Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

859 replies

IceBeing · 04/03/2014 08:40

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?

OP posts:
Pobblewhohasnotoes · 05/03/2014 17:11

I'm just irritated by the unsubstantiated and inflammatory comments that are often trotted out on threads like these

Me too. Maybe some mums actually like working and enjoy their jobs? Who'd have thought? Obviously a bad thing is some people's eyes.

And what exactly are these benefits?

janey68 · 05/03/2014 17:16

Pobble... I think it's true to say some people see this as black and white. If someone says they enjoy working and choose to carry on, they assume that means the person perhaps just doesn't enjoy being at home, or finds it tedious, or doesn't enjoy their children's company. It seems a bit of a leap for some people to accept that a WOHP may love every minute of being at home, adore their child's company etc but enjoy their career too.

Not saying most people are like that, but some are

Pobblewhohasnotoes · 05/03/2014 17:18

It's the usual argument isn't it? As women we shouldn't be allowed to have both.

wordfactory · 05/03/2014 17:20

Funny how there's never a moral imperative on men to stay at home with young children!

They can be fantastic fathers and work...must be that magic penis again.

janey68 · 05/03/2014 17:21

Magic penis Grin
Love that

Pobblewhohasnotoes · 05/03/2014 17:22

Better not give DH ideas......

blueberryupsidedown · 05/03/2014 17:28

Agree with fruit salad. I think that there should a special nursery nurse qualification for people looking after children aged 4 months to 2 yo. The EYFS focuses too much on children aged 2-5. I think that many nurseries could improve their knowledge of young babies' development and needs. For me the question is not 'do children do better with parent compared to those in childcare', it's more a question of 'how' - childcare is necessary, end of. How do we make it better, and how do we make it affordable.

maggiemight · 05/03/2014 17:28

I think views on having a SAHM harks back to an idyll in the 50s, 60s, DM in the kitchen in her pinny with DF's slippers by the fire.

I was at home as a child then, but screamed the place down when I had to go to school possibly as I hadn't mixed with many other DCs (had DBs but they didn't want to play with me). My DM went back to her career age 50 and absolutely loved it after 25 years away. Sadly had to retire at 55.

I was SAHM much of DCs childhood, DF worked away a lot, really not fulfilling imo unless you have a circle of other DSAHM to mix with (not likely nowadays). Volunteer work is fine, but if you need school hols off it is limited.

So my views are that SAH majority of time when DC tiny, or other parent, then part time work, then possibly full time when DCs older, or any mix, DM/DP/GM/CM. Or permanent 4 long days or whatever. My point is that what is needed is flexibility in the workplace. So that the juggling is possible. We are going to be working into our 70s soon so all the more important to nurture or maintain existing skills, keep a foot on the ladder etc.

It's the freneticism??word of working full time/part time / commuting /dropping DCs off which is stressful rather than just who looks after the DCs so more flexible hours while parents are carers, whether of DCs or GPs is the answer, a few years out to be a carer is less important if your working life is 50 years long in total.

WilsonFrickett · 05/03/2014 17:49

I don't know if a qualification specifically in early-early years would help though blueberry. I suspect what most people want for their tiny babies in childcare is someone to cuddle them and play with them and know they like the blue cup rather than the orange one. I don't think my DS very early time in nursery would have been enhanced by more structured 'development'.

Bonsoir · 05/03/2014 17:53

wordfactory - I didn't say I didn't like children who had been to childcare - I said I liked those who hadn't more than those who had.

My DSSs never went to childcare - they were at home with a nanny and GPs.

TheLastJammyDodger · 05/03/2014 18:19

Bonsoir, I am not sure if you are being deliberately offensive, or if you are just incredibly silly. Do you make these sort of comments in real life, or do you just prefer to hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

blueberryupsidedown · 05/03/2014 18:20

But that's what I think Wilson. Too many nurseries (and the EYFS) have too much stimulation for young babies, too much stuff on the walls, too many toys around. This is fine for older children, but I think that nurseries should try to provide care more focused on cuddle, quiet time, little books and songs, gentle stimulation for young babies and not so much on structured learning (the EYFS at the moment is too 'tick the box' approach for young babies in my opinion).

TheLastJammyDodger · 05/03/2014 18:25

I would also agree with blueberryupsidedown that the important debate is how to make childcare as good as it can be, as there will always be mothers (and fathers) who want to or need to work).

Pobblewhohasnotoes · 05/03/2014 18:27

Because you've met them all haven't you Bonsoir.

