Nursery and childcare

Quite Witzend. I think the comment made by someone further up the thread, regarding the mums who use these hours to go to McD's for breakfast, or hit Primark is terrible. Let's just stereotype here, and decide that anyone who is not working is lazy. I am sure there are some, but also a great many who cant afford to work precisely because of the price of childcare in the UK.

According to dd, whose elder will soon qualify for the free hours, it only applies to those who are working a certain number of hours.
As she so elegantly put it, 'They are not paying it to anyone just to sit on their arse watching Jeremy Kyle.'

My parents were born in the early 1920's. Both their mothers were back at work between babies. I suspect other industrialised areas were the same, women worked in the mills around here, money was tight and the work inconsistent. It feels very similar at our local supermarket, zero hours contracts and women back soon after having their babies.
I agree with MawBroon and others who don't take a judgemental view of those whose children go to day care/nursery. I wish this country would follow the lead set by other Northern European/Scandi countries in ensuring all children are involved in high quality early years provision, either provided or subsidised effectively by the state. The research is clear. Those countries have less problems with addiction and anti social behaviour.
As for the occasional derogatory comments above about parents who take advantage of the 30 hours child care to shop at Primark or go to McD's for breakfast - what about the benefits to their children? The austerity approach has resulted in preventive and supportive services for children and families being devastated. If the 30 hours enables some struggling families to enable the parents to have a break and the children to receive much needed security, stability and stimulation, how can that be anything other than a good thing.
The sad thing is that the Family Centres which offered nursery or day care provision are closing at an alarming rate. Those centres wouldn't just have provided day care, they'd have engaged with parents, helping with debts/depression/domestic stuff/routines/cooking etc etc.
Are the future generation not the responsibility of all of us? I believe so.

I don't think SAHMs are a new thing - rather the reverse - it has become a luxury to be able to afford to stay at home. Hardly any of dd's friends with young children stay at home - they're mostly back at work after maternity leave - they don't have any choice if the mortgage is going to be paid.

By contrast, very few of my friends' mothers worked when I was very young. I was one of four, and my mother didn't go back to work until I was 14 - by which time she thought my younger siblings were safe to be left after school. I'm sure she'd have liked to go back to work sooner - my folks were permanently broke - but we had no family near and there just wouldn't have been any childcare available.

I often think of the difference between then and now. OK, money was always very short - we never had things like orange squash or biscuits except at birthday parties, and virtually all my clothes were hand me downs, but my folks were (just) able to buy a 4 bed house in what is now a pretty expensive London-commute area, on just one, very ordinary salary.
Nowadays that would barely even get you a small flat, no matter how broke you were prepared to be.

The pre school my DGSs have been to provides a morning snack but the children took their own packed lunches if they were staying all day. The children took their own nappies if they needed to, plus a change of clothes "in case"

Everything is provided at my baby DGS nursery - formula, nappies, freshly cooked lunch - but as it's part of a private school which the babies will go on to attend, starting with pre-prep at 3, I don't suppose the nursery will be participating in this 'free' childcare programme. I was just thinking that as all that is included in the extortionately expensive fees (they are also open 50 weeks per year, only closed at Christmas), that it's quite likely that other more 'normal' nurseries also included these items in the fees until this 'free' childcare nonsense came along.

My dd has 2 little ones, the first (aged 3) attends a school nursery and they pay for his school lunch the same as all other school children up to the age of 16.
The little one (12 months) attends daycare one day a week whilst mum is at work. I have him the other day. She provides his nappies and formula milk for use whilst he is there. In addition she pays for his lunch and mid morning/mid afternoon snack. I was under the impression all parents paid for these items

Working mothers in Australia get subsidised nursery places for their children (Daycare) but no food or drinks are provided - the parent has to take in anything the child will consume that day, labelled, and it is placed in the fridge.
Obviously a pack had to be sent in with nappies, etc, each day.

If it costs more for the nursery to fund a place for each child than the Government pays then they will not be able to stay open.
30 hours per week seems a lot for the State to fund. Wales apparently will provide 30 hours per week for 3 and 4 year olds for 48 weeks a year - but many 4 years olds will be at school, so where will the Government be providing nursery care for the other weeks that schools are closed?
For 9 weeks of the year, outside of term time, parents will receive 30 hours per week of childcare.

This short film "Champagne nurseries - Lemonade funding" explains the problems that many nurseries are facing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zm-mYA6XpQ

Also the "30 free hours" are only for 38 weeks a year (school term time) so working parents have to find other solutions. Some nurseries allow you to stretch hours but it means you only get around 22 free hours.

My daughter started at a Montessori nursery when she was 2 - by that age I felt she needed more stimulus than I could give her, and I still feel that, even though I remeber it as a very emotionally draining experience.

It is increasingly difficult for one parent's income to provide for an average family; the second parent has to work to increase family income.
Mothers particularly lose out if they take several years away from the workplace; it is difficult to get back into full-time and permanent employment.
Much easier in my time; part-time work plus enhanced salary plus free childcare (grandparents). Hard to manage on one salary, but we could, just.
I have no factual evidence for this, but I believe the adult/child ratio is far higher in UK nurseries than on the continent.

Well said, MawBroon. As you state, stay-at-home-mums are a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm glad I was able to be a SAHM but seeing my children's lives with their own families, being a SAHM is quite a lonely choice nowadays because the support system I had in the 70's & 80's just isn't there now.

Wrt what nurseries provide, my GC's nursery provides everything except formula milk. I've had my mind changed by his nursery. No way could his parents provide a petting farm with donkeys, goats and hens, or an allotment or a music tree or a double decker bus to play in! The staff are absolutely dedicated, too, so lovely and welcoming.

