To think nursery isn't *better* for children?

[Anon8604]

I'm part of an NCT group, all of the babies are around a year old. Parents have made a variety of decisions about work and childcare, some back to work full time, some part time and some not returning to work. The babies whose parents are working are all in nursery for between 3 and 5 days a week.

Lately there have been lots of conversations about how the babies are getting on at nursery. Obviously it's great that they are mostly settling in well, but I've felt like some of the comments have bordered on implying that nursery is better than staying at home. FWIW, I think different choices work for different families, not that one is better than the other.

The comments have been stuff like:

"She does so many activities at nursery, way more than you could ever do at home. It's really good for her development, I think she'd miss out on stuff if I kept her at home."

"It's better for them to socialise at an early age. You could always tell the school kids who didn't go to nursery cause they'd stand around at break times on their own."

"Her language is streets ahead compared to a couple of months ago, there's no way she'd have come on so much without nursery."

"It's really hard settling them in, but having an example of a working mum is worth it. I want them to know you have to work for things in life."

AIBU to think they're being a bit judgemental about the people who've chosen to stay home? I feel like if someone said something comparable about staying at home (like they think their child does better with one to one attention or something) then it'd be seen as judging those who are choosing to use a nursery, but somehow criticising people who aren't using nursery seems to be more acceptable?

It's guilt op.

Ps. Although I'd love to be at home with my children and would (much!) prefer that, I don't think nursery is a bad thing. Different circumstances require different methods of childcare! All us mums and dads are just muddling through best we can and trying to do our best! No matter how we do it!

I made similar comments when my DD started nursery at 4.5 months old. It certainly wasn't through guilt. It was a simple reflection of the fact that nursery staff are properly qualified childcare providers, I wasn't & neither was DH. They were far better at a lot of childcare stuff than we were. I knew that I was also being judged by SAHM & those who had made different decisions to me about going back to work, so I was justifying why DH & I choose to both work FT & send her to nursery.

Different choices work for different families and different individual children. For us, nursery has been so good for DS who is now 15 months old, that we've decided to keep him there for two days a week even when I am off work (teacher). In contrast, close friend has just removed her DS from a nursery as he found it so hard to settle and wasnt progressing.

It's not guilt, and saying it is implies that nursery is a "bad" choice!

I work 4 days, DS is in nursery one of those days and with grandparents the others. If it wasn't so expensive I would send him another day a week, as he does really enjoy it and eats much better than he would at home. However when it's £50 per day and I have the offer of free childcare from eager grandparents, it would be silly to send him more than one day.

Meant to add: but if you think being a sahm is actually good for your child, then don't be afraid to speak up and say so. You're in a fortunate position to be happy and confident in your choice, as are your friends who send their children to nursery. The only unlucky ones are those who aren't happy with their situation but have no other choice.

I'm a WOHM who would love to be a SAHM and I can absolutely see the benefits of nursery, so it's not just all guilt/defensiveness. If I were to stay at home, I'd keep him at nursery a few mornings a week.

I love the fact that he has little friends and has done since about 18 months, when he first started babbling about 'maisie/emma/jacob'.

His teachers there are incredibly crafty and he gets to do way more fun art than he would at home (I'm shit at all that).

They have a great outdoor space which absolutely adores.

I don't like the long hours he spends there, but there's nothing I can do about that right now. But to suggest there are absolutely no benefits is silly. Of course there are, just as there are benefits to staying at home.

It is because nursery provides her with experiences she just would not have at home, since I don't have giant play equipment, a sensory room, 9 other kids her age, a private chef, a swimming pool, and a French tutor in my living room.

You do realise, of course, people can do this at home.

Giant play equipment = playground
Sensory room = messy playgroup or simply painting and make and do at home
Private chef -= this is just somebody who has done a cookery fetac course. Haute cuisine does not equal cooking pasta and finger food.
Swimming = many parents take their toddlers swimming once if not twice a week to a nearby pool.
Language classes = playgroups/European childminders
Other children = playgroups.

It might take more effort but that is a different thing entirely.

Completely agree with this.

'The thing that bothers me is the reasoning that sending kids to nursery makes them do things 'earlier'. As long as the children aren't behind developmentally for their age, is it really important for some people that their kids can do x or y at three instead of four? If so, why is it important? I'm genuinely interested in the response.

Recently I saw a three year old reading a book. His mother was extremely proud. So proud, that she put it on social media. While that child might indeed be a genius, all recent studies I have read discuss delaying reading until the child is seven years old.

Looking at educationally progressive European countries like Finland, they suggest not sending children to school before the age of seven.

