To All Teachers; Can you answer this honestly?

[ssd]

My friend is a teacher in a primary school and she says she can always tell the difference between children that have been in full time childcare since they were small and the ones that have been at home mostly looked after by their mum or relatives.

Would you agree?

Please be honest, I don't know if she's talking rubbish or not?

what did she say that the difference was?

no idea

I couldn't say, but I am a secondary teacher. Any differences are gone by the time they get to us I think

she said the children used to being in full time nursery were badly behaved and didn't listen as well to the teachers.

I was secondary and definitely by then there'd be no way of telling. Could tell lots of differences, but not that one.

Sounds like someone who doesn't like working mums! I'm not a teacher, but regularly help at school & the misbehaved ones fell evenly into both camps. I also worked pt & have got one of each, so not sure how that one works out.

I've heard this one from teachers, also from health professionals a few times (i'm not a teacher). The usual thing they say is that kids who've been in f/t childcare are brighter, more advanced, better social skills. I'd have thought it depends on how good the carer is, & how much social interaction the child has, whether the carer is a mum or a nursery nurse, rather than the environment itself. I don't know either way.

ssd - that would suprise me a lot as part of childcare - well nursery anyway - is getting the child ready for school. Certainly the children at DD's nursery all know how to sit quiety at circle time or preschool work time toput their hands up to ask a question and to listen to the teacher, as well as other children.

Maybe she just has been reading the recent media articles.

Well two differing views then on these apparant differences.

Has she got an axe to grind? Because tbh I would have thought it would be the other way around. When kids are at nursery at 3 and 4, they usually are in a pre-school groups where things like taking turns, listening to the grown-ups, sharing, playing nicely with other children, etc. are emphasised. If the kids at her school who have been to nurseries are under-skilled in those things, then perhaps all the nurseries in her area are crap!

No difference by KS2 IMO.

The single biggest 'thing' that I can detect is if the parents/ family value education or not (and please this isn't a class thing!)

If the parents put value on education, the kids tend to be fine.

If the parents don't, the kids are often, but not always, an utter nightmare.

Other than that, nothing much

that's interesting, while i was typing that there were other posts from people who assumed the childcare kids were the naughty ones, but I'd assumed we meant 'more mature and better socialised' kids = those from f/t childcare vs 'less advanced and fewer social skills' kids = those who stay home with Mom!! Perhaps teachers etc just say whatever they want us as individuals to hear!!

mb - definitely agree with that statement. So true, esp at secondary age.

I remember my mother (long-time KS1 teacher) could spot which children had been to which local nursery - obvious differences between the Montessori-style place where they learnt to put their coats on by laying them on the floor, pushy achievement-orientated one where all the kids were desperate for a tick or a sticker, one where everything was adult-directed and the kids got anxious when given 'choosing time' etc etc.

She never mentioned a difference between children who'd been in daycare followed by nursery and those who'd only done nursery, but I suspect there was a bit of difference between the nursery-goers and those who had stayed home altogether till starting school.

I think it's a very sweeping generalisation.

From my experience, the only children who really stand out when they start in Reception are the ones who have had no pre-school/play group experience at all, and very little input at home (for example the child who starts school but has absolutely no concept of sitting as part of a group for any length of time, or who can't cope with the idea of a self-chosen activity finishing as it's time to tidy-up, or who doesn't know what to do with a paintbrush/pencil/book/playdough/waterplay etc because it is all out of their experience). And I've come across very few children like that.

It's sometimes possible to spot the children who've been at home the whole time before school simply because to begin with they need to be explicitly taught about how large groups of children work together - the whole sitting on the carpet thing, lining up, hands up to speak etc etc but that's to be expected and it very rarely takes more than a couple of weeks for them to feel settled in the school environment.
Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense Gladbag!

And putting your hand up etc., is just a thing you learn - I don't think it implies bad socialisation as such.

I've heard a couple of times from primary teachers that those who have been at home are more secure and are less 'disruptive' and 'aggressive'.

Definitely a generalisation though - the character of a child depends on soooo many other things.

Well, that must be a generalisation as a big feature of ds' overall positive reports is his enthusiastic and polite good behaviour in class.
And he is a nursery veteran.
Agree with Caligula re the likely standard of her local nurseries and with MB on how education is valued at home both being much more likely to influence classroom behaviour and enjoyment of school.
Interesting to have the teachers' perspectives on this issue.

Agree with MB, but then I usually do (I'm not a teacher, btw, just nosy!)

I am a secondary school teacher and agree with MB. If parents value edution and have faith in the system then the kids are alright. The nightmares are the kids with the parents who obviously don't spend time chatting to them about what they get up to in school. Schools are not there to be substitute parents, but to educate!