The curious incident of the country where childcare funding doesn't follow the child

As of 1st of August, the Scottish Government has introduced a childcare/early education model which is meant to reduce the cost of childcare and make childcare more accessible. The free hours of early years education have been increased to 600 and 3 and 4 year olds are eligible for these free hours. As childcare is a mixed economy in Scotland, the statutory free entitlement can be accessed at local authority nurseries or private nurseries that partner with local authorities in delivering the free entitlement.

This all sounds good so far. As ever, the devil is in the detail.

First of all, while we are talking about an entitlement for all 3 and 4 year olds, guaranteed by the Scottish Government (SNP led), it needs implemented locally by local authorities, which in Glasgow is Labour led.

Secondly, the funding for free hours goes to nurseries. It does not follow the child.

So Glasgow City Council has been told by the Scottish Government that as of 1st August 2014, it needs to increase free provision for early education, but it's left to do this as it pleases. I don't know if there's extra money that was made available, but regardless, again, each local authority gets money and then has to allocate as it wishes.

So far, local authority provision either worked on the basis of offering free 3 hour childcare sessions 5 days a week to 3 and 4 year olds. Most of these establishments are closed over lunch. Some are day centres and offer limited wrap around care - but experience shows that they hardly ever offer 8-6pm places (I've seen offers of 9-4pm a lot, and if parents don't take this up because they work 9-5pm, they were dismissed with "well, we did offer and you didn't want it". The idea is that magically as of last week, more wrap around care should be available and flexibility of how the free allocation is taken up by parents is increased (so that instead of 5 days of 3hrs parents can take 2 days of 8 hours each or something like that). As for private nurseries, they get an allocation of free places (if they pass care commission standards) which they then pay out to qualifying families.

If a family uses a childminder for the remainder of the day, they pay the full childminder day fee even if the child spends half the day at nursery (because understandably the childminder can't take on another mindee and has to survive somehow as well).

I haven't got evidence yet if local authority nurseries which so far operated with 3 hour sessions are offering more flexibility. What I have seen and heard about by rather a lot of people now is that those who had to choose a private nursery (because local authority nursery doesn't have a place or only offers insufficient hours), their allocation of fee statutory sessions has been withdrawn. Private nurseries, who had an allocation of free spaces, suddenly don't have them anymore and are as flabbergasted as the parents who are back to paying full day rates (which can be as much as £45, or £900 a month per child). When the parent complains to the council, they get rather arrogant responses along the lines of "if you choose a private nursery that doesn't offer free sessions, there's not much we can do".

Let's be clear: parents don't "choose" private nurseries that have "no funded spaces". There is no choice. The parents I'm talking about here have had her child on the waiting list of the council nursery for over 2 years and the only offer that was ever made did not allow to work 9-5pm. They then took a space at a nursery that did have funding for the statutory free sessions. But that was last term, and strangely, although additional free hours have been introduced, that funding has disappeared. The wording of GCC letters even suggests that parents should just move their children to another nursery, which is blatantly not in the developmental interest of the child.

Which leads me to think: maybe Glasgow City Council is financing the additional hours they have to be seen to offer by only offering them at local authority nurseries, while withdrawing funding from private nurseries. In effect, rather than ensuring a more flexible approach and increasing free childcare, it has been taken away from working families. Now, it's not just low income families that can't access childcare in nurseries (because state nurseries don't offer full days and private nurseries are too expensive), but also middle income families are pushed out of work because they can no longer afford childcare fees. And if I say "families", this usually means "women".

This new childcare promise was meant to help get low income families back into work by making quality childcare cheaper and more accessible. It appears it hasn't just failed to do so, but also had the unintended consequence of pushing middle income parents out of work.

Remember, we are talking here about statutory provision. Every child should be able to receive 600 hours of free nursery education.  A lot of children are currently missing out. Of course I can hear those cries for independence, just that education is already devolved and we have to deal with this mess in Scotland anyway. Is there an element of Labour protest in having to implement Scottish Goivernment policies? I hear it's not so bad in other local authorities? But really let's focus on a solution: It could be all so easily turned around if only the funding followed the child. So why not give that a go?

Take Action and Give A Helping Hand for Childcare in Scotland

Childcare. The devil is often in the detail. When older daughter started school, my head nearly exploded trying to get together the patchwork of childcare that was needed so both parents could work their allocated hours. Often I feel so frustrated trying to juggle work and childcare that I feel like throwing in the towel and give up work.

For over a year, I've tried to improve on this situation. Younger daughter has been on the waiting list for the council day nursery that is in the same building as the school for years. This year we even got offered a place. These were the hours:
Monday, Thur, Fri 1-4pm
Tue and Weds 9-4pm

My application had been for 2 or 3 full days, with flexibility on which days of the week the full days would fall on. We've been on the waiting list for 2 full years. 9am-4pm are not full days, especially as I work a 45 minute car drive away (I've given up even considering cycling or public transport). I pleaded and pleaded because fact is that our circumstances are thus that it's touch and go if I can fulfil my work requirements even with our current childcare set up. But no, it was 9am-4pm or nothing. So I had to say thanks, but no thanks.

My case is no exception. Council nurseries, even if they offer extended hours (which is not the norm - in Glasgow most council nurseries only offer 3 hours a day to 3-5s, usually as afternoons for the ante pre-school year and mornings for the pre-school year), hardly ever offer them as 8am-6pm which would actually allow parents to fit in a full day's work plus the travel to and from the work place. Currently, the best I could get is a nursery 3 miles from home and 4 miles from work, 3 days a week from 8.30am-5pm (when I would need it from 8.30pm-5.30pm), supplemented by one day at a childminder, and a back up childminder for the 5th day of the week in case I have to work it on occasions. And I'm not alone: A friend was offered 9am-5pm and couldn't accept the offer either as her work could not accommodate such hours. In theory, these are council nurseries that are open 8am-6pm, but they do not generally offer the full length of hours, making it impossible to use them if parents work full days.

Effectively, this means that working parents have to choose childminders or private provision, both of which are significantly more expensive and sometimes do not offer the same quality of service. If the working parents in question are on low incomes, private childcare more often than not is unaffordable.

Add to this that there aren't many council nurseries who offer full day care at all, and the prospect for parents on low incomes becomes rather bleak. I have met aspiring young mums who couldn't take up the college place they were offered because of lack of childcare or inability to pay the one month deposit plus a month in advance that private nurseries ask for. Or mums who wouldn't even apply for a job because they knew the waiting list for a nursery place was long and they would have to start the job within a month or two, with no prospect of sourcing a childcare place in the same timescale.

If I was on a low income, and didn't have a car, there would be no way I could continue to work, or take up a new job. For one, the daily home-school-nursery-work-nursery-childminder-home run is planned out to the minute and only doable by car. I only got a place for the younger sibling because older sibling was already at the nursery (who in turn had been on the waiting list for 2 years before getting offered a place). And I'm lucky that having been with the same council nursery for years, they have accommodated that I can take the 5 free pre-school sessions over 3 days, a set up which would not be offered as a general rule.

Save the Children have just launched a childcare campaign in Scotland asking the Scottish Government for more high quality, accessible, affordable and flexible childcare, so that especially families on lower incomes are able to access affordable and flexible childcare that allows them to work. Currently this is not the case, and the lack of suitable childcare is the biggest barrier particularly for mums to stay in or enter the workplace.

