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

[Astrophe]

here, in the Sydney Morning Herald

I think studies are great for showing trends and broad generalisations, but I don't think I'd base my life choices on them. I believe DS is happy at nursery because he runs down the path to nursery full pelt, and throws himself through the door there shouting 'Hurrah! Hurrah!'. And I believe he's happy with me because when I pick him up he runs to me shouting 'Mama!' wreathed in smiles and throws his arms around my neck before telling me all about his day (in his own way, he's 20 months). Studies might prove me wrong, SB might tell me that DS is actually miserable, stressed & aggressive, but... baa phooey to them. How's that for reasoned debate

i have not on this thread or ever on mumsnet stated that sahms are "a sort of sect".

i'm going to be one myself from the end of next week. for a while.

sounds pretty reasonable becster.

do you agree that in determining government policy though, generalisations based on research are important?

this isn't about beating up parents...this is about empowering them to do best by their children!

desi - working isn't always a choice either. which is why i'm generally with wtss on this thread and agree with what marina said right back at the beginning "his view of paid-for daycare, a necessity for a lot of families, is simplistically hostile". one-on-one childcare for under threes is something he harps on about a lot and it seems to me it something which is not necessarily achieved in homes where mothers don't woh.

.sophable, i linked to 2 reports - a harvard study and another. do have a look at them.

HC how can you believe someone is reasoned and balanced who only quotes studies that support his own opinions?

drama, you are right, the studies i posted do not discuss the age of the child. I'm afraid i rather assumed that the women on the Fortune 500 list that the 2nd study was working from, did not all give up 5-8 years of their professional lives to take care of all children under 3 and then go right back to the top of their professions, but i suppose it is possible that none of them used institutionalised child care (or whatever bogey name is the most popular on this thread) for their under 3s

wtss - the two studies you quoted:

the first one is of 300 families, so can't really be compaed with the Canadian one (30,000)

the second was not a study but an analysis of the other research.

bk - to answer your question - I have always worked, but when I have needed childcare, I have used a nursery. dd1 was in a nursery for about two months. I have recently visited and considered a nursery for dd2 for next year, but decided against it for a number of reasons.

Bossykate - I was responding to this: -
"i mean it's easy for sahms to go for sb's message isn't it because it validates their choices..." It treats SAHMs like they are of one voice.

WTSS, I agree it's likely that if the subjects of the study you linked to were on the Fortune 500 list they might well have had nannies.

by the way wtss, the "Harvard" reseach you quote ins't anything to do with Harvard, the results were just archived there. it was funded by the "National Institute of Mental Health" as far as I can see.

I can't find that second study anywhere I can access it at the moment, but the sample is not a sample of children in nurseries is it? there is no indiciation of the childcare choices

its the middle class educated mums on here that raise my educated hackles by persisting in telling me how ' depressed and bored' i am

Does anyone know of any UK-based studies of childcare, apart from the FCCC one?

Jay Belsky is involved in the 16.9 million pound evaluation of SureStart programmes in the UK - a longitudinal study. Hope I've provided the link in the right way...

this recent article has references for some other studies

I agree that social policy should be research-led, OF COURSE.

But I'm not sure what we are campaigning for exactly.

The Swedish situation of 12 months paid at home followed by full-time at nursery sounds AFWUL - surely that would be a massive shock at the development stage of 12 months?

In actual fact, I decided to put my 2nd into nursery at 6 months because my first found it very hard settling in at 9 months and the nursery advised that up to 9 months was better than between 9-18 months, which was the hardest age to settle. (At 6 months there were no transition problems at all, I found it quite odd. Of course that might be entirely to do with the child - who knows?)

Although the Swedish example would put children in nursery at exactly this point!

Thanks happy and harspi. Bookmarked to read later.

its the middle class educated mums on here that raise my educated hackles by persisting in telling me how ' depressed and bored' i am

No one is telling you are depressed and bored. People are largely talking about themselves. But if everyone enjoyed being a SAHP then we wouldn't have to have this debate, we would all be arguing about which one of us gets to stay at home instead...

I think the reason nurseries might suggest before nine months is best in terms of "settling" is because after that is when specific attachments to primary caregivers are formed, and separation anxiety peaks.

I don't mind being looked down on for being middle class, I'm a bit ashamed of it myself... But what's wrong with being educated? And what are educated hackles? But I don't believe SAHM's are particularly depressed and bored. I believe I'd be depressed and bored if I was a SAHM, but that's different. I don't actually know many SAHMs in RL actually - none of my family have ever been FT SAHM (even my grandmas were full time WOHMs), and of course I mix with colleagues etc. But the few I meet don't seem particularly unhappy. But I would be.

Perhaps those SAHM who are depressed are depressed because they are anxious about the making ends meet on such a tight budget? That seems to be the reason most wohm's give for needing to work.

Another article for the mix

I am not sure about some of it to be honest. I don't like anything that is jumped and used by one political party to get one over on another but there are a couple of interesting points.

Michael Murpurgo isn't doing himself any favours by voicing his opinion without apparently backing it up with any study either - he may have a valid point but I want to know how he knows.

The research by Prof. Lamb I think was referred to earlier.

I would like to see the Children's Society final report.

Disclaimer: This are not necessarily my views!

"Working mothers 'damage their child's health'"

this headline, based on one non-expert opinion!

why oh why do wohms get so darn touchy?

Now that Michael Morpurgo is genuinely having a go a working mothers. Whereas I don't think Steve Biddulph is, at all.

If you're happy with your decision re working and happy with your childcare and your children seem happy, there's no issue and all the experts in the world can blether on for yonks about it and it still won't matter.

But I would imagine there's an element (however teeny) of with the decisions most mothers make re work.

I've done it all ways, SAHM, WAHM (briefly!), WOHM (part and full time) - and I was happiest WOH part time. I'm working a bit too much atm

I think it is a shame that MM is the focus of that report as there are some valid research from real researchers in there. I agree the headline is inflammatory.

We are actually talking about a fairly small number of children who are under the age of 3 and attend nursery - only 16% of the total. It would be interested to know how many of them are actually full-time.