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! And maybe school shouldn't be free if parents don't work?

The line between what's actually beneficial for children, and what's beneficial for the economy and convenient for parents it's totally blurred and just isn't talked about enough in the media courage on this

It’s about giving women more choice about returning to work or not. I am sure as hell not a Tory supporter but they have been clear this is an economic policy, not a social one. I don’t think anyone has dressed this up as a choice of a payment you can use to lengthen maternity leave or not?

Having a mum stay at home (providing the mum is a good / dedicated parent of course) is the best thing for a young pre school child. It’s taboo thing to say and so many women don’t want to hear it and have convinced themselves via all sorts of mental gymnastics that actually their child is better in a nursery all day and that they, just love being at work aways from their child working their brain or something similar. Many women have had to because they need to work to survive. Our society is now set up so for most families both parents have to work to have a home and pay the bills.
But that doesn’t mean it’s best for the child’s needs. The child just needs a stable parent, one primary caregiver who has been that primary caregiver since birth (and IMO before birth) with them all day or the vast majority of the day, every day. Sadly since the 1980’s for the majority of women this hasn’t been the case, even for those who want to are now unable to.

If you want to give up a job, depend on a partner and stay home glued to your kids forever, crack on.

That neatly sums up my concern. What we want for women (and men) is choice, not creating new stereotypes; not denigrating others' choices.

When I chose to spend time at home when my children were little, I did not "give up a job". I had a career gap in order to enjoy caring for them. I did not "depend on a partner". We were a true partnership - I had supported him when he was a student and he then went on to support me when I was at home bringing up our children and making a home that was not under constant stress. I did not "stay at home glued to my kids forever". I chose to take a career gap to raise them, then I picked up my career very successfully.

The quote above is so cynical, so lacking in humanity and principle that I find it quite shocking. It is the antithesis of what women's lib was all about.

Increase weekly stat mat pay = no change to behaviour, as stat pay is pitiful anyway. All this would do is mitigate losses during mat leave, no one is going to save that and put it towards childcare. This increase should happen anyway but its a different argument.

Extend duration of mat pay = maybe a few more months at home before this debate becomes relevant again. Doesn’t change the shape of the problem. To be able to ‘spend it on childcare and go back to work’ means curtailing their leave first anyway, so that argument makes no sense as it would cut the pay short.

I can confirm. My baby goes to nursery full time, 5 days a week.

He isn't the only one that does in the baby room but not all of them, it's a mix.

Most women have as little choice now as they did in the 1950’s. Sad but true.

@Mischance I do agree that language like that about SAHP isn't helpful. The problem is there has been equally emotive shit about parents who use childcare too.

@Ilikepinacoladass Absolutely the 3-4 year olds should have childcare funding irrespective of whether or not their parents work. This is the age when socialisation really, really benefits them. And it is especially important for children of families who have it tough financially to have those opportunities and that enrichment.

I do hope your comment about education was tongue in cheek because it's a revolting idea.

Do you believe all working mums secretly want to be SAHM's?

Not all choices are equal. One is giving women the option of working if they so choose, by making sure the cost of childcare isn’t prohibitive. The cost to the government of doing so will be recouped in the benefits of this to the economy. The other proposes funding economic activity. The fact that is for what you consider to be a worthwhile cause is irrelevant.

you may think a SAHM mother is better, but you haven’t demonstrated how two working parents is detrimental. Or that any perceived benefits of stay at home parenting are superior to any benefit having two working parents provides.

Exactly.

The latter is usually conveniently ignored.

Have you read how those on UC will have to use the free hours?

poor people’s choices are often taken away from them and no one sees it

No, but I do believe that many women would like to be but don’t have that option / choice.

Yes it definitely was tongue in cheek. My point was, at which point does taking away free 'childcare / early education' because parents aren't working, become detrimental to the child?

As people were saying that you definitely shouldn't get the free hours if you're not working when they are 9 months.

So this is where the policy would actually become about what's good for children/ Vs what's good for the economy!

@Ilikepinacoladass

Did you see my question?

@PurpleWisteria1

I haven't convinced myself of anything.

Not working post kids never even entered my head

No convincing required

Just like it never entered their dads head

My kids have always had a stable parent and care givers

The idea that 1 is the ideal is bullshit

One thing I really, really hope doesn’t happen though is employers being able to cut maternity leave to 9 months. Currently, as I understand it, you can take the final bit of mat leave unpaid and they have to keep your job for you for a full year from the day you started mat leave. It would be really awful if employers were now allowed to shorten that to 9 months.

@Botw1 Yes! Exactly. Never entered my head either.

The reality is that most parents who go back to work at 9 months do so because they have to / can't afford not to. So not sure how this is going to give people more choice?

If it is then it's quite a narrow choice, like I say if it was really about choice why not give people the money and let them decide whether to use it for childcare or to allow them to stay at home for a bit longer

@PurpleWisteria1

SouthLondonMum
Do you believe all working mums secretly want to be SAHM's?

No, but I do believe that many women would like to be but don’t have that option / choice.

@PurpleWisteria1 you're simply confirming your own limited imagination. Just because you like being a SAHM, you can't extrapolate from that, that loads of other women want to be and think it's 'better' than being a mum who works too.

Well IMO it’s not bull shit.
1 parent and not multiple caregivers before the age of 3. Child doesn’t get any stability from people coming and going and being away from mum all day.
Like I said, it touches a nerve.

Because this government want people to work OP. They don’t want mums at home with babies. Brings in no GDP.
Sadly I believe what you have said is correct but many mums on here will tell you that they went back to work at 3 months and their child loved every moment of it- as evidenced already in responses to me.

Never even entered your head to look after your own child rather than have someone else do it for you?? Really? Never even entered your head? Wow.