If you can spare a minute, please support the campaign by signing the petition to the Scottish Government to extend free childcare and make it available in a more flexible way, which is currently being debated for the new Children and Young People Bill. Feel free of course to share the petition link in you networks, so that the Scottish Government can hear the voices of parents loud and clear.

You can read the full report Give us a Hand with Childcare here.

A fair deal for both Stay at Home Parents and Working Parents

The other day I signed a petition asking for a fair deal for stay at home parents. Without question, the recent changes and proposed changes are all in some way encouraging particularly mothers to work. Well, in theory they do, because there are so many ifs and buts, nevermind the lack of jobs that things look quite different in practice.

I'm very much in favour of women having the choice to stay at home if this is what they believe is best for their child, or to work if that is what they believe is best for their child. But let's be clear - it's often not exactly a choice.

With living costs being extortionately high, it's really only a choice to stay at home if your partner has a higher than average income. And even that may well not be enough. And if your ideal situation is somewhere in between, it's often not possible to get reduced hours to have a better work - parenting balance, and if you're looking for a job, part time jobs are rare as diamonds.

There are a few things that rather bother me in this context, the first being the wording of  the above petition. It suggests that as a family that uses childcare because both parents work, we are getting benefits from the tax system and therefore cost the state money. This is factually wrong. The truth is that because we both work, we pay tax, and the only benefit we can get is a tax free allowance, so we still pay tax. The economic benefit of working parents is definitely in the black. And as for low income families - they may even miss out on any tax free allowance if their income is so low that they don't pay tax. This, incidentally, is a very serious flaw in the system which has a devastating impact on the lowest earning, working, families.

What is correct though is that there is a good point for having transferable tax free allowances. What I mean by this is that if a couple without children both work, they each have a tax free allowance. Once they have a family and one parent decides to stay at home, the tax free allowance of the none working parent is lost. In other countries, this works differently - if there is only one earner in a family, this person will receive an additional tax free allowance per dependant. So say dad works, his own tax free allowance is 10,000, he'll get another 5,000 for his wife and 2,500 for each child. Higher incomes are taxed more progressively to make up for this (for instance, in the UK, higher rate tax is only applied to income over the threshold amount, while in other countries it's applied to all the income). A system like this does make staying at home affordable also for people on lower incomes.

At the same time I do believe that the taxation and benefit system has to ensure that work pays. This has not yet been achieved, although some of the changes within Universal Credits will make this the case for more people than before (and I hasten to add that other parts of the changes to the benefit system will have a horrendous effect on many family and are really nothing short of shameful). Childcare is so expensive that without support, only high earners can actually afford it.

What is however totally unhelpful in this particular debate (which is about fairness and insuring that staying at home to raise children is valued, respected, supported and a financially viable option for parents) is to propose that either staying at home or being a working mum/dad is the RIGHT choice. When we should actually be supporting each other in our choices, this turn of the argument leads to alienation and bad feelings.

Sure enough there are studies that demonstrates that children are better off at home up to the age of 3 and that long nursery hours in particular can have a detrimental impact on a child's emotional development.

But there are also studies that demonstrate that maternal level of education is the biggest indicator of a child's cognitive and emotional development, and that children who have 2 working parents also do better than children whose parent don't work.It is thought that this is due to the link with higher maternal education and also the financial ability to provide stimulating experiences for children.


Children from low income families, on the other hand, tend to fare really rather bad in the education system and measurements of cognitive and emotional development, and of course quite a few low income families will have one or both parents out of work - so in spite of parents staying at home, children lag behind their peers. The reason for children not doing so well in low income families are complex and there isn't space here to look into it in detail, but let's say it's a combination of many factors which parents themselves have very little influence on.

There is also the question of the quality of childcare - and Liz Truss' proposal to have more under 5s per member of staff, who are trained to be compliant and purposeful (the toddlers, not the staff!) will certainly not make for better childcare.

My own mother was a stay at home mum, and I don't think this made me emotionally more stable - in fact I struggled severely with shyness and low self esteem in childhood, so much so that I loathed going to school throughout my primary years (and I didn't exactly love it in secondary but at least I had some friends by then). I can't help but wonder if I could have benefited from more nursery hours than the 3 hours per day that I got from 4 years of age.

So there is no black and white, no ideal situation. Because we can't exactly all be highly educated mums who then abdicate their blossoming careers in favour of being Stay at Home Mums. Some of us aren't highly educated. Some of us can't find a job. Some of us can't find the part time job we want. Some of us are better parents if they're not full time parents. Most working parents will go through incredible lengths to ensure that the time they do spend with their children is the best it can be. Above all we've all looked at the evidence and made our choices. I know how important it is to reconnect with my children when I get back, we practice most of what falls under attachment parenting (though I don't follow it as a philosophy, it's just what happened to be our preferred style), we spend quality time together and I listen to my children all the time. I work on improving my parenting and can draw from all the knowledge that comes with delivering a parenting programme. I have amazing childcare providers, so amazing that both my children look forward to it and miss it in the holidays.

And while I believe that Cubling started childcare too early (which was outwith my control and I do not feel in any way guilty about it), there is no doubt in my mind that I've given both my children the best possible start in life I can, all considered.

So,  I do not believe that I'm a worse parent for working 4 days a week. I also don't buy into the argument that having a fair deal for Stay At Home Mums is encouraging people to be/stay on benefits (because really, who wants to be on those meagre benefits? Exactly, nobody). We all make or are having to make different and difficult choices but all of us are trying to be the best parent to our children whom we love more than ourselves. And those choices should be respected, valued and viable.

Why bother having kids if you don't have time to look after them

There has been some media attention on the fact that in the UK job market, about 1 million women are missing. They are missing because work doesn't pay for them as second earners and they've made the decision of not returning to work after they've had children or leaving their jobs.

This isn't surprising as such. I've thought about it. Childcare is expensive and there's not a lot of support with the cost here in this country. For parents with two children in childcare, the second earner needs to be on an above average income to make work pay.

What really got me though is the invariable response when this topic is brought up. Summarised in one sentence: Why have kids if you then go out to work?

Of course, this phrase is said to the mother. Please contradict me if I'm wrong! Now I'm all for extended and paid maternity leave, I know about the importance of child-mother bonding, breastfeeding and responsive care by the primary care giver, who due to breastfeeding usually is the mother. So while I do believe that our roles are different at the early stages of parenting, determined by biological facts, I don't buy this statement because we do have maternity leave (even if partly unpaid) for a full year.

After that, we're mostly equal.

Until the same question is directed to fathers, something is at odds. Because you know, really, kids would love both parents to just be at home with them and play all day, but that doesn't bring food on the table, warmth in cold winters and electricity to your home.

So for the record, as a mum who'd love to spend more time with her kids at home, as I'm sure their daddy does too, this is why I have kids and still bother going out to work:

1. I have skills that are well used in my job and I'm making a difference. I'm a confident trainer, researcher, thinker, writer, project manager. I'm not a confident parent (though I'm working hard on it, being ambitious and all that). In fact, I actually think my kids benefit from a bit of childcare by people who know what they're doing.

