How nurseries 'still breed aggression' (New study points out behavior problems r/t daycare)

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | March 26, 2007 | Sarah Womack

[Stoat]

How nurseries 'still breed aggression'

By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
 

Last Updated: 1:15am BST 26/03/2007

 

 

Children who spend a lot of time in nursery are more likely to be aggressive and disobedient throughout primary school - no matter how excellent the nursery, according to study published today.

Primary school teachers are more likely to say that such children - even at the age of 11 - are still "getting into fights" or "arguing a lot".

The findings, from a continuing study of nearly 1,400 children, reignite the debate about whether working women damage their children's health by putting them into nurseries too young. They also provide ammunition to those who accuse the Government of pressurising mothers back to work too early to reduce the benefits bill.

However, the findings are controversial. Other experts say that so many factors account for behaviour - genes, parental income and education, family life - that it is wrong to blame nurseries and alarm parents. Even the study's authors have fallen out about the way the findings are being presented.

One of them, who wished to remain anonymous, accused lead author Jay Belsky, the director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues at Birkbeck College, University of London, of "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre by exaggerating the negative.

The study also found, for example, that children in high-quality care were more articulate at the age of 10, with a bigger vocabulary.

The research, published in the Easter edition of the journal Child Development, and carried out by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in America, began studying 1,364 children at one month of age.

The most comprehensive study of child care to date, it measured the amount, type and quality of care that the children experienced from birth through to the age of four and a half, and their emotional and linguistic development to 11. Prof Belsky said the findings were important because it had been assumed that poor-quality nurseries were bad for children, not high-quality ones.

"Good quality care simply does not protect against these developmental consequences (like aggression), I am truly sorry to say, at least not in the USA," the psychology professor said.

Parents frequently pay £12,000 to £16,000 a year in places such as London and the Home Counties to send children to a local nursery.

For example, Little Unicorn Day Nursery in Canary Wharf, east London, costs £16,200 a year for a child under two, and £13,500 for an older child attending full-time. This compares with the annual fees charged by public schools such as Dulwich College (£11,895) and St Paul's (£14,000).

Unlike schools, however, nurseries operate 51 weeks a year and are often open between 7.30am and 7pm.

But other authors involved in the research stressed that parenting quality was a "much more important predictor of child development than type, quantity, or quality, of child care".

Walter Gilliam, the assistant professor of child psychiatry and psychology at Yale University, who was not involved in the project, said the study had limitations.

"The relationship between the amount of (nursery) care a child receives and behavioural problems may not be due solely to the child care, but to parents working longer and later hours, the stress and home difficulties that may go along with those work conditions, and other factors related to families that need to work difficult hours," he said.

Prof Belsky acknowledged that it was a "developmental mystery" why children exposed to nursery were more aggressive - although lack of trained staff, and lack of time to tackle rows over toys or activities were factors.

Prof Belsky caused controversy in the US in 2001, with researchers questioning whether their controversial work on another study had been misrepresented. Their findings showed that the more time children spent in child care, the more likely their teachers were to report behaviour problems such as aggression in kindergarten.

The professor retorted that they were "running from this data like a nuclear bomb went off" because they were committed to putting an approving stamp on child care.

[television is just wrong]

I know. I have been really put down and insulted for staying at home too.

[SquirrelKing]

Thank you for your reply - I appreciate your tone. I was more reacting to some who were responding as if all daycare is bad and parents who choose that path are simply career whores.

Have you told you mom that? I would expect she would cry that you think so little of her spending some of her best years with you. Ask HER if SHE regrets it now. I think you will be surprised to find out she counts her present problems as nothing compared to the chance to have raised you in the way she thought was best.

Yes, we have discussed it many times. We wish she had at least pursued something part-time or gained more education alongside my brother and I. True, she understands the choices she made and "regrets" no time spent with us - but wishes she had at least prepared to be on her own in her fifties with no education, no experience and failing health while competing with other entry-level workers.

Incidentally I am also a homeschool grad. So is my wife. I would rather live in a trailer and work the night shift so she could teach them than to send them off to day care of school or anything. No we don't have any kids yet but we will soon and it will be a huge pay cut when she comes home.

Good luck with this. Seriously. Your children will give you such indescribable joy. I never thought I would ever know such happiness as I do when I look into his bright eyes and my day cannot start until I see his little smile.

[RavenATB]

"You forgot the </moronic comment> tag "

Make your case.

[Kaylee Frye]

So it is all-or-nothing? You make it sound like either the wife doesn't get an education and she stays home with the kids OR she goes to work... Amazingly enough the world is not black and white. Plenty of SAHMs started out by going to college, having a career, then staying home.

In fact, that is just what my husband I plan to do. I've already got 4 years into the working world post-college and hopefully sometime in the next 5 years we will start our family and I will be a SAHM for the next 20ish years while I homeschool the kids.... Sure I will have to retrain a little when I go back to work, but a lot of that can be done while I'm working at home (I happen to be a programmer, so can take courses in the evenings/spare time online) and I can be ready to go back to a career immediately when the kids go off to college.

