Guardian Unlimited | Family | Too early, too much, too long
Not sure this will elicit much debate on here tbh, as I think it’s mainly the converted that are reading 😉
But I did think it was interesting. I am a sinner it would appear, as Big was in a nursery from 14 weeks, for 3 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week. At the time I thought it was better for her than being at home, and I was very into my job. With hindsight I still think it was better for her than being at home – I really didn’t know what to do with a baby. But that is part of what has got to change, and it won’t be solved by putting babies into nurseries. Small has only just started nursery, but I think he’s up to it tbh, even if he hasn’t reached the magic age of three. I wish that I got to spend the other days with him though.
Anyway, I would be interested to read what ppl think of how we are supposed to go about changing things. There appear to be two suggestions in the article – one is that we as a nation should be spending more on supporting mothers and fathers to spend time with their children, retraining parents to go back into work, and presumably therefore working against the kind of prejudice I encountered while job hunting last year. The other is that we could aim for a simpler, less consumerist existence, so we wouldn’t need so much money in the first place. I suspect there are some families who would take issue with the second being particularly realistic, but there are some cuts most of us can make, she says, thinking about the two cars in the drive and the half a dozen computers in the house 😉
Comments
21 responses to “Childcare issues: Too early, too much, too long”
WEll, we went from a combined income of about £25k 5 years ago to now Tim only bringing in £12k and on a month to month basis ends usually meet so it is possible (and we also have 2 cars which is a bit silly really) £90 a week sick pay stretched it a bit mind you…..
I do think that if the government is happy to pay 75% or whatever of child care costs to get both parents back out to work then surely it should be possible to “pay” one parent something to stay at home and *be* a full time parent. Obviously not as much as 75% of an average child care bill but certainly enough to help make it a viable option for parents of under 4s and maybe enough to make it viable for 1 parent to only work part time in “school age” children so someone is home when school finishs for the day.
I know, head in the clouds me….
Bootstrapping: there should be more childcare lessons at school.
On the curriculum there’ld be topics such as How to Locate and Evaluate Nurseries {8{P}
Its an interesting article – I’m a bit of a Biddulph fan, and I’m glad that he’s starting to agree with me on this one!
I doubt it will have much influence on government policy, though. I used to work in an Early Years dept at an LEA, looking at quality of care etc in nursery provision. It’s definitely what made me choose to stay home with my babies, and indeed to HE them. I don’t have a 1-to-1 ratio, I’m not anything like a perfect mother, and I often feel I let my kids down – badly – but at least I know what they get during the day in terms of, well, everything! Its not just about love, attention and interesting experiences either – a lot of my friends who have babies in nursery complain about the quality of the food, for example.
I think being able to transfer one partner’s tax allowance to the other partner would help couples a lot – I know they have this policy in some European countries. If Jim could have another 4 grand of his pay tax free, it would have *huge* implications for our family. Just my 2ps worth!
Yes, I did think that rattling on about a 1:1 ratio at home was missing the point just a tiny bit, thinking of how few single child families I know!
Tax allowances would make sense in those circumstances I would have thought. I don’t really understand all the economics of it though, but it seems to me that improving early childcare has to improve all sorts of things down the line and therefore cost less money later iyswim.
Oh gosh. Do you know that in Denmark ALL women are expected to work? If you don’t then people think there is something wrong with you. All the kids are put with childminders from 9 months old! And you are not even allowed to choose the childmonder, the council ‘allocates’ one for you. I will write a post on my blogg now rather than hijack your comments, Jax, (have just deleted a big chunk to spare you). I’ve got too much to say. But thanks for bringing this issue up, it affects all of us.
rofl, ef, I was over at yours while you were over at mine! Never feel you have to spare me, I enjoy comments and discussion, that’s why I post the posts.
I think a bit of both really. It does irk me that in one week Titch will be eligible for the playgroup vouchers (whatever they’re called) but she doesn’t do playgroup but I can’t use the vouchers for her music-with-mummy, swimming, toddler gym etc. Doesn’t make sense to me.
I think he’s hit the nail on the head with this bit:
“Day nurseries are an attempt to slot messy and needy young children into the new economic system, while at the same time reassuring us that it is good for them, socially and educationally.”
Day nurseries aren’t there for children, no matter how hard we all try to convince ourselves they are.
And yes, tax allowances, subsidies for stay-at-home parents, more freedom to use vouchers in more ways, etc – these would all help – if the intention was to support parents in staying at home. That’s not the intention though; the bottom line is that the government is only interested in the bottom line, and that’s not helped by people who aren’t in the workforce.
