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?

This is really just your opinion.

In France the prevailing view is that children of stay at home parents are disadvantaged because they don't learn to socialise with other children at crèche and find the transition to school much more difficult.

If they are genuinely looking at what their child needs, no.
Although that is simply not possible for many women I have said before due to the way life is set up now.

@ort1gia

Probably because its true?

Unless you genuinely think sahms are better mothers than working mums?

Plenty of ways for younger children to socialise. The parent just needs to facilitate it. If more parents cared for their children during the week then even more facilities and opportunities would arise.

@PurpleWisteria1 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.

What is stopping women who want to stay home?

There are out of work benefits, there are UC supplements when you have kids, there is child benefit.

What you are saying is you want the financial benefits of working but without having to work.

If a woman wants to stay home with her children she can.

There is significantly more government support for low income families now than in the 60s so in what way is there less choice?

I really struggle to see how you are denying that there is actually less now? There is more support for both working and non working mothers. More women just choose to work and that seems to both you.

Ah.

There we go

There's the insecurity.

Give yourself a break. A short time at childminder will not have damaged your, or any child

Quite. This really angered me.
@Botw1 does that mean you also don't have a high opinion of people who choose to work in a nursery?

I keep asking, but keep getting no answer. It's a simple question - who do you think should pay for someone with three children to be at home until the youngest starts school? Let's say they start on their fourth birthday (although it could easily be the day before they are five), that could be 12 years. NI pension contributions are already made until the youngest is 12, and CB until they leave education (and meanwhile SAHPs are not paying tax.

You are putting words into my mouth. If you can’t actually say anything worthwhile then don’t expect me to respond.

That's absolutely bonkers.

I want my children to be able to do things like sports club and music lessons and foreign travel. Ideally I'd like to send them to an amazing bilingual school not far from here, where most kids come out with a string of A grades, amazing self confidence and the ability to speak several languages.

If I didn't work outside the home we wouldn't even be able to afford our mortgage, let alone any of that.

@Ppbbwwt

Im not sure what working in a nursery has to do with parenting.

If you were angered by comment does that mean you don't have a high opinion of those who work?

Interesting you're not angered by the implications of telling someone they clearly aren't cut out to be a sahm

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

Yes several people have said that not everyone is cut out to be a SAHM. We are then told that we should not have had DC in the first place, if we don't want to sacrifice everything so the child can have a bored, unhappy and frustrated mother with them 24/7.
My happy thriving children would disagree it would be better for them to never have been born though, should I let them know?

It’s not really insecurity.
I hope it hasn’t but I was just making an example to illustrate a point that another poster was pushing for.
Leaving a crying baby reaching for its mother may well have an effect. Who are you to say it definitely won’t?

@PurpleWisteria1

No. I'm not.

You said a few hours occasionally. In the context of would a child suffer if not with their mum

Your words. Your mouth

Botw1

I have never heard such bullshit in my life. Only if mum is stressed and it’s in the milk.

@PurpleWisteria1

Who are you to say it definitely will.

Not all babies cry in childcare anyway

They want us selfish, neglectful working parents to pay for it. While they look down on us for not staying at home until our youngest children are at least three. 🙃

@crossstitchingnana

Not bullshit.

Lots of research on it.

Have a Google.

No, I said I wasn’t discussing a break for a few hours, I’m talking about going to work for most of the working week.
i also said suffered wasn’t the right word to use.

Yes you would think wouldn’t you.
Except many parents are not given that choice because lift is set up to need both parents in work and this is being encouraged more and more via a Tory government only interested in making money.
We are all sold a lie that having ‘stuff’ makes us happy. Weather you face it or not most of us fall into that trap one way or another. And so we believe that earning more and more is the way to happiness. But I most cases it isn’t and actually can be the opposite.
No baby needs ‘stuff’ or both parents who work all week, or a mum who isn’t a ‘housewife’ and builds a career. They just need a stable parent to care for them all week. Someone who has been in their life since day 1 and will be until they are an adult.

This is quite out of touch - most people don't need both parents to work so they can afford "stuff", they need it to afford their bills.

And I have to disagree that young children don't need a mum that works and builds a career. My DD is seeing me off work with DD2 and has become convinced that only men work, and women stay at home with the kids. Working sets a good example, especially to impressionable young girls. Growing up with those views will have a more detrimental effect on young kids than spending some time at nursery when they're really small. I'd rather raise her to have a good outlook on life when she's an adult, than to have the most cushioned childhood possible. Adulthood is much longer than childhood.

I didn’t say it defiantly will. I said it could have. Again, putting words into my mouth.

Botw1 - it's not about mums who work or don't work. It's the simple fact that a mum (any mum) is not the same as a childcare worker - who is probably being paid close to MW and not exactly delighted to be at work.

Does a childcare worker live your baby? No. Are they attuned in the way a mother is? No. Are they going to have the bond that a mother has? No.

On not saying babies need to be with their mums 24/7. But I also don't think it's progressive, from a child-centred perspective, to have a situation where babies are spending more of their waking hours with staff , rather than a parent (or even relative).

@PurpleWisteria1

You answered my question about how many hours apart before damage occurred with only a few hours and that as little as possible up to 3 years but definitely for the first year

Botw1

just googled it, yes only through milk if mum is stressed. So BS to say breastfed babies are stressed.

Thanks for answering @PurpleWisteria1 and confirming that you have absolutely no idea how being in childcare may have impacted on my child. Just as you have no idea how having a SAHM may impact on a child.