Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHILD CARE
CHILD CARE QUALITY OPTIONS DOCUMENTS
DOMAIN AND CONSTRUCT DEFINITIONS AND JUSTIFICATION
Domain
Child Care
Definition
Child care can be defined as the arrangement where the child spends the most number of hours while his/her mother or father is at work. Child care is typically offered in a number of different forms: (1) center-based child care, such as child care centers, Head Start, preschool, pre-kindergarten, and before- and after-school programs; (2) family child care, which is care by a non-relative in the provider’s home; (3) relative care, which is care by a relative either in the child’s or the provider’s home; (4) babysitter or nanny care, which is care by a non-relative in the child’s home; and (5) parent care where the child stays at home with his/her mother or father (Capizzano, Adams, & Sonenstein, 2000). For this project, we have included center-based care, family child care, relative care, and babysitter care in our definition of child care, but not parent care at home. We consider child care for children from birth through school age; therefore, child care also includes before- and after-school arrangements.
Global Justification for Selection of Domain
Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the nine evaluations consider the domain of child care important for improving the lives of low-income children and families more generally. Because this domain is well aligned with the expertise, strengths, and interests of the Work Group, we are focusing an options document on child care. Research on child care is vast, and numerous child care constructs have been examined, typically focusing on the effects of various aspects of child care on children’s development. Examples of child care constructs include the number of hours a child is placed in care per week, the number of arrangements a child experiences during a week, and the type and quality of child care a child receives. For this project, we focus on child care quality. Each of the Administrating for Children and Families evaluations focuses on low-income children and their families and the improvement of child and family outcomes. Some of the studies focus on improving family well-being through features such as employment and increased income. If parents are working, their children must be placed in care, and numerous research studies have demonstrated the effect of child care quality on children’s development, especially among low-income children (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; McCartney, 1984; Peisner-Feinberg, et al., 1999; Phillips, McCartney, and Scarr, 1987; Schulman, 2000; Vandell, Henderson, & Wilson, 1988).
Construct
Child Care Quality
Definition
Child care quality is conceptualized by researchers in terms of either structural or process quality (Howes & Hamilton, 1993). Structural quality refers to features such as adult-child ratios, group or class size, and the education and training of providers (Bowman et al., 2001; Howes & Hamilton, 1993; Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1990). Procedural, or process, quality refers to the use of developmentally appropriate activities in the setting and to warm, sensitive, responsive interpersonal relationships with the provider (Bowman et al., 2001; Howes & Hamilton, 1993). The education with which the providers are equipped (Whitebook et al., 1990) as well as professional development activities that they are offered (Bowman et al., 2001), all contribute to the provision of a high-quality, developmentally appropriate environment.
Global Justification for Inclusion of Construct
Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the labor force participation of women because of many factors, such as the pursuit of higher education and careers, increases in the prevalence of single-parent families, the necessity of a dual income, and welfare reform (Bowman et al., 2001; Hofferth, Shauman, Henke, & West, 1998; Vandell & Wolfe, 2000). For many working families, considering alternative arrangements for caring for children is a necessity (Hayes, Palmer, & Zaslow, 1990; Howes & Hamilton, 1993; Leslie, Branson, & Anderson, 1989). However, child care is expensive and affording high-quality child care is beyond the financial means of many working families (Whitebook et al., 1990; Schulman, 2000) which may necessitate placing children in low- to moderate- quality care (Schulman, 2000).
This type of care is problematic because research findings indicate the importance of high-quality child care for children’s development and success later in life (McCartney, 1984; Phillips et al., 1987; Schulman, 2000; Vandell, Henderson, & Wilson, 1988; Whitebook et al., 1990). Two groundbreaking studies of the effects of quality child care on children’s development clearly show these effects. The first study, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, began in the 1960s with a sample of 123 low-income African American 3- and 4-year-olds that were randomly assigned to a high quality preschool or no preschool. Follow-ups conducted at regular intervals from early childhood through adulthood (the last follow-up was completed when individuals were 41 years old) demonstrated that children who attended a high-quality preschool performed better than the control group children on intellectual and language tests; were more ready for school; did better in school on reading, language, and math; had better general literacy skills; and had higher earnings, economic status, education, and fewer arrests and welfare dependence (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993; Schweinhart, 2003). The second study, the Abecedarian project, followed the development of 111 infants from low-income families through early adulthood. Children were randomly assigned to early intervention in a high-quality child care setting or to a non-treated control group. Similar to the Perry Preschool Project, follow-ups conducted from early childhood through age 21 demonstrated that the treatment group had better scores on cognitive assessments and tests of reading and math and were more likely to be in school and have attended a 4-year college than the control group (Early Developments, 2000).
Research also demonstrates that children who are more at risk of failure (e.g., those children who come from poverty or whose mothers have low education or depression) do better in school if they attend high-quality early childhood programs (Bowman et al., 2001; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999). However, children who come from such backgrounds are less likely to have the resources to afford high-quality care. Given the importance of a quality child care environment for children’s development, especially among children who are at risk for school failure, being able to measure and evaluate the quality of child care is critical.
References
Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F.L. (2000). Child care arrangements for children under five: Variation across states. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available on the Web at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=309438.
Early Developments (2000, spring volume 4, no. 1). Abecedarian project age 21 follow-up. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. Available on the Web at www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc.
Hayes, C. D., Palmer, J. L., & Zaslow, M. (1990). Who cares for America’s children: Child care policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hofferth, S. L., Shauman, K. A., Henke, R. R., & West, J. (1998, June). Characteristics of children’s early care and education programs: Data from the 1995 National Household Education Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). Child care for young children. In B. Spodek (Ed.),
Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 322–336). New York: Teachers College Press.
Leslie, L. A., Branson, M. P., & Anderson, E. A. (1989). The impact of couples’ work profile on husbands’ and wives’ performance of child care tasks. Family Perspective, 22(4), 327–344.
McCartney, K. (1984). Effects of the quality of the day-care environment on children’s language development. Developmental Psychology, 20, 244–260.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., et al. (1999). The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school: Executive Summary. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available on the Web at http://www.FPG.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/CQO-es.pdf
Phillips, D. A., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child care quality and children’s social development. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537–543.
Schweinhart, L. J. (2003, April). Benefits, costs, and explanation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 10). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Schulman, K. (2000). The high cost of child care puts quality care out of reach for many families. Washington, DC: Children’s Defense Fund (Issue Brief).
Vandell, D. L., & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? University of Wisconsin-Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty.
Vandell, D., Henderson, V. K., & Wilson, K. S. (1988). A longitudinal study of children with varying quality day care experiences. Child Development, 59, 1286–1292.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Final Report: National Child Care Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: Child
Care Employee Project.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |