Early Childhood Care & Education

International Perspectives

Edward Melhuish, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, Edward Melhuish, Konstantinos Petrogiannis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134176151
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Throughout the world the number of working mothers with young children has continued to grow. This has important consequences for social policy decisions, particularly in the fields of parental leave, childcare and pre-school services provision. Some countries are far more successful at combining high quality early childhood services with high percentages of mothers in employment, whereas others continue to struggle.

This edited volume examines the ways in which different countries across the world are tackling early childhood services and how these services affect young children's experiences and development, for better and worse. Some of the recurring questions of childcare provision are tackled, including:

• Is pre-school childcare detrimental to children?
• Does the quality of childcare matter?
• Why are some countries succeeding in providing quality childcare services, and others are not?
• How can we best organise parental leave, employment regulations and childcare provision?

1 Introducing international perspectives on early childhood care and education

Edward Melhuish and Konstantinos Petrogiannis

The objective of this book is to offer information and evidence on early childhood care and education (ECCE) from an international perspective to those who are, directly or indirectly, interested or involved with young children and their families. Ideological and historical context can explain how a system of ECCE develops within a country, and an understanding of the ECCE system and its characteristics can explain how effects upon children can occur.

The development of ECCE services is intimately linked with the changing role of women, the increase in maternal employment and other social factors (e.g. ageing population, declining fertility, migration, increase of lone-parent families) as these have an impact on countries’ policies. Economic factors are also important in two ways. First, without a strongly growing economy a country will not be able to afford the best ECCE services. Second, there is a growing realisation that high-quality ECCE services may well be a critical factor in the economic development of countries in that the human capital created by high quality ECCE is becoming increasingly indispensable in increasingly technological and knowledge-based economies. These two considerations suggest a long-term feedback loop between development in ECCE and economic development.

Some countries have achieved high levels of quality of ECCE services combined with high rates of maternal employment, whereas other countries, despite showing a significant increase of women’s employment, did not show much advance in ECCE services. Hence ECCE services do not automatically develop when there is a clear need for them. Other factors such as the ideology and politics deriving from a country’s history and culture are important.

The social structures and cultural beliefs of every society are reflected in the broader attitudes of the public and in the ways the governments consider the needs of mothers with young children. The dominant ideology of each country is expressed through policy and partly determines the types, characteristics and the quality of ECCE services. These features have direct and indirect impact on the quality of the experiences of young children and, ultimately, on their development.

This book attempts to relate historical and cultural contexts to the development of ECCE and the place of research on ECCE through a consideration of the situation in nine countries (China, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States) from four continents with distinctly different histories and cultures. The situation in countries that have their own tradition and philosophy in the sector of family and child welfare policy is presented as well as the most important up-to-date research evidence concerning ECCE experiences and their effects on young children.

The USA is a country with a long-standing tradition in research regarding early childhood care and education. As a result, the US policy-makers have more detailed information available on the factors known to enhance or impede good child development than other countries. Nevertheless, with regard to supply, quality and affordability of ECCE services for young children, the US is far behind a number of other industrialised countries. The vast research evidence has largely been ignored apart from the case of ECCE programmes for disadvantaged children (e.g. Head Start). In their chapter, Allhusen, Clarke-Stewart and Miner demonstrate how, despite the dramatic increase in maternal employment and the corresponding increase in childcare participation, there is no national policy for increasing the availability of childcare, providing financial backing for families or facilities, or monitoring childcare quality. The result is that today most childcare in the US is informal and unregulated and discrepancies between states have increased. The picture reflects an ideological position, long held in the English-speaking countries, that children under school age are solely the responsibility of the parents, and that the state shall have no role unless the child is at risk.

The chapter by Melhuish describes the long historical development of a similar set of ideologies and governmental policies in the UK. Such policies controlled the development of ECCE in the UK until 1997, when a change of government heralded a new social agenda. There has been a fundamental change, with childcare, preschool education and parental leave being given a high level of priority in government policy and funding. These changes have been accompanied by a parallel emphasis on ‘evidence-based policy’ with the result that the government’s new policies in this area have been heavily influenced by research. The resulting system of ECCE is currently undergoing great turbulence as the country struggles to find a new pattern of services that suits the emerging needs of a changing nation.

