To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

What a horrible thing to say. Why do you think school leavers (almost exclusively girls) are choosing a completely unglamorous career where they are guaranteed to be overworked and underpaid, over many other choices where they could earn more and not have to change nappies or get home with baby sick on them? The vast majority of them really care and are invested in the babies, otherwise they wouldn't choose to be there.

I had no experience when having my daughter. But I would have done absolutely anything for her. A paid member of staff, no matter how professional, will never care about the child as much as its own parent (save exceptions such as abusive/highly vulnerable parents)

But parents love their babies, are biologically programmed to care for them, a school leaver isn’t, they are not remotely invested in the babies they care for, it’s a means to an end.

Like giving birth and having to look after a baby with no training then? Like most parents

In the first two years, especially, I would value a caregiver who is nurturing, kind, patient, and stable (so attachment/bonding can occur) above all else. After that, the ideal practitioner would have all of these qualities, but also have an understanding and knowledge of child development. For example, if they understand how fine and gross motor skills are important in later writing development, they can then better develop and plan activities that cultivate and hone these skills.

By the way I am not suggesting any of this would have changed the outcome for poor Genevieve though because I strongly believe Kate Roughley is evil and she wanted to hurt that poor baby. Her intelligence or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, there needs to be a massive systemic shift for this to happen, which would be very expensive and probably won't happen because in our country we systematically undervalue and underpay all types of caring roles or anything particularly associated with 'women's work'.

I know the UK has tried to encourage practitioners to train to degree level and to achieve what is called Early Years Teachers Status (different to Qualified Teacher Satus, which is required to teach in schools). However, the take up has been very low because the government has failed to introduce any sort of payscale to go along with this. Why would practitioners want to work hard to get a degree level qualification if their wages are going to stay horribly low at the end of it?

@SouthLondonMum22 I'm not saying some nurseries aren't better than others but it shouldn't be the case that some are allowed to get away with being really shit. Though clearly the way they actually inspect nurseries at the moment is bullshit anyway as Tiny Toes nursery had a good rating and was locally well thought of.

I agree that empathy and kindness are the most important qualities but I think to have zero training just shows a lack of respect for the vulnerable babies in your care. There needs to be a national framework for training otherwise young and unqualified workers will just pick up on things already done by more experienced workers and think it's normal, even if it's really dangerous practice. In the counties with the best childcare like Denmark the staff are educated to degree level and it is respected as a career.

And yet this nursery had previously received a 'good' rating from Ofsted I believe?

I really feel for young parents now, it has become so much harder for them. A lot is due to the horrendous cost of housing, so there's pressure from all sides to be earning as much as possible. We used to send DD to nursery part time from about 18 months (this was 25 years ago) and the costs at the time were reasonable. Now I hear on Mumsnet that people are paying out thousands a month on nursery fees, worse than a second mortgage. And the government pours a lot of money into childcare by assisting UC claimants with the fees I think? And pushing mothers who claim UC back to work when the children are younger and younger. Who profits from this though? Pps have mentioned how the inspections of nurseries have decreased a lot in recent years, don't the government think they have a responsibility for keeping our children safe.

The nursery workers certainly don't profit, their wages are notoriously low. I'm amazed that nurseries are apparently allowed to employ so many unqualified staff. What happened to the NNEB qualification? Nurseries get away with being understaffed and bad apples like Kate Roughly go undetected for years, even promoted.

Yet all those thousands in fees, where is it all going you'd wonder?

That’s assuming that all nurseries are as poor as that one though which simply isn’t true.

At my sons nursery, all staff are most definitely qualified except the one who is on placement once a week as she’s working towards it at College.

Staff should have a good knowledge of child development yes, ( but you could spend a few hours on the internet for that ) and have paediatric 1st aid training. ( again, one day course, refreshed every 3 years )
but apart from that, what training do staff actually need?
surely basic kindness and empathy are the most important ‘ skills’ needed when caring for young children? that, along with endless patience and perhaps a good sense of humour is enough - and I’m not sure you can teach people those things at college.
you’re either suited for a job in childcare or you’re not - no matter what certificates you have in your folder.

