I made a comment about this recently, but I hate that Medium article that's always circulating because I swear that just by reading it I can tell what route the writer went with regard to childcare. She had grandparent help with a combination of parents staying at home.
I say that because with literally no scientific basis, she suggests that nannies are worse than familial care, but better than in-home day care. In particular she says:
This absurd to me because she herself notes that there is little data on nannies and that conclusions can't be drawn. But here she is! Drawing a pretty strong conclusion!
Even worse when you read the SINGLE study that that she quotes as her "source" it literally says:
It also goes on to state that:
It LITERALLY says that nannies are better for the behavioral and social development of kids than grandparents.
Why am I bringing this up? Because my thought is that the article attacks group child care in a way that lacks nuance and focuses on the wrong aspects. In particular, it makes it seem like paid care or non-familial care is less than by virtue of being paid care, which isn't the case. In reading through stuff here and there and the sources cited in the article, overwhelmingly good outcomes for kids came down to two things: (1) ratios and (2) caregiver stress. There's no such thing as a daycare center with 1:1 ratio, so it'll probably never be as good as a singular caregiver, but in looking for lower ratios, you can diminish the negative effects to a negligible amounts. Furthermore, day care centers pay notoriously low, but if you find an in-home day care with a relaxed caregiver that is limiting the number of kids (and is being paid well), I do think your kids will be perfectly fine. In particular, I on occasion see in-home day cares that that only take in 1 or 2 kids in addition to their own kids and I don't think this is any different than a kid being watched by a SAHM aunt. But the way the article is phrased lacks nuance and tries to suggest that anything beside relative care is a detriment and I do not believe the science is there.
I say that because with literally no scientific basis, she suggests that nannies are worse than familial care, but better than in-home day care. In particular she says:
This absurd to me because she herself notes that there is little data on nannies and that conclusions can't be drawn. But here she is! Drawing a pretty strong conclusion!
Even worse when you read the SINGLE study that that she quotes as her "source" it literally says:
It also goes on to state that:
It LITERALLY says that nannies are better for the behavioral and social development of kids than grandparents.
Why am I bringing this up? Because my thought is that the article attacks group child care in a way that lacks nuance and focuses on the wrong aspects. In particular, it makes it seem like paid care or non-familial care is less than by virtue of being paid care, which isn't the case. In reading through stuff here and there and the sources cited in the article, overwhelmingly good outcomes for kids came down to two things: (1) ratios and (2) caregiver stress. There's no such thing as a daycare center with 1:1 ratio, so it'll probably never be as good as a singular caregiver, but in looking for lower ratios, you can diminish the negative effects to a negligible amounts. Furthermore, day care centers pay notoriously low, but if you find an in-home day care with a relaxed caregiver that is limiting the number of kids (and is being paid well), I do think your kids will be perfectly fine. In particular, I on occasion see in-home day cares that that only take in 1 or 2 kids in addition to their own kids and I don't think this is any different than a kid being watched by a SAHM aunt. But the way the article is phrased lacks nuance and tries to suggest that anything beside relative care is a detriment and I do not believe the science is there.