To think it’s obvious which children don’t attend nursery?

[Omgshesaidthat]

I met up with a group of mum friends yesterday and it just got me thinking how to me it’s so obvious when a child doesn’t go to nursery.

From the group, only one mum didn’t go back to work after her maternity leave - at the time I felt quite envious but seeing her boy compared to the rest of the group now they are all 2 has made me think that I’m not actually so sure that being at home is such a good thing.

For example he’s not potty trained yet whereas the rest of the group are well on their way or totally dry and his speech is nowhere near as good as the others - even with things like numbers & alphabet, DD is parroting it all back to me whereas this little boy isn’t yet.

We did an organised activity and all the other children in the group sat nicely & listened and then participated whereas my friend’s boy just did his own thing the whole time.

My friend is a good mum and she does take him to playgroup and sets up little activities for him at home so it’s not like he’s just sat doing nothing all day. But it just felt quite apparent that you can’t recreate that nursery setting at home and the impact of children being in that environment and surrounded by other children is huge for their development.

It's really unpleasant to be so judgemental of a 2 year old, they all develop at different rates and there's a really broad range at younger ages. Yes nursery is good experience for school readiness but there's nothing to suggest this particular child won't be ready for school.

Looks like you have so much to learn about statistical reliability, correlation and causation, being a friend and child development.

Exactly- DS was behind in speech, slow to potty train and really struggled in groups at two. He is apparently, at 5, a complete delight to teach!

Does a 2 year old even need to know letters of the alphabet and need to sit quietly? They’re still babies! It’s not a race - let them be kids.

In any case, my youngest never went to nursery as we lived in a country which had extremely prolonged covid shutdowns for education. At age 8 he is now exceeding most of his class who did attend nursery academically but I’m sure it will all change again over time as they mature.

In any case, if anything, the science says nursery is slightly detrimental compared to 1-1 care at home: ‘lots of hours spent in any type of daycare, or lots of exposure to group-based care, across the infant, toddler and preschool years, predicted somewhat more aggression and disobedience in children, somewhat poorer relations with teachers and most recently more risk-taking including sexual and alcohol utilisation, including drugs, and more impulsivity at age 15’

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/02/nurseries-childcare-pre-school-cortisol

My experience has been the opposite. The toddlers at home with mum are ahead in speech and other areas because they get individual attention. But, and this is a big factor, their parents are actually working with them on things like speech constantly. Getting them to say new words, repeat them, correcting pronunciation, introducing letters, etc. Lots of parents don’t bother to do this anymore and of course it’s noticeable in their children if they don’t.

You are 100% being smug, you didn’t disguise it at all. Both mine went to nursery and even if you can tell when they’re 2, or 4 (which I’m not completely convinced is true), you won’t tell when they’re 10, 15 or 20. You’ll also be shocked to know that once they hit a certain age no one cares whether they were born by c section, whether they were breastfed, did baby led weening and all the other stuff parents of small children tie themselves in knots over because life with small kids is dull.

If you’re friends with the mum stop posting about her kid on the internet and accept all children are different.

I agree that you can tell the difference re nursery kids (and when they’re older, kids who grow up going to after school clubs etc). You stop being able to tell around early to mid- teens, and before then I’m not sure whether the difference is a good one or not. Depends on the child, depends on what you want for them, depends on what each parent values.

I’m honestly not being judgey but it was just so obvious . And I know a lot of mums feel guilty about returning to work but honestly after yesterday I don’t think anyone should feel guilty about it.

Is this your first child? I mean no offense by asking, it's just that if you have more than 1, you will notice that children develop at a different pace. Milestones aren't at a set month, it's a wider range, and a child can be perfectly on track but doing things a few months after another peer. You don't need an excuse for sending your child to nursery, there's pros and cons to many parenting choices. Do what you need to do and what you think is best for your family.
Comparing development with your friends children isn't very nice, hopefully she didn't notice you all judging and comparing your children to hers. Her child will catch up with yours eventually, he's probably doing and learning things at their own time, it isn't a race.

One of my kids walked at 15 months, one at 12. Now they're older you can't tell who talked/walked/crawled first. One could read fluently at 3, one couldn't until reception. Same parents, different children.

For what is worth, my tiny sample of 3 kids who didn't go to nursery until they got their 15 free hours after they turned 3, and all developed as expected, they were all potty trained before 2, and are very academic, can write, read and do all they need exceptionally well. They're well adjusted and so on. Should I say people shouldn't send their kids to nursery because my kids did well by not going? It makes no sense whatsoever.

