Child guru says nurseries harm small children

[flashingnose]

oh dear

I liked it alot, though I've no idea who he is (haven't googled him yet).

I especially thought the last paragraph was interesting as it links a lot of themes which are going to be intractable for all of us ? that of the impact of the environment and the dramatic effects that will have on the way we live our lives in the coming decades. There were a couple of other great articles in the guardian today about this. I've linked them here

why do all male child gurus look a bit odd?

So he's discovered that maternal sensitivity and responsiveness is the key to children's emotional wellbeing. Who'd have ever guessed, eh?

The question is if you can get to know your child in limited time if you're working. I have no hesitation in answering "yes" to this question. No-one could have loved them more or wanted to know them better than I did and do. Nurseries may have negative effects on others' relationships but I have no worries about the way I communicate and understand my children.

The article starts off talking about working mothers, gives figures about working mothers, talks only about working mothers, so while perhaps it is not slating women for working it is about working mothers.

What annoys me is that researchers are asking the wrong questions. Women have to/want to/and are working. Just as men have to/want to/and are working. The difference is that nobody questions that and so nobody produces research saying how much better off babies would be if they had f/t maternal and paternal care. The questions we should be asking, and putting money into solving, is how to make childcare as good as possible.

cristina, were yours in full time daycare very young?

i totally accept that your children may be fantastically well adjusted (and given that the book you recommended to me totally changed my ds's behaviour and our relationship, did you see my thank you thread btw, i have every reason to believe you.

i can't see how that changes the fact that if research is suggesting strongly that a larger proportion of those in daycare early in life are having emotional problems later then government policy should reflect that.

DS was from 8 months, a combination of full-time some months, part-time other months and grandparents. DD will be part-time from 1 year, again with grandparents now and again.

I don't care that much about such research without reading further into it. It's not v clear to me exactly what it's saying. That there's an increase in mental health problems in youth. That there's an increase in nursery use. I can accept both. But that the two are cause and effect? An association is not proof of causality, as someone has already pointed out further down. In the same period mobile phone use has increased. Did it cause mental health problems? I know this is far fetched, but there are just too many intermediate steps and inferences from one thing to another but not exactly proof.

Furthermore, are nurseries nowadays comparable to those of 20 years ago, the ones the disturbed youth might have attended? He finds them garish. If they'd been spartan he'd have found them bleak. You can't win, can you?

He says there are increased problems in all children, regardless of wealth. Well, that's one thing. But to equate wealth with nursery attendance neccessarilly is another step that he makes. What if wealth equals SAHM?

Finally (for the time being at least) there's the ecological fallacy. The results of the study apply at population level (and I agree with you that this would be where any interventions if needed should be aimed) but not immediately at individual level. As is my case.

I didn't see the other thread but i'm glad the book suggested was useful. Which of the two was better?

I'm still to be convinced that backchat at 3 years equals violent behaviour later on.

I think SB was right to have a go at the government for their back to work policy... Currently the government appears to be spending an awful lot of time (and money?) worrying about teenage antisocial behaviour, whether it's the absurdity of wearing hoodies or the number of ASBOS being handed out - someone should be highlighting the fact that inadequate early years care is partly to blame for this and that if we don't want to see an increase, they must change their policies now. People can make a contribution to society without being tax payers and working outside the home isn't the be all and end all (rant over)

Can we let the media and Kate Moss off the hook? Eating disorders are - if you believe SB - due to early years nursery care. Binge drinking too. I'm sure he can find some more social ills.

I'd agree with 2 years extended maternity leave. I'd be willing to pay for it too through taxation. But mention taxation to lots of people and they hate the thought. dare I say it - higher taxation would mean the men/fathers would be spending longer hours at work, seeing less of their children. Or is the father figure suddenly not important anymore? Give it a few weeks and someone else will highlight again that teenage antisocial behaviour is due to poverty, or single mothers, or some such thing. Then we'll all be at each others' throats again. Oh, the fun of debating.

The problem is they're only looking at the situation thru one particular prism. There will be other correlatory factors that will effect behavior, such as nutrition (just look at the investigations into omega acid trials for example).

To be fair to the writer I think he is railing against the system that doesn't reward mothers (or fathers) fiscally if they want to look after their children, in a world where everything is measured in those terms. If you expect to pay for childcare outside of the home, why not expect it to be payed for inside the home too? Surely they're both contributing to the market economy in the same way?

There's a more in depth article here

oops didn't mean to do that - sorry! Please ignore previous post!

Message deleted

"Twelve thousand hours of this before they set foot in school." Do your sums, mate, a bit of an exageration going on there. Still, it will sell books and get repeated ad nauseam.

and again he mentions the notion of 1:1 care at home.... er, no, not unless you only have one child.

and i thought the p. leach study had not been published? there was a lot of media attention last year when they released a summary of their findings, but i thought publication of the study had been delayed?

