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?

It’s not full time funding though is it? I expect lots of women will take up part time hours and use part time childcare, it’s not one or the other.

I think we need to stop idealising the life of children with a sahp
Historically those who had a sahp they were doing a lot of drudge work (my grandma talks about how much of her day was taken up with laundry and cooking and housework). It wasn't constant 1:1 attention.

Also, it's important not to assume that everyone (child or adult) will thrive in that environment.

My mum was awful and moody throughout my childhood. She was a different person when she went back to work. My siblings who did go to childcare were much happier and more confident than my brother and I. Much more socially adept.

Finally, I expect everyone's cortisol level is high if a family is constantly stressing about paying the bills/how to keep a roof over their head.

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.

You appear to be talking about the 1950's/60's here with your reference to sleeping pills. A relatively short span of time.

The norm before the industrial revolution for example would have been women working in fields, growing food, tending to livestock looking after their home, with children of all ages in tow with other women and older children looking helping with younger ones. They were doing valuable work and their husbands were dependent on them doing it as they were dependent on their husbands doing his work. They weren't sitting alone in a room with their baby singing songs all day.

It’s best for my child that I go back
to work. Because otherwise we won’t have a house to live in or food to eat.

Isnt that quite obvious??

We also need to stop misrepresenting the SAHM mother as anything more than a specific culture-, time- and class-specific blip. Most women with children, throughout history, have always worked.

Presumably they expect that some of the women going back to work will be working in these childcare settings. Paying them to look after someone else's kids while the government is paying for theirs to be looked after.

Absolutely! I meant to add that as well. Totally agree.

@Ilikepinacoladass

Exactly. My DD's had the 15 hours, they attended nursery each morning to prepare them for full time school.

Whether it would be best to support families to have one parent home (shared leave of course not just mums) just isn't being discussed

Not absolutely it doesn't mean they shouldn't which is why I'm a bit torn. As I said it's a very personal point of view. Maybe I'm imagining the pressure, I hope so.

It's a difficult subject to discuss because everyone wants to do the best for their children, but many parents are in a difficult position due to financial commitments and pressures. It's presented as 'choice' but if it's a question of financial necessity, that's not a real choice.

@betterthanbitter

Raises cortisol from what to what?

For how long?

What happens when cortisol is raised?

Did they test the cortisol of children not in 'day' care?

@ParadiseLaundry comparisons with the time before the Industrial Revolution are futile, because we aren't going back there. It's not possible.

I was actually thinking more about the Victoria era, when children started work very young instead of going to school etc. Wouldn't want to go back there either.

In an ideal world it would be economically feasible for all families to have the choice whether or not to have a parent at home while children are very young. Childcare would be run the way it is in Scandinavian countries, well paid and with excellent staff. I'd like that too.

But what we have is this proposal from Jeremy Hunt and since it doesn't kick in until late 2024 it's all academic anyway (unless we're stupid enough to vote the fuckers back in).

Yes it's classic Tories. Strangely for a conservative party it has no interest in "conserving" the family and supporting women to spend more time with their children. That money could have gone into longer maternity leaves or increased child benefit. Instead it goes to nurseries (businesses) so other businesses can capitalise on the labour of the mother. It's sickening really.

I understand the points about benefits for a 2 year old to spend some time in a childcare settings and agree.

2 year old's here already get funding if there are in low income families (together for twos I think it's called). I think supposedly based on the fact that it is considered beneficial for over 2/3year olds to have access to some form of childcare (for the social etc reasons you mention)

The new announcement is about extra funding for under 2s, from 9 months though. Introduced with no mention of whether this is good for the child or not.

@Mischance

What does using childcare have to do with 'childrearing'?

Absolutely.

Aparantly not. I should just camp out in the cold and not work.

What is best for children is to grow up in happy, financially solvent and balanced homes. That can mean a variety of scenarios and is nothing to do with having one parent at home.
The state of the childcare sector is a disgrace, and an indication that over years there has not been anywhere near enough care or respect for children and families from this or past governments Better childcare should mean more choices -primarily for women (who still tend to have to curtail careers to care for children more than men) and brighter futures for children.

Everyone citing Scandinavian countries as an example must also realise they are given damn good maternity and paternity leave to give both parents time with their offspring. Not a measly four weeks. They are supported in their individual choices to go back to work or to stay at home. Here we are are financially screwed if we don’t both work to try and pay for all the really expensive things we think we need and are pressured in to thinking we need (as well as extortionate housing prices etc etc.)

This is the oddest post ever!

What's best for a child, is to be around other children. Learning new skills and developing by learning from their peers.

My LO goes to a childminder three days a week. That is the perfect balance for our family. I work four days, as does his father.

I will happily welcome any additional support so I can spend my money on having a wonderful time with my child.

@pointythings well, no, but I'm talking about the biological norm for humans. It's hard to believe that after thousands of years of humanity progressing being looked after by parents and family that suddenly being looked after by strangers is the better option.

The gov don't give af about what's better for the children or us. They want people to work so there are more taxpayers money for them to give back handers to their mates and make money. Then they want to provide poor healthcare to the masses so the working people drop dead before they can go and collect their pensions. :/

I’m here for it!! Wish they had brought it in years ago. As we both work, one full time one part time, we have had no choice but to pay out £700+ per month until our children have turned 3. £700 per month!!! I have been working just to pay child care costs.
also my children going to nursery at such a young age interacting with other children and adults was the best thing we did. They have been so far ahead of other children their age who haven’t had the opportunity to go so young.

I think you should have to show proof of work if you are putting a one year old in for 30 hours. Im totally in support of this policy if both parents want/need to return to work, but I hope it wont be misused with people putting their babies into childcare they dont actually need. Hopefully that wont be the case, im sure its unlikely it would be misused.

It would be nice if they could consider the childcare costs of older children at holiday clubs too. Nothing mentioned about that even though most parents jobs dont stop for school holidays.

Oh great. Yet another thread created to beat working Mum's with!