Nannys and Au Pairs have long been a European answer to the high demands of
child rearing and to the busy lives of some parents.  (My ex-husband, a Swede
from a wealthy family, was essentially raised by nannies and aupairs.)  Over
the past few years the cocept has begun to catch on among working families here
in the US.

What is your opinion of the nanny or the au pair as a substitute for
institutional daycare or babysitters?  Do you know the difference between a
nanny and an au pair?  Have you, or would you, bring one into your home if
money and space weren't constraining factors (all other things in your life
being more or less the same as they are now)?

Why?

33 responses total.

I like daycare; lots of attention from creative adults who not only are
trained to be there, they *want* to be there, it's not just a way to finance
travel.  Moreover, they get to learn how to play well with other kids.  Now,
I'd be glad to have a third adult in my household to help out with the kids,
but finding the *right* one takes an imense amount of luck and supervision,
and can cause so much trouble if you get it wrong.  Again, in a daycare center
or even a group daycare home, there are generally more than one adult around,
so fewer opportunities for disaster of one kind or another.  And yes, I've
had a housemate who was there to watch Timothy.  She did quite well with him,
taught all of us some neat things about toddlers and stuff to do with them,
and yet, the small differences in values and style eventually got to be more
grating than I could cope with.  Would rather, say, share a duplex with a
single mom or family which was compatible enough that we all parented in
common.

I think fathers should stay home with their children as my God
intended. ;-)

I too like a safe and stimulating daycare environment for all but infants. 
Although having live-in help would be far easier for the parents the
children would end up with care that is only as good as *one* person's
skills.  Just like when one parent plays homemaker - it can be great or it
can be not so great. 

I tend to think of infants as appendages; carry them with you wherever you
go...<g>

This response has been erased.

<grin>  I hoped you'd ask.

An au pair is a young girl who wants to trade some light babysitting and
household chores for the chnace to live with a family overseas.  She has
little training and sometimes has little real childcare experience.  (As
little as six months.)  She's more appropriately thought of as a "mothers
help" than a true employee.

A nanny is a mature woman (though maybe not very old) who has a degree in some
related field (nursing, child development, teaching, etc.) who has also
attended at least a year od peofessional Nanny Training and earned a
certificate.  She has been trained to be the primary caregiver in a family
setting.  Often she has a home of her own and, as opposed to the au pair's
3 to 12 month 'contract", she is generally hired for many years at a time and
unless there are problems can be expected to move on only once the children
no longer need her.  She is responsible for caring for infants, teaching small
children, helping with homework, supervising anything to do with the children,
such as cleaning their rooms and doing their laundry.

Most Americans don't understand the difference and think that by hiring an
au pair, they're getting a Nanny on the cheap.  It's better to think of an
au pair as an exchange student that you can count of for some babysitting.

Nanny's usually arrive in time to wake the children and make their breakfast
and leave after the children are in bed.  Au pairs, by definition, live with
the family, and so may do the same, but they are limited to 45 hours a week
of child care, so they must go "off-duty" somewhere near dinnertime.

An au pair is in the family home primarily as a tourist and student, she (90%
are female) must spend time on her studies and wants very much to experience
life in the country outside the family home.  A nanny is often a citizen, and
while she may be taking classes to keep up her certification, generally her
primary responsibility, six days of the week, is the children under her care.

Well, if we had space and money, I would have some interest in having an
au pair -- a big sister for the boys, another adult for them to talk the ears
off of, and a little household help.   Maybe even exposure for us all to
another language & culture.

Yeah, me too.  ;)  I don't have little kids anymore, but when I did I would
have loved to have an au pair to help out (and another adult to keep me sane
and intelligent!)

Well, I don't have a lot of need for childcare these days but 
I should could use an old fashioned wife. ;-)

BTW what conference was this linked from? Im intrigued.

I didn't know it was linked...I entered it in "smalls".

Mary, I know the feeling!  I was very fortunate in meeting larry.  He 
pretty much fills that role at our house since he works from home.  It's 
been amazing to come home to a hot meal and a fire in the fireplace 
every night!

It's not linked.

Oh dear. I do not approve of daycare AT ALL. Yes there may be caring, creative
employees there, but in the end they are employees. They are not going to love
your kids and be as concerned for their welfare as much as you will. I want my
kids to bond with me, not a daycare worker. A toddler does not care if I'm
happy or not... all they know is that I'm not there. My mom would take me to
Mother's Day Out occasionally, which is fine, except that being around other
kids more often resulted in my getting sick. 

I agree kids need a break from Mom and Dad. They do indeed need socialization
as they get older. But not 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Someone, mom OR dad,
needs to be there. My parents sacrificed a lot so that my mom could stay home
with my brother and me. And neither me nor my parents regret it.

This response has been erased.

I think it boils down to what makes the parents happier.  (Assuming high
quality day care is available.  A mother who stays home and resents it isn't
doing the kids a favour because they'll pick up on her feelings *very* quickly
and are likely to wonder what they've done wrong.  A mother who goes out to
work, but feels guilty about it, is sending her kids the messsage that day
care is somehow bad.

