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?

Absolutely!
Too many childcare settings are run to make money, employ young people (usually girls) who are paid peanuts and quite frankly the standard just isn't good enough in a lot of them.
I can't say what the standard is like in other countries as I don't know but we need to do better for our youngsters.

It's not compulsory. It's a choice for parents. Giving parents more choice cannot be detrimental to children, surely. Parents staying at home purely because they cant afford childcare that they would otherwise use, on the other hand, may be detrimental to some children

If for instance studies showed that children are generally (I know there are exceptions) better off with parents below 2 or 3, could for instance instead of govt funding nurseries, maybe they could fund stay at home parents?

For a child's point of view this seems to be a better solution. Crap for the economy though, and that seems to be the only thing that is counted nowadays. Totally understand we need to function as a country and not reck the economy, but surely we should be working out how to thrive not just survive

@Ilikepinacoladass

Seems to suggest most isn't very robust is it?

Certainly not enough to not fund optional childcare or to fund a parent at home for 3 years

@Gloriousgardener11

Yes we should definitely be investing in childcare provision

Funded childcare helps reduce the gender pay gap (because women can go to work and progress to senior levels) which means over time more men will be taking parental leave because they no longer are the higher earner.

Paying SAHMs to be at home with their children will make the pay gap worse and set women back yet again.

@Botw1
I am not suggesting I am an expert in the field and it's not my job to provide robust evidence about whats best. I have read quite a bit that suggests this is the case though.

What I'm saying is that why does the government not mention at all what is best for the child in terms of childcare. Why are they not citing 'robust' studies, evidence, etc, when introducing policies which aim to get and encourage more parents back to work, and sooner.

All they ever site is how it will be good for the economy

I agree with you OP

@Ilikepinacoladass

Maybe they don't agree with your assessment of the 'robust' evidence?

You keep saying parent, but we all know it isn't dad's you're talking about.

The detrimental affect on equality shouldn't be ignored either

It's not up to the government to say what's best for the child. That's for individual parents to decide.

Taking up this offer is optional. If you decide to use it at 3 then that's up to you.

Have you considered the possibility it will do some good? For example people in abusive relationships who were waiting to leave once 3 year old funding kicks in can leave sooner. What about families who are saved from using food banks or being taken out of fuel poverty now that they're have a second income ? Sometimes childcare is a good thing.

Yabu to assume that child welfare is a consideration. This is obviously a precursor to tightening the UC work requirements, filling job vacancies and looking good before a general election.

Personally I am pro anything that helps people have a choice. Many people stay at home because they can't afford childcare rather than actively choosing that option. This way they can choose what suits them and their family.

And yes it's optional. But the aim is to encourage more people back to work, and earlier.

For some it will allow them to do what they wanted to do but couldn't.

But for lots of others on the fence it may sway them towards going back to work and sooner.

And for others it may even become a reason to go back to work if they don't actually want to and would actually prefer to stay at home with their child.

It is definitely the job of the government to be doing proper research around the impact of their policies.

And it is their job to look at what is best for the welfare population in general, now and in the future.

I just don't know why it doesn't come into the conversation at all.

Agree, op. Such an important topic. We were latchkey kids and I hardly saw my mother. She didn’t have to work but my father told her to. It affected our childhood negatively. We were an afterthought. I did things differently as an adult.

They aren't trying to convince parents and future parents that this is a good thing.

They are appealing to people who won't benefit from this initiative but may vote at the next election. They want to look like the party of work, family and economic growth as they are important issues to many voters.

I agree with you. It could be done by a tax credit or by increasing child benefit and then parents would have the choice whether to put that money towards childcare or have a SAHP.

The only reason childcare is "better for the economy" than SAHP is because the way we calculate the economy places no value on unpaid labour (predominantly provided by women with caring responsibilities)

• welfare / well being of the population

I am with you OP in some ways - I am concerned that in this new drive for child care outside of the home, the value and importance of child-rearing as an important aspect of life is being forgotten - the idea seems to be that you are only working if you are getting paid and are paying taxes. The concept of child-rearing as worthwhile work is in danger of going down the pan. It is a valid choice of career to be a parent at home with your child, just as it is to be at external work as a lawyer or whatever.

Exactly!

These comments are really annoying me.

It's a scheme for people who would otherwise like to go back but are forced to stay home.

If that isn't you, then continue as you are!

I agree OP.

Having worked in private nurseries I feel sure it’s not an ideal place for the under 2’s, or even under 3’s.

Very young staff who have gone into childcare as they’re not academic, rather than for a love of children.
New key workers all the time, so the bonds the child makes are regularly severed.

A lack of affection day to day. We weren’t allowed to kiss the children (understandable, but not ideal for the kids) and some settings (most, if not all now, I’d think) have a rule that no children are allowed on laps due to safeguarding.

I can’t see how it’s not damaging to their development when they’re in full time.

No amount of messy play (which is constantly highlighted here as a reason to use nurseries) can make up for lack of a stable, loving attachment to an adult for much of their waking day.

Exactly what I thought while listening. All framed as lets get you back to work, mums - nothing about what is good for children. In fact the two funded hours policies came from completely different places - the current funded two year old places are supposed to be fortwo year olds from disadvantaged families, and aim to give them a better start in life, so it is about early education, and the funded three and four year olds places are supposed to help with getting parents back to work, so they are aimed at working parents and are about childcare. Given the government never seems sure whether nurseries are about early education or childcare, I am not surprised the Budget was all about the work side.

It isn't part of the conversation because the government can't afford it/won't pay for it.

What would be best for the children would be heavily subsidised, well-funded, quality childcare with low ratios so that regardless of their parents' decisions or abilities, the children would get quality care.

We would do this by paying the people (women) who perform this vital work properly, at a rate that recognises their experience, skills and talent.

One income for us would be 28k. That's simply not possible to live on (even in the cheap north) comfortably. Therefore we both work and bring that in each. Therefore, for a few years, we had to lay for childcare.

OP if you can make the country a more affordable place to live, parents could probably share two part time jobs between them, bring in 28k and be able to live comfortably.

Until that happens, two wages are needed.

Exactly.

The best thing for children is for men and women to have equality in the workforce and and in the home. Subsidised childcare is important.

Probably as much as mine was being stuck at home all day (with no village). And as I was running the show I figured my needs just about trumped theirs.
Twenty years on and both DC now at uni with no issues over the years.