Child Care--When is it Good or Bad for Children?

Child care is a helpful option for adults. It lets them, especially mothers, have more possibilities after choosing to have a child--free time to work or to get a respite away from children. However, under what conditions is child care good or bad for the children? When do children in pre-kindergarten child care have outcomes as good as those raised by a parent or other primary caretaker?  The Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (link here) by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) gives complex answers to these two questions.

Why look at another government study? "The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), is the most comprehensive study to date of children and the many environments in which they develop" (P. 6). This longitudinal (16-year), national project studied more than 1,000 children from one-month of age.What are the findings?

On the one hand the NICHD study finds that children "who were cared for exclusively by their mothers did not develop differently than those who were also cared for by others" (P.5). On the other hand, "children with higher quantity (total combined number of hours) of experience in non-maternal child care showed somewhat more behavior problems in child care and in kindergarten classrooms than those who had experienced fewer hours" (ibid.) How can we reconcile both statements? One may conclude from this study that longer hours of child care was correlated with children behaving slightly worse--less socialized and less ready for the rules of the classroom. But parent characteristics, that is, whether the parents were emotionally supportive and created a cognitively enriched environment, whether parents had higher education and family income, whether both parents were together and raising the child, and, and whether the parents were psychologically well-adjusted and sensitive to the child's needs (P.25) were more important than the child care (P.5).

If parent characteristics are most important and if middle class families are, in the aggregate, less chaotic than disadvantaged families, child care quality becomes critical primarily for disadvantaged, chaotic households if one takes the research to its logical conclusions. The NICHD study does not support this conclusion (P.15), but other studies do, especially the longitudinal Abecedarian project, which showed cognitive improvements in disadvantaged children up to young adulthood. These disadvantaged kids also developed better health habits, were more likely to go to college and make more money, and were less likely to end up in trouble. The Abecedarian study also positively affected the behaviors of the teenage mothers of these children, making it more likely they would finish their schooling and be self-supporting.

Yet, how many disadvantaged mothers are able to take advantage of high-quality child care such as that offered by the Abecedarian project? Most disadvantaged parents do not have access to high-quality child care, using instead a relative or friend down the street. This care is not as bad as that of Uncle Ernie (in The Who's rock opera, Tommy), but unlicensed and unregulated care by relatives or friends is often poor quality, and, of course, unlicensed and unregulated care at centers is often poor quality as well. The NICHD authors admit that most child care is not high quality (P. 1 5). Low-quality care and low-quality parenting can be poor combination.

Children were somewhat more likely to be insecurely attached to their mothers if they were in lower quality care, but only if their mothers were also lower in sensitivity during interactions with their children (P.13).

These effects were less strong in the NICHD study, stronger in other studies. Insecurely attached children have increased stress and coping problems (Spangler 1993) and are less equipped to handle the rigors of public school. I will give more data on the dangers of low-quality care below.

Now let us leave the world of research and enter the even more murky universe of psychological theory. John Bowlby, founder of attachment theory, wrote that children belong with their mothers. Here is a summation of his famous book, Child Care and the Growth of Love:

• Maternal deprivation is a key cause of mental ill-health.
• Mothers are central to a child’s development with fathers and extended family members providing a supporting role.
• Any maternal separation will adversely affect a child to some degree.
• Efforts should be made to avoid family failure but even state support may not be enough where the fundamental problem is failing parents.
• Adoption should be undertaken as soon as possible.
• Where possible, the mothers of illegitimate children should be given the support to care for their children.
• Fostering, if possible with the extended family or neighbors, should be used for short term emergencies.
• Group care should be confined to treatment, the care of adolescents or the short-term care of younger children and sibling groups.
• In both fostering and group care parental contact should be encouraged.
• Treatment, whether for physical or mental illnesses, should if possible be provided in the child’s natural home and otherwise in homes close enough for parental contact.

NICHD researchers do not find differences in attachment security between kids in day care or at home, but Bowlby, interviewed well after his WWII orphanage observations that were the crux of his theory, was not a proponent of center-based care! And it is a stretch to imagine either Bowlby or (famous attachment researcher) Mary Ainsworth approving of center-based care where the child's primary (love) object can change day-to-day.

As a son and brother of academic researchers, I trust the scientific method over theory or other forms of evidence in determining the efficacy of child care. However, the most vociferous criticisms against child care come from heavily emotional personal stories. Conservative writer Karl Zinsmeister supplies plenty of anecdotal fodder in his article, The Problem with Day Care (The American Enterprise, May/June 1998). Much of it bemoans the lack of ANY high-quality child care.

Author Linda Burton is another person who has described in detail what she came across while scouring her hometown (the Washington, D.C. area) for day care:

In one instance, I found the "absolutely marvelous" family day care provider, recommended by trusted friends, sleeping on her sofa while 11 children (she had informed me that she only cared for five) wandered aimlessly around in front of the blaring TV. Another time, on an unannounced visit, I found that the "highly recommended" licensed day care provider confined seven preschoolers to her tiny dining room. I found them huddled together, leaning over a barricade to watch a TV program showing in the adjacent room.

