To take child out of nursery?

[AleaEim]

Hi,

Looking for advice, enlightenment, help!!

My dd, 14 months has been sick back to back for the last 5 weeks since starting nursery. She goes there two days a week and is supposed to be going to a childminder 3 days a week but hasn’t managed to complete her settling in sessions with the CM as she’s been sick every single week. On mat leave, I took her to baby groups/ soft play/ playgrounds every day and she only had a couple of coughs and colds the whole year, I’m not a germaphobe, I frequently forgot to wash her hands and often met up with other parents who’s babies had runny noses etc so I know she is quite resilient when it comes to illnesses (until now). I’m very close to just taking her out of nursery and switching to childminder full time (she’s told me she has a full time place), I realise it’s not guaranteed that she won’t pick up things there but surely it won’t be as bad as the CM only has 2-3 other children (all over the age of 2.5) whereas the nursery has 10-15 babies under 16 months all in one room.

DH thinks we should wait until the end of the month to see if things improve (that means she’d go in this Thurs/fri and next) as we have paid them until then, I think sending her in to a cesspool of germs is just going to lead to another two weeks of illnesses when she could start with the CM straight away and let this hell end.

We are both in two minds about taking her out of nursery and switching to CM, the nursery is outstanding rated in Ofsted whereas the CM is rated good. The nursery give the children two hours outdoor time a day in all weather (they really do), it’s family run, they host nice things that have dazzled us such as Mother’s Day parties/ stay and plays etc, they have forest school, baby ballet, toddler football. It feels wrong to just pull her out because they offer so much and dh thinks they have better facilities/ space/ resources than the CM. I think he’s right but also from a developmental POV, the CM will be better for attachment, consistency and her physical well-being if she gets less ill. But why can’t I just throw the towel in and tell the nursery she’s not going back? It’s almost like we have a FOMO.

Its been extremely stressful these past few weeks and I don’t know how we can go on, on top of that we’re both catching things from dd as well and I started back to work feeling dreadful last week and dh has been battling with flu symptoms for two weeks now, it’s put such a strain on us. I’ve also missed two days of work already including my first day, I have to be off today as well as dd is unwell again, another virus! It’s harder for DH to take days off as I’m on a doctorate course so won’t get penalised as much for taking days off but still I have a lot of work to do and need to start getting into a routine now or things will never be done. DH also has an awful boss and the company he works for is not family friendly at all. I’m with the NHS so they’re more understanding.

Part of me thinks we’re mad to just send her back info nursery this week as we could just have the CM if we wanted and it might be much better for us.

Not sure what I’m asking but just wish we could make a bloody decision.

It’s not shaming parents, it’s shaming governments who tell mothers their babies would be better off in nurseries from 9 months old for 30 hours a week than with them. That’s shaming mothers, telling them they have nothing to personally offer their babies and toddlers so get back to work! Even worse that it’s based on utter lies. I wish more parents could see through it.

Inappropriate? For having a different, valid opinion? They really do need to bring back that 😂 emoji.

Incidentally, I know many who now home educate. I use a state primary school I am extremely satisfied with (for now- I keep a close eye). It is not judgmental or inappropriate for my friends to openly air all of the benefits about home educating- I am confident in our school, and they are entitled to have a different opinion. Certain aspects of home educating are undoubtedly superior, eg the level of 1:1 personalisation, moving at a faster pace for gifted learners. I actually wasn’t aware how many social opportunities are available during the day, so these parents sharing information is helpful, as more may prefer to switch if they understand it more. Up to them!

You said that nursery under 3 is only appropriate if the child is from an abusive household. That may be your opinion. You are entirely entitled to it. I am entirely entitled to call you out as completely wrong. And to air your wrong opinion in the way you did, particularly under the pretence of being some self-appointed expert was highly inappropriate.

