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 why are you using that as your argument against the expansion of the funded hours?

Who are these babies?
How many babies do you think are in nursery Monday to Friday 8-6 every day??

I actually don’t know a single person who’s child in nursery did those hours. Many of them do 4 or even 3 days and each parent does a day off work in the week so they can minimise nursery, both due to costs and also wanting an extra day to be with their child.

If a young baby does these long days M-F it’s probably because their family are close to poverty. Is the alternative of being at home with no income/ on benefits always better? Of course it isn’t.

In a good quality nursery with great staff and resources I’m sure babies of parents in higher paid jobs will be ok

Once this trickles down to affect single mothers on UC being forced back to work their children won’t be in these higher quality settings and will end uk further disadvantaged the only benefit will be to the economy at the cost of these children . It will happen the age at which mothers are expected to find work has been gradually lowering for years

If people really can't see the difference in developmental stage between a 9 month old and a 4/5 year old, I'm not really sure what else to say.

That’s a wild assumption. The only two people I know who had their very young babies in childcare all week were a pharmacist and a surgeon. Both very well paid.

Albiboba- I don't disagree with you which is why I prefaced my post with 'economics aside.' Of course, if the alternative is poverty, the situation is not clear cut. Equally, if mum is mentally or physically ill or highly depressed / anxious, the child may well be safer and more stimulated elsewhere.

I was responding to the viewpoint that it makes no difference where babies spend their waking lives. Of course it does. I don't think people should deny this just because it's convenient to do so.

@ort1gia you keep just banging away with 'how can it be right for a child to be in childcare from a young age?' But you're failing to realise that that is your opinion. It's not a fact. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest that having the mum home 24/7 is best.

All of us, if we can be arsed, could dig around for various pieces of 'research' if we wanted to try to 'prove' that SAHP (or WOHP for that matter) is 'best.' But there is no definitive proof. So why not just accept that you have your experience and opinions, and other people have theirs?

As I said earlier, I don't use the fact my adult offspring are very happy people with a great bond with me as 'proof' that me being a WOHP made them that way! I have no doubt they'd be just as happy and the bond would be as good if I'd been a SAHP.

@Trixiefirecracker I’ve never come across a surgeon or pharmacist who works 9-5 Monday to Friday.

And once again, no one is pretending that there is no difference between a baby being home 24/7 or being in childcare for some of their time. Of course they're having different experiences. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Things can be different without having to be better or worse.

It's like saying 'you can't pretend there's no difference in the experience of a child living in a France and a child living in the U.K.' Obviously they are having different experiences- it doesn't make one right and one wrong

@ort1gia I was responding to the viewpoint that it makes no difference where babies spend their waking lives. Of course it does. I don't think people should deny this just because it's convenient to do so.

So feel free to campaign for longer maternity leave and better access to paid parental leave then. The childcare reform was a direct result of all the hard work Pregnant then Screwed has done for years.

The majority of women do not take the full 12 months of maternity leave even now. The majority of them return to work when statutory leave becomes unpaid. That hardly seems like a coincidence so I don’t think you can ‘take the economics out of it’.
Whether you like it or not money makes the world go around. Some people could pay their bills if one parent stayed home but they don’t want to scrape by, they want to give their child the best life they can and the fact is that costs money. Money spent on education probably has a much bigger impact on their overall life outcome than where they spent some of their days from 9months - 2 years.

How is 30 free hours equivalent to 8-6 every day?

@ort1gia

And if you can't see the difference between a child and a dog I don't know what to say

In fact, developmentally it's probably easier for a baby to be in childcare than a 4 yo in school.

You just don't want to admit your hypocrisy

People do have opinions though (clearly!). It's like the majority of people in the U.K. these days would take a view that boarding school for 7 year-olds is unnatural and not in a child's interests. Despite the fact some parents will claim their children are thriving in such a scenario, most people would not be persuaded there is no impact.

No one is denying it’s different. ‘Different’, however, is not a interchangeable with ‘detrimental’.

Maternity leave is for the mother to recover from pregnancy and childbirth. If you have a stillbirth or your baby dies, you are still entitled to all your maternity pay and time off. It is not there for the benefit of the baby but for the recovery of the mother. This is why I am a little bit 🤔about shared parental leave, although I know a lot of families find it useful, because it somewhat disregards that need for recovery time for the mother.

I think you are being extraordinarily starry-eyed to be honest if you expect this Tory govt to even pretend to care about anybody's wellbeing, be they babies, parents or anyone else. They care about money, pure and simple, and the ability of themselves and people like them to make as much of it as possible, and for that you need as many economically productive units in action as possible. Their entire policy portfolio is based around how to achieve that, with the exception of immigration, which is their vote-winner so the people being ground up by their economic policies will continue to vote for them based on their lip service to this one emotive issue.

I also think you are being starry-eyed about the number of people for whom there is 'choice' of any kind about childcare. We are in the grip of a trickle-up economy where more and more wealth and assets are being transferred away from the majority into the control of a tiny minority. Fewer and fewer people have the 'choice' to stay at home or the 'choice' to go to work - their decisions are made in an environment of extreme economic threat, and are not real choices at all.

