Page 9 | Expansion of free childcare

inamarina · 15/03/2023 11:38

NewShoes · 14/03/2023 22:38

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.

Hmm, maybe it depends on where in Germany you are, but where I lived it was three months full pay and the rest of the year 65%. It’s still generous, I agree.

drpet49 · 15/03/2023 11:40

Number1number2 · 14/03/2023 22:37

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

This.

LauraIAm · 15/03/2023 11:41

Hi @Onnabugeisha First of all I agree with you re children with special needs. But re most families, to the best of my knowledge there isn’t good evidence that childcare is detrimental to children - there are lots of factors in the mix and living in a lower income household is a negative factor (www.healthscotland.scot/population-groups/children/child-poverty/child-poverty-overview/impact-of-child-poverty#:~:text=Poverty%20has%20negative%20impacts%20on,disease%20and%20mental%20health%20problems.). Long term career breaks impact women’s earnings all their careers which is bad for their own families and requires subsidy for these women’s whole lives eg pension top ups (www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56315730.amp) which isn’t a feasible at a societal level or in my opinion a reasonable ask of working people.

IAmTheWalrus85 · 15/03/2023 11:43

Corah5 · 15/03/2023 11:26

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 do agree with this and I think that the stigma around part time work is a whole topic in itself. But I don’t think that subsidising childcare more comprehensively and fairly is a step in the wrong direction on that front. For any type of work - part time or otherwise - to be viable childcare has to be affordable!

Onnabugeisha · 15/03/2023 11:54

LauraIAm · 15/03/2023 11:41

Hi @Onnabugeisha First of all I agree with you re children with special needs. But re most families, to the best of my knowledge there isn’t good evidence that childcare is detrimental to children - there are lots of factors in the mix and living in a lower income household is a negative factor (www.healthscotland.scot/population-groups/children/child-poverty/child-poverty-overview/impact-of-child-poverty#:~:text=Poverty%20has%20negative%20impacts%20on,disease%20and%20mental%20health%20problems.). Long term career breaks impact women’s earnings all their careers which is bad for their own families and requires subsidy for these women’s whole lives eg pension top ups (www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56315730.amp) which isn’t a feasible at a societal level or in my opinion a reasonable ask of working people.

Well the evidence is there, you just have to parse it out and look at the different factors because there is no general rule of thumb that childcare is beneficial or detrimental. Whether it is or isn’t depends on the child, the age they start childcare and the #hrs/week they are in childcare.

Long term career breaks do result in a parent penalty. I understand this disproportionately affects women in todays society due to sexism, but it’s a parent penalty not an inherently women’s penalty. My DH has suffered it and as a result his earnings are below average and his pension provision abysmal, compared to mine- and I stopped working at age 39 due to disability so my current pension pot has only had 15yrs contributions and the rest is growth.

This is an equality gap for which there are many options to fix it other than getting both parents into FT work as soon as possible after childbirth. The childbirth & recovery itself doesn’t cause the parent penalty because it is no more than the number of weeks off typical for most major surgeries. I’m also not convinced that minimising time off the hamster wheel is the best solution to this problem when it comes to child development, parental mental health or society in general.

Janedoelondon · 15/03/2023 11:57

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”.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 can't enter enough emojis

Janedoelondon · 15/03/2023 11:59

JenniferBarkley · 15/03/2023 11:00

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.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

stripes416 · 15/03/2023 12:00

Saying children are being "dumped" in nursery is always going to sound bad. However a child attending a nursery with engaging, knowledgeable, passionate staff who have the resources and the time to provide learning opportunities and care for the children is not a negative thing.

Children will then have the opportunity to create new relationships and attachments with staff members, have more learning opportunities than they may at home, learn social skills, have more opportunity for outdoor play. The list could go on. I feel like by saying children should be at home with parents full time until they are 3, we are building up an image in our heads of how attachment will benefit both parents and children but it's not always a picture perfect experience unfortunately. Some parents may not benefit from being at home all day which then affects their mental health, affects their motivation, their identity, and then in turn affects the child

Chickenly · 15/03/2023 12:03

stripes416 · 15/03/2023 12:00

Saying children are being "dumped" in nursery is always going to sound bad. However a child attending a nursery with engaging, knowledgeable, passionate staff who have the resources and the time to provide learning opportunities and care for the children is not a negative thing.

