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?

This isn't about whether children can thrive in childcare. Of course lots can and do. It's about whether they are better off in childcare which is a very different question.

But better off than what? It needs to be whether children are better off than they would be in any of the other available options. And having a SAHP is not an option for a lot of people.

Ice my sister dropped 1 day and her dh 2 days which resulted in 2 days use of a fantastic nanny they shared with another family.

It was cheaper than a nursery,they had the security of their own home and the advantage of going to their community pre-school.Said nanny even did some cooking and the ironing when they were at pre- school.No rush to drop if at nursery.

I wonder if companies match up families to nanny share.

This isn't about whether children can thrive in childcare. Of course lots can and do. It's about whether they are better off in childcare which is a very different question.

Better off in who's opinion? In what way better off?

I can not think of one child under four in any of those settings who has been better off for being in my care or that of any other practitioner than they would have been had they been with their parents

You are fortunate. A friend works in a childcare setting where three year olds would be spending their time sitting behind counter of mum's shop or launderette or in front of TV with a pack of biscuits for tea. She sees children who come to nursery aged three and do not know how to play some still in nappies age 4.

She takes them to the local museum which is thankfully down the road, where lovely enthusiastic art graduates do mini projects with the children. She took them to the local park, just done up as an adventure playground, none of the children had ever been there. One three year old was so overcome she planted her sturdy little legs at the top of the slide, stood up and shouted: "I fucking love this!"

Whether my children are better off in nursery? Well it means I can earn money, we can go on holiday (hurrah!), afford new school shoes, perhaps even a new car when the big end goes on our banger, or the washing machine breaks down. It pays for ballet, drawing. swimming.

Oh and daddy gets them from school goes home puts a wash on and cooks dinner for us all. And we share housework which is nice for my girls to see.

My DS goes to nursery 2 days a week and as said previously, loves it. He runs off when DH pucks him up to show him everything he's been doing. His key worker has been a NN for years.

I'm a nurse, if I was to be a sahm I would have to give up my career. I have to keep nursing to maintain my registration. You'll find that many many senior level nurses work part time. Can you imagine the depleted work force if we all gave up our jobs?

I like my job, I've worked hard over the years. I don't want to lose my career because I've had a child. I like the adult conversation and I feel it makes me a better mum. It helps me feel like I still have an identity outside motherhood. The rest of time I spend with DS.

I hate the sad faces, judging and mummy martyrdom coming out on this thread. It's not a competition, you weigh up what works best for you and your family.

I'm lucky in that my wage covers more than childcare.

Oh, and pull a sad face at this if you like. I have a day off, and DS has still gone to nursery. I have a day to myself! And as a pregnant, tired mum, it's a luxury I'm making the most of.

Judging and mummy martyrdom sorry but where?

Yeah there's not been too much of that on this thread was expecting a lot more

I've been at home 10 years with my children and I honestly don't know whether I have been better for them than a childcare setting? I think it's wrong to assume that every child that is with its mother is having a fabulous time doing messy play, going to galleries/museums, jumping in puddles etc... day-in, day-out. Granted I did a fair bit of that but there was also a lot of sitting around bored in the house while I was on the computer or moving stuff around the house in a constant drudge of tidying up, cooking, making a mess, tidying up, putting on a wash, hanging up a wash, cooking etc... Lots of TV etc.

And I look at a lot of the kids that have been at nursery since 1 yrs old (or younger) that are at school now, who are more confident, more bolshier than my kids. Maybe that is down to character but sometimes I feel it is because they learned how to "hold their own" and be more self-sufficient from an earlier age and I don't mean that in a negative way either!

My own mother felt guilty for putting me at a child-minders and then nursery from 18 months old just for 2 days a week. I remember being genuinely delighted to get out the house and LOVED being with other kids. I'm certainly envious of the parents who can afford to go on holiday and buy decent clothes and cars because they've kept both careers going. Our finances are well and truly f**ed

A couple of pages in, something I read this morning.

I have no problem with sahm, my mum was one until I was about 16. I just don't like reading that by somehow sending my DS to nursery I'm doing him a disservice. What works for some, doesn't work for others.

Sometimes it's not always a choice. I have a teacher friend who was refused part time hours. It's not always black and white.

To come back to the OPs question about whether the government should be funding childcare for 2yr olds - I think this comes back in part to children in situations like ubik describes - where for whatever reason there isn't the right stimulation at home.

