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.

I don't think so Benes, I was simply saying that "poor people" aren't the ones using full time care. They're the people who find they can't earn enough to make paying for childcare worthwhile.

Lol at this. A “conservative Think Tank” maybe has an agenda op?

To be fair, poor people are often the ones using poor quality childcare (family friends, grandparents etc)

Women! Know your place @zsazsajuju

Could you be any more disingenuous, @LoyaltyBonus? Of course it doesn’t. However, it overwhelmingly is, in part because of the attitudes I mentioned above. It has never seriously occurred to most men that they will automatically stop work on having children to look after them FT. I’m one of the many women it never occurred to either. Shoot me.

I'm a primary school teacher, and have also worked as a nursery nurse, so feel I could offer a bit of an objective POV. I wouldn't pretend to have all of the answers mind, I can only talk from MY experience.

I would argue that there are massive pros to putting a child in to nursery - I always know the children who have been in nursery up to full-time, they tend to be better communicators, greater independence, and perform better academically.

BUT I think really it all hinges on parent-child interactions at home. I would argue that if a child is missing out on valuable home experience throughout the week, as long as there are plenty of MEANINGFUL interactions after nursery/at weekends between parent and child then actually the child tends to be at an advantage, spending a lot of time at nursery. But often that's the real issue, the interactions are not meaningful, or the parent doesn't promote independence because they almost don't realise how grown their child is, or they are too exhausted after work/busy maintaining a household, that the children find themselves sat on iPads or involved in the 'mm, oh yeah' kind of conversation.
(No judgement there, just my experience)

Weirdly though, I always find the children who are with child-minders, ESPECIALLY ex-teacher/nursery child-minders, are the most holistically rounded. They often come in to school academically on track, but also with strong language skills and an ability to form friendships. Maybe that's the best middle ground for a lot of full-time parents? (And cheaper too!)

I don't think the study says parents need to "stop work" Oranges, only that FT childcare from very young may be harmful. Several families I know have both parents working PT or doing compressed hours so they can both be at home more and use childcare less (predominantly for cost saving purposes). OP has never said one parent needs to be at home FT

“going into childcare young doesn’t affect attachment To parent”. Yes it does. That is what the studies are saying. You have to “make” an attachment it isn’t just a natural bond. You have to forge it.

And Loyalty bonus is dead right - we’ve always said a “parent”. Women don’t work for fripperies; neither do men. But for some parents their combined salaries do afford more than they need to pay for all essentials and its at these people my initial post was aimed. If you have any wiggle room of income vs stay at home time - do think about the above studies/point of view.

And why do you think 'poor people' are offered free childcare hours? Because poverty is the single biggest factor in predicting outcomes for children.

The problem is wealthier parents can afford higher quality childcare so reap the benefits from being wealthy and access high quality childcare. It's a vicious cycle.

We should be focusing on ensuring the high quality care is standard across the board.

There is way more to continuing work than "lifestyle choices". Financial independence, future earning potential, pension. All things that need serious consideration (and usually get it on MN). Lots of weird 1950s attitudes to parenting here.

Also, in this day and age, if parents choose to return to work for lifestyle reasons,that is their choice. And thank goodness we live in a society where mother's in particular are free to make that choice.

I wish more employers would grant new mums 6 months unpaid career break (after mat leave and using up AL) just to close that 0 to 2 gap before putting DC in nursery without negative effects to your career.

I worked 10 years in a company (loyal, very hard working) but ultimately after having DC my 6 month unpaid career break request was refused (they never took anyone on in my place) so I became a SAHM and will have to retrain (although I'm a graduate with 20yrs work experience) to enter the workplace at anywhere near the same level.

We could easily have afforded to live off one income but we chose not to. Not because we wanted luxuries but because we both love our jobs and didn't want to give up work.

The luxury it did afford us was high quality childcare which our son benefitted from hugely. There was no negative impact on attachment and I'm yet to see any of the detimental effects mentioned in they study.

Women don’t work for fripperies, but they are frequently perceived as so doing — that’s my point. It comes up on Mn, said by other women, all the time. If there’s a male ‘provider’ income that will cover the family’s basic needs, there is not a Mn chorus of voices usually recommending both spouses work PT/compressed hours. Women are continually on here saying they can’t go back to work after maternity leave, as childcare costs too much of their salary, not as a percentage of pooled salaries.

@Benes I would argue that high-quality child care is still no substitute for meaning interactions and a strong secure attachment. To generalise MASSIVELY, it's just that often there are more meaningful interactions (better use of language) and opportunities for wealthier families to give their children life experience (plus often their own parental model was better). That's why oftsed are currently pushing something called 'cultural capital'.

In a pre-school nursery class, the maximum ratio legally of adult to child is 13:1. THIRTEEN children to ONE adult, how can that adult model and facilitate meaningful conversation to thirteen children, realistically it can't happen. Or at least not as well as it could with a smaller ratio (e.g child minder or parent/family member)

@mikidora - do you think there is an issue with children’s bond to their fathers then, given that most men work? Do they have attachment issues because of that? Or is it just women who are to blame?

The problem with studies is that they often don’t compare like with like. Eg studies on children of single mothers which control for the effects of poverty and relationships breakdown don’t show any issues caused by single parents.

op claims divorce has a negative effect on children. But is that comparing that child’s outcomes with a child with a happy family rather than with the same unhappy family full of conflicts who did not experience an actual divorce

There are also studies showing significant increases infant mortality the earlier the child leaves the care of the primary carer.

Is there a link to these studies - UK based?

I think it's a given that a tiny baby going for super long hours isn't ideal but working for luxuries? Like keeping up some level of pension contributions? And ensuring that the family doesn't live hand to mouth but actually accumulates savings as s** can happen in life? Things like divorce, one parent becoming ill, care of elderly parents becoming a burden and the list goes on...

We both feel a degree of guilt about neither one of us becoming a SAHP, but overall feel that the benefits far outweigh doing it. Personally I'd actually hate being a SAHP, DS is 8 months and I'm itching to get back to work as frankly, I don't really have it in me to be with a tiny person all day long.... Think for him nursery will be better than a resentful mum doing something out of guilt.

I'll phase back to work during the first year and husband (good on him!) is going down to 4 days a week for at least 6 months to give our DS a transition period when he starts at nursery at 12 months.

Of interest, if you look at the research paper, most of the adverse effects were observed in children who already had behavioural problems, to quote: "We find large contemporaneous impacts of the Quebec program on measures of children’s non cognitive development that persist to school ages. These impacts are larger for boys and primarily for those who already had elevated behavioral problems."

gingham we do people always assume it's an either/or situation.
It is possible for a child to benefit from childcare and have a strong secure attachment to their parents.
Nobody is saying childcare should replace parental attachment but they can complement each other.

The concept of cultural capital is one I'm very familiar with. One could argue that a child who has accessed childcare has built up cultural ( and sometimes social) capital which will be valuable when starting school.

High quality childcare for all is simply unsustainable. Presumably you mean low child/adult ratios and quality staff . Whether the state or the parent pays, how do you make that affordable and pay a decent wage to the carers?

Yes, this is fact really, as been seen so many times in research. I think parents get so caught up in feeling defensive, upset that they don't join together and demand societal changes to improve the situation.
This isn't working mums being attacked, this is a society who hasn't found proper solutions to family friendly working (including parental leave being too short, biologically, and too badly paid, economically, ).

Why does no one ever, on these types of threads, read a report like this, and think, you know what, maybe I or we could work a bit less and be at home more. Maybe it'll benefit our child.

These threads are all oh let's keep the women in their place/ my baby loved nursery at 6 months old/I don't work to fund a lifestyle what a cheek!!! etc etc

People don't want to hear the truth as they'd need to change and they don't want to.

@ssd In this case, because the source shared at the start of the thread is outrageously biased BOLLOCKS!
Sorry for not basing massive life changing decisions on it.

How does Sweden do it, @LoyaltyBonus?

I think this is really important. I have an American friend who has a great job, but her baby was in childcare full time from 2 weeks old because of necessity. This kind of research needs to be done as I understand her situation was not unusual in the US and maybe it could change the way things are done.

@Inthemoment38, it's bollocks to you as you want it to be bollocks.