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?

I agree OP, I am about to start IVF soon and it saddens me to think that after all of our hard work in trying to get pregnant, I’ll be expected to send my baby to nursery at 9 months when research shows that children are better off when parents have longer maternity leave or a SAHP for the early years. I even think working part time is also an ok option but working full time and sticking a baby in nursery for 10 hour days is no good for a child’s attachment, on top of that, check any psychological research out there and most MH problems stem from unhealthy attachments! They are reducing adult to child ratios in nursery too. I used to work in nurseries and it saddened me to see so many babies cry out for their overworked key worker who was busy doing anything but picking these helpless children up and comforting them. So so damaging for a baby, maybe not a toddler as much but definitely damaging to a baby.

@EasternEcho

Are you aware of any long term ill effects to Danish children?

Are you a country of sociopaths?

Are they annoyed? I think they’re just wondering if the priority is taxes, economy, individual choice and children’s welfare, in that order.

I don’t think that’s the point. It’s good that the government is providing it for those that need and want it but women are already pulled in enough directions and if you don’t want and don’t have to go back to work then that’s a perfectly valid decision. In some ways this debate just highlights the many ways women are made to feel guilty whatever decision they make.

It’s interesting that you think parents can’t teach their children how to speak or socialise…. I wonder however I and my siblings and friends managed to acquire those skills back in the 60s and 70s when children didn’t routinely go to childcare? No option to outsource all those basic skills back then.
It was actually probably less stressful knowing only one parent needed to work, most families could pay the rent, food and bills on one wage. I do question sometimes whether we are better off or worse off now….

I'm not saying it is or isn't.. I'm saying whether it is or isn't best for children doesn't seem to be on the govts radar at all. Or part of the conversation.

I would be interested to see the research saying that it's best for 9 months - 2 year olds to be in childcare than with their parents though? (Not counting the situations where if not they wouldn't eat or have somewhere to live)

@LadyHarmby

How is mum best?

And what does nature care about women not working?

@Ilikepinacoladass

But the govt isn't saying its best or its not.

Just that other factors are also important.

Maybe more important.

And that's OK.

It should be what's best for the whole of society as a whole. IMO gender equality will never be achieved while so many women give up work or go part time after having children, so subsidised childcare is a good thing.

@MissyB1

In the 60s and 70s when most women worked full days in and out of the home and kids were chucked out side for most of the day? Babies were sat in prams or playpens and ignored?

Yeah

Sounds idyllic

Who is forcing you to send your baby to nursery?!

All you sexist women who think a mother’s place is in the home can still do that! You can rely on your husband’s Very Important Job and show your sons and daughters that mummies should not work and daddies should have the Big Jobs. Nobody is stopping you!

Financial stability is what is best for most families. Poor outcomes for children are linked to poverty and the lack of cheap childcare is what prevents many women from going back to work.

There are 3 million single parent families in the U.K., most of them women.

*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.*

Firstly the children don't have to be the same age for them to socialise and be round other children.

If there is no playgroup in your area you (not you personally, just generally speaking) could volunteer to start one or pick up one that is no longer running. You can arrange meet ups in parks via social media. These are great ways to meet friends for both you and your children. You might not want to do these things of course, but it's not just a choice of sending a child to nursery to socialise or sitting at home alone with mum.

Is now a good time to point out that Scandinavia has a higher suicide rate than the rest of Europe?

Source: Wikipedia: List of countries by suicide rate

Childcare isn't full time or nothing - very few toddlers are in full time daycare 6-8, 5 days a week, as it's obviously not good for them.

However, lots of parents would benefit from being able to afford to work part time and keep their career (and pension contributions) going, who currently can't afford to. Part time for at least one parent really is the best of both worlds. This new scheme provides many with a choice that they wouldn't otherwise have, which is a good thing.

Well I imagine there isn't really a substantial link between children being in a childcare setting from 9 months, and going on to not contribute as much to the economy as adults, so from a budget POV (which is what this was) there's no reason why parents going back to work at this time would stop society from thriving.

Please tell me you aren’t linking early childcare to suicide rates in adults? Because that would be embarrassing.

What if the govt made the money directly available to parents so they could choose, rather than only subsidising childcare when it isn't done by parents?

The argument isn't that the govt shouldn't subsidise caring for children. It should support families in the way they think is best to do that.

I agree OP but it’s a very unpopular opinion.

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

Hm how about roof over their head and financial security? There's a popular creator on Tik Tok who also decided that being home was best for her babies - they all ended up homeless and sleeping in their car when the provider husband decided that he's no longer interested in providing, thanks very much, and left. Considering that you have 1 in 2 chance of divorcing, higher for unmarried relationship breakup (and we all know how efficient the enforcement of unpaid child maintenance is), that's a hell of a gamble.

@Albiboba Totally agree with you.
I was 'barely surviving' as a parent when I was forced to stay home with 2 under 2 in lockdown. Not when I returned to work for 2.5 days a week. 🙄

You've missed the entire point of the Two Income Trap, which was that the price of having children was driving people to need two full time incomes.
That cost was driven by childcare, the price of houses near good schools and university.
Literally none of her suggested fixes was to have more people stay home.

Relying on only 1 full time income isn't so different. If the main earner loses their job, the SAHP is often going to earn half or less of the previous household income, which puts them in the same problematic position. Moreover, the SAHP isn't gaining a pension, nor savings for later life, and if they separate they will become a zero income household, which is even riskier - both for kids being raised in poverty, and for other kids (and women) trapped in violent and abusive situations that they can't afford to leave..

Very young children, under three, need consistent and secure relationships. That's usually with a mother or father. Sadly in many Early Years settings the staff are young girls who don't stay in the job for very long. Added to that is the proposed increase in child to adult ratio. It's very difficult to feed, change a nappy, and comfort more than one baby at a time.

I wouldn't assume that there isn't a link between children in childcare from very early ages and problems later in life which will eventually cost the tax payer.

And I think the govt shouldn't be assuming this either. It should be putting effort into research and studies to find out.

@BadNomad this is spot on