"Nurseries 'pose risk to children'" - please, this isn't to be a ranty thread - I just wonder what the answer is

[hunkermunker]

Have you read this article?

There's something wrong with a society that doesn't make it easier for parents (I don't mean both, I mean one or t'other - both would be fab, but even I'm not that impractical!) to be at home with their children for at least the first year of their lives, isn't there?

And yes, I know the Government are bringing in 9m paid mat leave, but in reality, lots of firms will just pay the six weeks 90% of full pay and then £104 a week or whatever it is - and that's not nearly enough for lots of families.

Yes, I also know that people can move house/change jobs/downsize - and some people do all this and it works for them.

But equally, there are people for whom this is utterly impractical.

What's the answer?

it is important to note that when you read further down the article it says something like a lot of time in inadequate nurseries

so it's not quite the 'nurseries are all evil' story that the headline suggests

dd goes two sessions a week to a nursery but I looked round a few, tried to choose the least 'inadequate' I could find

i haven't read the whole thread... but if you read the articles you will see they talk about "INADEQUATE" nurseries/care... not all nurseries.
Both my dd's have been to nursery a couple of days a week since 10months and have absolutely thrived, totally love it and it has been the best thing for both them and me. These articles used to upset me, now i am confident it has been the best decision for us and they don't bother me so much.

Of course poor childcare is poor. That's a truism. Poor childminders are poor. Poor nannies are poor. Parents who aren't delivering particularly good childcare aren't delivering particularly good childcare.

The solution to that particular bit of the problem is to improve the bits of provision that aren't very good, and bring them up to the standard of some of the excellent childcare that is available.

I do realise that isn't the whole of the problem. But then I would have absolutely hated to spend the first year of DD1's life out of the workplace. I was very, very, very bad at the whole early baby thing, and very miserable, and very isolated, and going out of my head.

Part of the problem seems to be the "secure attachment to one person" thing - I can see how children could be very affected by going to a not-very-good nursery or possibly a better one that has lots of staff changes.

This isn't a nursery-bashing thread, nor a WOHM-bashing thread though. I don't use nurseries, because I am extremely fortunate to have interested and loving GPs living nearby who look after the boys (and yes, I DO know how lucky I am - everybody I meet tells me how lucky I am, so even if I hadn't been, I would be now!). But I do WOH and I love it.

But I do feel very strongly that the Government's focus on "getting women back into the workforce" is a bit skewed. Bringing up children should be valued more highly in society. I have already had comments about being a "baby machine" from colleagues - in jest, but...you know...

I agree about the attachment. I've been fortunate enough to use the same childminder for both my daughters since they were babies, and it must have contributed to their sense of security in the world, I reckon.

I think that as women we have lost a lot through the women's lib movement in the 60s. At that time women wanted it all, a good marriage, a career and children. However, we now have the job, the kids and still have to do all the housework, unless you are lucky enough to have hired help. Two people working in each family has also pushed up house prices to the ridiculous level that they are now at and women have found that they now have to work in order to make ends meet. It is inevitable that women need to work and then of course, they need nurseries for their children.

My parents were happy to make do so that my mum could stay at home and look after the children.
I think it is only recently that I have realised how much families have lost and it is a shame really. I worked part time all of the time that my children were little, however, my mum did look after them until they were 3, so I suppose that wasn't too bad. I know that people often don't have a choice, but it is a shame for children to be in nursery 5 days a week.

That's interesting figroll. My take on it is that the rights and responsibilities of fathers haven't shifted in the same way that those of mothers have. There's no one balance that is right for every couple, but more should be done to support the entire spectrum of options, from SAHM and WOHD to SAHD and WOHM (plus obviously covering the options for single parents too).

Just to add a different point of view, my mum (in the early 70's) felt completely trapped by being at home with 2 year old twins and was very, very happy to be able to return to her previous job part-time. She still had to do all the housework and cooking when she got home so that bit of women's lib didn't really work out for her.

