Young Children, Parents and Professionals

Enhancing the links in early childhood

Margaret Henry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN:
  9780415128315
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134796144
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

As early year education and very early child care increase, parents and professionals face many difficult questions. What are the effects of early education on children? Are parents fulfilling their roles? What should teachers' roles be? Seldom asked are more basic questions: What are the fundamental needs of young children? Or parents? Or professionals? How can these differing sets of needs be met? Margaret Henry proposes three dimensions of caregiving behaviour through which parents and professionals not only help young children to develop, but can also help one another's development. Evidence of positive change comes both from her own research in family day care and from the work of her students, practicing teachers and child care personnel. Their examples involve often hard-to-reach parents - those who are tired, employed, alienated, bossy and culturally and ethnically diverse. There are practical suggestions here for professionals and parents interested in enhancing their relationships with one another and the outcomes for young children.

1

THE TIMES OF THEIR LIVES

Like the citizens in Charles Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, young children in today’s Western societies are living in the best of times and the worst of times.

THE BEST OF TIMES

For young children, these are the best of times because we know now more than has ever been known about how to help them become, and remain, predominantly happy, healthy, productive and caring of others. Views of children which ideologised them as repositories of original sin and which helped to perpetuate the long nightmare of childhood recorded from earlier times (de Mause, 1974) have been offset, in this century, by study after study of the actual behaviour of the young and of its causes. Bringing the scientific method to their investigations, researchers such as Gesell, Piaget, Isaacs, Erikson, Patterson, Ainsworth and Rutter have not merely philosophised about young children. They have observed them, and recorded how they function, and can function more joyously.

In addition, these are the best of times for young children because the resources potentially at their disposal are vastly enhanced. Take, for example, the resource of mothers. Mothers, so the tradition goes in Western societies, are there to be resources at home lavishing love on little children. Yet as Edgar (1981) points out, this ‘tradition’ is so short that, if we think of the life of humanity as a 24-hour day, ‘the middle class traditional nuclear family, of Mum at home with two or three kids and Dad the breadwinner, barely precedes the midnight chimes’ (p. 4). Before that, and for many families since, a variety of arrangements operated: young children were with parents at work, or with other members of the kinship group, or with paid servants (Aries, 1962; Shorter, 1976). It was the Industrial Revolution, bringing rising standards of living to the West, which permitted middle class (and increasingly working class) mothers to stay at home with the children. But since World War 2, further social and economic changes have propelled many mothers out again. By 1995, notes Ochiltree (1994:2), ‘two-thirds of children under the age of six in the United States will have mothers in the workforce’, while in Australia in 1993, 48 per cent of mothers with children aged 0–5, 68 per cent with 5–9 year olds, and 72 per cent with 10–14 year olds, were in the workforce (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1993).

If half of the mothers of very young children in Australia are employed and half are not, what does this mean for mothers as resources for their children? In the book Mothers and Working Mothers, Harper and Richards (1986) discuss their conversations with over 200 employed and non-employed mothers. Typical responses from each set of mothers are these:

Working mother (clerk) I do what I want to do within the circle of the family… I need my family but I must have other people as well. I must have other friends, I must have other interests.

Non-working mother I always put the children before housework… At home I can give them unrestricted time and attention. If I worked, they would have to fit in with my timetable, which is not a child’s timetable. I’d spend less time with them.

(Harper and Richards, 1986:245, 117)

If, as Freud (1961) said, the two resources that make life worthwhile are love and work, we see evidence of both in these two different, but satisfied, maternal responses. The Working Mother requires the ‘other interests’ found at work to complete the fulfilment of the family circle. The Non-Working Mother sees the family itself as her work and finds her fulfilment therein. At this point it is worth noting Berthelsen’s (1994:295) conclusion that ‘empirical evidence of any differential outcomes for children of employed versus non-employed mothers has not been forthcoming’. The fact that Western society at present offers both the option of working and the option of not working outside the home to women with differing needs helps to make this the best of times for them, and by enhancing them, for their young children.

Further, it is the best of times because it is increasingly recognised that mothers need not be children’s only resources as caregivers. Take, for example, fathers. An early study that demonstrated fathers’ importance in young children’s lives was the mid-1960s’ examination of the ‘development of social attachments in infancy’ by Scottish researchers Schaffer and Emerson (1964). Their observations showed that although mothers, not fathers, were the primary caregivers of the toddlers in the study (i.e. spent most time with them), it was the fathers to whom about a third of the children were primarily attached (as well, in many cases, as being attached to other figures who enriched their lives). These fathers interacted differently from mothers—often with more pizzazz, adored by the children, a finding confirmed in many later studies (Lamb, 1976).

