Childcare costs up to £15000 a year

When I had my children there wasn’t much organised childcare. Unless you had a career and earned a lot of money you stayed at home or worked, as I did, in the evening.
However we helped each other , I looked after my friends children in the morning. Her husband dropped them off on his way to work. She picked them up after she had had a sleep after her night shift as a nurse. She paid me a small amount.
I don’t think that sort of arrangement is allowed these days?

Very interesting post Doodledog
My DB lives in Denmark and he and his DP have 2 DC who now each have 2 DC.
State subsided childcare means noone has to give up a career to look after children.
However I used to be critical of them.
I was of the opinion that we should be looking after our own pre schoolers. I only relied on occasional childminders but worked in the evening and managed on DH salary. Houses were far cheaper back in the 1970s.
Then my own DC started their families and had huge nursery bills to pay. Two mortgages for 2 DC.
At least they had the opportunity of good nurseries
One DS and DDiL had a workplace nursery which suited them very well.

Is there anywhere which has volunteer help along with paid staff to help ratios?
I'm thinking along the lines of after-school and breakfast clubs?

There are day centres for the elderly which are run with help of volunteers. Would this be possible for nurseries?

I had my 3 in the 90s ....I worked nights and weekends for years so me and partner could share childcare and not pay big nursery fees

Mamardoit

There is a scandal now. Those of us born in the 50s have been badly treated. I can't remember the exact year but it was in the 1990s. I was at home looking after my dc. Dh was sorting his pension and wanted to arrange one for me. Because I didn't 'work' I couldn't have a pension. I know now things have changed and some well off grandparents are paying into pension pots for DGC It is unfair that women still suffer financially just because they are mothers. I doubt that will change.

This sort of thing is why I find it so unreasonable when people claim that women campaigning (or complaining) about pensions should accept that 'equalisation' of the pension age is fair. It isn't. If women had been paid the same as men through their working lives, if they had had equal access to pensions, if they didn't usually take more than an equal share of childcare responsibilities when both parents 'chose' to start a family then equalising the pension age might be fair. It is interesting that when the question about why women should be the ones needing childcare the answer is that women choose to have children, when for decades now family planning has existed and it has been a joint decision.

We are left with a lottery - if you can afford not to work the state will pay your pension contributions. If you can afford childcare or have parents who are willing and able to care for your children you can hang onto a career and keep your skills relevant. If you can't afford not to work and have no willing parents nearby you have to muddle through, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. Without up to date skills and a track record of work experience it is less likely that women will get well-paid work after taking what they may have thought would be a temporary break, so the pattern is likely to continue when subsequent children come along.

We got no vouchers or free hours, and had a 16% mortgage. I worked for next to nothing some years. My husband took a year off while I worked, and some years we juggled it between us. It was stressful and difficult, and didn't get much cheaper when they started school, as then there was no flexibility, and a lot of the time they were in different schools (our LEA operated a three-tier system). Yes, we chose to have children, but now they are 'economically active' members of society and at 29 and 31 are helping to balance the demographic - if people like us had chosen not to have them the respective numbers of young and old would be even more precarious than they are.

Are people really suggesting that the choice to have children should bring crippling costs with it, and that these should be borne exclusively by the parents, meaning that only those who earn more than average or whose parents can help out can afford to have them? How do those who do feel that way think that the economy would manage with no young people when the demographic black hole doesn't mean fewer school places are needed, but fewer economically active adults? Should we import them from other countries instead of making it possible for parents to raise the next generation themselves? If so, why?

Mine had a childminder until the children’s father left, then I had au pairs as I travelled, tricky times.

Different times. Early 70s ex had left. A social worker called at my home and told me, the ? services would fully pay for a child minder. Which they did for three years. The child minder charged £5 a week (I think) with dinner, tea and washed nappies. Some kind person must of phoned them about my dire straits. I had already been offered a job to start the following week. Wouldn’t happen now, I realize how lucky I was.

Galaxy

I am not sure what happens in other countries where attendance isnt compulsory but early years are a lifesaver for some of the most vulnerable children in this country.

In Singapore, working mothers and single fathers receive 40% subsidy towards infant care and child care. The fees are not as expensive as in the UK.

There’s baby bonus £10k to £15k for 1st child, more for subsequent children paid over 6 years to encourage Singaporean families to have more children due to falling birth rate.

Working mothers can also claim tax relief on their salaries. Compulsory schooling starts at 7 years old.

DD is hoping to buy a house in her village and start a family soon, how she is going to afford it all – paying a big mortgage and expensive childcare, I got no idea. We do not live near them.

They might be able to just afford it, but it will be very tight financially.

It is my understanding that providers of childcare cannot charge parents a top up on the 30 hours funding amount. That means nurseries are stuffed with paying all the huge costs that running a setting requires. And that is why many nursery settings are having to close down, because they simply can't survive. But neither can parents afford higher fees. It's a vicious circle.

When I was a young mum late 60s early 70s childcare place were scarce so I stayed at home with my children.
We could just about afford to do this but I know my children need 2 salaries to pay the mortgage.
My DD will be very glad when DGS goes to school in September.

