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?

Insanity - I can totally understand that, I was at home while mine were babies...but the financial consequences of giving up a career are also a source of regret for me...I don't know, you just can't win, can you.

Insanity then your views on childcare clearly come through your guilt.

Me, I have none.

I didn't work until the DC were eighteen months. Then worked pretty flexibly without much child care. The worked from home with no child care.

I've been here raising my DC...enjoying all those precious moments .

But the reality is that I won't extraploate from this that this is the only way to do it. My DC have lots of friends who had nannies etc and they're all great kids. No harm done!

Mummy and daddy's home in Cornwall err I think not.

Saddling with emotional baggage as suggested on here- what tosh.

Info is pretty much all anybody has wanted on this thread.

Word nobody is saying it's the only way it can be done,far from it.

Info and choices are the main thrust of this thread.

georgesdino

When I was growing up your mum was considered feckless if she worked and you had no gps to look after you. Any self respecting mother was there for her kids at the school gate and during the holidays. Unfortunately, you were deemed as the lowest of the low and termed "Latch key Kid" So I'm glad my mum didn't work tbh and believe this notion of both parents always to have worked as a bit of a romance. None of my friends mums worked either, they were all at school and when dc older waiting at home.
Now we have childcare and it is a lot better, enabling women to choose whether to work or not.

George my mum did work,most sahp parents do.

She had some time off and off and on periods to fit round her family whilst we were at secondary.She then went back full time when we left for uni retiring at 70.

Best of both worlds.I'd like the same.

But surely Retropear you understand that one parent giving up a job to look after DC does not make sense for many families...even if they have Sky or go to Lanzarote every year?

I remember the slow accumulation of debt we endured, shopping on the credit card because DP not been paid for 2 months, having card declined in supermarket with a week of shopping and three children under 5 in tow. Crying when the £600 bill for buildings insurance came in following DP's tax bill...it just goes on.

The point is that posters on this thread have highlighted a supposed contradiction in paying for a child to be in childcare while parent is saying they have to work for financial reasons . It is not contradictory because working gives you financial flexibility, it gives you credit, it gives you the reassurance that money is arriving very month and if you economise you can spread it to pay bills.

Obviously families need 1 parent in work.Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Posters are simply asking the question contained in the op.

insanity said single mums should go on the rock and roll rather than work and use childcare...

Seriously, retro I think you're ignoring what you don't want to see!

word

I think that single parents should be given the choice whether to work or not, just as married parents have.
To me it isn't fair that some people are allowed choice and others not. Whether that is working or not.

Ditto

And I think you're seeing an awful lot more than is there.

Ubik not being funny but not every family handles their finances in the way you gave described.

In theory I agree with you morethan but in reality the country at large do not wish to pay benefits to single mothers who choose not to work (or at least at a rate that is above mere subsistence).

So while we can say what we want as much as we like, I think it behoves us to understand that choice is simply not menaingful for many and ya know...like STFU...

"The ideal situation is one where women are free to make the best choices for themselves and their children and families, free from financial stresses and the ridiculous 'mummy guilt' and sense of obligation."

This!! .... with the rider that they should also be free of 'career guilt' and sense that they are under-achieving if opting to SAH.

Next bus to perfect world .............?

It is not like anybody really has a say how their tax is spent though, so the country at large can say what they want.

As so many marriages end in divorce, the country at large would get their choice when they were single parents too.

If absent parents had to pay a large proportion of this to the children they had, it would mean less for the state to cough up.

It is unfair that sp's are being forced to work in conditions that aren't particularly right for their families, when other types of family have choice how and when to work.

There are plenty of people who will never earn enough to have the kind of options and flexibility being advocated on this thread, unless they are prepared to give up housing security as others have said, and scrape by on benefits.

I remember my mother (solid rather than stellar professional career, not all contributing to pension because of living abroad) telling me in a shocked voice that my cousin earned less annually than my mother received in pension annuity. So that my cousin's ability to save for her children/old age/whatever was going to be very limited.

For everyone outside the quite small sector of the affluent upper and middle middle class, options are narrowing fast as incomes freeze or even drop and the cost of living, particularly childcare, rises. If you've got strong ties with nearby family, that will help you a bit. Otherwise, it's getting tougher. Most poor people are working poor, after all.

I think many people do feel really trapped by finances into a mode of family life they don't really like or want (looking at it in the round, and not just as a black or white question of 'Should the mother work outside the home or not?')

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

^ This.

I worry that we are on a mad cycle in this country and sometimes people do not think hang on, what are we slogging away for, what are we doing, do we really want this. Why are we saddled with a huge mortgage....

We are all caught up in the mad house buying working like a slave and yet is is really what we want.

You work when your dc are small and you put your money into Nursery owners pocket, to pay for your house that will be sold in about 40 years to put the money into the Nursing Home Owners pocket

I read a post somewhere once about someone who had moved to Barcelona and rented for very cheaply.

When I visit other European countries I think their life style seems more relaxed. I could be wrong but they just seem more relaxed.

and the upshot is that you can't have it all, man or woman. The idea that you can is a romantic fantasy.

Can we remember that this thread is asking for a debate on whether increased childcare provision is good for children not the mothers. Most recent responses seem to be about the mothers pensions, the mothers careers and mothers having the choice to work.

God forbid we should ever think of the poor children, the poor, poor children

I agree Insanity, that's why I posted about some people not really having options. For many, what's good for the children is vying for priority with simple economic survival. And yes, I know no one is forced to have children, but really, a huge number of us want to more than anything.

if i didn't have to work to put food on the table etc i wouldn't have returned to work when DD was 6 months old. I have under grad, post grad and professional qualifications which, would have all been to nought, but even so I wouldnt have willingly left by baby with a Nanny.

Can we remember that this thread is asking for a debate on whether increased childcare provision is good for children not the mothers. Most recent responses seem to be about the mothers pensions, the mothers careers and mothers having the choice to work

^

Well that is the angle my responses were coming from which is why they may have been a bit more extreme in viewpoint than others. I KNOW I've fucked up my life by having 4 DC , will be forever poor and have no pension. Hopefully they will being me chocolate cake when I am living in a cardboard box though.

At the end of the day though I don't think anyone can refute that small DCs would prefer to be with their mothers/fathers than in a nursery all day.