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?

@Grammarnut

You think childcare workers raise the children of people who work? The parents are absolved of parental responsibility?

Wish I'd known that!

Do you think teachers are raising school age children?

I have also previously said that staying at home isn't the wrong choice. I agree with @Botw1 that a baby with loving, caring, attentive parents are going to turn out great no matter what.

Of course, I was then told by a SAHM that since my baby is in full time nursery I couldn't possibly be an attentive parent. Those poor, innocent SAHM's.

@Botw1 with regards to the 30 hour thing, maybe because not many reasonably paid jobs are available if you only want to work 30 hours? I don’t know. Most professional women I know work far more than 30 hours. Also, as we know, the ‘free’ 30 hours won’t actually be free will they?

It was in my best interest to return to work after six months as I wanted to progress with my career. Good full time childcare enabled DH and I to do so.

Other than some mothers breast feeding, if a family wants to have a SAHP - why not the father?

This

Op. I agree. I say this every time. Policy often based on mothers with good jobs, not the ones who are cleaning, working in supermarkets etc and who would rather be at home with their own children. We’ve got a situation that seems to suggest childcare is only a respectable job if it’s not your own children!

Because it's possible to raise children and work.

@SouthLondonMum22 was that the person who said someone couldn’t be an attentive parent because you weren’t physically there, you were at work?! I mean if that’s what your talking about I do think that person was being ridiculous- presumably no one is disputing that if your child is in nursery, for those hours, you’re obviously not being an attentive parent because you’re not physically there?! If they’re implying you’re not an attentive parent full stop then obviously that’s ridiculous. Also I’d argue that when women are at work, they are often still in their lunch break or whatever dealing with child related admin, you’re never fully switched off. It’s absolutely not fair or correct to say that working parents aren’t attentive parents and I’m sorry that was said to you.

@early30smum of course it's a valid choice to have a SAHP if a couple agree that's what they're both happy with and if they can afford it.

My point quite simply is that when it comes to making a valuable contribution to society, what actually matters is having children who are raised with their needs met, with love, having good values instilled etc. And that can be done by WOHP and SAHP.
Or not. I'm sure we can all think of examples where parents abuse their children, or neglect them, or just don't give a shit about providing stimulation or a good environment.

If life were as simple as all children of SAHP becoming fabulous citizens who benefit society greatly, and all children of WOHP growing into feckless losers, then believe me, the govt would be chasing women back into the home as fast as possible! The cost to society of feckless losers is huge- financially and in every other way. No govt wants that!

My dd went to the childminder 3 days per week term time from 4 months old. I’m self- employed and taking a year out to be a SAHP wasn’t an option (take a look at the statutory maternity pay rate next, eh Jeremy?) . It felt awful at first but within a week I could see that she loved it. Because of that socialization from a young age but with only a couple of other kids, she is the most fearless, happy little thing. Additionally, this will be of so much benefit to the groups of children who are trailing behind their peers at the end of the Early Years stage. That achievement gap doesn’t narrow as they get older, it widens.

I think this is an overdue and extremely welcome move.

@freyamay74 thanks for explaining and I fully agree with you. Like I said before, I have put one of my children into full time childcare and he is doing very well. I don’t think sahp automatically equals well adjusted happy child anymore than I think working parents equal badly adjusted kids. There are plenty of terrible sahms and plenty of great ones. Same for working mums also.

I believe she meant at all. Of course, when I'm working I'm not actively parenting, I'd never argue that I was. He's still ultimately my responsibility though (and my husband's) and like you said, it isn't like working parents switch off and forget they have parental responsibilities during working hours.

@SouthLondonMum22 if she meant at all, that’s just nonsense. As I’ve already said, I’m choosing to be a SAHM this time and believe me I’m not always 100% attentive to the baby. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that ANY parent is 100% attentive, all of the time.

I was in my son's nursery twice today as I am when it's my day to do drop off and pick ups during the week. They must be hiding all these teenagers well.

@Coffeelotsofcoffee and here we get to the crux of this question. Essentially it’s judging people that chose to put their children in childcare and go back to work. Very dull. No one’s making you do anything to your child!! THE HOURS ARE OPTIONAL!!!

FYI I think working parents are awesome, stay at home parents are awesome too and both add amazing value and can be great parents (it’s about the parent, not whether they work, stay at home or use childcare or not). Different families, different situations, different options - pro-choice. I see the policy as real progress towards equality in the workplace (and I wouldn’t not want that for my child - sorry!) and my mind is blown that people that don’t have to use it are using it as an excuse to slam working parents and present themselves as some sort of superior parent.

It’s almost as if it doesn’t matter what the subject is, they will just argue about how bad, damaging and selfish it is to be a working mother regardless of circumstance.

Even when it works out to be about 21 hours a week.

We all know what you're trying to say & frankly it's not at all helpful. I have my own views which are very different from yours but I don't want to offend anyone.

I didn't suggest it was not possibly to work and raise children. I did it. But not until the youngest was five - when I went back to university and got an extra teaching qualification to improve career prospects. I think small babies need to be with their mothers. Also, most people have a job, not a career. We are talking about women going back to being a cashier at Tescoes etc. All the creative things that women have done have been jettisoned in favour of going out to work and earning money, nothing but that is valued. That's the problem.

Doing research and having experience are completely different.

One thing I’ve also not seen mentioned on this thread.

Lots of businesses benefit from SAHMs or SAH parents. Such as:

soft plays
baby/toddler music classes/baby sensory classes
baby and toddler swimming lessons
child friendly cafes

Is it possible to say that actually, SOME sah parents support the economy by providing a need for jobs such as the above?

I mean I’ve oversimplified it obviously. But if all babies and children were in childcare, some jobs wouldn’t exist.

also, again I’ve not seen discussed on here, why can’t this funding be used for nannies?

I do agree that if you intend to SAH as a matter of principle, 30 hours per week free childcare won't change your mind.

I don't know anyone who used a day nursery and that's all the friends of my three children over many years. It never entered my head to be honest and if it was free, it still wouldn't have.

Most people don't have careers or most women?

I think babies need good, loving, caring parents. Working or staying at home is irrelevant and is just used as yet another way to judge women, especially mothers who want to work.

I think we need to stop pretending that the only option for working parents is both parents working 50 hour weeks while their poor babies languish in baby jals /workhouses for 70.

And they stay eternal babies.

Posters seem to have forgotten that part time and flexible work exist or that family members can do childcare

Guess that's not quite as emotive as the 70 hour a week baby jail run by hard faced 14 yos

Agree