Am I being unreasonable to think that good care with one carer at home is better than good care at a nursery?

[gotogirl]

I haven't namechanged, because I am not ashamed of asking this. It is a genuine question.

Following the thread from the mum who wanted appreciation of her parenting skills for having a good-sleeper / well-behaved 3 year old - i know it is contrary to MN netiquette to start a thread re a thread, but this is a related topic, not the same one.

Anyway, that mum suggested if it is all down to luck, she may as well pop her DD into nursery and feed her fruit shoots....cos being lucky, this "adverse" things would not affect the outcome. So, she clearly put "nursery" in the adverse category.

A few people picked her up on this and said nursery is not evil etc.

[Bear with me, this is long, I know]

My question:

does anybody genuinely feel that nursery is as good as or better than being cared for by single carer in home environment?

My thoughts: that the OP from other post is eriously misguided in thinking nursery = adverse environment. But, but....

I struggle to think that nursery is going to be better than one-to-one care at home unless home carer is ill / depressed / incapable etc.

Let's get to the point:

Am I being unreasonable to think that good care with one carer at home is better than good care at a nursery?

BTW, my kids are not cared for one-to-one at hom; I work and this is not possible. but i found what I fgeel is next best thing. I myself do not think it is superior care to what they would get if I were able to become SAHM. But economic reality dictates work for me.

What would a child prefer ? (they of course can't answer can they)

Would he prefer to stay at home with his parents, in the comfort of his own home, or would he prefer to be dragged out of bed at 7.00am and rushed off to a nursery full of strangers....?

I know what I would have prefered.

My dc stayed at home with me until they were almost 4, they then went to our school nursery for just 2.5 hours a day.

Leonie: If you were me (knowing that I'm a single parent who works FT), please tell me exactly how I'm not supposed to take this statement personally:

"WHY a parent would resent giving up her her hard won career? Why did she have children to begin with, if she didnt realise the 18+ year commitment she was getting involved in? Abortions are not illegal, mothers do not HAVE to have these children if they do not want them, so again i ask, WHY have a child if you're not prepared to raise them yourself?"

It feels like a pretty personal attack to me.

BTW - I do have a mortgage. And that's one of the reasons I wasn't able to become a single mum living on benefits because it would have meant losing the only security I and my DS have and that didn't strike me as a very sensible thing to do.

You don't know they will be fine if you are a SAHM either, though. Or work part-time or whatever arrangement you have... all you know is that when they hit the teenage years, they will spell out in great detail exactly where you have been going wrong whatever you did!

Good point Edam!

Ummm ... well children do grow up eventually Leonie. My sister's DD is 19 and just stared university. She is a happy, well-liked, well-rounded and very popular young woman who has been in FT childcare since she was 3 months old.

My other sister was a SAHM until her DS was 8 and then she went back to work part time so has always been around for him in the holidays and after school.

I can't see much difference in how either of them have turned out TBH

That's true, elf.

I could not possibly know that my ft nursery attending baby, now school-going child, is fine. Even if I asked her, her brain has already been wired in such a way that she could not know her own mind. I cannot turn back the clock. It is a ticking timebomb.

I could not possibly know my own child, because instead of being a mother, I work outside the home. I am lucky if my dcs are not sleeping when I get home.

Must be galling if at schoolage and years down the road, you could not tell the difference between dcs who had SAHMs and those with WOHMs. But no, I bet you can spot those WOHM-raised degenerates a mile off.

A childs personality is shaped in the first 3 years, the most important year being the 1st year. Those formative years will be spent with me, not with a 19yr old nursery worker who really couldn't give a toss about my child.

edam, I wonder whether a teenager would be alive to more materialistic desires as well. SAHM-ing if it shaves the family's finances to the bone, will have a devastating effect long term.

Spicemonster, I agree with you on working to achieve goals on the financial front. Not for designer bags, but to secure the dcs' financial future. I for one will fight to ensure I always have up-to-date marketable and employable skills, should anything happen such that dh is no longer around to support us. That is also in the interests of the child. It does not make as good copy as touchy feely hugs galore, but it is dead serious stuff.

Goodness, the tone of this thread has changed somewhat.

Firstly - I would and have picked nursery for DS over a nanny for the 3 days a week I am home. I could have afforded a nanny but did not want to go that route.
Secondly - The sweeping statements about nursery and high staff turnover etc. are not indicative of every nursery. DS has been in his nursery for a year now and with the exception of one staff member leaving due to illness, there has been no staff turnover
Thirdly - Elf - of course you are more than welcome to post your opinion, but it does help if on a thread like this, you do read the rest of the opinions, it kind've helps to form a picture. If you really believe that your way is the best way; then well done. Carry on. I applaud you for making the life choices you have done.

Just as strongly as you believe what you do; I believe what I do. And I do not believe, from the bottom of my heart that one on one care 24/7 at home is best for toddlers. I exclude babies from this statement (under 12 months of age).

I find some of your sweeping statements re. attachment issues/ abortion fairly 'out there' and a bit loopy tbh. But if that is what you believe, fairplay to you. I hope no one comes and bursts your fairly sanctimonous bubble for your own sake.

Correction, should have said 'I would and have picked nursery for DS over a nanny for the 3 days a week I am home at work. I could have afforded a nanny but did not want to go that route.

Leonie, at a societal level, there are so many variables that skew the ultimate results. As we are finding at the anecdotal level.

I don't see the point of saying good one-to-one care from a parent is better than good (or bad even) nursery care for a baby, when on a societal level, not all parents give one-to-one care at home, or even good care, or even care in any shape or form, or all nurseries are bad or all children are the same.

Do you want the government to pay you to stay at home? I would not agree to that. Much as you are probably madonna-incarnate, that does not happen on a societal level.

And what about the research that shows that lesbians make better parents? I haven't heard much support for you all embracing your Sappho sides to give your children the best start in life

Leonie, that is a good option to explore. Remember, every second counts when a developing baby's brain is at stake.

What have lesbians got to do with this..?

They make up such a tiny % of parents that they are irrelevant.

Not much dp. Just that everyone trotting out the 'research shows that X is better for children' line picks and chooses research to support their own arguments. It was ever thus and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. IMVHO of course

All the research shows children do better with stability and certainty. That helps form my view that for a mother to return to work after 2 weeks as I did so the child has the security and comfort of knowing mummy and daddy are there except between 8 and 6 and at 8 in the week every day the loved nanny is present and mummy's bottled breastmilk and that every night mummy is back at 6 with warm full breasts for a lovely cuddle and mummy and daddy are happy, have enough money and everyone is loved... that's a good scenario. So are two happy unemployed parents at home all day. So are the happy unemployed lesbians with their babies or the one parent at home or whatever.

Bowlby found that children taken from parents and put into a care home don't do so well but sexist misogynists choose to misrepresent his studies to "prove" women must not work. So too is it damaging in my view to take a baby from a mother when it is little, have it with 3 different sets of foster parents adn then be adopted at 5. That's severing the bond.

But the baby with granny or grandad or its nanny there every day with happy parents does no worse and indeed often better than with depresseed very poor mother at home doing 24/7 babycare. The studies show it is parental moaning which damages the child. If everyone is content as I have been lucky enough to be then the children are fine. My mother should never have given up a 13 year career to have me. She was so resentful of it - she'd say after my father talked about his exciting morning... and I did 6 lioads of washing. She was far too clever to stay at home and ought to have got herself back to work and it was her responsibility to do that and no one else to blame that she didn't.

I believe although I've never used one that nurseries try to have "key workers " (awful modern phrase) and some consistency but I preferred the daily nanny who came for 10 years and who we're still in touch with 25 years later.

As for the effect - my oldest children are in their 20s. They would not resent my having worked nor their father having worked - let's not be sexist about this - it's just as morally offensive for a father to abandon his baby and delegate its care to strangers or even his housewife surely as a mother to do so unless you happen to be sexist to the core... but of course people don't castigate men - women have always been public whipping boy since the fall of man when she tempted Adam with the apple.... Indeed the children would know and say they went to lovely schools because I worked. That they are pursuing good careers because of my example. That they despite those of their friends who are seeking rich husbands and no careers because their own mothers were housewives kept for life by men. That they have graduated with no student debt because I work. That they have had lovely holidays because I work. That we have a cleaner anda lovely home because I work. That because i earn a lot I can structure my life so I am around to be with and talk to them. All that flowed from my decision when I was 21 that we would pay 50% of our salary each for that nanny which was a massive expense fo I could build a 40 year career. I am so glad I do so.

Xenia - I do think your post is rather naive.

"Mummy and daddy are there except between 8 and 6" - that's the whole day.

babies, especially newborns, need their mothers. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

nancy66, is it so ludicrous? Xenia's scenario can work. And as she has pointed out in relation to her dcs, has.

I'm not attacking working mothers - I work.

But to try and justify leaving a baby when it's just days old because that baby will understand that 'mummy and daddy have enough money' is daft.

spicemonster;

You can read 100's of different research papers on childcare, the vast majority will conclude that the outcomes for children are better when cared for 1 to 1. I'm not sure how much money goes into research that comes up with the bleedin obvious..

I think that, in most circumstances, 1 to 1 care at home is preferable to a full time nursery setting (for babies up to 1 year or so). As far as I know, there is evidence to suggest the importance of the baby forming a strong bond with the primary care giver in the first year (preferably the mother or father). However, it is only attainable for a minority of families.
Most families have more than 1 child and many mothers have to work for financial reasons and others choose to work because they enjoy their job/ have worthwhile skills/ have trained for many years or because they wouldn't enjoy being at home 24/ 7 with their small children. There is nothing wrong with choosing to work and comments like 'why bother to have children?', and 'Those formative years will be spent with me, not with a 19yr old nursery worker who really couldn't give a toss about my child' are based on nothing but that individuals personal feelings about what suits them (as opposed to any evidence of ill effect). They are also rude and insulting to others.