"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?

Oh, I really, really wish I could have chosen not to work. As it is, for most of ds's life, I've been rushing off to teach in the morning (dh being with ds), rushing home and looking after ds for the middle part of the day, rushing off again to teach in the afternoon/evening, doing stuff from home at weekends, and living for the semester break when I don't have to do that (just piles and piles of marking and preparation to do into the evenings). I spend as much time with ds as I possibly can and am really proud of the fact that he really gets as much time with me as with dh (who is a SAHD and student). I'm absolutely knackered and can't wait for this all to end in a few months' time when I will be finally able to go PT. And yet I am eternally, eternally grateful for the flexibility of my job and that I did not have to put ds in nursery at 5 months. I really think the Germans have got it right with the new benefit I mentioned further down the thread. (If one or the other partner decides to reduce their working hours instead of stopping completely, the government makes up 67% of the shortfall for a year - also a great idea).

"There also seems to be too much of an abnegation of parental responsibility now too.

We have the children; we have a duty to care for them."

Yep. Which we all do.

Can't generalize, but my friends who work full time have a great sense of duty and responsibility towards their children...

Message withdrawn

no I know lots of people who have put their 4 month old babies into ft nursery. and there are lots of othrs on here who know people who have done the same. and IMO this is not a sahm ve working parent debate, this is a debate about whether the childcare in nurseries is healthy for very small children. And in numerous studies it has been proven not to be. But should we not mention it because it might upset the working mothers? no of course it should be mentioned, doubly so in fact because people who go to work are effectively relying on someone else to help bring up their children, and if that choice of care is harmful to your child then something ought to be done about it on a national scale. There will always be parents who choose to go back to work, and in that case every effort needs to be made to ensure that the children of those parents are brought up in a safe, stimulating environment where they will be happy and healthy and from where they can grow up into confident children.

Cristina, why has this turned into WOHMvSAHM?? to whom are you referring?
I am not criticising anyone's individual decisions, of course not. we are talking about general principles, and about how children might be affected. it's not some petty squabble about who has made the "better" choice. everyone's circumstances are different and everyone makes the best possible choices for them.
the kind of day care I was referring to is one where there is no proper continuity of caregiver allowing attachments to form. that is what is being identified as potentially harmful.

gosh folks, didn't want to make things controversial; I said in an earlier post that I am talking about tiny BABIES who are in nursery 8am - 6pm Mon-Fri; NOT about people who use nursery care for older babies or on a less 'wraparound' footing.

I simply don't believe a parent is fulfilling their duty and responsibility to a TINY BABY by putting them for this long in nursery care.

Children can still have secure attachments to their parents even if they go to nursery. Being with another adult some of the time does not disrupt a secure attachment to your parent who still looks after you when the rest of the time.

Sure, some nurseries are rubbish but ask other parents in the area and they will tell you which ones are good. I could not find a decent childminder because all the good ones are full. There are very few childminders where i live as it is a very isolated rural area. Those 1 or 2 childminders with spaces had higher ratios of children to adults than the nursery. my son goes for 2 days to nursery. It is far better for him than the two childminders and one nanny that i tried who treated my son like an inconvenience when he wouldn't sleep when they wanted. He is so much happier now, i wish i had tried nursery at first rather than follow the prejudiced views of people like bigbird.

BTW some parents can be rubbish parents too and for some children the only 'good' experiences they get away from chaotic, abusive, domestic violence situations at home, is to go to nursery. Some children thrive at nursery and there is enough guilt, hostility, anger and blame thrown at working parents without us turning on each other. i can hear some very sanctimonious parents here who have CHOSEN to stay at home - bully for you. i have to work in order to feed, house and clothe my son. I could give up work and be with him all the time but I would be dependent on you, the taxpayer to look after us both. my mental health would definitely suffer and what would that do to my son's attachment? We know that maternal depression is a high risk factor for childhood attachment problems and mental health problems. I would rather work and use a nursery for 2 days a week (dp has him 2 days as well) than go sad, mad and bad at home. I feel its all about balance

good grief no-one is talking about whether it is acceptable to go back to work or not... where?!?

yes we have responsibilities to our children. pitchenette no-one has said parents should stay at home with their children, but as a parent you have the responsibility to your children to ensure that they are happy and healthy, and part of that responsibility, if you choose to go back to work, is to ensure that those children are placed in an environment that is good for them. numerous studies recently have shown that it is not always benefitial for children under 3 to go into a full-time nursery environment, surely, as a parent who has made the choice to go back to work, you would want to know that so that you could look for different childcare options?

"Cristina, why has this turned into WOHMvSAHM?? to whom are you referring?"

I was referring to Sunnysideup's comments about parental responsibility. BigBird's were too pathetic in their nastiness to merit a comment.

"the kind of day care I was referring to is one where there is no proper continuity of caregiver allowing attachments to form. that is what is being identified as potentially harmful."

Potentially harmful. I can believe that. How was continuity of caregiver defined? Change every month? Every 3? When they move from baby to toddler room?

Re. people taking days off and leaving their children in childcare. Please be careful before you judge. Are you sure that these people are not just working from home on that particular day? I often get people saying 'Ooh, have you got the day off' to me on Fridays, when I sometimes manage to work from home (it's obvious I'm not going into work from the fact that I'm in the playground in the morning in my jeans and no make-up ). And, yes, I do feel desperately 'judged' if my cm then picks my dd2 up from school at lunchtime (she's part-time) and dd1 at 3.00. But the truth is that I am working from home. It's really not that I just can't be arsed to look after them myself. Oh, and yes, I do occasionally arrange dentists' appointments and haircuts for that day. My dh works unpredictable shifts and is often not around at evenings and weekends, and personally I prefer to go to the dentist and stuff without two small children in tow.

