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

So you can work in a supermarket for the same pay and half the work. Or McDonalds, or a pub or any other minimum wage job- the vast majority don't require the energy and hard work that nursery workers put in. I know, because I've done all of the above.

This is simply naive.

The point is it doesn't matter how many positive anecdotes exist. It's the fact that there are any at all from staff or ex staff highlighting concerns.

Parents don't necessarily love their babies from point of birth though. I've heard of some people getting this " rush of love" immediately, other people the live grows over time

Besides though you may well love them it doesn't mean you have the slightest idea how to look after them

Also on that note . If it's biology are you saying adoptive parents don't love or have " innate" caring skills for their babies?

@MrsSunshine2b the reality is that many of these school leavers are working in nurseries because they didn't get the grades to continue in further education and it's a low skilled job they can easily get. It's nothing to do with being invested in babies.

”Besides though you may well love them it doesn't mean you have the slightest idea how to look after them”

Of course you know how to look after them. It’s the most natural thing in the world; otherwise we would have died out as a species a long time ago. And It’s both instinctual and learned (from watching mother, father, grandmother, adoptive parent take care, play and interact with baby). It’s only when that natural bonding/ attachment process has been disrupted though abusive and neglectful parents and home environments, or babies raised in orphanages and institutions (think of Romanian baby syndrome) that that ability is lost.

I've noticed people using a lot of exceptions ("not all parents love their babies", "if biology means parents care more for their children, what about adoptive parents?" etc) and personal anecdotes to argue in favour of nurseries, which isn't a sound basis for assessing the quality of institutional childcare and how it benefits children compared to being at home. There's already extensive research on the best environments for child development and attachment - we don't need to scrape the barrel like this.

Basically, you can't make or discuss major policy based on anecdotes and exceptions. We need to be drawing on the actual data. Otherwise, we'd remove all children from their parents at birth because "some parents are abusive", or ban adoption because "biological parents care more". This is why safeguarding exists, to provide a safety net for those experiencing exceptions to the norm.

(While abusive parents are the exception, it does not seem that poor nurseries are the exception, unfortunately. The nature of how they are run means that the children are highly to be cared for by inexperienced staff with inadequate training).

And as I explained earlier in the thread, without the regular, independent support and accountability that used to be in place. Thanks Tory government for your council budget cuts.

Those comments I made are nothing to do with nurseries actually. Just pointing out not everyone gives birth ( or becomes a father) and automatically is so in love with their kid they know exactly how to care for it. If that was true why are there so many bloody women moaning their husbands are not able to look after the kids

I'm not being disingenuous here, but genuinely curious. How was childcare so much better under Labour? Did the Tories lower the level of qualifications required for nursery workers?
I know the quality has decreased since the free hours were brought in (which was not to do with council cuts, quite the opposite).

Exactly!! Parents don't get training. But we expect nursery workers to. I'd actually argue that the nursery workers are better trained than me as a parent as they've taught me tricks about potty training, napping etc which even after having one child I still hadn't learned! And I read a lot of parenting books and blogs first time around.The arrogance of some SAHP! Also I honestly haven't seen a nursery in my area choc full of school leavers as it wouldn't function very well, there is a good mix of mainly 25-35 year olds who are parents themselves with their kids in the same nursery and women nearing retirement age who have grandchildren and yes a few younger ones, I mean everyone has to learn? You going to refuse treatment from a junior doctor or nurse? What age do you class someone as being competent to look after your child? Some dad's in their 40s are still not competent and I'd trust a school leaver over them! I'd love better training and more respect for nursery workers and this as a career. Let's get consistency to ensure all nurseries are excellent and well respected. Its abundantly clear many SAHP are extremely sniffly about nursery workers so clearly a mindset which needs changing. Nannies don't get the same level of sniffy snobbery, wonder why?

A nursery worker is no way near as thoroughly trained as a doctor or nurse... The analogy doesn't work. We don't need to talk to a nursery worker to get basic advice on how to parent in the same way that we should talk to a doctor when we're sick. Otherwise we'd all have to go on year-long courses before having babies. This would suggest that the state or an institution somehow owns your child, know what's best for them more than you do as their parent and can be trusted to look out for them better than you.
First and foremost, the parent should know what is best for their own child. Childcare is a great thing to fall back on when you need it - e.g. if you work, but to suggest it's somehow better for a child to be looked after by trained strangers than its own parents is really strange and suggests a worrying lack of confidence in your ability to just meet your child's day to day needs and love them.
And no, parents don't need to be "trained". And the fact that we're not formally trained doesn't make use less trustworthy than a nursery worker. We have parental instincts and, most importantly, we love our own children and prioritise what's best for them.

The idea that a childcare worker is better equipped to look after a child than the child's OWN PARENT (apart from in exceptional cases) is just bizzarre.

All the SAHPs I have seen aren't sniffy about nursery. They just object to people saying silly things like this.

I think that a lot of people are desperate to buy into the false narrative that because they’re paying for something, in some cases thousands of £s a month in nursery fees, that the provision therefore has to be better than something that is free (care at home by a stay-at-home parent). Hence all the peddling of false myths. Nursery workers are “trained professionals.” Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries than at home with a nurturing caregiver. Nurseries are more stimulating environments than a home environment because the nursery workers know how to set out a few paintbrushes and paint, or set up a few activities with playdough.

It's not free if I have to give up my job to do it.

To be honest perhaps all parents SHOULD go on a parenting course because it's definitely needed in many cases! Those instincts have dried up in some. You say the parent should know best but clearly the amount of children in care or with behavioural issues shows that not to be the case... but this is a separate issue. In my view nursery workers should absolutely be as well trained as a nurse.. in fairness though it is not as complex as a nurse's role. But it certainly should be a respected career path. "And the fact that we're not formally trained doesn't make use less trustworthy than a nursery worker" no but you may not be as up to date as you think you are on current parenting initiatives/knowledge as those at a good nursery should be. "We have parental instincts and, most importantly, we love our own children and prioritise what's best for them". Of course and every good parent does regardless of if their child goes to nursery or is looked after 24/7 by their parent at the start. Are you saying that a teacher or nursery worker doesn't like or care for what's best for your child? Will or do you send your child to school and are you happy they are safe and well cared for there? Why would that be different for nursery for you? SOME of the SAHP on here have been sniffy about nursery workers/nurseries in general. That's what I was referring to.

Number 1, I have a vested interested in how my school age child does at school which is 'free' just as I do for my child at nursery, I want them both to be happy regardless of if it's paid for. If they weren't happy, they would be going and I would be having words with either provider. I have no illusions that because something is paid for it's the best..I feel I have more clout at nursery because it is paid for than I do with the state primary school. Also why is it you say nursery workers are “trained professionals" is a myth? Many are trained and have excellent experience..at good nurseries. I would not send my child to a nursery where there was no evidence of training. Are all the teachers/assistants at schools trained would be an interesting one as last time I checked you only needed a year and some courses you train on the job (I am not saying that is right for the record).

Number 2 No way is being a SAHP free in this world. Either you have a partner who is paying the bills to cover your loss of earnings (which can lead to resentment/getting taken for granted and other issues -see relationships board!) or income from assets to cover it. If you are not still paying into a private pension then you are losing literally hundreds to thousands of pounds every month depending on what job you had/could have had. This is your future happiness and comfort.. are you hoping your kids will repay your sacrifices? I highly doubt a state pension (if it even exists!) will be enough for a comfortable retirement in the future. Also unfortunately you are potentially losing your future career/earning potential -though this depends on demand for your skillset and employers equality of course. So no way is being a SAHP 'free', even if you are on benefits.

Number 3 -"Babies and children need “socialisation” and they need to make “friends” so are better off in nurseries" You are saying you don't believe children need socialisation and you didn't take yours to baby/ toddler groups as a SAHP?

Number 4 "Nurseries are more stimulating environments than a home environment because the nursery workers know how to set out a few paintbrushes and paint, or set up a few activities with playdough" I don't think anyone has said more stimulating, just different..and I suppose children who go to nurseries get both. Because (and many seem to forget this!) the parents are looking after the children in the morning and after nursery and many children don't go 5 days a week when parents work part time... Also I think to day "nurseries just set up some paints" is a bit rich, the nursery my child goes to follows the early years curriculum and records progress and what should be happening and when. I actually found all this really helpful with my first. They do many many activities and are outside a good portion of the day, everyday rain or shine. I think a lot of SAHP actually have conned themselves into thinking all nurseries are dingy little prisons with snot infested children playing on some ropey piece of astroturf and fighting over toys. I would not send my child somewhere like that, if it exists! I see a lot of babies/toddlers bored stiff in buggies whilst their parents browse clothes shops or fobbed off with a tablet or phone whilst the parent natters in a coffee shop to while away an afternoon. Then they are put to bed at straight after dinner so the parent can finally have a break. It's very difficult to provide round the clock stimulation in fairness if you are on your own during the day and also to plan lots of activities etc. I bet many kids end up in front of Cbeebies more often than some would like to admit!

The grades needed to work in a nursery are no lower than the grades needed for most other min wage jobs (shop work, waitressing, bar tending, cleaning, etc.) most of which are easier and cleaner than working with small children all day, not to mention shorter hours. I have done all of the above and nursery work was the hardest, by some way.

Exactly.

It’s very short sighted to think that SAHP doesn’t come at a cost, including a financial one.

That's a very backwards way of thinking about work, in my view

It’s backwards to agree with pp that giving up your job isn’t in fact free?

Just one point I'd like to pick up on... children don't need round the clock stimulation. Being constantly stimulated isn't real life and it's not healthy. Doing normal day to day things, like popping to a shop or a cafe, gardening, going to the post office, visiting people's homes, are good for children. They don't need one activity after another lined up, or a never ending range of educational toys and singing sessions. Too much of this has been shown to raise cortisol levels.

Also, going to bed straight after dinner is absolutely fine if the child has had quality time with their parent all day, and if it means they get all the hours sleep they need. My child goes to bed soon after dinner, and gets 12 solid hours sleep and is therefore on good form the next day. I think it's less ideal for a child to have to stay up late and get less sleep because the parent hasn't seen them all day (understandable and maybe necessary, but less ideal).

This is just a very strange way of looking at the issue. By the same logic, no children should go to nursery because some nurseries have been found to be neglectful. This is literally why safeguarding exists and why we don't just ban people from having babies.

So you want nursery workers to be as well trained as nurses? Do you realise this will mean there will be an even greater shortage of childcare staff (because like it or not, very often it does provide employment opportunities for people who are less academic and don't want to do a 3 year degree), and it will SIGNIFICANTLY raise the cost of childcare? The better qualified the workers, the more expensive the fees. When you need a very large number of people to fill particular roles, you simply cannot make the qualification requirements too high.

No I never said teachers don't care about children. I said that inevitably, in most normal cases, parents will look out for their child's interests more than a paid staff member. I'm not saying that childcare is bad, just that it's a good option when the ideal scenario (i.e. being cared for by your own family) is not possible.

School is a different matter in my view, because they're not going primarily for "care" but for education, and I think that teachers certainly are more qualified and capable of educating children than most parents.