ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

Once again Family Child Care has been lumped in with anything and everything that is not center care. When are researcher, educators and federal program administrators going to understand that child care in the home setting is not all "family child care". There needs to be distinction between relative care, neighbor care, and licensed care. A licensed family child care provider is a professional business person and many times are educated early childhood teachers with degrees. Why does the so-called educational community fail to see this distinction?

I am tired of the lack of respect given to childcare providers by society, but to get it from a group such as the Child Care Exchange shows just how deeply embedded this ignorance lies within the Educational community. Their article highlighting this study not only does not mention this discrepency, but even goes to the length of misquoting the study by saying that license exempt providers were included... when in fact the study states that the researchers "actively" sought out license exempt providers for the study. For all we know not one single item of data was generated from a licensed family child care. What a failed study and what a huge ingorant mistake on the part of the researchers. All I can say is SHAME ON THEM and SHAME ON YOU for perpetuating this ignorance.

I am so glad a study like this is being done, as we need to acknowledge the very important place family child care homes play in the lives of families and in the larger society.

I have some real concerns with the language used, however. When the report says "Learning activities (reading or being read to, math, science, or nature activities) constituted a small fraction (less than 10%) of children’s activities in the FCC home." I question how activities are characterized as "learning". When I read the Executive Summary, it turns out that dramatic play, physical play, and puzzles do not count. This seems totally unreasonable to me and tells me some very valuable experiences being provided in family child care homes, and indeed activities that have been cornerstones of good early childhood programs, are not being measured as learning activities.

The second concern I had from only the second page of the Executive Summary is that the providers are judged not to be teaching social skills. At the same time, the observers report that the environments are generally free of conflict, that children are happy, engaged, and also that providers are interacting almost constantly with children. These two observations again seem at total odds to me. How can a provider not be teaching social skills and at the same time create such an atmosphere and interact pleasantly with children for on average 13 hours a day!!!

I fear that in our country we are missing something huge in what is provided naturally by caring, loving, (and to point out just one more shocking detail, enormously underpaid!!) experienced caregivers. WE ARE TEACHING!! Please encourage observers and report writers studying family child care to look closely for the interactions in homes that teach. These may look very different from the interactions in more formal settings, and this difference is what we can learn from. Every day I teach my children social skills while changing their diapers, eating meals with them, and helping them get dressed. I don't need a social skills curriculum in a box to do this. We have a home and neighborhood filled with rich experiences. We don't need to sit down in a circle to teach science as we do it throughout our days. While we sometimes do more formal studies of something like worms or color, our experiences on a daily basis do not look like those in centers, yet our children learn. Researchers, please look again before making statements as potentially harmful as Learning activities constituted a small fraction (less than 10%) of children's activities in the FCC home." This is sure to lose us any stake we ever may have had in the new universal pre-k movement. We need your help, please use your power to see the good things children are learning in our homes and put them into words the world can understand. We do nurture, we also TEACH.

Thank you,

Maria West
Family Child Care Provider, Somerville, MA

It is hard to know where to start with my frustration at this report. But I guess I will start with the whole concept of 'learning activities.' Do you remember that children in a normally stimulating environment will engage in learning activities throughout most of their waking hours?

Where is the report of the amount of time these children are engaged in free play? Remember all the social learning, mastery of fears, language learning, and putting together of the mysteries of their small worlds that goes on during play? Is this not 'learning'?

How much time do these children play outdoors? This is not reported, but many fcc programs have significant time outdoors where children are interacting with the seasons, sand and water, grass, insects and the physics and mechanics of moving toys such as balls and wheeled toys. Most skilled educators can easily pick up the natural scientific 'learning' that goes on here.

The providers are in continual contact with the children, who are getting along comfortably in the program. Wouldn't you suspect that there is significant learning going on on a continual basis here? The teacher is modeling modulation, language, social skills, societal rules, demeanor, understanding of the other and the importance of remaining connected to others on a continual basis. Is this not significant learning? What about the children just plain 'learning' to be in a supportive and calming environment all day? They are learning the basis of being a member of a society, and about how this option of a calm enviroment is a wonderful possibility in our busy world.

What about the study of child development that each child in a fcc home is continually engaged in? The awareness of those younger than us, and older than us have different skills and ablities is a powerful piece of learning.

I could go on here, but the point is that strong educators know the difference between 'learning activities' and 'teaching activities'. We know that child centered approaches to life work better for kids.

I have come after many years of training with both center and fcc based programs to be concerned about a vital loss in many of the 'activities' or 'teaching' based programs. When a teacher or provider is focused on 'teaching' the children can be missed. Poor behavior, a skinned knee, a little quarrel or a child who becomes over or understimulated are a disruption to the project. Frustration mounts, and the real 'teaching moment' of caring for the children, teaching the skill that is needed right there by those children right now is missed. This is the basis for much of the disruptive behavior that is so frustrating for teachers. The children aren't getting their needs met for connection and all the other 'care' aspects of our field.

Our drive toward 'educating' the child has left so much behind. This report highlights it wonderfully. It will be a footnote in a text in future years as part of the misguided path we are currently wandering down.

TV watching? 40% of the time. Awful. In my program it is 0% of the time. But then I work an 8.5 hour day. If I was working 13 hours, I wonder if I would put it on too.
But that is a whole different kettle of worms.