Scandinavian countries have long been in the vanguard of progressive social policy, and the fields of ECCE and parental leave are no exception, with the result that other countries often look to the Scandinavian countries for ideas in developing social policy. Scandinavian countries have had the most extensive governmental support for ECCE and parental leave in the world, and their ECCE is amongst the most developed in the world. Hwang presents and discusses policy in relation to ECCE and relevant research in Sweden. There are two dominant features to the Swedish welfare system: the extent of public childcare and the parental leave provision. The country has established a universal system of childcare and preschool education, and generous parental leave allows parents time with their infants without excessive financial hardship and, when they do return to employment, their childcare needs are catered for and subsidised by the government. But not only are parents’ needs taken care of, but also government regulation and funding ensure a prevailing high level of quality of ECCE provision. The extensions to parental leave provision that can stretch up to 18 months after a child’s birth have led to a reduction in demand for childcare in the first year of life, when good-quality childcare is most expensive. This in turn releases resources for maintaining quality of services for older children. However, no country is immune from global change and a variety of sociodemographic changes have taken place during the past few decades (e.g. increase in immigration, decreased birth rate, an increase in women in the workforce followed by an increase in unemployment) with consequent changes in patterns of family life. However, the high quality of ECCE provision results in research findings that indicate that children attending day care develop at least as well as children cared for at home.

It is a very different picture in other European countries. In southern Europe there are different traditions to those prevailing in northern Europe. Two countries, Italy and Greece, are considered in this book in that they represent different paths taken in the southern European tradition, where there is an increasing interest in ECCE services.

Italy has a long tradition in the field of early childhood education, and provides an interesting opportunity to study some perspectives on ECCE in modern society, both because of the changes that have taken place in families’ demand and because of the history of ECCE provision. The chapter by Musatti discusses the social function of early educational services within the framework of young children’s daily lives and their parents’ need for social support. Musatti describes early education provision, its development and the issues at stake, and attempts to give answers to parent and child needs. Italy is of particular interest due to the intense socio-economic differences between the north and south, the power of local government, and the pedagogical initiatives undertaken in ECCE. Innovations in Italy in ECCE hold potential lessons for many other countries.

The position of ECCE in Greece is heavily influenced by the traditional structure of Greek families, characterised by a strong sense of inter-generational obligation. This is common in southern European countries. Dramatic economic and socio-demographic changes in the past four decades have led to a progressive change from a collective to a more individualised lifestyle with consequent changing values, conceptions and needs regarding ECCE. Petrogiannis refers to features of the present that are related to significant elements of the past. In common with many countries there are distinct ‘care’ and ‘education’ systems controlled by different government departments. This division has consequences for the nature of ECCE provision, e.g. in services offered to parents and children, finance and the training of staff. The prevailing ideology results in a system that suffers from haphazard and poor regulation, and the limited research presents the depressing consequences for the quality of early childcare institutions and possibly for children’s development.

Israel has a history completely unlike that of any other country and Rosenthal’s chapter illustrates how the country’s development and the development of ECCE are inextricably bound together. The country’s history leads to an ideology that gives particular emphasis in the acculturation of young children through the tradition, customs, values, beliefs and language of Israel as well as an emphasis on collectivism over individualism. The chapter also presents the evidence on the consequences of the country’s policies for the characteristics and particularly the quality of ECCE services, with a consideration of possible consequences for Israeli children’s development. The chapter illustrates vividly how ECCE can only be understood in historical and socio-cultural contexts, and current development of services is clearly suffering from the country’s economic problems, with a low priority being given to ECCE.

The next two chapters present the situation of ECCE in two of the biggest, and fastest developing, countries of Asia, with their unique demographic and cultural features. Kapoor presents the ECCE situation in India as it has evolved from a particular historical and socio-cultural framework. Traditionally, the child in India is considered to grow naturally and there is little effort to consciously provide or structure the learning environment. Accordingly, the ECCE system is characterised by the minimal participation of very young children in childcare, reflecting an ideology that children’s socialisation is the family’s responsibility and with traditionally little appreciation of the role of ECCE in child development. Family care is seen as best for the child even when a mother goes out to work. Kapoor argues that it is this feature of Indian society that has been responsible for the lack of state support for ECCE even for the underprivileged population. However, the country is changing at a dramatic pace, and ECCE is increasingly seen as important for economic development. India now has the world’s largest integrated early childhood programme providing non-formal preschool education to over 23 million children aged three to six years and aiming to improve the health and development of children.

China has the world’s fastest growing economy and social change is phenomenal. Part of the change is the development of kindergartens, a form of ECCE seen as essential to the country’s long-term ambitions. Li Shenglan gives an overview of the recent reformation and development of kindergartens in China since 1990. State legislation orders that all provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities across the country not only operate kindergartens but also encourage and support business, enterprise, corporation, resident commission and the individual efforts to run kindergartens. The author provides an account of the major innovations introduced with regard to programmes and characteristics such as the group sizes and staff–child ratios, enrolment of young children, staff training and qualifications, as well as partnerships of kindergarten, family and community. What is striking is the government’s role in every aspect of kindergarten functioning, even down to attempts to specify daily activities. Such an extensive role with plans for universal provision implies enormous public investment in ECCE.

The history of New Zealand with two cultural groups (Mãori and Pakeha/‘white’) coexisting for more than 150 years, has culminated in dramatic changes to ECCE in the country. Issues of biculturalism between Mãori and Pakeha are now combined in multicultural diversity that radically affects policy and research. Smith and May describe the history, policy and characteristics of the diverse ECCE provision in Aotearoa–New Zealand and its integrated model of care and education that is supported through government funding, teacher education programmes and a national curriculum (Te Whãriki). Interestingly, this country’s policy has been influenced by research in a similar manner to that in the UK. A cumulative body of systematic research has directly influenced government policies towards increasing the status, recognition and funding for ECCE services. The chapter appraises how the unique interplay of research, pedagogy and policy in the advocacy, implementation and evaluation of early childhood care and education has occurred. The result is that the status and recognition of ECCE has increased, with largely positive public attitudes, perhaps because research has supported the value of participation in ECCE for children and families. The high level of public commitment has resulted in innovations in New Zealand that deserve the world’s attention.

The book is addressed to those interested in the policy, practice and research evidence on early childhood care and education. It attempts to provide a framework for international comparisons that may enhance the concepts developed within any one country while exposing people to the alternative realities and ways of approaching early childhood care and education apparent in different countries. Students of social policy, social science, psychology and education may all find something useful herein. We hope that this book will contribute to better quality early childcare and education provision and useful knowledge for all those who are involved.

2 Childcare in the United States

Characteristics and consequences

Virginia D. Allhusen, K. Alison Clarke-Stewart and Jennifer L. Miner

Over the past quarter-century, major shifts have taken place in the social demography of the United States. The Utopian view of the two-parent nuclear family living in the suburbs with father working nine to five while mother baked cookies and children played happily in a neatly manicured yard enclosed by a white picket fence has been replaced. Today, when there are cookies they are baked at midnight or bought at the grocery store (also, perhaps, at midnight); there may or may not be a father living at home, but, regardless, the mother is likely to have hung up her apron and found paid employment outside the home, either by choice or by economic necessity. In 1977, approximately 4.3 million American children under age six were cared for by someone other than their mothers for a significant portion of each week. A decade later, that figure had more than doubled to 8.8 million, and by the end of the next decade, 12.4 million children under the age of five were in childcare of some type (Smith, 2002). This figure represents more than half of all preschool-aged children in the United States, and while the climb in childcare use has tapered off, there is no evidence that it will decline any time soon.