Day nurseries are just partime orphanages

Babies and children should be in the care of someone that loves them, not a room of babies all vying for the attention of a few careworkers that aren't even allowed to cuddle them

We are raising a future population of institutionalised adults

Bigbird2003, you sound like you have had a bad experience - my DDs nursery is not like that - and life is not always that simple - attitudes like yours are particulary unhelpful to working mothers like me. Did you read the actual article?

I would love to not work - but I dont have GPs near by, I cant afford a nanny and I dont want to live off the state. The nursery realise this and make it perferctly clear that they understand and repect that I am entrusting DD to their care

The title of this thread indicates it should be non-ranting. In other threads it might be appropriate to offer a very emotive opinion, but so far we have managed to keep this on an even keel, and I think that is a very positive thing. Bigbird, your contributions are welcome but can we keep away from bold sweeping statements about what's 'right' and 'wrong'?

I think that the government should offer parents a loan up to the value of say 75% of the mum's salary which the family could receive for months 6-12 of mat leave instead of her normal salary. This could then be repaid at 0% interest over say 5 years and deducted from salary before tax etc. A family would only be able to have one such loan at a time and it would have to be paid back regardless of whether or not the mother returned to work.

I think that this would make it financially more viable for many mums to have longer off work, reducing the need for very little ones to have nursery places and, hopefully, increasing the rates of breastfeeding beyond 6 months with all of the benefits that would bring.

I have emailed Tony Blair and David Cameron with my suggestion so if it becomes policy you heard it hear first !

I totally agree that the government should not force families into a position where they feel they have no choice but to put their child into inadequate childcare OR cut their finances to a point where they can barely survive. I am facing that choice right now and it's heart-breaking.

BUT on a tangent, it's worth noting that it's only relatively recently that it's become the norm/the ideal for a parent to stay at home with children. In the 19th century and early 20th century most upperclass women left their children with nannies or sent them to boarding school, and most working class women farmed their children out or left them with relatives. During the 40s a large majority of women did war work and children were evacuated or sent to creches. It was only after the war, in the 50s, that women were positively encouraged to stay at home, partly in order to create jobs for the men.

Sorry, I know that this is a slight digression from the OP, but I guess I am trying to comfort myself with the fact that while the current situation is not the ideal, it's also not a new thing for women to have to leave their children in order to earn a living. Previous generations survived and grew up healthy and happy, hopefully our kids will too.

In the meantime yes, 12 months maternity leave please, and jobs open for 2 years for every childbirth. Surely with the current dire pensions situation it would repay the government to have more taxpayers supporting the older generation?

missg - I think that is a point worth making. Everyone assumes that a parent at home with the children is the way it always was in some mythic golden past. My parents were both brought up largely by nannies and or boarding schools. DH's parents both worked and were looked after by a network of grandparents and aunties. Whether nurseries or CMs or grandparents carry out the childcare, it isn't/has never been the norm for parents to always do it exclusively.

at bigbird's comments. What generalised nonsense.

Maternity leave in Romania is 2 years. There's a problem with unemployment (high) and natality (low) so paying women to stay at home and have babies makes economic sense. I bring this into discussion to point out that even what appear to be enlightened attitudes may still be driven by economic forces.

I had DS (now 7) in nursery. DD (19 months) has just started too. Happy with my decisions, they are the loveliest kids around.

joelallie and MissG I agree, there isn't some golden age we can get back to in terms of parents being with their kids all the time.

But I think what is new in the last 20 years or so is an acceptance of sending babies to nursery full time. Older toddlers can I'm sure get alot out of going to nursery but I don't personally think it's ok for a four month old baby to be in nursery care from 8am to 6pm five days a week. A good friend of mine is a nursery manager and this does happen. Some of the babies aren't even taken out for their parent's holiday weeks, they are in Nursery almost 52 weeks a year.

I am aware this is not how everyone uses nursery; but I think it's important to me to be able to say "That's not anywhere near ideal for this baby!" It doesn't mean I am criticising all parents who use nurseries!

