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.'

@NeshNamechanger you can do both.
Be a sahp and then when they actually notice, go back to work!

There is so much more to this than the simplistic arguments of what is best for the child. Ultimately, unless you as a family, earn enough for one person not to work, you will have to work. Yes, there are countries with much better maternity leave which allow for more time at home with the baby, but in most of those countries the expectation is that parents both return to full time work once the leave is up. Economic activity is still the goal.

there is also a lot of privilege when it comes to talking about who can and cannot afford to work. My DPs ex works in minimum wage jobs and had a good few years of zero hours contracts.

Looking after a toddler isn't exactly the same as being unemployed though is it. And the state used to recognise the fact that giving parents more time with little children at home if they wanted was actually good for society as a whole.

Isn't it a bit like saying why should the state fund free childcare hours when people should just go out at get better paid jobs to be able to afford it?

My friend's boyfriend managed to convince her he should be a SAHP, as wasn't worth him working, even though still would have been bringing in over £75 per week after all his wage was spent on the childcare. He was a part time milkman and could easily have got a better paid job.. He just didn't want to. Not saying that's always the case when people say it's not justified for them to work, but it certainly is sometimes.

Since Kate Middleton has decided to be an Early Years ambassador, it would be interesting to hear her take on this...

@Ilikepinacoladass

What evidence is there that giving 'parents' more time with children js good for society?

I'm all for increasing part time and flexible working and increasing wages but paying people not to work?

No.

I dont see any advantages to that

I think its pretty simplistic to say whats best for the children gets left out of the childcare debate.

I work and am well paid. Its best for my children that i have childcare that facilitates that. They have a nice life.

Its also best for my children that the economy improves.

Other people will have different barriers to
Work and i agree its probably not best for children to spend hours out of the home for their parents to be barely able to clothe and feed them.

All childcare should be fully tax deductible regardless of income in my view. It all circulates straight back in the pot anyhow. This would enable parents to buy the childcare that they need (doctors for example often need overnight cover) and would encourage proper wages in the sector which is one of the biggest barriers to a quality provision. My nursery fees are significantly higher than my mortgage and my mortgage is above average.

@TakemedowntoPotatoCity

Yesh I'm sure a woman married to a Prince living a life of complete privilege, who has never worked as a parent and has full times nannies is who we should be listening to about working parents needing subsidised childcare

It isn't the same as someone who is unemployed and doesn't have children but parenting your child doesn't mean you're employed otherwise those who work and have children would be employed twice.

I think 3 years is more than generous.

I agree. People who harp on about the 2 year funding.
No thought for the actual purpose of the 2 year funding, just their chip on their shoulder about people who don’t work/are on low incomes and how the 2 year funding is so they can “have a break when they don’t need one” etc…
It wasn’t brought in for the parents, but for the children in less advantaged backgrounds to get a leg up. That’s the most important thing but people don’t see it like that. And to be honest, so what if the parent has a breather for a few hours? We all need a break.
It’s NOT childcare. Maybe if people used their thinking skills they would start seeing it differently. But much easier to have a pop at people on benefits though, eh?

I can’t believe a second thread got started on this when the first was filled up with so many sensible posters answering the question asked.

If you want to stay at home then you should be financed by your partner, in whose interest it is that your kids are in the home with you. There is no measurable difference in outcomes for kids whose mum stayed at home and those whose mum worked. It is of therefore of no wider benefit to society for your kids to be at home with you, so society is not paying for it. It is presumably a big benefit to your partner, so he or she can pay for it.

That doesn’t mean that there’s no value mums looking after their kids at home, but it’s personal not societal. You shouldn’t need everyone else to applaud and reward you for it. That’s what your partner should be doing.

I think the chip on people’s shoulder regarding the 2 year old 15 free hours is that it should have been for ALL 2 year olds. I Know working families whose grandparents look after the child because they can’t afford childcare but because they both work don’t qualify for the 15 free hours. Why should that child miss out going to nursery and socialising with other children their age with in a setting? I think that’s what the issue with that is.

"There is no measurable difference in outcomes for kids whose mum stayed at home and those whose mum worked. It is of therefore of no wider benefit to society for your kids to be at home with you, so society is not paying for it."

I don't think it's been happening long enough to say this tbh. It's a relatively new phenomenon that so many children are in childcare from young ages. Back in the 80s most were at home with a parent until around 3yrs.

40 year olds were born in the 80s. 23 year olds were born in 2000 - I work with 3 of them, all with parents who both worked. I'm pretty sure we can take a measure of them as adults.

My children are all adults now and were in childcare, the eldest from 3 months because maternity leave was short back then. They are all absolutely fine, well adjusted, good relationships, great bond with dh and me. As they no doubt would be if I'd been a SAHM.

That would be lovely, but the increase in childcare hours has a twofold benefit. It makes it easier for people to afford to go back to work that might have not done based on the cost of childcare, and working people generate income tax ect so the economy benefits, it's a win win. Increasing child benefit/ mag leave as per your suggestion doesn't generate that benefit to the economy that working does, so its win for the parent but a loss for the economy.

Maybe win for the child though?

And knowing a few people who were in childcare from a young who are 'fine', doesn't really have much bearing on a massive shift of the population over the last 30 years or so with so many more being in child care from young ages. It's a bit more subtle than that and we won't know the overall results untill 20/40 years in the future!

I think you're mistaken in your belief that childcare is such a recent thing! As others have said, the 1980s was 40 years ago! And actually ML was way shorter than now, so children were starting much younger. Certainly it was very normal to have 2 working parents- I mean mortgages were way more expensive than now.

You clearly want to push your own agenda, perhaps based on your own personal feeling of wanting more than a year at home but honestly, there is no conclusive evidence to show that having a parent at home achieves better outcomes and there really would be by now! We're talking decades and tens of thousands of children (and multitudes of research) and there really isn't evidence.

I've said it before... if there were clear evidence that having 2 working parents was more likely to result in children who wind up unemployed, or with mental health problems, or involved in criminal activity- the govt would be chasing mothers (and you can bet your life it would be the mothers!) back into the home. Because all those outcomes are bad for society as a whole and financially very very costly!

This

Ok, if we're going to talk about changes since the 1980s, I would like to point out that in the 80s my mother had a very fulfilling time at home with me from 0-4. Because her parents had retired comfortably in their 50s and none of the mums in our street worked, so she had company 7 days a week if she wanted it. This doesn't exist in many towns and cities any more.

My experience as a part-time working mum is not this. 3 out of 4 grandparents worked when DS was born and they are 200 miles away because DH and I met at uni, being the first generation to go. Making friends with other women with the right age children, who are close enough to see regularly and have the same days off that I do and time to fit me in, has been a herculean effort. Frankly I can't wait for him to start school.

"At home" with an isolated, tired and bored mum isn't something I'd choose for any child.

Sorry you're isolated, tired and bored! Think that's a wider issue with society in general tbh and maybe there could be other solutions. Things like sure start centre's and community centers etc that have closed down might have helped. I do PT time (3 days), and know what you mean to a certain extent, but do manage to meet people from playgroups etc, but am in an urban area with lots around.

I don't think it's been happening long enough to say this tbh. It's a relatively new phenomenon that so many children are in childcare from young ages. Back in the 80s most were at home with a parent until around 3yrs.

If it hasn’t been happening long enough to say this, then it hasn’t been happening long enough to say the opposite either. Let’s review in 40 years. If all the WOHM kids are homeless feckless adults in 2040 then you were right and your policy should be implemented immediately.

In reality it won’t happen because what’s most significant for the child is the quality of the parent, not whether or not they work.

@fitzwilliamdarcy exactly!

I think the real problem with this issue is that the people who start this debate almost always have their own personal axe to grind; eg: they feel that they personally want longer than 6 months/9months/one year ML and they extrapolate from that, that all Mums feel the same. Or they are a SAHM and it's worked really well for their family so they extrapolate from that, that families with WOHP must in some way be disadvantaged.

I've always felt (as a WOHP) that my children would have been just as happy and secure as they were (and are, as adults) if I'd been at home. I don't see it as a 'better' or 'worse.' There are many many different set ups for raising happy, well adjusted children into happy, well adjusted adults. And we would definitely know by now if one prescriptive set up had better outcomes.

@freyamay74 Absolutely.

“Staying at home is better for the wee little kids” means that anyone disagreeing doesn’t care about the wee little kids.

“I want to stay at home so someone else should pay me to do that” is way less attractive.

The first nursery was set up in 1816

Childcare vouchers and tax credits have existed since the late 80s

So its utter nonsense to say that its too soon to tell of childcare has a negative effect on children