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?

Also I will add limited child care for older children can have some benefits.

From spending 10 years working in a school, I would say that childcare from 8am-6pm EVERY day, isn't great for school-aged children. It's also not that common - we had about five children in each class in that situation, and it was possible to guess who they were fairly easily. Many parents got round this by having some grandparent care, a day finishing work earlier, parents working later/earlier hours etc. I have no idea for two year olds.

I have lots of confidence in my parenting abilities - thank you, retro pear. But I can't not be my DDs Mum and going to nursery gives her the opportunity to flourish on her own away from me. For me, the greatest joy of Sure Start was (and is still in some places where the findings not been gutted) that they brought together children from very different backgrounds - this is very hard to replicate with play groups, crèches and virtually impossible with play dates. But I think we may have to agree to disagree - which is fine because our children are different and so I'm sure their needs are to!

Having said that, I don't think this about anyone doubting parent's abilities to look after their own children nor do I think this a new thing - my Mum worked, as did my Nan when her kids were little - neither of them had a financial choice.

Haven't read through fully but a related debate is now on You and Yours on Radio 4- looking at the cost of childcare. more than a mortgage in some cities apparently

(Retropear Labour have been anti-SAHPs for longer than the Tories.)

Our pre- school and toddler group has parents who are lawyers and parents who will be in receipt of free school meals.

All I'm saying is no parent should feel they're not good enough to be at home with their dc.Some may not want to be which is a whole other issue but the vast majority of parents are perfectly capable of giving their dc a great start at home with a few pre- school sessions before school.

Multiple caregivers for a baby has no benefit what so ever and any one who thinks that is fooling themselves big style
Attachment is well established and evidenced

Don't think there is a simple "yes" or "no" answer to this- depends on the child, the quality of the childcare and the situation of the parents.

Evidence is that growing up in poverty is a disadvantage to a child, so if the only way to avoid that is parents working + childcare, I'd say in that situation, childcare is, on balance, the better option. I think there is also some evidence that early years education and childcare can actually benefit disadvantaged children.

If you look at Scandinavian countries, they use childcare extensively and there are no reported detrimental effect on the children en masse- admittedly they work less hours overall, and the childcare is supposedly generally of a high standard.

I know I would go stir-crazy if at home with my DD all day, everyday. I have no doubt that my DD is better off because I went back to work- both because of the financial benefits and because I am sane and happy,rather than frustrated and bored. I know she was happy in childcare, as she bounced in every day (well, when she was able to walk) and is now a confident, happy child. My DDs nursery, then pre-school were both very good though. It might have been a different story if the quality of the childcare had been poor, or I had actually wanted to be a SAHM but couldn't because of financial pressures.

There are many other examples where the outcome for the child is better with working parents and in childcare, than having SAHP. I'm sure there are others where childcare was not the best things for that particular child. I think these cases probably mostly relate to the quality of the childcare used/available and the personality of the child.

IMO childcare which allows parents to work is mostly beneficial, or at least neutral, for most children.

Re Scandinavia they gave a far longer maternity/paternity period and there have been concerns recently re behaviour in schools with questions being asked re childcare.

Aside from all that we aren't Scandinavia and we're not all living in poverty.

It is a shame that childcare is so expensive in this country.
You should be able to afford some hours of nursery from about 2.5 years old even if you are not working.

The problem is that there is no compromise in the workplace and the childcare facilities.
You either work full-time and leave your child all hours with someone else
Or you don't work at all and therefore cannot afford to leave you child for some hours in a nursery.

In an ideal world, the toddler should be MOSTLY with one parent, but also spending sometime in a nursery socialising and playing (and giving the parent a much deserved rest)

Proper childcare is bound to be expensive; house prices and rents are more inexplicable imo.

In an ideal world, the toddler should be MOSTLY with one parent, but also spending sometime in a nursery socialising and playing (and giving the parent a much deserved rest)

Who's ideal world is that?

What is everyone's childcare costing like where they live??
I imagine that geographically it must vary so much??

Where I am (Warwickshire) it would be about £90 a week for 3 daysx9 hours.

The childminder we have looked into would be charging about £350 a month which we don't think is too bad??

Childminder here (Sussex) is 4 p/h - so 8am - 6pm = 40 per day

sorry - those are piund signs, dont know why they have done that!

'If you look at Scandinavian countries, they use childcare extensively and there are no reported detrimental effect on the children en masse- admittedly they work less hours overall, and the childcare is supposedly generally of a high standard. '

People always quote Scandanavia as some utopia for childcare etc but there are studies that show it isn't. Some, as has been pointed out, about behavioral concerns and much about mental health issues in mothers and extended sick leave and mothers concentrated in lower paid jobs.

Retropear, I didn't say everyone is poverty stricken- I said it can be one reason why childcare might be the better option.

I can only proffer my own experiences- DD was in nursery full time from aged 1, and then pre-school from 3.

I have a happy, out-going, inquisitive 6 year old, who knows she's loved. Nursery wasn't in any way a disaster for her, and isn't for many.

I'm not saying it's the outcome for all children, or the route everyone should take.

hop the child's.

That's great but it certainly wouldn't suit all children(none of my 3 for a start) or all mothers.

Time and again research shows parents want more time with their dc not less.I'm pretty sure if asked most young children would feel the same but nobody asks as nobody cares.

Ideally the child would be with a happy, engaged, fulfilled parent, surely? Not one who doesn't enjoy being at home full time, feels trapped into it because of finances or obligation?

I just don't think those kind of sweeping statements are helpful or accurate.

My child wants more chocolate buttons and to only have MrTumble on TV. I don't care about a lot of things he wants.

Being at nursery is the best option (from the available ones in our family) for him.

I don't get this whole SAHM is a new concept thing. How recent do you mean? I'm thinking of most of my friends and family. Most of our mothers are professionals with degrees etc but we were raised by SAHMs. They went to work when the youngest started school. I know my parents and grandparents were raised by SAHMs also. Where did the babies and toddlers go while the mothers worked? What time period are you referring to? Do you just mean in the UK?

Personally, I'd never send a baby to nursery. I feel very lucky I don't have to. This is based on my experience having worked in nurseries from time to time. My sister has also been teaching this age group for over a decade and says the same. She can rattle of many a thing she has seen done, even by her colleagues who have the relevant degree like herself. Most nursery staff have quite limited qualifications if any.

Nursery for toddlers and preschoolers I would consider for our family.

They can get social interaction with a SAHM too.

I am more open to the idea of a childminder. Nurseries can be so overwhelming.

I love being a SAHM and though we have less money I would not go back to work unless we were destitute. I don't think anyone can do as good a job of looking after PFB as I can. My career was not that important to me.

I guess I'm a bit wary of childcare after working at nurseries. I also don't always like what I see with childminders when they are with charges at baby and toddler groups. Nothing terrible.

As many have already pointed out, there is no simple answer to the OPs question, because families and children are all different.

However, I do think its accurate and helpful to bear in mind that many people don't have polarised views on this issue. It's not a case of hating being at home or hating being at work. I'm sure I could have been quite content as a SAHP (and indeed when I worked part time I loved my days at home) I also get a great deal of satisfaction from my work, and my children loved their nursery and thrived there. I'm sure they would have thrived if they'd been home full time too. It doesn't have to be either/or

Would it really be that tragic for the economy if one parent was out of work for say, 5 years? Or if both parents worked part-time for a while? (which is my preferred option - why can't more jobs be part-time?!)

But how hard do we try? Being a bit bored, unfulfilled, frustrated at home - that can be overcome, can't it? Aren't you putting your own needs above the child's? What would you tell them if they could understand? It's too boring for me to look after you myself?

I'm not including where it has a severe affect on mental health such as depression and so on. That's different.