|
Government Funded Daycare program (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Yes it is relative. Even if the lower class doesn't "shrink" people will be better adapted. The educational level would be raise. The crime level would be lowered. The definition of poor would now be defined by higher standards of living. How is this impractical or half-baked? I have pointed to the relationship between good early education and all these benefits. I have pointed to why lower income children are better off at day cares than in their homes. What else is there to argue?
The child will only have higher gains if the home environment is more stimulating than the day care environment. It's as simple as that. I dont disagree that for parents with higher education or with the ability to sacrifice income to raise their child this is not a good option. What I am arguing is that children in lower SES' (since you want a definition a recent study classified these as having an total house income less than 15,000) will be better off atteding day care, even if one of the parents stayed in the house. I've already layed out why. Even if one parent stayed home with the child, they're lack of knowledge of how a child develops would hinder them in providing the proper conditions for the child to develop.
Which one's are those? I would really like to know. If you refering to any european country, a high proportion of them have government funded day care system. Some share the cost with parents, some with the employers, and some are completely funded by the government. Which countries do you mean and how are they better off?
So if you're making 8 bucks an hour, and say you rearrange your work schedule for nighttime working so you can spend time with your child. Now let's say you're a single mother or dad. Who will care for the child at night? When will you sleep? I guess you could work less. How would you feed your child? Have you taken into account the negative effects of parental stress on a parent child relationship? Parental stress is considered a risk factor and is associated with negative outcomes for children. Not only that say you manage to bypass all these things. You didn't get an education, all you know about child rearing your grandmother told you. How effective is this? You can't read up on it because you don't have time between work and trying to manage your home life. See the unnecessary complexity of life for people that can benefit from this program. I do believe your downplaying this a bit in your argument.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with your point on bigger reform. It is needed, and i would expect a plan like this to be accompanied by other type of support for parents in the long run. I guess the way i have been argumentint makes my argument come across as if this is an end all solution to the problem of childrearing, and it is not. I do consider it to be an important step in helping impovrished children. |
ah ok, now this all starting to make some sense to me...
You have valid arguments yes but I guess the question I'd have to all of this is, what are the statistics of the number of woman in that position (low wage income) as to the rest of the group as a whole?
I'm sure there's lots (and that's not to take away from what they're going through) but would we not be encouraging woman to in fact take lower income jobs as a sub-conscious option, knowing that the government was going to foot the bill for everything?
And who wouldn't?
Who's going to foot that bill? The career women who choose not to?
This is an extremely expensive proposition now that C-sections are almost becoming the norm as > this article < attests to.
This is one area you haven't explained yet; who's paying for all this?
People don't have a problem with Universal Healthcare because it doesn't discriminate and unless there's some way to do that here, I don't see it happening unless everyone, including those that choose not to have kids, are appeased. |
|
|
| venomX |
Here's a short paper on how Quebec pulled it off. You can go directly to the end where they talk a bit on how Quebec rallied public support for the implementation of this system. Link
As to how many women are in this type of position, I don't have the numbers. There are some econometric studies done on mother labour supply and creation of a day care program. The numbers should probably be there. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
People don't have a problem with Universal Healthcare because it doesn't discriminate and unless there's some way to do that here, I don't see it happening unless everyone, including those that choose not to have kids, are appeased. |
welfare isnt necessarily designed to be for everyone, all the time. and why should it? people fork out taxes to pay for roads they might not necessarily drive on. parlimentarians they didnt necessarily vote for. medical practices they might disagree with morally. the list is almost endless. just the same as tax cuts always favour the upper echelon of wage earners.
you cant please/accomodate everyone all the time, so i dont see this as a legitimate criticism of subsidised daycare. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Here's a short paper on how Quebec pulled it off. You can go directly to the end where they talk a bit on how Quebec rallied public support for the implementation of this system. Link |
why not use some australian examples. its nation-wide after all :) |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
why not use some australian examples. its nation-wide after all :) |
:p I'm not very familiar with the aussie program. I didn't come across any research done on it either. It was mostly programs in the states, in canada and in the netherlands for some reason. It was odd, there was some good papers i wanted to read but they were in dutch.
edit: Also he's canadian, and even though Quebec is arguably well Quebec, it's still an example of how to do it in canada. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| ^^ thats ok, its probably far too complicated for the free-market-worshipping americans to get their penny-pinching noggins around :D |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
welfare isnt necessarily designed to be for everyone, all the time. and why should it? people fork out taxes to pay for roads they might not necessarily drive on. parlimentarians they didnt necessarily vote for. medical practices they might disagree with morally. the list is almost endless. just the same as tax cuts always favour the upper echelon of wage earners.
you cant please/accomodate everyone all the time, so i dont see this as a legitimate criticism of subsidised daycare. |
True, and it really was just small example of some of the morality behind it more than an argument ;) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Here's a short paper on how Quebec pulled it off. You can go directly to the end where they talk a bit on how Quebec rallied public support for the implementation of this system. Link
As to how many women are in this type of position, I don't have the numbers. There are some econometric studies done on mother labour supply and creation of a day care program. The numbers should probably be there. |
Assuming for a second that this fantasy becomes a reality, let's look at a study of what the reality is based on:
| quote: |
Quebec daycare bad for children
study: Rise in aggressiveness, hyperactivity; 'An increased use of child care is associated with a decrease in their well-being'
KAZI STASTNA
The Gazette
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Quebec's much-heralded universal child-care program might be good for the economy, but not for the kids enrolled in it, a study by a Toronto-based think tank says.
The study, carried out for the C.D. Howe Institute, found that while $5-a-day child care had positive economic impacts by increasing the proportion of working mothers in Quebec by 21 per cent - more than twice the rate in the rest of Canada - it had negative effects on the well-being of children and parents.
