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?

IceBeing stop posting and do the research!

I think I said it already several times, but there is an average correct answer (which the government should know before setting policies - because government policy is supposed to move the average behaviour) but what is right for any given individual is not determined by what is right on average and noone should be judged for having thought through all their own personal consequences and come up with a reasoned decision...whether or not their answer matches the average one.

funny I am think of printing that out and putting it next to my computer....

@ Funny!

My advice is usually pretty spot on .

Can I do your Tarot?

Exactly Teamwill, and that people know it can be a choice in the first place.

I don't agree that allowing parents to not work should take priority over other things. Like increasing staffing rates in hospital wards? Working in the NHS, I'm quite stunned that anyone would think it is a priority

If we all took two years off there wouldn't be any staff on hospital wards. I know where I work we've had four or five people off at the same time. It's very rare to get any maternity cover in nursing due to cost. Generally you're left to get on with it.

There we go - so we all agree that all the information should be available for parents to enable them to make an informed choice for them regarding their children.
So what are we arguing about then ?

< kumbaya > < world peace and all that >

teamwill we should join forces and stick it to the government for trying to manipulate us with out getting the evidence in place first!

Yes to choice, including to have small children at home if this is best for them!

The research re attachment backs up what, surely, we intuitively know and see in babies and small children. Their parents are their favourite people ! Their mother and father represents security to them. Doesn't it make sense to make sure they can spend as much time as possible with them?

That's what I care about Janey, couldn't give flying fig about research on future GCSE results.

My own kids were overwhelmed around big groups of children, until they were 3, even when I was with them! I couldn't imagine them being in a nursery all day every day as 0-2's. They are on the slow-to-warm end of the spectrum but totally not out of the ordinary,there are lots of kids around like this.

And yes I know lots aren't like this too and love nursery! I'm not speaking for all.

I feel very fortunate for my DC and myself that we had the ability to ensure our kids were mostly at home with DH or I for their first 3 years and would like others (who want this) to be able to have it.

Gwan -you go first Ill get your back

No I don't have the economic answers. I know any extra mat leave would be hugely costly/difficult in practice. I think that a culture shift towards valuing SAHP would be a good start though.

... Hurrah! The only thing id add is that yes yes yes we should all ask questions, but we also shouldn't be afraid of the possibility that there may not be conclusive answers to the questions we're asking anyway!

Perhaps it's human nature to look for the 'security ' of answers, but often for the really important and complex issues in life, there simply isnt a way of carrying out scientific research which can tell us a conclusive answer.

Ultimately parents want to raise happy, well adjusted resilient children who grow into happy well adjusted resilient adults.... There are millions of ways this can happen and a lot of it is about instinct, family dynamics, and a million other variables which can't be measured.

So yes , by all means ask questions but remember the limitations of the information out there. Many of us have raised happy healthy children without ever opening a text book on child development!

Don't quite agree. Not saying it's easy but actually there are relevant variables that can be measured ... a child's quality of attachment to their primary caregiver can be measured, as can their happiness at a point in time. Of course type/quality of childcare is only one influence on these measures but studies can have a good go at separating out the factors influencing, say, strength of attachment.

Of course research to do with complex human behaviour isn't totally conclusive ... human nature is multi-faceted. This doesn't mean you dismiss all research connected to people!

I think that a culture shift towards valuing SAHP would be a good start though

We are going the other way though and this is what worries me.

Their parents are their favourite people ! Their mother and father represents security to them. Doesn't it make sense to make sure they can spend as much time as possible with them?

That's what I care about Janey, couldn't give flying fig about research on future GCSE results

I agree. Babies needs change, toddler and beyond. But babies are usually best with their parents, or one care giver, then they start to need to be around other children more.

On the other hand, if we could get it to a more balanced choice I also think more pointers for SAHMS would be good.

Non of the SAHMS I know are lazy parents.

However there are varying degrees of in put.

I can see a very marked difference between the Mothers that are engaging with a view to educate the child as oppose to those who are just being with the child.

It cannot be good when society moves towards putting their young into institutions, and spending only two days a week with them (+ the odd hour/two before/after nursery). It is, of course, necessary in today's world, for an awful lot of families. But I don't believe it should be the norm. Rather, wages should be such that one parent can choose to SAHP if they wish, and children should be the centre of our society, not an inconvenience to the government. They are our future.

Many mothers do spend the early years at home for a lot of it if they have more than one child.

I went very part time when they were little and had a years mat leave with all 3 . DC1 benefitted the most !

It would be good to hear people's solutions to how things would work economically and logistically if changes were to be made to current legislation and practice

I agree Janey -can you imagine how many women there are in the current workforce across the Country who have young children.....

...now take all those women out of their jobs and put them in the home and then what??

How could the Country cope with such an immense exodus of people in employment? It just wouldn't be feasible....

That wasnt a loaded question btw.. I am genuinely interested to know. If for example, paternal leave was doubled or trebled (both suggestions have been made on here) then how would the knock on for employers, other employees Etc be addressed? I've asked this but had no response

I have no problem with people saying what they would like to happen, but it seems strange to make proposals without any thought about how they would be implemented

WHOA! it doesn't have to be women!!!!!

Children can be raised through the early years by DAD too....

Also we have mass unemployment of young people right now...shy force parents back to work while increasing youth unemployment?

why not shy...

Usually the woman takes 9 months mat leave, and some one else covers her.

The business usually survives for 9 months so why not simply increase that for women that want it.

In fact I think longer term, If women had an easier time of it, to prolong mat leave, I think more would go back to their jobs rather than jack them in because they don't want to leave their babies at 9 months.

They are forced then out of their jobs.

I think many more women would feel happier and less guilt if they were able to stay at home for a little bit longer. There is a huge difference between 9 months and 1 year or more. At least the child can communicate a whole lot better and express emotion.

I don't get Maternity cover if any of my staff are on mat leave.

Why is it only 9 months ? - with annual leave accrued it is usually extended.
In fact in the NHS it is a year plus annual leave - so around 13 months plus in total.