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?

Maybe @PurpleWisteria1 could likn to even 1 piece of evidence to back up what she is saying?

If a 9 month old baby is in childcare 8-6 as some on here are claiming is all perfectly fine, when would a parent actually spend time with them? Maybe an hour in the morning (rushed) and an hour at the end of the day. 5 days a week. What a life!

My son is almost two years old. He's been in full time childcare since he was 8 months old. He spent 7 months being cared for by a childminder, who he LOVED. But he was always super excited when my husband or I came to pick him up at the end of the day. In the morning he was also delighted to see his childminder, and her neighbour who used to come out of her flat just to see him and always commented on what a lovely, happy, smiley boy he was.

Over the summer we stayed with my parents and he was looked after by me, my husband and my parents.

In September (at 17 months) he started at nursery full time. I can tell you now that he has made massive developmental leaps since being at nursery. He's much more confident and sociable with other children. He is learning to play with others and share toys. He is eating a much wider range of food than before. Some days they play outside. Some days they do art. Some days they do sensory play. They have loads of toys that we don't have at home. Some days they have entertainers who come and do puppet shows. Some days they sing songs. He is constantly singing the songs he has learned at nursery. He is babbling away in two languages (they speak French at nursery and we speak mainly English at home). He loves his teachers. When I go to pick him up at the end of the day, I stand at the door and watch him until he sees me. He is always absorbed in what he is doing. Yesterday he was playing in the toy kitchen, which we don't have at home. The day before that he was sitting in the book corner with a group of other children, quietly turning the pages of a book and chattering away to himself. The day before that I was early and he was still sitting at the tiny table eating his afternoon snack.

When he sees me, his little face lights up with joy and he runs over to give me a big hug. If he's still eating when I get there, he'll pull off his apron and throw it dramatically to the floor before running over to me. He giggles and laughs and plays the clown when I'm putting his shoes on, and points out every bus and train on the way home. I'm teaching him to say what they all are and what colour they are in English. I'm teaching him to count by counting the number of Minis we see on the way home (his favourite car).

When my husband drops him off in the morning he immediately gives his teacher a hug and runs off to join his little friends.

Honestly, it's such a good environment for him, and doesn't lessen the bond we have at all. I just wish everyone had access to such high quality and affordable childcare.

Sometimes I get the impression that women who stay at home for years on end are desperate to believe that all young children in full time childcare are traumatised, because it makes them feel better about not working outside the home.

And my babies most definitely did need a mum with a career.

And a dad with one.

It has absolutely been the best choice for them as babies, children and adults

Most babies are not in childcare from 7-7 5 days a week.

You can keep saying it but it doesn’t become true!!

It’s a ridiculous strawman argument.

No one is suggesting that for babies, children or even the bloody adults. It’s ridiculous and so far away from the normal or average.

30 hours a week funded childcare, term time only so only just over 20 hours a week over the whole year is not bad for babies and toddler. It does not remove parents as the child’s primary caregiver.

Up to age 3 very important. The first year critical. Yes of course over that time a trusted adult or family member could take over care for a few hours here and there. And longer than that after age 1 if the adults are well known to the child.
Im really talking about babies being in childcare most of the working week, every week. Not grandparents giving mum / dad a rest.

@RosaBonheur

Yes.

It kind of makes the choice a bit redundant other wise

Either that they just need to feel superior

@PurpleWisteria1

3 years without a break?

Fuck that.

No true I guess 7-7 is extreme although I do know some parents who are close to this so it can’t be that rare.
30 hours a week a still a lot for a 9 month year old. Most of the waking days during the week. I would guess in the school holidays other childcare sought so can’t really reduce that down to 20.

@PurpleWisteria1 you still haven't answered my question. How has my dd suffered from being in childcare from 3 months old?

Who said without a break? If you are lucky enough to have grandparents / partner or other family members to have the child you can get a break?

The childcare isn't compulsory. If particular families don't want to use it but prefer to look after their own children then they can do so.

