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

Steve Biddulph - pah! That reductive old evangelist ...

I am quite interested in this 'babies need to have a boring time, what happens if they grow up to expect every day to be interesting' line of thinking from LadyHooHa.

I had a completely boring childhood (sorry mum if you are reading ). And now I am a thrill-seeking, risk-taking adult (I won't entertain you all by listing my top ten risks and thrills in this public forum)!.

Anyway I am delighted my baby is (apparently, judging by his squeaks of joy) having a good time at nursery ... although I'll be a bit disappointed if he then grows up to be a boring homebody (LadyHooha's scenario in reverse)

Actually my worst nightmare would be that he grows up to be ... a writer of Steve Biddulph-style books...

PS Hopefully Biddulph will not now sue Mumsnet

Just because what he says is not popular doesn't mean he is a reductive evangelist. He is pretty forthright in his views yes. Of course some children do perfectly well in nursery [don't know how often I can keep repeating this.] But generally studies have shown that group care is not the best care for under twos. Obviously the better the quality of group care and the higher the carer/child ratio the better.

I find it odd that full-time working mothers seem to get more cross with any evidence that suggests full time nurseries not good for babies and not as cross with the general work cultural attitude towards mothers and the lack of options available in the work place for people with families. There should be much more flexible options for women who want to maintain their careers and have a family. And more support from the government.

My DS didn't fare too well in his first nursery. They were one of those 'Oftsed Outsanding' nurseries who went far too heavily on appearances. They basically wanted to cultivate a tidy little hive of nice, quiet, good children all sharing nicely. My almost 3 yr old boy was having none of it. He wanted to run free, play on his own and ask 'But why?' a lot. We switched to another nursery - a bigger, more ramshackle state nursery, actually - and he has thrived.

A good nursery is the right one for your child - which you don't always find out staright away: trial and error, and all that. once you've found a good 'un, I think it is nothing but beneficial for young children to have a dedicated place to go to play, socialise and explore.

'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.'

Let's just assume that is true. Do you know what kind of reaction I'd get if I said 'In my experience children who go to nursery are more aggressive but better at hiding their aggression from adults as they have learned to do at nursery' ? You'd be aghast. I don't think that is true of all children who go to nursery obviously. I think it is true of some. Probably your observation is true some of the time too.

Last sentence deleted - should have said, observations are partially helpful but still don't have as much weight as the academic studies dedicated to the subject.

Pixieshell, I wouldn't beat yourself about this. Deciding what to do about childcare is one of the toughest decisions you are going to have to make and I certainly would say that it was a "mistake" to start reading up on the options.

If I were you I would take a long hard look at the research and then the options available to you and then make an informed decision on what the best choice is for you. Unfortunately sometimes your means will limit those choices but you cannot start to panic about that and just have to do the best you can.

I would also try to stay clear of too much anecdotal evidence in the beginning. This can be reassuring once you have made the decision and need to feel more confident about it but it isn't truly helpful.

I find it very annoying when people say "my child goes to nursery and he is fine" in the same way that some say "I weaned DS at 6 weeks and he is fine" or "he had formula and is fine" or "he crosses the road without looking all the time and has never once been hit by a car and is fine".

The fact is that experience is purely anecdotal and isn't worth much compared to scientific research on the subject. You can't really know the effect on your child of any of those things (apart from the silly car example obviously!) as it is subjective and doesn't control for anything else.

Which is why it is so important to read broadly from a wide variety of reliable sources and then to make an informed decision.

But once you have made that decision don't worry too much about all the disadvantages of whatever it was - there are pros and cons in anything and you sound like a lovely mother who will always have her DCs best interests at heart. Best of luck!

I totally agree with Clemette and Maria re Biddulph and his so called research.

Plus, in many other parts of the world, researches, psychologists etc have a totally different view of group care than the Anglo Saxon.

And as Maria says, aggressiveness is a totally normal trait of really young children, what's the taboo?

"I find it odd that full-time working mothers seem to get more cross with any evidence that suggests full time nurseries not good for babies and not as cross with the general work cultural attitude towards mothers and the lack of options available in the work place for people with families. There should be much more flexible options for women who want to maintain their careers and have a family. And more support from the government"

Pofaced - You have said it for me, and far better than I could have said it after ten weeks of school holidays!!

FWIW, I think Biddulph talks a lot of sense!

It is easy to see your first childcare decisions as irreversible. Give it a go and if you don't like what you are seeing, change your childcare, change your study plan, change your life until you are happy with what you are providing for your son and with the life you have for yourself.

As the posters above point out, your son is an individual - so just ignore what everyone says, you'll see what works for him.

If it's any consolation, even my friends who could afford nannies also went through terrible pangs of guilt when they returned to work. It's part of the process, I am afraid.

Pofaced, you say: "I find it odd that full-time working mothers seem to get more cross with any evidence that suggests full time nurseries not good for babies and not as cross with the general work cultural attitude towards mothers and the lack of options available in the work place for people with families. There should be much more flexible options for women who want to maintain their careers and have a family. And more support from the government".

I think that's very true. The issue is that there are few good, affordable options & choices for working parents. Even though I disagree wholeheartedly with Biddulph & think he is an ideologue rather than a theorietician or researcher, still, better quality childcare, more work flexibility etc would surely benefit all parents, working or not working.

Haven't read whole thread.

Ds1, who is 3, gets stressed and can be aggressive and has never been to a nursery.

No idea if he'd be even worse had he gone to one.

Things can't be the same for ds2 so we'll see!

I think you know your child best, and need to make a decision on their individual needs. My eldest DD thrived at nursery from 8m (3 days a week). I knew pretty soon after her birth that DD2 she would find a nursery environment extremely stressful, so I used a childminder for her. She's coming up for two and it's only in the last few months I would even consider putting her in nursery. What suits some does not suit al.

" I find it very annoying when people say "my child goes to nursery and he is fine" in the same way that some say "I weaned DS at 6 weeks and he is fine" or "he had formula and is fine" or "he crosses the road without looking all the time and has never once been hit by a car and is fine"."
and I find it more than annoying that you would link my decision to send my children to nursery to people who wean their children at six weeks. As I have outlined earlier, there are flaws in the studies quoted (and more often misquoted). There us hard scientific evidence against early weaning (or crossing the road without looking WTF??) It is hardly surprising some working mothers take exception to the view that because we have researched and discredited some sensationalist media hype that we are wantonly endangering the health of our children.
It's no wonder that some feel that some SAHM are judgemental and smug if they would happily say ghat in public. There is evidence that putting your child in nursery after their second birthday enhances their academic achievement - if you choose not to it would be rude and unreasonable for someone to say that's the equivalent of giving him carving knives to play with.

I don't think that poster was comparing your decision with the decision to wean at 6 weeks. I think she was just saying whatever anecdotal evidence you throw up is not really relevant. Academic research is. If saying that is smug and judgemental, well, no, it isn't. You come across as very defensive clemette, which I can understand, but you shouldn't feel under attack. At least, not here. I still can't see the flaws in the studies quoted, as I said earlier, your quotes illustrated that higher quality group care is better than lower quality care. No one is disputing that. I think it is scandalous there are not more options for women who want to maintain and further there career and have children actually. But nothing has to change as long as WOHMs and SAHMs are at each others' throats - great distraction device!

You are right, clemette - the examples I gave are not analogous. The car one was supposed to show that and be a bit jokey but reading it back now I can see how it reads and why you took offence and am sorry. The point I was trying to make - albeit badly - was on the value of anecdotal evidence.

Someone saying "my child is fine and therefore x is fine" is of little value to me - they are subjective, have personal reasons for their choices and can't know the real consequences of whatever decision they have made. For myself I found the research against nursery care for young children very convincing but can see how others can take a different view.

Having said that I think that discrediting the research as "sensationalist media hype" is hardly a balanced view and I certainly wouldn't make this about working mums vs SAHM which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Sorry - a me me me post.. I feel terribly guilty because my little boy has just started nursery, he's struggling to settle and I have read all the Biddulph articles and now I'm wishing I'd looked for a childminder instead! The only good thing (for me) is that he's only going 2 days a week, allbeit long days. I can't work out though if it's thought to be ok over 18 months or not until they're 3 (according to the research/Biddulph)? He's 16 months at the moment.
The thing is - what are parents really supposed to do instead if you have to work to pay the mortgage? Also there's an article today in a newspaper that says children cared for by Grandparents don't always fare so well as nursery children! We really are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Having said that I do welcome new research and am not one for blaming the people who do the studies/report them for making me feel guilty - however it's sometimes hard to sift through and find the good quality research and avoid the scaremongering if you are not an expert.

