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?

[Tweasels]

Has there ever been a controlled study done of outcomes for children placed in childcare from an early age? I'm sure there must have been but I would guess there would be reasons for certain results not being advertised.

My story is that DS went to nursery 2 full days from 13 months old and hated it. I left him crying every day, it was horrendous. (The nursery were fab, no complaints with them) He's only really started enjoying school in the last year or so (he's 9).

DD (2) has been looked after by family and has only recently started a playgroup and loves it. Runs off happy as anything and has no problems being left.

So anecdotally I could conclude that DS was negatively impacted by starting childcare early and it has negatively impacted him by making him dislike school settings. DD has benefited from being at home with close family and is more secure.

However, I actually believe it is purely their personalities that differ and had the situation switched DS would still be less confident in these settings than DD.

Hard to evidence isn't it.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

Working all the hours you can while spending all your money on a pointless big mortgage (if you can get a smaller one) is just as irresponsible as giving up work and living month to month not having any savings because one parent has chosen to give up work in order to be at home with the children. Both are choice that I would not make, personally.

If you looked at my situation objectively you might say; give up the expensive phone contract, sky TV, savings for holidays and meals out and spend more time at home. And you would probably be right that we could afford it. We could probably just about afford to do it and save a small amount each month for emergencies. BUT I don't want to be at home full time. I did not enjoy it. I need something else in my life. I'm not cut out to be a SAHM. And that's OK. It's not for everyone, and I have a hard time believing that having a resentful parent at home to provide cooked meals and clean clothes (which working parents generally manage to do anyway) is of any benefit to a child.

[funnyossity]

Yes Tweasels, I have two contrasting children brought up broadly in the same way.

[Jess03]

It depresses me when I hear things like they're small for so little time and working parents make me sad etc because in some careers, 2 sets of up to 5 years working part time or not at all is effectively a career dead end. Also, not everyone can enjoy being a sahm. Good if you like that choice, but don't export sadness onto other people's setups...nursery isn't a tragedy, even at 6 months or 3 months in the US.

[UriGeller]

I've enrolled ds in nursery to start 3 days a week after Easter. We thought very hard about this, entirely based on the benefit for him, not me as I'm SAHM anyway and not DP as he favours HE.

We've reasoned that the advantages of learning to co-operate with other children and adults are definitely there but we need to ensure he continues to learn critical thinking and develop his own way.

We have put in place the proviso that the minute he isn't being fulfilled or engaged or he simply isn't enjoying himself, he's out.

I realise we are in the fortunate position of being able to choose to think about his needs above the households finances, the stress that working parents must have if they have a child who hates going to childcare but has to so that must be awful.

Still feel a bit when I hear about nursery workers who have their own child in a nursery so that they can work, looking after other people's children.

[Damnautocorrect]

The million dollar question I think the answer (but not solution!) is simple;
A good responsive sahp is better than a childcare setting
An unresponsive sahp is worse for the child than childcare

It totally depends on the parent, the child and the childcare your comparing. I believe we should be enabled to make a choice when parenting as to what's right for our family and you shouldn't feel guilty for what works for you.

[BirthdayMuppet]

Increased access to the right type of childcare for your particular child is a great thing, of course it is. But it doesn't follow that all types of child care are not necessarily suitable for all types of children. So it's not a simple question.

[SomethingkindaOod]

I worked in the same nursery my children went to at the same time, although in the under 2's unit rather than where they were. We had bills to pay too.

[BirthdayMuppet]

Bugger, double negatives and stuff - should have been "But it doesn't necessarily follow that all types of childcare are suitable for all types of children"

[sixlive]

I think the government thinks that for many children nursery is a "better" place to be than at home. There is little value placed on mothers staying at home in this country. I think it should be a choice bit the cost of Childcare makes it prohibitive for many to choose. On the other hand employers views of women taking several years out to care for children means for many they are also trapped to feeling they have to go on working to keep their careers.

[Tweasels]

UriGeller how old is your DS if you don't mind me asking?

Your situation is really interesting, but for me making that choice would be very much dependent on the age of the child.

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

Agree with everyone who says there's no "one size fits all solution", either for children or for mothers. We have a female head of R&D where I work (very unusual!) and she (very unusually for the period) worked part time with her first child, then found the second had a totally different personality, hated childcare, so she took a career break. Like Wilson, I have very negative memories of my mum as a SAHM (albeit for very different reasons - my parents had a very stable marriage, but my mum was undoubtedly much happier at the start of each period of being in work than when stuck at home - and her mood had a massive impact on me).

It is also worth re-iterating that the model that's often uncritically accepted in the media as almost "the state of nature" - namely the nuclear family, mum at home with 2 children, dad out at work - is (historically, culturally, geographically - just about on any measure you choose to use) very much an oddity anthropologically speaking!

Also, I'd take issue with the stereotype of nurseries as filled with dim school drop outs on minimum wage. Maybe I was lucky to have an excellent nursery for my DS, but my experience is that it's very competitive (more young people want to train as nursery workers than there are jobs for them), and without exception, the younger nursery workers (men as well as women) I've dealt with really want to be in the job, love looking after children and take what they do very seriously - both in terms of training and in terms of forming genuine emotional attachments to the children they care for. I'll never forget the young woman who made it her "mission" to get my DS settled when I first went back to work. He wasn't used to taking a bottle from anyone except me, and she basically practised something akin to "attachment parenting", and carried him round with her all day while she worked with the older children, did the admin and so on. The nursery as a whole were very flexible about things like naps - he was used to napping on/with me, so they'd put him in a bouncy chair and rock him, rather than trying to put him down in a cot, until he was sufficiently used to the environment and comfortable enough to be put with the other children. So the idea of nurseries as sort of impersonal warehouses for children is a million miles from my experience.