Yes, as with so many things, it's about compromise. Full-time nursery care for tiny babies is probably an extreme and TBH I don't know many (or even any) parents who do this. My eldest 2 went to a cm full-time but that was a different environment. Not sure how I would have felt if the only option was a day nursery at that stage.

I think the example of the baby left at nursery when parents on holiday is an extreme one and, frankly, I doubt it's true.

I also don't think all that many parents use FT, 8-6 nursery for their babies since 3-4 months old. The ppl I know have all had all sorts of combinations of FT, PT nursery, CM, nanny, grandparents etc. Yes, at some stage you will see a child in nursery FT but if you look closely to the attendance pattern you'll see it's part of a whole mixture of arrangements.

cristina, my friend has worked in nurseries for many years - believe her, it happens!

"there isn't some golden age we can get back to in terms of parents being with their kids all the time...."
well, that's not strictly true, it wasn't so long ago in human history in this country when most children were with, if not their parents, then with members of their extended family i.e. adults with whom they enjoyed a long term *loving^ relationship, all of the time. when life was a bit more communal. there are of course billions f people living in that kind of set up across the globe.

While it certainly hasn?t always been the norm for parents to stay at home with their children, it is only fairly recently that people have been able to send their children to nurseries instead of to childminders/nannies/grandparents. And while I totally appreciate that some people have to work, I often do wonder just how financially benefitial it is to go back to work when you have to consider the cost of full-time childcare. Dependent on where you live of course, childcare in a nursery can cost approx £600 a month, (well that?s how much it costs around here anyway), so unless you are earning a very good salary, it would be fair to say that for most people, their childcare costs are often over half their monthly salary. My sister is due to go back to work in January following the birth of her second child, so she will have two in nursery which will cost her about £1200 a month. She will have £500 left at the end of the month. Surely it would be just as easy for her to get an evenings/weekend job that will pay that £500, and her dh/my parents/her ILs could look after the kids, thus not only saving her the childcare costs, but also saving her the cost in petrol to drive out to the nursery which is 9 miles from here because the ones closer just aren?t adequate.

Also while bigbird?s comments are a tad overboard, I do think that nurseries certainly do not provide the standard of childcare that parents should be able to demand. As harsh as this sounds, nurseries are generally a business. People open them to make money. The staff are generally very young and inexperienced, starting out or training for their childcare nvq?s and they are generally paid the minimum wage while the parents are paying £30/40 a day for their children to be cared for. And as a result, the staff turnover in nurseries is usually extremely high. And when the nursery isn?t making money, the owners can always shut it down leaving the parents with potentially no childcare, as was illustrated recently when leapfrog closed 35 day nurseries giving parents just 6 weeks notice to find alternative childcare, and only giving their staff 12 hours notice before the letters landed on the parents? doorsteps. They?re not in it for the children, they?re in it for the money, and it?s the parents who are left with no alternatives.

I think that the governement should do more to ensure the quality of nurseries and that, I'm afraid, involves some financial backing.
In northern italy, where I come from, many nurseries are managed by the council. standards are very high and it means that private ones need to adjust. All my friends in Italy sent their children to nurseries (though not at 4 months, as maternity leave is longer, can't remember how much but def longer) and have been very happy with their choice. secure attachment is also actively promoted as staff turnover is quite rare.
I think nurseries could be a great form of childcare, and I think that the bad press that childcare in general is receiving doesn't help those women who have chosen, or who need to work full time.
By the way, I'm a sahm, however dc attend a nursery part time, they started when they were 15 months, for many many reasons...

HCC - that's been covered, someone said they were left with relatives.

SSU - so what do those parents do? They work hard all year and then take a holiday and stay at home while their kid is at nursery? They don't even go abroad or somewhere? As I imagine if they did, they'd take the kid with them. Hmm, i still don't buy it.

no they weren't (aren't) left with relatives
you are looking at it from a completely skewed viewpoint.
it's about children being part of the community, and the responsibility of the community rather than tidied away.