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?

peas - its true - steve biddulph only gets these articles because he provokes a reaction - he is not very qualified and as i said earlier he can be very militant in his views on all sorts of parenting - not just nurseries - that make me think he is not the sort of person i would take advice from on anything, let alone childcare

Another bloody witless article designed just to garner column inches by making provocative comments.

• Notice her citing any research sources into this? No, although there are many that exist and have been published in newspapers in the last few years like this or this or this or this.

• Notice her citing professional sources other than Stephen Biddulph? No, although there are many of them who, unlike Mr. Biddulph, continue to hold and practice meaningful professional qualifications and research in this area (rather than mass market books)

• Notice her having spoken with any businesses or companys operating in the market or researching nursery chains, for example, as to their policies, codes of conduct or own internal research? Um, that would be no again.

• Notice her having spoken with government or OFSTED about child care? Oh gosh, that's another no, that would also be clearly too much work!

• Notice her using glib personal anecdotes about toddlers on leads and parents who just don't care about their kids to make her story more dramatic but utterly meaningless? Check.

• Notice her having made completely wrong off-the-cuff comments designed to lead the reader like "there has so far been little research into the emotional effects of institutionalised early care, but what there is gives cause for concern"? Check. (Um, there has been plenty of research, and it gives mixed views, but hey don't let that stop you planting the seed of doubt in worried parents' minds)

There is a very meaningful debate to be had in this area as to the effect of early year care on children and how this can be best and most effectively provided but idiotic articles like do absolutely nothing to inform the debate and actually make it far harder to have it.

GPAC;

honestly, i treated all my dc the same, (was softer maybe with the girls)...but when they started school nursery my dd's were fine, my ds's were clinging to my legs crying.

I've got 2 DSs and neither of them cling to my leg crying. There are individual differences not sex differences.

I am not blaming you for unintentionally treating boys and girls differently. It is so entrenched in our values and beliefs that we act and do it unconsciously.

Quite right Cestlavie.

We use a very good Surestart nursery, DD has been there for 2.5 years in that time 3 members of staff have left, one was pregnant and the other 2 as here DH's were posted (the nursery is on an army camp) DD has been there since she was 1 and DS since 6 months albeit went up to 5 mornings a week in April. They both enjoy it, DD is first through the door, every morning and DS does not cry when I leave. I can pop in unannounced and they are both interacting well with the staff and other children, DS loves cuddles which they are more than willing to give him. They get breakfast, snack and a homecooked 2 course lunch everyday. The manager is always on hand to talk, they have been incredibly supportive with DD's toilet training which together we have finally cracked. The majority of the staff are parents of older children so have been through everything that I am going through. And for all this I pay £30 for both of them 8am until 1pm. By 1pm I have done all the work that I need to do on mine and DH's business so I can then concentrate on them in the afternoon.

My eldest DD was in f/t nursery. I hated leaving her (even though loved job/working) and she hated going. I felt so guilty so I left (very difficult at the time) and SAH since, although I go to uni/college p/t when DD/GParents look after DC so I can have a break.

I don't think day nurseries are good for under 2 or 3s. It's like a mum of triplets. I had twins and felt stretched.

Employees are replacable, parents are not. A loving childminder/relative is far better.

What makes me sad is when people say their babies love daycare so much and cry when picked up by mum/dad at 6pm. That, to me, would not be good. I also hear people that could afford nannies/CMs say they chose nurseries 'so their baby would not get too attatched and prefer the carer to mummy', that's not putting a childs needs first when a single consistant carer would be best.

I think people have been misled about how great paid work is and mass consumption is not the best way (hence needing two wages to pay for it all). The way we live now is not neccesarily normal or the best type of society. Yes we are stuck in it so have to make the best of it and I think people are realising that you can't have everything after all, I did.

I think it would be a scary place if there were no women working.

Message withdrawn

Marlasinger;

why?

Why are we obsessed with early years? Because it's at this point so many important skills and foundations are laid down. Wasn't it the Jesuits who said that if you gave them a boy until the age of 7 they could give you the man?

Also it's an area which has been neglected and under-funded for research for years.

And back to the theory comment I messed up earlier, I checked and do mean Maslow about having basic needs met being the crucial thing and that's enough to survive but got the phrase 'good enough' stuck in my head which someone kindly confirmed was winnicott. But at the opposite end of the spectrum rather so I can see why that raised some eyebrows! I can never remember all the theorists names I just need to know that someone somewhere had a theory and that's why something happens or we do this a certain way!

And those that think developmental psychology is apolitical and factual and objective are mistaken IMO. It has been brushed with the patriarchal hand, and therefore basing policies around it are crazy crazy crazy.

In my experience (of working in a nursery), I would say that nurseries are a positive thing for children over the age of three. Under the age of three, it depends greatly on the temperament of the individual child and the specific nursery/carers. Some young children do indeed thrive in this kind of environment, but I would say as a general rule it is not ideal for children under the age of 18 months and definitely not for babies under the age of 12 months.

I agree with frAKKINPannikin, who said the ratios are just too high (1:3) to be able to meet a babies' emotional needs. I'm a mum of twins and I second what jellybeans said about feeling stretched. It is REALLY hard to look after two babies under the age of one year. God alone knows how mothers of triplets do it - they deserve a medal! But we shouldn't pretend that a 1:3 ratio is ideal for babies. 1:3 is ok as children get older (perhaps 18 months plus?) and are less dependent.

It is a difficult debate to have, but important if standards are to be raised. Much lower ratios should be a priority.

Message withdrawn

MS;

agree our daughters (and sons) need to see women in a variety of jobs, but once a woman has a child her priorities have to change....no job is worth the sacrifice.

"but once a woman has a child her priorities have to change...."

As do the father's. They need to decide the childcare between them.

It would be too much for you, punk, but not for many of us

You're quite an unimaginative woman really aren't you daftpunk?

Pointy - I rather think a lot of psychology is opinion rather than scientific proof - altogether too many uncontrollable variables.

"Feminism has knackered some women........................"

Yeah and life was sooooo great before feminism

thefallenmadonna;

if you think being unimaginative is wanting to stay at home and watch my children grow...rather than pay a stranger to do it....well yep, i'm unimaginative...the problem with you is you're trapped....trapped in a world you think is better than mine.

Daftpunk - you are an odd little body aren't you? Never mind - I'll keep working and parenting - because I do both things very well and my economic effort will continue supporting you and your needs from the state and you can keep judging me and we'll all be happy eh?

well, yes madonna, my sister works in psychology research and spends a lot of time proving what happens and then some time coming up with possible theories why.

I really don;t think Palmer is going to give sound reasons for boys being at such an apparent disadvantage and if she doesn't, I'll feel disappointed in her because she's written some fab educational stuff.

I don't think my life is any better than yours, punk. Not at all. I just don't like your assumptions