Who is going to care for all these extra children?

Interesting concept. The young woman in charge of the pre-schoolers in my GSs nursery is doing a part time teaching degree. She is one of the best early years practitioners (and I include teachers in that) I have ever seen. She's getting her qualification and working.

Scrapping the NNEB was a mistake. Learning on the job is not enough to understand social, linguistic, psychological, educational issues to name a few.

Quality training with decent pay and career structure is needed. When I trained to teach the ex NNEB students were so knowledgeable and skilled.

Yes grow stuff, you are correct.

Iam64 I remember that idea. It was ludicrous. The idea was to cut the number of staff working in nurseries. France, for example, have cheaper nurseries, but a much worse staff/child ratio.

Personally, I don't think staff need to be graduates to work in a nursery, although I think it needs somebody of graduate calibre to be in charge of planning and, perhaps, noticing early signs of learning difficulty.

The theory behind having graduates wasn't to increase the quality in British nurseries, but to lower ratios. It doesn't make sense to say that somebody can have a higher workload just because (s) has higher qualifications.

I think we absolutely HAVE to invest in our children. Although I don't think we are the fifth richest country, I think we have the fifth, or is it sixth now, largest economy. Richest is about wealth per person I believe and I seem to remember we come somewhere about 11th on that score.

But just think, we could be up at the top on a per person basis if we invest in our children

Absolutely Greta. I remember a recent conservative government who announced that everyone working in early years should be a graduate. The statement continued that grads could care for up to 5 under two year olds, whereas the current largely non grad contingent of nursery workers, could only care for 2.

You gotta laugh.

Iam64: We are the fifth richest country in the world. Who says we can't afford to invest in good quality child care? I'm sure we can and we will reap the benefits as those children grow up.

I agree with you. Of course we can invest in our children. It's a matter of ”where there's a will...” Also, there is a feeling over here that anybody can look after children and old people, i.e. you don't need any qualification to do so.

Good points growstuff.
Lucky - yes to Labours plan for Sure Start, one of the good things the Blair government started and the Tories are destroying

I am most pleased with the suggestion that Labour would revive the Sure Start centres - they were doing great work.

So what's the alternative?

The nursery my children attended now costs £258.36 a week for under two year olds, which becomes slightly cheaper as they get older.

We struggled to pay when my ex-hubby and I were married, but I couldn't have afforded it at all when I became a single parent without child tax credits.

If I hadn't have worked, I wouldn't have been able to afford the mortgage and I would have had to claim Jobseeker's Allowance plus child tax credits. I would also have received housing benefit and council tax benefit.

I was fortunate that I did have a well-paid job and could just about cope, but many people don't. The total of JSA, child tax credits, housing and council tax benefit is probably more than subsidised or even free childcare.

Not only that, but I now have an occupational pension and will receive an almost full state pension, which means I won't be able to claim Pension Credit.

It's all about how we use our taxes and how much we're prepared to invest in the children, who are our future.
We are the fifth richest country in the world. Who says we can't afford to invest in good quality child care? I'm sure we can and we will reap the benefits as those children grow up.

I worked as a volunteer in a nursery. The hours were long and the pay poor. The staff movement was continuous. It is a very responsible job and needs staff with passion. Therefore they need to be paid well in order to have staff with skills and interest .....where will the money come from? This is the big dilemma

They pay National Insurance too, so when the time comes, they probably won't be eligible for Pension Credit. They won't be able to claim Universal Credit either. If they have a student loan, they'll be paying back part of that.

If extra jobs are created, those people will be paying income tax and National Insurance too and maybe saving by not claiming benefits.

There'll be more money floating around the economy, so they can spend more and create retail jobs.

As ever, the devil will be in the detail.

Managed properly, it doesn't need to cost that much.

Women who work pay taxes- some of them, an awful lot.

This is getting away from the original point.
Who is going to pay for this free care and where are the staff to provide it?

A couple of pages into this thread there was a very indignant post objecting to "the assertion that a parent staying at home with their child is the lowest form of child care".

I don't think anybody on this thread made nasty comments about stay at home mums. What was suggested was that there may also be upsides to children going to nursery - more interaction with other children of the same age, more space, more play facilities, etc, etc

It was also pointed out that a mum may feel unable to take a long period of time away from her job if she is to have anything like the same opportunities for advancement as someone who does not have to break their career.

These were not derogatory statements about stay at home mums.

Conversely, there were several posts that made very negative comments about working mums.

"We are doing them [children] a dis-service by putting them in a nursery for 10 hours a day". (I do have some sympathy with this comment but this is a systemic issue, not one that "mothers" or individual employees are responsible for. If the will was there, many organisations could be much more pro-active in supporting parents - more flexibility in terms of working hours - and, with big organisations, more willingness to provide good and affordable nursery facilities).

"There is no way I would have farmed out my children to a child minder or nursery."

"Some women pretend that they need the money as an excuse to work".

"tots should be at home with their mother"

"Free child care should only be for mothers who have no choice but to work". (I wonder how that necessity to work would be established).

"Why have babies if you don't want to care for them?"

So, in fact, all the truly judgmental statements - and actually statements that could be very hurtful to some people - were about women who go out to work, not women who stay at home.

Nowadays girls are just as likely as boys to continue to further education. They too want careers and a chance to advance, just as men do - and research shows that they are already disadvantaged just by being of child-bearing age. Furthermore, research has also shown that women who take the maximum time off after having a baby are more likely to be made redundant or be removed from their previous position and moved to wherever an employer chooses. No wonder so many women who have a well paid job with good prospects of advancement feel they have no choice but to resume work as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, women who have non-professional jobs and are poorly paid, cannot afford to pay very high nursery fees so they too often have little other choice than to stay at home.

