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?

@57NewPosts

Imagine advising your daughter to go to school and work hard, but saying to her, when you have babies, you will need to give up work for ten years or so to look after them.

Who on earth is suggesting this? It's such a black and white statement! Of course no-one is advising to give up your job/career for ten years to raise children! You can have a mix you know - or, God forbid, do both! I went part time so had the best of both worlds, and now my career is flying once again. I just trod water for a bit and prioritised raising the kids, but stuck in employment in a field I was interested in and took opportunities for further training and advancement when they came round and when the kids were ready for me to step back a bit. It is possible to have kids and develop a career you know, AND do what's best for them at the same time.

She's talking total nonsense.

The high cost of childcare in the UK means it's far more common for women who don't earn high salaries to be unable to afford to go back to work (especially if they have more than one child and no family help) than it is for women to be forced back to work because they can't afford to stay at home.

I'm a high earner and if I wanted to stay at home, we would have to sell our home and downsize. We could do that, but I don't think it would be in my family's best interests. But it is still one of the choices available to us.

Properly subsidising childcare doesn't take away any choices from mothers who choose to stay at home. It gives choices to mothers who would like to work.

If the mum is there in the room it’s completely different. I had 3 under 3 so you can’t really get more babies than that at one time really unless you are an exception with triplets or more.

A nursery worker will need training, to learn about safeguarding etc and has to adhere to professional standards and guidelines, be able to liaise with parents, document to a certain standard etc. A sahm does what working mums do at evenings, weekends and holidays. It’s not an insult but a simple fact surely?

But that’s the whole original point of the OP. She asked about the babies being considered and what about their needs rather than parents needs.

Looking after children is not 'doing nothing'. Honestly, why is caring of so little value to a lot of people on Mumsnet?

You never left the room to go to the toilet, prepare food, clean up etc. Ok then.

@Ppbbwwt

Why aren't you annoyed it's being implied wm are lesser than sahm?

Being a sahm isn't any harder than being a wm. It doesn't require a different skill set.

Wm nurture and care for their children

There is value in parenting

It annoys me when women only see the insults they want to

So it's far better to give them the nurture they need in the little years whilst the opportunity is there

Says who? Better in which way? If I had stayed home, we would be in poverty now. I'm not even talking about the fact that DC1 would still be bullied in local school where he also learned nothing, as private and/or moving would not have been an option, I'm talking that we would have lost the house and could not have managed to pay bills. In which way exactly is this 'far better'? Studies about effects of having a SAHM or going to nurseries are varied, but any study about child poverty will tell you that it is not a good thing.

So how beneficial is it for the child to have a frustrated, lonely, depressed mother with no money to go out and do anything with their kids apart from plod round the same park for the 15,730,258th time who spends their time at home crying or screaming at their bored child because they can never get any housework done because their bored child undoes everything that the mother has just tidied up and so they end up living in a constant shithole?

There is reason why childcare exists and is highly beneficial to both the child and the parents.

Not without taking the babies with me no. Can’t leave a 2 year old alone in a room with 2 babies not even for 1 min and our toilet was upstairs.
clearing up and everything else was all done with them being able to see me.
Funnily enough though when the babies were 13 months they would have known the difference between me popping to the loo and me leaving for the whole day with a virtual stranger. Funny that.

But many of us don't agree with you about what a baby needs.

You are presenting your opinions as though they are facts, and demonising women who go out to work so they can offer their children better opportunities in life.

I do get annoyed at those things too.
I'll have to leave this thread for a while now - I'm off to do my measly, unworthwile and looked-down-upon job of working as a preschool assistant this afternoon. Probably should not have clicked on this thread!

Why does having a baby equal a lonely depressed mother plodding round a park?

Ah. A mummy martyr then. Let me guess you couldn’t have a shower for a week and never had a hot cup of tea either?!

Many many studies to show that one primary carer until 3 is more beneficial.

A thousand times this.

I'm at home on maternity leave right now and my day revolves around my daughter's feeds and naps. When we go out, it's always to the same parks and cafes.

I can guarantee my two year old son is having a far more interesting time at crèche, doing organised activities and playing with his little friends, than he would be at home trying to get me to read to him while I'm busy changing his sister's nappy.

I'm not talking about you, or about anyone else on a personal level. I'm talking about your support for a policy which would entitle a mother of three to be paid for upwards of 12 years (on top of the other financial support already available) to stay at home, paid for by those who do work.

You still haven't said, but I assume that you are agreeing that this would have to be paid for by working parents and other groups?

Because in a world where you aren't allowed childcare because it's "detrimental" for babies and toddlers, then you will have to give up work. Many mums find their their friendship circle disappears when they have a baby due to being at different stages in life and being free at different stages of the day to each other. Also there are now few free or cheap places for them to go as childcare centres are mostly closed down and they may not be able to afford to get to places further away.

As someone who lives in a country where most children and adults were in full time childcare from much younger than 9 months, I call bullshit.

But please feel free to link to these studies.

Why does the original reason matter? People who can afford to stay at home with kids and who want to, will continue to do so. People who can't afford that or don't want to don't now have to go bankrupt. Most jobs will not allow you longer than a year off for a baby. In some countries you get 3 years and your old job or similar guaranteed back. But if you stay off until your kid is 3, that could well be a career ruined.

@Blueisthecolour1

Not a hard pill to swallow if you don't think it's true.

Right, so this is where things needs to improve. Why isn’t there more support for new mums and mums with young toddlers? Why have they all been shut down? Tory’s don’t believe they are important enough. They don’t put any value in kids welfare as is evident with the lack of funding in schools and SEN areas. They want money and that’s what everything pushes for.

The people with the strongest, most sexist opinions sound like they’re desperately trying to justify their own decisions. If you were secure in your choices you wouldn’t feel the need to demonise other people.

The other thing you’re forgetting is that while there may be a positive in a parents staying at home, the negative of being poorer, one parent having no career (or a worse career) will likely be much more detrimental to the child. If one of my parents had stayed at home, we would have had to live in a crap area and I probably would have had to go to a worse school. I wouldn’t have been able to do extra curriculars or go abroad. I wouldn’t have had the example of good careers you can go into. I may not have gone to uni as my parents couldn’t have helped me out financially. My life would have been more limited and harder as I would have had to fight more to get an OK job. On a population level, poverty and low socio-economic status affects everything from life expectancy to happiness to health and crime rates. So it’s not just “selfish mummy prioritising work”, they are prioritising their children’s future and prospects also. The life I live and level of comfort I have is a direct result of both parents working. That trumps any “issues” I may or may not have from being in daycare!

@Blueisthecolour1

Finally!

'It is possible to have kids and develop a career you know, AND do what's best for them at the same time.'

Couldn't agree more.

Im a bit surprised at the contradiction with your previous posts though but at least you got there in the end