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?

How would that be paid for?

This hopefully pays for itself in part as the working parent will pay tax and increased productivity in the economy.

If someone can afford it and wants to stay home they should / can, but your suggestion would be a step back for women's equality imo.

30 hours during term time isn't full time anyway, so it's just something to help if a woman (usually) prefers working

All they ever site is how it will be good for the economy @Ilikepinacoladass

Are you aware it’s the spring budget? The entire purpose is economic.

People who are able to pay already put their children in full time childcare. This new policy just levels the playing field and allows those on lower incomes to do the same whilst alleviating the childcare burden for those already paying.

Me being able to pay the bills is what is best for my children. I can't do that if I dont work.
Education and socialising and having a stable routine is also important, hence both my kids have been in nurseries since 1yo.

So many women are happy to contribute to the gender pay gap. It’s depressing.

It is quite amusing when ignorant people get all excited about quoting cortisol levels, without having a clue about the subject matter.

Nursery funding means more choices for mothers. Great. If you want to give up a job, depend on a partner and stay home glued to your kids forever, crack on.

👏

I do agree with you to a point OP but like a lot of posters have said it's not up to the government to say what's best for a child as that will vary considerably child to child depending on family circumstances.
I am however a bit concerned that it is going to put pressure on parents to return to work full time or significantly part time when they don't want to.
My DD will be 2 when this comes in. At the moment I work 1 full day with her being with grandparents and 2 evenings a week when she is at home with dad. We can manage on this- my partner earns decent money although not a high earner I wouldn't have said.
I feel it's best for my dd to be with me or her dad the majority of the time (as we can afford this, clearly if we couldn't then it would be better for her to be fed/housed etc and be in childcare) until she is atleast 3. I do worry that this will put pressure on me to return to work and use childcare when I don't want to, that I will be looked down on and thought of as lazy for not doing so.

However I do believe parents should be able to return to work if they want/need too and I know there are many many parents who would love to return to work but can't afford to or where families are really struggling and need the 2nd parent to work. This is great for them so I am pleased it is coming in from that point of view, just a bit concerned personally.

Raised cortisol in itself isn't necessarily meaningful. Are we seeing hordes of dysfunctional children in Scandinavian countries where childcare from a young age has been the norm for so long?

It's also important not to put the rose tinted spectacles on. Firstly, having a SAHM is a relatively new concept - go back a century and a half and you would only have seen them in very wealthy families. Secondly, the 'good old days' were not all that good, with women at home with the children all the time, fully dependent on their man for an income, trapped in abusive relationships but also bored, unfulfilled and using things like sleeping pills to get through the days.

I do think that these plans are still more attempts to do childcare on the cheap. The huge difference between childcare here and in Scandinavian countries is that childcare staff over there are highly skilled, properly trained and well paid. Until we have that here (and it will cost), everything is just a sticking plastger.

Also I should say I think it's best for my dd because I'm happy doing it, if I wasn't happy then she would suffer and it would be better for me to be back at work and her in childcare.

And what's good for the economy now, isn't necessarily what's good for the economy in the future.

I don't hear anything on the news / from the government about the impact of increased childcare from younger ages on long term development / outcomes.

@Cuwins I do worry that this will put pressure on me to return to work and use childcare when I don't want to, that I will be looked down on and thought of as lazy for not doing so.

How will it though? Pressure by who?

If you don’t want to the run to work then don’t.

It’s no one else’s fault you might be swayed into putting your child into childcare more than you need just because it’s funded. That doesn’t mean other families shouldn’t have affordable childcare.

Totally agree op

Yes it's optional. But lots of things start off optional, giving people choice, then actually end up being a bit of a trap.

And if it also encourages a trend in society people are influenced by their peers, meaning they might be on the fence about going to work but all their friends are plus you get all this free childcare so of course you should go back.. etc

Look at places with good economy (Scandinavia) and help with childcare parents are getting over there.
That aside, more money people have now will mean more money spent on goods and services and therefore back into the economy.

Do you really think the difference to the child is enough to justify one parent - almost always the mother - being unable to work for 2-3 years per child, losing her financial independence during that time, missing out on years of career progression and taking a permanent hit to her retirement income?

Because I think the benefits to the child would have to be huge and proven to justify that, and that simply isn't the case.

I'm on maternity leave and my 2 year old goes to crèche full time. We're in France where it costs about €30 per day. We can't afford to lose the place in crèche so he has to go really. But I'm quite sure that he is learning far more through socialising with other children and doing varied activities planned and delivered by qualified childcare professionals, and eating a healthier lunch, then he would be at home with me, where I have a newborn to take care of and don't have access to the same resources and activities as they do at crèche. And I have more time and energy for him, and feel that we enjoy our time together much more, when it's not all day every day.

This doesn’t force parents back to work though but it does give options and help to make working more affordable.

And the quality of the childcare also doesn't seem to get mentioned..

They are apparently upping the ratios too?

It just doesn't seem to be at all about what's best for children now or for outcomes later in life.

Good post, @RosaBonheur.

Well, 30 hours free childcare, term time only, is certainly not going to harm a child (barring, obviously, inappropriate/poor care/abuse etc). So the question then doesn't become about what' best for the children. it becomes about what's best for the a) parents and b) economy. And that is 1) for families who want both parents to work to have that option and 2) to reduce the cost of childcare for families that are already using it in order to work.

I mean, your argument might make sense if the government was saying they were going to fund 50 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. But they're not.

Your post are getting more and more erratic.

Are you suggesting only women who don’t return to work are making a decision of their own mind and the rest succumb to ‘peer pressure’?

In what way is it a trap? And specifically in what way is it more of a trap to have more affordable childcare compared to the situation at the minute where over 50% of women who don’t work day they actually would like to work but the cost of childcare makes it unaffordable.
The other percentage of women who are happy staying home can remain at home. Those who actively wanted to t return to work can.

Where are all the extra members of staff coming from?

I said when the 15/30 free hours was originally introduced that I didn't believe it was actually about early education and totally about getting people (women) back to the workforce. And I think this confirms it. Not that I'm actually against that, I just wish they were honest!

Countless studies have shown children under 2 do best when in the majority (waking) care of the primary carer, so you aren't wrong OP!

And I went back to work full time asap after both my kids! But I did it in full knowledge it was what was best for ME, not what was best for them.

Absolutely.

Credit women with being able to make their own decisions.

Yes, this.

The government want both parents out working full time because that is what is best for the economy. The same way that they want over 50s back into employment. On a national level that benefits all of us.

However on an individual level it does not benefit families. It means families are less economically stable because they have twice the risk. It’s a key factor in driving up house prices massively. And it means parents are both having to work their arses off to pay for someone else to bring up their kids.

We’ve fallen into an economic trap because it was wrapped up in pretty paper that said “equality” in shiny letter. It’s not real equality.

yes! Let’s institutionalise the little kiddies.