Long term effects of early, extensive childcare

[mikidora]

ifstudies.org/blog/measuring-the-long-term-effects-of-early-extensive-day-care

Canadian study - Quebec offered free full-working-day child care for ALL under 5s back in 1997 - 2 decades on the results are quite clear - those children that were put into long-hours care from their early months for most of the week “revealed significant increases in anxiety, hyperactivity and aggression” compared to those that weren’t. Crucially - this long term study shows that these adverse effects persist into adolescence and beyond.

Basically - IF, as a parent(s)/prospective parent(s) you have a choice - cut down work- do a day each separately at home, get relatives in to help if you can and minimise the time your 0-3 yr old spends in ALL DAY 9-5+ childcare.

I know there will be a flurry of “my child is fine...” responses but the point of this study is that they have a large sample size. Much more objective than one parent’s view. This is an overall trend when looking at thousands of children over many years.

I understand many truly don’t have a choice (single parents might well often fall into this category) and must use this kind of extensive child care but if you do have a choice - this makes for sobering reading.

Could it be that the free childcare was underfunded and therefore not very good?

Did they assess anxiety, hyperactivity and aggression in the rest of the cohort who didn't go to childcare?

Interesting, thanks. Many studies have shown that attendance at nursery has many benefits, but it's interesting to see that there may be a tipping point at which quantity of attendance (or, I expect, absence from parents/family) brings about negative outcomes.
Thank you for being clear that some parents do not have a choice, but certainly well worth considering for the many who do.
My children go to nursery, if that's relevant to the discussion.

I don't feel that many parents have a choice to be honest. The cost of living is constantly rising faster than wages. I'm "fortunate" in that me and DH don't get the same days off but out DC will be around 8/9 months when I have to put him in nursery and go back to work. However having different days off from DH will allow him to be cared for at home for the majority of the time we will have pretty much no time as a family of 3.
Where's the study on that? What impact will that have on him growing up? Yes your parents love each other but they never saw each other. There's always a trade off. Making people feel guilty for using childcare won't help anything other than giving parents something else to feel guilty about.

Yes, I would agree that it depends on the quality of childcare available.

What point are you trying to make by posting this here?

My siblings and I were in full time childcare from 3 months and I never thought that it would be an issue for mine. In fact I have been proud of how well they have been all the way through school.

I have heard this before but I can't remember where - that it's beneficial after 2 years of age but not before.

Hmmm. I wonder what the long term effects of having no heating or electricity or food is because the parents can't afford to pay the bills.

@smartcarnotsosmartdriver I don't think the OP is trying to make anyone feel guilty. I am a SAHM and I have been made to feel guilty for not putting my son into nursery by many people. So I think it's offering the argument that if you are fortunate to be able to stay home then you do not need to feel guilty about it or feel that you are doing your child a disservice. To explain further I think the OP is simply saying if you want to and can stay home don't feel like you have to put your child in nursery for their benefit.

I don't know this study but am interested enough to have a closer look. But there are some warning bells ringing for me in relation to the think tank that has published this.

Not the IFS we know here but the US Institute of Family Studies whose "about us" section includes a quote from the author of a book called "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys"...

I’ve been aware of other studies that has shown similar. If I remember correctly the suggestion as been that children who have higher educated parents do not attain as well as they might. Which makes sense to me, one to one or with siblings with parents should be better than perhaps a child care practitioner who has a base level qualification in childcare which might be the maximum level of their attainment.

No one is criticising you for not putting your child into full time 9-5 childcare. So your arguments falls down there.
Also the op is not stating 'it's ok not to send your child to nursery' but that it is actively damaging their mental health. How is that not making parents who choose this route feel guilty?

Something doesn’t look right. It’s very rare to find such conclusive research like this that reads more like a lobbying statement.

Look a bit deeper. Who are the IFS?

Their website says:

The mission of the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) is to strengthen marriage and family life, and advance the well-being of children through research and public education.

Sourcewatch describes it as a ‘conservative think tank’ I.e. not a research institute.

Read with a big pinch of salt or don’t read at all.

That’s not what the OP is saying at all, @MsChatterbox. She is saying that if you have a choice, you should do everything possible to mitigate against your child being in all-day childcare.

Personally, I would want to know far more about the quality of the childcare being assessed.

