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?

[bishbashboosh]

Totally depends on the child and the ethos of he family , obviously

Freedom of choice and equality or maybe less discussion and letting people make and get on with their own decisions would be best

[TeamWill]

Buds only 21% of children under 2 attend a nursery- the vast majority of WOHP don't send their very young babies to nursery and many ,like me ,have never used any form of childcare.

Parents do want choice but not all of them get to make it freely.

[georgesdino]

I dont know where the sahps are priveledged comes from as thar isnt reflected in rl. Most I know do it as they havent got a decent job to go back to. Its different on mn but in most places I have lived its because they prefer that than do 40 hrs in costa coffee or a job like that.

The vast majority here have sahps on tax credits. I dont think I can think of 1 person who doesnt do it that way out of a very large amount.

[janey68]

Georgesdino - agree, I don't know where this accusation that we're saving all SAHP parents are privileged came from. People stay at home for lots of reasons- some cannot afford to work, some have jobs they don't like and staying at home is preferable, some struggle but believe totally that its right for their family so it's matter of principle. What I'm absolutely sure of is that the SAHP who managed to save and overpay their mortgage before kids and has their partner continuing to contribute to their pension while they're at home is a relatively privileged minority. There's nothing wrong with that, but the complete refusal to acknowledge it is odd. I'm not ashamed to say I feel privileged as a WOHP... It doesn't mean I was born privileged. Quite the opposite. Very ordinary family background, pretty crappy comp, got into university and started out on relatively low salary. We lived through the years of very high mortgage rates (Christ knows how some people managed to overpay theirs...) and when we had our children we paid full childcare from 3 months to age 5. We are now in the fortunate position of having 2 good incomes and pensions, plus 2 happy healthy children, so yes, I would call myself privileged. Especially as we didn't graduate with 30 or 40k debts and then have to find thousands for a house deposit

[janey68]

saying

[georgesdino]

I can spell by the way its early morning

[CountessOfRule]

I think it comes from a suggestion upthread that a particular poster was in the privileged position of being in a relationship that could sustain a SAHP and pension payments for both parents (etc).

For some people, SAHPing is a luxury they can afford (whether through wealth or by scrimping) but for others it's the only affordable choice. Certainly among my friends there was very little choice involved - either you can't afford to work, or you can't afford not to. Ideology comes a very far second to financial imperatives.