" however it's sometimes hard to sift through and find the good quality research and avoid the scaremongering if you are not an expert."
this is exactly the point that I am trying to make, but even having pointed out the flaws and short-comings of the research cited on this thread, and using evidence to do so some would rather accuse me of having an "agenda" or being defensive when in fact what I am being is what I am trained to be - an academic skilled in research.
The American study us one based on a system where nurseries don't even gave to be registered, let alone monitored, and even then the report itself does not say what the media article posted claimed it to say. It says good quality childcare can be as beneficial to very young children as mAternal care, but that poor quality nursery care can be detrimental - hardly a shocking discovery. The IEEP said that nursery is not ideally suited to tackling aggression in the pre-school child - ie not that it is a cause, but rather it us not a cure.
But I pointed this out earlier in the thread and still people are making claims about this academic research that are false. Perhaps the irritation I feel at people basing their opinions about others on the way the media have spun these studies us coming across as me being defensive.
The OP asked about the quality of the research that said nurseries damage boys. I havr answered that question in so far as the research that was given in support. Am happy to look at any other, but until the WHO say that group care is damaging to babies ( not likely given that the vast majority of the worlds babies are raised within e tended groups) then I will probably remain a sceptic.

Apologies for all typos - blasted iPhone predictive text...

StillStanding: I actually stand by my point that Biddulph's research is not research but 'sensationalist media hype'. If someone has an agenda it is him, and he hardly presents a balanced, nuanced, complex view, with all the different scenarios & particularities of each case in mind. Nor does he really differentiate between good quality nurseries & lower quality ones. He even goes as far as to present an appendix with 'the right age for different types of childcare', basically implying that even a babysitter is problematic in the first year! And nursery no good at all before 3 years.

As for my own agenda. I don't really have one. My interest is theoretical (has to do with my work) but also I get so annoyed & upset when I see us mums guilt-trip ourselves (I do it too!) about things that, most likely, are absolutely fine for our children. I'm lucky enough to be working part-time from home- for now- and have made the decision to put my DS in part-time nursery when he's 2 years, for reasons that have to do with language development & the social environment. Also, of course, for financial reasons!

Maria2007, I wasn't talking about Biddulph in particular. I have read "Raising Boys" but know little else about him. I found the book vaguely helpful but in general I just took what I found useful and discarded the rest. He certainly wasn't the basis of my decisions on childcare - I found a lot more useful and specific research elsewhere.

I fear the guilt-tripping thing is an inevitable part of motherhood! There will always be pros and cons of each of the decisions we make, childcare and otherwise, and my view is that once you have made a decision and it is working for you and your child then you shouldnt beat yourself up about all the alternatives. Having said that, then dismissing all the research that goes against your decision and implying it is rubbish or hype just because on balance you made a different decision might make someone feel better but is pure wishful thinking.

the only bit that came across as defensive clemette was when ss said anecdotal evidence was not useful and the way you responded, takin it as a personal insult and saying 'no wonder that some feel that some SAHMs are judgmental and smug..' As an academic skilled in research perhaps you should be able to see that anecdotal evidence not really relevant, and that that was the point ss was making. Look, I don't want to have a go at you. I just disagree with you, and have not seen anything that you have said about the evidence that could persuade me otherwise. That's all. [pofaced here]

Stillstanding, you're right, we should definitely not be dismissing research / ideas that go against what we believe / choose. As you say, and you're right, there's always a pro for every con, and each decision is chosen among many (and there's always a 'what if' involved). Just, on balance, the reseach on nurseries- in general, not just Biddulph's- tends to be extremely ideological, ends up more often than not being mother-blaming, and basically is not even convincing as good academic research. Having said that, I do agree of course that good quality childcare- flexible, on site if possible, with low turnover of staff- is essential. And I also agree that nursery is not the right choice for every family, actually I say all this but it wasn't the right choice for our DS- we've chosen to send him to nursery only when he's 2. But I know that it may well the right choice for many families.

Mother-blaming absolutely wrong and pointless - the system in which mothers have to work and maintain their careers the problem.