My two sons never attended a nursery - only pre school from 3 1/2 years old.

They both had problems adjusting to school - concentrating, sitting still, listening, following instructions, that sort of thing.

Granted, both ds 1 and ds 2 both had childminders for some of their babyhood and toddlerhood, but for long lengths of time, either my dh or I were full time SAHD/SAHM. Perhaps we were just very bad parents

Cristina - you posted this - dare I say it - higher taxation would mean the men/fathers would be spending longer hours at work, seeing less of their children.

Can I say that Belgium and Holland have VERY high tax rates - at one point my dad was paying 90% tax... he saw plenty of us and when I worked in Brussels and payed 60% tax I was home at 5 ot 6PM (didn't have kids but my colleagues who did were leaving by 5PM).
The Brits are (according to the Brits) the country where people work the hardest and yet they pay some of the lowest tax.
Actually in the US where they pay even less tax they work even more hours and have far less holiday. So I am afraid that your statement might not reflect the facts.

Pupuce - I'm not an economist. It seems to me - in a kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation - that if fewer people work then those that do (e.g. fathers) would have to work longer hours to make up for this shortage. Or, as you point out, increase taxes, having less disposable income. The latter would indeed make SAHM a necessity for many more, so maybe that's the way forward for the Gov to tackle the "problem"? I'd really like to see the political party to forward this idea!

Are we more productive for working longer hours than we used to? (genuine question btw - I've no idea if we are).

I used to be a lawyer before having ds and there was a huge bums-on-seats culture - if you left the office at 5.35pm, say, it would be noticed and remarked on.

Tigermoth, that's interesting. Do you think it's just a matter of them having to be "institutionalised" so they can follow a school routine?

as i understand it cristina one of the studies started in '91 and the results are starting to come in....results on young teens rather than 3 year olds.

how to talk so kid will listen....fantastic book, thank you so much.

and finally, wouldn't you support a government policy that meant that you could have been paid to stay at home for the first couple of years, that legislated that employers had to give you flexible working thereafter, that allowed your dh/partner proper paternity leave and the same flexible working rights whilst your children were small. that even gave you tax breaks or paid for one of the grandparents to be with them? that protected you from being penalised in the workplace due to being a parent. wouldn't that appeal? isn't that fairer than the current situation where if you want kids you either kiss them or your career goodbye????

our society values parenting not at all and the chickens are coming home to roost in terms of how children are turning out and how many women are now delaying having kids (see observer today for article about crisis due to falling birth rates)....there needs to be a total turn around lead by government in terms of valuing parenting by both parents and sending the message that society supports you in that role.

observer headline is something like '11 billion will be lost because of fall in birthrate.' so much for the good of the economy.

i mean £11 billion!

Sophable - I read the article in today's Observer. I know in Romania women are being given well paid maternity leave for 2 years (the maternity benefit is about 3/4 of average wage). This is due to falling demographics on the one hand and high levels of unemployment on the other (and a long history of state subsidised employment and care). Traditionally there, for the past 20-30 years or more, women had worked and I don't think today's 20, 30 or 40 something are more screwed up than any previous generations because of this. Which is why I find hard to believe these doom and gloom stories. If we were to apply it at society level, would you be able to point out to any particular "traditional" society nowadays where children are raised mostly at home and do particularly well? Even if you could, how would you disentangle the effect of 1-to-1 care from everything else?

The "How to talk..." book is really v good, I re-read it now and again. I find it takes me a while to change my attitude but when I do the results are almost immediate.

And BTW, yes, I like the scenario you describe.

Wasn't this also the case in China when most women worked. Surely the research should be done in countries where this is the norm. Where is S Bidd's research carried out and amongst which type of groups, i.e a mix of classes and a mix of those living in the country and those inner city. Both of my kids were in nursery and I have to say I took my ds out of a very expensive nursery where my ds developed no speech because it was run by young women in the absence of the manager and the kids would either sent outside or into a soft-play area. We then found a lovely small independent nursery where the manager's son is also attending and his speech came on within a week literally. He carried on there until school and my dd is now there and I am very happy. Therefore there are good and bad nurseries which can have different effects on children. I never question my decision now and do work part-time which gives everyone something. Back to earlier posts go with your instincts and do what is best for your own family.

On giving more employment rights, I believe this would benefit those in the public sector more than in the private sector. As I would have to say it would stop people in the private sector employing people of child-bearing age. I speak from experience after two separate bosses in different sized companies gave me that as a reason for not taking on married women and for making redundancies. One of them was a woman. This is why the Government have not taken it further yet. The CBI will be out like a shot. It is a difficult one to answer and a real dilemma. Tax is not the only issue. The main one is National Insurance that pays for pensions and the NHS.