Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

1000 replies

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 15:47

I'm all for parents being able to get back to work if they want to, woman's career's not being put on hold, the economy doing well etc..

But I find it quite worrying that what's best for the children seems to not be mentioned at all in the reporting around the govt introducing more and more free childcare hours, or considered in the policy making to begin with..?

I thought the reason it was 15 free hrs originally, and term time only (as is still the case) was because the original aim was to ensure children have access to early education? So they are not turning up at school aged 5 having had no preschool etc as their parents couldn't afford it?

Not to enable parents to get back to work as soon as possible leaving their children in childcare?

OP posts:
Sorryyoufeelthatway · 15/03/2023 18:23

People moaning on Bbc news app that they want their BABIES to do more hours than they currently do. Wow call me a boomer/karen but if you are managing with an 8 month old “only” doing 2 days per week maybe continue?
Kids that can’t even walk being in nursery everyday is not in their best interests. Poor mites. Dad’s should also look into compressed or reduced hours, it shouldn’t all fall on the mother.

Jennifer89 · 15/03/2023 18:24

Not sure why people are being dramatic about this. Across Europe childcare is more subsidised and women still do make the choice to be stay at home mums. This isn't taking that choice away.

aSofaNearYou · 15/03/2023 18:25

*I wouldn't assume that there isn't a link between children in childcare from very early ages and problems later in life which will eventually cost the tax payer.

And I think the govt shouldn't be assuming this either. It should be putting effort into research and studies to find out.*

The debate around whether nursery is beneficial or harmful at various ages has been going on for a long time, they're not going to solve it just for the sake of this budget. If there was a definitive answer, we'd know by now, but we don't, probably because there are so many other factors involved in whether a child ends up contributing to society other than what childcare they had for the first two years, that it's near impossible to determine that it was that that did it.

They obviously have considered the child's welfare to an extent or they'd have offered the free hours from birth, rather than from 9 months. Perhaps their findings were that this is the only age they could definitively say that children do better at home.

Partyandbullshit · 15/03/2023 18:25

Here's a view from across the pond, where babies are routinely put into childcare at 6 weeks old. I'm excluding from this socio-economic households where the mom has to earn to make rent.

When I had my babies and for around 11 years afterwards, it would kill me to walk past daycares in the urban neighborhood where I live, seeing teeny tiny tots dropped off at 8am, picked up at 6pm. They'd have milk mostly at daycare, graduate to breakfast/lunch/dinner at daycare, they'd see knackered parents for an hour before bedtime. Often, toddlers' bedtimes would be at 9pm or later just so parents could spend time with their children, parents knowing that an irritable baby the next day, one who has to be up at 6.30/7am, would be dealt with by someone else. By and large, the children had stable and regimented lives with a more or less stable roster of daycare workers.

Time went on. Those babies became preschoolers with nannies, still on similar schedules, still all hanging out together and going to the same classes, and still "acting up" at home with parents because at home with mom and dad was not their normal. It wasn't where their friends and familiar adults were, it was an exciting place where both of their parents were, but parents who attempted to discipline them but also didn't want to waste precious time "being mean", parents who tried to ask them questions about their lives they weren't equipped to answer.

Often, moms (it was ALWAYS the moms) would co-sleep with their children until they were 5 or 6 years old. I only discovered this when these children approached the end of elementary school and had been in their own beds long enough for the parents to feel comfortable sharing that type of detail. It was to stay closer to them as long as possible.

Fast forward to 13/14/15yo, and - much like the FF vs BF debate - put them in a line-up and you can't tell these kids apart from kids who were raised by a SAHP (where I am, the split is about 70-30 mom-dad). However, delve a little deeper and often (not always), the relationship between parent and child is...odd. The child now knows it was put in daycare, the child has tremendous intellectual and emotional independence from its parents. It's a different set-up, not better or worse necessarily. And it's created children who's understanding of relationships doesn't always center the nuclear family.

On the other side of the equation, you have moms who've kept their place in the workplace. However, they're also ALWAYS the ones hiring and managing nannies/ babysitters/ cleaning ladies, doing the shopping, doing the planning, doing the school interaction blah blah blah. They're EXHAUSTED and constantly, CONSTANTLY having to choose how to parse out their energy. There is always someone they're letting down, somehow.

I don't know what's better for the children, but the answer to the gender pay gap isn't to put babies and toddler into daycare so that women can continue running as fast as men like pregnancy and motherhood is a distraction that can be ignored. IT'S TO FUCKING PAY WOMEN THE SAME AS MEN, and appreciate that all parents have to make sacrifices. It's an attitudinal approach in the workplace, but for as long as the workplace has at the top of its structure men who are facilitated by women (and the rare case of the reverse), nothing will change. There's not enough to go around, and women are definitely paying the price relative to price, and for me the jury is out on whether the kids are paying a price too.