[SquirrelKing]

So it is all-or-nothing? You make it sound like either the wife doesn't get an education and she stays home with the kids OR she goes to work... Amazingly enough the world is not black and white. Plenty of SAHMs started out by going to college, having a career, then staying home.

No, that's not what I said. My actual comment was:

"What I am trying to say is that yes, you can stay home and raise your kids all you want, that's fine, but there are other good people just like you who don't have that option at the moment."

There is nothing "black and white" in that statement - only a desire to understand that circumstances vary.

As for either staying at home or working: the experience of both our stay-at-home moms have taught us that at least an education or part-time working experience would have been preferable to their current, less-marketable situations. This seems to be exactly in keeping with your own choice.

[Jason_b]

"The *freedom* promised women by the feminists is just..."

read somewhere today describing the freedom promised women by feminists was actually freedom for love-em-n-leave-em type men to get exactly what they want. I remember. It was a Thomas Sowell article, random thoughts on a passing scene.

[maica]

Children in groups of like aged children HAVE to be more aggressive, louder, more insistent, etc, if they hope to get any attention or anything else.

I'm amazed that this is coming as a shock to many people.

[metmom]

And while you're at it, save, save, save. Money goes fast with kids.

Either that or use all you can to pay off your mortgage if you have one. You'll save THOUSANDS later and if you have a home with no mortgage, you don't ever have to worry about some cut throat mortgage company repossessing because of a few missed payments because of medical problems (like happened to a family I know. The justice was, the house sat for sale by the mortgage company for TWO years before it sold.)

[Kaylee Frye]

Yes, but you went on to say that it was such a mistake for your mom because she didn't get any education because she was a SAHM. I just wanted to make it really clear that the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Jason_b]

"Probably what the kids are interpreting being left in daycare is that their parents don't want them and if your own parents don't want you, who does? Every kid knows that parents are supposed to love and want their own children..."

Mostly true except it is important to remember children do no interpret things like adults do. Adults interpret according to a frame of reference, a context, and can deal with rejection by saying, hey, I don't care, you reject me, so I reject you. So there. This is healthy.

When the only frame of reference, the only context a child has IS the rejection, the child is unable to escape. It is not a thing that happened, to be coped with. It becomes a status like slave, low class, ugly, stupid, dork, but in our case, rejected by parent. It becomes who we are and affects our lives and choices. Yes as you said we accept our judgement as not good enough and will opt out of opportunities for social growth because we don't feel we meet the prerequisite. That is for other "acceptable" people. Risk aversion is another sign, for kids who don't make friends easily, it might be because the kids already don't feel worthy, dread future rejection and find it easier just not to get involved in the first place.

Something else I find, kids don't analyze how much power they have, it just is what it is. But kids whose parents are neglectful, have a feeling I can remember back as powerlessness, but those who experience it in real time won't be able to name it. Kids see "acceptable" peers as more powerful, therefore threatening, and will keep an emotional if not spacial distance to stay safe.

Parents are in an unique position of power and can get away with things that are awful and the younger kids won't complain because they are dependent and don't want to make it worse on themselves. If it is bad enough it is a type of stockholm syndrome with your own parents.

But speaking of power, if I had any sense of power when I was 8, the day my mother sat me down to tell me she was divorcing my dad, I put on a falsely brave face and accepted it. I wish instead I told her, you leave dad, and you lose me forever. You better hope things go damn well with that other bunch because if they don't you aren't going to have me to fall back on. Talking back to a parent like that can be intimidating.

I recall the military has a thing now that recruits can hand the drill instructor a red card indicating too much stress as a sign the DI should go easy. I'm thinking of something like that for kids.

I have had the idea to have a free online kit, of cards, for kids that age that I wish I had myself, to hand to mom, and dad, when they announce the divorce, to let them know where they'll stand for doing that. No, I won't take care of you and make sure you are comfortable in your old age. You forfeit that. No, I won't love, like, nor even tolerate step sisters, step brothers, step anything. I accept only my natural brothers and sisters, my natural mother and father, married, living under one roof, our home. No exceptions. Anything to give these kids a little power. Since the state has written them off anyway.

[Kaylee Frye]

Yeah, we are trying hard to save. We are paying off our cars first and probably getting out of home ownership for a while - with the military it's hard to own a house..... But we'd rather not have to live off of any of our savings when we have kids. Since it'll be a long-term thing, living off of the savings is a bad habit...

[brytlea]

LOL

[brytlea]

Unfortunately the point isn't that all daycares are hell holes. The point is that even the good ones are not ideal places for small children to grow up. We all make our own choices, you made yours. We are fortunate that human beings are resilient, and even daycare kids (hey, I was one) can grow up perfectly fine and be productive and happy members of society. The point is not the individual, it's the trend. You can disagree all you want, but the evidence seems to point out that there are problems with daycare, even *good* ones.
As for your snip at stay at home Moms, I was one of those too. I'm still married to the same man now for over 30 years. What does that prove? Nothing more than your example proves. Oh, well, maybe it proves I did a good job of husband picking, but that's another story.
Have a good day, and don't be so defensive. If you are happy with your choice, I wish you luck, and I suspect your kids are just fine.
susie

[brytlea]

I can't speak for anyone but me. I don't recall ever thinking my Mom didn't want me, I just knew I missed her, and in fact WORRIED about her when she was gone. Sounds silly now, as an adult, but I really felt like something might happpen to her while I wasn't around. It was a very devestating feeling. I never told her about it. BTW I had a great relationship with my Mom until her death in 2000.
susie

[brytlea]

I went back to college when my youngest started school, managed to take most classes when they were in school, or a few at night (when Dad got to be Mr. Mom). I remember once or twice having to take the youngest to class with me, and my professors were very understanding (one time he even got to take the test I was taking and the prof got a few good chuckles out of his answers...he was in 1st or 2nd grade at the time).
I started working full time when my oldest started college, to help defray the costs (yes, the downside to me not working was that we didn't have much saved up for their college educations--3 of them--but we made too much to qualify for any kind of grants.
So, even if my husband leaves me (I don't expect that, I would hunt him down!) I can support myself. I suspect my sons would all help me too.
susie

[Stoat]

I'm sorry to see that some of the posts here, apparently including mine, have caused you to become upset.  I'm equally sorry to see that you've chosen to label the life experiences and different perspectives of others as being 'idiocy', apparently because they are not the same as yours.

Naturally, I (and I'm sure everyone else here) are absolutely delighted that you have had good experiences with daycare despite the common alternate experiences of so very many.  Congratulations to you and I hope that one day everyone can be as equally pleased with daycare and the associated issues as yourself.

[SquirrelKing]

No, Stoat, nothing you said upset me and the "idiocy" I spoke of was directed at a general negativity of multiple posts that was seemingly directed at those of us who choose daycare as a option. Thus the irony of my responding to posts seeming to label me as an "idiot" now offends you and others. I wasn't "labeling" others because their perspectives aren't the same as mine' but responding to those who I felt were labeling me. You see?

I wanted people to know that there was another side. In each response to my first post I have been reasonable and, I believe, positive. You have no need to be offended, but if you are, I sincerely apologize. In retrospect, I should not have included you in my address and instead responded to individuals.

[Stoat]

FYI - there is an article on this study in today's Wall Street Journal. Page B1.

Thank you so very much for alerting us to this excellent article!  A quick search found the same article posted for free online access at a South African money-management site,sohere it is for everyone's convenience:

Moneyweb - Wall Street Journal - Day care is linked to behavior problems

Also, the original study published in the journal Child Development is one that's accessible in it's full form only by subscription or individual article purchase, but an abstract is available free:

Blackwell Synergy - Child Development, Volume 78 Issue 2 Page 681 - March-April 2007 (Article Abstract)

Abstract

Effects of early child care on children's functioning from 4½ years through the end of 6th grade (M age=12.0 years) were examined in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (n=1,364). The results indicated that although parenting was a stronger and more consistent predictor of children's development than early child-care experience, higher quality care predicted higher vocabulary scores and more exposure to center care predicted more teacher-reported externalizing problems. Discussion focuses on mechanisms responsible for these effects, the potential collective consequences of small child-care effects, and the importance of the ongoing follow-up at age 15

[B-Chan]

We just had our first baby, and I thank a gracious God every day that He has so arranged our lives that we both work from home. There is just no way I'd be willing to drive into Dallas every day (25+ miles each way) and leave our precious child with some stranger. NO WAY. F--k that noise. Poverty would be far preferable. In fact, before we had Baby Chan, we decided that one of us was going to stay at home with him no matter what, even if we had to eat beans and cornbread every night. I like beans and cornbread myself.

I feel for those who say they "have no choice" but to put their children in day care. Single moms who have been dumped by their sperm-donor "fathers" are perhaps forgiven for doing so. However, anyone with an intact family or nearby parents who would choose to dump the kids with strangers just so they can have a five thousand square foot house or three cars is just gibbering, batshit nuts in my opinion.

Ask the average person if they'd leave their wallet or purse full of cash, credit cards, and ID with total stranger and they'll look at you as if you'd lost your mind. Yet the same people who wouldn't dream of trusting a stranger with their MONEY have no qualms about leaving their INNOCENT CHILDREN with a total stranger to do with as they please.

Nuts, I tell you.

[B-Chan]

What I am trying to say is that yes, you can stay home and raise your kids all you want, that's fine, but there are other good people just like you who don't have that option at the moment.

With all due respect: bullshit.

Pardon my French, but I simply can't think of any other word that fits. As a favor to the folks on this thread, would you mind detailing exactly why one of you can't simply quit their job to stay home with your son?

Not "won't" — can't.

Again, I'm sorry to be so rude. I just don't buy the claim that you have no other option than day care. If you care to try to convince me otherwise, I'm listening.