National Academies Press: OpenBook

Caring for America's Children (1991)

Chapter: PART II IMPROVING QUALITY

« Previous: PART I THE PANEL'S WORK AND NEW FEDERAL LAW
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

II
Improving Quality

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

Enactment of the 1990 child care legislation refocuses the child care debate at state and local levels. Although it does not set any guidelines on quality, the new law does provide financial incentives, in the form of federal grants, for states and localities to set or revise standards related to health and safety, and it also specifies spending for improving the quality of care. This part summarizes the panel's information related to quality child care. This information provides criteria for evaluating standards and regulations based on specific indicators of quality. Although this material is directed primarily toward those who will regulate or promulgate professional standards, it can also be used to educate parents about how to recognize and assess child care quality. An informed consumer movement might have a far more powerful effect on quality child care than regulatory efforts alone.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITY CHILD CARE

The Panel on Child Care and Policy drew on both academic research and standards of professional practice to define criteria for judging quality child care. Most of the research has concentrated on center-based care, although more recent studies have also looked at family day care settings. In addition, some research has looked at factors particularly relevant to home-based care, including alternative methods of regulation and mixed-age groupings of children.

The Panel on Child Care Policy concentrated on two research approaches that have been taken to identify particular qualitative dimensions in child care settings. The first focuses on specific structural features of the child care environment, such as group size, child/staff ratio, caregivers' qualifications, stability and continuity of caregivers, structure and content of daily activities, and organization of space. The second approach links children's development more closely with their daily experiences in child care, particularly with the interactions between caregivers and children.

Structural features appear to support and facilitate desirable interactions, but they cannot ensure optimal patterns of interaction. For example, even when staff/child ratios are satisfactory, caregivers may spend their time talking to one another and merely watching the children, rather than interacting with them. However, good structural features increase the likelihood of responsive and stimulating interactions and, thus, promote children's development.

The distinction between structural and interactive dimensions of quality is useful in differentiating between two of the major avenues for improving the quality of child care: government regulations and professional standards. Regulations are usually dichotomous (pass/fail), and experience in many fields has shown that minimum requirements often become the norm. Yet tough regulations may lead to higher costs that price many people

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

out of the market or into illegal ''black market" arrangements. Nonetheless, when public funds subsidize care, regulating at least minimal health and safety conditions is generally recognized as essential. In contrast with regulations, professional standards are scalable and hence more useful in relating price and quality. Since many characteristics of quality are not appropriate for pass/fail regulations, professional standards may be most useful in educating parents about how to recognize quality care.

Regulations establish minimum requirements that are enforceable by state licensing authorities. Most regulations concern the structural dimensions of quality. All states, for example, regulate the square footage per child of indoor space in child care centers, and almost all regulate staff/child ratios. Many states also specify training requirements for staff and the square footage that must be available per child outdoors. Although many state regulations address such factors as the nature of potential disciplinary interactions, such as corporal punishment, the regulations generally do not focus on the interactive aspects of quality.

Professional standards address both structural features and interactions between caregivers and children. Moreover, unlike regulations, professional standards spell out goals for high-quality child care. The accreditation criteria of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), for example, go beyond structural features to include criteria for interactions between staff and children and between staff and parents. These criteria describe qualitative aspects of interactions, such as:

Staff interact frequently with children. Staff express respect for and affection toward children by smiling, holding, touching, and speaking to children at their eye level throughout the day. . . . Staff are available and responsive to children; encourage them to share experiences, ideas, and feelings; and listen to them with attention and respect.

Research with NAEYC's accreditation program has supported the reliability and validity of the assessment of interactions in early childhood settings

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

and has underscored the importance of interactive features in assessing a program's quality. The NAEYC accreditation program has shown that it is possible to delineate well-grounded and attainable guidelines for constructive interactions in early childhood programs. An additional advantage of these criteria is their utility for parents in evaluating trade-offs between price and quality.

STRUCTURAL ASPECTS OF QUALITY

Regulatory efforts to promote quality in child care centers and family day care homes have primarily addressed the structural aspects of child care. This section summarizes the evidence regarding those aspects.

Group Size

Group size has the most consistent and pervasive effects on the behavior of children in child care settings. In both centers and family day care homes, patterns of interaction are less positive and development is less advanced for those in large groups than for those in small groups. Research and professional practice suggest the following ranges for group size:

  • 6 to 8 infants;

  • 6 to 12 1-year-olds or 2-year-olds;

  • 14 to 20 3-year-olds; and

  • 16 to 20 4- or 5-year-olds.

