Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
I Intro cluction .
OCR for page 2
OCR for page 3
1 Child Care in a Changing Society The United States, along with most other industrialized countries, has experienced a social revolution during the past quarter century. Since the mid-l96Os, more and more women, including those with children, have entered and remained in the paid work force. Their employment has been accompanied by falling birth rates, rising divorce rates, and older ages at marriage. Idgether these trends have had dramatic erects on the roles of men and women and on the form and function of families. Scholars, com- mentators, and public leaders alike have expressed amazement about the scope of social change in U.S. society and concern about its consequences for parents, for children, for employers, and for the nature of work and family life. Since the late 1980s, a major focus of this concern has been on the care and rearing of American children. There is growing recognition that if parents are to manage productive roles in the labor force and at the same time fulfill their roles within the family, a substantial social response is required. An issue that a generation ago was strictly regarded as a private family matter is today the subject of public discussion and public policy. In 1988 more than 10.5 million children under age 6, including nearly 6.6 million infants and toddlers under age 3, had mothers in the labor force. Another 18 million children between the ages of 6 and 13 had working mothers, and the numbers are expected to rise into the l990s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988~. Using U.S. Department of Labor data, Johnston and Packer (1987) project that by 1995 roughly two-thirds of all new labor force entrants will be women, and 80 percent of those in their childbearing years are expected to have children during their work life (Scarr et al., 1988~. Many children of working mothers are and will continue to be cared for by their parents, siblings, or other relatives, but a growing proportion receive care from unrelated adults in their own homes, in their caregivers' 3
OCR for page 4
4 WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN? homes, in schools, and in organized child care facilities (Bureau of the Census, 1987~. As a result, concern about the quality, availability, and affordability of nonparental child care has become a widespread national priority. What was traditionally viewed by most Americans as a problem of the poor has in the 198Os become a fact of everyday life for the majority of U.S. children and their families. Child care is now an essential aspect of domestic life and of the economic structure of the country. Although there is broad consensus that society should promote the healthy development of the next generation and minimize potentially harm- ful conditions, there is less agreement about what kinds of care are best for children of different ages and for those who are living in different social, economic, and cultural circumstances. There is, similarly, little agreement about who should provide care and who should pay for it. Debate over the appropriate role of government, employers, and parents themselves has intensified in recent years and has led to numerous proposals from leaders of both political parties and a broad array of special interest groups to address the increasing need for child care support and services. Although they differ greatly in their specifics, these proposals share the fundamental recognition that child care is costly, whether it is provided by parents, other family members, or unrelated caregivers and whether it is privately or publicly financed. For parents, usually mothers, who stay at home to care for their own children, there are "opportunity costs": the forgone income and work experience that employment outside the home would have yielded. For working parents, the purchase of child care services entails significant cash outlays. Quality care-care that is developmentally enriching and protective of physical health and safety is generally more costly than minimally adequate or poor-quality care. And quality care has been shown to compensate for disadvantaged family environments and to promote better intellectual and social development for some children than they would have experienced only in their homes (McCartney et al., 1985; Ramey et al., 1985~. For children who do not receive adequate care, the short-term costs are often manifested in a variety of poor social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes; behavioral difficulties; and health problems, especially for those from poor and disorganized home environments. The long-term costs, to the extent that they have been documented, are measurable in poor skills development, dropping out of school, reduced earnings, antisocial behavior, and even economic dependency. For society, a commitment to quality child care will inevitably entail substantial resources, which in the current context implies monetary costs that must be borne by parents, employers, taxpayers, or some combination of them. Until recently, however, the high costs of child care were largely invisible in an economic sense. The labor of a mother caring for her own
OCR for page 5
CHILD CARE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY child is not counted as productive economic activity in calculations of the gross national product; in contrast, one parent caring for the children of others is counted if it involves monetary expenditures. It is this transfer of money that has become more commonplace and has focused attention on the costs of child care in recent years. Another powerful aspect of the debate over child care policy is the growing recognition that children are a valuable national resource. Declin- ing fertility and a growing demand for skilled labor in the United States have drawn increasing attention to children. Pragmatic observers call at- tention to the fact that a smaller proportion of young workers will have to support a larger proportion of nonworking old people over the next several decades. They argue, therefore, that it is in society's self-interest to sup- port the development and optimize the productivity of each child. There is evidence of growing public concern about whether children are receiving appropriate social and cognitive stimulation and about whether they are physically safe and emotionally nurtured. Despite the strong conviction of most Americans that government should not intervene in the family except in the most extreme circumstances, they also believe in high standards for childrearing. Although these de facto standards will not dictate child care policy, they may provide a basis for national action. What public policy ought to be, of course, rests in part on assessments of the costs and benefits of quality child care and the costs of inadequate care. It also depends on consideration of who reaps the benefits and who should pay the costs. What level of quality is 'Good enough"? Who should make that judgment? Should childless individuals and families subsidize the costs of child care and childrearing? Should employers help bear these costs for their employees? 