Talk:Day care

Balance - Childcare and Child Development

This article is not very balanced. THe section on Childcare and Child Development was woefully biased, even contradicting the content in the cited articles. This article needs to be expanded and made more balanced. Research, rather than opinion, should be included.--Westendgirl 18:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please specify which reference is contradicted? I was trying to fix a very POV external link addition with a brief summary of the pro's and con's of daycare. Any expansion you add would be welcomed! Samw 00:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The citations in the section I note above were biased. I've reworded the sentences to better reflect the citations. The previous explanation made it sound as though the citations said that good daycare was *equivalent* to parental care. However, this is not what the literature bears out. The literature merely states that good daycare is not harmful and that, in specific circumstances, it may be beneficial to children. Moreover, the previous explanation made it sound as though daycare was good for babies, whereas the actual cited literature says there are concerns about attachment and other issues -- the citations go on to focus on toddlers and children instead of babies. If someone has sources that say otherwise, then we can include those. But I have not come across any reliable literature that says daycare is good for babies or equivalent to parental care. --Westendgirl 01:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the changes. What specifically do you want changed before we can remove the NPOV tag? Samw 01:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the Child Development section needs to be expanded. However, at this point, maybe we can say the POV is okay. I'll change that.--Westendgirl 21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; agreed, the section can be expanded. Wikipedia is never finished! Samw 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Day care & Nursery school

There is a fair bit of overlap between Day care, Nursery school and Preschool/Early childhood education. Also, in many places Childcare is used rather than Day care".

The geographical specifics appear confused to me. Nursery school appears to be mainly UK usage, but much of the article refers to US programs (i.e., Head Start). Some tidying up is needed. --Paul foord 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose nursery school and daycare merge; in the UK, nursery school and straightforward childcare are not identical concepts. Whilst the nursery school article is at present only about the U.S. system (without actually stating that it is), the fact that nursery schools are in many cases not simple day care solutions means it should remain a separate topic/article. Fourohfour 14:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Daycare is childcare and may not include any attempt at education (even experiential). In comparison, preschool has specific ECE outcomes as a goal. --Westendgirl 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Many daycare providers do a very good job "teaching" children as they care for them!(````)

Oppose: As has been said, although the article doesn't yet reflect this, nursery schools (or nurseries) are quite a specific thing in the UK, and much more akin to schooling (indeed in some cases part of state schools) than regular childcare. The article certainly needs work, but merging will lose that essence, I think. Tafkam 17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT and OPPOSE Why not? Pretty much the same thing with Day Care and Nursery School, but Preschool seems well enough for a seperate article.

Oppose. nursery school and daycare merge. The clear deliniation between the 2 streams are the training of the responsible adults. In the UK for example, there is a qualification of, 'Nursery Nurse', who is trained primarily in childcare with education secondary. An institution run by an adult qualified as a Nursery Nurse is clearly, Childcare/Daycare. In other countries the education authorities have a qualification of 'Kindergarten teacher' that involves the pedagogic aspects of learning for very young children, institutions that employ these qualified adults are clearly Nursery schools or Kindergartens. This is a clear deliniation for the 2 streams.

Oppose. Those terms are totally different terms. Childcare is a social issue. Day care and nursery school are places. The word Childcare is long wider than just Day care.--P2prules (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"babysitter" definitely needs its own article

the subject of babysitting is more expansive than the brief mention on this page. Joeyramoney 23:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, go for it! Samw 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

yea i definitely would agree with you, babysitting is more extensice then just a paragraph explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.0.186 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on regional practices (Spain)

The section on Spain appears a bit odd in the middle of the article, as there are no other regional sections. I suggest it is made part of a section discussing the practices in various countries.

Day care or child care

Should this article be retitled child care? Is the term day care confined just to the US or is it in more general use in the rest of the world? Dahliarose 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is now a separate Child care article. I have proposed that Child care be merged into Day care. Please discuss this proposal here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge as duplication of topic. @Kvng:--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge, but in the reverse direction, on the grounds that the title is just as simple, but makes the subject more obvious for international readers. It does seem that day care is synonymous with child care in the US, but that doesn't seem to be the case elsewhere, as the lede for the Day care highlights. This also chimes with unopposed suggestion from back in 2006 by Dahliarose that Child care would be the better title. Klbrain (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge and rewriting, under the less ambiguous title of "Child care". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

ABC Learning Centre

Why are we mentioning this provider in the Day care industry section? The sentence is completely uninformative and looks simply like a promotion of the company. I removed it once but was just reverted. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was moved to the Australian section where it was removed. I'm not familiar with the Australian industry but I suspect it should be mentioned there as well but since I'm not familiar, I didn't touch the Australian section. In its current location, it is listed as one of the largest daycare providers in the industry; in fact I believe it is currently the largest. In a section describing an industry, it is customary to list the industry leaders. Furthermore, ABC was removed but not Bright Horizons. If the decision is not to discuss any companies then both should be removed. But IMHO as stated above, listing industry leaders in the industry is reasonable. Feel free to reword but I think the facts themselves are valid. BTW, I'm a Canadian and know nothing about ABC; just that it is one of the biggest daycare providers in the world. Samw 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some statistics on ABC Learning Centres and other significant providers would be useful - where they operate, ABC is Australian based but operate 100s of centres in US plus some in other places. Paul foord 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's one of the industry leaders that makes some sense, but I think we need to change the way it is presented. We should say something like industry leaders are...... who cover x% of the day care industry or something similar, depending on what facts we can cite. As it stands the sentence just reads ABC Learning Centres is a publicly traded company running 644 daycare centres in Australia which tells you a tiny bit about ABC, but nothing about the day care industry as a whole or in Australia. I like Paul's suggestion about where they operate too.

Bright Horizons does at least mention that it's one of the biggest US ones, though I think it could really use a bit more context, and a working reference for the claim. Have there been any recent articles that cover this anywhere? The references here and on ABC's article are mainly unavailable (and the one here is from ABCs site which isn't the best source). I'll try and do some searching later today, but if there are likely suspects it would be good to know. I've just created the Bright Horizon's article so at least we're not redlinking there, but haven't yet found a good cite for its claim to be one of the largest public child-care companies (I don't doubt the claims for either of them, it's just not an assertion that seems to get quoted by anyone except them!). Any help on a good source for that would be appreciated too. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good day care / after school care resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/146.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The after school care page of the site provides reliable information on child care and after school programs and the effectiveness of after school programs. This and other topics such as curriculum for after school programs are discussed. Some features include the “After School Action Kit” and “A Guide to Choosing an After-School Program.” Teamme —Preceding comment was added at 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not for this page since this is Day care and the links in Webguide are for after school care. WLU 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest a link?

Hi, can I suggest a link for the day care page to the national database of day cares in USA. This is a helpful service for parents looking for a day care in a certain State as it displays them all on one site with contact details. The link could be something like this:

• USA Child Care Directory National Database

Thanks Brickcourt (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Faulty link

Reference 26 does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.193.128 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Day care. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723135940/http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/parents/pr_sn2_ps.asp to http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/parents/pr_sn2_ps.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211181352/http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2003/nichd-16.htm to http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2003/nichd-16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622055535/http://www.nccic.acf.hhs.gov/ to http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Day care. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208184721/http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Private%20Sector%20Can%20Meet%20Child%20Care%20Demands-Mar04fftaylor.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Private%20Sector%20Can%20Meet%20Child%20Care%20Demands-Mar04fftaylor.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311002301/http://fycs.ifas.ufl.edu/news/2006/06/quality-child-care.html to http://fycs.ifas.ufl.edu/news/2006/06/quality-child-care.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)