Child guru says nurseries harm small children

[flashingnose]

oh dear

Not read article yet. DH did in The Times. He wasn't impressed.

Not just nurseries here either - nurseries, childminders and nannies are all to blame for aggression, anti social behaviour and poor development apparantly. Hmmmm.

Media hype to get mums feeling guilty again? Surely not!

It's not stating it's as simple as that though. More surely to do with what might be a lack of a constant caring figure and it doesnt say all children will become aggressive either.

Hulababy, thats not what I understood. Good quality one to one was the next preference option was my understanding of the article

I'd love for the government to help me stay at home and look after my baby.
I dont particulary agree that nursery will harm my baby (she's 18 weeks now, due to start in 6 weeks time). It will make me chuffing sad, I know that!
When she is a little older, nursery will help her learn to share, as me and DH dont have any plans to have another for the next fourish years, so she wont have to share toys at home. It hopefully will do her good to be around other children her own age, as we dont have any friends with young children. At least, that's how I will console myself when I drop her off for her first day at nursery and sit at the bus stop crying my eyes out like a loon.

FWIW, my cousin is now ten, she never went to nursery. Her parents worked full time, mainly in shifts, and my cousin was looked after by myself, my mum, my uncle and my grandparents. Being around "older" people all the time and no other children (she's an only child, didn't socialise with others her age til school) has made her grow up quickly, and being passed from pillar to post has hardly been good for her, as she feels like she never knows whether she is coming or going. Perhaps she would have been better going to nursery and having a set routine and have a better understanding as to what was going to happen on a day to day basis rather?

Just tajking it from here:

"young children looked after by their mothers did better in development tests than those cared for in nurseries, by childminders or relatives."

"Nannies, he says, can work well as a halfway solution but only if parents are ?extraordinarily lucky? with the person they find. He says, however, that care by family or friends is ?a much safer option?."

To be fair, if you read later, tit does say - very briefly - that it is aimed at 5% of parents using FT cild care.

Just, as ever, the media like to make it out to be a genral childcare issue and, like normal, mums get to fel the guilt!

I would take a lot of what is there as fairly obvious commen sense though for a lot of children.

Message withdrawn

I took it from the bit later where they emphasised on the ft bit

I agree with Biddulph and Leach, generally, that being cared for at home by a parent is the best option wherever possible. not always possible though.

Not always possible, financially and mentally. Some people are just not suited to being at home all day, or circumstances are they cannot be at home. I can only speak from experience I have worked with children for 10 years, prior to that I always had children around, have a big family. When my first came no problems and loved the experience but when my second was born I have depressed thoughout the depression and than leser post natal. I needed to be away from my house and my family to get my head to together and be the parent I was before. I know my depression was mild and know for many people working is their link to sanity.

Depends on parent and situation. Staying at home isn't always the best option, IMO, for all parents and for all situations out there.

oh for gods sake it is all part of the human experience the whole world can't sit at home grinning at their children constantly, that would be a frightening world. i would prefer dd didn't have to be at nursery esp. when younger but thats life. these articles p*ss me off but i suppose thats the point.

I would love someone to set a test for people who write articles like this, and get them to go to a primary school for a couple of days and guess which 9 or 10 year old children had been at nursery and which at home. I know it's trivialising the issue, and I know there have been some fairly thorough studies done, but I bet the hit rate would not be that great.

absolute bo**ocks, both of my boys attended FT nursery, Ds1 is without a doubt top of his class at the moment, and ill be the first to admit that his acheivments are not all to do with input from home. The nursery he attended brought him on leaps and bounds and he is credit to the staff that looked after him there.

more drivel to make working parents feel like shite.

Message withdrawn

I agree with him.

In fact I've often felt bitter with the people who said, 'Have kids and go back to work. It'll all be fine'. Before I had kids I believed them. Bit by bit I came to realise that it wasn't fine and that my kids needed me so I gave up a good career I'd worked for.

I also agree that not everyone is cut out to spend all day every day with their kids. That's where the extended family would have come in fifty years ago. These days many of us are spread out away from family. If I'd known then what I know no I'd have done so many things differently.

I'm glad he has written this because I think so many people are deluding themselves and being deluded by the government's drive to get us all working.

It has been said that post feminist women don't have it all, rather they do it all.

hmmm, in Raising Boys he says boys (at least) shouldn't go into a nursery setting until the age of 3. It is not that much of a turnaround from him, presumably just an attempt to plug his new book.

but he's talking about children going to nursery from under 6 months until school age full time. nor is he stating all children will be affected. He is stating that this amount of time in childcare isnt as good as being with a constant adult. What makes that so difficult to believe that for some children, it would be better for them to be with a parent rather than this?

Are people not allowed to state their findings and observances in case it offends someone?

I agree with him too. He isn't making a popular, fashionable, or even politically correct point, but I think what he is saying has some basis in fact.

A six month old baby is a very tiny creature. It doesn't need interaction with any other 6 month old babies in order to develop. It certainly doesn't need this for 10 hours a day, 5 days a week.

i know my point of view isn't a popular one, but I don't think Stephen Biddulph says these things to make working parents feel guilty, I think he says them becqause he believes they are true.

Yes, but can child guru figure out how to magic up some money for everyone to afford to have one parent stay home?