2. I've been told all my life that this was an equal society and that both men and women have equal access to the workplace and will be renumerated equally, regardless of whether they have children or not. I've come to understand that in reality this is not the case, but I believe that what I've been brought up to believe is at least something we should aspire to.

3. I've never believed that my primary role was that of raising kids. In fact, for most of my life, I wasn't sure I actually wanted kids. I made a decision to raise kids but did not make a decision for this to be my end all and be all.

4. It's a bloody hard job juggling kids, home and work. Many days I think I can't do this anymore. But it's also a bloody hard job being a stay at home mum, and to be honest, I prefer the juggling situation. Not by much, but by enough to keep going.

5. Let's talk money. Kids are expensive. You need more money to offer a decent life for them, like a bigger home, a car to take them places, days out, and let's not even mention the doubled cost of a holiday as the little ones pay full price. Oh yeah, and there's clothes, toys, presents for them and above all their friends and the incessant fundraising forms from nursery and school. I think I may have even bought a poppy this year, my principles are crumbling.

6. Let's talk some more money. If I took a career break, this is my financial loss: pension contributions. Income while I'm out of work. And then, as I rejoin the strained job market, a 30-40%% cut of my salary because I'd have to start from the bottom again. This cut is for good, also impacting on my already tiny pension prospects. So even if for a few years, work doesn't pay, in the long run the loss of earnings would be so massive for me, that I'd probably work for nothing

7. The insecurity of the job market: would I be able to find another job?

8. I enjoy my job. Nobody wails, whines, screams, hits and kicks me or spills milk over my clothes at my job for 8 lovely hours. But seriously, I do like my job.

9. And just to say.... I'm not a career woman. I don't strive for a 50k plus income, promotion and managment roles. This is not about my career, just about being a worker. I also think that parents who stay at home do an invaluable and tough job, a job that I'm probably not too well cut out to do. I simply don't want to have to justify why I work when I have children just because I'm not a man.

So in the public view I shouldn't have had kids then in the first place. Let's give the dads a voice now too, shall we? Should daddies have had kids because he's out of the house 9 or more hours on a weekday? Can I invite working dads to justify why they're working instead of spending quality time with their kids?

The Patchwork of Childcare

The BBC article on 8 radical solutions to childcare made me smile this morning. Not because they are so lovely, but mostly because they are so utterly unworkable, that there is definitely a bit of comedy going on. Still, nothing wrong for being a bit radical when really there is a big issue around childcare.

The reality of childcare is more like a patchwork. So I thought things would get a) simpler and b) cheaper once Cubling starts school. That would have been the naive world view of the uninitiated. With less than a month to go before the big day of starting school, I'm awfully smug because I managed to get all my childcare needs met. Yes, you heard me, and I know it'll make some jealous and want to hit, kick and bite me, but the jigsaw is complete.

And this is what it looks like, verion 5.13:

For term time:

Cubling:

• 8-9 am Breakfast club on 4 mornings
• 9am-3pm school
• 3-6pm after school care on 2 afternoons a week
• 3-6pm childminder 1 on 2 afternoons a week.
• late work days: child minder 1

Snowflake:

• 8-5pm nursery on 3 days a week
• (will change to 2 days plus 1 day at outdoor nursery once she turns 3)
• 8-6pm childminder 1 on 1 day a week
• late work days: child minder 1

In service days:

• Childminder 1 or 2

School holidays:

• Childminder 1 and 2.

Total: 6 child care providers between two children. I've not yet figured out the total cost, but we're on the very cheap end of it all and so lucky in that respect, but one thing I have realised is that we'll be paying significantly more on childcare than we currently do with 2 under 5s. Ok, my working hours are increasing so this is probably the bulk of the additonal cost, but still, my hope that once school kicked in, childcare costs would come down was an illusion.

For the past few months, I've had headaches and near head explosions about how to get it all organised and make sure there are no pieces missing and not gaps. Thankfully, our current 2 childminders (who we fall back on for anything additional) were able to pick up the missing pieces and it all worked out just fine.

However, looking at this it becomes clear that childcare isn't the simple "just put your child into a nursery" situation. My work is not strictly 9-5pm, there are commuting times to consider. After school, school holidays and in service days.

And even if it is all looking good, I still have the conundrum that I need Snowflake to be at nursery 8.30-5.30 and the nursery will only offer me 8-5pm, leaving me half an hour short for being able to have a full working day.

One of the suggestions are taking your baby. Have you tried it? Well I have and to be honest, not a lot of work gets done and I'm not sure if the work I do manage to get done is offset by the distraction from work that my colleagues surely experience (open office). A parent co-op? All I can say that whenever I tried to organise child activities , as soon as it goes over the 2 hours threashold it has to be registered, inspected and a whole lot of regulations, paperwork sets in which includes the necessity for any workers in this scheme to be disclosed and training towards a child care qualification. Not doable for working parents.

I do like the idea of combining care for the elderly and childcare. Of course I might be naive not having experienced the ins and outs of this, but it sounds like a solution which would benefit both children and older people, so I'd like to hear more about it.

As to schools being open all day, I've been arguing for a while how it would be good to have a one stop point for childcare, i.e. a child care provider located at a school and integrating preschool and after school care. Here in Scotland at least, pre school is delivered in half day sessions, so the nurseries that are attached to schools will mostly only offer 2.5 to 3 hours a day for 4 and sometimes 3 year olds. Which is no good if you're working. There are exceptions to this but these nurseries are notoriously difficult to get your child into. After school and holiday care would be best delivered as a standard at each primary school (I've not yet even found out what holiday care there is available and how much it costs as we're lucky enough that one of the childminders can step in).

Integrated childcare. The magic word. Sounds so much better than having to stop at 6 addresses during the course of a week.
Universal childcare. The end of worries and financial strains on families, which demonstrably has led to more equal societies and happier children in the Scandinavian countries - thus actually saving money in the long run rather than costing the taxpayer (through lower rates of crime, reduced mental health costs, lower health budgets, less prison sentences, less vandalism, less substance abuse, and the list continues).

The thing is, it can be done. It's not a distant dream. It does depend on political will and public support for the idea that children are an asset for the whole of the society and not just the parents' issue; that universal and integrated childcare reaps benefit for all of us, whether we choose to have children or not. And looking at the comments on the BBC article, we are a looooong way off such public support.

The cost of childcare

Yesterday, on the eve of the launch of the cost of childcare campaign, I was interviewed by a couple of Scottish newspapers. I'm volunteering on the parent panel of the Daycare Trust which is why occasionally I get called with extremely short notice to speak to a journalist or two.

Initially I was a bit worried because I'm not up to speed what exactly the Daycare Trust is asking for. But I don't think this matters so much, it's just about having honest views of parents on the issues they campaign about, which bring the campaign to life. Even yesterday, I was very clear that I'm not the average case study because we don't spend the same amount other families spend on childcare. We're the lucky ones who have their kids in council nurseries for most of the hours that childcare is needed, which is about half the cost of private childcare.

It is interesting to see what of the interviews makes it into the papers. There was one sentence which I totally hadn't said, it read along the lines of having had to consider to give up my job because of the cost of childcare. Now, it is true that I considered if it was financially viable to work, but I never actually would have chosen the path of handing in my notice, my considerations were simply in the light of looming redundancy. There is more to a job than the financial gain, plus, why should it be me who gives up the job if it's not financially viable? Surely the childcare costs are split between two incomes in our case and it's not simply about whether mum works or not.

Other than that, the quotes were bang on but obviously left out quite a lot of detail and width that I had spoken about.

Both papers asked me for my solutions to the cost of childcare.
I explained how in other countries, childcare is subsidised so that the maximum cost to the parents is capped. This makes childcare affordable for all. Of course, it costs money but the theory is that because more parents will be in employment, the cost is offset by the tax the government gets from these working parents.

Another point I made was that the reduction of the childcare element of working parent tax credit to a maximum of 70% of childcare costs will be hitting the poorest parents most. Effectively it means that if you are on a low income, you will have to pay at least 30% of your childcare costs. If you are on minimum wage, have rent/mortgage to pay, council tax, heating, clothing, food, phone and electricity bills to cover, that is a lot. To put it bluntly, while I'm pretty happy with the help of the meagre tax credits we get (not for much longer, I think we'll lose them once I increase my working hours), I'd rather we didn't get them and the government had kept the 80% level.

One idea that didn't occur to me at the time was that it would really help if the childcare voucher amount was increased. Childcare vouchers are a system of salary sacrifice at source - if you are employed and your employer is signed up to it, you can sacrifice up to £243 a month of your salary which can then be paid for childcare. The saving is that  you don't pay tax or national insurance on this amount. It is available to both parents, so if both work, it can cover almost £500. The maximum amount has been static for a rather long time, so it would be a solution to increase this. This would also help those parents where only one parent is in employment (as was the case for us - while we've always paid at least £500 in childcare since Cubling was 5 months old, we've so far only been able to make use of one parent's allowance). It seems unfair that if 2 parents are in employment you can save twice the amount while in situations where either one parent is not in employment or where there is only one parent, you can only save the tax on £243. It is usually the case that families where there is only one employed parent could do with extra help, so why not have a maximum amount of, say, £500, which can be split between parents as they wish. Plus increase the maximum amount anyway as childcare regularly costs £600-£800 per child on a full time basis.

I personally also wouldn't have an issue if the full cost of childcare could be offset against tax. This would help, but of course it would still mean that childcare remains a massive burden for parents.

Of course there will be those who say that if you have kids, that's what you've bargained for. However, it has been shown that capping childcare costs and having universal childcare available to everyone leads to better maternal employment, better outcomes for children, and greater equality in society. This in turn means less expenditure for the failings of an unequal society (the cost of crime, vandalism, poor health and substance abuse). Sometimes spending more won't cost more, but less.

Do you have any ideas how parents could be better supported with the cost of childcare?

How much is childcare costing you?

Childcare, for any working parent, is a massive expense. I was gobsmacked when I first learned how much it would cost. Yes, of course, child care workers deserve a decent income and we want trained professionals - that's not the issue, it's about the fact that there is little support available and that the sheer upfront cost is a real barrier for many families.

Today, the Daycare Trust and Save the Children are launching their campaign on the cost of childcare. You can take part in it and please do, and please also share it amongst your families, friends, networks if you are behind it. Because, for many families, childcare costs are the single highest monthly expense - not even topped by mortgage payment. And what's worse, for many families work doesn't actually pay if you have children that need cared for.

Yesterday, as a member of the Daycare Trust parent panel, I was interviewed on this issue. Now, to be fair, we've managed ourselves a good deal what with council nursery for most days and both children (council nurseries are significantly cheaper than private ones). In fact, we probably pay half of what we would if the children went to a private nursery or a childminder which for most parents is the only available option. And still, even at paying half the current cost of having two children attending child care, our highest monthly expense is indeed childcare.

The journalist made me calculate how much we'd spend in total just on our eldest by the time she'd start school. The sum was £24,000 - and that was me forgetting to add the year still to come! So it's probably closer to £30,000 and that's not even for 5 days a week.

At the same time, it's been shown that investing in early years has the best outcome for societies as a whole, with the most equal and happy societies, with least crime and violence, least health inequalities, being the Scandinavian countries (where you get longer paid maternity leave and where pre-school care is heavily subsidised by the state).

It's not that the government doesn't support low income families in the UK. But the support doesn't go all the way and it's paid in retrospect through a system that is so complex that I don't know a single parent who doesn't struggle with it or is sure they're getting what they should be getting.

I did my own sums and found out that if I were to give up my job, I'd be just over a couple of hundred pounds worth off. So I'm working almost full time for £200. Ok, it's only until next August, when school starts and childcare costs will come down, but still. Are those £200 in my pocket worth the nightmare of nursery runs on top of work, the race to get dinner on the table and the kids to bed at a decent time? I've asked myself that question more than once in the past year.

For me, the answer was yes, because I love my work. But it the answer didn't come easy and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the research shows that many parents are giving up work because of the burden of childcare cost. 

Institutionalised

Quite out of the blue it dawned on me that this is it. This was my year of maternity leave, most likely the last one. Where did it go? Flying by is an understatement. It is odd how different I feel about returning to work this time around. How different I feel about leaving my children with caregivers. I hardly recognise myself, my feelings have changed so much.

In some fairy dream land, my imaginary plan had been to have my kids in Germany, where you get 3 years of (partly) unpaid leave each (which you can take any time and split between parents and take in chunks etc pp). Oh the luxury, to spend the early years with your children and still have a job to come back to.

Of course, life never works quite according to plan and I have only myself to blame for not following it through, one reason being that I actually quite like Scotland. And my job.


Still, as I count the hours before I'll leave my kids with competent caregivers who are still "only" that, caregivers, I wish I'd have more time. The older already nags me with complaints that she doesn't want to go back to nursery and rather spend time with me. The younger, oblivious to everything, gives me smiles and demands nursing as if there was no tomorrow.

Ahead of me is also the juggling of work and childcare demands, time slipping away and every minor traffic hiccups translating to having to catch up on work in the evenings, or not being able to take breaks. As a user of a council nursery (and I know that's as lucky as winning the lottery) there are also in service days and holiday weeks to consider, time off work that I simply don't have (did I find a babysitter recently? She'll be getting more work it seems). It's back to the rat race - just this time not for the money but for the sake of juggling what is often more than wrongly referred to as work life balance (there is no such thing if ever someone asks. If you work and have kids, the balance goes out of the window first).

The nagging question is that of "Is it worth it?" The constant rush, stress, all for a negligible bit of extra money. Is it really worth it?
My answer now, 4 1/2 years into motherhood, is quite different to what it was 4 years ago when Cubling started childcare. I'm no longer sure at all. The resounding yes is almost gone. And if it wasn't for the kind of job I have, the satisfaction I get out of it, the team I work with, the organisation that is more supportive of their employees than most, the answer may well tip towards the "no".

Transitions are never easy and I know from experience that a new rhythm will emerge, that things will settle down, that I will settle down. For now though, I'm in inner turmoil and reluctant to hand over my kids. It is me who has separation anxiety.

