来这儿
看帖
/ huaren

是送daycare好,还是全职在家里带娃好?分享一篇我觉得比较有帮助的客观的评论文章 查看原帖

likeasong
1楼
最近一直在考虑什么时候把娃送daycare的问题,也看了不少文章。基本上都是讲观点,有科学研究的不多(我理解做这种研究不容易)。当然任何选择都是一个compromise,很多时候可能压根就没有选择。但是知道一下不同选项的好处坏处,还是有意义的。
我要推荐的这片文章,本身不是科学研究,而是一个和我们一样有困惑但是有点钻研精神的妈妈在做了大量文献搜索后做的总结。她的问题是:什么是对孩子最好的?(注意,这并不代表不考虑妈妈和家庭的实际情况)我喜欢这片文章的原因主要是她的态度客观。她自己已经在这个问题上做了决定了,不可逆了。她自己也说一开始看文章时很难客观,因为肯定会跟自己的实际联系起来。但是最终她的态度我觉得是客观的。当然我没有去读她谈到的科学研究原文,所以我不能100%肯定她客观。但是很多时候从讲话的语气,做结论的方法和是否两个对立方的数据都谈论,能看出来。

好了,文章我贴在二楼。链接在这里

[url=http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/08/day_care_in_the_united_states_is_it_good_or_bad_for_kids.html]http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/08/day_care_in_the_united_states_is_it_good_or_bad_for_kids.html[/url]

贴一下主要结论,作者从她的文献研究中发现,daycare有好处也有坏处,好处主要是在认知能力发展上,坏处是让小孩变得更aggressive和impulsive。
likeasong
2楼
In its cover story a few weeks ago, the New York Times Magazine followed up with nearly two dozen mothers who had decided, a decade ago, to walk away from successful professional careers to stay home with their kids. Although none of these moms outright regret their choices, many wish they had at least continued to work part-time. Career options dry up, it seems, the longer you forgo them.

For me—the parenting columnist—the elephant in the room when I read the article was: So what was best for their kids? Parents often decide to stay home because they think doing so is better for their children. (Sure, there are plenty of other reasons, too, such as the desire to be around one’s offspring and, oh yeah, the crippling costs of child care.) But is this notion—that kids do better when a parent, typically a mother, stays home with them—actually true?

Ooh boy, does the Internet have a lot to say about this. But few articles I found presented much scientific evidence; it was hard to distinguish the trustworthy from the tripe. I did, however, find far more articles written by women who defended day care—sometimes very emotionally—than who warned against it. Was this imbalance, I wondered, driven by evidence or rationalization?

I dug into the science to find out. There’s quite a lot of research on the issue, which isn’t surprising considering how ubiquitous child care is in this country: According to the U.S. Census, 16 percent of babies under the age of 1 are enrolled in center-based day care, while 26 percent of 1- to 2-year-olds are. Adding in family-based day care—day care out of someone's home—and nannies, 33 percent of children under age 5 are regularly cared for by nonrelatives. This figure doesn’t even include the 18 percent of kids who have multiple child care arrangements.

Before I tell you about the findings, I need to share a bit about my own situation. My son is in full-time day care. (Otherwise, you wouldn’t be reading this.) I tried my damnedest not to let my own situation cloud my reporting for this column, but it’s hard to objectively assess research on an issue about which one has already made an irreversible decision. I read studies I didn’t like and subconsciously tried to pick them apart; I read studies I liked and didn’t want to do the same; I was brought close to tears in interviews; other times I felt enormous waves of relief. Ultimately, after coming to peace with my child care decisions (and I’ll tell you how I did that later), I think I assessed the literature clearly, or at least as clearly as journalist who happens to also be a mother possibly could.

What I found is that day care can be good (primarily for cognitive development), and day care can be bad (by making kids more aggressive and impulsive)—and the good seems to become less helpful the more educated and well-off parents are. But this is important: It’s impossible to predict how day care is going to affect an individual child, like, you know, your actual kid. It may have certain effects on average, but most researchers I talked to speculate that its effects are concentrated in a subset of children. “It’s not going to mean that each child is going to have 0.05 percent probability of being more aggressive,” explains Aletha Huston, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin, who was involved in one of the largest, longest-running studies on the effects of child care on development, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, which followed more than 1,000 kids from infancy to age 15 starting in 1991. “What probably is represented here is that some kids are responding in that way, and a lot of kids aren’t.”

