Steve Biddulph discusses the results of a childcare "experiment" from Canada.

[Astrophe]

here, in the Sydney Morning Herald

harpsichordcarrier, you've read the Canadian study? What did you think? Did it seem sound?

His books are really thought-provoking and interesting. He in no ways demonised working families - he understands that it is difficult to strike a balance in this day and age, and suggests in one of his books (can't remember which one) that there are a number of factors to bear in mind, like how old/young your child is when they start nursery, how long they spend in nursery etc. I understand that everyone is entitled to have their opinion on him, but don't understand why some people think he is a 'twit' or whatever just because he cautions against daycare. He has reviewed many many studies, and is only saying what most people think - that being cared for by a primary carer is probably preferable in most cases, but not always achievable for people, and he is making constructive suggestions - he thinks we should be better supported financially to enable us to stay at home with our children. Like Jay Belsky's views that we should have longer paid leave - like they do in some Scandinavian countries. Daycare is generally of a higher standard in Scandinavian countries I believe, where many nursery nurses are university educated and pay is better because of higher leves of government funding. Anyway - I think Steve Biddulph is a very sensible and constructive psychologist, who doesn't criticise parents.

haven't read all posts but i just wanted to say that i like SB and what he has to say - i think he is very considerate of the differing needs we all have.. but then maybe i say this because what he says fits with how things have worked out for us!

i feel sb demonises working mothers. are there any working mothers on here who feel positive about sb?

I'm a working mother who feels more than positive about SB

i mean it's easy for sahms to go for sb's message isn't it because it validates their choices...

yes I read the e brief last night and the working paper this morning
the results are pretty striking
I ave tried to reproduce the table of results below:

Q - Quebec RoC - Rest of Canada

Proportion of children in some type of care Q 51.4 RoC 16.3
Proportion of mothers working outside the home Q 20.9 RoC 8.9
Children?s anxiety score (ages 2 to 4) Q 34.0 RoC 11.8
Children?s aggression score (ages 2 to 4) Q 24.2 RoC 1.4
Hostile parenting score (ages 2 to 4) Q 4.1 RoC -4.0
Consistent parenting score (ages 2 to 4) Q 0.7 RoC 4.6

HS, "morningpaper - the thing is, there is a difference between "I don't believe this is true" and "anyone else who says it is true is a liar, a propagandist, a scare-monger and a bully who is trying to make other people feel bad and only in it for the money, and it isn't fair and I don't want to hear it, therefor no-one else should have the chance to hear it either."

those are things i said about SB. not MP, although i don't believe i ever said its not fair and noone should have the chance to read it.

i said the man was a twit who only quotes bad news on childcare, and so far that really is indisputable. i have already added links to studies that SB conveneintly ignores and i can find more if you like, but i think the point is made.

by all means digest every loving word the man says - it is still impossible to deny his agenda is negative and unrelenting

ok happynappies ok wohms who use nurseries - anyone like sb?

by the way, the results there are compared to the rest of Canada, which is interesting vis a vis NQC's comments about ratios.

I don't think he demonises working mothers especially. He points out in "Raising Babies" that it's wrong to only talk about mothers' working hours and not fathers', and questions why no one in the media ever writes headlines about working fathers. I wonder why this is too. Whenever issues about the suitability of nursery care get reduced to being about working mothers, men get let off the hook yet again.

sprogger: they are not in a group environment. you are consistently there for them. the care is not in an institution. it is therefore called one on one in terms of the fact that one carer engages with the individual child.

got an A at maths o level by the way but my mental arithmetic is rubbish.

I get very very frustrated with this becoming exclusively a pot shot at wohm when it patently isn't and if you have actually read his books you'll realise that his bit schtick is absent fathers.

happynappies - i totally disagree that cautioning against childcare is sensible or responsible advocacy. if that works for you then fine, but to suggest that he is "only saying what most people think - that being cared for by a primary carer is probably preferable in most cases," is only your opinion. and SB's

i say again, there are many many studies which find exactly the opposite. none of which are ever quoted by SB or his devotees. in fact both the ones i have posted on here have been ignored

Thanks for the summary harpsi - the numbers look striking. Presumably significant? I will read it myself later but now am really supposed to be working (must stop procrastinating on Mumsnet )

could you show me the studies wtss, as you have not produced them on this thread yet.

wtss - I was answering morningpaper's post, not sugesting for a minute she said all those things, though they have been said on this thread and she did say it wasn't fair for him to quote these studies. I would absolutely disagree, I think his agenda is extremely positive, in the sense that he campaigns for change based on his own views and experience.
the balance of the research is pretty conclusive imo.

wtss, I followed one of those links, not sure if it was yours, but it didn't specify the ages of children involved. Was it also looking at the under 3s? if it was older children with two working parents it's not directly comparable to the studies SB cites.

god harpsi i'll leave you to it, you manage to stay incredibly calm in the face of total unreasonableness.

hats off to you lady.

Bossy Kate said the one on one thing was bollocks and nonsense. She didn't say Sophable was talking bollocks and nonsense. I have four children. Two are big and at school but two are tinies. My daughter has just turned two and my baby is 6 months old. To be honest I think what he is saying is correct. Three under threes full-time would be a living hell.

I believe that the research is fairly consistent in the finding that care provided by a primary caregiver is preferably to institutional care in most cases before the age of 3 - after which cognitive gains begin to come into the picture, but most children begin pre-school at this age anyway. He doesn't caution against childcare per se, but suggests that perhaps measures could be taken to limit its use, or at least delay childcare until the child is slightly older. Our government fortunatly is supportive of this by increasing paid leave from 6 months to 9 months, and I know there are further plans in the pipeline to increase it further. It is not my personal opinion. I have read the research myself, and that is the conclusion that psychologists come to.

happy agree with everything in your post apart from the assertion that the govt is supportive. the whole thrust of labour's childcare policy is getting parents out to work rather than looking at the big picture of childcare options and empowering parents (especially in a redressing the balance way fathers) that wish to stay at home and either work from home or work part time to do so.

bossykate - most SAHMs are not some sort of sect. Most of us have had careers and will have again.

But bossykate ... being a SAHM is often no more of a 'choice' than being a WOHM.

Had I chosen to continue in my rather dull job, my entire salary would have gone on child-care, and probably then some.

To that end, the decision to be a SAHM was an obvious one, borne of necessity. That said, I'm happy for the choice I made/had made for me.

I do work ... I work when my dh gets home, but that's not important. What is important is that everyone realizes that, in most circumstances, we are all boxed into a corner when we have kids.

It's how we deal with it that matters.

sophable - by supportive I meant they had made improvements, but I agree the whole Working Tax Credit system etc is supportive of working parents and not sah parents. point taken.