Nursery "bad for little boys" - what do you think?

[pixieshell]

Hi Ladies,

I'm supposed to be returning to study this January (to finish a nursing degree) and am looking at nurseries for my 18 month baby boy. I made the mistake of looking online at whether nurseries are good or bad for babies and, of course, I found several articles stating that nursery is not good for children, particularly for boys under 3 years old. Apparently it makes them stressed and more aggressive which can last long into school life.

So now I am feeling incredibly guilty about my proposed return to study! The articles have made me feel like a terrible mother for even considering leaving my baby in a nursery! I have visions of my cuddly, wonderful little boy turning into an aggressive, horrid child! I'm hoping that you'll all be able to reassure me that the articles are wrong and that your little boys are loving nursery.

So what do you think, am I worrying about nothing or should I seriously think about staying home for another couple of years? If only I could afford a nanny!

Thanks

Shelley

2 of my 3 were in nursery, and they are more aggressive than their brother, but not very aggressive, and they're not aggressive at school, more with each other, so I think it's sibling rivalry.

The nice thing about their nursery was that they had the same main carer all the time for the 2 years and 3 years respectively that they were there. But it was a nursery with no staff turnover at all. If you could find something like that you might feel more comfortable.

I personally would not worry very much at 18 months though. My experience was that they are ready for a lot of social contact and organised activities like singing and instruments etc by rising 2.

Start visiting nurseries and see what you think. Or have a look at local cms.

Steve Biddulph says this.
He is wrong.
There are also plenty of articles that say childcare is good for little ones. This is such an emotive subject that I only read Penelope Leach now - honest, balanced and sensible - try googling Penelope Leach childcare.
Thousands of little boys thrive in nurseries - I promise he will be fine .... and if he isn't then you can have a rethink then.

Can only go from personal experience - ds thrived in nursery, he is not at all aggressive. The nursery were very touchy/feely and the children all hugged and played together. Ds had no issues when it came to the school transition.

I think this is complete tosh actually.

I only have the experiences of one little boy to go by - he's 2.5 now - started around 13 months part time at nursery

Nursery has taught him to share, to eat, to sit quietly, and to tolerate other children. (hopefully I've had some input too) They encourage affection there - they get cuddles from the staff and from each other and they are disciplined if they are naughty (actually you're not allowed to say 'naughty' now are you - silly pc rules - when behaviour is 'unnacceptable') as would happen at home.

The staff have all been there since he started so he knows them well and this is great as his favourite is also his babysitter (not that we can afford it much!)

It has not taught him agressiveness. He does have his moments - thats cos he's a toddler -and they do go through phases of hitting and shoving - its normal - but overall he's a lovely, gentle, helpful little man and I am not in the least bit concerned about his attending nursery.

Hear hear lynniep. DS has been at nursery part time since he was 8mo (he's now 2.9). No way is he any more "aggressive" than his peers who didn't go to nursery. He's a very sociable, caring, funloving boy, who loves a bit of rough and tumbe, and has the usual toddler strops. I think that going to nursery has benefitted him.

But I do make sure that when he is home with me I focus on him 100% (or a bit less since DD was born). Hopefully this makes sure he has a secure foundation for everything.

Don't feel guilty, just give him lots of attention when you're with him - tho appreciate this will be difficult if you have assignments etc to do.

My DS is 3 and has been in full time nursery since he was tiny. He is def not stressed, and is not agressive. He is happy, outgoing, confident, cares about other children, and is very polite (this is commented on by other people).

If you are happy with your nursery, and there isn't a lot of staff turnover, then I don't think there is a problem.

My DS started nursery at 16mo. He is now 2.10 and turning into a lovely polite little boy who is friendly with everyone (not that I'm biased ). Of course he has tantrums and some silly moments, but is certainly not more aggressive than other children. A good nursery will teach a child to play nicely, share and basic manners, I don't think you need to worry.

My son is now 3.9 and has been in nursery since he was 8 months. He's always been really happy there. In fact, the kids I know who are at day nursery are much better at sharing, more sociable, speech is better, less eating problems, able to play together better, than those who are not. I've seen no evidence of agression at the nursery, which means they must handle it and nip it in the bud when it occurs. It's a good question for the nursery when you look round - how do you deal with aggression? Their response will mark out the good nurseries from the bad.

Clemette - Penelope Leach is very anti-nurseries, especially for babies and younger toddlers.

my DS is now 3.3 and has been in nursery since he was 6.5 months old

he has thrived there

BUT like any childcare you need to find a high quality place with low staff turnover - DS has been looked after by the same staff for practically the whole time he has been there (give or take the odd change)

*limonchik not any more!
Her new book Child Care Today (2009) stresses the importance of being at home for the first few months only. She acknowledges the realities and the benefits of childcare.

Have you considered a child minder?

For me, they offer a greater continuity of care, which I think is very important for babies and young toddlers, and a more homely environment.

I feel that my childnminder responds to the needs of my DS1 and 2 really well as she knows them inside out. She's known them since they were 6 months old, whereas in some nurseries they move onto a different 'room' at certain ages and have to start all over again with new carers.

They mix with kids of different ages which doesn't always happen at nurseries, (DS1 adores by CM's 12 year old daughter, goes on about her all the time!)

They go out and about, to toddler groups, to the park, to the library, to the shops, instead of being stuck in one room all day long ( I know not all nurseries to this but most do, realistically)

They can also be more flexible for hours etc.

Obviously you have to find the right childminder, but to me, they can offer better care than any nursery can.

'Steve Biddulph say this. He is wrong'
Why? Because you think so? Some boys do well in nurseries, some don't. What he actually says is boys [and children in general] do better with one to one care [doesn't have to be mother] for first three years. It doesn't mean all children who go to nurseries are going to turn into monsters by any means.

My honest opinion is that it can be a (small) disadvantage for some boys, probably only a small percentage.

My first DS went full time to nursery from 6 months to 4 years and showed every sign of loving it. However, he definitely struggled to adjust at school and I think that a part (part only, please note) of the problem was moving from one group environment to another with very different rules - he was both confused and overconfident, which for him was a recipe for aggression and acting up.

But now, at 7 he is a lovely, polite and bright boy who has put the problems behind him. So to say: 'nurseries will scar your boy for life' is a vast over simplification - in practise they might tend to exaggerate some personality traits (if your child has them) which could cause temporary problems (if your child then goes to a school which isn't set up to deal with them very well).

But that doesn't make as good a headline, does it?

And for the record, even knowing what I know now, I would probably still have made the same decision re sending DS1 to nursery.

I was going to suggest a childminder too as you've listed your only options as nursery, nanny or SAHM.

If you're not too sure about nursery, why not look at a CM?

I think so much of this depends on the individual child. I chose a CM for my DS1 rather than a nursery because I didn't think the places I visited were right for him. He didn't go to nursery until pre-school time at 3.9 and probably wouldn't really have flourished until about three/six months earlier. But the nurseries I saw were quite big - twenty babies at a time in one room. And I think this is probably the type of environment people like Steve Biddulph are talking about.

My DS2 started nursery part time at 16 months. It has been ideal for him. The nursery is a lot smaller .

I still really rate a good CM, though! If you find one who s accredited for the early years grant you'll find someone who really knows their stuff.

Clemette - does she advocate nursery care now then? That's certainly a big change in her views then. I know she's written about "the myth of exclusive mothering" and that childcare is fine for older babies and toddlers, but she was definitely pro-childminders and home based care and very anti-nurseries and institutional daycare.

Well this is what Leach had to say in 2004

"The tendency of government policy for more day-nursery provision to the exclusion of other types of childcare is extremely short-sighted; it's easier for an infant to catch up on cognitive skills later on, but they can't catch up on insecure attachment. The trend towards more day nurseries is out of kilter with what the research is finding.

"We know from research that staff in nurseries tend to be firstly, more detached - less sensitive and responsive - towards the children and there is more "flatness of affect", a subtle but very important characteristic which means that there is no differentiation in response to a child, a sort of blandness.

"Somewhere after two years, as the children begin to relate more to each other than to the adult, then high-quality, group-based care becomes an unequivocal benefit. But for the first 18 months, all the international research shows us the importance of lots of attention from a carer who thinks the infant is the cat's whiskers. It may even be less important that those caring for the under two-year-olds are trained, as that they have the right attitude to children - that they are warm, responsive, talkative and funny."

Also, just saying Biddulph is 'wrong' doesn't really cut the mustard when the burden of evidence is with him:

''The two biggest longitudinal studies in the world on the impact of childcare on infants have come to strikingly similar conclusions. In America, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) published conclusions last summer that were remarkably similar to those of the UK study, the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE). Both make for uncomfortable reading. The NICHD, which has been following more than 1,000 children since 1991, concluded that, "The more time children spend in childcare from birth to age four-and-a-half, the more adults tended to rate them as less likely to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient and as aggressive. It also found that group care is more punitive than other forms of childcare. The EPPE study focused predominantly on the impact of pre-school education on three- and four-year-olds. It concluded that it was of great benefit for cognitive and social skills, but buried in the small print it acknowledged that "high levels of group care before the age of three (and particularly before the age of two) were associated with higher levels of anti-social behaviour at age three" (interestingly, it can improve infants cognitive skills). But the EPPE study acknowledged that while high-quality group care could reduce the level of "anti-social/worried behaviour", it could not eliminate it.'

Whole article
here

Leach is not against childcare, but against inadequate childcare and group based child care under 18 months. Has she changed this opinion in her new book?

I'd repeat the advice to consider childminders - my dd went to a local c/m from 2 years, and my MiL was a childminder for years, in both cases I think the way the children was cared for was outstanding - like being at home, but with the benefit of a carer with loads of experience, lots of fun toys and a small group of children to play with and get to know really well.
If its relevant to your situation, you still get tax credits support for a childminder.
I guess the disadvantage is that you have to be prepared to deal with a c/m's holidays, illness, and probably shorter hours compared to a nursery.

I'd also suggest a CM if you are concerned. I have been lucky in that I havent had to work much since I had the DSs but I would have been concerned about putting them into nursery for prolonged periods.

I am happy with the nursery I use but I dont think it is a great environment for kids under 3 or so for more than a few hours at a time - I simply think there aren't enough staff in a nursery set up to be attentive to the needs of the LOs in their care.

"What he actually says is boys [and children in general] do better with one to one care [doesn't have to be mother] for first three years" and in scientific terms how does he PROVE this. To do so he would have to take twin boys, put one in childcare and one raised by one-to-one care. He hasn't of course and so there is NO scientific basis for his claim.
So, he is wrong to say it.

Ok clemette, ignore the concrete evidence which supports his studies if you want to.

Sorry - I posted before reading pofaced.
Whichever "side" of this debate you are on, you can find studies to support them. But none of them are absolutely conclusive because all children are different. That is why I say Biddulph is wrong. I have been using full-time childcare for four years and my children do not fit the behaviours Biddulph describes, and nor do any of their friends. In this instance anecdotal eveidence is just as valid as studies funded by vested interests.
The only thing you can do is watch your child carefully - if they are not coping or their behaviour is deteriorating then you can chnage it - but it is by no means a foregone conclusion that it will.

My favourite ever Biddulph quote: 'if your son is gay, don't spend too much time thinking about what went wrong'

My DS has been in nursery since he was 12 months and is not at all aggressive. Depends on the child and the nursery.