Page 18 | To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

Ilikepinacoladass · 2023-03-15T15:47:10+00:00

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?

StarsSunmoon · 15/03/2023 20:53

CluelessInThe21st · 15/03/2023 20:47

I agree with you that for the child it would probably be best to stay at home with a parent for the first couple of years. I've read a few studies that suggested that from age 3 onwards it's actually beneficial for the child to be in some part of kindergarten or preschool but before that It's stressful.

So I do think this is something that mainly benefits the economy but I think it also benefits women who would otherwise be forced (financially or socially) to stay at home.

Still considering that most of us do have to work I'm happy that at least we'll end up paying less for childcare. Currently almost half of my salary goes on it and I'm sure for others it might be worse.

If I'm not mistaken in Germany maternity leave is paid for 2 years and I would have loved that though!!

Yes - surely it would have been more balanced to offer this enhanced childcare funding but also offer longer maternity leave so that parents could choose

SouthLondonMum22 · 15/03/2023 20:53

Blueisthecolour1 · 15/03/2023 20:34

I have strong and antiquated feelings on this matter so I anticipate a roasting but here goes; children under 3 may benefit from some short provision during the week in a social setting with others the same age but definitely not long days everyday, i.e 7.30am - 6pm. They need to be around mummy (yes, primarily mummy) who can give them the love & physical affection that no-one else can.

Nurseries are NOT a substitute for a loving parent (usually mum) - and work should absolutely take 2nd place with raising a child coming a firm first. Yes it disadvantages the person who stays with the little one (usually mum) but those early years won’t ever come back - you only borrow them for a short time & it’s nothing short of cruel to dump an under 3yr old in full time nursery for long days so that you selfishly get to put your career first. Unless you have literally no other choice. Like no other choice. None at all.

There it is, nature has designed mummies & babies to want/need to be together. What that means in a modern society where everything is supposed to revolve around equality is that the mum loses our career-wise, sometimes temporarily & sometimes long-term. But FFS that’s the sacrifice you have to be prepared and willing to take - some things are worth more than your career. School takes them off your hands soon enough anyway - I feel so so bad for little people who attend full-time long days at nursery settings - it’s not right. Not by them, anyway.

I also happen to believe (whilst I’m up here) that if you really want to develop your career after having kids you can, & you will find a way. It doesn’t screw you over that much & as long as you remain in part-time employment you’ll still have the necessary connections & opportunities to pick up where you left off.

Nature fucked up with me then since I absolutely don't want to be with my baby 24/7. He's wonderful but I'm still a human being and allowed a life outside of him including a career.

Why are men allowed to be ''selfish'' and have a career but not women?

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 20:53

@mrshenny

I didn't target you lol. I just asked a question.

Wms are definitely looked down on by society, you only have to look at this thread to see that

Original poster

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 20:54

NewNovember · 15/03/2023 20:36

are you really that naive. Of course the government will demand it of single monthers claiming UC.

Show quote history

Exactly. And it also normalises babies going into childcare at 9 months / early ages. What seems like a choice now, may just seem like 'what everyone does' in 10 years time, and harder to go against the grain even if your instinct is that you'd like them to be looked after by a parent until a bit older.

On the whole, other than situations where parents are on the breadline otherwise, or have issues that would be detrimental to their children, is going into childcare at 9 months good for children? That's what I'd like to hear discussed, not just is it good for the economy.

I'd also say that on the whole most people if they really wanted to go back to work at 9 months could already do it, even accounting for paying for childcare. Other than situations where there are twins etc, between tax free childcare and choosing a childminder over expensive nursery etc you're unlikely to be making a loss.

OP posts:

BadNomad · 15/03/2023 20:58

A lot of people who go back to work early have to rely on family to look after their children for them because they can't afford childcare. A lot of miserable setups with controlling grandparents which parents have to tolerate because they need the help.

Original poster

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 20:58

There also seems to be a lack of appreciation that what might be good for a 2 or 3 year old, isn't necessarily the same as what's good for a 9 month old?

It seems that the earlier policies of offering free hours to over 2/3s were about giving children the opportunities to experience childcare and early education.

The new policy seems to be solely about what's good for the economy.

OP posts:

Logicoutofthewindow · 15/03/2023 20:59

I'm assuming what you meant @Ilikepinacoladass is that the child spends time with one or both parents rather than most of the day in childcare with numerous other children. Some childcare is excellent and some awful. Some parents stimulate and nurture children and others are awful. Therefore each family dynamic is different.

Timesawastin · 15/03/2023 20:59

MysteryBelle · 15/03/2023 19:42

You don’t get it. They prioritized things over their children, one of them being work. Get off my back, the experience was mine not yours.

Show quote history

No, you don't get it. Your experience was yours, it's not a template.

BadNomad · 15/03/2023 21:00

No one will be forced to go to work when their babies are 9-months-old because of free childcare. The ones who do either want to or need to.

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 21:00

@Ilikepinacoladass

And equality

And choice

And its not harmful to children.

Gwenhwyfar · 15/03/2023 21:01

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 15:54

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.

Yes, but they don't start formal education until 7 so it's not really about education is it?

Albiboba · 15/03/2023 21:02

@Ilikepinacoladass *There also seems to be a lack of appreciation that what might be good for a 2 or 3 year old, isn't necessarily the same as what's good for a 9 month old?

