|
IN FOCUS is a publication of Fact Find, a project funded by the
Bush Foundation to provide information about young children and
families to Minnesota policy makers. This year's focus will be on
Children At Risk. As you know, that term can mean a variety of
things depending on the speaker, the time, the place and the
concerns. This issue of IN FOCUS addresses the risks for the
infants of working mothers and the arrangements for the care of
these infants.
Twenty years ago, experts predicted a steady increase in the
number of employed mothers with children under 6 years. But no
one predicted the dramatic increase of mothers with infants under
12 months in the work force. In 1972, 24% of these mothers were
in the work force; by 1985, the rate had doubled and today more
that 50% of the mothers of infants work outside the home.
A major transformation in the way infants are reared occurred
with little warning and no social planning. In 1986, Jay Belsky
(Pennsylvania State University) reviewed research about the
impact of early nonmaternal care on the social/emotional
development of infants. He suggested that infants who experience
full-time (more than 20 hours per week) day care are at
heightened risk of becoming more aggressive, noncompliant, and
socially withdrawn in preschool and early school years. He called
the first year a "window of vulnerability" and
suggested that the primary caretaking should be done by a parent.
Belsky's review ignited a debate among researchers who
regularly review and question one another to refine and improve
their work. This kind of debate usually takes place within the
scientific community, but this particular discussion got national
media attention. The news did not report that comments by
colleagues were part of a scientific debate and the complexities
of the research were ignored. Instead, the media suggested that
there had been a major new discovery on this important issue.
Additional explanatory statements in the press only muddled the
issue further.
In September 1988, a special edition of the Early Childhood
Research Quarterly addressed the concerns about the effects of
infant day care.
Jay Belsky, who started the infant day care debate, said,
"My reading of the literature leads to no inevitable or even
necessary proposals with respect to public policy." He
suggested it is up to each reader "to infer what
implications are to families, communities, and to policy
makers."
Some interpreted his concerns about the effects of early day
care to mean that mothers should not go to work during their
infants' first year. Others said he was making a case for
providing parents with affordable, quality care and with better
choices regarding their child care decisions.
L. Alan Sroufe (University of Minnesota) reflected on what to
tell parents who are contemplating day care for young infants. He
said, "At this time there certainly are no simple
answers." From his own and other research, he believes that
there is probably a link between early, extensive day care and
the child's social and emotional behavior as he grows.
Because of his developmental perspective, (which suggests that
experiences in infancy will affect later development) Sroufe
suggested that parents should be told about ways to minimize
possible negative influences, such as selecting good quality
care, and making stable, consistent arrangements. He pointed out
the need for a support system so that adults and children can
establish and maintain emotional closeness.
His opinion is that parents who can do so should delay
full-time day care until an infant's second year. "This is
as much because of what we do not know as it is because of what
we do know. We need to press ahead with needed research."
Sroufe concluded, "In the meantime, there is little
justification for policies that promote an increase in the use of
early day care. Rather, in both the public and the private
sectors we should explore a range of policies (e.g. parental
leave) that enable parents to provide continuous care for their
infants."
Ross Thompson (University of Nebraska), after reviewing
research literature on the effects of infant day care on the
social/ emotional development of children, said that it offers no
specific implications for public policy. He suggests that the
issues may really be about values concerning the women's
movement, or the links between quality of care, affordability and
accessibility.
K. Alison Clarke-Stewart (University of California-Irvine)
considered the risks for parents and children related to infant
day care. She pointed to the fact that balancing a job and a
family can create stressful circumstances. These stresses may
make employed parents less available and less sensitive to their
infants and this, in turn, may contribute to the problems that
some attribute to the day care situation.
She stated, "...it makes sense for us to investigate ways
or informing, educating, and supporting working parents of young
children. That seems to me to be a more humane and sensible
conclusion to our present state of semi-ignorance than implying
or advocating that mothers of young children should not
work."
Clarke-Stewart recommended that to get out of our state of
semi-ignorance, "...what is called for most urgently is more
careful, more thorough, and more creative research, so that at
some time in the near future we can discuss the effects of
maternal employment and infant day care on the development of
young children--authoritatively, consensually, and
publicly."
John E. Richters and Carolyn Zahn-Waxler (The National
Institute of Mental Health) conclude, "We are in the midst
of a debate over the effects of early day care on children's
adjustment, on the basis of a handful of studies, most of which
were not designed to answer the very questions they raise."
Such questions include: Who are the infants in the research
studies? Why are they in day care? What are their mothers,
fathers, and families like? What is the form and quality of day
care being used? How were they doing before the day care
experience, and why? How are they doing at present, and why? How
do their parents treat them when they are not in day care, and
why?
Fact Find Says:
The reports in Early Childhood Research Quarterly indicate
that what we know right now from research about the long term
effects of infant day care is not conclusive and therefore cannot
be the basis for policy recommendations. But, policy makers can't
wait for the longitudinal studies. The problems associated with
providing high quality care for infants are here, now.
In making policy decisions about care of infants, one resource
is recommendations made by many social scientists regarding some
form of parental leave to allow infants to be with a parent
during at least part of the critical first year. There are also
reliable research results about quality in child care. Quality
indicators and appropriate practices in caring for children have
been published by national organizations.
The National Center for Infant Clinical Programs held an
"Infant day care research summit meeting" where 16
researchers from all over the country reached consensus on
several related issues.
They emphasized that the quality of infant care matters
enormously. According to the research group, both the home and
the child care environment should provide the infant with:
- Physical protection and attention to health and
nutrition.
- Awareness of and respect for individual differences.
- Sensitivity to the infant's cues and communication.
- A capacity to shift caregiving practices as the infant
develops and changes.
- Warm, loving human relationships based on constancy of
care.
The NCICP group recommended that child care be viewed as a
family support. And, since the quality of the caregiver
determines, to such a large extent, the quality of the child's
experience, they pointed out the urgent need to improve salaries,
working conditions and training for child care providers.
References
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, September,
1988. Special Issue: Infant Day Care
|
1988 issue (2nd of 3 issues)