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.

Glad you asked Oranges. VAT at 25% and the lowest income tax rate 32%. No UK party suggesting that would stand a chance of actually becoming government.

@Benes That was exactly my previous argument if you look above...
My reply was in response your point of 'high quality childcare', and I am saying that this alone is not enough, but instead a child needs meaningful interactions with a caregiver also, and that any child who receives both meaningful interactions at home AND sufficient hours in nursery/child minder probably the forms most advantaged group of children in society.

@ssd It's a blog from a think tank that seeks to promote conservative family lifestyles. It's biased.

How do you know I'm not a SAHM/ what my childcare set up is?

I'm calling it bollocks as a critical reader not as a mother with something to prove.

Hmm I don't have all the answers, I think parents need to decide the right thing for their child. I do have questions about the study though. The 'free' element massively opens up the results to bias, particularly in terms of the profile of participants, as well as their feelings towards nursery use. This also jeopardizes the reliability of the results in terms of the effect or otherwise that might possibly be identified through the study. Paying for nursery may in itself affect the child parent relationship. If anything I feel it throws up more areas to be explored as there are so many variables and so many subjective elements.

@KindOranges Actually taxation in Sweden is even higher than I thought.

25% VAT
32% lower tax rate
52% over c. £37k equivalent
57% over c. £65k equivalent
Plus National National Insurance.

Would you vote for that?

I would @LoyaltyBonus , if the money was to be spent on health, public services, education, etc. I was delivering leaflets in my community last week and one person who stopped me to discuss said he would happily pay more tax to fund public services.

“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.

That study is incorrect. Most attachment theory is bollocks and has very little science behind it. Attachment is fairly easily established under most circumstances and firmly in place by 6-9months when most babies start nursery following Maternity leave.

I very much agree with the poster who said it’s quality time outside of nursery that matters. I am now a SAHM and have also been working full time. I can’t believe how little quality time I get as a SAHM. It’s all about getting everyone fed dressed and ferried around. When I was working all of that was taken care of by the nursery and we had so much child centred quality time when we were together, it was a marked difference

Sweden also has very high suicide rates, despite also reporting high levels of happines, so maybe availability of childcare isn't doing them any good (parents or chikdren) anyway....or maybe it's the dark

@LoyaltyBonus if I work FT minimum wage as a single parent I would get almost all my childcare covered by universal credit in UK so no I don't think it's only rich people who use a lot of childcare.

I might do too @Inthemoment38 but not necessarily for childcare because I do think "we" should be looking for ways for parents to spend more time with their DC, not normalizing both parents being away for long hours 5 dpw.

I stayed with some Finnish people a couple of years ago, where the tax regime is similar to Sweden. They all worked in conservation so maybe were more aulturisic than your average Finn but they genuinely didn't mind paying the tax. They were proud of the state support provided to those who need it and pleased that it was there should they need it. The UK electorate, as a whole, has the exact opposite stance and high tax plans never win.

Interesting. But I bet there's loads of contra evidence?

It’s not surprising to conclude that a baby has better outcomes from spending more time with a securely attached primary carer, rather than receiving group care from a number of different adults, none of whom have a close relationship with them. It’s the main reason I gave up my career to stay at home with DC. It’s enabled me to offer extended breastfeeding and individual care and love. Babies know who their mother is; it’s already been shown that even newborns can identify her smell.

Yes we are just scraping by, I’m still wearing maternity clothes because I can’t afford new ones, we don’t have holidays and rarely have any treats. Yes it’s affecting my long term earning power and future pension. But we knew we’d have to sacrifice for DC to have that quality of care. Our nephew has been put in 8-6 care since he was a few months old, he’s very aggressive and obviously crying out for his parents’ attention. We don’t feel that their better financial circumstances compensates for that.

I appreciate that some people have no choice. But the fact that using childcare is essential doesn’t negate the fact that it’s not ideal.

@ssd It's a blog from a think tank that seeks to promote conservative family lifestyles. It's biased

A lot research is funded by organisations and companies with vested interest. They often have to state it at the end of the paper these days.

Doesn't necessarily mean the findings are completely invalid.

The way to challenge the findings is as pp said, to cite examples of contra evidence from other similar longitundinal studies

We both work full time, earn a combined salary of around 200k and have two children in full time nursery (8-5 Monday-Friday). Cleaning, gardening etc all outsourced. Mornings, evenings and weekends are purely about the children - we don’t do chores or leave them sat in front of screens. In fact I’d wager that my kids get a hell of a lot less screen time than those with a stay at home parent.

Their nursery is outstanding and they are thriving. I wouldn’t give up work or go part time as I love my career and I think that working actually makes me a better parent. I believe there is a benefit to children of being able to afford nice days out, travel, private education, university fees etc.

But then I went to boarding school at the age of 8 so I’m clearly fucked up beyond belief anyway!

That ‘research’ is shit by the way. Really poor study. Wouldn’t even be published in my field, it would be laughed at.

The idea that it’s best that children should be cared for one-to-one at home by a parent is surely a relatively new one. Until recently children were ‘raised by a village’ and would have been used to being looked after by multiple primary carers? A good nursery kind of simulates that setting doesn’t it? Both my children really enjoyed nursery. They now go to school with many children they were at nursery with as babies and toddlers. They’ve all known each other pretty much their whole lives and it’s almost like they have bonus siblings or cousins.

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.

Can you link to this study? You haven't posted anything yet that shows that. The Sutton trust link you gave doesn't mention childcare once, just poor parenting in the home.

ahundredpercent exactly. That's my experience too.

This study shouldn’t be a stick to beat parents with. No one chooses to put their child in full time nursery. We need to use it as a tool for change, and to affect policy making. We need to find a way to make it necessary for two parents to be working full time a thing of the past.

You just can't generalise though. Every kid is different. My 2.5 yo has been in nursery 8-2 since 16 months with a childminder afterwards. He is thriving, happy, confident, and we have a wonderful bond. I am much happier working than I was at home all day. We still have in-bed cuddles and breakfast together every morning and I'm home for bath and bed time (his dad does dinner), so no shortage of quality parent time. Weekends are all about him. I don't honestly think being at home with (bored & restless) me all this time would have been better for him. He's really benefited from socialising with other kids, he's good at sharing, has a great relationship with his childminder and teachers.

My experience of nursery is so positive (admittedly I'm abroad so ratio of staff is more like 1:5 for under-2) that I'm thinking of going back to work earlier after this pregnancy.

@OpheliaBee We need to use it as a tool for change, and to affect policy making. We need to find a way to make it necessary for two parents to be working full time a thing of the past.

This. This is the point. Not how we feel.

ODFOD

@OpheliaBee I choose to put my children in full time nursery and feel no guilt about my decision!

I chose to put my child in full time childcare

To those who question the research cited in the OP is biased or flawed,
please read the academic paper (rather than its interpretation by the Institute for Family Studies which you suspect may have an agenda) and please go on google scholar to see how many other papers have been written by different academics to evaluate the same reform in Canada. Another paper can be found here www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/690652?download=true

As a PhD student trained in policy evaluation, I have to say those papers are very professional and published in really highly-regarded journals.

None of the academic papers said childcare damages all children. Of course it depends on the quality of the care, the child's family background and personalities and so on, which the researchers may not be able to observe and therefore study about. It's just that on average, the effects of that Canadian reform on non-cognitive development are negative for the affected cohorts. That much has been established. Meanwhile, There are also a large number of studies on childcare interventions in the US that found significant and long-lasting benefits, but those interventions were targeted at disadvantaged children. The Canadian policy was universal provision of highly subsidized childcare.
This kind of research is important for policy decisions as it's about the population rather than any particular individual. Just don't take it personally.

The 'anti-work' brigade are out in force today aren't they?