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.

Oh, and it makes me laugh that their children, who all go to private schools, have shorter terms, anyway. But they reckon their kiddies to be soon much cleverer.

And please don't misrepresent my words. I'm able to work in a way that is vaguely practical for my family. Out of work benefits are, frankly, not designed for people in my position.

For some, having children may well mean they don't have the choices I do. But benefits as a lifestyle choice, rather than the only practical choice - and it would be a pure lifestyle choice for me - would leave less for everyone else. And in my case, it would be deeply irresponsible.

I don't need a pt job.i have a ft career.school day extended Afterschool provision great idea
It's not extending teaching day,it's extending Afterschool provision
A housewife who doesn't work you dont need Afterschool,so you're unaffected

scottishmummy do you trust the govt to provide the money to make the after school provision even half way decent. I don't. it will be mass child care on the cheap. no opportunity for parents to opt out and take their kids home at 3,30 they will have to stay on whether we want them to or not. yet again, it is about the lack of choice. and your statement "...A housewife who doesn't work you dont need Afterschool,so you're unaffected..." is quite frankly derogatory for SAHP. of course they are affected. why did I have kids? not for them to be out of the house for 12 hours a day that's a certainty.

A housewife doesn't need Afterschool,they're not working.
Yes I am out house 12hours,so what?i chose it.pf course I'll explore any childcare going
If as housewife you chose not to work,you're not in need of provision to support employment

gretagrape

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

Fair question - but one which could be applied to any aspect of the entire teaching sector. Would you scrap inclusion because some schools do it badly?

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.

If school finished at 5pm, then you and all the other mums and dads would just have to get used to it. My parents accepted the later finish as part of the schooling. So did everyone else's parents. I can't see a principle at stake here. Do you hold out 'on principle' and take your kids out of school during term time, or do you choose to pick them up at midday so you can spend time 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.

You're seeing it only from the perspective of the worker. It's a pain in the backside for small businesses to handle part time working and maternity cover. Having seen it from both ends, frankly my sympathies are still with the business. Skilled roles require full time working.

word

You can talk about generalised evidence as much as you like but we are lowest income imaginable and have a personalised education second to none for our daughter, so it doesn't necessarily go to figure that the outcomes are worse for children of low income families. As usual it boils down to what you choose to do with your money, not how much you earn.

So Jassy do you think that a parent staying at home looking after children is morally wrong - from what age - 2 weeks? 3 months? 3 years?

And is it morally wrong for people who don't claim benefit to stay at home?

I find your argument very dictatorial and inflexible. You're OK, you are doing flexible hours but poor people have to stay working at JD Sports til 6pm otherwise they're immoral.

(I don't by the way)

I am absolutely disgusted by this idea. From the minute your baby is born someone is sticking their nose in telling you whats best. They may as well take them off you at birth, and give them back when moulded into perfect specimens at 18 if we are all so useless. I had children because I wanted to be a mother. I gave up work because I wanted to raise my own children and although we just about scrape by on my husbands wage the most important thing for me is simply being around when my kids need me. My 4 year old has been poorly this week, nothing serious just a tummy bug, but who does he want when he is sick? Mummy, and that's the way it should be. If kids go to school 9-6 Monday to Friday they will be closer to their teachers than their own parents. All you are doing at home is putting them to bed and getting them up for school again, what kind of life is that? And who works monday to friday these days anyway? Kids would end up in some kind of childcare 7 days a week. Don't have kids unless you are prepared to go without and make sacrifices at least while they are young. Children are not an inconvenience that you have to fit around your selfish career, they are a blessing, a joy, a life choice.

its a none story

so we can all argue about something else now.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25961514

Don't have kids unless you are prepared to go without and make sacrifices at least while they are young. Children are not an inconvenience that you have to fit around your selfish career, they are a blessing, a joy, a life choice.

My selfish career keeps a roof above my head and the heads of my children.

Look Gove was at boarding school from when he was an embryo .. he stayed there all holiday and did extra latin and rugby. He is a well adjusted member of the tory party and in touch with all the common people, especially children .. who he thinks could actually be put to work and pay tax to help him get a nice third home sorry get us out of the deficit. But sadly that is not a vote winner so put keep them in school and make them do latin and rubgy and then can be like him.

Plus all those teachers don't know how lucky they are ... I mean Gove is hard at work 28 hours a day 9 days week... teachers work 2 hours at most (and the rest children just play and don't actually learn) and have all those holidays and still they seem to hate them AND they have energy to tell him he is wrong on most accounts of what is actually best for children ...

thus this is THE plan

Seriously are we talking about what is best for parents or Gove or the children because it seems to me they are different things...

yes we need high quality after school / before school care - lets not make it extra lessons ... childhood only lasts seconds. I want my children to remember fun stuff - brownies , playing in the garden, etc etc

You know what the mummy martyrs with can make sacrifices. I don't want to.i don't
I am not inclined to give up a career I enjoy,when I can plan and buy good childcare
And no I don't think having kids is a giving things up competition,who sacrificed most

morethan frankly there are opportunities you simply cannot access if you're poor. For yourself or your DC.

That's the long and short of it.

Home education is one thing. Home education in poverty is quite another.

You've chosen to be poor. That's fine. But it will have an impact on the opportunities for your DC.

You know what the mummy martyrs with can make sacrifices. I don't want to.i don't
I am not inclined to give up a career I enjoy,when I can plan and buy good childcare
And no I don't think having kids is a giving things up competition,who sacrificed most

You have said what I wanted to say.

The smell of burning flesh from the martyrs is overpowering.

Word

I would like to know how? BTW you stated low income not poor, the 2 needn't equate.
I don't believe we are poor, in fact we probably have a higher disposable income than many families earning very high wages.

live in a smaller house in a cheaper area, run a cheaper car, take cheaper holidays, stop spending on expensive clothing just to look the part, shop in aldi instead of waitrose. There are a million and one ways to make ends meet without both parents needing to work full-time. Kids don't need money and mountains of stuff they need a mum or dad there when they need them, not parents that are always too busy to look after them, they didn't ask to be born, it was all your own choice.
This will never happen anyway. Most teachers are only in it for the 3 months holiday, and they ain't gonna give that up without a fight!

Well said ggh1979.

You have to sacrifice things to have children.

You make choices in life and when children are under the age of 5 every mother has a right and the option to stay at home and look after their children if they want to. If they don't want to that is their choice.

The only smell of burning flesh of martyrs I can smell is coming from those who say they are not able to stay at home with their children because they are working so hard for the state because going on benefits is immoral (the tax martyrs).

Some people just don't want to know, Tiredemma.

ggh being able to afford a parent at home full time is a luxury these days. Those of us who can't afford that luxury just have to cope. Thanks for making us feel worse about it.

It's not about stuff, or clothes or cars...

it's about opportunities...

And these are becoming more and more costly. This is one of the reasons why the gap is ever increasing between rich and poor.

And you know what society and the sacrificers benefit from working parents
When the mummy martyrs access public service,retail,commerce it's staffed by parents
Skilled employees who by remaining in workforce benefit the many.next time housewives supping their frothy coffee it may have been made by a working parent. Don't choke mind

horse if your H earns more than a certain (not very high at all) amount, you qualify for very little. Some people work NMW jobs all their lives. Should they just not have children then, because they can't afford to have a parent stay at home?

I would not dream of condemning parents who stay at home as immoral because they claim the paltry tax credits/child benefit etc. they are entitled to, I disagree with the poster who stated this, but can we please stop condemning families who genuinely have no other choice?

Well it's a good job that there are tax matyrs out there to fund the benefits, aren't there? Otherwise, that 'right' to stay at home and have someone else fund that choice wouldn't exist.

I'm all for p/t working - I have a p/t career, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get it. It's not about one or the other though, they're not mutually exclusive. The legal right to apply for flexible hours exists, and the legal right to decline the application is there - imo it works well as it is.