Hi,

I'm another one of those journalism students at the University of Sheffield doing a radio package - mine is about childcare.

I'm looking to talk to mums and dads about a recent study that came out which says children who are looked after by their parents at home develop better than those who go to nurseries.

I want to speak to anyone who agrees or disagrees with the findings of the study - perhaps a mother who wants a career and a family, or someone who feels they can love their child better through not looking after them 24/7.

If you're a childminder, or work at a nursery or toddler group I'd also like to hear from you.

This piece will not be broadcast, so anything said would be completely confidential. I will come and interview you at a date and time convenient with you, ideally in the next week.

If you can help in any way contact PM me or e-mail me at montyandmiggs@hotmail.com

Thank you!

Your confusing things.
The study didn't talk about which children were loved best, or parents rights to a career and life of their own.
It simply looked at which benefits the child more. Is there really any point in indivuals disagreeing with it?

If I remember correctly there was some ambiguity in the study around the area of a few hours of nursery actually being good for the social development of the children???

The study I mentioned is one of many conflicting studies - some claim children develop better through being at home with their mothers, others claim that children who go to nurseries develop better social skills and interact better...

My piece is really to look at the decisions real parents make about the future of their children - how it's not always as black and white to say that ALL children will develop better if they're looked after at home. Different families live in different circumstances which factor in when they make decisions about their kids. That's what my piece is really about.

It may be seen as "confusing things," but I think these things are important to consider.

but what's best for the family as a whole isn't necessarily what's best for the child.

If the studies agreed (which they don't anyway) then it would be as black and white as that, no matter how many parents give good reasons for doing otherwise.

It's like saying that because I've chosen for good reasons not to go to university (this is an example, I did go to uni) that it's wrong that people who to university earn more on average througout their lifetime.
Whatever my good reasons were, it wouldn't alter the facts about the 'average' results.

Unless of course you're looking at marginal cases where you could argue that staying at home would actually be detrimental to the child compared to nursery because of the reduced income to the family as a whole. Presumably the studies took these cases into account as well though... Like any generalisation there are always going to be exceptions...