AIBU to think that once you have paid your childcare, its not really worth working.? Is it that you just don`t want to look after your own kid. prefering to stick them in daycare as soon as the shine wears off, it really bugs me!

[discusturd]

Some go from 7-6 and never see there parents, I know I will get slated but in the nursery I work some kids hardly know who their parents are.

mrz, if a child is emotionally or socially disturbed from early childcare, how does being in the US or UK affect the value of the study? What do the US studies say BTW?

Niecie - absolutely,I agree with you, work isn't the be all and end all, and I haven't yet come across anyone on MN or in real life who says it is either! Of course there are lots of other things in life which are interesting and stimulating - I think we're all in agreement about that. But of course, paid employment is an important aspect of life I know of ver few physically and mentally able adults who have not wanted, and needed, employment in their life. Maybe there are a very few moneyed people who never earn a living, and at the other extreme, people with zero aspirations and low ability/skills who could work but don't. The vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle. That's why IMO it's good to equip yourself for the most interesting employment you can find, given that you are likely to want and need to earn a living. It's certainly what I hope my children aspire to. Of course, they could do a low status, boring job simply to pay the bills, but for many people, that's an unstimulating way of life, which is why I hope my children aspire to something more. I just want to make that point before anyone accuses me of having expectations for my children - I am happy with whatever they do, as long as it makes them happy. And in my experience, happiness has a lot to do with fulfilling one's potential. Students who underachieve (whatever their ability) tend to be frustrated and not happy with themselves.
So, you're right, work certainly isn't the be all and end all, and I don't think you'll find anyone on MN saying it is, but it's another aspect of life which can be fulfilling, alongside all the other things in life which make us tick.

sorry blueshoes that reply was to TeacherSaysSo's question about older children. The children I am concerned with are in their first year at primary school.
As has been said there are a number of factors and I wouldn't want to give the impression that all nursery care is bad (which it clearly isn't) just that perhaps some additional thought should be given to those factors when making decisions on child care.
I would be looking at the qualification/experience of the staff working there and also the turn over of staff. Are the same staff working there now that were there 6months/a year ago? Are the same staff there when you collect your child as when you dropped them off? Will it be the same staff tomorrow as it was today /yesterday?

I agree mrz, I certainly took all those factors into account when considering nursery for my children.
Another point - I would guess that those parents who have the least choice about those factors, tend to be the ones who are living in more deprivation anyway. eg if you have no car, your choice of nursery would be limited. If you lack confidence to ask questions and access the information about staff turnover etc, then you are going to be armed with less knowledge. The irony is that I get the feeling those of us on MN who work and used nurseries are probably the very people who will ask the right questions and be able to access the best resources. As with many things, it's the disadvantaged who remain disadvantaged.

but mrz, that is precisely my point. There are a multitude of possible factors and not all nurseries are bad.

If that holds true for children who are already exhibiting emotional and social problems, even more so for children who are seemingly normal and happy at ft nursery from a young age. Of course parents take into account the factors you describe when choosing a nursery. Personally, the best indication is whether the child is happy and settled.

Bear in mind that for the 5 you saw, there are many many more children who do attend long hours nursery from a young age who do not end up in front of you. And there are many many more children who are emotionally and socially disturbed who are not flagged up from such a young age who never attended nursery.

Where research falls down is its applicability in individual cases.

findariver, good point about choice and deprivation. I can see how poor quality nursery care from a young age is damaging - don't need research to tell me that. But the people with the least ability (which includes access to info) to choose better provision are usually the ones who are most deprived. Deprivation and poor long term nursery care being a double whammy for those unfortunate children.

findtheriver the specific children I know personally have professional parents and aren't from deprived backgrounds but I do acknowledge your point as a factor in some studies.

from a study that I can't relate to personal experience "Childcare children who went to nurseries before the age of 9 months for more than 20 hours a week showed evidence of distress and negativism at 18 months and performed less well on language tests at 3 years, in spite of having parents with higher status jobs and salaries and more qualifications than other parents."

this is a question to mums who choose to put theor kids in a nursery before the age of 2

what do you look for in a nursery?

what made you choose the nursery you picked?

as a childcare worker, I'm interested in a mums/dads point of view!

chelsy, in my order of importance:

1. word of mouth

2. proximity to work/home

3. cost

4. feel of the place

NOT the things on mrz list!!! becuase in reality the child to adult ratio is fixed now as it is law, and it'd be difficult to find more detail on staff turnover and how nice they really are until you get there...hence no. 1 is most important!

I'm really intrigued by your sample mrz as it seems extremely narrow - eg all professional parents. That's not a criticism btw as any research only has validity within the parameters it studies, but it does seem a particularly narrow band.
Also, out of interest, how is the negativism and distress measured?
It's certainly a fascinating area. I guess there's also maybe more innate tendency towards hypersensitivity in babies/children with innate high intelligence. IME, high intelligence can often go hand in hand with emotional issues.

The children I work with weren't part of my research findtheriver.

chelsygirl, nice of you to ask. I had to choose ft nursery for my 1 year old dd and ds.

There is my gut feeling from a site visit about the friendliness and responsiveness of the staff and whether I felt it was a place my dcs would like. I specifically asked whether they could cope with my exclusively bf-ed dcs and poor napping habits, how flexible they were on adapting the routine to individual babies and most importantly, the amount of cuddles my dc would get from carers. My ds had an 8 week settling in period in which I was encouraged to sit in for initial sessions. I observed for myself whether their sales talk matched up with the reality.

I also had questions about staff turnover but that to me was less important than an overall child-centred ethos - cuddles really. I did not really care about toys or the number of craft sessions.

There are naturally different considerations for an older child, but we are talking babies here.

Chelsygirl,

I looked for a nursery in which the staff seemed interested in the children and where the children seemed happy and engaged. Other factors for me where location, staff turnover, meals/ snacks, cost, cleanliness.

I chose the nursery my DD was at because when I went for an unannounced visit the staff had no problem showing me around, were nice and friendly, mostly older, the children seemed busy and happy, very clean, nice outdoor ara, nice equipment, the food is on the whole homecooked, staff were very open.

I would not go on personal recommendations as I have done this before and been disappointed - what one person may consider good care may not be true for someone else.

Mrz: "Childcare children who went to nurseries before the age of 9 months for more than 20 hours a week showed evidence of distress and negativism at 18 months and performed less well on language tests at 3 years, in spite of having parents with higher status jobs and salaries and more qualifications than other parents."

One thing that has troubled me about this statement. Do you mean All children who went to nurseries before age of 9 months for more than 20 hours a week? or just Some? And is the corollary true: that children who never attend nursery or who attend after 9 months or for less than 20 hours a week, do not show any evidence of distress and negativism?

Also, findtheriver's point, how do you measure distress and negativism in an 18 mth old? Are tantrums, which you might expect as normal at this age, considered negativism?

I have RL examples, from my dcs and their nursery friends to draw on.

those are good replies, I suppose gut feeling is the most important issue!

I know this is very nosey and don't answer if it annoys you, but roughly how much do you pay per day for a baby in nursery 9-5? I guess it varies around the country?

As I wasn't part of the original study and it wasn't part of my own research I cannot comment on their methods without reviewing the whole project. The research (The Daycare Project) was carried out by the Institute of Education at the University of London and I merely used the quote to illustrate the point that we must not assume these children are all from deprived backgrounds.

Findtheriver - I am glad we are in agreement then. Of course nobody is saying work is the be all and end all, just wanted to make sure that you understood that it isn't. Your insistence that working is the way to go for us all makes me wonder sometimes.

You did make one little tiny error in your last post to me though, if you truly believe that people can find fulfillment in things other than their job.

" But of course, paid employment is an important aspect of life I know of ver few physically and mentally able adults who have not wanted, and needed, employment in their life."

You unfortunately put the word 'paid' in. Oh dear! Many SAHM, volunteers, students and retired people are indeed physically and mentally able and still don't feel the need for paid employment, just to be employed in doing something they enjoy.

