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?

@PurpleWisteria1

What nerve do you think you've touched?

I disagree with you, I'm not insecure in our choice.

It’s very interesting that the vote is so evenly split.

I totally agree with this…..the economy managed perfectly well with one full time working parent before. Making women feel that have to put their babies in childcare under three is not helping the child at all, subsidise woman to stay at home for the baby years. If your career is more important then maybe not have kids ? It’s just a few years.

Did it enter your husband's head to look after his own child rather than have someone do it for him?

@PurpleWisteria1

Were you as incredulous that your kids dad didn't want to look after them himself rather than have someone do it for him?

@SouthLondonMum22 ✋

Because, for about the hundredth time you’ve been responded to with an answer to this question, this is a financial policy, not a social one. The ‘choice’ is for people who want to return to some form of work but currently can’t afford to due to the prohibitive cost of childcare, so would therefore be completely out of the work place (+/- in need of welfare support). It’s not for those who don’t want to return to work and wish to be a SAHM but can’t afford to.

Without mentioning the backwards sexist bollocks, some of your “utopias” would mean that there would be almost no female leaders, scientists, lawyers, professors. In most high-end jobs you can’t just repeatedly take 3 years out and walk straight back in.

If I wasn’t going to be there during the working hours for our baby due to work then yes, he would have been at home. At least until 3 when pre school starts. Or we would have chosen to wait to have a child or not have one at all.

And why does that always have to be the case? Plenty of women could get back into work after 3 years given enough training / support.

My career isn't more important but it's important. Just like my husband's career is also important to him but no one says he shouldn't have kids.

Go look at the other thread going on now about how much you made before kids compared to husband's and tell me again that it's 'just a few years'.

No, because it was his child’s mother who would be doing the looking after. No one better in the vast majority of cases than that.

I don’t think you realise how most jobs work. In my job if I took 3 years out, I would basically have to re-learn the entire job as things move so fast in the industry. And that’s if you had 1 child. What if you had 3? 9 years out….good luck! Your pension would also be terrible. Fields like tech, medicine, science move really quickly and you can’t just step out for years and then constantly be re-trained. Just because it’s your ideal doesn’t mean it should be enforced on everyone - luckily you don’t make the policy.

Because men don't and wouldn't take 3 years out.
Because some industries move incredibly fast.
Because 6 years and 2 kids later, suddenly the man now earns far more than the woman and it 'makes sense' for her to continue to stay at home.

Because not every woman wants too.

@PurpleWisteria1

No that doesn't really answer the question

Surely there's no circumstances where its ok for a parent to not want to look after their child themselves?

@Botw1 Why do they even bother having children if they let the other parent raise them?

Selfish.

@SouthLondonMum22

exactly

Whats the point?

If you're not willing to sacrifice everything, why bother?

I don't agree with this. That there are tons of people out there who want to work but can't because of high childcare costs.

Between tax free childcare and cheaper forms or childcare such as childminders, if you want to go back to work it will nearly always be financially beneficial to do so currently, and not 'prohibitively expensive'.

However in my experience there are lots of people who are forced to go back to work earlier than they would have liked because they can't afford not to. If it's really about 'choice' (which by the way I don't think it is) then why not give them the money and let them decide whether to use it on childcare or not.

To be honest I think what this policy will actually do is make parents who would have gone back to work anyway just slightly better off. And potentially encourage some back earlier than they would have liked as they don't want to be seen to be not using the free childcare available to them.

I remember reading what is now quite old research by Tizard and Hughes that compared the communication opportunities for children at home with their parent (generally their mother) and in a nursery environment. They wired up the children with recording devices and analysed the results.

The quality of communication was better with their parent. In nursery the communication from the adult to the children was mostly in the form of commands and with their peers it was limited in vocabulary

The communication used by their parents was two way and responsive to the child, built their vocabulary and allowed the children to ask open questions which they answered.

This was true of different home set ups, working and middle class families and overturned preconceptions that 'professional care' provided more communication opportunities for children.

If you choose to have children you should put their needs first and if you need to save up to provide financially for this before having them, then do this.

@PurpleWisteria1 I'm one of those mums who returned to work when my dc was 3 months old, because that's what maternity leave used to be. I had 6 months leave with dc 2 because by then ML had become longer. Both children now adults. Both happy, well adjusted, good relationships, did well in education, have good jobs.
In what way have they 'suffered'?

@HubertTheGoat would save me £510 a month "just being in childcare two days"

I'm always quite (genuinely) curious about this assertion I see online because it just doesn't match up with what I know from my community...

I'm from a rural mining area, my grandad was a miner. My nan stayed at home to look after my mother and her siblings, and so did basically every other mother in the village. They'd take on part time work here and there when the children were in school, but I'm told that the early years were definitely spent at home.

I'd love to see some actual info/data on what was the norm in different situations. I find the history of child rearing quite fascinating in general!

You think research from 1989 still applies today?

@willingtolearn

Yeah, I often see those kids about.

The ones that went to a nursery.

Mute, all of them

If only their mums (not their dads ofc) had put their needs first

@thatheavyperson

Would your grandmother recognise herself in sahms of today?

I'll look for some stats of you like?