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?

I am always astonished by home much other people care about someone else's childcare choices. To the OP, I do wonder if you have enought to stimulate your mind if you have time and effort to worry about other people's childcare.

I have some rather strong views on working and childcare and what the government should and shouldn't do. But, I really can't be bothered to type it all out.

I think the best indicator of whether one has chosen the appropriate childcare is not how many activities are attended or even how litle telly is wathed. But reather I think the best indicator is whether parents and child are both happy. My DD went to a childminder in her first year. When she learned to wak, she used to run and hide when I showed up to pick her up after a 10+ hour day with the childminder. This was gut wrenching for me. But, when I put my feelings aside and looked at how DD was feeling, she was clearly happy at the childminder, and that made me happy.

The most important thing is that we all have the variety of childcare options that we do have today so that each of us can choose what is best for us.

Now, you are entitled to feel that being a SAHM (which reminds me, WHERE THE HECK IS XENIA WHEN YOU NEED HER?!?!) is right for you and your family. But, coming on here and making other mums (and dads!) feel guilty for their choice is just plain rude. And for that I think you should apologise. It's part about feeling sad for these children which implies they have a lesser quality of life than your precious childrem that I find particularly patronising.

Ok, so it seems I do have the will to typr more than a few words today.

Well done Athene. I too am missing the big X on this thread.

policywonk, I see what you mean. My assumption has always been that ft nursery is far more expensive than a childminder for the same hours - I could be wrong and I admit to only skimming the threads below about the cost of cm v nursery. Ft nursery place round London-way costs £1K a month, compared to say £600(?) for a cm. Either way, it is prohibitive for a lot of families.

(Very) pt jobs are all very well but difficult to come by and generally pay not very much. Again, not conducive circumstances for going back to work, or for using nurseries.

Where is Xenia? She hasn't left Mumsnet has she?

I have seen Xenia knocking around. She has been go-getting in Iran for a bit. But is back, maybe just not today.

Am intrigued by Beforesunrise's slumming childminders. Around here, most childminders live in the same sort of accommodation as the children they mind, mainly terraces and semis in various states of disrepair, but not by any stretch of imagination unfit for human habitation. Childminders, unlike the rest of us, have to get their houses approved by the Ofsted inspector.

Nannies are unknown around this area, as noone can afford them, and most people can't afford nurseries either.

Very young children don't NEED trips to aquariums / museums, singing classes etc. They are very nice, yes, but they aren't a necessity. I would say the majority of children around the world don't have access to these things, neither did many generations of our ancestors.

What very young children DO need is love, security, to have their needs for food/drink/warmth/sleep met, to be kept safe, healthy, fairly clean and dry, and to be given plenty of attention from adults who look after them. And that is pretty much all. As long as the nursery /CM /carer is providing these basics then they are doing a good job.

I have to say my 3 year old was terrified at the London aquarium. It was a trip organised by the nursery which I volunteered to go on . It is only after she turned 5 that she was prepared to step foot in one and actually enjoyed it. Peppermint, agree that it is OTT to consider aquarium trips for very young children good parenting, lol, more like PFB (ok, I said it).

Back from our trip to the canal Aquarium, ds seemed decidedly bored of looking at fish

Going to have some lunch now, then its a trip to the park and some singing lessons later on, was thinking of entering him for next years X factor, but he is too young, so thinking Brits got Talent maybe?

I was indeed in Iran and I'm going to Holland this week but I did post earlier on the thread.
Little children need routine, certainty and continuity so whatever you do don't chop and change. They are also fairly extensively influenced by their genes as well as their environment, probably 50/50 so parents should not beat themselves up too much about how their children turn out (except I suppose we have a genetic choice when we pick a man). Marry the depressed obese alcoholic with the early heart disease and some of those aspects may well be passed on.

I think my other comment above was that some parents believe they have a job as an entertainer whereas I think children need to learn to find their own entertainment not be saying - it's half term what are the expensive activities you have planned for every day of half term for me as if the parent were there as some kind of floor show for the child.

Xenia, good point about our children's genetic legacy. Of course strive to provide a secure and stable environment and opportunities. But splitting hairs about early childcare and outcomes is to a certain extent futile because so much of how our children will turn out is already pre-destined.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to go to work and use nurseries to build up a war chest to give one the flexibility of being there for your children when they are older (Thomcat's point). Hard as it is for the one-to-one proponents to believe, parents' presence and input actually become more, not less, important when they get older, Also, financial strength allows parents to give their dcs a leg up on uni fees and the house deposit. Arguably better to invest in concrete things than marginal supposed benefits of parental v. institutional childcare because guess what, in the case of loving caring families, your children will probably reach their full potential anyway within the context of their genepool.

Oliver James dismisses genetic stuff about how you turn out 'mentally' (just strated The Selfish Capitalist but am only 2 chapters in)

Kot of people can't afford childcare in the 'average' jobs. I had 3 under 3 (pre childcare vouchers and CTC). No way could I have paid for childcare on what I could earn. Not that I wanted too (although I did work evenings in an offy). Now I would like to work but SN dd means I can't unless its school hours and the employer will let me have time off for all the therapies, seizures and hospital stays.
So I'm going to do some OU studying.