In 1970, attendees at the White House Conference on Children voted childcare the most serious problem facing American families. Yet three decades later, despite childcare participation tripling, there is still no comprehensive national policy on childcare. At best, there is a patchwork quilt of programmes and services varying by state, stitched together with a mix of public and private funding, public and private delivery, and a variety of systems for monitoring and regulation. Backing this quilt are long-held cultural beliefs that the family is sacred, that rearing children is the sole responsibility of the family, that the long arm of government has no place in this inner sanctum, and, in addition, ambivalence about whether mommies should be in the workforce. Taken together, the result has been that government has sidestepped responsibility for childcare and, mostly, families have been left to deal with childcare on their own.

Patterns of childcare use in the United States

Two types of care dominate the childcare market: home-based care and center care. Most families with working mothers use some kind of home-based childcare arrangement, partly because many parents of young children prefer a home-like setting for childcare, and partly because center-based childcare is not widely available and is often among the most expensive forms of care. Infants and toddlers of working mothers are usually cared for by their father (20 per cent), another adult relative (28 per cent), or an unrelated adult in that person’s home (18 per cent) or, less often, in the child’s own home (6 per cent). For older children (three- and four-year-olds), there is a shift toward more formal types of childcare (centers, preschools or nursery schools). Thus, although one-tenth of children under the age of one year are being cared for in centers (Ehrle et al. 2001), close to two-thirds of four-year-olds are enrolled in this type of care (NCES, 2002). This pattern of childcare use in the United States has remained remarkably stable over the past 15 years.

The evolution of a childcare ‘non-system’

The dramatic increase in the number of children in non-parental childcare over the past three decades has occurred in the absence of any comprehensive national system for increasing childcare, providing financial backing for families or facilities, or monitoring childcare quality. This is not to say, however, that the government has done nothing. From the time women first started to flood the workforce (in the 1960s), the federal government has been involved to varying degrees in financial support and quality regulation. This involvement has been piecemeal, with the country’s more than 90 different childcare and early childhood education programmes being managed by 11 different federal agencies and 20 different offices (US General Accounting Office, 1995). Contributors in the private sector have to some extent filled the considerable gaps left in the federal government’s attempts to cover American families’ childcare needs, but gaping holes still exist, in both financial support and quality regulation.

Financing and provision of childcare

The federal government’s role

A variety of childcare programmes were funded in the 1960s, administered by several different federal agencies. Over the course of the next four decades, support for these and later programmes ebbed and flowed, with a decline in funding during the mid-1980s followed by generosity in the mid- 1990s. Federal financial support for childcare has taken three basic forms: direct provision of childcare for low-income families (most prominently Head Start), subsidies to help lower-income families pay for childcare, and tax benefits for middle- and higher-income families.

HEAD START

Perhaps the most prominent federal role in childcare has been the Head Start programme. Created in 1965, Head Start is a comprehensive support programme for low-income families. It includes education, health, nutrition and mental health services to children and their families. Historically, Head Start was only available to three- and four-year-old children and funding was available to serve only a small fraction of income-eligible children. Beginning in the mid-1990s, however, Head Start funding was markedly increased, reaching an annual budget of $6.7 billion in 2003 and serving about 60 per cent of eligible children. Additionally, with the emergence of the Early Head Start programme in 1995, there has been a marked increase in the number of children under three receiving Head Start services (Raikes and Love, 2002).

However, Head Start was never intended to provide childcare for the purpose of allowing mothers to work outside the home. On the contrary, one of the founding principles of Head Start was that parents would be intimately involved in the programme, with the hope that such involvement would give them a sense of empowerment. Moreover, few Head Start programmes offer full day care, which working parents usually require.

SUBSIDIES

A second means through which the federal government has provided childcare assistance to lower-income families is via government subsidy programmes. The earliest of these was Title XX (now known as the Social Services Block Grant), begun in 1974. Through this programme the federal government provides states with monies for a variety of human services, including childcare. The 1990s were somewhat of a boom for childcare funding. In 1990 the Childcare and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) was established to help families pay for childcare if they earned less t...