first!

I guess it would depend a lot on your day care situation. DD goes to a day care that has lost only one worker in 3 years she has been going. The women decided to be a SAHM. There has not been any new people and I don't think there will be in the next two years. There is some great quality day cares if you can afford it. The problem is the cost. Also the staff child ratio in my day care is one to three. You can't beat that for 3 year olds. It is more care then some large families.

Saw this study yesterday and knew Leslie would jump on it - rightfully so. I heard the study being reported correctly on one cable news morning program and incorrectly on another, care to guess which on got it right? The slight increase in disruptive behavior seemed to be lost in most of the reporting.

I am perplexed as to why The New York Times published the slant they did, however I gave up trying to comprehend the motives behind their "reporting" years ago. So yes, read the article with a large hunk of salt.

Having read the article, it does not seem as imbalanced to me as Leslie thinks it is.

The second paragraph mentions that the effect is slight; the fourth paragraph, which consists of one sentence for emphasis, addresses the positive aspect of increased vocabulary.

Duh? You can pick out the day care kids in every setting. They act out, are impolite and are so desperate for attention they behave in whatever way they need to to get it. One cannot honestly argue that spending 3 hours a day after school in a room with 20 other kids is good for them.

7:48. You're full of it.

"Study Links Child Care, Behavior Problems"
was the headline from the most pedestrian paper available...USAToday, whose readership isn't elite, well-educated and wealthy.

The same angle was covered by all the major news networks. The only contrarian coverage I saw was NY Daily News who had two sentences under "Top care = top grades" which mentioned quality care first, then slight behavior problems linked with lesser care.

Doesn't the Post have an ombudsman or someone who controls what its writers write about the competition? (I know other media organizations do). It is such shameless bashing always from you. Frankly, when you single out one media outlet, always negatively, you lose some credibility.

also to 7:48 - actually the article plainly states that you CANNOT tell in elementary school which kids were in daycare.

Funny story from yesterday: I picked up my daughter (1 year old this past Sunday) early from daycare yesterday for her well-baby visit. There in the infant room was a news reporter and a cameraman. Of course I was the only parent around at that time of day (2 PM) so they pounced on me and I ended up with a 2-second moment of fame on channel 9. Of course they didn't use any of the intelligent things I had to say but used a bit where I said something like "We do the best we can with the time we have." Lots of cute pictures of my daughter and her cohorts though.

The point I tried to make was that I chose that daycare in part because of the very low turnover (the average length of service is 6 years and there are a few teachers who've been there 25-30 years). The other reason is that it is homey and caring and very interactive. I guess every decision comes with pros and cons and I think this one has pretty minimal cons (if you can afford it!)

7:48. You're full of it.
I'm sorry - do YOU want to spend 3 hours a day in a room with 20 kids? I bet after a long day you would enjoy some quiet, some time to relax or do something YOU wanted to do - guess what - so does your kid. He doesnt' want to have to fight for the attention of a couple of 27 year old day care workers and deal with all those kids in that setting after his long day - then you rush him home, put some nasty processed dinner in his stomach and send him to bed, only to wake him early so you can drop him back at that joint. That sounds like a really nice life.

I would so like to see the details of the study--what did they see as "disruptive" behavior, why ten hours was chosen as the divider for out of home care, how non-parental family care stacks up against nannies, etc.

Of course, in the long run, my son seems to enjoy daycare, being with other little people, and getting to do things he can't at home because daycare has better toys, a toddler-sized playground, and things we don't have at home. We also have low employee turnover, federally subsidized care, and staff that have free on-site care for their own kids to make the job easier for them. That might have something to do with our overall positive experience.

7:59, You didn't describe my kids' lives at all. So like I said, you're full of it. Must be nice going through life knowing the situation every other family is in. It's very easy to make gross generalizations when you don't know what the hell your talking about.

I think some of the reaction to the article on my part is 1. The headline in the NYT, 2. The media coverage of the article.

Personally I don't see much behavior discrepancy in kids that go to day care. The kids that go to after school care miss out on afternoon neighborhood playtime, so I just don't know these kids as well. Going into the classroom to volunteer I'd have a hard time distinguishing between the daycare vs non-daycare.

When my kids were infant/toddlers they didn't know any daycare kids - they never had a chance to play with any. My daughter came home from Kindergarten and asked me "do you know that there is a thing called daycare where they play all day? Can I go?" Seemed like a cool idea to her.

My DD is a teenager now - but she did daycare from 6 weeks old. In elementary school you could absolutely tell which kids came from her daycare. They made up 90% of the top reading and math groups. And, they all knew each other from daycare for years - so maybe they were a little more relaxed with each other.

As far as these kids maybe being more disruptive - I personally think if it is at all, it's because they're thinking and questioning. Of course, I'm biased with an amazing daughter who came up through daycare.

The article I saw referring to this report also said that the percentage change was very slight, that both genetics and parental involvement probably also play a large part, as did the quality and staff of the daycare itself. All of these qualifiers were within the body of the article, however, so if all you looked at was the title, it definitely could have been misleading.

Basically, though, after reading the article and noticing the qualifiers, the report is not reporting anything at all. Way too many variables to just point at daycare kids and say "see, that's causing the disruptive behavior by putting them in daycare".

I agree that 7:48 has some issues. I have found that there are two kinds of "needy" kids. Some are daycare kids and some are SAHM kids. Both just need more attention and affection. My daughter (who had a SAH parent for her first 6 years but now attends daycare a few days a year) has a few parents who do not work but also don't pay any attention to their kids. These kids seem even more desparate for attention because they know deep down that they are being brushed off. Poor kids.

I have no doubts that we are going to see 100 comments that read "My kid went to day care and he/she is AWESOME!!!!!"

No kidding. Your kid probably went to a quality day care.

The problem is that all anyone is going to do is read the stupid headline and not critically read the article. Doesn't surprise me though.

Just visit a public place during the day and you'll see stay-at-home moms deal with their children. They let them run all over the place, throw tantrums, etc... without reacting. Try going to Starbucks to sip a coffee and read your paper in peace. You'll find a bunch of mothers who impose their screaming toddlers on the rest of us. Day care is not the problem. Parents are.

My kids have been in a variety of day care situations from in-home care, to a center to a nanny in our home. I believe parenting has more to do with kids acting out than the day care situation providing the basics of care are met: safe, nurturing, learning environment. My kids have never had a problem acting out, unlike some of their stay-at-home friends.

Who says that just by staying at home with your parent (mom or dad!) that you're not plopped in front of a TV all day? There are so many factors here I think it is unfair to make any sweeping statements, but again, that is what academics do to get press.

I read the article yesterday and had the same response as Leslie. I have been home full time (since my first was born five years ago), and--with no personal feelings on the line--thought the headline and the article were overblown for such a minor finding. I actually think the headline is so overblown that whoever chose it (usually not the author) threatens the credibility of the NYT.

For my son, there were pluses and minuses to childcare in a group setting (Montessori).

As a person who needs routine, he did really well with that aspect of it, especially since I'm not the most organized person in the world.

He attended Montessori schools (including as an infant). It seemed to work at the time for us, when the economy was bad and both my husband and I thought we would be laid off -- so neither one of us felt we could quit our jobs.

