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

'I am not proving my argument' How convenient. And not true seeing as you have stated that your anecdotal experience is as valid as the actual research. The Guardian article about the reports actually interviewed the academic leaders of both reports, but obviously you must know more about the studies than they do."

I sad in the ABSENCE of rigorous academic research, SADLY people have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Of course I don't know more about the research, my phd bring in constructions of motherhood and feminism in ghe twentieth century, but I DO seem to understand the nature of the media and how they use selective quotes to support their angle ( was it only a few weeks ago when the media, including the broadsheets, were screaming about the doctor who said epidurals were only for unfit mothers - when it turns out he said nothing of the sort). That's why I read the primary research and not the secondary reporting.
Anyway, time to step off the thread, because your posts are increasingly aggressive, sarcastic and directed at me personally an. Thstvis not a style if debating that I enjoy.
I hope the OP finds a solution that works for her family.

I don't think I have been aggressive clemette. I think you have been aggressive from the start and rather outraged I haven't accepted all your rather contradictory and confused postings without question. And no amount of telling me you are a skilled academic researcher/phd bearer/high priestess with change that.

FWIW I've had many discussions on the subject on MN and haven't found most posters quite so overbearing.

[Disclaimer - I am not actually accusing you of being a high priestess]

Pofaced - I've found the same. I remember one neighbour with DCs the same age as mine commenting on how I was putting my DCs at every kind of disadvantage by not battery-farming them in the way that she was battery-farming hers (no, of course not all nurseries are battery farms, but our local one - beloved of wealthy SAHMS and working mothers alike - certainly is!)

Clemette, I've had a bad day. I'm sorry if that came over in my posts and I sounded aggressive, I did find your tone a bit strident but didn't mean to get into a slanging match with you. I respect your position [though don't agree with it] and it was unfair of me to call your posts confused - I did find a couple of them contradictory though, but maybe that was a misunderstanding. Sorry!

I do think good nurseries can be a very positive place for over 3s [maybe some over 2s too] but it does depend on the child, and the nursery.

[and the high priestess thing was a joke honest, it just gets a bit lost in online translation]

RortyDogOfTheRemove how can you call a nursery a 'battery farm' unless you have direct personal experience of your child being minded there? This whole discussion is so crazy and emotive

Pofaced, thank you. I know I can be a bit strident but one of the reasons I feel at home on MN is that it is OK to be so. Sorry if I rubbed you up the wrong way.

Rortydog I am not sure if you have read the whole thread but your view does stand out as being particularly judgemental. Simply by saying nursery is not bad, no-one is saying that NOT going to nursery is bad either.

Edd - I've had to spend some time there for various reasons (not to do with my DCs), so I do know it quite well. I also know a large number of parents who have taken children out of that particular nursery for the same reason. I also know of very, very good nurseries (my own DCs, at three, went for two mornings per week to a lovely, small nursery school that I couldn't fault on any score).

Clemette - you're absolutely right that nobody has said 'you are damaging your child if he/she doesn't go to nursery'. If, however, people write that they sent their child to nursery so that he/she would 'learn to be sociable', 'learn to share', ' learn to take turns', 'get a head start educationally' and so on, one can only assume that the popular belief is that children who don't go to nursery are snatchy, grabby, unsocialised creatures who are doomed to academic failure.

As Edd says, this whole thing is so very emotive!

I still think that society has got it all wrong for families in general (not just mothers).

I don't think that is the message at all. My DD goes to football classes and I encourage it because it has made her much more confident physically. By saying this I don't say that every child who doesn't go is a lazy lump, just that it suits my daughter. We didn't do baby signing because she spoke only, but I didn't feel judged by those parents who raved that it was turning their child into a genius - we just didn't need or want it.
So, if you have a child who is a little shy, or who doesn't get chance to mix with other children very often, then nursery might be good for socialisation but if your child (and you) don't need it then surely all is well??

Clemette - I agree with you on that one, and you make the point very nicely.

I think there is the problem - and this is a very different problem - that parents (let's not just say mothers, though they're the ones who get punished most, even if just by themselves) end up putting children in nursery even if they'd rather not - and then try to justify it (even if only to themselves) by saying what a good thing it is.

I don't think anyone will ever really manage to have a sober debate about this (or not on MN, at any rate). We all make our decisions because we're all trying to do whatever's best for our children.

