To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

[Ilikepinacoladass]

The original thread reached max capacity.

It was really interesting to read all the replies and refreshing to hear than some people felt the same, as I haven't heard it discussed much in the media. All that seems to get focused on is how free childcare hours will get people back to work, save people money, help the economy.

The question of what's in the best interest of children doesn't seem to come up.

Found this article this morning interesting and one of the first I've seen bringing these issues up.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/16/the-guardian-view-on-hunts-childcare-plans-jobs-arent-all-that-matter?

'But his offer, treats childcare as a means to a single end: getting parents into work. Childcare isn’t just an economic growth issue. Early years education plays a crucial role in targeting inequalities and closing attainment gaps. For this reason, quality matters as much as availability. Mr Hunt, like his predecessors, sees childcare primarily as a labour market tool.'

The Guardian view on Hunt’s childcare plans: jobs aren’t all that matter

I think it’s great as it gives people (the majority women) the choice. That’s surely the best thing for children, growing up in a world where they can have a choice and not be forced into not working due to childcare fees. They can choose to stay at home or work. Going back to work can also be a lifesaver for people’s mental health - that’s a clear benefit for children.

Do you know anyone who can't afford to work (so doesn't even though they'd very much like to) currently because they would be making a loss with childcare fee's?

Other than with twins / multiples, or very small age gaps I don't see how that's possible really, with tax free childcare and cheaper forms of childcare like child minders?

I don't know anyone who is forced not to work because they would be making a loss. I know lots and lots who were forced back to work earlier than they'd like as they can't afford not to.

So I don't really buy that it's giving people who desperately want to work the choice to now do so.

And what about the choice of parents claiming UC? Who will be told they have to use these free hours to get back to work when their child is 9 months?

Is it even a good idea for thousands more children to be going into childcare at 9 months (as that is what they anticipate happening)?

What about the quality of the childcare?

These things rarely seem to be discussed. And upping the ratios at the same time makes it quite clear that it isn't this government's priority by a long stretch.

Do you know anyone who can't afford to work (so doesn't even though they'd very much like to) currently because they would be making a loss with childcare fee's?

Is this a joke? Do you actually know how much childcare can cost? One child in full time childcare can easily cost upwards of £1500 a month. Throw in lack of flexible working and it's not difficult to see how so many families (mostly women) struggle

Yes I know how much it can cost, it's expensive.

But there are other options, childminders are often much cheaper, and take unpaid holiday. And the tax free childcare scheme helps.

On the whole I don't really see how someone could be wanting to work but not afford to do so (unless twins and maybe some other circumstances etc). Ie. actively making a loss from working.

I am a single parent, and would loved to have spent another year with my child rather than going back to work, but I just couldn't afford not to work? And I'm not paid mega bucks but any stretch of the imagination.

No one I know can't afford to work. Yes they all wish childcare was cheaper, so will be glad to be saving some money. But most people can't afford not to work, rather than the other way around?

The only reason that a 9 month old would go to a full time childcare would be if the mother needs to go back to work. Because maternity pay is shit. Because her partner doesn't earn enough for her to stay at home. It's all well and nice to say that small babies need to stay home with their mums until they are 3, but who is going to feed and clothe these babies? In our economy it is nearly impossible to survive on 1 wage, and if it is - it would be pure survival. I wouldn't want to stay with my baby at home for 3 years without being able to afford to go out and have a meal, or buy them an extra toy, or go on a family holiday. Plus - this has been discussed on MN for many many times - I would never put my career on hold and expect my partner to support me for 3 years. He can leave me, he can cheat on me, he can get hit by a bus, and I will remain alone to pick up the pieces of my life, with no job, and no money. Every week there is a thread on MN with a similar story, where she is a SAHM, and he is leaving her. No thank you.

Whats the point in a second thread when you barely engaged with the first?

Oh give it a bloody rest

*But there are other options, childminders are often much cheaper, and take unpaid holiday. And the tax free childcare scheme helps.

On the whole I don't really see how someone could be wanting to work but not afford to do so (unless twins and maybe some other circumstances etc). Ie. actively making a loss from working.*

It’s pretty easy if you actually look at the sums. A child 2 or under will cost about £14,000 a year on average for full time childcare. If you have another child in nursery or even after school and breakfast club plus holidays it could easily be another £6,000 on top.
Min wage is barely over £20,000 so before you’ve even factored in tax and commuting you’re not even breaking even on childcare.

*And what about the choice of parents claiming UC? Who will be told they have to use these free hours to get back to work when their child is 9 months?

Are you a bot or just some bottom of the barrel journo trying to find comments for your shit article.

You literally just keep repeating the same baseless garbage over and over again like a robot.

Jesus was one thread not enough for this?!

