Early Childhood Development And Public Policy: Child Care and Early Childhood Education Interventions in America

Early Childhood Development And Public Policy: Child Care and Early Childhood Education Interventions in America This course outline is submitted on June 24, 2002 in partial fulfillment of predoctoral requirements to the Department of Human Development and Social Policy, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University

Overview Policies related to non-maternal care and education for preschoolers in the United States serve a multiplicity of purposes. These include fostering female employment, acculturating immigrants, reducing welfare dependency, and enriching children's learning and development. Over the years, researchers and policy makers have evaluated the effectiveness of policies along each of these dimensions. The goal of this course is to provide students with important theoretical, empirical, and methodological foundations for considering the influences of child care and early childhood education policies on children's development. Unlike a more traditional approach, however, this course challenges students to move beyond this literature and situate current policy questions and academic discourse in historical and intellectual contexts. It does so by drawing from studies in history, sociology, and economics that have examined important questions related to early care and education policies. One of the primary aims is to teach students how to integrate research across disciplines when confronting challenging policy questions. After leaving this course students will be able to access research across multiple disciplines to develop thoughtful responses to current debates over early childhood education and child care policies. These include questions about funding for Head Start, the development of universal kindergarten, and the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grants. Students will also have an awareness of some of the important research questions that remain unanswered in the existing literature. The course is designed for students from doctoral programs in developmental psychology, human development, or public policy. Prerequisites include at least one course in basic theories of developmental psychology, two courses in statistics, one course in policy development and the policy making process, and one course in research methods. This fifteen-week course is divided into 4 sections. The goal of the first part of the course is to familiarize students with current demographic trends and policies related to child care and early child education intervention in America. In addition, it will trace the evolution of current policies from their origins in 19 th century America, since many of the questions addressed in current debates over child care and education have been evident since the turn of the century. These include questions about the acceptance of maternal employment, the role of the state in family life, the educational and socialization needs of children, and the appropriate response to child poverty. When reviewing the history of child care and education policies in America, we will pay particular attention to the role of developmental research in influencing programs and policies affecting young children overtime. Thoughtful participation in current policy debates surrounding child care and early childhood education programs requires a foundation in the history and current nature of these policies in America. 1

The second section of the class, spanning weeks 4 through 6, grounds students in theory and research from developmental psychology related to normative cognitive and social development in preschoolers. These weeks also expose students to different theoretical approaches to understanding the role of context in shaping development. Class discussion during these weeks will challenge students to integrate the cognitive and socioemotional domains of development so they are prepared to think holistically from a developmental perspective about the processes underlying the influence of child care and early education programs on children's development. This integration, I will argue, is one of the biggest shortcomings of many existing programs and policies related to early care and education. The third section of the course, from weeks 8 through 11, examin existing research primarily from developmental psychology on the influence of early education interventions and child care on child development. The goals of these readings are threefold. The first is to familiarize students with existing research on these topics, and the second is to facilitate student thought and discussion about processes underlying the influences of child care and early education interventions on children. Despite the recent growth of literature on early care and education, very few studies have been able to identify the actual processes by which early care and education influence development. Instead studies typically draw global conclusions about links between aspects of nonmaternal care arrangements, like type, quality, or hours in care, and domains of child development. Nevertheless, the success of designing policies that are effective in enhancing children's development rests in the ability of researchers and policy makers to identify these mechanisms. An additional goal of these readings is to familiarize students with methodological challenges to developmental research on child care and early childhood education interventions in an effort to place this work in intellectual context. Furthermore, it will shed light on the limitations of existing developmental research on these questions that need to be addressed in future research. The fourth and final section of the course will consist of students' paper presentations, which will challenge them to integrate what they have learned over the course of the quarter as they consider current questions facing policy makers. Timely policy issues include questions related to the expansion of Head Start, new reading priorities for Head Start, reauthorization of the Child care and Development Block Grants, and universal prekindergarten. Course Requirements Students participating in this course are expected to come to class having read the appropriate material for class discussion. Each class session will consist of two parts. During the first half of class the instructor will lecture on the day's readings focusing on the important themes and concepts. During the second half, students will engage in conversation around questions raised by the instructor and students. 2