Hmm
fideline · 05/03/2014 18:29

This factionalism really is dreary. I suppose it was inevitable, but a shame because the respectful tone was maintained through several pages

I know the OP is looking for hard evidence but maybe what we should be concentrating on is encouraging is a more pluralistic approach to arrangements for the under 5s.

After all babies and toddlers are people and they have all the diversity of personality, preference and needs that adults do. So a range of provison will always be the optimal situation. Equally parental choices range from 24/7 continuum attached parenting through to baby in fulltime nursery, 60 hours a week and from 8 weeks old.

How about it OP? There are, after all, enough conflicting studies.

Retropear · 05/03/2014 18:39

Well if you make it better it will cost more.

You can't have top quality childcare on a rock bottom budget.

Getting back to the op many children aren't suited to childcare and don't want it.Many mothers aren't suited to childcare and don't want it.

Sooooo if the gov should put shed loads of money into childcare to improve it maybe it should also look into asking the op's question alongside helping families for which childcare would be damaging to have more time at home with their children.

At the end of the day I see a cost for both and a vulnerable section of society who deserve being thought about a bit more than this current gov (and previous)is doing.

Kleinzeit · 05/03/2014 18:50

they basically looked at us like we were idiots and said 'no kid would rather be at nursery than at home'.

Haven’t read the whole thread but that’s a problem right there. I wouldn’t keep a child in a nursery where the staff had that attitude! And your DD doesn’t really sound happy there. Either send her to a better nursery, one where they take real pride in what they do, or if a nursery setting is too rowdy for her altogether then find a nice quiet childminders’ (or keep her at home if that's an option). In any case that nursery sounds poor.

Original poster
IceBeing · 05/03/2014 18:57

But for some people the choice is give up work up put kid in 'that kind of nursery'. It would be ridiculous for the government to encourage nursery use if the majority of places are the wrong kind - and then they put up the ratios....I think that would be a disaster.

OP posts:
Original poster
IceBeing · 05/03/2014 18:58

I should probably state the place has top ofsted scores...there is nothing to warn that there are problems there....I just think the staff are being honest....and being lambasted for it...

OP posts:
Retropear · 05/03/2014 19:04

I think they're right.

I don't think it means they shouldn't work damn hard to provide a happy environment but to be frank as a parent I'd rather have their honesty.

I was an Outstanding childminder.All my charges loved coming and never cried however I always knew I was second best to home.It made me work even harder to provide a cosy home from home environment.

IdRatherPlayHereWithAllTheMadM · 05/03/2014 19:04

You can't have top quality childcare on a rock bottom budget

Not when its run as a business for profit and every penny is squeezed for profit no.

I worked in a very expensive nursing home years ago the rooms per week then were eye watering, the food budget was under a pound per person per day. Sad.

I saw them being fed utter shite. Yet the place looked a million dollers.

ChocolateSnowflakes · 05/03/2014 19:05

It often isn't a choice. For some parents, they have no choice but for one parent (often the mother) to stay at home because they simply cannot afford childcare. On the other end of the spectrum are the parents who cannot afford to have one parent at home so will have to use childcare (as they are on a low income they will receive help towards childcare costs.)

The bloke from the family childcare trust is BU by saying "there isn't really any point". Well bully for him if he can afford that choice.

Retropear · 05/03/2014 19:10

I should add it's easier to do that in a childminding setting.

Big squishy sofas with loads of books,you can follow a child's lead better.Getting back to the saucepan cupboard.If a child is feeling a bit low you can improvise better,follow their lead.Get the saucepans out,just read story's all morning,go and buy a gingerbread man from the bakery,get new books from the library,start some new paints,give them some water outside to make a complete mess with etc.Just like you would at home.

A nursery is far less cosy and has to follow plans and procedures more,is more limited re doing things off timetable etc.

Kleinzeit · 05/03/2014 19:10

Or they are riding on their OFSTED rating and they have an attitude problem. OFSTED doesn't rate how caring a place is. That is a really slack response from a nursery to a parent saying their child is not happy. I would expect them to say what they are doing about it. If you don't have a choice then you'll have to make the best of it, but I would be looking for somewhere else.

Retropear · 05/03/2014 19:17

I think they're acknowledging how a child will feel.Obviously if they're not doing anything about it it's not ok but I wonder if she'd be happier in a different type of setting.

Yes they should be doing everything in their power to make her happier but it's not the staff's fault if some kids aren't suited to nursery and take a long time to resign themselves to it.