Child guru says nurseries harm small children

[flashingnose]

oh dear

true, it's a capitalist society, but i wonder - if government invested in quality childcare or in making it feasible for one parent to stay home, would these children become more productive (e.g., tax paying) adults in the future?

this is nothing new.steve biddulph has been saying this for years. especially that boys under 3 shouldn't be cared for in a nursery environment, because it makes them aggressive.
this is a non story.

Although I haven't read the article yet it seems that it has annoyed a lot parents. I personally feel that 6 months is too young to opt for childcare but some of us don't have a choice and it would be very difficult to pin point what is the right age as every child is different.

I am a stay at home mum and have beeing since I had ds who is nearly 5 and my dd is now 5 months, I plan to start work part time next year but I don't know who will take care of dd.

As for Biddulph, I have found his books to be tremendously helpful especially with regards to ds and as a parent I feel that the effort to raise awareness as regards to childcare in this country is not a negative thing.

As a self-styled expert on raising pre-school children it is Biddulph's role to tell it as he sees it. We can disparage what he's said because we've concluded that he isn't an expert, his evidence is neither comprehensive nor carefully gathered or that his observations are hopelessly unsophisticated, but I don't think we can argue that he shouldn't say it because it will make us feel guilty.

There are so many variables in childcare - the child, the parents, the setting, the alternatives - that it's actually hard to draw conclusions without a large and extremely carefully constructed study. The 'my child was in a nursery, s/he turned out OK, therefore all nurseries must be OK for all children' is anecdotally interesting but does not get us very far. We know that both poor parenting and poor nurseries will irreperably damage children (cf nurseries in China). What we don't know is the more subtle relative effects of each of them - is a good nursery worse than a good parent and, if it is, by how much. If the differences are present but small, then it's probably not worth sacrificing financial stability for one parent to stay at home; if they are large, then I guess we'd need to think again.

BTW, I count myself as one of Biddulph's 'extremely lucky' parents who has found (and more to the point can afford) great nannies to provide childcare.

Even if it has been said before, I don't see how it can be a "non story". Government policy clearly indicates that we are expected to be out at work and putting our children into nurseries (unless we're well off enough to have a choice). It would be a non story if people had a choice as the norm, but they don't.

i do feel it would be safer if noone had children. then we wouldn't run the risk of damaging them in awful ways like using childcare.

seriously. i wouldn't have had children if it had meant a few years at least of full time being at home. am sure it would have meant years of low grade depression and frustration for me. so would it be better for my children not to exist, or to be born and go to part time nursery so DP and I can do jobs we really enjoy?

have never been a fan of biddulph anyway.

Sorry, rereading my last point it sounds as if I'm being smug. I'm not. I'm just making the point that I'm neither an SAHM nor a 'slammer'!

i just think the point is that state nurseries should be better and parents that want to stay at home should be given some support to do so by the government. i mean in France they are going to get 12 000 euros per every child they have, and look at us, we have to make a decision to lose a salary and that's it, if we want to stay at home.

i just think the point is that state nurseries should be better and parents that want to stay at home should be given some support to do so by the government. i mean in France they are going to get 12 000 euros per every child they have, and look at us, we have to make a decision to lose a salary and that's it, if we want to stay at home.

The Gov is increasing childcare to help children out of poverty. Working parents tend to be financialy better off than those on benifits. HAs anyone done a study to establish the damage inflicted on children cos their parents have opted for financial insecurity rather than a nursery?

I think this expert can write what he like and believes but if it you find it offensive and ill thought out then feel free to critise it. I take offense when he uses emotive terms like 'slammer' and rightly so. It makes me doubt his objectivity. Probably sent his own child to nursery back in the day when he thought it was OK and now wants to blame his bad behaviour on something else .

depends what you mean by financial insecurity. if it means not getting all the gadgets and not having the nicest car then i don't think thst's a bad thing. if it means having the bailiffs at the door then maybe. But bear in mind the poorest families are probably not going to suddenly get loads of money if they go back to work - it does also depend on what kind of career/job you have. I think its a bit idealistic to think the govt are doing this to benefit families.

