Burchinal et al (1989) found evidence to support their hypothesis that the IQ of children beginning school who have been in daycare tend to be higher than those children who had been raised by their mothers at home. Operation Headstart (1965) was an intervention program which aimed to help counter the effects which children from a lower socio-economic status were thought to have suffered from. In order to do this, Headstart implemented intensive preschool education on said children. When assessed after entering school, the Headstart children, demonstrated more advanced cognitive and social behaviour than the children that had not been involved in the programme. Lazar and Darlington (1982) found that children who had taken part in Headstart were less likely to be in special classes, there was more of a tendency for them to go on to college and in later life were less likely to adopt delinquent behaviours or require welfare assistance. Headstart was effective in terms of demonstrating some ways in which the supplementary education was beneficial and also with regard to showing that daycare was not disadvantageous for the children.
With regard to the effect of economic status and daycare on the cognitive development on children, Kagan, Kearsley & Zelazo (78) Clarke-Stewart (82) found that children from middle-class families are able to do as well at home as with daycare of a high quality.
Ramey (81) argued that children with poorly educated parents and families on a low income tend to benefit from daycare; he claimed that daycare was able to prevent the intellectual decline in performance that repeatedly manifests after two years of age if such children continue to stay at home.
Goldberg (78) also believed that middle-class mothers tend to be better educated than lower-class mothers therefore behave more effectively as teachers, providing their children with greater intellectual stimulation.
The study of early childcare carried out by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD 98) is the most comprehensive longitudinal study to date. The results with regard to cognitive development stated that children in daycare centres meeting the recommended guidelines, such as child-staff ratios, training of staff and sizes of groups were found to have better language comprehension and were better prepared for entering school than children in classes that failed to meet any of the guidelines. In the tests, these children fell below average according to performance. To conclude the NICHD found that children in daycare centres which provided a large amount of language stimulation, in addition to frequent adult interactions produced more developed language abilities at the ages of 15, 24 and 36 months, but overall daycare had a modest effect on their cognitive development.
Other studies found there to be negative effects on cognitive development, one example of this is Mayal and Petrie (1983) who studied childminders in London, they found that some children did benefit from the daycare however, others appeared to be ‘failing to thrive’. There are ways in which this can be explained other than the daycare that is being provided. It is necessary to consider the effect of regular conflict and discord in the home. A number of children also appeared to be spending a lot of time in an understimulating environment.
Bryant et al (1980) examined the quality of childminders in Oxfordshire, they concluded that a large portion of the children being cared for were not doing well, others were even being regarded as ‘disturbed’. It seems the environment was detrimental in the effects on the children as they were unable to form emotional bonds with childminders, the childminders were unaware of the importance of stimulation thus they tended to encourage children to be more passive and withdrawn by rewarding quiet behaviour. This study went a long way to informing people about the dangers of childminding as a form of care, as in some circumstances the childminders are not properly qualified however it is thought to be positive as it goes some way to simulating a home environment.
Jackson and Jackson (1979) observed a selection of mothers in Huddersfield taking their children to childminders in the early hours of the morning. They discovered that some of the childminders were unregistered thus provided an environment which was a poor maternal & emotional environment.
Melhuish (1990) compared the quality of care and its effects on children when cared for by relatives, childminders and in nursery beginning at nine months of age. Then the groups were assessed at 18 months the group being cared for by relatives, which had the lowest caregiver-child ratio had better language development and communication with other children. The nursery group however which had the highest caregiver-child ratio, was assessed as doing the worst. At three years of age, although the nursery group had less developed vocabulary the groups were at the same level with regard to other measures of language.
Some other studies did appear to show that daycare had no effect at all on a childs’ cognitive development whatsoever. Kagan et al (1980) studied a daycare centre in Boston, USA and failed to find any consistent differences of relevance between the group receiving fulltime care and the control group at age 3 ½ months, when assessed in terms of attachments, cognitive achievements and general sociability. Any differences between and within the groups appeared to be unrelated to care, however there was large variability among children, suggesting that daycare had no detrimental effects on the children.
Harvey (1999) used a number of standardised psychological tests along with data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. He aimed to evaluate the differences in language development, academic achievement and self-esteem and found no information that appeared to be statistically significant of any kind.
There was information collected that demonstrates positive but indirect effects on cognitive development of children via parenting, for example Pedersen et al (1982). This study involved comparing interactions between working mothers and their children compared with stay-at-home mothers. Findings showed that fulltime working mothers stimulate infants more when playing than the mothers who do not work. The employment status of the mother also seems to affect the way in which the father interacts with the child. For instance, working mothers appear to be more active in interactions than their husbands however fathers who have nonworking wives tend to play more than those with working wives. It is possible to explain this by making the assumption that working mothers appreciate their child's company more as they are able to play with them less, this makes for less routine playing and intensive interactions which are exceedingly beneficial for a child’s cognitive development. However mothers who do not work, naturally spend more time with their children and so nonworking mothers appreciate any peaceful moments they may have, this causes them to avoid exciting the child too much.
Hoffman (1974) believes that it is critical that mother enjoys her job situation whether it is being employed or unemployed. Dissatisfied mothers seem less likely to be adequate parents with content women providing better quality care. Williams (1987) found that work increases a woman’s self-esteem and personal value. Schaffer (1993) also concluded that working mothers are more confident in social settings as they appear to be far less stereotyped thus feeling more comfortable. These studies help to support the view that work enables better mothering.
There are a number of explanations as to why daycare may be detrimental and the reason for the various opinions on the subject. Stimulation is crucial in terms of a childs cognitive development. Neural connections are made by babies being held and interacting and the nervous system relies on experience for development. If day care provides more stimulation than a child would receive at home then it is almost certain that it will have a positive effect o the child’s development. However, if a child receives a large amount of stimulation and interaction at home, which is not being matched by staff at the daycare, children are inevitably going to be negatively affected by the experience. If more stimulation that is provided, the better the chance is that daycare will be beneficial to cognitive development.
It is vital that a child has a secure base as if not cognitive development may suffer. This could be due to a disruption in the relationship between mother and child causing an insecure attachment which could in turn destroy the safe base. It is crucial for a child’s cognitive development, that they have a safe base, which comes from having a secure attachment, because the more a child explores new surroundings, the more a child can learn. Thus the more advanced a child’s cognitive development will be.
To conclude, effects of daycare on cognitive development are varied and depend on a huge range of variables. The type of care a child receives is extremely important as it determines the adult-child ration, the quantity of care, the stability of the care i.e. the frequency of staff changeover, and the quality of the care. However there are of course going to be individual differences regarding the socio-economic status of the child, his or her attachment style, age, culture brought up in, amount of discord at home and the temperament of child. It seems safe to conclude that other factors in a child’s life are of higher importance with regard to a child’s development, thus it is impossible to isolate and record the effects of daycare alone. The great many variables must be taken into consideration when trying to evaluate effects of day care on cognitive development. There is no evidence to support the argument that daycare can have negative effects on a child’s cognitive development if it of good quality, results appear to be positive or in the very least neutral
Numerous studies have also been conducted with regard to how daycare affects the social development of a child, the results of which are much easier to interpret than those of cognitive development. Egeland and Hiester (1995) put forward their view that daycare is beneficial for insecure children but potentially damaging to children with secure attachments. They claimed the reason for this is because compensatory education is needed by children with insecure attachments and so they benefit from childcare whereas secure children do not need it.
Clarke-Stewart et al (1983) compared a group of children who were brought up by their parents, and have never experienced daycare, with a group of children who did attend daycare. The daycare group were described as having a higher level of self-sufficiency, co-operating in a better way with peers and appeared to be more comfortable in new situations than home-reared children. In some situations however, the results could be subject to the childrearing attitudes and practices of teachers and parents. Cultural differences are highlighted in a study by Cole and Cole (1989) whereby children attending daycare centres are assessed within the Soviet Union, Israel & Sweden. These children show greater self-sufficiency and are more at ease in new social situations. Parents and teachers in these countries strongly disapprove of characteristics such as aggressiveness and disrespectfulness which tends to be shown by children in daycare in the United States of America and so these children do not act is such a way. Andersson (1992) found that children in daycare achieved higher scores for socio-emotional competence compared with those children that were not involved in daycare and came to the conclusion that daycare substantially increases the amount of interaction a child takes part in. However it seems daycare not only increases positive interaction but also negative interaction.
Melhuish (1990) argues that children in nursery display a larger amount of prosocial behaviour such as, cooperation, sharing and empathy, than children who are cared for by relatives and childminders. Melhuish also investigated if perhaps there was such a result due to social classes however the differences held even after social classes were controlled.
Hoffman (1974) claims that contented working mothers behave more affectionately towards their children, they are much less likely to become angry towards them and the children themselves also tended to have higher self-esteem. In this study, day care seems to have positive effects on social development but effects do appear to be dependent on home life and the quality of parenting from mother when with her child.
Although there appears to be a positive correlation between children who experience daycare and children who have good social development, there are also some studies which have found negative effects from day care. For instance Belsky (1988) believed that if a child is receiving more than thirty hours a week of daycare, the child is at a higher risk of developing an insecure attachment, by combining results from 5 studies he found that 43% of children who experience extensive daycare were at risk of developing an insecure attachment compared to 26% of those children who had little to none. Belsky also took the opinion that there was a notable correlation between excessive daycare within the first 12 months of life and an insecure attachment in the strange situation. However, opposing this view, the strange situation may be an invalid way to assess attachment with the children of working mothers as they are accustomed to routine separations. It does appear that more research is necessary in this area in order to fully understand the nature of the strange situation and its results in accordance with children who attend daycare, but nonetheless all research points to the view that if a child attends daycare after the age of one the attachment is not damaged.
There are of course other inconclusive studies which cannot be disregarded however appear to show that daycare has no effect on social development. Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) also found that 15 month old children who experiencing ‘high intensity’ daycare i.e. more than thirty hours a week from the age of three months became equally distressed when separated from their mother as ‘low intensity’ children who spent less than ten hours at daycare weekly. These findings suggest that attachment is not affected at all by daycare separations.
Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested that emotional care should be provided continuously by the primary caregiver and this was the basis of later relationships, he argued that, this one qualitatively special relationship acts as a template for later relationships, he named this the internal working model. Bowlby stated that if separations occur as a result of daycare, bond disruption may be occur between mother and child which could cause severe social development problems in later life, however it is possible to prevent this by accepting appropriate substitute care.
Interactions with other people are crucial in terms of social development. Nurseries and daycare centres can provide children with the opportunity to interact with other children and adults thus enabling them to learn interpersonal negotiation skills that will be helpful when starting school. Such interactive experiences will not be available at home, especially for those children who are without siblings.
It is important to value the fact that there are limitations imposed on a number of findings, as a number of the studies did not take place in a natural setting. The quality of the care tended to be extremely good as the people involved in providing it are likely to have been well trained and aware of the importance of stimulation intellectually in whether a child’s daycare experience is positive or negative thus it would be unrealistic to assume that all daycare will be of this standard.
It is safe to conclude that; daycare doesn’t appear to have positive effects on a child’s cognitive development however studies have not found it to have a detrimental effect. With regard to social development daycare is helpful for enriching many aspects of a child’s personality and there have been more positive findings. There are also cases however where daycare has shown to cause effects which are negative, such as when children experience behavioural problems or have become less polite and compliant, and more aggressive. But behaviours produced are partly due to cultural variations and behaviours that are likely to have been encouraged by staff. There are also findings to support that these behaviours do not necessarily exist as a result of being in daycare but perhaps because of discord or conflict within their home. It may be true that a number of factors contribute to children achieving less well at daycare than others, and so may well have an effect on attachment. A few examples of these factors which could be very important in a change of attachment style are, a poor quality of care, change of daycare setting, more than ten hours a week of time spent in care, or a mother who is insensitive to her child’s needs when the child is at home.
Therefore the outcome is inconclusive as it is nearly impossible to test only the effects of daycare. As many other daycare children experience simply indirect effects on social development. Daycare cannot be blamed solely for the effects, as although they are irresolute they hold a lot of importance in the children’s social development.
The effects of social development and cognitive development appear to depend on how high the quality of care is, the quantity of care and what the age of the child is. Nevertheless significant factors in both cognitive and social aspects of development are the family income, the maternal vocabulary, the home environment and the degree to which the mother stimulates the child cognitively.
Moreover, so long as the daycare is of high quality, there will be nothing but positive effects of social and cognitive development.