'parents' presence and input actually become more, not less, important when they get older'

This is surely a pretty debatable point! (And probably deserving of its own thread.) I'm sure there are ways in which older children are more demanding and needy, but I also think that the care given to babies and very young children can have absolutely massive impacts later on in their lives. So if your belief is that the nature of the care given to young children/babies is not as significant as the care given to them when they're older, then I'd certainly disagree with that.

Actually, I wonder whether this is the source of some of the perpetual ill-feeling between some posters (including me) on these threads. Those of you who believe that early-years childcare is not particularly significant (and therefore, presumably, also not particularly interesting) tend to think that parents who stay at home with small children are agarophobic/useless/smug etc etc, whereas those of us who think it is very significant (and therefore also pretty interesting) think that this attitude is incomprehensible.

Not ascribing any of the above to you blueshoes, BTW.

I'm with Slightly Sad on this. I feel sorry for children cooped up for any length of time and don't understand why children have to be "occupied" all the time. I'm a SAHM in the week (not by choice) and until DD entered state nursery for a few hours at 3, Ikept her occupied quite happily with park, more park and naps. She had a strict routine (essential for sanity (mine)) and i sort of got by without any outside help.

I couldn't have justified the cost of nursery and childminders as I wasn't in a "proper" job.

policywonk - I wouldn't say "agarophobic/useless/" at all, quite the opposite, but I would say "SMUG" for a lot of them.

Sorry. That is not aimed at you in particular but it IS an attitude I see a lot on MN.

The OP sums this up to me, it's all about "look what a good mother I am, look at all the stuff I do with my children, look at how BAD working mothers (fathers anyone???) are".

endoftether " .........IME if you provide something they are interested in for them to do they should be able to play for a while without parental interaction constantly iyswim."

You do ccme out with some wierd and unfounded statements, which give the impression that your experience of being a parent is very limited!

Some children play happily alone for ages, others demand constant intraction - children (like adults) are different that's all. They have what is commonly called "personlities"

Luckily my rl sah friends never seem smug to me, we all just acknowlege that it's hard for all of us parenting little ones.

Haven't, you're right that there is a lot of smuggery in the OP and in some comments made by SAHMs on this thread. I absolutely agree with you that posters (on both sides) let fathers off the hook completely, which is just inexcusable.

There is a lot of nastiness on the other side though as well - a lot of extremely unpleasant comment and attitudes aimed at parents who choose to stay at home.

A lot of nasty sniping from both sides. I understand how it happens - I've been guilty of it myself when I've felt wound up beyond bearing.

8 till 6 is too long for a baby...that's a long day for an adult!

I get the impression that the OP's child is probably her first child - hence her naivity and her over obsession with filling her child's day with an extensive programme - when you get to you third or fourth child you tend to be a lot more pragmatic and less judgemental about other people's parenting choices

The most used method to defend our choice is often to attack someone elses.
In an ideal world I would be a SAHM and a WOHM, at the same time so I felt I gave my career my all and my children.... I am trying the spilt in two machine later this afternoon, I'll let you know how it goes!!!

Yes it does get really nasty but it is an emotive subject (again, for women, most men have no interest - if child seems happy, they are happy, not constantly comparing notes or wondering if there is a better way of doing things).

I haven't read all of this thread but have read countless others along the same lines.

As a working parent I am OBLIGED for my mental sanity to believe that what I am doing is fine for my kids (they know no other way), just as I think SAHMs are OBLIGED to think that their way is best to justify it to society in general.

cory, i don't know where you live, but in central london property is always at a premium and many people (cms and non cms!) live in tiny flats.

i do not absolutely intend to denigrate the category- i would have loved to find the perfect cm for my dds and in fact there is one cm who comes to play-group who my dd1 adores and is always snuggling up to her to read stories, she's full up of course.

i was simply answering the op's question- why would you choose a nursery over a cm- one of the reasons is space! completely dictated by my experience of course- and i appreciate that this could just be another example of a postcode lottery.

anyway- this thread is starting to make me feel queasy. i feel really quite sad at op tbh, it seems she has such a narrow view of the world and such a complete lack of proportion (in the week that brought us the barbaric news of Baby P's death, not to mention ongoing genocide in Congo, i would have thought there were many much more worthwhile reasons to feel "slightly sad").

it is also really quite pathetic that in this day and age we are still slagging each other's choices, parenting philosophy in a rather absurd game of parental one manupmanship etc etc when we shoudl be trying to formulate a serious policy and political debate about the rights of working parents, the rights of children, childcare strategy etc etc.

Because bringing up children is a very under-rated job (but we are ALL bringing them up, whether we work OH or not - proof of this, my 2DS are bilingual and yet their only contact with English is me and Cbeebies ).