There is growing realisation, advanced by the Education
Committee of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), that if child care “factors can be
reliably linked with learning outcomes through research and
surveys, the process will yield valuable information for
evaluation and corrective purposes” (Bennet, 2002). Through
Thematic Reviews of Early Childhood Education and Care
Policy and the Country Notes initiative, OECD
demonstrated that even for countries in which accessibility
and quality of child care is considered high (such as for
Sweden and Norway), research on the impact of child care has
not sufficiently informed child care decision makers. CCKM's
Research
Guide to Child Care Decision Making was created to address
this concern.
Descriptive research, of the type gathered by the OECD,
asks: What is the state of child care in a given jurisdiction?
For example, we know about 54% of Canadian children experience
some form of non-parental child care (Statistics Canada, 2006). The
data of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children & Youth (NLSCY)
show that from 1994/95 to 2002/03 the
proportion of children who receive non-parental child care
increased significantly in all provinces except Alberta.
Percent of Canadian Children in Child Care
Province of residence |
% of Children in Child Care |
1994/95 |
2000/01 |
Newfoundland and Labrador |
36.4 |
53.0 |
Prince Edward Island |
42.1 |
63.4 |
Nova Scotia |
39.0 |
53.6 |
New Brunswick |
39.1 |
56.6 |
Quebec |
43.6 |
66.9 |
Ontario |
43.8 |
50.5 |
Manitoba |
42.4 |
52.9 |
Saskatchewan |
44.9 |
54.7 |
Alberta |
39.1 |
42.6 |
British Columbia |
35.5 |
49.2 |
Note: Estimates in bold represent statistically significant
differences. Source: Statistics Canada, 2006
Of the many types of non-parental child care one could
compare, the comparison of care in a centre setting versus
care in a home setting is of great interest to child
development researchers, parents, practitioners, and policy
analysts alike. This interest may stem from the question of
whether young children thrive better in home-like or
school-like environments with all of their potential
differences in human, material, and management resources.
Also,
the
ten provinces and three territories set various standards for
child care centres, and set the maximum number of children
allowed in private homes, but the standards vary amongst
provinces and territories (OECD, 2003/04).
During 2002/2003 the majority of children (67.4%) received
non-parental care in home settings, their own, a relative's
home, or a non-relative's home. The percentage of children who
receive non-parental care in child care centres was
approximately 27.9%, and increase of about 8% from 1994/95 to
2002/03. The percentage of children who were cared for in home
settings by relatives increased, while care in homes by
non-relatives decreased (Statistics Canada, 2006).
Seventy-seven percent of child care settings in Canada are
privately operated, usually by non-profit entities. Ten to
fifteen percent of non-profit settings are operated by
government organisations or school boards (OECD, 2003/04).
The OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care
in Canada (2003) define three pan-Canadian objectives for
child care:
1. to increase children’s intellectual and behavioural
development
2. to support parental employment
3. to alleviate the risk of child developmental problems
The objectives are meant to prepare preschool children to
enter school ready to learn. In general, academic, government,
and non-governmental descriptive reports point to an array of
factors that may fulfil the Canadian objectives for child
care. They include overall quality of care, accessibility to
non-parental child care, and the positive impact of child care
on child, parent, and family development and behaviour, both
short-term and long-term.
The
quality of the physical, social, and educational environments
children experience in child care and the effects of these
factors on child development are of great concern. The
nation-wide You Bet I Care! study examined the quality of
Canadian child care conditions and discovered that although
the majority of non-parental centres provided a physically
safe environment with supportive staff, only 44% of child care
centres, and only 20% of infant/toddler care centres provided
developmentally appropriate activities and materials (Goelman
et. al., 2000). The OECD’s response (Country Note) to
Canada’s Thematic Review (2003/04) confirmed that in
many Canadian non-parental child care centres, “ideas about
safety dominated the activities and environment” (p. 65). The
strong emphasis on safety over developmentally appropriate
activities and materials may reduce children’s opportunities
to “unload their energy, and stretch the limits of their
imagination and creativity” (OECD, 2003/04, p.65). The
relationships between factors of child care and children’s
development must be identified so that the best conditions
of care exist for all children in all types of child care,
parental and non-parental. CCKM’s Research Guide for Child
Care Decision Making presents 66 studies of the
relationship of child care conditions to children's
development.
The relationship between the conditions of child care and
children’s development is reflected not only in data but also
in the historic and socio-political context in which the data
are collected.
Historically,
child care research evidence for the most part has been
dominated by results of studies conducted in the United
States. Issues of child care in the US in the 1970s were
influenced by the writings of Bowlby, Bronfenbrenner, and Klaus.
Without good supporting data, they claimed that children’s
first and primary relationship in the early years of life must
be with their mothers alone. In those days fathers and other
adults were not thought of as providing the emotional and
learning supports needed by young children. Threats to
opportunities for early mother-infant bonding were thought to
cause irreparable and life-long psychological harm.
