8 ms·

The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper) The authors seem to be arguing that

by shoo 8y ago

The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper) The authors seem to be arguing that development of non-cognitive skills is important for long-term health, life satisfaction, etc, and that childcare programs that do not measure and attempt to support development of non-cognitive skills may therefore be somewhat harmful. It is possible that some childcare programs may support development of non-cognitive skills, but the Quebec childcare program that they analysed did not. > We find that the Quebec policy [of making non-parental child care much more affordable] > had a lasting negative impact on the non-cognitive skills of exposed children, but no consistent > impact on their cognitive skills. At older ages, program exposure is associated with worsened > health and life satisfaction, and increased rates of criminal activity. Increases in aggression and > hyperactivity are concentrated in boys, as is the rise in the crime rates. > [these findings] provide strong support for the argument that non-cognitive development is a > crucial determinant of the long-term success of child care programs. This suggests that > measuring the impact of child care programs on the non-cognitive development is important. > When a child care program fails to improve non-cognitive development, it may have no > long-standing positive effects on children. > [...] An important outstanding question is whether universally provided child care can have > widespread positive impacts on non-cognitive development, which our results together with > evidence such as Heckman et al. (2013) suggest should lead to long run positive outcomes.

xupybd 8y ago
Yes I think they are saying the lack of non-cognitive skills appears to be what is lacking. But there does seem to be some evidence that those who are in parental care better develop these skills and have better outcomes. I think the tricky part will be demonstrating how to provide these non-cognitive skills outside of parental care. Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work force but this may not pay off in the long term if future generations fail to perform in life.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  I have some real cognitive dissonance with the mixed desires for women to have complete equality in the workplace, and children who are perfectly cared for as though they were in their mother's arms, yet the children can't come to work in many cases for very practical reasons (highly intellectually demanding work settings, high risk work settings, etc). And at the same time, it's all men's fault.
  - pay_more_money 8y ago
    Pay more money for all the desirable jobs, nevermind the undesirable jobs, and don't enslave women under a patriarchy of indentured motherhood. Also, women deserve compensation for entertaining the premise of marriage in all cases, and should retain total autonomy of childcare upon the failure of a marriage, and total purchasing authority, when compensated extra for childcare, after divorce.
    - xupybd 8y ago
      >Pay more money for all the desirable jobs, never mind the undesirable jobs But how? We've found that market economies tend to work the best. These pay based on supply and demand. The other option is a planned economy where you might be able to attempt something like this but all examples of planned economies have resulted in so much suffering I don't think we want to try that again. Who is going to drive the rubbish trucks, clean the toilets, keep the sewers flowing and look after the sick and elderly if we get rid of all the undesirable jobs? Some jobs are horrible to do but we need them done. Evidence that children cared for in the home may have better outcomes than those in child care need not lead to the conclusion that women must be forced into indentured motherhood. It simply means we have a problem to investigate. There might be a better way to do this. But doesn't your comment that women "should retain total autonomy of childcare upon the failure of a marriage" suggest that you think women are the only party responsible for childcare?
      - pay_more_money 8y ago
        Here's a subtle clue: even under tightly controlled, planned social arrangements, for example, when you attempt to bring a criminal to justice, you might sometimes find incentives that create underground market economies. Spooky bribery at a distance, if you will. Surrogate motherhood is rare and problematic, but in some cases there is enough incentive to simply carry a child for a reward, and then exit the parental role. Sometimes, this might even happen with unplanned pregnancies. What's the tipping point that splits the difference between terminating a pregnancy, versus a charade marriage incentivized by court mandated custody and support arrangements that bring justice to an potentially unjust circumstance befalling an unfortunate couple?
tejohnso 8y ago
> [these findings] provide strong support for the argument that non-cognitive development is a crucial determinant of the long-term success of child care programs. Okay so non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care. I think the more interesting question is: Why is there such a difference between government supported child-care and parental care? Not all stay-at-home parents are positive influences. And there are some great government child-care workers. Is it the parent-to-child ratio? Is it counter-productive programming? Is it oversocialization? And why don't these things affect the cognitive skill development just as badly?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care." I really doubt this. FYI I live in Quebec, and on my Highstreet there are a handful of daycares where normal businesses/stores/restaurants would be. Because they are small and common, it seems everyone is only a few hundred meters from their childcare around here. There are so, so many correlating factors that I'm going to say it's really difficult to measure these things. + The amount of marijuana that people smoke has skyrocketed in recent years, and they smoke young here. I know that smoking pot in early years i.e. 13-14 is bad news. + The number of children born to non-married and cohabitation parents is very high these days. + Quebec has a very different culture than the rest of N. America. They are chill here these days. For a lot of complex cultural and political reasons, I would say there is a defeatist, antagonist attitude (for the last 100 years), but in the most recent generation ... it's like they also have a kind of 'given up' attitude. They don't seem to care about much at all. I'm just throwing up some examples, I have no idea what it is, but I suggest that the issues in later education are due to a bunch of factors and that prevalence of childcare isn't really the big one. Maybe, but I doubt it. Also I should add that this 'universal childcare' thing is a huge deal. It really changes things. In the ROC ('Rest of Canada') or the US, it's getting stupid expensive to have children. Here in Quebec ... it seems 'normal' to have kids. Just a few dollars a day. My sister in BC is a Finance Director with 3 kids and she only breaks even on daycare (!!!) essentially doing her job so she still has it when the kids are out. That's insane. All political issues and massive costs/taxes aside ... having cheap, really local daycare is a hugely relevant thing to communities and parents.

