Bishop Anton Teuma's condemnation of attendance by children aged less than two years at childcare centres a couple of weeks ago raised an outcry.  The cleric was clearly wrong to say that parents who take their babies to childcare are "dumping them," but he was clearly right in another sense, as I will argue in this opinion. 

Let me start with some facts. In 2024, children aged 1-2 years who received formal childcare or education were 50.7% in the EU and 64.9% in Malta, while for children aged between 3 years and the minimum compulsory school age, the share was 89.3% and 97.5% respectively. Among children aged 1 year older than the compulsory school age to 12 years of age, 99.7% and 100% respectively received formal childcare or education.

For children aged 1 to 2 years, those who did not receive any formal childcare were 49.45 in the EU and 35.1% in Malta.  Within this age group, those in formal childcare for less than 25 hours per week were 13.8% and 14.4% respectively, while those who received 25 hours or more of formal childcare or education were 36.9% and 50.5% respectively.

It is clear that substantially higher percentages of Maltese children of any age attend childcare and for longer hours than their European counterparts. But this does not necessarily mean that they are being dumped or that their parents do not love them as much as those who do not go to childcare.  Not does it automatically mean that those who go will have more psychological problems in later life than those who don't.  Bishop Teuma seemingly claimed that they do and that psychologists say so but offered no evidence for it.

What does the science teach us?  I'm sorry to disappoint the majority who strongly attacked Teuma.  In a study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in the US that looked at the influence of both child care and the home environment on over 1,000 typically-developing children, children who were cared for exclusively by their mothers were found not to develop differently than those who were also cared for by others.  

The study also established that parent and family characteristics were more strongly linked to child development than were childcare features.   First, children's outcomes were better when they spent more time with their mothers as the children responded to sensitive and attentive stimulation during interactions.  Second, families which had organised routines, books and play materials, and engaged in such experiences as outings, library trips, etc. had children with better social and cognitive outcomes.

It is true that the researchers found that centre-based childcare was linked to somewhat better cognitive and language development, better pre-academic skills involving letters and numbers, and fewer behaviour problems at ages 2 and 3.  However, this was offset by the fact that there were more behaviour problems at age 4 ½ (such as disobedience and aggression) among those who attended formal childcare than among those who didn't.

The authors also compared children with developmental disabilities who attended daycare and children who were cared for at home by their mothers.  Their conclusion was that children who attended childcare did not do any better than children who did not.  Therefore, spending time in childcare was not necessarily beneficial (or harmful) for the development of children with special needs.  Whether a child with special needs attends childcare or not, the interactions that happen at home were found to have a great impact on the child's development.

Moreover, children who were a little older when they started daycare (over 12 months of age) were better able to control and manage their own behaviour than children who started during the first year of life.  The authors were of the opinion that, when children begin daycare when they are a little older, it gives them more time at home with their parents, which allows them to benefit from consistent caregiving and routines. This seems to help them develop behaviour regulation skills.  This was especially the case for children with special needs.

Bishop Teuma was apparently not that wrong.  Indeed, he's got some good ammunition in his armoury.  I think that the whole question seems to revolve around the ideal age at which a child should start its education.  While there may be individual cases where sending a child to school earlier than the ideal age proves beneficial, it is crucial to consider the long-term impact on their career development. Early entry may provide academic advantages but fostering social and emotional development is equally important.

Allowing children to fully develop their social skills, emotional intelligence, and self-confidence through age-appropriate interactions and experiences can significantly benefit their future careers. These skills are vital for effective communication, teamwork, leadership, and adaptability in the workplace.  Moreover, delaying entry to school can provide additional time for children to explore their interests, develop a strong foundation in cognitive abilities, and build a solid sense of self before entering formal education. This holistic development can better align their skills, passions, and career choices later in life.

One of the most important benefits of sending children to childcare centres is that children will spend a lot of time with others of the same age, which helps both on social, emotional and personal as well as linguistic aspects of their development.  Another advantage is that it helps them develop their communication skills with other children, they learn how to play well, and they count with the assistance of adults that join their games and helps them develop new ideas.

Young children develop at different rates.  It is not advisable to put toddlers under undue pressure as this could lead to frustration, anxiety, and a negative attitude toward learning.  They may also struggle with social and emotional skills, such as self-regulation, empathy, and the ability to form relationships with peers. This can result in feelings of isolation, poor self-esteem, and difficulties with behavior management.

This explains why it is not that easy to equate early childhood education with strongly better outcomes.  Generally, it does no harm, but it doesn't guarantee more positive impacts on learning outcomes.  One of the weaknesses of the evidence base is that most of the studies examine comparisons between starting early years education at four rather than five. There is much less quality evidence around the impact of earlier starting ages (e.g. one to three-year-olds).

The situation is entirely different in kindergarten and primary schools.  For example, positive effects have been detected for early reading outcomes in the first year of primary school as well as early language and number skills and that positive effects can be sustained into primary and secondary school.  However, the average impact of an earlier starting age is about an additional three months' progress over the course of a year.  In several US studies, benefits do not usually appear to be sustained for more than a year or two.

Indeed, there is growing evidence that the acceleration of the early curriculum to pre-K and kindergarten, is harmful to both girls and boys.  When kids are drilled on academics at too early an age, they lose their enthusiasm for learning. Early-childhood educator Erika Christakis, reviewing the evidence in The Atlantic, concluded that the "same educational policies that are pushing academic goals down to ever earlier levels seem to be contributing to . . .the fact that young children are gaining fewer skills, not more."

Most childcare centres provide children with a warm, supportive environment that protects children's health and safety.  However, in most countries, only a small percentage of children in childcare receive caregiving which promotes and stimulates development.  I doubt that the situation in Malta would be any different.  Parents cannot assume that all childcare centres are of high quality.

The social emancipation of women cannot be dismissed lightly.  It surely has had beneficial effects, not least by lifting thousands of people, including babies,  from the risk of poverty. I must say, though, that Bishop Teuma did not stop at condemning early childcare on psychological grounds.  He clearly thinks the "dumping" is motivated by households prioritising money and the taking on of home mortgages.  The undertone is that women should not go out to work when they have 1-2 year old babies. Here he is treading on slippery grounds.

The Church itself says that work bestows dignity on a person.  The Church surely agrees that women have suffered through the ages because they weren't financially independent.  One wouldn't be far from the truth that they were "objects" for man's gratification and procreation.

Those days, thank God, are gone.  The push for more female participation in the labour force, assisted by the introduction of free universal childcare, has seen to it.  This is confirmed by a recent Central Bank of Malta (CBM) study that childcare may have increased the probability of female employment by 1.3 to 2.4 percentage points, with effects growing over time.

The study revealed that employment gains were disproportionately concentrated among single mothers and mothers with multiple children - subgroups that have historically faced greater structural barriers to employment.  Natalia Bezzina Maltseva of the CBM also found that the reforms likely helped reduced pre-existing employment gaps by up to 26% for single mothers, 39.3% for two-child mothers, and 14.1% for mothers with three or more children.

Putting it all together, Bishop Teuma was right to imply that what is most important to a child's development is the kind of interactions it has with its parents.  Regardless of whether children attend childcare, what happens at home matters most in terms of their development.   The key is frequent interactions during which parents listen to their child, respond warmly and with interest to what it communicates, and provide information that he can learn from are what count.  In fact, these kinds of parent-child interactions predict a child's development far more than childcare factors do.  On the other hand, childcare has positive effects on both toddlers and parents which cannot be easily dismissed. 

The issues are complex and reducing them to soundbites does not help a healthy debate on the impact of childcare. 

Frans Camilleri is an economist. He studied at Oxford and University of East Anglia, is a former corporate head at Air Malta, and has served on various public and private boards.