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?

Exactly - the government doesn't actually care about what mothers want, it just cares about boosting gdp.

@pointythings

Unbelievablly bad, to the point I can't believe it was published. It read like something a 12 yo would right. Plus the cortisol research is based on a sample of 150!

@begoneday

Yeah Ive worked in one.

Im sure there are poor standards of care in nurseries and that does need to be addressed but I don't think we need to worry about raising a generation of maladjusted adults doomed to failure

I am a working Mum. And enjoy my job. Whether it's best for my child to be with childminder rather than me or his dad who knows.

What I am saying is that in all the news coverage about the new free childcare hours for 9 months old and above, I have not once heard anyone mention what's best for the children. It all just seems to be seen as quite a handy solution to an economic problem.

The fact that ratios have also been put up doesn't help.

In terms of attachments to key workers, unfortunately staff turn over is often high, and when children move up to other rooms they usually get another keyworker.

You do know it doesn’t mean it’s mandatory to send kids from 9 months? It’s enabling genuine choice for all parents. There’s pros and cons to all choices, for parents and kids.

Part of the puzzle I think is a shorter working week for everyone so that parents irrespective of gender can spend 1-2 weekdays with their young child and significantly reduce the needs for childcare when small. The evidence base for the 4 day working week appears to be growing. The problem is that outside of forward thinking firms who have adopted a 4 day week (often without loss of pay) it's generally only women who work less than 5 days and it's therefore a major contributor to gender inequality as a result, as women do more at home they are expected to do more even when their partners are there and this work is undervalued by their partners and by society as a whole.

I agree, our children are not doomed however the fact remains that spending the majority of their day with their parent/s in their formative years is better for them than being stuck indoor with 20 other children wanting and needing attention that staff ratios do not allow.

But they could also make it worthwhile for a parent to stay with their 9month+ child. Pay 'em. Rather than it always having to be a financial sacrifice.

It’s just to try and get votes. By the time it’s meant to be in place the conservatives might not be in power and it could potentially not happen at all.

If they are and it does it will then be used to force mothers on UC with babies to get back to work as they will say there is childcare available so it won’t be a choice for everyone. I dont think it’s coming from a place of good intentions.

Whether Childcare is good for children or is very individual, certainly under a year babies need that primary caregiver (parent) over a year the benefits start but only in settings where the staff are experienced and motivated and not underpaid and exhausted

You cordon't be more wrong. What is best for babies and toddlers is to be at home with their primary care giver. The best thing for a young child is a strong family unit and an economy that supports one parent earning enough to provide .

My "poor" child is made to go outside for as long as the childminder can cope. Sometimes this is most of the day while other times it is an hour but then they are allowed to go in and out of a large garden. Then again my childminder is into her fitness.

At my "poor" child's nursery they have a large outdoor play area.

I just need to ensure she has suitable clothes.

Point is you need to choose childcare/early education setting with care.

I haven’t RTFT.

It’s such a complex, difficult issue. I really think the key word is choice. The policy, will, in theory, give women who want to work, but can’t because of the crazy cost of childcare that ability, or those who literally work to pay their childcare bill some money. But if you don’t want to work, you want to be at home, that choice should be valued.

The thing is, some women are really not suited to being SAHMs. They have careers which they have often worked hard for, and they want to stay in them. I’m not sure making them stay at home ‘for the good of the children’ is much good if they will be miserable.

Having said that, I have worked in day nurseries. They are often badly run, run as businesses (because that’s what they are) rather than with children actually at the heart of them. Inexperienced, badly paid staff who often have no real understanding of the EYFS and who are being asked to do way beyond their pay grade in terms of planning, paperwork and OFSTED stuff which means the children are actually often not given anywhere near enough interaction. Currently, babies under 1 are meant to have a 1-3 ratio- it’s not high enough. They are babies, they need more than that. And it’s probably going to go up to 1-4.

Nurseries local to me now open at 7.30 am and finish at 6.30/7.00. It’s meant to be this amazing solution for working parents, but like you say OP is it really best for children? I personally don’t think so, but like I said earlier, maybe staying at home with a parent who would rather be working isn’t ideal either.

Difficult, complex issue with no ‘right’ answer or solution.

I have been trying to get my head round putting a 9-month-old baby out to child care.

Labour were planning on doing it anyway.

So they have just told Labour what they need to do.

look there is no issues with a child starting child care at 9 months. It’s not bad for development etc as some seem to be preaching. This is about financial support this doesn’t mean a child has to be in nursery at 9 months but if they need to be the financial burden will be lifted. Regarding staff. Of corse people leave and children build new attachments. Our nursery rotate staff between rooms so if someone was to leave it’s not a massive impact on the children if that makes sense.

@begoneday

Depends on the parent I suppose.

Instead of guilt tripping mums for working why aren't we telling dad's to give up work so their poor kids aren't left wallowing in a workhouse /orphanage /home for abandoned children? Sorry, meant nursery

What radar would that be you do realise our children do not belong to the state?

Exactly.

There won't be for mothers on UC

@early30smum

What about dad's?

How many dads do you think would be suited to being a sahd?

Whilst I think parents should work if they wish I don’t think the country was on its knees in the 60’s and 70’s when women stayed at home with dc.

I agree

You know you are allowed to use childminders as well as nurseries?

You know 30 hours is 2 days a week for the entire year?

Mine started at a childminder 3 days before she was 10 months. She received lots of attention as the youngest mindee until she was 15 months old. (She then got lots of attention during the Covid lockdowns but that's another story.)

Exactly it will very quickly become a reason to force them back into work there won’t be an element of choice and the childcare bill that will have to be picked up will probably be the same or more than they could earn anyway

This was in response to “Isn’t it best that the child has a roof over its head and food to head, which will be helped massively by an earning parent?!” from Padamae

@Botw1 sorry I should have made this point too. The default (wrongly) is to assume mothers should be the ones making the decision to stay at home or not, when of course it should be a decision between both parents. It’s a shame there aren’t more stay at home dads. Like I said. Difficult and complicated issue and I don’t think it should be down to just mothers to stay at home. I can imagine a situation where both parents think the ‘better’ thing is for baby to be at home. But both parents want to work. So the mum, who earns less, let’s say, gives in and stays at home. And the gender pay gap etc increases again and she’s left resentful of her working partner. Apologies, I should have made it clear that obviously I don’t think it should just be about deciding if the mum should stay at home.