To think we're deluding ourselves over childcare?

[aliteralAIBUforonce]

I have a child who goes to nursery one day a week. I am very lucky that I can go part time and family have the rest of the time.

He's been doing this since he was 11 months and I hate it. He doesn't dislike it but he doesn't look forward to it either. A couple of times o have dropped him off then had to duck back into the cloak room and I've seen him looking rather lost and alone at the breakfast table. Breaks my heart.

A few times when I've been out and about I've seen staff from nurseries taking groups of kids out. They never, ever engage with the kids. Just each other. Bloody joyless experience by the looks of it. Those are the better ones too.

AIBU to think that we're going to see an epidemic of adolescent mental health problems is the next few years?

This is a shit was to bring up our kids.

@IcedPurple

You have any evidence for this screaming in the cot thing?

Nurseries don’t interfere with secure attachments. In the ‘good old days’ you keep harking back to children were brought up by anyone and everyone in the community - that didn’t affect attachment either.

Your nursery just sounds rubbish and/ or your child hasn't settled, but you’re extrapolating that out to imply that there’s a nation of children who will suffer mental illness. You don’t sound like much of an academic!

For what it’s worth my daughter adores nursery. It’s like a scene from Cheers when she goes in and leaves with everyone greeting and hugging. I don’t think she’ll suffer mental illness due to her nursery. Just find a better nursery and stop over thinking

So basically both your argument and your reading comprehension isn’t terribly good!

I agree with you op. I've often seen groups of kids out with nursery workers just trooping along. It looks shit. I know posters will disagree. I've also worked in a nursery as a temp and have seen the reality first hand. Out of a number of workers, there's usually only one or two that are good with kids. The rest just aren't. I remember when I worked, reading to a couple of kids and literally loads of kids trying to join in and just hear a story. The workers found anything else to do rather than sit on the floor and either play with or read a book to the kids.

But what do you do if you have to work? Mortgages and bills don't pay themselves.

I don't know the answer.

Well I do know the answer.
Better funding for childcare and make childcare a decent paid job. Make nurseries publicly owned, not a profit making business. Make standards high and trustworthy.
Don't Sweden and Norway have excellent childcare and everyone uses it?

Oh ffs. This again?? Both my DC have been at nursery, four days a week, since they were 11 months. They love it! Both have strong attachments to the workers, they have made really good friends and seem very happy to be there. They have very strong and secure bonds with me and DH, and are very loving and confident individuals. Change your childcare OP, or try to do more than one day a week - absolutely agree with others that this won't be helping your DC to settle. And please don't judge/criticise others, my DC are doing great thanks!

Better funding for childcare and make childcare a decent paid job. Make nurseries publicly owned, not a profit making business. Make standards high and trustworthy

I guess that's a good aim in the short term, but wouldn't the better answer be to just enable parents to take time off work, so that nurseries aren't needed?

It’s a different culture in Norway and Sweden. There is no stigma to using childcare for small children. My BF is Norwegian and said she hadn’t really heard of the concept of a SAHM until moving here.
It’s a more equal, progressive society isn’t it?
Of course their childcare is paid for by much higher taxes though, and British society is less compliant in that respect

Honestly I think if you're posting anecdotes about how happy your kids are at daycare, then you don't really understand OP's point. She's never said all kids are harmed by it.

@sklflknsflsdf who would do their jobs then if they were just.... not there? Who would pay their wages?

I mean there’s nothing stopping them taking time off work now, apart from losing their job and not being paid

I don't think it's nursery, it's middle class educational aspiration, league tables and constant comparison

When I was at school in the 60s/70s we played, drew, watched educational tv, carved balsa wood, made charts about our favourite colours and toys, took sweets to school, the naughty boys got sellotaped to their chairs, we laughed, wrote freestyle, got sent out in the snow, had lunch with beakers of water, knives and forks, china plates, meat and two veg.

At secondary in the 70s (and I went to grammar school) only the nerdy girls wanted 9 O'Levels. Most of us were happy with 5 or 6 and with 5 or 6 you cpuld go into teaching, nursing, work in a bank, get an entry level civil service job. If you were a bit better off you might have done cordon bleu cookery, flowers, secretarial course, or go to London to work in a posh estate agent.

My DC who were clever were expected to achieve. Set against that the fact that dd had undiagnosed adhd add undiagnosed because she was a high performer, had firm boundaries at home, two loving parents, etc. Anxiety and self harm and depressiin are often co-morbidities but many camhs nurses don't look beyond their noses other than to parent blame. Back in my day I'm quite sure dd would have been happy to do a secretarial course or cookery course. In today's world she felt she had to achieve her potential. Her neuro developmental disability needed to be diagnosed to allow her to do it. I can still hear the v experienced CAMHS nurse saying "well now mum, I think she's being to old at 17 to be diagnosed with ADHD. "Er no, not according to a consultant psychiatrist, privately appointed, may I discuss this with the CAMHS psychiatrist"? What would you be wanting to do that for mum?

CAMHS needs root and branch overhaul and until there are 4 x the qualified psychiatrists assessing our dc, its staff should not be allowed an opinion on what the problems are.

Aristocratic kids were mothered - just not by their biological mothers. That's what wetnurses did. It wasn't just about the milk.

Most wet nurses had several 'charges'. And no, these women weren't 'mothering' the babies in anything resembling the modern way. *Breastfeeding delays the next conception and aristocratic women were supposed to have as many children as possible.

They were also supposed to be completely available to her lord and master at all times.*

So you're saying that once the kids were weaned, mama was 'nurturing' them as a full-time job? Of course not. She still had very little to do with them, and the boys would have been sent to boarding school from a very young age.

You've got a seriously idealised view of 'tradtional' cultures.

It will be because he’s only going once a week. I work in a preschool that takes children from the age of 2. It’s usually the children that don’t come very often that struggle to settle.

The lack of interaction seems worrying, as that is our main focus! We have really strong relationships with our children. However I’m not sure how they’ve managed to get outstanding if they are as bad as you say?

who would do their jobs then if they were just.... not there? Who would pay their wages?

Redistribute wealth so that we don't have 0.001% of the population with more money than the bottom 50%.

Utilise advances in technology and automation to afford workers time off to raise children, rather than to increase the wealth of the richest 1% even further and increase the gap between rich and poor even further.

Childcare is bloody hard. A lot of people go into childcare assuming it's all fun and games; it's far from. The paperwork is unreal. It's low paid.

Also ratings aren't always a true reflection of a nursery imo.

Hmm. Well that’s a fluffy nothing answer

As others have said, if you don't want to use a childminder and you don't like any nurseries, then... I agree that one day a week isn't great for settling.

I think they suit some children/families and not others. My eldest has just left for reception and really blossomed in terms of her confidence, forming friendships, etc. The staff are lovely and genuinely care about the kids - they often come to birthday parties and things as well!

Oh FFS. For centuries the children of the wealthy were brought up by servants and the children of the poor were brought up by a combination of family and community. Up until about 100 years ago, people were hugely less invested in their DC because they had loads, because it was all a bit of a hit and miss thing about whether they would survive into adulthood anyway.
It would be better, as a PP said, to make nursery work (and, you know, all the rest of the caring work that is generally seen as 'women's work' and therefore it's OK to grade it as minimum wage work) properly paid and respected. When DS was a baby in nursery, I remember his first keyworker leaving because she could earn more working on the checkout in a supermarket.

Just sounds like this particular nursery, Ofsted outstanding or not, isn’t a great fit for your son for whatever reason. I know it must be hard to watch but it happens all the time. Doesn’t mean we’re all going to raise a generation of young people with mental health problems.

Hmm. Well that’s a fluffy nothing answer

Eh? You asked how people would afford to live if they took time off work and I told you.

Also, the mental health issues among DC are much more to do with the endless surveillance and testing in the current education system - and the fact that so many of their parents are struggling to feed, house and clothe them due to economic inequality.

Redistribute wealth? Yep, that told us. Problem solved

Redistribute wealth? Yep, that told us. Problem solved

Well... yeah. It would solve the problem.

Breastfeeding delays the next conception and aristocratic women were supposed to have as many children as possible.

Actually when you look back through history, aristocratic families tender to have fewer children than the lower classes. In some time periods it was considered unseemly to be constantly/repeatedly pregnant and only those of a lower class or lower moral standard lacked the self-control and restraint to keep from producing child after child after child. Women in the past also didn't necessarily have regular periods like women today due to factors like disease, vitamin deficiencies, differences in nutrition, lack of healthcare for gynaecological issues, etc. Its difficult to be more specific without narrowing "the past" down to one particular era but generally speaking, what you are describing, is inaccurate.