Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Nurseries

Find nursery advice from other Mumsnetters on our Nursery forum. For more guidance on early years development, sign up for Mumsnet Ages & Stages emails.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

540 replies

Sycamoretree · 19/05/2009 11:15

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?

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Heebychick · 19/05/2009 13:32

I think it's good to have lots of points of view on this and i hope that this conversation can be used in some positive way.

I do agree that there are some great nurseries and there are probably some awful ones (i don't many so not able to comment from experience here) but there are also some great/awful parents and great/awful childminders (i know of one who although lovely herself, used to have her brother in law who was a troubled ex convict with a drugs and drink problem over to stay quite a lot during the day)

I really do think there are good and bad types of all the ranges of childcare and we need to be a little more specific rather than generalise - therefore i don't find this article useful but in fact quite insulting and full of personal opinion rather than useful facts.

igivein · 19/05/2009 13:52

My ds is in my workplace nursery. It's subsidised so cheaper than private nurserys. The staff are generally more mature and most have children (three of the staff currently have their toddlers at the nursery), all are qualified to diploma level. I realise I (and ds) are incredibly lucky, but having this nursery available was a big factor in my decision to return to work. I think ds benefits from the time he spends there - even if I wasn't working I'd still want him to spend time at such a place, for the socialisation aspects and for the fun he has there!
I think the article was quite well written, but still erred on the side of guilt-tripping working mothers. I think the debate we need to have is about why parents are prepared to pay large sums of money (and it is a lot)for their children to receive substandard care. Parents need to be much more vocal about what they expect, and remove children from nurseries that don't live up to expectations.

Heebychick · 19/05/2009 14:05

Here here igivein really well put. Why do we just 'accept' things sometimes.

Of course the other debate is the lack of support for mums who wish to stay at home and be the primary carer - sadly most cannot do this.

silkcushion · 19/05/2009 14:07

My dd has been in f/t nursery sicne she was 4 months old.

Was heartbreaking to leave her at first esp as she had very severe skin problems.

But the whole experience has been a positive one so far (she is 18months now). The staff really like her - not just her carers but the whole nursery staff know her. She loves going ther and is excited when we arrive. Thankfully she is even more excited when dh or I turn up to collect her.

She is sociable, confident and advanced in most areas (according to them). What I don't know is if that is her inherent nature and that's why nursery is working well or if nursery has contributed to her personality.

I find it quite offensive to say most of the young girls there are too thick to do anything else. I consider myself to be a intelligent woman but I wasn't making a good sahm. Intelligence/academic achievement is irrelevant when dealing with small children I think (changed my mind from pre dcs). Enthusiasm, an understanding of what little children need and a caring attitude are what my nursery's staff display.

I know if I'd have been able to afford to stay at home dd and I wouldn't not have done half the things she does in nursery - they follow a curriculum and have specific activites planned for each day which all have a purpose of learning through play.

I'm not saying one form of childcare is better than another - I'm saying nursery has worked for our family.

Sycamoretree · 19/05/2009 14:09

Trying to stay on thread and be at work - probably was a stupid time to post it.

Back to talk more when I can - please don't all go away!

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 19/05/2009 14:13

I do think the socialising argument is erroneous. The sociialisation is occuring because they have no choice.

Most child care experts will tell you that a child doesn't want or need to socialise until they are at least two years old.

foxinsocks · 19/05/2009 14:18

dd went to nursery from around 4 months and it was a disaster.

I couldn't agree more. I don't think nurseries are the place for children under 18 months tbh (well around the age where they can start asking for something or expressing wishes).

I truly believe that and have and never would put another baby of mine in the care of a nursery again. I just don't think it's the right place for them. Imo, having 3 babies to one carer at the age of 4 months is just not right.

I can believe that maybe smaller nurseries, with higher ratios might exist and maybe these would be ok but I'd still have my reservations.

But that's just my opinion. And in our case, nursery actually worked out more expensive than other childcare options (as we went on to have another child).

foxinsocks · 19/05/2009 14:19

and btw I work full time, as does dh, so it's not a dig against people who work

Bramshott · 19/05/2009 14:27

I used a nursery for DD1 from 12 months, and a Childminder for DD2 from 5 months. Both options have worked out well, and having used 2 different "daycare" type nurseries for DD1 before she went to school, I was very happy with both settings (or rather I suppose, I realise that there are drawbacks to all options, including the parental care option, and I'm happy that we made the best choices for our circumstances at the time).

I think it's important that families have access to a variety of affordable childcare and guidance to make the best choices for them.

However, I DO think that in some sectors of society, and in some areas, there is a perception that nursery care is the best choice. I think as new parents it can be easy to pick somewhere with a glossy prospectus, systems and ways of doing and checking things, and that can give false confidence. Childminders often get a bad press amongst parents (there's that age old perception that they are low-quality, just in it for the money, chaotic etc) which is quite unfair.

