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

He's 2.7 now btw

'funded by vested interests' What are the vested interests of the NICHD and the EPPE for example? What are the vested interests of Penelope Leach? And for that matter, what is Biddulph's vested interest? [is he being secretly sponsored by SAHMs?]
I haven't heard that quote about being gay. It does seem a bit cack handed, if well intended. Can't see the bearing on his opinions to do with childcare though.

clemette - I have read Penelope Leach's book Child Care Today, and while she in theory acknowledges that nursery is part of modern life's reality, the standards she outlines for acceptable nursery care are so high that the economic probability of finding one that meets her criteria are practically nil.

She prefers childminders and nannies and any form of at home care with a consistent sole carer.

I think Penelope Leach is spot-on about daycare. While it isn't necessary for older babies and toddlers to be cared for exclusively by their mothers, nurseries do not offer the best form of care for the under-2s.

My DS (2.3) also thrives in nursery. I deliberately went for a smaller one and looked for low staff turnover, which I do think makes a difference. DS gets loads of cuddles from the staff who are very attentive. He is very polite and used to sharing because this is what he does every day there.

In my experience some of his friends who don't go to nursery are not as used to interacting with other children and more prone to tantrums if they have to share their toys. Nursery will always tell you if any behaviour they display is inappropriate and will not tolerate bad or aggressive behaviour.

My concerns with a CM were that he could be plonked in front of a telly all day for all I knew and there is no control over whether they could invite their mates over and you wouldn't know about it. Its swings and roundabouts in the end though and you need to find the solution that works best for you and what you feel comfortable about. I'm sure there are many excellent CMs out there.

The NICHD is American and reports on a situation where the average maternity leave is 6 weeks and women are often forced to leave their children in sub-standard childcare and forced into work (especially if they are on welfare). This is not, thankfully, the case in Britain.
Biddulph's agenda is to sell books. he syas nothing new to what Bowlby was saying in the 1950s (although Bowlby took it further and said that ANY mother working would lead to juvenile delinquency - he too had "evidence", he too was wrong). In today's crowded parenting literature market he is deliberately provokative in order to get noticed. I mentioned the quote about gay boys to suggest that maybe he isn't necessarily the man you want to follow.

The problem with the EPPE study is this quote: '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.' This has been used in the media to suggest a direct link between anti-social behaviour and nursery. What is is actually saying is that children who manifest antisocial behaviour do not always have that behaviour modified in a group setting. It is not a causal link.
The main message of the EPPE is "Pre-school benefits ALL children. Significant benefits for an early start (2 yrs on) and parttime
as beneficial as full-time." Its remit is not to study earlier than that, and it has nothing other than anecdotal evidence to make any claims about group care of younger toddlers.

Group care does not suit all little ones, just as school does not suit all children, but Biddulph and his ilk are peddling misinformation. If nursery made boys anti-social, aggressive and difficult, why are there hundreds of thousands of women who would point to their own sons and be able to claim otherwise?

As a reviewer of Leach's latest book has said "Leach argues that asking whether child care is bad for children is asking the wrong question altogether and that we are guilty of assuming that the answer to bad child care is no child care". It is our responsibility as parents to choose the best childcare for our children if childcare is needed/wanted. For some this will be one-to-one, for some this will be group. For some it will be family, for some that would be a disaster.
So my advice for the OP would be to research ecah of your options carefully - not as to whether they would damage your son - but which one will meet his needs to affection, stimulation and activity the best.

My cuddly, gentle, loving little boy has just turned 2, and has been in nursery since he was 8mo. He's in a very small nursery (only 24 children from 3mo to 3 years) and he loves it - he's had the same keyworker since he started, and he knows every member of staff and every child by name.

Small nurseries IMO are a much better bet than a huge branded 'chain' nursery with umpteen rooms and a constant rotation of 18-year-old staff - but that's just my opinion!

I am sure he will be fine, if you find a nursery that he seems happy in and you are comfortable with.

Well my opinion is that you have your own personal agenda clemette, and that is affecting the way you interpret the research. Maybe also your own personal experience that nursery was positive for your dc/s. That is fine. But the vast body of research states that group care is not the best care for under two's.

Intrigued by the NICHD claims I have just had a read of their report. What they actually say is that quality child-care includes both one-to-one and group care within certain parameters (3 babies to each carer, no more than 6 babies in a group) rising to $:1 at 18m and 8 toddlers in a group.) These ratios are law in the UK but not in the States. If these ratios are met, and there are some staff educated to higher education level in early childcare, then they do not differentiate between quality SAHm care and nursery care. Both can:
"results showed that children who experienced higher quality child care consistently showed somewhat better cognitive function and language development across the first 3 years of life."

"children who experienced higher quality child care were somewhat more cooperative and compliant and slightly less aggressive and disobedient at 2 years and 3 years of age."

"once again, family features were stronger predictors of children?s social behavior and development than was quantity of child care."

"children who spent more time in group child care, such as child care centers, were somewhat more cooperative with their caregivers at age 2, showed fewer problem behaviors (as reported by the caregiver) at ages 2 and 3, and had somewhat more positive mother-child interactions at age 3 than children in other types of child care."

So, surprise, surprise the media mis-reported their findings.
I coudl go on, and on, but the report is here if anyone wants to read it.

No agenda boco apart from irritation at the way the media presents these reports and then it turns out they actually often say something very different.
It has been going on now for over 70 years and still, if people challenge it, they are accused of furthering an agenda.