Basically, no offence, I think you are one of the fortunate people who can decide to 'go without a few luxuries' to work part time but still spend lots of time with your young child(ren), maybe your partner does the same so they have to spend even less time in childcare and you can feel a rosy glow of righteousness whilst still being able to advance in your (likely desk-based, flexible location, flexible work hours) career. That is a very comfortable position from which to pontificate about 'what's in the interests of the children'.

Whereas for other people who already have to return to work far sooner than they'd like to make less than they need, these free hours will be an unexpected boon to an overstretched budget. For people who have made the difficult decision to remain economically inactive due to the prohibitive cost of childcare, and make do with not enough coming in from one wage, free hours from earlier on may make the difference between defaulting on their mortgage and losing their home or being able to make ends meet with part time work until child goes to school.

You keep saying 'lets discount all those people' so you can make your judgment argument stand up. But that's because you are not 'those people', you don't know any of 'those people', and you frankly don't care about 'those people' - or their children. They're not real to you so they don't factor into your assessment of this policy.

The problem isn't the free hours per se - it's the economic environment that makes them necessary for survival, it's the beast they feed, and it's the heartless bastard Tory government who makes it this way ON PURPOSE. Parents - you will be shocked to hear - by and large make their decisions based on an assessment of their circumstances, the prevailing conditions, and what is best for their child in both the short and the long term. The issue is the prevailing conditions that make them either feel they can't return to work, or they can't choose not to.

@57NewPosts

'am disappointed that so many women here don’t want that. It’s odd'

It's so depressing but not unsuprising

Most women, ime, aren't really bothered about equality

I mean, they say they are. They want equal rights and shit but aren't really that fussed about making sure we keep them

Happy to make themselves financially dependent on men when it suits

If it suits the child and the families individual circumstances could either parent be financially assisted to stay at home. Could there be some sort of hybrid arrangement with the child in part time day care.

I agree to some degree. Every kid is different.

Although there are studies suggesting that in the main one primary caregiver is best under the age of 3. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but the studies do suggest that supporting set ups where 1 primary caregiver has a close contact with the child for the first 3 years is often ideal for the development of the child. It doesn't mean it's the only way to do it and it doesn't work for everyone but it is worth considering, not ignoring.

Which would mean supporting longer paid leave for parents as a starting point and when supporting childcare options including nannies properly in the mix.

From a child development point of view it is a shame to see that instead we are supporting wider group settings from a younger age.

Which is absolutely better than nothing I agree as we need to support parents being financially secure. But it is a bit narrow minded and possibly short sighted.

@Streamside transferable parental leave has been available for several years now. As has the right to request flexible working for women and men.

Despite the doom and gloom from some posters there has never been a better time to have a child from the point of view of maternity and paternity rights. Go back a few decades and maternity leave was 3 months. Go back a couple of decades more, and women had no maternity rights. If they got pregnant they had no job to return to.
And actually go back a bit further than that, and in some professions, it was really hard for women to keep their job when they married, whether they had kids or not! My great grandmother was apparently considered very unusual and very lucky that she was able to continue in her job as a teacher when she got married.

Feels like a few posters want to return to those 'golden eras'

I think OP has a point. People are being prevented from working because they don't have childcare, but increasing childcare is not the only solution. Encouraging employers to be flexible where possible would make a big difference - I work for a great company who allow me to work reduced hours each week so that I can drop the kids off int he mornings. I start at 9.30. I don't have to work over lunchtime or anything to make it up. I have the choice of working 2.5 hours less per week (and obviously being paid proportionally less), and when it suits I'll be able to increase my hours back to full time. Obviously not all workplaces can do that, but where they can, they should be encouraged to offer it.

Likewise, I've a friend who is allowed to take 6 weeks summer holidays off work (again, unpaid, but at least the option is there).

I've heard of offices which have a creche for children of staff to use, so parents can see their babies at lunch time.

Obviously, there's no "one size fits all", but I find the "get everyone working as much as possible" approach a bit depressing and think there's scope to offer choices.

@oblada

Wby would nursery use prevent close contact with a child's pcg?

I think a lot of these alleged studies are based on what happens when children are actually separated from or have no pcg. In cases of true abuse and neglect and then self righteous sahms peddle them out to guilt wm when in fact they're not at all relevant.

Nurseries are not Romanian orphanages

Or dog kennels

@JustKeepSlimming

Yes I agree

The ideal is both parents working flexibly and sharing childcare

But in the absence of that, nursery is fine.

Are the free hours available to parents who don't work? Because that would seem to be missing the point somewhat.

You can access 15 free hours if you don’t work and are on UC, the idea being those kids have a much higher chance of falling behind their peers.

The 30 free hours is only available when both parents work over a certain amount of hours per week.

I don't disagree that flexible working arrangements are crucial. As people have said, you may not need childcare or as much of it if you can flex your hours or work remotely.

Had I been able to work at home when my son was small I could have probably used a nursery school rather than a nursery, although school holidays would still be an issue.