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.

I completely agree, taking milestones out the window - every child I have met that didn't attend a childcare setting seem to lack a certain understanding of social skills more than anything else. All the ones I've met seem to have issues with sharing, personal space, and just general interaction with kids of a similar age.
And then when corrected by parents seem to have larger meltdowns, more emotional reactions when asked to stop or told no.

This may not be a fair general overall consensus, but from my experience I have noticed a obvious difference between nursery vs non nursery children.

Both of mine went to nursery- DD very developed socially and vocab wise from a young age, DS was the opposite. Whatever families choose/works for them is absolutely their business and it’s a bit crass to judge 2-3 year olds anyway.

Sorry OP, but that’s bollocks.

I was a SAHP and DS could read, write and do basic maths before starting reception at 4yrs old. I bought him an iPad mini when he was 3 as he loved learning.

His Reception teacher hadn’t a clue until a few weeks in and she saw him reading out loud the staff notices on the notice board in the corridor to some other reception kids. He’s always been a shy chap and never offers up any answers unless directly asked a question, so initially teachers assume he doesn’t know much but then they’re blown away when he has a conversation with them. He’s still the same unassuming quiet lad at 17 but streets ahead of his peers in academic ability. 🤷🏻‍♀️

So there's been a lot of peer reviewed research on this. The general consensus is that kids who attend nursery age under 3 develop slower, have worse social skills and have worse mental health problems throughout their lives.

Age over 3, there is a benefit for cognition and school readiness. But shorter hours are much much better than full time.

I use full-time childcare so I'm not criticising anyone who does! But the research is pretty clear that 1-2-1 care (whether that's nanny/parent/grandparent) is better for the development of under threes.

Girls also develop ahead of boys when they're small, on average (and this continues until teenage age) so if you're comparing same age girls to boys they will be ahead regardless - nothing to do with nursery or not.

There's probably a reason she chose not to go back to work. Some kids develop slower and have higher needs. I was this mum with both of mine, always comparing to the more "advanced" kids, wondering why they could sit still at a restaurant table and mine would meltdown after 5 minutes. Fast forward a few years and it turns out they are both neurodiverse with complex needs. You sound like a bad friend judging the parenting skills of other mums based on a quick snapshot at meetups.

MIL is a pre-school teacher and says exactly the same thing.

I suspect his behaviour is more natural to be honest - you are describing a dc who has not been institutionalised from a young age vs those that have. That aside you can’t make such sweeping assumptions based on such a small number of dc. If someone said something like this to me in real life I’d likely roll my eyes and change the subject.

Fully agree OP, nursery is great for their development and socialisation. But you’ve stumbled on to a specific mumsnet bias - I can only assume there’s a very high proportion of women who stop work on here.

2’s an interesting age actually - obviously there’s a natural variation in how fast individual children develop in different areas but you definitely notice the ones that are being treated more as babies compared to those who are being given opportunities to become more independent.

Too small a group to draw any conclusions

As someone who worked in a nursery, all I will say is what I saw made me decide to stay home with my youngest child until he starts preschool. Yes, children are definitely "trained" to behave a certain way. Are they better off/more advanced because of it? No.

Like others have said you sound very smug OP. I would seriously not be so smug...... the DC are 2! I'm farly sure that they weren't all born on the same day or in the same month/2 months of each other... a couple of months in age difference at that age makes a huge difference to a child's development so maybe your friends DS has just turned 2 and yours or your other friends superior DC are more 26-30 months this will have a huge impact. Do not compare the DC it's the worst thing you can do. Both my DS's were with a childminder from 4 months and then attended pre school for 5 mornings a week from age 3. Now 11 & 8 and academically very high achievers but this could all change still too. Don't be smug OP you may end up looking very foolish and losing friends along the way

Like you said. Parroting. Not learning. Forced. Forced to sit as otherwise ignored.

Uou know the current research says no child care until 3? Children need to be children not robots

We started music group couple of weeks ago (ages 2-3,5 years old).11 kids, I could tell on day number 1, on first 10 mins who goes to nursery. It's very visible - social skills, language, manners, sharing, etc.

I wouldn't want any mum to feel guilty about the child care choices she made, we’re all just doing our best.

My DC are late teens, both at uni. So I feel they are old enough to make a judgement about how they and their friends have “turned out”.

There’s no clear difference between those that went to nursery and those with SAHPs. There wasn’t by the end of Primary School and certainly not be the end of High School.

I have identified differences between the parents on occasion but not between the children.

You simply must get these amazing findings published in a journal, @Omgshesaidthat!

So astute, so keenly observed. You'll no doubt change the future of countless children based on your sample size of... one.

Nothing quite like a smug first timer. I'm sorry you need to assuage your mum guilt by judging a two year old.

Yeah the research is so clear that nursery under age 3 is detrimental for development!

(I have to use childcare so I'm not judging those that do) But people have studied child development and everyone knows nursery under 3 doesn't help development...

People should not feel bad about needing or wanting to send their children to nursery but it’s not a developmental advantage.

Mine didn’t go to nursery and were completely toilet trained well before their second birthdays- they also spoke in complete sentences at that time. All noted down at the 2 year health check.

Maternal education does have an impact on verbal intelligence.

Children parroting numbers and the alphabet song are not meaningful markers of understanding correspondences between letters/sounds and numbers names/quantities.

Your small study is flawed. When my DS started school nursery he received MAT provision with a couple of other children who had also been with SAHMs, rather than attended private nursery as toddlers.

Nursery for toddlers is beneficial if the home environment is not ideal. Private nurseries make money due to the majority of staff having minimal qualifications. The differences you are observing may be down to parenting and developmental variation.

I would ditch these judgemental comparisons.

These are the sort of judgements that you will feel embarrassed about when you have another child or when your child is older.
When you have very small children each so called milesstone seems so important.
He crawls at 6 months, he doesn't walk until 18 months, she talks at 1 or two.
Very little of it matters in the long term. The child who could read at three sn't necessarily going to be a genius. The one who was slow to potty train isn't going to have any long term disadvantages.
The maternal urge to compete though..

'at the time I felt quite envious'

I sense you still are. How horrible to judge another mother and her child in this way. When I read stuff like this I just feel this is a mother who feels guilty. Stop it; you have nothing to feel guilty about and nor does she.

The family across the road from me did not send any of their 3 sons to nursery. All 3 are now very successful career-wise (and out of nappies!).

Don't be a dick!

My first went to childcare earliest and for the longest and was deemed 'not school ready' at preschool (refused to do the structured learning activities and preferred free play) and she turned out to be the typical MN child and get all 8/9s at GCSE! Early alphabet copying means absolutely nothing.

Another of mine went to less childcare as I did nights and would have confirmed your view as their speech was poor and he didn't play with the group. He turned out to need grommets and speech therapy! Still got KS2 Greater Depth or whatever nonsense it is.

The latest of mine to potty train went to the most 'outstanding' nursery too!

The differences in development at 2 are not explained by early exposure to childcare ever. They are unlikely to mean anything about development or achievement long term either.

@Omgshesaidthat this in spades. So many people have said the same thing. You children are trained but sirens remain you’ve helped their brain development and the laying down of cortisol

This wasn’t obvious when my kids were young - I suspect it has more to do with the individual child if as you say your friend is an attentive mother.

I noticed that children who were at home with their mums had (much) better table manners and on the flip side one flat refused school food when she started!

I worked in a nursery and can confidently say children under 2 don't "socialise" or "play together". What they wanted the most was adult attention and affection, which was hard given the ratio, and the fact not every nursery worker was even interested in their emotional needs.

My experience of friends' children at a similar age was quite different and affected my decision to not place my DC in nursery, until they were 3. We used a childminder and family for childcare. My friend whose child was at home with a parent was much further advanced with speech and 'academics'. The child who went to nursery was more sociable but communicated less well and less able to concentrate on an activity. Of course, any differences were likely due to them being different children!

This is such bullshit. I took my 3 year old out of pre school as he was miserable. We had a lovely routine at home with his baby brother until he started school. He was, from day one of the most articulate and well behaved children in the class. Fully potty trained and dressing, eating independently for at least a year before reception. He’s a bright child who was in the right environment for him. Other children may do better in the snot fest of the local nursery.