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?

I read a book some years ago, Young Children Learning which was an experiment recording the experiences of 3&4 year-old children in a very good nursery school with the experiences the same children had in their homes. The children wore small microphones for the period of the research in both places.

The results were quite surprising, as nursery schools were being promoted as offering better experiences for children than a parent could offer. All the children, from every background, talked much more at home, and were talked to much more. The opportunities they had to learn at home, even when just following a parent around doing chores, when no special effort was made to entertain them other than normal impromptu conversation, were astonishing when pointed out, and seemed to outweigh the much-advertised benefits of nursery ('messy play', 'educational activities') by some way.

It is a delightful book anyway, as many of the child/parent conversations are recorded verbatim, but very thought-provoking. Quite hard to get hold of now but really worth reading.

Having said that, I worked for six years in a very good and happy childcare group, where, certainly from 'rising 4' and sometimes younger, there was no doubt the children got a great deal out it - the sophistication and loyalty of their friendships and cooperation with other children surprised me - they learned how to integrate with their peers (invaluable) and had fun and were mostly very happy. It's just that sometimes parents seem to feel they themselves can't offer children such good learning experiences as a childcare setting can - but in nearly all cases they do and they better it, without even realising.

Oops , total link fail there, how did I DO that?

Young Children Learning

Trust your instincts. There will never be a statistic that represents your child's experience.

The situation is the world of work is generally grim and needs to be taken into account. But similarly there are often options to be explored in your own bit of it. Think long term.

wouldbemedic

I feel really sorry for you and posters like you, who want to show the other side if you like of some child care settings and you are personally attacked because of this.

It makes me feel scared because I strongly believe to improve and create even better care for any vulnerable peolple, workers who have inside knowledge must be allowed to speak out, without being personally attacked.

It makes me feel very scared for the children whose parents put them in nursery but refuse to admit or understand that there are two realities going here, one as would says is when parent is there and one where no parent is.

The very least I could do for my child should I have to put her in nursery is understand that I must be vigilant, pop in un expectedly and be aware that there will be two realities going on, its just a question of what level.

I believe this for anyone putting anyone vulnerable into full time care every day be they disabled or frail and elderly and we must encourage people to speak out so we can put pressure on these places and the GOV to ensure all vulnerable peoples safety.

I speak with my own experience of the other side, of an old peoples home, and as a relative to a disabled person in care.

I am not saying at all that if the data said 'on average childcare is best' I (or anyone else) should just roll over and do that...I am saying that I can make a more informed decision with ...well...more information.

Also it isn't even that parents actually need to know what happens to the average child (because no ones child is average) but the government need to know when setting policy! If they don't know then why are they interfering?

Re working parents these days it's becoming better educated families with two parents in full time work. The better off are always likely to have children who do better statistically. It won't be necessarily a reflection on nursery care. It wouldn't distinguish between nanny, childminder or nursery anyway I expect.

I presume the government would be doing it for economic reasons and because nursery care does help the disadvantaged. Not because anyone believes it would improve outcomes for otherwise well-stimulated children.

funny in a country this size you can find enough people doing things in each category from each demographic that you can disaggregated the data and control of factors such as family income.

Statisticians do this all the time.....it makes it hard...but not at all impossible to pull out the factor you are looking for.

Hell I do it all the time in my job. You are looking for the direct effect of A on B when C,D,E,F,G... are all also effects on B, and A may also be either effected by or effect C,D,E,F,G.... it can be solved...with the right maths!

fun my favourite example is the bike helmet debate.

Thing B is the risk of serious head injuries for cyclists
Thing A is the use of a bike helmet

So you could simply ask does A affect B. People did this and saw that in a state of the US without bike helmet laws B was higher than in a state with bike helmet laws...so it looks like helmets reduce head injuries....

Then somebody points out the confounding factor that C which is the rate of bike use interacts with both B and A. because people ride less when forced wear helmets (A-C) and you can't have a bike accident if you don't go for a ride (B-C)

But you don't have to throw up your hands in despair. You simply compare the rate of accidents TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the number of bike journeys made in either a no-helmet / helmet case.

