Nursery 'Bad' For Young Children

[Trudi G]

It's all over the news this morning - putting your children into nursery too young for too long is bad for them, and makes them more aggressive than children cared for at home by a parent.

Toddlers in nurseries 'brighter but more aggressive'

Children who are sent to nursery school are naughtier than those looked after at home by their mothers, but also brighter a study has found. The research shows that toddlers who spent lots of time away from their parents were more disobedient, defiant, aggressive and disruptive. And the earlier they went into nursery, the worse their behaviour got.

The figures come from the National Institute of Child Health, a US government body, which tracked the lives of 1,300 children from birth to starting school. It found that the more time children spent in childcare, be it nursery school or a childminder, the worse their behaviour got.

Those who spend the most time away from their parents were seen as being defiant and disruptive and prone to fighting and bullying. But the children were also smarter than those looked after by their parents.

Children who go to nurseries before they are three have "inferior quality childhoods" that increase the risk of them suffering mental health problems, including depression and aggression, later in life.

One in five children put into nursery too early will go on to develop such issues. As adults, they may turn to drink or drugs to cope. And the problem, he argues, will only get worse as increasing numbers of parents put their offspring into nurseries. With 100,000 under-threes at full-time nurseries in Britain, the numbers have quadrupled in just ten years and look set to continue growing as the government provides more spaces through its policies.

When my son was little, i did work that fitted around my husbands work, so that he was never left with strangers. Now i'm a single parent i'm loathe to get a menial job that will not make me any better off, and have to dump my son on strangers.
My son is a happy intelligent child, who has benefitted immensely from having me at home - isn't it about time we stopped trying to force mums to leave their children, and take responsibility for childcare ourselves?

[Darren]

My sister has trained and worked as a nursery nurse. Parents were enlisting their children who were as young as a few months. It's obscene. Why have children if you don't want to dedicate your time to them.

[Paul Clement]

isn't it about time we stopped trying to force mums to leave their children, and take responsibility for childcare ourselves?

Basically, no. There are a lot of single mums and single dads claiming Income Support, and I think the Government has a responsibility to try to promote the benefits of coming off of benefits and going into work. For a start, they don't force you to go to work, the choice is entirely voluntary, all they mandate is that you attend an interview to discuss the options, which seems a perfectly reasonable request to me.

Now i'm a single parent i'm loathe to get a menial job that will not make me any better off, and have to dump my son on strangers.

With the Tax Credits and Housing Benefits that are available when you go into work, there are very few jobs out there, menial or not that are likely to leave you no better off. The choice of whether to leave your children with strangers or not is a different matter entirely.

My sister has trained and worked as a nursery nurse. Parents were enlisting their children who were as young as a few months. It's obscene. Why have children if you don't want to dedicate your time to them.

You can still dedicate time to your children while working. There's still quite a bit of the day and of course the weekends when you are able to spend quality time with your children and still work at other times. By the rational of your arguement, any father who works full time isn't dedicated enough to have children. Of course, I know your not actually stating that, but that's what it should also mean. It's a hypocrisy that assumes that when a child is born, the mother should stay at home and raise the child because that's what's best. You can love a child and raise it well while working, and for some people doing anything else is not an option because it doesn't become affordable to do it any other way.

[Andrew Curnow]

It does always seem odd to me that the Government is ready to offer money to help fund childcare, so as to make it more 'attractive' for both parents to be out working; rather than put that money to increase the child benefit to make it more viable for one parent (either mother, or father, doesn't matter) to stay at home full-time. I'm sure a lot of childcare provision is in its own way very good, but I don't think you can beat having a parent at home looking after their own child(ren).

Speaking personally, I only went to nursery twice because by all accounts I screamed the place down, so by the second time the staff suggested to Mum that perhaps it wasn't doing me any good... Mind you, that was back in the early-70s, when I think it was very much more just one possibility - it seems to me nowadays that there's almost the suggestion that there's something weird about you if you DON'T put your child in a nursery as soon as possible. I know at least one couple (well, my sister-in-law's sister in fact) whose own mother looks after their two children part of the week, and most of the rest of the week they are both at nursery - one is three, the other is not yet two I think. And, sorry, but I think that's wrong.

[Jon Masters]

You'd need to read the proper report, but on face value from that article this seems like an appalling bad piece of research. To reach the conclusion that the more time a child spends in nursery the worse behaved they are is only possible if you compare their development to children who have spent an equivalent time away from their parents in other situations e.g. staying with grandparents etc.

From personal experience both my kids went to nursery from the age of two, for 3 full days a week while my wife worked part time. In doing so they learnt important social skills at a crucial age, about getting along with others, about sharing, about negotiating, about empathising. As a dierct result they have both settled in to school very easily, have made lots of friends and seem to be able to join clubs etc. with great ease. The eldest (7) in particular can just walk into a place with a bunch of strange kids and within 5 minutes be chatting away and getting on well.

In contrast there are a few of their friends at school who are tempremental, reluctant to join anything new, easily upset, and quite selfish and demanding when they come to play - all the ones I can think of have never been to nursery and spent all day at home. And as a teacher I'm never surprised to find that a lot of the more disruptive and defiant students are only childs who seem to have spent their entire lives getting their own way.

Of course, my anecdotal evidence isn't scientific, but with such a small and biased sample neither is this study.

[Trudi G]

Basically, no. There are a lot of single mums and single dads claiming Income Support, and I think the Government has a responsibility to try to promote the benefits of coming off of benefits and going into work. For a start, they don't force you to go to work, the choice is entirely voluntary, all they mandate is that you attend an interview to discuss the options, which seems a perfectly reasonable request to me.



With the Tax Credits and Housing Benefits that are available when you go into work, there are very few jobs out there, menial or not that are likely to leave you no better off. The choice of whether to leave your children with strangers or not is a different matter entirely.



You can still dedicate time to your children while working. There's still quite a bit of the day and of course the weekends when you are able to spend quality time with your children and still work at other times. By the rational of your arguement, any father who works full time isn't dedicated enough to have children. Of course, I know your not actually stating that, but that's what it should also mean. It's a hypocrisy that assumes that when a child is born, the mother should stay at home and raise the child because that's what's best. You can love a child and raise it well while working, and for some people doing anything else is not an option because it doesn't become affordable to do it any other way.

Firstly, i know of two single mothers who have tried to do the 'right thing' by going out to work part time - both earn around the 400 mark per month, and both are alot worse off than if they were on benefits. One mum has to enlist the (unpaid) help of gran to look after her baby, the other has fallen behind with her rent and council tax because the system is so bad and slow at getting what help she is entitled to, and she is getting threatening letters of eviction.
The first mum was a manageress when she got pregnant, and had to go back as a sales person on a lower wage after her maternity leave.
I get called in to the benefit office every 6 months, to see what i have been doing with my time - the answer to that question is raising my child in the standard i want him to be raised, with my moral outlook.
I personally think that if you are going to have a child, then it's your responsibility as a mum to raise that child, and not to dump them on people you hardly know because it's convenient.
If you want a career, have a career - if you want a child, have a child - and look after it. You cannot dedicate your 'spare' time to your child, it just doesn't work, when you come in from working do you really want to cook a nutritious meal, and then settle down with a nice story? No, you're too damned knackered and opt for a takeaway and dumping your kid in front of the TV - that's what's wrong with our society today. We want it all, and we've got to have it all.

[Pip Madeley]

for Trudi

[Paul Clement]

Firstly, i know of two single mothers who have tried to do the 'right thing' by going out to work part time - both earn around the 400 mark per month, and both are alot worse off than if they were on benefits. One mum has to enlist the (unpaid) help of gran to look after her baby, the other has fallen behind with her rent and council tax because the system is so bad and slow at getting what help she is entitled to, and she is getting threatening letters of eviction.

The system isn't slow and bad throughout the country. Each area has a different local authority that deals with Housing and Council Tax benefits, some are poorer than others. In other areas these beneifts are dealt with quickly and efficiently and people are into work that leaves them better off than they were on benefits. I work in a Jobcentre and see proof of it every day.

The first mum was a manageress when she got pregnant, and had to go back as a sales person on a lower wage after her maternity leave.

If she was made to by the company she worked for (i.e this is all you get or leave), then they have broken employment law.

I get called in to the benefit office every 6 months, to see what i have been doing with my time - the answer to that question is raising my child in the standard i want him to be raised, with my moral outlook.

That's not the reason why you're being called in every six months, it's because as a standard operating model, they call Lone Parents in on a six monthly basis so that they can be given help and advice should they wish it. If they weren't offering this service, they'd be getting slaughtered by those who wanted it. They can't win really, can they.

I personally think that if you are going to have a child, then it's your responsibility as a mum to raise that child, and not to dump them on people you hardly know because it's convenient.
If you want a career, have a career - if you want a child, have a child - and look after it. You cannot dedicate your 'spare' time to your child, it just doesn't work, when you come in from working do you really want to cook a nutritious meal, and then settle down with a nice story? No, you're too damned knackered and opt for a takeaway and dumping your kid in front of the TV - that's what's wrong with our society today. We want it all, and we've got to have it all.

Fine, that's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to have it. Many other people would argue that going out to work or having a child attending a nursery can be a positive experience for the child. Neither opinion is solely right or wrong, just different. I wouldn't accept the fact that someone who comes home from work will necessarily ignore their children so that they can relax. My sister in law has always had time for my nephew, and always cooked him when she came home from work, having had to return to work when he was six months old or face losing her home.

[Paul Clement]

Firstly, i know of two single mothers who have tried to do the 'right thing' by going out to work part time - both earn around the 400 mark per month, and both are alot worse off than if they were on benefits.

Thinking about this, I really can't quite understand this.

Income Support 59.15
Child Tax Credit 37.98
Housing Benefit 100
Council Tax 14.42

Income: 211.55 0utgoings: 114.42 Total: 97.13

New Wage 100
Child/Working Tax Credits 158.47
Housing Benefit 20
Council Tax 0
Child Care 75%

Income: 278.47 Outgoings: 119 Total: 159.47

Now, obviously, that's basing it on rough figures such as a rent of 100 per week and a Council Tax of 750 per annum. Also, the Child Care I'm having to work out at local rates for nurseries, and I'm sure some areas charge far more, but that's where I got the outgoings from. That also doesn't include In Work Credit which is payable to lone parents who have claimed Income Support for over six months. Generally though, the figures do show that there's over 60 per week difference between the two though. I'd say that somewhere along the line, the single working mum's you're thinking of may be missing out on something they're entitled to.

[Trudi G]

Thinking about this, I really can't quite understand this.

Income Support 59.15
Child Tax Credit 37.98
Housing Benefit 100
Council Tax 14.42

Income: 211.55 0utgoings: 114.42 Total: 97.13

New Wage 100
Child/Working Tax Credits 158.47
Housing Benefit 20
Council Tax 0
Child Care 75%

Income: 278.47 Outgoings: 119 Total: 159.47

Now, obviously, that's basing it on rough figures such as a rent of 100 per week and a Council Tax of 750 per annum. Also, the Child Care I'm having to work out at local rates for nurseries, and I'm sure some areas charge far more, but that's where I got the outgoings from. That also doesn't include In Work Credit which is payable to lone parents who have claimed Income Support for over six months. Generally though, the figures do show that there's over 60 per week difference between the two though. I'd say that somewhere along the line, the single working mum's you're thinking of may be missing out on something they're entitled to.

This all looks fantastic written down - but have you ever had to navigate through the benefits maze as a single parent?
In Islington it usually takes 6-8 weeks before any benefits are processed and awarded, plus there's alot of misinformation - i.e. my friend got told she wasn't entitled to any help with housing costs or council tax, by someone working in the benefit office - and she believed them because she believes people in these positions will tell her the truth and want to give her all the information she needs.

Also, what about travel costs to the job - you didn't take that into account, and whether you have to pay for school meals, which is 7.50 per week, per child. And also there's the question of having to take time off when your child is sick, and whether you will get paid by the company you work for, for the time off.
This year so far i have had my son down with whooping cough, viral meningitis and tonsilitis - i would've spent so much time off work, if i had a job, that i would've been given the sack!

[Captain Tancredi]

Firstly, I'd be very suspicious of any report from a US Government body which, as in this case, is using apparently scientific findings to put forward a social agenda.

I used to know a woman who worked as a childminder, and some of the children she took were more or less dropped on her doorstep at 6.30 and not picked up until teatime, some of them very young too. In that kind of situation, it's probably natural that some of them will develop attention-seeking behaviour as they're mixed in with a group of children they don't know and competing for the attention of the only adult present.

Ultimately I've reached the conclusion that every situation is different and it's for each couple or single parent to decide according to their circumstances. In an ideal world, people wouldn't bring children into the world until they were confident that they could provide for them and create a stable home, but relationships break up, people lose jobs and I don't think it's right for society to impose a one-size-fits-all solution.

[Paul Clement]

This year so far i have had my son down with whooping cough, viral meningitis and tonsilitis - i would've spent so much time off work, if i had a job, that i would've been given the sack!

Working in a Government department, I have a lot of colleagues who are the second working person in a couple. It's actually about 90% of my office that fall into this category. There are often times when they are off when their children are sick, and luckily the Governement as an employer is pretty good with this, unlike a lot of other employers. There are some good ones around though, who do allow paid compassionate leave for times like this.