It seems to me Government’s are attempting to supply parents with what society (which is all of us operating collectively , like um, the :borg: ) has persuaded parents they should want – more childcare.
Much of our economy is dedicated to services.
In a society where a parent was at home with children up until they reached five years old (at least):
There would be less need and demand for many services, for example, childcare, social workers, police, prisons, psychiatrists for starters.
There would be less need for pre-digested, pre-packaged, prepared ready meals and all the other supposed time savers.
There would be a huge reduction in road traffic without all those SUVs and MPVs yoyoing to and from nurseries, a reduction in the need for those vehicles and a reduction in the overall use of them. Less need for vehicles to be replaced and less demand for servicing etc.
The economy could be at least as productive in real terms, we could reduce waste (less packaging without all the time savers) and reduce carbon emissions.
And be a lot happier and healthier overall.
As an aside, this Times article amused me You’ve no right to know about your daughter’s abortion, so why is your son’s yobbery your responsibility?
Part-time jobs rule! Full-time jobs are way too many hours anyway.
I think that , if it can possibly be done, cobbling together enough income out of two part-time jobs, if you are a two-parent family, is really good. We have both managed to keep paid jobs out of the house (thereby keeping our positions in the labour force and all that ;-)) and the kids have never needed to be cared for by other people.
We could probably have more income from one full-time wage if one of us had pushed her career more, but that would have meant never being at home. We have less money but more balance this way. I have noticed that part-time work is often discounted for men – like it’s not a ‘real’ job. I reckon its time we lost that old prejudice…
I think most people are not prepared to give the “stuff” up,in order to do,what I think is a much more important thing,for the health,and spiritual and mental and emotional well being of the family,and that includes the parents.
I think it is damaging for Mums and Dads,to be forced into spending so much time away from their own children.
But people like their “stuff” either mental space,the value society gives them for “REAL WORK”,the cash they make.
I think this land is mad.
well, i am obviously one of the bad mothers here that works.
I would, actually, like to be part time. But it has not been accepted yet, so I do a 4 day week. My girls go to nursery allegedly 2 days a week, but alternate weeks 1 and a half, and when I am at home they don’t go…..
The thing is, I can’t actually bow out of my job for a time and go back in. The state has spent a considerable sum training me to do what I do, and I am rather good at it. I give definite value to the community. I think lambasting mothers who work is actually very unfair, thinking that they don’t consider the needs of their family. Needs of society and family should be able to balance. Were we both able to work part time, then I would accept a great reduction in pay to do so.
from easter we will be stopping nursery altogether, and the children will be with their dad for the 4 days I work.
I don’t think that my elder daughter looks at all traumatised by her nursery experience, and I hope the same will go for my younger.
it is a crap deal though when you are considered both a second rate parent and a second rate worker
Helen, I really hope you know that none of us who know you would ever consider you a ‘bad mother’. Your girls have had one or other of you and their father for the vast majority of their lives, I don’t think I could think of them as missing out on anything however hard I tried!
Anyway, this whole debate should NOT be about mothers, it should be about PARENTS.
An extremely valid point, and the majority of comments on this blog refer to solutions to assist parents as well.
But Helen’s point is correct too – she is considered a bad mother by some ppl for working, while very few ppl would consider a father to be a bad father if they work, it is the other way around often.
Part time work sounds like it should be a good solution, but often all that happens is that you don’t get the opportunities or pay you would get for doing the full time job, and you work harder in the time you are there trying to do the full job that you would have done in a full week. Or was that just me?
yes, I read that and actually got quite angry that it was all based on mothers rather than parents. ALthough I really would choose to be at home more, I cannot believe that my children have any less of a loving/stimulating.caring/stable etc etc environment with Chris rather than me. [although I am periodically jealous of it!]
i do think encouraging flexible working is the way to go. As I said, I couldn’t stop and go back, I would have lost the skills – even after 6 months I felt quite rusty with some of the high tech stuff, so jiggled things about a bit so that the really difficult stuff had a longer wait.
So surely some kind of refresher course is required, does this mean that someone who has, for example, a serious car accident that took them a year to come back from, but only damaged their legs, nothing else, would not be able to start up again as a surgeon?
Hi Jax , I’ve sent you an email about this post because your comments list is sooo long 🙂
18 isn’t long Dawniy!
No, and we don’t get to read your emails either
We chose sacrifice over income many times. Eg. currently, we have just one vehicle.
Not everyone is in the position to do that of course. But, if possible it would always be the choice I’d make.