We all know how keen Nanny has been over the past few years to get her hands on children as young as possible, and put them into her "educashun" system pre school.
Her logic being that this frees up the mother, so that she can go out and fulfill herself by working again.
The reality of course being that Nanny is so expensive to run that she needs everyone working 24/7, so that she can maximise her tax take from us.
The needs of the family and children don't come into Nanny's thinking.
Now here's a funny thing, it seems that snatching children away from their families at such a young actually damages them.
How surprising!
Thirty years' of evidence has been built up that shows that preschool children who spend long hours in nursery are more likely to display aggression and disobedience than those who stay at home or attend part-time.
Even more interesting is the fact that these effects may be contagious.
Jay Belsky, the director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues at Birkbeck University, London, who led the study, recently said:
"Being in a classroom with a high proportion of children who have extensive childcare histories affects those with little or no early childcare experience.
So if your child had no childcare, but ended up in a class where lots of children had childcare, you child ends up being more aggressive. There is a contagious effect."
The researchers found that children placed in childcare of any kind, and for longer hours and at earlier ages, displayed significantly more problem behaviour.
Where there were lots of classmates with childcare experiences, these effects spread to all children in the class.
Needless to say Nanny is quick to defend herself; Beverley Hughes, Nanny's Children's Minister, said that it should not be assumed that findings from the US would apply equally to Britain.
She would say that wouldn't she?
She then went on to contradict herself by saying that British evidence suggested a small negative impact on social behaviour for some children from long hours in childcare.
As said, the reality of course being that Nanny is so expensive to run that she needs everyone working 24/7 so that she can maximise her tax take from us.
The needs of the family and children don't come into Nanny's thinking.
No surprise there then.
ReplyDeleteChildren bond with their mother who, on the whole offer one to one care for their off spring. Nanny's childcare offers (in general terms) silly little under paid, under qualified, uninterested girls to look after twenty or so kids at a time. What is the best way to get attention from one of these nursery assistants?...Be naughty of course...This gains the attention craved by the youngster and in turn reinforces this behaviour as a means to an end.
Unfortunately, Nanny has forced both parents out to work and often now, when there actually are two parents, they feel guilty about leaving them in childcare and over compensate for them leaving the child in child care, this manifests it's self by the parent letting the child get away with almost anything as the parent does not want to be seen as the nasty adult the kid only sees for a couple of hours before it is put into bed.
Having said all that, some children may be better off in childcare when I look and listen to some of the chav mothers I see at the shops!!
Makes you proud to be British doesn't it.
''Thirty years' of evidence has been built up that shows that preschool children who spend long hours in nursery are more likely to display aggression and disobedience than those who stay at home or attend part-time.''
ReplyDeleteThat's because nursery nurses(?) are no longer allowed to discipline recalcitrant brats in the time honoured fashion i.e. the thick ear, as you can do when they're being looked after at home (unless you're caught of course and the kids are taken off you by social services and farmed out to gay and lesbian or transexual couples)
Yes Nanny! I hereby confess that I used physical violence on my child to keep the little sod in order! (and it worked funnily enough) I cannot keep this guilty secret any longer, please come and take him off me (He's only 28 and a well-adjusted, Primary School teacher BTW though he doesn't use anything worse on his charges than 'the naughty chair!) ;o)
To play Devil’s advocate for a change.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not entirely true that Nanny forced both parents out to work.
Certainly, Nanny today is a major advocate of the concept, for the aforementioned reasons, but in the beginning there must have been a significant element of the ‘hawk & dove’ phenomenon.
In an environment where the majority of households consist of one parent bringing in an income and one parent managing the home & family, there are big financial advantages to be gained from the hawkish approach of both parents bringing in an income. When other families see the advantages of the increased spending power (compared to the norm), they follow suit.
As the percentage of two-income families increases, the extra spending power starts to filter through to higher prices, at which point the purchasing power of the double income starts to decrease.
In an environment where the majority of households consist of two salaried parents, the purchasing power of the double income starts to resemble that of the single income of former times (in terms of ratios). At that point, the two-income scenario no longer provides a significant financial advantage. Instead, the single-income scenario constitutes a definite financial disadvantage (compared to the norm).
It's relatively easy for a society to ramp up a notch to two-parent incomes but very difficult to switch back to one-parent incomes.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI think I may get my head around the economic logic later after an bottle of wine or two.
Meantime ....
Go 2 income or no income but free accommodation and stuff, much the same results.
Kids, mostly, copy other kids and try to fit to the 'norm. We have to pay for this to be researched?
Child care outside the family may provide Nanny with Tax revenue or cannon fodder. Either way she will satisfy a craving.
Tax revenue is easier to manage in the short term and obtain guaranteed results.
Aggression can be managed to Nanny's benefit in the cannon fodder scenario. Lack of aggression would be more of a problem.
Grant
Thank you for posting this Ken. As the mother of a 3 year old, I'm not sending him to pre-school and it's almost as though I'm the leper of the village...
ReplyDeleteFirstly people can't understand why I would turn down free child care - er, because I like to spend time with my son! I don't want him forced to follow the pre-school national curriculum and forced to read and write before he is ready.
If I need time to myself, he goes to his grandparents and he can build a relationship with them. Sorted! I have first hand experience of their childcare, and they did a good job with me (well I like to think so!)
Secondly, you are right that the government seem to want to get mothers back into work asap to pay the taxes etc, and this feeds into the culture in this country that seems to treat children as an inconvenience to be palmed off to the nearest childcare asap.
Then, when these disenfranchised youths start being yobs when they are teenagers, we all wonder why!
I am the only one who sees this!!
I completely agree Anonymous, why would anyone leave their child in our crappy state care system? I plan to do exactly the same as you if/when i have kids so i was pleasantly surprised to read your comment.
ReplyDelete