To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

[Luxell934]

I've read about two very young babies dying in nurseries recently. One who choked after being given inappropriate food and one who was left to smother to death.

As a new mother it's absolutely terrifying to think about, I have also worked myself in nurseries for a number of years. It was a very well respected chain of nurseries and we were always understaffed and over ratio, I remember caring for up to 9 babies with just two staff and were told team leaders were "in the office, if needed" which basically meant get on with it and don't bother us. I also remember feeding 4/5 babies at a time. Looking back I was so young that I didn't speak up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13438725/Nursery-nurse-Kate-Roughley-manslaughter-convicted.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqennjjllpqo

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

@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 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?

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'.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

Some of these school leavers will be choosing to work in nurseries because they have left school with very few qualifications and so they are extremely limited in what jobs they can be hired for.

I don't think you can assume that working in a nursery is a vocation for everyone who works there, or even the vast majority.

They certainly aren't in it for the money. The ones at my son's nursery (only one is a school leaver and she's there once a week because she's at College the rest of the time) are all incredibly passionate about early years education and children.

Of course they're not in it for the money, but the vast majority of jobs which are available to people who have left school with few qualifications are paid just as badly as working in a nursery.

Well, exactly. So if they aren't interested in children, why go with the nursery option?

Because the nursery job was the first job which came up? Or because they didn't get the job in a supermarket, so had to apply elsewhere? Or because they thought it would be more fun than working in a retirement home?

Obviously many of them will genuinely want to work in a nursery over other jobs, but I don't think it's realistic to say that is the case for 100% of people who work in nurseries.

I agree that it won't be 100% but I'd say the majority.

Yes, it probably is the majority- I never said otherwise.

I can only speak from personal experience..Many have adhd and or mild learning disabilities and work in early years because they were unable to attend school settings and can’t/won’t take GCSEs. I know as I send them for work experience as part of my job. There are lots of course who adore babies and children alongside that too. Not trying to make anyone feel bad I used nurseries myself, but I know it’s not just a vocation.