Am I hurting my child by putting her in daycare at 22 months?

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:37:34 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:15 pm, Nan wrote:

How relevant are these findings to the parents in this group, most of
whom appear to be well-educated and not impoverished?

You assume a lot. There are probably a good number of posters on this
group that live on incomes well under $30k a year. Well educated and
impoverished can go hand in hand with the failing economy,
unfortunately.

I read the newspaper, and an unemployment rate of 4.7% does not
indicate a failing economy.

You're basing it on the national average. Many areas have much higher
unemployment rates.
And have you shopped for groceries lately? The price of staples such
as milk, eggs, cheese and bread have risen quite sharply.

Nan

Nan wrote in
:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:37:34 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

On Dec 5, 2:15 pm, Nan wrote:

How relevant are these findings to the parents in this
group, most of whom appear to be well-educated and not
impoverished?

You assume a lot. There are probably a good number of
posters on this group that live on incomes well under
$30k a year. Well educated and impoverished can go hand
in hand with the failing economy, unfortunately.

I read the newspaper, and an unemployment rate of 4.7% does
not indicate a failing economy.

You're basing it on the national average. Many areas have
much higher unemployment rates.
And have you shopped for groceries lately? The price of
staples such as milk, eggs, cheese and bread have risen
quite sharply.

not to mention that after a time unemployed people 'fall
off' the unemployment rolls. if you have been out of work for
long enough to run out of employment compensation (i think
it's 16 or 18 months, but it's been a while since i got
employment compensation), or if you have just given up on
finding a job because there aren't any you are qualified for
in your area, then you 'fall off' the unemployment roll and
are no longer counted in the % unemployed.
also, if you work for *one hour* during a quarter, you are
not counted as unemployed... so you can take those wonderfully
low unemployment figures with a huge grain of salt.
technically i'm unemployed because i don't work and am able
to (although one field i'm eligable to work in is retail & i'm
highly chemical sensitive to formaldyhide and the ink on US
currency, so i can't work in a mall or handle cash. there's
not much call for sys admins that don't do Winbloze around
here either), but i'm certainly not counted in that 4.7%, as
i'm not particularly seeking employment & i don't qualify for
compensation anymore.
lee and farms that don't net more than 50k in profit don't
count as employment either

Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward wrote:
Thank you all very much for this useful debate.

We spent our first two hours in daycare today - of which the first
hour together - and, after some initial shyness, my daughter joined in
happily, and by the end of it was reluctant to leave. I am quite
encouraged by her response and confident about my decision.

They offer her so much variety in the way of activities and
socialisation which I simply couldn't provide at home, so that even if
I am able to keep her with me and the baby, I would worry that she was
losing out by not being in daycare.

My concern is her (physical) health as she will inevitably go down
with something pretty soon. This was the crux of my relative's
argument - that a child under 3 is best left protected at home. Maybe
I should have said this more explicitly in my original post.

Oh, pbbbthb on the health issue. If the child were immune
compromised, that would be a problem, but otherwise, it's not the
end of the earth for kids to get sick. They're going to start building
up their immune systems sooner or later. Sure, she'll come home with
crud (and likely pass it on to you), but keeping her home will just
postpone that process until later. Make sure you're happy with the
sanitary practices at the daycare, keep her home perhaps if something
bad is going around, and just deal with the rest. I'm enjoying a
cold brought home by my 4yo preschooler now. I'd love not to have
to deal with that, but what else is one going to do?

The relative is actually a life-long kindergarten teacher herself,
about to retire, so I guess she felt this entitled her to meddle in my
affairs.

Maybe. Of course, some relatives just feel entitled,
period ;-)

On Dec 6, 11:33 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Oh, pbbbthb on the health issue. If the child were immune
compromised, that would be a problem, but otherwise, it's not the
end of the earth for kids to get sick. They're going to start building
up their immune systems sooner or later. Sure, she'll come home with
crud (and likely pass it on to you), but keeping her home will just
postpone that process until later.

Yes, but older kids are more robust than younger kids, and it is
plausible to me that delaying the age at which a child is exposed to
many illnesses has value.

Make sure you're happy with the
sanitary practices at the daycare, keep her home perhaps if something
bad is going around, and just deal with the rest. I'm enjoying a
cold brought home by my 4yo preschooler now. I'd love not to have
to deal with that, but what else is one going to do?

If the OP has absolutely no choice other than to send her child to the
day care center, why did she start the thread?

On Dec 6, 12:02 pm, Beliavsky wrote:
On Dec 6, 11:33 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Oh, pbbbthb on the health issue. If the child were immune
compromised, that would be a problem, but otherwise, it's not the
end of the earth for kids to get sick. They're going to start building
up their immune systems sooner or later. Sure, she'll come home with
crud (and likely pass it on to you), but keeping her home will just
postpone that process until later.

