To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

[Ilikepinacoladass]

I'm all for parents being able to get back to work if they want to, woman's career's not being put on hold, the economy doing well etc..

But I find it quite worrying that what's best for the children seems to not be mentioned at all in the reporting around the govt introducing more and more free childcare hours, or considered in the policy making to begin with..?

I thought the reason it was 15 free hrs originally, and term time only (as is still the case) was because the original aim was to ensure children have access to early education? So they are not turning up at school aged 5 having had no preschool etc as their parents couldn't afford it?

Not to enable parents to get back to work as soon as possible leaving their children in childcare?

What’s best for children is for the family to be economically stable and for the mother in particular to not be forced out of the workforce if she doesn’t want to be.
A child does not benefit from one parent, usually a mother, being forced to stay at home due to expensive childcare.

I agree OP

I thought the reason it was 15 free hrs originally, and term time only (as is still the case) was because the original aim was to ensure children have access to early education? So they are not turning up at school aged 5 having had no preschool etc as their parents couldn't afford it? and? Now they can have twice as much? Is that not better?

I totally agree OP.

What do you think is best for children if not financially stable parents?

Scandinavian countries all have heavily subsidised childcare from very young

They all seem OK.

It's not compulsory btw

If you don't want to use the childcare because you think it will damage your child, dont

Exactly. in my experience, being a SAHP suits very few people.

Look at Scandinavian models, as a pp says.

What's best for an individual child will depend on that child and their family circumstances.

I don't think it's the government's job to weigh in on that.

Making childcare more accessible and more affordable gives families more choice. Trapping women (it's almost always women) at home because they can't afford to go back to work because the cost of childcare is prohibitive is clearly a bad thing.

If it gets more kids into a childcare setting then I think that can only be a good thing. So many kids fall off the radar until school starts.

I've said this on another thread but 30hrs is 2 days all year round. It's not a lot of the week to be in childcare.

Sorry what? What do you want them to do- announce the proposals , but also add that a woman’s proper place is at home in the best interests of her children?

I don’t understand your point really

The country would be on its knees if all 20-45 year olds with small children decided they couldn’t work as it was better for the children to stay at home. How do you fund holidays, a nice Christmas, swimming lessons etc if you choose not to work when the choice is there? Not everyone can be the best version of yourself if you don’t have time as an adult to do something meaningful for yourself too

Not all stay at home parents are equal. Some children are undoubtedly better off with proper early years nursery and mixing with other children, rather than just staying at home. Many of these “covid babies” have already had a lot less socialisation and exposure to other children. Being in proper childcare could be very positive.

I don't disagree. For all that I bang on, on here, about how great the set-up in in France with generous state-funded childcare and school / childcare / etc that maps well onto the working day, I don't actually think it's great for 3 year olds to be in school by 7h30 and not emerge until 18h30. It's possible, it's almost normal here, and it's seen as 'equality': which seems to translate as enabling women to work just as long and family-unfriendly hours as men do. I used to pass the nursery at 18h30 and feel sorry for these white-faced, exhausted looking 3 and 4 year olds stumbling out.

I was a SAHM for 10 years, it has knackered my career aspirations but it was great for my kids and for our family life throughout the baby / toddler / primary years.

@Tandora

Wont somebody think of the children!!

🙄

Yes of course having a roof over their heads and food on the table is essential. But it think we should be aiming a bit higher than just survival?

And a parent forced to stay at home looking after children against his or her will is probably not going to be great for a child's well being. And in that case maybe childcare from 9 months would be a better option.

But for the other people?

I haven't heard it mentioned once in the news about what's best for the child. It always just seems to be about the economy and getting parents back to work.

@Ilikepinacoladass

What is best for the child?

What you mean OP is that the woman should stay at home.

But you seem to be assuming that having a SAHP is what is ‘best’ for the child. I don’t think it is.

The fact is that families are far more financially stable when they only rely on one income. I'm not a particular fan of Elizabeth Warren but her work on The Two Income Trap is fairly impeccable. Relying on two incomes massively increases financial risk for families and makes them more vulnerable to outside factors effecting negative economic change.

I bet you'd have no issue at all if it was grandparents and family members being the key workers. I don't have a family nearby who can pick up childcare for me and I want to work, so I pay my 'village' to help me.

Compared to many other systems ours is more expensive, this impacts women more.

There’s still a choice not to use it.

If someone can afford to be a SAHM and wants to be a SAHM then no amount of free childcare will change their mind because the cost of childcare is not an issue. Loads of mumsnetters in this situation, either married to high earners; or where no one in the family works at all so likely better off on benefits; wild horses wouldn't drag them back to work.

This will help people who want to work and need to work but are crippled by childcare costs.

It's a Scandinavian thing isn't it? Most mumsnetters consider Sweden to be on a par with Utopia so surely it's a good thing?

Childcare settings from 2 or 3 yes, beneficial for the child (for short amounts of time)

Childcare settings from 9 months.. best for which children? The research I've seen seems to suggest that most would be better of with a parent below 2 or 3 years old.

I'm just asking that it's even part of the conversation.