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?

But if someone had given you a lump sum of 3 years wages would you have stayed at home with your children?

I think one parent being at home for at least most of the time, is best, especially for the under 5s. It doesn’t need to be the mum as far as I’m concerned. It is sad that capitalist society has contrived that both parents really need to work full time in most cases. It also sad that even if one of the parents does want to stay at home and would enrich their child’s life accordingly, it is rarely financially possible. And even sometimes when it is possible, the status quo is decided by government policy and people feel their child will miss out if they don’t attend a nursery, which is not necessarily the truth depending on home situation and the quality of available childcare.

It is important to look at government policy with a critical eye. Why is there no mention of the effects on children? Whether these be positive or negative. It is purely about budget/avoiding recession as far as I’ve seen. Then one has to wonder, should we blindly do what government policy is pushing us towards? I would love to think that the government is taking a holistic approach and is looking further ahead, researching how to implement high quality, well funded childcare, considering the mental health costs on families of both parents working f/t. Sadly, I am almost 100% certain the government give no shits beyond the next election.

Which is exactly what will happen when a child has good, engaged, loving parents no matter if they went to nursery at 3 months or 3 years.

That's what matters.

And for those children who barely see their parents at all monday - Friday?
can’t really be engaged directly with the child if you arnt there.

@PurpleWisteria1
But if someone had given you a lump sum of 3 years wages would you have stayed at home with your children?

No. Because I really really loved being a mum but I also really loved having a job which I'd trained for, was good at, and wanted to continue to progress in.

Why don't you ask your husband?

@thatheavyperson

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/13/working-women-stay-at-home-wives-myths

No.

Absolutely not

This! With bells on! This thread is awful I feel like I'm in a time warp and have found myself in the 1940's.

No.

My career isn't just about the money. It's obviously a plus but I worked hard to get it, enjoy it and I very likely wouldn't be able to get back to the same level with the same benefits and continue to progress at my current rate if I had a 3 year career break.

And it's all very well saying this is a 'financial policy, not a social one', but we're talking about babies, children, in what world is it right to be purely seeing this from an economic point of view? And not from a social one'? Why is none of the media coverage questioning whether this is good for children or not?

@SouthLondonMum22 Yes, I believe what was shown still stands - professional childcare environments are busy and short staffed providing children with limited opportunities for questioning, especially the sort of questions that were explored in the home environment or for building their vocabulary.

In fact, I don't think professional childcare environments are a patch on family environments with people who have an investment in the future of a child. They are usually staffed at the lowest possible cost with a revolving door of poorly educated and motivated young women who may like children but be overwhelmed with the demands of several at once all needing care.

@Livinginanotherworld but if you have 3 kids, this means staying home 9 - 12 years,

Some of the comments from women on this thread are ridiculous & it's no wonder that we have such a lack of equality!

The fact they have also upped ratios at the same time goes to show how much they care about what's best for children.

Why is none of the media coverage questioning whether this is good for children or not?

Because experience shows usbthat the majority of children with two working parents grow up just fine?

Does it? What research? And from what age? And is 'just fine' what we're aiming for?

@kc431 You're making the assumption that all women want children.

They don't. Some prefer life without them - and that's fine.

But if you choose to have children, then you may need to compromise to put them first for the first few years of their lives - which have been shown to be the most important years of their lives. Surely that's an equally worthwhile investment as the time spent in your career.

Statutory maternity pay is peanuts though. How would that help anyone?

@Ilikepinacoladas well, I was aiming to raise happy well adjusted children who could achieve their potential. Dh and I seem to have managed that without having to jack in our jobs.

That isn't my experience of nursery so far. I agree that some are below par but some are also excellent.

My son's baby room has 1 young girl who is at College. My son's keyworker isn't even a woman.

Great plan in theory reality is not enough nurseries to take on all these children with funded hours and because the government don’t fund them properly some nurseries will refuse to take them. Also a recruitment crisis at present in childcare so where are all the extra staff coming from when we can’t get any now. Yet again an undeveloped plan from the government but just thrown out there to sound good and to get votes.

How many people on this thread went to nursery from 6 months or age 1, how many of you turned out fine?

Yes, having a primary care giver and 1-1 care until about 3 has been shown to be better (provided the parent provides enough stimulation and conversation - which many don't!)

BUT

babies in nursery from 6 months are also absolutely fine and don't do any worse in school etc

I don't understand why the proposed changes affect women who want to stay at home (and have the means to do so). However, if you don't have the means to or rely on UC, then you should work like everyone else needs to...

I’m not assuming anything, I don’t want children myself. But I think the idea that women should sacrifice absolutely everything and men nothing is bollocks. It would also be awful for society and women’s equality - if companies had to pay out 3 years wages for maternity leaves, no women of childbearing age would ever get hired because it would be financial suicide for the company. I’d also argue that “putting your child first” doesn’t mean staying at home with them, it means doing things that benefit them, and their mum being happy and fulfilled and modelling a good career and work ethic, as well as financial stability, is of more benefit. Just bonkers to read the 1950s views on here.

I am just thinking about who will use this funding. The people who choose to be SAHP because they can afford to will probably still stay at home (I assume most of the people who are passionately arguing that this scheme is a bad thing on this thread fall into this category).

The people who choose to work or need to work because they can't afford to be SAHP will use the funding. It may mean that some people may be able to afford to drop some hours if their childcare bill is cheaper?

The parents claiming UC will get this funding so they can return to work earlier than they would have been expected to. This may be class as forcing them to work but as it's not going to be in place until 2024 it gives people time to choose if that's the route they want to take. (Of course circumstances will change too)

It isn't a compromise if it only applies to women and men can continue their careers without sacrifice and cries of 'put your child first!'.