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.