A number of studies on day care all point to the importance of consistency of care. For example, in Tizard’s study of institutional care it was noted that one of the reasons children did not form attachments was because they had an average of 50 different caregivers before the age of 4. In contrast in Kagan et al.’s study of day care, one of the key criteria was that the children received consistent emotional support. The NICHD study (1997) reported that the highest infant to caregiver ratio should be 1:3 in order to insure that infants are given positive and sensitive interactions. In order to improve consistency a day care center needs to have enough staff so that each child always has someone to interact with. They should be assigned to one caregiver who should feel responsible for them and look after them while they are in their care. It may also be important to establish consistent routines and physical environments.
Schaffer notes that it is very difficult to define “quality of care” although we can identify some features of day care that contribute to it. One very important feature of quality day care is the amount of verbal interaction between caregiver and child. A second way to improve the quality of day care is to increase the amount of books, toys and other playthings. This is clearly important for cognitive development in order to provide sufficient stimulation.
Third and perhaps most important, is the issue of providing sensitive emotional care. The NICHD study found that just over one-quarter of the infant care providers gave highly sensitive infant care, half of them provided moderately sensitive care, but worryingly another one-fifth of the caregivers were “emotionally detached” from the infants under their care. The NICHD says that were they have seen a lack of emotional involvement, they have seen that infant development will suffer.
It may be possible to improve the quality of day care that is offered by day care providers.
Howes, Galinsky and Kontos (1998) found that a modest intervention programme which aimed at improving the caregiving practises of caregivers in child care did improve the attachment security of children within childcare. They arranged for a number of trainers to receive in-service training aimed to increase their sensitivity. Six months after training Howes et al. found that the children (aged around 2 years) became more secure and the caregivers were rated as more sensitive after training. There was a control group of caregivers who received no training. The attachment of children in their care and their own sensitivity remained unchanged.
One effect that is often overlooked is the reciprocal nature of the separation. Parents may suffer from being separated from their children. This then may effect their ability to care for their children when they are with them.
There has been studies done that show for some children there are benefits of having children that work. For example Brown and Harris (1978) found that women who don’t work and have several young children to care for are far more likely to suffer from serious depression; and Shaffer (1993) reported that children of working environments tend to be more confident in social environments than those who have remained in their mothers care. From this we conclude that maybe mothers going out to work enables them to be better mothers.
Conclusion
Day nurseries seem to offer a good standard of care but childminding may be less desirable when only routine care is offered. Day care has been shown to improve cognitive development of disadvantaged children but not so much secure children who are already getting the stimulus at home.
Day care is shown to have a positive effect on most children’s cognitive and social development, apart from those children who are shy by nature who may find the experience harmful to their development. Whether or not a child is in day care they seem to be equally attached to there primary caregiver.
