I鈥橫 STILL fuming.
Did you see that recent鈥攁nd big鈥擜merican study of kids in day
care? When they arrived in kindergarten, said the news reports, 6 per cent of
kids who had stayed home with Mom were rated as 鈥渁驳驳谤别蝉蝉颈惫别鈥�. But 17 per cent of
children who had spent 30 hours or more a week with someone other than Mom were
鈥渁驳驳谤别蝉蝉颈惫别鈥�.
Better cognitive and language skills, mind you. But aggressive.
Advertisement
The usual pundits crowed that this proves Mom must quit her selfish job and
stay home with the kids. Day care makes kids smart but nasty. Science says
so.
But where I live, this is a bit hard to swallow. In Belgium, a whopping 61
per cent of kids up to two-and-a-half years old get other-than-mother care, most
at day-care centres, and most for more than 30 hours a week. Even more children
aged between three and five years old go to state-funded
kindergarten鈥攚here teachers say day-care kids are much less trouble. Even
jobless mothers use day care, to help their kids learn social skills.
鈥淵ou can spot the day-care kids,鈥� say the parents. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e playing nicely,
while the others cling to Mummy and won鈥檛 share their toys.鈥�
How odd. Are Belgians a different species? No, actually it turns out that the
American study found nothing like what was reported in the press. In fact, it
found what Belgians already knew. Day-care kids are normal. It鈥檚 the
stay-at-homes who aren鈥檛.
The study measured 鈥渁ggressiveness鈥� using a standardised test based, a bit
like IQ tests, on a statistical curve. In a large, random population, it rates
17 per cent of subjects 鈥渁ggressive鈥� by definition. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like saying half are
above average,鈥� says Deborah Vandell of the University of Wisconsin, one of the
researchers.
Testers then determine where on this standard curve a particular subgroup
comes. The day-care kids were 17 per cent aggressive鈥攖hat is, they showed
a normal range of personalities. 鈥淲e weren鈥檛 surprised they scored so high,鈥�
says Vandell. 鈥淲e were surprised the others scored so low.鈥�
No Belgian parent would be. A closer look at the data shows what is going on.
At age four, only 5 per cent of the stay-at-homes were 鈥渁驳驳谤别蝉蝉颈惫别鈥�. Many had
scarcely interacted with other kids: they barely knew how. At five, when they
had socialised more, the figure was 9 per cent: they were catching on. Of
course, eventually 17 per cent will be 鈥渁驳驳谤别蝉蝉颈惫别鈥�. The stay-at-homes will have
learned to be normal.
Is it so surprising that kids become more 鈥渘ormal鈥� sooner in an
evolutionarily normal setting? Did our foremothers stay alone in the cave with
little Johnny? Of course not, they were out gathering or farming with the rest,
while the kids, minded by everyone, hung out with each other. A bit like day
care.
Nor is it surprising that an abnormal, isolated style of parenting espoused
by a tiny minority for a few decades should leave kids cognitively and socially
disadvantaged.
The real surprise is how people with weird, misogynist agendas can distort
science in such a disgraceful way.
And that we let them get away with it.