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?

With many things my dc's wants/needs aren't listened to however with some more important they are.

My dc differ to yours,they wanted a lot more than chocolate and TV,many will be the same.

Nobody is saying a miserable mother being forced to stay at home is a good thing but are instead questioning whether childcare is good for children.For many it certainly won't be,it won't be good for many mothers either.

You may not like the question or answers but it is a question that needs to be asked.It seems to be an uncomfortable question which seems to get pushed under the carpet as a result.

That was replying to Hop.

People should make their own decisions for their own family. As soon as I read comments like " I'm sure if I asked all children what they want..." it just makes me glad that I know my children best and respect the fact that other parents know their children and their situation best

I don't think it's an uncomfortable question, I just think we have to frame the question within the family.

Child prefers to be at home. Mother (because it does always seem to be mothers) prefers to work (for her own mental health, sense of self, financial independence etc). Who gets priority? We give children priority over so much of our lives (and willingly, for the most part), but we have to draw a line somewhere. And in my mind it's OK for a mother to say that actually, my desire to work outweighs my child's desire to stay home with me. Good quality childcare, in the balance of a happy, loving, attentive family, is not damaging.

The ideal situation is one where women are free to make the best choices for themselves and their children and families, free from financial stresses and the ridiculous 'mummy guilt' and sense of obligation.

Some do and aren't getting what they know to be best for their dc as illustrated by the question in the op.

Knowing what is best for your children doesn't mean questions can't be asked in regards to others.

Sorry Hop my dc and many others would have been damaged(and downright miserable) in childcare.

Re this issue yes my dc were a priority,we chose to have them.With many other issues they aren't the priority.

fusedog ^"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."^

What do you mean by 'attachment is well established and evidenced'? Do you mean attachment theory? If so, you are wrong. Children do benefit from multiple attachment relationships. Even the great John Bowlby himself admitted that a.) he did mean for everyone to get caught up on the term 'mother'.

People drag up attachment theory in this thread but then usually, talk bollocks.

The thing is, if you think one parent should be at home with the children, then what about when the child(ren) are all at primary school. Secondary school?

Childcare doesn't begin at 0 and end at age 5. Then a lot of parents try to get a job and find it difficult if they've had 5+ years away from the workplace.

Also getting before and after school care can be, er, interesting and none too cheap.

In answer to the question about who used to look after children - my Nan worked part time because my Granddad was very low paid. My Mum was looked after by a string of unqualified neighbours as a baby, then she helped looked after the younger siblings when she got older. That wasn't unusual in working class families. My Mum is very happy, well educated and fulfilled. Children who are loved by their parents and who know they are loved will thrive in many different circumstances with many different kinds of childcare.

That's fine retropear, but shouldn't we all be free to make the right decisions for our family? Some children might not do well in childcare. But you cannot say that all children would be better off at home, because it's just not true.

Kat more should be done to help with this.

For some it isn't a priority.

It is important we ask the questions and work to get it right for all children.

I didn't Hop.

Sorry Not I don't agree with that.

Very good point, Katnip.

Things need to change so more jobs are part-time/have flexible hours. But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

I suspect it may go beyond being an uncomfortable question.

What if a really scientific study came up with a very clear conclusion that childcare outside of the home is damaging to children? Or, worse than that, children being away from their mother for any length of time was proven to be detrimental?

What would the Government do about it? The consequences would be massive. A huge step back for women and all other sorts of nonsense.

For many people, me included, knowing childcare is not good for my children wouldn't change me needing to use it, it would just make me feel worse about it. There's no benefit in that.

Fair enough to ask the right questions. But stating that one knows 'what most children want' or would thrive from, simply on the basis of ones experience with ones own children, looks dangerously like trying to dictate answers to other people.

If someone were to ask me whether they should return to work or stay at home, id tell them to talk to their partner, look at the whole situation and the best childcare they can access and then follow their instinct after that. I certainly wouldn't tell them that just because I'm a WOHP and my children have done very well, that they ought to do the same

I reckon it would be covered up Tweasels. Or more likely, not funded in the first place.

But how do we change employment to be more family friendly? Having more part-timers/flexible working can be more expensive for businesses/organisations. So I can understand them restricting that (though there are additional benefits to having happy, non-stressed employees). And we live in a culture where we expect to be able to go to Tesco at midnight, and speak to people on the phone at all times etc. And that means people working outside of 9.00am - 3.30pm during term time. I don't really know what the point of this is.

Surely the better question is how do we ensure that all childcare (because it will always be used) is of a high quality and meeting the needs of children as best it can?

Tweasles but you could say that about many parenting choices - breast feeding,food,screen time etc.

Surely it's tough. You can't not ask questions because it makes parents feel crap.

Hop for many children and families a sahp will be better.

You can't just not bother to try and facilitate benefits for many children and families because it's too tricky.

I take some comfort from the fact that in RL, I don't encounter wicked-witch-of-the-west stereotypes - either the Katie Hopkins kids-what-kids me-me-me uber-career woman, or the knit-your-own-lentils-while-using-flash-cards-with-your-2-year-old "mummier than thou" type. I know a mix of SAHP, WOHM (part and full time) who bend over backwards to look after their children, and seem to do a pretty good job of that without feeling the urgent need to criticise anyone who does it differently.

I think it depends on the child and the parents tbh.
If you are able to cope with your dc for extended hours and enjoy looking after them I can't see how childcare is good for them.

Likewise if you can't cope with them and don't want to spend extended hours with them then childcare could be a welcome break for child and parent.

I think it is too general a question. children are all different, even when they come from the same family. Some children thrive in nursery. Some thrive in a more homely environment, like a childminder. Mine were at a childminder through my choice. They went to nursery at 2 1/2. They loved it and were fine. I have friends who did put their children into childcare full time at 8 months. They are fine at the age of 8. In my son's school, most of the children in the top set have parents who both work full time and have done since they were born. ( I don't and my child isn't in the top set!!!) So anecdotally, we can all fine reasons for one argument or another. It is impossible to bring a child up twice in two different ways, so we all just have to make decisions that are best for our individual families.

I take some comfort from the fact that in RL, I don't encounter wicked-witch-of-the-west stereotypes - either the Katie Hopkins kids-what-kids me-me-me uber-career woman, or the knit-your-own-lentils-while-using-flash-cards-with-your-2-year-old "mummier than thou" type. I know a mix of SAHP, WOHM (part and full time) who bend over backwards to look after their children, and seem to do a pretty good job of that without feeling the urgent need to criticise anyone who does it differently.

I think that's the case for most of us.

retro I just don't see the point in arguing that childcare is damaging to children and we shouldn't use it, without trying to marry it up to a society where it is possible and practical for women to give up work in order to SAH. I do think we need to encourage more employers to support their staff achieving a good work/life balance, but it does still need to be in the interests of the business, and we need to make sure women are protected when their arsehole partners fuck off and leave them in the shit, and we need to ensure that absent parents pay what they should, and that the lost of living is affordable/in line with wages. Until all that is sorted I just don't see the point in trying to make women feel guilty for picking the best option out of the available options, for their situation.