Benefits of keeping small children at home

[HJA87]

In the light of a lot of negativity on several threads regarding keeping small babies at home/not using childcare for the first 3 years or so, I would like to hear from people who have done it and the benefits they are seeing. I’m hoping to have an extended mat leave by using unpaid leave and then maybe return to work v part time. I’m familiar with all the research on this topic in terms of benefits but I want to hear about real life experience.

Disclaimer: this isn’t supposed to be judgmental towards anyone who needs to/wants to use paid childcare.

And you’re also not going to get a parent of a child who sends their child to nursery 10 hours a day saying anything negative about that either. Most people do they best for their kids with the resources they have but there is a lot of defensiveness both sides.

I sent DS to a childminder 2 or 3 days a week, from 18m to 6, while I worked part time. When he was older, he told me he hated it! He was dead against child care for his own DC. He works all week, and he looks after the DGC at weekends while DDIL works.

That's IF the parent is doing enough chatting to them. IF the parent is taking them out on walks and providing varied floor play. I suspect it's not always like that.

It's easy to get swamped by boredom and chores. I love spending time with my kids, but eithout daycate I never, ever, had a break. I personally found that I was far, far better at being inventive at supplying new floor games if I had a day or two a week doing grown up things.

@LameBorzoi It’s fallacy to think every parent can give high class child care to their child. Just because the parent is at home, doesn’t mean tablets aren’t used on repeat.

@HJA87 You actually think all babies are talked to? I spoke to a mum about an unrelated topic when I was a school governor. She was driving her delivery van with baby strapped in the front seat. If you honestly think all parents give a great start to babies, think again. You surely don’t believe parents like this, who need to work, are setting up messy play and learning activities do you? Are you aware of the epidemic of speech delay and lack of fine motor skills when dc arrive at school?

Yes, reasonably well educated parents with time do what you say will do a great job. However your “not much” is far beyond what many do. Or can do. Nursery is far better for many dc like this. Not as babies perhaps, but certainly from 18 months. These dc just get further and further behind.

This is exactly why there are funded hours at age 2 for children in low income families. The vocabulary gap by age 5 between the most and least articulate is well documented and quite astonishing.

Just to add, some low income families raise their children extremely well. But those families who are chaotic, misuse drugs and alcohol and ignore their children, have severe mental health problems, are also those who tend to be low income. So the measure of low income is a blunt tool.

@Nadeed Yes. It is a blunt tool. We used to have social workers and nhs staff recommending early nursery placements. Nothing to do with money, or fsm. It was all about need. Fsm is a blunt tool but it’s known these dc are more likely to be behind. @Underthesinkk I absolutely agree. Some parents won’t want help that’s offered though and many are too chaotic to implement it. We had vast numbers of lost reading books where I was first a governor. No nice reading time for some dc at home - some parents could barely read themselves.

But there are quite a lot of children who are ND one way or another and I believe being at home is going to be able to cater to them more individually than a group setting.

That what kept me home with them - just didn't think they'd cope - and they have tuned out to be ND - then shear amount of support they needed in primary years was a shock as well- frequently not bad enough for extra help and support but school unhelpful with perusing diagnosis.

I got the time with the kids but came at cost of my career and left money tight - now not sure with cost of living we'd be able to do it.

There was a huge push at time to get kids into childcare from then Labour government and due to low income area we were in - so a lot of PR that high quality childcare was better for them than being home with me - but as DH said I was better educated and more invested and with smaller child to adult ratio than any childcare available.

Many parents though have little to no choice about needing two incomes and don't want to be told they aren't doing their best and in some cases childcare is better with difficult less attentive families.

Oh I'm well aware - my class last year was three quarters pupil premium. I was literally just saying funded nursery hours at age 2 exist because a group of children has been identified as one that would benefit from being in that environment rather than exclusively at home.

These dc really should go to nursery. I get well educated invested parents can do a great job but some simply cannot do what they need to do. I think people only see their own bubble of nice homes with bright kids learning a lot before they go to school but reality isn’t like this.

Again seems like another thread is slowly heading into benefit/low income bashing...
I understand the data that certain low income families aren't great at educating their children, but if you're not careful you're heading into stereotyping territory. Plenty of low income families do a brilliant job, and plenty of middle class families aren't great.

Absolutely. We're a low income/benefit family. My dc are older now so there wasn't so much funding around when they were small. We still (just about) had sure start centres though.

When they were small we used to go to 2 toddler groups every week. The park as often as the weather allowed. The Library. We have hundreds of books in the house. We did craft and baking. We made mud pies and jumped in muddy puddles. A walk to the supermarket and feeding the ducks on the way home was a favourite (Admittedly you need to live near ducks for that one) Lack of money didn't stop them having a wonderful time.

I've got relatives with young children now who don't/ didn't do any of that despite having more money than I did. Apparently it's "boring," or "quicker and easier" to do things without the dc. Which a lot of things are, but that's how dc learn. So their dc spend a lot of time playing on various devices. Money doesn't necessarily mean better childhood.

Of course there are families where that isn't the case. And studies must show that low income families are more likely to need nursery etc. But people are very quick to assume.

@DumbassHamsterSitterPerson couldn’t agree more.

Very true.

@lollyPaloozah What I have said is totally about giving dc help who need it. I rather suspect your dc didn’t need pp funding even if they qualified. Taking them to the library is great. Many parents I’ve met wouldn’t know, or care, where it was. Going to a park? Possibly but it takes time to get there. I think you have probably misread what I’ve said. Of course bright dedicated low wage parents are great. PP is there for a reason though and that has to be respected. I’m well aware some other dc need help too but they don’t get PP so they struggle on.