At 16, I get a lot of compliments on what a nice kid he is, but he is a homebody. So I wonder if he likes to hang out at home all of the time because he was "out" of the house at a very young age (?)

Child behavior problems begin at home, not in daycare. I am tired of parents always trying to blame outside influences on their kids. And now they have a bogus study to back them.
Daycare providers have their hands tied when it comes to discipline. They have "timeout" and "parental notification". That is the extent of their correction methods. And they don't work. It's not the providers fault. They are scared that parents will press criminal charges. Many of them do if the line is crossed and rightly so.

Parents need to take a more active role in behavior correction and stop blaming others for the problems they create.

It's not video games, or music or internet use. It's how the parents handle discipline children in the early years that
will make the difference.

8:20 has a point: Day care is not the problem. Parents are.
Conversely, the BEST is when you are in Wal-Mart and a kid is crying and the mom smacks her kid and tells him/her to SHUT UP AND STOP CRYING! and when I say smack, I mean beat the holy-living-crap out of them.
These kids will no doubt grow up to be pillars of society.

Seriously- if you treat your kids like people from an early age on and talk logically with them about why it is so important to behave, they just might get it. Everyone thinks kids are stupid just because they are young and not educated yet- that is the problem- they are little sponges WANTING to be educated- so educate them and set a good example. They pick up a LOT more than you would give them credit for... If you cross the line to where you lash out in anger at them from a very young age, they will just pick up on it and be more likely to throw tantrums... this has been a public service announcement.

With a sample size of 2,000, the difference in disruptive behavior that they found isn't exactly huge, but it's not non-existent or insignifigant either. Spending more time in a larger group that just your immediate family might make disruptive behavior more effective with a constant audience or less frequently observed with more kids, fewer adults. That's not to bash the importance and usefulness of other-than-mom care- just a thought on the possible differences.

When I was off one day last week, I got to hang out in places like Starbucks and the gorcery store during the day when there are mostly SAHMs. Man alive, I once supported their choice, but there were so many hanging out with their friends as their kids ran everywhere screaming. That is not parenting. Must be nice to have someone support you so you can hang ou tin Starbucks with your girlfriends all day. (I was there for an hour and a half and many were already there when I arrived and still there when I left!)

My point was that staying at home does not necessarily mean that your kids are going to be well behaved. I agree that it definitely depends on the parents. I am sure some SAHMs actually parent their kids, but man there are some that really don't.

I agree with "Why do you hate NYT so much?".

Leslie, you have an unhealthy obsession with the New York Times. When you work for a competing paper, and your coverage of the media focuses time after time on the Times, makes you look...well...dumb.

"At 16, I get a lot of compliments on what a nice kid he is, but he is a homebody. So I wonder if he likes to hang out at home all of the time because he was "out" of the house at a very young age (?)"

Ha, think you're giving him a little too much credit on that one - probably just doesn't have that many friends. Hey, the world needs nerds too!

I think this is an interesting study and worth discussing, but I would direct people to this Web site if they want to learn about it:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd.cfm

Yes, the media coverage has various slants, but the actual researchers have gone to great pains to present their results as clearly as possible. This represents a very well done study, so I hope people will take the time to process the findings for what they are worth.

I know everyone here has a story to tell on this issue, but individual stories can't give us a reliable big picture --this can.

Disclaimer: expressing my opinion and not passing judgement on any child care arrangement. I don't need a fancy study to tell me that being in a day care setting all day is not an ideal situation for a young baby or a young toddler. I am NOT talking about a 3 hour preschool program nor am I talking about a 9-5 preschool for pre-K kids. I am singling out those 7 am to 7 pm daycares where parents are forced to drop off their kids so early to meet their work obligations. However, what choices to working parents have? We don't have a European style leave for up to one year, which I am NOT advocating, by the way, because I know it is a non-starter. I think being in a room all day with other crying and fussy babies is exhausting for a baby no matter how expensive and upscale the facility is and it is bound to somehow show up in later years. Good thing as Leslie said that the effects are negligible. But still, those of us who are lucky enough to scrape by to afford a nanny or a private child care provider should be concerned about this study because our kids will be affected by this as they go through schools.

Who is this "First" douche bag?

to concur with many others already posted - bollocks! (if I can say that on here, I'd prefer something more colorful)

we struggled mightily (tried 3 different environments) to find the right care for my daughter (now 19 months)... considering that when we do Wheels on the Bus and talk about what the daycare providers say on the bus, they always say "I love you" and she looks forward to seeing them and all of her "school" friends everyday -- as we approach the center, she recites the names of everyone she's going to see and what they are going to do (have breakfast, play, sing...)

do I have some guilt? sure do I wish I could stay home with her? often do I believe a word of what you say? absolutely not

wow, posts like yours really get me riled up!

My daughter was in daycare from infancy until the start of kindergarten. My son was in daycare almost 2 ½ and then began a half-day preschool. I have not noticed a huge difference in daycare versus non-daycare kids. My experience having had kids in both half-day preschool (and a nanny) versus daycare is that there are aggressive interactions among the kids in both settings but they crop up at different stages. The behavior surfaces at later ages in half-day preschools than in daycare. At my daughter's daycare, the kids tended to hit and push from about 18 months to about 2 or 2 ½ and learned to "use their words" as their language skills developed. In the half-day preschool these kids are first entering preschool at around 2 so throughout the whole 2s year and even part of the 3s you see a lot of this behavior. Although many of them have had a lot of playtime in playgroups or gymboree-type classes it's not the same kind of socialization as a classroom setting without mom, dad, nanny, etc. They all learn to "use their words" eventually and all are well-prepared for kindergarten.

I agree wholeheartedly with Leslie's advice - take the studies with a grain of salt and use the childcare that you believe will be best for you and your child. I loved having my kids in the daycare because we commuted together and I could visit them on my lunch hour. The center had a wonderful staff with pretty low turnover and the community of working parents was great support for me, particularly with my first child making that initial adjustment to being a working mom. We decided to switch to a nanny now that my daughter is in elementary school near my house, because I needed my son to attend a half-day program because of some unique issues he has. It is also very nice for my daughter because she can come home after school and have friends over. But, we had used an aftercare program after school for a while for my daughter and that was fine too and had some distinct advantages too. I feel extremely fortunate to have such wonderful choices and an income sufficient to pay for them. I wish more were being done about making these options more available to lower-income people.

Why am I getting such a kick out of daycare moms digging on SAHMs for not parenting, when they pay someone to parent for them? How many kids at the daycare called me "Mommy" first? No, no. The woman where you sleep is mommy...

I didn't really have much of a feeling about this study either way (after reading the full study), but it DID really bother me that in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and on NBC Nightly News, the discussion focused on "MOMS who put their kids in daycare." Unless you are a single parent, MOMS don't put kids in daycare - PARENTS do. It just reasserts an underlying current that moms should stay home, and if they (gasp!) want to/have to work, then it is their problem, not their's and their spouse's, to find childcare. Most moms and dads I know make child care decisions together.

Denigrate, denigrate.
Dance to the music.

Our son was in a daycare center 2 days a week since he was 3 months old (grandparents on the other days). We had no choice in the matter, I had to work. But I can honestly say that if I had it to do over again, I don't think a daycare center is a good place for an infant. They are just way too young!!!! But I don't know how I would be able to do it differently because nannies scare me too--they're totally unsupervised. In an ideal world, I think it would be nice if we were like other countries around the world, and moms were able to stay home with our kids for the first year or two.

But...as far as my son's behavior goes (he's in elementary school now), he's better behaved than a lot of the kids there...kids from working parent families, and stay at home mom families.

Try going to Starbucks to sip a coffee and read your paper in peace.

why are you not at work where you are suppose to be?

Is it "daycare" that's creating kids with more behavior problems? Or is it the fact that parents work that's creating kids with more behavior problems? If your child is in daycare, he/she isn't home with you...that's a fact, no matter how wonderful (or not) the daycare is. So, is it the absence of time with parents while the child is in daycare that's causing behavior problems? And does that happen even if the parents try to make up for that lost time in other ways?

The positive results of day care can be quantified, such as improved vocabulary tests.

"Disruptive" behavior is vaguely defined and subjective, more often by teachers who cant deal with a smart and imaginative kid.

Yes, I don't have kids so take this with a grain of salt. But 9:1 talking about kids not having time with parents: I'm one of 6, we all were in day care, at babysitters or an after school program from before pre-school until high school. I can remember very sparingly any time we had alone with either parent, but only one out of the 6 of us had any behavior problems. It turned out to be b/c he was in a grade lower than he should have been developmentally. Again, as previous posters have said, it's who the parents are, and the individual child's personality, you can't make sweeping generalities.

In my son's first grade class there are two little girls that glom onto the assistant teacher...touching her, hugging her, and acting like they're STARVED for affection. One has a stay at home mom who's very active in the school. The other one has a part-time working mom. Hmmmm....

I missed the medical report that stated that vocabulary tests were a definitive test of childrens' well being?

In my son's first grade class there are two little girls that glom onto the assistant teacher...touching her, hugging her, and acting like they're STARVED for affection. One has a stay at home mom who's very active in the school. The other one has a part-time working mom. Hmmmm....

Some kids are simply very needful of human contact or going through an extended clingy stage. It's not always the parents, sometimes it's just the way the child is wired.

Maybe they're a little immature, or timid.

I am unbelievably disheartened by the visciousness of people on this site. You can almost taste the glee dripping from the mouths of self-righteous parents who disagree with other parents choices - and often they are not choices at all but neccesities - about working outside the home. It continually amazes me that people can be so judgemental. I appreciate this blog and the issues it brings up, but I think I'm going to have to stop myself from reading the comments lest I make myself insane...

OK, I am back, at least for this entry. DS #1 went to daycare all of his preK years. DS #2 will do the same thing. We both have to work, can't (won't) do the nanny thing. DS #1 went to a wonderful preschool after 9/11 (I was active duty military at the time and we had to move him because of uncertainites about my future then). DS #2 went to what started out as a wonderful day care/preschool, but the wheels fell off about a year ago with staff changes, management changes, a couple of personal tragedies among the staff, etc....you get the picture. Long story longer, DS #2 is now at the same center where DS #1 had gone. Most of the caregivers are the same, 5 years down the road. They remember DS #1, remembered us, made for a very easy integration. I couldn't be happier, especially since it's now $250/month less and closer to home!

Your mileage may vary.

"...quality of day care and overall parenting were still bigger predictors of child development. For instance, those who got high-quality child care before entering kindergarten had better vocabulary scores in the fifth grade than did youngsters who received lower-quality care."

"Both the negative and positive effects were subtle, said Dr. James Griffin, who oversaw the study.

"If you went into one of these classrooms, you wouldn't be able to say, 'this child, this child and this child attended center-based care,'" Griffin said.

Child development expert Barbara Bowman said the findings shouldn't add to guilt parents may feel about their kids spending time in day care."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795821/

Case closed. This is a meaningless report designed to get parents (mothers especially) worked up over their choice to put children in daycare or not.

When we have one of our own, we'll decide for ourselves if daycare is appropriate, not some so called "study" that is so vague and full of variables to make it pointless.

Yet another example of parents failing to take responsibility for how their own children turn out. Instead of looking at the actual situation - like the comprehensive study did - and facing facts, parents (and the author of this blog) continue to blame the system (staff turnover, low pay for workers) instead of looking at how their own choices for dual career advancement, extravagant housing, fancy vacations, electronic toys, multiple extracurricular activities, etc. translate in their children's lives.

As a mom of two, I would NEVER contemplate putting my children in daycare. I would rather move from a single family home into a condo, cut out vacations and other discretionary spending rather than put a child into daycare. Unless it is a single parent situation, there is no reason for it. I am friends with many low income families who raise their children well on limited resources w/out resorting to outside "care". It is possible!

VAMom -- thanks for the link, but all I could find there was summaries of the process and a list of published studies. Any chance you could forward a direct link to a summary of the study results?

It seems as though some of the study involved questionnaires, which makes me wonder whether there's some inherent bias, and if/how they tried to correct for it. I mean, if you see a kid acting up, and that kid goes to daycare, the standard response is to blame daycare. Big logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc -- Fred, you here today?), but the fact is, we always want a clear cause, so we look at what led up to whatever the event was, and go, aha! that must be it! And on the other hand, if you "know" the conventional wisdom that daycare kids have more behavior issues, will you then "see" more issues with daycare kids?

I think this is fascinating, because I have a daughter who is extremely high-energy and a son who is very easygoing. I've had people tell me that my daughter is hyper because she goes to daycare. And I've had people tell me that my son is quiet because he's overwhelmed by -- you guessed it -- daycare. So in other words, in both cases, some people have looked at my kids' personalities, framed them as a negative, and blamed daycare for it. They don't even see the kid; they just see a big scarlet letter "D" on their chests.

I actually think it's kind of funny. Frankly, my daughter came out of the womb with a very clearly defined personality. If anything, daycare has been a civilizing influence -- without constant efforts to teach her use her powers for good, she'd be doing her best imitation of the Brain ("what are we going to do tomorrow night, Brain?" "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world."). So it's pretty funny to watch someone who has known her for all of 5 minutes "diagnose" her "problem." But it does make me wonder how "objective" questionnaires and the like can ever really be.

can we not do this on this beautiful day?

First of all I am suspicious of what "disruptive" behavior is. Schools like passive children, so simply being assertive and verbal may qualify.

I never went to preschool. When I got the kindergarten I was timid. I did what I was told, I was not "disruptive". I was a doormat!

I'd be willing to speculate that kids who've been in daycare are more socialized and prone to speaking up when their needs are not being met. In teacher-land this can equate to "disruptive".

I'd add that children whose parents don't work and have no money are at a disadvantage as well. So kick this study to the curb.

9:23, goody for you. You are truly a martyr and we should all strive to be just like you! Crowbar, meet mind.

I consider our kids to have had stay-at-home parents (with my husband and I taking a stint in turn). But both our kids go to a Montessori preschool for 17 hours a week. I guess they would be classified as daycare kids for the use of the study, since it's more than 10 hours of care per week. Even though the vast majority of their time is spent at home.

These studies are so frustrating.

9:29

Attack me at will, I could care less. But if this study gets just one parent who has the choice to WAKE UP and see what they are doing to their children by letting a daycare raise them for the sake of the parents' advancement, it will be well worthwhile.

As a human being, my worth is not comprised of how many figures are in my income, what college I attended or how big my house is.

I was the author of the anonymous 9:23 post, BTW. Hit Submit before I put my name in there. Sorry about that.

9:38, "As a human being, my worth is not comprised of how many figures are in my income, what college I attended or how big my house is."

The same can be said for many people who have their children in daycare. That's exactly my point. You're painting a picture that everyone who has kids in daycare have fancy houses, cars, vacations. It's closed minded and judgemental.

I agree with 'disgusted mom' at 9:15 - folks are incredibly judgmental on this blog - it's as if you are all kids yourselves fighting each other on the playground and needing attention - everyone is very self-righteous - Leslie perhaps most of all! Go figure...she started this blog which has led to all the arguing and disagreement.

Kids need their moms home with them. Period.

"As a human being, my worth is not comprised of how many figures are in my income, what college I attended or how big my house is."

No, but apparently it is comprised of how closed-minded, judgmental, and intolerant you are. Thanks, but I'll pass.

"My daughter (who had a SAH parent for her first 6 years but now attends daycare a few days a year) has a few parents who do not work but also don't pay any attention to their kids"

Are you saying that you don't work and don't pay attention to your daughter?

thanks for this blog. Reading the responses from all other other work-outside-of-home mom's is making me feel better and giving me the confidence that both of my below-age-2 kids are going to do okay, inspite of my having to work. Just hoping to provide a more secure and stable future for them. I was in a real funk yesterday after glancing and the NY times headline. Nearly cried my eyes out while bathing my older son last night.

In China there are some schools where kids as young as two live all week long, then go home and see their parents on the weekends. They do it to give their kids a leg up educationally. I sure as heck couldn't do that...but I don't live in China.

I didn't make that comment. I was quoting 9:38 and I was making the same point you were.

9:41

As I said before, "for those who have the choice" about putting their kids in daycare. Some do not, I recognize. But in this status-conscious area I would venture there is a large percentage of dual income families who think they don't have a choice when they really do.

As a mom of two, I would NEVER contemplate putting my children in daycare. I would rather move from a single family home into a condo, cut out vacations and other discretionary spending rather than put a child into daycare............

Wow, I want to be just like you when I grow up: poor and rude. What a great example for your kids.

"My daughter (who had a SAH parent for her first 6 years but now attends daycare a few days a year) has a few parents who do not work but also don't pay any attention to their kids"

Her daughter now attends daycare a few days a year???? That's not much!

I would sell my mink coat and time share rather than put my kids in day care. I would cut back on my cleaning servce, too.

No sacrifice is too great for my kids!

Muffy! What are you doing in my jewelry box?

Don't worry about how it is presented in the news media. Take the information that the study was released from there, and then go read the study yourself. Why do so many people allow the spin the media puts on something to guide their decisions and even their feelings about their own choices? Use the media as a resource, and then go get the facts yourself. Remember that large research studies are done for a reason, but they tell you nothing about your individual child or family. Use them to help you understand your choices better, but ultimately they (not the study authors, not the reports,etc.) won't pay the childcare bill, raise the child, or deal with any of the the consequences.

To John L: Sacrifice... what a foreign concept! Our baby-boomer parents would be appalled. Consume, covet worldly goods and status, pursue the "leg up" at all costs and all will be forgiven.

Kids need their moms home with them. Period.

Posted by: ok | March 27, 2007 09:43 AM

I guess dads are without value in your universe. How sad.

I wonder if the disruptive behaviour is due to some children being a little ahead in terms of communicating, interacting with others, etc. There seems to be a theory that those who are ahead, act out due to boredom. Perhaps they just need more challenge. It would be useful to know how they defined disruptive behaviour. My son's dayhome is like a preschool and it always amazes others that he knows as much as he does at this age. I wonder if he will be bored when he gets to school and will be considered "disruptive".

I am getting a kick out of the more judgmental posters! High entertainment value on this blog.

Ah, yes, here I sit at the office in the heady, high-profile world of medical writing. I guess people don't really need the latest information on cancer in a timely fashion, so perhaps I could spend a few more of my daughter's waking hours with her. I also consider my luxurious 900-sq. ft. house and my small commuter car and think, yeah.... luxury!

All that said, I do enjoy my life, my daughter seems to really enjoy daycare, my husband has a satisfying job figuring out what causes horrible brain development conditions, we live in a nice caring community. All of this "stay at home at any cost" nonsense just drips off me like I'm coated in duckfat.

Kids need their moms home with them. Period.

Posted by: ok | March 27, 2007 09:43 AM

Dads are overrated and superfluous?

The New York Times is a rag that capitalizes on the fear and gullibility of it's readers.

If they printed a headline saying today will be darker at night I would have my doubts.

Laura -- Here's the link to the press release:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/child_care_linked_to_vocabulary_032607.cfm

I heard a report on NPR yesterday that mentioned a summary for parents, but could not find that online. I e-mailed the woman who was interviewed and will post again if she writes me back.

I love how anyone who holds an opinion other than "do whatever you want - it's all good" is automatically labeled as judgmental. Who really is close-minded here?

Sorry, my bad, should have been to 9:38.

to 10:08 - actually I truly am not judgmental... my oldest friend has 5 children and has been home 13 years. That is great for her but is not the life I chose. Somehow we mangage to accept our differences and be friends. Amazing!

It is amazing to me that so many people on this blog don't see the obvious- children are best cared for by their families, (barring neglect, abuse of course). Choosing daycare for reasons other than necessity is beneficial to the parents, not the children.

See my comment from yesterday. How many hundreds of comments will we get today about how much other women suck? Why don't we just post a picture of a woman each day and let them tear her to pieces instead of WORKING or working together on the stuff that really matters?

To 9:52,

Actually, I posted the --other-- anonymous post at 9:23, the first one with the quotes from the MSNBC article. Didn't realize there were two 9:23 anonymous posts initially.

Havind taught children of educated, working women, my experience with those who were disruptive is that their guilty mothers over indulged their children and didn't set healthy limits on acceptable behaviors or habits (especially eating) that were best for their children. And their children were not only disruptive, they tended to be obnoxious. Working or not the mother has tremendous influence over the child and IF she truly cares about her child she will not use him/her as a dumping ground for the guilt she has about abdicating her mothering role much of the day. It's this that gives the child mixed messages about what is appropriate behavior.

Choosing daycare for reasons other than necessity is beneficial to the parents, not the children.

Posted by: | March 27, 2007 10:11 AM

Right. And every family decides what is necessary and raises their children as best they can. It's not a one-size-fits all world. Most of us do the best we can, at that time, with whatever resources are available to us.

I am sorry but what a bunch of crap. Children and their behavior, good or bad, can be blamed on so many different factors, not just daycare. I am so sick and tired of people trying to make moms feel bad because they have to work.

My little girl, four months, has been in an at-home daycare- four children and she is the only baby-since 10 weeks. While still very young and the situation very new, we have nothing but great things to say so far. She loves being around other children and loves the care and attention she gets from her daycare provider, who adores her.

She has thrived in the situation so far and is on her way to becoming quite the little social butterfly and charmer. While we are the key influences in her life being in daycare and finding out that others can love and adore her as much as mommy and daddy is important. Life just doesn't revolve around her, but she is a part of it. A very important distinction for kids to get a grasp of early in life.

I use the New York Times and the Washington Post to paper train the dog.