Just to correct the quoted research - it was that daycare (and I think it was the American system which I understand is very different) was an advantage over staying at home only in disadvantaged homes. It wasn't that it wasn't appropriate. I don't think pp said that either and it's an important distinction. I'm sure in many cases nursery is neutral ie neither better nor worse than at home and there are all sorts of variations around that.
When I was going back to work my sister said 'You have to accept no one is going to be good enough in your eyes. Choose the best you can and get on with it!' It was good advice.
Some people think nursery is essential and an advantage to a young baby/child and in most cases, that is incorrect, and that's ok. We do whar we have to do.

I think this is indicative of the issue here. You seem to be operating on the assumption that most parents who use nursery are doing so because they think it’s beneficial, rather than because they actually have no choice but to work.

You seem not to understand that suggesting to parents that their action of putting their child into nursery is preferable only to actively abusing them, you are provoking feelings of shame, whether that’s your intention or not. It’s unnecessarily emotive language and framing of the issue.

Your repeated accounts of your own decision to stay at home with your children until they are 3, with little and delayed acknowledgement that this option is not financially viable for probably the majority of people is an example of an individualistic answer to a structural problem, and further indication of a lack of awareness of how to use this knowledge and learning to actually make positive structural change.

you have further outlined in later posts suggestions for support for parents, which I think the majority of people would agree with. Unfortunately by the time you do this a lot of people who you would really want to be getting onside have probably switched off, because of your “facts don’t care about feelings” approach.

evidence tells us that the way difficult information is relayed to the listener has a profound impact on how it is received and therefore acted upon. A lack of empathy in delivering difficult to receive news achieves little but the provocation of negative feeling in the receiver.

a generous interpretation is that you are particularly passionate about this topic, have been rubbed up the wrong way by professionals who have questioned your choice to stay at home with your kids, but are lacking in skill, knowledge and understanding of how to use your knowledge and learning to actually help others.

a less generous interpretation is that you enjoy goading other parents, particularly mothers, who haven’t been able to stay at home with their children they way you did with yours.

My concern is that the system as is does not give parents the choice to be at home while their children are very small. Also the assumption that nursery settings are better than being at home, with pressure from the likes of health visitors to send children whom I believe to be too young.

Parents need choice. For some returning to work is not a choice but a financial necessity. For others it is their choice simply because that is what they want to do. For many who would prefer to look after their own children for the first few years not only does it come with a financial penalty but has become slightly frowned on as if they are denying opportunities to their children.

My DD went to a Steiner kindergarten when she was about 3. I did not buy in to the wacky philosophy but could see that it gave her so many benefits. They sang, they danced, they listened to music and to stories, they did free painting (no colouring in!), they went for walks, they picked flowers, they watched no TV. She came home tired but peaceful and not overstimulated and wired. She looks back on those days with great joy.

Health visitors should never have said that to you. It’s ironic if you’ve had this negative experience that you can’t see that “nothing beats mum” and stating your opinion that nursery is only beneficial if children are being abused at home as if it is fact could evoke the same emotions you had when the health visitor suggested you were doing something wrong by not sending your children to nursery.

When I previously suggested YOU are causing anxiety here especially after a pp actually quoted you and said “Feeling like absolute shit for sending my child to nursery after this thread. No option as can’t afford to lose my job.” your response is “Facts aren’t always convenient, and experiencing anxiety is normal when something doesn’t feel right.” I wonder how you would have felt if that would have been the health visitors response if you challenged them on why your children weren’t in childcare. Your opinions are not facts. A individual approach rather than a one size fits all approach should be taken here. I do not doubt that there are some nursery settings that aren’t appropriate for some children. But there are also many that are. There are many who have stated here their children are happy and thriving in nursery and that they actually WANT (shock horror) to work.

You changed tact and later stated you appreciate how hard it is financially for young families stating “ all families with children should receive more financial support, e.g. different taxation, financial incentives, housing discounts, etc. to reflect how much more expensive raising children is“ - considering how many families in the UK that exist and the current state of the UK economy I cannot imagine how this would be possible without the very women in the workforce who’s children are in childcare settings raising the exact taxes needed for your solutions. 🤷🏾‍♀️

It is difficult to strike a balance between stating a view and being aware that this might cause anxiety to another reader. I think there is no way round this. My view that small children are better at home with either parents or one carer is likely to stir up concerns with those who already have doubts about their decision to use a nursery. I am not sure this can be changed. We will all have different views and cannot always know how they might land.

That’s what my two year old does at nursery.

As with many things, there’s a balancing act. Being honest, I do think full time childcare in whatever form is a lot for a child. But two or three days a week? Sure.

I’d say that’s dependent on the setting to be honest @Mischance .

One of my old friends is a childminder. I’d leave DD with her in a heartbeat (she isn’t local.) I know she’d she’s a warm, nurturing, loving person and her business is in a beautiful setting.

I also spend three days a week with DD so am well versed in the groups and the soft plays and the farms and I know there are a far few childminders who spend their days at the most run down soft play in town chatting amongst themselves. I’ll stick with DDs woodland nursery!

Is there any space for all the hours days you need at nursery? As a working mum of two small DC I would go nursery over CM personally.

yes the illnesses are annoying but after the first year it settled down. DC are in first and third year at school now and are rarely off.

my nursery would take kids if they had a cold which let’s be honest the gp told me they pick a new virus up roughly every 3 weeks personally I needed this as I had one days childcare a year and DP too. We would have to take day unpaid to care for DC. CM don’t always take like this.

also CM ill no one to cover. In a nursery not generally an issue.

personally I found the nursery to be very beneficial for my DC and was hugely sad when they left they were part of the family and it sounds like you’ve got a good one lined up!

differing views will always provoke some kind of feeling or reaction, but you’ve just demonstrated how to do it:

“my view [is] that small children are better at home with either parent…” is very different phrasing to previous posters who chose to describe going to nursery as being a bit better than being abused at home 🙄 which do you think it’s going to provoke a stronger reaction? Which do you think will immediately turn people off?

another question that could be posed would be: is it helpful for your view on this topic to be shared with individual parents who may have liked to be at home with their kids but can’t afford to be, and find this difficult, or would it be better shared with the policy makers who have the power to change things?

People probably can see through it but what can they do? Awareness isn’t going to pay the bills. FWIW I actually wanted to go back to work, I didn’t have a choice either mind but if I had I still would have gone back. Maybe not as early as I did but certainly after 18 months or so. There isn’t any shame in that either, mothers are entitled to a career as much as fathers are. And genuinely despite your ‘facts’ and statistics I truly believe that nursery brought my dc on leaps and bounds. They had fun, did loads of activities, were nurtured and guided intellectually by people who are far more qualified in child development than I am. I wouldn’t have wanted them in there full time but two days a week worked well for us all.

previous posters who chose to describe going to nursery as being a bit better than being abused at home 🙄
That's just silly as that wasn't said at all. I clarified that long standing research above ( I am not OP of those comments btw but it'd silly to completely misinterpret or perhaps misunderstand it).
but has become slightly frowned on as if they are denying opportunities to their children. This is really crazy and no one with any knowledge of child development would think this.
Opportunities to paint and go to forest school, which sound wonderful, just aren't on a par with doing day to day life at home/out and about with their primary caregiver. I worked by the way for my first and stayed off longer for my second. Both had childcare and it was fine but it wasn't on a par with being home with me but what can you do. Parents financial and mental health are important factors too and can't be ignored!

@mikado1 “That's just silly as that wasn't said at all. I clarified that long standing research above ( I am not OP of those comments btw but it'd silly to completely misinterpret or perhaps misunderstand it).”

The poster said: “The only rare circumstances that may be preferable is if the parents are abusive.”

I think my interpretation of what she said is absolutely fine and not at all silly. I think lots of other posters have also interpreted what she said very accurately, which is why they are so offended.

