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?

I only had 5 months off...and was desperate to get back to work (which I thought would cure my PND - guess what? It didn't...) I used to express BM in my office at lunch times....

DD does NOT cope in groups....she would have screamed the entire time at nursery - in fact at the point I went back to work she would scream if she saw anything brightly coloured - seriously I wore beige for an entire year. I can just imagine going to the nursery and asking for all the brightly coloured toys/picture/clothes to be removed....so for us the best choice was me back to work and DH at home with DD.

Some interesting perspectives on here.
As a mother and as someone with a lot of responsibility for recruitment at work, I can see both sides.

Personally, I have in the last year appointed 2 women to my team who have been out of the workplace for several years having children. They were the best candidates for those jobs in that particular team. And I emphasise this again: employers aren't out to make things tough for mothers... Many of us are mums ourselves and actually all we want is the best person for the job

Re: flexible working: IME the successful requests are the ones which acknowledge the business needs too, and aren't highly prescriptive.

Eg we had two requests this year from people wanting to cut down to 4 days. Both asked for Wednesdays off... Not for any specific reason just that they liked the idea of never having to work more than two days in a row. The drop to 4 days was agreed but not both having Wednesdays off as we could appoint a new person for two days, but not two new people for one day, IYSWIM

We also try to be flexible when there are very specific childcare issues (eg we've had one woman returning after ML part time who could only get a nursery place on Certain days as it was full at particular times. However, the woman returning who requested to work afternoons only because her mum worked mornings and she wanted her to provide childcare in the afternoons didn't have that agreed as it was too restrictive on getting certain aspects of the job done

It's give and take on both sides and I guess the key is seeing the wider picture, not just what suits us at any particular time

There is another woman who has recently reduced her hours and consequently misses the weekly Monday meeting with my team. She gets emailed the meeting notes, but she told me she still felt very out of the loop and asked if she could have 30 minutes with me every weds morning (she offered to come in early) to catch up. I've agreed to do this, because running a smooth and happy team is important to me.... But it did cross my mind that if my children were younger, that 30 minutes extra on a weds would actually impact on my time with my children... Seeing the bigger picture is definitely the only way to ensure systems work for as many people as possible

I think it's incredibly self-centred that there are some people on here who think our over stretched govt should spend more money enabling parents to stay at home longer for the children they choose. I don't care if you're a SAHM but I do not want to fund your lifestyle choices when disability benefits are being cut and hospital wards are under staffed.

Well I don't want to fund childcare or free food for the rich.

Somebody has to look after these children so money is going to have to be spent.I'd rather it went on enabling parents who want one to have a sahp rather than a cheap,faceless nursery chain which is what we're heading towards.

At the end of the day children are important as are the early years.Get it right and it's better for all in the long run.

And we all choose to have our children, both sahp parents and wps.

I had a year off after DC1 and 2. I don't think I could've had much more time off and stayed up to date and confident in my ability (psychologist).

I was extremely fortunate to have a very flexible employer, and could go back 2 days per week. Also, my DH works 4 days per wk. We are in NZ and fairly low mortgage.

It's not perfect - I drive across town, completely out of my way to take my 3 yr old to the CM we've used for 6 yrs b/c she's fantastic and my kids also hated group settings pre-3 years as I said upthread.

In terms of work I have definitely missed out on some interesting work and am less senior now b/c of part-time work. I feel compelled to work damn hard whenever I'm there to make sure I'm "worthwhile" in my 2 days.

DH also works like a maniac to effectively do 5 days work in 4 (architect, not much precedent for part-time, esp. as he is running projects). But he always works like a maniac anyway so no change there!

So overall I think it's the best trade off for us. We've both kept our careers, and progressed them (slowly over last 6 yr for me admittedly) but our kids were home most of the time when under 3, which was clearly where they were happiest and we both love having the time with them.

I am very confused
On one hand Retro you say that SAHP are possible for everyone if only they save and plan their children, are frugal etc

Now you think the government should fund a SAHP for every family

Coming at it from a different angle I am very glad I managed to stay in the workplace, teenagers are expensive ! but also I am in a senior position which means I earn enough to work 3 days a week .
Teenagers need you just as much as little ones just in a different way.
I always think I would hate to be starting out in the world of work now after being off for so long and I feel lucky I am able to be around for all the teenage angst ( or DH is).
Not sure how this would happen if I were now a junior midwife and trying to make my mark.

Retropear - I absolutely agree that investment in early childhood is important and we all have a responsibility towards all of society's young children, not just our own children. I also agree that the move towards faceless nursery corporations is worrying. Having worked for Children's Services and Sure Start - I was shocked by how hard it was to find an affordable private nursery with the same fantastic standard of care. Personally, I would be happy for more of my taxes to be spent on state funded children's centres and nurseries - and I think in an ideal world much of this provision should be free at the point of access to those who need it.

There is already a free early years education element available to all, rich or poor, which some people are able to double up as childcare hours enabling them to work.

I'm not necessarily advocating the tax payer funding huge childcare subsidies for all... I was happy to find mine at a high level because my children are precious and it never occurred to me that just because it was the same as our mortgage it was any less valuable. Neither do I think people should be funded to stay at home. We already have very good maternity rights and SMP here which is more than many countries get, which is right and proper for parents to get a very decent amount of time off for each child (and hoo-bloody-rah btw for transferable leave between parents!) If you decide you don't want to return to your job, that's fine too but I'm not sure why you should expect anyone other than your partner to fund that.

fund mine

Not sure why anyone should expect the gov to fund childcare bills either to be frank if that us the case.I know what I'd rather money went on if we're going to be helping families.Surely it's down to choice and what is best or families and more importantly- children.

And no Team I didn't 'to say that,I've repeatedly said a variety of measures.

Sorry I'm not engaging in the twisting and rip Retro to shreds scenario that went on last night.It was tedious enough then and there has been far more interesting discussion I'd rather focus on.

The government want wohps, and people are deluded if they think they value sahps or ever will do again like years ago.

Who is ripping you to threads ??
im not sure what a variety of measures means - measures to do what ?

I agree the thread is far more interesting when the challenges parents face are discussed and acknowledged .
I have never used any form of childcare, my Dc wont benefit from subsidised childcare nor free school meals for little ones but I am happy as a taxpayer to fund them because I know how hard it is to make a living and bring up children

The government - and society - should value good parents. Not parents who happen to work, or happen to stay at home. Because good parenting is more likely to result in well adjusted adults who will be happy citizens and contribute to society

I think the state should fund childcare for everyone no matter how wealthy.

My daughter is in state nursery, subsidised by the state. I am very fortunate to have it - we couldn't have moved to a bigger flat if I hadn't had that place for DD3, it has improved our financial security, I am working and paying tax.

I hav to say I was at home with my children when they were babies/toddlers...I wouldn't have wanted to work ft at that point but would have loved to have had the opportunity to work 2/3 days a week.

Round of applause for you janey

A thought: I always wonder what judgemental SAHP really think of their DH/DP when I read these threads - do they think they are good parents even though they WOH or do they apply the same judgement to their partners as they do to WOHP on these threads

The government - and society - should value good parents.

Sounds great, how could the govt actually do that do you think? (genuine question). And defining a 'good parent' is a whole other question.

I do agree that a culture shift that placed more value on children and parenting is important ... parenting is such a crucial, relentless and (at times) difficult role for all of us.

It's not easy to define exactly what good parenting means, and there is bound to be some variation in people's views, but very broadly speaking, things like meeting the child's physical needs (healthy food, enough sleep etc), providing an environment which enables them to develop emotionally, talking to the child and so on.

At the end of the day, society benefits from having citizens who are physically and mentally healthy. Quite apart from the huge emotional cost, dysfunctional families are a massive financial drain on resources.

Someone upthread said the govt want WOHP not SAHP and I was pointing out that actually what the govt wants is good parenting, which can be done (or not done) by both those groups

Ps to Answer the other part of your question, I think it mainly happens through education... Healthy eating campaigns; wasnt there also some policy a few years ago whereby all babies were given a book (not sure of the detail there as my children are older ) ... Also there has been a lot of education over recent years about the importance of talking to children from birth to develop Language skills...

Having said that, I'm not a fan of the nanny state and would hate to feel there was prescriptive govt 'advice' on everything...

Put a price on childcare and give this amount to all parents, this is the fairest. If both parents want/need to work their childcare is sorted. If there is a sahp this can be afforded as they are paid to mind their own children. This would also give more opportunities for choice in education and could afford H.ed if the parent/s desired.
Simples.

... Except that of course someone has to pay for it.. So that would be the tax payer! Taxes are high enough in this country, many people are already stretched. I also disagree fundamentally with the idea of paying people some sort of 'wage' simply because they've had a child (whether its to spent on childcare or to stay at home, the principle is the same that you are paying people to have kids) Many people don't want children, or can't have them. Or would quite like to be paid to give up work and do something incredibly life enhancing like write a novel or go and volunteer... You could argue that they are far more deserving than someone who's going to take their money, sit their child in front of the TV all day and feed them froot shoots!

It really isnt 'simples' once you start to think about it

Agree with your broad defn of "good" parents.

I think the best way to ensure healthy functional adults is two fold. Firstly, put more money into quality childcare and early c/hood edn (as pre-5 education is proven to be most impt for child devmt) and for kids in hugely dysf. families good quality, free early child edn is vital. More funding for nursery workers to have better training (esp. about child devmt and attachment), and an emphasis on a stable key worker in the nursery setting, esp. for babies would be valuable.

In my experience public health education campaigns don't change the parenting behaviour of the most dysf families, they need huge(read expensive) support alongside this.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic from the thrust of this thread...

Secondly, if parents want to have under-3's at home because they believe that's in the best interests for their children (and that's why most of the SAHP's I know do it, and we're all agreed parents know their own children best) then surely the govt subsidy that goes towards childcare for that child could go to the parent if that's the only way it's affordable for the family to have SAHP or at least work less hours? Don't ask me for details how this would work, I'm not an economist!

One thing evidence is clear on is the importance of a primary attachment figure for secure attachment in under 3's. The evidence for that is widely accepted in child devmt literature.

Oh, and a societal shift where more men considered reducing work hours to SAH. My DH is unusual amongst his friends working 4 days and it probably only started because he was sick and was forced to cut down. His employer would rather he went back to 5 days but doesn't want to lose him. I'm surprised how many families don't seem to even consider or try for the man to have reduced hours to enable both partners to keep their careers.

Ok rant over. Better stop ignoring my kids, ironic given this topic!

I cant imagine that a government subsidy wouldn't come with a list of conditions attached.
Would we also see allowances along the same lines for those who care of the elderly, ill or disabled at home- surely that would be only fair ?
Where will the money come from?