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?

ps laquitar - i found your post quite offensive - there are parents on here making difficult choices and a bit of diplomacy may help them rather than make them feel even worse about decisions - would you say that to someone in real life?

Marla there is plenty of research that shows that young children who have long days in nurseries suffer.

A government backed study in 2007 concluded that those who spent more than 35 hours a week in child care were anti social, distant and under considerable stress.

???? 'diplomacy' ?

1. I haven't read the article
2. I haven't read all of this thread

There are bad nurseries.
There are bad childminders and nannies.
There are bad parents, grandparents and carers

Equally so there are good of all of the above.

I am very happy with the care my dd receives - nursery full-time from aged 12 months.

She is very happy - and I am very happy. I am the first to admit I could never be a SAHM (I take my hat off to those of you who are) - I relish my career and go to work confident that she is receiving the best possible care.

Message withdrawn

Fair point Marla.

Marla, why would they write 'parent' and mean 'mother'? Wouldn't they just write 'mother'. It is you that has chosen to interpret it as 'mother'.

Message withdrawn

Christiana - I think my point is more, why should we? Again and again, why can't we have a society that provides high quality affordable childcare that doesn't put parents in a situation of having to upheave their whole families lives for the sake of the pre-school years? It's a hugely costly exercise emotionally and financially that you then spend your life trying to claw back from.

I don't think that every family should share christiana's view if they don't want to. But it shouldn't mean that any possible detrimental/beneficial effects from the type of childcare a child receives can't be discussed.
If research is showing that certain types of care are more detrimental than others then that should be brought to people's attention so that they can make truly informed choices about the type of childcare they choose and decide for themselves what trade-offs they want to make, if possible.

Marla, I read 'parents' and expected it to mean parents. I would expect any decision of who was available for childcare to include fathers as well as mothers.

Christiana - the only change I could make would be to sell my home and move to a different area.

That is a MASSIVE, MASSIVE undertaking. It could take 18 months to even come to fruition in the current climate and we would lose most of what we have worked for, not just for ourselves, but for our children too.

I'm curious as to why this is something you feel is acceptable...or maybe I'm misinterpreting.

Message withdrawn

So maybe those that don't share your views Christiana should have thought twice before having children?

I would like to see an alternative form of childcare where mature and experienced registered childminders can be subsidised by the government to agree to provide care solely for one families baby (or twins/siblings).

This would recognise attachment research and not penalise those families who do not have the space and who cannot afford to employ sole care nannies.

Christiana - you want to be at home full-time. I don't want to do that - it's not for the sake of holidays, cars etc - it's for my own sense of fulfilment.

Selfish? Maybe. At least I am honest. I devote a great deal of love (and mostly patience) and time when I am with dd. I would even go to say more than some full-time mums That I know do.

Sycamoretree, you have already done 18m in your current situation. Have things got worse that you would now have to sell up rather than continue in the way you have been.
Could your dh find part-time work for a while to supplement household income?
If your dh did get a full-time job again could you afford the nanny again like previously?