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?

definitely wasn't dismissing your experience was just attempting to engage in discussion on a chat forum.

My apologies, if it didn't come across that way.

Monday to Friday school is designed to help the economy - it's a childcare + train the next workforce in the broadest and easiest way possible combo.

The government are giving choice to parents. It’s not compulsory, so opt out OP.

Personally I think it’s wonderful for young children to go to a childcare setting, socialise with other children, eat foods that they may not at home, learn to be without their parents for a few hours and learn in a structured environment.

Any child I know that goes to one has thrived once they settle in. Most parents I know rarely regret their decision to send them.

So as much as it would be lovely to keep children at home in the early years, for many it changes the direction of a mothers career and well, let’s face it, not everyone wants to stay at home with a toddler. Work is sometimes easier 🤪😂

"could for instance instead of govt funding nurseries, maybe they could fund stay at home parents"

They can pay carers a better allowance first.

Yes this!!!!

Plus think of all the grandparents (grandmothers 🙄) who will get some of their free time back now because they won't need to provide as much free childcare for their children.

That will work well with the government's plan to drag people out of retirement and back into the workplace!

Arguably this is the best solution for most children and actually implemented in countries like Estonia (parental leave entitlement until child turns 3, with 18 months of it on full pay, covered by the government, then heavily subsidised childcare for all 3-year-olds until school at 7). The problem is that this hardly promotes gender equality, as it's nearly always women taking these long parental leaves. Estonia has the highest gender pay gap in the EU (20.5% in 2021), which is hardly a coincidence. So, can't really do what's best for children at the expense of women, even with all the money government throws into the system.

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if it was mentioned already but:

SAHP (be it mum or dad) have another issue which is often forgotten in the whole "it's better for the child to be at home with mum" debate.

Financial security for the SAHP. When you quit your job you loose any private pension your employer run for you, you loose earning potential you may need because your spouse looses his/her job, becomes seriously ill, disabled or dies.

Before DD was born I unfortunatley saw the impacts of all this, lost job, disabled after an accident ("luckily" on the way to work so there was some insurance payout and he was old enough that a state insurance kicked in to cover for some lost earnings, differnt country, not UK), having a so severe stroke at 45 that my colleague was fully paralysed and died 3 years later, dying of heart attack at 42.

Look up what you are entitled to if you loose a spouse or your spouse looses the ability to earn money.

It was very clear to me that I would have to go back to work, p/t, to keep my skill set up and being able to earn if anything like that would happen.

I think it's not in the best interest for a child that the parents suddenly have no means to earn enough money.

Also, I wonder how many women are trapped because they don't have a pension.

*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?*

They can stay at home if they wish, it’s not mandatory!

Also 15 hours a week (term time) is barely anything and would only benefit the child in my opinion. I don’t think any SAHP can provide as stimulating an environment as a childcare setting personally.

From what I understand, studies show it is good for under 2 and 3 years old to be with their attachment figure. Its not only parents, teachers and childminders can be a part of child's attachment village.

@VaxDodger that's the strangest thing I've ever heard. I've worked in nurseries for over a decade and have never come across what you've described. Yes sometimes children are sad and want their parents. This is natural if they are newly settling or even if they have been there for years and something goes wrong or they're feeling tired, poorly etc. And it's our job to comfort, distract, reassure etc. The only times this has not been possible in my experience is when children are unwell and need to go home.

The hugging/lap thing is out or on the way out. Some children will need hugs or physical contact for reassurance and this is being recognised. Particularly babies. We are reminded on safeguarding courses that this needs to be on a child's terms and mustn't be a standard which detracts from their play. But that it is important for their development and well being to have physical comfort when they need it.

The cortisol issue needs context and clarification and there are a multitude of views online. But it seems to me that whatever parents choose to do there will be a metaphorical stick somewhere in a research paper to beat them with.

I would never pass comment on a child's hours at nursery, there are pros and cons for both - some children find it harder to settle if only doing a few sessions, some are extremely confident due to their early experiences of being in a setting. But you can't generalise this. And at the end of the day, many of us need to work full time to keep our families going. It's that or benefits or being reliant on the wage of another and we see both of those get bashed on here too - can't win again.

My biggest worry with the 30 subsidised hours is - who's providing/staffing this? Nurseries are closing permanently due to government underfunding, rising costs, business rates, a nationwide staffing crisis. The government haven't considered this. Perhaps they think, as do some on this thread, that settings are staffed by an endless run of young school leavers. This has not been my experience at all. It's tough work which is grossly underpaid. There are staff shortages and delays in health and social care and local authorities early years services and this impacts upon settings, schools etc too. And it's not just childcare, it's early education too. We have a curriculum to follow - yes play based, but with associated planning, paperwork, monitoring etc. I wish the government showed us a bit more respect.

@Botw1 and others who are interested- we have decided that I won’t be going back to work after my mat leave with this baby, (third child) and will be staying at home for longer. We both feel this is better for our baby. So, I just asked my husband, if hypothetically, we earned exactly the same salary, (we don’t), and I wanted to go back to work, but we both didn’t want to put the baby in childcare, he’d happily stay at home, because he thinks that’s best for the baby…? He said he’d really miss work and he wouldn’t want to do it. And there in lies the problem… (or part of the problem, anyway).

But there isn’t any conclusive, generalisable, large studies that either prove or disprove childcare is bad for children. The majority of what’s out there is expert opinion and when studies are involved, they are often tiny and none reproducible. Most experts, either generally for or against childcare, state there is a paucity of evidence to make proper conclusions about its effect on children. It really irks me how many people on this thread (the vast majority who seem to be anti-childcare) have cited ‘evidence’ without any true understanding of what evidence actually is.

I am yet to meet a child with a SAHP who wouldn’t have benefitted from some time at nursery 👀

Originally it was for educational purposes to ensure all children had access to early years education prior to starting school. However, many people are struggling with childcare costs and are struggling to work as a result so they are now bringing in additional free hours to help with this issue.

a woman taking several years out of her career will majorly set back her career progress and future earning potential which in a lot of cases is not good for the woman, child or society.

@Botw1

So your oh freely admits he wouldn't want to stay home even if it was best for the baby?

But he'd be OK with you sacrifcing your financial stability?

It's not a coincidence that men think like that and don't feel guilty about it.

And its not a coincidence that women think it's best that they stay home or that that's what best for babies

@VivaVivaa

Exactly

What’s best for the children is not having their mother have no financial independence, no ability to leave if she needs to and to become more and more unlikely to get work.

It’s almost always the mother who stays at home. If there were was an even split behind mums and dads then perhaps you’d have a point.

Exactly this. Stressed parents unable to pay their bills and growing up in poverty and deprivation is absolutely not best for the children. It is actually detrimental to them.
You have an axe to grind.

I agree. It’s sad that it’s normalised for them to be in full time childcare so young.

Do you think this is okay? That your DH thinks it’s better for you baby to be with a SAHP, but is refusing to even hypothetically consider that that SAHP could be him?

Mine have turned out great, thanks. I wanted to look after the babies I birthed. That was my choice and I was good at it, and I bloody loved it.

Get the socialising with other adults sorted, it's very rewarding. I didn't want my young children in day care pumped full of cortisol.

It's is absolutely not best. I think some people are just trolling now.

It also then becomes harder to justify (to yourself and others NOT going back at this point)? As you're wasting the free hours, and potentially earnings you could be making?

Reading your posts, I think this is your entire argument. You think that women that choose to be a SAHP will look work-shy, because there’s no longer the excuse of “can’t afford to work due to the childcare costs”.

Hope you didn't breastfeed then @crossstitchingnana