'High fliers' and nannies

[Takver]

I've seen in several places recently (including in threads on here, and for example in this article in last Saturday's Guardian) an assumption that if you are a wealthy and successful family where a nanny provides most of your childcare this is likely to result in your children being less 'stimulated' / likely to become highfliers themselves / otherwise missing out.

Typical quote from the piece linked to: "You assume they'll be intelligent, but you've never wondered how this will come about: when they try to interact with you, you're too busy."

Now maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems to me that if we go back 40 or 50 years, it would have been the absolute accepted norm in a wealthy family for nannies / other staff to do the vast majority of childcare, and indeed for boys at least to then be sent off to boarding school from age 7 onwards. I can't imagine that anyone would have dreamed that this would in someway disadvantage their children or result in them being less successful themselves when they grew up. Of course back then the women of the family wouldn't have had the option to have top jobs themselves, they would have been occupied with their social functions.

Yet now - when women are able to access high flying jobs - we are told that this pattern of purchased childcare is going to disadvantage the children. And of course the corollary of this assumption is almost invariably that it is the mother - never the father - who is in some way being selfish by devoting their time to work and not childrearing.

I should say that I don't have any direct interest here myself - I am absolutely Ms-hippy-nature-walks-and-crafty-shit-mother but it just seems to me like another cunning way to stick women right back where they belong . . .

I am not arguing that nannies should be poorly paid because they love children. I am saying that, for some people, their motivations at work go beyond money, and they are most likely to be found in relatively poorly paid jobs. Come on, you're the psychologist, you know motivations are complicated!

To spell it out:
I work because I have to earn a living. But this is not the only job I could do, I went to college with many people far far better paid who are leading lives I couldn't lead, doing things I would be bored and exhausted doing. (I would not like to work with other people's children, either, and do not think I would be good at it.) But I am good at my not-very-well paid job, because I care about the outcomes of what I am doing. Every day I have to make a million micro-decisions as to whether to do something well or crappily and it suits my temperament to bother to do them well. I do not sit here thinking "it isn't worth my while doing that thing any better than 50%, my friend George has just bought a house in zone 2 and I'll never do that". I imagine nannies who are remotely any good work in pretty much the same way.

I imagine nannies who are remotely any good work in pretty much the same way.

That is rather the key point.

Cailin - Have you read The Making of Them re boarding schools?

Is fascinating.

Plenty of people are rubbish at their job or they do it while hating it. That applies as much to nannies as anyone else. As I said earlier, when I'm looking after my DS I know I'm doing it to the best of my ability. I don't know that for sure about a nanny, I'm just taking it on faith. I don't really want to take that risk before my DS is old enough to talk and to tell me himself what's going on in his day.

No I haven't read that Hully. I'll take a look at it.

The nanny I know loves her job because she finds it less stressful and more fulfilling than the ones she had before (catering etc...) She doesn't look unfulfilled at all! Actually she seems to be thoroughly enjoying it.

Re choosing your caregiver.
It is obvious they will not do exactly as you would. And actually I am not sure it is suitable either. But you can ensure that you have some common grounds eg not to let a child crying themselves to sleep.
You do have to realize though that it can also work the other way around. Some people will think letting the child cry is the right way to bring up a child and will expect the caregiver to do so.

I have use childminders, nursery and tbh you get a feel for the person/place. I also have seen nursery staff being completely dedicated to the children, not just my own.

When pregnant with DD I costed out the options. A good nanny is about GBP30K a year here in the US and the daycare we went with is $15K a year which is topped up with help in the evenings. Here in the US, when people talk about their nanny what they really mean is their childminder/babysitter. I wouldn't trust half of the nannies that I see in my town with my dog, let alone my child.

If you want a good nanny go to Norland. When I did my research they were the best. Our plan is to use daycare initally and then move to a Norland nanny once they start school. It isn't cheap but you get what you pay for.

FWIW my sisters sil has a 'nanny' from the far east (they live in Doha) who is responsible for caring for their son and doing the housework. Their son is not where he should be at 18 months. From what I observed I would hazard a guess that the poor child is not stimulated during the day as the girl is busy doing housework. She isn't a nanny but a housekeeper with babysitter duties.

Ah you get what you ask for though.

That's one of my reason why I've always said that, if I stay at home to look after the dcs, I am not doing any HW. This is a question of priority.

Language is probably an issue there too. As the expectations to 'what you do with a little child'

Of course it can work the other way - we sent dd to a childminder two days a week for a year or so before she started school as much for the social and developmental benefits she got from being there as for the childcare.

Similarly MiL was a childminder for many years, and I doubt many parents would provide the level of stimulation / meaningful activity that her charges were engaged in on a daily basis - she doesn't do 'down time' (for herself - the kids did get naps if wanted!), and you certainly wouldn't have found her on MN when she was at work!

Takver - well said. society allows men to acknowledge they might not be the best person to look after their DCs but does not allow women the same freedom.

Takver good point. Also reminds me that nannies often "don't do" the laundry/cleaning/shopping/admin that most SAHMs have to do at the same time as looking after their DCs. Therefore, presumably, the nanny spends 100% of their time looking after the DCs whereas the SAHM doesn't. Not saying this makes the nanny better% than the SAHM of course, but...

