4 ms·
Guess you didn't read the original article, because it mentions the exact program you linked towards the bottom about Quebec. One negative found was > But youn
by ativzzz 7y ago
Guess you didn't read the original article, because it mentions the exact program you linked towards the bottom about Quebec. One negative found was
> But young Canadians who were eligible for the program experienced, as teenagers, “a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction” relative to Canadians from other provinces.
So a success for parents and for the economy, but not for the well being of the kids.
- jperras 7y agoI did read the article. It didn't link to the CityLab article that I posted, which I found to be a bit easier to read. If you read the meta-analysis paper that they link to that describes the "not so good for the well being of the kids", you'll see that they're comparing children that attend daycare to children that are wholly raised at home with one or more parents: > A recent view of effects of previous child care exposure on outcomes in adolescence suggest that more hours in child care in general does not affect test scores, but has a negative effect on non-cognitive outcomes, such as impulsivity and risk-taking (Vandell et al., 2010). These negative findings have nothing at all to do with subsidized vs. non-subsidized childcare.
- dang 7y ago"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ativzzz 7y agoYou're right, the way I structured that takes away from what I was trying to say. Thanks for your hard work.