Children will then have the opportunity to create new relationships and attachments with staff members, have more learning opportunities than they may at home, learn social skills, have more opportunity for outdoor play. The list could go on. I feel like by saying children should be at home with parents full time until they are 3, we are building up an image in our heads of how attachment will benefit both parents and children but it's not always a picture perfect experience unfortunately. Some parents may not benefit from being at home all day which then affects their mental health, affects their motivation, their identity, and then in turn affects the child

Exactly. Children being “bundled” and “dumped” whilst parents are “forced” to work is going to sound awful. But children being “trapped” and “restricted” to home with parents “limited” to staying at home sounds awful too. If people just used balanced language like “chose”, “attended”, “went” etc then the conversation would be less shaming and toxic. OP has chosen to shame one demographic in her OP, her viewpoint should, therefore, be entirely disregarded. If she can’t engage respectfully then she shouldn’t be listened to at all in my opinion.

inamarina · 15/03/2023 12:19

I lived in two European countries where childcare was heavily subsidized.
Family in the UK couldn’t believe how little we were paying for it, and I was shocked by how much they had to pay.
In both places we lived, we were very happy with the state nurseries our kids went to.
In one of those countries it was a bit more of a social norm for women to return to work when when their children were 12-14 months, in the other one bit less so.
I also knew several women who decided to stay at home longer than one year, so I don’t think they felt too much pressure just because childcare was subsidized.
I do think it’s a step in the right direction.
I don’t quite understand some of the comments here saying how bad staying in the nursery from 8 am to 6 pm is bad for children’s mental health or how the government wants parents to hand over the rearing of their children to someone else.
We’re talking about 30 h/ week, right? Not ten per day or some sort of toddler boarding school.k

NurseryNurse10 · 15/03/2023 12:22

Totally agree with @Overthebloodymoon .
I sound like a broken record but none of this free childcare can happen without adequate staffing or which most nurseries do not have so think dome parents will be in for a nasty shock when they see it won't magically solve everything.

IAmTheWalrus85 · 15/03/2023 12:23

Chickenly · 15/03/2023 12:03

Exactly. Children being “bundled” and “dumped” whilst parents are “forced” to work is going to sound awful. But children being “trapped” and “restricted” to home with parents “limited” to staying at home sounds awful too. If people just used balanced language like “chose”, “attended”, “went” etc then the conversation would be less shaming and toxic. OP has chosen to shame one demographic in her OP, her viewpoint should, therefore, be entirely disregarded. If she can’t engage respectfully then she shouldn’t be listened to at all in my opinion.

Show quote history

Absolutely - what’s with the use of words like ‘dumped’, ‘bundled’, and ‘pushed’ when there are so many completely neutral verbs available?

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 12:25

JenniferBarkley · 15/03/2023 11:00

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.

Absolutely this! A lot of the time it's women that are judging as well!

Onstrikein2016 · 15/03/2023 12:30

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 12:25

Absolutely this! A lot of the time it's women that are judging as well!

Show quote history

I completely agree with this. I’m a doctor with 2 small children.
I could have stayed home, my husband earns well. We don’t have a posh car or house or take big holidays.

but I have a career, I’ve trained for years and I didn’t want to give that up. Also, can you imagine the outcry if all female doctors stopped work after children? The mythical £250k to train us wasted?

So what would be the solution from those on this thread who think I should be at home? No women can be doctors? It’s such a step backwards.

thecatsthecats · 15/03/2023 12:31

VeryLowTum · 14/03/2023 22:28

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).

It's never as clear cut as "employment = good, unemployment = bad".

Loads of high performing countries have extensive paid maternity and paternal leave, because the fundamental support of the early years has life long benefits. Health, education, crime, social needs etc, all benefit.

It has to be a comprehensive approach, though, you can't just pick and choose initiatives.

JenniferBarkley · 15/03/2023 12:34

Onstrikein2016 · 15/03/2023 12:30

I completely agree with this. I’m a doctor with 2 small children.
I could have stayed home, my husband earns well. We don’t have a posh car or house or take big holidays.

but I have a career, I’ve trained for years and I didn’t want to give that up. Also, can you imagine the outcry if all female doctors stopped work after children? The mythical £250k to train us wasted?

So what would be the solution from those on this thread who think I should be at home? No women can be doctors? It’s such a step backwards.

Show quote history

Who needs doctors, teachers, nurses.

Moraxella · 15/03/2023 12:37

@Onstrikein2016 absolutely. The Daily Mail lament us being
full time (kids need their mothers - check the top comments on their article about it) part time doctors - despite part time 40hr weeks being more than some people’s full time. If only the lazy women GPs worked proper hours! We’d all have an appointment
*stay at home and never go back - “we paid their tuition, they should serve a minimum to the nhs”. Despite the fact my nursery is 2.5k/month and I don’t get anywhere near that (especially after 20% of my salary goes to loans and pension)

MarshaBradyo · 15/03/2023 12:38

Onstrikein2016 · 15/03/2023 12:30

I completely agree with this. I’m a doctor with 2 small children.
I could have stayed home, my husband earns well. We don’t have a posh car or house or take big holidays.

but I have a career, I’ve trained for years and I didn’t want to give that up. Also, can you imagine the outcry if all female doctors stopped work after children? The mythical £250k to train us wasted?

