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?

To all those saying that all children do better with a SAHP what do you think would happen if all mothers with young children decided to stay at home? Who would educate your children? Who would you see if they were ill? Most primary school teachers, a majority of GPs and nurses are women. Would you complain if there was a shortage of school places or you had to wait longer than you do now for a doctors appointment, or would you say 'Oh well, they have given up their careers for 5 years to look after their children, good for them'. In some professions, it's not 5 years out of your profession and then you skip back in. You try and skip back in and you find that you haven't got recent experience or continuity of service and you are behind hundreds of recent graduates who have been working their way up while you have been out. One of the reasons I work part time is that now that my children are at school, It gives me choices. If I was going in new to my job, my pay would be at least £5 an hour less than it is now and I would have to put in major hours catching up. It's not the 1980's any more. You can't just walk into a well paid job.

fancyanotherfez where are all the people saying that?

My 2 (almost 3) yr old goes to a nursery 4 mornings a week, even though I am at home. She started on her second birthday and she loves it. I used to pick her up at 12 but she asked to stay to have lunch (until 1pm) so I know she is genuinely enjoying it.

DD loves talking about her friends there. She likes packing her lunch bag, taking her wellies for wet play, sitting at the table with the others for lunch. All those things make her feel grown-up I think. She also likes the parties they have & the dressing up days. I only send her because I know what she gets out of it and I feel really glad she has had the opportunity to go.

I want my children to be in nursery over home as I believe you can always tell the children who have been. I would pay for my children to go to nursery even if I wasnt working.

We have children who watch tv in the day, have dummies, drink from bottles, who wear nappies, not speaking, limited social skills, not knowing how to dress themselves, who wont eat many kinds of foods at age 3/4.

They start doing the lot after a short time at nursery.

Tweasels he's three so is eligible for his free sessions. Paying for nursery when I'm at home doing activities and learning with his baby sister would make even less sense! To be honest, he isn't a rough and tumble kid, he's polite and quiet, though very socially confident. I'm not sure he'll enjoy it but we have to give him the chance to try.

It all depends on what your doing for instance my setting in holidatmys would be:-

mon - trip to zoo

tues- 6/7 hour trip to park with picnic, playing games, constantly engaging, no phones, no Im talking to my friend, no in a minute mums having a rest

wed- rhyme time, forest school so using potato peelers, tools, building dens etc

thurs- see tues

fri - art activities. all messy play paint, jellcornflour, using whole bodies and making the biggwsr mess ever

And if you are doing that consistently week after week with your under 5s you are a better parent than I am. No housework, no tvs, no mummy needs a rest etc.

Some excellent points on this thread.
I'd also emphasise the quite simple point that many couples simply don't want polarised roles. I wouldn't want the pressure and responsibility of being sole earner. Neither did I want to completely give up my career. I make this point every time on threads like this: many couples don't want all or nothing- and this shouldn't really be a surprise; I don't think the differences between mums and dads are that wide a gulf. I certainly know that my DH was as enthusiastic about having children as I was. He loves our children as much as I do. And he was definitely as adept at changing nappies and playing the umpteenth game of peek a boo as I was.

I often see on MN women saying they have had to give up their job to facilitate their husbands career... Which is fine when that suits the individual family, but it doesn't mean it's what all families want.

At the end of the day, a happy family is about balancing everyone's needs... There are no brownie points for being a martyr and feeling that your own needs and aspirations are trumped by everyone else's. Sometimes that means making compromises, and again, nothing wrong with that; in fact an essential life skill in learning resilience is about being adaptable.

fair points chund but if the BF/FF debate only addressed parents needs and economics needs and didn't even look into childrens needs then it would be exceedingly odd....and I think the same applies here.

I guess I find it hard to accept this is a gendered issue as my DH is the SAHP....so for us it couldn't be less about mums doing anything...

but having more sahp shouldn't automatically mean less women in the workplace...hopefully the changes to parental leave will help with that.

chund indeed...if only the childs nutritional needs were of importance almost all cases of BF v FF would come down on the BF side. But it certainly isn't only the childs nutritional needs that are important hence the split is less biased.

Dh is going to be a sahp soon but I dont think he or I can be as good as childcare. Number 1 as doing everything they do is expensive whereas I dont pay for childcare. I wont be able to afford all the trips!

TBH I am not getting the economic argument....it would be good to have a more gender balanced work force but that isn't really a childcare issue as either parent can stay at home. We aren't short of labour (we are short of jobs) so getting parents back into work doesn't necessarily help the economy....

as an aside - some of the anecdotes of how much some kids get from nursery have really convinced me that DD isn't in the right place. She hates it. Doesn't want to go and practically climbs the walls to get out as soon as DH shows up to pick her up. I didn't think that could be right...but now I know it isn't.

I think you're right. I am pretty much a SAHM (work very few hours and those from home) but our 2yo does two 2.5h sessions at a preschool on the primary school site. He scampers in without a backward glance, and begs to go even when it isn't his day.

DS1 used to cry arriving at nursery but was already happily engrossed by the time you'd reach the car (could see in through the window).

Dh is going to be a sahp soon but I dont think he or I can be as good as childcare. Number 1 as doing everything they do is expensive whereas I dont pay for childcare. I wont be able to afford all the trips!

Good childcare is nothing to do with expensive trips. It's about engaging with the child, listening to them, involving them in everyday activities and decisions, encouraging them to explore things that interest them and offering nurturing, discovering the world alongside them and masses of affection and nurturing.

An hour with an interested and enthusiastic adult enjoying digging around in a flowerbed with a child beats a trip anywhere hands down.

yes but gold its always engaging at nursery as I said. No phones, tvs, talking to friends, housework etc.

yes but gold its always engaging at nursery as I said. No phones, tvs, talking to friends, housework etc.

No child gets constant attention in group childcare. The domestic tasks may be different but they still need to be done and if one person is changing a nappy someone else is in charge of their other two plus their own three, even in a baby room.

I'm not saying that there isn't any such thing as good childcare but it is not a foregone conclusion that being cared for as part of group is better than the lower ratios, flexibility and affection available to children of SAHPs

They do at dds nurseey goldmandra

They do at dds nurseey goldmandra

Sure they do