Students grades will be based on class participation, midterm exam, research proposal, and final exam. The papers and exams are designed to test students' understanding of the theoretical and empirical issues raised in the course. Assignment due dates and the weight carried by each assignment are listed below. Assignment Due Date Percent of Grade Class participation n/a 10% Midterm exam Week 7 20% Research proposal Week 13 40% Presentation Weeks 12-14 10% Final exam Week 15 20% Class Participation Students class participation grades will be based on questions/comments students pose during each meeting and their engagement in class discussion. Midterm Exam The midterm will consist of a combination of short answer, multiple choice, and essay questions. It will address course material up through the 6 th week, focusing on two major themes from the first half of the class. First, students will be asked to write about the evolution of American child care and early childhood education intervention policies up to present policies. Second, students will address questions about normative cognitive and social development in context. These questions will challenge students to integrate the cognitive and social domains of development and to consider the implications of different contextual theories of child development. Current Policy Issues Related to Child Care and Early Childhood Education Interventions: Final Paper & Presentation In their final course papers students will have two options. First, they can use course readings and external research to consider a current issue confronting policy makers at the federal, state, or local level related to child care or early childhood intervention policies. The goals of the paper topic are for students to reflect on what existing developmental theory and research suggests about the influence of the policy they select. Students must discuss the limitations of existing research in answering this policy question and propose a study to remedy this limitation. The second paper topic involves situating a current policy question in historical and intellectual context. Students choosing this paper topic should trace the evolution of their policy question historically. They must also describe how different disciplines have 3

addressed their policy question of interest. Alternative paper topics may be pursued as long as they are discussed with the instructor by the 8 th week of the semester. Each student will give a 10 minute presentation on their final paper during weeks 12-14. Final Exam The final exam, consisting of short answer, multiple choice and essay questions, will cover material from the 7 th week until the end of the semester. Questions will ask students to describe what is known about how and whether child care and early childhood education interventions influence children s development. Essay questions will push students to describe potential processes that may explain effects in the literature. Weekly Syllabus Week 1: Introduction & Overview of Important Concepts Lamb, M.E. (1997). Nonparental child care: Contexts, quality, correlates. In W. Damon & I.E. Siegel, & K. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Child Psychology in Practice (5 th edition, Vol. 4, pp. 73-133). New York, NY: John Wiley. pp. 75-86 Week 2: Child Care and Early Childhood Education Intervention Trends & Policies in the U.S. Hofferth, S.L. (1996). Child care in the United States today. The Future of Children: Financing Child Care, 6(2), 41-61. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Who s minding the kids? Child care arrangements. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Stoney, L. & Greenberg, M.H. (1996). The financing of child care: Current and emerging trends. The Future of Children: Financing Child Care, 6(2), 83-102. Helburn, S.W., & Howes, C. (1996). Child care cost and quality. The Future of Children: Financing Child Care, 6(2), 62-82. Besharov, D.J. & Samari, N. (2001). Child care after welfare reform. In R. Blank & R. 4

Haskins (Eds.) The New World of Welfare Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. (pp.461-481). Comment by: Kristin Moore, Martha Zaslow, Sharon McGroder, & Kathryn Tout Week 3: The Evolution of Current Child Care and Early Childhood Intervention Policies in the U.S & Perspectives from Abroad Michel, S. (1999). Children s Interests/Mothers Rights. New Haven, N.J: Yale University Press. Cahan, E.D. (1989). Past Caring: A history of U.S. preschool care and education for the poor, 1820-1965. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, School of Public Health, Columbia University. Zigler, E. & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America s most successful educational experiment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Preface Chapter 3 Week 4: Theoretical Approaches to Child Development Sameroff, A.J. (1994). Developing systems and family functioning. In R.D. Parke & S.G. Kellam (Eds.) Exploring family relationships with other social contexts. (pp. 199-214). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development (5 th edition, Vol. 1, pp. 993-1028). New York, NY: John Wiley. Scarr, S. (1996). How people make their own environments: Implications for parents and policy makers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 204-228. Rutter, M., Pickles, A., Murray, R., & Eaves, L. (2001). Testing hypotheses on specific environmental causal effects on behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 291-324. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & 5