I was going to write a post about how my two boys, now 9 and 12, were in daycare from infancy on and how they have turned out wonderfully, but those of you who think daycare is child abuse will snort to yourselves in derision, and those of you who understand how great daycare can be-- for everyone in the family-- will nod knowingly, and the few of you who are reading this blog for information already know by now that everything just depends (on the daycare, you own situation and your child), so I won't.

See my comment from yesterday. How many hundreds of comments will we get today about how much other women suck? Why don't we just post a picture of a woman each day and let them tear her to pieces instead of WORKING or working together on the stuff that really matters?

Posted by: Why women don't rule | March 27, 2007 10:15 AM

You are basing an unsubstantiated, thoughtless statement like, "why women don't rule" based on a couple hundred ignorant comments posted by the self-selected of both genders on a WaPO blog?

Has logic always been your strong point?

I have better things to do the rest of today than read the same old, same old here from spoiled, chicken-s**t posters like anon at 9:23.

Leslie writes:

>>

Come now, Leslie. You're an MBA. Surely you took a statistics class along the way. The difference must have been statistically signficant for the researchers to have highlighted it... The complaints about turnover at the day care center is a red herring -- it's still the environment in which the children find themselves.

It's funny you mention instincts. I think most of our instincts are to keep our kids home with a parent during the early years. Day care may be necessary for two-income families and it may be good for socializing many children. But please don't quote me about instincts -- everything about putting your kids in day care comes down to rationalizing at the end of the day.

I have better things to do the rest of today than read the same old, same old here from spoiled, chicken-s**t posters like anon at 9:23.

Posted by: | March 27, 2007 10:25 AM

How do we know you are not anon 9:23? That is the problem with anonymous posters, like yourself.

pot, meet kettle. hello, kettle.

"I use the New York Times and the Washington Post to paper train the dog."

I don't have a dog!

pot, meet kettle. hello, kettle.

Posted by: anon for today | March 27, 2007 10:29 AM

You can't be anon for today, because I am, so are you now assuming other posters names? Whether you like it or not, pot, anon for today is at least a handle.

You can use anon for today 2 if need be.

I think there are people here that are looking for someone to drag through the mud.

Any volunteers? We're looking for someone who isn't afraid of getting a little dirt on them.

Heaven forbid, disruptive behavior, whoop de effing do. As for myself, I like to consider disruptive behavior as an aquired skill, not some kind of character defect. To sabotage a classroom led by a highly skilled professional takes creativity, planning, timeing, and, just like everything else, practice makes perfect.

My son is pretty good at it too. From what I hear, he's the ringleader in his classroom... Oh, yeah, and he went to daycare for a year twice a week. Wow! It's amazing how accurate these studies are!

It's funny you mention instincts. I think most of our instincts are to keep our kids home with a parent during the early years. Day care may be necessary for two-income families and it may be good for socializing many children. But please don't quote me about instincts -- everything about putting your kids in day care comes down to rationalizing at the end of the day.

Posted by: Father of Kids from A-Z | March 27, 2007 10:26 AM

You honestly have no clue, do you? Get off your high horse. My husband's and my instincts are to keep our kids from qualifying for public housing and WIC. Parents working at jobs you wouldn't dream of taking don't have the privilege of wasting time rationalizing. Our family is getting by, keeping the power from being turned off, holding out on the new brakes we need on an 8 year old car we share so we can get to work.

You are basing an unsubstantiated, thoughtless statement like, "why women don't rule" based on a couple hundred ignorant comments posted by the self-selected of both genders on a WaPO blog?

How long have you been coming here? Every day it is a bunch of hens picking at each other. Very few men - maybe because they are not as concerned with others and are focused on their work. Like I said yesterday, my husband is at the top of the ladder because he goes to work and he WORKS, he doesn't blog all day about how Bob has a new mower or about what Bob should do with his family. Women would rather put each other down than work together for a common goal and that is why men will always be "in charge" - geeze, even when women do get to the top like Nancy Pelosi or Katie Couric all other women want to do is criticize their clothes.

I have noticed several comments that distrust the results of the study (something like, "how do the researchers REALLY know that it is daycare that is causing the increased disruptions--it could be so many things). A rigorous scientific study does precisely that: it controls for all other factors, to the extent possible, and looks at the influence of one particular variable--in this case, daycare.

I agree with some commenters that the increased disruptiveness due to daycare is apparently small. But, I sense a disingenuous and defensive overreaction by Leslie Morgan Steiner and several others to the upshot of the study (the upshot being, children in daycare are more disruptive through the sixth grade than those not in daycare).

As a researcher quoted in the article says, "They [the study's authors] knew this would be disturbing news for parents, but at some point, if that's what you're finding, then you have to report it." I agree. Report what you find, and let the chips fall where they may. It is still possible for me to read the study, acknowledge the results, and nevertheless decide that in my circumstances, I will put my children in daycare. But it is disengenous to conclude the study's results (or the way they are reported in the media) can't be accurate because the report doesn't comport with my own decisions or even with my particular experience.

The NYT article itself was okay. It was the headline and the blurb on the front page that disturbed me. Why do the Times (and other media) insist on highlighting only the negative aspects of daycare? The takeway is clearly "daycare is bad."

Daycare is NOT bad. Although it's not the best choice for every kid at every age, it is a fabulous choice when the care, facilities, and employees are good. My kids positively thrived in daycare -- they learned social skills, practical skills like sitting at lunch and using a fork (positive effect of peer pressure), and they learned to trust other people besides me and DH.

As a working mom I thrived too, knowing that multiple caregivers were watching my children, and that I wasn't going to get a call at 7am on a critical work day from a sick nanny. I never worried about my children while they were in daycare.

If the Times and others were to highlight the solvable problems uncovered in this study, we'd all have something to work with to make day care a better choice for more kids and more working parents. Instead, this negative, alarmist slant just ratchets up anxiety levels in parents everywhere.

Oops, no I wasn't trying to say that, I just typed my entry too quickly and didn't preview it. No need to attack; this is just a blog. My daughter receives an adequate amount of attention from me, my husband, her grandparents, her teachers, and her coaches. She is not needy or clingy. She has some friends with these issues. Sorry for the confusion.

This is ridiculous. Another SAHM/WOHM fight. I fall into the "good daycare is great camp" -- great for my kids, for what they learn, for how they learn to get along, for the activities the school does each day to keep them busy and thinking, and great for my work/life balance -- because I like working. The daycare kids who come to soccer practice are better behaved than the SAHM kids -- maybe they have learned how to accept direction better from an early age. That's just a personal observation -- I am NOT saying it's true and therefore an indication of daycare being better -- how would I know?

And don't jump on me and ask why I had kids if I just put them in daycare -- I love my kids, they love me, and they are doing fine. There's no "rule" that you need to SAH with kids -- or that they need to be home. I did qualify my statement by emphasizing "good daycare," which may very well have economic implications -- I recognize that.

I tend to agree with other posters that maybe kids coming from great daycares, with advanced vocabulary and problem solving skills, are just farther ahead -- and since schools are not always equipped to differentiate to fullest extent, they teach more to middle. So maybe these kids are bored -- both my siblings were labeled as disruptive when in reality they were just bored in elementary. Plus the sample is so small.

This to me is like a ratings ploy -- get us all excited and up in arms over situations we have no plans or need or real desire to change.

" have noticed several comments that distrust the results of the study (something like, "how do the researchers REALLY know that it is daycare that is causing the increased disruptions--it could be so many things)."

Maybe the little darlings are just brats!

I love the posts: oh, I'm SOOO much better than you because I stay home with my kids.

Okay, well, I was home with the kids until youngest was 6 months and oldest was 3 1/2. And my husband will tell you I'm a MUCH better mom when I am working. I LOVE my kids - and their nanny/day care situations are GREAT for them - and I'm not dreading 'yet another day' of going to the park, dying for someone to talk to, hoping I can pay the bills, going to the supermarket, trying to find yet something else to do with the kids, etc.
It took a toll on me, and I am much better for them and my family now that I'm working. I'm glad that we can afford the nanny and all that we can because I bring home enough - but really, that wasn't the point, it was more of what our family needed.

And I love the: well, it's OKAY if you're a single parent, then you HAVE to work - but otherwise, you're selfish or whatever. If you think it's SO GREAT for parents to be home with the kids - then why don't you pay someone to stay home with them? Set up a charitable trust? Or lobby congress to change laws so that the single parents can stay home with the kids - or do something rather than attack people for their choices....

What this says...wow, I'm not sure I'll ever post again.

Yes my daughter goes to daycare a few days a year. She is in school most days, camp in the summer, and we (parents and grandparents) try to take off from work on days school is closed. She goes to private school so if public school kids are in session on a day she is off then she has to hang out with the little kids - no fun. She is happier if mommy, daddy, nana, or papap can take her to Baltimore or DC for the day or just hang out at home.

Drag me through the mud. My kid is at day care and I don't feel guilty at all. I have a decent size house, a new car and, yes, oh my God I sometimes buy new clothes. My kid is healthy and loved. I have enough money to send home to my elderly parents and help my sister and nephews out if they need it, give to charity, etc. I don't feel bad about it either. I love my job and love that I help people.

My kid is fine. No one has to worry about my kid in day care. However, maybe we should all stop fighting with each other and start worrying about the kids from both WP and SAHP who are getting abused or the poor kids who have to go to bad schools.

I don't care what the article said. The NY times can bite my Irish butt. There are a lot of reasons why people work and most of them are no one's business but their own.

"You can't be anon for today, because I am."

who was it that mentioned exquisite irony yesterday.

The problem with these studies is they are completely subjective. How do you measure disruptive behavior? If the study found a 10 percent difference, or something really large, I'd say okay, seems like there's something there. But it didn't. The difference is slight. I've worked on studies like these before and I have to say, no matter how scientifically controlled they are, they are still dependent on the impressions of human beings, who have biases, get tired, get bored and have different opinions. So I wouldn't read much into the study at all.

"It is amazing to me that so many people on this blog don't see the obvious- children are best cared for by their families, (barring neglect, abuse of course). Choosing daycare for reasons other than necessity is beneficial to the parents, not the children."

Wow, that is far from obvious to me. I started back to work last week and my four-month old son is being cared for for eight hours a day by a caring, involved nanny that we share with another family. Because I am working, we can afford to live in an area with a better school district and more activities. We can afford to save for retirement so we don't saddle him with those costs. I can model to him what a woman who cares about her family and her work looks and acts like. He can get stimulation from another person who is not drained and bored from having spent all the time with him, plus from another baby his age. I know I shouldn't have engaged this anonymous poster who was just trying to pick a fight, but I know there are people out there who judge my choices based on what I think is short-sighted criteria.

My mom worked and I think she was a wonderful mother who showed me what a mom with a life outside the home looked like.

I too agree that some of the notes here are nasty. But I think that's the reason a lot of people read this blog. Leslie says something thought provoking but also that is slightly offensive and people respond with their own comments. Reading this each day is kind of a guilty pleasure for me.

It is not always that the child is best cared for by their parents. I have seen plenty of families where the SAHM should not be taking care of the kids.

You are basing an unsubstantiated, thoughtless statement like, "why women don't rule" based on a couple hundred ignorant comments posted by the self-selected of both genders on a WaPO blog?

How long have you been coming here? Every day it is a bunch of hens picking at each other. Very few men - maybe because they are not as concerned with others and are focused on their work. Like I said yesterday, my husband is at the top of the ladder because he goes to work and he WORKS, he doesn't blog all day about how Bob has a new mower or about what Bob should do with his family.

Posted by: Why women don't rule | March 27, 2007 10:41 AM

I've been coming here long enough to know that if you have a point to make once is enough and posting it multiple days in a row indicates you need to go find some real people to scream at. While you are popping bon bons in your mouth trying not to wear out the sofa cusions, work on your math skills. The gender ratio of this blog, excluding anons because who would know, is substantially more balanced than you want to admit.

So your poor husband is working his butt off so you can sit home and blog all day, every day, refer to women as barnyard animals, and brag about your husband's being at the acme of roofing equipment. Nice.

Folks, don't let psychological mumbo-jumbo like this study and its NY Times publicity scare you out of doing what you know is best for your own children.

"The research, being reported today as part of the federally financed Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, tracked more than 1,300 children in various arrangements, including staying home with a parent; being cared for by a nanny or a relative; or attending a large day care center. Once the subjects reached school, the study used teacher ratings of each child to assess behaviors like interrupting class, teasing and bullying." (from the NY Times article)

"Teacher ratings of each child" are a subjective measure, as chicagomom at 10:55 AM rightly points out. Is this supposed to be scientific?

If I were a parent considering the choice of arrangements, "including staying home with a parent; being cared for by a nanny or a relative; or attending a large day care center," I would look at something much more objective: the frequency of physical illness for kids in each arrangement. As a start, look at the article by Duke University pediatrician Dennis Clements, MD, PhD at:

http://www.newsforparents.org/expert_day_care_diseases.html

These sicknesses spread in at least two ways, viz., respiratory and oral. Respiratory diseases include "rhinovirus, adenovirus, and parainfluenza," as well as more serious viral illnesses including "respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza" and "rotavirus."

"Children in day care can also be exposed to bacterial, fungal, and protozoal infections. Strep throat is common and contagious by the oral route. Also common and easily transmitted are head lice, giardia (intestinal protozoa), and ringworm (a fungus)."

For each arrangement, what is the frequency with which children get these diseases? In the arrangement you pick, how often does a toddler stick his hand into his diaper, then touch a toy block, then toddle away. And if he does that, is there an adult watching to make sure that another toddler doesn't pick up that block and put it into her mouth? Bacterial infections affecting the intestinal tract, such as giardiasis and shigellosis, can spread by this so-called "faecal-oral route." Indeed, one of our sons' close friends picked up shigellosis while in day care. Of course, this sort of thing could happen right at home, with a shigellosis-infected, not-yet-toilet-trained toddler spreading the organism to his little brothers and sisters while the stay-at-home parent is busy caring for some of the older children. The question is, ¿how often does this happen at home with a SAHP, and how often with a nanny or relative, and how often at day care centers?

I would be much more inclined to believe studies measuring the frequency of physical diseases than a study purporting to measure the frequency of such a subjective observation as "disruption." Folks, don't let psychological mumbo-jumbo like this study and its NY Times publicity scare you out of doing what you know is best for your own children.

Yay, Scarry!

