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 thing is men are reaping the rewards whilst their wives work. Seeing as most mothers only work part time, it means the childcare juggling and household chores are still being taken care of with the luxury of the man not having to put their hand in their pocket much because their wives have their own income.

Erm yes @Ilikepinacoladass plenty of people In that situation I know of, especially one who is a single parent.

They can't afford to go back to work? Genuinely interested to know the circumstances? I don't know anyone who can afford not to work, (apart from one with twins).

They aren't eligible for benefits as they own (read are mortgaged up to the eyeballs) on a house- they were actually told they would be much better off if they rented. Childcare to allow them for a FT job far exceeds the salary they could earn, and pay the bills out, afford to eat etc.

Also I guess it depends what kind of salary you think someone is 'going back too'. If you were working minimum wage in a shop, then you're not returning to a significant sum

Maybe if work actually paid properly families wouldn't need two parents working full-time to bring up a family. Then it would truly give families a choice of what works best for their family unit.

I think it's great! I'm only able to work 2 days a week, on my husbands 2 days off, (he earns more and has more progress options) so we get 2 hours each evening as a family, but in that we have to do dinner, bath and bedtime so not exactly quality time. With free child care, I could swap my days at work (and possibly even pick up another 1 or 2!) and we could have 2 full days a week together as a family! That would be a huge advantage for us all, most importantly the children!

They said there will be UC sanctions for parents not using the hours / not working, so yes they most probably will be forced to use them.

Yes I totally understand that like yourself lots aren't making a load more than breaking even (although in your case I'd say your childcare fees are half that, as surely half is your husbands responsibility?). But that's not the same as 'not having the choice' to go back to work' and 'not being able to go back to work' despite desperately wanting to?

It's very welcome extra cash for a lot of parents. Not arguing with that (although bit annoyed it's too late for me to benefit personally).

And no doubt will help the gender pay gap, as for lots of women the childcare fees fall on them. Again not a bad thing.

But I don't see any mention in the media about whether this push towards thousands more children, from 9 months, going into childcare is a particularly good thing for children in general? We have unprecedentedly high numbers of children in childcare currently, so many more than compared with 30/40 years ago. No one seems to be questioning how this effects / could effect children's outcomes?

Could the extra financial help come in another form other than free childcare?

What about the quality of childcare, which sounds like will be taking a turn for the worst after the introduction of the extra free hours, plus increased ratios.

We are heading towards a culture where it becomes the norm to go back to work after 9 months and put children into nursery. All I'm asking if that someone questions if that's a good thing or not.

Ok yeh, not being eligible for benefits as a single parent would definitely skew the scales. And I think fairly rare?

As a side note, I don't think UC eligibility is effected by owning a property? It doesn't count in the same way savings do (which I think the limit for is about 16k)

Why can't you currently work on the days your husband is working (ie. Use a childminder etc for those days).

I haven’t read all this but what concerns me is that they will allow nurseries to change the ratio for babies to one key worker to five babies. I think this is what I heard?

I’d rather pay more for a nursery that doesn’t adopt this approach as I think it’s risky and will put more pressure on the staff.

One of the reasons I didn't return to my old job after my second mat leave was because nursery fees for my two kids would have been more than my wages. I do have a DH and I know people say the cost is shared - of course it is, but overall that's still a net loss to the family income. He earned double what I did so if one of us was going to quit obviously it had to be me.

As it was I was job hunting for a few months before my mat leave was due to end and managed to move jobs and make something financially viable. I would never want to be a SAHM for tons of reasons that have been done to death on these threads. But I don't have a secure, 'career' role with clear prospects for advancement, so in those circumstances, I wouldn't pay to go to work and put my kids in childcare, no. If I hadn't managed to have secured better paying roles with less hours, i would have had to just quit my other job because that is the choice I was facing. That would have necessitated me becoming a SAHM probably until second DC at least got their 15hrs childcare. Because I would have had to cancel their nursery place if I didn't have a job and then I wouldn't be able to get a job because I wouldn't have had a nursery place.

