Nursery care is harmful - guilty parent here.

[fifitot]

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/08/oliver-james-daycare-under-threes

Thanks Oliver.

The comments below are quite interesting though.

The usual bollocks one assumes?

I skip read it but I couldn't actually see why increased Cortisol levels are bad. Is it assumed that everyone except thickies like me know this already?!

Well I am a psychologist and can't dismiss out of hand the research but there is room for error.

To save you reading it - OJ quoting research that nursery care raises our old friend Cortisol to unhealthy levels in children and can result in poor behaviour later in life. He is pretty adamant on this. One to one care is better.

I quite like some of his work so can't dismiss it but it depress me. I have no choice as sure alot of families don't.

I think its just hype.

Im an NNEB and also a mum of 3 I can guarantee that all the children ive ever looked after have been loved and nurtured exactly the same way my 3 dc have,in a nursery with qualified staff is the next best thing to being with family.

People have to work children have to have day care its the way the world turns - some parents are crap and daycare is the best thing their child will have.

Articles like this make me cross .

Basically Cortisol is a hormone that correlates (as he puts it) to all kinds of problem behaviour in later life. Such as poor behaviour etc. The additional comments below the article query some of this to some extent.

nickschick, they make me cross too. And a little defensive!

I really felt I had no choice but to place DD in full time daycare from very early age (single parent; high income and associated debts; DD a happy accident).

In all honesty, I would rather have my DD at her nursery/school where she had 1 carer to 2 children at young age than being cared for by my mother (nothing wrong with mum but not exactly child focused) or another relative!

fifitot thanks for explaining about the Cortisol.

@BelleDame. My understanding (and fifitot may correct me) is that cortisol is a stress hormone. It's the same hormone that's produced - as per that recent Penelope Leach article - when babies are left to cry (note, NOT when babies are simply inconsolable - the stress is due to the lack of response, not simply the crying). Constant stress responses lead to anxiety and bad behaviour.

Load of bollox BDSM as you guessed, referencing dated study (2004) on only 70 children. Plus, the article's author makes the telling mistake of stressing his support for 'working mothers'. Er, what about working fathers ? oh no, silly me, of course one doesn't need to endorse that arrangement ? as it's taken for granted that it's the natural order of things.

I have never seen a baby left to cry in a nursery- the noise would drive me mad and I couldnt bear to hear a baby distressed on the other hand when i worked for the socialservices and we did home visits ive heard babies howling for ages .

I've only skimmed the article...but I think he's got a point. I think (know) it would have been detrimental for DS1 to have attended a nursery. (He did go part time fro 2.5) Although that was purely my choice, and I may have been (with hindsight) selfish.

DD attended nursery from the age of 2....I now really regret that she went so young, but I was doing the "I need to work" thing at the time, as was DH.

I think it's a good thing that articles like this are published. Yes it makes uncomfortable reading...yes working mothers who need to use nurserys, how ever excellent, will shout bollox, but I think we need to be really, really honest, and make sure our grandchildren, if not our children have the very best care possible.

I'm pretty sure it's healthier for children to be looked after by childminders and even grandparents (depending on the grandparent of course) than for them to attend a nursery. But for some reason I still chose a nursery for DD. At the time it was a very small nursery, with maybe only 12 children at a time. It was lovely. Then it decided to expand...move to larger premises and take on more children, and I could see that it really wasn't ideal for children to be in such a large setting. I can't remember how many children no, but between 20 and 30.

So yes, we will need child care in the future, but we need to make sure it's as child friendly as it possibly can be. And if we listen to articles like this, it means perfect child care won't be cheap.

I can understand why people get defensive about research like this, but surely it's important to know the effect group care has on children? If we don't know what the problems are, how can they ever be improved?

It would be interesting to know how daycare is categorised into high, medium and low quality though, as touched upon in the article.

Missus84 thats an interesting question the thing is that with almost every girl leaving school to do some form of 'childcare' its going to get harder.

I've seen babies and toddlers left to cry in nurseries - I walked in on my own son howling his little eyes out once, entirely alone in the middle of the floor while all the nursery workers were doing other things. (I withdrew him immediately - but then that was an option for me as I didn't have a salaried job.)

As always, it's about the quality of care - some nurseries offer fantastic care, some don't.

I haven't read the article (will just make me feel shit) but I guess it's along the same lines as Penelope Leach's theory about not leaving babies to cry because it raises cortisol levels etc?

I can see how prolonged exposure to stress could affect behaviour in later life but I don't believe that nursery causes my DS stress. I know I'm lucky in this as my niece isn't so keen on going but he loves his nursery nurses and gets so much out of being there. He's been going since 6mo (shock horror) and is now 22mo. He'd really miss it if he couldn't go any more.

It may be true that one to one care is best but life isn't perfect. We need to buy food, therefore I need to work, therefore DS needs to go to nursery.

Even if he didn't like nursery so much, he has a secure, loving environment at home- surely that counts for so much more? It may be a stressful environment for some children but does the study allow for children that are having a difficult time at home/aren't securely attached to their parents etc and therefore experiencing high levels of stress all the time?

So, if you choose a nursery staffed by nice people who like being with children and your child is well-loved and nurtured at home there is no reason to feel bad, is there?

In my head this makes more sense- am pg and incoherent. But you get what I mean.

nickschick, I don't understand your last post.

So my head is firmly in the sand then!

James is an author with commercial interests,he isnt neutral.he writes angsty give-it-all-up-deny-capitalism-greed-find-your-innerself books

another stick to beat working parents with

pragmatically for most people
bills need to be paid
mortgage needs paid
you work

two thirds of mums work. Of working-age women with children aged under five,57% were in employment.

As in a 16 year old won't be able to walk into a nursery with a job I believe, they are making the minimum requirements to become a nursery nurse higher than they already are.

I think that's what you mean Nickschick?

Even if children love going to nursery though, I can see it's a stressful environment - often noisy, lots of children and adults together, constant activity, limited opportunity for chilling out quietly, lots of conflict over toys etc. These will be issues even in the loveliest nursery.

It probably doesn't matter that much for children who are there for just a few hours at a time, but maybe has a more significant effect on children there 50 hours a week - that would be a lot to ask of even an adult, and the staff at least get lunch breaks.

It's true, sadly, and is the reason i won't use nurseries for my dc.

the problem is always that research that goes against what you choose or have to do to survive as a family that shows any potential detrimental affect on your children is dismissed out of hand

whereas in fact - you do your best, you have to make choices some of them may not be ideal in the long-term but are necessary (financially, emotionally or career-wise) for you to take.

like with medication there are side-effects and the responsibility of the doctor (and in case the analogy is not clear, the responsibility of the parent) is to choose the one that gives the biggest win to the family

but to dismiss out of hand any negative impact thrown up in this research (which as with all is a hypothesis with actual measured results within it seeming to back it up) is wishfull thinking - our choices make a difference to our futures

I work in an outstanding nursery btw - we have a lot of very highly qualified staff and buddy with other nurseries to model best practice. I still recognise that it's a stressful environment though.

I like the response from Lautrec. ie, shut up oliver james.

What is the point in this article. Surely it is better to reassure those with children in childcare that they are good parents, rather than make parents feel bad for doing what they have to do to raise their children in a secure environment. It is not like the majority can do anything about this information is it? Apart from worry even more about the decisions they make.

What a load of toss.

"A study of 3,440 children from 282 primary schools showed that children who were home-reared were significantly worse behaved the greater the proportion of their classmates who had been in daycare: they seemed to be led to misbehave by the greater misbehaviour of their daycared peers."

This is supposed to support the theory that young children are best cared-for at home with their mother!? To me it says that SAHM produce weak-willed children who cannot cope when they are not the centre of attention. Both of mine were in daycare before they were 3 y.o. and have turned out to be lovely, outgoing, grounded, non-aggressive people (for all those of you, with younger children, who are worrying). Don't let him guilt-trip you.