I once read someone label the start of school as institutionalisation of a child. At the time, I chuckled as it seemed over the top and a bit funny. I'd no longer chuckle now. I know what she meant. And aren't we all institutionalised and following the rhythm of what that institution imposes on us? The 9-5 rhythm of work, the in service days of schools, the nap routines of nurseries. Be wary child if you don't fit in, if you'd rather not have your mum leave you alone, if you are a nurseling at 10 months.

It is the way things are and I accept them as it is beyond me to change them so I try and make the best out of it. But I cannot be made to like it.

How YOU can take action on the rising cost of childcare

It's no secret that the cost of childcare is huge and rising, but what can be done about it? Recent research by the Daycare Trust estimate that it costs an average of £177 a week for a full time nursery place in Britain for a child under two – which is like paying another mortgage. And if you have two children in childcare, well, what can I say? We pay the most in Europe (bar Switzerland) and our costs are one of the highest in the World. Making work pay? I laugh in your face Mr Cameron, because I'm not sure it really does for the majority of people with children under five.

Today the charities Save the Children and Daycare Trust launched their campaign on the cost of childcare. As part of the campaign, they want to find out what impact the rising costs of childcare are having on families; from forcing them to cut back on household essentials to making it difficult for parents to find or keep jobs - especially the poorest who could be priced out of work because of the rising costs.

They’ve launched the biggest ever survey of parents in Britain to find out how childcare affects their lives, what they think about it and what can be done to help them. The results will be used to show the Government what impact the high costs are having on families. Every parent/carer can fill in the survey and by doing so, have their say. So if you are a parent, regardless of whether you are currently using childcare (because you may not due to the cost) now’s your chance! - www.savethechildren.org.uk/childcare.

 

PS, please do blog about this and share the survey amongst your networks. The more parents/carers respond, the stronger the voice that Save the Children's and Daycare Trust's campaign will have to influence the Government.

Wild Wood

For about two months, Cubling has been out in the woods two days a week. She has joined Glasgow's first Scandinavian style outdoor nursery. For anyone not familiar with the concept, it entails going out all day in all kinds of weather. Usually it's aimed at pre-schoolers, with the benefits being a better immune system due to being outdoors a lot, resilience and a better awareness of physical abilities and the ability to manage risks independently.

Above all, it's a lot of fun for any active toddler.

So what does it look like in practice? In the morning, the children gather at a church hall (which is often used as a creche) between 8 and 9.30am, where they can draw, read books and play with a range of natural toys (pine cones, shells, sticks and anything derived from similar items), listen and move to music. They get into their outdoors clothes (which the forest kindergarten organises for a one off payment which is value for money) and at 9.30am a minibus drives them into the local country park, while they sing songs on the way. Once in the woods, they build up a shelter in case of rain (a tarpaulin/tent) and a portable tent toilet. Anything used on the day is brought along and taken back at the end of the day, so as to leave the park as is. During the day, the children explore different aspects of the outdoors, they make mudcakes, mud slides, climb up tree trunks, create shapes with sticks, explore the local community (there's a lot to explore nearby) or even draw pictures. There's quiet time with stories and much more - effectively the full curriculum can be covered outdoors. The children then return for 5pm to the church hall where they can be picked up by parents.

Of course, on the days of awful Scottish weather, I do doubt whether it's a good idea to send Cubling out. But having been to the base I also know that in the woods you are naturally sheltered from wind and rain, and the tent is really rather cozy... Then there's the worry of toilet accidents and we've been rather partial to nappies just in case, especially before the temperature picked up for spring.

Now, after two months, I can see a marked difference in Cubling. She's always been keen to climb and run, but now she does so with a marked increase in confidence. Her urge to climb, balance and master new challenges has increased, and she is much more determined to give new things a good go. Every day we pick her up she is full of excitement and wants to share her experiences with us. She has an increased awareness of the world around her, she sees even more than she used to see, and gets excited about little creatures and is keen to follow them. With all her drive to climb, she has not ever fallen off, instead she is aware of her skills and her limits and takes responsibility herself.

We had some difficulties transitioning from childminder to nursery in general and Cubling did struggle with the lack of one central caretaker who she relates to. However, that transition worked better in the forest kindergarten where she chose to relate to one worker in particular, as well as a few of the children who she quickly called her new friends. Interestingly, she hasn't done either in the indoor nursery: there she doesn't know the name of the children or workers, whereas she'll tell me all about the children and workers at the forest kindergarten. To me this demonstrates that also her social buttons are pressed much more outdoors than indoors. And she is a very social child.

Forest kindergartens are very popular in Scandinavian countries (where they originated) as well as Germany, where I know them from. We opted for it, for at least 2 days out of 4 days a week that Cubling goes to nursery, because she is a very lively and active girl who would forever feel contained in a nursery room. It's amazing to see how her imagination has increased - she now has endless ideas of how to play with very simple items, and keeps surprising us with very unusual activities. She also verbalises risks and how to stay safe much more now, and demonstrates a maturity which really surprises me.

I hope that outdoor nurseries like the Woodlands Outdoor Kindergarten will become a feature across the country and offer an alternative to traditional nursery settings. Here in Glasgow, parents usually choose to send their pre-schoolers (from 2 years 9 months) for one or two days, so that they do also get the experience of "normal" indoor pre-school education (which is also partially funded). There is a lot of support for the development of similar forest kindergartens across Scotland, and a commitment to integrate them into the statutory fundable early years education provision. However, with councils short of money, all the national support may not push things forward quite so swiftly on that front.

Cubling is proud to be a Waldkind, and I hope she'll keep enjoying it as much as she does now: "Climbing, forever trying / .../ getting to where you should be going" to say it in Paul Weller's words.

This post was written for the Best of British Mummy Blogging carnival which will be up on 11th May at A Place of my Own.

We can all make childcare an election topic

The elections have been called, and already I can no longer bear to listen to the radio on my long drive to work. You're looking at an individual highly interested in politics, who has a well grounded belief in the democratic process, the importance of elections. Yet the pre-election time, as for many I suspect, is driving me insane.

Take this newspaper style leaflet that our work-local Labour candidate produced. Real stories of real people. More real stories of real people on the radio, saying something of all politicians being the same and how they won't vote because of that. Then the so accused politicians either mouthing what they think is the voice of the people or telling us how impossible their relevant opponent is.

Boooring. In fact, annoying.

To make things worse, I'm sure immigration will be made an election topic and a whole load of rubbish will be thrown at us uninformed or informed non-voters yet again. Bleurgh.

And then, oh blessed be this day, I read something that made sense. Shame it didn't come from a politician or candidate, but hey, no worries, candidates can actually sign up to it! Imagine, no work for them, just read, be convinced and make it part of your policy calls. Easy.

The Daycare Trust have published an election manifesto of kinds, a childcare charter. It's short enough, plain English, and manages to put into easily understandable words what I've been trying to get straight in my head for a long time indeed. A must read. Go and have a look, honestly. It makes so much sense and there's not a comma I don't agree with. It has clear asks, and makes a strong case why childcare is such an important issue, one that could help reduce child poverty and social inequalities significantly, at a relatively low cost which would pay itself back at least 7 fold in years to come.

