This is what this book is about: This guy wants all moms to stay home with their kids full time. Please don't buy this book if you're trying to find quality child care for your preschool age children. He has no solutions for mothers who have to work outside the home in order to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.

Brian Robertson is a research fellow at the Family Research Council’s Center for Marriage and Family. He has also written There's No Place Like Work: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents from Home [whose paperback edition is Forced Labor: What's Wrong with Balancing Work and Family]. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 222-page hardcover edition.]

He wrote in the Introduction to this 2003 book, “One of my intentions in writing this book is to make the case that deference to the ‘experts’ regarding the care of young children is unwise, and has proved detrimental to the interests of children and parents alike… a child’s development depends crucially on the amount of attention he or she gets from parents during the first three or four years of life. Parents are the most reliable ‘child development experts’ for the simple reason that they know the needs of their own children better than anyone else… Another reason for writing this book is my desire that public policy in the child care be more reflective of, and responsive to, the wishes of parents… the history of child care policy in the United States demonstrates who turning the undesirable, abnormal situation into the guiding standard has the effect of damaging the very institutions that… it seeks to replace. When government gets into the business of child care, it necessarily undermines the family. In the cause of supporting at-risk or stressed families, government inevitably undermines healthy ones.” (Pg. 3)

He adds, “I aim to provide the facts about day care—its institutional development and its human implications---that are essential to determining whether it really is a rational option for parents and children. I have written this book for parents seeking to make an informed choice for or against day care. It is a choice of great moment for them, their children, and the future of our nation.” (Pg. 14)

He states, “The vaunted ‘success’ of welfare reform has consisted in a sharp reduction of the welfare rolls and a reduction in the number of children living in poor families, not in a lowering of illegitimacy rates or a strengthening of those poor families that have been undermined by perverse incentives and lack of opportunity. If policymakers had been more concerned with the family breakdown at the core of the welfare culture, they could have focused on job training and placement for fathers rather than for mothers of young children.” (Pg. 10)

He asserts, “We are just beginning to see the consequences of this enormous, unprecedented shift toward a new and basically untested way of rearing and socializing very young children. Yet there is nothing approaching a vigorous debate about the explosive growth of day care in the media, in academia or in the political world… A sweeping social experiment with profound consequences for young children and their families has been pushed beyond the reach of open and honest discussion.” (Pg. 40-41)

He argues, “Another study from Texas found that a history of extensive day care was a good predictor of eight-year olds receiving low ratings from teachers in the areas of compliance, work habits, peer relationships and emotional health…The negative effects were not diminished by a higher quality of care. There are some preliminary indications that these behavioral problems may be related to the unnaturally stressful environment that preschoolers are subjected to in center-based care.” (Pg. 79)

He suggests, “the vast majority of ‘working parents who are plagued by the problem of caring for children’ are very uncomfortable with the decision to put their children in day care; they seek to avoid center-based care when at all possible; and they would stay at home with their children themselves if they felt it were a financially viable option. They would probably be even more uncomfortable with the day care option if they knew the truth about the developmental and health risks they are subjecting their kids to when they drop them off every morning.” (Pg. 91)

He contends, “The truth is that public discussion regarding how we ought to rear our children as well as public and business policies related to child care are controlled by a relatively small group of reporters, sociologists, corporate managers and professional day care interest groups. This day care establishment jealously guards its domination of the public discussion, and works to shut down any dissent from its agenda: establishing institutionalized day care for young children as a social norm, whether most parents like it or not.” (Pg. 92)

He observes, “The interdependence and self-sacrifice associated with family life at home are less esteemed than ever, while the individual achievement and temporary, self-interested relationships of the marketplace have been elevated to the level of preeminent values in the popular culture. As the marketplace relationships of the day care center and the elder care facility gain ground over the mutual interdependence of generations in the domestic sphere, the bonds between family members become less meaningful and family life itself becomes more strained. The breakdown of the family in the United States is not only the result of changed social mores, but is also closely related to the notion that the love of family members can be replaced by purchased care in the marketplace.” (Pg. 153)

He says, “The sympathy of radical feminism with the tendency of encroaching capitalism to replace family bonds with the market loyalties of the workplace and paycheck has not often been recognized. But it has always been an integral aspect of the strain of feminism that regards the abolition of traditional motherhood and family relationships as the key to progress for women.” (Pg. 161) He continues, “The feminist lobby resists any discussion of proposals such as flex time and telecommuting, in the belief that because more mothers would take advantage of them than fathers, they would slow the movement toward gender equality in career advancement. Suggestions that employers should recognize the existence of two types of female employees in their work policies, those for whom career comes first and those for whom family obligations come first, are mocked for singling out women for a ‘mommy track’ that hampers their careers. Any values that are seen to be in conflict with the professional advancement of women in the money economy are rejected, no matter how popular among the rank and file of working women.” (Pg. 165)

He concludes, “A key element in the cultural battle is the courage necessary to state the truth and get beyond the politically correct posturing that has so distorted the public discussion of child care policy. Keeping children’s interests in the forefront of the debate is of the utmost importance… [against] a day care establishment that would foist the destructive regime of universal day care for preschoolers on every family, all in the name of concern over children’s well-being and development.” (Pg. 181)

Robertson’s book is guilty of some rhetorical excess, and even inaccuracy (e.g., since when are feminists opposed to flex time and telecommuting?). Economic concerns severely limit the “options” that are available to modern parents, furthermore, so it’s not as easy as just “going back to the traditional family.” But his call for an honest evaluation of the efficacy of day care is reasonable and worthwhile. Readers (particularly Christians) concerned about the possible harmful effects of professional child care will be interested in this book.

