A Position Paper of the Association for Childhood Education International by Edward Gotts
A Position Paper of the Association for Childhood Education International by
Edward Gotts
INDEX (Click on any of the following links to jump to the specified subject)
ACEI POSITION STATEMENT
REASONS AND EVIDENCE FOR CHILD CARE
Edward Gotts is Director of Psychology, Madison State Hospital, Madison,
Indiana, and serves as Principal Investigator for AEL, Inc., Charleston, West
Virginia.
At the time of the last White House Conference on Children (1970), the Association
for Childhood Education International published a position paper on The Child's
Right to Quality Day Care (Butler, 1970). In this statement the late Annie
Butler clearly identified trends and facts that called for priority action:
Yet a decade later, the White House Conference on Families (1980) declared that the need for affordable quality care still loomed large in America. At present, child care access has become a concern of not only parents, childhood educators and other professional groups, but also the business community (Committee for Economic Development, 1987).
ACEI affirms that the first duty of family and society is to protect, guide and give care to the young. Therefore, we declare that the child's right to quality care is fundamental.
Families the world over are passing through times that bewilder; many of the old solutions no longer work. Parents are now stretched beyond resiliency to both survive and give care. The media all too faithfully portray these forces and their consequences for children. We must as a society of caring people answer the cry, "Who will care for the children—indeed, who if not ourselves?" Business, governmental agencies, religious groups, school systems, professionals and private citizens can all share in solving the child care dilemma. We welcome all constructive efforts.
ACEI believes that:
ACEI recognizes that, whatever the setting, the quality of adult-child interactions is the most vital ingredient. Staff morale and turnover, therefore, become critical concerns in providing quality care. Caregivers themselves must receive care, in the form of improved compensation and benefits, reasonable workload, continuing education, creative supervision and an interpersonally supportive work environment.
ACEI affirms the benefits of quality child care and cautions against low-quality care, which involves risks. Nevertheless, we recognize that our knowledge is limited. Hence, we commit ourselves to devising ways and means for parents and caregivers to evaluate the care that children experience.
ACEI believes that parents should have freedom of choice in child care arrangements. In support of their informed choice, we pledge ourselves to assist in developing and providing current child care information and referral services. Such services shall present information that assists parents to consider child care from the standpoint of compatibility with family characteristics and style. We further recognize that, because of ambivalence and confusion about child care, some parents may require guidance and counseling as they make their choices.
When necessary, we shall work together through the various levels of government to improve the standards for personnel and provider licensing.
REASONS AND EVIDENCE FOR CHILD CARE
ACEI's position, as stated above, is supported by the following observations and evidence:
A sleeping infant stirs and begins to stretch. Soon he is fully awake, reaching out to be lifted and held. A toddler points to something beyond reach and expresses a nearly intelligible request to have it. A preschool child appears intently inquisitive about the workings of a mechanical device, asking, "Why did it do that?" An elementary age child arrives home from school, admits herself to the house, and then locks the door to make sure an intruder does not disturb or harm her. A young adolescent works on a project assigned by his teacher—works,that is, until he reaches an impasse and cannot decide how to proceed. These happenings are so ordinary, so unremarkable, they are to be expected as daily events in the lives of children. Needing help is as natural as reaching or pointing or asking, as fundamental as feeling lonely and frightened or tying hard but getting lost along the way.
Thus, it is natural and fundamental that children need care. This is, of course, what families are for: to give children care. Erikson (1950) suggests that in giving care to the young, adults express, develop and actualize in themselves an essential human quality he calls generativity As adults practice their generativity, or nurturance, children are helped to practice trust, autonomy, initiative and industry and to develop identity. And so they progress from infancy through the adolescent years. If these nurturing interactions did not occur between children and adults, then children would not thrive or develop in the five essential human outcomes of childhood described by Erikson (1950).
Families today cannot always be with their children when they need help. Yet it is easy to lose sight of the fact that families throughout history have experienced times when they needed others to help with their children (Aries, 1962). After all, what is schooling if not an arrangement by which adults from outside the family help children with important aspects of their development. Schooling in this sense has become an extension of the family's child-rearing activities in both developed and developing countries. As such, schooling has become a recognized right, just as belonging to a family is a right (United Nations, 1959).
Child care is also an arrangement by which adults from outside the family help children with important aspects of their development-aspects that are natural, fundamental and necessary. Similarly, the United Nations (1959) declares that children are entitled to special protection, support and facilities. Child care, then, should be regarded as a right. The United States stands almost alone among the more developed nations in failing to recognize child care as a right and in having no national policy on child care (Martinez, 1986).
In recent discussion, many have advanced the case for universal preschool education and expansion of kindergarten to a full-day program. Many parents may be seeking to meet their own needs for quality child care rather than wanting early academics, according to the former first Director of the Office of Child Development (Zigler, 1987). The supply of affordable child care services continues to lag far behind the demand (Gunzenhauser & Caldwell, 1986). Because schooling is viewed as a right and a solution to social ills, it is being advanced also as a cure for the problem of insufficient public child care. As Zigler (1987) argues, citing Head Start and other early childhood research, it is the wrong solution for the wrong problem. Yet that is what develops when people see no other way out.
Galinsky (1986) notes in her review of current child care patterns that by 1985, 62% of all mothers of school-age children were part of the workforce. This rate is expected to continue rising gradually through the 1990s. By 1982 only 31% of children of working mothers were cared for in their own homes (O'Connell & Rogers, 1983). Preschool enrollment had jumped by 1983 to almost 53% of this age group (cited in Galinsky, 1986), probably in response to child care needs. But considering children of all ages who have full-time employed parent, 46% have no identifiable child care arrangements (Children's Defense Fund, 1982). This means that many of the 46% are likely looking after themselves. Galinsky (1986) further reveals from another study that a large majority of parents surveyed stated that they find it difficult to locate child care services. Parents are forced to cope with conflicting responsibilities of work and child care, resulting in higher rates of absenteeism from work. Competent child care, to the contrary, is known to increase worker satisfaction and productivity (Committee for Economic Development, 1987).
Affordability is also a central issue. In 1982 one out of five women workers were the main support of their family (U.S. Department of Labor, 1983). The average annual (median) wage for all full-time women workers in 1981 was $12,001, only 59% of the comparable figure for men (U.S. Department of Labor, 1983), leaving 23% of female-maintained households below the official poverty level. In the face of these limited resources, the annual cost of caring for one child at that time was around $3,000 (Rothman, 1986), or 25% of the typical gross income. For the typical family, the cost of child care is now estimated to consume 10-20% of its income. This comes in the face of reductions in state funds for subsidized child care in 28 states since 1981 (Wilson, 1988).
In many areas of the United States, children go home to an empty dwelling at the end of the school day. Forced to care for themselves, they are undeniably exposed to considerable risk to their safety. By one estimate, latchkey children numbered 7 million in 1983 (Strother, 1984). Child care programs for school-age children were in fact uncommon before 1980 (Seligson, 1986). Self-care by latchkey children has been found to cause greater academic and social problems and to result in loneliness, fear and boredom. Latchkey children are believed to be involved more often in sexual experimentation (Strother, 1984). It would be an obvious overstatement to imply that self-care has a uniformly detrimental effect. Under certain circumstances, self-care may be an enhancing experience. The point is that school-age children should not be left on their own simply because child care is unavailable.
Indeed, the scope of need for child care is great, including children of infancy through school age. Most investigators in this area of study consider that after age 14, most children are capable of self-care and thus lie outside the range of those needing services. The need for care is universal. The forces of social change extend beyond national boundaries and racial-ethnic concerns as, everywhere, growing numbers of single parents and employed women cope with the often conflicting responsibilities of work and child care. The care of children is an urgent priority.
Historically, child care outside the family developed in America as a two-tier or two-track system: one track for the children of the more affluent and one for the poor. Care was provided primarily for children in the post-toddler through preschool years; infants, most toddlers, and school-age children were outside the system. Middle and upper class parents shopped for quality care based on the reputation of programs. Even when necessity dictated child care for them, these parents actively sought to secure beneficial experiences. The poor took their children to designated child care providers, who were approved for reimbursement or subsidized payment. Social caseworkers helped link them up with qualified resources. Children of more affluent families received early childhood education, under whatever name offered, while children of the poor got custodial day care.
With the further passage of time, the meaning boundaries of quality were stretched to include infants, toddlers and school-age children. The distinction between day care and early education began to blur as children of the poor received Head Start and as, increasingly, employed middle class mothers needed day care as well as preschool education for their offspring. Social changes had thus given families a common problem that signaled an end to the old two-track system of child care. As the system expanded in scope and complexity, so too the standards of quality were strained to accommodate an emerging reality far more complicated than early childhood education. Consequently, much effort has been invested since the mid-1960s in defining the expanded meaning of quality child care (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1985; American Home Economics Association, 1975; Gunzenhauser & Caldwell, 1986; National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1984; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1985; Zigler & Gordon, 1982).
