To think toddler group shouldn't be handing out such anti nursery literature?

[Ebb]

I have recently started going to a toddler group, run in a church, which is, in general, lovely but today we were all handing print outs of 'Raising Babies' by Steve Biddulph entitled 'Should under 3's go to nursery?'

It basically suggests that babies under 1 shouldn't go to nursery at all. "Organize for your baby to be with a parent or Grandparent all the time except for occassional breaks - days off or evenings out - when you have a trusted and familiar babysitter."

When your child is one "up to one short day per week eg. 9-3 with a trusted and familiar carer. Ideally 1:1 but in a 1:3 ratio at most."

Further quotes include "Some children are not ready (for nursery) until three or more and group care can be upsetting and harmful for these children." and "*Remember - nurseries have become big business. Many nurseries never engage emotionally with their children."

I am lucky in the fact I take my Dc to work with me but a lot of parents don't have a choice and nurseries are the feasible option. Surely a toddler group shouldn't be putting more pressure and guilt on parents by handing out such cr@p?!

I studied childcare and worked in nurseries for a while, and there was only one time that I felt a child's needs weren't being met,and that was an autistic child who needed more time and care than that particular nursery could provide him with.

Of course there are some bad nurseries out there and nursery staff who shouldn't be working in childcare, but it's ridiculous imho to say that nurseries are wrong for every child.

I didn't think we were looking for specific methodologies.

That would throw up as much controversy as the relative merits of different types of childcare.

Some of them were health related yes - most of them not. They were done by various social policy groups who are not interested in specific health issues.

Sorry just to make that clear, I don't agree with nursery care for the under 2s. I'm just about with Biddulph on this one...

What's best by age:
0-1

No child care at all. Keep baby with parent, relative (or trusted babysitter for short breaks).

1-2
One short day with a trusted carer. Ideally a one-on-one carer-to-child ratio; one-to-three at most.

Athough I disagree in that I beleive a child over 1 could handle more than 1 short day with a good quality childminder (a 'trusted carer').

so long as you add "and the temperament of the child, the family environment, finances and set-up, the needs of the parents" to reflect how decisions are taken in reality and that one factor does not live in isolation but impinges on others."

I haven't argued that it should be considered in isolation, but isn't it reasonable that the emotional and developmental needs of a baby should be right there at the top of the list? Those first couple of years are a short time, and so important when you think of the impact they can have on the rest of a child's life. I'd never try to make a case that parents shouldn't work - most of us have to, but it's not like group care is the only option for most people.

BonsoirAnna - even children farmed out to individual wetnurses had one stable 'mother figure' for most of the time. I can't imagine that wetnurses were feeding groups of children. Probably only one or two babies at a time.

" but it's ridiculous imho to say that nurseries are wrong for every child."

Sigh.

Nobody is saying that nurseries are wrong for 'every' child.

Just that the emotional and developmental needs of babies and children much under two are best met when they are cared for by one stable care giver, preferably on a one to one basis (ie - not having to share a series of carers with a number of babies of the same age in an institutional setting).

That's the general impression I'm gettin from Fuzzy.

Actually Fuzzy why are you against full time SAH parenting if I may ask?

From a review of "Why Love Matters" - I think this helps explain why some people think one to one care is so important for babies (and why they think institutional care - however good, is not usually going to be appropriate for this age group)

"Drawing on the most recent findings from the field of neurochemistry, Gerhardt makes an impressive case that emotional experiences in infancy and early childhood have a measurable effect on how we develop as human beings. Wielding the language and findings of science like a haycutter in a corn field, she scythes through the confusion that normally surrounds this subject to explain how daily interactions between a baby and its main carer have a direct impact on the way the brain develops.

Gerhardt is not interested in cognitive skills - how quickly a child learns to read, write, count to 10. She's interested in the connection between the kind of loving we receive in infancy and the kind of people we turn into. Who we are is neither encoded at birth, she argues, nor gradually assembled over the years, but is inscribed into our brains during the first two years of life in direct response to how we are loved and cared for.

Our earliest experiences are not simply laid down as memories or influences, they are translated into precise physiological patterns of response in the brain that then set the neurological rules for how we deal with our feelings and those of other people for the rest of our lives. It's not nature or nurture, but both. How we are treated as babies and toddlers determines the way in which what we're born with turns into what we are. According to Gerhardt, "There is nothing automatic about it. The kind of brain that each baby develops is the brain that comes out of his or her particular experiences with people.....

Good parenting isn't just nice for the baby; it leads to good development of the baby's prefrontal cortex, which in turn enables the growing child to develop self-control and empathy, and to feel connected to others. Interaction, it turns out, is the high road from merely human to fully humane."

To avoid attachment problems, to provide variety to the child and prevent the SAH parent becomind jaded. I'm 100% enthusiastic when we're together, that wouldn't be the case if I spent 5 days a week with him even though I love him with all my heart. Luckily he has a grandmother (she's 65) who loves him with all of her's too, and gives it her all when they're together.

I realise some parents are super-mothers/fathers who could never leave their children with anyone. If they can honestly give that level of enthusiasm 5/7 days a week then that's a different story and good on'em. My mother was great with me, she was great fun to be with, but I did suffer with attachment problems as she was my world.

fabsmum - there is nothing in that passage that says that the love and care needs to come from one adult. And that the person need to be biologically related to the child.

Fabsmum, an excellent piece and correlates to my statements.

I am who I am as my mother was loving and caring, and only worked evenings/Saturdays after I was 2. Yes I think I suffered with attachment issues and I'm not as confident as I could have been, but I've become the same as her in that I believe babies/young children should be with loving carers, and not placed in a nursery.

And to quote characteristics directly - I'm caring, loving, have great self-control and empathy for others. And I know my son will be the same.

