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?

Link please!

@Ilikepinacoladass

Would you take them up on that if the condition was it had to be the man staying at home?

Its just the parent at home you think is best, right?

Would be interested in the evidence based for this (genuinely)

It's mind-blowing how some women see women having more options as a bad thing.

Nobody says it's about education? The point was that kids go into nursery from 1 - pretty much all of them, it's considered very odd to be a SAHP.

@Botw1 apologies for derailing. But I didn’t say from birth. I said babies- ie under ones.

It’s so strange isn’t it? I’ve worked in nurseries where children arrive at 8am and don’t leave until 6pm and I found it so sad. They were often picked up by grandparents for the weekend too so when do they see their parents? :(

Why would the government pay parents to stay at home? It's not their responsibility to use public money to indulge people's choices. It is their role to encourage the economy, which is what they are trying to do. I'm no Tory supporter, but I can't see what's wrong with that. If there are not enough people to fill available jobs it makes sense to make it easier for people to go to work and fill them.

As has been said, there is no compulsion. Nobody is being forced to go to work, although knowing this lot, I wouldn't be surprised if stick follows carrot, and UC withdrawn from those who could work but are not doing so. That's fair enough, really. Lots of people would like to stay at home and be paid for it - making mothers a special case could be seen as discriminatory.

I was brought up the child of a working father and SAHM. To be honest I would have preferred it if my Dad had stayed at home and my Mum worked. Mum was bad tempered, frustrated and looking back I can see she was depressed. Work would have been beneficial for her - and us kids. Mum didn’t work because she didn’t have the options in the 70s that are available now.
Please stop making out a SAHM is always best for the kids. It really isn’t. It certainly wasn’t best for my mum or for us. By the way she gets the grand total of £60 a week pension now and is still financially reliant on my father.

@early30smum

My comment wasn't directed at you. There's been loads of comments saying the poor babies, locked away for 24 hours!!

Plus I thought the sarcasm was clear

😉

I will reiterate what I said originally.

I believe in CHOICE. Parents (mothers and fathers) should have the CHOICE to use affordable and good quality childcare. They should also have the CHOICE to stay at home, if they want to, and/or they feel like it’s the better option for their particular baby/circumstances etc.

I also stand by what I said about SOME nurseries being wholly unsuitable for babies and not ideal for toddlers. And that staff need paying better and training better, and that early years education as a whole needs to be valued far, far more than it is. And yes, some babies are in nurseries 7.30-6.30/7 five days a week. Whether you agree with that or not isn’t relevant- I’m just saying it happens.

On R4 earlier today, a commentator mentioned childcare is free or heavily subsidised in Finland (or a similar country, can't quite remember). The children start childcare there quite young however, there is a higher incidence of mental health issues in young children.

There is a balance to be maintained and I'm not entirely comfortable about a very young child being in f/t childcare. However, I do understand that many people don't have a choice.

Very similar to my views!

@Albiboba some nurseries are definitely open that long and have kids in for full days, multiple days a week.

I kind of agree with the op. Purely from the point of view of the child, I do think the benefits from early education/childcare are more from 2 upwards and very young babies would be better spending as much time as possible with primary care givers. I know that is a "perfect world" set up and obviously not taking into account finances etc but that's almost a separate issue.

My son has been in nursery 2.5 days a week since 14 months old and honestly it's only now, at 3 and since moving to a smaller setting that he's starting to settle. We kept at it because both of us had to work and everyone told me it would be good for him, he would settle, he needed to get used to it for school etc but honestly it's been a very bumpy ride and I often feel guilty for not just being at home with him. Thankfully he's doing much better at the new place, probably a mix of a better suited setting and him being a little older. Not all kids thrive at nursery unfortunately.

And to everyone saying it's all about choice, what do think of the small print about the access to "free" hours also being linked to universal credit sanctions? Genuine question.

@Botw1 ah ok! Sorry! I clearly am over-invested in this thread now and didn’t pick up the sarcasm! Sorry!

@Fivebyfive2

What are the sanctions?

I don't think you should get the funded hours if you're choosing not to work

I wonder if this debate is happening over on any UK male dominated forums today - like Reddit. Doubt it. Do male dominated parenting forums even exist?

A huge part of the problem, in my opinion, is that childcare is still seen as a woman's issue.

It's not an either/or thing but a full-spectrum - society, employers and the regional/local availability of jobs have also got to adjust too.

It's not all best/worst case scenario as there's an awful lot in between too.
Having spent many years fleeting between the SE and SW of England there's marked differences between what's available and what isn't.

Eg: it's always been in the SE that unless you had serious 'issues' you could find a job and progress if inclined and in the SW you took/take the best job, if any you can get.

Some women feel threatened by other women wanting to make different choices.

@Botw1 what about the current funded hours that all 3-4 year olds get out of interest? Do you think they shouldn’t be given to people not working? Genuinely interested in thoughts on this one.

So is it about giving people choice ('indulging choice' as you put it) or not?

Because actual choice would be giving people the money to choose either to use childcare or look after their children themselves?

I don't agree the govts role is to solely look after the economy, and not consider other factors. At all. Also not actually convinced that this is good for the economy long term anyway!

@early30smum

No because there are clear evidenced advantages to those, especially for under privileged children so they should be available to all.

I see them more as 'preschool' than childcare

Yet the Scandinavians consistently top of the quality of life indices. They’re also reported to be amongst the happiest in Europe.

worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country

www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/happiness/European-union/

@Botw1 exactly my view too.

we dropped off before 8am and collected between 5.45 -6pm. Normal working hours. We used same nursery hours as our friends. Nothing sad about it -required in order for parents to work.