Despite research showing the importance of group size, the 1979 National Day Care Study pointed out that group size is not consistently regulated by the states. The report urged wider inclusion of group size in child care regulations, but a decade later a survey by the Panel on Child Care Policy found that only 20 states and the District of Columbia regulate group size

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

for all ages in child care centers. Five other states regulate group size only for infants. All but three states, however, regulate group size in family day care. Group size is one aspect of quality in which research findings have not influenced policy. Many of the studies of child care are not methodologically strong, perhaps because it is difficult to do this research: there remains a need for further research, particularly on the differing implications of staff/child ratios in groups of different sizes.

Staff/Child Ratio

Because ratio is usually synonymous with group size in family day care, research findings on ratio focus on center care. The National Day Care Study found higher ratios of children per adult caregiver to be associated with more distress in infants and toddlers. Higher ratios were also linked with apathy in infants and with situations that were potentially dangerous for infants. Research has found that lower ratios for toddlers enabled care-givers to facilitate positive social interactions and to foster more positive emotional climates. In groups with more children per adult, toddlers talked and played significantly less. Although studies of staff/child ratios for children of preschool age have produced inconsistent research findings and further studies are warranted, current wisdom suggests the following ranges:

  • 4 infants or 1-year-olds for each caregiver;

  • 4 to 6 2-year-olds for each caregiver;

  • 5 to 10 3-year-olds for each caregiver; and

  • 7 to 10 4- or 5-year-olds for each caregiver.

The Panel on Child Care Policy found that every state except Nevada specifies staff/child ratios. There is substantial variation, however, in what states view as acceptable ratios for children of different ages. For example, California and the District of Columbia require a caregiver for each four infants; Georgia requires one for each seven infants. For 3-year-olds, North

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

Dakota requires a ratio of one caregiver for each seven children; Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas permit one caregiver per fifteen children.

Table 1 presents the state regulations covering several features of family day care settings, including group size. (The data in this table and the other tables in this section are based on G. Morgan, The National State of Child Care Regulation, 1986 [Watertown, Mass.: Work/Family Directions, 1986] and the panel's 1988 survey; some regulations may have changed since the survey.) What is most striking about the regulations is the disparity on what is regulated and what the regulations are.

Table 2 presents the state regulations covering several features of center care, including group size and staff/child ratio. Again, the wide variety is striking, and it is also notable that many of the regulations do not appear to be based on what research and professional practice suggest.

Caregivers' Qualifications

Both research and professional standards recognize caregivers' training in child development, and perhaps their overall years of education, as important to children's experiences and development in child care. Professional standards address the need for stability and continuity of caregivers by recommending the long-term assignment of specific caregivers to particular groups of children in order to promote affectionate relationships between individual caregivers and children. The National Day Care Study concluded that, for preschoolers, the key variable in caregivers' qualifications was child-related training, which is associated with more social interactions between caregivers and children, more cooperation and persistence with tasks among children, and less time spent by children uninvolved in activities. For infants and toddlers, however, the amount of caregivers' overall education also showed positive effects.

Research has shown that caregivers' training has strong and positive effects in all three types of family day care homes that have been studied: sponsored

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

(homes that are members of networks), regulated, and unregulated. For example, in sponsored and regulated family day care homes, training was associated with more teaching, helping, and dramatic play and with less activity that did not involve interacting with children. Other studies have found that caregivers' overall education is the most important predictor of how caregivers communicate with children.

The evidence, then, points to positive effects of both education and training specifically related to child development. In contrast, there is little indication that experience alone is positively related to caregivers' interactions with children or to children's behavior or development. Although the research affirms the importance of caregivers' qualifications, the Panel on Child Care Policy found that only 27 states and the District of Columbia require preservice training for teachers in child care centers, and only about one-quarter of the states require such training for family day care providers.

Table 3 presents the state regulations covering caregiver qualifications and protective features for family day care. Table 4 presents the same data for center care. For these features, too, there is noticeable difference among the states in what they regulate.

Stability and Continuity of Caregivers

In both family day care and center care, children's needs for enduring relationships with particular caregivers are more adequately fulfilled if the children do not experience frequent changes of caregivers resulting from staff turnover or families' changing their child care arrangements. The ability of a child care center to fulfill these needs is enhanced when the children can become involved with particular caregivers among the several to whom they are exposed. Although states cannot directly regulate staff stability for child care providers, such stability is a structural feature of quality that could probably be affected by higher salaries for caregivers.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

TABLE 1 State Regulation of Family Day Care: General Features and Group Size

 

General Features

Group Size

State

Type of Regulationa

Inspections per Year

Minimum Size Coveredb

Square Feet Indoorsc

Square Feet Outdoorsc

No. of Children Under 2 Years Per Caregiver

Maximum Group Size Permitted

Alabama

Lic.

1

1

NS

NS

NS

6

Alaska

Lic.

1 per 2 yrs.

5

NS

NS

2 < 30 mos.

6

Arizona

None

Arkansas

Lic.

3–4

7

35

75

3

10

California

Lic.

10% sample

2

NS

NS

3

6

Colorado

Lic.