As Huston’s comment also suggests, the effects, on average, are small. What’s far, far, far more important than child care in shaping your kid’s future is what her home life is like. Jay Belsky, a child development expert at the University of California, Davis, who was also involved in the NICHD study, put it to me this way: “If you were a fetus and the good Lord came to you and said, ‘I can give you great quality day care and a lousy family, or a great family but lots of lousy day care,’ you choose the latter, not the former.” Yet in the same breath, Belsky added that even though the negative effects of day care are modest, “one needs to be careful about dismissing them.”

Let’s tease out these positive and negative effects, when they happen, and what might be causing them. Multiple studies, including the NICHD study, have found that, after statistically adjusting for the effects of social class and other potential confounders, kids enrolled in high quality child care given by nonrelatives develop slightly better cognitive and language skills—as measured at various points in their lives, all the way up through age 15—than do kids in low-quality care. These beneficial effects are more pronounced for low-income kids than children from more affluent families and for kids in center-based care than other types of care. The NICHD study also compared children in child care to children who stayed at home with their mothers for the first three years of their lives, and the ones at home fared somewhere in the middle: They scored better on verbal comprehension tests at age 3 than did kids in low-quality care, but they scored worse on language tests at age 2 than kids in medium- and high-quality care. Interestingly, studies suggest that the cumulative amount of time kids spend in care makes little difference when it comes to scores; what matters is whether they go at all and if it’s good or bad. That said, there were differences when the NICHD researchers parsed out the ages for which child care was used. Kids who spent a lot of time in care in infancy had worse academic achievement at age 4½ than did kids who spent little time in care in infancy, but kids who spent more time in care during their toddler years scored better on language tests than kids who were home more during their toddler years. Is your head spinning yet?

Obviously one key question is what it means that kids in higher quality care develop “slightly better cognitive and language skills.” I asked around, and although researchers were loath to give specifics, Belsky said it might mean a few points on a standardized test. “Good quality care wasn’t changing the course of mighty rivers and turning average kids into geniuses,” he explains. Again, although the effects are small on average, it’s possible that some kids experience more significant benefits. As for what distinguishes good care from bad: One crucial factor is how caregivers interact with the kids. Are they responsive and sensitive? Do they get down on the floor with the children or are they always standing in the back, looking bored? Higher quality care also tends to have a higher ratio of adults per child, fewer children per group, and staff is typically more highly educated.

As for the downside of day care: several studies, including those using the NICHD’s data, have found that the more time kids spend in day care (and especially center-based care rather than, say, family day care), the more behavioral problems they develop later as reported by teachers. These effects include being more disobedient through age 4½ (and through the sixth grade for kids from center-based care); having poorer academic habits and social skills in the third grade; and being more impulsive and taking more risks at age 15. Again, the experts I talked to couldn't give specifics on how big these effects were, but one reassured me that the behavior of day care kids is still usually well within the normal range. Many—but not all—of the studies suggest that these problems develop even after high quality care, so quantity really seems to be the crux of the problem, yet there doesn't seem to be a threshold where these effects start, either—it's not that 20 hours a week doesn't cause any problems but 22 does. Some studies do, however, suggest that certain kids—those, for instance, with “difficult” temperaments—are more sensitive to quality than others, in that they are more likely than other kids to develop behavioral problems from low-quality care and can even glean social benefits from high-quality care.

It’s important to keep in mind some of the (major) limitations of these studies. They were designed to find associations, not cause-and-effect relationships. Parents who use day care differ in many ways from parents who don’t. Yes, there are stay-at-home moms found in all income brackets, and both poor and affluent families put kids in day care. Still, on average, parents who use day care tend to have higher incomes and fewer kids than those who don’t. They are “much more advantaged in almost every way,” says Margaret Burchinal, a senior scientist in the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also involved in the NICHD study. Affluent families tend to enroll their kids in higher quality day care, too (although don’t assume your day care is awesome just because you’re paying a fortune for it: The majority of day care in this country is mediocre).

