Child Care Through the Ages

History Of Child Care

A common refrain heard from parents and policymakers alike today is that "the children are our future," but this refrain is certainly not new. In fact, since time immemorial, humankind has been compelled to make some type of arrangements for child care by people other than parents in order to ensure the survival of the humanity over the eons, a practice that has been more effective at raising healthy and normal children during some periods of history than others. To determine the history and effects of child care services, this paper reviews the relevant primary and secondary literature to provide a background and overview of the issues, followed by a history of child care in general. Finally, an analysis of recent and current trends in child care is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis

Background and Overview

Child care is defined as "the nonparental care of children from birth through 13 years of age" and includes programs that are referred to as "day care," "child development," and "early childhood education" (Cohen, 1996, p. 25). These types of programs have long been offered in the United States and elsewhere before these types of services received any type of public support or funding (Cohen, 1996). Currently, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recognizes four types of child care services today as follows:

1. Babysitters: These providers generally care for children from one family and are not under regulatory control. In some instances the provider will be a spouse caring for his/her own children and also taking care of one or two additional children for the extra income. Others can be grandparents or other relatives, friends, or neighbors who are either unemployed and welcome the extra money or are not paid, but are willing to look after the children.

2. Family Day Care: This type of child care is provided in the home of the provider, is non-medical, and is for less than 24 hours. In some states a provider must attend an orientation and/or complete an application-processing seminar to obtain a license. Regulatory requirements may differ from state to state. The provider might be approved, certified, registered, or licensed under applicable state or local laws.

3. Child Care Centers: These are usually separate facilities, apart from the owner's residence. There may be more than one facility within a corporation or partnership. There may be one or more shareholders or partners involved in several facilities, each of which is organized as a separate corporation. These centers are heavily regulated in most states. These centers are required to report attendance records and other similar information. They also have large commercial kitchen operations, playground equipment, swimming pools, and large quantities of toys.

4. Home Care: Some children are cared for in their own home by a paid housekeeper, maid, governess, au pair, or nanny. The home caregiver is generally paid as a household employee. This situation is not a child care provider business. The nanny, housekeeper, etc. receive wages but do not incur expenses as a child care provider (Child care providers, 2010, p. 3).

In sum, then, child care involves having someone other than the child's parents (but which can include immediate relatives) care for and nurture children for varying lengths of time, usually less than 24 hours, until their parents are able to reassume the responsibility. An examination of how child care has been used during different periods of history is provided below.

History of Child Care

Humans have been making arrangements for the care of their children while they were otherwise occupied with work or pleasure throughout history and even before history was recorded (Al-Khatib, 2012). For instance, Al-Khatib reports that, "Before history was even history, human beings still had to raise and care for their young" (2012, para. 5). Because of the enormously hostile world in which prehistoric humans lived, the archaeological record suggests that child care then, as now ("It takes a village to raise a child") was a community responsibility (Al-Khatib, 2012). Although there are no documentary records and therefore primary sources regarding this early era in humankind's prehistory, it is reasonable to conclude that whatever child care methods were that were used were sufficiently effective to ensure the survival of the species to the present. Because child care was so important for survival, guidance was likely provided by authority figures besides parents (Richards & Brzozowski, 2006). For instance, Richards and Brzozowki note that, "Raising the next generation is a preoccupation of adults, and debates over how best to do it surely predate recorded history. In earlier times, religious leaders or village elders pronounced on the rights and wrongs of parenting" (2006, p. 33).

When the historical record began, the centrality of children in the lives of ancient people became well established. In fact, the importance of children to ancient peoples can be readily seen in the 17th century BCE Code of Hammurabi's early proscription against kidnapping a child: "If a man has stolen a child, he shall be put to death" (cited in Johns, 1904, p. 37). In addition, the Code of Hammurabi, the first law codified system of known law, also stipulated how wet nursing should be handled in this ancient civilization (Doolan, 2008). According to the Code of Hammurabi: "If a man gives his son to a wet-nurse and that son dies in the hand of the wet-nurse: had the wet-nurse another child 'tied' [to her breast] without the father or mother [knowing this], they shall cut off her breast" (cited in Marten & Wiggerman, 2000, p. 184). Modern historians have determined that the actual meaning of this law of Hammurabi, though, was not quite so literal. According to Marten and Wiggerman (2000), "It is not that the woman covers up the death of the first child or that she stealthily takes another baby as a substitute, but rather that she nurses a second child without the consent of the parents" (p. 184).