33% sample

2

35

75

2

6

Connecticut

Mand. Reg.

1 per 2 yrs.

1

NS

NS

2

6

Delaware

Mand. Cert.

1

1

NS

NS

4

6

District

of Columbia

Lic.

1

1

NS

NS

2

5

Florida

Lic. (County)

Reg. (State)

2

2

NS

NS

NS

5

Georgia

Reg.

3% sample

3

35

NS

NS

6

Hawaii

Reg.

1

3

35

75

2

5

Idaho

Vol. Reg.

1

1

NS

NS

NS

6

Illinois

Lic.

1

4

NS

NS

3

8

Indiana

Lic.

1

6

35

50

6

10

Iowa

Vol. Reg.

20% sample

1

35

50

4

6

Kansas

Lic.

NA

1

25

NS

1 < 18 mos.

10

Kentucky

Lic.

1

4

35

60

NS

12

Louisiana

None

Maine

Lic. or Reg.

1

3

35

NS

NS

10

Maryland

Reg.

1

1

NS

NS

2

6

Massachusetts

Lic.

NA

1

NS

75

2

6

Michigan

Lic.

0

1

35

400 total

NS

6

Minnesota

Lic.

NA

2

35

50

NS

6

Mississippi

None

Missouri

Lic.

2

4

35

75

2

10

Montana

Reg.

15% sample

3

NS

0

3

6

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

 

General Features

Group Size

State

Type of Regulationa

Inspections per Year

Minimum Size Coveredb

Square Feet Indoorsc

Square Feet Outdoorsc

No. of Children Under 2 Years Per Caregiver

Maximum Group Size Permitted

Nebraska

Reg.

5% per month

4

35

50

2 < 18 mos.

8

Nevada

Lic.

4

5

35

37.5

2 < 13 mos.

6

New Hampshire

Lic.

3 per 2 yrs.

4

35

50

2

6

New Jersey

Vol. Reg.

1 per 3 yrs.

3

NS

1

NS

8

New Mexico

Lic.

2

5

35

60

2

6

New York

Lic.

1

3

NS

NS

2

6

North Carolina

Reg.

NA

1

NS

NS

NS

5

North Dakota

Lic.

2

6

35

75

NS

7; 4 < 2 yrs.

Ohio

Cert.

2

1

NS

NS

NS

12

Oklahoma

Lic.

4

1

35

75

NS

5

Oregon

Vol. Reg.

0

1

35

NS

2

5

Pennsylvania

Reg.

20% sample

4

NS

NS

4 < 3 yrs.

6

Rhode Island

Cert.

1 per 2 yrs.

4

NS

NS

NS

6

South Carolina

Reg.

0

2

NS

NS

NS

6

South Dakota

Reg.

1–12

1

NS

NS

NS

NR

Tennessee

Lic.

2

5

NS

NS

4

7

Texas

Reg.

0

4

NS

NS

4 < 18 mos.

12

Utah

Lic.

1 per 2 yrs.

4

35

40

2

8

Vermont

Lic.

2

3

35

75

2

6

Virginia

Lic.

2

6

NS

NS

4

9

Washington

Lic.

0

1

35

1

2

6

West Virginia

Vol. Reg.

1

1

NS

0

NS

NR

Wisconsin

Lic.

Varies

4

35

75

4

8

Wyoming

Lic.

Varies

3

35

75

2

6

a Cert., certificate; Lic., license; Mand., mandatory; Reg., registration; Vol., voluntary

b Number of children

c Per child

Abbreviations:

NA, not ascertained

NR, not regulated: not mentioned in regulations

NS, not specified: mentioned, but not quantified (e.g., "adequate")

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

TABLE 2 State Regulation of Center Care: General Features, Staff/Child Ratio, and Group Size

 

General Features

Staff/Child Ratio

Group Size

State

Inspections per Year

Square Feet Indoorsa

Square Feet Outdoorsa

Permitted Age of Entry

< 1-Year-Olds

3-Year-Olds

5-Year-Olds

1-Year-

Olds

3-Year-Olds

5-Year-Olds

Alabama

1

35

60

8 wks.

1:6

1:10

1:20

6

10

20

Alaska

1 per 2 yrs.

35

75

6 wks.

1:5

1:10

1:15

NR

NR

NR

Arizona

2

25

75

NR

1:5

1:15

1:25

NR

NR

NR

Arkansas

3–4

35

75

6 wks.

1:6

1:12

1:18

NR

NR

NR

California

1

35

75

NR

1:4

1:12

1:12

NR

NR

NR

Colorado

1 per 2 yrs.

30

75

6 wks.

1:5

1:10

1:15

NR

NR

NR

Connecticut

1 per 2 yrs.