This all looks fantastic written down - but have you ever had to navigate through the benefits maze as a single parent?
In Islington it usually takes 6-8 weeks before any benefits are processed and awarded, plus there's alot of misinformation - i.e. my friend got told she wasn't entitled to any help with housing costs or council tax, by someone working in the benefit office - and she believed them because she believes people in these positions will tell her the truth and want to give her all the information she needs.

I know this happens, my sister was misled information from my department and Housing Benefits that lost her four weeks rent. Personally, I haven't heard many things said that were in any way good about the staff in London offices. I get New Deal customers transferring into my office from London on a regular basis, and nothing has been done with them at all. Still, the Government cannot stop from implementing a policy that would work well in most areas because the London offices are staffed by total incompetents.

[Paul Clement]

Ultimately I've reached the conclusion that every situation is different and it's for each couple or single parent to decide according to their circumstances. In an ideal world, people wouldn't bring children into the world until they were confident that they could provide for them and create a stable home, but relationships break up, people lose jobs and I don't think it's right for society to impose a one-size-fits-all solution.

I couldn't agree more, and in some ways I think this is already in place. I don't think single parents are being forced to go into work, they are being given the opportunity to get help and advice on a regular basis so that if they choose to take this option then they are aware of what is ahead of them.

[Wayne]

I agree with everything on this thread except for the word 'mandatory' being described as a request.


Just teasing, Paul. A dozen or so years of baiting Re-start/New (read 'Raw') Deal personell. You would've loved me from 1982 to 1996. (not!)

[Paul Monk]

I'm rather angry by this and the ensuing discussion for several reasons some of which Paul picked up on very well. I'm going to wait until I calm to reply sensibly.
I do agree with Jon though about the research being rubbish!

[Trudi G]

I used to know a woman who worked as a childminder, and some of the children she took were more or less dropped on her doorstep at 6.30 and not picked up until teatime, some of them very young too. In that kind of situation, it's probably natural that some of them will develop attention-seeking behaviour as they're mixed in with a group of children they don't know and competing for the attention of the only adult present.

My mum worked as a childminder for many years - the worst culprits for dropping off their babies at the crack of dawn and not picking them up until around 7pm were the most well off.
For some , it seems, having a baby is like a must have accessory - one that you can dress up and coo over to other parents, but don't want to do anything that involves actually looking after your child.
In some cases my mum was the person that saw their child take their first step, and heard their first word.

[Paul Clement]

Just teasing, Paul. A dozen or so years of baiting Re-start/New (read 'Raw') Deal personell. You would've loved me from 1982 to 1996. (not!)

Baiting I can deal with. Unfortunately, a colleague of mine recently had to sanction a customers claim during a New Deal interview. The customer saw him leave his house a few days later, with his kids and on his next interview, quietly threatened my colleague that his kids would be harmed if he didn't let him off of the santion. A few days later his car was vandalised too. Understandably, my colleague has asked to come off of New Deal.

(

read 'Raw')

Personally, I've called is 'No Deal' for years, though that's because the courses and training we offered for years has slowly started to evaporate.

[Wayne]

Baiting I can deal with. Unfortunately, a colleague of mine recently had to sanction a customers claim during a New Deal interview. The customer saw him leave his house a few days later, with his kids and on his next interview, quietly threatened my colleague that his kids would be harmed if he didn't let him off of the santion. A few days later his car was vandalised too. Understandably, my colleague has asked to come off of New Deal.

(

That's terrible isn't it? I hope he contacted the police!

I would never've done anything like that i assure you! It was as much 'banter' as 'baiting'. You don't get nowhere by making enemies. (deliberate use of double negative)
To be serious for a moment though, When eventually went self-employed in 1997, the folk the Employment Services were very helpful.

Meanwhile on the main topic, Whilst i empathize with much of what Trudi says, I don't really have much personal experience to call on. Except that i used to 'babysit' for a friend of mine who was a divorced single Mum, who juggled no less than 3 part time jobs in order to keep a roof over their heads & food on the table. Her kids are grown up now. I've known them all their lives & i don't think the quality of their childhood suffered at all, & i'm confident they'd be the first to agree.
It was a long time ago, But she described her brief dalliance with the benefit system as 'degrading & humiliating' because it was so difficult, Saying that it was full time job in itself trying to get what she was supposedly entitled to. She said the whole experience was harder work than doing 3 jobs because she was felt as if she was a 'scrounger', & ultimately preferred to work her arse off rather than bother with it all.