PS the OP didn't ask what was "best" - she asked whether nursery would DAMAGE her son.

Nursery was a disaster for us but as people say every child is different.

I appreciate all the replies and I can see the nursery debate is quite an emotive topic. I'll have a look at a few nurseries and some childminders too (which I'd previously been put off by as I worry about sickness etc). It's such a big decision and I'm going to feel bad either way - guilty for leaving my child in daycare or disappointed that I've not been able to finish my studies.

Thanks again girls xx

Don't feel bad, pixieshell, as someone very rightly pointed out earlier, it is very obvious if your child is unhappy in a care setting, and you can always change to a different one!
I would say that my (only) dd benefitted enormously from her time at the childminders.
Similarly I am sure other parents will have seen their children thrive in nursery, clearly plenty of people on here have had that experience, and I have friends with children who are obviously really settled & happy there. I'm sure a lot of it is down to the needs of different children, and you will find something that is just right for your child.

DS has been at nursery since he was 5.5 months, three days a week, he's now 10.5 months. Too soon to tell if it's done any lasting damage, but I feel perfectly happy taking him there. He gets to do far more socialising and interesting things than he does at home with me. He adores the staff and they adore him, and they're perfectly happy to kiss and cuddle him and give all the affection such a young baby needs. I wouldn't want him full-time at this young age, but for the time he does spend there I think it's a really positive experience for him.

I wouldn't put any boy under three in a nursery. End of.

just to clarify that was me being boco's testicle not boco. Mistake from other thread
"children who spent more time in group child care, such as child care centers, were somewhat more cooperative with their caregivers at age 2, showed fewer problem behaviors (as reported by the caregiver) at ages 2 and 3, and had somewhat more positive mother-child interactions at age 3 than children in other types of child care."

All that is saying is that higher quality child care is better than lower quality child care!

It's weird, this idea that young babies need to do 'socialising and interesting things'. I think the normal, routine, home-y things are the absolute stuff of life, and that children need to sort the washing, go to the shops, weed the garden and do all the 'boring' things that give them security and bond them to their parent(s) (or, if it comes to that, their grandparents/nanny/childminder). As for socialising: babies and young children need to 'socialise' with people of all ages - grannies at bus stops, postmen, older children, etc, etc - not just with their peers.

If a child is accustomed right from the start to expect every day to be 'exciting' and 'stimulating', this is surely going to create problems in the longer term. Real life isn't thrilling one hundred percent of the time - but if children expect it to be a constant round of people and events, that isn't going to set them up for a happy adulthood.

Pixie - do you have to return to studying now? If you can postpone it, I would. You won't ever regret not putting your son in a nursery, but you might regret doing it. I don't say that you will, just that you might.

The problem with studies is that they make generalisations from samples of 1000 children or more. What they don't tell you is how your son will react in a particular environment - and all children are individuals. I think that once you make a decision you should aim to be flexible. It will probably be fine, but if it is still not working after, say 2-3months, it'll be time to have a re-think and no damage done. There are many very happy little boys in nurseries in this country, so don't be too put off by some of the more extreme views.

Pofacedandproud: You say: 'ignore the concrete evidence which supports his studies if you want to'.

What 'concrete evidence' do you refer to? Quoting some studies do not make for 'concrete evidence'. In fact, the whole attachment theory literature which Biddulph draws on (and in a very popularized, sensationalist way, imo) is highly ideological research, can hardly be called 'concrete'. In fact, all psychological research can hardly be called concrete. There have been many many critiques of this kind of research. Both from feminist theorists, but also from other psychologists. If you watch the way attachment theorists draw their conclusions, you'll be astounded by how much they put their own prejudices in what they 'observe'. Lots of these studies are based on observational research, so the researchers (who of course have an implicit agenda, as attachment theory certainly doesn't support early nursery for babies) observe in a very particular way. Plus there's a very strong middle class / white bias, i.e. they observe behaviours that they may call 'aggressive' but actually they may be totally normal behaviours in other cultures. This is the basis for A LOT of this kind of research. E.g. they're based on populations where what white / middle class english people call 'aggressive' simply doesn't apply.

Having said that though, I do believe of course that secure relationships with loved ones (mother, father, other close family members) are important. So very good quality nursery care is of course important. Ideally with low or zero staff turnover. Childminders would also be a wonderful option. But if you're sure that the nursery will be good- and you need to research quite a bit before you choose on-, I wouldn't worry for an 18 month old.

By the way, I think Steve Biddulph talks utter crap (not sure if I made that clear enough before ) but I'm happy to discuss it more, and hear other opinions.

From what I read or was told when DS (13)was little that most research on childcare affect on children was done in the US where childcare is of a much lower quality and wasn't relative to the UK.

I was talking about the large scale EPPE and NICHD studies Maria.

The studies on aggression and nurseries show very minimal differences between children who attended and those who didn't, and the differences became less. I personally find Steve Biddulph far too formulaic in his thinking - for example, his book 'raising boys' is completely reductive and definitely very narrow minded in terms of gender roles and so I would not trust his authority too deeply.
If you choose a nursery, the settling-in period is really important for you and your child and I think asking how that works should give you some insight into the ethos of the place.
For what it is worth - I was also studying when my ds went to nursery 2 days a week from 5 mo, and full time from when he was 2.5 yo. I did try him with a cm for a little while when he was 2 and I found dealing with her holidays and possible illnesses and so on tricky.
As everyone else has said, as long as your child has a key worker who you are comfortable with then nurseries are fine.