35

75

NR

1:4

1:10

1:10

8

20

20

Delaware

1

3

50

NR

1:4

1:10

1:25

NR

NR

NR

District

of Columbia

1

35

60

NR

1:4

1:8

1:15

8

16

25

Florida

4

20

45

NR

1:6

1:15

1:25

NR

NR

NR

Georgia

4

35

100

NR

1:7

1:12

1:18

NR

NR

NR

Hawaii

1–3

35

NR

2 yrs.

1:12

1:20

NR

NR

NR

Idaho

1

NS

NS

NR

1:12

1:12

1:12

NR

NR

NR

Illinois

1

35

75

3 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:20

12

20

20

Indiana

3

35

50

NR

1:4

1:10

1:15

8

NR

NR

Iowa

1

35

75

2 wks.

1:4

1:8

1:15

NR

NR

NR

Kansas

NA

35

75

2 wks.

1:3

1:12

1:12

9

24

28

Kentucky

1

35

60

NR

1:6

1:12

1:15

NR

NR

NR

Louisiana

1

35

75

NR

1:6

1:14

1:20

NR

NR

NR

Maine

1

35

75

6 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:10

12

NR

NR

Maryland

1

35

75

8 wks.

1:3

1:10

1:13

6

20

26

Massachusetts

NA

35

75

4 wks.

1:3

1:10

1:15

7

20

30

Michigan

1

35

1,200 total

NR

1:4

1:10

1:12

NR

NR

NR

Minnesota

NA

35

50

6 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:10

8

20

20

Mississippi

2

35

70

NR

1:5

1:14

1:20

NR

NR

NR

Missouri

2

35

75

6 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:16

8

16

16

Montana

1

35

75

NR

1:4

1:8

1:10

NR

NR

NR

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

 

General Features

Staff/Child Ratio

Group Size

State

Inspections per Year

Square Feet Indoorsa

Square Feet Outdoorsa

Permitted Age of Entry

< 1-Year-Olds

3-Year-Olds

5-Year-Olds

1-Year-Olds

3-Year-Olds

5-Year-Olds

Nebraska

2

35

50

6 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:15

NR

NR

NR

Nevada

4

35

37.5

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

New Hampshire

3 per 2 yrs.

35

50

6 wks.

1:4

1:8

1:15

8

12

NR

New Jersey

1 per 3 yrs.

30

50

NR

1:4

1:10

NR

NR

NR

NR

New Mexico

2

35

60

6 mos.

1:6

1:12

1:15

NR

NR

NR

New York

1

35

NS

8 wks.

1:4

1:6

1:8

8

20

16

North Carolina

3

25

75

NR

1:7

1:15

1:25

14

25

25

North Dakota

2

35

75

NR

1:4

1:7

1:12

NR

NR

NR

Ohio

2

35

60

NR

1:6

1:12

1:14

12

24

28

Oklahoma

4

35

75

NR

1:6

1:12

1:15

12

24

30

Oregon

1

35

75

6 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:15

8

20

30

Pennsylvania

1

40

65

NR

1:4

1:10

1:10

NR

NR

NR

Rhode Island

1

35

NR

6 wks.

1:4

1:8

1:12

4

15

25

South Carolina

Varies

35

75

NR

1:8

1:15

1:25

NR

NR

NR

South Dakota

1–12

35

50

4 wks.

1:5

1:10

1:10

20

20

20

Tennessee

2

30

50

6 wks.

1:5

1:10

1:20

10

20

25

Texas

2

30

80

NR

1:5

1:15

1:22

14

35

35

Utah

3

35

40

NR

1:4

1:15

1:20

8

NR

NR

Vermont

2

35

75

NR

1:4

1:10

1:10

8

20

20

Virginia

2

25

75

NR

1:4

1:10

1:20

NR

NR

NR

Washington

1

35

75

4 wks.

1:4

1:10

1:10

8

20

20

West Virginia

1

35

75

3 mos.

1:4

1:10

1:15

NR

NR

NR

Wisconsin

Varies

35

75

NR

1:4

1:10

1:17

8

20

32

Wyoming

1

35

75

NR

1:5

1:10

1:20

NR

NR

NR

a Per child

Abbreviations:

NA, not ascertained

NR, not regulated: not mentioned in regulations

NS, not specified: mentioned, but not quantified (e.g., "adequate")

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

TABLE 3 State Regulation of Family Day Care: Caregiver Qualifications and Protective Features

 

Caregiver Qualifications

Protective Features

State

Preservice Training Required

Criminal Records Checked

Child Abuse Registry Checked

Immunizations Required

Corporal Punishment Permitted

Parental Right to Visit

Alabama

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

Alaska

No

No

No

No

Yesa

NR

Arizona

Arkansas

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

NR

California

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Colorado

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes-P

No

Yes

Connecticut

No

Yes

No

NA

No

L

Delaware

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

L

District

of Columbia

No

No

No

Yes

NR

NR

Florida

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Georgia

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

Hawaii

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

Idaho

No

No

No

NA

NS

NA

Illinois

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Indiana

No

No

No

No

NS

NR

Iowa

No

Yes

Yes

No

NS

NR

Kansas

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

NS

Yes

Kentucky

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

Louisiana

Maine

No

No

Yes

No

No

NR

Maryland

No

No

No

No

NS

NR

Massachusetts

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Michigan

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Minnesota

Yes

Yes

No

Yes-TP

No

NR

Mississippi

Missouri

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Montana

No

No

No

Yes

No

NR

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

 

Caregiver Qualifications

Protective Features

State

Preservice Training Required

Criminal Records Checked

Child Abuse Registry Checked

Immunizations Required

Corporal Punishment Permitted

Parental Right to Visit

Nebraska

No

Yes

NA

No

Yes

NR

Nevada

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

New Hampshire

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

New Jersey

No

No

No

NA

NA

NA

New Mexico

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

New York

No

No

Yes

Yes

NR

Yes

North Carolina

No

No

No

Yes

No

NR

North Dakota

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

L

Ohio

No

No

No

Yes

NS

Yes

Oklahoma

No

No

No

Yes

No

NR

Oregon

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

NR

Pennsylvania

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Rhode Island

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

South Carolina

No

No

No

No

Yes

NR

South Dakota

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Tennessee

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yesb

NR

Texas

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

NR

Utah

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Vermont

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Virginia

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Washington

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

West Virginia

No

Yes

No

Yes

NR

NR

Wisconsin

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Wyoming

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

NR

a For children at least 3 years old

b For children at least 15 months old

Abbreviations:

L, limited

NA, not ascertained

NR, not regulated: not mentioned in regulations

NS, not specified: mentioned, but not quantified (e.g., ''adequate")

P, preschoolers

TP, toddlers and preschoolers

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

TABLE 4 State Regulation of Center Care: Caregiver Qualifications and Protective Features

 

Caregiver Qualifications

Protective Features

State

Preservice Training Required Directors Teachers Assistants

Health Training Required

First Aid Training Required

Criminal Records Checked

Child Abuse Registry Checked

Immunizations Required

Corporal

Punishment Permitted

Parental Right to Visit

Alabama

Yes

No

NA

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

L

Alaska

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

L

Arizona

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Arkansas

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yesa

NR

California

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Colorado

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

L

Connecticut

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Delaware

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

NS

Yes

District

of Columbia

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

NR

NR

Florida

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Georgia

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Hawaii

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

Idaho

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

NS

NR

Illinois

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

L

Indiana

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Iowa

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Kansas

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Kentucky

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

Louisiana

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

NR

Maine

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

L

Maryland

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

NS

NR

Massachusetts

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

L

Michigan

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

L

Minnesota

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes-TP

No

NR

Mississippi

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

NR

NR

Missouri

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Montana

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes-TP

No

NR

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

 

Caregiver Qualifications

Protective Features

State

Preservice Training Required Directors Teachers Assistants

Health Training Required

First Aid Training Required

Criminal Records Checked

Child Abuse Registry Checked

Immunizations Required

Corporal Punishment Permitted

Parental Right to Visit

Nebraska

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

NA

No

No

L

Nevada

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

New Hampshire

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

NR

New Jersey

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes-TP

No

Yes

New Mexico

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

New York

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

L

North Carolina

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

NR

North Dakota

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

L

Ohio

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

NS

Yes

Oklahoma

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

NR

Oregon

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

L

Pennsylvania

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

Rhode Island

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

NR

L

South Carolina

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

NR

South Dakota

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

L

Tennessee

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yesb

NR

Texas

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

NR

Utah

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Vermont

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Virginia

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Washington

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NR

West Virginia

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

L

Wisconsin

Yes

Yes

NA

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Wyoming

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

NR

a For children at least 3 years old

b For children at least 15 months old

Abbreviations:

NA, not ascertained

NR, not regulated: not mentioned in regulations

NS, not specified: mentioned, but not quantified (e.g., "adequate")

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

Structure and Content of Daily Activities

Research points to the importance of providing a mix of daily learning activities and unstructured time in child care settings, rather than providing purely custodial care. Permitting children to make choices and to initiate and set the pace of learning activities is also beneficial.

Professional standards emphasize the need for a daily routine that is both structured and flexible, that incorporates activities to foster both cognitive and social development, and that allows children to make choices and to set their own pace.

Research has shown that, although unstructured time is not inherently negative, child care programs that offer nothing else do not contribute to children's cognitive development. Some emphasis on planned teaching activities appears to benefit children.

There is also some evidence that a range of high-quality preschool curricula can facilitate intellectual development, particularly among children in "high risk" groups. Thus, for example, one study found that "a variety of curricula are effective in preparing children for school and that any of the tested curricula is better than no program at all."

