to re-pose the radio 4 question - Is childcare good for CHILDREN?

[IceBeing]

Our dearest Justine and some bloke from the family childcare trust were on radio 4 this morning talking about childcare costs.

They focussed on Mums who would like to work more but cannot afford to due to childcare costs, and a proposal to make more free time available for 2-3 yos.

They both made a compelling case that this situation was bad for the Mums (because they want to work and can't).

They made a reasonable (but by no means obviously correct) argument that it was better for the economy for these Mums to work.

But they were then asked something along the lines of:

" Is increased access to childcare good for children? I mean if it isn't there isn't really any point? "

And they didn't answer AT ALL. They went back to the previous economic answer. Well actually Justine didn't get a chance to respond - so no accusation in her specific direction!

But what is the answer?

Is taking a child out of the home and putting them in nursery for an additional period between 2 and 3 yo (which was the proposal being discussed) actually good for the child?

Do kids in nursery earlier do better/worse at school? Are they happier/less happy? Is this a simple case of happier mummy, happier toddler?

[CountessOfRule]

I think it comes from a suggestion upthread that a particular poster was in the privileged position of being in a relationship that could sustain a SAHP and pension payments for both parents (etc).

For some people, SAHPing is a luxury they can afford (whether through wealth or by scrimping) but for others it's the only affordable choice. Certainly among my friends there was very little choice involved - either you can't afford to work, or you can't afford not to. Ideology comes a very far second to financial imperatives.

[georgesdino]

I can spell by the way its early morning

[janey68]

saying

[janey68]

Georgesdino - agree, I don't know where this accusation that we're saving all SAHP parents are privileged came from. People stay at home for lots of reasons- some cannot afford to work, some have jobs they don't like and staying at home is preferable, some struggle but believe totally that its right for their family so it's matter of principle. What I'm absolutely sure of is that the SAHP who managed to save and overpay their mortgage before kids and has their partner continuing to contribute to their pension while they're at home is a relatively privileged minority. There's nothing wrong with that, but the complete refusal to acknowledge it is odd. I'm not ashamed to say I feel privileged as a WOHP... It doesn't mean I was born privileged. Quite the opposite. Very ordinary family background, pretty crappy comp, got into university and started out on relatively low salary. We lived through the years of very high mortgage rates (Christ knows how some people managed to overpay theirs...) and when we had our children we paid full childcare from 3 months to age 5. We are now in the fortunate position of having 2 good incomes and pensions, plus 2 happy healthy children, so yes, I would call myself privileged. Especially as we didn't graduate with 30 or 40k debts and then have to find thousands for a house deposit

[georgesdino]

I dont know where the sahps are priveledged comes from as thar isnt reflected in rl. Most I know do it as they havent got a decent job to go back to. Its different on mn but in most places I have lived its because they prefer that than do 40 hrs in costa coffee or a job like that.

The vast majority here have sahps on tax credits. I dont think I can think of 1 person who doesnt do it that way out of a very large amount.

[TeamWill]

Buds only 21% of children under 2 attend a nursery- the vast majority of WOHP don't send their very young babies to nursery and many ,like me ,have never used any form of childcare.

Parents do want choice but not all of them get to make it freely.

[bishbashboosh]

Totally depends on the child and the ethos of he family , obviously

Freedom of choice and equality or maybe less discussion and letting people make and get on with their own decisions would be best

[RufusTheReindeer]

I haven't got a pension and I gave up work 15 years ago, I will not be able to get a great job and will be doing well to earn much above minimum wage

My husband earns a good wage and supports me now, but we keep putting off looking at pensions for me (which I know is daft)

I have without doubt buggered up my career and pensions

So I think it could say that although I have a very cushy life now it has been an enormous risk

[Writerwannabe83]

What would happen if extensive research showed childcare WAS good for children and being in it provided benefits/opportunities that being at home with a SAHP doesn't?

Would all the SAHP suddenly feel guilty for 'depriving' their children and put them in childcare? would we all expect this?? I highly doubt it.

I'm sure though that if childcare was proven to be bad for children all the Working Parents would come under scrutiny and be made to feel immense guilt for 'going against the research and causing damage to their offspring'.....

I just hate the unfairness/hypocrisy of it all.

[TeamWill]

The issue of having a few years out is that if you have more than one child and want to SAH until they are 3, it is rarely such a short period .
If you want 3 DC and assuming they are singletons then even if you got pregnant very quickly after each it is likely to be 5 years plus.
Then there is finding a job with flexibility ,which is likely to have less benefits including pension rights that you had before.

The NHS is changing its pension terms and conditions as we speak.
Those with many years of pension contributions behind them will have that protected. From 2015 it becomes career average which will affect women who have taken a while out - unless they have made other provision.

[janey68]

Wrong retro- I have said that YOU are privileged, not every SAHP. And that I am privileged- not every WOHP.
Why not try sticking to what people actually write?

[Retropear]

No you're saying only the "privileged" could have a sahp,that only the "privileged"do and we shouldn't even bother asking if childcare is good for children because absolutely nothing can ever be done to facilitate children having alternatives.

You're also implying that those who wish to look at this are spoilt,dim little rich girls(you left out lazy) who have never lived in the real world,pretty much inline with government rhetoric.

