Starting school having never gone to nursery...

[Rodion]

Who's children have mainly spent all their time with their primary carer up until starting school? I don't mean the odd babysitting session or day with grandparents, just no childminder/preschool/nursery.

We weren't planning on sending DS to any of the above as I am at home with DD anyway. However, some other parents have been surprised that we wouldn't take advantage of the free hours at nursery as it would be 'good for preparing for school'. We're not antinursery, but just preferred the idea of doing it ourselves.

Has anyone else done the same? Did your DC enjoy starting school or did they struggle as most other children have been eased in gently by attending nursery?

I think quiets is a great post. The transition from CM depends on how much they do with them and how many other children they mind etc

I have taught nursery, reception and year 1.
Children who don't go to nursery do fine in reception, it takes them a little while to settle in but in the end they are fine and can keep up.
I have also know children who have had no formal education before year 1. They really struggled as so much of how to cope with school is learnt in reception.

Remember, when they are under 5 it is up to you how many hours they do at school.

I was a cm,my charges did v well.I always took them to toddler groups and they had a few pre school,sessions like my dc did in the run up to school.

Tbh any good primary school will have a good transfer system that will help with wobbles anyway.

Our DS is starting school part time in January (aged 4.5) having had only a few weeks of preschool (2 weekly morning sessions) to prepare him for time away from me. I'm a SAHM and he's been with me every day of his life, with no other childcare arrangements. He is bright and has good social skills - in fact his are advanced compared to many older children he meets in the play park/farm/etc. I will expect him to be overwhelmed and probably upset at dropping off time initially but as a good friend reminded me, adversity isn't necessarily all bad and helps character development! I've too had lots of comments about not taking advantage of the free hours provided- I just followed my gut instincts with what I thought was best for my own son. I think it's nonsense to suggest a child spending most of his/her time with their mother is ineffective. (Based on what evidence?!) Schools have existed for less than 200 years, nurseries and preschools even less. Anthropological studies show that humans roamed the land in groups of all ages, they weren't stuck in a room with 30 children their same age. Good luck with whatver you decide.

I would see how you feel in 6 months time or so.

My DD had appallingly bad separation anxiety from around 5 to 23 months. It was dreadful. She just about tolerated DH, but if anyone else even tried to pick her up she would scream the place down. We tried going out one evening leaving her with my BIL who she knew well - she screamed for 4 hours solid. Strangely he never offered again! We actually ended up being referred for specialist help.

Around 24 months it started to calm down, and at 3 years I left her - in some fear - for a 2 hour tester at a nursery and returned to find a calm happy DD. She so enjoyed it that I signed her up for full-time hours at the school nursery and she thrived - is now one of the most confident kids in the school.

I had so much pressure from people to send her to day care and nursery from when she was around 6 months old. I know that things were muttered about my being too possessive, deprived of social skills etc etc. Fact is I did go to some baby groups and living in London, she was on the bus, tube, in museums etc every day, not locked in the house.

I waited until I felt that she would be able to deal with being on her own. Thought there might be more problems than there were so I made no firm arrangements. The advice I had from the professionals was to let her try things, but never to push her to do things outside her comfort zone. I also chose a nursery with very tactile and cuddly staff and no fixed structure in terms of activities.

They grow up so fast at this age, that what is in their comfort zone at 4 is very different from that at 3.

Looking at the children in DD's year, I would say that the nursery ones were better at following instructions and knowing how a 'school' setting worked, but it didn't always follow that they weren't the ones howling at the door every morning.

My DD1 was looked after by her grandmother who talked to her and read a lot of stories with her. She went for walks into town and to cafes where she saw lots of other adults. She went for 1 hour each week to a singing/play group where she learnt to share with others. We moved area and she started school with a group of others who knew each other since nursery. She loved going to school and still does (year 4 now) and made friends quite easily. I compare her to her brother who went to the nursery and I think that he made friends easier but she was more willing to 'learn'. Sound silly for a 4 year old when I say it out loud. I am talking about a small school with 12 in her year. If I were to do things again I wouldn't change it. That time spent one on one is invaluable. I am also a teacher and can see those children who have spent time with adults. Of course there are benefits to both options. My son is very shy and needed to mix with others while my daughter was slightly more confident. DS 3 went to nursery too because we were able to get a lift for him and he's loving it. I can see a definite improvement in his vocabulary. So to sum it all up, even though DD1 didn't go to nursery, the school still 'eased her into it' and she is very happy there.

The language in the early years assessment stuff used to be "can transfer trust to another adult". I do think children who have never learned to do that are at a significant disadvantage starting school, when suddenly they have to learn to do it with a teacher who has 29 other kids to pay attention to and only one helper. It's a lot easier to learn to do it in playgroup or similar with a ratio of 1:8.

But I don't think it matters if they've learned it at school nursery, private nursery, local playgroup, childminder, church creche...

I can't see the relevance of the outcomes described in the document linked by TalkinPeace, or any anecdotal descriptions by (say) Reception teachers about how difficult or easy non-nursery attenders find starting school.

In most cases children's nursery attendance or non-attendance is due to parental preference. As far as I can see, the children in the EPPSE study were not randomly assigned to nursery or non-nursery groups. I assume that each child's parents chose for him to attend nursery or not. Parents make decisions about sending children to nursery for a range of reasons, but surely one big factor must be whether parents perceive their own particular child is suited to that environment.

If I am right about this, it follows that the non-nursery attenders will include a disproportionate number of children who were never going to thrive in a nursery/school environment, due to their character or their special needs. If children who didn't go to nursery tend to struggle later with adapting to school, that doesn't prove that those children would have done any better if they'd gone to nursery.

(The authors of the EPPSE study report claim to have normalised for such factors, but I can't see how they could possibly have done that. Apart from anything else, the non-nursery attenders were only recruited to the study at school entry!)

I'll use my own family as an example to explain what I mean. My older child was just the sort of kid who could be expected to do well in nursery or school and to enjoy the experience as much as any child would. That's why I sent her to nursery. I expected she'd like it. I knew that she would not be traumatised by it. Years later, she went to school. She was an outgoing sociable child - just as she had been aged three - and found it easy to adapt to school.

My younger child was the sort of kid who would not be expected to enjoy nursery or thrive there. She didn't (and doesn't) like noise, or crowds, or being away from her family, nor does she have an intuitive talent for social interaction. That's why I didn't send her to nursery. I expected nusery would be a disaster for her. Now go forward a few years. With or without previous preschool experience, such a child was not likely to adapt to school easily.

Of course I don't suggest that my older child is representative of all nursery attenders, or that my younger child is representative of all non-attenders. But I do think it very likely that the nursery non-attenders contain a higher than average number of children like my younger daughter. There's no proof that having gone to preschool would have "cured" such children of being a poor fit for school. Perhaps preschool would actually have had the opposite effect, by subjecting them to more stress than is healthy.

Who can say? There's no certain answer. But the person who knows the child best can at least have a good guess at what that child needs.

I can't see the relevance of the outcomes described in the document linked by TalkinPeace, or any anecdotal descriptions by (say) Reception teachers about how difficult or easy non-nursery attenders find starting school.

In most cases children's nursery attendance or non-attendance is due to parental preference. As far as I can see, the children in the EPPSE study were not randomly assigned to nursery or non-nursery groups. I assume that each child's parents chose for him to attend nursery or not. Parents make decisions about sending children to nursery for a range of reasons, but surely one big factor must be whether parents perceive their own particular child is suited to that environment.

If I am right about this, it follows that the non-nursery attenders will include a disproportionate number of children who were never going to thrive in a nursery/school environment, due to their character or their special needs. If children who didn't go to nursery tend to struggle later with adapting to school, that doesn't prove that those children would have done any better if they'd gone to nursery.

(The authors of the EPPSE study report claim to have normalised for such factors, but I can't see how they could possibly have done that. Apart from anything else, the non-nursery attenders were only recruited to the study at school entry!)

I'll use my own family as an example to explain what I mean. My older child was just the sort of kid who could be expected to do well in nursery or school and to enjoy the experience as much as any child would. That's why I sent her to nursery. I expected she'd like it. I knew that she would not be traumatised by it. Years later, she went to school. She was an outgoing sociable child - just as she had been aged three - and found it easy to adapt to school.

My younger child was the sort of kid who would not be expected to enjoy nursery or thrive there. She didn't (and doesn't) like noise, or crowds, or being away from her family, nor does she have an intuitive talent for social interaction. That's why I didn't send her to nursery. I expected nusery would be a disaster for her. Now go forward a few years. With or without previous preschool experience, such a child was not likely to adapt to school easily.

Of course I don't suggest that my older child is representative of all nursery attenders, or that my younger child is representative of all non-attenders. But I do think it very likely that the nursery non-attenders contain a higher than average number of children like my younger daughter. There's no proof that having gone to preschool would have "cured" such children of being a poor fit for school. Perhaps preschool would actually have had the opposite effect, by subjecting them to more stress than is healthy.

Who can say? There's no certain answer. But the person who knows the child best can at least have a good guess at what that child needs.