When social development is considered, however, research indicates that different curricula do have differing implications. Long-term studies found that children in a teacher-directed preschool program demonstrated less adequate social adaptation than children assigned to preschool programs in which children initiated and paced their own learning activities in environments prepared by teachers. This finding points to the importance not only of the content a curriculum attempts to convey, but also of the process through which learning occurs. Children's active initiation and pacing of their learning activities appears to have positive implications for their social development. Research on learning processes also points to the need for curricula to allow for individual differences in learning styles and to the importance of learning through interactions.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

Space and Facilities

Research and professional standards agree that children's experiences in child care are generally more positive when the space is well organized, differentiated, orderly, and designed for children's use. The adequacy of space as a qualitative dimension differs for family day care and center care. In family day care, the issue is whether children are cared for in a space that remains designed primarily for adults or whether adaptations have been made to orient the space for children. In center care, where space is oriented for children, the relevant issues are sufficiency and organization of space and equipment. When family day care space is not child oriented (for example, children are in a family's unadapted living room or kitchen), care-givers tend to be more restrictive and less responsive to children, and positive emotional climates and positive social relations are more difficult to achieve. In centers, some research indicates that children's social problem-solving skills are influenced by whether the center has a variety of age-appropriate materials and is arranged to accommodate groups of varying sizes. Children demonstrate better cognitive and social skills in orderly centers with more varied and stimulating materials and with space organized into activity areas.

Regulation of Family Day Care Homes

Although virtually all child care centers are licensed, a majority of family day care homes are not. Available studies suggest that the regulatory status of family day care homes is predictive of caregivers' behavior and children's experiences and development. In 1981 the National Day Care Home Study considered three types of care: sponsored family day care, in which homes are organized into networks; regulated family day care; and unregulated family day care.

Unregulated family day care homes showed the lowest levels of interactions between caregivers and 1- to 5-year-olds and sponsored homes the

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

highest. Caregivers in unregulated family day care homes also spent substantially more time uninvolved with children. Observations in sponsored family day care homes revealed more teaching activities by caregivers, more facilitation of language development, and more structured activities for fine-motor skills and for music and dancing.

Although caregivers in centers have opportunities for regular contact with colleagues, sharing of tasks, and the possibility of relief from difficult interactions with children, caregivers in family day care settings do not. It is possible that the frequency with which family day care providers receive individual supervision significantly affects the quality of their interactions with children. The research suggests that membership in a network of family day care providers may benefit caregivers, perhaps alleviating their isolation. Thus, collegial contacts through a network or through supervision may improve the quality of daily experiences for children in family day care.

Despite the fact that the regulatory status of family day care programs appears linked to the quality of care provided, an estimated 60 percent of family day care homes are unregulated.

Other Features

Several structural features of child care settings may influence the quality of care. Little is known, for example, about the role of overall center size, parental involvement, and sensitivity to children's ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds, although some research suggests that these factors may be significant.

For example, in 1970 one researcher found that teachers spent more time managing behavior and emphasizing rules in centers with more than 60 children than in smaller centers. Furthermore, in the smaller centers, teachers were more often rated as sensitive, and children were more often rated as highly interested and enthusiastically involved in activities.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

Child development professionals view two other structural aspects of child care as important components of quality: parental involvement and the recognition and active appreciation of children's cultures. For example, the National Black Child Development Institute and the National Association for the Education of Young Children recommend that programs encourage the involvement of parents and other family members, and parental involvement is a key feature of Head Start programs.

Head Start has also played a pioneering role in making multicultural sensitivity an integral part of its program. Developmental research underscores the importance of providing a child care environment that builds and sustains the self-esteem of children from minority cultures. Some studies show links between minority children's academic competence and their identification with their own culture, which suggests that cultural affirmation may be an important component in the quality of child care.

Professional Guidelines for Quality

Although research helps in identifying which structural dimensions of quality are important in child care, program evaluations and professional expertise are more useful in identifying the ranges and limits for specific dimensions of quality. The Panel on Child Care Policy identified four sets of standards for professional practice and two sets of requirements for receipt of federal funding:

  • Accreditation Criteria and Procedures of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)—developed in 1984 to "improve the quality of life for young children" and were designed for programs serving 10 or more children.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
  • Safeguards: Guidelines for Establishing Programs for Four Year Olds in the Public Schools, National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI)—developed in 1987 as suggestions for ensuring that early education programs in the public schools create productive and effective learning environments for black children and produce long-lasting benefits in the children's development.

  • Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS)—developed in 1980 "to provide a basis for evaluation and planning" of programs serving children at least 9 months of age in child care centers.

