Ed Miliband's childcare proposals - is wraparound care really the solution?

[MumsnetGuestBlogs]

Ed Miliband has announced that a Labour government would improve access to affordable childcare by introducing a "legal guarantee" of 8am - 6pm provision for primary-aged children, through breakfast and after-school clubs. On the face of it this sounds great. Access to affordable childcare is a major issue for so many mothers, distorting whatever semblance of choice we have in how we raise our families and pay our bills. Surely by increasing access we're moving one step closer to supporting our families in the way we would all wish?

I'm a little unsure. I like what this proposal would do in practice but the broader message makes me uneasy. According to Miliband:
Parents who want to work should be able to do so. We need to use the talents of everyone if we are to succeed as an economy and keep social security bills down. Seven out of 10 stay at home mums tell surveys that the cost of childcare has deterred them from looking for a job.

There's something about the wording of this - the pro-business rhetoric - that unsettles me. Labour will help you ensure that your family isn't a drain on the state. Is this really what passes for pro-family politics? Are we moving towards a social model which is more supportive of family life or merely more controlling?

I'll be honest: I already benefit from sending my children to a school that has wraparound childcare. I choose my words carefully; I'm not sure how much they benefit, other than by the obvious fact that as our family's main earner I need to pay the mortgage and my children need a home. My kids prefer it when I'm able to pick them up straight from school, expressing excitement if any day is a "home" day. I can torture myself with guilt over this but what is the point? I don't have any extended family nearby and Daddy has a one-hour commute. That's life, eh? But does it really have to be this way?

It often feels to me that between my mother's generation and my own, there's been a cultural shift that hasn't been wholly to our benefit. We've gone from prioritising family values in a way that limited women's ability to earn towards prioritising the needs of employers in a way that diminishes family life. Instead of taking a step back and overhauling our whole understanding of pay, value and reward - something which the Wages For Housework campaign wished to achieve - we've allowed politicians and employers who are not primary carers to make the odd modification to their prized, protected system. "See? You have the right to ask - to ask! - for flexible working! And to pick your children up after ten hours in school! Why aren't you happy yet? What is your problem?"

My problem is this: family life and caring work aren't to be slotted in around the needs of perennially grudging employers. They're central to who we all are and how we shape our future. By this, I don't mean that ideally, all women should be angels of the hearth instead of ball-breaking career women. Such stereotypes have only made us blame ourselves for not having made "better" choices about our lives when really, we can only make do with what's available. Other options - career sabbaticals, job shares, increased wages to allow for more part-time work, decreased wage inequality, the outrageous idea that actually, even those who "don't work" (ha!) deserve a political voice - haven't been on the table. There's been no creativity. We've accepted the lie that this is the only way things can ever be and at times we've even allowed it to make us turn on each other.

I think we are afraid of engaging with this debate fully in case it damages our status as women, casting us either as bad mothers who need to spend more time in the home or unreliable workers who let down their employers and colleagues by doing just that. It's not fair that these feel like our only choices. I'm not against Miliband's proposal; if it gives other families the basic support required to earn a wage, something from which I've benefited myself, how could I be? But I think we need to ask for something even more radical, something that really turns things upside down. The problem isn't that we're failing our families or employers, but that the weak, commercialised concept of work-life balance is still failing us and our kids.

I think it is a good idea.

I don't need a breakfast club because I don't start work until 9.30am, however, it never ceases to amaze me that the school offers no breakfast club neither do the 5 other primary schools in the area. I live in an inner city area with quite a lot of deprivation and, actually, a lot of parents would be very grateful for the support.

This is something that my husband and I are discussing at the mo. Dd starts school in September. Currently she goes to preschool 3 days per week, 7.30amtil 6pm (or would do if I wasn't on maternity leave ATM with DS.) when she starts school, the wrap around care only operates from 8am until 6pm. This is an issue for us because both DH and I work about 45 mins away from home, in opposite directions to each other. I do realise to people who stay at home how ludicrous it sounds to be saying that 8am is not early enough to be opening wrap around care for a 4 year old, but that's the position we are in. I am looking for work nearer home, but thus far have found nothing that pays similar to my current wage or which has any prospect of being available on a part time basis. we may have some light at the end of the tunnel though, in that DH is considering leaving his job, and setting up his own business, which will allow him to be at home much more often. It would make our child care situation much much easier. It's a big change for him though as he has worked his way up to a fairly senior position though on a large engineering consultancy where he is paid relatively well and is on a good benefits package. It's not a decision that he will take lightly.

I agree with posts up thread which said that most of this is driven by reliance on two wages for a moderately priced house. I think it sucks frankly, but once you are in that hamster wheel, it takes a big leap of faith to get out of it.

I don't know how things can be made to change, but I hope they do! I like my job, but I love my children and whilst they really enjoy nursery (well DD does, don't know yet about DS!!) I feel sad that they have such long days there.

It often feels to me that between my mother's generation and my own, there's been a cultural shift that hasn't been wholly to our benefit. We've gone from prioritising family values in a way that limited women's ability to earn towards prioritising the needs of employers in a way that diminishes family life.

It's like Glosswitch read my thoughts.

Basket yy.

I have oodles of qualifications and am good at my job. We just can't sustain our lives with both working an hour from home. I don't want kids to be with strangers 50 hrs a week.

It isn't the same pull for dh. He would be happy for us both to work 50 hours. So then it's 'my choice'.

Personally i dont see why the government should provide anything towards childcare for anyone,if you want to work,find a way to pay for it or just dont,if you want to stay at home,find a way to pay for it,or just dont,a bit of personal responsibility would be good.

Why do people expect so much form the government?I just wish they could concentrate on general upkeep,emergency services,education,maybe benefits available for a maximum of 6 months,and thats it.People want everything done for them.

you can cover the kids in gold, give them a tu tu and call them Delilah, give them a free monkey that performs a good rendition of 'lets make lots of money' by the pet shop boys

but there still aren't enough jobs to go round

Confusedabouted

Someone in authority does need to drive the opening up of after school clubs though. It is not a particularly profitable area, otherwise there'd be loads of them wouldn't there? So in that sense the government do need to be involved.

As for paying for them parents will I expect have to pay for them. Whether they are subsidised or not is the question.

Employment tends to beget employment, as more people have more discretionary income, and increased income tax receipts generally lead to either tax cuts (more discretionary spending) or increased public spending (generally meaning more jobs).

As to why the government has a role - well, the public purse gets more in tax receipts than it pays out in eg tax relief for childcare. Enabling employment is a good financial proposition for governments.

I'd love more options for more people. I'd bloody love the option to be a stay at home parent for a bit but that is realistically never going to be on the cards for me (though more possible for my husband, who doesn't want to). I'd love greater flexibility in jobs all around, and firmly believe that if more 'in demand' people play hardball over flexible working the benefits will start to accrue more widely, but that requires a culture change in families as well as workplaces.

It's not always that simple confused.

High prices and low wages mean that not everybody can access childcare. What do you suggest in these circumstances?

I think the wording of this is disgusting tbh.

Surely by increasing access we're moving one step closer to supporting our families in the way we would all wish?

No, this isn't what I wish for my family, far from it.

confused - a bit of personal responsibility from the government would be good - looking at the issues with subsidies for businesses, cutting and in many cases not pushing to collect the required tax from corporations, maybe forcing big businesses to pay a fair living wage and working to bring the cost of living down. Childcare costs have outstripped rising wages by a lot as has everything else while businesses make record profits. Do we really want to end up like the States where mega-corporations like Walmart push for their customers to donate food so their employees can eat, instead of paying them a living wage? Are people less important than money - because the system your talking about would leave people dead, especially in the current economic climate. The government is meant to work for the people, not the corporations, and already does so much more than you've listed (and the government's focus on education hasn't been doing that well either).

I think this will proposal help some, but not to extent Labour thinks. It ignores that most businesses don't run 9-5, not all schools can handle this kind of thing, that even if available it doesn't mean it will be accessible for all children - children with disabilities are the hardest to child care for, and really that not everything to do with kids should happen at schools, a change of place and faces can do a lot of good. A thought is that community centres being brought back and properly funded with allow a better intermix of the local communities as well bring in different activities and ideas. Most have closed, ours only has evening activities which thankfully includes one for children with additional needs, but it's not enough.

Morethan, then don't use it. Who's forcing you?

Quick thought - do people think increased / more universally-available after school provision would lead to better link up (or self provision of) formal after school activities?

It feels (from afar) like after school activities are restricted to children with a stay at home parent (or part time/flexible working parent if activity falls conveniently). My son's nursery takes children to tennis, ballet and swimming - I wonder if there's greater scope for wraparound care to provide this, creating a richer environment.

I think we have before and after school clubs (after for certain), but what I really, really need to move to school care is holiday (and strike, and PD days) cover. Since all this is impossible, were stuck with a provider who can do all this additional stuff.
And yes to whoever said 8am isn't early enough. DH has to be at work for that time.

What about looking at flexi hours? I've requested reduced hours - I asked for 3 days, but would have gone for anything that meant I didn't need to work a full week. Rejected. So what am I supposed to do? full time stay at home results on me on AD's. I'm not cut out to do kids full time, but work won't let me reduce my hours. Sorting that would really help the kids spend more time at home.

The lack of after school and particularly before school provision at our local village school has literally put my career prospects on the back burner and will possibly cost me my career long term as a result.

I am in two minds - I had children so that I could care for them and certainly never entertained the prospect of leaving them for long hours in somebody else's care. But, at some point I need to go back to work and a very long gap away from work will cost me dear - too much will change in my career area for me to be away from work for 10 years or so.

This is a huge dilemma for many parents but I still think the option should be there to enable parents to work around school hours. For many rural schools such as ours, there is no incentive or perceived need to offer wraparound childcare. I agree the school holidays still pose the biggest problem for most working parents.

Jasy

My point is no, everybody doesn't wish for it and I prefer it when its not presumed they do.
It is another way of saying this is the norm and it isn't necessarily.

morethan, I think you need to read on. The text you highlighted is the question Glosswitch is debating rather than her conclusion.

Nothing

I did see it was a question, but a comment that so many people will agree on as principle and its not how many will feel. I also think that comments like this and the whole idea of normalising wraparound care gives the wrong message to parents, especially women.
To me its a way of saying right, there's your child care now you can all work. Fine if that is what you want, but if you don't want this you will be considered to be going against the norm, when it isn't the bloody norm anyway.

Why 'especially women'?

I would really appreciate before & after school care. In my area there are no private nurseries, no before-school & a massively over-subscribed after-school club. There is only 1 CM who's standards of care are poor.

At the moment I HAVE to work & this proposal would facilitate this for me.

What we need in general is more OPTIONS for childcare. I'd like to see a system like in Australia, where a percentage childcare costs can be reclaimed. Or better legislation for flexible working - in my experience most employers decline these, limiting options.

It's not the norm, it's an option. A good, practical one for many.

The DCs school does BC and ASC. BC starts at 7.45. Those additional 15 minutes matter hugely. The ASC is till 6 pm. They collect from afterschool activities held on the school premise. So yes, the DCs are 'with strangers' (yeah, thanks for that) till 6 pm but only 1-2 hours of those are in 'institutions'. They also get to do foreign languages, street dance, art etc after school. I don't SAHM and have the time to ferry them about for it.

They're happy, I am. It's a solution that helps us.

Why would anyone be 'going against the norm' if they didn't take up wraparound care? Nurseries have been around for years, not everyone uses them! They just present another option to families. I work part time and use childcare, I've got friends who don't work, friends who use childminders, friends who use grandparents for childcare, friends who work opposite shifts to their dps to share childcare - which of those is the 'norm' at the moment? Why can't we all just do what suits our families without questioning everyone else's choices? As others have said if you want it use it, if you don't why worry about it?

AmandinePoulain

It isn't as simple as that though, just doing what is right for our families isn't enough. We constantly have to answer to other people who judge our choices as women, usually other women.
Nurseries have been about for a long time, the amount of comments I hear from people who assume to know better than my choice not to send mine.
How long before a sahm is vilified for not working, especially if wraparound care is offered.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be available, moreover that women shouldn't let it become the expected norm.

Again, morethan, why is it women who shouldn't let this happen? What about men who want a better work-life balance, or who'd like to be stay at home parents, towards whom society can be even more judgemental - in turn boxing women in even more?

If wrapround care allows parents to work its good idea.no one compelled to use it
These threads get congested with the histrionics of people who don't need/want the provision
If it is appropriate to your circumstance and applicable -use it.good to see thought about childcare and working parents