But as well as their rough-and-tumble fascination for infants, fathers have also demonstrated their capacity for warmth and nurturance (Lamb and Oppenheim, 1989; Russell, 1983). Fathers have shown this particularly when they have taken on sole responsibility for young children, adopting patterns more like those of ‘traditional’ mothers. A father who, as Ochiltree (1994:12) puts it, ‘takes a more nurturing role due to separation, or illness of the mother, or because he chooses to stay home and care for the children while the mother is in paid work’ augments immeasurably the available resources and helps to make this the best of times for young children.

Russell (1983) has speculated that fathers might become more like mothers if their tasks were the same, and suggests that it is the demands of the task in a particular setting that are responsible for such a shift in behaviour patterns. Years ago, writing of school settings and their ability to impose similarities on the behaviour of those operating within them, Gump (1964:177) made the same point: ‘The nature of the settings themselves may coerce social interaction patterns as much as teacher personality variables.’

Are there other home-like settings that exist for young children in these best of times, settings that are available to them as resources when mothers, fathers and other family members are unavailable? Of course there are. There are family day care homes and child care centres. What is best for young children in child care depends on the two factors mentioned by Gump: the ‘nature of the settings’ themselves and the ‘personality variables’ of the staff.

In an article entitled ‘Is day care as good as a good home?’ Prescott (1978) answers yes to her own question, provided that ‘the nature of the settings’ in day care can meet a number of standards commonly achieved at home. Home is a setting seen by Prescott as having evolved, in part, to meet the needs of young children for nurturance, sensory exploration and the fostering of autonomy and initiative. Similar results will be achieved in centre settings, she believes, provided that staff keep in mind home-like measures of child initiation of activity, measures of ‘softness’, freedom from structured routines, problem-solving conversation with adults and active engagement with the environment.

As for the ‘personality variables’ of teachers in child care, these have sometimes been seen as deeply different from those of parents, sometimes as strongly similar. Katz (1980), for example, emphasises differences, maintaining that parents’ roles are diffuse yet optimally intense, while those of teachers are specific but optimally detached. Yet in the same paper, Katz has noted that the younger the child, the broader the scope and responsibility assumed by any caregiving adult. Powell (1989: 55), too, has concluded that ‘the work of early childhood practitioners is likely to be viewed as similar to the tasks of parenting’.

So what are the behaviours that both practitioners and parents perform that help to create the best of times for young children? Here is Schaffer’s (1971:135) description of the operative adult behaviours that he found elicited attachments on the part of very young children to both mothers and others: ‘in the first place the individual’s responsiveness to the infant’s signals for attention, and in the second place, the amount of interaction which the adult spontaneously initiated with the infant.’ (It was that spontaneous initiation of rough-and-tumble that lifted fathers to top place on their toddlers’ attachment scorecards.)

In a similar description of the qualities that she found ‘predicted good child development in centers and family day care homes’, Clarke-Stewart (1987:113) has written of ‘activity areas oriented to the child’s activity’ and of ‘a caregiver whose interactions with the child were responsive, accepting and informative’.

THE WORST OF TIMES

With more knowledge and more resources (settings and people) available than ever before to get young children started, why are these best of times also the worst?

The reason is largely because parents cannot win. Not just mothers (Harper and Richards, 1986), but fathers too, in many areas of Western society, are caught within a thicket of confusion and guilt. This confusion sprouts around the roles of those looking after young children.

For women, the dual roles of engaging in family-related love and work appear to have been happily resolved in the two quotations (see p. 2) from a Working Mother (‘I must have other interests’) and a Non-Working Mother (‘I always put the children before housework’). But the voices of these two contented role models from the Harper and Richards’ (1986) gallery are drowned out by the array of women in their study crowding forward to express anxiety and resentment. A home wife speaks of her working sisters:

They don’t worry about their kids. So long as they’re getting ready for work, they just ignore the kids. They just don’t care. They’re always in a hurry.

(Harper and Richards, 1986:28)

One of the workers agrees:

I intended to stay home. I had a grandmother’s attitude. But I didn’t have children for a long time, so I kept on working. Financially it made a big difference. When I did have a child, I decided I couldn’t bear not to go on working. I feel guilty at having left her at an early age. I regret not having the sole care of her when she was young.

(Harper and Richards, 1986:55)

A home wife reflects on the people that stigmatise her:

They sort of look at you now as if to say, ‘You’re not capable of anything else. What would you know? What would you know, Libby, you only stay home.’ I’m not capable of reading a newspaper because I stay home and look after a baby and wash and iron.

