School as child care

[Differentforgirls]

From another thread.

A poster said that state schools are there for helping parents to work. Therefore teachers are childminders. Teachers!

I think schools are there to educate our children and, though the staff go above and beyond these days, that is their primary function.

AIBU?

The title is 'School as childcare'. You appear to be saying this is incorrect and the primary purpose is to educate with caring for children as an inevitable by-product ...

I believe the issue that the OP was trying to address was the idea that school is primarily childcare and education is the inevitable by-product. As a teacher, I'm concerned about this becoming a dominant perspective, however, I recognise that it would suit various employers (who don't want to fund adequate childcare) for this to be case.

Thank you.

I think this is a valid and fair concern. I think this is why wraparound and holiday care is important and needs considering in conjunction with education policy but not conflated with it. I think it isn't helpful to blame parents for needing childcare to work or not to recognise that during school hours parents will be working and that is both inevitable and legitimate.

I don't think anyone has said they don't view school in it's primary function of educating children. All of us will have been to school, we know what it's about. And it certainly as a working parent, I'm glad there's those that take on a role educating my child!

But I'm not sure why teachers on here are acting so mortally offended and suprised that for the 6 hours a child is in school they are responsible for care of the children in their classroom. I can't see anywhere where a parent has expected them to act like a parent but surely it's not a huge ask to ensure teachers are responsible for the children in their classroom and keep them safe in the hours that they are there.

What difference does it make to a teacher what a parent does in the hours their child is at school? Are teachers wanting parents to be in classrooms now? I'm struggling to make sense of their arguments.

Who actually thinks that school is primarily about childcare, in reality? Nobody has actually said that, just that it's a secondary benefit to kids being at school that enables parents to work. Some posters hilariously seem to think that parents having lives away from their kids is negligent and that we should all be standing dilligently outside the gates so we can spring into action at a moments notice if littly Timmy falls over. Obviously that's completely daft.

There isn't going to be a shift, without some sort of fundamental change to educational policy in the UK, away from schools being educational institutions first and foremost.

I do agree that it could work better for kids, parents and schools for holidays to be more evenly spread through the year.

I disagree, I feel that children really benefit from some of the longer periods, especially in summer.

I'm also wondering where all these teachers crying they don't provide "care" think their responsibilities lie in their "duty of care" towards their pupils.

Because last time I checked teachers have to maintain a safe classroom and safe environment, have to report incidents of harm or suspected harm, neglect or abuse to the relevant authorities, work at preventing bullying and teaching this to children, work within local and national child safeguarding policies, promote child wellbeing through indicators and manage behaviour in a classroom.

To me all that is the very essence of "care". If teachers are now arguing their job is solely educational (which nobody is devaluing. Its an absolutely valuable skill) and that none of the above applies to them, then we have a very worrying scenario on our hands.

What do you want them to be “first and foremost”?

There is no available child care for school age children, in term time, other than schools. So the options for parents are either - keep them home and don't work in the day (or at all if you're a single parent and can't work nights), or send them to school so you can be available for work.

I don't know why it's so offensive to point that out, it doesn't diminish the intelligence of teachers. The government themselves link their expectations of parents working, to school ages, that's not a coincidence.

I think this is the blindingly obvious fact the "school isn't childcare" brigade can't seem to get their head around.

If parents now can't use the fact their child is at school to their advantage to allow them work then what are we supposed to do? Just employ nannies and childminders to be on standby 6 hours a day should there be a telephone call if their child is ill?

Should parents just not go to work so that teachers can stop be offended and thinking that we are some how devaluing their job because we need to go to work in the hours that they are teaching and responsible for our child?

Obviously, centres for education. I didn't say any different.

My comment was addressing the suggestion that schools are shifting away from that. Which they aren't, at all.

Exactly this. Surely whatever I do in the time the children are at school - be that go to work or paint my nails - doesn't change the level of education required to be a teacher.

I think they are and it is evidenced by a lot of replies on this thread. Not saying yours, but teachers do 4 years at university to qualify, along with placements etc. Then people assume they’re actually baby sitters who allow them to work.

I think that assumption is disrespectful.

To give a bit more background on my life, when DC was under diagnosis in reception and Yr1 school expected me to pick him up quickly and refused to allow him in the breakfast and ASC. In order to do so I had to quit my high paying role and find a job I could do from home, very flexibly so I am available to school for the whole time DC is there. I am lucky enough to live right across the road from the school. This is why I find it frustrating when teachers and TAs make these claims when they are parents, as they would need to give up their roles in my position.

Who is assuming they are baby sitters? I've not seen anyone say this.

Yes their job is to be educators. But they also have a job to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in their classroom. And I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote above to save myself repeating it.

Because last time I checked teachers have to maintain a safe classroom and safe environment, have to report incidents of harm or suspected harm, neglect or abuse to the relevant authorities, work at preventing bullying and teaching this to children, work within local and national child safeguarding policies, promote child wellbeing through indicators and manage behaviour in a classroom.

To me all that is the very essence of "care". If teachers are now arguing their job is solely educational (which nobody is devaluing. Its an absolutely valuable skill) and that none of the above applies to them, then we have a very worrying scenario on our hands.

hardly “free time” - most parents have to work, like it or not.

It wasn’t me who mentioned free time.

Literally nobody has said that schools aren't for education primarily and no government policy is leading things that way either. So the assertation that they are or that anyone is disrespecting teachers is just completely false.

But the fact is that schools provide childcare as well as education. Otherwise, parents would have to be going along and sitting at the back of the classrooms.

You literally mentioned free time in this post....

This is the bit I don't get- the suggestion that parents couldn't work without schools, even though for many of us, our kids had been in paid childcare from before they were one. It just gets cheaper once they're in school. Although if you're a teacher with different holidays to your kids, that's expensive. And then expensive again as teens. And then ridiculously expensive, should they decide to go to uni.

Yes as a reply to someone who cited it. The reading comprehension on this thread proves my point really.

See the gif.

YOUR comprehension fails me on this thread. I've tried and failed for 26 pages to see what point you're trying to make.

Some parents need to work. And it just so happens for 6 hours a day (holidays etc aside) they happen to be in school where they are legally compelled to be and during those 6 hours, teachers while educating their children during these six hours are legally responsible for the safety of the children in their classroom and have a "duty of care" to these children.

Why is this so hard to understand. I haven't seen one post where people have devalued the role of a teacher or called them "babysitters".

What is it you want parents to do? Not work?

Education has clearly let you down.

You don't have a single argument against the fact that schools provide both education and childcare, and whilst the first is more important for children, for parents the second is equally as vital.

And this is not an insult at all.