Just a few years ago, this headline from last Friday's Washington Post would have made me cringe.
Worry. Panic. Obsess.
You see, beginning when they were each six months old, my kids attended a child care center for anywhere between 32 and 45 hours a week. The center was based in my office building, was accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and had many indicia of quality. Like my own parenting, it was good but not perfect. As I wrote in a CurrentMom post about our family's day care experiences last year, my children have been fortunate to have had some wonderful caregivers. And I've been mostly pleased with the relatively high quality of care they've received. But, of course, I've had my share of complaints. And my moments of "mommy guilt" brought on by headlines like these. Was I somehow damaging my children by sending them to day care?
Fast forward a few years (and a few different child care experiences) and the same headline only makes me roll my eyes. Not because I don't believe that, sadly, there's a lot of substandard child care out there. Or that low quality care (whether in or out of the home) isn't a problem. But because I know that the attention-grabbing headline often doesn't tell the whole story. And that it sometimes skews it.
Contrast the Washington Post's headline about this latest chapter in the long running NIH-funded child care study with these headlines from other papers.
From USA Today:
KIDS' DAY CARE QUALITY MAKES SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN LATER TESTS
And this one from Reuters:
STUDY SHOWS CONSISTENT BENEFIT OF EARLY DAY CARE
And check out, too, the different emphasis in the stories:
WaPo: "The federally funded study, which has been tracking more than 1,300 children since 1991,found that obedience and academic problems among those who received low-quality care in their first 4 1/2 years of life persisted through their 15th birthdays, suggesting the potential for lifelong difficulties."
Reuters: "Parents worried about putting very young children into daycare got some reassuring answers on Friday -- children who have high-quality care see academic benefits lasting into high school."
Wow! It almost seems like the reporters were covering two different studies. Or at least that thee reporters had radically different aims. One intent on elevating the blood pressure of working moms; the other on bringing it back down.
Whatever the media spin - and without going into all the details - the NIH findings are not all that alarming. Teens who were in high-quality child care settings as young children scored slightly higher on measures of academic and cognitive achievement and were slightly less likely to report acting-out behaviors than peers who were in lower-quality child care arrangements during their early childhood.
The study also indicated that teens who had spent the most hours in child care in their first 4½ years reported a slightly greater tendency toward impulsiveness and risk-taking at age 15 than did peers who spent less time in child care. Interestingly, at least according to the NIH's press release, the 15-year-olds' behavior was assessed based on answers to questions provided by the kids themselves, not on observed behaviors. (It appears that teachers and other caregivers assessed the kids' behavior when they were younger so I'm not sure why the researchers changed the method for teenagers.)
In reading through the NIH information and the press reports (unfortunately, the actual study is not yet widely available), a few thoughts struck me that might be of interest to other working moms - and dads.
1. First, there's really nothing new here. Last week's release simply extends into adolescence the findings that NIH released last year showing that children with higher quality care (whether inside or outside the home) had better outcomes -cognitively and behaviorally - than did children in lower quality care settings. This is not a startling revelation.
2. Second, the effects were really small. Really really small. On the positive stuff and the negative stuff, too. In releasing its findings last Friday, the NIH spokesperson stated that it is "important to point out that the differences in these measures among the youth in the study were very small and that the behaviors observed were well within what is considered normal."
3. Third, as the researchers themselves have emphasized, the influence of parents and family members on a child’s growth and development is far more significant than the type of child care she receives. Because parents selected their own childcare arrangements, it's possible that factors other than day care quality affected children's behavior and tests scores. In fact, the researchers concede that the only way to prove the effects of child care would be to randomly assign kids to one program or another.
So, headlines aside, what should working parents who rely on day care take away from all this?
In an "online chat" on the Washington Post web site with the study's authors, one mom, who identified herself as a social scientist, had this to say after reading the study:
There is great misunderstanding out there on the difference between statistical significance and actual importance.
Let me put it this way; looking at the effect size, (d=.06/.09 depending on the variable), it seems to be that if this pertained to the likelihood your plane would crash unless you trained your mechanics better, you would almost certainly not change a thing in the way you trained your mechanics
I actually felt relieved. My son is in a reasonable but not perfect situation. There are a few things I'd change about the arrangement if I had options, but I don't, but it is certainly a loving, safe, interesting environment.
What this study tells me is that the difference between good enough and excellent childcare is so small that I should spend my energy on things that make a substantive difference -- like reading to him, taking care of myself, making sure we both get exercise.
This makes sense to me. Both of my kids, now nearly 7 and 4, are happy, well-adjusted, and developing cognitively and academically right on track (or, if you'll allow me to brag, even a little ahead). My kindergartener daughter even won a pizza lunch with the school principal for her excellent behavior and kindness to other kids. So, for now, I'll continue to roll my eyes rather than panic every time there's a new headline about the negative effects of day care.
What a great post, Stacy. I'm often struck by how different the headlines can be in covering the same report. It's sometimes as simple as a glass half-full or half-empty perspective, but often it's shoddy reporting. I take them with a grain of salt too, but I do read the stories. (Even when they contradict my own beliefs.)
Posted by: Katherine | Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Well. Glad to know I'm not the only one tearing my hair out in frustration over these scaremongering daycare "reports." I'm glad researchers such as those at the NIH undertake studies, but the way the results are covered, well, it's as you said. You can make the data say whatever you want. What also has always bothered me is this: instead of expending time and money studying WHY daycare is "good" or "bad," how about putting some muscle and money into making good quality care available to more working families? Me, I love daycare. Here's my recent blog post on the subject:
http://www.confessionsofameanmommy.com/why-i-love-daycare/
Great post!
Denise
Posted by: Denise Schipani | Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 01:21 PM
You said it sister! I'm so grateful for the day care my kids had which enabled me to be a better, saner mom by allowing me to continue to work after they arrived. Yes, there is definitely substandard care out there, and there should be more resources put to solving this issue for all working parents, but to be perfectly honest, this is one of those areas where I had to take a funnel-eyed view and focus only on my own needs and those of my family's and figure out the best that we could afford and provide. And, like me, it wasn't perfect, but it worked. Being at home with mom is not always what's best for a kid either, for all sorts of reasons, and that's an issue these studies never address.
Posted by: Karen | Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 04:10 PM