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.

I must say I do find it interesting when you hear of whole nations and cultures where children are institutionalised from a very early age, like someone mentioned Belgium, France is similar and then of course there's China.

I know that China is back-tracking now and encouraging learning through play because their workforce doesn't have enough creativity. But I wonder whether the institutionalisation itself (whether play-oriented or not) changes anything fundamental?

Historically children were brought up by an extended family but there were strong bonds probably. Where they are left with a bunch of adults that don't really know them and will move on that can't be healthy. There is a huge difference between community childcare and institutionalised childcare.

Jassy no, at Bonsoir.

jassy

You are a main earner and your dh doesn't want to be a sahp, that is your choice the same as sahp chooses or has no alternative they are both the same.
I think the main point was, if this goes through and is compulsory education, it isn't fair on those who do put their child first before work, and are able to collect at 3pm.
It isn't a sneer at those who can't do this because they choose or have to work.

Some jobs (like mine) are difficult to do around school hours. Personally I think it is a good idea

adults can opt out of the Working Time Regulations... but its okay for kids to spend 10 hours a day in an establishment.

what about the kids for whom school isnt a safe place ie the victims of bullying?

Morethan - I was very specifically taking issue with horsetowater's statement about 'those who prioritise their children over their employment' - not the wider thread. It's a ridiculously inflammatory form of words.

my uncles wife is chinese. she was amazed to see my dd playing outdoors.

she said that thier kids dont play, and even from an early age, they would request extra lessons rather than play. i think its quite sad.

morethan well put. It should be an option, not compulsory.

horse not all childcare settings are the same - my DDs had the same key worker from baby through to leaving, and they were in a nursery with a staff turnover of virtually 0. They were loved, cuddled and played with and still hug their former carers when we meet them in town - they're 11 and 13 now. I appreciate that this is a rarity though. In an ideal world, we'd have real choices - I would always have wanted to work, but not full time until mine were older. It just wasn't possible.

It is rather a sneer - rereading your post - I work because I put my child first. The alternative would not be in his best interests. Suggesting it's a binary or true choice is just incredibly ignorant and, I'm afraid, comes across as smug.

I'm relatively happy with our situation. We have a happy, bright, confident child and we are financially secure. I would love to have more choices, yes, but I will argue until I'm blue in the face with anyone who suggests that, because I'm not at home /at the school gate every day of the week, I am not putting my child first.

However, I still think this proposal is batshit insane.

I hate to wail 'what about the children...'

But

What about the children?

All three of mine, primary school age, are knackered and hungry at 3.10pm. I think they could manage another hour or 90 mins - but are they expected to be in formal lessons until 6pm?

If schools offered after school clubs with games, hobbies, football, dancing generally developing interests then I could see being there til 6pm could be beneficial.

But where is the money to implement this? Are teachers supposed to be in charge of this? When do they get their work done?

It's like some back -of -the- fag packet thinking a la' The The Thick of It

jassy

I know you were, but its just how some people see it. I sort of agree tbh although I understand that some people have no choice not to work.
Those who do have a choice and do it anyway, sorry but like your dh, can hardly say they put their dc before work.
Nothing short of starvation would make me go out to work as my dc have always come first before anything, but I don't think my choices are any better than any body else's, they're just choices.

Flexible/pt working doesn't work if everyone wants to work 9.30-2.30.

Things would be helped if schools/teachers stopped making such a hoohaa about not being childcare. I realize their not childcare but it is very difficult to manage work and childcare when schools like my DCs school cancel after school clubs 2 hours before they're due to start. And if you complain about the lack of notice you get told you shouldn't rely on them!

Jassy your earlier comment - it wasn't personal - sorry if I upset you but people do prioritise work over time with your child. It is a choice. Might not be in many countries but technically, in the UK, it still is. You do get tax credits and benefits if you choose not to work. Yes it's a daunting prospect as you are vilified and made to feel like a scrounger but it is an option. Give up the car, the expensive phone, the sky subscription. Take up camping. It's all possible. There are thousands of people on benefit and they all survive (some for far longer than the childcare years). I'm sure if you really wanted to do this you could.

Housing is also a choice. If people didn't play the mugs game that is the property ladder we would allow ourselves to choose whether to stay at home with our under-fives (benefit drops after that admittedly). But you have pointed out that there is a trap that people fall into and that's what needs to be looked at - house prices, benefit for people with mortgages, low wages.

