The Research on Various Childcare Options

[Anonymous]

The research summary literally says the cheap in-home daycare are better for kids than the expensive large centers lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The research summary literally says the cheap in-home daycare are better for kids than the expensive large centers lol

What it says is, "Time with professional childminders (a.k.a. in-home daycare providers) can cause later behavioral problems, but much less so than daycare centers. Childminders do not however boost cognitive skills of older children as half-days in daycare do. (Usual caveat: such boosts probably fade out, whereas behavioral effects have long-term consequences.)"

Also indicates the research is mixed: "On nannies vs childminders, (Stein, 2013) compares them directly and finds that time with childminders causes more emotional and behavioral problems than time with relatives or nannies. (It finds childminders are on par with daycare, but that’s not consistent with other research.) "

[Anonymous]

No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The research summary literally says the cheap in-home daycare are better for kids than the expensive large centers lol

Anecdotally, the quality of in-home daycare varies enormously, and it would be really hard to draw specific conclusions about how YOUR kid would do in a specific in-home daycare based on a study. We really wanted to find an in-home daycare when we were looking but the best in-home programs are really hard to get spots at because people know what they have with them and don't leave, and since they take fewer kids overall (and often take on siblings), you just don't get spots opening up that frequently.

An in-home program that always seems to have spots available is, sadly, a red flag, and you discover this quickly when you research the center's history of citations or talk to parents who used to be at the center. We looked at a bunch of facilities that had been cited for really egregious problems (including one where a child had died and was under investigation for that but, inexplicably, was still open and running while that investigation was pending). We also would reach out to the neighborhood list serve about places and got some really rough reviews from parents who told us that they'd had experiences like showing up a bit early for pickup one day only to discover all the babies camped out on the floor with no minder in the room and the TV on.

Again, there are phenomenal in-home programs out there, but it's not the majority of centers. One major advantage of the larger, expensive centers is that they have bigger regulatory exposure (more kids, more families, more oversight, more to lose from breaking rules or being negligent) and therefore they are less likely to have truly frightening practices that could endanger a child. That doesn't mean that a big center is automatically the best environment for your kid, especially your kid under age 1, but when you are trying to mitigate certain risks, there is more peace of mind with the larger centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the traditional pre-school model of 2 yo- 2 mornings a week, 3 year old, 3 mornings, etc is probably developmentally appropriate. We all work for 40 years now it seems like it should be much more reasonable to take 2-3 years off for early childcare.

I really liked the point about dads being just as good as moms at early care. Imagine if mom and dad each took a year off for their kid. If it was normalized in our work culture (like the ceo who climbs k2) instead of penalized. Kid starts preschool at 2. It would make a big difference in behavior outcomes I bet.

I wish this were the case too. I know it's all "personal choice" but for many of us that choice is one OR the other, career OR home with kids for a year. My friends in Canada in the same fields have significantly better "choices" than I do.

Still doesn't get you to 3 or 4 without childcare though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The research summary literally says the cheap in-home daycare are better for kids than the expensive large centers lol

Anecdotally, the quality of in-home daycare varies enormously, and it would be really hard to draw specific conclusions about how YOUR kid would do in a specific in-home daycare based on a study. We really wanted to find an in-home daycare when we were looking but the best in-home programs are really hard to get spots at because people know what they have with them and don't leave, and since they take fewer kids overall (and often take on siblings), you just don't get spots opening up that frequently.

An in-home program that always seems to have spots available is, sadly, a red flag, and you discover this quickly when you research the center's history of citations or talk to parents who used to be at the center. We looked at a bunch of facilities that had been cited for really egregious problems (including one where a child had died and was under investigation for that but, inexplicably, was still open and running while that investigation was pending). We also would reach out to the neighborhood list serve about places and got some really rough reviews from parents who told us that they'd had experiences like showing up a bit early for pickup one day only to discover all the babies camped out on the floor with no minder in the room and the TV on.

Again, there are phenomenal in-home programs out there, but it's not the majority of centers. One major advantage of the larger, expensive centers is that they have bigger regulatory exposure (more kids, more families, more oversight, more to lose from breaking rules or being negligent) and therefore they are less likely to have truly frightening practices that could endanger a child. That doesn't mean that a big center is automatically the best environment for your kid, especially your kid under age 1, but when you are trying to mitigate certain risks, there is more peace of mind with the larger centers.

The in home with one teacher for 8 kids was not as good for my 1 yo as the small center with 3 teachers for 6 infants and toddlers. And this in home came highly recommended by people who work in early childhood education.

[Anonymous]

Our in home daycare in Virginia was still subject to the 4:1 infant to caregiver ratio that the expensive corporate centers are. What state do you live in?

We can afford any care option but have always chosen high quality daycare options for our kids (both the fancy centers and the in home options at different times). I never considered a nanny since that feels the riskiest of all the options to me because you are putting your trust in a single individual with no oversight whatsoever. At least with a daycare, I know they have random inspections, oversight from other families and staff.

I see too many nannies at the playground with the little ones sitting on their phones not interacting at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our in home daycare in Virginia was still subject to the 4:1 infant to caregiver ratio that the expensive corporate centers are. What state do you live in?

We can afford any care option but have always chosen high quality daycare options for our kids (both the fancy centers and the in home options at different times). I never considered a nanny since that feels the riskiest of all the options to me because you are putting your trust in a single individual with no oversight whatsoever. At least with a daycare, I know they have random inspections, oversight from other families and staff.

I see too many nannies at the playground with the little ones sitting on their phones not interacting at all.

The issue is at least in MD there is flexibility in ratios when you have a mixed age group. An in home provider can have 8 children as long as only 2 are under 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

"A few other blue cities"....lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

As a SAHM, you really don’t need to be focused on a young child or “teaching” them for much of the day. Lying under a tree is enrichment for a baby. Doing laundry together is enrichment for a toddler. It’s mostly about setting them up in safe, enriching environments (by which I mean a reasonably clean mud puddle) and then leaving them alone until/unless there’s blood.