Labour to extend school day to 8 till 6

[Mud]

What do you think of these new plans to be unveiled

[LunarSea]

jambo - they're not talking about the teachers covering the extra hours. In fact it could be the opposite, that the after school clubs would run some of the activities which are offered now after school by teachers. Calling it an "extended school day" rather than "offering coordinated wraparound care" is giving that impression, but as always it's all down to the spin isn't it?

tbh I wouldn't actually expect that many people to use it to it's full 8-6 extent, but jobs which fit in with 9-3 termtime only hours - especially jobs which actually pay a reasonable rate - are in such short supply that a lot of us are forced into having to make other arrangements for our children for at least some of that out-of-school time.

It's really not a nice cosy black vs white argument of kids at home with mum vs forcing them into a long school day, but an extra dimension to the grey area that exisits now with a hotchpotch of juggling working hours, childminders, alternating days with neighbours if you're lucky, grandparents if you're fortunate enough to have them locally and not still working themselves (and face it - for most people that's not an option) or whatever.

As a parent of a child coming up to school age, and discovering that although the local school does have an after school club it's so oversubscribed that for a child without an elder sibling already attending it they're unlikely to get a place for the first four years and that the local early years department doesn't know of any childminders who will do pick up or drop off to the school what are we left with? Abandon working (which we can ill afford to do), look for a part time job instead (but that would probably mean only 1/4 the pay for half the hours), work evening/weekends to make up the hours, take on an au pair purely to do the school pickup/ after school, or pay for a private school simply because it can offer this kind of wraparound care? None of them are really great options are they?

And I don't really get the argument that having before/after school clubs would cut down the child's time with the family. Surely if we have to juggle our work hours so that one of us works normal days and the other evenings and weekends then what they get is a kind of serial one-parent family, rather than ever getting a "family life" as such? Or should we to rearrange things so that one of us can start and finish early (and that means starting work before 7 am to finish in time for the end of school) and the other start late to do drop offs (so not finishing until at least 6.30) and not seeing the children awake all week? Believe me, I've done the "don't see them awake between Sunday bedtime and getting up the following Saturday morning" thing and it's no fun.

[munz]

i'm wiht the teachers - my mum's one and has already said there's no way she'll go in earlier to set up (just to note she's in work from8-6 her self) so when would the teachers set up their classes? not to mention the cleaners when would they do the cleaning? cos the one's in her school won't be wantin to hang about to clean after the club.

surely we should be promoting parents having more interaction with their children not leaving them at school longer?

also what would happen with the bullying aspect? it means children who are being bullied potentially have longer with the bullier if they're both in the after school classes.

[puddle]

Lunarsea - I think that your last point is a really excellent one. From my own experience I would also add that juggling work can lead to a total absence of time with your partner - when either or both of you is struggling to catch up in the evenings because you've been compressing your work into a 9-3 day. And that's not good for family relationships either.

[QueenFlounce]

Munz - "promoting parents having more interaction with their children"

What???

In my cirmcumstances that would involve the government changing laws of work.,.... therefore forcing my company to change its working times from 8.30-4.45... down to 9-3pm.... oh and also letting me work from home as I have a 1.5hr commute sometimes. I really don't think in the issue of childcare it's anything about me needing "promoted" to spend time with my children. I would LOVE to, but I'm the main earner.

[munz]

QE - this is what i'm saying everyhting needs to be looked at for parents to benifit everyone, in an ideal world it would work but I realise we're not so, it's a shame thou.

I don't want to argue about it, it just seems that policys are a bit skewif. we don't know if it will even come about yet.

[stitch]

the problem with this country is that school hours dont macth working hours. in saudi arabia, we all left the house about 7ish. we were all back by 2ish. this is two working parents and four kids. we would have a family meal together. dad would work in the evenings too. but the rest of the day was ours.
why is there a mismatch in this country

[Caligula]

QF - that's what government is for. Changing laws.

[QueenFlounce]

Caligula - Ahem... I know... but changing the school times to suit those of us who work normal working weeks is much more realistic than expecting EVERY company in the UK to change it's core working hours to suit school times. Can you imagine?????!

[Caligula]

Yes, but they don't need to change core working times - they can just introduce flexitime and flexible working. It would also cut the problem of traffic congestion, if everyone was travelling at different times.

[Caligula]

Two birds with one stone!

[QueenFlounce]

Caligula - What about those in jobs where flexitime just couldn't work??? I work in the construction Industry and I need to be onsite at 7.45am most mornings! Thats due to deliveries.... permit applications etc. Or what about retail???

[munz]

yes flexi time that's the one, it's already in place, althou I don't think many ER's actually do it that much, the idea of everyone in and out of the house is good - but as u say changing the whole UK pratices like that isn't really a viable option is it?

(althou flexi time - would that help out commuters a lot as well? althou I suppose they could work around rush hour?)

[Caligula]

There are always going to be jobs where hours are inconvenient and unavoidable. But for most jobs in this country, there is simply no need to do them 9-5, no need to do them for 40 hours a week, and in most instances, no need to do them in one particular place. Why for example, do companies not offer the choice of 4 10 hour days instead of 5 8 hour days? Mostly, because they can't be arsed, not because there is a genuine need for someone to be in the office 5 days.

Sorry, that's off on a tangent!

[ninah]

I think it's very hard to run a company, realistically, without core hours when you know personnel are around. I have no prob working to support ds during regular f-time hours and I am glad government are giving me some help at last! it is very easy to criticise but I can't see how this initiative cannot be welcomed, there is no compulusion to use it, but if you don't want to I repeat please at least support those who do!

[LunarSea]

4 x 10 hour days doesn't help a lot with current school hours though! And would make life difficult even with what's being proposed!

If they really want to offer an alternative how about some sort of tax incentive for companies to offer jobshare/shorter hours/whatever for parents? And/or some kind of family-friendly accreditation scheme for companies? So when you were applying for a job or they were advertising it would be obvious which were actually good employers from that perspective?

[wordsmith]

Lunarsea - great last point. I am currently looking for a jobshare/part-time/flexible position in my area (PR, marketing) and there are hardly any to be had - especially when you're outside London. And like Caligula said, most jobs could be run this way, with a little bit of thought. Some sort of incentive for companies would be great - at the moment why should they change, looking at it from their point of view?

[Prufrock]

But so called family friendly policies are already in place, and companies do try to market themsleves as family friendly. But until the government stops paying more than lip service to the idea of a work life balance (ending the opt out of the 48 hour week would be a good start), and continues to promote policies which encourage rather than simply enable 2 full time working parent familes, there is no real incentive for corporate Britian to change to accomodate those of us who don't want to be wage slaves.

[spykid]

As a part time teacher, on the days I work I can never be there at pick up/drop off times on the days I work. I usually rely on grandparents, and this will be difficult from September, and therefore I will be using after school and breakfast clubs.
As a parent it gives me the opportunity to be at work on time knowing the ds's are being cared for on site as it where.. But as a teacher my concern is the allocation of space for these clubs , particuarly in smaller schools.
Teachers are in their classrooms early to get them ready for the day, organise, do displays etc. They need their rooms to themselves, and from what I have seen of clubs the rooms and equipment are not always respected as they should be!

[LunarSea]

But there's a lot said about family friendly policies, and no incentive for companies to actively persue them, and no standard to measure claims of being family friendly against.

Not so long ago I found myself in a situation where my company where simultaneously announcing with a great fanfare their work life balance policy, and telling me I had to move to a 5 hour daily commute, arriving before the first train of the day could get me there, with a split shift so that I could still be there at 7 at night, while all the time the job I was doing could actually be done perfectly well from home. So perhaps you'll understand I'm a little cycnical of claims about being family friendly when the evidence is that the practice doesn't necessarily reflect this.

[stitch]

work life balance can imo never be achieved in a capitalist society. this was one of the things the socialists got right.

[Caligula]

Right on Comrade.

[puddle]

I agree LunarSea - this is why many public sector jobs (by no means all) are so family friendly. It's one of the ways they attract amd retain staff - given they are unable to pay private sector salaries. That's their incentive.

[wordsmith]

It's a long time since I've been on the 'employed' side of the fence, but would be interested to know - have any MNers actually used the right we now all have to request part-time working and, if so, what was the result? A colleague of mine in the 1990's requested part-time work on her return from maternity leave and the company made such a fuss about it, saying clients would never understand, colleagues wouldn't cope, etc etc, all in all making her feel distinctly unwanted unless she came back as full time. In the end she didn't come back at all. I was her colleague and her direct line manager and I would have been able to cope perfectly well and explain to her clients, but our (male) bosses just couldn't get their heads round it.

I'm sure the point about the public sector is a valid one but IME the private sector is a total waste of time where this is concerned.

[aloha]

QF - I think retail is the perfect environment for flexitime and p/t working! Shops are often open 8-8 or longer 6-7 days a week. Nobody could realistically be expected to work that much, so people could work any combination of hours/days to cover that time.
Studies have shown that companies offering this kind of flexible working to all employees have lower overheads as the staff retention is so good. The cost of losing and retraining staff is huge.

[QueenFlounce]

Aloha - We've just had to go to the Union as my DH was refused a promotion due to childcare committments, it was the choice of demotion or resign.... so they don't seem that bothered about losing staff.