Yes, but older kids are more robust than younger kids, and it is
plausible to me that delaying the age at which a child is exposed to
many illnesses has value.

I can't see how this would work if one were to have 1 child --
unless, of course, one is homeschooling. Sibling transmission of
'whatever is going around at school' seems to be the norm, ime. DD2,
who was initially in daycare then kept at home, contracted far more
colds once her older sister entered school than she had during
daycare. Then again, the daycare environment had a static small set of
kids (3), and her sister was in a building with 300 other people.

Or maybe it's just that we cranked the thermostat at home down once
our income decreased. (And to think that I thought oil prices were
high then!).

Caledonia

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Dec 6, 11:33 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Oh, pbbbthb on the health issue. If the child were immune
compromised, that would be a problem, but otherwise, it's not the
end of the earth for kids to get sick. They're going to start building
up their immune systems sooner or later. Sure, she'll come home with
crud (and likely pass it on to you), but keeping her home will just
postpone that process until later.

Yes, but older kids are more robust than younger kids, and it is
plausible to me that delaying the age at which a child is exposed to
many illnesses has value.

Make sure you're happy with the
sanitary practices at the daycare, keep her home perhaps if something
bad is going around, and just deal with the rest. I'm enjoying a
cold brought home by my 4yo preschooler now. I'd love not to have
to deal with that, but what else is one going to do?

If the OP has absolutely no choice other than to send her child to the
day care center, why did she start the thread?

Why wouldn't you take her at her word that she wanted to know if there were any
compelling evidence regarding not starting daycare until the age of three? It's
quite reasonable and plausible and her concerns have been consistent with it.

Nothing has been turned up that's very convincing.

Banty

Beliavsky wrote:
[snip]
immunizations? A few people have mentioned that day care may have no
ill effects or be beneficial if the mother researches the alternatives
carefully and chooses a high-quality center. Yes, but mothers
intelligent and conscientious enough to do that will probably be
better SAHMs than mothers in general, and I doubt that their children
will enjoy health or cognitive benefits from extended periods in day
care.

Alternatively, the kind of mother who enjoys a project like researching
the local daycare centres and assessing their suitablity for their
child might find the day to day care of a young child tedious. Coming
up with metrics to analyse staff ratios versus outdoor time could be
much more pleasant to them then getting out the finger paints, or taking
that slow dawdle to the park for the fifth time this week.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

In article , Penny Gaines says...

Beliavsky wrote:
[snip]
immunizations? A few people have mentioned that day care may have no
ill effects or be beneficial if the mother researches the alternatives
carefully and chooses a high-quality center. Yes, but mothers
intelligent and conscientious enough to do that will probably be
better SAHMs than mothers in general, and I doubt that their children
will enjoy health or cognitive benefits from extended periods in day
care.

Alternatively, the kind of mother who enjoys a project like researching
the local daycare centres and assessing their suitablity for their
child might find the day to day care of a young child tedious. Coming
up with metrics to analyse staff ratios versus outdoor time could be
much more pleasant to them then getting out the finger paints, or taking
that slow dawdle to the park for the fifth time this week.


Yes. OR just tapped out from doing all those wunnerful finger painting, dawdle
to the park, etc. etc., things during all the non-daycare hours.

Kids can benefit from being with all kinds of people, with different things to
offer. Not only the intelligent have things to offer. A really bright mom
might actually connect better with the child as an eight year old, or later,
than a two year old. Not that he or she can't connect with the two year old;
it's just that parenting changes as the child goes through development, and that
meshes better or to a lesser degree with what any particular parent has to
offer. This has been the argument that men have been giving for not connecting
with infants or young kids for some time - that they'll be more involved when
the kid can start carrying a fishing pople!

Beliavski - what exactly is it that you think intelligent mom will be doing with
her kids that's so all-fired special that she should be there for every waking
hour?? I've heard this thrown about, regarding smart moms should be staying
home to make for smarter kids, but it seems a mantra. It never gets developed
to *what*, *exactly*, is supposed to happen differently. The working mom has
many hours with her children (as working dads have had for decades) an able to
to a lot in those off hours and days. And, as a working mom, on a Satruday it
still gets into the umpteenth time dawdling to the park believe me. That's why
kids have spent a lot of time with grandparents or other childminders
(relatives, other youths) probably for as long as there are people. It's the
nuclear family with kids at home, interacting only with one parent through the
day, that is the *anomalous* model.

Banty

On Dec 6, 12:56 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , Penny Gaines says...

