Commentator Vox Day sums it up thusly:
Middle class children are adversely affected by time spent in childcare, a study claims.
They suffer ‘significant declines’ in their development, health and standards of behaviour, researchers found.
The poorest youngsters benefit from being in nurseries or with childminders, and wealthy parents can afford the highest quality childcare.
But youngsters in the middle – the ‘lion’s share’ of the population – fall behind in developmental tests, suffer more ill health and behave more aggressively.
The study, being presented today at the Royal Economic Society’s annual conference, suggests that childcare leads to a substantial drop-off in parents’ involvement in their children’s upbringing.
The damaging effects are most marked for boys and for youngsters aged from birth to two, prompting the researchers to suggest that childcare may not ‘be suited for children aged zero to two’.
Academics from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, studied a highly subsidised childcare scheme in Quebec.
Families who took part in the scheme were compared with similar families elsewhere in Canada, with 10,000 youngsters a year being studied.
Children were assigned a series of scores for their development and behaviour, based on the results of assessments and questionnaires.
Childcare was found to significantly improve development for disadvantaged children.
But the ‘lion’s share of the population experienced significant declines in motor-social development and health measures as well as increased behavioural problems’, the study found.
It added: ‘The reported benefits for children with least advantage, the grounds on which universal childcare is often justified, stands opposite to negative outcomes for the bulk of children.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1qWIpqPEX
Note that Vox is not claiming that single mothers, per se, are dysfunctional.
In other words, unless you're a dysfunctional single mother [...] in which case the minimal childcare provided by indifferent minimum-wage workers is actually an improvement, your kids will be worse off.
The tragic thing is that most of these absentee mothers historically did not work and the main reason they are working now is in order to provide what they imagine will be to their children's advantage. But what is the point of being able to afford an extra car or give your child a computer and a smartphone if you're going to handicap him with "significant declines in motor-social development and health" from an early age?
Throw in the reduced wages produced by the entry of middle class women into the labor force and the 30 percent increase in female labor force participation from 1950 to 2010 and it's not hard to understand why the USA is now facing a perfect storm of children's issues combined with marital and familial problems.
This seems to be empirical data in support of the Proclamation on the Family. What's your take?
Edited by Log, 29 March 2012 - 08:57 AM.