My dd has 2 in nursery 4 days a week - she has no option but to work 4 days in order to pay the mortgage. Gdcs are 1 1/2 and 2 3/4 - the cost is horrendous but they do provide nappies and all meals and snacks.
I don't blame nurseries for charging extra if govt. money isn't enough. In any case I imagine it would be very difficult for them at mealtimes if very small children brought packed lunches. At Gdcs' ' nursery they all sit at the table and eat the same food, so there's no bother about X wailing that he wants what Y has.
Incidentally my Gdd, who is quite a fussy eater at home, is at not at all fussy at nursery, where she just does what the others do.
Might add that a Swedish friend living here is appalled at how much my dd has to pay for childcare. Her son and DiL in Stockholm, who have 3 children, have only ever paid a small fraction of dd's bill.
But at least my dd and SiL are - just - able to manage. So many women simply cannot work because childcare is so expensive. And the 30 hours - which my dd will be getting fairly soon for no. 1 - will only be in school term time, so not much help for the vast majority who don't work in schools.

Also, in some places, they are turning up in nappies in primary school. I have got reasons for feeling the way I do about nursery schools.

Glammanana, a lot of local authorities provide it from 2 years now.

Well said MawBroon. Times have changed and they are not now our times. Criticising mums might make old people feel better but it does nothing to help those mums.

Up till now the nurseries have included these costs in what they provide. The government should have said they were going to provide the care and not the extras and then no one would have been surprised - which is all it is. They were promised one thing - to get free what they had previously paid for, and they got another. They will get used to it.

The government, who keep telling us they are so good at business, should know that if you want people to feel they have a good deal you should under-sell, under promise and over deliver but they always do it the other way round. They are completely incompetent.

I do wish people would be less judgemental about families who are just trying to get on with their lives.

I may have the wrong information here but is not the 30hr a week placement not for 3+ yrs children ?
If so surely the little ones would be toilet trained by that age (with a few exceptions of course) and parents should provide the meals for their children in accordance with the nurseries guidelines.

The OP says 'parents' and I think we should assume they mean mothers and fathers.

I thought all nurseries expected parents to supply nappies anyway. The children have their nursery bags into which they put anything personal they take with them and in which the nappies are kept.

If I were running a nursery I think I would prefer the parents to provide the lunch on the grounds that so many children are 'sensitive' to certain foods and so many parents have such strong feelings about what their children are allowed to eat.

Presumably the programme was about the free places provided are not sufficiently funded? I don't know how you could calculate that bearing in mind the costs in different parts of the country and the level of training in different nurseries.

My concern is that nurseries will only be able to employ staff with the basic training rather than having the flexibility to employ those with extra training and experience unless a way can be found to finance the better qualified. The imbalance between the 'better' nurseries and the basic ones will disappear but is that a good thing?

No, I am not saying that women should have to give up work if they don’t want to. I am saying they should not feel that looking after their children is a waste of their time and education. I am educated to second degree level, but I still looked after my children.

My grandchildren have a nanny. I’ve always found it odd that looking after them is a job if the nanny does it, but not if their mother or father does it. Why is that?

PS to get off this particular high horse (!)
Yes, It is not gong to break the bank to provide nappies for ones own child and I always assumed nursery fees covered lunch and snacks etc.

Grandma70s it also “used to work” that women in many professions and particularly the public sector were obliged to give up work on marriage and that education was “wasted”on girls -are you advocating a return to those “good old days”?
If a professional woman has spent years studying and qualifying as a barrister, architect, surgeon, dentist, teacher - the list is endless, a “career” break costs the State millions and we all suffer.
You might also wish to recall that at both extremes of society, (and I am not passing judgement here) children were brought up by nannies and governesses among the aristocracy and grandma/sister/whoever at the other end of the scale.
Working class women, for want if a better term, always HAD to work, miners’ widows HAD to work, mill workers HAD to work.
It is a largely post war middle class phenomenon that “white collar” workers’ wives were allowed the “luxury” (?) of staying at home and being wives and mothers first.
It is a never ending debate but I think it is unhelpful to modern mothers to perpetuate mid 20th century norms in the present day.

I have two great grandchildren using the scheme. The first year they get lunch and after that the parents provide the lunch. (Don’t know whether other nurseries do same)They always pack the nappies for them as well. Without this childcare neither granddaughter would be able to work as they only get minimum wage. So I think it is a fantastic scheme.

This is a simple sort of question that really masks a massive debate about women's equality, feminism, consumer society, and so much more.

But I'd just say that I think it's entirely reasonable that, as the money provided by the state for those 'free' nursery places isn't adequate, parents should provide things like nappies and pay for their child's meals.

(I'd also say that today's parents of nursery age children are our children, or even grandchildren, and we have to shoulder a bit of responsibility for bringing them up with a sense of entitlement)

MawBroon -

Well, it used to work, and yet people seem to think it can’t now. And yes, childcare should be done by fathers as well as mothers - whichever best suits the family at the time. We decided that I should look after the children, because my husband earned more than I did (though not much more), and also enjoyed his work more than I did. We did discuss it, and didn’t take for granted it should be me.

It is astonishing how much attitudes have changed on this subject. When my children were small (early 1970s) many working parents felt guilty about leaving small children. Now they feel guilty if they don’t.

I'm so glad I did not have to put my kids in nursery at 2 years old, they are still babies in lots of ways. Look, I know not all mothers can afford to stay at home even until the children get to 3 years, but I also know that there are mother's who aren't even working who look upon this as a good chance to offload their little ones so they can get on with the important things in life like breakfast in McDonald's, and raking round Primark for bargains.