Polly and statistics once again

British mothers have one of the lowest employment rates in the OECD because we have the third most expensive childcare, sometimes of mediocre calibre.

Hmm. One of the lowest, eh?

Here\’s the OECD numbers on maternal employment.

We seem to be right in the middle of the pack actually. Number 20 in a list of 37. And eyeballing the chart, at 65 or 66%, just a fraction off the mean of 66.2%.

This could be many things but it ain\’t \”one of the lowest\”, not in any normal meaning of that phrase.

There\’s also something rolling around at the back of my mind. These restirctions, now beiong loosened, on how many children a child minder can care for. How old are they? I have the impression that they\’re a decade old at best. So all the predicted disasters that will come from relaxing them: well, what did we all do more than a decade ago?

5 comments on “Polly and statistics once again

  1. What I always wonder when rules and qualifications for childminders are considered is- do we take away the children from mothers who do not qualify? And if not, why not- surely the full time child minder is more important than the part time one?

  2. @ Tim
    Never had a child-minder for no 1 son (wouldn’t have been fair on them) but on the couple of occasions I picked up younger son from nursery there was a reasonable ratio of carers to kids, something like 1 to 6 or 7, which I thought was over-generous.
    @ Pat
    What about the fathers who do not qualify?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>