Mama is pissed off by the New York Times again.

Here's the sort of news story that pisses me off.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/us/26center.html?ex=1332648000&en=f291ce3ee416425f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

The BIG headline reads: "Poor Behavior Is Linked to Time in Day Care"
But then, even a cursory look at the facts (within the very article the headline is referring to) shows that the headline is false for the most part.

"The effect was slight, and well within the normal range for healthy children, the researchers found. And as expected, parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence on how children behaved. "

...and then further disproved by this statement: "On the positive side, they also found that time spent in high-quality day care centers was correlated with higher vocabulary scores through elementary school."

So, let me get this straight. It's a slight effect. If you're a good parent - teaching your child to be respectful, to listen and obey authority figures such as their school teachers and your genetics are such that you are or were a compliant child and your child is also compliant (as opposed to defiant or oppositional) - day care or not, your child will likely not be disruptive in school.

But that's not what the headline says. Nor does the headline read: "High Quality Day Care Correlated with Higher Vocabulary Scores; Poorly parented kids with genetic behavioral disorders may be disruptive in school" ... which is probably far closer to the truth.

The headline is intended to play on the very guilt and fear most working parents already have. The: "Am I doing the right thing?" or "Should we move where it's less expensive, so we can have just one income... but then, the schools aren't as good?" Because folks, it's usually a trade off. It's not like all these mothers and fathers are working just for the fun of it. Usually they HAVE to work in order to provide for their children. That's just how it goes these days.

Moreover, what really burns me up is this sort of speculation in the article:

"The authors and other experts argue that preschool peer groups probably influence children in different ways from one-on-one attention. In large groups of youngsters, disruption can be as contagious as silliness, studies have found, while children can be calmed by just the sight of their own mother. "

Note the word: MOTHER. And by the way, just the sight of me does NOT calm my children. What a load of crap. Even my most withering glance sometimes just gets an eye roll from my kids. It's the frightening tone of my voice and the fact that I'm counting: "One....Two.... Three..." and they know when I get to three that they're going to get a negative consequence to their misbehavior that would end that silliness or disruption.

But seriously, the article mentions mothers more than once. No mention of fathers, because apparently it's not their fault if their children are in daycare. It's those mothers. The ones who think they can "have it all" by working AND having children. How dare we? Shouldn't we know that by attempting to work outside the home we'll be shortchanging the future of America? Creating more aggressive children? Granted, potentially those children will have greater school-readiness and better vocabulary scores if they've been in a good pre-school day care - but still, we're hurting these children with our selfish desire to work outside of the home.

Chuh!

Here's my thought: I pay a ton for good day care. I feel blessed every day that we can pay for good day care - and think that ALL working parents should be able to afford it. Ah... but it's supply and demand, isn't it? So, what's the solution?

Highly paid (highly government subsidized), highly trained excellent day care for all, free of cost to all parents who can prove outside employment. This ought to be a government provided benefit. The child to care giver ratio should be 1 : 2 for children under 12 months, 1: 3 until 33 months, and 1:5 from 33 months thru age 5.

We should hire retirees/grandparents who want to hold children and just read to them, we should hire young mothers who are attending college at night, we should hire teenagers for after school jobs who want to play on a playground with a group of rambunctious toddlers... we should hire anyone who loves chidren and is willing to submit themselves to extensive training and a deep background check to prove they aren't a pervert.

I hope to God that some day instead of jobs at McDonalds my teens will be able to get after-school jobs at a "Toddler Center" or nursery school.

Other countries (Japan, Netherlands, China, Singapore, Belgium, France) do this - why are we so far behind in this area? If we truly have reached the point in time when we need every adult man and woman working productively in order to sustain our national economy then we seriously need to be re-thinking child care and child care subsidies.

Moreover, I never want to hear a repeat of this 1950s "Leave it to Beaver"-esque crap again. Mothers work outside the home people and have done so in increasing numbers for nearly a century now, get over it. In 2007 half the workforce is female. Half or more of that female workforce is probably a caregiver to a child or elderly adult. Times have changed and it's almost never an option for a family to get by on a single income. Stop funding studies to prove the "damage" to children and start looking for creative solutions.