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?

Hopefully they will bring me chocolate cake

Thing is though Silly many sahp do go back to work and help to provide all that regardless of what MNworld leads us all to believe.

Having a period out doesn't always mean instant doom.

It shouldn't be a thread about mothers at all. It's about families : children, mums and dads.
I've said this many times before: we love our children equally, enjoy spending time with them, we're both pretty much equally competent at running a home, and we're also both good at our jobs and enjoy them. I'm sure we're not unique in that respect.

Of course it doesn't!

Indeed Chunderella.

So what we are saying is that in order to do the best for your children you need to save enough money fur one parent to stay at home, pay pension, cover all eventualities (we have a £5,000 roofing bill on the horizon, our fault for buying a Georgian tenement) eschew all luxuries (especially non worthy ones such as hols in cheap Spanish resorts, the feckless Sky package) and focus on world peace.

Hmm

My alternative would be heavily subsidised or free non means tested childcare for everyone and career break options for both parents a la Denmark.

Im a much younger generation though and lived through childcare and now my dcs do. I think its hard for older people as they lived in a very different time whereas mums having careers is normal now

I've talked to my teenage son and daughter about this issue, and their take on it is interesting. What they want from life is a balance of security and excitement; they both think they would like children ( in the fullness of time I hasten to add!!,) they want to be good parents, and they both have aspirations to go to university and have interesting and useful careers. There is no marked difference in their expectations based on their gender.

WilsonFrickett - your experience doesn't make it 'the norm'. That certainly wasn't the case historically in my mother's family, or my father's.

I think the idea of a SAHM 'idyll' being a middle class construct is nonsense. It comes from the idea that women only make the choice to stay at home because they have wealthy partners and can do this without having an impact on their lifestyle. It is frankly bollocks and sexist.

Many parents (mother or father) choose to stay at home whilst their children are young because they feel it is the right choice to make. Often when making that choice a family will take a significant cut in income and lifestyle but they make that choice because they feel it is the right thing to do for their family.

It doesn't mean it's the right thing for everyone but it's not just middle class mums (or dads) that stay at home to look after children.

Its not usually middle class mums in rl often at all frumpy Its usually associated with the lowest incomes as no prospects

You also have to look at this in a historical context. It's only relatively recently that maternity rights existed at all. It's only relatively recently that women have access to certain careers. My granny was a school teacher, and it was considered extremely unusual that she continued teaching after marriage ! To have considered continuing after children wasnt an option . It's been women who have traditionally given up work because they haven't, until relatively recently, had any option. I know women have always worked inasmuch as they'd take on evening jobs, or get a neighbour to watch the kids while they did some work for a bit of extra money, but being able to continue a career as a mother is a recent thing

Kind of getting sick of the continual you will be doomed,dumped,have no pension,no money for anything ever again blanket scenario trotted out.

Sahp do have brains,are able to plan,think,be creative.Many do it on not hig incomes,I've seen it.

This putting the fear of god into readers,insisting all will be doomed and nothing can possibly be done to enable more women a period at home if they felt it was required quite frankly is shite.

Can we do the same and trot out some all children in childcare are doomed shite too?

What frumpy said.

We don't all live in London or uber expensive areas.Sone of us have regularly seen sahd at toddler groups and families with a sahp parent who most certainly aren't middle class.

Not every family is a slave to a huge mortgage or debt.

Nonsense, you're sounding hysterical. No one had said everyone is doomed. All we have done is pointed out the very clear, unequivocal data which shows that a frightening proportion of women are financially underprepared for retirement. Actually a frightening number of people are- but women in particular.

Of course people don't stop being intelligent, creative, thinking human beings when they stop work. And any sensible person will take steps to keep themselves employable as far as possible

The truly sensible work for themselves ime!

Which most sahp do.

Not all of us expect to be going on cruises in retirement.

Having lived on one income for a while and looked ahead at what we will actually get(looking past the Daily Wail headlines) it's clear to us that in retirement with only 2 to cater for we'll be fine compared to supporting a family of 5 and a mortgage on one income.

Yes we won't be loaded like our parents in retirement but we'll be fine.

I think the time out of the workplace thing is a contentious point because its about balancing the wants and needs of employer and employee.

My gut feeling is that however long you make parental leave- 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? - you will always get some people wanting more.

Not that many years ago, paid maternity leave was 12 weeks. Then it became 6 months. Then 12 months. Many people feel that's a fair balance. And you can bet your bottom dollar if it became 2 years, you'd immediately have some people bleating for more.

I'm also interested to know how longer leave would work in reality... Lets suppose it became 3 years, for the sake of argument. So- you'd have women having maybe 3 children, taking nearly a decade out of the workplace but retaining the right to return to their post. Even though their skills might be out of date. And in the meantime, a succession of poor sods on temporary contracts because the potholder is clinging onto a job despite not having worked apart from perhaps a few weeks between pregnancies...
Imagine the knock on for employers. Imagine the knock on for places like schools... Your child could spend their secondary school period being taught by a succession of temporary teachers while their 'real' teacher spends 5 years at home!!

Oh- and hang on- aren't those younger temporary teachers supposed to be saving for when they have children, overpaying on their pensions and mortgages?- yeah right, because it'll be dead easy to get a mortgage when you can't get a permanent contract..

Would be interested to hear how it all works.

post holder!

Erm some of us out on longer periods don't want to go back to the jobs we had.

Out here in the real non London,non MN world some of us change after children and want different things in our jobs thus clearer the way for the younger lot.

There is no way if I'd not had a period as a sahp I'd still be teaching full time.I am actually ready for a change aside from anything else.

Several mums I know have re-trained,starting working for themselves,just got different jobs.All are happy.

... So because you don't want to teach any more means everyone else feels the same...?

Fine if people want to stop working and then have a completely different career or job. But not everyone does. Some people want to change career without having time out of the workplace too.

Oh and btw I'm not in London either...

This is getting a little confusing now, because if you're talking about women giving up their career, staying at home for years and then doing something else, all quite happily, then that's fine. No problem.

But a moment ago you were arguing the opposite: rights for women to have longer at home on parental leave- which is a totally different scenario as the needs of the employer, clients, and indeed the younger generation coming along who also might want those jobs, have to be balanced

I don't quite get what your problem with London is? I live here and work part time as a nurse. If I lived elsewhere I'd do exactly the same.

You're a bit obsessed by not living in London, Retropear. Fundamentally London and the South East arena significant proportion of the UK population. There is little space and house prices are high. That's reality. With a further million people moving into London in the course of the next decade or so this isn't going to change. Dual incomes will be the norm and you can say it shouldn't be that way and you're right maybe it shouldn't,but it is.

Unless of course we all move to Barcelona to live really cheaply . (This may be because the Spanish economy is fucked, there's been a massive property crash and significant proportions of the population can't find jobs)

Or we all live on benefits until out children are five although let's face it the tax take will drop massively when everyone quits work and so won't be able to fund the required benefits.

I don't see this mass hysteria re sahp being doomed where I live.One assumes it must be a London/MN thing.

No need for confusion,creativity is needed in many areas.It clearly isn't a one size fits all.

Oh and not all of us want to or are planning to move to London- ever.

London isn't the only place with jobs.