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?

The announcements in yesterday’s budget provide support for women and families who want to work. They’re a huge step forward and bring us in line with almost other OECD countries. They were also campaigned for by women. It was a big day for feminism. MumsNet is full of people shouting “this isn’t fair, that isn’t fair” and doing nothing about it. Pregnant and Screwed campaigned for years on this point and yesterday was a significant victory.

It’s horrific to me that a small proportion of women on MumsNet feel the need to immediately jump online to shame working mothers. Working mums already have some level of guilt, but we do our best and our children respect us for it. Women should support each other. As with all bullies, the issue often lies with their bully rather than the bullied - please do not project your own insecurities on to others. I can assure you our children are thriving (not just “fine”) and do not need your concern.

@57NewPosts

It's funny isn't it? I have lovely, happy adult children who dh and I have a great bond with. I don't assume they've turned out like this because I was a WOHM! I have no doubt they'd still be a fabulous happy people if I'd been a SAHM.

Yet some SAHM definitely assume their children are only happy and well adjusted because they were with them 24/7!

You have to ask yourself why.... is it a justification for their own choice? Is it not enough for them to just admit 'I wanted to stay at home, I didn't want to continue working'? I mean, that's a perfectly valid choice, if you and your partner agree and can afford it. Why this determination to try to impose SAH as a 'better' choice? There's no conclusive evidence to show that it's better. There is more than one way to raise happy healthy kids. Why does that seem such a threat to some SAHM? Not all of them, by any means. But honestly, there are always a few posters on these threads who seem determined that women - and of course it's always the women! - should be at home.

I agree with you and those were my exact thoughts when I heard of it.
Also annoys me that none of it is accessible to parents opting for a nanny instead for instance, which is my view is a fantastic childcare option, probably better than nursery and even childminder (I have used all 3 types with my 4 children. Got a nanny now due to my youngest's additional needs).

Having said that it is a difficult balance to strike as we do need parents to be able to work and be financially stable.

Large threads on this topic on at least two main uk subreddits, lots of dads speculating on what would come out of the budget childcare wise and how it would impact their families.

Plenty of me view childcare as a family issue.

Its only on MN I see anyone view it as the woman’s problem.

Of course it's not ideal to put a baby in childcare 8-6, 5 days per week. It's about as far from ideal as you can get. Most people wouldn't even get a dog if they had to put it with a dog-minder or in kennels 8-6 for 5 days per week. People say all the time that they would love a pet but it wouldn't be fair as they work full time.

@oblada this is the thing though, a nanny isn’t better for every child, nor the reverse.

I knew my toddler would thrive more in a group setting. She would prefer to be around more children, both in her group and the older kids being nearby. I purposely chose a nursery for her over a childminder based on knowing my own child. But I’m not saying everyone had to put their child in nursery but it’s only the other way around that people want to limit choice!
Parents have pushed for childcare reform for a long time and it’s a valid option.

If people want mothers or fathers to have more time at home in the early years then where are the campaigns for better paid leave? Higher payments for shared leave? Longer parental leave in the early years?

It doesn’t seem to actually by about that because that’s not what they’re doing, instead they are only questioning access to cheaper childcare and seemingly wanting to restrict the choices of other women under the guise of what ‘should’ be done but really it’s to validate their own choices.

Theres a lot of sahm’s on this thread basically saying ‘if I had access to this I might have used to rather than keeping my child home so that’s bad’. I mean wtf. If you feel pressured to use something you don’t agree with simply because it’s free why is that everyone else’s problem?

So why only start it at 9 months then?

Why not 6, or 3, when full mat pay usually stops?

Why are we even giving any stat maternity pay, if it's pointless to 'subside' people's 'lifestyle choice' to stay at home with their child rather than have them in childcare?

Whether children going into nursery at 9 months may or may not be good for them, it just doesn't seem like it's been considered either way from all the media coverage I've seen.

And yes it won't be much of a choice for those on UC who will be made to use these hours.

I personally don't know anyone who wants to work but doesn't because it's too expensive. Tax free childcare and cheaper forms of childcare mean it pretty much always works out financially better to work currently. So I don't really buy that this will be amazing for those ppl and give them so much more choice, and allow them back to work.

I do however know a hell of a lot that HAD to go back to work (from 9 months, a year etc) as it was too expensive not too.

Just that you obviously weren't that bothered about cortisol levels seeing as bf increases cortisol levels in babies

@Ilikepinacoladass

Yes, it will have been considered

No this likely won't have been reported on in the media because its not the main point of the scheme

As has been said a million times

None of these arguments have ever been about what’s best for children.

The whole concept of a stay at home mother was an invention of the emerging middle classes a couple of hundred years ago and had nothing to do with child wellbeing and everything to do with flagging the economic status of a man who could afford to support non-working family members.

