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.

ggh197934 your comments are such a pile of bullshit I don't know where to start. If DD is poorly, she doesn't go to nursery, either DH or I stay home from work to be with her and look after her. I was at school from about aged 10, from 8.30 to 6.15 and no, those teachers meant fuck all to me in comparison the my parents, what utter shite.

I live in a cheap part of London (or it was when we moved here) - both DH and I have to be in London for work (you do understand that many jobs are tied to a certain location, don't you?), and I've lived here all my life, my friends and some of my family are here. I have a tiny car, I don't have expensive holidays (or holidays at all, some years), no expensive clothing, don't shop in waitrose. No iphones, no cable TV, no tumble dryer. No fucking extravagances at all. But I'm not living on the breadline either, for which I am very grateful - I would not want DD to grow up in a financially precarious household, how bloody irresponsible.

Oh, and all the teachers I know don't get anything like 3 months holiday, what a stupid, ignorant and uninformed comment. Though that sums up everything you've said, to be frank.

I do not ever ever ever criticise SAHPs. How dare you criticise WOHPs, especially from such an ignorant, bigoted standpoint.

Don't think I've been so angry about a post for ages. Christ.

No.staying at home,unemployed isn't right.it is optional
The majority of women work.housewifery is a minority pursuit
Bankrolled by another waged adult. Not a set up all want to replicate

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.

Don't stop believing, will you?

This is interesting. I haven't worked for about 15 years because I am a carer. Would like to though. But it's been a long time and I have seen the change in attitude and demographics.

When I had my first child we lived in a very expensive area and already then most of the local toddler groups were inhabited by nannies and their charges. We moved to a cheaper area and there was a good number of parents around and I spent about 5 good years on the SAHM circuit if there is such a thing. There were lots of us, it was busy and fun. My friends all went back to work full time by the time their youngest was 5 and most did part-time from an earlier age.

Then slowly but surely things changed and when I go out now during the day in my cheaper area, there is nobody around. You might get a smattering of children in parks but it seems as though everyone is out at work. It is actually quite eerie.

MrsOakenshield

MrsOakenshield - don't get upset by bullshit. Treat such opinions with the disdain they deserve. Or even better, laugh at them

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.

Can I politely tell you to fuck the fuck off

Don't forget to eke out 27 meals,risotto,soup and sandwiches with 1chicken
Ahh the mn give it all up thrift.downsize your way to thrift and never working again
Actually,no,I'll always chose career,house and disposable income. I don't want to eke out existence

horseto the economy has entirely changed.

The gap between have and have not is wide. And no one wants their DC to fall in the later group.

Well, yes Ubik - it's all about priorities. You've been around on MN for long enough to know that its simply a questions of changing your priorities and your brand of baked beans.

Honestly. It's that simple.

pointythings I'm glad we agree - but I guess the argument is, if the benefit system is there to support parents of children with under 5s, there are no people who genuinely have no other choice the choice is there.

Most mums I know that work full time only do so because they couldn't hack it being a stay at home mum. It's not glamorous enough for a start. I've had people say to be 'don't you get bored, stuck at home all day?' And do you know what the answer is YES sometimes it's boring, it's relentless, it's exhausting...it's a full-time job!! 24/7 no holidays, no days off no tea breaks, no pay!! But I have spent the last four years going to toddler groups, soft play centres, swimming, libraries, hours and hours on the park, priceless memories for me and my kids that we would have missed out on had they been in childcare day after day while I went back to work as if nothing had changed.
We are not exactly poor, but we live within our means, we are just sensible with our money and make it work.

I don't think its necessarily a point of some people funding others to stay at home tbh.
Yes, of course tax credits help if you are low income household but there are plenty of families who have tax credits because 2 parents are working p/t. Many people can just afford for a sahp with tax credits because they are frugal. Does it matter what you do anyway? The gov screw you whatever choices you make.

Which is precisely what's wrong with the benefit system in this country. It should be there as a last resort and as a safety net for people to use when all other avenues have failed - as a temporary measure.

It is not there to accommodate some imagined 'right' to stay at home, doing nothing, while holding out your hand to other working adults.

Excellent word thanks for putting your finger on it.

The economy has changed and nobody wants their child to 'have not' - but what is it they are not having?

Education, healthcare and social support are all there. Subsidised housing, benefit, it's all there. What is everyone afraid of not having?

At the moment the only thing that children are missing out on is their parents.

Ach, horse, you're good with the inaccurate but dramatic paraphrasing. If check out actual benefits entitlements though. I think you've got it a bit wonky.

I was responding directly to your frankly ludicrous suggestion that I was costing the state more in childcare than they were getting from me in taxes, and I should therefore stay home and stop being a burden on the state. Or something.

I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes. I think they're great. I'd prefer a tax system that was more progressive - no VAT, higher income taxes (with more tax bands) and better targeted property taxes. I'd probably pay more, but it'd be fairer. So yeah, I'm a tax martyr, whatever the fuck that is.

For someone in my position, chucking in my job and chucking my husband so I could get income support and CTC until my child turned five would make great sense. And then when my kid turned five and I was no longer eligible for that, and was trying to get back into the workforce, struggling to find work and probably ending up on the very in-work income support you so despise as subsidising low wages, working for an inflexible boss who's able to pick and choose from the swathes of people who were in the same position, it would be magnificent for my son. Yes, that is absolutely the best thing to do, for both myself, my husband and my child. Thank you for showing me the absolute superiority of this path. I've been so blind!

Oh - and staying at home whilst your DCs are little is not a full time job. If you've ever done a full time job AND raised a family then you'll know the difference.

Horse, out of genuine interest: do you have a partner who works out of the home? Is he/she a lesser parent, in your eyes? Do your children love and respect him/her less?

Ggh housewife isn't a job,it's a lifestyle choice.job us economically active.housewife is economically inactive
A Job has external tasks/expectations imposed to be undertaken to prescribed standard
Housewife is done to individual pace,preference with no external scrutiny or demands

SirChenjin - 'right to stay at home doing nothing?' I don't think so. Nobody stays at home and does nothing especially when they have 2 or 3 children to look after.

At the moment the only thing that children are missing out on is their parents

Interesting....how exactly are my children missing out through DH and I working?

But horse, I have just tried pointing out that if you have a DH/DP who is working full time on NMW, you are already above the threshold for receiving anything beyond the semi-universal benefits like CB. You won't get JSA either, or not beyond the limited period of contribution-based JSA if that applies. You might get some HB and some tax credits, but you still won't make ends meet because of the cost of housing, utilities, food, transport, insurance - the list is endless. DH and I did the maths when we had our first. His job is indivisibly tied to our geographical location - we're in a relatively affordable part of East Anglia.

The other thing people fail to see is that moving to where the jobs are often means moving to a more expensive area, and moving itself is very much not without cost. So we're back to saying 'don't have children unless you can afford to have a parent at home', which rules out the working poor. I don't see that as a solution.

Ideally I would like to see some form of financial recompense for families who choose to have a parent stay at home, because I do think it is important work that deserves recognition. It would have to be substantial enough to keep a household afloat though. And even then there will still be women who want to work, and I would sincerely hope that SAHMs would stop condemning them.

Housewife is economically inactive,it's not a job.dont compare to economic activity and working

What I need is the magic chicken. All our problems solved.

word

I think you are out of touch if you really believe your last post.
What does it matter what you have anyway, although the poor people I know are no worse off than the rich, unless of course you merely mean material goods.