Sending kids to school until 6pm - how does this "help families"?

[gretagrape]

To me, it feels as though they are looking at this in totally the wrong way. The idea is that children will attend school until 6pm to help working parents. Why don't they look at it the other way around, eg, create an economy where it is normal for people (not just parents) to work flexible hours and to get part-time SKILLED jobs that pay a decent hourly rate, so children don't have to be holed up in school for longer than most office workers.
I'm so depressed at this government's lack of lateral thinking.

worried

I know that some people have to work and I am fortunate to not have to work and if dh was out of work or we couldn't survive of course I would work, I'm not lazy.
We have a small amount of tax credits as only dh is working. We would get much more if we both worked and subsidised childcare, is this better for you?

Oops I want to achieve.

Worried, apols, my flip comment wasn't aimed at you - more at those who were just suggesting I should chuck in my job because I'd quite like to be a SAHM.

If I was completely desperate about it and didn't care about making DH pretty miserable, he would do what was necessary to support me staying home - just as I'd support him, which sounds pretty similar to your relationship, to be honest.

I would happily let my husband stay at home while I went to work.

More than,you spin an elaborate web of either first poor housewife,wtc
or trotting to numerous classes,clubs,oh you didn't mean poor,poor
You're not straight,and some guff about guns doesn't cover it

It's about money and business. Everything this government does is focused on growing the economy and it doesn't seem to matter if they screw up everything else in the process.

No, maybe the 'wee mummy' but not the 'wee wifey'.

I enjoyed working. I had joint the advanced skills register and I was a deputy head heading for a headship when I gave up work. DH in no way forced this upon me or even encouraged me down this route. It was my choice to sah.

I don't see that looking down your nose at that choice or suggesting I'm not in an equal partnership with my DH because if it makes your argument any more valid that the sahms who argue that you're a bad mum for choosing to work.

I wanted to sah and 4 children is a handful for anyone, more so if you work. We also get to enjoy the fact that DH earns so much; much more than our combined income would be if we rearranged for me to work also. The children currently benefit both from all that disposable income and having me at home. It has nothing to do with him being a man and me sliding into a traditional role.

I am fucking glad I didn't give up my career. I had no choice at the time as I was the main wage earner. 10 years on I face my dh retiring in 9 years!! The same time as dd will hopefully go to Uni. I am a bit mystified that apparently my dd has been raised by others though. As I thought we did that, she just had some input from others as by my calculation, in any given year, she was with other people for 1840 hours, vs 6920 hours with us. Yes and we were sleeping some of that time, so 3270 hours of awake time allowing for 10 hours sleep per night....So overall my daughter spent NEARLY twice the time with us, than she did in school, even with me working full time and her going to homework and afterschool club,

Portofino, 10 hours sleep a night?

hollow laugh

I would be livid if dd had to stay in school until 6pm, and only get 7 weeks holiday a year. I would rather take her out of school altogether than make her do those hours.

*don't understand what you mean, sorry?
I have never said poor, in fact if you look back I argued I wasn't poor and that low income doesn't equate to being poor. It's there, have a look
Yes, my dd is lucky and has lots of tutors, enjoys going to the theatre and to see concerts. Would you like a list of her recent activities?
Tonight. String group and choir no2, piano lesson.
Yesterday. choir no1, singing lesson, saxophone lesson.
Tuesday. Italian lesson, violin lesson, clarinet lesson.

A bit of tax credit doesn't touch that lot tbh.

Worried it's everything to do with gender and patriarchy I'm bemused you deny it

Nope not in our case! The woman DH works with whose husband sah are making the same choice just the other way around. She's s lawyer, he's a physio so despite him also having a prof qualification he sah currently as their kids are very little and she works long hours and often in the US. How us their choice any different from ours? It's not. They've made a decision based on finances and practicalities and it works for them in the short term as our choice is for us. We wanted one of us to be at home and as teaching doesn't really touch the sides of investment banking from an earning pov, that dictated that I sah and dh worked not the fact that that he has a penis.

You gave up work,a well paid man maintains you.hes experienced no career loss
You gave up as his career couldn't be interrupted but yours could?
All that money sloshing about why couldn't he pay for child care.you keep hand in

Whoa why is morethan getting such a lot of stick?

