To have a child knowing they’ll spend 4 or 5 days in nursery?

[mvmvmvmv]

AIBU to have a child knowing they’d likely be in nursery 4 days a week after my maternity, and likely going to 5 days a week by age 3? Is it unreasonable to have a child knowing they will need to spend so much time in nursery? Is it cruel?

We have zero family nearby, and family finances mean we both pretty much need to work full time (one of us could drop to 4 days for a year).

I don’t want to use a nanny or au pair as I’d want my child to have social interaction with other kids. There are v few childminders near us so unlikely to be an option. The local nursery is very good tho.

@Crimesean

I don't think most DC 'love' going to nursery at a young age (younger than 3) - they invariably would prefer to be with their parents, it's a biological imperative.

My DS really didn't like nursery - when he was very little (13 months till about 2.5) he didn't seem to dislike it, but once he was able to properly articulate his feelings he made it very clear that he didn't like nursery. We looked at getting a nanny but couldn't find one, so we reduced our hours at work so he only went 2 days till he started at the pre-school attached to the school. On the 2 nursery days DS was in tears at drop off, even though he'd settle quickly it was clear he didn't want to go and wasn't happy. It still breaks my heart

Hopefully your DC will be fine at nursery, some are and some aren't, but I'm just warning you in case your DC turns out like mine and really doesn't like it - it's SO hard and upsetting.

This..I think most very young children eventually have to 'love' nurseries as they hardly have any other choice. They adapt to the environment as humans do. In fact I read in one of the studies that acquiring new skills and learning new things earlier than they would do at home is a defense mechanism for young kids as they find themselves in a less secure environment (other kids, key worker/different adults vs a primary caregiver at home spending one on one time with a child) and need to adapt really quickly. This is not bad actually but is often quite difficult for sensitive or high need children. But we all choose what's best for our families so really it's the responsibility of the parents - understand what's best for their child and family overall and make decisions based on that.

@franciacorta

In fact I read in one of the studies that acquiring new skills and learning new things earlier than they would do at home is a defense mechanism for young kids as they find themselves in a less secure environment

Please link to this study. It doesn't sound that reputable.

[quote Eycaluptus]@franciacorta

In fact I read in one of the studies that acquiring new skills and learning new things earlier than they would do at home is a defense mechanism for young kids as they find themselves in a less secure environment

Please link to this study. It doesn't sound that reputable. [/quote]
You should perhaps do your own research if you are interested in the topic. This is part of the concept known as pseudo- independence. It actually develops rather early in children and is known to be a coping mechanism. Bowlby for example thought that "separation anxiety can be excessively low or be altogether absent, giving an erroneous impression of maturity. He attributes pseudo- independence under these conditions to defensive processes. A well-loved child, he claims, is quite likely to protest separation from parents but will later develop more self-reliance". Vygotsky also wrote a lot about stages of child development and concluded that children are simply not ready for constant social interaction in peer groups until the age of 3 although begin to be more open to the outer world from the age of 1.

@franciacorta I'm not interested in the topic. I'm interested in reassuring women returning to work that their children will be safe, happy and well looked after.

[quote Eycaluptus]@franciacorta I'm not interested in the topic. I'm interested in reassuring women returning to work that their children will be safe, happy and well looked after. [/quote]
To each their own I suppose..)

Vygotsky also wrote a lot about stages of child development and concluded that children are simply not ready for constant social interaction in peer groups until the age of 3 although begin to be more open to the outer world from the age of 1.

I think you're misrepresenting this. For starters, the zone of proximal development - i.e. pushing beyond the comfort zone being key for developmental progression - comes from Vygotsky. And totally undermines the point you are making.

Children at those ages aren't interacting anyway. They start out ignoring the children around them entirely, then reach a developmental stage where they play alongside other children and then progress to share toys whilst playing and then eventually interacting in a meaningful sense.

So they interact in accordance with their developmental level.

Children cannot learn or show behaviours and skills before they have developed the cognitive ability to do so. You can't learn anything earlier than you have the cognitive ability to do whatever it is.

That is simply not how the human brain works. Children are not simply inexperienced adults who can learn things as fast as they're exposed to them - it is entirely dependent on cognitive development. Hence why children of the same age make the same errors of reasoning.

Different children develop at different rates. That's not new information.

@formalineadeline

Vygotsky also wrote a lot about stages of child development and concluded that children are simply not ready for constant social interaction in peer groups until the age of 3 although begin to be more open to the outer world from the age of 1.

I think you're misrepresenting this. For starters, the zone of proximal development - i.e. pushing beyond the comfort zone being key for developmental progression - comes from Vygotsky. And totally undermines the point you are making.

Children at those ages aren't interacting anyway. They start out ignoring the children around them entirely, then reach a developmental stage where they play alongside other children and then progress to share toys whilst playing and then eventually interacting in a meaningful sense.

So they interact in accordance with their developmental level.

Children cannot learn or show behaviours and skills before they have developed the cognitive ability to do so. You can't learn anything earlier than you have the cognitive ability to do whatever it is.

That is simply not how the human brain works. Children are not simply inexperienced adults who can learn things as fast as they're exposed to them - it is entirely dependent on cognitive development. Hence why children of the same age make the same errors of reasoning.

Different children develop at different rates. That's not new information.

The zone of proximal development is Vygotsky's most famous theory but he also studied the stages of child development and critical (sensitive) periods which affect the learning process. Proximal development of 12-18 m.o. also hugely relies on interaction with a primary caregiver (and not peers). Although to some extent I agree that pushing children beyond their comfort zone and encouraging them to learn could not be a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily happen naturally (their stage of development is still pretty much sensorimotor) as children are put in a formal social setting where they are cared for by an adult who looks after other children too (and the ration is not always great) and are expected to follow certain routine and rules. To expect a 1 year old 'love' their nursery in the same way a 3-4 year old might is simply not realistic.

I can't think of any point in history where children would have had the sole attention of the mother all day. Children have been looked after by other people since the beginning of time.