If a person can hand over their baby or very young child to a nursery, often staffed by young girls with few qualifications and zero experience of motherhood, then go ahead and see what is the product.

My son is a prime example of parent/grandparent cared for child, I have friends with children who have provided the opposite and it shows. Their kids are horrendous, yet they are lovely people. And common amongst them all is that they used nurserys for their under 2s. A drop in the ocean statistically, maybe - or not?

I've done my bit to provide this insight via Mumsnet, and I sincerely believe that to acquire it from a local playgroup should not be considered 'political' or 'cult-like', it's a service to our future generations.

Fuzzy - I think you are making generalisations from your one experience and that just doesn't work. Just because you had attachment issues and feel you lack confidence because you were looked after solely by your mother, doesn't mean that all children would.

I have two boys - one hated to leave me and one didn't. One is shy and the other isn't - they both had the same care but reacted in very different ways. Genetics and personality have a part to play as well as the kind of nurturing we provide.

I think you are just proving the point that no one sort of child care suits all children. Maybe you should have gone to a childminder or even a nursery but that doesn't necessarily mean your son should or that any other children you have should.

Of course that makes the balancing act even more difficult, when all the family have different needs and requirements. Then I suppose you have to find a compromise that works for all the family. You have found that for you. Others have done it for themselves and come up with entirely different conclusions but that doesn't make them wrong.

Sue Gerhardt is the bible of attachment parent, isn't it? Quoting from her book is like quoting from the bible to prove that God exists.

spicemonster, fabsmum is not saying the care needs to come from one person, or that this one person has to be the mother.

Nor does Gerhardt say this.

What Gerhardt says is that early care matters and that the right sort of early care is very difficult to get from full time care in an institutional setting.

A baby can get appropriate early care from a father or grandparent or someone not related at all - as long as that care is consistent, reliable, responsive and not shared with several other babies needing the same sort of level of care. It does not have to be one person, but one primary carer meets early needs best (support can come from secondary carers and the primary carer does not have to be there 24/7) and as the child gets older relationships can build up with other consistent, caring, reliable responsive people and the primacy of the primary carer (in the sense of being there most of the time offering most of the care) is not so vital.

blueshoes :

Sue Gerhardt's book is not a bible of attachment parenting at all!

Where do you get that from?

It's not a parenting book at all.

Here's a tip: read more, post less.

Fuzzy. I went to nursery and was occasionally looked after by a relative, and I'm kind, caring, loving, thoughtful and am very empathetic, perhaps too much so.

And I'm sure that other members who went to nurseries are the same, as are their children who may have went to nurseries.

Your anecdote about you and your child proves nothing.

Niecie I was only referring to my own case re. attachment, however I do think there is a greater likelihood of this occuring with full-time SAH carers. Though as you rightly state not all would.

And no I disagree, I don't believe I am 'proving a point' about certain childcare suiting different children by saying I was particularly attached to my mother! To be honest that statement is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, I was asked a question and I answered it, I wasn't argusing the point.

I am however arguing the point that using nurserys for undr 2s is detrimental to their personalities. A familiy may have certain needs or requirements that for some reason ends up with their kids being sent to a nursery. When I meet one with an agreeable personality I'll let you know, but until that day I'll stick with my firmly held view.

blueshoes, I shared your impression that Gerhardt's book is an AP bible
because so many AP types quote from it on MN.

It's actually more of an Infant Determinism bible and if you google that phrase
you will come across the scientists who are leading the backlash against her ideas
and this notion that 'Who we are is neither encoded at birth [...]
but is inscribed into our brains during the first two years of life'.

By and large I think you are spot on.

Let me clarify, tiktok. Sue Gerhardt is frequently quoted by attachment parents (including me, after a fashion) to validate their views.

Thunderduck, at what age was your nursery care and for how long each week? Were you a 'good kid' or considered 'naughty' or 'cheeky'.

Aha....yes, I can see that SG might well be quoted by attachment parenting people. But it is not a parenting book in the sense of 'how to parent' and it is unfair to present it as such.

DaddyJ: Care in the early years is very important and it can have a long-lasting impact - and no one, especially not SG, says that poor or even average nursery care produces the same effects as (say) the Rumanian orphanages. I think people are right to resist the notion that parents need to respond to every need of their infant and to feel guilty if they do not - and this exhortation is in no sensible book or area of study that I know of.

Being 'good enough' is fine. Babies are indeed emotionally resiliant, and newer work (post Bowlby) in attachment extends the concept beyond infancy anyway. Poor or absent or disordered attachment can be repaired.

But the setting - wherever babies happen to be - has to be enabling of whoever is caring for the baby, so that the babies' normal needs can be responded to.

That's not infant determinism, for goodness sake.

So are those of you who don't subscribe to the idea that babies do best when they have a strong attachment to their primary care giver, and stability and consistency in this relationship - 'detachment parenting' types.

I object to being told I'm a type frankly. I've parented my children in a fairly ideosyncratic way and haven't knowingly suscribed to any sort of ideology. I didn't even come across the term 'attachment parenting' until my oldest two children had passed through infancy.

Blueshoes - what/who do you refer to to validate your views then? Other than your own experience and that of your friends?

In referring to SG I was thinking that I was explaining my views rather than 'validating' them.

Fuzzy "And I'll say it again, there are excpetions to the rule, perhaps your friends are that excepetion, it's just a shame they couldn't find a decent childminder."

They have. it is called nursery and they are very happy with it and their son is loving his time at it.

"A familiy may have certain needs or requirements that for some reason ends up with their kids being sent to a nursery. When I meet one with an agreeable personality I'll let you know, but until that day I'll stick with my firmly held view."

I find that mildly insulting.

fabsmum, so you don't like the words 'type' or 'validate'.