Th e 1971 White House Conference on Children pointed to the need for quality child care as the most serious problem confronting families and children. Unfortunately, as the 21st century begins, the United States still has no offi cial national policy or federal standards aimed at establishing a system of child care that is of good quality. Child-care standards con- tinue to vary widely from state to state and family to family. Why is this so?
One reason is that traditional views of parenting in this country have delegated the primary responsibility for child care to the family. Some people in government and busi- ness support the “individualist” view that each family should be able to care for its own without outside assistance (Schorr, 1997).
Another reason is the fear of government involvement in what is considered a basic personal right: to bring up one’s children according to one’s values, one’s religion, and one’s culture. Federal involvement in private matters is seen by some as teetering on the brink of socialism. Is the underlying fear that if the government foots the bill for child care, then the government will call the shots?
In general, the federal government has not committed itself to implementing child- care standards (except in programs where federal funds are involved). Th is means the task is left to the states, local communities, private enterprise, professional organizations, and the consumer (visit the Education CourseMate website for this text to fi nd a short guide on “How to Choose a Good Early Childhood Program”).
Th e question regarding nonparental child care in the 1980s and 1990s was, “Is day care helpful or harmful to children?” Since today nonparental child care has become a fact of life, the question has changed to, “What ecological model of child care is most sup- portive of children and families?” (Ghazvini & Mullis, 2002; NICHD, 2005, 2010).
Th e various controversial answers to both questions involve whether or not children should be enrolled in day care, the age at which children should be enrolled, whether such care should be full- or part-time, and the type of program that should be off ered (for example, some believe the preschool experience should focus on learning how to get along with others, exploring the environment, and dealing with feelings; others believe the preschool experience should focus on academic skills, such as r eading and math).
Th e chronosystem refl ects the following areas of concern that pr ovided the bases for research at the time:
Separation from mother.
■ Much of the early concern regarding the eff ects of child care on the child’s development was centered on the fear that separation fr om the mother, especially in infancy, would disrupt the natural mother–child bond of attachment and would result in psychological and social problems. Th us, most of the original research studies examined the eff ects of separation on the child. It should be noted that the infant separation studies were done in residential institutions, rather than in child-care centers as we know them today.
Child-care setting.
■ Concerns about quality child-care settings (physical environ- ment, socio-emotional relationships, and intellectual stimulation) have spurred more recent studies to examine the overall effects of diff erent child-care settings (home ver- sus alternative) on children’s social relationships with other children, their relation- ships with their mothers, and their intellectual development.
What is the correlation between society’s traditional beliefs and consequent child-care policies?
What is the correlation between contemporary issues and consequent child-care policies?
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 162
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 162 8/31/11 7:55:27 PM8/31/11 7:55:27 PM
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Ecology of Nonparental Child Care 163
Ecological systems.
■ Today, concerns in the scientifi c community focus on the ecol- ogy of child care. Studies examine family factors, child-care factors (Clarke-Stew- art & Allhusen, 2002; NICHD, 2005, 2010), and cultural factors (Lamb , 2000) that work together (mesosystems) to aff ect children’s development. It is now well accepted that “childrearing has become a collaborative endeavor with children mov- ing back and forth . . . between their homes and child car e” (Phillips & Howes, 1987, p. 9). Th e mesosystem links may be supportive, competitive, or neutral. Th e next section discusses both classical and modern studies that emanated fr om chro- nosystems concerns.
Nonparental Child Care and Psychological Development
Most studies examining eff ects of nonparental care focus on the mother–child relation- ship. Th e following classic studies are examples.
1. Spitz’s Study. One of the fi rst studies to report the detrimental eff ects of separating infants from their mothers was done by Rene Spitz in 1946. He compared the develop- ment of infants raised by caregivers in a foundling home (a home for illegitimate and abandoned babies) to that of infants raised by their mothers in a prison. Each caregiver in the foundling home was responsible for at least eight infants. Th e mothers, who were all either mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed, were responsible for caring for their own infants in the prison. Th e infants raised in the foundling home had poor appetites and lacked interest in their surroundings; they exhibited severe depression, according to Spitz. As a result, they were retarded in their growth and mental development. Th e in- fants raised by their mothers in prison, on the other hand, dev eloped normally. Even though the mothers in the prison were socially deviant, the one-on-one care and nurtur- ance they gave their infants enabled the infants to exhibit normal development, whereas even though the caregivers in the institution were professionally trained, they had eight babies to nurture and probably could not establish emotional attachments with each one.