  • Standards for Day Care Service, Child Welfare League of America (CWLA)—developed in 1960 and revised in 1984 "to be goals for continual improvement of services to children and families. They represent practices considered to be most desirable . . . These are therefore standards for social welfare services for children, regardless of auspices or setting," including agencies, center-based programs, and family day care homes. The standards are designed for comprehensive programs and urge planning of services to meet children's needs. The standards for center-based programs are designed primarily for programs serving children aged 3 and older, and the standards note that "family day care is suitable for all children and may be preferable for infants."

  • Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements (FIDCR)—developed in 1968 and revised in 1980 in an effort to standardize the requirements of federally funded programs providing comprehensive services to children; suspended in 1981. Designed for family day care homes, group day care homes, and child care centers, the requirements addressed the needs of children from infancy through age 14 (although no requirements were set for center-based care of children under age 3).

  • Head Start Performance Standards promulgated in 1975 to cover all Head Start programs, which are limited to those children between the age of 3 and the age of compulsory school attendance, unless the agency's approved grant provides otherwise.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

Compliance with professional standards is voluntary. Compliance with FIDCR was mandatory for programs receiving federal funds, and compliance with the performance standards is a condition of federal Head Start funding. Child care providers generally must evaluate their own programs, with the help of parents and professionals.

Because standards of quality specific to family day care programs have been lacking until the recent program of accreditation for family day care homes, launched by the National Association for Family Day Care, the standards discussed here pertain almost entirely to care in centers. Table 5 provides an overview of how the different sets of professional standards and federal requirements address various indicators of quality.

The guidelines do not always agree precisely, but they can be combined to define an acceptable range for each dimension. For example, three professional organizations set guidelines for maximum ratios and group sizes, although only NAEYC does so for group sizes for infants and toddlers. For ratios, all the standards agree that there should be at least one caregiver for every four children from birth to age 2. The standards identify a range of acceptable ratios for older children: one caregiver for every four to six 2-year-olds, five to ten 3-year-olds, or seven to ten 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds. For group size, the professional standards identify the ranges at fourteen to twenty 3-year-olds, sixteen to twenty 4-year-olds, or sixteen to twenty 5-year-olds. NAEYC's recommendation for maximum group size for younger children in child care centers is eight infants or twelve toddlers.

Four of the organizations provide guidelines for professional qualifications of child care staff. The standards agree that full teachers in centers should have training in early childhood education or development, but they disagree as to whether such training should be part of professional education, such as a college degree.

The professional standards specify that child care programs should provide a daily organization that is both structured and flexible, that curricula should encompass social as well as cognitive components, and that there

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

TABLE 5 Indicators of Quality Addressed by Professional Standards and Federal Requirements

INDICATOR

NAEYC

NBCDI

ECERS

CWLA

FIDCR

Head Start

Caregiver Qualifications and Roles

Potential for forming affectionate relationship with familiar care-giver

X

 

 

X

 

 

Frequent positive interaction between caregiver and children; caregivers responsive, positive, accepting and comforting

X

 

X

 

 

X

Caregiver training related to child development

X

X

 

X

X

 

Opportunities for caregiver training

X

X

X

 

X

X

Group Sizes and Ratios

Maximum group size

X

 

 

X

X

 

Staff/Child ratio

 

X

 

X

X

 

Curriculum Content and Structure

Curriculum encompassing both  socioemotional and cognitive development

X

X

 

X

X

X

Children selecting some activities

X

X

X

 

 

X

Experience with cooperative group process

X

 

 

 

 

 

Curriculum structured but not overly rigid

X

X

X

X

 

 

Children's culture recognized, appreciated

X

X

X

 

 

 

Physical Characteristics of Program

Child-oriented environment

X

 

X

X

X

X

Orderly, differentiated setting

X

 

X

X

 

X

Parental Participation

Parental involvement

X

X

X

 

X

 

Parent-staff conferences and communication

 

X

 

X

X

 

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

should be options for children to select and pace their own activities from among several possibilities provided by caregivers. In addition, professional standards specify the need for an orderly, differentiated physical environment that is designed for children. The standards not only recommend parental involvement and the affirmation of cultural diversity, but they also describe how to address such dimensions of quality in actual practice.

For further information about professional standards and federal requirements, see:

  • Accreditation Criteria and Procedures of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (S. Bredekamp, ed. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1984).

  • Safeguards: Guidelines for Establishing Programs for Four Year Olds in the Public Schools, National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI) (Washington, D.C.: National Black Child Development Institute, 1987).

  • Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) (T. Harms and R.M. Clifford. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980).

  • Standards for Day Care Service, Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) (New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1984).

  • Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements (FIDCR) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, and U.S. Department of Labor [DHEW Publ. No. OHDS 78-31081], 1968).

  • Head Start Performance Standards (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [45-CFRR-1304], 1984). For a detailed review of the research on child development and of the current status of child care in the United States, see the report of the Panel on Child Care Policy:

  • Who Cares for America's Children? (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990).

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

THE UNFINISHED AGENDA

Despite the fact that research and practice have uncovered key elements for improving quality, much still must be done in order for the majority of our children to receive safe, health and developmentally stimulating child care. The enactment of P.L. 101-508 provides incentives for state and local policy makers to use the information in this booklet as they evaluate and revise their policies and regulations to promote high-quality child care.

The Panel on Child Care and Policy urges policy makers to consider both the structural and interactive dimensions of quality implied by their regulations and standards. The panel further suggests that in order to ensure the best possible experiences for our children, child care policies must address:

  • group size,

  • child/staff ratios,

  • caregiver qualifications,

  • stability and continuity of caregivers,

  • structure and content of daily activities, and

  • organization of space.

When all the dimensions of quality are addressed, a good program results; conversely, when various features of quality are ignored, a poor program results: see box on opposite page.

The combined perspectives of academic research and professional practice provide a picture of the key features of high-quality child care. Although further research is needed about some of the dimensions of quality, the current state of knowledge is significant, and should influence policy and practice.

State regulations, however, very often paint a different picture, as can be seen in Tables 14. For example, only a minority of states regulate group size for all age groups. Nearly 75 percent of the states do not require any

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

In ''Child Care and Early Childhood Programs" (in Conditions of Children in California, Berkeley, Calif: Policy Analysis for California Education, 1989), Professor Norton Grubb of the School of Education at the University of California at Berkeley painted a picture of a good program:

The physical space is carefully arranged to provide a variety of activities so that children in one area will not interfere with those in another; areas for active play are separated from those for quieter activities and privacy. Activities are carefully paced throughout the day and are geared to the rhythms of children coming and going and to fluctuating levels of children's and teacher's energy. Although most good centers devote some time to relatively formal cognitive development, most of the "curriculum" is embedded in games, toys, and different activity centers within classrooms, and is designed to allow children to initiate activities.

In such settings, teachers circulate constantly, interacting with children, engaging nonparticipating children in activities, and anticipating problems before they develop . . . The best teachers are warm and loving, but warmth alone is insufficient; an effective teacher . . . understands the developmental stages and thoughts of young children and responds to them intelligently as well as lovingly. A well-run child care class, bustling with activity, seems to be running itself, but in fact the influence of the teacher is pervasive though hidden.

And he painted a picture of a poor program:

. . . many children spend large amounts of time unfocused, drifting among activities in ways that leave them both bored and frazzled. Without constant monitoring, some children may become wild, especially if they are bored, and they may respond in a dangerous or violent manner. Under these circumstances untrained teachers . . . may be pushed to the limits of their patience. . . . If the center has cut corners on adult/child ratios—not difficult to do, especially with lax enforcement of licensing—then the chaos, inattention of teachers, management problems, and harsh direction and punishment become even more serious.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×

preservice training for family day care providers, and in general state regulations do not address issues of daily structure or curriculum in child care. A substantial number of states do not set space requirements—either square footage or design—for family day care homes. And staff/child ratios vary widely, with some states permitting six 3-year-olds per caregiver and others permitting as many as fifteen.

Although the evidence underscores children's need for enduring relationships with caregivers, the turnover rate in child care settings is extremely high in the United States. In some localities and among some types of providers, for example, turnover rates are as high as 41 percent annually. Research suggests a link between caregivers' low wages and benefits and the high turnover rates. States cannot directly regulate child care staff stability, but they could influence it indirectly through requirements that enhance caregivers' working conditions, wages, and benefits. Improving pay and benefits for caregivers will increase the cost of care, however. Without significantly larger public subsidies than are now available, many families will be unable to afford the higher quality of care and may be forced to place their children in even less adequate arrangements. State regulators are thus left with an ongoing dilemma of how to balance the competing goals of quality and financial access.

With the available knowledge and the impetus for change, the time is right for redirecting child care policy toward safe, healthy, and high-quality experiences for all of America's children. It is hoped that the information provided in this publication will aid in that effort.

Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"PART II IMPROVING QUALITY." National Research Council. 1991. Caring for America's Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1839.
×
Page 40
Next: PANEL ON CHILD CARE QUALITY »
Caring for America's Children Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Do child care centers and family day care homes provide quality care for the children they serve? Do parents know how to identify quality when selecting a center or family home for their children?

This easy-to-read, accessible booklet provides an overview of what constitutes quality in out-of-home care. Based on the National Research Council's detailed examination of child development and child care, Who Cares for America's Children,this booklet provides practical guidance for parents, child care providers, and policymakers. It highlights what to look for in a center or family day care home, presents what researchers and experts know about the best settings for children, and suggests what characteristics of quality care are amenable to standards or regulations.

Single copy, $6.50; 2-9 copies, $5.50 each; 10 or more copies, $3.75 each (no other discounts apply).

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!