to think that day care centres or 'nurseries' should be banned?

[Goodomen]

Having spent some time working (doing supply) in several different nurseries I have been appalled by the treatment of the babies and and young children.

The babies spend most of the day crying, desperately wanting to be held or have some kind of one to one attention.

They are all forced to 'nap' at the same time whether they are tired or not.

They are put in highchairs and fed one by one with the poor children at the end of the row crying until it is their turn to be fed.

The worst part is when the parent arrives to collect their child and asks how they have been they are told 'He/She has been fine, had a lovely time' even if the child has been crying all day!

Why oh why would anyone out there child in such a place?
If you have to work get a childminder!

This thread is making me crazy. Londone I have just had a baby four months ago and I know you'll hate me for saying this but it's very easy to say I won't do this I will do that before you have a child. Once they are here lots of things, including your opinions change.

I've been amazed in the last four months at the amount of people who feel it is appropriate to give their opinion on how to raise my baby. It is so upsetting as I'm sure I'm not the only mum who feels most days that she could actually do better at everything. I've realised that as well as all the rewards motherhood comes with a huge lot of guilt and worry and negative opinions from other people really don't help they just cause more guilt and worry! Having said this I've also had excellent support from people who realise that as parents you do the very best you can even if that's not the way they would do it.

My son is going to Nursery in Sept and yes I feel anxious about it and guilty about going back to work and leaving him. But I have to and nursery is our only option. I think it's wonderful that you will be able to stay at home and look after your children but don't criticise others who aren't in such a fortunate position. Also if we all waited until having a baby was financially viable then the human race would die out.

OrmIrian - Do you not think that men can be primary carers then?

Uneducated, eh?

I spent two years working p/t in a nursery attached to a school as my first education job. In the afternoons I ran the school's music provision.

I was very well qualified academically and indeed went on to become an Oxbridge academic. I worked with other well-qualified people in that nursery as well, and learnt a lot from them. Since then, personally and professionally through the course of my research, I have come across a lot of intelligent people working in nurseries, who just happen to find children very interesting to work with, which is why they chose that line of work. They also probbaly think it is important work in many cases.

I moved on to school teaching via a PGCE and finally lecturing so I could work with older adolescents and young people a bit more. I am sure doing all this has helped me understand my own children better, probably more so than if I had languished at home intellectually and socially stifled. My kids certainly have commented favourably on this. Also by the end of my reproductive phase I will have had an under-eight at home for thirty years in total as I spread my family out a lot.

Are you really suggesting a bright, educated, socially engaged women with real professional capabilities should marginalise herself from public life on these grounds? Should the only criteria for involvement in professional and public life be a lack of caring responsibilities? (And I include eldercare in that). If so, we are no longer selecting from those with the most vision and talent, but merely from those with the fewest family ties. This is not a recruitment pool I would consider appropriate, as it does not reflect the wider society.

Thank you for listening.

My point is, as I have already said, that this thread is about childcare and how to improve childcare. You have said that you think a child shouldn't be in childcare at all. You are doing nothing constructive here and you aren't trying to. You are trying to offend.

I don't agree that how my family works is any interest of yours.

RachieW - Given the rapidly increasing world population I don't think the human race is in danger of dying out any thime soon!

georgiemama - go back and read my posts. I HAVE NOT SAID THAT CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE IN CHILDCARE.

I have said I don't think babies should be in nurseries. Try actually reading my posts and seeing what they say, instead of making it up.

Well the OP was about nurseries. The discussion is therefore about what we do about improving quality of nurseries.

You said babies should be at home with their mothers until they are at least 18 months old. I'm not making anything up.

Interesting that you only respond to that point.

Oh, we have degenerated to the population boom argument now.

I ask you this. If all the women in, say, Greater London suddenly stopped having children overnight, in a kind of Children of Men scenario (PD James), what might the social consequences be, in say 10-20 years' time? Would the fact that other, more remote countries were more fecund help at all? Or would serious psychological damage and social unrest still prevail?

Don't talk to her, talk to meeeee!

londonone this isn't a sahm vs wohm debate. It, while perhaps worded insensitively in the op (although op has since apologised) was more of a debate on whether the childcare provision in this country is adequate, which it would seem it isn't.

Now you may have your views on whether women stay at home with their children or not, but regardless of those views, there are women who either choose to, or who have to go back to work, thus leaving them in a position where they need to put their children into a childcare setting.

It is therefore entirely appropriate to debate whether the laws surrounding those childcare settings are adequate, or whether improvements should be made to ensure that the children of those parents who do work, are cared for adequately.

If you wish to continue the sahm vs wohm debate then might I suggest you start your own thread, where you can be jumped on.

Rachie - Not sure what you want me to say to the rest. You have made your choice, I believe I would make a different choice.

"My opinion is as valid as yours as a I am a member of society and the way that families work is in the interest of everyone"

That is true but don;t you think that as your opinion lacks the voice of experience that you should be rather more careful how evangelical you are.

I have (and am entitled to) an opinion on rape but if I knew I were in a room of women who had been raped, I like to think I would be circumspect in being so vocal about my opinion. Taking the lead from those who have more experience.

