the hours to 1-2 year olds is the right way to go imo. Hoping the Tories crash and burn at the next election and Labour focus greater attention on affordable childcare.

I just don't get it.

All through school - study so you can get onto a good degree.
In college, study hard so you can get a good postgrad.
At PG level, study hard so you can get a good job.
Get the job, and work hard for the promotions and the professional qualification (which took a further 9 years for me)

Then you're 34 and getting the judgy head tilt "Oh you're going back full-time?".

Meanwhile, DH is back at work after a fortnight, yes fulltime and not a head tilt directed his way. But he takes four weeks SPL and knows how to change a nappy, so let's all bow before his magnificence and tell his wife how lucky she is that she only does half the childcare, half the housework and earns half the money.

Ridiculous. So far to go for women.

The issue is that women who stop work for long periods or go very part time / take jobs for which they are overqualified etc never recover their earning power. This is bad for kids as they are more likely to end up in a low income household. It also requires long term subsidy by other tax payers eg top up benefits for low earning women, benefits if a couple later split up and the woman can’t afford to run an independent household, pension top ups because women don’t end up saving enough. It’s a massive burden and it’s not reasonable to expect people who do work including mums who work (who also deeply love their children and want the best for them despite the undertone of the original post) to take this burden on. You chose to have kids and in most cases (not eg children with severe disability) you should financially provide for yourself and your children without subsidy. In most families this involves the mum working. Strongly support the new funded childcare. There is loads of data out there to support these facts but here’s an example: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56315730.amp.

This is such bullshit.

I cannot afford NOT to work.

I WANT to work.

I would have LOVED to have gone part time.

If this had been implemented two years ago, I would have saved £850 a month. That is £850 a month I could have used to put towards a deposit for a house. That is £850 a month I would have spent back into the economy. I could have dropped down to part time. I could have had a second child.

This will give women CHOICE.

@Onnabugeisha Everyone has the choice to stay at home, they just have to fund it themselves. The choice to stay and home AND HAVE SOMEONE ELSE PAY FOR IT is being restricted. Given how awful you obviously think it is to be a FT working mum of a young child, you surely can’t expect women who do that to pay additional tax so you can stay at home? I do however agree with you that there should be an exemption for people with disabled children.

@WeWereInParis - not a generalization. I’m in and out of nurseries across half the country every day. Personally, you may have found utopia with the provider you used. On a national scale, provision is absolutely dire and quality settings are few and far between. Even a good Ofsted rating covers a multitude of sins. There is so much concentrated in the top 5-10 nursery chains, which will ultimately be the only providers to survive as the small independents crash out of the market. All formulaic. baby factories with little to distinguish them from the next nursery down the road. Of course there will be outliers but would I send my own DC to the nurseries I visit on a regular basis? No.

And even though loads go out of business and there won’t be enough spaces for all of the children, as people have said they will change UC so people don’t really have a choice but to use the free house and so the parents who are on UC will be penalised for not going back to work.

You’ve used some choice words, OP. ‘Bundled’ and ‘pushed’ are my two favourites. Why did you choose those? You could have chosen ‘attend’ or even just ‘go’.

It's not going to work in reality, childcare already buckling.

How old are you and have you ever worked? Women can take 52 weeks’ maternity leave and have done for around 15 years now, so there are loads of one year olds in nursery.

I think it's a great incentive. Although my timing is impeccable as always. My youngest is two so we will miss out and we are just about able to pay for one day a week at nursery. Which people also argue is more damaging to her than attending 2-3 days. DH & I manage the rest between us but again the kids get just one day a fortnight with both parents around together all day.

Mat leave ends at 1 year - if you're lucky you can add accrued holiday on to that. They have to take you back in a similar role. If you don't go back then then good luck finding somewhere with a gap on your cv.

And even younger. Some people go back much much sooner than 1 year

Absolutely, especially as the last 14 weeks of maternity leave aren’t paid.

Honestly I think it would be better to support employers in creating part time flexible jobs for people with small children. So it’s not “full time work and childcare” vs “stay at home”. It should be possible for parents to keep their hand in with their career on a part time basis and still be able to raise their own children. It shouldn’t be an either/or choice. At the moment part time jobs are mostly shitty and low paid while high level career jobs are full time, and it’s wrong and unhelpful.

I don’t think it is awful to be a FT mum of a young child or children. I did that myself. I didn’t have a choice not to work though. Which is true of many women. There isnt always a choice to stay at home. I did have the privilege though of my DH being able to be a SAHD & PT Uni student. And with most of my DC having special needs/ND it actually was the best choice for their well being and development to only be in childcare PT. How many autistic toddlers do you know that can handle a 45hr week in childcare? I’d wager very few could.

This policy while great for many families, also comes with other policies that take away choice from many many more parents to stay at home or work PT.

All the policies are centred around “getting people back to work” to boost the economy. There has been no consideration of what is best for child development as not all children, especially ND children, benefit from FT childcare from a very young age (under 3).

The policies also widen the gap between low income and high income parents. High income parents will always have the choice for one parent to be a SAHP as they can afford it (as were my DH and I). Lower income parents previously could choose between living more frugally and topping up with UC while one partner was a SAHP or both working and perhaps having only a tiny bit extra income as a result. This choice won’t be permitted if the full suite of changes go through. There won’t be topping up with UC unless both partners are in work and both meet a new, higher minimum threshold to exempt them from actively looking for better paying work or doing overtime/extra hours.

So the privilege of choice will become yet more restricted to the privileged and well off. I don’t think this is morally right. Children born into low income families already face numerous disadvantages that have been shown to be mitigated by parents that can swing a work/life balance that means hands on involvment and sufficient time with preschool age children. If both parents are working dawn to dusk and then exhausted the rest of the time, their care for their child or children will suffer.

I don’t mind paying additional tax so that more parents who find that staying home or working PT is truly what is best for their child have access to that choice. The policies take away choice from many more parents, they don’t just encourage parents who want to work to be able to keep more of what they earn. There’s nothing wrong with supporting one policy like better funded childcare, while also being concerned at overall impact of ALL the policies being proposed.

Yes, I agree. This would be better for the human beings involved. It goes to show that the government isn’t doing what is best for humans, but for the economy.

By providing affordable childcare it will help those who want to work do so.
It will help those who in financially abusive relationships.
Hopefully this will also push some families out of poverty.

When I was with my ex we had to work around each other due to the costs. We both wanted to work. Of course it was great for the kids having one of us always around. However as partners no so good for us as we hardly saw each other.

Great in theory.
Reality it will cause more division between parents and none parents.

Mine are now a lot older, however it would be great if I could get a part time flexi job that’s not shitty and low paid. Due to chronic health issues I cannot work full time. The only flexi great paid jobs I could do is with agencies. So the question would be why don’t parents who want the same do this?

I agree with this. Children need one parent at home to raise them, there are no benefits to the child from being dumped at nursery under the age of 2.5/3 years old and even then not 8am - 6pm!

we need support for parents to stay home and raise their own children and it will save money in the long run on mental health services and benefits etc

Funding rares at the moment vary across the country, but tend to be around £4.50 an hour.
With children under 2 on a 1:3 ratio, any childcare provider will get around £13.50 an hour.
That's not enough to pay NLW of £10.42, plus employers NI, and overheads (gas, electricity, water, rent, insurance, registration, administration) and resources and food. No way can this be possible.