There seems to be a lack of appreciation that what might be good for families is actually all different and mothers and fathers are better placed to make decisions for their own families and children than you.

Access to affordable childcare does not stop women who want to stay home from staying home.
No or severely restricted access to affordable childcare stops those women who want to work but who aren’t highly earners from working.

SouthLondonMum22 · 15/03/2023 21:02

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 20:54

Exactly. And it also normalises babies going into childcare at 9 months / early ages. What seems like a choice now, may just seem like 'what everyone does' in 10 years time, and harder to go against the grain even if your instinct is that you'd like them to be looked after by a parent until a bit older.

On the whole, other than situations where parents are on the breadline otherwise, or have issues that would be detrimental to their children, is going into childcare at 9 months good for children? That's what I'd like to hear discussed, not just is it good for the economy.

I'd also say that on the whole most people if they really wanted to go back to work at 9 months could already do it, even accounting for paying for childcare. Other than situations where there are twins etc, between tax free childcare and choosing a childminder over expensive nursery etc you're unlikely to be making a loss.

Show quote history

Some working mums feel like that, especially ones who go back to work before 9 months. It goes against the grain and often comes with judgement.

Why is it ok for working mums but not SAHM's?

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 21:03

@Gwenhwyfar

No one said it was

Mummybud · 15/03/2023 21:05

crossstitchingnana · 15/03/2023 20:31

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.

Show quote history

Gosh I hope you have daughters.

whumpthereitis · 15/03/2023 21:05

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 20:58

There also seems to be a lack of appreciation that what might be good for a 2 or 3 year old, isn't necessarily the same as what's good for a 9 month old?

It seems that the earlier policies of offering free hours to over 2/3s were about giving children the opportunities to experience childcare and early education.

The new policy seems to be solely about what's good for the economy.

Well yes. That’s the point, surely? The government is going to want to stimulate the economy, not pay out to promote inactivity by forcing a significant number of the workforce to stay home.

You may think a stay at home parent is better for children, but that isn’t the same thing as working parents being detrimental. And if it is the case that it is ‘better’ for children to be at home, does this benefit outweigh all other considerations? Like the benefits of a parent being able to afford to pay the mortgage, and/or better lifestyle for their children? What about what the benefits to women to be able to make the choice to work instead of being forced to stay at home because they have no other option? The benefits of career progression, and benefits to mental health?

freyamay74 · 15/03/2023 21:06

I bet the likes of @Blueisthecolour1 feel very aggrieved when the children of working parents turn out just as happy, well adjusted and successful as the children of SAHM

BadNomad · 15/03/2023 21:07

Just because something is better, it doesn't mean not doing it is harmful. SAHP, breastfeeding, eating organic, living in the country, having two parents, having young parents etc.

You are not damaging your child by being a formula-feeding, older, single parent, living in the city, and needing childcare.

Namechange129010 · 15/03/2023 21:11

YABU. Not everyone is cut out to be a SAHP, and some may need to work for the sake of their own mental health. Sometimes that’s better for the whole family. And it should be a viable option financially for any parent who would like to go back to work after maternity leave.

LikeTearsInRain · 15/03/2023 21:13

Back to work you go!

MoonSea · 15/03/2023 21:19

I agree OP.
I think it's best for children to be with their family not in childcare until 2/3. It really devalues parents staying home with their children and that is a valid choice that is probably the best one for most children.

I am going back to work full time when my baby is 11 months but very glad I'll be able to leave her with her dad and perhaps grandparents. I wouldn't choose to send her to a nursery at one year old - at 2 we are thinking of a few hours a week.

Obviously a lot of people need to work financially or want to and this isn't a judgement on them - but it would be good if policy considered that staying at home with your baby has value too.

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 21:20

@MoonSea

How does funded childcare devalue the lifestyle choice of a sahp?

Sugargliderwombat · 15/03/2023 21:21

Op you are right- I hadn't thought of it like this. When I heard I thought "oh maybe I should go full time!" Then thought, oh no I don't need too, I'll live more frugally and spend the time with baby. I didnt consider that actually thousands of women will go back earlier than they need to now.

Nowdontmakeamess · 15/03/2023 21:22

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 20:52

Imagine a society in which our 9 month olds are routinely put into institutions. The govt can dress it up however they want but a nursery is a form of institution. Babies are bearing the brunt of this supposed 'progress' because they can't speak up for themselves. If they could, what would they say? What would they choose - home with mum or out at 7.30am to some girl with an NVQ in a room of disorientated / miserable babies?

100% this. It’s all about money, not what’s best for the babies. So sad for them, but they’ll just grow up to be selfish adults who see no problem inflicting the same on their own children.

No-one is forced to have children, it should be a carefully thought out and planned decision. If you can’t afford to look after them, or don’t want to do it yourself, don’t have a baby!

Albiboba · 15/03/2023 21:23

Sugargliderwombat · 15/03/2023 21:21

Op you are right- I hadn't thought of it like this. When I heard I thought "oh maybe I should go full time!" Then thought, oh no I don't need too, I'll live more frugally and spend the time with baby. I didnt consider that actually thousands of women will go back earlier than they need to now.

And what if they want to? Do they have to need to for it to be more palatable for you?