I am sure that the minute that any one of those decides what they are doing is not fulfilling they will indeed do something about it, and that may even include getting a paid job.

And I am glad that we have the same hopes for our children. I will do everything I can to give make sure they have as many choices as possible so that they can follow their dreams. What decent parent wouldn't!? What does that have to do with whether I work or not though?

Oh, I think OP is completely reasonable.

In fact, no sooner had the umbilical cord been cut than I shoved mine into nursery from 8am-8pm so I could sit round all day having my hair done, eating chocs, drinking vodka and lolling on the sofa.

It was FECKIN MARVELLOUS.

I'm thinking of having another, just so I can do the same.

Now pass me some FAGS.

In the absence of any empirical data produced by the nursery=doom mob, here is a link to an analysis of various studies by the Swedish Institute of National Health which makes interesting reading

www.fhi.se/templates/Page____12369.aspx

Chelsygirl - think it was about £32 a day ish.

mrz, I thought you did a thesis on this subject, hence my detailed questions. You will forgive me then if I mentally file that nugget of info together with all the other nuggets of research reported in the media which I have not been able to verify the quality of.

"Where research falls down is its applicability in individual cases"

Qualitative research DOES take individual cases into account.

Quantitative research looks at large groups of children and controls for social factors.

Both types of research are needed and both are done.

"a good nanny on nursery is better than a bad parent at home"

Yes - you'll find that this is one of the things that has been flagged up in the most important research, that some children are better off in nurseries because of inadequate parenting.

"Common sense says that we evolved in a hunter gatherer setting for millions of years where children were raised by the 'tribe' and women looked after other womens children all the time"

Ummmm, the research on the few indiginous people who still live this way actually shows something different. Very small babies and children in these societies spend almost all of their time being carried by their mothers and breastfeed very frequently throughout the first few years of life. Yes - women would suckle other women's children on occasion, but the vast majority of women bf their own babies from birth until around the age of 4 or 5. Obviously this necessitates spending a fair amount of time in each other's company!

"Other parents make an educated choice with all the risk factors in mind and they should be respected for it."

I haven't in any way disrespected other people's choices on this thread or argued that people should do one thing or another. I have only talked about what underpins the wider objections against this type of group care for very small children and explained my concerns about it, which I think is fair enough.

I feel that very tiny children learn about the world through their very physically and emotionally intense relationships with those people who they love who care for them on a day to day basis.

Disregarding the research for a moment and talking about something a bit more prosaic, I do wonder how a teenager who is caring for two babies other than mine and who doesn't really love my child (no matter how intensely they feel they care about him or her) can meet my child's needs for truly emotionally and physically responsive care in the way that I could? I am not the best mum in the world but I have always mothered my babies in a very instinctive, physical way - bf them for the first couple of years, giving them lots and lots of cuddles and kisses throughout the day, holding them a lot. What's more pleasurable that being with the person who loves you, and whom you love, most in all the world? Being held and kissed and adored? My babies used to make me laugh all day - they delighted me and I showed that delight and approval back to them. Over and over again they had their worth as emerging personalities validated in the most satisfying, pleasureable way. I really, truly cannot see how they could have experienced a fraction of the pleasure they had being cared for by me as babies had they spent most of their waking hours in nursery at this crucial, brief time in their lives. I think life is tough for most people and it gets tougher as you get older. The baby years should be as blissful and as pleasurable as we can make them. I think if babies could talk very, very few would opt to spend most of their waking hours away from their mothers as tiny babies, no matter how nice a nursery was offered as an alternative.

blueshoes I did a thesis but I did not use that particular piece of research as part of my own background work as I say I used that quote to illustrate to findtheriver that low social or educational factors are always the cause of children's problems.

aren't

titty, don't you use a nursery despite the love-fest in your home? At what point do you deem it alright to deprive your children of your consistent loving parenting?

How does Quantitative Research tell me whether or not to take my well settled ds out of ft nursery in circumstances that work very well for my family? That is what I mean about how research does not apply in individual cases, not the manner in which data is gathered.