[missfliss]

can we also recognise that sometimes the mothers wage is THE wage?? whether you are a single parent or your partner (as happened to my husband) gets made redundant?

Its not just a choice about career progression, sometimes its literally putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.

We reduced my sons time spent in childcare when my husband lost his job, but opted to try and keep his place in a setting where he was happy so that when my husband got back into work, the disruption was minimal to our son. What we didnt bargain for, was this happening 3 times.

In that situation - childcare actually contributed to stability for our toddler...................

[maillotjaune]

Those of you who feel all [sadface] about parents using childcare while the early years rush past (they'll only be small for such a short time etc) - can you please stop projecting your feelings on parents that make different choices or have no choice but to work.

[maillotjaune]

Sorry that may have come across as arsier than I meant it but the emotive language that always surfaces on these discussions winds me up.

[Andcake]

hmm _ I am trying to track down a study which ranked them all for children under 3. I remember it said saying at home with grand parents had the worst educational outcomes and i think staying with dad rather than mum had the best. But that is EDUCATIONAL outcomes and their are a lot of other variable which make a happy life.
the researcher in me thinks that it will be really interesting to see in a few decades time the effect of full time childcare on a generation or so of children.

I have one ds 18 mo. currently DP and I share childcare working flexibly. DS is happy BUT we have sorted out a nursery place for him a few mornings a week from the age of 2 as we want him to have a bit more regular social interaction and more structured learning.
On nursery visits I have done i do get a bit emotional about the tinies - under a year in nursery. the first time i went for a viewing I thought i would cry but actually it was ok.

[Writerwannabe83]

I definitely think children benefit from being around other children for reasons of social skills development and speech development etc.

I'm due in 2 weeks and the plan is for me to stay off with the baby until he is 1 y/o and then he'd go to a childminder. Originally I was going to return to work part time (22.5hrs) so he'd have 3 days with the Childminder but after looking at our finances we are debating over whether I should return to my current hours: 30 hours a week. It makes sense financially but the thought of putting our child in childcare for 9 hours a day, four days a week, just makes me feel sad, so I think even though we'd be worse off financially I will just go back and work 3 days.

My sister's children have mixed childcare in that they spend some time in a nursery and some time with a childminder. They don't enjoy the nursery at all but love going to the childminders.

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

Damnautocorrect - you wrote:
The million dollar question I think the answer (but not solution!) is simple;
A good responsive sahp is better than a childcare setting
An unresponsive sahp is worse for the child than childcare


Can I just say that that's the sort of massive oversimplification of a very complex issue that is totally unhelpful, drives an artificial polarisation of opinion, and is tacitly (or not so tacitly) used as a stick to beat working mothers with (and despite your choice of the phrase SAHP, by the time this attitude hits the media it's always mothers, despite the fact that I know quite a few very responsive SAHDs and couples who choose to both work part time so they can share childcare responsibilities).

For me, going out to work, interacting with adults, doing stuff that fulfils me is part of what enabled me to come home and be a responsive parent when I was with DS. Put me at home 24/7 and I'd have sunk into such a massive depression I'd have been no use at all to him. (Not that I had a choice anyway: as a single parent, the bills have to be paid somehow - but the point is that even when done as a choice, it's not necessarily a bad one).

[WilsonFrickett]

justanother what's your housing situation, may I ask? Your sister may have no choice but to pay for a mortgage, many people don't. Remember there's a chronic shortage of secure social housing in this country. The choice here is mortgage or private rent - and if you're talking about little security, private rent takes the crown for that.

I also agree that the SAHP model is very new in societal terms. I come from a mining community where it was typical for the women to work beside the men, even after childbirth. My community is still known as 'dirty' because of it - it seems even 100 years ago women were judged for working! But that aside, it was incredibly common for working class women to work and upper class women to have nannies.

This SAH(M) idyll is a fairly recent middle class construct.

[youwish]

I find very sad when kids are put in childcare so the parents can have me time,build up their career,generally can't stand being home, don't see the point in having children then.there was a thread some time ago where many posters were saying they spent 1- 1.5 hours a day with their child,but its OK as they have the weekend as as family. I think building the parents-child relationship is so much more important then having the perfect house in the right catchment area with a bedroom for each child. The reason because many can't afford to SAH is a huge mortgage.many could have bought a flat for much less but apparently flats are not good enough, etc etc

[WilsonFrickett]

Oh here we go youwish. No doubt someone will be along in a minute to talk about precious moments

You are of course entitled to your opinion but does it have to be so emotive and judgy?

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

Youwish - can you give me any interpretation of your post which doesn't lead me to believe that you've just, in effect, said that I should never have had a child?

[Retropear]

No it isn't Wilson there are huge numbers of stay at home parents around the world and always have been.They certainly aren't m/c and many work damn hard (as do many sahp in this country).

[monkeymamma]

Somethingkinda, can I just say I don't entirely agree with your earlier post that NNs/nursery workers who are