Teachers speaking out about parents' long working hours

[vestandknickers]

Here.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27027677

Interesting. I think it is good that this is being raised as an issue.

I am not anti working parents at all, but surely a society that thinks it is ok for children to be at school from 8am to 6pm needs to look at itself.

Hopefully it is still a small minority of children who spend five days a week at school for these hours, but it is good that teachers are speaking out before it becomes seen as an acceptable norm.

Nothing wrong with values and holding dear to them if you can do this without depending on those whose values you disagree with.

I guess it makes sense though for you. I assume you will also depend not the state supporting you when you reach old age so will again depend on those who work. You don't have any values I would want my dc to have. I want them to be independent and support themselves and their children rather than rely on others.

You don't have any values I would want my dc to have. I want them to be independent and support themselves and their children rather than rely on others.

well said.

I would feel I had failed if my (as yet unborn) DC were dependent on others working, critical of them working, sexist and yet in denial about all these points.

on a practical note this way of living is very risky as who knows what support the state will provide in 5 years time. and who knows what the cost if basics will be. actually we do know: the state will provide less and the cost of everything will be much higher.

I haven't been critical of others working, we all have bills to pay, mortgages, food, utilities etc.
Oh and my dc have been supporting themselves since they were 16, so not taught the to badly, eh?
I have a pension sorted and we will manage fine, so no problem there.
Finally, there are plenty who value working and childcare who expect others to subsidise this childcare.
"Nothing wrong with values and holding dear to them if you can do this without depending on those whose values you disagree with" Hypocritical or what? Plenty tax payers funding childcare.

How is it hypercritical? I don't have any help towards childcare costs... .
Nor am I bothered if others do. Why would I? What I do object to is those who are dependent on this support stating they feel they are putting their dc first over those who use childcare.

well I don't have any help with childcare costs for obvious reasons and wont be eligible for CB anyhow.

in what way am I being hypocritical?

Hercules

I don't think anything of the sort about other people. I couldn't care less what others choose to do. I'm bothered by what I choose to do.

It is hypocritical because plenty of working parents receive tax credits and help with childcare, which apparentely is fine even though other tax payers are funding this.
However, it isn't ok to receive tax credits and not work because the tax payer is paying for this.
If it makes you feel any better the 1p that the tax payer has to provide for me, I will suppose its come from my dh the tax payer, rather than a stranger.

I will suppose its come from my dh the tax payer who I recall earns NMW or thereabouts.

you have to earn around £26kpa and receive no benefits to break even on terms of what you take/what you contribute.

so he simply is not paying enough for his share of the NHS, roads, fire service. etc etc to be funding your families benefits.

My choice was to be a SAHM when my DCs were small because we believed that was what was best for them and we budgeted accordingly. We also stopped at 2 because we decided that was the best decision, financially, long term.

I went back to work when they were in school and then we could afford the things we'd gone without when they were pre school. It isn't smug to be a SAHM it's a decision some women make with their partners because that's what they think is best for their families. Other women make other choices of what is best for their families.

Calling each other names isn't adding to the debate.

Oh come on morethan between you and your DH, neither of you work full time.

This is your choice.

You don't work at all and haven't done for 20 years. Your DH ensures he works few enough hours so you can claim your benefits. You'll keep it like this even when your DD goes to baording school I suspect (on a bursary because you're on benefits).

Ypu've played the system a blinder. Which is fine. Why not?

But please don't try to portray this as good values or indeed assume that this way of life will be available for your DC. It won't. So they may well have to support themselves ...I hope you won't look down on them as complete mugs...

Iirc Morethan you had a thread about working a certain number of hours for your husband so that you could continue to claim tax credits?

V interesting article, not read entire thread, but my general view is always that women have kind of been 'failed' by the whole feminine movement....

In the past 20 years, women have all been encouraged to go to uni, get a degree, work up the career ladder, smash the glass ceiling etc etc (i.e. be the same as men), then....Oh bloody hell, we want kids!

We have kids, we go back to work, sometimes trying to juggle part time or full time hours, We feel terribly guilty about not being with the kids, we give up amazing career to stay at home and be with kids, we then feel shite 5-10 years down the line that our kids are at school / in full time childcare and we can't possibly get back into the same position that we once held, because we gave it all up 5-10 years ago.

Its all b*llocks really! We were led to believe we should aim as high as a man does, but I don't honestly think a woman can.

I admire stay at home mums (who have given up careers to care for their kids), and likewise I admire full time working mums (who juggle literally everything). Part time isnt particularly ideal either.

The article just makes (working) women feel rather shite about their choice. I too am sad that our business environment in the UK doesnt have more flexible working hours.

Having said that - women in America have minimal maternity leave (back to work by 16wks) and have very little holiday (lots of US kids attend the obligatory holiday camps). My mum friends in Spain work full time and think (I quote) "English women who stay at home are like 1950's house wives". And I know that the French system often sees French mothers with significantly less maternity leave than the UK. Plus a friend in France has kids who regularly don't finish school until 5pm (school hours, not after school club).