A kid whose parents go (mostly) happily off to work and are thrilled to see
them at the end of the day will learn that that's how life is.  Parents go
to "work" and kids go to "school".  They may well question it later, as they
approach their teens -- but they'll question the Mom who stays home just as
often.

I think they key here is, as Valerie said, "Your milage may vary."

This response has been erased.

I agree, Valerie -- if only because the parents (or at least one of them) will
be the constant in an ever-changing array of sitters.

One thing, though.  A sitter with values different from your own can even be
a plus -- an opportunity to discuss what you believe and *why*, which will
help reinforce your beliefs and encourage your child to be tolerant and even
understanding of other people's values.  They have their reasons, too, after
all.  (Within reason, of course.  There are things I wouldn't subject my kids
to that other people consider no big deal.)

 One thing, though.  A sitter with values different from your own can even
b
Um. I've had a pretty mixed experience of that.  I mean, in the long run
it did no harm, but Timothy had a live-in babysitter when he was about
2, who taught him a bunch of "We're number one" sports-fannishness.  He's
gotten over it...Other than that, I learned more from her than anything
else.  The differences in values were more noticeable in the family as
a whole, since she was living with us.  But then, aren't I one of those
people who might teach your kids to believe in "Weird Stuff"?...<g>

Well, the sorts of "wierd" values I had in mind (because my kids were exposed
to them) were the "you can't be a real member of society of you don't plug
into the TV for several hours every day to keeo up with what's happening in
the world.  Heaven forbid you should not be able to discuss sitcoms at
recess!" type.  We didn't have a TV for most of their childhoods -- in part
because I didn't want it to become a habit for any of us.  My kids have rarely
complained about being "bored'.  They never learned to expect to be passively
entertained.  But people around us would sometimes voce shock at my negligence
at depriving my kids of this necessary part of childhood.  It gave us a chance
to talk about what TV is for, how it's used both by consumers and by
advertisers, and just how important various kinds of activities are in the
grand scheme of life.

Also, my kids had Christian babysitters from time to time.  Once in a while
they'd be devout enough to worry about my kids souls and try to prostelitise
to my wee'uns.  We talked about what they believed and why they felt it was
important to try to "save" other people.  We discussed how one can go about
honoring someone elses beliefs while demanding that they respect ours, too.
Without being impolite.

It sees to have had the desired effect.  My kids hold their beliefs very
adamantly (no, not always the ones I would have prefferred) but they're open
minded about other people's rights to believe what they believe, too, and are
less prone to being judgemental about people they disagree with than many of
the adults in their lives are.

Parents who work having "real lives"... huh? 

Why is it that a person has to work outside the home to have a real life? I'd
think when your full-time job is to help mold a tiny human being into a
self-sufficient adult, it's more real than any desk job you'll ever have. No
one will care what your job was when you're dead, or how much money you made.
You'll be dead and that's it. The only thing that is going to keep going is
your children. 

It seems nowadays that people have kids because it's a means of having it all.
Kids are just an addition, an accomplishment. The British nanny's family is a
case in point. When both parents have highly demanding careers (both were
physicians), they need to think twice about the sacrifices involved in having a
family. I sure wouldn't want to quit my job after all those years of schooling
and training. My own internist is a woman and her husband is also an internist.
They decided not to have kids because neither wanted to curb their careers to
raise a family. I hate that society puts so much pressure on couples to have
kids... there is certainly nothing wrong with deciding not to have them. It's
not for everyone. 

I guess it's like a double edged sword. If you stay home with your kids, you're
lazy and you eat bonbons all day, because you don't want to deal with a "real
job". If you choose to work full time after you've had kids, you're a selfish,
career-driven bitch.

Hey, some of my best friend are selfish, career-driven bitches. ;-)

Good moms, too.

This response has been erased.

As someone who tried it, I say AMEN! Valerie.  I wasn't up to it.  I was a
much better parent once I had outside activities.  (First school, then work.)
I was much more there when I was with my kids when I wasn't with them every
moment.  "Mamma" became a much more welcome, musical thing to hear once it
wasn't all I heard every day.  I wanted to be a good at home Mommy -- but the
reality of it was too stressful for the reality of me.  I needed time away
to be able to give myself fully to those darling little boys when I was with
them.

My mother was a stay-at-home Mom all my childhood. I *never* remember really
connecting with her except when I was ill.  She was caught up in the day to
day struggle to keep the house clean and never had time to play with me or
my five brothers or to just sit and talk with us.  I suspect that she has a
temperament like mine.  The stress of raising kids full time was so exhausting
that there was nothing left of her to give to her kids.  (Of course, with 6
kids it may have been exhaustion plain and simple.)  Would we have been worse
off if she'd worked outside the home and (perhaps) been more glad to see us
when she came home?  Dunno.  I can't say.

I do know that my tots and I grew much closer when my reaction to them was
more enthusiastic.  Today, problems and all, we're still extremely close.

Bingo!
 
Most jobs are less stressful than raising children.
 
I say, few jobs are as meaningful as raising children.

Exactly rigt.  But that's why it "takes a village to raise a child".

I always thought I'd be the "neighborhood mom"- the one who give all the
kids lemonaide, who has them running in and out at all times, who is the
safe but fun place to be- tree house in the yard and all that.  I also
thought I'd home-school.  The reality is much more what Misti describes;
I'm just not "up" for the kind of constant creativity and patience and
shifting balance that kids demand without stop.  I can do it for a few
hours at a time, or even for a few days at a time, but not constantly.  Nor
do I come up with the cool ideas that their pre-school, school and activity
teachers do, which enable them to explore their world appropriately. I
do learn from those professionals, and carry on their work at home, or
talk about any differences in style and opinion, so that the boys know
I'm part of their life all the time.

One secret is to provide an environment for them, show them a few things
they can do in the environment and let them go.  They will want you to do
things for them but you have to resist and encourage their potential
creativity instead.
 
I still remember when ours were about 3 and 4.  I did a pretend play with
them.  The three of us were sitting in a row, on chairs.  I took them on
a tour of our neighborhood via train.  No props, just the three chairs in
a row.  Everything else was imagination.  They loved it!  I encouraged them
to do their own imagination travels.  They do so to this day, often including
stuffed animals, etc.  On our dayly walk to school I told them stories that
I made up.  Every day they would pester me to tell them more.  I started
including them in the story telling, taking myself out of the loop after
a while.  I also bring home old VCRs, computers, phones, mixers, etc. and
give them a hand full of old tools.  They love to wrench on this old stuff!
 
Kids love to have an adult around to constantly provide entertainment for
them.  That, like TV, however, is pretty mindless.  The art of play needs
to be learned.  They are not born with it.

Well said!  I like the idea of taking apart old equipment, as long as
they know enough to stick to what they're *given*...! 
Michael has made a wood shop for the boys, with real tools.  They're 
having a blast!

Yea, my son took apart the mouse on the computer a few years ago.  There
was an error message on the screen and he couldn't read / understand it,
so he went at the first thing that had screws in it ;-)
 
That's another thing kids have to be taught:  Limits.

My sister managed to break two phones and the kitchen table.
And this was before she started elementary school.

I dunno. I can see why a mom/dad would  not be "up to" being a full-time momma.
But the way I see it, when you have a kid it's no longer about what YOU want or
what YOU feel. 

An older kid will pick up on it when the parents are unhappy. But a
baby/toddler/small child will not understand that mommy put them in daycare so
she could work outside the home and therefore be more happy. All they will know
is, mommy isn't there, and that's how it is five days a week. 

And I'm sorry but I do not accept this "we can't afford to have one income". I
think a very very tiny percentage of families can honestly claim this. Daycare
is expensive. Budgets and priorities need to be reassessed. You may need to go
to one car, or cut out restaurants or disconnect the cable. 

Anyhoo, Dr. Laura Schlessinger's books explain this all way better than me. 

> Anyhoo, Dr. Laura Schlessinger's books explain this all way better than me.
Or at least, hers is an opinion which matches what seems right to you.
Please remember that it's still an opinion- there are as many books and
studies on one side of the argument as on the other.  

>know is, mommy isn't there, and that's how it is five days a week.
And they see it as normal and are generally quite comfortable.  there are
periods of ajustment, and periods when kids get clingy and need more
transition time, or when they figure out that they can effect their
parents by the way they react at drop off and pick up time.  It's very
important for parents to be responsive and aware, to allow that time, to
know the difference between real distress and putting on a show.  Moreover,
kids can feel their parents' guilt and ambivalence and will respond to it,
if there is any.  But if the kid is as reluctant to go home as he/she was
to be dropped off, if her or she wants to play *and* wants you to stay,
things are probably ok.  And they will develop healthy bonds with the
adults and other kids in their day care- you want to find one with as low
a turnover rate as possible, and with adults whose influence you're 
comfortable with... These bonds do NOT weaken the bonds with parents, but
strengthen socialization and help the kid learn to have healthy bonds with
a wider circle of adult and young friends.  In most societies, that's the
way it *is* for kids- all the adults of their mom's generation help
parent, along with all the grandmothers and many of the older kids.  The
nuclear family is actually very unsual, it's post-industrial revolution
and even largely post WWII, and involves a disturbing degree of social
coercion and guilt-tripping.

Oops, I wasn't meaning to rant.  Sorry.

And it all works out.  

There are guys out there who really don't want a partner with a career,
they are looking for homemakers.  There are women out there who are
looking to be homemakers and get great pleasure from doing the job.  (Or
at least great pleasure for all their sacrificing.) The children get the
appropriate role models so that there will be a fresh supply of homemakers
available for the next round of breadwinners. 

Like my grandmother used to say, "There is a lid for every pot". ;-)

I think that the nuclear family is a result of it being easier to travel
greater distances, better jobs away from home and the desire of children
to get as far away form their parents as possible when they become
independent.  The first two points are as a result of the industrial 
revolution.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss