Clever Kids Consultancy

The first large Australian longitudinal study on the effects of child care on children’s adjustment and achievement indicates that long hours in care, and multiple care arrangements in the early years (for example, the baby or young child would attend a number of different care situations each week such as be with the nanny in the morning, dropped off at long day care during the day and perhaps attend a family day care carer’s home some of the time), were predictors of lower literacy scores.

Multiple care arrangements were also predictive of socio-emotional difficulties, which are indicators of early mental health problems. These difficulties also extended to lower levels of prosocial behaviour, and children who had experienced many changes in care arrangements tended to dislike school more than other children. In layman’s terms, such children are less likely to be cooperative with adults and less likely to be kind to their peers. Long hours in early formal care (e.g. not with family members) were also predictors of poorer adjustment to school. Equally, longer hours of early informal care predicted positive prosocial behaviour and relationship with teachers at school, as did a good relationship with carers and teachers in early care arrangements. What does all this mean for parents of potentially gifted young children? It means that no matter how well you have planned your care arrangements, you really have no control unless you decide to be the primary carer of your child during the early childhood years: nannies may leave, lovely child care workers may be moved to another room or quit, the family day care lady may decide to go back to her former profession. The early childhood years are brief, but incredibly important in terms of its effect on a life span. As we have seen, the wrong sort of care can turn children off school, affect their literacy, their mental health and their popularity with peers and teachers alike. If you would like to read the outcome of this study, it is available at the following link:

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/research_childcare

_school.pdf

This blog was first published on 14/10/09 at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=857:long-hours-in-care-a-multiple-care–poor-school-performance&catid=50:early-childhood-matters&Itemid=90

I went to Macquarie University today to listen to a presentation by Professor Michael Keane, a distinguished finance and economics researcher at the University of Technology. As you may have guessed by now, my interests are somewhat removed from the cold world of ‘human resources’, productivity, and statistics, and the only reason I went to listen to this presentation was the unusual research topic, especially coming from an economist.

Professor Keane’s research was about child care choices and their impact on children’s cognitive achievement. He had worked out a very complicated looking set of variables to examine how children of single mothers fared at school when they had been at home with mum during the preschool years compared with children who had attended care outside the home. His research also considered the IQs of mothers, and the final figures included over 1,400 American children, a very solid sample. When he had explained all the statistics it was time to reveal the findings, and the poor Professor became very apologetic.

He said he could not believe his own findings when he saw the figures, and had tried to twig them a little, but the data would not budge from its position. He said that he had expected that children in care would have better cognitive (eg. thinking-type ability) outcomes at school as a result of having attended care. But no. Instead, there was actually a significant negative finding for children who had not stayed at home with their mothers, especially if they had been in informal care, e.g. with their grandparents (formal care – preschools/long day care -showed no significant findings either way).

This finding contrasts the research I reviewed in my last blog, where children’s social-emotional outcomes were better if they had been cared for by their grandparents in comparison to formal care. Apparently their good influence may not extend to children’s cognitive development. Professor Keane said he had been reproached by women (clever women who came to his lectures) whose children were in care while they listened to him, who could not believe his findings and asked whether he was sure he had not made a mistake.

As he spoke, I could empathise with his concern over the results, especially as he spoke at Macquarie’s Institute of Early Childhood, where many new early childhood teachers are trained each year. One listener asked whether the result would have something to do with the mothers being single. Professor Keane answered that another researcher, Raquel Bernal, had near-identical findings with married women*.

This is not popular research findings, not the type of finding that any early childhood training institution would be looking for, nor findings the Productivity Commission would wish to air. I asked whether the paper had been published. Professor Keane answered no, the journal reviewers were still unhappy about something or other. Who knows, perhaps they are unhappy about the political incorrectness of his findings, adding to the adverse research I wrote about in my last blog. It appears that, although childcare may be good for mothers, it may not be quite so good for the children…

The good Professor summarised his findings with a statement to the effect that clever children (with high IQ mothers who were more likely to return to work because they were able to earn well) would be the most adversely affected by being cared for by others.  Something to consider when looking at child care options for your potentially gifted child!

*Bernal, R. (2008). The effect of maternal employment and child care on children’s cognitive development. International Economic Review, 49, (4), 1173-1209

This blog was first written 25/3/10 and posted at http://nswagtc.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=50&Itemid=90

Research shows that parents are generally correct when they suspect that their child is gifted.  Typically these children are great conversationalists, often using sophisticated language that stops you in your track. They are quick at learning, have amazing memories, and thrive on complexities. But some children I have tested turn out not to be academically gifted, and it is not easy to face the parents and give them the bad news.

Fortunately it does not happen often.  It goes without saying that parents will continue to love their child whether gifted or not, but you can’t blame them for being disappointed. The important thing for parents to remember when they receive such unwelcome news is that academic giftedness is not the only way giftedness can occur, and that their gut feeling could yet prove to be well-founded, as their child may well be gifted in another (yet undiscovered) area. This is especially the case if their child did not learn to read before starting school, and if their child was slow to learn to talk (as was Einstein…and no-one now doubts that he was gifted!). Proficiency in language and fluency in reading are essential abilities to high academic achievement, because academic school subjects, including mathematics, involve both language and reading. Interestingly, dyslexia, a reading/writing disorder, is disproportionately high amongst artists, and similar language based reading and writing problems have also been found amongst inventors. It is therefore no wonder that research has found children gifted in the visual arts to be typically unmotivated to achieve in academic subjects.  So, if you have recently learnt that your child is not academically gifted (as assessed by an IQ test), and your child’s creativity and love of complexity continues to astonish you, your family and friends, look out for non-academic interests as these may eventually become your child’s area of giftedness.