Children catch up. After a couple of years st school, there is no difference between those who read at three and those who read at six.

The obsession of getting children to do things earlier baffles me.'

I would absolutely second everything LaurieMarlow says.

I'm going to buck the trend here but I feel relief rather than guilt going to work. It's a break, I miss him and I feel rejuvenated which makes me a better parent to him.

Alright! I finally have chance to read through all these replies. It's actually been really interesting to hear so many different perspectives.

Firstly, I didn't start the thread to be "goady" as a couple of people have suggested. I genuinely wanted to hear others opinions, which has been great. Our group has been lovely and supportive up to now (yes, believe it or not we avoided falling out over BF / FF, sleep training / not sleep training, weaning early / weaning at six months etc!) which is why I was surprised that there have been a few comments judging others decisions when there haven't been about other decisions.

It seems like some people do feel guilty about using a nursery (not they should feel guilty, but they do) and I can entirely see why someone who feels like that might want to justify their decision by focusing on ways they think nursery care is better than staying at home. Equally, seems like some people genuinely feel that nursery care is superior to staying at home, which isn't an opinion I share, but each to their own. I do think that if that's your opinion it's a bit insensitive to go on about it in a group of working and stay at home parents, in exactly the same way it'd be insensitive to repeatedly say it's better for children to stay home in a group where most children are in nursery.

I have absolutely no objection to my friends talking about how much their children enjoy nursery. I'm actually really happy they do as I know it wasn't easy for people to decide to use a nursery. I just think that it's possible to talk about how good your nursery is without comparing it favourably with staying at home. Eg "DD's language has come on loads since starting nursery" sounds great, adding "she'd never have made that progress at home" sounds like you're saying people who don't send their child to nursery are impeding their development. If I said "DS' language is coming on so well with the one-to-one attention at home, he'd never have made that progress at nursery" then people would rightly criticise me for suggesting that parents who send their child to nursery are impeding their language development.

There are also a few posts I want to reply to directly in a minute.

Eg "DD's language has come on loads since starting nursery" sounds great, adding "she'd never have made that progress at home" sounds like you're saying people who don't send their child to nursery are impeding their development. If I said "DS' language is coming on so well with the one-to-one attention at home, he'd never have made that progress at nursery" then people would rightly criticise me for suggesting that parents who send their child to nursery are impeding their language development.

This is so true. It's only ever okay to "share your experiences" one way.....

I agree entirely with everyone who's said why is there a rush to get children to develop faster. I'm a big believer in letting kids enjoy their childhood and follow their interests, if that means they don't learn to read until school age, or they learn to count later than average then I don't see any problem.

Kerala, I was a bit upset by one of my friends saying she needed to work so "I have to engage my brain." As if looking after a child is so simple you can do it all without switching your brain on!

batteriesallgone, I have a similar experience with being criticised by some family members for staying home. It does probably make me more sensitive to criticism from friends.

abyss, thanks for the reminder about how mums choosing to work has been historically seen as a negative choice. I think that's a good thing for me to keep in mind as something that may influence my friends and which I should be sensitive to.

There are loads of other comments I'd reply to if I had time! However, just one other thought - a few people have talked about the luxury of staying home with children. For me, I am incredibly lucky that we were able to make a decision as a family that this was the best option for us and was financially viable. However, lots of parents end up staying home because they can't afford childcare. I know someone who has had to take time out of a career she loves because childcare costs more than she earns and she's desperately worried that it will set her career back in the long run. It's not always a luxurious choice to stay at home, for some people it's the only affordable option.

Young children actually do not need lots of fancy toys. If you read about theory of how children play, or even spend lots of years working with young children, you soon realise that simple toys and everyday objects are just as good in terms of children's development.
Children from 3 up do benefit from socializing with other children, but that does not have to be in nursery.

In terms of is nursery better or SAHM better, it depends. Nurseries with well qualified competent staff are better for children than being at home with chaotic or neglectful parents, and sometimes parents going through a crisis. Which is why nurseries are pushed by some government agencies that work with families that are not coping.

But if you are a decent parent, there is no evidence that nurseries are better. And if it is not a good nursery, it will be worse. So do what you think is best for you and your family.

Hated dropping my kids at nursery and was thankful it was only 2 days a week. With hindsight the break made me feel refreshed but i couldn't have worked 5 days just emotionally. Young staff there seemed to like kids but they don't listen to them and give them the attention a parent would. I loved seeing my toddlers all day and getting to know their personalities.

I'm one of those people who talks about engsging my brain in work. I found mat leave mind numbing and yes, fairly simple. Babies really do not pose the same challenges as my job.

I do get sick of people telling me that babies are best with th heir mums. Had it the other day from a bloke in my gym whose daughters 'have' to work. He knows I've worked since mi e were u nder 1. My kids have do n e the lot: gp, nursery, cm. They still talk with fondness about their nursery days. I would have been a terrible sahm. I barely cope with the holidays.

For the under 3s, the "ideal" is probably to be at home with a parent who makes an effort to socialise the child daily and is who creative and motivated.

Children learn and develop best when they are emotionally secure. The mother and /or father are the secure base - if a child is struggling with attachment issues, he/she may have less capacity for wider development. While full- time nurseries may well offer a wide range of on tap experiences that a parent at home can't replicate, the noise levels can be highly stressful and tiring for a child, particularly if other children are unsettled.

However, children are highly adaptable (and vary hugely of corse). Less sensitive children will no doubt thrive where some take longer to find the confidence to benefit through a larger group environment. Parents know their own child best.

Similarly, if a parent is bored or depressed at home and puts the child in front of the TV, all day then they may well be better at nursery.

These days many mothers do not have the choice anyway. The debate is pointless because everyone is just doing their best. Nobody ever wants to feel that their child is disadvantaged and will go to lengths to justify this.

I wish people wouldn't make blanket comments that it's guilt. It's not always the case and I suspect it's not even the majority case. My twins go to nursery full time and there's no guilt there at all! We've actually recently had the option of one of us staying at home and taking them out of nursery and I flatly refused to do it because I know they are better placed in nursery because that's what works for them, other kids and parents may be different. But I do firmly believe that nursery is better for my kids than staying at home or being at a childminder so I'm not going to say differently. But I acknowledge that this is not the case for all kids so wouldn't say that either

My ds 2.5 is severely delayed in his speech and was delayed in other aspects, social skills, playing habits etc. Out of choice I sent him to nursery 1 day a week (my parents care for both my dc's the rest of the time) and the progress we've seen is simply astounding.
And this isn't guilt talking, we don't have any! We don't have to put him in nursery, it's a choice!
And the level of and range of activities they do could never be replicated at home, with the best will in the world!
I only wish we could afford to send him more!

OP, take it from my DS, now 13 yrs old. I had to put him in nursery 4 times a week at 18 months as we were both working full time.

He said a few years ago that he could never understand why he was there and he wished he could have been with me more. He said a lot of his friends felt the same.

It almost broke my heart and I think my one overwhelming regret about his early years is that I wished we'd just opted to be poorer and spent more time with him, rather than trying to 'have it all'.

Children have their whole lives to develop - at under 5 I think they just need their mum's love

I'm a SAMM, but I put both DDs in nursery for 2 days a week at two and a half for DD1 and 18 months for DD2 (2 mornings a week for both of them). In DD2's case she was so clingy and wouldn't allow anyone else to look after her even if I only went to the toilet so it was almost desperation! Going into nursery turned out to be the best thing I ever did for her.

For both of them, it was the best thing for them and they benefited from being in nursery so much! They're 8 and 5 now and they still remember that nursery.

Some children just thrive on routine, knowing what's happening on any given day and that's true of both our DDs.

I don't think anyone can say home or nursery is better. Children, parents and families are all different.

I knew I always wanted to go back to work. DT's went ft at nursery at 6 months (this is before the longer maternity options now available). It was hard juggling two full on careers and two babies without family living locally. DH and I both enjoy our work and didn't feel guilty using nursery. We visited several and chose the one with the best fit for our family. Luckily or not, they both enjoyed nursery and stayed at the same place until they started school. After they started school and we drove past nursery, they often asked could they go to nursery.

DT's are now at Uni and don't seem to have suffered from their time at nursery and as a family I think we benefited from the care and opportunities nursery gave them. DT's always knew they were loved and very much wanted and using a nursery didn't dilute that.

One option does work for everyone and luckily we have different choices available to us.

I don't have any kids but I genuinely think (from observing friends kids) that going to nursery is better for kids. Their immune systems, socialisation skills and being able to be less clingy all come on leaps and bounds. There's research to back it up across different countries also. www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/16/kids-better-off-at-nursery-rather-than-staying-at-home-with-mum/

My mum stayed home with me and my brother when I was little but I'd want to put my kids into nursery because of the benefits that a (good) nursery brings.

Very much agree with your whole post, 1ndigo.

Some strange assumptions about SAHPs from some posters here - like that the children only see the parent all day & don't come across any other children or parents Or that a SAHP couldn't/wouldn't have a routine in place for their child.