To NOT feel guilty that my kids are in childcare?

[Kanfuzed123]

Inspired by the childcare eating a £45k salary and the anti nursery sentiment from a few posters on there as being inferior for a child.

anyone else not feel in the slightest guilty that there kids are in nursery and have been post maternity leave?

yeah when they cried at drop off was rough and I called into the check out they were but that soon settled. They do lovely events for the parents and upload lots of amazing activities they do, they’ve made fantastic friends.

I could’ve reduced my hours but I didn’t, we could’ve maybe managed on one salary (glad we didn’t when rates shot up) but I went back FT when dc 1 was 15 months (used annual leave for part time before then) and dc2 was 13 months.

anyone else just not feel guilty? I like the lifestyle we can get when we’re working, especially since the 15 funded hrs and now 30, it’s so affordable. (Eldest is in school and youngest now has the 30 hrs) bill is less than £400 a month inc club etc. I like having something else to focus on too.

im not alone or am I?

Actually most aren’t able to say why FT nursery for children under two is bad, they’ve just said generic motherhood statements.

Have you read around that and the counter research because there’s also another study that observes the inverse and attributes elevated cortisol to naps.

that research isn’t also to prove day care is bad it’s to ensure practices in childcare are optimal for children

@Kanfuzed123 call it what you will. I'm saying that, as a society, we need to ask questions about the actual, lived experiences of very small babies in full time childcare. And ask if this can ever be in their best interests. How stressful is it for them? How are their bodies responding? How long is too long?

The govt won't do this though because they know what the recommendations would be and they're not prepared to implement support for families as alternatives.

Maybe you should do a PhD on it and update us in 4 years time

Who are these mums being forced to put tiny babies into full time child care?

maternity legislation is the best it’s ever been in the U.K.

I did actually have dc1 back in the days of 12 week maternity leave, so he was in childcare from that age. Not ideal from my point of view as I was breast feeding early morning, pumping for day time feeds and then bf again evenings and overnight. Very tiring! But it was what it was, and ds has grown into a very happy, well adjusted adult. (As he no doubt would have done if I’d given up work)

I wouldn’t propose a return to those days because as I say, physically very tough. Emotionally perhaps a little easier because at that age there’s none of the separation anxiety which can happen if don’t start leaving a child with other care givers until one year, 2 or even older. (I remember having to be peeled off my mother when I started school at 4.)
But maternity leave is a decent length now; there is also the option of transferable parental leave. Of course, I’m a great advocate of nurseries being the kind of one my kids went to with plenty of outdoor activities, home cooked food etc, they need to be quality environments. But this scare mongering about childcare which isn’t based on evidence is really not helpful and you do have to question the motives of posters who do it.

But how frequently? That young and full time? I've never seen it happen among people I know.

No thanks. I did an MSc in a similar field many years ago.

But you can’t remember your sources, struggle with the concept of outcomes in research? It’s a shame you didnt take it further, it’s clearly something you’re very passionate about

I've given the example of 3-month-olds in nursery (which does happen, though yes it's rare) to illustrate that age matters in these conversations.

I think the majority would agree that a 3-month-old (or even younger) in full-time nursery is not a good idea. Likewise, I think the majority would agree that a 3-year-old in nursery would be fine and help them socialise.

The argument then is where to draw the line. Is 4 months ok? 5? 6? and so on.

Based on my reading on the subject, I would draw the line at around 2 years old. Others on this thread clearly disagree. But then I wonder, where would they draw the line?

Also just want to add that my arguments are based on full-time childcare. The research is much less clear on the balance of disadvantages/benefits of part-time childcare.

I changed direction @Kanfuzed123 because working in Child Protection with babies got too stressful.

We'd be much better basing the conversation on things that are actually happening at any scale, rather than edge cases.

If we have hordes of 3 month olds in nurseries (though I doubt we do), the issue there is not about appropriate age for nursery attendance, but about maternity provision.

Lets diagnose the problem properly as a starting point.

And that contributed to the knowledge gap on how outcomes factor into research? Or why you didn’t take further? You can always go back to it

You keep saying no one is explaining why they're against nursery. That is simple untrue. Many posters, myself included, have explained our reasons. You happen to disagree with us, which is fine, but it's disingenuous to keep insisting that no one has actually put forth a reasoned argument.

The vast majority of younger colleagues who go off on mat leave are taking a full year. Some return a little earlier, eg when child is 9/10 months.

Since the days when we all returned at 3 months (or gave up work) I’ve only known a couple of people return to work around the 3/4 month mark. One was in a very niche (but also quite flexible) line of work where being out for too long would have been tricky. Her dd is now early teens and a lovely young person.

But like I said, the edge cases are useful in establishing a baseline of agreement. Then we can debate the exact cut off point - would you personally put it at 6 months? 1 year?

Actually to be fair, some posters have explained that they don’t like the idea of nursery and choose not to send their own children. Which of course is fine! It’s only when people extrapolate from their own opinion that therefore nursery is bad for all children; or when they use spurious ‘evidence’ to try to argue that nursery is bad that it’s not fine

As I said, you're diagnosing the wrong problem. What's going wrong with maternity provision if hoards of 3 month olds are in full time nursery? That's a different problem.

But I'm not quite sure what you are asking? Personally I think we should be focussing on better maternity provision for all, to give mothers more choices. Not all nurseries are the same either, so bear in mind you aren't comparing like with like.

Okay, please tell me which of the many research papers linked to in this article are 'spurious' and why.

criticalscience.medium.com/on-the-science-of-daycare-4d1ab4c2efb4

@Kanfuzed123 Of course outcomes are important! I'm saying it will likely prove very difficult to directly trace the 'outcomes' of childcare because it will be obviously be mediated by so many other variables - eg, off the top of my head ... quality if childcare, family structure, socio-economic status of family, educational background of family, number of siblings, health factors, mental health issues, personality, educational ability, SEN, abuse, childhood traumas, cultural factors, random events - you name it.

Direct analysis of babies in full time childcare settings is likely to be more informative in assessing, on a societal level, the impact of childcare - at what point and in what circumstances can it be considered disadvantageous, neutral or beneficial.

That's all I'm saying.

But the two are linked. If nursery is considered beneficial for, say, the average 6 month old then there is no pressure for the government to extend paid parental leave beyond that.

If, on the other hand, there was a consensus that nursery at 6 months old can cause harm (obviously not to all children, but for some that are more sensitive to stress etc) then there would be much more political pressure to extend parental leave.

You're thinking in extraordinarily binary terms here. The decision won't come down to 'we have decreed nursery is beneficial at X months, so that's what everyone should do'.

Every family situation is different, every child is different, there isn't going to be a right or wrong solution across the board. Nursery at 9 months (for example) may not be optimal for all, but it might be the best solution for a particular family, thinking about the wider picture.

Me: kids, big surprise for you: I’m taking the day off work and we’re going to go to the aquarium!
DC(5): awww but Abra and Cynthia will be at daycare today! I wanted to play with them!
DC(3): we’re making a volcano!
DC(5): can’t we go to the aquarium this weekend instead? Pleeeeease?

Nope not one ounce of guilt here.

My kids learned to socialise at a young age and didn’t only have me and the occasional play date or group for company.

They learned that I was an Independant woman who chose to work and set a good example for them.

They had no problems transitioning to school.

They did far more activities and crafts than I could ever have done .
No kid missed their parents when they are at school. And no father ever feels this way abiut having their kids in school/nursery.

Teachers say you can always tell the difference between a kid who went to nursery me who was only ever at home. They also tend to catch issues with kids earlier at nursery and work with local schools to transition kids.

Stop feeling guilty. If you want to stay home do so. Otherwise feel proud you are setting a great example with a woman’s independence.

Nursery at 9 months (for example) may not be optimal for all, but it might be the best solution for a particular family, thinking about the wider picture.

Yes, I have made that argument myself several times on this thread.

But you clearly refuse to engage with the actual question of if and at what age nursery is beneficial. You refuse to give your own opinion on what age a child should be before starting full-time. You dismiss mine and other posters' arguments with straw man claims like there aren't "hoards of 3 month olds" in nursery (which none of us ever claimed there were, just that it occasionally does happen). You refuse to give actual arguments about why nursery is or is not beneficial for the majority of children.

So with that in mind, I'll stop responding now.

Because I don't think it will ever be as simple as designating one age-specific turning point. How could it be?

And whatever 'harms' or 'benefits' of nursery, they have to be considered in the context of the harms and benefits of lots of other things. Economic stability, parental mental health, family flexibility, the pro and cons of childminders/nannies/family care. There are so many variables.

It’s a very reductionist approach to think in term of nursery either being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or at what specific age it is ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

It’s entirely possible that nursery is simply a different, or additional experience. I’ve never claimed my children have better outcomes, are happier or did better at uni or whatever because they went to nursery. Like I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve no doubt they would be the lovely adults they now are if I’d never sent them.

the only measurable claim I can make is that nursery did enable me to continue working, which has actual, tangible results.

seems to me there is far more concern among parents who don’t wish to use nursery to try to claim it’s bad. Parents who do use nursery don’t seem so concerned about trying to claim it’s bad not to use them!