Can I stop grinning yet? My jaw aches.....

Given that Divorce has major a impact on children do you think he will recommend that people stay in loveless marriages just to benifit the kids or would he see the bigger picture?

I mean the bailifs on the door and I know a family that this has happened to.

A friend of mine stayed at home with her kids. They were in rented accomadation through the local housing association. Her dh worked, but not very well paid. They had one child, another on the way.
So in many eyes, my friends are "good parents" for being there for their kids, for not sending them to nursery. For having the baliffs turn up at the house to take away this that and the other. For the oldest child to be uprooted from her home when they got kicked out of the house while my friend was pregnant. For living in emergency shelter, where the police arrived constantly when ex partners turned up trying to see their kids, despite court bans. The three of them sleeping in the same room as that was all they could stay in.
Okay, so it's an exteme case, but can Biddulph really believe that the eldest child was better off in this situation rather than nursery because she was home with her mum?
They now live in another house, they're starting to get back on their feet financially, both kids are at school and my friend has now started to work.
In some cases it is not possible to stay at home.
For myself, it works out financially better for me to go back to work. Not so that me and DH can go on fancy holiadys, or drive around in flash cars, but so that we can pay our bills and provide things for our daughter. Such as a roof over her head, her own bed to sleep in, security.
It pains me that she is going to go to nursery, but I dont need other people trying to make me feel guiltier.

But there is a middle ground between child-damaging levels of poverty and distress, and 50-60 hour weeks in a nursery! The mum could have got a part time job, £90 per week can make a hell of a difference.

People talk about a turn around but Biddulph has always said that boys should not be in childcare.
He does say that he is being controversial or something like that to generate debate.

something else to make working mums feel bad!

Yes, she could have done, but she did believe at the time that staying at home with her kids was the best thing, and that falling behind on the rent payments for one month wouldn't be too bad... then it became two months... then three.
I did say it was an extreme case, I wasn't saying that's how all SAHM's end up, that was just her experience.

It hasn't been said to make working mothers feel bad!

If someone has an opinion on what is best for children, are they not entitled to voice it without being accused of doing it to make the parents feel bad?

Surely we all want to do what is best for our children, not just to have our choices only justified and never challanged?

the latest research into brain development would suggest that there is no question that one on one consistent care is far preferable under the age of 36 months. allan schore is one of the guys at the vanguard of this stuff.

full time insitutionalised care under this age (the earlier the worse) is likely to result in emotional difficulties, which may not be fully apparent until adulthood. however even here there is a caveat which is that if the baby is lucky enough that a warm empathic worker at the nursery takes a special interest and spends a lot more time with it, then even in that setting they are getting one on one care (i'm trying to say, not very clearly that even in the biggest institutions one on one care is possible, just not probable).

there are other things that damage the emotional development of babies though: serious depression in the primary caregiver, with no surrogate available is one of them (so for a woman to stay at home and get v depressed by that experience is not a solution either).

basically, I agree that government policy is totally misguided, that it should focus far more on legislating for flexible working, and giving financial incentives for one parent to stay at home. childminders should be trained and invested in, as a good childminder is much preferable as a form of childcare to nurseries (for this age group).

i also believe that the nuclear family is to blame: we were never ever meant to take this on alone, as we are expected to currently....it's impossble to raise children with no support in isolation and remain sane!

we need to find ways of replacing the extended family scenario....i'm not sure how tho.

totally agree sophable. Sorry, elf, wasn;t suggesting people only work to get flash cars, etc, just trying to differentiate between different ideas of financial 'insecurity.' Ofcourse there are extreme cases. But in my case we have made a lot of sacrifices so that i can stay at home with ds, and that is what is right for us, though it can be very hard. Neither 'side' can win in this situation, it is no good judging either side, and there are always experts who are going to give their opinion, i don't think to make anyone feel guilty. i do however feel the govt has got a very easy way out of this, because mothers seem to direct their frustrations at each other or themselves [not talking about anyone here] rather than at the place which really needs tackling - the govt.