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?!

Stigaloid, looked at in a different way, I find fuzzy's quote quite 'validating'.

I know lots of children who attended ft nursery from a young age. When I meet one with a disagreeable personality I'll let you know, but until that day I'll stick with my firmly held view.

Why Stigaloid, are you the parent of one of my friend's little horrors? If not then why take it so personally?

A childminder looks after children in a home environment, with 1 to approx 3 charges. A nursery does not provide consistent care. There are many many other kids surrounding them to learn bad behaviour, and at an age when they are at their most impressionable.

So no they haven't found a decent childminder, they've not even tried. They've placed him in a nursery without any prior knowledge to this type of debate. The more people who are made aware of this issue the better.

And just to be clear: when I meet a child who has recently been subjected to regular nursery care, under the age of 2, to who I can say hand on heart is a nice little person to know, then I may reconsider. Until that day, I stand by my view. Nursery care for under 2s produces children that are not nice to be around. Whether their parents admit to it or not.

Blueshoes - you are v. lucky or extremely tolerant of badly behaved kids! Or perhaps I have high standards regarding what I consider 'well behaved'!!

We need to get together and share experiences, fuzzy.

fuzzy, my experience is going by my dd and her classmates at school, there is no difference in behaviour whether a child is raised by largely by SAHM or who attended nursery from a young age. All are nicely behaved girls, who have the privilege of coming from middle class backgrounds with committed parents.

I have seen this close up, having had many of them, including their siblings, come over on playdates

So no they haven't found a decent childminder, they've not even tried. They've placed him in a nursery without any prior knowledge to this type of debate. The more people who are made aware of this issue the better.

Erm - how do you know they have not tried - what an ignorant comment to make.

I am only mildly insulted by you tarring everyone with the same brush but fully insulted as i cannot take seroiusly someone with such a blinkered view.

You aren't right. Sorry.

tiktok, I'm finding your posts illuminating (as I think I agree with what you're saying, but you know a lot more about it than I do). Do you have an opinion about how far Gerhardt's views are evidence-based? Is it just not possible to have a firm evidence base for such a complicated topic?

(I know I should just read Gerhardt, but it's so helpful having other people do my reading for me )

Also, this point - 'Full time day care for small babies is, generally speaking, unable to meet their very particular needs' - do you feel you can say that with confidence? Does the Leach book provide the evidence to back this up?

Completely agree with you on this: 'This places the child care question in the social, political realm - it's something we should take seriously as a nation, rather than an individual choice made by individual parents. If parents have no choice but to place their infants and young toddlers in a poor quality nursery then that is a scandal. Blaming the parents in this situation is pointless. We should be blaming the nursery and looking at provision, funding, training and parenting support instead.'

sorry - that was NOT full insulted

Sure, tiktok, everyone agrees on that.

The critique of Gerhardt (and Biddulph and all the others who jumped on this bandwagon)
has focused on the infant determinism aspect of their theories.

Try these:
www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA71B.htm
www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/st ories/s29331.htm
gseweb.harvard.edu/~hepg/HER-BookRev/Articles/2001/1-Spring/Kagan.html

In my view Gerhardt has created a lot of unnecessary hysteria
but I concede that we would have much less fun on MN without her theories.

Nursery care for under 2s produces children that are not nice to be around.

Firstly, how dare you make such a statement? You are being rude, insulting and deeply insensitive to any parent who has their child at nursery. If we use your logic is that because you didnt go to nursery

Obviously I do not believe the above point by the way - just reflecting your logic back at you.

You say you are a fantastic person because you didnt go to nursery. Fine. That doesnt mean the opposite is also true though does it.

What exactly do you count as so well behaved then? At nearly 3 my son has pefect manners, loves a cuddle, will help anyone, has a lot of empathy, is very popular amongst his friends, does not show any jealousy to his little sister - I could go on. By your logic he must be a terror - how is he this exactly?

Again - why do people assume all nurseries are run by teenagers who hate children? Those of you who despise them all so much - have you ever spent a decent amount of time in one?

Stigaloid, if that's how you feel that's up to you. I really hope I'm proved wrong regarding your friend's children. I truly hope they don't turn out to be handful, but if their nursery care was from 0 to 2 years old, I'd say there is a very high likelihood this won't be the case. Good luck to their parents.

I was considered a ''good'' kid, always have been. My parents had very little trouble with me, and I never went through a teenage rebellion stage.

I was in nursery 5 days a week, from 9-4 most days, and yes before I was 2.

Fuzzy could you possibly be any more patronising and obnoxious?

Is this the attitude that develops when a parent is the main or sole carer for their child?

"When I meet one with a disagreeable personality I'll let you know, but until that day I'll stick with my firmly held view. "

Blueshoes - many children are raised in social and emotional circumstances which are very damaging, but they most of them will grow up to be OK adults. My oldest dd has a friend who is one of five children bought up on benefits by a mother who has had a series of boyfriends who have come and gone. Their father has Huntingdon's disease and in the early stages of his illness abused their mother and threatened them all with a gun. Their current 'stepdad' is a drug dealer doesn't really bother with the older kids who aren't his. They turn up at school in dirty clothes every day. They have nothing. DD's friend is the sweetest, most humble and polite little girl you could hope to meet.

Does that mean she's not been affected by her upbringing? Or does it mean that she's thrived inspite of these disadvantages, maybe because of her inner strength, a good school and some positive role-models in her life?

Thank you Fuzzy - i will pass along your well wishes for their adorable and extremely agreeable little boy to not turn into a devil-child.

I do have to say that the children i find the worst behaved and least socially aware are those that are spoiled and molly-coddled by one-to-one attention and not enough social interaction with children their own ages.

Evryeone has differing experiences but i am sure we all just do the best we can for the children we have and hope we can shape them into being responsible adults.

"Again - why do people assume all nurseries are run by teenagers who hate children? Those of you who despise them all so much - have you ever spent a decent amount of time in one?"

I don't 'despise' nurseries. I think many are fantastic. I just don't think they're the best places for babies to be spending 40 or 50 hours a week in.

Fabsmum - I wasnt talking to you . Nor do I think they are the best place for babies to spend any time - thats not to say they are not 'good enough' or great - but even I would say being with the mum is probably best for them. In reality though there is a big difference between not being the best place and being harmful - again this is not aimed at you but people being more obnoxious with their view points!

I think fuzzy is talking rot. But to answer Peppa's question about spending time in nurseries: I've spent time in two (the two that my DSs attended - in DS1's case, over a couple of years; in DS2's case, for one morning). DS1's nursery was OK, but I saw young babies and children being left to cry, or looking lonely and lost, quite regularly. (Why did I continue to send him? At least partly because I felt that it was the 'right' thing to do, because everyone else does it. I do think that some of you fail to appreciate how much pressure there is to send children to paid childcare even when you don't particularly want to. My responsibility in this case, of course.)

The nursery that I sent DS2 to was pure shite. I came back from a half-hour's absence to find him absolutely sobbing in the middle of the room, being roundly ignored by the three carers, all of whom were doing paperwork. Hence him only being there for a morning.

I DO NOT believe that all nurseries are like this - of course they're not.

But some of you need to acknowledge that nurseries like this do exist, they are not that unusual, and children end up attending them for long periods. This cannot be a good thing, surely?

policywonk, I suppose I would have to be a biochemist and a neurologist with a side order of brain surgery in order to say whether all of SG's evidence hits the mark. I do find her convincing, not least because I also like the work of Dr Nils Bergman who pioneers kangaroo care, and who also uses an understanding of brain development to explain the importance of early days care.

Obviously, I am no different from anyone else in being drawn to particular views because of how these views 'speak' to them, and the idea that loving, responsive, consistent and flexible parenting from a very small no. of consistent people is good for babies speaks to me on a level that's quite separate from any sort of scientific argument...though I do 'like' science and research very much and nothing makes my toes curl more than 'this is my experience and therefore it proves I am right' . Mentioning no names .

So I start off pre-disposed to any science that tells me my view is right I then think 'if this is what babies need, can this be supplied easily in a full time nursery?' and common sense says, 'no'.

The Penelope Leach book is still on my list to read but her previous work in this field said 'no', too.

This is not 'infant determinism' - it is not saying that all full time nursery care does dreadful damage to all the babies who are in it and nothing will ever put them right. It's not as simple as that. But it makes sense to me to start with the needs of the baby and then work outwards - and that thinking should be done by all of us, as a society, so we can decide where to put resources.

You think I'm being obnoxious because your children, or your friend's children attend nursery, then actually you're being defensive.

I'm simply stating what I have found time and time again to be the case. If you find my personal experience offensive then I'm very sorry, but I'm telling it how it is - in my experience. Therefore this is MY opinion.

Thunderduck, sounds like you were a good kid but you still admit to 'most' of the time. Perhaps the nursery attendance tipped your perfect behaviour to the 'mostly' good behaviour?

fabsmum, you have inadvertently cited an example which proves my point for me.

Children are incredibly resilient by nature and if the young girl can overcome her 'damaging' social and emotional circumstances, it would be a walk in the park for children of middle class parents who are in full and stimulating ft nursery care. Why that is no hardship at all. Why worry your head about them?

Do early children influences necessarily shape a person's brain for life. Short of grotesque neglect in Romanian orphanages, is the fact that a baby having had to occasionally wait 10 minutes rather than 3 minutes to have her crying attended to going to screw her up for life?

I am with tiktok about 'good enough parenting'. It is just that my belief in what is good enough is actually quite wide (not prolonged abuse or neglect) and well within a properly run nursery to provide to its ft baby attendees.

Do read the first link posted by DaddyJ (I am still making my way through the rest). It is validating for me and potentially illuminating for you:

The myth of 'infant determinism'

childhood experiences

I say mostly because I wasn't a robot. And I wouldn't care to have a child who behaved like one.

I didn't disobey my parents, I didn't have a tantrums, I could be taken to any restaurant, I behaved perfectly for my teachers, but even so I'm sure at times that I annoyed my parents. I always have been very opinionated.

And I say patronising twit because you are. Not with your views, much as they irritate me,but with your attitude towards other posters and their children. This belief that they must be tiny terrors and if they are that it's solely because of nursery attendance. What bs.

DaddyJ, I have found what you called the 'backlash' to Gerhardt et al interesting - I read it at the time and had forgotten about it, to be honest, so good to be reminded of it.

I think Kagan's work, that you linked to, is simply out of date now, and fails to take in a lot of research from the 1990s and 2000s.

I think the Spiked stuff is typical of the way libertarians like Spiked writers tend to set up a straw man argument in order to knock it down. So whatever the blurb and extracts from books looking at attachment might say, it is simply not true that there's a conspiracy among them to make parents feel guilty in case they ignore one cry from their infants and damage him for life.

Hysteria about early infant care ('nurseries turn tots into thugs') comes from newspapers. I agree it's rubbish.