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?

[fideline]

I'm glad someone is at least asking the question.

What urgently needs to be better understood, IMVHO, is the effect of long-hours childcare on the under-twos.

Every week I hear of another 4, 5, 6 month old being enrolled in group care for 9 or 10 hours per day. It amounts to a quiet revolution

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

Retropear - I think in pre-industrial societies, yes, there will have been people (women) working within the home - but that's not quite the same as the SAHP paradigm here, where there's a generation of adults whose lives are focussed round the right balance of messy play to imaginative play, the appropriate number of playgroups to go to, etc. Precisely because the work of running a home (and usually a kitchen garden or similar) is absolutely back-breaking in a pre-industrial society, the women are bringing up children along side doing all this work - and while the child is in the same room as the mother, and chatted to, it doesn't mean the mother has the time to be down on the floor helping the child play.

[AngelaDaviesHair]

Icebeing, like monkey we found that more nursery hours worked better than fewer: DS was far happier being at nursery for 2 longer periods than 2 shorter ones. It also turned out to be very important to get him there promptly in the morning so he settled in at the same time as everyone else, and pick up at the same time on each day.

[SomethingkindaOod]

youwish it's not always about the perfect house, sometimes it's actually having a roof over your head and being able to give your family a hot meal. It's over simplistic to say it's 'sad' because it can also be necessary.
As for 'me time', Are you a SAHM? I get the impression you are, what works for you personally doesn't work for everyone. Having time to be a person in their own right rather than Mumwhodoesitall is essential for many peoples well being and mental health.

[SomethingkindaOod]

monkey about the more experienced nursery nurses? Sorry should have said that it was my own experience, both as a parent and a NN.

[WilsonFrickett]

You are right of course Retro I should have said in the UK.

Although I think we also need to look at our definition of 'staying at home'. For example, I would imagine many parents in the developing world aren't going out to work in the way we'd understand, but are so fully engaged in the grind of raising food and keeping a roof over their children's head to not quite fit our definition of SAHPing.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

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?

Yes, I would quite like to read that too.

This notion that people who want to go to work clearly aren't cut out to be parents is incredibly offensive. I work because I find it very rewarding, I enjoy my job and it is of benefit to me and my family. There is more to me than just being someone's mum. If you are happy staying at home, then that is fine and I am glad you enjoy it. I work part-time and those days when I am at work allow me to recharge, to get a bit of clarity and perspective on things (for example I get a nice 40 minute commute to read or have a think about how to handle a particular issue), I get the head space I need to be a good, responsive parent. Part-time works for my family, but I could see full-time working as well. I had a child because I wanted one, not because I wanted to give up myself for the next 5 years. I didn't stop being me when I pushed him out of my body.

Maternal guilt is such a load of bullshit. I wish anyone who pulls the mummier-than-thou card a lifetime of pigeons shitting on their head.

[monkeymamma]

Oops!

Who are older and have their own children are better than those without. My DS's key workers have been astonishingly young and absolutely amazing at their job. He adores them and also does what they say. Which he doesn't with us!

[Retropear]

Lurcio believe you me when I was a sahp to my 3 under 15 months the getting down on the floor to play thing came second to cooking frugal meals from scratch, endless washing,cleaning etc.

Many sahp aren't rich yummy mummies swilling lattes and having manicures.Most are on a tight budget and actually quite busy running a home which actually has masses of benefits for young children getting involved in.

[monkeymamma]

... They don't have children of their own - just natural authority.

And yy to Angela's point about getting in on time, ds loves the nursery routine especially now he's there to experience more of it.

[SeaSickSal]

As people have said it depends on the child. My little boy goes 3 days a week and is very happy, it makes him more confident and outgoing and he really enjoys spending time with his little mates.

But we should have a choice. At the moment mothers (and fathers) and their children are treated simply as economic units of production, not as people.

Supporting childcare should support both choices, to care for them yourself or to go out to work. I hate this forcing women out to work because it's 'good for the economy' as though that is the only thing that matters, not the actual lives of the people involved which must be ignored and subsumed for the sake of 'the economy'.

And it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. My Mum stayed at home and I still went to playgroup a couple of days a week.

[SomethingkindaOod]

I thought that was it , both types have their strengths it's just that the ones I worked with and dealt with were older. In fact I trained with half of them so we worked well together anyway.
A good key worker is essential to the well being of any child in nursery whatever their age!

[kentishgirl]

I don't think you can look at the child in isolation from the rest of the family.

IMO in a perfect world a mixture is best for the child. Most time with parent (either) but some time in a more formal group setting as well. I never had much contact with children of my own age, never went to nursery or playroup, or was away from my mum. School came as a big shock and I lacked a lot of social skills and confidence, and the effects of that stayed with me for decades. My own son was an only child, and I was a SAHM for quite a few years, but right from when he was a baby I made sure he spent time in creches, playgroups etc.

[Jess03]

True and many working parents aren't taking time off in the week to have their hair done etc. although frankly, if me time keeps me sane and my dc are well looked after, it is no one else's business. Why can't people just be honest that we all muddle through, the research isn't conclusive about what's best and we just do what we hope is best?

[notadoctor]

It's a shame that these discussions inevitably become so emotive, personal and judgemental.

I thought long and hard about whether to be a SAHP - but for me in the end, it felt like that would have been the more selfish decision. I wanted to be with my DD for every "precious moment" but I didn't want to put additional financial strain on my DH (who is self employed) and I felt my daughter would be missing out. I work professionally with children - and have worked in many Sure Start settings. I personally strongly feel there are things a nursery setting offers her which I can't.

However I would never dream about pulling a sad face about other people's parenting choices.

[LurcioLovesFrankie]

Sorry, Retro, probably getting two separate groups on here conflated - apologies for being just as crude in my stereotyping as some of the mummier-than-thou (brilliant phrase, hopalong) group. No, of course being a SAHM is absolutely exhausting work - and 3 under 15 months! I would collapse under the strain, without a doubt. I suppose what I was trying to get at was that it is a major parenting fail to fall short of the ideal of making every moment of your small child's life a "meaningful" or "learning experience" with lots of input from the primary carer. That's nonsense both for most SAHP and most WOHP - because life doesn't work that way. Adults have to spend a significant amount of their lives doing stuff to provide for the material welfare of the family - whether that's earning the money, or doing the housekeeping work (or in my case, both!) It's this idea that the ideal parent exists solely to provide one-to-one interaction with their child the whole time that drives ridiculous levels of guilt.

[monkeymamma]

And re the benefit of working for mums (though I know that's not what this thread is about, the opposite in fact... Although to an extent what's if benefit to the mum is arguably benefit to the whole family), I work pt and once I take out transport costs and childcare it is a cost-neutral exercise. We've always said the reason for it is (a) me enjoying it (though I don't all the time) and (b) being able to get back into work at a later point, keeping my hand in and so forth. My industry is creative and pretty competitive. I recently overheard two younger colleagues in a different team discussing the merits of an ex-employee (before their time) whose baby was born around the same time as my ds. Their view was she might not know what she's doing as she's been out of the game for so long. Two fricking years!! And she's one of the best in the business. I was shocked.

[WilsonFrickett]

Supporting childcare should support both choices, to care for them yourself or to go out to work. I hate this forcing women out to work because it's 'good for the economy' as though that is the only thing that matters, not the actual lives of the people involved which must be ignored and subsumed for the sake of 'the economy'

That's a discussion worth having Sal, I think it's hard to do it on a parenting board though because it all becomes about 'I did this, I do that' - which I have also been guilty of on this thread

[monkeymamma]

Oh yeah and on my non work days I tend to spend the time cooking cleaning and calling tradesmen rather than it being a meaningful learning experience for ds :-) in fact when I do get down on the floor to play it's usually so I can have a lie down whilst pretending to build stuff with duplo bricks...

[Retropear]

I disagree Not.

I love Surestart but sorry they offer nothing I couldn't give with bells on.Our local pre- school is Outstanding.With time at home with me and a few pre- school sessions my dc had above and beyond what any Surestart setting could give.

You may not have confidence in your parenting ability but many do and damn well should do.I find it sad that society is starting to say parents are just not good enough to be at home with their own dc.

When did this happen?

[Retropear]

No worries Lurcio.

[monkeymamma]

Arguably what's good for the economy is good for all of us, Wilson - but I take your point.

[funnyossity]

Wilson: my working class family did stay at home with young children then returned to work as the children grew up. So not forever SAHM but for some years. There was also an unmarried aunt who had not worked outside the home much as she had brought up younger ones on the death of their mother and then did yet more childcare for nephews and nieces - but that childcare was beyond the toddler stage iyswim.

Lurcio no sensible person can say you and yours are not better off in work and using childcare. That nursery worker sounds wonderful!

But Damnautocorrect has quoted something I've seen before put in those simplistic terms. I took from it the positive message that if you, the parent, are happy that you have picked the optimum set up for you and your family then it is likely to indeed be the best for your child. I think this continues with schooling tbh too. There are plenty of ways to live and thrive.

[Retropear]

Yes most sahp aren't a sahp for life(which the Tories like to conveniently brush under the carpet).

[Fusedog]

for younger children eg babies under 18 months the answer is no this is well evidenced

One of the 1st thing we learned about when I was training was the effect of multiple carers for babies and the stress of a competitive environment.