To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

“Also why is it you say nursery workers are “trained professionals" is a myth?

It’s a myth because there seems to be a substantial number of people who seem to believe that institutional care (sorry, that’s what it is) is better than home care with a loving, nurturing parent because, apparently, nurseries are populated by highly “trained professionals” who are doing things with their child that they couldn’t possibly do at home; or that a loud, overstimulating environment with loads of strangers milling about is better for cognitive, social and emotional development than a slower, calmer home environment with 1 or 2 loving, nurturing primary caregivers and interaction with a small network of family and friends.

“Many are trained and have excellent experience..at good nurseries. I would not send my child to a nursery where there was no evidence of training. Are all the teachers/assistants at schools trained would be an interesting one as last time I checked you only needed a year and some courses you train on the job (I am not saying that is right for the record).”

Who gives a fig about training? You need someone who loves the child to care for the child. An illiterate mother is far superior to a stranger with a billion trillion years of training and education. Why? Because she loves her child, and that will be evident in the way she interacts with, and responds to her child; and that’s what’s necessary for the healthy wiring of the brain that occurs primarily in the first three years of life.

You don't need to be defensive. I was simply making the point that nursery has some benefits in terms of socialisation, but that socialisation on such a large scale is not necessary from such a young age. Your parents and family friends, and grandparents if you're lucky, are sufficient. I also don't have family nearby.
This was in response to someone claiming that nursery is better than having a SAHP in this regard, pedalling the myth that socialisation on such a large scale is absolutely vital for babies, which is simply untrue.

You said "Beyond age 3, the foundations have been laid and they don't need the same intensity of 1-1 care and interaction" my goodness I hope your children don't have any siblings close in age as you are breaking your own rule as they don't have 1:1 care 😆 I guess by this same token you believe any parent who has two or more children under 3 must be negligent! Poor parents of twins, not like they had a choice!

Also you know for well that the term 'institutional Childcare' is a heavily loaded and goady term, I highly doubt you or others go around telling people your
DCs are in the 'institution of school' 😂

“Number 2 No way is being a SAHP free in this world. Either you have a partner who is paying the bills to cover your loss of earnings (which can lead to resentment/getting taken for granted and other issues -see relationships board!) or income from assets to cover it. If you are not still paying into a private pension then you are losing literally hundreds to thousands of pounds every month depending on what job you had/could have had. This is your future happiness and comfort.. are you hoping your kids will repay your sacrifices? I highly doubt a state pension (if it even exists!) will be enough for a comfortable retirement in the future. Also unfortunately you are potentially losing your future career/earning potential -though this depends on demand for your skillset and employers equality of course. So no way is being a SAHP 'free', even if you are on benefits. “

Being a stay-at-home parent doesn’t mean that you lose your brain cells. DH and I both know how to plan for our future, as well as plan for DS’s future. Thank you for your concern though, Financial Advisor.

The children are older, more verbal and less vulnerable - the level of care required is on a completely different scale. Their needs are also different. For the first 3 years, a child's main needs are to form a secure bond and attachment with one or two primary caregivers. Beyond age 3, the foundations have been laid and they don't need the same intensity of 1-1 care and interaction.

I never said that nursery workers can't do their jobs properly. I said that the ideal is for a baby to be cared for at home by their own family, and that institutional childcare is often a necessity and a good option when the former is not possible.

You don't need to be defensive. I was simply making the point that nursery has some benefits in terms of socialisation, but that socialisation on such a large scale is not necessary from such a young age. Your parents and family friends, and grandparents if you're lucky, are sufficient. I also don't have family nearby.
This was in response to someone claiming that nursery is better than having a SAHP in this regard, pedalling the myth that socialisation on such a large scale is absolutely vital for babies, which is simply untrue.

They're not "strangers" who have "no connection to their community"...they ARE that child's community. You seem to think that children don't have relationships independent of their parents. Just because their Mum or Dad might not know the other children doesn't mean that the child doesn't know and recognise them. The children they go to nursery with will be the ones they have their first play dates with and the first birthday parties they go to. They are the ones they bump into at the local park and the village shop. Many of them will end up in the same school or ballet class or sports team.

I'm glad that you had such a big extended family that you don't think your child needed to get to know anyone outside the family. We have one set of grandparents and that's it- she has one Uncle and one Aunt but both are too far away to be regularly involved. Even if we had more family, it would have been important to me that my child, from a young age, was finding out that there are lots of different types of family and people and it's very unlikely there'd have been much diversity within our own group of relatives.

Number 3 -"Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries" You are saying you don't believe children need socialisation and you didn't take yours to baby/ toddler groups as a SAHP?

Children benefit from some socialisation. In the first few years, socialisation from parents, close family and friends is sufficient. It is a myth that children need to socialise with 20 strangers everyday who have no connection to their actual community, home life or family. It might have some nice added benefits, like the fact that children learn from other children, but the idea that children need to be socialised on such a large scale from such a young age is very overblown.