Personally I think you have to weigh up the nursery options available, what you have to offer at home and the personality of your child to determine whether and what type of childcare is in the best interests of the child at that specific moment in time. However, I think what seems to be missing is what happens next.

If we accept the premise that a child is better off staying with one parent until they are two, we know that to achieve this one parent has to quit work (and possibly pay back maternity pay over statutory rights to the employer). This could be for many years depending on how many children the family has. We also know that many parents will not be able to get back into the workforce easily once they have taken time out, and that it's difficult to sustain a family on one wage.

Are the drawbacks of a 7 or 8 year old living in financial hardship because the family lives off one income really outweighed by the benefits of having a primary caregiver at home with them 24/7 in the early years? And if it is the mother (which it usually is) is it a good message for children that you need to give up your career to have children? That's not something to worry about when your child turns 2 but might become an issue when they are tweens.

I was lucky that I knew my child was going the thrive in nursery so I didn't have to choose between my career and her immediate best interests, but if she had been a more shy or clingy child I think I'd have had to think longer term about what was going to be in her best interests over the span of her childhood rather than just what was going to be best for her right at that moment.

Leaving aside whether being with one primary caregiver is better for babies (I do happen to think responsive, one to one care is best for under 2s) what really concerns me is that there is zero training required to work in a nursery. My friend went to work in one and was started to receive no training and basically just expected to roll up her sleeves and get on with it. She also submitted a complaint to Ofsted about a worker she saw physically manhandle a small child, as well as bullying others children, after management refused to do anything about it. The nursery closed ranks and the complaint went nowhere. And this was 2 year olds or 3 year olds. Even at that age they struggle to tell their parents what has happened. Even more worrying for babies who don't have a voice at all. We need higher standards of nursery and qualifications required to work in them.

Totally agreed! I m also not a SAHM. And I am absolutely certain that some of my actions / decisions have not been optimal for my child. But I do think I’ve tried to look at my decisions in an unbiased way and not ex post facto manipulated the information to suit my purposes - and labelled everything I have done and all my decisions as ‘in the best interests’ of my child. Some of my decisions were in the best interests of the whole family, some priorities my career, some my own mental health. Some of them were poor decisions made by an anxious unwell person. I think in the grand scheme, I ve done my best.

But yes - even though I DID NOT do this, I think two yrs with a family (biological or otherwise) care giver is optimal over the alternatives (all other things equal - non abusive etc). I can admit this… while also admitting it wasn’t possible for us as a family (money) and it wouldn’t have been optimal for me (would have killed me to let career go).

Like so many important conversions it’s impossible to have a sensible discussion if you view any criticism as a personal attack.

It’s more damaging to ignore views to fit your own agenda.

Take the facts and make the best decisions for your family in your circumstances.

My child is at nursery as I type this - so I am not a biased, fortunate SAHM.

Child development is very well researched and understood. Many studies, vast amounts of evidence over a long period of time…yet you know differently.

To support your views on nursery use, you give an example to show that Piaget’s theory of child development is not correct, yet it is very widely accepted by professionals.

Name change I get that you are very invested in this and you see a lot of this thread as a personal attack. I can see this by the winky faces you are using in your post. I haven’t made the claims you accuse me of… And I’m certainly not going to ‘re post’ because you demand it of me. I’m with you on the lack of longitudinal data - this is a widespread feature of research on children, as far as I can see. But yes the research I have seen on cortisol levels and nursery’s (or daycare settings more broadly) give me reason to think those settings are sub optimal. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be used. For me - parenting is all about making the best choices for our children in sub optimal conditions. But it’s also about acknowledging that babies in these conditions are likely more stressed than they would be at home (and yes that’s a jump from specific studies and yet the jump is more justified from the n=1 claim that ‘my baby thrives so nursery’s are doing a brilliant job’). And it’s about using what we know to
improve the situation for babies and carers.

