Goodness me. More about daycare. My three kids all went to good daycare in Ames, Iowa, where most of the teachers were trained at the Iowa State University Child Development school. The center I used was clean, comfortable, and safe. They started going at about 2 and a half, after in home care a few hours per day every day. The kids are now 27, 23, and 13. The older ones are gainfully employed, socially well adjusted, articulate, and liberal. They have always done well in school, always had friends, and firmly believe in daycare for their own children when they have them. When they were in daycare, I actually thought their social skills were pretty good. They knew how to look adults in the eye and ask for what they wanted. They knew how to share and take turns. They knew how to buddy up and walk in a group down the street. They were not always happy, but they lived an orderly and enjoyable life. They show no attachment problems, and they are enterprising. I think good daycare is great, and I also think that we should never forget that not every mom is a great constant companion for her kids. Some moms are neurotic, unhappy, angry, frustrated, and demanding. Best not to be stuck in the house with her. See Cary for more info on what can happen on that front.

I read about this study, and it surprised me to read that kids who stayed at home had better social skills, because it's the opposite of my experience. I stayed at home until kindergarten, and I had great difficulty with "social skills" when I started school. I was an only child, at a time before "play dates" and "quality time". But I never developed many social skills, since I didn't spend much time around other children - I was home alone with Mom. When I started kindergarten, I was shy and withdrawn, and my lack of "social skills" made it difficult for me to do well in school. But I'm just one example, and I wondered if my experience was atypical.

But after reading more about the study, I began to wonder how "social skills" were measured. The article mentions "aggression" and "non-compliance" and "demanding". It doesn't mention "shy" or "withdrawn" or "plays alone". Both of those things can result from a lack of social skills, and both can lead to problems in school later on. But a quiet and shy child might not be seen as "lacking social skills", and instead just be seen as a good child, "compliant" and "undemanding" - the opposite of the aggressive and non-compliant child who attracts attention.

If the study is only counting the aggressive and non-compliant kids as "lacking social skills", then it's probably not counting accurately - and may be missing part of the picture.

It's so refreshing to read an article that brings out the nuances and uncertainties in social science findings, and even includes information on study design. This article gave a good window into how the researchers think about their findings and what implications they think apply and don't apply.

It seems that there is another solution to the problems raised by the article besides bringing moms back to the 50's, having both partners work part time, or having mostly stay at home dads. Another solution is to improve the quality of child care by improving funding to these operations. We all know that child care workers have some of the lowest pays out there, even with college degrees. Why not pay them what they're worth (which is alot)? Same goes for teachers, of course. It would be nice if the government funded this sort of thing but it might have to be the parents.

I think these studies are a big "DUH!" Of course kids are going to turn out differently when they are in day care and these differences are going to be in their emotional/social growth. It's just a given. Also a given is that in today's economy, most parents have to go to work. As this article pointed out, the most important thing is what are we going to do with this information? We need better quality affordable childcare, more flexibility at work, more on-site care centers at workplaces. How can we, as parents, organize to demand these things for our children?

For all the talk about couples, parents, and relationships, the word "marriage" never appears in this article. Perhaps it's taboo, but marriage is not just another form of parental relationship. Marriage matters. If you need any proof, listen to the gay parents who are clamoring for the right to get married.

From the article: Philip and Carolyn Pape Cowan, professors emeriti at the University of California at Berkeley, point out that the relationship between two parents can be a much larger influence on the emotional and intellectual development of a child than child care.

If this is true, then the conversation about child development needs to include a discussion of marriage.

A couple of other points: Too often in these discussions, day care is judged by best case scenarios (university run day care centers) and at home parenting is judged by worst case scenarios (depressed mothers). It's hard not to see bias when the comparisons are constructed that way.

Bruce Fuller says, "Meanwhile, out in the suburbs, you're having play dates, also social activities but more one-on-one supervision."

Is there any data to back up the assumption that the families in the suburbs are more likely to be the ones with the at home parent? In my midwestern city, it's a lot cheaper to live within the city limits than to live in the suburbs. Outside of a few select metropolitan areas, I suspect this is how it is for most of America. For us, and for many of our city neighbors, living in the suburbs would mean that both parents would have to work outside the home.