Number 1, I have a vested interested in how my school age child does at school which is 'free' just as I do for my child at nursery, I want them both to be happy regardless of if it's paid for. If they weren't happy, they would be going and I would be having words with either provider. I have no illusions that because something is paid for it's the best..I feel I have more clout at nursery because it is paid for than I do with the state primary school. Also why is it you say nursery workers are “trained professionals" is a myth? Many are trained and have excellent experience..at good nurseries. I would not send my child to a nursery where there was no evidence of training. Are all the teachers/assistants at schools trained would be an interesting one as last time I checked you only needed a year and some courses you train on the job (I am not saying that is right for the record).

Number 2 No way is being a SAHP free in this world. Either you have a partner who is paying the bills to cover your loss of earnings (which can lead to resentment/getting taken for granted and other issues -see relationships board!) or income from assets to cover it. If you are not still paying into a private pension then you are losing literally hundreds to thousands of pounds every month depending on what job you had/could have had. This is your future happiness and comfort.. are you hoping your kids will repay your sacrifices? I highly doubt a state pension (if it even exists!) will be enough for a comfortable retirement in the future. Also unfortunately you are potentially losing your future career/earning potential -though this depends on demand for your skillset and employers equality of course. So no way is being a SAHP 'free', even if you are on benefits.

Number 3 -"Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries" You are saying you don't believe children need socialisation and you didn't take yours to baby/ toddler groups as a SAHP?

Number 4 "Nurseries are more stimulating environments than a home environment because the nursery workers know how to set out a few paintbrushes and paint, or set up a few activities with playdough" I don't think anyone has said more stimulating, just different..and I suppose children who go to nurseries get both. Because (and many seem to forget this!) the parents are looking after the children in the morning and after nursery and many children don't go 5 days a week when parents work part time... Also I think to day "nurseries just set up some paints" is a bit rich, the nursery my child goes to follows the early years curriculum and records progress and what should be happening and when. I actually found all this really helpful with my first. They do many many activities and are outside a good portion of the day, everyday rain or shine. I think a lot of SAHP actually have conned themselves into thinking all nurseries are dingy little prisons with snot infested children playing on some ropey piece of astroturf and fighting over toys. I would not send my child somewhere like that, if it exists! I see a lot of babies/toddlers bored stiff in buggies whilst their parents browse clothes shops or fobbed off with a tablet or phone whilst the parent natters in a coffee shop to while away an afternoon. Then they are put to bed at straight after dinner so the parent can finally have a break. It's very difficult to provide round the clock stimulation in fairness if you are on your own during the day and also to plan lots of activities etc. I bet many kids end up in front of Cbeebies more often than some would like to admit!

Number 3 -"Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries" You are saying you don't believe children need socialisation and you didn't take yours to baby/ toddler groups as a SAHP?

Children benefit from some socialisation. In the first few years, socialisation from parents, close family and friends is sufficient. It is a myth that children need to socialise with 20 strangers everyday who have no connection to their actual community, home life or family. It might have some nice added benefits, like the fact that children learn from other children, but the idea that children need to be socialised on such a large scale from such a young age is very overblown.

The only difference really is nappy changing and sleeping in terms of care responsibilities for a school age child V nursery child. A school teacher must still administer medicines, carry our minor first aid or call in health professionals, give a hug/cuddle if crying and let parent know any issues. A teacher may need to take a child to the toilet, wipe their bum and change their clothes if they have an accident (preschool/reception year!). They may have to help the child with their food. Granted most children have stopped napping at this point. Apparently some children are going to school now not yet potty trained so this further blurs lines. Also teachers look after children's mental health at school. So I don't accept it is just education which teachers provide, pastoral care is just as important. You accept that a teacher is better able to provide education than a parent (I agree in most cases!) but where and why do you draw the line between teacher and nursery worker when a teacher can have only one year training as I understand it. Would you be happier if they were called nursery nurses and had trained for a year and it was a respected profession? I'm just trying to understand why you and some others think nursery workers can't do their jobs properly to be trusted with your children based on two unfortunate examples of bad apple but you believe teachers can.

The only difference really is nappy changing and sleeping in terms of care responsibilities for a school age child V nursery child. A school teacher must still administer medicines, carry our minor first aid or call in health professionals, give a hug/cuddle if crying and let parent know any issues. A teacher may need to take a child to the toilet, wipe their bum and change their clothes if they have an accident (preschool/reception year!). They may have to help the child with their food. Granted most children have stopped napping at this point. Apparently some children are going to school now not yet potty trained so this further blurs lines. Also teachers look after children's mental health at school. So I don't accept it is just education which teachers provide, pastoral care is just as important. You accept that a teacher is better able to provide education than a parent (I agree in most cases!) but where and why do you draw the line between teacher and nursery worker when a teacher can have only one year training as I understand it. Would you be happier if they were called nursery nurses and had trained for a year and it was a respected profession? I'm just trying to understand why you and some others think nursery workers can't do their jobs properly to be trusted with your children based on two unfortunate examples of bad apple but you believe teachers can.

School is a different matter in my view, because they're not going primarily for "care" but for education, and I think that teachers certainly are more qualified and capable of educating children than most parents.

To be honest perhaps all parents SHOULD go on a parenting course because it's definitely needed in many cases! Those instincts have dried up in some. You say the parent should know best but clearly the amount of children in care or with behavioural issues shows that not to be the case... but this is a separate issue. In my view nursery workers should absolutely be as well trained as a nurse.. in fairness though it is not as complex as a nurse's role. But it certainly should be a respected career path. "And the fact that we're not formally trained doesn't make use less trustworthy than a nursery worker" no but you may not be as up to date as you think you are on current parenting initiatives/knowledge as those at a good nursery should be. "We have parental instincts and, most importantly, we love our own children and prioritise what's best for them". Of course and every good parent does regardless of if their child goes to nursery or is looked after 24/7 by their parent at the start. Are you saying that a teacher or nursery worker doesn't like or care for what's best for your child? Will or do you send your child to school and are you happy they are safe and well cared for there? Why would that be different for nursery for you? SOME of the SAHP on here have been sniffy about nursery workers/nurseries in general. That's what I was referring to.

Number 1, I have a vested interested in how my school age child does at school which is 'free' just as I do for my child at nursery, I want them both to be happy regardless of if it's paid for. If they weren't happy, they would be going and I would be having words with either provider. I have no illusions that because something is paid for it's the best..I feel I have more clout at nursery because it is paid for than I do with the state primary school. Also why is it you say nursery workers are “trained professionals" is a myth? Many are trained and have excellent experience..at good nurseries. I would not send my child to a nursery where there was no evidence of training. Are all the teachers/assistants at schools trained would be an interesting one as last time I checked you only needed a year and some courses you train on the job (I am not saying that is right for the record).

Number 2 No way is being a SAHP free in this world. Either you have a partner who is paying the bills to cover your loss of earnings (which can lead to resentment/getting taken for granted and other issues -see relationships board!) or income from assets to cover it. If you are not still paying into a private pension then you are losing literally hundreds to thousands of pounds every month depending on what job you had/could have had. This is your future happiness and comfort.. are you hoping your kids will repay your sacrifices? I highly doubt a state pension (if it even exists!) will be enough for a comfortable retirement in the future. Also unfortunately you are potentially losing your future career/earning potential -though this depends on demand for your skillset and employers equality of course. So no way is being a SAHP 'free', even if you are on benefits.

Number 3 -"Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries" You are saying you don't believe children need socialisation and you didn't take yours to baby/ toddler groups as a SAHP?

Number 4 "Nurseries are more stimulating environments than a home environment because the nursery workers know how to set out a few paintbrushes and paint, or set up a few activities with playdough" I don't think anyone has said more stimulating, just different..and I suppose children who go to nurseries get both. Because (and many seem to forget this!) the parents are looking after the children in the morning and after nursery and many children don't go 5 days a week when parents work part time... Also I think to day "nurseries just set up some paints" is a bit rich, the nursery my child goes to follows the early years curriculum and records progress and what should be happening and when. I actually found all this really helpful with my first. They do many many activities and are outside a good portion of the day, everyday rain or shine. I think a lot of SAHP actually have conned themselves into thinking all nurseries are dingy little prisons with snot infested children playing on some ropey piece of astroturf and fighting over toys. I would not send my child somewhere like that, if it exists! I see a lot of babies/toddlers bored stiff in buggies whilst their parents browse clothes shops or fobbed off with a tablet or phone whilst the parent natters in a coffee shop to while away an afternoon. Then they are put to bed at straight after dinner so the parent can finally have a break. It's very difficult to provide round the clock stimulation in fairness if you are on your own during the day and also to plan lots of activities etc. I bet many kids end up in front of Cbeebies more often than some would like to admit!

That's a very backwards way of thinking about work, in my view

Exactly.

It’s very short sighted to think that SAHP doesn’t come at a cost, including a financial one.

It's not free if I have to give up my job to do it.

@MrsSunshine2b the reality is that many of these school leavers are working in nurseries because they didn't get the grades to continue in further education and it's a low skilled job they can easily get. It's nothing to do with being invested in babies.

I think that a lot of people are desperate to buy into the false narrative that because they’re paying for something, in some cases thousands of £s a month in nursery fees, that the provision therefore has to be better than something that is free (care at home by a stay-at-home parent). Hence all the peddling of false myths. Nursery workers are “trained professionals.” Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries than at home with a nurturing caregiver. Nurseries are more stimulating environments than a home environment because the nursery workers know how to set out a few paintbrushes and paint, or set up a few activities with playdough.