Well childcare has never been cheap. The only way to reduce the cost safely is for the taxpayer to share the burden. Personally I have no problems with that. All children are future taxpayers. Can't ever see it costing just £60 pm though.

vegansrock I found that before and after school care cost almost as much as full-time nursery. As a teacher, I fortunately didn't have to pay for holidays when they started school, but their non-pupil days were always a problem. Sometimes I ended up paying for a nanny, which cost a fortune.

A friend in Sweden pays £60 a month for full time childcare and that includes meals. Here my 2 youngest GC are at a nursery 4 days a week - it’s £75 per day EACH that’s £600 PER WEEK. Fortunately the parents are both in well paid jobs, the eldest child gets a bit of free time and she’ll be at school later this year which will ease the burden, but it’s unaffordable for many. Our childcare costs are the most expensive in Europe. I wonder why.

I worked in Sweden for a number of years, which offers significantly more pre-school support than here in U.K., but the country does have one of the highest personal tax rates in Europe to subsidise general welfare. As for pre-school care, which is universally available for all 1 to 5 year-olds, a parent will pay 3% of their gross salary but there's a cap so they never have to pay more than 1,260 Swedish krona [currently £113] a month per child – and if they have more children, they'll pay a maximum of 420 krona [£32] for the third child and nothing for the fourth." It's an excellent scheme, and helps underpin the Swedish economy by allowing parents to continue in work.

When I had my two in the 70s I didn't know anyone who used a nursery. We all took our children to the village playgroup, where we all took turns to help. Most of us didn't have any sort of job. A few years later we had our own business and I could organise working round school hours and, if necessary, I could take them to work with me.
DD looked at nurseries when she went back to work but it soon became obvious that it would eat up almost all her salary.I was only working 16 hours a week at that point so it was a no brainer to take over childcare.

rosie1959 We have nursery places at my grandchildren’s school but the hours offered are little use to a full time working mum. My daughter used a nursery for her child for her pre school years and the initial two years were expensive becoming less when the 30 free hours kicked in. Her and her husband factored in the cost between them even though at the time she was the highest earner. She also used the tax relief system against the cost I believe.

I don’t ever remember her complaining that the government should pay any more towards this. Her choice to have a child therefore the costs involved were up to the parents

Indeed, their choices.

Sago

We never lived near family and childcare costs were high in the 80’s and 90’s I had no choice but to stay at home.

Seems reasonable to me. And is what I did as well.

I took mine to work with me fulltime until they went to nursery for 3 hours at age 4 .We were self employed so it wasn't an issue ,we had a couple of other staff who brought wee ones in for half days and it worked very well for us.I know we were lucky .
When my daughter had her first I went part time so she could go back to work early as she had a history of depression ,my lovely OH suggested we job share so she wouldn't worry about leaving him with anyone else.
That was the start of 17 years of GC here with me ,one for 3 or 4 days and nights every week.
I loved it and still enjoyed my work time too

rosie1959

We have nursery places at my grandchildren’s school but the hours offered are little use to a full time working mum. My daughter used a nursery for her child for her pre school years and the initial two years were expensive becoming less when the 30 free hours kicked in.
Her and her husband factored in the cost between them even though at the time she was the highest earner.
She also used the tax relief system against the cost I believe.
I don’t ever remember her complaining that the government should pay any more towards this. Her choice to have a child therefore the costs involved were up to the parents
Childcare and the free hours she used didn’t even exist when my children were small

I agree Rosie.

We never lived near family and childcare costs were high in the 80’s and 90’s I had no choice but to stay at home.

Posted too early. School 3 to 5 year olds

growstuff

The government tried to relax the ratio a few years ago, but there was an outcry about it. IMO the ratio should be maintained.

France has worse ratios in its nurseries, but I've heard some horror stories about them.

There are always horror stories, everyone is regrettable but for the majority of children, from not only from low income families, learn a lot. Children have somewhere to play and learn to socialize. Some improve language skills or even learn one. Moreover, mothers can work with the knowledge that, although groups are large, there is no- one on the phone. Nurseries. There must be a ratio of one adult to five babies too young to walk and one adult for every eight children who can walk. School. one teacher to 25 children, along with one assistant with childcare training
France needs everyone to work and this step helps everyone who wants to take advantage of it. Moreover, the longer a person is out of work the less pension they will have when they retire.

Relaxing the ratios would be a disaster for children, it would be a double disaster for children with additional needs.

The government tried to relax the ratio a few years ago, but there was an outcry about it. IMO the ratio should be maintained.

France has worse ratios in its nurseries, but I've heard some horror stories about them.

Personally I think a level 3 should be earning £25k.

growstuff

Joseanne

I don't know about all settings, but in my experience nurseries are far more costly to run per head than classes higher up the school. Staff, physical space, equipment etc.

Yes, I think the biggest issue is staff. I can't remember the exact ratios, but I think it's 1:3 for under two year olds. Even though nursery staff aren't paid as well as teachers, it's still a lot of money.

Would the solution be to relax the ratios, but then that's not ideal either?
I think the ratio maybe depends on the setting:
1:3 under 2 is correct and at least one must be level 3 qualified
1:4 between 2 and 3 years