@Namechangey23 I really don’t have the time or inclination to sift through your realms of rambling nonsense, cut and paste, and address everything point by point. Some of your ramblings are just gobbledygook, and not at all underpinned or rooted in early childhood development theory; and other ramblings are not pertinent to the thread topic at all: you’re just all over the place. To summarise what I’ve said in my previous posts: most nurseries are safe, but they’re not the most optimal place for the social, emotional and cognitive development of babies and toddlers. The most optimal place is at home with a loving and nurturing caregiver (s) who is going to be attuned and responsive to the baby’s/toddler’s needs, and with whom the baby/toddler can develop a secure attachment. There was no one who could have cared better for my baby/toddler than I could have, and that’s why nursery was never an option for me. Furthermore, there should be no shame or stigma attached to wanting to care for your own baby/toddler at home, rather than outsourcing it to strangers. The end. I’ve nothing new or different to add 🙂.

I don't think there's the slightest jot of evidence for this. Utter nonsense

Sorry but this is rubbish. my teen has had many mental health issues and I was a sahm until she was 3 and then she only went to nursery a couple of days a week. Ridiculous to try and blame teen problems on childcare. There is ALOT more to it than that.

I know what you're saying and I think the geriatric care sector suffers more from staff turnover than nurseries as older persons tend to be much harder to deal with than babies and more likely to suffer with dementia and other psychiatric issues, which can make them violent (a close relative worked in this sector and was injured). Also and I hate to say this, but how many elderly persons in care are seen daily by their relatives? Whereas I see my child who goes to nursery morning and afternoon. If something is wrong I will quickly know in spite of the fact he cannot talk because I know him so well and my mum instincts. It's my job to advocate for him.. if something was wrong I'd be all over it. I do wonder how many parents who say nurseries are the devil have elderly relatives in care and are entirely happy with that situation?

Stress levels in unsettled babies and toddlers is likely to be much higher. However, if the nursery has good, consistent care givers the baby does learn to trust and be settled with them. Babies also make friends with their peers from a very early age and this friendship can follow them on into school and beyond if they stay in touch.

My main concern with nursery type environments for young children (under 3) isn't so much about the care givers. In the majority of nurseries the children are cared for by experienced, well trained staff who do care for the children in their charge. It is more about the lack of access to the outside world. Children who spend significant amounts of their waking hours in a nursery setting aren't getting to see the world they are part of. They aren't seeing shops and parks, adult environments and chores, they are seeing the inside of a space that is set up for children of their age and although it means they can freely explore this space and the resources in it - which is a good thing - they are also missing out on what grown ups do. They aren't learning to cook and wash up, do laundry, go to the shops, DIY, tending the garden, unless it is only play and not real. They are following routines and structures that are fixed and less flexible than they would be out of that environment because there is no option for one child to have lunch at 12pm and the next at 1pm because it simply isn't practical. They have to follow a routine that is set for them.

Personally, I think children who spend full time hours in nursery based childcare are very advanced in some areas. They are quite independent and they have learned a lot academically. However, I also find that they are very peer orientated, they don't really pay so much attention to adult requests and interaction as they do their peers. They make less eye contact with adults than children who don't do full time hours. They can push boundaries more within the setting, they can be less confident on day trips away from the setting and more apprehensive about change.

My personal take out from this is children who do the 15hrs at age 3yr + benefit enormously from nursery. Children who are babies and 2yo can be less settled but can make good attachments and friends in their peer group. All children will make good academic and school readiness progress. Too many hours in childcare can start to become detrimental to their understanding of the wider world and societal connections.

Well that makes probably three quarters of the mothers in this country child abusers. Right-o.

Just a thought: might be worth keeping your views to yourself until you can learn critical thinking skills and self-awareness. Your views don’t add much to this discussion.