(Harper and Richards, 1986:42)

The dreary housewife, the selfish worker (with condemnation softened by an excuse ‘if it’s really necessary’)—these are the alternative stereotypes. They are held not only by many members of the public but also by many of the women concerned. The ill effects on young children of living in a climate of domestic unease and anxiety have been well documented (Hock et al., 1988).

It is not only mothers whose lives, with those of their children, are pricked and scratched by the tangle of confused emotions surrounding their family roles. Fathers, too, are beset. Over the years, studies conducted in Australia and elsewhere have shown that the contribution of fathers to the everyday tasks of family life has been miniscule in comparison to that of mothers. Russell’s (1983) Australian findings that mothers were performing 90 per cent of child care tasks and 70 per cent of family work have been virtually replicated in the USA (Demo and Acock, 1993) across all family types, irrespective of whether mothers were employed or not. Mothers have called for a greater sharing of such family work (Russell, 1984) and fathers have increasingly expressed agreement (Glezer, 1991). However, attempts to achieve greater equality within the home have struck obstacles. Russell (1994:17) has noted that: ‘In some families fathers were dissatisfied because mothers were unwilling to allow them to take over more responsibilities for child care and housework.’ Russell speculates on ‘the barriers presented by mothers themselves, many of whom struggle with the ambivalence of overtly seeking paternal involvement but covertly experiencing an “encroachment” on their domain of perceived power and expertise’.

Such feelings of ‘encroachment’ on one’s own domain may also underlie the uncertain relationships that often exist between the adults from the ‘old’ setting for young children, the home, and those from that ‘new’ setting, the child care centre. Not all parents, of course, feel encroached on by the child care worker. Some of the mothers interviewed by Harper and Richards (1986) embrace her presence with delight, such as this mother speaking of family day care:

I’m very happy with it. She’s a better mother than I am. More patient. My little girl has someone else to play with and sees a different home environment. I can forget I’ve got kids while I’m at work. I’ve got no worries. I know they’re being well looked after.

(Harper and Richards, 1986:64)

But many mothers—sometimes apologetically—see their own territory threatened if ‘outsiders’ acquire a stake in their children’s upbringing:

We have a thing about not leaving our children with anybody but family. I suppose, you know, I’m really sorry I still sort of think that way. But I can see the error of my ways, in that they should be able to mix with everybody, or go along with everybody. I still, I myself have got this thing; I prefer them to be with the family.

Harper and Richards, 1986:121)

Another mother speaks of the impossiblity of anyone but herself looking after her young child:

I’d have to find someone who shares my thoughts on child-raising. I would always be apprehensive, because I don’t believe anyone else could give her the mental stimulation I do.

(Harper and Richards, 1986:131)

Mothers who see themselves as being squeezed out of their rightful nest by the upstart cuckoo of child care have their counterparts in the centres, where many professionals have their own sets of negative attitudes to offer. A powerful insight into such attitudes comes from a questionnaire administered by Kelly (1986) to 84 final year students of early childhood teaching. These students were asked what their future work preference would be if they were in full-time employment and were going to have a baby. A quarter of the students said that they would stay at home till the child was aged three or four, while another 45 per cent said that they would not work till the child was at school. Asked, further, for their preferred type of child care if money were no object and they wanted to work full-time, 54 per cent opted for care by relatives or friends only. Not till the baby was 18 months to two years old would a sizeable proportion (38 per cent) consider care in a child care centre, the setting where many of them were about to work. As Kelly (1986:9) notes, our present child care policy ‘erects some buildings and staffs them with people who basically believe that women and babies belong at home together’.

As Kelly points out, such attitudes reflect the most conservative view of child care for the very young—namely that it should not exist—or the second most conservative view—that it is a necessary evil, a band-aid measure for those who ‘really need it’ financially or through some special family problem. They are not attitudes that see in child care ‘a valuable supplement to the family’s resources’ like baby health centres, or which prize ‘the contributions which non-parental caretakers make to children’s development’ (Kelly, 1986:4).

Possessing these attitudes, it is not surprising that child care staff have been heard to make both self-denigratory and parent-denigratory remarks. As a mother drops off her toddler, the group leader looks around the room for ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 The Times of their Lives
• 2 Needs Must
• 3 In Search of a Model
• 4 Responsiveness
• 5 Control
• 6 Involvement
• 7 Mr Micawber and the Model all Together
• Questions
• Appendices
• References
• Index