Article in today's WSJ

Did anyone read this article today about day care. I am so upset about this!
The Dangers of Day Care

I can't read it b/c I do not have a password

Me too!!! But I'd love to read it considering I'm in Day Care

I can't see it

I can't access the article w/o a password, but I am assuming that this is based on the same study that NBC News reported on this evening.
I didn't find the report that alarming - basically, it said that SOME kids become more aggressive as a result of being sent to daycare. Keep in mind that in the study, daycare was defined as a daycare center or a nanny or a relative other than the parent as a care-giver...so, it was pretty general and broad brush strokes.

The bottom line is, the found that an overwhelming majority of kids that are in any type of daycare are just fine. THANK GOD b/c soon, I may have to accept daycare as a part of our lives.

I did see that on MSNBC also. Kids in Day Care are more aggressive but not beyond the norm IMHO It is only because they are with their peers from an early age. If you set limits with your child this should not be a big deal. A lot of parents, that I have seen in my center, feel guilty about having their child in F/T care that they have problems setting limits. Of course once my son comes I have license to change my opinion

Who sponsored the study? Often, these studies are done to make working mothers feel guilty and ashamed of their decision to work. I know many conservatives love to play this stuff up.
While I will have the reality of daycare in my life soon enough, too soon actually, the truth parents need to make sure that the shows that are put on at home and in daycare are NOT full of violence. Also, if your child is having a problem at daycare that you take care of it immediately.
I mean, I love the movie The Lion King, but look how violence it really is= an Uncle trying to kill his brother and nephew! I think something we all forget how that can really effect a child.

I hate when anyone puts down something that others must do. I think the socialization and activities in daycare are excellent for children!

Claud-are you going back to work??

I can help you search some sites if ya need help!

Sorry, didn't realize you couldn't see it. I've pasted it here:

COMMENTARY
advertisement

The Dangers of Day Care

By JAY BELSKY

Published today in the scientific journal Child Development are the latest results of the most comprehensive investigation ever conducted of the effects of day care on child development. The report, peer-reviewed and based on the federally funded National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Childcare, addresses how time spent in nonmaternal care in the first years of life relates to aggressive and disobedient behavior later on.

Contrary to the expectations (and desires) of many in the field, the NICHD study shows that the more time children spend in day care arrangements before they are 4 1/2 years old the more aggression, disobedience and conflict with adults they manifest at 54 months of age and in kindergarten. These patterns remain even after taking into account multiple features of children's families, as well as the quality and type of day care that children experienced. Worse, spending a lot of time in care predicted not just more assertive or independent behavior, but more truly aggressive and disobedient behavior, as well.

* * *

Not that you'd know any of this from reading the NICHD's press release or listening to many of the commentators. The results, after all, are not politically popular: many have made their careers representing good child care as a sort of social cure-all. Because child care is here to stay, the argument goes, only the improvement of its quality is important. Anyone highlighting disconcerting evidence is simply against child care. And a weatherman reporting rain is against sunshine.

One must wonder why, after the government invested tens of millions of dollars, so many are bending over backward to minimize the results. This is particularly astonishing in light of the fact that we are talking about early experience had by tens of thousands of children. It's practically the norm these days for American children to start nonmaternal care in the first year of life, often for more than 20-30 hours per week. They continue at similar levels until they enter school.

The recent results, however disconcerting, are consistent with others that have been reported over the years in the study. Published evidence has shown that more time in care, irrespective of its quality, predicts more problem behavior among two-year-olds, less sensitive maternal behavior when children are 6, 15, 24, and 36 months of age; and lower rates of secure attachment to mother when children are 15 and 36 months of age if their mothers' parenting is relatively insensitive.

Those inclined to make light of the recent study will note that the adverse effects of lots of time spent in nonmaternal child care across the infant, toddler and preschool years are rather modest in magnitude. But the same holds true of 'good-news' findings emanating from the NICHD Study showing that higher-quality child care is associated with somewhat enhanced cognitive-linguistic development. Critics will emphasize that better quality child care was associated with lower levels of problem behavior in the most recent report when, in fact, the evidence for this was extremely limited. But when it comes to experiences shared by so many children in the U.S. today, even small or modest effects may have larger consequences for schools, communities and the society at large.

To be sure, most children participating in the NICHD Study who experienced very high levels of nonmaternal care did not show levels of problem behavior suggesting a need for clinical treatment. Indeed, most of these children functioned 'in the normal range.' But the same holds for children who grow up in poverty or experience low-quality child care. Our children are resilient. But the critics of this study's findings are all too ready to remedy the other ills mentioned above on the basis of scientific evidence no stronger or weaker.

One only need to think about a first-grade teacher to appreciate the potential significance of the latest findings. Imagine being in charge of a classroom of 22 six-year-olds in which half of the children have averaged more than 30 hours per week of nonmaternal care across their first five years of life. Now contrast this teacher's experience with that of another with only 20% of her pupils having such early and extensive child-care histories. It's conceivable that the former teacher will spend more time managing her class and less time teaching than the latter. In other words the collective consequences of modest increases in aggression and disobedience in the case of many children is something to be concerned about.

Ultimately, it is the tendency of all too many social scientists (and the public) to deny, dismiss or minimize findings they do not like while embracing, if not playing up, those they do like. That gives social science a bad name -- as ideology masquerading as science. Would much of what is being said to devalue the day-care findings be spoken if they applied to time spent in poverty or low-quality child care? Even modest adverse effects would be decried in the name of healthy development for all children. Why, then, should the same analysis not apply to children spending 30, 40 and even 50 hours per week, in nonmaternal child-care arrangements in a society in which economic forces coerce all too many parents to make child-rearing decisions which they would rather not?

What those who deny, dismiss or minimize the latest findings continually fail to appreciate is that they hold no monopoly on wisdom or caring, nor even necessarily speak in the best interests of many American children and families. Rather, they spin developmental science in support of their political views, failing to realize the disservice they do to children and families alike, to say nothing of the scientific enterprise itself.

Mr. Belsky is director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck University of London, and has been a collaborating investigator on the NICHD Study of Early Child Care since its inception in 1989.

Updated July 16, 2003

I heard about this article. I handle all the issues for the back up child care center at my employer and I got a call from the center regarding this article. We are probably going to host a seminar for working parents someime soon.

I wouldn't worry about this to much. Really ... I think day care has many wonderful benefits and like Anna, I hate when they publish these type of articles.

Daycare is not an option for me either but in reality I don't think 40+ hours a week with 4 to 1 care can be all positive. I know many of us have other choice and we try to make ourselves feel better but there must be some negatives too. Just as being only with mommy and never around other child is not good for child either.
I doubt they knew what they would find in the beginning of the study, and I do think some studies are done to make women feel like monsters but I guess we all just need to read and be aware of what is going on.

Michelle, I dont think being with just mommy is 'not good' for a child. I know you dont mean it 'that way' but I would say 95% of SAHM's are involved in playgroups from the month their children are born, and these kids are around other children from day one.