I know you've mentioned childminders a few times but for various reasons my choice is nursery care, childminder isn't my preference. I don't think that's unreasonable or that people who have lower wages should be forced to use childminders purely for that reason and nurseries are only the domain of wealthier families.

Compared to living in poverty, yes it's a good thing.
We have over a quarter of children living in poverty in the UK.
Absolutely shocking and this is by far the biggest indicator of poor outcome.
Outcomes that last for life.

I am truly shocked at the deterioration in quality of early years between my two children who are 10yr apart. In this time there’s been the increase from 15 to 30hr for working parents which I imagine has had an impact.

We more or less live payday to payday but I’d rather keep quality. To accept low quality childcare is like saying nurturing small children doesn’t matter, devalues the role of motherhood/parenthood, presents children as a problem to be solved.

I hope the government funds the nurseries appropriately for this proposed scheme unlike the current funding which is pretty inadequate. Otherwise it’s just another empty solution from a government who doesn’t give a flying crap about child/family wellbeing.

You can’t really rely on a childminder imo because if they are suddenly ill or decide to go on holiday you’re screwed.

I agree OP, and what makes me really sad is that it will be done by a) upping ratios - they’ve been up front about that, which means a significant decline in the quality of care and b) forcing childcare providers to take a cut in income so it becomes an even less appealing industry to work in, so again a decline in the quality of care.

I agree with your point re turning our society into one in which women go back to work at 9 months - why is this a positive thing? Why not improve SMP instead? Most women I know struggled going back to work at 12 months. We are talking about an incredibly important time in a baby’s development and forming of attachments (which of course can also be done with nursery staff, but much harder when those staff are juggling 4 other babies at the same time…)

This government doesn’t actually care about anyone I’ve realised. The childcare isn’t being rolled out for a while, it’ll no doubt be underfunded and trying to get pensions to go back to work is just a bloody joke.

I think they just want to kill old people off early through over exertion to ease pressure on the NHS!

@Miscellaneousme I totally agree.

Small dc are enchanting and amazing and wonderful but no one thinks they are more so than their parents and close friends family.

They are also impossible sometimes, demanding and irrational.

The people who look after our dc will find it gruelling hard work as well without the enaourment that parents have.

I mean going on holiday to Margate rather than Mallorca isn't really my preference either, but both are viable and perfectly fine options so you do what you can afford.

Everyone can make their own choices but if you're discounting the more affordable and perfectly fine (if not often better, in my opinion) option of a childminder then it's not really a case of 'not be able to afford to go back to work'.

It's 30.hours term time only. Split across the year that's only about 2 days a week. So it isn't going to be full time nursery. I think 2 days a week from about 18 months is fine, as long as the quality of childcare is good (by that I mean staff who interact with the children 1 to 1 and give them plenty of personal attention).

Childminders may be cheaper but supply doesn't meet demand by a long way.

How long would you have been paying double nursery fees for? The free 15 (or 30 hours currently) kicks in at 3, so unless there's a very small age gap or twins, it probably could have been very long?

The main reason for us was the fact that we have nobody else to help. If childminder is sick or has an appointment or anything, or retires, or whatever, we would be stuck. I don't think a practical consideration like that is the same as how fancy a holiday to go on. But anyway it's immaterial really as I know how much local childminders cost - as I did make enquiries, to investigate whether it would have been possible - and for two of them, it still would have been more than my wages! So still not an option to work (in my old job).

It doesn't really work like that, any proper childminder doesn't just suddenly decide to go on holiday, they give you plenty of notice (usually noted in the terms of contract!).

Yes occasionally they can be ill. But then occasionally nurseries have to shut. That's just part of life.

Presumably for cost reasons?

Although I'm not sure that putting young children in childcare is necessarily beneficial for them. If it helps their parents relationship survive it might be, of course!

There was actually a really good piece about this in the Telegraph, of all places.

One part that really rung true for me was this:

[The government] “doesn’t want mothers staying at home, caring for their children. It wants them all rushing back to work, for the sake of the economy. That, our Government considers, is a mother’s most sacred duty: nudging up the nation’s GDP.”

We have replaced the traditional family with a giant national Ponzi scheme
www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/03/15/jeremy-hunt-may-come-regret-sending-parents-back-work/