Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us [Hardcover]

Brian C. Robertson (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 25, 2003

The central issue of daycare is often framed in a way that pits working moms against stay-at-home moms, and feminists against traditional families. But the real conflict, Brian C. Robertson shows in this carefully researched book, is between all parents and the burgeoning day care establishment itself-a multimillion dollar lobby with a vested interest in the expansion of subsidized day care services. Robertson shows how this establishment works to expand its power and silence its critics.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Day Care Deception amounts to a crushing indictment of the day-care industry." --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

About the Author

Brian C Robertson is a Kohler Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, and has written extensively on family policy issues. His articles have appeared in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 214 pages
• Publisher: Encounter Books (September 25, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1893554678
• ISBN-13: 978-1893554672
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (17 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,354,269 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

40 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars hooray for honest research, December 24, 2003

By A Customer

This review is from: Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us (Hardcover)

I am a graduate student researching the negative effects of maternal absence on infant biology and psychology. I have been approached numerous times by fellow grad students and a few professors, warning me that my research might make some moms "feel guilty," and therefore maybe I shouldn't do the research. My response is that moms are adults who can take care of their own emotions and make their own choices. Infants and toddlers are stuck with the choices their mothers make. Why should I not do research to protect moms? Shouldn't we know what's happening to our children?

This book was a breath of fresh air -- at last, someone has the guts to print the real data. Funny thing is, I consider myself very liberal, and an active feminist. I am pro-choice, and very much for working moms -- as long as those moms take those few years off to spend with their developing children (or, find a way to work at home). I am also for paternity leave.

All this is to say that as a scientist, a liberla, and a feminist, I applaud this book. This is not a "conservative" book, it's for everyone who should know the truth about what's happening to our kids. Tough if it makes parents uncomfortable. Do what's best for your kids, not what's convenient for you.

52 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Day Care May Be Harmful to Children and, August 13, 2003

By A Customer

This review is from: Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us (Hardcover)

Day Care Deception provides a focused view of a child-rearing practice that has heretofore escaped much-needed scrutiny. Utilizing current research and insights of his previous book, Forced Labor [There's No Place Like Work], Robertson does a masterful job in presenting a fair but critical examination of the impact of raising children in center-based day care. Day Care Deception's primary value is in establishing the following facts: 1) Parents, especially lower-income parents, consistently say they prefer raising their children at home, or the care of close relatives or trusted friends, not in full-time, center-based care; 2) day-care advocates have successfully obtained federal tax breaks and corporate perks for affluent parents who do drop their infants and small children at center-based care; 3) political leaders in both parties should reconsider policies that hurt those families who sacrifice money and opportunity to raise their chilren at home; and 4) lastly, and most importantly, center-based care is generally physically and psychologically harmful to infants and small children.

The facts about day care are not comforting. Thirty years ago, few parents would ever consider dropping off infants and toddlers for 35-40 hours a week so parents could maintain an affluent lifestyle, but we are doing that today. We tell ourselves false rationalizations like "it helps them socialize," or "they love the toys and interactions." The truth is just the opposite: small children want to be with their mothers and fathers, not with near-strangers, no matter how well-intentioned. As one person in the book asks: if we could all come back as small children, where we would prefer to be raised? At home, or in a day-care center? The answer is obvious to most of us, but somehow we aren't willing to provide that home for our own children. The excuse of economics doesn't justify our actions: most children placed in day care have affluent parents, not struggling working mothers who have no choice.

Families in America are under siege, as Robertson notes. The economic, fiscal and cultural factors that made center-based day care so prevalant are fascinating, especially for those of us who remember the days before extensive day care. I recommend reading both Robertson's books to fully appreciate that history; his previous description of maternal advocacy, and the "family wage" in the feminist movement of the early 20th century is highly instructive. In addition, the developments contributing to the baby boom of 1946-1964 deserve careful consideration.

Day Care Deception is well timed. With the fight over gay marriage, judicial activism regarding privacy, and other issues affecting families and society, day care can and should be carefully evaluated. Politicians in both parties carelessly support "affordable day care", without being forced to explain why other families should pay the cost for this harmful practice. Full-time, center-based day care is not good for children. Whether this surrogate child rearing is morally and culturally justified is a critical question to answer. To date, too many political and corporte leaders have been allowed to act like they are "childrens' advocates" when they prompote day care. It is clear that many of them are not primarily interested in helping children, but in fact prefer governmental intrustion, family restructuring, or private profit.

