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.

Doesn't everyone sing to their kids when they are working if self employed or working from home.
I sing at home and did sing to dc when they were little.
My dd enjoyed it so much she sings at school even now at 15 she'll often break out into song in her class.

There are already people (often self employed l) people who do work around very small babies like that. It's something we could make more use of where appropriate.

I did a few hours of work a day while on mat leave (I'm also an academic and had some projects I couldn't leave for six months). It is viable for maybe the first few months, if you have a pretty easy baby, though you're not going to get beyond very part time hours and good luck with working to deadlines. It is a hopeless idea past that age - so, at exactly the point where most people first begin to consider nursery/paid childcare.

There is nothing more annoying than a colleague 'working' from home, with their children shrieking and crying at a deafening volume when dialling in for a teleconference.

Or 'working' from home and supposed to be responsive and contactable, and they're not - because they're not working, they're child wrangling.

And before you know it, they've ruined it for everybody else, who does use the company's family friendly flexible working policies and procedures ethically and responsibly, and they're being reviewed, tightened up, and withdrawn.

Or the colleague that brings their child in, recovering from measles or with active conjunctivitis. . .

As well as better regulation we could try to rely on childcare less. We could actively try to change the long hours culture we have.

There are so many benefits to having as many people as possible working part time- not just in relation to child care. Benefits for the individuals, their families and society.

I'm absolutely fine with how many hours my kids were in childcare, and with the quality of care they got.

I have happy, healthy, secure, confident, positive, resilient, outgoing teenagers, who have coped incredibly well with shifting not just home, or school, but also countries, in the past year, and who are both thriving and excelling.

It's up to the individual parent really. We can't always expect the state to do our jobs, and our negotiation and advocacy for us.

Despite suffering the iniquities of nursery. (God bless that nursery!)

Institutional care for a whole day is damaging to child. No doubt about it.

Institutional care for a whole day is damaging to child. No doubt about it.

I'm currently dealing with a member of my family who's life is a trainwreck.

She would have been a hell of a lot better off, and a lot less damaged in institutional care for the whole day than at home with her alcoholic, abusive, narcissistic mother.

And there's far more children like that, in all walks of society, than we would like to admit.

I'm afraid I agree with you.

@LovelyIssues - my DT’s went to nursery full time from six months ago and when they started school we also used breakfast and after school clubs, either are damaged. Both are happy Uni students- good academically, like sport and are nice people to be with. What evidence should I be looking forward regarding damage?

Their cousins ( in the US and Belgium) did similar as did their friends, no signs of any problems.

"My kids didn’t do any childcare and my son started school a lot more confident and secure than the kids who’d been to preschool."

Really? Because I would say I saw the opposite when my DS started, there was quite a difference between the SAHM children and the pre school children and their confidence levels. The preschool children all knew each other for starters, they were accustomed to group play environments. Isn't it one of the reasons the government help fund childcare for disadvantaged under 3s?

OP - you are lucky to have family support with childcare and you are able to work part time. If you are struggling with your child being in nursery then why not withdraw him?

You could go more part time or your partner could?

@mbosnz

"It's up to the individual parent really. We can't always expect the state to do our jobs, and our negotiation and advocacy for us."

However we can expect the state to ensure that standards are maintained- which is the point of Ofsted, CQC etc

I don't think that is currently happening in nurseries.

I live in Denmark and my daughter will start daycare at 1 like the vast, vast majority do here. I believe that the other nordic countries are the same.

There is simply no epidemic of adolescent issues here as a result.

Those that are so sure it's damaging, do you think it's viable to simply pretend several countries of solid empirical evidence to the contrary don't exist?

The caveat, I suppose, is that flexible hours are common and when you have kids you simply leave on time - parents aren't working late here.

However we can expect the state to ensure that standards are maintained- which is the point of Ofsted, CQC etc

I don't think that is currently happening in nurseries.

Well, there's only so much Ofsted etc can do - they do set standards and do inspections to see if they're being maintained. But an inspection is only a snapshot, and of course the standards have to be set with an eye to reality - as in costs of running (ratios etc) have to be in line with costs parents are prepared to pay.