I think it's great if it allows women to go back to work earlier if they want to, what I don't think is good for children is that childcare at a young age is seen as a good thing. The first 1000 days are very important for a child and if possible they should be raised by a primary caregiver, this is proved in research, seen in nature and is just common sense.

Putting your children in childcare is a very Western notion.

You will still be able to claim your universal credits!! They haven’t said ‘ you must go back to work!” And yes there is money issue currently, me being part time and partner full time I earn £1089 per month. My child care fees for March are £769! A lot of people look at that and think what’s the Effin point going to work for nothing but if it’s free they can choose to go to work and actually keep their money rather that spending it all on child care!! Also going to work 5hrs per day has been huge for my mental health!! I love it and both my children have loved and thrived in nursery from 9mo

Exactly! So I don't really understand the 'it will give woman the freedom / choice to go to work' line.

Lol, sorry I didn't realise starting a conversation on Mumsnet was a full time job. I have a job plus child and single parent so am not able to constantly be replying/ checking messages.

In two months I will return to full time work. No I don't fucking want to. But I need to keep a roof over my children's heads. Three days a week I will leave my BF twins and their elder sibling from seven in the morning until 9.30 at night. Some help to take ANYTHING off the childcare bill would mean we dip less into our savings, less likelihood that we need to start selling assets to preserve our security. Except it won't kick in for us until Sep 2024. So it's barely going to touch the sides anyway.

But yes, do make another sneery thread at those of us who don't have a choice.

Another child in nursery would come under the twins / very small age gap category.

Yes I get the point about after school club. I'm not saying childcare isn't very expensive, and that people often aren't making loads above just breaking even (myself included).

But for the vast majority of people the case isn't that they can't afford to work. It's that they can't afford not to work.

So the idea that these free hours are giving thousands of women who are desperately wanting to work (to the point that not doing so is causing their mental health and that of their children harm) the choice and free to now do so, just doesn't ring true with me!

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2021/sep/12/cost-insane-uk-parents-unable-afford-childcare

I think you are presenting your own anecdotes as data OP
There are many parents who can't afford to work as evidenced above.
Going back to the thread title it's pretty subjective as to what's best for children based on the circumstances they are being brought up on.
As 27% of children are living in poverty with 47% of those in SP families then if this raises the living standards and outcomes of these children not to mention the socialisation and general welfare,then I think it's a good thing.
After all parents have choice and if you don't think it's best then don't take it up.

I am agreeing with you. Everyone I know can't afford not to work. Everyone I know including me went back sooner than we wanted to, as we couldn't afford not to. Everyone I know pays shit loads in childcare and so can't afford much else.

Yes it's great that we will be getting some of that money back.

My point is, is giving out free childcare hours the only way. How about extending mat leave / more child benefit, so we can actually have the choice whether to use childcare or not?

I don’t like this debate for different reasons. Because it takes men out of the equation.

Mothers want to work? They’ll need childcare then. There is definitely no possible way that fathers can play any kind of role.

In that article, one had twins. One didn't quit work, but turned down a promotion (different from not being able to work). One had 2 children under 3 (and assuming one was not a newborn, it would have been quite a small age gap and actually not long until the 30 free hours kicked in for one of them anyway).

Childcare is expensive yes. But there are cheaper options. Childminders seem to get forgotten as an option, they are in lots of case far cheaper, and often take unpaid holidays.

I'm not saying we couldn't all do with the extra money. But I don't think this policy is about to give thousands the 'freedom to work'.

I agree OP. It seems the role as a mother is being devalued and she's only worth something if she's out there paying taxes. I've worked part time since having my children and it's hard work, it's a constant juggle. The preschool years go by so very fast. I've decided I won't be sending my 3 year old to nursery for the 30 hours next year (even though it will make my life so much easier) because on my day off I want to be able to spend quality time with him so he'll just do the 15 hours. Thankfully I also have grandparents to help and I appreciate many people don't have that luxury. Small children WANT to be with there mums, there's no substitute.

My eldest went to a private nursery (day care) 2 days a week when he was small. 8am - 5am. I'll regret that decision for the rest of my life. It's not a natural environment for a baby. We did take him out and he went to a childminder and grandparents once they had retired.

Yes all perfectly normal circumstances that stop women going back to work as its too expensive.
What you really mean is that you wanted to be paid to take extra time off with your child.
Why not say that instead of making things up?
It's pretty clear that this is a government strategy to get women back to employment.
We can't fund people staying at home on benefits as a lifestyle choice.
Not really sure what's wrong with that ?

There’ll be no choice about having to pay towards this scheme. The (relatively) poor will have to subsidise others earning much more than them. It also takes away funds from essential services like the NHS which is in desperate need of funds. Education and social care are other services desperately needing an injection of funds. I’m sure other posters can come up with others. Not a fan.