Education.
An educational emphasis in child care is important (Butler, 1970; Gunzenhauser
& Caldwell, 1986), but this must not become a blindly applied goal that attempts
to make the entire day resemble the operation of an elementary classroom (Zigler,
1987). Yet a whole mythology of what should be done is leading some adults to
push children as rapidly as possible through childhood (Salholz, Wingert, Burgower,
Michael & Joseph, 1987). This quickening pace has led some thoughtful observers
to fear that childhood may be missed altogether. They urge that these years
be preserved for the important developmental issues that are also at risk of
being bypassed (Elkind, 1981; Zigler, 1987). Quality demands that education
occur, while time is left for the issues of childhood. Child care and education
must be integrated into a single child-rearing extension and supplement to the
family. An early childhood rather than elementary school model is more likely
to meet the currently unmet needs of children throughout the broad range of
the childhood years (Butler, Gotts & Quisenberry, 1978, chap. 9).
Staffing. Staff
characteristics are essential ingredients in a quality program; the most crucial
one is combined training in early childhood education and child development
(Smith, 1986). A differentiated staffing pattern should be followed, with supervising
teachers, paraprofessional teachers or child development associates (CDAs),
and classroom aides assigned in a cost-effective manner. Staff must be fond
of children and experienced in their care, conscientious, tolerant of others'
views, well-supervised (Kagan, Kearsley & Zelazo, 1978), and culturally and
ethnically sensitive.
State standards for child-to-staff ratios vary widely (Martinez, 1986). They are the minimum standards recommended by each state. Research suggests, nevertheless, that quality is more likely to be present when staffing ratios are based on the intensity of care required by the children involved. For infants and toddlers up to 24 months, the desirable ratio is about 3:1 (Children's Bureau, 1975; Kagan et al., 1978), while state standards most typically set this ration between 4:1 and 6:1 (Wolverton & Kinard, 1971). From 24 to 36 months, state standards most typically call for 8:1; from 36 months to school age, 10:1, although ratios of 12:1 and 15:1 are also common. School-age children up to the mid-teens typically have one of these three ratios: 10:1, 20:1, 25:1 (Wolverton & Kinard, 1971). These ratios are moderated, however, by the frequent requirement that two staff be present in each group of children or that a staff member not be left in the center without back-up help. Several states do not regulate school-age child care by licensing. Although federal requirements set smaller ratios for all ages, they have never been enforced and essentially have now been set aside (Martinez, 1986)
Yet smaller group size and a ratio of 10:1 have been associated with both improved child behavior and cognitive performance (Committee for Economic Development, 1987). Larger ratios may result in a more group-focused program, excessive emphasis on conformity and a custodial atmosphere, and increased risk of injury. The presence of handicapped children in any group signals the need to adjust the ratio downward (Butler, 1970; Gunzenhauser & Caldwell, 1986). In any event, an adult providing child care should have someone available to assist in case of emergency, even if the recommended ratios are otherwise being met. Inevitably, of course, smaller ratios translate into higher per-child program cost. Family care child-adult ratios are another matter, since state laws commonly limit the number of children in these settings either to 5:1 or 6:1 and further reduce them if infants or toddlers are present.
Environment. Because of their social interaction, preschool children may do well with 50 square feet per child indoors plus 100 square feet of enclosed outdoor space per child (Butler, 1970). Considering children of all ages, state standards for indoor space per child range from 20 to 50 square feet, with most states calling for 35 square feet (Wolverton & Kinard, 1971). The comparable range for enclosed outdoor space per child is from 40-200 square feet, with a median of 75 square feet.
A quality environment further refers to the materials and equipment that should be available as developmentally appropriate for children of differing age levels. Butler, Gotts and Quisenberry (1978, Appendix C) compiled lists of equipment and materials recommended for building and construction activities, dramatic play, physical activity, creative arts, music, mathematics, science, perceptual-motor and language arts. Moreover, they rated and recommended materials as either essential, desirable or supplemental for each of three age groupings (nursery, kindergarten and early elementary). Unfortunately, there have been no systematic studies of materials that would more definitively establish developmentally oriented standards of quality, although state licensing standards typically offer some guidance.
In addition, it is necessary to evaluate a center's equipment and materials and their physical layout or arrangement in terms of safety for the ages of the children served (Aronson, 1986). Finally, adequate lighting and regulated noise and temperature are essential to environmental quality.
Services. Child
care centers must provide for comprehensive services, among them:
Obviously, not all of these services are needed on a daily basis. Their scope, nevertheless, indicates the varied service needs for which the program or center director must make provision.
Staff members in child care settings are typically paid low wages (Wilson, 1988), without essential benefits such as health care and retirement plans. In fact, it is estimated that 58% of center-based and 90% of family care workers are paid wages below the poverty level (Trotter, 1987). Often they are under-appreciated in other ways, suffer from low status image and encounter stressful interactions with some parents. In the face of these working conditions, they often experience low morale (Gunzenhauser & Caldwell, 1986). When recent headlines portrayed child care workers as sexually exploitative and otherwise abusive of children, the low morale problem was compounded. For these reasons, directors must constantly seek ways to improve the lot of their staff. Job security, supportive co-workers, quality inservice, appreciative supervision and similar measures work to improve staff morale and self-esteem.
The health risks of group care must be considered (Centers for Disease Control, 1984). Excessive fatigue may result from a full-day program; resting times and space must be provided. Proper immunization and clean environments will prevent many of the usual childhood diseases. Upper respiratory and middle ear infections may flare up seasonally. Attention to handwashing and isolation of infected children are necessary procedures of risk control. Parasite control is also essential, from ringworm to intestinal infestations with pinworm. There is a potential in group settings for the spread of hepatitis and CMV or cytomegalovirus (Pass, Hutto, Ricks & Cloud, 1986). These pose a risk not only to children and staff but also to unsuspecting family members. The risk of maternal exposure to any virus during pregnancy must be weighed carefully in the decision to place children in a care program, especially during the first trimester of a pregnancy. Recent reports have highlighted AIDS exposure of infants born to intravenous drug users. These children are showing up with increased frequency in some major urban centers such as New York City. Such youngsters have been described as chronically ill. Standards will need to be developed for their proper care and management. Since many states require that even mildly ill children be isolated in child care centers, they may eventually be cared for in special sick child centers modeled after those appearing in many urban centers (Topolnicki, 1987). For further guidance on child heath in care settings, see American Academy of Pediatrics (1985), Aronson (1986) and Centers for Disease Control, 1984.
Despite the foregoing concerns, it can be affirmed that research evidence supports the view that quality child care in a center generally is not harmful or measurably less effective than remaining at home (Belsky & Steinberg, 1978; Kagan et al., 1978). Family child care may produce less positive results, perhaps due to limited materials and an emphasis on conformity (Clarke-Stewart, 1982). Quality care programs may in fact favorably affect the development of children from low income backgrounds (Zigler, 1987). They result in more positive interactions with adults and more focused and interactive play (Schindler, Moely & Frank, 1987; Vandell & Powers, 1983), as well as richer mother-child verbal interaction and greater compliance (Peterson & Peterson, 1986). Nevertheless, a new generation of research on infant and toddler participation in child care has again raised the question of whether parent-child attachment may thereby be weakened (Meredith, 1986), especially in boys (Belsky & Rovine, 1988). The long-term consequences of these findings have not yet been studied, so it is premature to view them as more than cause for caution and further study.
For the school-age child, several potential benefits may be realized from participation in after-school-age child care, including an increased sense of personal safety and improved supervision of leisure time. Advice and suggested resources on school-age child care are accessible in Appalachia Educational Laboratory (no date), Seligson (1986) and Strother (1984). Levine (1978) has studied and discussed different models of public school involvement in child care, and should be consulted on this subject. Zigler (1987) has approached public school child care from a programmatic perspective for children of all ages.
We need neither a custodial nor a narrowly educational approach to child care. Developmental child care suggests the protective and child-maintaining sense of custodial, plus the stimulating sense of educational. It suggests a program for the developing individual who at each level of maturity has special needs, interests and possibilities. Developmental care further suggests a comprehensive approach that includes issues of health, family, nutrition and social well-being. It requires enabling child care environments, personnel and organizational arrangements.
In developmental child care, play is a primary modality of learning. Further, it is an expression and vehicle for the broader issues of human development (Erikson, 1950). We have advocated that programs for preschool and primary age children should view developmental play as both a framework for program planning and an instructional tool (Butler et al., 1978; Isenberg & Quisenberry, 1988). Careful study of the research literature on play convinces us of its potential to contribute comprehensively to nearly all aspects of development (Butler et al., 1978). Closely rereading Erikson (1950) will further expand the potential for using child care to promote trust, autonomy and other fundamental outcomes of childhood. This is the care to which children, their families and society have a right. Let us then give care.
This page is copyright 
2001 by the Association for Childhood Education International. Please send any
comments to Marilyn Gardner at aceimemb@aol.com.