R.S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, Perception, and Language. (5 th edition, Vol. 2, pp. 679-744). New York, NY: John Wiley. pp.679-691 Week 5: Early Language and Reading Development Bjorklund, D.F. (2000). Children s thinking: Developmental function and individual differences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 3 Language development and cognition 11 Reading and number concepts Hart, B. & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of Young, American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Adams, M.J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing, and literacy. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R.S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, Perception, and Language. (5 th edition, Vol. 2, pp. 275-337). New York, NY: John Wiley. Whitehurst, G.J., Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848-872. Week 6: Early Social and Emotional Development Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory Research, and Clinical Applications (pp.823-828). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. 3: Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment (Marvin & Britner) 29: Attachment Relations in the Context of Multiple Caregivers (Howes) 36: Implications of attachment theory for child care policies (Rutter & O Connor) DeMulder, E.K., Denham, S., Schmidt, M., Mitchell, J. (2000). Q-sort assessment of attachment security during the preschool years: Links from home to school. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 274-282. Bronson, M. (2000). Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and Nurture. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Chapters 1, 7, 8 6

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. J.P. Shonkoff & D. Phillips (Eds.) Board on Child, Yough, and Families, commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 5: Acquiring self-regulation Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M.L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933-938. Week 7: Midterm Exam Week 8-9: Early Childhood Education Intervention and Child Outcomes Barnett, W.S. (1990). Benefits of compensatory preschool education. The Journal of Human Resources, 27(2), 279-312. Researcher-Initiated Programs Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparlin, J., Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57. Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., & Weikart, D. (1997). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 10. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Publicly Funded Programs Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L, Mann, E.A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(18). Currie, J. & Thomas, D. (1995). Does Head Start make a difference? American Economic Review, 85(3), 341-364. 7

Currie, J. & Thomas, D. (1999). Does Head Start help Hispanic children? Journal of Public Economics, 74, 235-262. Lee, V.E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Schnur, E., Liaw, F. (1990). Are Head Start effects sustained? A longitudinal follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending Head Start, no preschool, and other preschool programs. Child Development, 61, 495-507. Methodological Considerations United States General Accounting Office. (1998). Head Start: Challenges in monitoring program quality and demonstrating results. (GAO Publication No. GAO/HEHS-98-186). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. Ceglowski, D. (1998). Inside a Head Start center : developing policies from practice. New York, NY : Teachers College Press. Week 10-11: Child Care and Child Development National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. J.P. Shonkoff & D. Phillips (Eds.) Board on Child, Youth, and Families, commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 11: Growing up in child care NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). The effects of infant child care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 68(5), 860-879. NICHD Early Child care Research Network (1998). Early child care and self-control, compliance, and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69(4), 1145-1170. Caughy, M., DiPietro, J.A., & Strobino, D. (1994). Day-care participation as a 8

protective factor in the cognitive development of low-income children. Child Development, 65, 457-471. Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R.M., Yazejian, N., Byler, P., Rustici, J., & Zelazo, J. (1999). The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. NICHD Early Child care Research Network (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71(4), 960-980. Methodological Considerations National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. J.P. Shonkoff & D. Phillips (Eds.) Board on Child, Yough, and Families, commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 4: Making Causal Connections Blau, D. (1999). The effect of childcare characteristics on child development. The Journal of Human Resources, 34(4), 786-822. Duncan, G.J. (2001). Modeling the impacts of childcare quality on children's preschool cognitive development. Working paper. Week 12-14: Research Papers Due & Student Presentations Week 15: Final Exam Description of Readings By Week Week 1: Introduction & Overview of Important Concepts The primary goals of the first class meeting are to introduce students to the content and structure of the course and stimulate their interest in the diverse range of issues they will encounter throughout the semester. I will begin by providing an overview of the issues 9

