New Study Disses Day Care

Today, the New York Times reported (here) on a study that claims that young kids who are in day care for at least 10 hours a week for at least a year are "more disruptive" when they start school. And, apparently, this diruptiveness continues through 6th grade. (But then what? Everyone becomes equally disruptive? Or I guess the disruptiveness jusst becomes an equal-opportunity thing by that point.) In any case, I can't decide if the article itself is pointless--along with the study--or if it's just the study that's crap. This is how the NYT describes the new-found evidence of the day care/disruption connection:

The effect [of day care on behavior] was slight, and well within the normal range for healthy children, the researchers found. And as expected, parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence on how children behaved.

So, what's the point of this study? And why report on it as if the findings mean anything? I may have a bit of a personal bias against the anti-day-care position, partially because it seems to go hand-in-hand with a discussion of stay-at-home vs. working moms. Um, hello? Haven't we decided that mothers are not the only people who are responsible for or capable of taking care of children? And maybe the problem is with how preschoolers are scoialized in general. Or the weird chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and mutant genes in their food. Or the way they are expected to behave/are treated once they get to school. But it's probably just easier to blame it all on moms. 'Cause we know they don't care about kids anyway.