The cost of childcare: readers respond

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/08/cost-of-childcare-readers-respond

Version 0 of 1.

NicholaHaugen: Follow Norway's example

I have had two very different experiences; one in my husband's home country (Norway) and one in the UK (my home country). I had my first child in Norway. When my child turned one year old, I was offered a full-time kindergarten space at a cost of £180 a month, as the kindergarten system was heavily subsidised by the government.

Because I chose to stay at home with my child for the first two years, I turned down the kindergarten space, but was given something called "cash-for-care benefit" of £400 a month. This allowed me to directly receive the cash that would otherwise have gone towards the kindergarten fees. This cash was on top of regular child allowance (£110 per month).

Most of my Norwegian friends did go back to work, as the system is very flexible and isn't costly. I had my second child in the UK. When I started to evaluate whether I should go back to work or not, I discovered that nursery fees in the UK (in my area) are £60 a day (that is £1,200 a month, compared with the Norwegian £180 a month). Most of my British friends stayed home with their children or worked part time. Some became stay-at-home mums by choice and didn't want to return to work. However, some wanted to return to work because they needed the money to pay the mortgage or they needed to keep in the loop with their careers or they were concerned for their pensions. But they couldn't!

I have seen many well educated, skilful women in the UK trapped in this system, because they cannot afford to go back to work. Say what you like about higher taxes in the Scandinavian countries, but they know how to invest in their people wisely. Women in Norway waltzed back to work without a thought, supported by government investment. Women in the UK don't have those choices because of the high cost of childcare . And that is what it should be about: choices for your family.

Anonymous: No onus on non-working parents

I manage a large children's centre with attached nursery provision. It's interesting that in all the recent articles about childcare costs, there seems to be no link made to the coalition's recent announcement that free nursery care will be provided to "disadvantaged" two-year-olds. Currently everybody gets 15 hours a week once their child turns three. Nurseries already take in "children in need" (Section 17 (10) of the Children Act 1989) and rightly so.

The most disadvantaged children like those in care, with disabilities or from unstable families all come to funded nursery places already. The extension of this entitlement to "disadvantaged" two-year-olds means many local authorities have prioritised making these places available to those who are entitled to them. In my area alone we are at least 150 places short for September 2013 as we have a high proportion of families that will be entitled to the new two-year-old placements. This includes building works and making spaces available in primary schools with no previous experience of working with children in that age group.

There are many working families on very low incomes or studying who will welcome this support but it also includes families that don't work and don't intend to. While middle-income families struggle to not only pay for childcare, but also find places locally, nurseries are instructed to take two-year-olds from non-working families for free. There is no onus on these non-working parents to study, prepare to work or attend a parenting class.

HollysMum: Mums need their independence

I work four days a week. The nursery bill for my one-year-old and three-year-old children is £1,891 a month. My boyfriend's childcare vouchers total £243 a month. Once you throw in a zone two travel card, I need to put £1,750 in the bank just to get to work. The job I'm doing doesn't command that kind of salary. How many do?

Nowadays I don't work to pay the rent, I work because I want to stay sane. What a shame I didn't know I wasn't cut out to be a full-time mum before I had two children. Because my family would probably be better off if I wasn't working. But if I give up, who knows when I'll work again? I might be well qualified, with 15 years of management experience under my belt … but I'm also pushing 40.

I wouldn't argue for more tax credits for families like ours – with a dad whose senior level salary can take care of most of the bills. What I would argue for is making sure that the high cost of childcare doesn't effectively prevent secondary earners – let's face it, usually mums – from maintaining an independent working life in the paid economy. To keep contributing to society through tax, to pay national insurance, a pension, save for our children. A simple solution: why not base the maximum value of childcare vouchers on how many hours mums work each week, or allow us to claim for each child? No one asked my boyfriend why he wanted to keep working once he was a dad – and yet, many might say I should give up work for the sake of my family. How's that fair?

Anonymous: Something wrong with salaries

I am an older mother who was finally lucky enough to have children 12 months ago after many years of trying and IVF. I fully intended to go back to my full-time job but I work in Somerset and salaries just aren't enough to pay for childcare. Had I only had one baby I might have managed – but I had twins. Childcare for the two of them is £38 a day per baby, which works out at £76 a day. My net salary was £70 a day. The sums obviously did not add up. And I was on a relatively good salary for this area. I worked long hours in a managerial role in a local community charity.

I am now trying to get work that I can do from home – desk research mainly or anything that I can fit in. I have to work late evenings when the babies are asleep as it is impossible to work when they are up. I don't think that £38 a day per baby is extortionate when staff look after your child very well and feed them all day too. So there must be something wrong with the level of salaries in this country, or the help the government provides to make childcare more affordable? I know they will get 15 hours free when they are three – but that still means a three-year wait.

kondisi: Carers deserve reward

My wife and I now have two children in the school system but when they were young we both took time out of work to care for them. I had to push hard with my then employer (a local authority) to be allowed to reduce my hours. My wife has also had to balance expectations of her employer with a desire to spend more time with our children. We were lucky to have one of our mothers nearby who could help out. Despite this we still made use of a local nursery but kept this to three days as a maximum.

One too rarely mentioned fact relating to childcare (along with all other forms of care) is that good quality care is expensive. It is an emotionally demanding job that to do well requires maturity and resilience. Some people have this at a young age and without needing to develop through study and experience, but most do not. Such staff should be paid commensurate with the demands and expectations of the role. Maintaining staffing ratios that give children the love and care they need also increases the cost.

Another too rarely mentioned fact is the importance of the primary care giver. This role is, by implication, diminished by policies that encourage people into paid employment. Salaried work is not a more valuable contribution to society than raising a child. Children need one or more loving and stable relationships early in life if they are to have the best chance of enjoying life and contributing positively to society.