And honestly - what ratio and what standard could be set that you'd be genuinely happy with? I can't see it myself.

@aliteralAIBUforonce "I don't think that is currently happening in nurseries"

Based on what? Your child not settling in (unsurprisingly) 1 day a week and your brief observations? I don't understand why you think you have such authority to make sweeping judgements and to even entitle yourself the "messenger". It's so bizarre! By all means have an opinion, only you can live with fact you don't believe you are doing what is best for your child, but really perhaps you need to inform yourself a little better technically before trying to make a vast proclamation on Mumsnet and ignorantly dismissing the inevitable challenge.

Actually they have a history of not inspecting previously Outstanding providers. That needs to change if it hasn't already.

They could also enforce minimum quals, training and a 1:2 ratio.

The state needs to subsidise it more too.

I'm a big believer in collective responsibility and that means the state- nothing else can pull it off in any meaningful way in our large, complex post-industrial nation.

@NewLevelsOfTiredness "The caveat, I suppose, is that flexible hours are common and when you have kids you simply leave on time - parents aren't working late here." That's how myself and my husband have worked since having children, no martyrdom here, most parents I know ascribe to this, accept perhaps the ones who aren't splitting childcare 50/50.

*except

Yes, I agree.

People will argue how great their nursery is, and I'm sure many are. But they are not 'home'. And they are not a replacement for parenting. But the economy functions best when more people are working (the increases income to buy services and goods and the jobs creates in early years childcare) and it's just not in the government interest to fund proper research into the long term effects of group childcare.

It will vary depending on the child, the childcare environment, specific staff members and the age that the child starts. If a particular solution isn't working for a particular child then hopefully their parents think about other options. Not everyone will be able to and some children undoubtedly really struggle in childcare, but other kids will be fine. I find it best to put on parent blinkers; focus on your own child and only get involved with other people's decisions if they ask you to or if the child is in actual danger.

I'm a big believer in collective responsibility

Ah, there's our conflict. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, and in particular, parental responsibility.

So parental responsibility to firstly determine what childcare they deem acceptable and appropriate for their child - whether that is family they abdicate their childcare responsibilities to, whether that is them staying at home to look after their child, whether it is having a nanny, a childminder or an au-pair, or whether that is a nursery.

And then finding a provider they believe is acceptable, and then funding that.

If for some reason, a parent is unable to do that for their child (as opposed to unwilling), then I think state assistance should be provided.

So we're coming from fundamentally diametrically opposite points of view.

A 1:2 ratio? Really? I'm just wondering how you align this with a country that currently can't afford to fund it's police force, it's health care system, it's education system. . .

@chipsychopsy - I never expected nursery to parent my DC’s - that’s what DH and I do. Nursery was to care for them to a safe, comfortable environment, to encourage their learning, interests and development but mainly to make them happy and excited about each day which they achieved.

Oh - I've an idea! They could raise the pension age to 100. . .

‘I don't understand why you think you have such authority to make sweeping judgements and to even entitle yourself the "messenger". It's so bizarre! By all means have an opinion, only you can live with fact you don't believe you are doing what is best for your child, but really perhaps you need to inform yourself a little better technically before trying to make a vast proclamation on Mumsnet and ignorantly dismissing the inevitable challenge.’

The above words sum it up.

I’m all for intelligent informed debate. But for the OP who has styled herself as ‘messenger’ based on the fact that she isn’t happy with the provision she’s made for her child- well, it’s ludicrous.

Stop your faux concern for the welfare of the UKs children and sort out your own situation if your son is not secure in the care you’ve organised.

Leave the sensible debate to those who aren’t starting a thread which is a very transparent attempt to make other women feel bad.

Depends on the child but my daughter loved hers, my son was ambivalent to the exact same one. Contrary to your thoughts, my daughter is far more anxious to my pretty chilled son and always has been. Kids need one firm attachment to their primary carer to grow up resilient according to research. There are plenty of variables to throw in the mix but so long as they know you’ll be there for them, they are generally fine.