Agree with Takver

And with minipie

Eg, in the 'baby room' at nursery, the staff there were only dealing with the babies. No cooking, preparing bottles or cleaning. Their attention was 100% on the babies, ensuring they were safe, doing some singing, changing the toys on a regular basis but at the same time leaving discovering their world around.
There was a nice balance between structured activities and unstructured play.
You had no children in pushchair for hours (pet hate of mine).

Difficult to acheive that if you need to fit HW in the middle

Wasabi,most nannies are women.So you are saying you were not the best person to look after your own child.

Actually , having thought about that again, if you thought that, then it might be better to try a nanny?

NotSure if the staff in the baby room at the nursery didn't do any preparing bottles, cleaning etc who did? Did they have extra staff that didn't have contact with the children?

Yes they had someone for the food preparation.
Staff with the children were obviously cleaning any spillage etc... going along but any 'cleaning' such as hoovering etc.. was done after the last children had left or early in the am before anyone had arrived.
No record sheet for the parents filled in. I had plenty of time to ask about what had happened during the day directly (which also made me confident about what they were dong because it was clear they 'knew' the dcs).
Ratio was 1 adult for 3dcs, not that different than I was I did with 2 dcs under 2yo.

Remember though I a talking here about nursery. Not a nanny which was the original question on this thread.

amillion on the basis DP works in early years education and I dont, he obviously has more relevant skills. i dont think me having a vagina makes me automatically superior to him in child care.

what makes you think having a nanny means i wouldnt look after my own child?

That's quite an unusual nursery. Most people I know who worked in nurseries were expected to hoover, mop, change cot sheets etc during the day. Seeing as they were open from 8-6 it wasn't really feasible for the staff to be paid extra to come in early or go home late. Plus if there are 8 or more babies in a room then the ongoing cleaning is quite extensive. I'm not sure one person looking after 3 babies would have less to do than your average SAHM to be honest.

I think the hours they were doing included half an hour or an hour before/after the opening times to do that. So someone who was working full time was actually there only 4 or 4.5 days a week?

I also think the way the staff was treated was very special. It had a very retention rate (most nursery staff had been there for years and years, unusual for the nursery where I am).
And they were good at it, ie they really cared about the children rather than just 'doing a job'.

It was slightly more expensive than other around but really worth every penny!

The housewives are making some of my earlier points for me on this thread so carry on....

We all know that children thrive when loved and cared for. We all know that the greatest risk to children is from a parent sadly and that your home is the least safest place you are and that plenty of parents are dreadful with children. There is no reason a child is at less risk from spending some of their time with a loved nanny than its mother or father.

I have now been a mother for 27 years so I may be one of the few on the thread to see the finished product as it were as well as still having relatively youngish ones in prep school. They want security and routine. They want love. As I say when they ask which do I love most (the answer to that is none above the others) is that love is not finite. You can love a mother, father and siblings. You can love all kinds of people who are in your life. We all know Bowlby's results have been adopted by the housewives brigade and wrongly interpreted. he looked at children taken away from parents to live elsewhere. That is nothing like what a working father or mother does. If you think of the hours that full time working mothers spend with their under 3s it is huge, it really is. There is no less a bond. However the child has other bonds and that for me is key and massive advantage of working.

Those children of the working parents have so much more in their life. They are enriched. They also have dilution. Dilutino is crucial to children and I think this more and more. What I mean by dilution is variety of people with whom they interact. one parent only is too limiting. |if mummy is cross and shouts at you you cannot run off to daddy. If mummy is tired and not nice (as we all get, I certainl used to and I am sure housewives do too) you cannot run off to someone else. Largers households with lots of people in them whcih we have ended up with whether that's servants or extended families give people a break from others around them.

Being at home all day with a nanny (who might barely speak your language) or shut up day in day out in a nursery is hardly going to be more stimulating than being out and about with your mother and her friends. Horizons are broadened stratospherically for DCs surrounded by intelligent stimulating adults with a broad range of cultural interests.

Just to pick up on something Bonsoir said way back ("and I observe the DCs at my DD's school and see very different personality traits emerging at 7/8 based on whether they have a SAHP or not.") There are a lot of nannies out there who have been with a family several years and genuinely love, and want the very best for the children they care for. Those DC may not see their parents from Sunday night until Saturday morning, but their primary carer, although an employee does love them.

I'd be interested to know the difference between DC with SAHM/long term carers and those who have a new au pair every 6 months.

I was a nanny many, many moons ago, and all of my charges are now high fliers (apart from the DC of the multimillionaire family who are all, um...do nothing). Yes, they received the best education money could buy, and yes they inherited slightly above average intelligence, but whether the parents weren't around because of their high flying jobs, or their high flying social life, they've all turned out OK, despite an employee (or several) being their main career during their formative years.

Would I have a nanny myself? No, because I consider caring for my DC a huge privilege. Although it would be nice to have someone waiting in the wings so I could post a letter in peace But if I were to require childcare and money were no object, I would employ a nanny like the one in the guardian article. Only I like to think I would pay her at least as much as the cleaner.