1b what extent and in what ways should government play a role in the care of children whose parents work outside the home and those whose parents remain at home? CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE The United States, unlike most Western industrialized countries, lacks a clear public child care policy. Issues concerning the care and rearing of children are complex, controversial, and they touch on closely held values. Virtually everyone holds definite views about how children should be nurtured. For this reason, any debate over child care policy inevitably raises a number of fundamental political, ideological, and developmental concerns. For some people, the overriding concern is mothers' labor force partic- ipation regardless of the availability and affordability of child care. Despite broader social and economic trends over the past two decades, some regard
OCR for page 6
6 WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN? mothers' working outside the home as a menacing threat to traditional fam- ily values. They argue that a mother's care for her children is preferable, that daily care by adults other than a child's own mother significantly risks the social and emotional well-being of the child and weakens mother-child attachment. Fears that "institutionalized" child care will lead to abnormal withdrawal and maladjustment have caused some people to completely oppose employment of mothers of young children and out-of-home care arrangements. Others, however, believe that changing patterns of maternal employ- ment are the inevitable consequence of broader social trends, including U.S. economic conditions, gender equity in the workplace, feminism, changing family forms and patterns of marriage, changing education and work pat- terns, and the declining standard of living in single-income families even if both parents are present. Public policy and programs, they suggest, should be neutral about whether or not mothers enter or remain in the paid labor force, but they should be aimed at optimizing the health and development of children whose mothers do work by ensuring accessibility to quality child care services. The costs of providing appropriate care for young children, they contend, are far less than the costs of ameliorating the predictable long-term negative consequences for children who are not well cared for. Still others argue that public policies should be aimed at enhancing women's labor force participation and career opportunities. For mothers of young children, child care is an essential condition of employment. Par- ticularly for low-income mothers, many of whom are the single heads of their households, the availability and affordability of child care may be a significant determinant of whether they seek job training and employ ment or receive support from Aid to Families with Dependent Children. As increasing numbers of middle-class mothers have entered the labor force over the past 15 years, concern about the employability and economic self- sufficiency of poor mothers has become more salient. There is growing recognition on the part of many who urge ~`workfare'' (working as a condi- tion of receiving welfare) that such change cannot occur without adequate child care support. Indeed, the intention that low-income women, including those with children, should acquire job skills and enter the work force was a powerful force in the passage of the 1988 Family Support Act. In addition, there are many who argue that comprehensive early child development programs including education, social services, medical and dental care, and nutrition are needed to give children from low-income and otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds the kinds of social skills and pre- academic experiences that will adequately prepare them for early schooling. Programs such as Head Start, they contend, have been instrumental in fostering the early academic success of many poor and minority children, regardless of the labor force status of their mothers. Such initiatives
OCR for page 7
CHILD CARE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY 7 represent fundamental investments in human capital that have far-reaching social and economic benefits to the individuals, their families, and society. In the context of the current policy debate, there are questions about whether Head Start-type programs can and should be adapted to meet the child care needs of low-income working parents and their children. Widespread disagreement about the nature of the child care problem has created confusion and conflict over what to do about it. Political leaders, program planners, early childhood professionals, as well as parents themselves appear divided over what the primary goals should be: to provide safe and developmentally appropriate care for all children whose parents work outside the home; to enhance the employability and career opportunities of women, including women who are the mothers of young children; to provide incentives for mothers on welfare to seek education and job training and accept positions in the work force that will help them achieve economic self-sufficiency and reduce welfare dependency; or to provide comprehensive early childhood services for disadvantaged children to ameliorate the negative consequences of deprivation and to enhance their readiness for entry into regular elementary education programs. Historically, the care and rearing of children was regarded as a private family affair, not as a public responsibility. Americans held as a fundamen- tal tenet the right of parents to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs. Government involvement in the family domain consis- tently provoked controversy except when parents were clearly unable or unwilling to provide the necessary care, nurturing, and supervision. Child protection, not child care, was regarded as an appropriate public role. This view provided a meager basis for legitimizing child care and child devel- opment as an item on the public agenda, and it discouraged far-reaching designs, such as the defeated Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1972 (see Hayes, 1982~. In 1971, despite congressional support, President Nixon rejected efforts to launch an ambitious federal child care program. In his veto message, he charged that the proposed program threatened the sanctity of the American family and promoted communal approaches to childrearing. Decisions concerning child care policy, especially at the federal level, were played out in highly value-laden debates about state in- trusion in family life (Hayes, 1982; Phillips, 1988; Steiner, 1981~. Child care has once again become a significant public concern in the late 1980s, and debate about the appropriate balance of public- and private-sector respon- sibility continues. Indeed, it now goes beyond the availability, affordability, and quality of care for children in out-of-home care and includes consider- ation of the appropriate public role in enhancing the economic feasibility of mothers staying at home to care for their own children. The diversity of child care arrangements adds to the complexity of the issue and has worked against the development of a national policy. Child
OCR for page 8
8 WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN? care is not a monolithic service system. It includes an array of professional providers and program types, such as child care centers, family day care and group homes, public and private nursery schools, prekindergartens and kindergartens, Head Start programs, and before and after school programs, as well as informal arrangements such as relative care, in-home babysitting, and nanny care. 1b some extent, this diversity reflects both the varied preferences and the limited options of parents in different social, economic, and cultural circumstances. Concern that a federal child care law would limit parents' flexibility and choice in making the arrangements they believe best meet their own needs and their children's has often been cited as an argument against support for categorical service programs. Disagreement and division within the professional service-provider community has also hampered efforts to develop a coherent child care policy. Historically, child care traces its roots in two separate traditions, social welfare and early childhood education. Child care as a component of the social welfare system has been regarded as a custodial and protective service for children whose parents worked, attended school, or needed out-of-home care themselves. Beginning with the charitable day nurseries that were established during the last quarter of the nineteenth century for poor immigrant children, such programs have served poor and dependent children. In contrast, early childhood education programs have provided comprehensive services for young children with an emphasis on cognitive growth and the development of social competence. Nursery schools and kindergartens were often initiated at the urging of middle-class parents con- cerned about providing academic and social enrichment to their children. These child-centered institutions were predicated on a belief that early learning will result in later cognitive gains and better school performance. Other child-oriented programs drawing on and expanding this model, most notably Head Start, were initiated by the federal government in the late 1960s to provide similar preschool experiences for low-income children. The early childhood field has developed in this mixed tradition, and unfor- tunately little has changed to unite the divergent public images of care and education. Many knowledgeable observers argue that it has resulted in a dichotomy that, at best, hampers effective program planning, coordination, and advocacy, and at worst, creates a two-tiered system that segregates poor children from their middle- and upper middle-income peers (Cahan, 1988; Kagan, 1988; Phillips and Zigler, 1987~. The lack of a clear public child care policy in the United States also stems in part from the fact that child care is intimately related to a number of other social policy issues about which there has been disagreement: women's participation in the labor force, welfare and workfare, compen- satory early childhood education, and the special protection of children
OCR for page 9
CHILI) CARE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY 9 at risk of developmental delay or damage. Unlike some other emotion- ally charged issues that have strongly united constituencies (such as gun control), the child care issue has had a crowded field of political players with divergent and often contradictory interests. These key individuals and organizations have rarely spoken with a unified voice. As a result, the child care issue has generally been characterized by vagueness. As Woolsey noted (1977:128~: All specify objectives clearly what form of care, for which children, financed through which institutional structures, employing what sort of staff, would undermine team spirit and is thus avoided." Moreover, despite the magnitude of the child care issue, there is a lack of detailed information about the costs, benefits, and feasibility of alternative policies and programs. Understanding of trends in mothers' labor force participation, the social and economic structure of families, and the developmental effects of supplemental care has advanced significantly in recent years, but knowledge of the effects and effectiveness of formal and informal, public- and private-sector responses to the child care needs of working families has not kept pace. In part, this is because the system of services is so diverse. Many kinds of child care arrangements are difficult to study, and systematic data at the national level are lacking. In part, inadequate empirical knowledge also reflects the fact that child care has not, until very recently, been an issue of national or even state-level priority. During much of the 1980s, federal research dollars were not allocated to national studies of child care. In addition, however, deeply conflicting concepts of the role of child care and its effects on children, parents, and society have made it difficult for researchers to frame questions and interpret data in ways that provide checks and balances over their own values and biases on these issues. For many American families in the l980s and for the foreseeable future, mothers' employment and their earnings are not a luxury. They are essential to maintain an adequate standard of living or simply to escape poverty. For many employers, women with children comprise a significant and growing component of their work force. Recruitment, retention, and productivity in many firms increasingly depend on the availability of supports and services to assist employees in managing their family responsibilities. In light of this reality, many observers conclude that, as a society, the United States may be ready to make the necessary adjustments to bring the separate worlds of work and family life closer together. CROSS-NATIONAL CONTEXT The United States was not alone in experiencing dramatic social changes during the past two decades. By the mid-197Os, labor force
