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?

The reason the Government put this policy in place is to appeal to the electorate. The cost of childcare will have been flagged up as an issue of concern to the public.

That’s not to say the sector doesn’t work very hard and prioritise the need of children, but the Tories want votes.

I totally agree with OP. Sticking children in nursery settings 5 days a week from 8-6 is not the answer. A balance of Mum at home and nursery is the ideal, but not possible for many.

Not all children have siblings or siblings their own age group.

Not all friends have children the same age group at the same time or live near.

Not all places have playgroups open. Our playgroups are run by churches and part funded by the council. The volunteers are mostly older ladies who after Covid stopped volunteering so only one runs near us for those who live in a deprived estate.

Also , whilst childcare availability is good for women, let us not get lost under the heavy blanket of crap that the Tories give a shit about that either (defunded refuges and shelters, cuts to legal aid, disproportionate burden of austerity on women, essentially legalised rape, poor workers rights, low paid work disproportionally taken up by women etc). Really they don’t care about any of us, women or men or children. This is about getting people int work, poorly paid, insecure work for as long as they can. A round of applause for everyone striking today, it’s all connected!

I don't understand this OP.

If you want to stay at home, and convince yourself your children would be damaged otherwise, that's your choice.

Maybe others feel they a role model to their own children by working. Specially for their girls.

For the crazy idea of the "goverment" funding SAHMs to be at home, where do you think this money come from? Its not the "government" money but the tax payer's money. And who is the tax payer? Working women and men. It doesn't come from SAHMs.
So are you asking working women to fund your lifestyle choice because "your role as a mother" is not to enter the workforce and this is best for children?

PS: My home country has free childcare and children are doing well and seem very happy. Women are very happy too.

Yes children need a house and food. Is it essential to provide those things and they will be better in childcare if the alternative is not having them.

Crafts / messy play, probably less important.

And not suggesting childcare isn't beneficial to some extent. The govt already provide free hours for 2year olds and 3 year olds (supposedly for this reason).

I work and enjoy it. Whether it's best for my child who knows. I think in an ideal world for him though before 3 years old I would have been looking him full time.

@Chickpea17

None of that screams best to me.

What is best for children is eventually what is best for us all as a society.

@Moveoverdarlin

A balance of mum at home?

Why mum?

Not Dad then? he clearly has no caring responsibilities as always!

@Ilikepinacoladass

But having a sahm isn't best for children

Im not sure why you keep saying it is.

Or ignoring all the other valid benefits to women not staying at home

You don't HAVE TO take up the free hours to you, if you personally believe it is women's place to stay home and take care of their children....

@Ilikepinacoladass

Does your child not have a dad?

Lower stress levels and fewer behavior problems for kids isn't what's best for them? 🤯

Don't you know men can't look after children!

My DP was actually the one who worked PT to look after our DD when she was under 3 as he can get strange shifts.

Oh and there is one male worker at her nursery.

Children are only important until they become mothers. At that point their autonomy, independence, careers, and pension are no longer important. Their job is now to stay home and raise the babies.

Depends on their sex.

@Chickpea17

It would if that's what the research actually shows

But it doesn't so...

@Reugny

The horror!

Send in the pitch forks

I didn't mention women because I don't think the Govt was thinking 'how can we benefit women?' They were thinking how can they help companies. Parents - and yy it's usually women but not always - and DCs weren't the driver for this.

If the Govt wanted to benefit women, they'd pay decent wages to the female dominated sectors that are currently on strike. They'd define woman and ensure all establishments acted accordingly (police, legal system, health service, education). They'd have a zero tolerance policy towards VAWG. They're re-open Sure Start centres and subsidised gyms, etc.

They don't give a shit about any of that. This policy may inadvertently benefit women but it's not why it was introduced.

I am in Denmark and apart from returning to work, sending children to subsidized child care institutions before age 1 is common and encouraged even if a parent is at home. This is considered in the best interest of the child, as the upbringing of children is seen as a responsibility shared between the family and society.

In this sense, services for children from an early age are seen as an essential meeting point of private and public, of family culture and Danish culture. The function of day-care is seen as a major contribution to the country’s sense of social cohesion. It seems to work. I am not aware if the UK works along the same principles, but I see it as as a good thing for kids in terms of early socialization.

I cannot believe there are women all over this thread annoyed at the government for providing support for childcare fees, for women who want/ need/ choose to work. How DARE you.

I completely agree @Ilikepinacoladass . DH and I made the decision to both work part time while DCs are at primary and have never used childcare other than 10 hours 3+ as preparation for school (we are in Wales). We are in a privileged position as we are both self employed so can be flexible and I earn enough to just about cover our needs working part time. We live on a tight budget, buy second hand and have low key UK holidays and we are very happy with our way of life. For us and our children, it’s the right thing. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to decide not to put their children into childcare, but we made the decision to accept ‘less’ for a few years so we could spend these precious early years with DCs.

Nature. Mum is best. That’s biology not social construct. Dad is the next best thing though.

I'm baffled by the focus on mothers being at home on this thread. When my next child is one, my dh is taking a year's career break to stay at home and look after her until she's two. Then she'll go into childcare. All this 'you need to breastfeed' and it's a mother's job is horseshit. Any caring parent can stay at home. I think the free hours are great too. I think some people are annoyed because they can't give the childcare costs excuse anymore when asked why they're not at work.