If there's a difference, it will probably disappear within weeks or months of a child joining a nursery and spending time in an environment with their peers and learning from the lovely nursery and preschool teachers. And I say this as partner of a primary school teacher (KS1 and KS2) of over 15 years, who I can assure you in a room full of kids will not be able to point out who went to nursery as a baby.

Yes you are being judgemental and cruel, whether you think you are or not. Maybe this child's mum feels guilty (wrongly) that her child doesn't say the alphabet yet, but you don't care about her feelings do you?

Yeah, as a primary school teacher, it really is obvious which kids didn’t go to nursery - because they are far better at self-regulation, and often think more about how other children feel rather than being a bit sharp about getting in first. They are often not as far on with the ‘school knowledge’ - alphabet, numbers etc, but their knowledge and understanding of the world around them is generally far better. So, swings and roundabouts really - but it all seems to even out as they go through school, so I’m not sure it matters that much in the end.

Wow what a horrible friend you are. Glad your kids perfect Peter!

My boy is 2, goes to nursery 4 days per week since he turned 1 but isn’t potty trained yet, always does his own thing during group activities and doesn’t have much speech yet. All children are different. Sorry to mess up your stats.

But unless you have evidence that there is a difference in adulthood, it really doesn’t matter. Those kids may be different when they start reception. Is there a noticeable difference at the end of reception, even? Let alone later in life.

Just own the fact that you are being judgmental because it is very clear. You seem like you are using your friends child to make yourself feel better about your own child being in childcare.

As a parent and an ex nursery worker(I ran a toddler room) I can tell you that two year olds develop at all different rates. But you don’t want to hear that,
What is the problem if a child cannot parrot the alphabet at age 2? It doesn’t mean anything in the long term.

Are there any other boys in the group or are you comparing him to all girls? It's well known that girls usually hit their milestones before boys do so comparing your DD to him isn't really a fair assessment

It's not obvious- you've just jumped on something to prove a position you already had or would like to have confirmed. You can't prove anything based on one child.

I don't think anyone should feel guilty about going to work, provided their children are in decent childcare. I also think no one should feel guilty for staying at home with their kids when they are little. The idea that by not putting them in a room with ten other babies for nine hours a day they are somehow going to be behind is nonsense! How do you think babies developed for most of history?

Sounds like a load of balls to me because you're envious that she didn't have to send hers.

You basically said it yourself 🤷‍♂️

If you'd met my daughter at 2, you'd have assumed she went to nursery (by your criteria ) - her language was amazing, she was potty trained, she could concentrate and do lots of advanced things. Ds was completely different - still couldn't really sit still and concentrate, unless it was on cars, wasn't potty trained, much slower with his language. Neither went to nursery.

Also, maturity just seems to be innate, they follow the path that they're on, you can't make a child 'grow up'. There's no particular benefit to early maturity (except that it can be easier for the parent) and they all get there in the end, so it doesn't really matter in the end.

Your generalisation from one sample doesn't make sense.

Boys x girls, individual differences and different parenting, all play into this.

Actually, in my area the children which stayed at home longer were seen as having an advantage at school age - benefiting from 121 attention and faster learning.

There is very little value at parroting alphabet as two yo. The skills at 4 yo and 6 yo won't reflect it.

I worked in a preschool and some of the children that did attend were much as you describe your friends DC.

I do agree when starting school you can tell who didn't go anywhere before, but I wouldn't know who went to nursery from 9 months and who had only done preschool.

Mmm, interesting.

But of course it's all totally irrelevant anyway. The most advanced at age 2 or 3 is pretty meaningless to life outcome and no real indication of who'll be top of the class in a few years.

It's also interesting that you view being able to 'parrot back' things and compliantly sitting and listening (rather than independently playing and discovering like your friends dc) to be the key achievements at this age. It's not just the toddlers that are trained by nursery, is it? 😂

Well my son went to nursery 3 full days from 18 months old.

still ended up with a speech delay, wasn’t potty trained until well over 4 (was still having accidents at reception) and he’s still not reliable now at 9!! He is under a consultant for it though.

he also was 2 full schools years behind when in year 2 at school.

and he went to an outstanding well known nursery.

after many years of speech therapy, a tutor and loads of intervention at school she’s now in year 5 and in line with his peers academically.

my dd went to the same nursery, wasn’t developmentally delayed in anyway but still struggles socially now at 14.

so imo it’s nothing to do with the nursery

Pre-school settings only affect outcomes if the child doesn’t attend from age 3 years. That’s what the research show. Children develop differently in different settings for many reasons.

Twaddle. I had two kids, both went to nursery, both developed at totally different stages. They're both adults now and on a par.

Children develop at different stages and a comparison is very judgemental at 2 because unless you've studied hundreds of kids in the same situation you have no yardstick by which to measure it.