I also have to laugh at the way all these media commentators seem to think that childcare issues only relate to the first 3 years of a child's life - as if at 3 (or 5), they suddenly don't need nurturing any more and their parents can get back to full time work . Viewed in those circumstances, taking a few years off to stay at home seems a reasonable choice, but as every parent knows, children need nuturing for many, many years - at least 20 year of your working life in total I'd say, bearing in mind that most people have more than one child. So really what we need are a variety of ways of working flexibly and various childcare options which cover the whole range of ages and needs I guess.

Oh, and as an aside to Daftpunk - I think that many profitable businesses DO value their employees, as that's what makes them profitable! Those that don't are taking a very short-termis view.

titchy · 19/05/2009 14:32

I agree the socialising need is rubbish, especially when they are under 2. However I hate hate hate the fact that all nurseries are tarred with this 'bad' brush. Some are very good. Some are very bad. Most are somewhere in the middle.

Very young children in 40 hours of childcare will do worse (ref. that working women thing on tv last night), but I'm not sure you can blame the childcare - maybe it's the lack of a parent being there for that 40 hours that is to blame. Who knows.....

I also think that saying that nurseries are bad because they are profit-making enterprises is also losing the plot a bit. Why does this make them bad? Do you think decent nurseries make a point of paying as little as possible to the employees? I think a decent well run nursery like any other business will pay the going rate, maybe a bit more, and try and keep the staff happy. Much cheaper than recruiting. Don't forget also that some nurseries are not profit-mkaing - they are local authority run, and I would hazard a guess that they do not pay much at all either.

Kewcumber · 19/05/2009 14:33

"lol kewcumber...most profitable companies couldn't give a toss about their employees. " I an;t comment on "most" only on mine.

Employees get extended maternity leave at full pay, way more than minimum statutory holidays, pension contributions and healthcare contribtuions, training as appropriate and subsidised massage treatments.

We look after our employees becasue its short sighted not to.

titchy · 19/05/2009 14:36

Quite agree bramshott! woiuld haveliked to have heard a but more about childcare last night, not just baby or toddler care!

daftpunk · 19/05/2009 14:36

Bramshott, yes you're probably right...i have a waitrose next door to an iceland on my high street.....you can tell the difference in the staff.....somedays i go into both shops....it's like stepping out of a ford KA and getting into a mercedes

Kewcumber · 19/05/2009 14:38

and just to throw into the mix - DS was effectively in a nursery with 1:6 ratio of carers 24/7 until he was a year old.

He was delayed but nor permanently (and most institutionalsied children do start catching up on their delays on their own at about 2yrs.

At 3.5 he is bang on target for his age and whilst I wouldn't recommend it as a start in life and also accepting that some types of children are more resilient than others, I would caution getting too worked up about the damage that might be done by a nursery in 50 hours a week.

Good care of any sort is better IME than bad care of any other sort (including parents)

wannaBe · 19/05/2009 14:38

I don't think you can categorize parents in the same way as nurseries/childminders though (for those who say there are good and bad parents too).

Being a parent is not a childcare option - if you choose to put your child into nursery you will still be the parent, so if you are a bad parent putting your child into nursery won't change that.

And most parents who don't parent the best way do generally still love their children (am talking about the parent not giving the one-one attention as opposed to clearly neglectful parents here).

But if you are paying someone to look after your child then you should have the right to expect the best possible care for that child. And on the whole I think that most childcare settings are inadequate at best.

If we must be a society where people need to use paid-for childcare, then the standards need to be raised signifficantly in order to ensure that children are receiving the best possible care.

frAKKINPannikin · 19/05/2009 14:46

Disclaimer - I'm not a parent, I lurk on here because I absorb the wisdom of parents and apply it as a nanny/governess [grin[

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

That depends how young 'young' is. For under 1s, I would agree. The ratios are insane, you're running from one baby to another just trying to keep up with the basics and you'd love to have that one-to-one time to play, to explore, to cuddle but it's too rushed. Don't get me wrong, the nursery care is adequate - it's Winnicott's theory of "good enough" in practice - but it's not what I'd call quality care. For older children it absolutely exists!

Having worked in nurseries I'd say they are, generally, a good idea but not one which is always particularly well executed. A good nursery can be immeasurably beneficial for a child once they are old enough to thrive in a group environment and communicate their needs effectively. I, personally, don't feel they're the right place for very young children but accept that not all parents have a choice. A good nursery which really cares about the individual, has caring, attentive, mature, stable and qualified staff, good resource

The poster who said we need to make being a nursery worker a 'proper' job is absolutely right - there's not much career progression, limited extra training beyond the compulsory stuff and the pay is rubbish. And then people wonder why a lot of good nursery workers want to leave and become nannies! It's not just about pay though. It's the paperwork, the record keeping, the need to stick to planned activities, the lack of any kind of flexibility to respond to individual children....

