Huge rises in the number of lone parents and women in work have brought about a corresponding increase in the number of very young children in childcare. As many as eight out of ten children aged under three have experienced some form of non-parental care. Such an increase raises important questions about attachment and quality. Does childcare for the very young risk damaging the vital infant-parent attachment? And what is good practice in the care of very young children?
The Scottish Executive asked these questions of colleagues from the Scottish Council for Research in Education, and myself, as part of its drive to promote good practice within the early years sector.
Popular concerns about the effect of childcare on infant-parent attachment persist - and are largely cultural. The 1994 British Social Attitudes Survey found that just over half the women questioned felt mothers with a child under five should not work at all, fearing that letting someone other than a mother care for a very young child could damage infant-parent attachment. Contrast this with a survey of 186 non-industrial countries, which found that it was entirely normal there for children to be looked after by a small number of different people and that in only five countries were very young children looked after exclusively by their mothers.
While research does support the view that the first years of a child's life are crucial to later development and that this is a time when children form important emotional bonds with their mothers, it does not support the view that healthy development depends on very young children being looked after only by their mothers.
Take, for example, a study by Professor Judy Dunn of the Institute of Psychiatry, which found that children are more likely to develop secure attachments when they are looked after by a small number of different carers who know the child well and can respond effectively to their needs.
Of course, mothers are usually the most important attachment figures for children. But other people such as fathers, relatives and professional carers can also provide relationships necessary for healthy development.
Despite evidence to the contrary, a few researchers still claim that non-maternal childcare can have an adverse effect on very young children. Only recently, Professor Jay Belsky, formerly at Pennsylvania State University and now at the University of London, has claimed that children under 12 months who spend more than 20 to 30 hours a week in non-maternal care can turn out to be more aggressive and disobedient.
Professor Belsky also expressed similar views in the 1980s, though several reviews concluded that his claims were not supported by available research evidence. Now he claims his views have been supported by more recent findings from a US study that is following more than 3,000 children through their early years.
The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is funding a team of researchers, including Professor Belsky, to run the study. However, in a recent paper discussing their latest findings, other members of the NICHD team concluded that non-parental care in the first year of life does not have any direct effects on attachment or bonding.
While evidence has shown that very young children can benefit from experiences in good-quality childcare, it still begs the question: What is good-quality care? Several features of childcare settings are associated with good quality, including:
* adult/child ratios and group size
* caregiver education and training
* working conditions for staff
* the physical environment
* stability and continuity of care.
Any description of good practice that recognises this combination of quality factors is likely to help providers offer sensitive and responsive care. One such description has been produced by National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in the US. Its strengths are that it is one of the few systematic descriptions of appropriate practice in early years settings, and it is firmly based on research evidence concerning children's development and indicators of quality in early years settings.
The principles outlined in the NAEYC description are broadly applicable across a range of western cultures, but it is not intended to be prescriptive. As with most useful tools of this type, it has been designed to encourage providers to reflect on all areas of their practice. It lists elements of good practice for two age groups: infants (aged up to 18 months) and toddlers (aged 18 months to three years). Each list is itself divided into sections, with up to 15 detailed descriptions of good practice in each section (see box).
South Lanarkshire Council has drawn on the NAEYC model and adapted it, through consultation with local providers and parents, to reflect local values, beliefs and interests. The results are contained in Learning for Living, an overview, say the authors, 'of what we believe represents a high quality curriculum for children aged nought to five years'.
Links to web sites run by the NICHD and the NAEYC, along with more details of the review conducted for the Scottish Executive can be found on Tony Munton's web page at http://www.ioe.ac.uk/tcru/munton.htm