Thanks for posting this (although I think you may get some flak for it). I have a 6yo whose behaviour has been very challenging. I was always uncomfortable with him being in nursery (from 10 months) and have long suspected that it did him damage. Ironically, I am now a rather reluctant SAHM as the 6 yo can't cope in after-school/holiday care. This is clearly benefitting my 2yo in a way his older brother really needed. I have voiced this opinion to friends (about my own circumstance only), but many see it as a criticism of their own choices and weren't very receptive. If I could go back and do it again, I would greatly limit the amount of time he spent in childcare in the pre-school years.

I've been thinking this for years, but its such an unpopular opinion on here that I rarely voice my thoughts. What I actually think is that a baby needs to be with its mother and/or father, not placed in a childcare setting, no matter how good that setting. Babies do not benefit from socialising, they are babies, they need to form a good strong attachment with their primary carer.
I was lucky enough to be a stay st home mum for 7 years, and now only work part time, this was a conscious decision and we have had to be careful with money, but I have never regretted those years spent at home raising my family. I fully appreciate that this option is not financially possible for some, however when you factor in the cost of childcare it makes sense to do whatever you can to be at home with your baby.
I genuinely believe that a lot of mental health problems we see amongst young people are due in part to a lack of stability and attachment in the early years.
There, I've said it, tin hat on.

To be fair to the OP, I think she has tried hard to word her post to avoid being offensive. I think it is good to be aware of this kind of research when making our childcare decisions.

For me, the problem with this kind of research is the immense difficulty of separating the effect of different variables. So for example, the parents who chose to put their children in early full-time childcare may also have been, on average, less engaged parents in other ways, but it's impossible to measure the effects of that. So if you are an excellent, engaged parent for the time when you are with your child, the pattern observed in this study may not apply to you.

Still - food for thought.

Even if it was (hypothetically) proved beyond all doubt that it was harmful for children people would have to stick their head in the sand for the sake of family finances.

@coragreta true.

I've skimmed through this one, but I've seen similar before, the much cited positive benefits of early years education only kicks in at age 3 and even then the studies were for 15-20 hours a week of contact time (far from full time). Of course kids can have all of the issues this study talks about from being in a chaotic home life situation too.

If you need to work and use group childcare then it's simply not a choice but if you/your dp both work for luxuries and could cope with one being a sahp/both pt then I personally have always thought you should do it (I did stay home, much financial sacrifice). Not everyone has a choice, and if you can afford but must work , a nanny has been shown to be the best for small kids

I don't think it's right that children are in childcare sometimes up to 12 hours a day 5 days a week from 9 months old. But cost of living is too high. We are in a position where one wage can't support a family. Wages should be higher across the board so at least one parent can take at least 2 years off to look after a baby full time.

I think nursery is great. But it should be introduced gradually from around 2 years. A baby goes from 24/7 with their mum to suddenly only seeing mum at wake up and bed time. That's got to have an affect.

I wouldn’t have wanted DS in full time nursery from tiny. I do think kids need some pottering about at home time. He had quite a patchwork though and, like a PP said above almost zero time with both of us (although actually we did all eat dinner together at least) so maybe that was worse? It was two days with mum, two with dad, one with granny and two at nursery (9-5).

I think most people are doing their best.

What is your aim in sharing this? Those that can avoid it and will, are already doing what you are suggesting. Those that can do it but don't, won't give a fig. Those that already feel bad enough for not being able to cut down on childcare, well, you just made their shitty day shittier by adding to their guilt.

Do you feel superior now?

I work in early years and have always thought that it doesn’t suit some children
I think the research such as EPPE showed that the quality of the care is crucial and that full time had no more benefits than part time
This is why the then government spent millions on improving qualifications for practitioners and making plans for every setting to be graduate led
Sadly, that was overturned by the tories
Quality costs money though and people seem to want the cheapest childcare they can get but then complain about the effects on children

What is the point of posting this? Lots of people need / want to work and need childcare do is this just to increase the guilt they may feel about that?

Also childcare has changed a lot since 1997 so you're not comparing with what is offered now.

And as a pp says check your sources. Look at the Perry Pre-School study / high scope for a different perspective.

@OlderthenYoungerNow I agree - the OP has tried to sugar this, but that is her aim. If you look at the background of the organisation then the motives are clear.

I hate posts like this- why do women try and guilt trip parents who may be struggling anyway.

And as for the poster who says mothers shouldn’t work If it for ‘luxuries’, I find that ridiculous. My children quite like the luxuries!

Some women just want to make parenthood a martyrdom.

^^ pp - come on OP, use a bit of critical thinking here.