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?

What actually needs to happen is part time work needs to made a better option. We all need to be working less hours but that debate won’t get sorted here and now.

Exactly. No detriment. No damage

Working DOES stop a mother providing her baby's needs (we're not talking about roof over head here, obvs in needs-must situations there's no debate to be had). She's at work. How can she be parenting when she's at work? She obviously continues to be a parent/wife/girlfriend/daughter/sister etc while she's at work (that's her status). But she's not actively parenting.

Someone else can do it, though. As you say. Their father, paid help, a grandparent etc. Optimally it would be the mother, imo, for at least the first 3-6 months, and either parent thereafter up to 1yo

I mentioned ages ago in this insanely long thread that I live in the US where babies ARE routinely "wrenched" from their mothers at 6 weeks to spend a total of the following in daycare, at least 5 days per week: 8 hour workday + 1 hour commute twice a day + a couple of hours for all other necessary life stuff = 12 hours, being generous. 6 weeks! Bearing in mind how many hours babies and toddlers need to sleep to actually survive, it's fucking awful for the baby AND the mother. Trust me. And it's not like the dad is sitting at home, they're both working. I fear this is where the UK is heading.

BUT I understand that these days there is no choice for many, many women and families. In these circumstances, anything is better than nothing. Your final sentence says it all. No detriment and no damage. That's a fucking low bar for the UK in the 21st century.

Yeah, my two year old has literally never watched TV. I can guarantee he would have done if I had him all day every day.

@Newnamenewname109870 totally agree.

Why is fulltime provision for children under 3 damaging? Who says it is?

@early30smum

Whats worse?

Being economically inactive or damaging your children and making them suffer because you cba or are to selfish to put their needs first?

You well aware that’s not what’s happening. No one is girded to use the hours to go back to work.

Stop spreading dangerous misinformation.

@Lndnmummy there's no good evidence that full time childcare under 3 is damaging. Some people just want it to be because that validates their choices. There's no good evidence that it's more beneficial than staying at home either. It's impossible to research this because to do so you would have to put in place practices which are completely unethical.

I wish this hadn't turned into another SAHM/WOHM debate. We all do what we need to, we all do what is best for our children. We should stop attacking each other.

@Partyandbullshit

Working does not stop a mother meeting their babies needs

There are 24 hours in a day. We're not discussing American policy

We're discussing UK policy

The vast majority of women take 1 year mat leave

But even if they go back at 3 months for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, they are still meeting their babies needs.

The baby will be cared for. And will have a lovely secure bond with its mum.

@pointythings

Im not sure it could have been anything else.

Sahm seem determined to justify their choice by declaring wm are selfish and neglectful.

Theyre not interested in the wider impacts of gender equality

@Partyandbullshit I mentioned ages ago in this insanely long thread that I live in the US where babies ARE routinely "wrenched" from their mothers at 6 weeks to spend a total of the following in daycare, at least 5 days per week: 8 hour workday + 1 hour commute twice a day + a couple of hours for all other necessary life stuff = 12 hours, being generous. 6 weeks! Bearing in mind how many hours babies and toddlers need to sleep to actually survive, it's fucking awful for the baby AND the mother. Trust me. And it's not like the dad is sitting at home, they're both working. I fear this is where the UK is heading.

It’s pretty disingenuous to keep comparing the US to the UK. If anything access to free childcare actually REDUCES the hours parents will need to work in order to earn the same take home pay.
I’m seriously not understanding your argument that making childcare significantly less expensive, by several hundred pounds per child a month, will somehow result in women returning to work at 6 weeks and babies being in childcare from then.
It’s a ridiculous argument because it’s actually so far from reality.

In the UK there is no appetite to reduce maternity leave. In fact I imagine over the next few years we will see the statutory paid element extended to the full 12 months and shared leave will be reformed making it much easier for couples to share care in the early years.
I fully agree with both these concepts.

@Botw1 the second option one, obviously. But I don’t believe mums (or dads) who put their kids in childcare fall into that category and nor have I said so… so I don’t understand the question?

Indeed

I think what’s best for children is to live in a country with a strong economy.
OP you seem to totally decouple “the economy” from the daily human experience. Whereas “the economy” affects every aspect of our lives, including children’s lives, from healthcare to education to infrastructure, from standard of living to future prospects for employment.
”The economy” is not a separate nebulous thing, it is threaded through a child’s whole life from the ante natal support the NHS provides to mothers, through the likes of sure start schemes (perhaps since demised) l, schools, further education, housing, jobs etc. Look at countries with terrible economies. If we want our children to have decent lives and prospects, we need to strengthen the economy.

Sorry I haven't read all the replies, I'm currently looking after my 2 year old lol.

I know it is being discussed here, obviously because that's what the thread is about. I'm talking about in the media, I've not heard any talk at all of whether is a good thing for thousands more children to be in childcare from 9 months. The govt clearly doesn't care, yes that's a given. But it just doesn't seem to get brought up by anyone else either!

As someone else mentioned, we are in new territory in terms of how many children are now in nurseries and from such young ages. It's never been this high, no one seems to be vaguely interested in what the actual impacts might be!

How can you believe what you're typing here?

Babies need feeding, changing, sleeping. Babies need to learn emotions, trust, security, safety, boundaries. They need to feel love and laughter and sadness and comfort. If the mother is working on a ward, working in an office, working in a nursery or school, driving a bus, literally not even in the same building as her baby, how is she doing this? How is she physically, actually, meeting these needs that her baby has? Yes, someone else can do this, but you're telling us the MOTHER is doing this when she's literally not even there.

Yes, someone else can do these things and all around the world they routinely do. Babies are cared for. But it's just plain ridiculous to insist the mother is doing this when she's not even there!

@early30smum

Because you didn't call out any of those comments.

You chose, instead to call what you consider to be horrible comments towards sahm while completly ignoring all the awful comments to wms.

It happens all the time

So, no. I don't particularly care if sahms are offended by being called economically inactive while they are calling wms unfit parents

I’m seriously not understanding your argument that making childcare significantly less expensive, by several hundred pounds per child a month, will somehow result in women returning to work at 6 weeks and babies being in childcare from then. It’s a ridiculous argument because it’s actually so far from reality.

Who is going to pay for this significantly less expensive childcare, year after year, generation after generation? Do you really think that post-Brexit, the UK is going to trend towards the EU model of social-care?

@Partyandbullshit

I haven't said mums actively parent while working. Not once. Always helpful to read what's written

Ive said there is plenty of time to actively parent when not working

Unless you think babies of wms aren't able to learn emotions, trust, security, safety, boundaries. Or that they don't feel love and laughter and sadness and comfort?

Because they're (sometimes) in a nursery part of the day?

It will be a policy that balances out in terms of the tax that the more 50% of all sahm who currently say they want to work will be paying.

This is a Tory government. It’s not a socialist utopia.
The policy will have been costed against the tax lost to the public purse and the money not going back into the economy from the mothers kept out of the workforce DUE to childcare that outstrips their income.

@Botw1

I'm not going to enter into a SAHM v WOHM debate with you, which is what you seem to be interested in on this thread (that and "if dads aren't made to do this why should I"). Not interested.

@Partyandbullshit

Unable to counter the point?

Thought so

My children were in childcare from a young age while dh and I worked. So no, I didn't change every single nappy, make every single sandwich or always be the one to read to them. I did all those things, sure, but they also had nappies changed, games played etc by other people too.

No problem with that!

Because I know that my baby doesn't need to be with me 24/7.

SAHM's are also SAHM's because it's what they want. There's no difference.