To scarry at 10:54 - I second your every word, 'cept it's my german butt that they can bite, most especially those holier than thous "daycare is tantamount to child abuse" sorts. I'm feel that I'm a better person and a better mom because I work. My kids are 14 and so far, so good.

"Reading this each day is kind of a guilty pleasure for me."

Posted by: Bob | March 27, 2007 10:58 AM

Me too. Haven't figured out my psyche on this one yet.

Another flaw with this study is what constitutes a 'day care' vs. home cared child? My child was home with me, until he went to school at 2 1/2, for 12 hours per week, then when I went back to work about 14 months later, he was in day care 'full time' (probably about 45+ hours per week).

Would he be considered a 'day care' or 'home cared' kid?

So your poor husband is working his butt off so you can sit home and blog all day, every day, refer to women as barnyard animals, and brag about your husband's being at the acme of roofing equipment. Nice.

peck, peck, peck - you put your kids in daycare to do THIS all day. good choice.

I think your kid just lit the house on fire while you are blogging. You better go call the fire department.

"She is happier if mommy, daddy, nana, or papap can take her to Baltimore or DC for the day or just hang out at home."

Posted by: 21117 | March 27, 2007 10:48 AM

Why go all the way to Baltimore when there's good stuff right near Owings Mills? Take her for a walk through Soldier's Delight, like we did with our kids last Summer.

"peck, peck, peck - you put your kids in daycare to do THIS all day. good choice."

There are worse ways to earn a living.

Ha - Scarry you made me laugh with your comments! I totally agree with them. The funny thing is that my 2 1/2 year old is actually perfect at preschool. It is when he is home with me that he can be a terror at times, although that usually comes from being cooped up too long on a cold winter day. Of course, the cynics out there will say he acts up around me b/c he doesn't see me enough (which trust me, he sees plenty of me) and is begging for attention. So, women as a whole can't win with whatever they choose. The old adage goes, "If mama ain't happy, no one is happy." I am happy going to work and saving for college and retirement, and oh yeah, buying a few luxury items along the way.

peck, peck, peck - you put your kids in daycare to do THIS all day. good choice.

Posted by: Why women don't rule | March 27, 2007 11:15 AM

I have no idea what this pecking business is about. My children are not and have never been in day care and it is my choice whether I spend 30 seconds to expose your ignorance or not. Poor ladder-man coming home to a bored, angry animal of some sort.

I agree with Bob, too. I have no children and no job, and this site is TOTALLY a guilty pleasure.

Scarry (btw I know a good plastic surgeon) it's nice to know that money buys you happiness. But why do you focus on the money instead of telling us about your child. Interesting...

Maybe kids are disruptive because parents (both WP and SAHP) spend precious time fighting/justifying their choices to others who are always going to think they are wrong, no matter what.

Instead of fighting about your choice, just embrace it. Go hug your kid and be involved, however you feel that is best. You're not going to be right about your choices 100% of the time, and you won't be wrong 100% of the time, either.

I am young, no kids yet. I have friends from SP, WP, SAHP, and no one group has turned out any better or worse in the end. Does elementary school "disruption" mean that their lives will turn to crime? To drugs? To what exactly? What exactly does this study prove other than that day care kids MAY be class clowns, speak up, cause a ruckus, etc. Then what? What does that mean?

I read this blog because I want to know what I will be up against, regardless of my choice. I want to know what snide comments other parents will make about my choices. I have learned, from reading this blog, that I don't have to justify my choices to anyone, least of all to people who will tell me I'm wrong.

Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.

to working mom by choice:

Actually, from what I read, kids act up at home cause they know they can. You always hear: oh, when the kids are with me, they are terrors, but out of the house they are angels, when with someone else (or eat well at someone else's house, but don't eat at home, etc).

The kids are testing their limits. It's actually showing you that your child is THRIVING at day care. She KNOWS you love her unconditionally, that you will always love her - and she's kind of trying to test that when she's home. See how far she really can go.
And knowing that as much as they love and care for her at daycare, there is something different there. And that they like their teachers better, sometimes, because they don't have that unconditional love. Your child is differentiating, which is great. She is learning that different people in the world are different and will treat her differently.

I love this blog. Save your energy for your kids, and the battles you will have to fight on their behalf.

Based on the tone of the comments, I think that the Blog should be renamed CATFIGHT.

ROWWWWRRRR!!!! HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Everyone missed an offensive aspect of the NYTimes coverage. If you clicked to the paper's health cover, the image next to the headline is that of a black boy. Why does the MSM insist on using black children to depict "problem" behavior? I don't think the study mentioned race at all.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/23/childs_overdose_death_raises_questions/?page=3

for those who think that raising kids is just a matter of common sense, instincts, and someone staying home full time, consider this outcome.

I always felt that kids are naturally disruptive and that daycare did a lot to make them more civilized. Maybe someone should study THAT.

Matt in Aberdeen-
Only because things like Soldier's Delight are normal weekend activities. If I'm going to take time off from work, I'm going to make sure she realizes that it is a special event and not an everyday activity. Plus, she is a city girl at heart and prefers to head out on the metro for some exploring.

To scary at 11:22 -- scarry touched on the money stuff because of this 9:23 post

"Yet another example of parents failing to take responsibility for how their own children turn out. Instead of looking at the actual situation - like the comprehensive study did - and facing facts, parents (and the author of this blog) continue to blame the system (staff turnover, low pay for workers) instead of looking at how their own choices for dual career advancement, extravagant housing, fancy vacations, electronic toys, multiple extracurricular activities, etc. translate in their children's lives.

As a mom of two, I would NEVER contemplate putting my children in daycare. I would rather move from a single family home into a condo, cut out vacations and other discretionary spending rather than put a child into daycare. Unless it is a single parent situation, there is no reason for it. I am friends with many low income families who raise their children well on limited resources w/out resorting to outside "care". It is possible!"

Posted by: | March 27, 2007 09:23 AM

Thanks everyone! I am sick of this debate.

And Scary, honey, once you've been poor and had to share deodorant, money does buy a small amount of happiness. I did tell you that my child was happy and healthy, but you must have missed that. Sorry if my happiness with my life puts you off, but like I said, I really don't care what anyone thinks. oh, and money also buys clean water for my parents and food, but you know I could decide to stay home because that is best for some people on this board-nope.

BTW, I don't need a plastic surgeon, I thought I told you already that I am Irish.

Bashers who differentiate between an instinct and a rationalization baffle me. How can you tell the difference in yourself? My "instinct" was to put my kids in great daycare, so that I could have peace of mind and they could have fun and learn a thing or two during the day. Maybe this was a "rationalization." Who cares! It worked out wonderfully all 'round.

Okay, I'm trigger happy here, just can't stop posting. Maybe too much caffeine this morning. But wouldn't it be great to read a headline that went:

"GREAT KIDS LINKED TO HAPPY MOMS!!!!"

"DADS WHO ARE HAPPY MAKE WONDERFUL FATHERS"

instead of all this manipulative junk in the media.

Based on the tone of the comments, I think that the Blog should be renamed CATFIGHT.

ROWWWWRRRR!!!! HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Posted by: Butthead | March 27, 2007 11:25 AM

only if you assume that all snarky comments are posted by women. Not.

Leslie, what you get from th media is:

"GREAT KIDS LINKED TO BREASTFEEDING MOMS!!!!"

"DADS WHO HAVE MONEY MAKE WONDERFUL FATHERS"

This must be the stupidest fight ever. I mean, come on, I went through all this back in the 80s? Some of you young mothers were kids then. This fight is old old and is a complete waste of time.

Indeed, I suspect this is a plot to divide women. I refuse to play their game.

Scarry, great posts today...you have your irish up today, eh?

For more 'DAYCARE DRAMA' please see 'DIVORCE LAWYER THROWS PARTY AT DAYCARE, ENTICES WITNESSES FOR CLIENT' on the MOMMY GO BYE-BYE blog at http://mommygobyebye-virginia.blogspot.com/2007/02/divorce-lawyer-throws-party-at-daycare.html . . . ~Veronique Wyvell, RN, McLean, Virginia, Founder of 'MOMMY GO BYE-BYE: Mothers Against Unjust Law,' Member of Fairfax County Network Against Family Abuse (NAFA) {Please feel free to send your stories for publication to VWyvell@patriot.net}

Well, duh! What do people expect when someone else is basically raising their kids? Especially when both parents are working to cover the McMansion in Potmac and the obnoxious S-Moo-Vs.

Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that soccer moms don't know what turn signals are for?!

Okay, I'm trigger happy here, just can't stop posting. Maybe too much caffeine this morning. But wouldn't it be great to read a headline that went:

"GREAT KIDS LINKED TO HAPPY MOMS!!!!"

"DADS WHO ARE HAPPY MAKE WONDERFUL FATHERS"

instead of all this manipulative junk in the media.

Posted by: Leslie | March 27, 2007 11:34 AM

Too reasonable?

Laura,

Precisely!

post hoc fallacy
The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

rocketscience!
no i haven't noticed soccer moms, soccer dads, moms, or dads, as a group not knowing what turn signals are for. Sorry to disappoint you, but your generalizations are simply incorrect.

Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that soccer moms don't know what turn signals are for?!

Posted by: RoCkEtScIeNcE! | March 27, 2007 11:40 AM

I was starting to wonder if the Siennas and Explorers didn't come with blinkers just tv screens. Thanks for clearing it up.

Yes, dotted it's up. It is such a dumb thing to fight over. My husband had a SAHM and I bet you he would have traded places with your kids any day.

The researcher from UNC was interviewed by Newsweek yesterday and stated the following: "Interestingly, we also found that staying home with mom was statistically neither an asset nor a detriment in terms of academic outcomes and behaviors."

Leslie - read articles, not headlines.

READ. THE. WHOLE. THING.

Who gives a rat's about headlines?

Headlines are important because some people just read the headline and the brief blurb below it and then go spouting off about this study that says daycare is harmful for kids. Not good.

Headlines are important because some people just read the headline and the brief blurb below it and then go spouting off about this study that says daycare is harmful for kids.

Posted by: mountainS | March 27, 2007 11:55 AM

or they spout off about rationalizing. or Bob. or ladders. or SUVs. or McMansions. or hens.

"Speaking of which, have you ever noticed that soccer moms don't know what turn signals are for?!"

Have you ever noticed that the soccer moms' kids are the ones that tend to eat snot out of their noses while they scrath their private parts 24/7??

Have you ever noticed that the soccer moms' kids are the ones that tend to eat snot out of their noses while they scrath their private parts 24/7??

Posted by: | March 27, 2007 12:00 PM

have you ever noticed that no bar is too low for what passes for humor from anonymous posters?

"Have you ever noticed that the soccer moms' kids are the ones that tend to eat snot out of their noses while they scrath their private parts 24/7??"

They do, don't they??

Wow am I sick of this topic. And yes, newspapers run sensationalized headlines - is this news to anybody? Last time I checked that is what sells papers.

In a perfect world all headlines would paint the pretty pictures, but since that will never happen, let's just get over it. People will buy into this stuff no matter what the headlines read.

As for me, I choose the nanny route because it was the best for my family AND because a lot of the really good daycares had waiting lists of 2+ years (preference for siblings makes it hard to get a spot no matter how early you get on the list).

And the nanny thing worked for us and my son has thrived and that is that. If he didn't, I would probably have gone the daycare route or even thought about staying at home. Who knows? The point is that each child is different and each child care arrangement is different.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the other posts that PARENTS are really at the heart of behavioral problems - NOT child care arrangements (except for the truly poor ones). And some kids are more difficult than others. I certainly wasn't the most well-behaved kid growing up (my teenage years were particularly bad) and I had a SAHM (and a dad who worked out of the home) and I still managed to do just fine.

Shouldn't this be part of the on parenting blog?

On a sobering note, Tony Snow's cancer has returned and spread to his liver. Like the Edwards, Snow has three children. Perhaps we could take a moment from the egregious snarking today to appreciate good health, if applicable, and wish Snow and his family well.

sorry - I meant to type "young children" not "three children".

Megan's Neighbor,
I saw that a few minutes ago (Tony Snow). When they talked about it over the weekend on the news they were making out that it was completely elective - not a big deal. Just goes to show that the fates are not always kind.

Megan's neighbor that is just awful. I hope he makes it.

Talking about headlines:

Something Went Wrong in Plane Crash, Expert Says

War Dims Hope for Peace

Miners Refuse to Work after Death

Never Withhold Herpes Infection from Loved One

And my personal favorite:

Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

In case I'm not the only one that would like to see this blog tackle something new:

From Slate.com, "Is sexual equality bad for your health?": "A Swedish government study finds a "trade-off between gender equality ... and public health." The study compared absenteeism, disability, and life expectancy data among nearly 300 municipalities. It checked the data against nine indicators of equality in public and private employment, such as average income and the percentages of men and women in executive jobs. Result: "Gender equality ... correlated with poorer health for both men and women." Researchers' theories: 1) Women have taken on more male burdens, but men haven't reciprocated, so women are overburdened. 2) Men suffer from having "lost many of their old privileges." 3) Women have "greater opportunities for risky behavior as a result of increased income." Conservative spin: Told you so. Liberal spin: It's not real equality till men do their part."

I'd say if the absenteeism is the result of a couple dropping the kids off at daycare and going back home to spend the day in bed together, absenteeism isn't such a bad idea.

KLB, those are hilarious. Those miners sure a picky bunch to not want to work in the after life. News of the weird usually has a bunch of headlines gone wrong for your reading pleasure.

Pardon my ignorance but who is Tony Snow?

Perhaps we could take a moment from the egregious snarking today to appreciate good health, if applicable, and wish Snow and his family well.

Maybe we should criticize him for not quitting? Oh wait, he's not a chick.

Tony Snow is White House press secretary.

Scarry: I apologize for recommending the plastic surgeon, I guess you just misspelled your name. Also, I would've just talked about how daycare affected my kids, not all the wonderful things money can do, but that's just me?

Tony Snow is the White House press secretary. He is 51.

we will leave the criticism of stranger all to you, Why women don't rule. You seem to love it so.

Scarry,
Isn't your name derivative of your ancestry - Scarry blue?

"This fight is old old and is a complete waste of time."

go, dotted!

Here's a headline from msnbc.com

Female ump to work MLB exhibition game.

"Perhaps we could take a moment from the egregious snarking today to appreciate good health, if applicable, and wish Snow and his family well.

Maybe we should criticize him for not quitting? Oh wait, he