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.

These threads and there have been many many of them on mumsnet go to the core of how we lead our lives. Whilst it would be nice if we thought everyone simply makes a choice in fact many of us are polarised. I genuinely believe it damages other mothers, how they are viewed at work, our standing as women in the professional world and ultimately damages our children is women cop out of work and go home to bake cakes. I regard the housewife as morally and politically wrong. Obviously housewives don't like to hear that.

Then I am sure many resent being at home and find it borning and awful and they are only doing it because (a) they'd only earn a pittance if they worked (b) their husbands make them stay home and are sexist pigs (c) religiously or culturally they were brought up to stay home and they have to make themselves think at the least they have some child psychology moral high ground which says mother at home best - at top of a pyramid and for someone to say your children wont' appreciate it, it's bad for other women and society, you earn no money and it does your children no good must feel pretty galling. Thus people take it personally.

Then you get others - probably most parents - who think it's purely a personal choice and not worse nor better if women or men work.

When we get bulletin boards with men agonising over whether to stay at home with under 5s or not we will have started to move towards an element of fairness and equality. We have a very long way to go. We can all do our bit - when a male colleague mentions a baby is on the way ask whether he will be giving up work to look after it and if not what childcare he (not his wife) is going to arrange.

Peppa;

You're wrong, I think sahm are in the minority on mumsnet, and anyway, what does it matter what a few random strangers think. Be confident in your choices.

Really daftpunk? I would have thought the majority were SAHM.

And no - you are right - it shouldn't.

oh peppa, don't let it hurt you! I have worked full time for yonks and shoved my child in a nursery at 4 months to do so . So shoot me now .

Thing is, about SAHP, is it's all very well on one level but someone is only able to be a SAHP because their partner can support them financially. In this uncertain financial environment, I'm not sure it's that astute and a hell of a lot of pressure on one person. Something goes wrong and you've got a SAHP who has been out of the work place for years. Not a pleasant situation tbh. I think keeping your finger in work is the sensible thing to do, whether you need the money or not tbh. I'll certainly be encouraging my children to be financially independent.

peppa- you shouldn't feel disheartened by this thread It is always the mums who feel guilty about leaving their children! What about the dads?!!

It is irritating when SAHMs try to take the moral high ground. They have simply made a choice that suits them and their family and in many cases it can work very well. When it stops working well is when the whole of the woman's (or man's) life revolves around the children for years and years and they are then left with nothing once the children are too old to need them. They can then be left fairly deskilled, making it difficult to enter the job market. I am not suggesting that this applies to anyone on this thread but it does sometimes happen.
WOHMs make a different choice for equally valid reasons. They may not be the primary carer for some of their child's early years and may feel very guilty about this. However, they do use their very worthwhile skills at work, contribute to the economy, and retain their own identity in a way that is more difficult for a SAHM.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both choices.

Fine for SAHMs that make the choice to do so. A lot of women are forced to stay at home because they do not earn enough to pay for (quality) childcare, particularly for more than one child. I believe this happens more often that we think.

The cupboard love argument is just awful. How appalling to have to buy your children's company like that.

FWIW, my POLs are great givers of expensive gifts in order to buy their grandchildren's affections; my parents are quite the opposite (and certainly never bought me or my sister expensive holidays etc, either as teenagers or as adults). My parents see absolutely masses of both their daughters and all their grandchildren, because we all enjoy one another's company hugely. That will never change.

Research, damned lies and research - the findings can be used to support any argument.

I personally go along with the Winnicott idea of having to be "good enough" There are SAHMs and WOHMs that are good enough and there are SAHDs and WOHDs that are good enough. All 4 categories will also show examples of not being "good enough."

Fine to have these philosophical discussions if you have a choice either to work or stay at home - I don't and I am good enough.

Joining this thread late. Im interested in peoples ideas about this too. I am a sahm and a childminder. I recently was told by someone that they thought cm's were not good value for money in comparison to the nurseries. My feeling on this was that we charge about the same and imo offer the next best thing to being at home with Mum or Dad because they get a lot more one on one time with the same carer everyday in more real to life situation with the added bonus that we offer them the chance to get more involved in the community by going to the library, park, playgroups and still having messy play etc at home. Am I behind in this or does nursery offer a lot more nowadays?
I have to agree with some people though, it really depends on you as a person. I know for a fact that my sister couldnt cope being at home with the childern and sent them to nursery and was a much better Mummy for it...they are much better children now too

It does of course depend on the childminder though, I am aware there are crappy ones about, in which case Id probably rather send mine to a really good nursery (if I couldnt stay at home). But assuming the childminder was really loving and a good childminder...would you say this is next best to at home with Mum or Dad? Does it maybe depend on the personality of the child?

i have done a bit of everything

stayed at home then went PT college/uni and worked.

staying at home drove me nuts. not 'oh i was a bit bored' nuts but 'pass me the razor blade ..is this all there is to life?' nuts.

i broke down and cried when the twins were 4 months old at having to change all those nappies for YEAAAAAAAAAARS.

there is no right choice here. we are all different. we respond to things differently, we cope with things differently.

our life circumstances, dictate we have to do some things and that there is little or no choice involved at all for some people.

so give each other a hug and stop biggin' up yourselves as the bestest parent. whoopsie do good for you mum of the year.

Clanky - my biggest worry about finding a childminder was finding an excellent one. I knew none, or knew no one who could recommend one. It made me feel uneasy leaving my DS with just that one person when he couldnt tell me what he did in the day or what they were like. With nursery I knew there would always be lots of people around, someone in charge of the room, someone in charge of the building and someone overall in charge.

I also knew they would be in the place I left them first thing which I know has pros and cons.

A number of people have mentioned that children who have a CM get to go to the ducks, the shops, the library etc. My DC's still do that - they do the mundane things and see the moon, the cat, the cars on the way to nursery in the morning, we pop into shops / library / post office on the way home. And of course on the weekends and days off they are out and about. I am extremely lucky in the my nursery has fantastic outdoor facilities - a large front garden with climbing frames, swings, slides, cars, grass etc and then the pre school / toddlers have the most fantastic out door play area which is undercover and has dens and all sorts.

It is a down side that they dont go anywhere but that is also a plus side to me - I dont have to entrust someone else to drive them around.

I tihnk both CM's and nursery each have pros and cons which need to be worked out according to the individual children. I am looking at CM's at the moment now as an option when DS goes to school. He loves nursery and I wouldnt have taken him away from that for him and DD to be together at a CM. When he goes to school and this baby goes to daycare then I may choose that or indeed a nanny.

I have no idea how you go about finding a decent / trustworthy one though!! Actually what happens with a nanny? Do they come to your house in the mornings? Do they drive? Would they for example take one DC to school and stay home with the other?

Clankypanky

I see children from our local nurseries being taken out to parks, on walks down the towpath and just generally around town doing stuff by the nursery staff in groups. The younger ones are in pushchairs and the older ones walk. So I don't think that they just stay in the nursery all day.

As I said earlier in the thread, my day nanny had worked in a nursery prior to looking after my children. My neighbour was a childminder who had worked in the nursery with my nanny prior to becoming a childminder.

They were both wonderful with children. I genuinely believe that my nanny loved my children, and my friends would often tell me how she would see her with the kids around town and she would be so happy, chatting away to them. SImilarly I saw how much my neighbour enjoyed looking after children and how much effort she put in taking them on nature walks. We are out in a rural area, and she would have them out walking every day.

Anyway, I doubt they were any different with kids when they worked in a nursery together. Some people are just great with small children. I don't think the setting matters that much; it is the people who matter.

Totally agree it is the people that matter. I remember when my eldest was 2 I sent him to the nursery down the road for 2 x half days...basically just because I was knackered looking after my daughter and felt he needed a break away from knackered Mummy...it actually never occurred to me to use a childminder, but I dont think they were seen as being so professional as they are now. I had a very bad experience with the nursery and ahd to take my son out. I discovered that his diary was being filled in on cue and was not personal to him at all and I completely lost trust in them. However, I believe that nursery has changed a lot now (it was nearly 10 years ago)and I know also that the they have 'key workers' and 1 to 3 adult to baby ratio which I think is really good. The only reason I think a childminder would be next best is probably because I am one and I know that when I have looked after babies that they are part of the family to an extent and they benefited from the same kind of love, cuddles, tickles, silly play that my own children did which i believe is so vital for their development and security. (peppapig, if you wanted a childminder then you should see lots and ALWAYS go on your instinct...if possible get a recommendation from a friend) Im not saying that nursery workers dont do this but Im sure that they must hold back a bit more because of all the barriers of litigation and self consciousness of other people watching them. I do also know that they go on occasional walks but I dont think its very often. I take mine out nearly every morning, we see familiar faces every day and make lots of friends. I think if you work fewer hours then yes parents do have the opportunity to do library shops etc but if like one of mine you work long hours (one of mine was with me 7.30 - 6) then realistically when are they going to do these things? Its all circumstancial I suppose but for me the thought of my child being in a building all day every day is kind of depressing, I would feel much more satisfied if I knew I could leave him with people i knew really cared and were going to do more normal every day things. Sorting socks, hanging out the washing...bit boring and mundane I suppose but its real life and not so regulated. Some children though probably thrive off that kind of thing because we all have different characters. One child I look after now went to nursery for the first 4 years of her life , is now at school and comes to me before and after school. Shes lovely, the other day we saw her old nursery key worker who I know she still has a good relationship with and we stopped and chatted and she gave the girl a big hug and I could see that this girl was excellent with children...totally natural. Whats my point? Oh yes...its not cut and dry, these things never are, we are all trying to do the best for our children with what we have at the time. If you are a very good Mummy or Daddy and you love it and your child thrives off you then it probably wont be quite so good for them to go somewhere else but it wont necessarily be bad for them either, it will give them different life skills and as long as there is balance and security in their life then they we will be fine. There is no point whatso ever feeling guilty or making other people feel guilty about it.

' as long as there is balance and security in their life then they we will be fine'

One of the best lines on this whole thread

"Actually what happens with a nanny? Do they come to your house in the mornings? Do they drive? Would they for example take one DC to school and stay home with the other?"

Yes, you employ her (or him) and they do what is agreed so it's perfect if you get to a stage we had with oldest at full time school, next one at nursery school 5 mornings a week and youngest at home all the time plus you will need holiday care too and the nanny in the holidays simply moves from looking after the youngest all day to looking after all 3 etc etc.

There are also loads of people who are very very good looking for work at the moment and live in or live out you can get brilliant nannies qualified or otherwise depending on your views (I certainly didn't need qualifications in a nanny although I think ours had them) fairly easily.

Thanks peppa pig, I really believe it. One Mummy would drop her child off with me and at first I knew it broke her heart to be leaving her and that she felt guilty but like I explained to her. When she picked her up they went swimming together or went home and cuddled up and had a snooze together and every moment they spent together was real quality time. That was more than some sahm mothers do..its totally to do with quality and consistency.

There is quite an amusing line in 'The secret life of a slummy mummy' that says that as long as we pretty much stay away from extremes then our children will all will grow up to be normal healthy happy people (or words to that effect!) I like that, it gives hope to us all and sounds fairly sensible!

Xenia - can I ask how much you paid approximately? I know it will be different to where we live. Do you have to pay things like tax, sick pay and holidays?

I am seriously considering it as an option as DS will be going to school, DD to nursery and then then baby would be to private nursery. If we keep baby at private nursery then DD will stay at private nursery too and DS would have to do breakfast club. I think a nanny coming to our house, taking DS to school and picking up could be a great solution as could take DD too.

I have been on a nanny website and out of approximately 30 local nannies, 3 are my students .

Clanky - yes I am a big fan of 'good enough parenting'. Took me two battles with pnd to get this far but I think it is most often the case. I certainly dont feel like our parents worried this much about us!

peppa- they didnt did they (or they didnt tell us about it, who knows) PND both times, poor you, I hope you are okay now. I suffered pnd iwth my second baby so I know what its like x

LeoniedElf - quoting myself from a while back :-
"
"why have children if you're not going to look after them"

Maybe you don't like small children but do like adult children? Maybe you want an heir? Maybe you consider it a civic duty? Maybe you thought you would want to look after them then found you didn't? Maybe you didn't plan to have children?

There are many reasons why one would have children but not want to look after them. Having children just beacuse YOU want to look after them is ultimatly a a selfish act.

The idea of a non-working mother who looks after the children is a pretty recent invention. For most of human history, rich people had servants to look after their children, and poor people worked and found childcare where they could.
"

I've thought of two other reasons since - to work in the family business or to provide for your old age.

I also disagree with your evolutionary argument :-

"Having many caregivers and multiple other babies and toddlers around, cannot possibly be evolutionarily and biologically comparable to being nurtured in the day on a one on one basis at home with your parent/s.
"

The kind of hunter gatherer societies we evolved in are in part charactherised by shared care giving and communal child raising. Much more in common with a nursery that they have with the modern constructions of childhood.

Yes and I noticed in my family with 3 older children who are 10 - 13 years older than the twins how very lovely it is, so so many people and their friends around to chip in and help. In fact my sister and I were emailing each other this weekend about the differences betwee4n our lives (she is always fed up and I usually feel very happy and lucky) and she thinks one difference is I have so many more people around, it's more like a communal living for me here than her just alone with her chidlren.

The amount we paid for our daily nanny I cannot remember now as it was a while ago but it was 50% of salary and 50% of my children's fathers - quite a lot but I knew I was in a job where income increases al ot over time and it was a worthwhile investment. And it made organisation easier of getting other children around too as the nanny dealt with all that and definteily cheaper than 3 nursery places - we had 3 children under 5 at one time. Also you don't need a Norland nanny in my view - anyone with common sense experience and capacity to care can be great with children. Wer've advertised in the local paper before now and got 60 calls but we live in an area with a lot of people always wanting work. I am sure it's not too hard to find people even on the minimum wage per hour which I think is £5.71 an hour as my student daughter is often paid is so I think that's what it is although in this bit of London I pay my cleaner more than that and I get free childcare from my older children now when and if I need it. it's compoletely different and much easier when chidlren are older.

You need to look at the time between now and when you turn 65 and stop work in terms of what are the right decisions now for most women. Think what do I hope to be doing in my 50s - running BA or BP or trying to get work on the minimum wage in a call centre having been out of the labour market for 10 years etc

You'll be lucky if anyone is running BA when I'm in my 50's

Also, I don't really understand what the quality or aims of research in this area is. I'm not sure there is even a clear understanding of what the outcomes we desire form childcare are, so comparing methods seems doomed from the start.

Any studies over what I would consider a reasonable time scale - (30 - 60 years - I would want to know what the effects on people as adults and on their child rearing were), is inevitably only going to give you data about what was done 30-60 years ago, which would still give us no idea what the optimium choice NOW would be.

imo, of course good care with one carer at home is better, esp for under 3's and certainly for under 18 months

but life is not always ideal.
and i only think its ideal being at home if the person at home with them, wants to be with them and enjoys it.