I agree with you having my sons screaming for me when being dropped off a private nursery from nine months to school age wasn’t good for them. My oldest didn’t go to nursery till he was three and he’s the cleverest of my three boys so it’s a myth that it makes them more forward.
My middle two children I had to work then and I hardly saw them apart from the rushed 2/3 hours I got of an evening to see them.
Life was hard getting two to school one to nursery after school clubs collecting and dropping off it was exhausting as we still mostly take that burden too.
My youngest has ASD and ADHD and struggled badly with nursery looking back I should of been there more with him but he didn’t get diagnosed till 5/6 and a nursery setting wasn’t good for him he cried a lot.
My mom was a stay at home Mom and I loved it it was comforting mom was always there.

Ive got a two year old daughter now and she goes to nursery one day a week which I pay for so she can mix but the rest of the time she’s at home with me. I can be there for my kids I’m there to cook them dinner sort homework and be present.
Im not knocking working mothers at all I did it for 13 years straight till I had my little girl but I found it very hard I cried a lot trying to raise three and still work although I did enjoy my job.

My health forced me to stop working when I had my daughter and the way my health is now I won’t work again I’m not sure 😭 but I’m there for my little girl I get to watch her grow up properly I missed that with the boys and I get sad about it the years go so quickly and I spent most of my weekends planning the following week and getting organised I missed a lot of childhood with my kids.

It should be a choice and I think it being free is a good thing it would of helped me out soooo much half my salary went on childcare but then the other side of the coin is believing putting our children into the system from age one to help them progress and thrive I believe is a myth.

Kids thrive in an environment with one to one attention at home my little girl is so forward can speak in sentences use the toilet etc

The years are so short and go so fast. But I do believe in choice and some women want to go to back to work and that’s ok too but putting a baby into nursery everyday for a week isn’t beneficial no matter how it’s painted but some of us are forced to do this like I was so we do what we have to do.

Economics aside and with the obvious exception of mothers who are mentally / physically ill or extremely depressed, how can it NOT be in a baby's best interests to be with their mum? It's all very well to talk about women's choices - why can't people look at it from the perspective of the baby?

@ort1gia

Because I don't think it really makes much difference

I don't agree babies need to be with their mums 24/7.

Certainly not by 9 months

Even if I did think that, I'd be able to accept that other factors were also important

If you went to Battersea Dogs Home now and tried to adopt a dog, but told them you would be out of the house 8-6 every day and the dog would be in a kennels for those hours, they would not give you the dog.

@ort1gia

I take it you home school then?

Because I worked, my babies spent their time between me, my husband and my mother. Three people who loved them, caring for them and giving them what they needed.

Because I worked shifts, my husband was in sole charge of them from about 8mo on the days I worked and this was 100% in charge. I didn't prep meals or pack bags or arrange for anyone to come "help". He just got on and parented exactly as I would have if I was on my own. As such, my kids have always had two parents who could (and do) swap out interchangeably day to day and can cater for 100% of their needs without needing anything from the other parent.

Reading the many many threads on here where lots of men either can't or won't parent their own children, I feel like my kids have benefitted from me working in getting a dad who stepped right up to the mark and aced it. They also know from lived experience what an equal relationship/parenting team looks like.

Whilst my point isn't necessarily related to the childcare point in the OP, it's responding to the posts above which seem to think that it's in baby's best interest to be with Mum for the first few years if their live. I'd strongly disagree.

I am grateful to all the mums who worked so we can have women judges, police officers, doctors, MPs, headteachers etc. We need a world where women can occupy positions of authority and power.
And like it or not, if they stay home during their twenties and thirties, the prime career-building ages, that would not happen.

I am disappointed that so many women here don’t want that. It’s odd 🤷🏼‍♀️

Anyway everyone is right. Babies are little for a relatively short time. That’s why it helps to plan for the future! My working is why I was able to pay for my three to have driving lessons, university costs, holidays etc. And in the future I can help with a house deposit. And of the course the basics like a roof over our head and food etc. My older kids couldn’t care less that they went to nursery as babies; I have asked them several times! They are very appreciative of what we do for them now though. I have zero regrets.

Do you think a Kennel is a direct comparison to Nursery?

I wonder what magically happens at four/five that these mummies can let their kids be ‘raised’ by a stranger.

"I take it you home school then?"

How is a 4/5 year old in school 9-3.30 remotely comparable to a 9 month old in a nursery every day 8-6?!!

Because it's debatable whether not being with their mum 24/7 is more detrimental to them than being financially unstable would be, or the lack of choices for women is for the mum. Most don't think it is - it's an assumption on your part that people don't think of it from the baby's perspective. If people generally thought this was a massive issue for babies, they wouldn't do it. But they don't.

@ort1gia

How is a child in childcare comparable to a dog?

Why is it neglect to have a baby in nursery but not a child in school?

'Do you think a Kennel is a direct comparison to Nursery?'

Well I'm sure when people look at 'doggy day care,' whatever company is running it will be at pains to point out the 'wonderful facilities' etc etc.

I did not say anything about children needing to be with mums '24/7.' I am talking about babies of 9 months in childcare for the vast majority of their waking lives - ie 8-6 Mon-Fri.

@ort1gia

Like I said.

I don't think it makes any difference to the baby. Especially not in the context of a loving home

And if your argument is why bother having kids to put them in a nursery all day everyday you wouldn't do that to a dog, then your argument extends to school