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.

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

In less than shocking news, MN tends to be a lot more anti working mother during the day than in the evening...

@welshweasel and that’s fine if it works for you but no one should have to.

It would be helpful if the government rolled up their sleeves and took on this issue op. You have a valid point, because we all need to make informed, responsible decisions for our children.

We need a proper solution to the childcare situation in this country. One that works with the well being of the babies and children in mind, and not the added GDP at the heart of every decision made, but also one that reflects our values as a society. The cost of living needs to be reduced for young families, support needs to be given for bills, and it is about time we, as parents, found the necessary strength and energy to put forward a case that families need to come first, children particularly.

Everything seems to take precedence, free TV licences and bus services for wealthy pensioners, free healthcare for cosmetic surgery, and almost everything and anything else but our young families that are at the real coal face of society.

Parents should be able to afford to stay home and live on one wage if they want to, they should equally have inexpensive, good quality home from home child focused care for their children if they choose/have to work.

Ultimately we as a country now need to define what we really care about, and this subject needs far more national attention so that children get the very best start in life.

No need to argue work v home, we are all on the same side, raising our children in the best way possible, with proper support along the way.

I think it depends in each individual child. My oldest was in nursery full time from age 1 while I worked, I had no choice. He then went to breakfast club, school and after school care, out of school care all through the holidays etc. He hated every minute and just wanted to come home to me from school. Hes 15 now with a whole host of problems including separation anxiety. I do think if he didnt have to do all that a lot of the problems he has wouldn't be there. My youngest on the other hand goes to nursery part time and loves it. So yeah, depends on the child and their personality and needs. I'm at home most of the time now and my oldest loves it because it's what he always wanted. I think everyone's views on it are different depending on their experience of it.

Anecdotally it does seem like different children take to it differently. Obviously doesn't help if you have an introverted child who'd rather be home and you both need to work.

Again, though, there's never a control child. You never know whether that child would be better/worse/the same if you'd made a different choice about childcare.

@LisaSimpsonsbff: thanks for your contribution to this conversation, it makes so much sense. Better than I could have put it.

My mum was a sahm and very poor. I am anxious and it took me years to get out of my chronic shyness. Parents do what they have to do. There is no magic formula! Some women make fantastic stay at home mums, others find it too isolating or don't have the social skills to pass on to their own kids. Stop beating mums over the head for making the decisions they are forced to make. Most of us do what's right for the kids and family. Maybe more damaging to all those kids given free nursery in Canada is social media, the neighbourhoods they grew up in, the poor state of politics and education!! We do what we have to do. Some kids don't have the luxury of health, food, family, permanent homes...

Our nearly 1 year old must be an anomaly then. During term time (I’m a teacher) she’s with the ILs four days a week and nursery one day.

She adores her grandparents and they go out to baby groups etc with her daily, but seems to really need the opporrunity in the middle of the week to enjoy the increased stimulation of nursery.

She is a very intense and into everything —hard work— baby though, so they’d probably gladly exclude her as an anomaly were she part of this study

Bollocks. Other posters have covered my points but I would also like to add:

I have my 3 yo in nursery several days a week while I’m on maternity leave with the baby. NO GUILT. We do far far more than those I know who are SAHMs.

How backward are we that this is being touted as fact.

Thank you @OlderthenYoungerNow - that's a nice thing to hear!

I've said this before on MN but I'm a bit evangelical about it so I'll say it again - the best thing I ever did to relieve maternal anxiety is read a book about the anthropology of infancy (the one I first read is called 'A World Of Babies' and is aimed at a popular audience but is research-based - since then I've been reading some more specialist stuff, which has only really been possible because I have access to a university library). It made me realise a) that so many of the choices we judge other mothers for in the UK are tiny, tiny differences in the grand sweep of parenting styles across the world and b) people raise children incredibly differently and no society has yet figured out how to raise uniformly well adjusted children and no society fucks them all up either

It’s a very divisive/emotive issue.
The majority of SAHP stay at home because they believe that children are best looked after by their parents rather than a child carer.
I don’t see any benefit fir small children spending long periods of time in a nursery, so I chose to do what’s better for them, rather than what’s better for me. However, financially we had that option and many parents don’t.

Yeah, right, @under. SAHPs, who are overwhelmingly SAHMs, are all selfless, giving up their high-flying careers because it’s best for baby — though bafflingly, their husbands must never think this, or they’d surely flock out of the workplace in equivalent numbers. Meanwhile, the rest of us are either (a) too low-earning to survive on one income or b) hard-bitten careerwomen dashing about in our fancy cars while our offspring languish in soulless nurseries. Or, you know, men.

otavis said exactly what I wanted to.

I wonder if it would be more useful to find ways to offer advice and support for families where there is a miss match between the childcare situation and personality of the child. I mean like families where both parents need or want to work but the child struggles to cope with long days in childcare or a family where one parent can't afford to work but the child is bored at home and needs more stimulation than the parent can provide.

Reducing this issue to whether childcare is good or bad is too simplistic.

Excellent post Autumn2203. I largely agree with you.

If you can make it through this heavily biased research you get to this section:

"As with the persistence of negative effects across development, there is also evidence for the persistence of positive effects when children are exposed to the highest quality daycare. Higher adult-child ratios and more sensitive and positive caregiving in day care have consistently been associated with better cognitive performance and fewer behavioral problems in children. Some of those positive effects appear to be lasting. Findings from the NICHD-SECC found that higher quality child care was associated with a significant increase in cognitive-academic achievement scores at age 15 for children who experienced the highest levels of quality. And later research evaluating a subsample of these students found that the highest quality child care predicted higher grades and admission to more selective colleges after high school graduation. The effects were small but consistent across the outcomes from kindergarten through 12thgrade, confirming that the positive effects of high-quality child care can persist across development.
But, as research on the Quebec program found, the highest level of quality can be hard to secure. In 2005, 60% of the universal day care program sites in Quebec were judged to be of “minimal quality.” Just one-quarter of the sites provided care that met the standards necessary to qualify as good, very good, or excellent. Such findings are comparable to many other developed countries, confirming just how challenging it is for children to have access to the quality of care"

So basically, free childcare provided in the 90s in Quebec was generally poor. That isn't the case in the UK, we have Ofsted inspections, minimum ratios, Learning targets, Health Visitor checks.......

It depends on the child, the parent, and the daycare. The quality of the daycare makes a world of difference!

The problem with these studies is you can't randomise who goes to childcare. The children who went to daycare may have had parents who had lower incomes, or were more anxious to get back to work, or the kids who went to daycare may have been more active to start with. The things that contributed to a small effect in behaviour may have also made kids more likely to go to daycare, rather than the daycare causing the behaviour.

“The majority of SAHP stay at home because they believe that children are best looked after by their parents rather than a child carer”

It’s interesting you say this. I would say about 75% of the SAHMs I know are at home because they don’t earn enough to pay for childcare (easily £1200 a month per child post tax) and don’t have much choice really.

As to why they earn so little, it’s a whole other conversation about the patriarchy

In my experience with my own peers the decision whether to return to work full time, part time or not at all is a complex and multifaceted one. I know people who went back to work even if it didn't make much difference money wise because it was better for their mental health, people who can only afford to go back because they have family providing childcare etc.

I agree pass the cherry coke - I’d say a fair few SAHM are there because childcare would take up more/all/most of their salary therefore for them it doesn’t make economic sense to work .
At the end of the day majority try and do what’s best for their children and of course some women genuinely have more choice . As others have mentioned children vary and what suits one may not suit another .

OP, can I gently suggest you spend less time googling research and instead use that time to learn to critically evaluate research?

For example, the Sutton Trust link you shared is reasonably silent on childcare - the only mention in the actual study notes longitudinal studies on the effects of early childcare, which showed that early non-parental childcare in general did not affect children’s attachment. However, for children who are already at risk by virtue of not having received sensitive maternal care, low-quality early childcare did elevate the risk of insecure attachment.

It undermines you quite a bit when you claim a study has said something when in fact it says pretty much the opposite.

I definitely think that there is a line where it becomes too much for the children.

I work in a nursery and there are some children who are in 50 weeks a year 7.30 to 6pm everyday. We also do baby sitting and drop offs for some children so they may not spend time with their parents all day or weekend depending.

If a child is there from 7.30 until 6, what time do they wake up? What time do they sleep? Do they go home, have dinner and then straight to bed without spending time with their parents?

These children are also never collected when they are sick. By 4 O'clock they get very restless and begin trying to run out of the door. If they are babies they will become very restless and cry.

We have noticed that after the christmas holiday, the parents who have had to have their children by force as we are closed, tend to spend more time with their children and will pick them up earlier. But then it reverts back.

Some parents dont even take their children on holiday with them they will let their parents have them and bring them in everyday. This isn't a problem normally but if they are in 50 weeks a year and then the parents get a break and they dont.

With regards to the childrenhvaing higher anxiety I can see that also The children that are in longer hours tend to have comfort, blankets, toys and have the dummy for longer than other children.

Recently we also has a parent who bought their child in who had confirmed measles and kept trying to bring them in everyday and has to be turned away.

The children that are in longer hours also dont have baths or have their hair brushed. We have to give them a strip wash with baby wipes. For some children we are definitely their main carer.

We have also had parents ask us if we are open on boxing day and what on earth are they suppose to do with their child that week.

This is a very expensive nursery in Nottinghill btw.

These type of threads come up ever so often.

I didn’t need to work at all but chose to return to full time work when DT’s were six months old (normal maternity leave then). DT’s went to nursery and did well - I don’t see the problem. They are now at Uni so I’ve the evidence of their good relationship with DH and I, academic success, great friendship group, confidence and are now adults I’m proud of.