So, in both cases, mothers are faced with serious dilemmas.
Yet it is they that are criticised for whatever path they take while fathers are hardly mentioned. And, as someone else said, women whose partners leave - and who are frequently unwilling to bear financial responsibility for the children they have left behind - are often forced to either sort out some kind of child care arrangement and work, or apply for benefit - leaving them then open to claims of being "scroungers", "irresponsible", "work shy", etc, etc.

As someone else said, is it so wrong that women, who may be doing jobs that they enjoy and for which they have worked hard, should wish to continue in that job? It is accepted that men do this. Nobody says to them "Well, why did you bother to have a baby if you wish to continue working?". Fathers too should be up in arms about this but, in the main, they keep silent and let their wives struggle with both working and taking on the lion's share of the domestic duties too.

There are no right or wrong answers are there. Everyone muddles along as best they can.

I agree SueDonim that there is no longer the community support, coffee mornings, walks to the park which were commonplace when my DC were young. In Scandanavia there have never been (I have relations there)

A group of us set up an informal babysitting session, taking it in turns to be on duty, and 2 of us would supervise all the kids. It was just once a week but the people I met there, all those years ago, are still my friends, though we are scattered around the world With H&S and disclosures, we wouldn't be allowed now!

Something which did sadden me was when a highflying hospital consultant told me her DC were in nursery from day 1 because she didn't have the skills, confidence or inclination to look after them herself.

Indeed- I had no relatives and certainly no grandparents to help with ours, for sure. Came home on day 3 after an emergency C section (transversal breech- after many hours in labour) - and an OH that worked crazy hours including nights and week-ends away.

We have often discussed childcare with out DDs - and neither they, nor us - would have ever considered us being full time carers for our beloved GCs. It is totally wrong that his is now 'expected'. Some of our friends travel long distances at the crack of dawn, 5 days a week- others have some GCs 2.5 days a week, and the other GCs the other 2.5 days. That is NOT the job of grandparents- not now, not then.

They know that in an emergency they could ring me a 3am and I would be on the earliest plane out and with them by 9.30 am and stay as long as needed- and that we are available for holidays and special occasions- with joy and love- but not 24/5.

There seems to be an assumption among some that grandparents and other relations live near, and are fit enough to look after young children. This simply is not the situation in many cases.

My grandchildren live 200 miles away, so there’s no question of my caring for them.

Exactly, Sue Donim

I used to have to pay for my children to be at nursery for the whole year, even though I only worked during term-time. My children used to plead with me to go to nursery, because they had friends there, a big field, a forest area, a sand pit, a well-equipped playground, a wendy house, loads of toys, dressing up, a veggie garden, two or three activities (such as modelling and painting) a day, theme days, story time, etc etc. I couldn't have provided all that.

I think it's actually quite hard being a stay-at-home mum these days. Because so many parents both work there isn't the community of other mums like there was when mine were young.

One of my DD's friends is going back to work early after her second baby because the thought of spending the winter cooped up in the house is just too much. She lives rurally, there are no other mums nearby amd no one for her little ones to play with. Everyone will enjoy it if she's back at work.

As for sending children to nursery when the parents are at home, all my DC have done that. Partly it's because they don't want to change the child's routine and partly it's so that they can do things such as Christmas shopping or big tasks around the house that would take twice as long with children in tow.

All the nurseries my GC have been to are very well staffed, sometimes with more adults than children! Those adults devote their days to the children, the breadth of what they do is stunning. I couldn't provide a donkey for my children to ride or a London bus to play in, nor plant a maze or keep chickens on an allotment!

I've had friends that still took their children to the child minder if for any reason, they were off work.

NOT that I was super mum or anything. I certainly wasn't. But like you Grammaretto, it wouldn't even have occurred to me to do that. If I was off work, kiddo was with me.

People can be so nasty to eachother. Sorry to hear of your experience growstuff
Why can't we live and let live?

When I went back to work part time I found an exceptionally good childminder for our youngest, whom I liked and trusted but I was quite surprised to find that the parent of one of her other charges didn't have a job but just wanted time to herself.

It hadn't occurred to me that people could do that!
It is good to have your preconceived ideas challenged occasionally and to see how other people manage their lives.

About rôle models - my mother always worked, and I am so grateful she did. It told me I could do what I wanted, taught us all to be self reliant and able to take responsibility early.

When I decided to go to Uni when youngest started school- all the neighbours and others tut-tutted and thought it was just crazy... DD1 spends a lot of time supporting young women in her business - and often talks of her pride when attending her mum's Degree ceremony- and how it inspired her- just as her granny had inspired her.

Janipat, I'm aware they're contradictory. However they come from different perspectives.

1st paragraph is about DEVELOPMENT. Children develop better and quicker when they're relatively independent, in an environment among their peers. GOOD quality childcare, obviously. A poorer quality environment would be less beneficial.

A single child, at home, with a parent IS disadvantaged. With all the best will in the world, a child at home with mum maybe gets taken to a couple of hours of playgroup 2 or 3 times a week.

The 2nd paragraph was from a practical point of view. COST. Grandparents caring for children is free for parents, and enables parents to return to work at their convenience. I'm not sure about maternity pay in China (being lazy, it would be easily googleable).

I had to work for financial reasons (not to put foie gras on the table, to be able to keep a roof over our heads, which at times was touch and go). My daughter was MUCH better off when I was able to get her into a childcare program. Childminders were much more hit and miss. She had a couple of lovely ones, but frankly, some were dodgy, just doing it so they could stay at home with their children.

My daughter lives with me and the opposite is true. Grandson is at home with mum all the day. He is crying out for nursery. A very sociable boy, language slightly delayed. He'd move on in leaps and bounds if he were in nursery BUT paradoxically, because she isn't a professional, nursery would cost more than she could earn so isn't an option.