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.

Thank you to all who've made the effort to probe the background of the blog the OP shared and reveal it as so very biased.

Also interesting points about the impossibility of a randomised trial into childcare and flaws in the reliability of the research referred to in that blog.

The big issue on this thread is arguably gullibility and lack of critical approaches when reading sources online. I think the original blog is propaganda to an extent.

Crap source. I think there should be some proper independent research into a range of childcare options but not from think tanks with a clear agenda. The findings should be used by government to promote a good style of childcare or to promote flexible working.

Some parents work full-time because they can't afford not to. Some work full-time because their employer won't allow them to reduce their hours and it can be difficult to find a new job with part-time hours. Some parents (mainly women) give up work so they can be full-time at home and then find they can't get back into their careers afterwards.

IMO, flexibility in the workplace for all should be the primary aim. Parents who work often have no choice but to use nursery as the government have created so many hoops for childminders to jump through that it's not an attractive job option. It will be increasingly difficult to rely on family childcare as the retirement age increases. People are going to keep having children. Flexible working (for all who want it, not just parents) should become the norm. The norm should not be Mother's expected to stay at home for years.

My kids are older and so I have the benefit of no longer having the guilt that young children in childcare brings.

If I look across every single child I know and have known, either as friends or through some organisation I help run, I can't tell which children were in extensive childcare from an early age.

The biggest driver of resilience and strong self-esteem seems to me to be "light touch" engaged parent(s) - the ones going for walks at the weekend and eating together as often as possible but not so competitive that everything seems like a race the child can't win.

I also think that a lot of research on parental choice and impact is a deliberate distraction from the absolutely gaping inequality in our society. The reality is that the huge gaps in child outcomes aren't based on what parents do, they're based on who parents are. It's a way of pretending that there's a level playing field so that the couple on minimum wage can give their child the same chances as the couple on £100k if they just try hard enough. They can't.

I agree with some.of the comments here. After been a nursery manager for many years I can honestly say it does not suit some children.
Some children thrive and love it from an early age. Some struggle and never fully settle which is where I would choose a childminder.

Full time for some is a must but personally think most children under 2 suit a childminder when full time as nurseries can be hectic, and although they have a key worker they are with other adults who deal with them when keyworker on breaks off sick etc. I am talking about the under twos here.. I think full time in a nursery from 2 is easier for the child.

However that it just my opinion.

I think we are not scrutinising enough the competing role of healthy attachment vs the demands of industrialisation and its disruptive affect on attachment.

We have a society in which family life shapes itself around work and the capitalist economy, and whilst some grounds such as shared maternity leave etc have been made, increasingly family time is being exchanged in order for capitalism to still achieve its aims (most people having a chance to do well) Long term consequences to mental health is not factored in at any level. Not to children, not to parents and certainly not to women specifically.

Yet the cost of days off work due to anxiety, etc is costing billions.

Children are also different and what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another. Some children are more prone to being nervous, anxious etc and need longer attachment time, developing their confidence with the presence of the parent as a foundational emotional safety net nearby.

What does the study mean by "childcare"?

I had/have reservations about crèches/nurseries and the like, so used a childminder when DCs were little.

There's a huge difference between being in a room of 30 other 2 year olds looked after by several adults, and different adults each day sometimes, many of whom are young and childless, but "qualified", and being in a family environment in a house, looked after by the same person everyday, with maybe 3 or 4 other children of different ages, often with the carer being a mum herself.

We know that most of our self esteem and security comes from the unconditional love if our parents. It's one of the reasons the care system can't succeed, because that can't be replicated no matter how good the people working in it are

It stands to reason that parents who are very rarely with their children will have a very difficult time creating this security. Some will manage it, but it's very very difficult to be fully "there" for young children when you're away from home 8-10 hours a day, come home tired and stressed and have to then start your second job of being a parent. Many will succeed despite everything but it's not surprising that many don't.

You can actually probably find a study that proves whatever you want tho if you try hard enough haha. Maybe this study didn't take into account the children had higher levels of anxiety (but doesn't everyone these days, maybe it's more of a societal thing) but maybe the children are generally cleverer perhaps? They have more of a successful career because they were 'educated' earlier. There will be benefits that aren't in the study.

Also I also read about a study that suggested informal childcare (childminders/grandparents) were also better (than staying at home) for children. Maybe that can make some feel better

There's a huge difference between being in a room of 30 other 2 year olds looked after by several adults, and different adults each day sometimes, many of whom are young and childless, but "qualified", and being in a family environment in a house, looked after by the same person everyday, with maybe 3 or 4 other children of different ages, often with the carer being a mum herself.

Yes absolutely.

Another point is that some children (like my 2nd ds) suffer hidden disibilities that are not necessarily manifesting or observable at that point. For ds who is partially deaf, nursery was bewildering and he would be shouted at (not rudely, but voice raised) for not paying attention. We had no clue he was partially deaf so he developed anxiety around nursery and later school where impatience set in by his teachers that he was inattentive etc.