This means that studies on the effects of child care compare different types of families to one another, not just differences in child care use—and as I mentioned before, the former is a much more significant influence on kids than the latter. Although studies try to control for the impact of education and income and the like, this so-called selection bias “is a huge factor,” Burchinal says, and it’s unclear, exactly, how these confounders might impact results. On the one hand, one could imagine that the better home life of advantaged kids might mask or compensate for the negative effects of day care, but on the other hand, the benefits of group care may be smaller for these kids, too (for more on this idea, read my preschool column). Interestingly, when researchers compared how well children fared if their mothers did or did not go back to work before their first birthday and then broke results down by race, they found that full-time work in the first year by white, non-Hispanic mothers was associated with poorer cognitive development in their kids through the first grade, but that full-time work by African-American mothers was not. It’s unclear exactly why.

It’s easy to imagine why day care might boost language scores—I know my kid interacts with lots of people all day long. But the causes of the negative effects are still a head scratcher. Day care doesn’t, for instance, seem to disrupt the mother-child attachment bond. One possible answer Belsky provides is group size: The NICHD data suggest that the more kids a child spends time with in day care, the more unruly he becomes, but the evidence on this isn’t clear-cut, either. Huston notes the types of kids in a child’s group might make a difference—if your kid is spending time with a bunch of brats, he might turn into a brat too. Other work suggests that America's heavy use of early day care (we're one of the few countries with parental leave policies requiring kids to be put into care as young infants) could be a problem, since good baby and toddler care requires a high ratio of staff to kids and centers aren't always willing to pay for that. Or, others say, maybe there's just something about the cultural climate in the U.S. that makes day care more harmful here, because studies have shown that day care in Norway, which has much more supportive family policies (and better day care), causes few, if any, social problems. One of Belsky’s concerns, which is backed by a study, is that the negative effects of day care here in the U.S. might compound in grade school, in that classrooms comprised mostly of kids from day care might be poorer learning environments than classrooms made up mostly of kids who stayed at home, because all the little behavioral effects will add up and teachers will end up spending their time trying to control their students rather than, you know, teaching.

So what’s a parent to take from all this—particularly one whose child is in day care all the time? My first instinct was to cry; my second was to attach a camera to my son’s shirt to see what his days were really like; my third was to get really, really pissed at our government for not doing more to ensure that U.S. child care is higher quality. (U.S. child care workers earn less than janitors and amusement park attendants. Outrageous, right?) But there’s another aspect to this body of research that I haven’t mentioned yet, and it’s reassuring, at least to me. In addition to collecting data on child care use and income and the like, researchers with the NICHD also asked mothers—both those who used day care and those who did not—questions about how they felt about day care. Should a mom stay home with their kids, they asked, or should she feel comfortable using group care and going back to work? When moms said it was better for mothers to stay home with their kids, and these mothers did stay home with their kids, their children fared very well. When moms felt that it is OK to work and put kids in child care, and these moms did work and put their kids in child care, their kids did great too. In other words, “when the mother’s choice was congruent with what she wanted and believed, children did well,” Burchinal says. What’s best for you, then, may well be what’s best for your kids, too.
LQLOVENK
3楼
markmark
金马2014
4楼
markmark
likeasong
5楼
贴一下主要结论,作者从她的文献研究中发现,daycare有好处也有坏处,好处主要是在认知能力发展上,坏处是在让小孩变得更aggressive和impulsive。 “Day care can be good (primarily for cognitive development), and day care can be bad (by making kids more aggressive and impulsive)—and the good seems to become less helpful the more educated and well-off parents are. But this is important: It’s impossible to predict how day care is going to affect an individual child, like, you know, your actual kid. It may have certain effects on average, but most researchers I talked to speculate that its effects are concentrated in a subset of children."
yogurtfan_ca
6楼
thank you sharing, this is helpful!
DQ是个小怪兽
7楼
mark回家细看
freys
8楼
谢谢分享。我觉得结论挺可靠的,daycare的负面影响主要还是由于宝宝在dc激素水平会升高,所以导致各种behavioural问题。当然有的宝宝适应得好,老师很caring,爸爸妈妈也很给力,大概可以抵消这个影响。 其实我一直有的一个问题是,像我们的宝宝需要学英语的,也是个问题。晚上的话如果语言pickup太慢也会影响其他方面,这种影响也许会是持久的。之前我看了有关压力激素水平的研究打算等到3岁,不过现在也拿不准了。所以我打算再观望一下什么时候送我娃,不过好在要送的dc特别caring,也允许大人陪着到适应为止。
likeasong
9楼
谢谢分享。我觉得结论挺可靠的,,所以导致各种behavioural问题。当然有的宝宝适应得好,老师很caring,爸爸妈妈也很给力,大概可以抵消这个影响。 其实我一直有的一个问题是,像我们的宝宝需要学英语的,也是个问题。晚上的话如果语言pickup太慢也会影响其他方面,这种影响也许会是持久的。之前我看了有关压力激素水平的研究打算等到3岁,不过现在也拿不准了。所以我打算再观望一下什么时候送我娃,不过好在要送的dc特别caring,也允许大人陪着到适应为止。 [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68352993#68352993][/url]
这个不知道有没有相应的研究?这片文章里没有给出原因,只是说,the causes of the negative effects are still a head scratcher。
freys
10楼
嗯嗯有的,这方面有很多,比如:Vermeer, H. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Children's elevated cortisol levels at daycare: A review and meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 390-401.
[url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200606000421]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200606000421[/url]