FancyFanny · 15/03/2023 18:26

Childcare doesn't exist because it's good for babies, it exists to facilitate working parents.

Babies who remain in the care of a loving supportive family member who they are securely attached to thrive far better. Babies learn language, social skills, and cognitive skills from their parents and family, not from other babies.

Babies who attend full time childcare have poorer language development and are more likely to show social development issues than those who were largely looked after by a parent or family member.

MargaritMargo · 15/03/2023 18:26

This new policy is to allow women to get back to work if they need / want to and actually be able to afford some level of childcare.

Also as many have pointed out, is NOT full time. It’s nowhere near.

Stop looking to blame women for the choices they often feel they HAVE to make. And even more importantly WANT to make.

traipsing your toddler round Asda and the local park 3 times a week is not better than a professional, governed and secure early learning setting.

Irecan · 15/03/2023 18:26

@57NewPosts nobody wants evidence based advice on here do they? you have to laugh. I work in children’s mental health, and absolutely suicide and other mental health issues are related to poor early childhood outcomes such as attachment.

Jennifer89 · 15/03/2023 18:27

@Switchwitch it seems to be often those privileged enough to have a 'village' close by to pick up the slack of childcare don't understand not all working parents have this option.

Trixiefirecracker · 15/03/2023 18:29

FancyFanny · 15/03/2023 18:26

Childcare doesn't exist because it's good for babies, it exists to facilitate working parents.

Babies who remain in the care of a loving supportive family member who they are securely attached to thrive far better. Babies learn language, social skills, and cognitive skills from their parents and family, not from other babies.

Babies who attend full time childcare have poorer language development and are more likely to show social development issues than those who were largely looked after by a parent or family member.

I don’t necessarily disagree but do you have any links/research that verify this or corroborate it in any way?

whatchaos · 15/03/2023 18:30

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 16:02

Childcare settings from 2 or 3 yes, beneficial for the child (for short amounts of time)

Childcare settings from 9 months.. best for which children? The research I've seen seems to suggest that most would be better of with a parent below 2 or 3 years old.

I'm just asking that it's even part of the conversation.

What research is this? Different families make different choices, what difference does it make to you personally? 🤷‍♀️

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 18:30

aSofaNearYou · 15/03/2023 18:25

*I wouldn't assume that there isn't a link between children in childcare from very early ages and problems later in life which will eventually cost the tax payer.

And I think the govt shouldn't be assuming this either. It should be putting effort into research and studies to find out.*

The debate around whether nursery is beneficial or harmful at various ages has been going on for a long time, they're not going to solve it just for the sake of this budget. If there was a definitive answer, we'd know by now, but we don't, probably because there are so many other factors involved in whether a child ends up contributing to society other than what childcare they had for the first two years, that it's near impossible to determine that it was that that did it.

They obviously have considered the child's welfare to an extent or they'd have offered the free hours from birth, rather than from 9 months. Perhaps their findings were that this is the only age they could definitively say that children do better at home.

Yes perhaps, and if so I'd like to see these studies / findings, or at least hear them mentioned by anyone? My point is actually they are not talking about children's welfare at all it doesn't even come into the conversation?

And I don't think there's anything obvious about the fact they considered child's welfare just because it only starts at 9 months not birth. It would probably have been too expensive to do from birth or some other reason like that.

OP posts:
Magentaa · 15/03/2023 18:30

FancyFanny · 15/03/2023 18:26

Childcare doesn't exist because it's good for babies, it exists to facilitate working parents.

Babies who remain in the care of a loving supportive family member who they are securely attached to thrive far better. Babies learn language, social skills, and cognitive skills from their parents and family, not from other babies.

Babies who attend full time childcare have poorer language development and are more likely to show social development issues than those who were largely looked after by a parent or family member.

You are so wrong!! My two children started nursery at 9 months old as that’s when my Nat pay ended. They have both been ahead with speech and language skills and also social skills. I know as I have numerous relatives that didn’t start nursery until 2/3. Also I have other family member me who’s children started at 9 months and again her children’s speech language and social skills are exceptional.

ThunderAndLoki · 15/03/2023 18:31

Agree and disagree. Children need economic stability, but they also need parental presence. Children flourish in societies that are more child-centric, it's long been proven statistically. A happy medium is what's needed.

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 18:31

FancyFanny · 15/03/2023 18:26

Childcare doesn't exist because it's good for babies, it exists to facilitate working parents.

Babies who remain in the care of a loving supportive family member who they are securely attached to thrive far better. Babies learn language, social skills, and cognitive skills from their parents and family, not from other babies.

Babies who attend full time childcare have poorer language development and are more likely to show social development issues than those who were largely looked after by a parent or family member.

So children who go to childcare have attachment issues? I can assure you that my children have very secure attachment and also have loving and supportive family members! What an insult!

pointythings · 15/03/2023 18:31

It's worth mentioning that much of the research showing adverse effects of childcare comes from the US and took place in large, poor quality settings. It doesn't necessarily translate. I'd like to see if there were studies showing similar outcomes for Sweden/Norway/Denmark.

Irecan · 15/03/2023 18:32

@Albiboba its not me talking, it’s the research talking. Ignore it if you want. And I don’t necessarily want to be a SAMP, where did I say that? I said that longer mat leave would be best for the child and I don’t think there’s any harm with nursery in the later toddler years but 9 months is not good for the child.

Newnamenewname109870 · 15/03/2023 18:32

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 16:02

Childcare settings from 2 or 3 yes, beneficial for the child (for short amounts of time)

Childcare settings from 9 months.. best for which children? The research I've seen seems to suggest that most would be better of with a parent below 2 or 3 years old.

I'm just asking that it's even part of the conversation.

At the end of the day, I think you forget what life at home for lots of parents is like. Lots of homes are very chaotic and these children are safer in nursery. If parents want to stay at home with them then they still can. If they need to get a job so that their children aren’t going hungry then they can. If they need their child to go to nursery to give them a break from having a nervous breakdown then they can. In all these situations the child is more likely to be better off and safer and happier.

57NewPosts · 15/03/2023 18:32

Irecan · 15/03/2023 18:26

@57NewPosts nobody wants evidence based advice on here do they? you have to laugh. I work in children’s mental health, and absolutely suicide and other mental health issues are related to poor early childhood outcomes such as attachment.

Guess what? It’s my field too. And poor childhood attachment is a huge factor in mental heath issues. But it is nothing to do with being in nursery and having secure attachment to loving working parents.

So much extreme sensationalist nonsense on this thread.

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 18:33

@FancyFanny

who remain in the care of a loving supportive family member who they are securely attached to

Children in childcare remain in the care of a loving supportive family member who they are securely attached to.

Just like children who go to school do

Unless you're suggesting that children in childcare don't have a secure bond with their parents?

There's absolutely no evidence to back up what either you or @Irecan are saying

None

Magentaa · 15/03/2023 18:34

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 18:30

Yes perhaps, and if so I'd like to see these studies / findings, or at least hear them mentioned by anyone? My point is actually they are not talking about children's welfare at all it doesn't even come into the conversation?

And I don't think there's anything obvious about the fact they considered child's welfare just because it only starts at 9 months not birth. It would probably have been too expensive to do from birth or some other reason like that.

I think it’s 9 months as that’s how long most get mat leave. You can take 12 months but the last 3 months are unpaid.

NerrSnerr · 15/03/2023 18:34

@Irecan you can't have it both ways though. You talk about no one wanting to hear about evidence and then on your first post you stated that you'll be 'expected' to use childcare from 9 months. Can you link to where you got that from? The evidence maybe?

57NewPosts · 15/03/2023 18:35

Blughbablugh · 15/03/2023 18:31

So children who go to childcare have attachment issues? I can assure you that my children have very secure attachment and also have loving and supportive family members! What an insult!

It’s all getting a bit silly now.

I live in a world where most parents have worked and have great relationships now with their older kids who are doing well in the world. This MN extremism is a parallel universe where women have to give up everything to stay home glued to their kids or their insecurely-attached offspring will end up detained on a psychiatric ward.

pointythings · 15/03/2023 18:35

@57NewPosts I worked in MH research for 12 years and those studies we had where attachment issues were a factor it was always around parents with serious mental health issues of their own/history of abuse/substance misuse. Not loving families where both parents worked. It's a nice narrative for the antis though.

RemoteControlDoobry · 15/03/2023 18:35

It does feel like it’s about survival. But that’s what capitalism does i.e. we’re just worker ants and our children are being raised to be worker ants. Obviously the tories don’t care about anyone’s quality of life….is that not common knowledge? It’s not ok to compare this to the Scandinavian model because they generally work less hours and pay is more equal. People are looked after far better. If I was part of that system I’d be more inclined to want to contribute….but I’m not so I’m not inclined.

Thing is, nearly everyone on here works and they’ve got to justify that decision by saying that it’s good for their children or their lives would fall apart. I believe it’s good for many children to be in childcare part time but how can not seeing parents all day be good for children? It’s an inconvenient fact that it isn’t.

Newnamenewname109870 · 15/03/2023 18:36

Irecan · 15/03/2023 18:32

@Albiboba its not me talking, it’s the research talking. Ignore it if you want. And I don’t necessarily want to be a SAMP, where did I say that? I said that longer mat leave would be best for the child and I don’t think there’s any harm with nursery in the later toddler years but 9 months is not good for the child.

I don’t even know if this is true and I say this as someone who’s child didn’t start nursery until aged 2. A good key worker is no different to consistently staying with the child’s grandparent. It’s that consistent and trusting relationship that is important. I agree that full time all the time isn’t amazing but if it keeps both parents working and food on the table (because yes children ARE suffering from the economic crisis) then actually it is the best option.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread