>which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality

This has "true communism has never been tried" vibes. When enacting a policy, you can't guarantee it will come out optimally, so it makes sense to factor in any potential negative effects, even you think you're not going to make them. After all, I doubt the people campaigning for childcare in quebec were expecting the results to be negative.

▲

imissmips an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I've not read the article, and I expect it goes into this kind of thing, but...

Perhaps it's something like: families that earn enough to have one parent stay at home don't use child care. Therefore children in child care are more likely to be from less affluent families than those who are not in child care. So it's not the child care that causes the difference in outcomes, but just general income scale.

	▲	gruez 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>Perhaps it's something like: families that earn enough to have one parent stay at home don't use child care. Therefore children in child care are more likely to be from less affluent families than those who are not in child care. So it's not the child care that causes the difference in outcomes, but just general income scale. No, the OP speculated a variety of reasons, which includes what you've suggested, but I'm specifically focusing on the "which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality", which is why I quoted that part specifically.

▲

smrtinsert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this leap is like jumping over to jupiter from earth

▲

sonotathrowaway an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The more appropriate aphorism would probably be “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.

	▲	Analemma_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If you're going to toss out that aphorism for the bad outcomes you have to do it for the good outcomes as well.