Abstract

We reviewed nine studies in which children's cortisol levels at center daycare were assessed. Our first hypothesis, concerning intraindividual differences in cortisol levels across home and daycare settings, was also tested in a meta-analysis. Our main finding was that at daycare children display higher cortisol levels compared to the home setting. Diurnal patterns revealed significant increases from morning to afternoon, but at daycare only. The combined effect size for seven pertinent studies (n = 303) was r = .18 (CI .06–.29, p = .003). We examined all papers on possible associations between cortisol levels and quality of care, and the influences of age, gender, and children's temperament. Age appeared to be the most significant moderator of this relation. It was shown that the effect of daycare attendance on cortisol excretion was especially notable in children younger than 36 months. We speculate that children in center daycare show elevated cortisol levels because of their stressful interactions in a group setting.

freys
11楼
还有这篇是讲quality的: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16784501]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16784501[/url] Child Care Health Dev. 2006 Jul;32(4):453-66. Children's cortisol levels and quality of child care provision. Sims M1, Guilfoyle A, Parry TS. Author information Abstract BACKGROUND: Cortisol levels are increasingly being used as an indicator of stress levels. Research suggests that children who attend child care demonstrate higher cortisol levels than children in their homes, suggesting that child care acts as a risk factor for poor child outcomes. However, it is also suggested that quality influences outcomes. METHODS: Cortisol levels were measured through samples of saliva taken from children (3-5 years of age) attending long-day care centres in Perth, Western Australia. Quality of the programme was measured using industry national quality assurance indicators designed for child care centres. The analysis employed a 2 (time of collection: average am cortisol, average pm cortisol) by 3 (centre quality: high, satisfactory, unsatisfactory) split plot ANOVA with repeated measures on the time factor. RESULTS: Cortisol levels of children attending high-quality programmes demonstrated a decline across the child care day. Levels in children attending unsatisfactory programmes demonstrated an increase across the day. CONCLUSIONS: Although we do not yet know how high, and for how long, cortisol levels need to be elevated for risk of undesirable outcomes to increase, this research signals the importance of emphasizing the need for high-quality care for young children.
rabbitsugar
12楼
这个high quality daycare到底有什么标准啊
Imcindy
13楼
看到这么专业的文章头有点晕,为了娃硬啃一下
bellamia
14楼
有人研究上班的我们的cortisol level吗?人活着能没有stress吗?想知道这种无聊的research哪里拿的funding
happy_boba
15楼
回复 [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68351018#68351018]2楼likeasong的帖子[/url] mark快快快快快快快快快快快快快快快快快快快快
likeasong
16楼
有人研究上班的我们的cortisol level吗?人活着能没有stress吗?想知道这种无聊的research哪里拿的funding [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68354559#68354559][/url]
我相信有更多的研究是关于上班的成人,我的直觉是研究成人比研究小孩起码采集数据要容易得多。
人活着肯定有stress,但是不理解为什么这样就说明这种研究无聊。直观上来说,如果压力太大,人体的正常运作是受影响的。
Ricola
17楼
我就想知道这个cortisol level对娃日后个性品格各方面的影响有定论吗?
py45084508
18楼
在家说汉语的孩子在3岁无论如何得送吧,以后大了语言跟不上孩子也会自卑的
milany
19楼
看完以后好像找不到什么takeaway message呀,她说的好处和坏处都不确定。她说上daycare能提高认知能力,但又说上daycare的家庭比不上的条件普遍要好(They are “much more advantaged in almost every way,” says Margaret Burchinal),这个对孩子的发展影响应该大大高于daycare吧。另一方面,她说孩子social出问题的可能性随着在daycare时间增加而变大,但又说Norway上daycare的孩子几乎没有任何social方面的问题,看起来还是跟daycare的质量关系更大。
likeasong
20楼
看完以后好像找不到什么takeaway message呀,她说的好处和坏处都不确定。她说上daycare能提高认知能力,但又说上daycare的家庭比不上的条件普遍要好(They are “much more advantaged in almost every way,” says Margaret Burchinal),这个对孩子的发展影响应该大大高于daycare吧。另一方面,她说孩子social出问题的可能性随着在daycare时间增加而变大,但又说Norway上daycare的孩子几乎没有任何social方面的问题,看起来还是跟daycare的质量关系更大。 [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68356047#68356047][/url]
这种研究很难做,是因为confounding factors太多了,就像你所提的。上daycare提高认知能力,也许只是一个表面上的correlation,真正原因是因为能上daycare的家庭条件好,所以可能认知能力本来就高。这种self selction bias影响挺大的。
对于第二点,我的理解是,如果daycare质量好,就没有social方面的问题,如果daycare质量不好,就有可能有问题,而且问题随着在daycare时间越长越大。

我的takeaway message是,1)对于家庭条件好到一定程度(例如上华人的大部分人)而且在家里和孩子有应有的互动的家庭,daycare提高认知能力作用不大;2)找daycare一定要找老师和小朋友互动多的,简单粗暴的标准就是student/teacher ratio低,不过好像这在美国也没法低到哪里去,所以还是要找好老师,自己对daycare的情况多跟进。哎,当妈不容易。
likeasong
21楼
我就想知道这个cortisol level对娃日后个性品格各方面的影响有定论吗? [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68355705#68355705][/url]
Good question,回头做研究去。直觉是没有定论。
salus4
22楼
marking!
Night_Cat
23楼
文中提到的就是老师跟孩子的互动是否及时,老师是否对孩子的需求敏感,等等。师生比低是一个很好的预兆
回头我有空查一下原文献里怎么定义的

谢谢lz转帖,很有意思!
Night_Cat
24楼
The boy who was raised as a dog整本书专门讲这个的,不过那都是很极端的情况。日常的上不上幼儿园这种差别不那么大的情况很难定论的。并且对于人的研究结论都是association而不是因果,只有动物实验可以得出因果,而动物实验的条件都比人的日常生活要极端
milany
25楼
是啊,这个第二点就是知易行难啊。如果是在国内,我估计就自己带到3岁了。这边一起玩的孩子少不说,还得考虑英语的问题。
likeasong
26楼
是啊,这个第二点就是知易行难啊。如果是在国内,我估计就自己带到3岁了。这边一起玩的孩子少不说,还得考虑英语的问题。 [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68356648#68356648][/url]
对啊,我刚才总结的时候忘了说,daycare对于认知能力的好处,可能对我们这样双语家庭更重要。
hulumao
27楼
回复 [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68354272#68354272]11楼freys的帖子[/url] mark,回头慢慢看。
freys
28楼
长期的stress对身体是有很多负面影响的,这方面有不少研究。强烈推荐MM看看这本书,写的很有意思,why zebras don't get ulcers。也全方位的回答了这个问题。个体在突然受到外界压力的情况下,交感神经系统会激发fight or flight response,这个时候就是压力激素特别高,帮助个体可以快速逃跑或者应对当前的危险环境。交感神经系统活跃的时候,基本上就是血压升高,心跳加快,全身肌肉随时准备着可以快速反应,身体处于这个状态的时候,副交感神经系统就被压抑了,而副交感神经系统的主要功能是让人放松,心跳呼吸血压变稳定,消化系统加油工作积累能量,免疫系统加油工作保护身体健康。所以说个体长期处于交感神经系统兴奋而副交感神经系统被压抑的情况下,免疫,心血管,大脑,各个系统都是被压抑的sub optimal状态,所以为什么很多研究会研究宝宝和小朋友的cortisol水平,因为小时候的压力水平可以影响到个体一辈子的应激机制,小时候stress level大的小朋友,以后应对stress的能力也很有可能有缺陷。
MM可以随便看看这里,有很好的summary

[url=http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress/art-20046037]http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/stress/art-20046037[/url]
When the natural stress response goes haywire

The body's stress-response system is usually self-limiting. Once a perceived threat has passed, hormone levels return to normal. As adrenaline and cortisol levels drop, your heart rate and blood pressure return to baseline levels, and other systems resume their regular activities.

But when stressors are always present and you constantly feel under attack, that fight-or-flight reaction stays turned on.

The long-term activation of the stress-response system — and the subsequent overexposure to cortisol and other stress hormones — can disrupt almost all your body's processes. This puts you at increased risk of numerous health problems, including:

Anxiety
Depression
Digestive problems
Heart disease
Sleep problems
Weight gain
Memory and concentration impairment
freys
29楼
但是到底多高的stress level对一个个体是有长期伤害的,这个没法做一刀切的结论。个体差异非常明显,比如最近的研究发现有兰花宝宝和蒲公英宝宝之说,是一个基因(5HT transporter gene)的差别,兰花宝宝因为在这个基因上有短的alelle,对环境的压力水平更加敏感,需要父母额外的呵护,兰花宝宝就是如果父母呵护的好就会成长的很聪明幸福,各项指标超出平常人,但如果是环境压力大,父母没有特别好的呵护,就容易一辈子有各种问题(抑郁症等等),而蒲公英宝宝就是吹到哪里都能活,不管环境怎么样都能有相对正常的生活。 所以父母还真的是得特别细心,给对自己家宝宝最合适的care。总之当妈真不容易啊 :)
烟熏三文鱼
30楼
谢谢lz分享,有意思的文章
likeasong
31楼
但是到底多高的stress level对一个个体是有长期伤害的,这个没法做一刀切的结论。个体差异非常明显,比如最近的研究发现有兰花宝宝和蒲公英宝宝之说,是一个基因(5HT transporter gene)的差别,兰花宝宝因为在这个基因上有短的alelle,对环境的压力水平更加敏感,需要父母额外的呵护,兰花宝宝就是如果父母呵护的好就会成长的很聪明幸福,各项指标超出平常人,但如果是环境压力大,父母没有特别好的呵护,就容易一辈子有各种问题(抑郁症等等),而蒲公英宝宝就是吹到哪里都能活,不管环境怎么样都能有相对正常的生活。 所以父母还真的是得特别细心,给对自己家宝宝最合适的care。总之当妈真不容易啊 :) [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68357904#68357904][/url]
哈哈,这两种宝宝都好可爱的名称啊
sandalwood
32楼
NIH, military, navy...
dollyshan
33楼
原来家有 蒲公英宝宝,我是自己带到3岁送去preschool的,在家英文中文都说,送英文的preschool, 每天都开心的去学校和回家,完全没有过渡期,还没有去的时候我还担心会不会哭,要哭多久,结果是多余的。
deapsea
34楼
我也贡献一个例子,我家宝宝差两个月三岁去的preschool,之前全中文,教过几个重要英文单词,去preschool没有过渡期,非常习惯,英文也在慢慢pick up.
summerwong018
35楼
Mark一下
200lbs
36楼
加拿大魁北克的dc是7块钱一天,所以穷人富人都送,研究的结果是上dc的小孩语言能力略差,social能力略强,其他方面和在家的小孩差不多。解释也是说主要对穷孩子有影响,因为父母都上班,回家很累了,觉得小孩在dc已经受过professional教育,家长自己就不用管了,反而减少了和孩子的互动。
likeasong
37楼
加拿大魁北克的dc是7块钱一天,所以穷人富人都送,研究的结果是上dc的小孩语言能力略差,social能力略强,其他方面和在家的小孩差不多。解释也是说主要对穷孩子有影响,因为父母都上班,回家很累了,觉得小孩在dc已经受过professional教育,家长自己就不用管了,反而减少了和孩子的互动。 [url=http://forums.huaren.us/showtopic.aspx?topicid=1851771&postid=68429381#68429381][/url]
7块钱一天?[em108]
lilywing
38楼
家有兰花宝宝。
曾经羡慕别人家的蒲公英宝宝,以为是自己呵护过度造成了自家宝宝的敏感。
原来是基因决定的啊。谢谢分享。
现在我家的兰花宝宝渐渐地活泼开朗起来。努力呵护没有白费 :)
rosel
39楼
好长好长,有没有个一句话的总结?
bjandas
40楼
我自己通过对比,发现我家宝宝是这样:和保姆阿姨(美国学生,精力充沛人开朗活泼经常和宝宝说话)最开心,其次是妈妈带(我因为还有家务没法像保姆那样全心投入的),再其次是姥爷带,再其次是daycare。问题是保姆只是假期part-time的,姥爷年纪大了不能长期带,我最后还是选择送daycare而不是辞了工作。这个是从长远考虑的。因为我想将来送宝宝去私校,去好的camp,我现在的工作我很喜欢有非常flexible不是容易碰上的。我是觉得孩子的成长过程不是简简单单头几年就决定了的。可能有人说前三年决定一切什么的,但我自己就是八周大就送daycare,还是两个老师十二个孩子那种。但是从我记事起我觉得对我性格最大的影响一是父母的性格二是周围学校老师和同学对你的态度。这就是为什么我想送孩子去私立。我的小学已经是不错的区重点什么的,但是老师经常用言语bully学生,成绩不好的学生从老师那里得不到什么鼓励和关爱。美国这边至少我听到的私立老师对孩子都更nice,同学家教更好bully也少。还有一个原因是我们这个地方公校middle school和high school都不行,虽然也是十分的但是这个评分水分挺大的。反正我认为孩子一生是个漫长的过程是有很多可塑性的,后面读书的年龄和前面daycare的年龄一样重要。想给孩子送私立,家庭收入就是个关键因素,两个孩子都带到3岁,这一下子就是差不多五年的gap。从这一点我自己没法下决心辞职在家。另外我觉得妈妈的直觉很重要。送daycare如果发现孩子很grumpy,性格变化很大,那就是有问题,可以换daycare或者考虑别的办法。至于daycare更好还是妈妈带更好,三岁前的娃我觉得基本上不用争议,肯定是妈妈带更好。
肥莲
41楼
当妈的不容易啊
wwmm933
42楼
我觉得有妈妈在家带还是很好的。但是现实生活中,多是上daycare和老人带的选择问题。我们最后选了daycare,从我家娃看,这个决定不后悔,娃明显成长快了,家庭也更和谐
sitruuna
43楼
要综合考虑,妈妈要是辞职了,在家带到三岁,以后再拼个老二老三,那么基本上就得五六年没法工作,等到能工作了,估计也上升不到一个好level了。对于小学初中高中什么的我觉得更重要,肯定要私立的,公立的活动少,而且质量不行。当然如果孩子爹给力,妈妈在家,肯定比去daycare好,所以需要给力能赚钱的老公哇。
抹茶love冰淇淋
44楼
哈哈,好巧,前几天刚看了
flyerr
45楼
Good one! Thanks
liarliar
46楼
大多时候 我们根本就没有选择的余地
Back to list
DISCLAIMER: This information is provided "as is". The post content belongs to the original source.