Is Prep school nursery better than state nursery?

[hiphiphurray]

Just that really....cant really afford private, but if nursery year makes any difference then would push the boat out and pay for that year at a prep school. But could not afford later so child would have to go to state school for reception year. The question is: does it make any difference to a child's progression if he/she has attended a prep school just for nursery year rather than a state nursery? I suspect the answer is no...but it is just a guess based on no experience!!

Nope makes little difference IMO. Play is play no matter where you are.

Is nursery A better than nursery B? You can only tell by visiting. Some private ones are fantastic, some are crap. Ditto state ones. You just can't generalise.

Both seeker and lisa make excellent points. It is impossible to generalise.

Maybe tell us first- what do you consider "better" to mean?What are your expectations? What skills/dispositions are you wanting to encourage in your child?

If you can tell us what is important to you, then we help you make a checklist when visiting your options to assess whether each place can provide that :)

I think it depends on the nursery and the child.

DC1 went to pre-school at a nursery that was not attached to a state or prep school. It was fantastic, they had a qualified teacher come in once a week. DC1 really thrived and settled really well in YR. Sadly nursery closed down.

DC2 went to pre-school at nursery attached to state school. I had to top up (3 days) the free entitlement as working full time and paid £35 a day. Was not too happy with his progress at nursery. Learning through play did not suit him, I felt the staff left him to do as he wished and hoped he would join in carpet time when he was ready. He was never READY. So DH and I decided to move his top up place to a prep school with a provision for 3 yr olds. Difference was clear. 15 children with 2 qualified teachers and a teaching assistant. Price was £29 a day. DC2 had to join in when it was carpet time, no negotiations. They were firm with him (which is what we really want). On our first visit was surprised that the children there could spell and write the days of the week!! forget writing their names. Only wished we had put DC2 there initially. As he is quite fiesty. He is now in YR and doing well so far, can already write his name (8 letters).

Will be sending DC3 to the prep pre school without a doubt.

My two went to a prep school nursery. It was better than state school nursery but only because in our area state school nursey is full time from the age of 3. One teacher & 1 TA for a class of 30 & the children are expected to be very independent eg no helping with toileting etc.

Their prep school nursey ran similar to a daycare nursery with 1:8 ratio doesn't matter about toilet training etc. other areas/preps will be different.

It depends on what you want. I didn't realise people wanted reading and spelling at 3 but obviously some do. All pre-schools should follow the EYFS, perhaps some schools can't get their heads round learning through play to get 'results'.

In England, prior to reception the ratio for adults to children is 1:13 or better.

You see, a nursery where they did spelling and writing and made them sit on the carpet would be a worse nursery for me than one where they played.

I should also have added that it depends on what you want too. So if you like the playing all day then thats ok too. I wasn't happy with it for DS2 because of the type of child he is.

I can compare my son's prep school nursery from the private day nursery he was in till the age of three. The prep school nursery was in a different league, I would definitely put my kids there even if they weren't continuing in the independent sector for school.

My daughter is at an all girls nursery at the moment and I really couldn't fault it. As it is attached to a lovely big school they have full use of all the schools facilities and teaching staff. Worth every penny. The other parents are mostly lovely and all very into the nursery doing well. It is going to cost an additional £300 a month for p1 but we will just have to find it.

I would be horrified to visit any place that had 3 year olds sitting down for reading & spelling 'lessons' or forcing children to attend carpet time. I also feel very sad for parents that only see academic skill as being important. There is so much more that children of that age NEED to actually be learning. We are raising human's here, not robots.

Emotional intelligence, personal & social skills are some of the most complex things we ever have to learn. Many adults never achieve full understanding. Early childhood is the time when we need to be focusing on this aspect of development. It is NOT learnt by forcing formal teaching on children before they are ready.

Any teacher who is actually qualified in early years would know that is totally inappropriate. Which is not to say young children cannot learn to read & spell, I have taught plenty who were capable and ready. It is this outdated & inappropriate method that I have issue with.

It is fair to say that many 'play based' nurseries don't engage their children enough. That is not down to the fact that they are play based though. That is down to the skill & knowledge of the staff.

It is also to fair to say that even at 'outstanding'nurseries, free-play might appear to be chaos, and it is hard to see the learning, but that is only because you don't yet know what to look for. If you want a child that can do more than read & write- don't choose a formal & overly structured nursery.

Fair enough teacher, but my daughters school has the best academic results in Scotland and does forced circle time etc, fun homework and follows montessori methods so I am hoping they are doing something right!

It is quite possible to have great academic results and be a dreadful school!
I wouldn't send my 3 yr old anywhere that did formal work.

You have to visit. They all range from excellent to dire whether state or private.

it is a myth that early reading and writing are signs of success.

My favourite statistic is that if you look at the children who write the best stories aged 7, they are the ones who had access to good imaginative play at 3.

Good nurseries provide many opportunities and creative environments. A child who starts school with a wide experience and good vocab is the child who will do best.

What is the problem with a three year old doing a little bit of formal work of they are able for it and enjoy it? My daughter likes practicing her name- she can't do it yet but likes trying. No big deal. She also knows her numbers and can count items etc. She doesn't seem stressed at all, so what's the harm in giving her a head start? I know that it will all even out in the end but her confidence seems to have improved and she loves being able to tell me about new things she has learnt.

It isn't a head's start. There is no harm in doing a bit at home but nursery isn't the place.

It is a head start. If they go into p1 already knowing the basics they can hit the ground running. They also are used to more formal discipline like having to sit still for a short period of time even if they don't feel like it. Can't see why this is a bad thing. Scarlett, nor any of the other girls in her class seem remotely bothered by this and my husband, mother and I have noticed a drastic improvement in her behaviour at home since moving to the more formal learning environment. It may not suit all children but I am very happy with our choice.

If a child is showing an interest in 'writing' or forming letters then a good 'pre-school' (playgroup,nursery etc ) will encourage that and form next steps for the child but it should never be formally taught as children are different- the whole basis of the EYFS .

Learning through play is a very important time in a child's development.

Steppemum & exotic fruit are exactly right- it isn't a headstart and it can be potentially damaging for many children.

For some, that are from good and stable homes- it won't do them harm as such, it is just such a false economy. If those children attended an actually good nursery they would be amazing, instead of just able to read & write well.

You are also wasting time that should be spent on the really important stuff. All of the academic skills can be learnt through play. There is just so much more to life than reading and writing. Plus those are finite skills. Once you learn to read and write- it won't matter whether you learnt it at 2 or 8. You will never forget it. Now making friends, being a critical thinker, or having entrepreneurial skill - that is deeper level learning that is NOT promoted in formal settings (the list of what is learnt in a play based environment vs a formal one is huge, but these are good examples)

Another issue with things like forced carpet times is that they are forced.
Forcing a child to conform and do things against their will is not doing them any favours. Why not figure out what the reluctance is about- is it a confidence issue? Ok work on that (Children need confidence to thrive in ALL aspects of life, not just school)

Is it a lack of interest? Again work on that. That's the teacher's job: figuring out how to make the curriculum relevant & interesting. Not forcing children to sit still and listen to you because you know everything. I don't know everything. Even if I did it wouldn't do the children much good. I don't want to teach them what to think, I want to teach them how to think. That is the main point of difference.

Also just because a nursery is play based doesn't mean there are no rules, or they don't teach discipline and respect.

In someways I think learning through play is a bit like the emperor's new clothes. Its fine for middle class SAHM children because the parents can do the academics with them at home. If a child spends three hours playing at nursery and ten minutes a day at home doing formal activities then it can be a good combination.

I think that children need to learn to persist at a task and improve their concentration span. I don't understand why a small amount of formal teaching is considered bad. Learning through play (or obmosis) is a very slow way to pick up information.

Surely there is a happy medium between the chaos of the EYFS and formal discipline of a year 1 classroom.

''Surely there is a happy medium between the chaos of the EYFS and formal discipline of a year 1 classroom.'' - yes it's called Reception Year .

If it's chaos it's not EFYS.

We are talking about nursery not year1 children. Learning to read isn't a race! There seems to be this sort of weird idea that if your DC can sit and do formal work they will be well ahead by 6,8,12,16 etc. It really doesn't work like that. (wouldn't it be simple if it did?!)

Learning through play is even more important for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. "the proper work of childhood is play" and thisnis a stage that children from difficult home backgrounds often miss out on, be UAE the is no time, leisure, space, energy or inclination in some chaotic households to play with children.
It doesn't matter if a child is 6 months later than another in learning to read. It does matter if they have missed out on play.

A great post from teacherlikesapples.