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.

'Couldn't resist. I don't condemn mums who work'

well, your first bullshit-filled post would prove this comment to be even more bullshit.

Glad you've finally admitted that you're ignorant though. About quite a lot of things, as far as I can tell.

And who funded your choice to be a SAHM? And who will fund the boarding/private school?

Oh lord, horse, this is wearying. I have never said that everyone in receipt of benefits is irresponsible. I don't think it. I think that the benefits system is brilliant. I think it helps a hell of a lot of people, but could do a lot more a lot better. For me, to stop working and claim out of work benefits simply to fulfil my desire to be a stay at home parent would be irresponsible.

I'm fine with getting tax relief on childcare vouchers, as it happens. I'm ok with other universal benefits. I'm ok with targeted benefits. But are you honestly suggesting that the scenario I set out would be best for either me or my son?

Damn straight it's a choice. The responsible choice in these particular circumstances. I'll say it again as you seem to be struggling with it - in these very particular circumstances of which you have very little idea, and I'm not inclined to justify. Other people have different circumstances which lead to other choices making sense.

And who funded your choice to be a SAHM? And who will fund the boarding/private school?

Sir, you just didn't prioritise enough and marry someone who had enough to send your kids to private school! Silly you! Should have just jacked in your job to move to a cheaper house (how does one get a mortgage if you jack in your job to move to these cheaper areas?) and put down the iPhone!

Next we'll be hearing of how everyone who doesn't do exactly as gg probably drinks and smokes, too.

word children want their parents, love and basic essentials. They don't need much more than survival. Which is why I always say - ask the child. Ipad or Mummy at home? See what they say

pointythings you do get a lot of tax credits and housing benefit. It's not the end of the world if you end up on benefit for a few years. And you can work and earn a fair bit if you want to. DH was out of work for about a year and yes it was hard but we were OK. The tax credits were quite substantial. Try one of those benefit calculator things. I think if you have a big mortgage though that's a problem. Unsurprisingly the government won't pay for capital in your property investment. So again, it's a choice.

There's never been a government policy to force people to work away from their children. Single mothers are forced back when their child is 5. The choice is one's own - it is a lifestyle choice. So please don't say how you really want to stay at home but you can't afford to. Millions can get by.

ggh My DH and I are a team too. We both work, so we both take time off when the DDs are ill. Equally. DDs are now getting older, soon they will be able to manage at home as long as it is nothing more serious than a bad cold without needing one of us there.

Until then, we both have sensible, understanding managers who understand the demands of the real world. DH and I don't moan, if shit happens at home, we inform our managers via the approved channels, we deal with what is happening and that's that. My job is conducive to working from home so that is what I tend to do - I can access our network securely, my manager can communicate with me and see what I am doing. It isn't rocket science - but it is less straightforward than knowing there is always going to be a parent at home. Saying that is not moaning, it's stating a fact.

horse it is your choice that you are staying with a Jurassic DP. If you're happy with that, kudos to you. I would not put up with it, nor would many posters here, especially in households where both work. Horses, courses and all that.

expat - it's true . My priorities are all wrong, as are the brand of beans I eat.

If only I had married someone who earned enough to fund a stay at home lifestyle for me and private school fees for my DC. Then I too would have been able to talk knowledgeably about priorities

Jassy you seem more concerned about being a 'responsible' taxpayer than anything else. I say this is just fluff - you don't want to stay at home, that's your choice, the way you prefer to live your life. It's got nothing to do with being 'responsible'.

Working women contribute to society,everyone benefits
Working parents in retail,health,commerce,catering providing benefits to many
Maybe your kids teacher,or GP is working parent?will you berate them for working?

Ipad or Mummy at home?

And the award for the most ridiculous sentence posted on MN tonight goes to horsetowater

Seriously - you believe I work for the cost of one ipad??!

Horse - my four year old once told me to go back to work ft, when I'd told him I couldn't afford to get him some humongous playmobil thing.
I don't think he meant it

It deopends exactly what is meant by the proposal.

All (or some within an area with lots of schools) school buildings open untuil 6pm, providing a wide range of optional, high quality, registered childcare and extra-curricular activities run by the school or by third parties at a reasonable cost (subsidised for low income families) - I don't have an issue with this. Looking around locally, many primary schools already do this - often with extra-curricular clubs provided by school staff straight after the school day sliding seamlessly into more low key childcare (often combined with homework clubs) on the school premises or nearly later in the afternoon.

Full-on 'teaching and learning', compulsory, teacher-in-front-of-the class school all the way through till 6 - no. For one thing, many children participate in very high quality extra-curricular activities in the community - 1 to 1 music lessons, dance schools, professional club football academies, tennis coaching, swimming lessons / clubs, county oer higher level sport - in the hours between 3.15 and 6, and these could not be replicated adequately in all the individual schools. Shifting all of these beyond 6 pm would deny many children the opportunity to e.g. learn to swim well, learn a minority instrument or play in an orchestra, train non-vocatonally at dance etc etc. For another, the teaching and learning happening would inevitabley be of lower quality. If every teacher teaches 9-6, there is simply no time to prepare and deliver (let alone mark and assess) the type of high-quality and engaging lessons that really make a difference to what children learn. It is quality, not quantity, that helps children to make the greatest progress.

yesm, there are priovate schools that are open much later - my own school day used to run from 8.25 to 6.45. But within that timeeveryonei had 2+ hours of PE per day while my academic teachers were preparing / marking, there was minimally supervised homework and all extra-curricular stuff was on site and within those hours. It is a model that simply cannot be replicated in every school nationwide.

horse we do not get CB due to DH's immigration status - US national, military, agreement with UK government. We don't moan about it because our council tax is paid for us.

Tax credits - I have too many friends who have been stung by those. You claim, you get your money, you think everything is fine, then you get a demand for money back because you've been overpaid and they want it back yesterday. And the same thing happens year on year. No thanks.

Our mortgage when we got our house was tiny. Monthly payment a fraction of what normal rent was round here. We didn't buy our house as a 'starter home' or to make money on it, we bought it to raise our family in it permanently.

Not buying a house would have cost us more annually than buying the house, and we would have been precarious forever.

Now that DDs are in full time school and old enough not to need childcare before and after, I can and will home educate if this idiot idea goes through. It isn't possible for everyone. Just because you managed it that does not mean it will work for everyone. Things are just not that simple and you need to be less judgemental of families where both parents work. I try very hard not to judge the choices other people make. Why can't we all afford each other that basic courtesy?

Horse, could your husband stay home if he wanted to?

Choices come with limits, particularly when they are interdependent on others' choices.

I'd love to be a stay at home parent, as I've said. I'm not convinced it would be the best for my son, my family or for me in the long run. It's a selfish impulse on my behalf, which is why I'm not asking my husband to give up a job he loves to make more money to support me in indulging it.

It's utter rot,that work is solely fripperies like iPad
It's the ongoing commitment.you know,the beans,the utilities
So middle class to reduce it to mummy or iPad.as if that's the biggie kids face

SirChengin

My dh funded my choice to be a sahm, later family credit and tax credits came in.
It was both our decision, what we thought right for our family.
Charity and/or gov award will fund schooling maybe, if that's what dd decides to do.
Don't worry, if it turns out to be the tax payer I'll say a personal thank you for the 1p you might donate

What govt and or charity funds are there for private school?
What's the back up plan
Why dont you get a job if you want private schools

Oh, do fuck off, horse. You're the one who keeps harping on about this. I have responsibilities to my son, my husband, my family, my friends, my work and to society as a whole. I take them all pretty seriously but the first two take absolute precedence.

Your repeated idea that those two people would be better off if I did everything required to get out-of work benefits to enable my stay at home parenthood is frankly deluded and risible.

pointy he's Jurassic in a practical way. It works. He works and does a lot of fixing and mending - saving us a lot of money. He's out tonight getting spare parts to fix the car saving us hundred of pounds etc etc. He's not lazy but leaves the household to me pretty much. This means we have money to spare for other things.

But you have a good point about going into a relationship where both partners expect to work and share the load it's a completely different ballgame. I know my job he knows his and there's a bit of overlap here and there.

When we had dcs we didn't have mobile phones. It's a lot easier to organise every day practicalities now than it used to be. I think that's what's probably changed with a lot of people - organising even emergencies is easier than it ever was.

Scottishmummy

I don't want private schools I'm happy H.ed and so is dd.
She has her eyes on a particular school, she may want to go to at some time.
If I worked, no way could I afford the 23k or 30k fees, so I'll remain a sahm, just as I set out to.

This has defended into totally irrelevant shit. 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.

I have excellent Alevels, a good RG degree, a pgce and an MA but I choose to sah for the moment. It doesn't have to be seen as a political statement against those mums who woh.
Oh and scottishmummy, I don't consider myself a housewife as I do bugger all around the house, employ a cleaner for that. Maybe that call would be more legitimate if my kids were all at school. Also, in economic terms, my DH can only do the job he does because I'm at home. I could go back but he'd have to take another role dropping about 40-50k from his salary. My working would not make up this difference. Therefore, as a couple we are more economically productive with me at home.

So you want private education,but won't work to finance it
You're Happy to hope for a grant or funding though
God forbid you'd have to work to finance private education

Decended

Ipad or Mummy at home

well, DD's lucked out there because we don't have the first and she gets the second only 4 days a week, every morning, every evening and every night. Poor her.

your ignorance is astounding. I don't know any WOHM who don't look after their children when ill and who care about filling their homes with material possessions. I just don't. I do know a lot of hard-working (whatever that work might be), loving, responsible parents who work as a team to do the best for all members of their family, children and parents.

Worried you're economically inactive,the beneficiary Of waged partner