Spitz supported “nature” care.
2. Bowlby’s Study. In 1952, John Bowlby (1966, 1969, 1973) wrote that maternal love and care are the most important infl uences on an infant’s future development. After reviewing studies on infants separated from their mothers, he concluded that any break in the early mother–child relationship could have severe emotional, social, and intellectual consequences. What Bowlby meant by “any break” was loss of the mother in infancy due to death or separation from the mother because of hospitalization, employment, or other circumstances such as neglect—being physically present but emotionally absent. He went on to say that being deprived of the early mother–child relationship would cause the in- fant to become depressed, physically and mentally retarded, or delinquent. Bowlby, too, supported “nature” care.
3. Skeels’s Study. A 30-year longitudinal study completed in 1966 b y Harold Skeels demonstrated that it is the quality of care (nurture) that aff ects children’s devel- opment, not the relationship of the person who provides it (nature). Th us, the care can come from someone other than the child’s mother. Skeels studied 25 infants who were institutionalized because they were deemed mentally retarded. Of these, 13 were later transferred to the institution for retarded women, where the infants were “adopted”
by small groups of residents who lavished care and attention on them. Th e remain- ing 12 infants stayed where they were. After two years, the transfer group had gained an average of 28.5 points on an IQ test, but the contr ol group had lost an average of 26.2 points.
Th irty years later, Skeels followed up on the original 25. He found that 11 of the 13 children who were transferred to the institution for retarded women had been adopted by
What are the effects of nonparental care on infants?
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 163
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 163 8/31/11 7:55:27 PM8/31/11 7:55:27 PM
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
164 CHAPTER 5
families; 12 out of the 13 had achieved an education and become self-supporting adults with responsible jobs. Th eir own children had average IQs. Of the control group of 12 children who had remained institutionalized, 11 had survived; 4 were in institutions, 1 was a vagrant, 1 was a gardener’s assistant at an institution, 3 were dishwashers, 1 was a part-time worker in a cafeteria, and 1 was a domestic worker.
In sum, Skeel’s longitudinal study supported “nurture” care. It showed that
children need care and nurturance to develop normally (in this respect, Skeels agrees
■
with Spitz and Bowlby);
care and nurturance can be provided by someone other than the mother (here Skeels
■
disagrees with Spitz and Bowlby); and
infants who are initially deprived can grow up normally if inter vention by a car-
■
ing, nurturing person is pr ovided (Spitz and Bowlby did not ev en consider this possibility).
Skeels’s study has implications for society. If deprivational eff ects caused by neglect in infancy can be reversed by intervention, then we can enable many children to grow up to be independent, self-suffi cient, responsible adults who are assets to society rather than liabilities. Th ere are still many unresolved questions. Which children qualify for interven- tion? When do you intervene? What type of intervention is best? What kind of program do you provide, and for how long? Is day care worth paying for? Does the government or some other agency have the right to intervene? Is society willing to pay the cost of inter- vention? Th ese questions will be discussed in more detail later.
4. Contemporary Studies. Th e signifi cance of an infant’s early attachment to a care- giver has been studied and related to nonparental child care.
During the fi rst year of life children become attached to their primary caregiver—
the person who holds them, comforts them, feeds them, and plays with them. Th is caregiver is usually the mother, but it can be the father, a grandparent, an older sib- ling, or another person not related to the child. Feelings of attachment distinguish this caregiver from others. When children are in strange situations or not feeling well, they want to be near the person they are attached to; no one else will do (indicating a secure attachment). On the other hand, when children are not attached to a signifi cant person, they may cling when the person leaves or cry hysterically until the person returns, or they may ignore the person upon departure and avoid the person upon return, or they may cling to the person one moment and reject the person the next (indicating an inse- cure attachment).
