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.

And I absolutely disagree that to use benefits to fund a stay-at-home lifestyle is not on.

OK then. If you see it as a lifestyle that's fine. Go to work and pay someone else to look after your child.

We could not afford for either of us to go Part time or even slightly reduce hours.

I would support this idea, but only if it meant the children were participating in stuff like sport, drama, music etc etc.
Not reciting the 9x table.

Having seen all the comments, it makes me wonder what teachers will think of it - from what I've seen it's not about breakfast/after school clubs, it's about actual teaching.

I considered going into teaching years ago, but it would never appeal now, and I can't imagine many teachers thinking this is a positive step. Standards in our schools are already horrendously low which must surely be in part due to increasing pressures put on them by successive governments making them responsible for every aspect of childrens' upbringings rather than just teaching. I hope that part of this isn't the government thinking simplistically that longer hours = better results?

Tiredemma - if only it was sport, drama and music! In my area they barely do any of that during normal hours!

Just wondering if my boys would have full time 1:1 support until 6pm.

Nah. Didn't think so.

I've got one who can't even cope with 6 hours, at the moment. 9 would finish him off.

How many tens of billions is this proposal actually going to cost?

I just cannot see how infant and junior children who come home exhausted at 3pm could benefit by staying an extra 3 hours. It might work if the extra time included tea, relaxation. socialising and play ( sports for older ones. I do think longer hours would be a good idea for senior children. There is no afterschool care for teens, but many still need support and direction (Ds with SLD/ASD certainly does) whilst others frankly could do with more fun. If an extended day (with adequate relaxation built in) was the norm, it might reduce the life choice inequalities between families that can pay for afterschool clubs and activities and those who cannot.
I am old(!) and a slightly longer school day was the norm back then ( till 4 -4.15) with after school clubs till 5 once at secondary. I remember getting hungry and thirsty rather than tired! We did however have longer lunch breaks ( to give time for going home for lunch and lunchtime activities) and more non academic classes ( sports. music, re) than todays children.

I would not be surprised at this going ahead tbh.
The gov want more sahps working and there will be lots of jobs created for extra child carers or teachers.
Unemployment will drop below 7%, and it will be justification for gov to raise interest rates.
House prices will rise and what we gain in one hand will be given back with the other. Nobody will actually gain anything and the only people to suffer will be the children who will be raised by the state to work for the state.
The answer will be if you don't want this then you can opt to H.ed, great if like me you choose this, not so great if you don't want this either.
Gov always have you by the goulies and there's not much you can do about it.

Horse, I do think it's not on, I think it sets a terrible example for children, and I think if everyone exercised that choice the benefits system would collapse. I want a system that is more generous to those who need the safety net because more of us are paying into it. Yep, I think benefits as a lifestyle choice is irresponsible and probably net negative for children.

You disagree - that's up to you. Doesn't mean I'm not prioritising my children - we just have vastly different values and I'd rather my kids had mine.

I do wish the whole 'you only need two incomes if you want flash cars, big mortgage, foreign holidays and luxuries' argument hadn't been brought up. It's false. DH and I were practically on the breadline until DD1 started school and we could reduce our childcare costs a little, but without my income we would have ended up homeless. We lived month to months, were worried about going overdrawn, got second-hand or hand-me-down everything. We still both needed to work. Stop peddling the myth, for the majority of us dual working parents it simply isn't true.

Having said all that, I still think this is a bonkers idea and if it really ends up happening, and it ends up being 9 hours of academia, then I will home educate. These days we could afford for me to give up my job.

I'd be sad though, because my DDs love school and are thriving there.

yy to that pointythings

Well said, pointythings.

MrsO put it much better than me.

I think it's very odd to say that it's better for a child for a parent to stay at home, even if means collecting benefits.

All the evidence that has ever been done has concluded that DC in homes on low income have worst outcomes. The lower the income, the worse the outcome.

Tiredemma

^I would support this idea, but only if it meant the children were participating in stuff like sport, drama, music etc etc.
Not reciting the 9x table.^

ISTM that a huge number of the people commenting on this have no experience of having been at school after 3pm.

My (prep) school finished at 5:10pm. Lessons finished at 3pm. Then there was an hour for games. Then a break with a snack, and from 4:15 until 5:10pm was homework, carried out in silence. If you'd finished your homework you read a book. This happened with every child from the age of 8 upwards.

With regard to supervision, the layout of the classrooms (4 adjoining rooms on two separate floors) allowed two teachers to supervise the 8 classes. However, most teachers stayed in their classrooms and caught up on their paperwork.

It worked very well, allowing parents to have a full-time job rather than a part time one. It ensured that any homework which needed to be done was done at school, leaving evenings free. Teachers didn't work any longer than they already were already planning to. Feminists should favour it because it means that women (who still do the bulk of the care) would, if they chose to work, not be disadvantaged at work by being part time.

But how likely is it that it would be this well run in every state school?

Also, it's about the principle - it should be about a parent's choice to decide if their child is going to be at school for that long to fit around their work hours. If I was able to work part time and collect my child at 3pm or whatever time their school finishes, then that's what time I would want to collect them so I can spend the bulk of their afternoon and evening with them.

I don't agree with the point about part time work - they shouldn't be disadvantaged by working part time in the first place! That's almost agreeing with how the system works at the moment - if you want to work part time you have to put up with whatever you can get, but if you want a skilled role then you have to work full time.

flatpack both the secondary schools my DC attend allow any pupil to use the library for homework study until quite late.

And staff are available on a rota system so that there's usually always someone around from the different departments.

Whilst it's not set up specifically to help working parents, I suspect it's highly useful for the DC who have got to old for regular childcare.

But greta has anyone suggested that it wouldn't optional (other than the hysterics of MN) ?

On the news this morning (well, it was Daybreak, so maybe not the best) they said that the plan was for children to attend school until 6pm and for school holidays to be reduced to 7 weeks. They didn't word it in a way that implied that schools would just be open for that long, but that the school (teaching) day would be that long across the board. A teacher was interviewed who said that he didn't agree with it because he couldn't see when he would be expected to do lesson plans/marking etc.

(I did have a 10mo pressing the same musical button on a toy a million times so I might have missed some of it, but that was the gist!)

But surely, flatpackhamster, your holidays at your prep school were far, far longer than state school holidays?

Anyway, it is not going to happen. A lot of schools are owned by PFIs and the rent for the longer school day and holidays would by laughably astronomical. (Due to the fact Labour and Tories couldn't negotiate contracts properly).

You're right TCF

Routinely each government tries to tackle the lack of affordable child care in the UK. And each time the idea of providing wrap around care in schools comes up (buildings already available, kids already in situ etc)

And then each government realises it will be far too expensive. Or at least more expensive than they're prepared to shell out.

Jassy - regarding your argument that nobody should be on benefit just because they have children because it's wrong - the state currently subsidises working parents to the tune of billions through working tax credits and childcare vouchers and parental leave payments.

If you use childcare vouchers/allowance you are taking money from the taxpayer. If you claim tax credits you are taking money from the state.

People who stay at home and look after more than one child are saving the taxpayer money by doing their own childcare.

Wages are artificially low and house prices are artificially high. It will always stay like that if people blame that on benefit scroungers. The fact is that the vast majority of our hard earned tax goes to subsidise low wages for the benefit of the pockets of a few rich people who are largely based abroad.

If one salary isn't enough to cover a roof over a family's head and food in its belly then there's something wrong with the prices and wages, not childcare.

This government doesn't know how lucky it is having so many people desperately subservient and still supporting it.

Importantly who will deliver the extra supervision. It will not be qualified teachers, I am sure.

Horse, if I were to leave my job and take out of work benefits, housing benefit et al, start claiming CTC and CB (we get a tiny portion of this now, it's barely worth it), I would move from being a net contributor (by a fairly long shot) to a net beneficiary in terms of benefit in v benefit out. If a large number of people did so, more people would be sharing a smaller pot which would be desperately unfair to those who don't have a choice.

At the moment, we get tax relief on childcare vouchers, which is great. I don't expect the state to pay for my childcare, though a system like Australia's where it is more tax deductible would make sense to me, particularly when in my area, a full time childcare place is around 15K a year.

And obviously I benefit from the universal public services we all enjoy, such as schools, nursery provision, roads and the police, and the knowledge that there is a true safety net for people who are struggling.

True net contribution, rather than simple in and out of bank accounts, is much harder to pin down.

I'm lucky. I make good money, DH makes ok money, we both have employers that support us in working somewhat flexibly. I know a lot of people don't have that. So yes, I think the responsible thing - to my family and to society - is to continue to work, save for my retirement, support my family (including supporting my husband's choice to work) and pay taxes that support others who aren't as lucky as me. I think that's a pretty good example to set my son, too.

You won't get much argument from me on disconnect between wages and prices, but that doesn't alter the fundamental point of people making the decision of what's best for their children in their own circumstances. And for many, that decision is not 'quit work, take out of work benefits to stay home with my child' because that would be irresponsible to just about everyone.

On topic: this idea is still thoroughly bonkers.