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?

Sorry I don't agree with "most".

Many families are creative,many avoid childcare but do work.Many have done it/are doing it.Many don't have or want huge mortgages,salaries differ where you live.Many are creative in various ways.

It is simply untrue to say to say having a period at home would be impossible for most.As I pointed out much more could be done in the future to make it easier for those that want it. Some may not be able to but those that could surely if it was proved to be beneficial for the actual children should be helped to do so.

Sorry retro but you are making yourself sound daft now! The stats are clear - in the UK most families have two working parents and most single parents work. Just because you know a few creative SAHMs doesn't chamge this and you're starting to sound at best ill iinformed, at worst not very bright.

But as has been pointed out, it's never going to be possible to prove whether childcare is beneficial or not, because its too complex a question, too many variables and too many ways of measuring outcomes.

Even if, say, it were proved that on average children in childcare do better in GCSEs, you'd have plenty of parents who wouldn't give a shiny shit because staying at home would be more valuable to them than some slight statistical chance that their kids might drop a GCSE grade!

Of course we're all agreed that we want the best possible nursery provision, plenty of outdoor space, healthy food etc- we all know that good quality provision is better than poor. Just the same as with schools, hospitals.... But the question 'is childcare better' is simply meaningless for the reasons many people have explained

They're not all using childcare and as I said it's looking to the future.If it was needed more could be done to facilitate less reliance on childcare whether it be with more having a spell with a sahp,more parental leave,flexi hours etc.

No need for the spiteful not very bright comments thank,it just makes posts look a little childish.It is possible to have a mature discussion.It was managed on the first few lengthy pages.

People have explained that it could be possible,not easy but possible.

You'd gave to start with what you were actually focusing on,like they do with the many breast feeding studies.They all seem to look at something different.

As for the question of how parents could be 'helped' to stay at home... Well tbh retro, it's really difficult to know what you mean by that.

On the one hand you're telling us parents should jolly well save up, and overpay mortgages and pensions because they need to plan ahead and stand on their own two feet like you did... Then you mentioned the idea of having two years parental leave, but failed to address any of the questions raised about how that would work for employers, and also for all the people standing in at work on temporary contracts ( who presumably should simultaneously be taking out mortgages and overpaying them ready for when they have kids....!)

It's difficult to know what it is you're arguing for! You have the life you want, with a high earning husband to facilitate it, yet you seem unable to show any empathy with people who aren't doing the same as you

Janey

You are so right, in your example there would be bound to be those who hadn't had childcare and still done well at GCSE's, some that hadn't etc.
Also, the schools themselves would all be variables and that is just one example somebody has come up with.
It is totally ridiculous to even contemplate obtaining reliable results.

I still think the only question we should be asking is if childcare is right for our own children.

Sorry to use you as an example Janey but having read several posts of yours, I know the childcare you chose was right for your children.
The same childcare could possibly be right for other peoples children, but not right for others.
I think yours sounded fantastic, there are some dire ones as well.
At the end of the day it is what works well for you, irrespective of meaningless stats.

Rubbish with the lack of empathy.

Denmark manages two years of parental leave shared between both parents.Maybe we should look at how they do it,reward companies who help families more,those that are open to flexi hours,help those that need childcare to reduce the need.

Looking at ways isn't the issue,asking the questions first is.

retro I wasn't being remotely spiteful. Honestly, I was just pointing out how silly you sound.

Your and my view of spiteful obviously differs.

morethan I agree that we have to ask if a particular arrangement works for us. However, we need to be really careful not to extrapolate from that.

retro I suspect your and my view on most things differs. Don't take offence but its not a huge concern.

... And in Denmark, the ratios of carer to children in childcare is not as favourable as in the UK, so I don't know why you're holding them up as some shining example.

Also a far greater proportion of mothers work in Denmark- which you don't want to do either retro. You've said you want to be a SAHM.

No I'd now like a job and to be a wp again.

I've done my stint as a sahp.

Re Denmark aren't they better qualified?I don't know,but it would be an interesting model to look at if it was warranted.

You seem to ignore a lot of the content of my posts in your eagerness to seize on snippets you can use to attack.

Anyhow,I'm off to bed,it's far too late.

Of course we're all agreed that we want the best possible nursery provision, plenty of outdoor space, healthy food etc- we all know that good quality provision is better than poor.

Agreed Janey. But I think the question needs to go further than this, how can low quality nurseries be improved? How much is too much time for babies/young children to spend in group-settings, often with a different key worker, or rotating workers depending on hours/turnover of staff?

And the argument of "too many variables to say" goes both ways. I have seen lots of threads where people ask 'will my baby be okay in childcare' and reassuring responses of "of course they will, my child was" and "don't listen to the scaremongering". We can't know this! We don't know the child, the quality of childcare etc. We don't know the child will be fine/happy, we don't fully know the situation.

Not late for me in NZ!

wordfactory - very catty.

Of course there is good and bad childcaee. Through my work and degree I have visited lots of settings all over the place, and would say there are way more good than bad. You need to go with the many with cameras now, as loads of them have them now. I also know staff in most of our local nurseries most have worked there 5 years +.

Its a rare nursery that wont let you drop in at any time nowadays, or help with all the parents problems when they come in upset about their relationships, housing, or other concerns. We offer a wide range of informal parenting support. You have long settling in periods, and lots of quiet chill out spaces for the children. We do trips absolutely everywhere, especially in the holidays we are out all day everyday.

YY to striving to make all nurseries as good as possible (and schools, hospitals etc.. We all know there is variation, and always will be but the aim is to reach a 'gold' standard, while at the same time acknowledging that not all parents want the same from a nursery or school, and therefore it's good to have different styles of provision to choose from)

And of course none of us know everyone else's children, so we can't possibly say what's right for them... Which pretty much leads back to where the thread started

I think what's frustrating though is the refusal to acknowledge that it's likely to be the parents who are using childcare who are the most thorough in their research, who ask the questions.. Check out the childcare options in their locality... After all, we're the ones making this huge investment.

Or to put it another way... If a thread is started by someone saying 'I'm a bt anxious about becoming a SAHM, will I be ok?' I would expect plenty of people who are SAHM to post about their experiences and reassuring them. There may be a few posts from SAHM with specific advice such as how to keep skills updated, or how to break the day up to make it more interesting. What you wouldnt get is a load of WOHM piling in telling them they're wrong, that their children will be damaged etc. As a WOHM it wouldn't even occur to me to post on such a thread- why would I, ithere are plenty of people more 'qualified ' to do so!

Yet whenever a thread about WOHM or childcare pops up, we have the same old posters who start by admitting they don't use childcare, don't want to use it, never have Etc (oh and the real gem of telling us all we wouldn't need it either if we'd been sensible mummies and saved up for years before having kids and then sacrificed our career) ....

If someone posts asking for advice about childcare (or SAHP) then it's helpful for them to hear other people's experiences, with the proviso that of course none of us know their children and the final decision needs to be theirs. But this is definitely a skewed issue on MN. By and large WOHM are happy to live and let live. I can think of only one poster (Xenia) who held the extreme view that all women should be back at work within two weeks, but I haven't even seen her posting for years... Whereas there is a small but strident group of SAHM who seem to resent women who work and have happy children... It seems we're only allowed to enjoy a career if we're damn well paying for it- not just literally but emotionally.

Look at how these threads start. It's a pretty regular scenario, sometimes threads are dressed up to sound less critical, but the underlying agenda is the same.

It would be interesting for MN to produce some figures because I bet for every occasional bitchy thread started to have a pop at SAHM (and honestly I can't even remember any) there are about 20 started as thinly veiled attacks on WOHM.

Enough.

If you genuinely care about the plight of other people's children, then channel that energy in productive ways... Though I would suggest starting with children at home as that's where most neglect, lack of stimulation, unhealthy eating, unsafe behaviours occurs.
You're choosing the wrong target by attacking the demographic on here, which is likely to consist of caring, involved, interested parents who are well capable of managing their family in the best way for themselves.
There is a big difference between being driven by genuinely altruistic concern for other people's children, and wanting to niggle away at how other people are running their lives, and it really isn't hard to spot that difference sometimes.

Lmao!

Janey enough with the enough.

You continuously run down sahp,always cropping up on these threads. Sahp these days are run down far more for a variety of reasons (both in the media, by the gov and on here,interestingly not so much in RL) and purposely hold back on why they are sahp(not so wp).You are one of the biggest culprits.

You seem to forget that the large maj of sahp will also be wp and will use childcare. Who do think will be looking after my dc?

Before you rocked up we were actually having quite a productive discussion with very little animosity either way.The vast maj of us were simply pondering the question in the op.

Janey68
Great points raised.
I agree in part about who posts and why , but it is not that simplistic . I am a SAHM of 14 years , I haven't commented on this thread but nearly did in response to the many ridiculous comments that are made about parenting by my type !
Sometimes posts are made not in response to the op don't forget , but in reply to all the threads .

Oh give over retro- if you really believed that then you'd link to posts where I've run down SAHM. But of course you cant. You know darn well that my view has always been 'do what's best for your OWN family. ' Far less sensational and extreme as a view maybe, which is why you find it hard to grasp.

Walton- I think once threads are started, and the attacks begin, people will quite rightly defend themselves and unfortunately that sometimes spill over into unpleasant posts on either side. I was talking about how the threads start though

Ditto Janey

I would just like to add,many of us on here will hopefully be lucky enough to become grandparents one day.

I personally would like my dc to be far better informed than I was and good research takes time.Findings could have a huge impact on where my dc chose to settle,when they had dc,how they vote etc.I could also impact where I chose to end my days.

If life is going to change for the younger generations then I see no benefit in sitting back and doing nothing as to equipping them in making important life decisions in the future.