OCR for page 10
10 WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN? participation was the modal pattern for adult women in most Western industrialized countries. As in the United States, women's increasing role in the paid work force made the tensions between work and family life more visible and universal. Although the policy responses have varied among countries, cross-national researchers and advocates often point out that the United States "lags" behind the rest of the developed world in its efforts to address the child care needs of working parents and their children (Kamerman and Kahn, 1981; Scarr et al., 1988~. Some countries have based their policies and programs on facilitating women's employment; others stress the child development focus of their initiatives. Regardless of their primary objectives, however, child care has come to be viewed as a public responsibility In many European countries, Canada, and Israel. These nations have invested heavily in child care, and they seem prepared to continue to do so. Despite a decade of fiscal constraints, none has curtailed its child care subsidies, and several are now moving to expand their commitments (Kamerman, 1988~. Almost all industrialized countries other than the United States have established maternity/parenting policies that permit working parents to re- main at home for a period of time after childbirth to recover physically and to care for their infants. These policies allow parents (natural and adoptive) to take leave without forfeiting either their employment or their income. The primary differences among countries that have adopted ma- ternity/parenting leave policies is the length of the leave (from 6 months to 3 years), the level of wage replacement (from 25 to 75 percent), and the inclusion of fathers as well as mothers (see Kamerman, 1988; Moss, 1988~. Almost all the European countries, as well as Canada and Israel, have acknowledged the importance and value of early childhood education for 3- to 5-year-olds and have taken steps to make these programs available to all children regardless of their mothers' work status. Primarily aimed at enhancing children's socialization and school readiness, these programs also provide child care services for the children of working mothers. In- creasingly, these programs are universal, free, and publicly funded, and they are often publicly operated as well. Even though they are not mandatory, they are used by all children whose parents can secure a place. Even in those countries that have established child care systems separate from the educational system, early childhood programs stress age and developmen- tally appropriate programming for all children regardless of whether their mothers are in the paid labor force or not (Kamerman, 1988; Moss, 1988~. Among most industrialized nations, there is also growing recognition of the need to expand the supply of child care services for children under age 3. As in the United States, concern about the availability of infant care has been accompanied by concern about the quality and cost of such care.
OCR for page 11
CHILD CARE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY 11 The demand for child care arrangements for very young children appears to exceed the current supply in many countries, but only Sweden and Finland have announced any significant commitment to expand services. Indeed, there is a growing trend in Europe to extend parenting leaves in some form to encourage one parent to remain at home until a child is 18 months, 2 years, or even 3 years of age (Kahn and Kamerman, 1987~. This type of policy, which began first in Hungary, has emerged in several Western European countries as well, including France, Finland, Germany, and Austria. The extraordinarily high costs of purchasing satisfactory out- of-home infant care, a deep-seated conviction that very young children are best cared for by their mothers, and an effort to encourage low-skilled women to stay out of the labor force in periods of high unemployment have all been cited as rationales for extending parental leaves as an alternative to expanding organized out-of-home infant care (Kamerman, 1988~. It is important to note that several countries have adopted these types of parental leave and child care initiatives as a complement to broader family policies that provide child or family cash allowances and in-kind benefits or both. These benefits are designed to supplement the income of low-income families with very young children so that married women with employed husbands can elect not to enter the labor force without suffering economic hardship. At the same time, however, the benefit is available to families in which both parents work or a single parent (usually the mother) is employed. In France and other countries that provide child and family allowances, there may be an implicit pronatalist objective, although, to date, parental leave has not been associated with noticeable increases in birth rates. Overall, family allowances have been successful in redistributing money from individuals and families with no children to those with children, and have benefited low-income families in a way that does not require mothers' employment (Kamerman and Kahn, 1981~. What are the implications of the experiences of other industrialized countries for the development of an appropriate social response to the growing need for child care supports and services in the United States? The United States is clearly different than many other countries because of its size and the social, economic, and cultural diversity that characterizes its population. The political process and social welfare traditions are also significantly different. The challenge for U.S. policy makers is to fashion policies and programs that fit the social and economic climate that values children and supports family life. Accordingly, regardless of whether there are direct lessons to be learned from the experiences of other countries, there are relevant points of comparison that can inform the continuing policy debate.
OCR for page 12
12 WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN? THE PANEL'S STUDY This study by an interdisciplinary panel, established under the auspices of the National Research Council's Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy, was supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Foundation on Child Development, and the Ford Foundation. Over a 2-year period, the panel, through a set of working groups, has sought to gather, integrate, and critically assess data concerning the implications of child care services for child development; regulations, standards, and enforcement; the child care market; and the child care delivery system as a basis for recommending future directions for policy and program development. Each working group commissioned background papers, conducted analyses of available data, and convened a workshop involving an array of researchers, policy makers, employers, providers, consumers, and child care advocates to gather information, identify significant issues, and highlight differing political, ideological, and intellectual perspectives. In addition, the panel gathered data to develop state profiles of the child care system. Child care policies and programs, and the issues that underlie them, touch upon deeply felt values. No review of existing research will ultimately resolve disputes arising from different political and ideological orientations. Scientific data and analysis are only some of the relevant inputs in the policy-making process. Nevertheless, a broad interdisciplinary synthesis of what is known about the developmental implications of supplementary care and a dispassionate assessment of what is known about the supply of and demand for different types of services and the factors affecting their costs, quality, and delivery will serve several important purposes. First, it will help clarify the issues, sharpen awareness of crucial decision points, and focus attention on the tradeoffs and complementarities among different positions. Second, it will bring together, in one source, the many types of information that policy makers, service providers, and researchers regularly need. Third, it will identify gaps in existing knowledge. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, such a review of available evidence will provide a useful contribution to the continuing debate and it will suggest promising directions for future policy and program initiatives. Objectives of Child Care: A Framework for the Study Any analysis of the child care issue in this country must recognize the different yet interrelated purposes of relevant policies and programs. At the most abstract and simplistic level, these objectives are threefold: to promote the health and well-being of children, to enhance the employability
OCR for page 13
CHILD CARE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY 13 of their parents, and to improve the economic health and productivity of the nation at large. Although these objectives overlap, they are not always congruent. Promoting the health and development of children requires that the care they receive protects their physical health and safety and stimulates their social and cognitive growth. The quality of the physical environment, the child care provider, and the interactions between children and their adult caregivers significantly influence children's health and developmental outcomes. Enhancing the employability of parents requires that child care services be available in convenient locations and during the hours when parents work or participate in education and job training programs. It also requires that these services be affordable so that parents who want or need to work outside their homes can bear the economic burden of doing so. Finally, improving the economic health and productivity of the nation requires a strong, reliable work force now and in the future, which means that public investments should enhance the productivity and economic self-sufficiency of U.S. citizens. It is in the interest of society as a whole for today's workers who are parents to have the ability to manage their employment and family responsibilities and for the children who are tomorrow's workers to be well-prepared for the roles they will be expected to fill. In the absence of fiscal constraints, achieving quality in child care, improving access, and enhancing affordability, especially for low-income families, are not inconsistent or incompatible goals. However, in light of current economic realities in the United States, formulating child care policies will inevitably involve tradeoffs. Improving the quality of out-of- home child care services will raise the costs of care. Higher costs will have to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fees or partially or wholly offset by employers or government. Without such subsidies, raising the price of care will likely make it unaffordable to many families, especially those with low incomes. Faced with a shrinking consumer market, many providers will be forced to decrease their services or to close their doors, thereby reducing the supply of child care services and making them inaccessible to families who are unable to pay. Accordingly, public policies to improve child care will have to balance concerns for the quality, accessibility, and affordability of programs and arrangements. These three fundamental goals of child care policy provide a frame- work for examining the needs and interests of children, parents, and society as a whole; for relating knowledge concerning the health and developmen- tal consequences of out-of-home child care to knowledge concerning the functioning of the current child care system; and for assessing the costs, effects, and feasibility of alternative proposals to improve it.
OCR for page 14
14 WHO CARES FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN? Structure of the Report In the remaining nine chapters of this report, we review what is known about the costs and effects of child care quality, the nature of existing programs and arrangements, and their accessibility to children and families in different social and economic circumstances, as well as the affordability of different types and quality of care to families with different levels of income. These chapters are grouped in four sections. The second chapter of this introductory section summarizes trends in work, family structure and income, and child care and their implications for the supply and demand for alternative child care programs and arrangements. Section II presents what is known about the relationship between child care and child development, which has implications for the way in which policies are structured and services are provided. Chapter 3 traces the development of child care research. Chapter 4 reviews what is known about the quality of care and children's developmental needs at different ages and stages of development. Chapter 5 highlights knowledge concerning the best practices for safeguarding children's health and safety and for the design and implementation of child care services. Section III presents what is known about the current child care sys- tem in the United States and assesses current and proposed policies and programs in terms of their effects on quality, availability, and affordability. Chapter 6 examines the delivery system for child care and early childhood education programs. Chapter 7 focuses on public policies and programs at the federal and state levels, as well as employer policies and benefit programs. Chapter 8 addresses Issues concerning the tradeoff between quality, availability, and affordability and what Is known about the extent to which each would be affected by proposed policies. Finally, Section IV presents the panel's recommendations. Chapter 9 outlines directions for future data collection and research. Chapter 10 presents the panel's priorities for future policy and program development. REFERENCES Bureau of the Census 1987 Who's Minding the Ids? Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 9. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1988 Marital and Family Characteristics of the Labor Force: March 1988. Unpub- lished data. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Cahan, E.D. 1988 Poverty and the Care and Education of the Preschool Child in the United States, 1820-1965. Paper prepared for the National Resource Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.
OCR for page 15
CHILD CARE IN A CHANGING SOCIETY 15 Hayes, CD., ed. 1982 Making Policies for Children: A Study of the Federal Process. Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Johnston, W.B., and AH. Packer 1987 Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. HI-379~RR. Indianapo lis: Indiana Hudson Institute. Kagan, L" 1988 Current reforms in early childhood education: Are we addressing the issues? Young Children 43~23:27-32. Kahn, AJ., and S.B. Kamerman 1987 Child Care: Facing the Hard Choices. Dover, Mass.: Auburn House. Kamerman, S.B. 1988 Child Care Policies and Programs: An International Overview. Paper prepared for the Panel on Child Care Policy, Workshop on International Perspectives on Child Care, August 9, 1988. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Kametman, S.B., and AJ. Kahn 1981 Child Care,FamihyBenefits,andWorkin~Parents. New York: Columbia University Press. McCartney, K., S. Scarr, D. Phillips, and S. Grajek 1985 Day care as intervention: Comparisons of varying quality programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 6:247-2~. Moss, P. 1988 Comment From a European Community Perspective. Paper prepared for the Panel on Child Care Policy, Workshop on International Perspectives on Child Care, August 9, 1988. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Phillips, D.N 1988 With a Little Help: Children in Poverty and Child Care. Paper prepared for the Conference on Poverty and Children, Lawrence, Kansas, June 20-22. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia. Phillips, D.N, and E. Zigler 1987 The Checkered History of Child Care Regulation. In E. Rothkopf, ea., Review of Research in Education (Vol. 14~. Washington, D.C.: American Education Research Association. Ramey, CT., D.M. Bryant, and T.M. Suarez 1985 Preschool compensatory education and the modifiability of intelligence: A critical review. In D. Detterman, ea., Current Topics in Human Intelligence. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex. Scarr, S., D.A. Phillips, and K. McCartney 19~3 Facts, Fantasies, and the Future of Child Care in America. Unpublished paper. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia. Steiner, G. 1981 The Children's Cause. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Woolsey, S.H. 1977 Pied piper politics and the child-care debate. Daeda~s 106~23:127-145.
Representative terms from entire chapter: