Would anyone be interested in calmly discussing this Times articles with me please?

[Sycamoretree]

Article from Times 2 today.

here

Have read with interest as DH is currently SAHD due to redunancy over a year ago, so my youngest, (DS) has only been cared for at home with a parent. He is 20 months old.

My DD is at pre-school and starts reception in Sept. She had a nanny for the first couple of years until DH got made redundant.

DH is trying hard to get back into full time work and nursery was/is something we are considering. We certainly could no longer afford a nanny for one on one childcare.

I'm particularly interested in anyone who can confidently refute this quote from Steve Biddulph:

"quality nursery care for young children doesn't exist. It is a fantasy of the glossy magazines."

On the one hand I am furious that such an article gets printed as so many of us are between a rock and hard place when it comes to just surviving, and nurseries are often the only solution.

On the other hand, if any of this is actually true, then as a society, we need to start having this debate/conversation - surely?

The article is stuffed with generalisations and really not helpful to anyone. At the very least she could say that THE JURY IS OUT on the long term impact of non maternal care rather than effectively damning it with no data to back her up. As far as I can make out and as a working mother I've spent many many hundreds of hours reading and researching this issue for every negative study you can find another positive one. eg this one
Experiences of non-maternal childcare in England in relation to socio-emotional and language development at 36 months
by Jacqueline Barnes, Penelope Leach, Lars-Erik Malmberg , Alan Stein, Kathy Sylva, and the FCCC team
uploaded: 0000-00-00 updated: 0000-00-00

Background: Much evidence from the USA suggests an adverse impact of early non-maternal childcare (NMC) but evidence from the UK is equivocal. Reviews conclude that the quality of early parental behaviour is the principal predictor of subsequent behaviour problems, language and other cognitive development. Methods: 1201 families were studied at 3, 10, 18 and 36 months; use of all types of NMC was investigated at all time points; maternal behaviour was observed at 10, 18 and 36 months and the quality of NMC for those with at least 12 hours per week. Child language was assessed at 36 months and questionnaires examined behaviour problems and social competence. Results: All but 10% had some NMC over the 36 month period. The main predictors of behaviour problems were male gender, higher maternal age, maternal minority ethnic background, less maternal warm stimulating behaviour at 36 month, more harsh maternal behaviour at 10 and 18 months, with no effect of the amount, type or quality of NMC. Greater social competence (expressive and empathic behaviour) was associated with maternal sensitivity at 10, 18 and 36 months, an increase in the use of NMC from 19 to 36 months, and more nanny or nursery care. Taking quality into account more competence was associated with more hours with grandparent, childminder or nanny from 0-36 months. Better language development was associated with female gender, higher SES, mothers with more education, more maternal stimulating and sensitive behaviour and it was lower for children with mothers of ethnic background. Language was not related to any NMC indicators. Conclusions: In this English study there was no evidence of adverse consequences of early NMC, and some limited evidence of benefits.

These journalists owe their readership ACCURATE information and extensive and decent research at the very least.

Those who sacrifice career, income, financial security, whatever to stay at home with your children -you are all happy you have made the choices that you have-why do you find it hard to accept the fact that others are equally happy with their choices?

franca, not being from the UK, I would also agree with you about this obsession with pre-school years. Maybe something to do with attachment theory and Bowlby, which is a bit over-the-top to apply to a nursery situation, though the Biddulph person would probably disagree.

Children need their parents every step of the way, often even more during the school age years. The delight with which dd 5 greets me at the schoolgate and wants me to volunteer at every school outing contrasts with ds 2 who is happily pottles around at nursery, with or without me. Dd is more focused on her homework when I am around and I demand far higher standards than she would get away with.

Why just invest in early years? Parents would do better taking a long haul view, particularly on the financial front, in terms of a sustainable option.

Great post from cestlavie, BTW.

'Those who sacrifice career, income, financial security, whatever to stay at home with your children -you are all happy you have made the choices that you have-why do you find it hard to accept the fact that others are equally happy with their choices?'

I have no prob with others choices to work or not but think it is OK for me to say I think institutionalised care for babies is not very fair on them.

I don't see it as sacrificing everything to SAH, few people have total financial security these days anyway, it can be taken away we all depend on others whether for childcare or income. If I have less of a pension it will be worth it.

I'm only an hr away, but tired already

Blueshoes, as usual, I agree

My experience is similar to the study GivePeas refers to. Of far greater impact is the home environment.

The fact that a child attends a nursery, whether long hours or not, pales in comparison to positive effect of involved parents and a stable loving home life. Hence in my middle-class nursery used by professional parents, I laugh to think that any of these children would be in any way disadvantaged by their fulltime nursery attendance, even marginally.

Some of these children end up in my dd's private school. Hth, I could not tell you which ones attended fulltime nursery, like my dd, or had a SAHM in their early years.

I would never use a poor nursery, as I would never use a poor CM or nanny. I found a good nursery. I love the balance of a day which comprises both work and mothering, with a nice wage to pay those fees.

