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?

@willingtolearn fuck off with your uneducated young women crap this is not a reflection of me or any of the women/men I know that work in childcare. We all have relevant qualifications some have degrees. You sound like a nasty small minded snob. Go and educate yourself before you make such sweeping statements.

@Ilovemycatalot part of the reason I left working in early years, (nurseries) was despite my degree, it was badly paid for how much work I put in and what was required. And I was at the top end of the scale- it broke my heart to see how badly paid and overworked most of the staff were. Early years childcare/education is SO important, it needs recognising more.

@willingtolearn

How did your kids dad put them first?

@Ilikepinacoladass

Are you not reading any of the responses?

You've still not answered my question

Not something I could get excited about honestly. I have kids who didn’t go, except to preschool for the purpose of school readiness. Our choice wasn’t based on the fact we believed that was best for them but rather childcare was not subsidised at all at the time and so we could save a huge whack of cash by DH and I working opposite days/shifts. Full time work (with enormous hour burden for me) and full time childcare duties was not fun and probably the most horrific years of my/DH’s life, but economically we really got ahead doing it that way.

With several kids as young adults and them all having large friendship cohorts we know well, I honestly can’t tell any difference between the ones that were in full time childcare from 6 weeks, to those in part time, to those who didn’t go at all. I know that’s just the kids we know but it’s a large number and mystified as to when a difference is meant to present? There were also limited ‘rules’ back then, not heavily regulated, so no prescribed ratios etc and all varied between different centres.

Yes I agree, essentially people who would have gone back to work anyway (because they have to or want to) will be slightly better off. That will probably be the main effect. As opposed to allowing people who want to go back to work but apparently can't afford to currently, to do so.

It also normalises childcare from 9 months, so I do think it will encourage people on the fence about whether to go back / go back early to do so.

Of all the parents I've met since my little one was born, the vast majority of them have had to go back to work because they couldn't afford not to.

The few who haven't got back to work have done so out of choice, not because it's too expensive to work.

Do you really think it makes no difference for a child to be in full time nursery from age 6 weeks (or let's say just an early age, as 6 weeks is extreme), compared with being with a consistent care giver? No difference at all?

What's wrong with it potentially encouraging some who are on the fence to go back?

It seems to go back to poor SAHM's can't possibly be made to feel guilty but there doesn't seem to be the same consideration for working mums.

@early30smum Yes I totally agree. Childcare staff are not valued in any way shape or form and definitely not paid enough for all that we do. I also do many things in my role that a health visitor would do but when you still have twats like @willingtolearn who have so little respect for us it highlights how people need to be educated more to understand how important our role is and what we actually do. Childcare staff are leaving in droves and I really don’t blame them.

@HoppingPavlova
With several kids as young adults and them all having large friendship cohorts we know well, I honestly can’t tell any difference between the ones that were in full time childcare from 6 weeks, to those in part time, to those who didn’t go at all.

Absolutely this. Our adult children are happy and well adjusted. As are many of their friends who had SAHP.

It seems pretty clear the people who resent the idea of extending free hours for childcare are those who don't wish to use it themselves and begrudge others the choice.

@Ilikepinacoladass

'normalises childcare from 9 months, so I do think it will encourage people on the fence about whether to go back / go back early to do so.'

Whats wrong with that?

Exactly.

All the concern about how SAHM's might be judged more with no thought at all about how many mum's are judged for going back to work at or before 9 months.

Do you really think it makes no difference for a child to be in full time nursery from age 6 weeks (or let's say just an early age, as 6 weeks is extreme), compared with being with a consistent care giver? No difference at all?

So what if there are differences? My children went to nursery from a young age, and yes, it obviously meant some of their experiences were different from if they hadn't gone. But why do you assume that's a negative thing? There can be difference without it being either better or worse!

FWIW I expect my children would also have grown up into happy well adjusted children if I'd been a SAHM. I expect that would be the case if dh had been a SAHD too. And it was the case with us both working.

Why is that so difficult to understand? It's entirely possible that happy children can be raised in a number of different ways.

Yes, so convenient for you? Not so much for a 3 month old.

My husband works full time too.

Selfish bastard.

@PurpleWisteria1 I returned to work when my dd was 3 months old. She's now a fabulous woman, happy, has a lovely partner and a great job.

In what way has she 'suffered'?

"It's all about the money...."

Get the feckless uneducated to stop having kids for benefits which In the long run would be a good thing. Great infact for children and society.

Women don't need to go against each other here. If it gives some a breather from the huge childcare costs currently then that can only be a good thing.

The inequality of male/female role/wages is all part of the patriarchy designed by men for men that still has a long way to go.

But yeah this will be carnage in the beginning.

My tuppence worth anyway.

There is a baby needing and frankly deserving the 1-2-1 care of its mother that’s what’s wrong with that!
Don’t understand why on Earth people have babies if they aren’t going to be there from such an early age to look after them and bond with them properly.
A baby can’t continue to bond with you if you arnt there!

Did your baby not bond with your husband?

Shame he didn’t look after them properly.

Thanks so much for this, loved reading it!

I wonder if the reason that there were more SAHMs in my area is because it's rural. I guess there was not much work to go round, certainly not many of the type of jobs that women did listen in that article, and very few had cars to travel. Maybe that pushed local living costs down too, meaning living on just one wage was more doable. I will have to ask my nan in more detail!

To answer your question, I don't know if she would see herself in the SAHMs of today - maybe I will ask her this, too. I think her day to day life would have been very different to a SAHM today. She describes a much more communal way of living - when they say "it takes a village", I think that was quite literal for my grandparents! My mother described everyone local as "Aunty so and so". They've told me multiple stories about taking in neighbours' children for weeks at a time etc. So maybe children of SAHMs had a much different experience growing up to those today - no idea whether that's a good or bad thing.

Yes indeed. But I’m not typing to him so why do you keep mentioning your husband?

@PurpleWisteria1

You understand why your oh isn't there for them or to bond with them though.

I mean obviously I have no bond with my children because I went back to work at 6 months.

The poor souls are bondless, damaged beyond repair

Or ya know. Not

@thatheavyperson

Why were they taking in neighbours children?

Ask your nan (or your parent) how often she played with or read to her kids

Because practically everything you type is sexist drivel.

If a man can be a good parent, bond with his baby and have a successful career without being selfish or sacrificing his career, so can I.

Not in the same way as me no, because he wasn’t there. Still a good bond but different.
Personally I felt I hardly knew my dad on a deeper level growing up because he was always at work. It wasn’t until my mum died that suddenly I got to know him so much better. That’s when I realised how much I hadn’t spend time with him.
If you are not there during the week, your bond won’t be the same as someone who is there 24/7 week in week out. Can’t possibly be. Doesn’t mean it’s not a good bond but it will be different.

I'm getting the distinct impression that @PurpleWisteria1 is really fucked off that children of WOHM grow up just as happy and well adjusted and their mums have a career too!!