Personally I believe that working makes me a better mother (a better mother than I'd be if I were at home all the time, I mean, not better than anyone else - I wouldn't presume to judge anyone else's choices, only what's right for me) and sets a good example to my children. I really don't want my dds to grow up thinking that a woman's place is in the home.

But that seems to be an unpopular view on this thread. Oh well...

it's one and the same. if you work, you have to use childcare of some sort. If you don't have any parents nearby, decent childminders or nannies then its nursery or not working. I get upset about it because as parents we should all know how hard it is to leave your child with ANYONE and do something other than look after our children. i think its easy to forget this...

Oh, and going back to the original question... I'd have loved to have been able to take a bit longer maternity leave with my dds (was only able to take 18 weeks each time, but bodged it (!) so that they weren't at nursery till they were 6-7 months old. What would have made it possible? In my case, getting a different dh... but that's another story!

Longer paid maternity leave would have helped though! Or the ability to spread the money over a longer time but in smaller amounts (which I think is possible now, but wasn't when I had my 2).

there is always a terribly marie antoinette-ish feel to these threads - "let them use cms or nannies"... i live in one of those areas where the decent cms are all booked up, and when ds was born we would have had to pay a nanny more than dh was earning - just didn't make sense. plus having seen numerous nannies in action during my mat leave and when working p/t - i'm actually very happy we chose an excellent nursery instead...

ps - i'm sure there are wonderful nannies out there - but ime generalisations about which type of childcare is best aren't particularly relevant to individual situations.

loulou and ellbell, you have read my mind, sorry, with my english, can never seem to get to the point.

Message withdrawn

Good point there, Pitchounette. I'd be interested to hear about the mixture of childcare provision too. It would be of academical interest for me only, as i know my DS has done well by being looked after by me, DH, two GPs, nanny and nursery. He's 7 tomorrow and doesn't like me kissing him in front of the school. Help! Is he rejecting me?

Just thought I'd put the text of the article on the thread again, and reiterate that I'm NOT interested in slating WOHM (I'm posting from work fgs!).

Nurseries 'pose risk to children'

Some nurseries fall short in the day-care provisions, it is claimed
Sending very young children to inadequate day nurseries could lead them to develop behavioural problems, a group of childcare experts has warned.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph they call for an "urgent national debate" to ensure children with working mothers receive the most appropriate care.

They accept many nurseries strive to provide "continuity in personalised care-giving" but say many fall short.

The government said early years provision could benefit children.

An education department spokesman said parents "should have a choice about how they balance work and family life".

"If they choose childcare, they should be able to do so with confidence."

'Consistent care'

Signatories to the letter included academics, authors and former teachers.

It stated: "Consistent, continuous care by a trusted figure is the key to providing a secure and nurturing environment for very young children.

"Research suggests that its absence can lead to behavioural difficulties in children as they grow older."

Author Sue Palmer, who signed the letter, told the BBC that during the first six to nine months of their lives children needed to develop a "secure attachment".

This attachment should be to "one person in their life who they know they can trust, who will be there for them all the time and isn't going to go away".

"If the child is securely attached then quite often they make lots of other attachments to other people and can be quite happy going off to nursery," she said.

Research carried out by Sir Richard Bowlby - another of the letter's signatories - suggested about 40% of toddlers in the UK and US did not develop this secure attachment.

Ms Palmer added: "One of the problems with institutionalised care is very often there's a lot of different people, so the child doesn't know that there's one there that's especially for it."

Family proposals

Sir Richard told the Telegraph the government should not encourage mothers back to work by funding day-care schemes until a proper discussion has been held.

"The government should make it easier for parents to use their child-care allowances to pay a grandmother or other relative to look after their children," he said.

A spokesman for the education department said care provided by family members was valuable but it would be "inappropriate for government to interfere in these private arrangements".

"To fund this sort of care would mean assessing its quality and nobody would want to see grandparents being inspected by Ofsted."

Other signatories to the letter included actor Tom Conti, Professor Allan Schore from the University of California and Steve Biddulph, author of Raising Babies.

the point about grandparents is different though, because your ds will continue to have a relationship with his grandparents long after they have stopped caring for him 1/2/3 days a week, whereas nursery carers come and go, sometimes at an alarming rate.

Of course some people don't have a choice, but I really don't think that these things shouldn't be highlighted because people have no choice. What will happen in 20 years time if these points are proven to be valid, should we not talk about it because it might upset the working parents who had no choice but to go back to work? no, IMO something should be done now, parents should be given more opportunities and more childcare options if they choose/have to go back to work, but all options need to be explored, and if nurseries are seen to be potentially harmful to children, then parents need to be made aware of that.

I don't disagree with what the article says. It's just a bit too woolly.

As for: "One of the problems with institutionalised care is very often there's a lot of different people, so the child doesn't know that there's one there that's especially for it."

All the nurseries I've visisted or heard of over the past 7 years have employed the key worker system. I'm sure this is not just a London thing.

Has Sir Bowlby conduced recent research into attachment or is the one mentioned that of decades ago?

wannabe, are you being wilfully obtuse? this report says that inadequate nurseries could potentially be harmful, not all nurseries.

but how do you know that a nursery is inadequate. And if the only nurseries in your area are those that have high staff turnover and therefore a lack of continuity of care, then there are parents who will have no choice but to put their child into an inadequate nursery.

OK guys, I need to leave work and go home to my children (looked after by DH two days a week). Catch up with you later.