Daycare: The Worst Thing for Kids Except Their Own Parents, Their Genetics, and Whatever Else We Forgot to Check
Posted by KTK

The New York Times plays its infuriating game again today, trumpeting a major study on child-raising with a headline that presents the data almost exactly backwards and gives “family values” conservatives every convenient falsehood they could have asked for.

What’s the scoop? Better read the headline and the alarming first paragraph of this major story:

Poor Behavior Is Linked to Time in Day Care  

A much-anticipated report from the largest and longest-running study of American child care has found that keeping a preschooler in a day care center for a year or more increased the likelihood that the child would become disruptive in class — and that the effect persisted through the sixth grade.

Wow! That message is pretty clear, and pretty ominous: farming your kids out to daycare for even one year causes long-term bad behavior! (Subtext: The children of women who dared to have a life of their own are doomed to delinquency, and it’s all their mothers’ fault.)

The data must be pretty bad. Let’s see just how bad:

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.

Oh. Anything else?

they also found that time spent in high-quality day care centers was correlated with higher vocabulary scores through elementary school.

Oh. Well, at least we know, now. Good to get some hard data:

Others [sic] experts were quick to question the results. The researchers could not randomly assign children to one kind of care or another; parents chose the kind of care that suited them. That meant there was no control group, so determining cause and effect was not possible. And some said that measures of day care quality left out important things.

Oh.

So what they really meant was:

Poor Behavior Is Linked to Poor Parenting and Genetics

A much-anticipated report from the largest and longest-running study of American child care has found that keeping a preschooler in a day care center for a year or more produces healthy children whose behavior is well within the normal range. Some kids do marginally better for about 6 or 7 years if their mommies sacrifice their entire careers and autonomy to follow their children around all day every day, but that’s obviously ridiculous and there’s no apparent need to do so. Daycare’s influence on child behavior ranks at least third in level of significance, trailing by far the influence of the parents themselves whether or not their children were in daycare. There is no evidence the effect of daycare persists beyond the sixth grade, though, as a random passerby who isn’t a drooling moron noted, “Bad parents and bad genes last forever”.

By the way, they didn’t use a control group and don’t know which types of daycare are relevant.

We already knew all this, but that didn’t stop us from boldfacing the one aspect of this study that had the least influence, over the shortest period, as if it was news.

We also didn’t bother to highlight the part about improved language skills.

It’s not like they simply stumbled into this by mistake. They had to go to extra effort to get from “The effect was slight, and well within the normal range . . . parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence” to “keeping a preschooler in a day care center for a year or more increased the likelihood that the child would become disruptive”. They deliberately dug their way down to the third-most-significant effect mentioned, which produces results “well within the normal range”, and then make that their headline. Of the three, that just happens to be the one that makes women look bad and will be used to criticize them and restrict their independence.

Indeed, the backlash is already beginning. Ann Althouse links the article as part of a post on bad schools; her entire content is to quote the first paragraph verbatim, without quoting or acknowledging any of the following take-backs. Insane alien-haired misogynist “Vox Day” quotes both the opening and the part about “normal range”, spares not the slightest moment to contemplate the contradiction, and then concludes that people who put their children in daycare would support Satan worship (I’m not kidding; it’s not clear if he is). Did the Times expect anything different?

Feed the nutjobs even the most obviously false nonsense, flattering to their prejudices, and they will inflate it into another right-wing myth without the slightest critical reflection. Tell them it’s false right in the second ‘graf, and it makes no difference. Give them an inflammatory headline and an ass-backwards lede, and then present the actual data, and which parts do you think they’ll start repeating and quoting?

This isn’t the first time the Times has taken on the Fox News role, but somehow I still find it in me to be disappointed.

[UPDATE: It isn’t only the Times. Echidne of the Snakes notes that almost-identical headlines are found, among other places, on Forbes.com, the Daily Telegraph, and, most disappointing, the Discovery Channel Website. It’s almost like there’s a . . . systematic bias against independent women . . . in society and the press, that defies scientific research undermining its conceptual foundations. Huh. Someone should look into that.]

March 26th, 2007 | General, School, Culture, Education, News & Current Events | 7 comments

More Thoughts on Gore/Inhofe
Posted by tgirsch

Just a couple of things that continue to bug me on this:

  1. Some people (like commenter Fred, here) are accusing Gore of being a hypocrite. But I have to wonder, on what basis? If you can give an example of Gore advocating that we widely mandate a standard, but that he should be personally exempt from that standard, then sure. But to my knowledge, he has done no such thing. This is exactly the same kind of flawed logic that suggests that anyone who believes we should increase taxes should voluntarily be paying more taxes now, or that anyone who supports the Iraq war should personally volunteer to go fight in it (or, at the very least, voluntarily pay extra taxes to help pay for it). But if Gore were a hypocrite, then isn’t Inhofe at least as bad for putting forth a pledge that he himself would never even consider signing?
  2. Commenter Ted suggests that Gore could set a better example by “downsizing his residence,” but this suggestion ignores what would happen to the existing residence after he left. If Gore moves out, and the new occupant reverts back to non-green power sources, what you wind up with is a net increase in carbon output, which would be exactly counter-productive. Sure, Gore could try to draw up some sort of contract that requires the new occupant to continue using green power, but how would that be any different from Gore just staying put? The other option would be to raze the house and replace it with smaller, more efficient ones; but I’m not sure what the net result would be given the energy required for (and pollution generated by) such an endeavor.

March 26th, 2007 | Politics, Environment | 7 comments

Girsch’s Law of Sports Fandom
Posted by tgirsch

Law: You are only allowed to choose a sports team as your favorite team under the following circumstances:

  • You were born or raised in the team’s home market. (This includes large expanded markets like the Cardinals and Braves have.)
  • You currently live in the team’s home market, or lived there for a period of years.
  • You would like to live in the team’s home market.
  • If a college team, it’s your alma mater.
  • Added: You adopted the team as a “lovable loser” squad when they sucked, and remained loyal to them through a lot of sucky years. e.g., Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
  • Added: You live where the team has (or had) its minor league affiliate or training camp. e.g., Louisville residents could root for either the Cardinals or the Reds.

Under no circumstances may you choose a team from a city you hate to be your favorite. (Example: My brother roots for the Detroit Lions, but would never willingly live anywhere near Detroit. This is forbidden.)

You are allowed to make situational exceptions, like when two teams from cities you hate are playing, you’re allowed to pick one over the other. But in that circumstance, you’re really more rooting against one team than for the other.

March 26th, 2007 | Sports, I do too have a life | 30 comments