These are not isolated anecdotes. Anyone investigating the world of full-time day care quickly amasses files of such testimony. A few years ago the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council investigated a sample of 281 day care homes. They reported that a small number were genuinely stimulating, and another small number were out-and-out abusive. The large majority, however, provided care that was merely indifferent. Only a few of the caregivers studied were able to make themselves genuinely interested in each of their individual enrollees. In a significant minority of cases, youngsters were simply ignored most of the time.

Despite the doubts of Bowlby, despite how children cared by multiple caregivers would be a unrecommended practice according to attachment theory, and despite anecdotal evidence, NICHD research has shown few negative attachment effects on children in child care. By 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics had revised its policy. Based on the NICHD and Abecedarian studies, it's publication, Quality Early Education and Child Care from Birth to Kindergarten (Volume 115, No. 1, January 1) stated a change in favor of child care but only high-quality care (or parenting).

When care is consistent, developmentally sound, and emotionally supportive, there is a positive effect on the child and the family.^8–21 Children exposed to a poor-quality environment, whether at home or outside the home, are less likely to be prepared for school demands and more likely to have their socioemotional development derailed.^8–21 The inadequate outcomes of children in poor-quality care often cannot be fully remedied in the formal structure of the K-12 educational system because of the need for noneducational services such as mental and behavioral health care.

As seen in the Abecedarian study above, lasting positive affects were seen when low-income children experience high-quality care. However, as noted by NICHD researchers, the authors of Quality Early Education and Child Care from Birth to Kindergarten write, "most child care centers in the United States are rated poor to mediocre in quality, with almost half meeting less than minimal standards" (ibid.).

Until child care improves in quality, low-income children will continue to suffer. Economically disadvantaged but "good-enough" parents (as Winnicott would say) may get better outcomes by avoiding low-quality child care if they have an economic choice.

Unreasonable Search and Seizure: Democracy and The Fall of the 4th Amendement

from Malcontends.blogspot.com

In the name of security the NSA continues to collect Americans' phone and email data. Please read what the Fourth Amendment says. Is there "probable cause" that ALL of us are terrorists? Of course not, and ex-president Jimmy Carter, in between hurling diatribes at Israel and supporting (at one time, democratically elected) radical Islamists in Egypt, complains that something has been lost.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter … in the wake of the NSA spying scandal criticized the American political system. “America has no functioning democracy,” Carter said Tuesday [July 16, 2013] at a meeting of the “Atlantic Bridge” in Atlanta.(link here or  here)

 As usual, Carter isn't quite correct, but this time he is heading in the right direction. As shown by the writings of Aristotle and the actions of Robespierre, a democracy can be a tyranny. A constitutional republic, however, protects minorities from being trampled by the majority. We are not a democracy; we are a constitutional republic. For example, Congress could easily pass a law restricting the free speech of racists, terrorists, and communists, but the courts would not allow it (I hope). The Bill of Rights, that is, our Constitution, protects everyone's liberties, even the liberties of those that are unpopular, and protects those liberties despite the votes of the majority. Does our democracy function? Yes. Is it able to check the power of the NSA? Currently, no! That is what Carter is really saying. How did this come to pass?

Every three months a secret court approves the NSA's searching of American citizens. The (July 7, 2013) New York Times explains:

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said....In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said. (link here)

Don't worry. Everything is perfectly legal. Justice was executed in exact accordance with the law in Imperial Rome, Communist Russia, and Nazi Germany too, by the way. You have almost no rights against the NSA's unlawful search and seizure because a secret court,  far removed from any democratic accountability, transparency, and checks and balances, broadened a narrow Supreme Court ruling in order to completely gut the Fourth Amendment. The FISA judges may say that NSA's data mining of millions of innocent Americans does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. I believe that our constitutionally accountable John G. Roberts' judicial branch should give an opinion.

If a 2016 presidential candidate comes out strongly against this abuse of federal power (like, ironically, the 2008 Obama), he or she will get a lot of support, especially from Jimmy Carter.

Postscript July 26, 2013: The Obama administration fights a Congressional  amendment to cut the NSA's budget. Unfortunately, the pro-NSA forces won in Congress, though the vote was close. Could this scandal create a left-right alliance? (links here and here) See also how Obama resembles Bush here in W's Apprentice here John Roberts himself picks the FISA judges (link here).

Energy Consumption Continues to Increase

David Owen's New Yorker article (December 20, 2010), The Efficiency Dilemma should be required reading  (link here) for anyone interested in energy consumption. Owen analyzes Jevons' Paradox: the more the efficiency, the greater the consumption. Owens writes, "The problem with efficiency gains is that we inevitably reinvest them in additional consumption." Refrigerators, computers, dishwashers, driers, automobiles, and air conditioning units are all much more efficient than before. However, we use more of them and total energy use (and greenhouse emissions) has climbed.

Owen writes about his family's experience with home air conditioning, 60 years ago a rare luxury. Today air conditioning is found in most homes in the Midwest and South as well as  in most office buildings and new cars. The costs are less than before so people don't hesitate to use air conditioning day and night.

Owen concludes that efficiency will not bring about lowered energy consumption. Like anything else, making energy more costly will create incentives to use less of it.

Can Government Spend Us Into Prosperity--Evaluating Keynes

New Yorker magazine economics writer John Cassidy defends the father of orthodox macroeconomics, John Maynard Keynes, in The Demand Doctor, (The New Yorker, October 10, 2011, link here). As an AP Macroeconomics teacher, I can confidently state that I and all other AP Macroecon instructors teach Keynesian theory. That is, we show how society benefits from creating "aggregate demand." Governments manufacture aggregate demand by cobbling together large public works projects or, less directly and less powerfully, giving money back to the people in the manner of tax cuts. Despite my or perhaps because of my familiarity with the theory of aggregate demand, a month before Cassidy's article was published I predicted Obama's Keynesian stimulus would fail (link here). Keynes' method of attacking unemployment through public works projects is more controversial than ever. Conservatives blame the Obama stimulus for the worst stretch of unemployment since the Great Depression: 54 months of unemployment at 7.5% or worse (link here), and only 47% of Americans have full-time jobs.

If today the same proportion of Americans worked as just a decade ago, there would be almost 9 million more people working. Just in the last year, almost 2 million Americans have left the labor force. With a majority of the population not holding a full-time job, it isn't surprising that economic growth has been so weak.  In June, the number of Americans who wanted to work full-time, but were forced into part-time jobs because of the economy, jumped 352,000 to over 8 million.(Mike Flynn, Breitbart.com, link here)

Liberals argue that Obama's stimulus was a success. If the government had not intervened, we would have entered another Great Depression. This argument fails to persuade me, since it can never be proven one way or another. We cannot go back in time and try a laissez-faire policy, though an uninterested federal government allowed the economy to work itself right out of depressions (or "panics" as they were called) throughout the 19th century. Liberals and Keynesians employ a much better argument by examining the size of the stimulus package. Cassidy writes

He would also have noted that the stimulus was—especially compared with the devastation it meant to address—rather small: equivalent to less than two per cent of G.D.P. a year for three years. Even this overstates its magnitude, given that much of the increase in federal spending was offset by budget cuts at the state and local levels. In its totality, government spending didn’t increase much at all. Between 2007 and the first half of this year [2011], it rose by about three per cent in real dollars.

In other words, the biggest Keynesian spending project ever, worth $825 billion, was too small. We should have spent more than a trillion dollars. Economist Larry Summers calls for another trillion on infrastructure (source here). I wonder if those that advocate for such things figure what might happen if we had a national debt that was even bigger than $16 trillion and what that might do to the economy. According to writer Bill Bonner, even "if America taxed 100 percent of all household wealth, it would not be enough to put its balance sheet in the black" (link here). (Well, never mind; an extra trillion dollar stimulus didn't happen and probably won't any time soon.)

Economist Larry Summers worries about unemployment. If only the stimulus of 2009 was bigger or he could do it twice

Source: New York Times

.

What else went wrong?Cassidy also argues that the government needed to solve the banking and housing problems. "Following the crisis of 2008, both the Bush and the Obama Administrations moved promptly to shore up the banking system, but they neglected to deal with the housing debacle."

I think these excuses are poor, and the culprit can be found elsewhere. The Obama stimulus failed. (The president promised six percent unemployment by 2012 and a reduction of poverty.)  Why didn't it work? The answer may have more to do with a faulty tenet of Keynesian theory--the multiplier. Cassidy writes

a recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research looked at data going back to 1980 and found that government investments in infrastructure and civic projects had a multiplier of 1.8—pretty close to Keynes’s estimate [of two].

Well, maybe not. Cassidy discards the research of Robert Barro, saying his work doesn't apply in a recession.

Echoing the arguments that Keynes’s opponents at the Treasury made during the nineteen-thirties, conservative economists like Robert Barro, at Harvard, argue that it [the muiltiplier] is close to zero: for every dollar the government borrows and spends, spending elsewhere in the economy falls by almost the same amount. Whenever individuals see the government boosting spending or cutting taxes on a temporary basis, Barro maintains, they figure that these policies will eventually have to be paid for in the form of higher taxes. As a result, they set aside extra money in savings, which cancels out the stimulus.

Equally powerful is the work of  Stanford and German professors Cogan et al (link here) in their article New Keynesian versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers, which argues that old Keynsian  models used multipliers that were six times too high. Spending projects lower unemployment much less than was previously believed.