My understanding is that numerous studies have shown that for children who face disadvantage access to high quality childcare does have benefits - and there's an argument that universal benefits are the most effective way to ensure support reaches those who need it.

So, by offering universal free access to good quality childcare the government potentially help ensure families who need support can access it without stigma whilst also offering more choice to other families who decide childcare is best for them.

Although, I do also think moving to a more flexible, part time work force would be the most beneficial for many families.

it 's not free - it has to be paid for eg taxes. it has to come out of another budget if taxes are not increased.

good childcare with access to outdoor play may well be beneficial to a child if the alternative is cooped up in a high rise flat with a severely ill parent ...etc,etc. it's not as simple as saying state-funded childcare versus SAHP.

YY to the part-time workforce not, not least because childcare doesn't end when a child turns 5!

To the person who asked (a while ago, I've been working) who looked after the children in the past - grans and nans, spinster aunts, older children and an informal network of neighbours in my immediate experience.

A lot of people need two incomes coming in. Not just to break even but because neither parent has enough job security for it to be sensible for the family to rely on one parent's earnings in the medium or long term. For many, especially the low or modestly paid, job security has plummented in recent years.

I think before you even know the question the answer is always 'it depends on the child, it depends on the parents'.

but the government do have to deal in averages....if they make childcare artificially more affordable then they will swing the average behaviour. The net effect of this will be either positive or negative on many different aspects.

One of those should be outcomes for children.

It really is exactly the same as the BF/FF issue. Either FF or BF can 100% be the right choice for a specific child and parent combination. But on average BF gives better outcomes for children - so government policies and assistance?!? should reflect that.

So by analogy for 2-3 yo, either childcare between 2-3 yo or care in the parental home may be 100% the best choice in a specific situation. But on average one of these will show the best outcomes and government policy should reflect that.....

Doesn't it depend on how you measure 'outcomes'?

What criteria?

Physical health? Mental health - psychologists broadly agree that difficulties in childhood can be overcome as we grow up, as adults we can overcome the legacy of any difficulties experienced in childhood, some typical events have more effect than others: bereavement, divorce, serious illness of a parent are judged to have a greater effect than others -not sure where being put into a childcare situation comes in that list.

How do we judge a good outcome?

hmmm an interesting question.

Well I would go with: physical health, mental health, school achievement, and (although it makes me feel dirty to say it) IQ.

obvs the hard part is controlling for the socio-economic confounding factors that correlate with current nursery use patterns....but I would guess the statisticians are up for the challenge....in fact the ones that did the BF/ FF stuff should be good at this...as a lot of the factors are similar...

I agree: 'what do we mean by good outcomes?'
As a parent, what concerns me is that my children are emotionally in tune: a healthy balance of independence, resilience, ability to form positive relationships with peers and adults. Also achieving their academic potential, forming values such as respect for themselves and others...

But whereas it is relatively straightforward as a parent to measure these things in our own children, I don't know how you begin to measure a lot of them more widely.

And of course alongside that, is the family dynamic. I suspect that I could have been very happy as a full time SAHP for the first few years, because being home was never a grind or a bore for me (I worked p/t) BUT if I'd been home full time and then struggled to get back into work, or had to return to more menial work, I suspect I might well have become frustrated which would have then had a negative effect on the rest of my family. There are so many layers to every situation that to ever suggest one way is 'best' or even 'better' is meaningless

Overall for the state I would think high quality childcare is a good investment. However the choice for the individual family will be case by case. You have to remain clear headed about the fact that what "society tells us to do" may be wrong for you.

I found the Dad on the radio 4 You and Yours seemed to lack confidence in his own abilities versus the nursery's power for good, but I presume he knows himself well enough so that it's the right decision for their family.

I read a but on the subject when I was pg with DD1 and decided to keep her at home until she was 3. She is now in a nursery preschool 5 days a week and is meant to start reception at age 4.0.

I think she had benefitted from a lot of 1 on 1 attention from me, but as we do have children closeby she has not been great at developing peer relationships. There is no just popping round or getting together informally with other kids around here. It is organised activities and playdates which are often no more than weekly with the same group of kids. Do she has been unlucky that she hasn't made real friends so far. In addition to this she is the youngest at nursery and it is apparent that the others are more developed socially. She has a little sister but much younger than she is so not great social company yet.

I think if I could rewrite history I would have started her in nursery about

2 yrs and a quarter maybe 3 mornings a week but only if the other children were doing the same pattern.