"Its all b*llocks really! We were led to believe we should aim as high as a man does, but I don't honestly think a woman can. "

I disagree strongly.

The issue with the above is that sexual equality hasn't gone far enough (equal childcare responsibilities as the norm etc) NOT that the "feminine" movement has failed women.

I'm going to be honest, I don't know how working mums do it full time. I'm a nursing student with a dsd who lives with us and a bump.
When I'm on placement I wonder how I could work full time with kids - I find it hard to manage house work when working and I end up feeling really guilty as dsd has no time - last placement she was constantly asking when I was going to collect her from school or why I wasn't going to be home for dinner. (admittedly the last plaxement was really awkward hours so I'd probably have been better if I was 9 - 5) my next placement ill be 9 - 5 but working nearly 2 hours away (I have no car) so that will cripple me when pregnant... I honestly don't know how you manage it!
Also for those critisimg sahms who claim tax credits - many womens potential salaries wouldn't even cover childcare costs - a friend was looking at 2 days a week costing her £100 a week - that would be £2000 in a 4 week month if 5 days a week. And even if that nursery was an expensive one, they are competitive - you probably won't get a place at a cheaper one! Yes there are other options but they are probably expensive too!

I actually think the problem runs deeper - a. childcare is too expensive b. grandparents are still working as the retirement age goes up, so grandparents can't look after the kids for you c. everything is based on 2 salaries or 1 very large one. d. The state makes it easier to live on benefits!

Alita it would be £1000 a month, not £2000 a month but that's by the by.

If morethan's tax credits are being brought up its because she has written at length about how her values won't let her be a wohm and how happy she is that her future DIL shares them. Isn't it somewhat understandable that the women whose taxes pat for those tax credits and whose values Morethan clearly considers below par are somewhat narked...

*pay not pat

Once again, past threads taken completely out of context. Of course you are worried or at least interested in hours and payment of those hours if you receive tax credits.
We haven't particularly played any system but admit we have been lucky and also made good decisions in the past.

Word
My dh does work a lot of hours, he never stops and his work is his life.
I have never said that this way of life will be available to my dc, I answered questions on how he had managed to save a deposit.
If I worked we would be in a bracket where we would have to pay fees if dd goes to boarding school. We would not be able to afford the fees, so I won't be doing any paid employment. That to me is good financial management. Tax credits will be long gone by then so it won't be an issue. I'm pretty sure due to income that ours will stop this year anyway.

Littlebear

where do I consider anybody else to be below par?
I haven't said this at all. I have been accused of it several times, oh and as being smug and superior.
I apologised for people thinking I'm being smug and superior, even though it was furthest from my mind.
O often find that people with guilt do this to others, although what they have to be guilty about, I have no idea.

So what of those who have moved further out of London/SE, bought flats not houses to reduce mortgage cost, and who do, in fact, bring up their children on one wage?

oh yes 1000 but still many people do not earn much more than that even. There would also be possible costs of travel to work and child care too. obviously after school clubs are cheaper. but I've heard of them costing 25 a day at some schools which is still extortionate for 3 hours!

Morethan, if I have understood this correctly, and you have a kid in boarding school with fees paid on the basis that your income is lower than it would need to be in order to afford fees, I think you might be in for a nasty shock in the near future. You may well find that if the boarding school discovers both parents are not working to capacity, i.e. both working full time, they will stop any bursaries these days. That is usually a condition of a bursary. Other parents at the school will be also pretty miffed if they get wind of the fact you stay home so you get free boarding for your daughter, when others have to hold down a job in order for their children to benefit from the same thing. If you are capable of working, then frankly not doing so while you take advantage of freebies funded by other parents is, in my opinion, disingenuous at the very least. I think people have a moral responsibility to pay into the system if they can. Of course if you have a disability or genuinely can't find any work, then that's a different kettle of fish and I would be more sympathetic.

BoffinMum

No, you haven't understood correctly.
My dd is H.ed and has been for 2 years now. We are looking at boarding school in the future, well, she is.
The school aren't interested in who works and who doesn't and parents are assessed on income, all of them. So, you pay the relative fees to your income, this is also irrespective of outgoings so if you earn 50k, spend 50k and the fees are 3k, unless you find the money, you don't go. These aren't the fees, just an example.
The fees are 30k for anybody who has the relative income.
Entry is by 2/3 auditions, specialist school.

If I worked we would be in a bracket where we would have to pay fees if dd goes to boarding school. We would not be able to afford the fees, so I won't be doing any paid employment. That to me is good financial management.

And to me it's taking the piss.

You are astounding and I'm glad I don't have your values

Well, never mind.

Your values allow you a fantastic memory to remember a thread from months ago, that you seem to regurgitate to twist to try to vilify somebody, who happens to have a different pov to you. A few times now, from what I remember
I don't think I'd have the time.
Of course, I'm too busy claiming all these benefits to which I'm entitled.

Boffin

Sorry, forgot to say. The main ethos of the school is a musical education irrespective of the means to pay.
There are people who don't work and people who earn a fortune.
I intend to do some charity work if dd leaves H.ed and attends this school, paid employment just wouldn't allow her to go.