It's good of this charter to exist, but its existence won't change the world. So the Daycare Trust is asking you (yes, you!) to contact your local candidates and ask them to sign up to the charter and make it an election topic. I'd much rather have childcare as an election topic than immigration. It would do my ageing heart an awful lot of good. The Daycare Trust is also very nice to us potential/future/willing campaigners by giving us all the tools needed to contact our candidates - a model letter, model questions, an opportunity to join the force and all that.

I'm on board. Are you?

PS in other news: tonight (Thursday 8th April) the second series of How the Other Half Live will be shown on Channel 4 at 9pm. I'm sure the episode will have me in two minds again but there's no doubt that it manages to bring issues around inequalities in the UK to your living room in a very digestible and entertaining format.

What parents really really want: flexible childcare

There are so many facets to flexible and integrated childcare that I find it almost impossible to find a starting point. How about this one then: For the past four months, I've been working with a group of young parents (aged 18-25) as part of our Inspring Change programme. The idea behind this programme is to work with groups of young people or parents/carers to dream, plan and do: Find a solution for something they identify that holds them back, plan for this solution and implement it. Something that may inspire others to do something similar. Something that maybe even those in power find a good idea and take it on.

So with this particular group it became clear quite early on that we were heading into the direction of flexible childcare. None of the parents are currently in work, some are attempting college courses. All struggle with childcare arrangements. It's a catch 22 situation: If you're out of work, you need a job first to afford childcare, once you have the job, you don't have childcare due to waiting lists and you'll lose your job offer while you're trying to source childcare. Childcare is paid in advance, salary in arrears. Tax credits kick in months later by which time you're at best in debt (wost bankrupt). Childcare may not be available nearby and you need a car (which you can't afford) or you are asked for a deposit for a place that you don't have. Your work may have irregular hours or a shift pattern, none of which is covered by the 8am-6pm childcare provision that you may, just may be able to access.

Sometimes, you just want a break. To go shopping without the toddler hassle. To go to an appointment. To go for a job interview. To take up a get back into work programme that you want to do but that doesn't offer childcare though being aimed at single parents (you what?????? Can someone please tell me who thought this up? Target a training programme at single parents and don't provide childcare? Are they supposed to lock their kids up in the flat or what?). To sleep because your baby never sleeps. You don't actually want full days every day, or one day every week, or whatever the format of provision that the childcare providers currently favour.

So, the young parents have come up with an excellent idea: A drop in creche. A creche on demand. One where you can book a few days ahead, drop off your child(ren) and get on with something important that you have to do. No strings attached. No signing away of your or your child's soul. Just a service that is available to make life a bit easier.

Of course there is funding to think of, and regulations. Yet, there's no harm in trying something out so with the budget the group has they will be running a pilot. From 27/4/10 - 1/5/10 a drop in creche will be running for afternoon sessions. The creche is free but has to be booked in advance. There are some ground rules, but more can-do's than can't-do's. Any user of the creche will be asked for feedback so the group can figure out demand and what works.

Maybe they'll carry it further to establish a social enterprise. Maybe this will be too big to do. What they will do undoubtably is raise awareness of the importance of having a flexible childcare provision locally, one that works with the children and parents alike.

And wouldn't it be nice if there actually was funding to run such a service? A service where parents with little family support would be able to book some hours while they attend an interview, an appointment, go shopping, or get some respite? Actually, why not?

Transitions: starting nursery

The previous two weeks have marked a big transition for Cubling. She has started nursery. So far, from when I had to return to work (she was 5 months at the time), she was cared for 4 days a week by a childminder. Looking back, it was the right choice. Cubling is a spirited child, which, as a baby, meant that she would have difficulties settling and did not like being separated from me. A walk in the pram? A nightmare. Bouncy chairs? You must be joking. Lying under a play gym? If you want wild screams, go for it. Instead she wanted carried and nursed rather a lot. The thought of putting her into a childcare with various carers for a rather long day just didn't seem right. At least with a childminder, there was one continuous carer, which really worked better for my daughter.

Interestingly, of all my friends who work, there is a clear pattern. If childcare is required for up to 3 full days, parents tend to opt for a nursery. If it's more than that, the choice is often for a childminder. I'm not sure how concious people are of such decisions, but research does show that while nurseries and childminders often have a positive impact on the development of young children, this benefit disappears or is reversed if the child is in care for long hours, particularly if this is at a nursery and the child is younger than 2 years of age.

In fact, from the perspective of a child, nursery has a definite benefit from the age of 3, and this benefit is most pronounced if the child attends half days only. Before the age of 2, research has shown that a one-person childcare setup is generally better for the child than a nursery set-up, with the length of hours spent in childcare having an impact too. The longer hours, the worse the nursery fares. Even if parents don't read the research, there's something intuitive about this.

We did consider to transition Cubling to nursery when she was 2. We even gave the childminder notice. And then we got cold feet, our instincts still told me that we weren't happy for her to spend 10 hours a day, 4 days a week, in a nursery with multiple and changing carers. Yes, she was more settled, and a sociable little girl, but it still felt wrong.

Just before her third birthday, we finally have embarked on the big step. For the past two weeks, she has had settling in days at the local authority nursery where we managed to get a place for her. I was keen for her to go to a city council nursery, mainly because of the better reputation of such centres. However, it was hard getting a space in an all day centre, because the way it works around here is that city council run nurseries usually offer half days only from the age of 3 - which is great for the kids but useless for working parents. So we got a space, but it's for 2 out of the 4 days needed only, and it's miles away, definitely not in walking distance. However, it's a nursery with glowing reports, and with so much good stuff that I value that there was no way we could have said no (and hoped to get a space in the nursery around the corner from us, you know the one where Cubling has been on the waiting list for 2 years now without success).

Of course, the way city council nurseries are set up are with the child in mind. It goes back to what's got the most impact on a child. From the age of three, half days, with an educational focus. This is what's good for our children, but unfortunately this doesn't fit in with a world of work that really doesn't give a shit about pre-fives. And how I felt this last week. Our world of work makes us work 9-5, 5 days a week. If we get part time hours, we can count ourselves very lucky indeed (when I was looking for a job, going part time would have meant a 35-50% drop in wages). For our children, shorter hours are proven to be better, longer hours can lead to behavioural issues and aggression that lasts into adulthood. So it's not actually good for young children to spend 10 hours a day at nursery. Yet it's also been shown that working parents seem to have a positive impact on children. The perfect scenario, I suppose, would be a situation where a parent worked just half days and the child would spend half days at nursery.

Just that this is not what the working world wants, a world that has no interest in what's good or bad for our next generation.

Looking back at the past two weeks, both Mr Cartside and I had to bend ourselves double to accommodate the long settling in process. Cubling, of course, did smashingly. I kept moaning about why it was such a slow process, and why we could not just try full days and see how it goes. Again, I was responding to what work expects of me, which puts me under pressure, and in turn, I put my child under pressure.

Thankfully, I relented and we didn't push it. And all went well. So, as of next week, it'll finally be 2 full days, and we'll also start the second nursery which will be a forest kindergarten. Cubling is so excited by it all, she can't wait to climb trees as she says. I'm not sure if she realises that this means she won't see the childminder very often from now on.