I am puzzled by all this. I don't agonise. My dcs don't angst about their time at nursery, on the contrary. My ds is not more clingy than my dd - in fact he is far sturdier and took to fulltime nursery from a younger age.

I am happy to take in the results of studies which show deleterious (and beneficial - yes, there are those too) effects of nursery. But not Biddulph.

I work 3 days a week and DS is in nursery for 2 of those. Going back to the OP I feel I can completely refute the comment "quality nursery care for young children doesn't exist. It is a fantasy of the glossy magazines."

Our nursery is fab. Low staff turnover, keyworker scheme, lots of structured and unstructured play, lots of affection, kindness and politness encouraged at all times...I could go on. I think part of their success is that they close for 6 weeks in the year to ensure that staff get proper holiday and training. All there staff are qualified to some level in childcare and they support all their staff to get to the next level. They also have 2 male carers (VERY rare in this area) as the manager of the nursery seeks them out deliberately.

Its actually got the the point where I would feel mean if I took DS out of nursery. I would like to leave my job really as I miss him when I'm at work, but now we'd need to have enough money to keep him at nursery!

In terms of choosing, we visited 5, narrowed it to 2 and then re-visited those. I spent a lot of time with the manager and felt really happy with our choice. Returning to work is much easier if you are 100% happy with your chilcare.

Blueshoes - there are 60 000 children in the uk care system. I agree that some privileged, well loved children in nursery are not going to keep me up at ight.

steve biddulph is, for example, a twunt

Totally, Litchick. I am glad you brought up the plight of children in the care system, many of whom would probably benefit from nursery care in early years. Wondering about whether a well loved child is going to be more aggressive at 5 because they attended 20 or 35 hours nursery from 6 months or age 3 or is a boy or a girl, is a privilege that is nice to have.

I think my dcs will survive.

Eek. I meant 'All their staff'. God I hate it when other people get that wrong I think its because I was going to say 'all the staff there...'

Indeed MoatCleaner

children need love,secure attachment and affirmation.they can get that from working
parents and nursery

we don't have to be a saints just good enough

so lets not beat each other up

lol @ moat

good enough indeed

steve biddulph, for example, isn't good enough to look after my children

moatcleaner, you have a way of cutting to the chase!

I'm expecting a baby soon and I'm bloody terrified. I haven't even had it yet and I already feel guilty as like many others, will have to return to work in order to pay the mortgage.

I agree with others who ask about why so much focus on early years - what about when children are older.

My mum stayed at home with my brother and I until we were both at school. However, we were also brought up by an violent, abusive alcoholic father. My mum repeatedly left him and returned to him.

So any security we were provided with in our early years was ruined by the negative environment we lived in as older children and teenagers.

I think I might point that out to mum next time she expresses disapproval of my plans to return to work.

i had nursery booked 12wk pg.i wanted to go back.no guilt- whatsoever

i do what i can blueshoes

lol, scottishmummy, I put my dd on the wait list at the nursery when i was 5 months' pregnant. By ds' turn, it was at 3 months' pregnant. The nursery manager was one of the first people to know I was expecting.

Hackneybird, the fact that you are on mumsnet is already good insurance that your baby will turn out well, whatever your childcare options or your mother might think. . Good point about poor parenting choices in later life cancelling out so-called early advantages.

franca iirc a lot of this is based on a danish study. they are in europe i think

moatcleaner

hackneybird, i'm not far from you, and had friends from stokey who used a nursery we were at. where do you travel to/and how?(train/tube/bus?)

I work with the under threes in a baby room. Both my children have also been in the babyroom for around a year each. Good quality childcare definately does exist.

I believe we are one of the better babyrooms around. We have a very low staff turnover, most of the staff are experienced mothers. We are a charity, we get paid minumum wage, take no profits and charge very little. Overall, we are all there because we care, not for the money (I wish!). The love and attention our babies receive compares excellently with most babyrooms, we are preferred by the health and social professionals for producing very calm, happy, well-balanced babies and toddlers.

As the cheapest nursery in our area many parents often overlook us and go straight to the most expensive nurseries believing thier child will somehow be better cared for. We often see these babies being ignored for long periods in thier pushchairs while young qualified staff rest with hot drinks, chatting etc. So please don't believe good nurseries cost more, often the opposite is true, they often just have newer, shinier resources.

All that said, in a perfect world I do not think babyrooms should exist.

Most children under three, and esp under 2 would IMHO be better off at home with a perfectly loving and fully attentive parent, because that is more important to them than other children to play with. BUT many parents and families cannot provide that (TBH most of us mothers aren't that perfect, we still have to balance siblings, house work, and many other things), in the worst of those circumstances the babies often develop far healthier and happier with us.

I think my children would have benefitted from staying at home with me rather than starting nursery IF I was the sort of person that could thrive as a SAHM, but I'm not, so on balance I don't think they have missed out on much.

rofl at the notion that Steve Biddulph is a world reknowned psychologist. What, really?

Can anyone find his credentials and background online or in academic papers?

Or is it just me that thinks him an annoying Christian fundamentalist who believes women need to be barefoot and pregnant for fear of emasculating men?