Jay Belsky and colleagues (Belsky, 2009; Belsky & Rovine,1988) showed that babies less than 1 year old who receive nonparental care for more than 20 hours a week are at a greater risk of developing insecure attachments to their mothers; they are also at increased risk of emotional and behavioral problems in later childhood. Youngsters who have weak emotional ties to their mothers are more likely to be aggressive and disobedient as they grow older.
Others (Clarke-Stewart, 1992; 1993; Clarke-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005; Phillips &
Howes, 1987) take issue with Belsky, saying the evidence is insuffi cient to support the claim that infants in full-time day care are at risk for emotional insecurity. Th at day-care infants exhibit diff erent attachment behaviors than home-care infants may mean they have developed a coping style to adapt to the diff erent people who care for them as well as the daily separations and reunions. In addition, the assessment of attachment proce- dures commonly used may not be an accurate way of comparing diff erences in attach- ment between infants reared in such diverse environments. Not all children who begin day care in infancy are insecurely attached, aggressive, or noncompliant, nor are they intellectually advanced. Th ere are individual diff erences for day-care children just as there
This child clings to his mother when left at child care because he is attached to her.
David Young-Wolff/PhotoEdit
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 164
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 164 8/31/11 7:55:27 PM8/31/11 7:55:27 PM
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Ecology of Nonparental Child Care 165
are for children reared at home (Clarke-Stewart, 1993, Clarke-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005;
Honig, 1993).
In conclusion, recent data on psychological functioning of children who have attended day care in infancy are often confounded by the child’s temperament and gender, family socioeconomic status, marital status, parent–child relationships, number of hours daily in care, and quality of care, including sensitivity and responsiveness of the caregiver (Langlois
& Liben, 2003; NICHD, 1997, 2005, 2010). A ccording to Lamb and Ahnert (2006), who reviewed the research, it now appears that nonparental care in itself does not reliably aff ect mother–child attachment. Adverse eff ects occur only when poor-quality day car e coincides with such risky conditions as insensitive and unresponsive maternal behavior (NICHD, 1997). Th us, children in a quality child-care program, compared to children cared for at home, attach to their mothers similarly.
Nonparental Child Care and Social Development
Children in day care may be with peers fr om infancy. Infants stare at each other and touch each other. Toddlers may smile at each other, share toys, and fi ght over toys. Th r ee- year-olds may play games, share, take turns, argue, and fi ght. Four-year-olds may also role-play. (“Let’s play house. You be the mommy, and I’ll be the baby.”)
Results of a substantial number of studies on the social development of preschool chil- dren conclude that children attending some form of child-care program interact more with peers, positively and often negatively, and that they are less cooperative and respon- sive with adults than children in home care (Clarke-Stewart & Allhusen, 2002; NICHD, 2007).
Specifi cally, children who have had experience in a child-car e program seem to be more socially competent than those who have not had such an experience. Th ey are more self-confi dent, more outgoing, and less fearful. Th ey are also more assertive and more self- suffi cient. Th ey know more about the social world—gender roles, taking the perspective of others, solving problems regarding getting along with another child, and emotional labels (“cheater,” “crybaby,” “bully”). While they are more socially competent, they have also been observed to be less polite, less respectful of others’ rights, and less compliant with adult demands, as well as more aggressive and hostile to others (Clar ke-Stewart, 1992; Clarke-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005; Lamb, 2000). Early individual diff erences in social competence have been found to remain stable through school age and early adoles- cence (Campbell, Lamb, & Hwang, 2000).
What is the effect of putting infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with peers in child care?
You have to work, so how do you deal with putting your child in someone else’s care?
According to Lamb and Ahnert (2006), the onset of nonparental care is stressful for both mother and child. Even children who have a secure attachment to their mothers feel some anxiety. The onset of employment, as well as entry into day care, often af- fects parental behavior.