Reading this book made me grateful to my own mother who raised my sister and me at home in the 1950s and 1960s, and my father who provided that home. Today, that choice is extremely difficult. Many parents today are valiantly resisting cultural trends, suffering financial losses and wrongfully paying taxes for others' day, to raise their own children and avoid full-time day care. Those parents should read this book, as should other parents interested in childrens' welfare. It will help them appreciate the moral value in raising their own children, rather than relinquishing that duty and joy to others.

37 of 38 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars In Defense of Parenting, June 14, 2004

By 

William Muehlenberg (Melbourne Australia) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us (Hardcover)

We are currently witnessing a grand social experiment, the results of which are not fully in as yet. But the data that is coming in is not good. We are allowing an entire generation of babies and young children to be raised by strangers. While adults might benefit from such arrangements, the well-being of children is being put at risk.

That is the sobering conclusion of a new volume by a research fellow at the Washington-based Family Research Council. With extensive documentation Robertson demonstrates how extended periods of day care are harming our children.

Robertson shows how feminist ideology, coupled with a sympathetic media and a cowardly academy, have managed to convince many that parenting is too important to be left to mere parents, that bureaucrats know better than mom and dad, and that day care centers are in fact good for children.

All three of these emphases are incorrect. But the growth of the day care industry is hard to counter. In the US, federal subsidies to the child care market rocketed from $2 billion in 1965 to $15 billion in 2000. And as more and more mothers enter the paid work force (most because of economic necessity, not personal preference) the day care juggernaut races onwards.

These social trends have resulted in a devaluing of motherhood, a weakening of the family unit, and most importantly, negative outcomes for our children. The harmful effects of extended periods of day care include higher rates of illness, greater chance of sexual abuse, higher rates of aggression, and greater risk of antisocial personality disorders.

The emotional, psychological and physical harm to children who spend lengthy amounts of time in day care has been well documented for some decades now. Yet the social science evidence is often attacked, covered up or ignored. Those who try to present the evidence are personally abused and vilified. It is just not politically correct to tell the truth on this issue.

The story of researcher Jay Belsky is a case in point. As an early proponent of day care, he was the darling of feminists and academia. But his research caused him to have a change of heart, and when he started to publish data showing negative consequences, he was furiously opposed.

Although he sought to be as cautious and restrained as possible, the child care establishment and its supporters distorted his findings and blackballed his research. He quickly became persona non grata in the eyes of many. Robertson carefully chronicles this and similar episodes in the day care wars.

Robertson reviews the studies which show how early day care harms the mother-infant bond which is so important in a child's development. Of course defenders of day care put a different spin on the findings. Children in day care are not more aggressive, simply more "independent". And they even try to say that if such aggression exists, it is a virtue, not a vice.

Moreover, they argue that children do better socially and educationally when in day care. But the solid research on these matters points in the other direction. Robertson cites many studies showing how children are disadvantaged on the academic and social levels, when kept in day care.

He also notes that when a study does come out which suggests that children do well, even better, in day care, it is always front page news. But when the more numerous and reliable studies come along, warning of the negative consequences, they are buried in the back pages of the press, if they appear at all.

Robertson competently takes on a number of myths about day care. For example, he challenges the myth that the poor need, and want, day care. He documents how in the US, the families most likely to use center-based day care are those earning $75,000 a year. Surveys show that the vast majority of low-income moms prefer to have their children stay at home in their early years. He even demonstrates that moms who want to put their children into day care are "atypical".

The fact that so many parents do resort to day care is evidence of economic policies that make it very hard on single-income families. Instead of putting more money into day care, we should be restructuring our economic policies so that those families who choose to let their infants stay at home in the early years can do so.

But much of the modern corporate world is in league with feminist ideology here. Both identify women's interests with "independence from husbands and family, and a corresponding greater dependence on corporation and government". Earlier feminists recognised the importance of the home and of motherhood. Modern feminists do not, and much of the free market is happy to side with the new version of things.

Thus Robertson calls for an overhaul of both government and corporate practices, to reflect the desire of most mothers to be at home with their babies. His concluding chapter offers suggestions on how parents can reclaim parenting. Social and taxation policies must be reworked to allow for genuine parental choice. Those parents who wish to look after their own children should be given the financial incentives to do so.

This book provides the data and rationale for why we need to rethink our priorities and revamp of policies. Bureaucrats and others will not like it, but most parents will welcome it. Let the debate continue.