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?

mrscog : yes to your post.

But the question has been asked, and the answer seems to be that there are too many variables (with both family situations and individual children AND childcare settings) to give a conclusive answer. We all seem to agree that childcare needs to suit the child and the family and needs to be high quality. We all seem to agree that living costs v's real wages mean that the idea of 'choice' is laughable for lots of people, and that what really needs to change is that issue. So where having a debate about whether childcare is actually good for children (which is going round and round in circles) without any evidence (above anecdotes), and without people really having much choice in whether they use it anyway?

I'm not sure I agree re variables to be honest.It seems variables can be catered for in other areas.

That said I don't think any gov should be pushing families into using childcare(running them down if they don't) if they don't have the evidence to say it is good for children.

If you can't provide the research to reassure- back off Cameron!

Just to add the variables re breast feeding are huge but we seem to have a wealth of studies governments love to quote from.

Hop there may be less and less choice about working but there remains some choice (and therefore usefulness in a discussion!) about the type of childcare setting and how you choose for your child.

The OP won't get the data she would like but some of the stories others share may help in choosing a good fit for her child.

Me sitting in the house utterly depressed and lifeless is not good for my children. Me working pt and feeling like a new women, a much more motivated mum is. So childcare is good for my family, plus they get to be outside for much of the day which is lots more than they would at home

Insanity "No mother really HAS to work before their child is this age. ... Mother's who find themselves single can claim benefits until the youngest child is 5 and they won't starve on them."

does not even begin to cover my reaction to this!

So I should have given up a job I love, that I'm good at, that sets a good example to DC in terms of the options available to him as careers in later life, failed to pay my mortgage, had my house repossessed, declared myself bankrupt and lived hand to mouth for 5 (only 5 - do you really think having got myself into that much shit I'd EVER have been able to climb out of it?) years - and forced my son into that life too?

Never was a user name as well chosen as yours.

So women should give up their jobs, their homes, their pension provision?

Really?

How will this benefit our DC?

And who suggested that?

Just a request for an important question to be asked in order that parents can plan ahead and act accordingly.

Sorry but such an extreme over dramatic reaction isn't needed.

Either the question needs to be asked and looked into properly or it doesn't.

You then act accordingly and choose from a huge variety of options fully informed.You also don't blindly get funnelled down one particular route because the government said so.

Lurcio What a load of hysterical crap. Sell up if you can't afford your mortgage and rent with a housing benefit top up if necessary. Millions of people do. Better still plan your finances better before getting pregnant.

I stand by my post. We are talking about what's best for the child here not the selfish, self absorbed parent and yes, I have been one of them.

retro that is exactly what insanity is suggesting...she says women need to give up their jobs when they have DC.

"So women should give up their jobs, their homes, their pension provision?

Really?"

Well, no. But to stop work or go part-time for perhaps 5 to 11 years out of a working life of (these days) maybe 40 - 50 years isn't a terrible sacrifice is it? Not saying it should all be women doing this by the way. Given what a huge gift it is to children to have the happiest childhood possible (and I personally think most children enjoy being with their parents more than they enjoy spending 50 hours a week in institutional childcare).

Is it only women, or is it acceptable that fathers give up? I'd like to take every gender reference out of this to be honest. Both parents have responsibility and families should feel free to have whatever arrangements suit them without social/governmental assumptions that childcare is an issue for mothers only.

It is, without a doubt, more beneficial for my son to be in childcare while I work than for us to sell our house (even though our mortgage is less than a private rent...) and exist on benefits just so he can be at home v's in childcare. There is nothing that I could provide for him at home, that can't be provided by a paid child carer, that would negate the obvious disadvantages that come along with that life.

mini a gap of ten years in your pension provision will frankly leave you with no pension provision.

A gap of ten years in most careers, will frankly leave you with no career.

A step out of the property market for ten years will make it all but impossible to rejoin it (in the south especially).

A step into the benefit system for ten years will most likely be permenant (it's not called the poverty trap fopr nothing).

I have no problem with people choosing to stay home if they want to and they are able to financially and I didn't say that I did at any point?

But the scaremongering about nurseries was unfair to mothers who use nurseries, particularly those who have to work to support their families. I'm lucky. I get to choose to work or not and I was upset by being bullied into reading a post on a thread I said I didn't want to read. They helpfully copied if above.

Sooooo we don't ask any questions what so ever.

Incidentally my pensions seem ok and many women would like a different type of job after dc anyway.

Some really extreme scenarios here.

Say asking such questions as to what is best for the children did throw up some negatives as to childcare if parents have time they can plan ahead.They could lobby for both parents to have a year maternity/paternity each(like they do in Sweden),lobby for more flexi hours so both could say drop a day,lobby for more childcare which resembled the home environment etc.

Parents could also plan better eg save,move nearer grandparents,have dc closer together or further apart etc.

An awful lot of ifs but sorry I see no argument for not asking for more info other than some wouldn't like possible answers which may or may not happen anyway.

I'm not advocating asking no questions about childcare.

I'm certainly suuggesting a more open debate than 'it's selfish'...

Which you very rarely see concerning wp and more re sahp tbf these days.

insanity - have you ever tried to live on benefits? And are you totally unaware of the huge body of sociological research which suggests that when you correct for income and mother's educational background, outcomes for children from single parent families are as good as outcomes for children from couples? In other words, evidence that shows that (for normal parents who care for their children and try their best to be engaged and enthusiastic parents) the single biggest thing likely to screw up your child's upbringing is poverty?

My response wasn't hysterical, it was really quite measured given what you're suggesting. But carry on - you're doing a better job of digging yourself into a hole just by making that sort of ridiculous suggestion than any rebuttal I could ever give.

Well just look a few posts down and you'll see those very words...and not about SAHMs....

Lurcio the very worst outcomes for DC in the UK are those from workless homes.

Thus, as a single mum, I'd say you are far better working.

I have a pretty good occupational pension but even I was surprised at the hit its taken simply through me dropping to 3 days a week for five years. Before and after those 5 part time years, I've worked full time. So yes, a 5 or 10 year break in pension payments will impact massively for most people. The fact that some posters may have wonderful pension provision doesn't get away from the fact that a really frightening proportion of the population - and in predominantly women do NOT have anywhere near adequate financial provision. Now that's one statistic that pretty much everyone is agreed on!

I can understand insanity's perspective. If you are going to have a child, then theoretically you must be prepared to do whatever they need you to do. For the vast majority of parents, this does not have to involve either of them giving up a job. For some parents, it may involve some sacrifices being made, if a childcare arrangement can't be found that suits the child. Occasionally children, just like adults, need huge amounts of support for one reason or another. If my child needed that, I would certainly live on beans and rent a bed-sit to provide it. I have been in enough palatial homes to realise that children don't notice these things. It's possible to eat healthily very cheaply as well. If a parent would simply never consider staying home to parent - e.g., one poster upthread said 'the world would end before I stopped working' - then you should think twice about having a child. It's conceivable that they might need you around during the day for three or four years. Time is the biggest investment that can be made in a child's life. If a parent declares that he or she couldn't possibly do it because they would suffer and consequently so would the child, then they're taking a risk having children. If one of you has to suffer, it should always be the parent. But this is a very unlikely scenario and we're talking in hypotheticals.