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.'

Your wages weren't less than childcare costs though?

I know two nurseries that have shut down with very little notice for parents.

It's just not the case that childminders are viable childcare options.

@WeightoftheWorld

Their agenda appears to be that no one should support this policy.

Because no one has considered if its good for kids and everyone who wants to use childcare can afford it.

The fact neither of those are true is just completely ignored

It's bizarre

Myself and many other qualified childcare staff are leaving the profession because the pay and demands of the job are quite frankly rubbish. Good luck in finding all the extra staff these funded hours will require when we already have a recruitment crisis. I can already see this plan flopping before it’s even started.

I know some who couldn't afford childcare so them and their DH took opposing shifts (one worked nights and the other days), the night shift parent slept when the kids napped. Was god awful and she ended up becoming a SAHM. She didn't want to, she just couldn't afford the care. All well and good saying use a cheaper option like a childminder etc but there weren't any available, all thay had availability were the expensive nurseries!

There are also many going back full time but don't want to, they have to because they can't afford not to work. The current 30 hours eligibility is based on income of over 16 hours at minimum wage. For those who are having to go back, will the reduction in childcare cost mean they can go back part time instead? That would give parents more choice, free up some childcare spaces.

OP you are so out of touch it's unreal! Are you tapped? You do understand that childcare is so expensive that it's more than people earn in a day, and it doesn't always fit in with shift work. Marry that with having to still pay for places when there sick and you're not earning... that equals a debt. So yeah people can't work! Absolutely idiotic thinking!

I don't know anyone who can afford to not work..

Maybe if you're on minimum wage, but then wouldn't UC eligiblity then come into it?

£15 a day is still £75 a week, I don't know many people who could just choose to be £75 a week less off for the privilege of being a SAHP. Not to mention the fact that in the long run you would probably be financially worse off having taken a few years out of work due to not going back in at the same level etc. And lack of pension contributions etc.

For those who are having to go back, will the reduction in childcare cost mean they can go back part time instead?

This is a good point, and a good outcome in terms of giving people the choice of using less childcare of they would like to.

I’m in Scotland and there aren’t plans for this yet (although a similar idea was bounced about by Humza Yousef as part of his plans if he becomes FM). However, I do think it will benefit some families greatly. The reality is- there isn’t a one size fits all option when it comes to supporting families with young children. Everyone has a different set up, different priorities.

We get the 1140hrs childcare for our 4 year old- this doesn’t translate to 30 hrs a week as her nursery is opened all year except at Christmas/ NY. Instead she gets 22.5hrs a week: 8am-12.30pm. So, if we relied on this for childcare we would still have to pay a half day to make up the difference. I have another two nursery aged children and 2 in school who would require breakfast club/after school to make up the equivalent of a full day at nursery, if I worked 9-5.

We both work as nurses and decided early on that we wanted a large family with small age gaps. So, we worked hard to get a set up that would allow that. My husband went up from a band 5 to a 7 and stayed full time. I went up from a band 5 to a 6 and went part time. I now work 3 evenings or nights a week, opposite to my husband, so one of us is always home. Avoiding a 9-5 nursing job means I’m always there for things like sports days, nativities, school strikes etc. And one of us always being home with the kids means we never have to worry about what will happen if one of the kids are off sick, school holidays etc. The obvious downside is less time with my husband but it’s allowed us to have 5 children in 8 years which we really wanted.

For some families, it’s just not an option for both parents not to work. For others, it’s not an option to have both parents work.

I think what's overlooked is that in some careers, it's not about choosing whether to go back to not because of childcare costs.

It's about whether to go back full or part time or permanent or freelance.

Reduced hours is still less working.

Many choose to cut hours or condense hours into evenings to avoid childcare costs

It's not as black and white as working or not working

This could help many if funded properly and nurseries can cope

I know loads of mums who couldn't afford to go back to work even if they used a child minder. Its not just nursery fees- wrap around care is astronomical too. Breakfast club is £6 and after school club is £12 per child round here. If you have kids in nursery and kids at school its impossibly expensive.
Also saying its 50% the other partners responsibility is a bit simplistic.....if all your salary is taken up paying nursery fees then chances are they are going to be covering the rest of the bills and living costs.....mortgage, running a car, food- etc! Its not impossible to imagine that might take up all of their salary!

This is what worries me - it’s not babies going into nurseries at 9mo per se, it’s babies going into poor nurseries where they are simply
not getting adequate care because the job has become so unappealing/unworkable and each nursery worker has too many small people to look after.

And all those talking about how misogynistic those of us questioning the policy are have not really engaged with this point. I’m so misogynistic that what I would actually like would be equal shared parental leave but I don’t hold much hope of that happening in the UK any time soon… But it’s not misogynistic to raise concerns about the childcare industry’s ability to absorb rises in funded hours (near me in Scotland quite a few are struggling with the 1140) while continuing to provide quality care for children who are at the stage when the majority of their brain development is taking place.

I think some people who have / are using childcare, find it hard to question whether childcare for young children is good for the child or not.

And find it hard to believe that someone who also used childcare like myself might be questioning it.

And to question whether it's a good thing that thousands more are expected to be going into childcare, which at the same time also sounds to be taking a turn for the worst in terms of quality.

Yes of course it's best for children to be housed and have food to eat, but maybe there are ways we can make sure those basics are covered, without parents having to go back to work at 9 months to do so? Increased child benefit? So people can actually decide whether to use the childcare or not?

What about the MH of parents who have to go back to work before they feel ready to leave their little ones, does that not count? Does it only count when it's the MH of people who apparently desperately want to go back to work but couldn't possibly afford it?

@cheatingcrackers

Except no one has said that's what's mysoginist

Of course its not.

Of course its a concern if childcare is not adequately staffed or funded and we should certbe making sure it's better paid and encouraging more men to work in childcare

None of that has anything to do with thinking a mothers place is at home

@Ilikepinacoladass

I'll try again seeing as you kept ignoring it on the last thread.

You keep saying the govt should be paying people to stay at home.

The disadvantage of this in a sexist society are obvious

So, how about the govt pay men to stay at home?

Parent at home with child and won't affect the gender pay gap.

Win win

Yes?

I was being a bit facetious. Of course nobody has said that specifically is misogynistic, but it has been cast as misogynistic to question the policy.

The policy as proposed WILL result in worse childcare on average. Of course, the best nurseries will charge higher top up fees - or, as some currently do, refuse to engage with government funding at all - and so kids from better off families won’t need to worry. Plus ca change..

Anyway. That’s why I can’t get excited about this proposal and why I do think it’s a big issue that what is best for kids is not being taken into account, at all.

@cheatingcrackers

'but it has been cast as misogynistic to question the policy.'

No it hasn't.

Same. I'm not in the sector, but everyone I've seen who is seems to think the funding they're offering for this is too low. I can't see where the workers for this are going to come from either.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure if you just can't actually read properly or you're just ignoring what people are saying? I said twice that my wages were less than my childcare costs in my old job hence why I couldn't return to it after mat leave...yet here you are again saying they weren't?!

What about what's best for parents and how their mental health and wellbeing impacts children?

OP you realise some people earn the same as the childcare fees right? I'm two years into teaching and last year I broke even on my wage Vs nursery (4 day week) so I imagine there are plenty of people who earn less

Yes exactly. Men seem to win in all cases 🤷‍♀️

Mother doesn’t work = father progresses his career with no hindrance, mother stays home and takes care of children

Mother works = father progresses his career with no hindrance AND gets extra money from mother’s job in family pot. Kids in childcare and 95% of the time it’s the mother organising it and doing the lions share of pick ups/drop offs etc.

I know there exceptions but that’s generally how it seems to go.

The funded hours only equate to PT though.
Why are you insisting that this is so terrible,those poor children up a chimney
There is a choice to go back at 9 months if needed not a forced option.
Most women I know take the full year if they can afford to plus the accrued AL/ BH so 13/14 months.
Then going PT if they want to?
How does 22.5 hours per week equate to a terrible thing for children?
If they need to WOH anyway this means those women will have more money to improve their children's lives .

Totally not against parents having extra cash, just questioning whether it coming in the form of free childcare is really the best idea