I am in the ironic situation where I have to stay at home as a carer even though I would prefer to work now but don't financially need to (as long as we keep shopping in Lidl) because there aren't the services available to support us. Every time I get a day's work there's an illness, a problem at school, a hospital appointment.

Well said Jassy.

If people give up perfectly good jobs to go on benefits, for no other reason than they prefer to stay at home, that is not acceptable Horse.

Horse, I'm perfectly aware of all of that - though you have express exit very well. But having an ultimate choice not to work doesn't automatically mean that by not working, I would be prioritising my child (your words). In fact I think if be doing him a massive disservice and would not be putting him first. Which is why I took issue with your turn of phrase.

If you worked, would your child then come second?

I also think we need to look at the wider picture too.
What about all the private tuition and activities children do outside school that start at say 4.30
You can't just say have them later as the venues are booked right up until 9.30pm in some cases, so who does without.
Many of these couldn't be offered in every school.
County level music and sports groups for example.

Surely it goes without saying though, that lack of after school childcare IS a big problem for working parents. If our school offered the option of an after-school club until 6pm, I'd be biting their arm off (although I wouldn't need it every day). As it is, I am constantly piecing things together with various 16-yr olds who will come over, bung some fishfingers in the oven and watch my two primary age DDs. Because I work freelance hours and odd days, my requirements don't match up with a regular childcare setting.

I can see it working very well in secondary too - great if kids had the option to stay on site and do homework etc until 6pm, particularly in the early years, rather than coming home to an empty house.

I can't see anywhere that it's being proposed as compulsory?

Remember that most kids in school are NOT tiny 4 and 5 year olds who are shattered at 3pm...

Jingle, its what I did, because my children came and continue to come first. I wanted to bring them up on my own without the need for an outside agency to do the majority of parenting in my absence.
I'd say that wanting to bring your children up yourselves was pretty acceptable. It's why we had children.

We used to have a youth club at my secondary school run by the teachers, back in the days when they had time to form positive relationships with their pupils instead of ticking boxes at a computer.

There was so much you could do - all the usual pool, snooker, football, dancing but also chess, art clubs, pottery etc etc

Thatcher took it all away

horse, some of us don't have the expensive car, phone, sky subscription, big mortgage etc but still need to work. And I absolutely disagree that to use benefits to fund a stay-at-home lifestyle is not on. Benefits were designed to help those who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in need (through redundancy, for example, or disability precluding employment - those are just a couple of examples of course). They are not there to fund those who financially need to work and are able to do so, but choose not to. You fund that yourself, and fair play to you if that's the path you choose.

DD is currently at nursery 8-6 3 days a week. She'll do the same at school when she starts. DH and I are lucky in that we work for flexible bosses, but considering journey times in London we just can't do our hours, commute (and if we lived further out in a cheaper area the commute would be even longer, and more expensive) and either drop her off or pick her up any earlier/later.

And I like my job. As many people do. I would hate to be a SAHM, that would make me a worse mother, no doubt - I did it for 2 years when DD was a a baby and loathed it. Became a much better parent when I started back at work.

My husband feels that my child is better off with each of us at home part if the time, which is perfectly valid. He feels he's a better parent to my child overall if he's at work part of the week. To be honest, if I were able to stay home I'd have to think very long and hard about it. My desire to do so is very much about what I want, not because I'm convinced it would be best for my child.

Prioritising one's child isn't a simple equation like 'I stay home with my child'. I could come up with all sorts of inflammatory language about stay at home parents and the effect on the children - but I won't, partly because I know every family is different, and second because I don't need to put another person down to feel ok about myself by using ridiculous generalisations.

I'm also not sure why threads like this have to descend into criticism of others' parenting and how they fit their work around their lives. Plenty of working parents, whether part- or full-time, think this idea is bonkers and would reduce choice for everyone.

Jassy - there are plenty of people who don't work who put themselves before their children. That's not the issue. I was responding to your argument that some people have no choice - they do.

Jingle - for people to give up perfectly good jobs to go on benefit in order to look after their children is perfectly acceptable and is actually what most women/parents do and are encouraged to do through parental leave. Some choose to go back to work sooner than others. Looking after children is a job.

MrsO, v well put (and I know that's how my DH feels - suspect I could end up feeling that way too after a few years of stay at home parenthood!)

It's about realistic choice, surely? I wouldn't be willing to go on benefits when I can work. I think that would be flat out wrong. And your original statement was about equating stay at home parenthood with prioritising children. My point in response is that it's nowhere near that binary - though the idea that it is makes some people feel good.