By the time we figured it out he had already developed quite a bit of social and situational anxious behaviours which he has kept to this day.

I do feel shit when I think about the choices I made. A child minder would have been far better.

But I realise that there is a huge push by society to get children as independent as early as possible and also to give SAHP a shit time. I think it ought to change. Currently the pressure is too much one way.

Gosh, someone should have timetravelled back to warn Jane Austen’s generation , when it was the norm for middle class babies to be breastfed by their mothers for a few days, then sent away to a wet nurse till they were weaned and walking, with only occasional parental visits, depending on distance.

In Jane Austen’s case, it was because her mother, the wife of a clergyman-farmer who also ran a small boarding school in their home, had a full time job managing the household, dairy, hens etc at a time when all food for eight children, servants, and pupils, had to be produced at home, ditto clothing. She simply didn’t have time to look after babies that were physically dependent on her.

Yet those babies grew up to be talented, successful, and united, on excellent terms with their parents and one another.

What is childcare like in Quebec compared to here? Do any of us know about quality, standards etc to understand whether this study is relevant to childcare in the U.K.?

Just another kick at poor people and single mothers especially. Not all of us have any choice. Or the choice is between nursery and poverty

Been very interested reading through the replies. To reiterate my initial post was at pains (I put it in capitals) to specifically refer to full time (4/5 days a week) long hours (9-5+) childcare from 0-3yrs. NOT some part time nursery slots from 3+. Essentially the critical bonding time between parent and a baby (not 3+ toddlers).

I also make it explicit - and by posting it on the expectant mother’s/childcare options board that this was aimed at those who may be considering their options or could think about their incomes vs their stay at home time.

Like the poster who noted how damaging divorce is on children (or how damaging poor air quality is on children or how attachment is critical to babies for that matter) i think it is important that these unpalatable/impractical views are expressed (especially as they are views that run counter to the current modern reality of most people’s parenting) so that we (especially those that are about to make those choices) have the best chance of making a choice that actually is what we want not what is simply: “seems fine everyone else is doing it”.

OP what do you have to say about the poor quality and bias Of the study though?

I think parents sometimes have a choice, but see giving up the second car, the position at work, the weekends away with friends as non negotiable. If the choice is a roof over your head or food on the table that's different.
I've been a nanny, a childminder and a nursery nurse and I agree with the above report.

Funnily enough I nannied in Quebec. The quality of childcare was good when I was there.

I would say it massively depends on the child and the childcare

To be honest I picked that report as it was one of the earliest to follow children into teenage years and beyond.

However, those conducted much closer to home make the same fundamental point about attachment from 0-3yrs old.

www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/baby-bonds-early-years/

See bullet points 1,2 and 3 of the key finding and the report itself.

If, if, if -(as was mentioned in the initial post) you are able to make a change in how much you work before baby arrives then such research is a very important counter narrative to best in mind. Just because most people do it - don’t assume the best way forward is to go straight back to work and assume they’ll be fine. Parenting is knackering for a reason- it is a task in and of itself - the care, love and upbringing you wish to give to your child cannot be hired out/delegated from 0-3 full time 5 days a week.

Just another kick at poor people and single mothers especially. Not all of us have any choice. Or the choice is between nursery and poverty

This sort of thinking mystifies me on these sorts of threads (Fertility decline, breastfeeding benefits, divorce, income and child mortality all engender these personal reactions) I'm sure the study (like virtually all studies) has some flaws which should be picked apart and analysed.
However it is a scientific study not aimed at inducing anyone to feel guilty. It's just stating outcomes (you can certainly challenge those predictions) but challenge its methodology, not say its directed at your emotions.

Debate the findings. Debate the methodology. But the idea that research is being done to make parents feel guilty is silly.

"Just another kick at poor people and single mothers especially. Not all of us have any choice. Or the choice is between nursery and poverty"

I don't think these are the group's most likely to be using FT care from a very young age - they're the group's who can't afford childcare.

It better off people with a lifestyle to maintain (which is their choice) who use FT nursery places.

You know what’s pretty offensive? Not the OP’s posts, but the assumption from some posters on this thread as on others that women with children work for fripperies like weekends away or holidays or new cars.

Because that’s the implication, that men with children work to provide — no one is suggesting that men, be they builders or hedge fund managers, are in it for the manicures, nice clothes and foreign holidays — and women’s work, when they have children, is secondary, optional, ornamental and fundamentally selfish.

Attachment is a misnomer here: going into childcare young doesn’t affect attachment To parent. A parent child attachment is incredibly hard to break. It’s the constant undermining of an attachment that’s making a mockery of these discussions

Has anyone said it needs to be mum at home KindOranges?

'lifestyle to maintain' 🙄
A whole load of judgement there