Basic HTML Version
commission devalued and down–
graded, the outcome was predict–
able. The female invasion of the
market is one of modern history's
great sociological changes.
So who's taking care of the
chi ldren?
At the time of World War
ll
day care was considered another
war-time evil similar to rationing .
During the Great Depression (the
on ly other period when there
were national chi ldcare policies)
nurseries were created to provide
jobs for unemployed adults.
Government Steps In
Government bureaucrats a nd
others in the social reform era of
the sixties were plagued with the
results of the breakdown of social
institutions. They reasoned that
they needed to push organized
day-care services as a means for
reform in welfare. Day care for
fat herless chi ldre n- it was
hoped- would compensate for
faults in the family structure by
allowi ng indigent mothers to
work.
Politicians and educators,
alarmed by studies showing the rel–
atively lower academic abilities of
"culturally deprived " children,
began to advocate day care as a
means of early child development.
In the United States the Head
Start program, for example, was
establ ished in 1965 and by 1975
was serving 350,000 children a
year. In 1971 the U.S. Congress
authorized abou t two billion dol–
lars for childcare services. But the
Comprehensive Child Develop–
ment Bill was vetoed by then–
President Richard N ixon with
these words,' in part: " ... our
response ... must ... be con–
sciously designed to cement the
fami ly in its rightful position as
the keystone of our civiliza–
tion.... Good public policy re–
qui res that we enhance rather
than dimini s h bo th parental
authority and parental involve–
ment with children....
" ... for the federal govern–
ment to plunge headlong finan–
cially into suppor ting child devel–
opment would commit the vast
moral authority of the national
government to the side of com-
32
muna! approaches to child rearing
over agai nst the family-centered
approach.
"This President, this govern–
ment, is unwilling to take that
step."
Nevertheless, studies have
shown, over the past ten years,
the number of families headed by
women with children has in–
creased at abouf ten times the
rate of the traditional two-parent
families. Today's licensed facili–
ties do not begin to provide ade–
quate space for the consequent
influx of children.
Who's Taking Care of
the Children?
Back in the sixties, day-care
chains began to spr ing up-some
still survive-but by and large,
only the "white-collar" profes–
sional women-teachers, execu–
tives, lawyers-<:an afford these
services.
More and more companies,
educational and medica! institu–
tions are providing their own day–
care facilities for their em–
ployees.
Nonprofit day care is provided
by churches and religiously affil–
iated organizations, ci ty and state
government, foundations, prívate
schools, etc. These may be subsi–
dized by the federal government
through food programs and other
fund ing.
But the majority of working
parents' c hildren receive more
informal care. Relat ives or baby–
sitters provide for more than half,
while many others are cared for
in family day-care homes.
Can organized, government–
licensed andfor subsidized day
care or franchised or corporation–
provided· day care or nonprofes–
sional family care provide the
answers to the diversified needs
of our nation 's families ? 1t
depends on whose needs you are
most interested in- the parents'
or the childrens'.
Let 's examine the evidence.
Marshallng the Evidence
In the Soviet Union, with a rigid
commitment to the equality of
women, highly trained personnel
have been provided for institu-
tionalized chi ld care for years.
The participation of the Soviet
population in · these services has
dropped to about ten percent.
The adults who have emerged
from this government-instituted
day careare generally competent,
responsible, hardworking and co–
operative. But those unique traits
that identify the creative person
are too often missing.
In the People's Republic of
China, day-care services are
believed to be utilized by about
40 percent of the population. Old–
er women care for the infants in
facilities in or adjoining the facto–
ries where the mothers work.
The Chinese culture is very
different from that of Western
nations. Their definition of crea–
tivity is anything that innova–
tively furthers their cause. An
individualistic, independent pop–
ulation is not in accordance with
national goals. Group-dependent
children mature into adults, also
dependent upon the group. The
majority of Americans would not
agree with Chinese techniques of
teaching a nationwide system of
thought to preschoolers.
Unlike the Soviet Union and
China, sorne in Israel (less than
four percent) have used day care
to restructure the basic family
unit , almost completely freeing
women from their domestic role.
In the Jsraeli
kibbutzim
(con–
ditions vary), four- and five-day–
old infants are taken from their
mothers to the nurseries where
they are cared for twenty-four
hours a day, except for feeding
times. The babies are weaned at
about six to eight months. At one
year they are transferred to the
toddler's house, at four to the kin–
dergarten, and go on into primary
school at seven.
Also unlike the Soviet and Chi–
nese chi ldren, the kibbutz tod–
d lers are left unsupervised for
long periods of t ime in playpens.
Finally, in the absence of a sup–
portive adult, the children begin
to look to one another and learn
to depend upon thei r peer
group.
Again, many researchers agree
that although kibbutz children
generally grow up into compe-
The
PLAIN TRUTH