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.

The thing is, I don't think there is ANYBODY who, if money was no object, would choose full time nursery over a nanny. What's wrong here is not people making choices, it's the economic and social imperatives that limit the choices most families can make.

Haven't read the whole thread yet but this is a subject very close to my heart as DS is currently 7.5 months and I will be going back to work 3 days a week when he is 1 year.

I am loving being a SAHM and am not really looking forward to going back to work (although only 3 days a week so not all bad).

DS has a place at a local nursery but I have recently been getting wobbles about it and am meeting with childminders in the Spring as I think I would prefer to go down that route.

I didn't know I would feel like this, but I guess it shows that I would prefer DS to be looked after by one main carer in a home environment rather than being looked after by several carers in an institutional environment.

What I really want, and what I think would be best for him, is to be able to look after him myself until he is of pre-school age but sadly that is not possible as we need my income to pay the mortgage

people do though seeker

lots of people chose nurseries in the past because they felt uncomfortable about leaving their children with one adult (a nanny), thinking nursery was a safer and more sociable option

one mother I knew chose nursery because she said she felt too jealous leaving her children with a nanny (seriously - she was concerned about them bonding!)

as I said below, using a nursery ended up costing us a lot more money than the nanny. And in fact, if you have more than one child, a nanny or nanny share in the SE would almost certainly be cheaper

(I said in my post anyway, what childcare you can muddle together is influenced entirely by what you can afford and what is available in your area)

Mistletoes - very valid point. I had an internal interview with my old employer for a promotion just before returning from maternity leave, and they made it very clear that they thought that as a new mother it wouldn't be for mee because I couldn't bring the right dedication to the job. I'm sure new fathers don't get this as much.

I eventually found a better job in a better (and bigger)company, which allows me to prove that I'm still as dedicated, but I guess a lot of, especially small and medium-sized enterprises see employing fertile women in any role with responsibility as a risk.

This however cannot only be blamed on women who decide not to return after maternity leave (and it is their choice, which shouldn't be taken away from them(, but also that fathers as SAHPs are still faiirly unusual, and British paternity leave provisions are quite backwards, compared to other European countries.

Re the nursery vs one on one care. Maybe it depends on the nursery. But at hers, my daughter gets to choose when she wants to sleep and when she wants to play. She's offered a huge variety of activities, but doesn't have to do it. She gets all the cuddles she needs, and when the nursery workers first saw her being carried in a sling, when her dad dropped her off, they asked us to leave the sling with them in the mornings, so they can carry her in it if she demands to. As my daughter sometimes has very cuddly days, they've found a great way, that she's getting the cuddles she needs, whilst still having the hands free to play with the other children. Really doesn't sound like a workhouse, does it?

absolutely 100%. all the current research would suggest that good one on one care is far preferable to institutionalised care until at least 2 1/2.

having said that, better a good nursery with a good ratio and fantastic key worker than a bad childminder/nanny.

all things being equal though, this one is a no brainer.

Not read the whole thread, but think it totally depends on nursery, child, age, parents etc

DS1 went to a pretty grotty nursery (didn't realise at the time, but have since seeing care at quality nurseries) when he was 6 months old. He got absolutely nothing out of this experience, but fortunately only went for 2 days per week. Cared for by young girls who were only concerned with feeding, changing, sleeps etc.

The other two have not been to a nursery/pre-school until 2 - 2.5, and have really enjoyed mixing with other children, taking part in the activities on offer etc. It has not made them shy or have attachment issues, as they have mixed continuously before this age with friends and at group activities.

So personally I am not keen on nursery from a very early age, but if you want to/have to work then there are few options. I certainly don't think it is evil, but perhaps not ideal.

My final point is that the Government are constantly trying to make it easier for children to be cared away from their parents, but that doesn't mean it is in the child's best interests - only in the Government's.

one such piece of research was by unicef last year

I think that babies are better off at home, and toddlers benefit from being at nursery part time, I think women should only go back to work after having kids if they financially have to, ie cant pay mortgage, bills, food if they dont, not cant pay for sky tv, second car, holidays abroad...

"My final point is that the Government are constantly trying to make it easier for children to be cared away from their parents, but that doesn't mean it is in the child's best interests - only in the Government's."

No. It's in the public interest to make it easier. And currently it's far from easy. If peple realise that they'd be better off on benefits than working, because of childcare costs you damage economy and the public purse and throw away any investment which had been made in training these people..

Luna - and they should always wear a clean apron and give their breadwinner a blowjob every time he demands it (provided the children are in bed)

it is not in children's interests. or does that not count for anything? of course research develops and changes but that unicef report is based on all the current research as it stands. this is not a matter of opinion.

Widow - why have kids if you are gonna run back to the office when the are 6 months old?

and if you want to make this about feminism (which it is imo), making male created patriarchal values (of working outside of the home, work as first priority, money as first priority) and allowing women to buy into that model wholesale does nothing to promote the liberation of all people. we need another model. that prioritises social welfare over economic gain. that gives proper value to the caregiving role whether that is undertaken by a man or a woman.

Luna - have you asked your husband that question? I answered it earlier in this thread.

widow - im not married. sorry, im not reading the whole 165 messages on the thread, so have no idea what you said, just gave my opinion not really sure why you are branding me as some sort of victorian housewife. I just think if you can afford to stay at home with the babies you should, WTF is wrong with that, love?

I'd choose a ft nursery to a nanny and have done so for each of my dcs. I believe that for children who cannot vocalise, a good nursery offers more checks and balances in terms of procedures and hands to the pump than a nanny at home with my dcs.

If I as a mother find it difficult to spend a 10 hour stretch with my dcs - they were both difficult non-sleeping, irritable babies/toddlers who needed constant stimulation - I would not expect that of another adult. All that behind-closed-doors issues with a nanny.

It turned out nursery suited my dcs' social personalities. So it worked out well.

Tbh, it does not trouble me about the bonds my dcs form with their carers. From experience, there is affection. But it is nothing like the bond they have with me or dh. Whenever they changed key carers or rooms at nursery (and therefore carers) or aupairs, they have never missed a beat.

Hence, I think it is a fallacy (at least for my dcs) to expect childcare to replicate a home environment or for the carer to be some kind of one-to-one mother substitute. My dcs were occupied with their friends, activities and toys at nursery. Carers just facilitated the environment. Or maybe my dcs are hardcore!

It is a bit daft that as things stand I could have a formal, contracted arrangement with a friend whereby she daily looked after my DCs and I looked after hers. We would pay each other (the same amount obviously) and then everyone would say 'jolly good Apples, well done, you have a job In Childcare!'

In my Utopia, looking after society's children will be seen as one of the nation's needs every bit as important as getting the country's cleaning done, manning the shop-tills, getting the roads swept, the courts peopled with judges and lawyers, the shcools with teachers, the hospitals with doctors, nurses and researchers. All childcare will therefore be paid and parents can choose whether to take the salary for the duration of the paid-for period (0-5 perhaps?) and look after their own children or, if they find childcare as dull as some would find going to the City or being a Management Consultant, the childcare salary would go on nurseries or CMs.

Either choice would be equally respected and valid - it would raise the status of SAHP choice since it would now tick the box of 'employment' by acknowledging the job with an income, and those who feel they have different skills to offer and more personal fulfilment in other jobs may choose that course, with no hierarchy of approval or respect attached to either choice.

No, you didn't say that it's not wrong to stay at home if you can afford it, but you said it's wrong for a woman to work if she can afford to live above the breadline without working herself.

That's a huge difference. Pet.

Apples - what's the teen pregnancy rate in your Utopia?

luna: "I think that babies are better off at home, and toddlers benefit from being at nursery part time, I think women should only go back to work after having kids if they financially have to, ie cant pay mortgage, bills, food if they dont, not cant pay for sky tv, second car, holidays abroad..."

I suggest you read the rest of the thread to educate yourself as to why the "should" in your post is inappropriate when applied to anyone other than your little ol' self.

widow - yes if you can afford to stay at home you should, sorry MAN OR WOMAN, just said women as it is mainly women who do the looking after of kids, does not mean im a fucking dick who thinks women should be chained to the kitchen sink, the point i was trying to make was that some men and women go back to work not to pay for essentials but the pay for luxurys that children dont really need but that they (the parents) want, a baby does not need sky tv, 2nd car etc etc, babies need a parent at home with them. Sweetheart.

Applauds Widow

Why have them if you are going to return to work? Sigh. There are more hours in a week than those spent at work. On that note - why send them to school? Why send them to nursery as soon as it becomes free? Why is this always about the woman and not the man? What on earth are you meant to do if you are the main wage earner?

From my understanding the research shows that for the majority of children in good high quality nurseries there is no issue. Ok, I am happy to admit there is no benefit for young children (apart from haivng happier parents because they can now pay the mortgage) but there is not the evidence to show a risk.

no thoughts on the unicef report??

I liked the power and control o ver a nanny. I liked it that even if the children were ill they could be at home with their nanny. It's also very useful if you have a bit family (we have five) that when the oldest needs to be taken to 9 - 12 morning nursery school you've the nanny there to do it and someone to answer the door bell, guard the house, look after the younger ones in their own house and it is much cheaper than three nursery places too. You do need back up of the nanny in case she's ill although ours were very reliable.

I liked the fact they had the certainty of the same person every day and that they were not with a lot of germs from others every day and I liked the bonding with their father, me and their nanny. Nannies will also babysit and can even sleep here if you're working away on business and by the time I had the twins and was working at home the nanny could get me when they needed a breastfeed in the living room (and that was dead easy and lovely).

Apples, I disagree with your Utopia.

Having children is first and foremost a lifestyle choice, just as others choose to be childless. It does not need fiscal recognition for the parent. I don't want taxpayers money, if you can find any in this economic climate, to subsidise people popping out babies with no way of paying for them.

The only thing the government should facilitate is the collection of more taxes. Hence, facilitating women (and men) to return to work after having children.