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?

Exactly. It just seems to be left out of the conversation totally. It's just presented like here's the solution for the economy, free childcare for over 9 months olds.. sorted.

Is being ‘so far ahead of other children’ the most important thing though? 🧐

I want my daughter to grow up thinking that work is important. That if she wants a family she can still have a career. That her education isn't for nothing. That she can and should be financially solvent in her own right and shouldn't think that she needs to stay with an unsuitable partner just because she cannot afford to leave.

Working parents don't just put money into their homes and families. They put work ethic and drive into their offspring.

Precisely ! Well written

@Ilikepinacoladass

'no mention of whether this is good for the child or not.'

Probably because there's no evidence to say it is or it isn't

And that isn't the only factor of the policy.

100% this! We don't live in the 1950s anymore. The world gas changed and women have and should have more choice now!

How is it possibly not in the best interests of children?
Most mum's I know of kids that age (and I have them so I know quite a lot!) work part-time 2/3/4 days a week. Because it puts more money into their families pocket. Because it's better for their career. Because it's better for their mental health. All of which is good for children. Children being stuck at home because it doesn't make financial sense for their mother to work is good for noone at all.

Providing it's properly implemented and the sector can cope with demand this can only be a good thing, as it puts more money back into young families pockets.which means we can spend more in the economy. Which is good for everyone. No brainer.

I totally agree with you that it's important for children to be around other children, but why would the fact they are with a SAHP during the day mean they aren't? Siblings, playgroups, meeting with friends during the day all do this.

Yes we all need somewhere to live and stuff to eat. But are we just aiming for survival? If so then yeh it doesn't matter where your child is when you work is really, as long as they are safe.

Personally I think we should be aiming a bit higher as a nation than purely surviving.

Why?

And why not their fathers?

Yes, I don't know if I misunderstood but I heard them say that if you were in work for 16 hours you could put your child in for 30hrs.

Well going by your username I'd say you've got some very questionable ideas about what is best for children.

It's all a myth that Scandinavin countries offer free childcare for everyone- they don't!

And to make it work they are going to change the ratios so there will be more children per staff member. Worrying.

With their development, why would it be a bad thing?! Speech, language, social skills. You people act like working mums don’t want to be with their kids. It’s laughable really.! I don’t get what the issue is. I think it’s fantastic although not sure when it takes effect from so I might not even benefit from it.

Username checks out 😂 This thread is so sexist and depressing. Basically “women should be at home with the kids”. No mention of dad’s bond with the kids of course, that’s completely unimportant. Then you all have the audacity to moan that you take on all the mental load while dad spends his weekend playing golf. Quelle surprise!

Ah that explains it better. I thought it was abit odd if they were giving 30 hours without actually the need for it 😂 (you can tell I haven’t read the news in detail today).

As others have said, doesn’t this give people more choice? If you need the money and/or want to go back to work and/or feel your child would benefit from nursery, the financial choice is made easier. If you want to, and can afford to, stay at home then do.

But equally I would like my daughter to have option to stay at home if she feels like she wants to raise her children as a SAHP for the brief time they are little then that should also be valued. Surely? Not everyone wants the same thing. For some people work is extremely important, for some an absolute necessity but we are not all made the same. Some children thrive in childcare situations, others don’t. Choice becomes the real freedom. I do worry that being a SAHM is a dirty word on Mumsnet. It should be a valued choice if that’s what you decide is best for yourself and your family.

It is not the responsibility of the government and other taxpayers to pay parents to stay home with their children. What's best for your children is something you should consider when you are planning your family or take into account when deciding to progress with a pregnancy.

I believe, in the small print of the proposed policies, that there is going to be some change to the rules on staff/child ratios. That may be a cause for concern and stand some more detailed scrutiny.

Why are they more exhausted than being at home? Is the nursery a workhouse? Never understood the 'it's tiring for the children' thing. They have downtime at nursery and after school club too you know.....