She's a prime example of a family with a very talented child who would be very much affected by these proposals

And the school she is looking at is a primarily government funded school (as is my DDS) for very talented children. Its called the Music & Dance scheme

Well, I kept him for a year whilst I was working as an nqt and he was at law school and that didn't seem to be a problem either.
He was working in Practice when I gave up and the differential wasn't as huge but it was what I wanted. He was happy either way and would have been just as happy at that point for me to chase a headship around the country and him cut back. But I wanted to sah and surely the whole point of the feminist movement was to give women the choice? Not to make them feel obligated to work if they didn't want to and finances allowed that choice?
Anyway this is well off topic but taking a militant working mum stance is no different from the militant sahm stance. Both are judgmental and ill informed.

Apologies for not reading all 11 pages, but I've just logged in and seen the news about this. Another bonkers suggestion! They seem to bandy this one about every few months-will it actually happen?? Surely you can't make parents send children to school until 6pm if you don't want to? Some of DS's friends get two trains and a bus to school (madness, I know) but if they stayed till 6pm-they wouldn't be home till very late.

There are also no jobs around so where all these parents would suddenly find 9-5 jobs, I don't know? Maybe they'll all be working in schools for minimum wage, looking after other people's children...?! I can't imagine the teachers' t&c being altered to make them do it?!

Hmmmm. I loved school holidays as a child!

You only need to pop over to the relationships board, to see the risks associated with facilitating your DHs career!

Equal risks with both working long hours and never seeing each other. Most likely I would say is having different expectations and a general lack of respect for your partner. Some men and women are shit spouses and their work status has no bearing on that.
I'd be very wealthy if he died but I wouldn't be poor if he left me. I wouldn't put myself in that position nor would DH want me to be in such a position.

Worriedthistimearound

Of course we need good quality wraparound care but young children don't need school to last until close to bedtime. A 6yr old being picked up at 3.15 by an excellent childminder and relaxing and lounging around on the sofa or watching tv or playing in the garden until their working parent picks them up at 6pm is totally fine but a far cry from extending actual school hours to 6pm. Children need to relax and destress. This can be achieved through wraparound care but not in a classroom.

If modern state school kids relaxed any more they'd be permanently horizontal.

MAYBE its a method of income generation for the GOV. enforce kids to stay in school, ONLY school. Get in some cheap teaching assistants.
save all the money on childcare related benefits!

Im a CM and i'm strongly dissuaded from accessing the government funded places. the hoops they have you jump through.... it seems to me that they want to provide work for thier workers, rather than solve a problem.

for instance i had twin girls from when they were 6 months old till they achieved thier funding. they HAD to move to a nursery, becuase i couldnt access the funding, BUT the nursery only had one day a week available. so the twins lost out in the long run

I don't think there is anything wrong with staying at school - I think it's easier for the children than being carted around to a childminder and then home from there. They get to stay with their friends etc, a familiar environment. As long as they are relaxed and happy. When it benefits children that's fine.

But I find it unfair because families on a very low income (not many on this board it seems) will not get the opportunity of staying at home with their children.

At the moment it is still a viable option for them to sah as tax credits kick in to support parents with children up to age 5.

For people with big mortgages and outgoings this doesn't work but it is still a choice.

There is also a big difference between under 5s staying at school for 9 hours and older children. For over 5s it makes sense.

I'm getting increasingly pissed off with comments suggesting that those of us who are WOHMs are working solely to buy designer gear and iPads for everyone.

I work ft for many reasons - financial, the fact my employers won't allow me to go pt ("needs of the service " even though I would love to be pt), the fact I worked fucking hard to get qualified and a career break would be career suicide for me.

I also work to provide some financial stability for my DC. I want to be able to help them with uni fees should they want to go, and not leave with crippling debt like I did. My DH works in an industry that is far from recession proof - has been made redundant 3 times in the 6 years we've been together.

If we all decided to become SAHM and live off benefits, how long do you think it would be before the country runs out of the money needed to sustain this? Benefits are funded by the tax payer and some of you would do well to remember this before slagging off those of us who work(and pay tax) wether it be through choice or necessity.

I did actually come in this thread to make a comment about the subject at hand but I'm so annoyed I forgot what I wanted to say.

I'm getting increasingly pissed off with comments suggesting that those of us who are WOHMs are working solely to buy designer gear and iPads for everyone

Yes, me too. I am working to keep a roof over our heads. My DP does not earn near enough money for me to stay at home.
I already shop at Aldi, I drive a Citroen C1 that is akin to a 'hairdryer' and will only need £30 a month in petrol. I buy my clothes from the local second hand shops and ebay.

In fact I think ill stop there as I am worried you will smell my own burning flesh of Martyrdom.

No benefits here, just living within our means.