In some cases, this means sending them to nursery because the alternative is not having enough money to pay the mortgage. In the OP's case, though, there is a choice: she doesn't have to return to study at this stage. Given that she has the luxury of choice, I'd still say that on balance home is the best place for a little boy in general (knowing nothing about her particular child or family).

It would be interesting to find how many women use nursery through financial need and how many for other reasons. I didn't need to return to work as early as I did to pay the mortgage, but did so because I wanted to. I don't feel guilty because I chose the very best I could ( in our case it was a definite decision to reject the chain nursery in favour of the village nursery with almost no staff turnover). But it would be wrong to assume I feel guilty about it or wish it were any other way. Mine is not a plaintive cry based on the need to convince myself, it is a conscious decision based on the needs of each individual member of the family and on a thorough examination of the research.
I sincerely feel that if you feel confident in whatever arrangements you have, and your children are happy, loved and stimulated in whichever environment you choose, then there is no "right" or "wrong" ( within reason of course).

I agree that the key thing is for parents to feel confident with their arrangements. However, the OP (where has she gone?) clearly doesn't feel entirely confident about the nursery idea.

Using a nursery because you want to do it and choose to return to work is very different from using a nursery because you're afraid of the consequences of not returning to work.

I think the research argument is a bit of a red herring. I agree with Penelope Leach's research - but it also happens that her research coincides with my own beliefs and practice. If I were keen to work and put my children in nursery, I'm sure I'd equally find lots of research to confirm that I was doing the 'right thing'. If I had to work (rather than choosing whether or not to), I'd scrape together every bit of research I could find about the benefits of nursery in order to try to make myself feel better (actually, I'd find a good CM instead - but you know what I mean).

Is there any evidence that UK mothers have been going back to work earlier since 1999? It's asserted as fact in that Guardian article, but given that the pattern over that period has been one of gradually increasing the length of paid and of protected maternity leave, I would have expected the trend to be the other way.

Also, as I understand it from reading the various reports and articles, if there is an effect then for any individual child it is tiny, with little suggestion that his/her life is going to be badly affected (particularly when concomitant advantages are factored in). The concern seems to be that if the vast majority of children are experiencing this tiny effect, then dealing with groups of children in school or similar settings becomes more challenging and there is a knock-on effect in that way.

Which AFAICS means that from the point of view of "should I personally be worried about using a high-quality nursery for my child" the answer even assuming all this research is reliable and applicable to the UK situation is a pretty strong "No", particularly when (as in the OP's case) that child is comfortably over a year old. The "issue" insofar as there is one is around long-term social aspects of encouraging large numbers of children into nursery care.

I just wish there was any decent research on EITHER side. There is very little done on the under twos so there is no quality research to support either " camp". So anecdote and instinct have to step up (which, to those of us who generally avoid making parenting decisions based on such, can be a little daunting). The research that says group care is detrimental is flawed, the research to suggest it is advantageous for under 2s is almost non-existent. it is indeed very tricky!

There are many issues here. Pofaced, thanks for sending us that Guardian piece.

First issue: very predictably, in the guardian piece there is not one- NOT ONE- mention of fathers. Also, there is the assumption (just thrown in, casually) that 'secure attachment to mother' is the number one important issue. Well I disagree completely with this. Even in the earliest John Bowlby literature, it never says that attachment to mother is the most importnat issue. Attachment to 1-2-3 important figures is the key. A good nanny could play this role. A father too. A grandmother. Etc.

Second issue. There is a general talk of 'nursery'. But what are we talking about here? surely there are differences between a 3 month old going to nursery- a 2 year old going to nursery- a 3 year old going to nursery- and also differences between part time nursery care & full time nursery care. And also differences in quality of nursery care. All these different scenarios are not really discussed, in their individuality & complexity. Plus of course the HUGE differences in family circumstances.

Third issue. Pofaced, you say (rather arbitrarily, I feel) that nursery is best 'after the child is 3'. In order for this to happen, one or both of the parents need to stay at home full time to take care of the child (unless they can afford a full-time or part-time nanny). This in turn means that most likely the woman will be doing the SAH, and it also means that she will definitely be left behind in her career, her interests. Plus she may WANT to return to the work for which (in the case of many women) she has prepared for years & years. The work which in many cases means not only money but a feeling of identity too.

The issue of nursery (and the focus on mothers) is for me a red herring. The main issues are different. Why isn't there a focus on fathers' and mothers' responsibility to their children? Why do we keep arguing about these issues- we mothers- instead of pushing for more flexible work, more childcare in the work space, more affordable childcare, longer maternity & paternity leave etc etc?

As Bellsa said, I think nursery (or other childcare) can be an excellent choice for some particular children & families. It's silly to assume that all mothers would necessarily be good as SAHMs- not all parents are good at the baby stage or enjoy it- or that their children would necessarily thrive & be at their best with a SAHM, if the mum herself doesn't feel comfortable in that role. As I said, the issues are much wider & all this supposed research is beside the point IMO (plus, it doesn't seem like convincing research at all to me, all this talk of 'aggresivity' & what it means is, I think, very culturally specific).

I really never experienced any pressure in sending the children to nursery, as I said quite the contrary.
Nor have I ever met mothers who feel guilty about choosing nursery and needing to find "excuses" to feel better.

Personally, I certainly didn't send mine so that they could learn to "share" or the alphabet. Actually, I was very happy that my dc's nursery in the UK wasn't academic at all, and that my son spent many afternoons looking for worms in the garden instead of learning how to write his name so that he could please his reception teacher.

Nursery def suited my ds personality, who has always needed lot of entertainment and company. I'm not sure what he has "learnt" at nursery. Certainly to speak English with a lovely devon accent (we are not english) and to feel quite comfortable among his peers. But again, has it been nursery?
All these researches don't say much or seem to ignore the background of these children. They do have a life outside them.

What is proved is that good nurseries have to have no turnover, qualified staff, high ratio of staff/children etc. These things cost money. In many European countries nurseries are funded by the state. I think it should be the same in the UK.
But it is obvious that with these researches being so negative this will never happen, and it's a shame. As I do believe even sahm may need some help with childcare.

I'd like to know more about the Norway study referred to in that Guardian article.
I agree Maria the main issue is a primary, one to one carer - could be father, grandparent, nanny, etc. When I say nurseries can be good for over 3s it doesn't mean it can't be good for under 3s, just that there are more risk factors then I think [largely ratio of carers to children, the fact that the child cannot express issues they might be unhappy with, and I do believe more children under 2 may find nursery difficult/stressful [this is born oout by current research whatever you think of it] but obviously not all, and it does depend on the quality of group care. I think the quality of group care in the UK is often wanting, maybe different, say, in Scandinavia, but interestingly there the govt give parents far greater and more generous parental leave.

I think Clemette raises an interesting point relating to group care being prevalent in other countries. This would be a very interesting issue to research. Is group care, say in developing countries based more around an informal co-operative between families? Maybe even a bit like a kibbutz? Does this affect the quality of care, does the informality and presence of family members make group care a better option? I don't know the answers.

I'm not sure whether kibbutz are still operating like they did in the past. Surely the idea of a kibbutz community is quite appealing to me... .

I wonder if it is a cultural thing. Most people I know here in Milan favour group care over nanny once the children are 12 months and older.

Kibbutz communities don't exist anymore (from what I understand). But raising a child in a community- including its extended family- is certainly appealing. I agree that there's a strong cultural element in these things. In the UK there is an emphasis on attachment theory which makes for a bit of an anti-nursery bias (differently from other countries).

Also, I agree with Franca that language development- for those who are not english- is a big bonus of nursery.

Yes, attachment theories are totally ignored here in Italy. I was talking about them with a friend who's a child psychologist and she doesn't rate them, at all.

Attachment theory is very culturally specific, and yet in the UK it's presented as THE absolute truth, proven truth etc. I completely agree with your child psychologist friend, attachment theory could be criticized on many levels...(and has been, but these criticisms don't seem to be reproduced / heard in the UK).

Yes, I agree Maria

For example, there's a thread going on at the moment in the 'In the news' section, about whether babies should be removed early on from families or not. The whole thread is very interesting, but much of what some of the posters say (including a politician who is taking part and severeal social workers) is based on attachment theory as the only proven theory. They don't even mention the possibility that attachment theory is just one of many theories, and is far from proven!