Beliavsky wrote:
[snip]
immunizations? A few people have mentioned that day care may have no
ill effects or be beneficial if the mother researches the alternatives
carefully and chooses a high-quality center. Yes, but mothers
intelligent and conscientious enough to do that will probably be
better SAHMs than mothers in general, and I doubt that their children
will enjoy health or cognitive benefits from extended periods in day
care.

Alternatively, the kind of mother who enjoys a project like researching
the local daycare centres and assessing their suitablity for their
child might find the day to day care of a young child tedious. Coming
up with metrics to analyse staff ratios versus outdoor time could be
much more pleasant to them then getting out the finger paints, or taking
that slow dawdle to the park for the fifth time this week.

Yes. OR just tapped out from doing all those wunnerful finger painting, dawdle
to the park, etc. etc., things during all the non-daycare hours.

Kids can benefit from being with all kinds of people, with different things to
offer. Not only the intelligent have things to offer. A really bright mom
might actually connect better with the child as an eight year old, or later,
than a two year old. Not that he or she can't connect with the two year old;
it's just that parenting changes as the child goes through development, and that
meshes better or to a lesser degree with what any particular parent has to
offer. This has been the argument that men have been giving for not connecting
with infants or young kids for some time - that they'll be more involved when
the kid can start carrying a fishing pople!

Beliavski - what exactly is it that you think intelligent mom will be doing with
her kids that's so all-fired special that she should be there for every waking
hour??
I've heard this thrown about, regarding smart moms should be staying
home to make for smarter kids, but it seems a mantra.

I think children with educated and caring SAHM moms who never go to
day care or preschool can do just as well as kids who attend them. I
don't think I have asserted that day care and preschool cause
cognitive *deficiencies*, I am just questioning that they have
cognitive *benefits*, especially lasting ones, for kids with good
mothers at home. Quoting from a study

Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell
"Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential
Information for Parents, Taxpayers and Policymakers"
Goldwater Institute
http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf

"To help determine the efficacy of early education programs, we
examine the results of some of the
programs considered to be early education models--including, Perry
Preschool, Chicago Child
Parent Studies, Abecedarian, and Head Start--and find the research to
be flawed and therefore of
questionable value. We also review information from the National
Center for Education Statistics,
which reports no lasting reading, math, or science achievement
differences between children who
attend half-day and full-day kindergarten. We also examine the results
of the National Assessment
of Education Progress in Georgia and Oklahoma, where universal
preschool has been fully
implemented without quantifiable benefit. We find the widespread
adoption of preschool and fullday
kindergarten is unlikely to improve student achievement.

America's flexible approach to early education gives children a strong
foundation. Skills
assessment at kindergarten entry and reports by kindergarten teachers
show a large and increasing
majority of preschoolers are prepared for kindergarten. The
effectiveness of the current system is
also evident in early test scores. At age 10, U.S. children have
higher reading, math, and science
scores than their European peers who attend the government preschools
cited by advocates as
models for the United States. To the degree that the state remains
involved in financing early
education, we recommend measures for transparency, program assessment,
and improved
flexibility through individual student funding."

I would favor increasing child tax credits over increasing government
subisidies to day care centers and preschools. Tax credits let
parents, not the government, decide whether to use the extra money to
reduce the working hours of one of the parents, most often the mother,
or to use the extra money to purchase better care.

Beliavsky wrote:
On Dec 6, 11:33 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Oh, pbbbthb on the health issue. If the child were immune
compromised, that would be a problem, but otherwise, it's not the
end of the earth for kids to get sick. They're going to start building
up their immune systems sooner or later. Sure, she'll come home with
crud (and likely pass it on to you), but keeping her home will just
postpone that process until later.

Yes, but older kids are more robust than younger kids, and it is
plausible to me that delaying the age at which a child is exposed to
many illnesses has value.

Actually, there are studies showing that early exercise
of the immune system has benefits. There are things that are
more dangerous to very young children, but keeping them in a
bubble isn't really much of an option, so there's always a risk
of catching something or other.

Make sure you're happy with the
sanitary practices at the daycare, keep her home perhaps if something
bad is going around, and just deal with the rest. I'm enjoying a
cold brought home by my 4yo preschooler now. I'd love not to have
to deal with that, but what else is one going to do?

If the OP has absolutely no choice other than to send her child to the
day care center, why did she start the thread?

Because she wanted to hear other people's opinions, of
course. And in my case, I did/do have a choice, but I'm not going
to keep my preschooler cooped up just so that she won't get sick.
Getting sick happens. She needs time with other kids and time
to get out of the house and do things (and I'm not about to stay
cooped up in the house 24/7 either), so dealing with illness is
just the way of the world. And, of course, it's a moot point
once there's at least one child in school Even if you keep the
littles at home, the older kids will bring everything home to
share.

Best wishes,
Ericka