Non-maternal child care was viewed as one of those threats.
The research question most prominently posed was: Does early
mother-child separation negatively affect socio-emotional
development?
But more than anything, the issue was framed by political and
economic considerations of whether women with young children
should seek and hold paid employment outside the home, and
whether their children would be harmed by non-parental child
care (Waldfogel, 2002). Issues were contentious and data
rested on the questionable validity of outcome measures of
maternal “attachment” (Ainsworth, 1973), and the work and
writings of Jay Belsky (see Belsky, 2001 for summary). Early
maternal-child separation, resulting from maternal employment
and non-parental child care, was said by Belsky to cause
emotional insecurities resulting in the development of
interpersonal distrust, aggression, and other life-long
socio-emotional dysfunctions. Others (e.g., Brooks-Gunn, Han,
& Waldfogel, 2002) linked early child care to delayed school
readiness. These effects, however, were not consistently
supported by evidence (e.g., Clarke-Stewart, 1988). In some
cases, negative effects of early maternal employment and child
care were reported only for European American children,
whereas the effects of separating infants from their African
American mothers were viewed as positive (Waldfogel et.al.,
2002).
In 1990, Belsky allowed that early non-maternal child care
outcomes of insecure infant-mother attachment may be
attributable, not to the effects of non-maternal child care,
but to characteristics of the family. He argued, however, that
non-maternal child care contributed more than family
factors to the development of insecure infant-mother
relationships.
Belsky’s conclusions lost credibility in a climate in which
mothers of preschool children increasingly sought employment
outside the home. They also lost credibility when challenged
and refuted by researchers in the United States and abroad. Nevertheless, Belsky's work shed
light on the importance measuring and removing the influence
of what are called "confounding variables" that cloud the
relationship of child care conditions to children's
development.
Confounding variables can include the social and economic
conditions of family life, parental education, ethnicity
and parenting style, children’s gender and psychobiological
predispositions (e.g., temperament), maternal depression, and
other factors that may influence children's development over
and above the conditions of non-parental child care (Lamb,
1996; Owens, 2004; Peisner-Feinberg, et. al., 2001). For this
reason, the Research Guide included only studies that were
large and significant enough to have measured and disentangled
family and child characteristics from the relationship between
the conditions of child care and children's development.
A second most prominently posed question took the opposite
stance by examining the benefits of child care as an intervention treatment
for children at risk for poor or delayed development. Can
child care buffer the negative effects on education and
employment outcomes of race, teenage parenthood, poverty, and
their collaborative impact? This research reflected concerns
in the US that African American children were not ready to
compete with European American children in racially integrated
schools. Intervention programs such as Head Start responded to
this concern by creating and testing preschool intervention
programs.
In spite of the variance amongst child care intervention
programs and research methods, the preponderance of answers to
this question were affirmative, at least in the short-term (Karoly
et. al., 1998). Child care interventions were shown to
increase IQ, social competence, school readiness, academic
achievement, positive teacher and parent social and academic
ratings, high school completion, and decrease special
education referrals, welfare subsidies in adulthood, and
criminality. The positive effects on children at-risk for poor
educational and employment outcomes were greater when child
care interventions were early and comprehensive. As a bonus,
there seemed to be some positive impacts of child care
interventions on parental behaviours and parent well-being
(Ramey & Ramey, 1998). Data from intervention initiatives in
France, Ireland, and the UK also supported the notion that
child care intervention programs increased level of school
readiness, school achievements, and rate of high school
completion (see Waldfogel, 2002, for summary).
Research findings suggest positive effects of child care on
children who are at risk for poor development only when child
care is of high quality (e.g., Burchinal & Cryer, 2003; Loeb
et. al., 2004; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997;
Votruba-Drzal, 2004). In fact and in contrast to popular
belief, even high socio-economic status does not seem to
buffer against negative effects of poor quality child care
(e.g., Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997). Past research
suggested positive effects of high quality child care even on
the development of children who were at low-risk for poor
educational and social outcomes (e.g., Bryant, Burchinal, Lau,
& Sparling, 1994; Larsen & Robinson, 1989). Given these
research findings, it is reasonable to assume that children
who live in poverty and attend poor quality child care are
disadvantaged by the worst of both worlds.
In summary, child care research is coloured by political,
social, national, and theoretical contexts. These are the same
factors that drive all research initiatives in one way or
another. However, the early studies taught researchers two
important lessons. First, when measuring the impact of
non-parental child care on children's development, it is
important to remove confounding factors relating to family
characteristics that also are known to affect children's
development. Second, the overall quality of child care
may significantly govern the impact on children's development
over and above individual features of child care.
CCKM's Research Guide to
Child Care Decision Making took these two lessons into
consideration when developing the methods for selecting and
analysing the 66 child care reports.
|