You have a point, sinkingfast. In the Foundation Stage curriculum there are something like 147 boxes to be ticked per child, on such important key skills as tidying up lego after use.

This is not about child development. This is about being able to cope in large state school primary classrooms later on.

Indeed RachieW. FWIW I think you made some excellent points.

Also, I am not "getting upset" londonone. I am merely pointing out that you are trying to extrapolate general principles ("it's right for me, it must be right for everyone" type thinking) from your personal beliefs and individual circumstances, and there are flaws in doing that.

You don't want your (as yet unborn) children to be in childcare under 5, therefore you think all children should be at home with a parent as well. The economic ramifications would be huge, not to mention the fact that, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you are toying with eugenics here. Not nice.

Of course they can london. ATM DH is the 'prime carer' in a sense as he works shorter hours. But in many many cases (as in mine) one wage wasn't enough and we both worked. We would struggle on my salary. We could never live on his. That is not an uncommon situation.

Mine are school age now. But for years we used CMs, and for our youngest DC, a nursery for the last yr before school. It was the only way.

Funnily enough it is looking as if DH's salary is going to significantly increase so that for the first time in our relationship I could give up work if I wanted to. But by the time that happens the DCs will be way past the age when this is an issue. I'm 44 now. If I'd waited till that was the case I'd have left it too late. Life is never simply and you make the best of what you get.

sinkingfast you sound like my DS!!

Okay, to engage with your perfectly reasonable point I'm not sure it's just about ratios, it's about the ethos of individual nurseries. The ratio at ours is no better than at the one my niece works at, but I wouldn't put my DS in hers. My niece 16 years old and hates kids. 'Why work in a nursery?' I asked 'This bloke down the pub (where she also works) said there was a job going' she replies. She's a nice girl, but like I say, she hates little kids, finds them annoying. She would never be intentionally cruel but it's not her vocation either.

I think the maternal espionage another poster mentioned is a very good plan. We visited DS's nursery at random times on three visits before putting ourselves on the waiting list, and I often poll up unexpectedly. If your nursery doesn't like you doing that, then I'd be slightly more inclined to be wary of them.

Boffinmum - It's not going to happen so there is no point discussing it.

wannabe - That may be your reading of the OP, I have responded to points on this thread. If you read my posts you will see that I am not talking about SAHM v WOHM per se but about the fact that some WOHM put children into nurseries full time at a very early age. I am not talking about older children or CM, my view is that nurseries no matter what changes were made are not suitable for babies. So if you are ytalking about the law I guess I would say that perhaps there should be a higher minimum age for children being put in nursery full time.

Thinking about it, I don't want you to say anything about the rest. I was just sharing my experiences and trying to make you see that there are other sides to every story.

Good luck with having your family, one piece of advice, having a baby can be a lonely experience and meeting other mum's and supporting each other is a life saver. You may want to reign in your opinions if you intend to have mum friends.

You're right, it's not just about ratios but I don't think they help. Maybe we should turn this around and say what would be your ideal childcare scenario for an under 2, say? How many staff, what kind of staff, what kind of pay, how much paperwork, where, doing what, etc etc?

OK, x posted (and no doubt have just x posted again) with loads of other people saying what I am trying to say, but putting it a lot better.

Just read the OP. What a rotten depressing post.

I worked on a case (am a social worker) where the childminder let her son go into the kids rooms at nap time and he abused them. Happened over a period of several years. Much less accountability there - not half so safe as a nursery would have been. Plus have worked on other cases where there has been dodgy, unregulated practice.
On the basis of this I could suggest all CM's are dangerous however that would clearly be silly. So button your lip OP and stop being so melodramatic.

but you need to start somewhere wrt changing things..

I agree that it's not all about the ratios, but I also do think that the ratios play an important part, especially wrt as yet non-verbal babies.

And cm's are allowed far too many children at the same time IMO. - up to eight at a time. You cannot possibly tell me that a cm can provide adequate care for eight children, even if some of them are older..

friar - I think comparing childcare to rape is rather off TBH but I get your point. Using your example do you think then that a person who hasn't been raped is incapable of being a rape counsellor for example? Simply having a personal experience of something doesn't necessarily equip you to deal with anything other than your own persoanl situation.

I think Bowlby's theory is interesting here and that if nurseries are managed in such a way that babies and young children have a consistent and loving attentive carer - achieved through stability of staff turnover and careful management of staff rotas then nurseries can achieve a base line ideal. For some, this baseline may be a significant improvement upon that which can be achieved by a parent feeling depressed/enslaved to the home perhaps under financial pressure as a result of not working.

When nurseries are staffed by under experienced, immature and regularly changing carers then the child is in the worst position whether 3 months or 3 years old.

Whilst the working wage of a mother - perhaps on 20 hours a week or less - is generally low, and childcare is not salaried as a premium and expert service we have the worst of both worlds. In my view, expectations of childcare services need to be raised along with a rise in salary for childcarers that reflects their expertise and quality, and that Government must subsidise the reality of the fact that if a parent can only get work to fit in with parental responsibilites that pays just above minumum wage then the childcare bill is at odds with this.

There will always be crap nurseries when morale and pay is low.