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?

Ha morethan great minds think alike!

Janey, of course some are going to abuse the system, same as welfare, doesn't mean you don't give anyone a benefit.

Why is a writer more deserving than parents? I would argue because parents are responsible for powerless, voiceless children and this is why they deserve extra money. If you want to invest in children you have to spend money, even if some irresponsible people are going to abuse/waste this.

I'm watching with interest the take up of the tranferable parental leave... My dream is we see lots of women taking the first 6 months and dad taking the second six months... I'm sure the knock on of this will be more equal ongoing sharing of earning and caring responsibilities.

I agree with you on the proven subject of providing lots of support for extremely vulnerable/dysfunctional families because early intervention can be cost effective

I think the problem with the argument for giving money to all parents to use for childcare or to stay at home, is that when you are talking about functional (as opposed to dysfunctional ) families- ie the type of parents who will feed their child healthily, talk to them, stimulate them- there is simply no evidence that having a parent at home will produce better outcomes. These children are likely to do well with WOHP or SAHP. Of course, some parents will want to stay at home, but that an entirely different argument. It goes back to what I said before... any person (parent or not)may want to stop working, they might do all sorts of life enhancing things with their time which they believe is good for them and their family- but that doesn't mean public funds should pay them to do it

I still wonder how and why people think that the child care should be paid for by gov?
I have dc in ft nursery
It's fabulous and loved by him
We are happy he is well cared for
I hate him having to be ft because my role is ft or nothing
But in none of this do I expect someone else to pay for it
When deciding whether to have a child we thought about how our future live together would work from a day to at basis. This is the same reason we don't currently have plans for more, as until he starts school we can't afford double childcare
I get tht awful things happen people lose partners or split occur but by nature of babies they start out with a partnership
In terms if what's best for the child: it varies
Dc thrives at nursery and totally loves it
Would he be same on 3 as 5 days- yes undoubtedly but sadly that's not an option for us now

Warning... I will probably sound like the daily mail
I would be interested to know of the SAHP how many could afford to do so if they didn't get tax credits etc?
We are in position whereby I am main earner
I would love to quit for a year but do salary wouldn't pay mortgage let alone bills
If dh quit mine would pay mortgage and bills but nothing more and would earn too much for assistance
What would benefit us would be old school tax transfer for married couples
Dh and me pool tax allowance to essentially be paid more money each month ....
dreams and bangs head on wall simultaneously

Sleepdodger - 70% of my town claim tax credits in some form, but Ive just seen stats that say on 14% do in London. It varies a lot over the country.

londonkiwi Fri 07-Mar-14 22:47:39

totally agree with this post. I would add encourage a climate of speaking out, if staff want to report a bad egg.

Don't think I'm the only one who thinks the same actually.

There is no need for such aggressive rather nasty hounding posts,continuously hurling accusations of privilege.Many of us are managing to hold an adult discussion without doing the same.I won't be bullied into saying I'm privileged as I'm not.

Re your obsession with pensions many don't have them when they could,this whole subject doesn't hinge on that.Lack of pensions provision goes across all sections of society and had been due to lack of knowledge,planning,foresight and quite frankly ignorance in many cases.

Couples having some time with a sahp if helped by the gov(in a variety of ways including safeguarding of careers) isn't going to be the difference between adequate pension provision and not if adequate provision is set up from an early age to start with.Obviously if a parent didn't work for decades that would be different,most sahp aren't out of work for decades and this isn't what this thread is suggesting.

To infer that a period at home for a parent would ensure a hopeless old age regardless is disingenuous and scaremongering.

If you continue with such a bullying tone I will simply ignore your posts however I'd rather have a measured discussion as it could be quite informative.

Sleepdodger.

Unless you have a huge brood of dc or very low outgoings i.e no mortgage or rent Tax credits isn't going to afford you to be a sahp.
Yes, there are a few which this includes, but its not many.
Tax credits are awarded on income, so in our case low income/tax credits. Many families I know could not survive on this amount and need both parents working.
So this idea of tax credits supporting sahps is very rare.

Retro- you say you feel hounded, but all people really want is some explanation of the things you propose.
You talk on the one hand of parents sorting themselves out beforehand if they want to have a SAHP (saving up, overpaying mortgage etc) but then you say you want govt support for SAHP! Why, when you clearly feel that it's down to families to make their own provision?

As for the govt 'safeguarding' jobs: they already do. Maternity leave rights are pretty bloody good in the UK... We have SMP and people have a right to a year off work.
You mentioned earlier about 2 years leave as an idea, but when many of us asked how that would work, particularly in professions like the medical one, you didn't answer. In fact it's difficult to imagine how a lot of jobs would work... If a woman has 2 children she could have 4 years off with perhaps a few weeks of work in the middle. If that woman was the teacher of one of your children at secondary school I expect you'd feel very concerned. The protection of one persons job always has a knock on for others... No one can be appointed permanently to a role while the post holder is on ML

As for the privilege aspect, like it or not you are privileged compared to the majority of people. You have said that you managed to overpay your mortgage and save up before having children. You have a high earning partner who facilitates your wish to be a SAHM and he's also paying the contribution he's allowed to into your pension to keep it going. You also have no worries that you'll walk into the job you want. That is massively privileged compared to many. It's not a slur to say that. I would say it about myself: we have had some very lean times but are now both earning good salaries with good pensions.

I think the issue here is that you are looking at things totally from your own perspective. You'd like the govt to make some sort of provision for women to stay at home for precisely the amount of time that you've chosen to, while safeguarding your job (not sure why you're so bothered about that though because you've said you don't want your previous career back) You haven't acknowledged that all these things have to be paid for, and all of them have a knock on for others.

As for your last point suggesting that people just ought to jolly well pay more into their pension pre children- words fail me! Have you any idea what real life is like for 20/30 something's? Graduating with a pile of debt, struggling to find work and then having to pay exorbitant rent because they can't rustle up the odd 20k for a deposit.

I sometimes think we had it tough because we lived through the days of 15% interest rates, we had no help with childcare and only 12 weeks ML. But I think it's bloody tough now too for couples trying to establish their career and think about having a family.

DH has just finished paying off his student loan. He has calculated that under the new system he would currently owe £90k and his payments (on a higher rate tax band salary, ie well above national average) wouldn't even cover the interest on the loan.

It wouldn't put us off encouraging a suitable candidate for applying to university, but so much has changed in even the last five years that those of us who "only" paid £1k ish per year - or those who went before fees came in - have no fucking idea what it's like for those in their early twenties now.

Sovery and I don't want to be patronised by being called privileged.You have no idea where we started from,how broke we've been or how hard we worked thanks.

Re medical Janey I did answer, somebody mentioned the lack of flexibility,I suggested looking at that.Re teaching you have to also have to do a back to teaching course to get back in.One of my dc's best teacher had years out so no worries for me there.

I am certainly not privileged,I didn't have a privileged background,no special rights or advantages.Dp and I just put off having kids,saved for years,worked damn hard and were frugal.We are extremely frugal now and actually live on a lot less than 2 x dual income families do.

Re pensions(my father is a financial adviser) and one of the biggest problems is people not taking out pensions early enough and not paying enough in. Not being aware of reality,not getting information.Many people don't even have one when actually they could,they don't realise the earlier they start the better.Having a period as a sahp doesn't cause this.If having 3 years out completely blows your pension provision out of the water you've not good provision anyway.

To say only the "privileged" can have a sahp is wrong,as others have pointed out others on tax credits do,I have friends in all brackets that facilitate one in a variety of ways. It is wrong to say women have no right to want choice and that we as a society shouldn't at least try and help if it benefits children.

If we can pay the childcare for millions of second earners who pay no tax(and probably never will), not exactly see why we can't even look at facilitating families to have a sahp if they feel it is beneficial.

To get back to the op,the above is all secondary to the need of asking the question mooted.If it isn't good for children,the whole issue and facilitating more to gave a sahp has to be looked at.

To say only the "privileged" can have a sahp is wrong

Totally wrong. We live extremely frugally.

It is wrong to say women have no right to want choice and that we as a society shouldn't at least try and help if it benefits children

I get the impression some people just don't want choice.

They are happy to have their dc in nursery from baby hood and there is nothing wrong with this I would just rather they came out and said it rather than argue on and on going round in circles.

I haven't heard anyone say they don't want choice. Most of us are saying live and let live

No you're saying only the "privileged" could have a sahp,that only the "privileged"do and we shouldn't even bother asking if childcare is good for children because absolutely nothing can ever be done to facilitate children having alternatives.

You're also implying that those who wish to look at this are spoilt,dim little rich girls(you left out lazy) who have never lived in the real world,pretty much inline with government rhetoric.

It stinks and I think unless we want to sleepwalk into cut price nursery chain childcare for all,with limited family time we should expect and ask for more.

But then what would I know?I'm only a spoilt,latte swilling dim wit,living off the back of my partner having never lived in the real world or contributed to the family coffers.

Wrong retro- I have said that YOU are privileged, not every SAHP. And that I am privileged- not every WOHP.
Why not try sticking to what people actually write?

The issue of having a few years out is that if you have more than one child and want to SAH until they are 3, it is rarely such a short period .
If you want 3 DC and assuming they are singletons then even if you got pregnant very quickly after each it is likely to be 5 years plus.
Then there is finding a job with flexibility ,which is likely to have less benefits including pension rights that you had before.

The NHS is changing its pension terms and conditions as we speak.
Those with many years of pension contributions behind them will have that protected. From 2015 it becomes career average which will affect women who have taken a while out - unless they have made other provision.

What would happen if extensive research showed childcare WAS good for children and being in it provided benefits/opportunities that being at home with a SAHP doesn't?

Would all the SAHP suddenly feel guilty for 'depriving' their children and put them in childcare? would we all expect this?? I highly doubt it.

I'm sure though that if childcare was proven to be bad for children all the Working Parents would come under scrutiny and be made to feel immense guilt for 'going against the research and causing damage to their offspring'.....

I just hate the unfairness/hypocrisy of it all.

I haven't got a pension and I gave up work 15 years ago, I will not be able to get a great job and will be doing well to earn much above minimum wage

My husband earns a good wage and supports me now, but we keep putting off looking at pensions for me (which I know is daft)

I have without doubt buggered up my career and pensions

So I think it could say that although I have a very cushy life now it has been an enormous risk