To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

I had twins. It was 1:2 but they do the same things at the same time and you have two arms so it feels like 1:1 in many ways. Also have a singleton so can compare.

I don’t love the fact I had to put both mine in nursery from 14 and 12 months respectively but it means I can keep my job and hopefully afford private education for them from age 11 (state options here are DIRE). I weighed it up and decided that as long as I was selective and careful about the nursery, their education was more important on a balance.

What about twins? Where's their 1 to 1 ?

I think part of the reason why this thread has been heated is because people have a different age in mind that is considered as baby. Then for someone against sending a baby to nursery, what age range do you have in mind?

Exactly this - it is so bullshit to say that nurseries = worse outcomes for kids. It's such a damaging thought. No one is downplaying the 0-5 age, but surely babies in a reliable nursery where you got to know and trust the workers is completely fine. Look back in history, kids were shipped off to the countryside away from parents during baby years in working class families or to a "nourrice" all day for aristrocratic ones.
Luckily today, there is much more emphasis on the kids well-being and that means staying with their parents as much as possible, but it is completely false and dangerous to say babies in nursery from 1 year old are worse off down the line than those who stay with their mums. Like, really, think about it for one second @WhiteLily1 ; Scandinavia, France (yes, France, as it happens I'm French so that's what I know) all babies are in nursery. Do you think they are as a whole deprived of maternal love, form less secure bonds?
I want to be able to give my children a deposit for a flat, a good life, great vacations. I want to earn money for them, I want the intellectual stimulation of a job I like. I see the bond between my mother and I (yes, she shipped me to nursery full time at 4 months old to pursue her corporate lawyer career), and I am not worried about doing the same with my children. And yes, I'll miss them during the day, compress my hours to a maximum so I can see them as much as possible during the day, cherish all my
holidays, evenings, nights and weekends with them.
In the same way I think your choice is perfectly valid, so is the choice of millions of working mothers who use childcare.

I only have one (through choice), so was able to give him a lot of 1-1 time, especially when it came to things like doing lots of reading (another thing that is a strong predictor of how well a child does in school, and a predictor of future educational outcomes). But even women with more than 1 child will space their children a couple of years apart and 1:2 ratio is better than some of the ratios in some of these nurseries that posters have described.

I've just explained why in my situation and for my child, it was not optimal. My daughter was desperate for social interaction and getting bored of the very limited range of experiences I could give her in lockdown. Maybe some children would have been happy with the same routine of the same baby groups sat on their own individual spots 2m apart, a walk to the park (when the play equipment re-opened) and whatever sensory play, art and craft, music and so on I could organise at home. She needed more stimulation and absolutely loved nursery.

In fact, I went back to work so my child could go to nursery, not the other way around. After paying for nursery, I was left with about £30 a week. I invested A LOT of time into finding the right environment and visited multiple nurseries and finally found the right setting at a farm nursery, which also happened to be one of the more expensive ones in the area. We didn't drive at the time, my husband did a 5 mile cycle twice a day to get her there for opening time and then to work in time, which was tight. It was never for our convenience.

I find the comment about "biological" caregivers quite disgusting actually, and very rude towards adoptive parents, same sex parents etc.

Your experience is not the norm, especially if there was no staff turnover, staff were nurturing, invested in their charges, and those ratios were consistent. Your childminder also seemed very good. But nurturing, invested, biological caregiver at home is still optimal.

14 months. It was a 1:3 ratio maximum, many days 1:2. No different to a SAHM with twins or 2/3 children close in age. She is an only child, the only grandchild and a Covid baby. She was desperate for more interaction with other children; she was never short of adult attention.

I used to take her to all the baby groups and classes and she would try over and over again to get to the other children on the other designated "spots".

14 months. It was a 1:3 ratio maximum, many days 1:2. No different to a SAHM with twins or 2/3 children close in age. She is an only child, the only grandchild and a Covid baby. She was desperate for more interaction with other children; she was never short of adult attention.

I used to take her to all the baby groups and classes and she would try over and over again to get to the other children on the other designated "spots".

No one is making fun of 0-5 development. People are just saying that children can be just fine in a nursery setting too.
Look, if you want to stay at home for YOUR child then you do just that. Don’t pat yourself on the back and think your choice is better or think that anyone will be able to pull your child out of a line up in 15 years time as someone who obviously had a SAHM.

I grew up in a Scandinavian country where children have been in childcare for generations. I went to nursery myself 100 years ago. It’s not a society full of neglected children!

@freshgreenmintleaves I know what your mean. But I do think we forget that after your first baby, no other child gets your 1-2-1 attention even as a Mother.

Who old was your baby when you put her in nursery? During the first two years, especially, I find it hard to believe that any nursery worker could have provided the 1-1 care, attention and love that I provided for my baby at home.

My child's nursery nurses at her first nursery used to rock her to sleep at nap time. She had the same keyworker for the whole time she was there and he cried on the day she left (due to moving out of area). She came home with a huge card signed by all the staff with a photo of her with her friends.

Her childminder regularly contact napped with her, sometimes for hours at a time. She told us once she had managed to transfer my sleeping baby to her 18 year old daughter after 2 hours because she was bursting for the loo! The 18 yo went off to Uni but used to specifically arrange visits to coincide with the days my daughter was there.

Her current nursery is equally lovely, they know her extremely well, she always knows which staff are present on which days and she trusts them all. They pick up straight away if she's a bit quiet or withdrawn. Sometimes, they are able to get her to share something that's bothering her that she didn't share with us.

I don't see the point of all this other than guilt tripping parents who need to provide a roof and food for these babies and kids?

FWIW I don't remember much of my first five years and my mum was at home with me!

Early child development research has shown us that the 0-5 years are crucial in the social, emotional and cognitive development of children, and that the best way for that development to be optimised, and full potential to be recognised, is through a caregiver who can provide loving, nurturing care; someone whom a child can securely bond with, and attach to, and someone who is going to be a constant presence in that child’s day-to-day life. (Not someone who is motivated to provide care for money, and who may be there on Friday, but gone on Monday). Who is best suited to provide that care? A primary caregiver who loves the child, and has a vested interest in that child; that primary caregiver is almost always someone that has a biological link to that child (mother, father, grandmother, etc.), and is someone who has become attuned to the needs of that child because they’ve been primarily looking after them. Especially with babies and toddlers, no nursery worker is going to spend hours walking around with a baby if they’ve got colic or reflux trying to soothe them; or going to spend ages googling to find the best remedy to soothe irritated gums for a teething toddler; or going to give spontaneous hugs and kisses like a parent/grandparent would. They don’t have the time, the biological link or the vested interest, to do so.

Early child development research has shown us that the 0-5 years are crucial in the social, emotional and cognitive development of children, and that the best way for that development to be optimised, and full potential to be recognised, is through a caregiver who can provide loving, nurturing care; someone whom a child can securely bond with, and attach to, and someone who is going to be a constant presence in that child’s day-to-day life. (Not someone who is motivated to provide care for money, and who may be there on Friday, but gone on Monday). Who is best suited to provide that care? A primary caregiver who loves the child, and has a vested interest in that child; that primary caregiver is almost always someone that has a biological link to that child (mother, father, grandmother, etc.), and is someone who has become attuned to the needs of that child because they’ve been primarily looking after them. Especially with babies and toddlers, no nursery worker is going to spend hours walking around with a baby if they’ve got colic or reflux trying to soothe them; or going to spend ages googling to find the best remedy to soothe irritated gums for a teething toddler; or going to give spontaneous hugs and kisses like a parent/grandparent would. They don’t have the time, the biological link or the vested interest, to do so.

I wasn't thinking of parental leave. I was thinking of returning to the one-income model of families, where one partner is at home full-time. I am not sure that most women want to hand over half of their maternity leave to their DPs, and if they are breastfeeding that would not work, anyway as men cannot breastfeed babies! Those women who want to stay at home either full or part-time, want themselves to be the person staying at home. They have expressed the idea that being at home, doing things in the community etc is more rewarding and satisfying than a job - bear in mind most of us do boring jobs, we are not high-flying surgeons or barristers etc. I feel for men, who I consider are on the work-treadmill all their lives and we do need to find other ways of living that allow people to find satisfaction in their lives, rather than assuming it only comes from a paying job. Most people work because they need the money, not because they want to work. Freedom is bought by earning enough to to be free - which generally means, for most of us, escape from the treadmill. I can see perfectly well that women find rearing their children, working in the community, perhaps working from home on something that is a passion, would prefer not to be shoved into work and their children into nurseries because these things are the only things society values. I find the implication that looking after children etc is an unenjoyable chore (so men should have to leave their wonderful work-life to take part in it) a little joyless. Doubtless, many men would like to stay at home with the children, but it is not feasible with small babies. We have to battle against women being penalised for taking time off to have children, not make men do some of it and share the general disapprobation of taking time off for children - the current situation is arse-forwards: nothing we do is worth anything if we do not continue our culture by having children.