The comments about intelligence/academic ability are interesting. My mother is hideously clever and by her own admission hates very young children (say, under 5s) because she finds them slow, irritating and boring so an academic person does not a good childcarer make! BUT I would argue for having at least a minimum standard of education before being put in charge of the early education of young children. When I worked in a nursery there was one trainee who was there because she failed all her GCSEs and the careers officer at school told her that seeing as she was too stupid to do anything else she'd better go into childcare. That kind of attitude needs to be challenged! 50% of the staff had fewer than 5 GCSEs (and of those who did I don't know whether they were A-Cs or not!), some struggled with reading children's books to the children and had to be walked through literacy/numercy and KUW activities before they could carry them out themselves. They were truly lovely people, very talented in caring for children but lacking an academic foundation that would really have benefited them. And then there was a level 3 qualified young woman who was excellent at planning, strong on theory, ticked all the right boxes but had no instinct for childcare - no spark, no spontanaeity.

In 'bad' nurseries staff turnover is really high which I believe has a negative impact on the atmosphere of the nursery as a whole as well as the children there. Having a stable key-worker is really important but the only way to retain staff is to give them incentives to stay which in too many places just don't exist.

But having said all that a nursery environment really can improve social skills and confidence and children access 'education' earlier. Obviously it's better for children to have a dedicated carer, preferably a parent but that's not a reality - I suppose the ideal compromise would be to have a higher staff:children ratio for under-3s - if it was 1:2 in the baby room children would be a lot better off.

I plan to put my own children into some form of group day-care (although hopefully not full time) from about the age of 2. I think it's an important part of growing up and learning.

I've seen the other extreme - children who've only ever had one-to-one care and never had to consider others, wait for what they want, learned how to learn from their peers. They might turn out aggressive because they never learned to talk their problems through with someone who isn't an adult with superior linguistic skills/reasoning/emotional control. They might turn out cold because they didn't learn how to make friends early enough. They might turn out sad due to a lack of peer attention rather than adult attention. Those children are going to have just as many social and emotional problems, potentially crippling social problems which could lead to emotional problems one day, as children who've been "stressed" in nurseries, they're just going to be different problems.

Nurseries are the most attractive option for a lot of parents, the only option for some, but as long as it's a good nursery and the time spent in a group is balanced by individual care, love and attention for the child when they are at home then there's no reason why the whole experience shouldn't be a positive one.

Heathcliffscathy · 19/05/2009 14:47

fwiw i'm not sure that winnicott would agree that the nursery care you describe for under-1s was good enough.

wasabipeanut · 19/05/2009 14:48

This problem just won't go away. In all fairness, Sue Palmer who is driving this debate has said that parents aren't to blame for this. The problem is economic and this article also made this point.

There does seem to be some credible evidence that nursery care can be damaging to children if they spend too long in nursery, too young. I went back to work 3 days a week when my ds was 7mo and I now very much regret that decision. I quit to go freelance in January when he was 16mo and he now goes a couple of mornings a week only.

I liked the nursery and the staff a great deal (and still do which is why he still goes) and my ds has always seemed very happy there but, ultimately, the balance I had just wasn't working. The guilt burden and the stress levels were too much. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have the choice but that underlines the point that economics are dicatating our childrens futures.

Over the last 15 years employers have pushed for longer and longer working hours, and daycare, wraparound school care, breakfast clubs etc. have sprung up to allow that to happen. The agenda has been set by business - nobody ever seemed to ask if it was going to do any harm to the children.

Our society simply doesn't value childcare and is incredibly anti child and anti family IMO.

frAKKINPannikin · 19/05/2009 14:48

Sorry I went on a bit!

And it ate the end of my phrase:

(A good nursery which really cares about the individual, has caring, attentive, mature, stable and qualified staff, good resource)s and a balance of educational and stimulating planned activities and free play is ideal for slightly older children.

Heathcliffscathy · 19/05/2009 14:49

'Our society simply doesn't value childcare and is incredibly anti child and anti family IMO.' spot on wasabi.

Heathcliffscathy · 19/05/2009 14:50

the irony is that research would suggest that children aged 3ish onwards NEED some time in a nursery type setting. nurseries are great, but for limited amounts of time and for older children.

Heathcliffscathy · 19/05/2009 14:51

in short institutionalised daycare sucks, and parents should not be forced into making this choice.

SydneyB · 19/05/2009 14:51

Someone tell me what you're supposed to do then? If you have to work 4 days a week. If you can't afford a nanny. If you have a 3 yr old who you want in a nursery environment and a 10 mth old who you'd prefer to have in a more one-to-one environment, if you want them with each other whilst you're not there and if you need them to be in the same place logistically?? I am going round and round with this problem currently and I just find these articles so unhelpful.

Not a particularly helpful rant to add to this debate but if someone had a solution for me so I don't have to read these articles racked with guilt, then please let me know!

policywonk · 19/05/2009 14:52

It's interesting to hear from a professional, Frakkin

I must disagree about intelligent people not being good at childcare. I think that's nonsense actually. My mother was the cleverest person I've ever met (highly academic), and there was nothing - literally - she enjoyed more than looking after young children. It's more to do with temperament than anything else.

Heathcliffscathy · 19/05/2009 14:52

childminder. 3 y o will be with other children. they will be together. one person in charge of their care. not too expensive.