And BANG your correlation between B and A reverses....(it turns out that wearing a helmet marginally increases your average risk of a serious head injury while biking (assuming you have indeed chosen to go for a ride).

Then there is where you ride, how you ride, how old you are etc. But in each case you can match up the statistics and pull out the individual correlation you are interested in....

I see now why you want these figures!

But studies on childcare are done and thinking back (unscientifically!) all I've taken from them is it's good for disadvantaged kids and there was another that showed grandparent care compared badly. Now in my family there has been a fabulous example of grandparent care so sadly I conclude in my life I will follow instinct and anecdote on this!

But if I were in government I'd be backing investment in childcare for the reasons of economic growth and helping bring up outcomes at the disadvantaged end of society.

Oh yes you don't know how you'll feel but you do know there will be financial implications and somebody will gave to look after that child whether it be a sahp with the financial hit that brings or 2x wp with the financial hit that brings.

I would guess there will not be a big difference in measurable outcomes caused by outside childcare overall because there is such a vast difference in that childcare, as there is in parenting of course. I learned what type of parent I wanted to be by observing others doing it.

I had heard the outcome of the bike helmet studies. It doesn't help me decide, in fact now I have one child who always wears one and another where it varies on journey type. The studies have not helped my decision making!

When I said follow your instincts it is on the understanding that you have been observing and picking up a lot of information on this subject for all of your life! One study would be unlikely to overturn all that.

Oh I am a complete opinion floosy....I will change my opinion 180 degrees at even a sniff of evidence...

I also have an allergic response to 'common sense' and something verging on hatred for the intrinsic human activity of believing they control things they don't or know stuff can't be true on average coz a friends kid did it once...and still came top of her class.

I like to think this all helps in my job as a scientist!

I agree with funnyossity in that I think that the government's primary responsibility is to make policy based on what is best for the most disadvantaged children - and studies do show they do better in childcare. The question there, I think, is whether more childcare which is universally free at the point of access means more disadvantaged families will access it or whether it is better for this support to be targeted.

The rest of us need to make our own decisions about what childcare feels right for us and our families.

I do have concerns though that the current proposals to reduce the costs of childcare will drive down standards - and that is worse for everybody.

Cheap childcare in itself is a bad ambition. Cheaper housing would be a better governmental goal but they appear to like housing bubbles too much!

Not sure I agree with priority only being given to disadvantaged kids.They are a teeny number.Many children from families on very small incomes won't benefit from childcare as many will provide care very well.A small amount of parents will provide care less well than childcare.

It would be thus foolish to base a policy on such a small number as an awful lot of babies and children will be thrown out with the bath water.

But no children would be being forces into childcare... Parents will have the right to choose to stay at home with their children no matter what. I don't think that acknowledging that - for many reasons - many families choose to combine working out of the home with using childcare and - trying to make that economically viable - needs to mean saying that childcare is better for children. If childcare was proven to be worse for young children I guess that would be a different matter...

Icebeing - 35 quid for 10 and half hours, 24 for over 4s. I can afford it on 2 but struggle with 3 until I qualify in 2 years. I dont pay for any food, trips ot nappies as all included.

funnyosity - I think you notice it as a childcarer as some children do things they would never do if been in childcare from very young. Things like very picky eaters they are always ones that start at 3.

georgesdino I can only offer a to that last statement.

Err me too.

If my 2yo and under-one were in our old nursery, our daily bill would be £81 (£38.50 + £42.50) which includes all nappies, varied freshly cooked food, etc except formula/ebm. Out in the sticks.

Their ratios were always excellent and their "just popped in" activities, happiness, supervision etc exactly the same as when they knew they were being watched.

They frequently had at least one spare adult per room - eg if they needed 1.6 adults for a particular room there would be three. When pfb was in the under-18m room there was one afternoon a week where he was on his own with two NNs.

And yet... and yet... I still felt guilty. But we don't all have grandparents on tap, or freezable careers (I thought I was done for when we realised I couldn't afford to go back to work after DC2), and for my child an excellent nursery suited him well. Since I don't have a time machine I can't assess whether he would have done better if I'd stayed at home.