Comparing children age 4 or under in Quebec with those in the rest of Canada from 1994 to 2003, the researchers noted the increase in everything from
aggressive behaviour to throat infections was much greater
in Quebec - suggesting that children were worse off after the
$1-billion-a-year program was introduced in 1997.
The study was done by economists Michael Baker of the University of Toronto, Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Kevin Milligan of the University of British Columbia.
They analyzed data on 33,000 children of two-parent families, collected by Statistics Canada for its bi-annual National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. In that study, parents answer questions on their children's behaviour, such as how often they fight with other kids, are fearful or nervous, or are hyperactive.
The researchers found that in the post-universal daycare period, aggression among 2- to 4-year-olds increased by 24 per cent in Quebec, compared with one per cent in the rest of Canada.
The relative increase in hyperactivity and anxiety was also substantial, while certain social and motor skills declined.
The proportion of parents reporting nose or throat infections in newborns to 2-year-olds rose by about 20 per cent in Quebec, but stayed constant in the rest of Canada.
"For almost every measure, we find an increased use of child care was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children," the authors write.
The well-being of parents also declined, with more mothers reporting depression. There was also a greater incidence of hostile parenting and dissatisfaction with spouses.
The authors acknowledge some of the effects might simply be a result of parents of children in daycare reporting incidents more often. But the researchers point to a 2003 study by the U.S.-based National Institute of Child Health and Development Early Childcare Research Network that also linked disobedience and aggression to time spent away from maternal care.
The findings could also simply reflect an earlier manifestation of problems children will face anyway once they enter school, Baker said. That's why more study is needed on whether the effects are short- or long-term.
The study should give pause to those advocating extension of the Quebec program federally, the authors argue. The report comes as the incoming Conservative government in Ottawa has shifted attention away from a national child-care program, advocated by the Liberals, to direct subsidies to parents.
"The more people that study (the Quebec program) from a variety of perspectives, the better off we're going to be," Baker said.
The Association quebecoise des centres de la petite enfance, which represents public daycares in the province, said yesterday it would not comment on the report until later this week.
The study is available online at www.cdhowe.org/english/whats_new/whats_new.html
[email protected]
|
>>Source<<
So in short, good for the government but bad for the kids in the long run.
Do we really want our kids to be one of those statistics? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Assuming for a second that this fantasy becomes a reality, let's look at a study of what the reality is based on:
>>Source<<
So in short, good for the government but bad for the kids in the long run.
Do we really want our kids to be one of those statistics? |
The social and emotional development of children is a hot issue right now in developmental psychology. There are plenty of studies that show the opposite to be true also. I'm very tempted to criticize these finding because this was conducted by economists and I'm not quite sure if there methodology was proper.
| quote: | he authors acknowledge some of the effects might simply be a result of parents of children in daycare reporting incidents more often. But the researchers point to a 2003 study by the U.S.-based National Institute of Child Health and Development Early Childcare Research Network that also linked disobedience and aggression to time spent away from maternal care.
The findings could also simply reflect an earlier manifestation of problems children will face anyway once they enter school, Baker said. That's why more study is needed on whether the effects are short- or long-term.
|
I think they're findings could be confounded with other things. For example, did they controll for SES. Are they're findings of negative effects for higher SES children, for lower SES children? For higher SES children there are even negative effects on cognitive development that form from attending a day care. In any case, I can't comment properly on this paper until I read it. But I will agree that there is much contention on the effects of a day care program on social and emotional development, and there is a lot of research under way. The cognitive benefits and other benefits I have mentioned are not under contention in any ways though.
I do believe that even if the results in this study were accurate that they reflect phenomena such as the parents relaxing their involvement due to a false illusion of what the day care will do for them. I think parents need to be better educated as to what benefits to expect from a day care center and what things they still have to do. |
|
|
| venomX |
Alright here's what I propose is happening, straight from that paper:
| quote: |
Our findings constitute empirical evidence on the sometimes painful stress that
families face as they seek to balance competing demands and expectations at work
and home. As with any research, it is important to make clear the limitations of our
study. One concern is that our findings reflect problems that families would face
anyway when their children enter school; the universal childcare program simply
hastened the day of reckoning. While we cannot rule this out, earlier exposure to
these problems may have consequences for children later on.
Also, it is important to stress that it may not be the type of childcare that
drives the behavioural changes we observe; rather, it could be the combination of
mother working and the child being in care. For this reason, our results cannot be
used to make judgments about care by family members versus care in an
institutional setting. |
I think it's just fast-forwarding what happens when school starts. I'm also reluctant to believe that this affects children negatively in the long run due to research that point to people being very resilient in the long run. Research on social development for children also indicates that social interactions earlier in life let children practice them more and become more proficient at them. Early social interactions with peers have also been correlated with people finding the children more attracitve, sociable, and leader-like. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Alright here's what I propose is happening, straight from that paper:
I think it's just fast-forwarding what happens when school starts. I'm also reluctant to believe that this affects children negatively in the long run due to research that point to people being very resilient in the long run. Research on social development for children also indicates that social interactions earlier in life let children practice them more and become more proficient at them. Early social interactions with peers have also been correlated with people finding the children more attracitve, sociable, and leader-like. |
So when cute little Joey snatches the Tonka from little Bobby and bashes him over the head with it, he's asserting his leadership skills?
j/k :p :stongue: |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So when cute little Joey snatches the Tonka from little Bobby and bashes him over the head with it, he's asserting his leadership skills?
j/k :p :stongue: |
Hey maybe he's sicilian :p |
|
|
|
|