by shoo 8y ago

xupybd 8y ago

Yes I think they are saying the lack of non-cognitive skills appears to be what is lacking. But there does seem to be some evidence that those who are in parental care better develop these skills and have better outcomes. I think the tricky part will be demonstrating how to provide these non-cognitive skills outside of parental care. Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work force but this may not pay off in the long term if future generations fail to perform in life.

killjoywashere 8y ago
I have some real cognitive dissonance with the mixed desires for women to have complete equality in the workplace, and children who are perfectly cared for as though they were in their mother's arms, yet the children can't come to work in many cases for very practical reasons (highly intellectually demanding work settings, high risk work settings, etc). And at the same time, it's all men's fault.
- pay_more_money 8y ago
  Pay more money for all the desirable jobs, nevermind the undesirable jobs, and don't enslave women under a patriarchy of indentured motherhood. Also, women deserve compensation for entertaining the premise of marriage in all cases, and should retain total autonomy of childcare upon the failure of a marriage, and total purchasing authority, when compensated extra for childcare, after divorce.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    >Pay more money for all the desirable jobs, never mind the undesirable jobs But how? We've found that market economies tend to work the best. These pay based on supply and demand. The other option is a planned economy where you might be able to attempt something like this but all examples of planned economies have resulted in so much suffering I don't think we want to try that again. Who is going to drive the rubbish trucks, clean the toilets, keep the sewers flowing and look after the sick and elderly if we get rid of all the undesirable jobs? Some jobs are horrible to do but we need them done. Evidence that children cared for in the home may have better outcomes than those in child care need not lead to the conclusion that women must be forced into indentured motherhood. It simply means we have a problem to investigate. There might be a better way to do this. But doesn't your comment that women "should retain total autonomy of childcare upon the failure of a marriage" suggest that you think women are the only party responsible for childcare?
    - pay_more_money 8y ago
      Here's a subtle clue: even under tightly controlled, planned social arrangements, for example, when you attempt to bring a criminal to justice, you might sometimes find incentives that create underground market economies. Spooky bribery at a distance, if you will. Surrogate motherhood is rare and problematic, but in some cases there is enough incentive to simply carry a child for a reward, and then exit the parental role. Sometimes, this might even happen with unplanned pregnancies. What's the tipping point that splits the difference between terminating a pregnancy, versus a charade marriage incentivized by court mandated custody and support arrangements that bring justice to an potentially unjust circumstance befalling an unfortunate couple?

tejohnso 8y ago

> [these findings] provide strong support for the argument that non-cognitive development is a crucial determinant of the long-term success of child care programs. Okay so non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care. I think the more interesting question is: Why is there such a difference between government supported child-care and parental care? Not all stay-at-home parents are positive influences. And there are some great government child-care workers. Is it the parent-to-child ratio? Is it counter-productive programming? Is it oversocialization? And why don't these things affect the cognitive skill development just as badly?

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care." I really doubt this. FYI I live in Quebec, and on my Highstreet there are a handful of daycares where normal businesses/stores/restaurants would be. Because they are small and common, it seems everyone is only a few hundred meters from their childcare around here. There are so, so many correlating factors that I'm going to say it's really difficult to measure these things. + The amount of marijuana that people smoke has skyrocketed in recent years, and they smoke young here. I know that smoking pot in early years i.e. 13-14 is bad news. + The number of children born to non-married and cohabitation parents is very high these days. + Quebec has a very different culture than the rest of N. America. They are chill here these days. For a lot of complex cultural and political reasons, I would say there is a defeatist, antagonist attitude (for the last 100 years), but in the most recent generation ... it's like they also have a kind of 'given up' attitude. They don't seem to care about much at all. I'm just throwing up some examples, I have no idea what it is, but I suggest that the issues in later education are due to a bunch of factors and that prevalence of childcare isn't really the big one. Maybe, but I doubt it. Also I should add that this 'universal childcare' thing is a huge deal. It really changes things. In the ROC ('Rest of Canada') or the US, it's getting stupid expensive to have children. Here in Quebec ... it seems 'normal' to have kids. Just a few dollars a day. My sister in BC is a Finance Director with 3 kids and she only breaks even on daycare (!!!) essentially doing her job so she still has it when the kids are out. That's insane. All political issues and massive costs/taxes aside ... having cheap, really local daycare is a hugely relevant thing to communities and parents.