@Botw1 @G5000

Yup, sorry dads too. In an ideal world, both parents would have more options to be engaged parents AND work

"3 years without a break?

Fuck that."

So you admit it's not all about money then Botw1. More that your reaction the idea of being with your child day to day makes you think "Fuck that."

It's ok to not want to SAH and if you're not cut out for it, far better to admit that. But that's about you, not the child.

@PurpleWisteria1

Not without damaging the child, according to you.

1 hour? 2?

3?

Nope thats it you've broken your baby

Honestly it's laughable

So you think the primary caregiver shouldn't work outside the home until their youngest child is 3?

Even by your own example it’s not ‘most’ of their waking hours at all.

30 hours a week over 5 days at nursery, call it a 2 hr nap at around 1 year old. That leaves 20 hours awake at nursery.

Then let’s say 12 hours sleep per night average, even though of course some sleep less. So there are 84 awake hours of the week, 20 being at nursery. Take away 2 naps on the weekend leaves 60 wake hours over the week with parents be 20 wake hours at nursery.

It’s simple maths.

Your posts all just come down to ‘I feel’ ‘I believe’ but they are made out of anything tangible.
You feel that your children thrived better with a mother (and only a mother because imagine a father raising his own child!) so well done you. I’m happy that you were able to make that choice.
I’m not shitting on sahm’s. It’s they trying to drag all mothers back to the 60s where they have no choice that I have an issue with.

Parents having careers is a positive for their DC’s - do you think all children should have a SAHP. What a nightmare - I would have hated to be one.

@ort1gia

Where have I mentioned it being about the money?

Im with my children day to day. I live with them. I just have no desire or need to want to be with them 24/7. Balance is best for everyone. No need to be a martyr

You're trying to use not being 'cut' out to be a sahm as a put down.

Unfortunately it doesn't work as I don't think it takes much to be a sahm. It's not hard.

And likewise its ok to admit you don't have what it takes to be a working parent. But again, thats about you and not the child.

I did answer. I didn’t feel it was all that fair to go into it. But you keep pressing me.
You really can’t tell how it will have affected them. Saying they are ‘well adjusted adults’ doesn’t really help here. It’s far more complicated that that.
when my daughter was 13 months I thought It was a good idea to return to part time work. Researched childminders for months and came to one I liked. Did all the slow introductions with my present. Whe it came time for me to say goodbye she screamed and cried and tried to reach for me. I had to just leave with her crying at the window. Childminder said she was fine once I’d gone and fine for the rest of the day. Just had to take her word for it but she had only known my child for such a short time. Who’s to say if she was anxious or wondering where I was. This pattern continued for months. I had another child and stopped work. Never saw the childminder again.
Child is now a teenager. By all accounts happy and well adjusted as a normal teen is. But she has her quirks and insecurities as many people do. She’s extremely sensitive and emotional. Whose to say that take with the childminder didn’t affect her in her formative years and create insecurities that may have not been there before.
Secure attachment to one person (who is there to attend their care every day) has been shown to be the best for babies and very young children. So any less than this and yes, they suffered because they didn’t get what has been shown to be optimal.
Every decision we make as parents has an effect. Especially in the first 3 years which is the most critical to how a human develops and has a lasting effect on their rest of their lives. ‘Suffered’ is not really the right word but who’s to say it hasn’t had an effect?

Yes again- I.
I I I. It’s all I hear on here.

Apart from anything else, the child will have few if any memories of the period of time they think is so critical. My mum stayed at home until I was five. I literally don't remember any of it.

Your children will remember spending time with you after that, but they'll be in school by that time anyway, so it would still only be an hour in the morning, a couple of hours in the afternoon/evening, and weekends.

"I don't think it takes much to be a SAHM."

Why does this not surprise me?

Yes… the problem with that is many women have as little choice now as they did in the 1960’s. That’s part of what I have the issue with.

You don't SAH so your children remember it. Talk about missing the point.