What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Parenting Basics: The International Nanny Association's Official Guide to In-Home Child Care
Caring for a child is a big responsibility. From the moment a caregiver takes charge, the responsibility of the child's safety, health and general wellbeing, rests with the child care provider. Beyond Parenting Basics: The International Nanny Association's Official Guide to In-Home Child Care was developed and authored to help prepare caregivers and parents for the responsibility that comes with being a primary caregiver. Beyond Parenting Basics covers these important child care topics: Health and Safety Language and Literacy Physical Development Social Development Emergency Preparedness Emotional Development Professionalism Nutrition And More! International Nanny Association (INA) is America's oldest and largest non-profit organization dedicated to in-home child care. INA serves as the umbrella association for the in-home child care industry and provides information, education and guidance to the public and industry professionals.
154 pages, Paperback
First published July 31, 2009
1 person is currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 13, 2015
The International Nanny Association (INA) should pull this text immediately. The number of serious inaccuracies renders it not only outdated but unethical. For this organization to recommend and advertise this book on their website as its “Official Guide” – and then to make it the study guide for a credential exam – is highly irresponsible. The INA has influence over many members, agencies, and families, and it has a serious responsibility to give them the best advice possible. I cannot imagine how they justify endorsing a text with gross misinformation that could lead to harming a child.
If the INA thinks it should still be in use, consult a qualified child psychologist, a top pediatrician, a professor of early childhood education, and a child safety expert before recommending it even one more time. And if the INA thinks it does not need to consult experts to verify information it endorses, an ethical evaluation is in order.
The authors themselves should have noted how outdated their book was becoming and either updated it or pulled it from the exam prep and from general circulation. That would have been responsible. At some point, someone should have thought, “OMG. That book I wrote. I gave potentially deadly advice! I was wrong. Stop the book.” Yet they didn’t, and nannies are still told to study from it and use it as a reference, and parents are advised to read it “to improve their parenting skills through the expansion of their child care knowledge” (page 5).
Several mistakes, the most egregious, should have been noted before publication. Some examples:
1) On page 48, discussing anaphylactic shock, “Call for help if a child’s breathing is not restored after receiving a dose of epinephrine.” That is 100% wrong. You call 911 immediately when administering epinephrine. Always. There is a second wave of allergic reaction that can kill, and the person should be evaluated by trained medical professionals. This was well known before 2010, when my version of the book was copyrighted.
2) On page 126, the authors advise for an 8- to 12-month-old infant, “A comfort item such as a cloth doll or stuffed animal may provide enough comfort for a baby to fall back to sleep.” That violates SIDS guidelines. Absolutely no soft toys or stuffed animals should be in the sleeping area of a child under one year of age. Granted, on pages 9-10 they give the guideline of no pillows or stuffed animals in the crib, which makes the inclusion of this contradicting advice even worse – the editor should have caught it. Additionally, crib bumpers that are “non-pillow like” are also okay for young infants, according to the authors on page 10. Nope. Zero bumpers of any kind is the SIDS safety guideline.
3) On page 50, there are guidelines for when to call for help if a child has a seizure. It says to call if the seizure lasts more than 10 minutes in a child who has a seizure disorder that is controlled by medication. Incorrect. It’s 5. It’s been 5 for many, many years. Some hospitals advise 3, but the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the American Red Cross, and the qualified pediatric neurologist in my family all say 5. Five is half of 10. That’s a big difference to someone having a seizure that’s not stopping.
4) Having babies ‘cry it out’ at night is advised on page 126. This method has been panned by so many experts for years now. Crying for an extended period without comfort is not optimal for brain health, they tell us, and it may cause trauma. Many pediatricians and child psychologists have spoken out against this method and others like it.
The entire “Safety,” “Health,” and “Emergency Preparedness” chapters need an overhaul. That information should be reviewed by a pediatrician and an emergency room physician immediately. It should also be in line with American Red Cross standards, and the reader should be directed to review the current recommendations as they change over time. Car seat experts should review this as well. Page 10 says, “Car seats should never be placed next to a side release air bag.” That’s not true. Some side airbags may be dangerous for children, but experts advise checking with the vehicle manual and car seat manufacturer because many side airbags do not endanger children. The recommendation should have been to check with experts, not ban placement there. On page 44, the authors recommend keeping a copy of their assessment steps with the first aid kit in the car and the home. DON’T. Get better, more updated information developed by actual experts.
Also offending is the lack of footnotes, endnotes, citations, or any sort of source material. Only in a few places is any reference material mentioned. That is a highly irresponsible move for writers of this type of instructional text. Where, when, and who determined the “facts” that this book is based on is incredibly important for the reader to reference, as would be why the authors chose that approach or logic. Much of this material is subjective, and child care guidelines change over time. By leaving out sources, the authors have expected blind adherence to their words with little establishment of their ethos. Good nannies must be critical thinkers, able to use judgment when tough situations or new information arise. This book very irresponsibly sets itself up as an authority, setting standards for an international child care body with almost no background or logos.
For instance in the “Nutrition” chapter, the information is outdated, at best. I suspect that some of it was not on par with guidelines even when it was published. Had the authors revealed what sources they based their recommendations on, the reader could look up the newest information from those bodies. Had the authors suggested that the reader do that because in particular infant nutrition research is constantly being evaluated and changed, that would have been even better. But there is no such acknowledgment of that climate. They should have said – ‘Always consult the child’s pediatrician and follow the guidelines he/she gives. Each infant has a different family history (i.e. allergy risks) and may have different needs. These are a rough, general guide. Stay updated on the changes x, y, and z organizations recommend.’ They didn’t.
The book contradicts itself in several places, sometimes on the same page. Sometimes even within the same paragraph. Here are two:
1) Brushing teeth – On page 24, children should brush their teeth twice per day and after sticky foods. Lower down, toddlers should be taught to brush their teeth after each meal and each snack.
2) Peanut butter – Page 37 says a child should not have peanut butter before age 3. On page 39, they say rather than give peanut butter on a spoon to a child under 3, mix it with jelly or melt it on toast to make it less sticky.
The “Guidance” chapter needs an overhaul, and the INA should consult top child psychologists to revise the recommendations for negative consequences, time-outs, ignoring tantrums, removal of personal property, and denial of privileges. The guidelines for what constitutes each type of abuse should be included, as well as what a nanny should do if a parent is being verbally abusive and where to look for more information.
Also, some important aspects of nanny work are missing. What are the guidelines and challenges if you travel with a family? What should a live-in nanny consider? What are the recommendations for social media? What are the common styles of parenting, and how will the recommended practices for nannies mesh with those? How do you deal with other family members who influence home life, such as grandparents and live-in guests? Car safety and nanny use of the family’s vehicle? Styles of preschool education? There is very little information about special needs or blended families, both common in nanny employment. I am sure other nannies could expand this list greatly.
Editing errors are rife, and these are errors of the most basic level. There are so many that this book insults the reader with a lack of respect for written communication. Spelling errors litter the text, even in a chapter title (“Learning Enviornment” on page 104). The Oxford comma is used in some places and others not. Page 23 (and many other places) has a list within a list but no semicolons. Page 141 has the word “sox.” Some terms that logically require clarification and definition are not explained.
Likewise, the formatting does not follow the most basic standards. Spacing is random. Indentations are missing. The subheads should have a space below them, at least. There is no index. On my very first glance through the book, these errors stood out. They made it hard to read the already difficult text. As others have pointed out, more bullet lists would have been helpful since this book is basically an outline written out in words.
Once I came to the topics that I have less knowledge of, such as brain development and cognitive theories, I had a REALLY hard time wanting to study from this book. It’s one thing to have to note the places where it’s wrong but I already knew what was right, but to try to learn new stuff from a text this erroneous? I had no desire to do that. This book had already smashed its credibility with me.
It is wrong for the INA to endorse the sale of this book. It is wrong for the authors to allow its sale. But it is reprehensible for the INA to base a credential exam on a text this dangerously flawed.
If the INA thinks it should still be in use, consult a qualified child psychologist, a top pediatrician, a professor of early childhood education, and a child safety expert before recommending it even one more time. And if the INA thinks it does not need to consult experts to verify information it endorses, an ethical evaluation is in order.
The authors themselves should have noted how outdated their book was becoming and either updated it or pulled it from the exam prep and from general circulation. That would have been responsible. At some point, someone should have thought, “OMG. That book I wrote. I gave potentially deadly advice! I was wrong. Stop the book.” Yet they didn’t, and nannies are still told to study from it and use it as a reference, and parents are advised to read it “to improve their parenting skills through the expansion of their child care knowledge” (page 5).
Several mistakes, the most egregious, should have been noted before publication. Some examples:
1) On page 48, discussing anaphylactic shock, “Call for help if a child’s breathing is not restored after receiving a dose of epinephrine.” That is 100% wrong. You call 911 immediately when administering epinephrine. Always. There is a second wave of allergic reaction that can kill, and the person should be evaluated by trained medical professionals. This was well known before 2010, when my version of the book was copyrighted.
2) On page 126, the authors advise for an 8- to 12-month-old infant, “A comfort item such as a cloth doll or stuffed animal may provide enough comfort for a baby to fall back to sleep.” That violates SIDS guidelines. Absolutely no soft toys or stuffed animals should be in the sleeping area of a child under one year of age. Granted, on pages 9-10 they give the guideline of no pillows or stuffed animals in the crib, which makes the inclusion of this contradicting advice even worse – the editor should have caught it. Additionally, crib bumpers that are “non-pillow like” are also okay for young infants, according to the authors on page 10. Nope. Zero bumpers of any kind is the SIDS safety guideline.
3) On page 50, there are guidelines for when to call for help if a child has a seizure. It says to call if the seizure lasts more than 10 minutes in a child who has a seizure disorder that is controlled by medication. Incorrect. It’s 5. It’s been 5 for many, many years. Some hospitals advise 3, but the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the American Red Cross, and the qualified pediatric neurologist in my family all say 5. Five is half of 10. That’s a big difference to someone having a seizure that’s not stopping.
4) Having babies ‘cry it out’ at night is advised on page 126. This method has been panned by so many experts for years now. Crying for an extended period without comfort is not optimal for brain health, they tell us, and it may cause trauma. Many pediatricians and child psychologists have spoken out against this method and others like it.
The entire “Safety,” “Health,” and “Emergency Preparedness” chapters need an overhaul. That information should be reviewed by a pediatrician and an emergency room physician immediately. It should also be in line with American Red Cross standards, and the reader should be directed to review the current recommendations as they change over time. Car seat experts should review this as well. Page 10 says, “Car seats should never be placed next to a side release air bag.” That’s not true. Some side airbags may be dangerous for children, but experts advise checking with the vehicle manual and car seat manufacturer because many side airbags do not endanger children. The recommendation should have been to check with experts, not ban placement there. On page 44, the authors recommend keeping a copy of their assessment steps with the first aid kit in the car and the home. DON’T. Get better, more updated information developed by actual experts.
Also offending is the lack of footnotes, endnotes, citations, or any sort of source material. Only in a few places is any reference material mentioned. That is a highly irresponsible move for writers of this type of instructional text. Where, when, and who determined the “facts” that this book is based on is incredibly important for the reader to reference, as would be why the authors chose that approach or logic. Much of this material is subjective, and child care guidelines change over time. By leaving out sources, the authors have expected blind adherence to their words with little establishment of their ethos. Good nannies must be critical thinkers, able to use judgment when tough situations or new information arise. This book very irresponsibly sets itself up as an authority, setting standards for an international child care body with almost no background or logos.
For instance in the “Nutrition” chapter, the information is outdated, at best. I suspect that some of it was not on par with guidelines even when it was published. Had the authors revealed what sources they based their recommendations on, the reader could look up the newest information from those bodies. Had the authors suggested that the reader do that because in particular infant nutrition research is constantly being evaluated and changed, that would have been even better. But there is no such acknowledgment of that climate. They should have said – ‘Always consult the child’s pediatrician and follow the guidelines he/she gives. Each infant has a different family history (i.e. allergy risks) and may have different needs. These are a rough, general guide. Stay updated on the changes x, y, and z organizations recommend.’ They didn’t.
The book contradicts itself in several places, sometimes on the same page. Sometimes even within the same paragraph. Here are two:
1) Brushing teeth – On page 24, children should brush their teeth twice per day and after sticky foods. Lower down, toddlers should be taught to brush their teeth after each meal and each snack.
2) Peanut butter – Page 37 says a child should not have peanut butter before age 3. On page 39, they say rather than give peanut butter on a spoon to a child under 3, mix it with jelly or melt it on toast to make it less sticky.
The “Guidance” chapter needs an overhaul, and the INA should consult top child psychologists to revise the recommendations for negative consequences, time-outs, ignoring tantrums, removal of personal property, and denial of privileges. The guidelines for what constitutes each type of abuse should be included, as well as what a nanny should do if a parent is being verbally abusive and where to look for more information.
Also, some important aspects of nanny work are missing. What are the guidelines and challenges if you travel with a family? What should a live-in nanny consider? What are the recommendations for social media? What are the common styles of parenting, and how will the recommended practices for nannies mesh with those? How do you deal with other family members who influence home life, such as grandparents and live-in guests? Car safety and nanny use of the family’s vehicle? Styles of preschool education? There is very little information about special needs or blended families, both common in nanny employment. I am sure other nannies could expand this list greatly.
Editing errors are rife, and these are errors of the most basic level. There are so many that this book insults the reader with a lack of respect for written communication. Spelling errors litter the text, even in a chapter title (“Learning Enviornment” on page 104). The Oxford comma is used in some places and others not. Page 23 (and many other places) has a list within a list but no semicolons. Page 141 has the word “sox.” Some terms that logically require clarification and definition are not explained.
Likewise, the formatting does not follow the most basic standards. Spacing is random. Indentations are missing. The subheads should have a space below them, at least. There is no index. On my very first glance through the book, these errors stood out. They made it hard to read the already difficult text. As others have pointed out, more bullet lists would have been helpful since this book is basically an outline written out in words.
Once I came to the topics that I have less knowledge of, such as brain development and cognitive theories, I had a REALLY hard time wanting to study from this book. It’s one thing to have to note the places where it’s wrong but I already knew what was right, but to try to learn new stuff from a text this erroneous? I had no desire to do that. This book had already smashed its credibility with me.
It is wrong for the INA to endorse the sale of this book. It is wrong for the authors to allow its sale. But it is reprehensible for the INA to base a credential exam on a text this dangerously flawed.
September 10, 2014
Informative, but not well written.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews