Child guru says nurseries harm small children

[flashingnose]

oh dear

custy, you tell it like it is. I know you can't be arsed but thanks for doing that post .

Message withdrawn

I quite agree with the comments here. Alot of this is based on middle class families as working class families have always historically worked. My DF was one of ten in a poor family and his mother cleaned early in the morning and spent the rest of the day 'home making' ie washing ironing, cooking after a big family. No one to one care. She did love her children but she also told me that if the pill had have been around she would not have had so many children because her life was miserable. That misery would have passed to the children. That is what it was like for the working class. We are lucky today to be able to have these choices in the main and our children are lucky because of this. At least now we have washing machines etc so when we are 'homemaking' whether this be during work hours or after work we actually have more time to be with our children. How much time did your own mother have to do nice things with you? 'Quality time' just was not a concept people worried about. We spent most of the time in the garden playing with our siblings. These surveys are the product of people simply having nothing else to do but analyse things.

Agree, swampduck. Not sure where Biddulph and his type have the authority to make sweeping generalisations about the so-called "substandard" care in nurseries. My dd gets a darnsight more attention in her nursery from her carers than she would from me at home, esp if I had more than one child. She has at least 3 carers and 2 nursery assistants to choose from at any one time. She does crafts, colours, circle time, outdoor activities, free play or ... just singing and dancing around. She eats, naps beautifully and behaves so well with other children I can't believe she is the same diva she is with me at home. So where are these attention-starved children?

If I were at home full time, dd would be taken from pillar to post because mummy has to do the shop or go to the bank and asked to play by themselves because mummy has to do the washing/cooking or tend to siblings. Not that that is not enriching in itself but nursery offers a different social environment with other benefits dd will not get if I was a SAHM looking after her. One is not necessarily better than the other. It is just different.

If someone who hasn't seen the effect of nursery on their own children want to believe they are horror houses of neglect, I won't waste my breath. In my case, the proof is in the pudding.

Just one more comment and then I must look after my daughter, slapped wrists! If anyone is still worried about this survey, watch Angela's Ashes to see what is was like for the working classes only a couple of generations back and you will never worry about what you do to your kids again. Today we are so lucky and a slight difference in your child will not be great long-term as long as they have love and enough to eat and somewhere to live. Look up some theories on 'needs' and you will convince yourself.

Normsuckers, just wanted to say I agree with your post quite a way further down - I think it was you. If the parents are generally supportive of their children and striving to make them responsible adults (ok, this probably applies to a lot of middle-class parents as to those from other classes), then the differences between a child who has been in childcare (whether nursery, nanny, childminder, grandparents, ft, pt) or with a SAHM/D is so marginal as to be negligible. Why are we splitting hairs? They all end up in school and become the persons they were meant to become. End of story.

fsmail, agree too! I am just violently agreeing with the latest posts . There are so much larger issues at stake than "oh, poor Jack hit his friend at school because he went to nursery before he was 3". Get a life! We have it so good - if we only knew it.

I earn considerably more than dh and probably always will. As I'm hitting my late 30s I can't afford to put career on hold now anyway as my industry is very ageist.
However when it comes to childcare I don't earn enough to have a ft nanny to myself so for dd2 it will be (as it was for dd1) childminder or nannyshare from 5 months to 12-18 months then ft day nursery until school. Even tho dd1 has been an only child for all her 5.5 years (dd2 hasn't actually been born yet so am really tempting fate!) she is sociable, has loads of friends and her schoolwork is great. She is shy but so were DH and I as kids. I've been reading all these types of threads for the last couple of months with interest. I felt guilty for a while but now actually feel proud of how well I am providing for my family - especially given how idle and unambitious I am by nature! DH helps loads, does all cooking, groceries etc and will no doubt provide childcare on and off (he is self-employed) as long as I pay for ft so it is flexible. I think our dds will be fine.

blueshoes i'm a SAHM and your comments make me feel about being a SAHM, so I feel in a way i have to defend myself a bit! No dd doesn't get full on 1-1 attention from me because of housework (and sitting on here!) but actually I think she gains a lot from that too - being an only child, and me a single mum, there was always a risk that she would never learn that other people have needs, that she isn't the centre of the universe and can't expect to get everything she wants as and when she wants it. I actually see it as a positive thing (or try to, most of the time I feel guilty), a learning experience for her. She has developed from being an extremely clingy baby to an independent, content little toddler, able to amuse herself as well as play happily with me and with friends that we meet up with. I have made a conscious effort to make sure she learns the concept of having to wait for things, taking turns when playing with things, etc. So the way you describe a lo's life with a SAHM isn't actually as negative as you put it, iykwim. (I know you weren't intending to be completely negative, but that's the way it came across.)

But I also have to agree, if there was free nursery care for dd now (she is 2.6, I am looking forward to when she gets her place at 3 yo) I would be very happy as I agree she would benefit so much from it now - part time that is. She can't possibly get everything she needs from me and would so benefit from all those artsy crafty and physical stuff they do at nursery, as well as socialising with children her own age.

(I do baulk however at the idea of putting a 6 month old in nursery, esp full time. Couldn't possibly have done that with my dd given how clingy she was, how often she bf etc! But I know babies are so different, i looked after a friend's baby from 6-12 months old who was completely happy wherever he was, whoever he was with!)

PS - my dd loves coming to the shops! I don't feel like I'm "dragging her from pillar to post!" You can involve them in things like that too - well, if you have an easy-going dd like mine!

Hi Bourneville

Please do not worry. Most of this thread has actually said that there are obviously some good points about whatever you do with your children in terms of childcare and the most important thing is to do what is right for you and as long as you love your child and keep plenty of time, any slight differences that arise from surveys etc will be very small in the whole scale of things. So you carry on and enjoy yourself!

My DD didn't go to nursery until 3 because she wasn't ready, too clingy. When she did go because I had worked with children the entire time she was alive and during that time we were doing arts and crafty type things she refused to do them at nursery (to the point the nursery complained to me saying they were worried about her developent!). Only now when time means she can't do them any other time than the weekends will she willingly do it. The thing that she did get from nursery that I couldn't give her was learning how to be part of larger group, only her. Not her as an extension of me and my group. i suppose a sense of individuality. She found this hard to learn and still struggles with but I think that something we all struggle with.

I haven't read the thread but gather this is Biddulph. Hmm, I like some of what he says about bringing up children, a lot of which is common sense, but I don't think he's right about this. And I'd just love to hear how he thinks we should all survive if we want to have children and eat/pay for a roof over our heads, I really would.

Women who enjoy their work and don't want to spend 24/7 with their young children are constantly being made to feel guilty, largely by women who haven't found fulfilling careers, and therefore for whom full-time childcare is comparatively pleasant. Can't see any benefit in a child being at home with a mother who doesn't want to be there all the time. And I see quite a few braindead mums who are only staying at home because they don't like their jobs, and their husbands earn enough to keep the family, whose kids would be much better off having a few days at nursery. If a woman is fulfilled and happy looking after her kids all the time then she'll be good company for them but it's not a 'natural' or 'normal' state and those of us who don't share it do well to give our kids other nurturing environments to enjoy.

"And I see quite a few braindead mums who are only staying at home because they don't like their jobs, and their husbands earn enough to keep the family, whose kids would be much better off having a few days at nursery."

Sorry Ermintrude, but that sounds like the sort of bollocks all working mums come out with to make themselves feel better about their children being in full time care.

Kittyfish - perhaps you'd like to notice the difference between "quite a few" in one post and "all" in your reply.

"Sorry Ermintrude, but that sounds like the sort of bollocks all working mums come out with to make themselves feel better about their children being in full time care."

It sounds as if you think the views held by working mums are only there to make them feel better. I find that rather insulting, not to mention untrue.

oh dear i know i am not always very diplomatic, but why do both sides insult the other? its just so pointless. Why try to make SAHM or Working mums feel guilty for crying out loud?

if anyone is actually interested in what Steve Biddulph has to say rather than descending into nasty namecalling (braindead my arse) then there is an article in today's Gurdian which goes into more detail
here

www, he's not as i understand it slating mothers for working, he's saying he thinks that full time day care for children as young as six months and under is not the best for them. it's us that assume that the parent or carer that should be with the children must be the mother. also, he is aiming at government policy which is totally ignoring studies (for example leach's recent one) that are suggesting that daycare is not the best answer for under 2 years olds.

tbh I read the guardian article today as him saying babies/toddlers do need their mums. He refers several times to "maternal instinct".

I think it's hard to argue with his point that kids need to be looked after by people who know them very well.

I guess it's more difficult to achieve that in a nursery, even a good one with low staff turnover, seeing as most kids will change rooms several times if they go from babyhood to pre-school.

wrote my post before reading the article. have to agree with what he says....it's not about slating working mothers, far from it. it's about not ignoring evidence. it's about totally rejigging govt policy to support parents in allowing their child one on one care in the home, from mothers, fathers, relatives or other trusted (emphasis on the trusted bit) carers.

mothers/ fathers/ grandparents i read it as.

is this still going?