Brian Robertson is a research fellow at the Family Research Council’s Center for Marriage and Family. He has also written There's No Place Like Work: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents from Home [whose paperback edition is Forced Labor: What's Wrong with Balancing Work and Family]. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 222-page hardcover edition.]

He wrote in the Introduction to this 2003 book, “One of my intentions in writing this book is to make the case that deference to the ‘experts’ regarding the care of young children is unwise, and has proved detrimental to the interests of children and parents alike… a child’s development depends crucially on the amount of attention he or she gets from parents during the first three or four years of life. Parents are the most reliable ‘child development experts’ for the simple reason that they know the needs of their own children better than anyone else… Another reason for writing this book is my desire that public policy in the child care be more reflective of, and responsive to, the wishes of parents… the history of child care policy in the United States demonstrates who turning the undesirable, abnormal situation into the guiding standard has the effect of damaging the very institutions that… it seeks to replace. When government gets into the business of child care, it necessarily undermines the family. In the cause of supporting at-risk or stressed families, government inevitably undermines healthy ones.” (Pg. 3)

He adds, “I aim to provide the facts about day care—its institutional development and its human implications---that are essential to determining whether it really is a rational option for parents and children. I have written this book for parents seeking to make an informed choice for or against day care. It is a choice of great moment for them, their children, and the future of our nation.” (Pg. 14)

He states, “The vaunted ‘success’ of welfare reform has consisted in a sharp reduction of the welfare rolls and a reduction in the number of children living in poor families, not in a lowering of illegitimacy rates or a strengthening of those poor families that have been undermined by perverse incentives and lack of opportunity. If policymakers had been more concerned with the family breakdown at the core of the welfare culture, they could have focused on job training and placement for fathers rather than for mothers of young children.” (Pg. 10)

He asserts, “We are just beginning to see the consequences of this enormous, unprecedented shift toward a new and basically untested way of rearing and socializing very young children. Yet there is nothing approaching a vigorous debate about the explosive growth of day care in the media, in academia or in the political world… A sweeping social experiment with profound consequences for young children and their families has been pushed beyond the reach of open and honest discussion.” (Pg. 40-41)

He argues, “Another study from Texas found that a history of extensive day care was a good predictor of eight-year olds receiving low ratings from teachers in the areas of compliance, work habits, peer relationships and emotional health…The negative effects were not diminished by a higher quality of care. There are some preliminary indications that these behavioral problems may be related to the unnaturally stressful environment that preschoolers are subjected to in center-based care.” (Pg. 79)

He suggests, “the vast majority of ‘working parents who are plagued by the problem of caring for children’ are very uncomfortable with the decision to put their children in day care; they seek to avoid center-based care when at all possible; and they would stay at home with their children themselves if they felt it were a financially viable option. They would probably be even more uncomfortable with the day care option if they knew the truth about the developmental and health risks they are subjecting their kids to when they drop them off every morning.” (Pg. 91)

He contends, “The truth is that public discussion regarding how we ought to rear our children as well as public and business policies related to child care are controlled by a relatively small group of reporters, sociologists, corporate managers and professional day care interest groups. This day care establishment jealously guards its domination of the public discussion, and works to shut down any dissent from its agenda: establishing institutionalized day care for young children as a social norm, whether most parents like it or not.” (Pg. 92)

He observes, “The interdependence and self-sacrifice associated with family life at home are less esteemed than ever, while the individual achievement and temporary, self-interested relationships of the marketplace have been elevated to the level of preeminent values in the popular culture. As the marketplace relationships of the day care center and the elder care facility gain ground over the mutual interdependence of generations in the domestic sphere, the bonds between family members become less meaningful and family life itself becomes more strained. The breakdown of the family in the United States is not only the result of changed social mores, but is also closely related to the notion that the love of family members can be replaced by purchased care in the marketplace.” (Pg. 153)

He says, “The sympathy of radical feminism with the tendency of encroaching capitalism to replace family bonds with the market loyalties of the workplace and paycheck has not often been recognized. But it has always been an integral aspect of the strain of feminism that regards the abolition of traditional motherhood and family relationships as the key to progress for women.” (Pg. 161) He continues, “The feminist lobby resists any discussion of proposals such as flex time and telecommuting, in the belief that because more mothers would take advantage of them than fathers, they would slow the movement toward gender equality in career advancement. Suggestions that employers should recognize the existence of two types of female employees in their work policies, those for whom career comes first and those for whom family obligations come first, are mocked for singling out women for a ‘mommy track’ that hampers their careers. Any values that are seen to be in conflict with the professional advancement of women in the money economy are rejected, no matter how popular among the rank and file of working women.” (Pg. 165)

He concludes, “A key element in the cultural battle is the courage necessary to state the truth and get beyond the politically correct posturing that has so distorted the public discussion of child care policy. Keeping children’s interests in the forefront of the debate is of the utmost importance… [against] a day care establishment that would foist the destructive regime of universal day care for preschoolers on every family, all in the name of concern over children’s well-being and development.” (Pg. 181)

Robertson’s book is guilty of some rhetorical excess, and even inaccuracy (e.g., since when are feminists opposed to flex time and telecommuting?). Economic concerns severely limit the “options” that are available to modern parents, furthermore, so it’s not as easy as just “going back to the traditional family.” But his call for an honest evaluation of the efficacy of day care is reasonable and worthwhile. Readers (particularly Christians) concerned about the possible harmful effects of professional child care will be interested in this book.