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?

Juule - no, I wouldn't sell up - that's my point really.

Yes, we could muddle along until DS starts pre-school. We might, but we are worried about how hard it will be for DH to re-enter a specialised industry after that amount of time.

He actually does already work one day a week and mum does one day free childcare but it's getting a bit much for her since my dad died....see, lots of issues contributing here.

Have to leave thread for a couple of hours now.

Message withdrawn

High quality nurseries do exist, but they are in the minority, IME. And they cost far more than most others.

But why are we so obsessed with the early years of life? It seems to me that the early teens - when either a parent is at home, or they are home on their own, by and large - are just as crucial, if not more so. Whatever Steve Biddulph might say.

Christiana - as long as your dd doesn't pick up on your boredom I am afraid to say.

Happy mummy = Happy baby.

I have to agree the 'happy mum = happy baby' line is far too convenient and over used.

I had to go back to work.

Both DD & DS went to Nursery. DD from 6m old, DS had a childminder until age 2 then nursery as could not get a place a DD's nursery and DS's eventual nursery had only just opened so could not get a proper "feel".

Both are very well adjusted, popular teenagers doing incredibly well in many aspects of their lives. Teachers at primary school commented that my kids proved the "system" could work if you found the right nursery.

DS is the most laid back unaggressive boy I know.

I looked at some nurseries and ran away fast. Eventually I found 2 gems.

I DO regret not being a full time Mum until they were at school, but I don't think either of my children have any "baggage" from childcare.

I hate these articles that cause Mums who are doing their best to worry - which then affects the free time they DO have with the children.

I have no guilt issues over leaving my dd in full-time nursery.

I am happy - dd is happy.

On the other side of the coin Christiana just seems to think it's best she is at home although she says she feels so bored sometimes.

I have no desire 'to mean well' - I am just saying it as it is in my own experiece.

"1. non-parental care is both historically and cross-culturally normative."

This assertion is wrong.

Marla is voice of reason

The article is pure shite. If Steven Biddulph has any qualifications at all, he should be thrown out by the professional body that he represents because he continually spouts unsubstantiated nonsense.

BTW - are boys more important than girls? Are girls OK to go to nursery??

Message withdrawn

I think the early years are critical and, having had the very interesting experience of speaking English to my daughter while everyone else around her on a daily basis was speaking French, can vouch for the extreme importance of the primary carer in language development. DD's dominant language is English, not French, and she understands complex English because that is what she has learnt from being with me.

I have 4 children who have all attended nursery since they were babies. We have been very happy with our nursery and the staff and quality childcare for young exists.

If others feel like fretting over my decision to put my children in nursery from an early age, then that's fine by me.

Peas - there was an item on Woman's Hour on Monday about raising boys (Biddulph not involved, honest) and the interviewees (including a consultant psychiatrist) were very clear that there are big developmental differences between girls and boys in the early years. These differences tend to mean that girls adapt better to group childcare than boys do (although massive generalisation, obviously). Link here

The thing that annoys me about this article - and this whole debate is the assumption that it's contact hours that matter. It simply isn't the case - spending every waking moment with your child does not make you a better parent than somebody who works full time. It doesn't mean your child will have a happier life and it doesn't mean they will love you more. What's really sad is the number of parents who obviously think that hours logged are buying them extra chips in the parenting game.

I agree to a point that there are differences but any of the differences that there are, are so minute as to be negligible if the 'harm' that nursery does is so dramatic to development.

Also, it does depend on how you sit with the nature/nurture debate on the developmental 'differences' between girls and boys.i.e. as to whether these differences are socially bound.

GPAC;

i have 2 dd & 2 ds...girls cope better, nursery would have destroyed my sons..i'm sure of it.

I've no idea Peas. But the psychiatrist was very insistent on the point. He wasn't talking particularly about nurseries, but he was insistent that boys, per se, need more one-on-one care. (I think - I was only half-listening...)

I disagree profoundly with the idea that "hours logged" (horrid phrase) as a parent are unimportant.

Cognitive development is, in large part, a function of 1-to-1 interaction between a baby and a caring, intelligent, responsive adult.

I just googled child/ adult ratios in nurseries in Sweden and found the average was 1-5.6 for ages 1-6. There's no compulsory limit. I know its not quite like for like, but that seems pretty similar to the ratios in the UK.

Geneuine question: why do they not have this debate in Sweden? in fact, Sweden is held up as a model.

I have mixed feelings about nurseries personally, although I have sent both mine to them for 2-3 days from 9 months.

I don't for a minute think that my boys need more one-to-one care than my daughter. What a strange thing to say and I am sure my daugther would disagree.

So what happens if the parent is not intelligent, Anna? Or caring for that matter?

Also Daftpunk - you kind of prove the point - girls are expected to cope. Boys aren't.

"is the assumption that it's contact hours that matter."

Regardless of whether they matter or not, I don't think that this is what the article is about.

"Or they might find someone else to become an extra ?attachment figure? perhaps another family member, a trusted childminder, or a work colleague who?d like to share both job and child-rearing responsibilities. Once it?s established that the best sort of care is personal, there are a wide range of possible solutions. "

Doesn't seem to suggest that only parental care is involved.