The current media and political glare on parents is helpful in that it brings some much needed attention on relieving the pressures faced by families and the barriers to a more family-friendly society. However, as ever, it is dominated by headlines blaming parents and this is something we observe too often. For example, despite a rapid increase in the use of formal childcare over the last few decades, driven by higher rates of female employment and a cross-party political consensus on the importance of early years services, the debate about the impact of the early use of daycare on young children continues to rear its head on a regular basis. When this happens, it is all too often shrouded in scare-mongering media headlines, which proclaim that the latest piece of research shows definitively that working mothers (for it is almost always focused on mothers) cause long-term damage to their babies and toddlers by using a nursery. Such headlines can leave working mothers feeling tormented and guilty.
For parents, deciding what is in the best interests of their child and the rest of the family can be bewildering. This is a stressful period as parents work out how they will juggle family life and work, and how to share care between them. Many parents find it very difficult to calculate what is in the best interests of the whole family – emotionally, educationally, socially and financially. Few feel that they have made the perfect choice; rather they make decisions based on their circumstances and the resources available to them.
From our experience of working with parents for 25 years, we know that no parent makes a decision about childcare lightly. Choosing childcare is one of the most important decisions that parents make in the early years of their child’s life. They make this decision with the safety, comfort and development needs of their child taking priority. But the reality of family life in 21st century Britain is often one where both parents are in employment, and our modern childcare system must support this.
Finding and paying for childcare is not easy. Despite local authorities having a legal duty to ensure sufficient childcare is available in their local area, many families still struggle to find provision that is local, affordable and of high quality. For too many on low and middle incomes, work simply does not pay, because childcare costs are so high. This fact was underlined clearly in a recent Save the Children and Daycare Trust survey of 4,000 parents across Britain. Parents told us that they had got into debt and had to cut back on food and household bills in order to pay for childcare. Yet still they told us that they wanted to work, even though for many it wasn’t economically viable once the cost of childcare was taken into account. The Government’s well publicised welfare reform plans are intended to ensure that work always pays, but to date we are not convinced that this will be the case for those with even moderate childcare costs.
Yet work is a crucial part of most parents’ ambitions and identity. There is also ample evidence that parental employment is good for children. It is the most successful route by which to raise children out of poverty, and has benefits for parents’ health and self-esteem. This will benefit children not only in their early years but in their later life, lifting them from the poverty trap.
Nursery education also benefits children, particularly if it is high quality. There is a substantial body of research on the long-term positive impacts on early childhood education. These benefits range from improved language skills and increasing educational achievement in children’s later school careers. Research shows that children who attend a nursery are better prepared for school and usually have better social skills such as such as cooperation with peers – skills which are essential to a child’s future happiness and good mental health. Furthermore, there are health benefits that can be directly gleaned from attending a nursery: from early establishment of healthy behaviours such as the consumption of fruit and vegetables to increased uptake of immunisation and increased penetration of child safety messages. [1]
The Government clearly agrees that children benefit from high quality nursery provision. Even in this austere time of spending cuts and savings, the Department for Education is investing significantly in formal childcare for young children as part of their drive to support families in the foundation years. Shortly after taking office in 2010, the Government went ahead with Labour’s planned increase to 15 hours per week of the free early education entitlement for three and four year olds, and announced an extension of the entitlement to the 20 per cent most disadvantaged two year olds from 2013.
Some academics have expressed concerns about the use of group care for such young children, arguing that there may be negative impacts on children of long hours spent in daycare. These critiques of daycare fall into two camps: medical and developmental.There has been a spate of recent media articles[2] arguing that daycare increases levels of the stress hormone cortisol in young children, although these assertions have been refuted by a growing number of scientists[3].
A more substantial body of criticism has come from a number of developmental psychologists who argue that long hours in daycare are associated with increased behavioural problems when children reach primary schools. These behavioural problems appear to be greater where daycare is of low quality and where staff turnover in nurseries is high.[4]
Whilst opinion is – and perhaps will always remain – divided as to what the best kind of childcare for young children is, there are certain points that all researchers can agree on, and that must remain atthe forefront of any debate on this issue.Firstly, parents have a much bigger impact on their childrens’ behaviour and social development than nurseries ever will. Efforts to support parenting and improve the home learning environment are therefore crucial. Secondly, high quality childcare provision will reduce any possible negative effects in later life.That means employing highly-trained staff (with appropriate pay and conditions to ensure low turnover), a strong management structure and culture, with a low staff-to-child ratio and good physical facilities.
The reality is that parents need to use childcare and we shouldn’t risk making them feel guilty with headlines designed to scare, torment and confuse them.Parents of course have a right to know the evidence in order to make the right choice for their family, but we in turn have a responsibility to present it objectively and not overstate the risks.
Daycare Trust believes that, on balance, research evidence about daycare shows that it is the quality of care that determines a child’s development. The evidence shows that high quality nursery and high quality family care will both deliver positive outcomes for children. Rather than arguing the pros and cons of daycare, would our time not be better spent uniting around improving quality?
[1] For example Melhuish, E. (2004), ‘A literature review of the impact of early years provision upon young children, with emphasis given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds’, Report to the Comptroller and Auditor General, London: National Audit Office (available online on www.nao.gov.uk) and Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. and Elliot, K. (2002) ‘The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project technical paper 8b – Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s Social/Behavioural Development over the Pre-School Period’, DfES/Institute of Education, University of London, London
[2] See for example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2036266/Putting-baby-nursery-raise-heart-disease-risk-sends-stress-levels-soaring.html
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/23/bad-science-ben-goldacre
[4] Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., McCarthy, K., Vandell, D., Clarke-Stewart, K. and Owen, M. (2007) ‘Are there long-term effects of early childcare?’ Child Development, 78: 681–701