So what would be the solution from those on this thread who think I should be at home? No women can be doctors? It’s such a step backwards.

Show quote history

It really would be

LauraIAm · 15/03/2023 12:45

Onnabugeisha · 15/03/2023 11:54

Well the evidence is there, you just have to parse it out and look at the different factors because there is no general rule of thumb that childcare is beneficial or detrimental. Whether it is or isn’t depends on the child, the age they start childcare and the #hrs/week they are in childcare.

Long term career breaks do result in a parent penalty. I understand this disproportionately affects women in todays society due to sexism, but it’s a parent penalty not an inherently women’s penalty. My DH has suffered it and as a result his earnings are below average and his pension provision abysmal, compared to mine- and I stopped working at age 39 due to disability so my current pension pot has only had 15yrs contributions and the rest is growth.

This is an equality gap for which there are many options to fix it other than getting both parents into FT work as soon as possible after childbirth. The childbirth & recovery itself doesn’t cause the parent penalty because it is no more than the number of weeks off typical for most major surgeries. I’m also not convinced that minimising time off the hamster wheel is the best solution to this problem when it comes to child development, parental mental health or society in general.

Show quote history

@Onnabugeisha We’ll have to agree to disagree on the evidence on whether childcare is detrimental. I agree men who stop or cut down work are also penalised. Of course it’s perfectly reasonable for you to think both parents working isn’t the right answer, but how do you fund a different answer? Basically in many cases either parents that don’t both work will be very poor, and there definitely is evidence that that reduces children’s life chances, or taxpayers have to subsidise a large cohort of mostly women from age 30ish (average age of first baby) to death. Being very poor remains an option under the new proposals. I don’t think that level of subsidy is reasonable and I don’t want to pay it personally.

IAmTheWalrus85 · 15/03/2023 12:49

JenniferBarkley · 15/03/2023 12:34

Who needs doctors, teachers, nurses.

Show quote history

This is something that I find really odd about working mum shaming. There seems to be this narrative that we ‘dump’ our children in childcare and go off to do completely pointless jobs, then spend our earnings on facials in Harrods because we’re self-obsessed witches who don’t want to make any sacrifices to be able to spend time with our children.

But actually women contribute a huge amount to the workforce and I think if all mothers of pre-school age children suddenly left the workforce tomorrow, we’d feel it - and not in a good way. I took my son to see the GP this morning and she told me she has a child the same age (2). I have a close friend who’s a paediatric A&E nurse, who has a 3 year old and a one year old. My oldest son’s teacher has a two year old. I wonder if OP would like to tell these women that they shouldn’t be ‘bundling’ their children into childcare.

VioletaDelValle · 15/03/2023 12:52

Could not agree more @IAmTheWalrus85

tirednewmumm · 15/03/2023 13:11

pbdr · 14/03/2023 23:18

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.

I'm not sure this is true! We did a lot of reading and looking into evidence and never found anything this concrete so please link if you have a source

The evidence we found suggested that long days 7:30-6 for example 5 days a week from 9 months was detrimental for a lot of babies.

Evidence also suggested some did well especially those with a mix of family care and nursery type care who tended to outperform kids with a Sahp. This is at a population level though all kids are individuals and will have different reactions

Janedoelondon · 15/03/2023 13:14

stripes416 · 15/03/2023 12:00

Saying children are being "dumped" in nursery is always going to sound bad. However a child attending a nursery with engaging, knowledgeable, passionate staff who have the resources and the time to provide learning opportunities and care for the children is not a negative thing.

Children will then have the opportunity to create new relationships and attachments with staff members, have more learning opportunities than they may at home, learn social skills, have more opportunity for outdoor play. The list could go on. I feel like by saying children should be at home with parents full time until they are 3, we are building up an image in our heads of how attachment will benefit both parents and children but it's not always a picture perfect experience unfortunately. Some parents may not benefit from being at home all day which then affects their mental health, affects their motivation, their identity, and then in turn affects the child

This. Thank you!

wingingit1987 · 15/03/2023 13:44

maroonpie · 15/03/2023 06:54

I disagree nothing stops someone being a sahm. I would have loved to be a sahm when my dc was born. We couldn't work out a way to afford it with dh job being just above all the limits for even dc benefit and the cost of moving. I don't think it's a choice for many. Those who love working with dc always seem to pretend it's a choice. But a 'choice' they never really had to make and have no understanding of if they wanted to go back to work!

This. 100%. We don’t qualify for benefits as husband earns above the threshold. Instead, we had me reduce my hours but it’s still not ideal.

BlueRadiator · 15/03/2023 14:02

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.

If a child gets dla and you’re their carer you don’t have to work or have any work related activity at all ?