ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

I'm following the international literature, too and it's quite fascinating. In countries that did not have a high quallity public system for early education,
there is a lot of emphasis on how bad programs are when government does not provide the service. That's a lot like the political climate in this country that led to the creation of program licensing and enforced standards. Some countries are interested that there are some commericial chains, and they are very ambivalent about them. We should realize that our regulatory systems in the US make it possible to have private programs with a public purpose.
The other very interesting thing being discussed in the literature is the movement in European countries to integrate care with education. Some of these countries had very high quality programs operated publicly, for children younger than school age. School age was 7 years old. Twenty-five years ago a US eductor said to a Danish eductor:
"Your early childhood programs are very exciting. But in my country we believe that the early years are the most important for learning."The Dane replied,
"We believe that too, and that is why we do not allow children in school until the age of seven." However, over the past ten years some countries are adding young children in schools and adapting their school cultures to be ready for this age group. (Finland, a school system that outperforms the US in many ways, still does not permit children in school until age 7.) The changes that are being made in schools are identified and discussed in research as integrating care with education. Anyone in our country interested in UPK should be especially interested in this, because the literature in UNICEF and other sources is clear that
the two will not be integrated unless and until the schools accept care as a part of their mission.

Much of the criticism of early childhood education is based upon some highly flawed premises. Let’s look at two of them:
1. One recent critic in your posts described an early childhood setting that was “negligent, frightening, and bleak.” To be sure, the quality of most of the pre-schools in our country at the present time leave a lot to be desired. Despite research showing that personnel who work with young children should be highly trained professionals in the field of child study and development, the salaries paid to them are among the lowest in the nation. One survey a couple of years ago put their salaries on the level of car-wash attendants. Under such conditions, very few people with college and post-graduate training will go into the field and among those that do, the turnover is very high. A study done a few years ago among 158 pre-schools, for example, revealed that in 1997 alone, 27 percent of child care center teachers and 39 percent of assistant teachers left their jobs and 20 percent of the schools reported losing more than half of their teaching staffs. The result is the lowering of standards for people entering the profession and a decline in the quality of care for the children. Obviously, the cure for the problem is not to kill the concept of early child care and education but to invest our resources in upgrading the profession so that it will attract and maintain highly skilled personnel.
2. Another posted critic declares, “No one has an absolute right to a career. If you choose to have children, your major responsibility is to care for them properly, and if that affects your career, it affects your career.” Unfortunately, the economic reality in our country today is that, in two parent households, the incomes of both parents are absolutely necessary in keeping those families afloat. And, of course, this fact is compounded in single parent households. Census figures for 2002 reveal that over 60 percent of all American mothers with children under the age of six were now in the labor force. The overwhelming majority of these women are not there simply to enhance their careers but because they have to be there.
With private pre-schools charging anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 a year, well out of the range of ordinary working families, the answer is not to continue the present unsatisfactory situation but to invest in the future of our children with a national program of high-quality early child care.

These aren't necessarily critiques of early childhood care and education. We as early childhood educators are supposed to believe that the absoloute best place for a child is with their parents. Of course it is! But, if that is not possible for WHATEVER reason (a necessity, a decision, whatever), we can provide a safe, healthy, engaging, environment where chidlren can grow and thrive. Just because the authors are advocating for parents to stay home with their chidlren does not mean that they are against early childhood as a field. We as early childhood educators, I would hope, are not fighting to have all parents go to work and send their kids to child care from the time thay are 6 weeks or 6 months or even 3 years--regardless of how high quality it is!

One does not always know the circumstances of the other. Many women are driven to work because of the economy & their status as a single parent. What is important is the tender loving care of the children. Parents need to insure this is happening when a decision is made for child care. That is parental reponsibility. I also question the support of the government in these countries so that a parent can care for their own child.

In light of the brain development research I must agree with these critics. Most of the centres I know (and I know a few) are bleak, boring, emotionally impoverishing places for young children. I am always amazed that people can take the trouble to decide to have a child or even children and then give over the most influential years of a child's life to relative strangers, some who are not even trained to work with these young children. We all make choices. It is just unfortunate that our children pay the price for the choices we make.