Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rather than shaming moms who work, how about we figure out how to improve access to high quality childcare? And improve the outcomes for children who are in daycare.
Stop shaming moms.
SAHMs who lack confidence in their decision are always going to try to shame working mothers in order to make themselves feel better. ALWAYS.
Anonymous wrote:Within the same family (my husbands) whose socioeconomic status didn’t change significantly over the course of their childhood, the child who spent 1-2.5 in daycare had vastly better outcomes than the subsequent children who were home with a nanny (significant language delays in both girls, attachment issues that endure in adulthood).
What this “study” (actually a blog post, consolidating various sources but ignoring others) doesn’t get at is quality. Quality of the parents and quality of the caregiver. No one should be making their decisions on the basis of this.
Anonymous wrote:There is a bit of a selection effect. I work in child care and I have noticed often some of the kids who start as toddlers do so because they were too active/out of bounds for their nanny or parent so their parents thought they needed more stimulation.
I think, because of this, kids who would probably go on to have some behavior issues anyway (even if they had stayed at home) end up in full-day child care.
Anonymous wrote:Rather than shaming moms who work, how about we figure out how to improve access to high quality childcare? And improve the outcomes for children who are in daycare.
Stop shaming moms.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This blog post is full of editorializing by the author (who is it by the way? I've never been able to find an actual name.) If you look at the actual studies cited, you get a very different picture of "the science" compared with what the author describes. The author also fails to explain that these studies are largely observational, and unobserved variables are likely to influence the results quite a bit. If you look at actual literature reviews of this subject they are much more clear - so many other factors matter so much more than whether you send your child to daycare.
This was a very rigorous study comparing Quebec kids before and after subsidized daycare so all those variables are removed
We evaluate the long-term effects of the Canadian province of Quebec $5 per day universal childcare policy on child and youth well-being (health, behavior, motor and social development). Treated children are followed for more than 19 years. Estimates based on a nonexperimental evaluation framework show that the negative effects on preschoolers documented in previous studies persist over time for most outcomes. Once children enter school, only the impact on emotional disorder and anxiety persists, but the magnitude is smaller than for preschool children. For teens, aged 12 to 19 years old, our estimates do not suggest that the effects persist.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/209560/1/WP15-02.pdf
Anonymous wrote:I sah with my kids back then (woh full time now) and my biggest takeaway knowing all my kids friends, some who were in daycare, some who were home…it doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. The sah kids are no more creative than daycare kids. The daycare kids don’t have better social skills. If any of them have mental health issues, they would have had them anyway. I hate these studies, they just contribute to the mommy wars. They create guilt where it’s unnecessary.
Anonymous wrote:This blog post is full of editorializing by the author (who is it by the way? I've never been able to find an actual name.) If you look at the actual studies cited, you get a very different picture of "the science" compared with what the author describes. The author also fails to explain that these studies are largely observational, and unobserved variables are likely to influence the results quite a bit. If you look at actual literature reviews of this subject they are much more clear - so many other factors matter so much more than whether you send your child to daycare.