These types of child care arrangements were the exception rather than the rule, however, and most ancient people were unable to afford any type of outside care for their children (Marten & Wiggerman, 2000). In fact, in many ancient civilizations, including Mesopotamia, Egypt and Rome, children were cared for almost exclusively in the home by the father and mother because human lifespans were relatively short compared to 21st century lifespans and children needed to be trained and prepared as quickly as possible to assume their parents' roles in their societies (Al-Khatib, 2012). In this regard, Al-Khatib reports that, "In peasant society had an average life span of 33 years and women on average only made it to 29 years. Formal education was generally lacking, so most children learned about morality, religion and more at the home" (2012, para. 3).

In fact, the Bible is replete with references to the responsibilities that parents have for taking care of their own children, including the following salient examples:

Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it. - Proverbs 22:6;

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. - Ephesians 6:4;

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. -- 1 Timothy 5:8; and,

He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity - 1 Timothy 3:4.

Modern conceptualizations of child care emerged from two different movements concerning children that have their basis in their ancient counterparts, with the first being focused on custodial care of children and the second focused on providing educational services and support for young people (Cohen, 1996). The first movement emerged during the mid-to-late 19th century and was characterized by day nurseries that were used for caring for the children of low-income families to allow their parents the opportunity to search for or pursue gainful employment (Cohen, 1996). These early child care facilities were usually organized by private individuals, community service organization or philanthropic organizations and were supported through private donations, modest fees assessed parents and state funding in some cases (Cohen, 1996). These early child care facilities were intended to provide a mechanism whereby young children could be assimilated into mainstream American life while offering their parents the opportunity to work (Cohen, 1996). These early child care facilities were the forerunners of what would become day care and then modern child care facilities in the United States and abroad (Cohen, 1996).

By contrast, the nursery school movement emerged during the early 20th century and was concerned with providing young people with the social, physical and emotional support they needed for appropriate development to become gainfully employed, contributing members of American society (Cohen, 1996). This type of child care was the forerunner of modern early childhood education programs and was used primarily by more affluent parents (primarily middle- and upper-middle class families) and were paid for by parents (Cohen, 1996). According to Cohen, "Nursery school proponents viewed group care provided by professionals as a means of enabling children to achieve future success" (1996, p. 26). The effects of these two distinct movements in child care philosophy can still be discerned in modern child care operations, but their overarching goals have become merged over the years so that it is difficult or impossible to discern these differences in modern child care settings (Cohen, 1996).

One of the longer-lasting effects of these early child care movements is more easily discernible and concerns the role played by the federal government in promoting and supporting child care services in the United States. In fact, since the end of World War II, the federal government has funded child care in various ways and to different degrees (Cohen, 1996). In this regard, Cohen reports that, "[Federal] funding has fluctuated in amount and purpose, with the result that today's child care financing system is a confused collection of funding streams with no uniform goals, standards, or administrative structure" (p. 26). Indeed, prior to World War II, the U.S. government made it clear that parents should be responsible for the care of their children, including making suitable arrangements for the care of their children while they worked.

An early report by the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection (1930) marked "Confidential -- not for publication," cited the changes in American society that were necessitating a reevaluation and restructuring of child care services from previous generations where children were cared for in the home, frequently a nearly self-sufficient economic unit. For example, the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection report pointed out that, "Under the old order, ideals and practice of child care and training were part of the cultural inheritance transmitted from one generation to another by the family" (1930, p. 29). Life in the early 20th century, though, introduced new employment patterns that required the father and even the mother to search for gainful work outside the home. In this regard, the White House Conference report added that, "With the present interruption of the chain of such direct cultural inheritance, parents feel an acute need for help in meeting the problems of parenthood" (1930, p. 29). Notwithstanding the dire need, the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection made it absolutely clear where the federal government stood on this issue: "No one should get the idea that Uncle Sam is going to rock the baby to sleep" (cited in Beck, 1974, p. 88).

The situation would not remain like this for long, though, and during and immediately following World War II years, the Lanham Act enacted by the U.S. Congress created a universal, comprehensive birth-to-12 child care system from 1943 to 1946 (Williams, 2014). According to Cohen, "During the early years of the war, the need for child care became apparent as reports surfaced of children being left alone or locked in cars in parking lots while their mothers worked" (1996, p. 37). The compelling need for the Lanham Act as being in the nation's interest during a time of war was stressed by one federal lawmaker who advised the U.S. Congress: "You cannot have a contented mother working in a war factory if she is worrying about her children and you cannot have children running wild in the streets without a bad effect on the coming generations" (cited in Cohen, 1996, p. 29).

As a result, during this period in American history, the U.S. federal government operated a system of child care services that were intended to provide support for mothers who were working for the war effort (Williams, 2014). The historical record shows that more than 500,000 American children were cared for pursuant to the Lanham Act, with the federal government paying the lion's share (up to two-thirds with the parents paying a maximum child care co-pay of $9.50 per day) of the funding for this program, amounting to about $1 billion in 2012 dollars (Williams, 2014). In 1943, the Lanham Act was amended to place a cap of 50 cents a day on parental co-pays (Lanham Act, 2014). These child care facilities were in sharp contrast to modern part-time child care facilities and operated up to 12 hours and in some cases 24 hours a day (for mothers working the "graveyard shift" (Williams, 2014).

Besides providing millions of "Rosie the Riveters" with high quality child care services which allowed them to stay at work longer with fewer worries concerning their children, the Lanham Act also served to fundamental change the manner in which most Americans viewed child care. In this regard, Williams emphasizes that, "The program contributed to a cultural shift in how American families viewed child care. In general, mothers loved the program" (2014, para. 3). A survey of mothers using the child care services provided through the Lanham Act found that all of them (100%) reported that their children enjoyed the child care services, and an overwhelming majority (81%) reported having "a generally favorable opinion of early childhood education" (Williams, 2014, para. 3).

The long-term effects of the child care services provided under the Lanham Act were truly impressive, especially compared to modern-day counterparts (discussed further below). Indeed, Williams concludes that, "Specifically, the program increased students' future earnings, reduced the percentage who needed welfare services as adults, and decreased the high school dropout rate" (2014, para. 4). In addition, many women who were able to gain meaningful employment by virtue of the child care services offered through the Lanham Act remained employed for several years following the end of World War II (Williams, 2014). Although it would appear that the right combination of federal and private sector support was achieved under the Lanham Act, recent and current trends in child care indicate that some problems remain with the approaches that are being used today and these issues are discussed further below.

Recent and Current Trends

During the period from 1946 through the early 1970s, growing numbers of American women became actively involved in the calls for better and more affordable child care services in the United States, including most especially the Council of Industrial Organizations, the Congress of American Women, and the California League of Women Voters and the California Parents' Association for Child Care (CPACC) (Srole, 2012). For instance, according to Srole, "Together, the mothers and educators coalition portrayed child care centers as service providers for cities and children, replacing the pre-1948 liberal language of child care as a social right for working women" (p. 69). As a valuable commodity, child care services were increasingly reevaluated concerning their role in contemporary American society.

According to Cohen (2001), the most important period in the history of child care policymaking in the United States, though, occurred during the debates over child care legislation in the late 1980s through 1990 when a comprehensive legislative package that included the creation of two new federal child care programs and an expansion of the earned income tax credit for taxpayers with children were enacted. In this regard, Cohen advises that, "The 1990 bill demonstrated the importance of both tax credits and programmatic initiatives as venues for child care policies" (2001, p. 20).