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?

Incidentally, just to underline how detached from reality the suggestion of giving up work is... I've been on the property ladder for nearly 20 years now. I am phenomenally lucky because my mortgage is less than half of what rent would be for a similar house in the private sector (and I'm talking a 2 up 2 down terrace here with a square of concrete out the back, not a mansion). In what possible world would it make economic sense for anyone - me, the tax payer who'd be supporting me, my son who'd be on baked beans from a food bank, for me to stop working, have my house repossessed (because unless you become involuntarily homeless, you would not qualify for help with finding housing) in order to end up in private rental on housing benefit?

I am still just gobsmacked that someone could really, honestly think putting a child into childcare is so bad that this would be a preferable outcome. (Incidentally DS is now 6 and in school, so it's all hypothetical anyway - he is already irredeemably scarred for life, suffering from unfixable attachment disorders, has lost more IQ points than you can shake a stick at and is an emotional wreck... oh, wait a minute... no, he's actually a well adjusted happy little soul).

If you take the MASSIVE step of having a child (and no one HAS to have children these days, it's not forced upon us and as we are the ones who grow them, it's the MOTHER's choice), then the least they should be able to expect is for us to bring them in their most formative years. Can we at least give them 3 years of us as we chose to have them?

There should be financial incentives to allow this not financial incentives to put them in childcare as it currently stands.

The issue of getting back to work afterwards should be addressed as I previously posted in big way. I have experienced questions in interview such as 'well what have you been doing for the last 5 years'. Well I've been responsible for raising a future member of society who may just the person who brings about world peace. Just a tad more important than making more money for a large corporation .

Just as important is the mental health aspect as in an ideal world mothers would be happy to be at home with the DC they chose to have with a support network to aid them in this. This is not impossible, but while the issues of isolation, depression and, basically how hard motherhood is, are brushed under the carpet and we all have to pretend that it's easy, compete in how great we are it and how we are loving every minute, that won't happen.

Most mothers I know, and I have said it myself, have said that they would be prefer to be at home with their DC when they are little then come out with excuses such as they need to pay their bills (even though most of their wage goes on childcare), they want to be able to afford a holiday (2 yr olds don't care about holidays), are bored at home, they enjoy their job too much etc, etc. None of them good enough reasons to have a baby in childcare 50 hours a week.

janey the way most pensions work, is that ten years out during the child bearing years would be suicidal... even if your DH werte to pay in for you, he can only pay up to a maximum amount which in actuality is tiny.

Clearly retro had a different type of pension.

Re pensions surely if you were well informed and knew some time out would be required you could clear debts in the run up to getting pg so you could then overpay in the years before conception and have your partner top it up during your time at home.We've done a mixture of the latter.

Exactly wordfactory! When you look at how little, relatively, can be paid into a pension on your behalf, or paid out from a husband's pension to the widow if he dies first, it's pretty scary. My main motivation for continuing in work during the years my salary went on nursery fees was the fact that I continued paying into my (albeit reduced) pension. Oh! - and of course the fact that I really like my job and my children loved their nursery!

Sorry but saying no woman should ever have time out because of their pension is ridiculous.

If more info inferred a period at home would be required any future govs could be made to make it easier to pay in more by that partner during the period at home.

Where there is a will there is a way.I'm sure many options could be looked at.

Well of course women often try to so that retro...but it's very hard for young women.

Say they leave university at 21/22, perhaps undertake further education to 23/24...that only gives them a few years when they're trying to get on the houysing ladder, pay off their student debts etc.

Often not possible to overpay on pension (plus in some schemes you cant)...

You seem to be saying that the onlyu women who should have children are those who have high earning partners!

"In an ideal world, mothers would be happy to be at home with the children they chose to have."

I was very happy at home with my children. I liked working too, which is why I continued to work.

"I've been responsible for raising a future member of society"- yeap, me too, and my DH.

No.

I supported my dp whilst paying more into my pension pre dc thanks.

I had about 10 years after uni pre dc.Plenty of time to get things in order if you're frugal.

You are responsible for children before you have them.I don't think our generation are that good at planning ahead.I think our dc's will be because they'll have to.

Most mothers I know, and I have said it myself, have said that they would be prefer to be at home with their DC when they are little then come out with excuses such as they need to pay their bills (even though most of their wage goes on childcare), they want to be able to afford a holiday (2 yr olds don't care about holidays), are bored at home, they enjoy their job too much etc, etc. None of them good enough reasons to have a baby in childcare 50 hours a week

I think you forgot to say 'in my opinion' insanity

Has it every crossed your mind that people you know, in RL, knowing your views, wouldn't dare tell you they don't want to be at home?

I've just come back to this thread after a few days, what a shame it's descended into smugmothery...

Oh you mean smuggary re how better off working mothers are financially.

There are other ways to provide for your retirement than a pension.
neither dh or I have a pension but we have our retirement taken care of.
I agree a lack of pension needn't be a issue when deciding on working.

Insanity

I too don't understand the childcare mentality when a whole wage is lost on fees. I know it makes sense for some people to work at a loss when their dc are little so they can keep their job/career going, but the argument to pay the bills is a bit lame, if they are losing money.

It is hard as obviously everyone's opinions are based on their own experiences. We saved for ten years (that is ten years of no holidays, no going out to the pub or clubbing when all our mates were out there, no clothes etc) before we had kids so that we knew I could take time out to be there with them. I do appreciate though that we were "fortunate" to be able to save - although I worked very hard at school etc to get to that place. I do think it is a crying shame that more people don't have a CHOICE about whether they stay at home or not and I think it is interesting to imagine where we will be in 15 years or so. These things are often cyclical aren't they?
In terms of what is best for them, I get frustrated by this. There are a lot of excellent nurseries round here but I do get annoyed when my mates here in this nice middle class area are waxing lyrical about the wonders of childcare when, in the area where I am from originally, the nurseries are abysmal and none of them would dream of leaving their children. Some nurseries are probably brilliant for kids, some are not so. On balance I probably think that they are best of at home for a few years.

retro I agree that that there should be the ability to pay in what you damn like!

But the fact remains that most people can't afford to do it. And being without a decent pension if you can avoiud it, is IMVHO just stupidity.

The state pension is so low that many OAPs live in poverty. And do any of us believe that it will even be available for those except the most destitute in the near future?

The reality is that our daughters will be living in a world with precious little state support. House prices will continue to rise. Wages will go down.

Most of them will have to work. Are we really going to tell them that they shouldn't have children? That to work and parent is too selfish?

What a horrible thing to saddle them with. Seems to me there's no point giving them a happy childhood if you intend to saddle them with emotional baggage through their adulthood...seriously crap parenting that it!

I second Burren's post of Tue. 14.08: throughout history and all over the world children have generally been raised by a community of adults, none of whom were SAHM in the modern sense of the word. So a good quality nursery setting is 'normal' in evolutionary terms.What is not normal is the complete absence of both parents or other relatives for most of the daytime.

I prefer choice for parents to do what suits their families best, with a bit flexible thinking thrown in, such as the notion that dad takes a step back in his career and looks after his children part time, in alternation with mum or nursery.

also, the cost of nursery is prohibitive to THE FAMILY INCOME. AS A WHOLE. Not just to the woman's earnings. The flawed logic of 'I was earning less than nursery costs so gave up my career' really p*sses me off. Looking after a child is the job of both parents, not just the mother for goodness sake!

Well I've been responsible for raising a future member of society who may just the person who brings about world peace. Just a tad more important than making more money for a large corporation

Wow

sorry but

I've been responsible for talking to people about their bowel movements, chest pains and last night was called a cunt. Maybe I should chuck it and focus on DD's and world peace...

And yes, smuggery is what it is

Biscuits

I think what people are saying is, not that they give up their career/job because they pay all the child care, but that whoever pays it the amount still equates to a full wage. Many people would rather have the one full wage coming in than losing a full wage on costs enabling them to work.
I was one of these people, to me personally it seemed silly to pat to work.

pay to work, not pat

Bris we did that too.During our period of two nice salaries we didn't live the high life like a lot of our friends did.Yes we travelled a bit(on a budget) but we bought a tiny flat and saved a fair bit too.

I've always worked with young children so was reasonably well informed in time(knew what I wanted)to be able to do the above.

That is why I think everybody should have more info so they have more choice further down the line.

Word sorry I still think my dc deserve all information in order to make choices.There is no excuse not to sorry.I have to except the benefits of plenty of parenting choices I didn't provide.

I also think with info we could all vote re families and quality of life more.Without it we just do what they tell us to to suit their money making priorities.We are all living in the real world without nannies and amazing careers provided by an Oxbridge education.Many families are just working to pay the bills and want less stress along with more family time during these early formative years you don't get back.

Ubik1 That was a bit of sarcasm with regards to how SAHMs are generally looked down on in society, i.e. 'when are you going to get a REAL job?'. Did not think I actually needed to spell it out .

Smug, me hah hah

I live in a city with incredibly high employment. In fact I am waiting to hear about ft position which is £5,000 below my salary level 10 years ago - I am literally biting my nails in anticipation of the difference it will make to our lives, me with 2 degrees, managerial experience, international travel etc etc

I stopped work to look after my three DD's but then DP's salary halved during recession I just took whatever I could get. I am incredibly lucky to have my low status job. And it also enabled us to move out of our 2 bed flat and into a 4 bed tenement.

I've a friend who works ft with 2 small children ft in nursery which costs more than her mortgage. But she knows that if she asks to go part time or had taken any kind of career break she could have spent years on the dole. And they couldn't have moved out of the rough area they were in.

I feel sometimes like these discussions take place in another world where economising - making chicken last 3 days, taking a cheap holiday at mummy and daddy's home in cornwall - is the answer to everything. It makes me feel guilty and inadequate. But I look at my children and they are really happy so I must be doing something right.

retro where on earth have I suggested that our children shouldn't have information at their disposal?

Of course they should.

But providing information is a world away from saddling them with the emotional baggage suggested here!

Funnily enought we don't weight our boys down with it!

My oldest is 17 now. She was in childcare from 4 months. At the time I thought I was doing the right thing and exercising my right to 'have it all'. She used to cling to me when I dropped her off and cry sometimes. Some days I just wanted to stay in bed and snuggle with her instead of rushing off to work at 7am. My lasting regret is that I did not think 'fuck it' and stay at home with her for as long as I did my others. She is now a young woman who does not need me as much now. I miss my baby girl .

My mum always worked and yep I loved 3/4 holidays a year, and having money. I like the fact now as she always worked shes has lots of money. I would not be that impressed if she had quit to stay at home for a few years when I was little I can hardly remember as she would up stuff that still gives me opportunities 30 years on.

I bet not many on this thread were brought up by 2 working parents, whereas I was and see my parents every day as we are so close. I think if you were brought up this way then you know it really doesnt matter, and the opportunities you gain are not worth the sacrifices of quitting a decent career for.