To feel a bit sad for children in nurseries 8-6 every day?

[SlightlySad]

It struck me yesterday as I took DS2 to the aquarium then for a walk along the seafront that he was very lucky to be doing this. He'd had a few hours chilling out in the morning, taken his big brother to school, had a fun trip out, then back home for a nap.

If he had been in nursery since 12 weeks, then he wouldn't be doing half the things that he does - mother and toddlers, soft play, baby classes, singing classes, trips to the park, pre-school sessions... I know that some nurseries do these things, but it's not every day, and these are the better nurseries. Some children must spend most of their week in one room. I think this would drive DS2 mad.

I'm very lucky in not working, but this isn't a SAHM vs WOHM issue. I just think if I had to go out to work, that I would choose a childminder to care for my children rather than sending them to a nursery.

If you chose a nursery, does yours do lots of extra stuff? Do the children leave the nursery building/garden often? Why did you go with a nursery and not a CM?

'fraid I agree with the OP - 8-6 , 5 days a week is much too long to be away from your parents.

It means they spend longer without their parents then with them.

blueshoes - excellent post.

hi noonki, am I allowed to count the hours I co-sleep with my dd and now with my ds? How about children who go to school and then after school activities. They spend an equivalent time away from their parents. Travesty, isn't it. How they remember their parents' faces is a mystery.

Of course research has all the limitations you mention, ftr. My own decision to be a SAHM was made purely on emotional grounds, and had nothing to do with research.

I cite research only because it's the nearest thing we currently have as "evidence" to suggest that babies under two thrive better in general if they are looked after by one (or possibly two) Significant Adults. As someone else said, there are crap SAHMs, just as there are crap nurseries. But it seems blindingly obvious that being in group care for 50 hours per week can't be the best thing for the majority of babies/young toddlers, even if their parents have no choice but to do it this way.

Presumably some of this will become clearer once the nursery generation have grown up. It will be interesting to see how this kind of nursery-ing is viewed in 50 years' time.

"it is nonsense to take observations from babies in Romanian orphanages and try to draw conclusions about British children in loving families with hugely competent parents who happen to go to nursery"

hear hear - as a mother of a child who spent his first year in a kazakh orphanage (full time mind you OP not part-time!), the pretentiousness with which we as a affluent country take some of the studies on attachment and bonding and development in these places and start using it as an argument for/against nurseries/controlled crying/working/fruit shoots is laughable.

The majority of parents put a great deal of thought into their childcare arrangements, they do the best they can. If they are wrong and their child doesn't do well the vast majority of parents change their arragnements.

I don't need to be defensive about my choices I'm probably one of the few parents on here who can probably catagorically claim that whatever childcare they have in place, it is better than the previous alternative

Actually the only SAHM's in my family for many many generations are/were my mum and my sister, previous generations having been to poor to not work. I can't say that I think there is a noticable difference in the stability/pleasantness/acheivement/academic success etc of the (many) people/children in our extended family that can be correlated to whether they went to a nursery/nanny/childminder/mother. But maybe I'mwrong and the ones who went to a nursery are really very sad underneath.

Rubbish childcare is always rubbish - uncluding russbish SAHM's. Not sure why nursery needs to be singled out as "sad".

ooh mine are away from me far longer than 8-6 during the week!

but despite the research and despite everything else, I still stand by my view that nurseries are no place for very young babies. Just really don't like them for that age group (say under 9/12 months). But tis my personal opinion! Think they are brilliant for older babies/toddlers.

Just need to say that very few 3 month old babies are at nurseries or CM now. Extended SML has meant that most parents aren't looking for childcare until 9 - 12 months.

I'm sorry, I've not read anything other than the OP, but oh...... MY...... GOD, I actually want to slap you! Apologies to other mumsnetters, I'm not usually like this, I'm surprised at myself, and I wouldn't really hurt you, but would if this was real life, if we were in the pub together and you said that I'd have to sit on my hands or escape to the loo.

Smugtastic. From your shitty name change to your feckin soft play. Jog on!

''fraid I agree with the OP - 8-6 , 5 days a week is much too long to be away from your parents.'

All you preachy smug sahm's, i ask you again what do you suggest i do (other that give up my job and live on benefits) as a woh single m with a child who goes to nursery full time, all suggestions welcome, not yet, through this whole thread, have i had one single sensible suggestion.

yes how true bubble. Hadn't thought of that. When I had dd, I only got the 4 months (or whatever it was) that I could have at the time. Wish I'd known about you then - would have sent dd to you and felt far better!

Kewcumber - thank you for the voice of reason. Brilliant post.

Thomcat - go girl!

bubble my CM said the same - very very rare that she gets a baby under 9 months now (though this year took on a 4 month old)

Bowlbys work was evolutionary and the basics of what he theorised and (to a degree tested) is probably fair. Good nurseries do have key workers and stable staffing. Bad nannies have no checks and balances neither do bad mothers (as we all know now sadly)

I think I come back to the "bad childcare is rubbish"

For some kids I can imagine 8-6 is 10 hours too long to be spending with their oh so smug, can't get enough classes into a day SAHM's!

'I cite research only because it's the nearest thing we currently have as "evidence" to suggest that babies under two thrive better in general if they are looked after by one (or possibly two) Significant Adults. '

But my ds has been looked ater by two adults, me and his Key worker at nursery, thats makes two, and only tow. you contradict yourself Dot.

Yes Kewcumber, there were some criticisms to Bowlby's work, but it's pretty much generally accepted that children need a steady attachment figure(s) of sorts.

VT, I think what is being said by some is that nursery might not be the best care for babies under a certain age, but it may be the best choice for some parents. So parents choose the best option out of what is available to them, or what they judge is best.

So how many of you smug sahms are going to be sending your dc to boarding school when they come of age? i am genuinely interested?

Good post Kew [waves]

(the first one that is, although the 2nd one was good too )

Definitely not me, VT. As I said already, I'm quite anti-school and anti-institution. I'm not really happy about sending ds to school, but it'll probably happen.

it was the a large extent bowlbys work that lead to allowing parens to stay with their childrne in hosptial - prior to that parents were expected to go home and leave even very young childrne in hosptial and stick to visiting hours.

I don't think his work really looked at how many stable carers a child could bond with though. Taking example of grandparents - Iknwo somebabies who are well bonded with allfour rgandparetns and both paretns making six people you wouldquite happily leave your child with for extended periods without worrying about it. If you changed the label of one grandparents to key worker" the situation doesn't suddenly change. Depends on so many things including personality of the child that its really hard to generalise.

We've had children at our nursery who have been much happier and safer with us for a full week than at home.

One we had to contact SS about.

So yes, bad childcare is bad. And it can often be with parents.

Dotto: "Presumably some of this will become clearer once the nursery generation have grown up. It will be interesting to see how this kind of nursery-ing is viewed in 50 years' time."

Yes, I would be interested to. Seeing that both mine went to ft nursery from a young age. They had other ft children as friends. I will keep my beady eye on aggression and incipient mental health issues.

There are already huge mental health issues amongst the grownup population. Guess what, just look at mn threads on this subject. I am gobsmacked at the number of people on here claiming they are or were depressed. AFAIK, if their childhood environment is an issue, it is usually the result of piss poor parenting throughout their lives, not because they were slammed in nursery for the first few years. Lord knows nursery would have benefited them.

The OP also has a 'programme' that I and probably many others (certainly those with larger families) wouldn't have the money to follow.

...and apparently a lot more SAHMs suffer from depression and are on anti-depressives than working mums.

(again have no whizzy link to prove this but have read it many times)

...not sure what point I m trying to mae here, apart from that it is rather bizarre to feel "sad" for children who attend nursery

My dd was in nursery 3 full days from age 2 and it was too much for her, it was a tough time, we moved and there weren't any local childminders which was my preferred choice. From my experience I wouldn't put a child into nursery until age 3. I am forced into work though and would have given up my job at the drop of a hat and still would until she is at least at school. My dd thrives at home with me the days we are together and I don't feel the need to line up tons of activities either. We just relax and meet up with friends, walk the dog, chat.