I was close to tears (ok, I'm very hormonal and burst into tears very easily at the moment) when I came to pick her up from nursery and found her enthusiastically playing a sleeping and hopping bunny game with all the other children. This is the girl who usually refuses to partake in group games or photographs, the girl who stands back and does her own thing. There she was, so enthralled in it that she didn't even notice me, so joyously playing the game with the biggest conviction there could be. I'd never seen her like this in a group of children. Something felt very right, even if the hours, to be fair, are still very long for a little girl.

At least I'm satisfied that we've found the right balance in difficult circumstances. Childminder up to 3 years, and now the combination of indoor and outdoor nursery, giving her the opportunity to explore very different worlds, while she can spend time being the active and intense girl that she is. I really hope that we've made the right choices to support her personality without changing it, to let her be herself for as long as possible. She will be going to two excellent nurseries which complement each other, and the time spent at home will give her yet more experiences.

This time, the time seems right to change. And so far, she's taken on the transition in her very own stride: Confident, enthusiastic, strong-willed, and with a very big heart.

(picture: Cubling in the driving seat)

Time to watch and listen

We had one amazing weekend with Cubling. At the end of it I'm exhausted as well as anxious about the week ahead, yet it was so worth it. I'm anxious because Cubling will be starting nursery and I have no idea how she will settle. She is a confident and inquisitive child, yet not comfortable with strangers or groups of children. And we've had a serious tummy ache and diarrhoea episode, including visit to GP and call to NHS 24 without any diagnosis, so I'm blaming it on poo anxiety issues - which makes me worry how she'll deal with it in new surroundings with new people.

For tonight though, I'll enjoy looking back on

::two cousins chasing each other full of delight through the Tramway and Hidden Gardens::

::being chased by orange hands and getting two sets of clothing covered in paint::

::making origami daffodils and failing::

::Cubling's surefooted exploration of trams, trains and buses at the Transport Museum::

::Cubling's utter delight at finding the bear and much more at Kelvingrove Museum::

::shopping in the yellow shop (aka Morrison's) and the disappointment when Cubling realised that the "purple yoghurt" (aka chocolate mousse) had not made it home::

::fishing the poo snake out of the bath (you'll be pleased we didn't take a picture this time, I think we were all a bit too scared of that monster)::

Oh there are pictures of our adventures, but sorry, too tired. Foetus doesn't fancy me sitting at the computer any longer.

Roll on big girl nursery then.

Inspiring Change

I'm still in the middle of organising car seats and travel cots for next week's residential. Maybe some of you guys out there are interested in finding out a bit more about my day job. Well, the new and shiny programme I'm involved in is called "Inspiring Change", which is linked to Save the Children's work on ending child poverty in the UK. Child poverty in the UK? I hear some say in disbelief. Yes, we are a very rich nation, but according to government statistics, between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 children in the UK grow up in poverty, and 1 in 10 even in severe and persistent poverty. Why? Well, partly because in the UK the difference between the very rich and the very poor is massive, it's an unequal society that doesn't redistribute wealth. Of course there are other reasons - what matters though is that growing up in poverty means that children have lower educational outcomes, poorer health, less ambitions, and generally perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

Our Inspiring Change programme works with groups of young people or parents who live in deprived areas. We facilitate workshops that identify an issue that affects the people in the group and that they can agree to work on as a group. The group then explores the root causes for the issue, its effects, and potential solutions. They pick a short project that will make a real difference in relation to the issue for them and for their communities, and we help them plan the project, and implement it. This is only a drop in the ocean of course, but we will be scaling up the number of groups we work with across the UK in the next 2 years and we also hope to link them through a web community, and create vblogs and podcasts where they share their experiences with the general public, thus creating campaigns and public support for their change ideas and projects. This way, we hope, the drop will stir the waters and become a wave which will lead to change on a bigger scale. The programme works on many levels, empowering those we work with (we hope) and giving them a voice through a big charity like us, and inspiring the general public by sharing the journey of the groups and picking campaign calls from some of the groups for national campaigns, thus creating more support generally for ending child poverty in the UK.

It's exciting and also extremely ambitious. The idea is to work with a range of groups, clustered in some areas. So we try to work with younger children, teenagers, parents and carers. My biggest piece of work at the moment is that with a group of young parents (who incidentally aren't that young, and mature beyond their age anyway, but I guess they are in the sense that they all had their children before they were 20 - at least I think that's the case). It's a fab group and they really pinpoint lots of issues, it'll be hard to pick one project from all the ideas they have. I'm quite passionate about this particular piece of work because it links in very well with my previous work for the same organisation, when I worked on access to Pre5 services for asylum seeking children. Of course, as you can imagine, preschool education and childcare is not just a professional interest of mine, and it's great when you can actually draw on your own real life experiences as well within your work remit.

So, all exciting stuff. I'll be spending a few days (and nights) with 11 youngish mums and 12 children, plus some staff and new volunteers. All my blogging action will be for the Inspiring Change webcommunity (which is private and for participants only, sorry) so yet again it will be rather quiet on this page. Please bear with me and don't desert me my lovely readers, I know I haven't been good at posting recently, but normal service will resume after the residential.

Childcare vouchers: keep them or lose them?

Childcare is giving me sleepless day, er nights. Once again. This time it's nothing to do with me or Cubling, well, at least not directly, but the issue is all the more important.

The Labour government, in an attempt to encourage mums to work (and I won't go into the pros and cons of that, but check out Being a Mummy for some useful insights), introduced tax credits and childcare vouchers to ease the burden of childcare. There's also some half measure of free childcare which is rather useless and doesn't really ease the financial cost of having kids while also working.

Now, the government is proposing to phase out childcare vouchers. I take issue with this. While I understand the spirit of it, I still don't think it's a good idea as the proposal stands. Here's the problem: There is actually a significant gap in support for childcare costs. In the case of a two parent family, if one partner works and the other is in training or education that does not qualify for Educational Maintenance Allowance, the couple cannot claim for working parent tax credits. Both parents have to be in work to claim working parents tax credits. I am in such a situation, unable to claim the childcare element of working parents tax credits because my other half is in postgraduate education. So while only I can only take advantage of the tax relief through childcare vouchers (if two parents are employed, the advantage is doubled to 100 pounds a month), it is still so much better than nothing (i.e. the amount I can claim through the childcare element of working parentstax credit).

Childcare vouchers are therefore the only way of getting some tax relief on the soaring cost of childcare, childcare which in this country is heavily privatised. Just compare the cost: in some countries childcare is free, in others it may put you down between 100 and 200 quid. Here it's at least 600 full time. What do you do if you have to children under 5? Maybe there are people out there with an income that would leave some spare, but surely this is rare.

Granted, most training providers may have some support available. But many don't. So for instance, there's the mum who wants to do an NHS training, her partner is on a very low income but working full time, and the NHS does not provide any support at all to cover her childcare costs. She will not be able to undertake the training, thus limiting her chances of future employment and moving beyond the poverty line. Then there is a young parents who is offered a basic and non-certified course at a college, a course that may re-engage him/her with education and with time lead to him/her undertaking a course leading to a qualification. A parent who, as her/his situation is, is extremely unlikely to become economically active without this access course, but who wants to, and is offered an opportunity to gain new skills and over time, qualifications and the hope of employment. It won't happen because the college cannot offer childcare and without childcare, the parent can't take advantage of the course offered.