It stinks and I think unless we want to sleepwalk into cut price nursery chain childcare for all,with limited family time we should expect and ask for more.

But then what would I know?I'm only a spoilt,latte swilling dim wit,living off the back of my partner having never lived in the real world or contributed to the family coffers.

[janey68]

I haven't heard anyone say they don't want choice. Most of us are saying live and let live

[BudsBeginingSpringinSight]

To say only the "privileged" can have a sahp is wrong

Totally wrong. We live extremely frugally.

It is wrong to say women have no right to want choice and that we as a society shouldn't at least try and help if it benefits children

I get the impression some people just don't want choice.

They are happy to have their dc in nursery from baby hood and there is nothing wrong with this I would just rather they came out and said it rather than argue on and on going round in circles.

[Retropear]

Sovery and I don't want to be patronised by being called privileged.You have no idea where we started from,how broke we've been or how hard we worked thanks.

Re medical Janey I did answer, somebody mentioned the lack of flexibility,I suggested looking at that.Re teaching you have to also have to do a back to teaching course to get back in.One of my dc's best teacher had years out so no worries for me there.

I am certainly not privileged,I didn't have a privileged background,no special rights or advantages.Dp and I just put off having kids,saved for years,worked damn hard and were frugal.We are extremely frugal now and actually live on a lot less than 2 x dual income families do.

Re pensions(my father is a financial adviser) and one of the biggest problems is people not taking out pensions early enough and not paying enough in. Not being aware of reality,not getting information.Many people don't even have one when actually they could,they don't realise the earlier they start the better.Having a period as a sahp doesn't cause this.If having 3 years out completely blows your pension provision out of the water you've not good provision anyway.

To say only the "privileged" can have a sahp is wrong,as others have pointed out others on tax credits do,I have friends in all brackets that facilitate one in a variety of ways. It is wrong to say women have no right to want choice and that we as a society shouldn't at least try and help if it benefits children.

If we can pay the childcare for millions of second earners who pay no tax(and probably never will), not exactly see why we can't even look at facilitating families to have a sahp if they feel it is beneficial.

To get back to the op,the above is all secondary to the need of asking the question mooted.If it isn't good for children,the whole issue and facilitating more to gave a sahp has to be looked at.

[CountessOfRule]

DH has just finished paying off his student loan. He has calculated that under the new system he would currently owe £90k and his payments (on a higher rate tax band salary, ie well above national average) wouldn't even cover the interest on the loan.

It wouldn't put us off encouraging a suitable candidate for applying to university, but so much has changed in even the last five years that those of us who "only" paid £1k ish per year - or those who went before fees came in - have no fucking idea what it's like for those in their early twenties now.

[janey68]

Retro- you say you feel hounded, but all people really want is some explanation of the things you propose.
You talk on the one hand of parents sorting themselves out beforehand if they want to have a SAHP (saving up, overpaying mortgage etc) but then you say you want govt support for SAHP! Why, when you clearly feel that it's down to families to make their own provision?

As for the govt 'safeguarding' jobs: they already do. Maternity leave rights are pretty bloody good in the UK... We have SMP and people have a right to a year off work.
You mentioned earlier about 2 years leave as an idea, but when many of us asked how that would work, particularly in professions like the medical one, you didn't answer. In fact it's difficult to imagine how a lot of jobs would work... If a woman has 2 children she could have 4 years off with perhaps a few weeks of work in the middle. If that woman was the teacher of one of your children at secondary school I expect you'd feel very concerned. The protection of one persons job always has a knock on for others... No one can be appointed permanently to a role while the post holder is on ML

As for the privilege aspect, like it or not you are privileged compared to the majority of people. You have said that you managed to overpay your mortgage and save up before having children. You have a high earning partner who facilitates your wish to be a SAHM and he's also paying the contribution he's allowed to into your pension to keep it going. You also have no worries that you'll walk into the job you want. That is massively privileged compared to many. It's not a slur to say that. I would say it about myself: we have had some very lean times but are now both earning good salaries with good pensions.

I think the issue here is that you are looking at things totally from your own perspective. You'd like the govt to make some sort of provision for women to stay at home for precisely the amount of time that you've chosen to, while safeguarding your job (not sure why you're so bothered about that though because you've said you don't want your previous career back) You haven't acknowledged that all these things have to be paid for, and all of them have a knock on for others.

As for your last point suggesting that people just ought to jolly well pay more into their pension pre children- words fail me! Have you any idea what real life is like for 20/30 something's? Graduating with a pile of debt, struggling to find work and then having to pay exorbitant rent because they can't rustle up the odd 20k for a deposit.

I sometimes think we had it tough because we lived through the days of 15% interest rates, we had no help with childcare and only 12 weeks ML. But I think it's bloody tough now too for couples trying to establish their career and think about having a family.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Sleepdodger.

Unless you have a huge brood of dc or very low outgoings i.e no mortgage or rent Tax credits isn't going to afford you to be a sahp.
Yes, there are a few which this includes, but its not many.
Tax credits are awarded on income, so in our case low income/tax credits. Many families I know could not survive on this amount and need both parents working.
So this idea of tax credits supporting sahps is very rare.