Which is more important: affordable childcare or decent pay for child carers?

[Youdoyoubabe]

It seems that we cannot have both.... without tax bills going up massively.

@ladykale

Childcare should be tax deductible imo

YES! This, just this. Easy to sort out, systems already set up. All parents can work.

Nursery workers around here get paid around £3,000 per month and they have the same status as teachers as they are also university level, professionally trained.

This is how it should be. The (fabulous) nursery my DC went to had staff with QT status in the older rooms and I always thought it was crazy that they didn't get paid as much as teachers even though they are as qualified and delivering the same EYFS curriculum as reception teachers. But teachers (I have several family members who are teachers) are very snobby about this and like to tell us all the time 'we're not just doing childcare' like it's somehow lesser than what they do when it's not.

The UK has the tightest childcare ratios in Europe and have done for years (e.g. for under 2yo the ratio in the UK is 1:3, in the Netherlands is 1:4 and in France is 1:5). Several countries in Europe, included some of the Scandinavian countries and Germany don't have national standards at all for childcare ratios. Wages is a massive reason why our costs are so high.

Does anyone know this discrepancy? I would assume all these countries work off evidence-based research
To be fair I wouldn't want to look after 5 babies at once

ratios are one means of measuring care quality, but not the only means.

you don’t need to be worrying about ratios is staffing and funding is sufficient generally. You have to start focusing on ratios when you’re operating so minimally and marginally that you can’t afford to have too many staff.

There are also differences in things like training, resources, set up that make it difficult to just compare between systems (and ratios).

But the ratio is not necessarily the best measure of care quality to use. it is (like many such things) easy to measure though.

For example, if you have properly funded parental leave for the first 16 months of a child’s life (and widespread social acceptance that taking it is a good thing for everyone), then there won’t be anyone trying to look after 5 tiny babies on their own. In a system when SMP is ridiculously low, and quite a lot of people see maternity leave as some sort of indulgence, you find a need to figure out how many tiny babies one person can manage to look after.

Looking just at the ratios makes little sense because so many different factors influence things.

Indeed - and I never quite get the argument that it's fine if they've got more qualifications. I'd much rather have my baby looked after as one of three by someone with basic safety training and no more, than as one of five by someone with a degree.

Ratios are completely different things when they are viewed within the system as just in case, worst case scenarios for when there’s a problem and when they’re viewed as target operating principles.

Everything about how childcare works in the UK guarantees any ratio will be the standard for how things should operate. Operating at a lower ratio will be viewed as over-staffing. So you have to set the ratios with that in mind.

it doesn’t mean that’s how ratios will be viewed in other systems. In other places operating at ratio may be viewed as the absolute bare minimum staffing you could possibly operate at, and would only happen in emergency situations. They may not need a lower mandated ratio to choose to operate with more staff.

The culture in the UK will affect how ratios are viewed in ways that make it very difficult to determine anything from international comparisons.

I have some knowledge of the French system through a close friend who lives there and it definitely doesn't match what you're describing - they have lots of tiny babies (more than we do, French maternity leave is usually shorter). I don't think you can handwave away the ratios by saying that they're just better than us at everything so run everything better.

Your taxes? 😂 how much tax do you pay? I doubt it would cover the nations childcare costs. Get over yourself.

I was born in the 1960's to a single mother and she had completely free childcare, certainly enough to work part time on top of her benefits.
Both nursery and then after school and holiday clubs....so what happened and how have we ended up in this situation.

This isn't how taxation and govt spending works.

Running a country's finances is not the same as running a household.

YOU aren’t paying for it! Why does everyone think they are the sole tax payer and childcare is the sole expenditure. Taxes cover all kinds of shit you’ll never use- tories want you to believe YOU pay for NHS (and only used it that once for an X-ray) - so get rid of it - you fund immigrants so they can buy fags and gamble - get rid of them. Honestly people are so fucking brainwashed by our right-wing media. It’s ridiculous. General taxation is a good thing. It creates more equal society. The government need to ensure that the richest are paying their fair share which they are not. By this I mean the superrich not those earning above say 100 grand a year, but the super super wealthy. (their mates and donors) .

And it won’t affect them …

Concentrate on not being an idiot.

It’s not saying they just do it better though.

they do things differently. In all sorts of ways. And that means that the kind of straightforward comparison of ratios people tend to make doesn’t necessarily work as people think it should. It seems like a direct comparison but isn’t necessarily.

None of these systems is perfect. Not even Sweden’s. 🤣

I don't get the qualifications argument either.

About 11 years ago there was a plan to up the ratios in the UK from 1:3 to 1:4.
My DS was in nursery at the time and I really it being pointed out by the staff, there are times when LOs need 1:1 care, ie nappy changing and bottles.
So 2 staff with 6 kids becomes
1:1 and 1:5
You increase the ratio and it becomes 7.

One nappy change might not take long, but 8 babies all needing bums changed isn't exactly a quick process.

As someone who worked for several years as a baby room leader the idea of raising under two's ratio to one to four or one to five is a horrible idea, with the 18 month plus age group maybe would be fine but the little ones need so much attention. That is a big struggle on one to three on a bad day, when lots of them are ill or teething there's no way you can provide appropriate care for that many children. Also no matter how many qualifications I have, it doesn't mean I magically have more hands than someone with no qualifications!

OK. Just as soon as you opt out of using any fully or partially funded or state service that any parent or any child of a parent provides to you.

Let's see how much fun you think pay to play is then.

I dont think changing the ratio makes a huge difference to fees either. The nursery we used had different fees as you changed rooms on age and from what i recall the ratio went from 1:3 to 1:4 and then 1:8 and then they had a 1:13 room. The fee difference was pretty minimal. I seem to remember is went from £58 to £48. I suppose as a percentage its quite a lot, but I wouldnt want one adult to 13 babies to save £10. A lot of the fee was things other thsn staff and the qualification needed for the 1:13 room attracted a higher rate of pay.

One thing I hate about the Swedish system is that it is there for work. You cannot send your child in if you aren't working, studying or you get 15 hours for job searching. You can't pay for an extra day so you can have some chill time. People do fib and send them anyway but you will get in trouble if you're caught.

I do all right as I have disability/illness so am allowed to send DS when ever I don't feel able and need to rest. But others don't have that option.

Why should my taxes fund care homes? What a stupid statement. All our taxes fund things that we may never need to use. That's just how it works.....

🤣 I don't think you understand how your taxes work or the 20%!

It's not off the bill of childcare it's off what you pay in and is capped at £500 every 3 months up to max of 2k a year. Basically if your fees are over 1k a month (majority are) then anything over 1k you pay for no support.

As said taxes pay for lots of things from space programmes, british territories and embassy, civil servants, MPs private cars and chauffeurs, benefits, health care, social care, transport system, energy infrastructure etc etc etc etc. This concept that it would add on to a tax bill is complete nonsense.

Less women constricted working due to childcare costs = more tax revenue across the board as more women in work.
Maybe understand some simple economics before spouting rubbish.

Decent pay is most important - there can be no compromise on that.

I am glad there are people who do think that we should be paid a decent wage. Thank you.

Absolutely, it's a hard job with a high level of responsibility. A lot i think just assume it's all playing and painting when of course it's not. It's sad that such an important role not just to the children and families who use childcare but to wider society isn't as highly regarded (or paid) as it should be.