Parental sensitivity is a key determinant of a child’s adjustment to nonparental child care. Choosing quality care, which tends to be best when evaluated and regulated by professionals (such as NAEYC accreditation) is the fi rst step. The second is allow- ing time for sharing care with the caregiver until the child has adjusted to the transi- tion. And third is staying involved with the caregiver, communicating about the child’s behavior and development, and sharing concerns.
IN PRACTICE
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 165
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 165 8/31/11 7:55:28 PM8/31/11 7:55:28 PM
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
166 CHAPTER 5
Nonparental Child Care and Cognitive Development
Generally, the intellectual performance of children who attend a quality day-care program is higher than that of children from similar family backgrounds who do not attend a day- care program or who attend one of poor quality . For example, it has been sho wn that children, especially from low-income families, who attend a quality preschool program, even part-time, are more verbally expressive and more interactive with adults than chil- dren who do not (Burchinal et al., 2000; NICHD, 2007; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). It has also been demonstrated that children who attend quality child-care programs are bet- ter able to meet the requirements in the primary grades of elementary school and function at an increased intellectual capacity during their initial years of schooling; IQ scores show an increase of up to 10 points at the end of program implementation. Academic achieve- ment in these children continues to be better thr ough high school than for those who did not attend a quality preschool (CQO, 1999; Karoly, 1998; Schweinhart et al., 2005).
Although longitudinal studies have shown that the increase in IQ scores is not permanent, there is a signifi cant reduction in grade retention as well as in the need for placement in a special education program (CQO, 1999; Karoly, 1998; Schweinhart et al., 2005).
Traditional preschool programs usually provide enrichment activities to children who already get basic intellectual stimulation at home. For children who do not have such an advantage, intervention programs were developed to provide compensation, or amends, for skills these children lack to succeed in U.S. public schools. M ost research on the effects of day care on children’s cognitive development has focused on inter vention programs.
Many types of intervention programs were implemented in the 1960s and 1970s, us- ing diff erent curriculum models (discussed later). Although childr en enrolled in such programs fared better academically, socially, and emotionally than their nonparticipant counterparts (Karoly, 1998), the debate as to which type of inter vention is best, for whom, for how long, and where (home or school) remains ongoing.
Even though intervention programs vary widely, most investigators concur that to enable the child to become competent cognitively, socially, and behaviorally, the child’s family must be involved. Th us, the best type of intervention (among government-funded programs) is one that reinforces the strengths of the family as a child-rearing system and that enables the family to be the primary educator of its children, links the family to the formal educational system through involvement, and links the family to resources in the community so that the family can receive needed health and social services. Th ese are known as family sup- port programs. An example of such a program is the Child and Family Resource Program (CFRP), which began in 1973 as part of Head Start. It enrolled qualifi ed families of chil- dren from birth through age 8, rather than just the children. It provided diagnostic medical, dental, nutritional, and mental health services as well as treatment. It also provided prenatal care and education for pregnant mothers. It assisted parents in promoting the development of infants and toddlers, as well as providing preschool comprehensive Head Start services for children ages 3 to 5. It eased the transition from preschool to elementary school and off ered special development programs for children with disabilities. Finally, it provided ser- vices such as counseling, referrals to community agencies, family planning assistance, and help in dealing with emergencies or crises.
In sum, accurately predicting the cognitive, as well as social and behavioral, outcomes of intervention programs is diffi cult because of the numerous variables that must be taken into account, including quality of the mother–infant relationship, socioeconomic status of the family, educational level of the parents, stress on the family and coping skills, avail- able family supports, temperament and gender of the child, spacing of the siblings, age at which the child enters the pr ogram and for how many hours per day, quality of the caregiver–infant relationship, caregiver–parent communication, and quality of the pro- gram (see Table 5.1).
What is the effect of child care on intellectual outcomes?
What child-care programs have been developed to modify the cognitive consequences of growing up disadvantaged?
This child’s achievement motivation is enhanced by the teacher who is engaging him in a reading activity.
Cengage Learning
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 166
30960_ch05_ptg01_hr_153-182.indd 166 8/31/11 7:55:30 PM8/31/11 7:55:30 PM
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.