You have mentioned a piece of American research that suggests daycare has benefits for children growing up in impoverished households. Being poor and being abusive are completely different things, so if the previous poster is referring to the same piece of research as you, then I suggest it is her misinterpretation of that research that is the problem here. If that is the case, not only have imporverished backgrounds been conflated with abusive ones, but a piece of research done in a US setting cannot be generalised to the rest of the world, as the quality and norms of nursery or daycare settings differ greatly.

I'm not even arguing about the benefits vs detriments of childcare, my point is what exactly are people trying to achieve by telling parents who have no option that they’re letting their kids down by not staying at home with them? The children will go to childcare regardless, and the (let’s be real here) mother will just feel a little bit more shit about it.

I might be wrong, pp can say, but I imagine it is that Day Care study.
Pp did not say 'it is a bit better than being abused' so I think you've weakened your own point with that interpretation, that's all. It is an advantage for those in abusive homes is very different. To my memory it was an advantage for those from disadvantaged homes. Again perhaps pp will confirm that. It's old research iirc. I'm thinking of the reference to it from Steve Biddulph's books, which didn't help me to read them just before returning to work but that I can see with more perspective now.

Snap the childminder’s hand off for their full time place. Mixing settings at this age isn’t beneficial, and a good childminder will be ensuring there is plenty of socialisation if that is your concern. A home from home environment for a young child with the least amount of quality caregivers is absolutely optimal.

Wow my point about comparing nurseries and children with abusive parents has bern wildly taken out of context 😂 grateful to the pp who does get this!

To clarify:

• Research shows that nursery can be harmful to under 1s and 1-2s. It is ambiguous/more neutral for 2-3s. There ARE benefits for over 3s. The negative effects are heightened by longer days.
• The modern day narrative from the government and many parents is that Nursery is beneficial and actually preferable to children being cared for at home by mum or dad. Many parents do look down their noses at those who choose not to send them, assume they are missing out-they are not.
• Under 3s are categorically better off being cared for at home by mum or dad. They do not NEED Nursery. Parents can provide everything a child that age needs in terms of their attachment, health, emotional and language development. They do need not NEED formal education or socialising, as their meeting their emotional needs is much higher priority. After 3 there ARE some benefits of socialising with other children (I’ve studied and observed young children’s play patterns extensively).
• Nursery is not necessary or beneficial to under 3s, and is rarely BETTER than being with mum or dad. That is not to say it is always harmful, many will be ok there, but it is not better.
• Nursery may be BETTER in extremely rare circumstances when parents are abusive and/or living in extreme poverty and/or unable to engage with their child in any loving manner to assist their development. For a small minority, nursery may be better as it may be their only secure, safe, warm and attentive environment. This is very, very rare.

As one poster wondered, yes I am very passionate about this topic, I believe in parents and do not under estimate or want to de-skill them. They need to understand how vital their role is, and not let that be undermined by society moving in a false direction.

Exactly, so you opted for 2 days a week not 5. Research shows that it is the number of days and the length of the session that can make nursery more detrimental, and logically result is greater tiredness and exposure to illness after illness, etc. So we agree on that? You didn’t decide to put your young baby/toddler in one for 10 hours a day, 5 days a week? 🤔

As others have said, why not just put her with the child minder until she’s 2.5/3 and would benefit more from a nursery setting. It sounds like you have found a great nursery, but at 14 months all those extras are really for you, not her. The one thing I won’t hold out on is the outdoor time. The childminder should be offering that too.

I understand what you are saying. But my small voice is not going to change any policies... the voice of some collective mumsnetters might make a tiny dent in a policy maker's thinking .... which is why I posted my thoughts on this.
Please do not think I am not aware of the challenges for parents who feel the same but have no choices. This is why I think policies need to give people more options.

I am not criticising those who wish to make other choices. I am just asking that every parent should have wider choice, both financially and in terms of guidance and judgement.