Childcare vouchers and childcare support for parents in training are two ways of enabling parents to have choices. I do believe that childcare vouchers for parents on high incomes, especially if they are in the higher rate tax bracket, are unnecessary. However for those on low and middle incomes, they are more often than not a lifeline.

What's more, the system of available support for childcare is complex and hard to understand. If a child tax credit form does my educated head in, and it takes me a full working day to research support options available to the woman who contacted me (and I have the advantage of being in exactly the same situation as her, so I had some considerable previous knowledge), how hard must it be for the many most in need of support for childcare costs.

Whatever the new proposal is going to be, I'd like to see a shift of focus to ensure those in need of childcare for any form of education, training and employment that is suitable for them to get adequate financial support, and that life choices and chances are not ever determined by the ability to afford childcare or to understand and complete tax credit forms.

PS: Polly Toynbee put it much better than me in the Comment is free section of the Guardian: "But to pay for their (the most deprived two year olds) care by abolishing childcare vouchers (...) would mean that not very well-off mothers would pay to alleviate the plight of toddlers of even worse-off mothers."

Toddler love

My little girl, I think, fancies both my sister-in-law's neighbour and Mr Maker.

I'm both amused and amazed. Her enthusiasm when she sees either is without bounds, her whole being filled with excitement, her body jiggling, her face one huge big smile, on the top of her voice she will exclaim their names, again, and again, with increasing volume and urgency.

In general, we've had a bit of a Cbeebies situation. Which is odd, being a household with 5 TV stations where the TV is often forgotten about and should we relent the endless calls for Fernseh gucken and Pocoyo, it's the latter in German that is put on. There is no CBeebies in our house.

Of course, we're not in full control of her TV consumption. I know for certain that the TV is on during pick up time at the childminder's. I understand this, it makes things easy and gives her time to feedback to parents (not that there is a lot of feedback). I don't know how much time a day she is exposed to the box, and so far have not tested it by checking the channel's timetable and comparing it with Cubling's vast knowledge of TV characters. Suffice to say that she sings the theme tune of Ballymory all the time, called herself Bob the Builder today, went on a trip with Postman Pat and endlessly calls for Mister Maker, Mister Tumble and Show Me Show me whenever the laptop is in sight.

It's all educational I'm told, but I still think that I'd rather have her do stuff then sit on a sofa staring into the flicker of a box for hours on end. It made me reconsider our choice of childcare, until I heard that nurseries are not much better on the TV policy front. Of course I could complain. But here's the problem: the relationship with the childminder is much closer than with nursery staff and I simply don't want to imply that she's doing a bad job, because really, she's doing an excellent job. Cubling is polite, cheerful, happy and her boundless energy has been channelled in very positive ways, for which I'm forever endebted to the childminder. And I know that if the weather allows, the children spend most of the day outdoors, more than any nursery could ever offer (except for nature kindergartens which I would love to see in Glasgow).

I just wish that Cubling's enthusiasm for Mr Maker would not short change that of playing outside and exploring the colours, shapes and transformations of this wonderful season. So, I made her feel extra special by framing last week's leaf prints. She is a very proud and happy +
girl today.

Child unfriendly budgets and the tribulations of childcare

I've been trying to get my head around a hook for this post for a wee while. This is because there are a couple of issues, vaguely related but still not necessarily connected. Until you think of it from the perspective of a child friendly society.

All my recent month's work campaigning for an investment into ending child poverty through this year's budget amounted to a waste of time. Well, not really. We ran workshops at schools and it was worthwhile in itself. The budget, however, was a shock to the system. Rather than investing 3 billion, the government invested 140,000 into tax credits, that's an additional £20 a year for each family, so not even targetted at the poorest families. How much did they give the banks again? Remind me. It is clear that real people who are poor are not on this governments agenda.

The tax credit system is beyond my ken anyway. I do not understand how exactly it works, or why, because my beloved is a student and although he has an income that looks like a wage, we are not considered a working family and do not qualify for working parents tax credit or the childcare element of it. We seem to have managed to find a loophole, where income isn't the decisive factor but status. And if a student, apparently you're meant to be able to look after your child full time and not require childcare.

Thankfully, my work runs a childcare voucher scheme and I can save a few pounds that way. And yet, while childcare costs are rocketing in Scotland (where income is lower yet child care cost higher than in London!), the upper limit for claiming a tax free allowance through child care vouchers hasn't risen.

Then there's the issue of actually finding childcare. As I had to return to work when Cubling was only 5 months, I opted for a childminder. It was a good decision. Now that Cubling is 2, I would have liked to have seen her go to nursery. We did a lot of research. One nursery had a place available but was too far away, making her day far too long and reducing time spent with her. Other nurseries didn't feel right, or were so pricey that I didn't see that the benefit outweight the additional cost. Above all, none of these nurseries would commit to a specific starting date.

The nursery economy in Glasgow is mixed and rather complicated. There is statutory provision for 3 and 4 year olds of 12.5 hours per week for 38 weeks a year. I.e. useless for working parents. Most nursery schools will only offer this entitlement as 5 morning or 5 afternoon sessions. Wrap around care (i.e. lunch) is rare. However, you can use a private partnership nursery and claim vouchers for these hours. These partnership nurseries are private but approved and adhere to the same standards as the statutory pre school education curriculum. However, staff are young, inexperienced and often on minimum wage. I've heard that often the kids are not taken outdoors, that they get biscuits as snacks and that there are strict rules on staff which indicate that there is a need for such rules. Also if you have two under 5's, you may not get a place for both at the same nursery (and you can just as well stay at home because there's no way your income will pay for anything but nursery fees).

And because of all of this, Glasgow City Council decided to close a whole bunch of nursery schools this year. The rationale being that the move is towards full day centres (good) and that underused nursery schools were to be merged. The issue is that there were no obvious additional places, so that on the whole, this closure programme was a cut rather than an increase in resources (which full day, bigger centres would make you believe). In some cases it made sense, in most, it didn't. The policy is to ensure affordable all day care from 2 year in buggy pushing distance. The reality? I can't get into an affordable nursery in buggy pushing distance, and my childminder is a 3.5 mile drive away.

I'm fortunate that Cubling is with a childminder who knows the system. While I would have preferred her to go to nursery from the age of 2, realistically, I think I'll get the best deal by keeping her in the current environment. She's on the waiting list for the local nursery school where she can start probably in April after she's turned 3. She will be attending for 5 mornings, 2.5-3 hours each, the childminder will take her there, pick her up and care for her the rest of the time. This way, Cubling will get quality nursery education, even if not the amount I would have hoped for. The childminder knew to put her on the waiting list the week after she turned 2 so it seems that I can reasonably rely on this arrangement to work out.

Secretely though, I still hope for a place in the local full day nursery which doubles as a feeder into Cubling's primary school. It would be so much nicer for her to go there and meet her peers who she will go to school with. It's an educational establishment that offers full day care, a mere 10 minutes walk away, in a new and shiny buidling. Cubling has been on the waiting list for well over a year. Somehow I've got a feeling that she may be on the waiting list well past her first school day.

Oh and today's mummy bloggers carnival is on Being a Mummy, check it out for the best in British Mummy blogging!