and concepts that will be addressed over the semester. I will then review expectations for student participation and completion of assignments. Questions about the content or logistics of the course will be answered following the introduction. Since students will not have access to the readings before the first meeting, the remainder of the first class will consist of a short period of unstructured discussion and a lecture where I will present students with important theoretical ideas to consider when examining issues surrounding early care and education. During a semi-structured discussion, I will facilitate student exchange of their views regarding non-maternal care arrangements for preschool-aged children and whether the government should have a role in providing or subsidizing care and education for young children. The goal of this discussion is to encourage students to think openly about the cultural, political, and ideological factors that have informed their views about early care and education programs. This discussion is intended to encouraged students to reflect on their own experiences as children, their religious or political affiliations, the experiences of their relatives or friends, television, popular press, or prior exposure to academic work that may shape or bias their views on early care and education. Following this discussion, I will move directly into a lecture focused on Lamb (1998), to stimulate students' thinking about important questions and concepts that will be addressed in greater detail later in the course. This lecture will place current questions related to early care and education in a broader sociocultural and historical context. Three major points from Lamb (1998) will be emphasized to students. First, when researchers, policy makers, and students examine the "effects" of modern policies on children they must keep in mind that the "effects" of policies and practice can only be understood in the context of the values, goals, and traditions of a culture at a given point in time. Often "effects" of care and education are referred to as if they were universal. However, it is important that students realize that the needs of children and families are defined across societies over time and how these definitions are reflected in research on the influence of programs and policies. This is something I will encourage students to do throughout the course, especially in week 3 when we focus on the evolution of child care policies and in weeks 8-11 when we consider questions about the "effects" or current child care and early childhood education interventions on child development. Second, since American researchers and policy makers tend to refer to maternal care as the traditional or natural form of child care, I will deconstruct this notion by discussing the social construction of the "myth of motherhood" and magic of the early years. When Lamb (1998) situates American perspectives in historical and sociocultural context he reminds readers that non-maternal care arrangements have been the dominant form of child supervision across both developed and developing societies. He argues that modern assumptions that non-maternal care arrangements are deviant or unnatural reflect the relatively recent social construction of "the myth of motherhood". Furthermore, he suggests that excessive concern about non-maternal care evident in American research and policy discussions is a relic of a North American belief in the disproportionate 10

influence of early experiences, which have come from the incorporation of psychoanalysis in American's beliefs. This is in stark contrast to other societies that emphasize the importance of experience in later childhood. Finally, I will give students an overview of the different purposes of child care and early education policies in America and across modern societies. These include fostering women's employment, acculturating immigrants, reducing welfare dependency, and enriching children's lives. Additionally, I will encourage students to keep in mind some of the ideological dimensions put forth by Lamb (1998). Child care and early childhood education programs can be compared over time by the extent to which child care and education policies promote equality between men and women, are conceptualized as a matter of public responsibility or private concern, are viewed as social welfare or early educational programs, and reflect changes in basic notions of childhood and development. Week 2: Child Care and Early Childhood Education Intervention Trends & Policies in the U.S. The second week introduces students to broad trends in the use of care and education arrangements. It also provides an overview of current policies related to early care and education in America. The goal of these readings is to familiarize students with the extent and nature of non-maternal care and education and the network of policies that comprise early care and education policies in the U.S. A comprehensive descriptive analysis by Hofferth (1996) is supplemented with data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2000) to characterize the prevalence of child care use and describe the dimensions of type, stability, and hours. Hofferth (1996) documents the general increase in non-maternal care arrangements that has taken place over the last forty years, focusing on the recent increases in the use of formal center care arrangements and reductions in relative care. She describes maternal, child, and familial characteristics that are associated with child care use. Hofferth (1996) also familiarizes students with the regulating auspices of care arrangements, which primarily fall under the responsibility of the state. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau's report (2000) Who's Minding the Kids? provide an even more detailed description of Americans use of non-maternal care arrangements. It paints an inherently more complex picture of current use than is conveyed by Hofferth (1996). Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Census Bureau's report shows that most children experience multiple forms of non-maternal care arrangements in a week. This greatly complicates efforts to identify the effects of care arrangements on children, since they are influenced by multiple child care contexts simultaneously as they traverse settings. 11

Questions about how to improve the affordability and quality of early care and education arrangements are some of the most prevalent in modern policy debates surrounding early care and education. Helburn and Howes (1996) examine the costs and quality of child care provided by centers and family day care homes in the U.S, using data from the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Center study and the Economics of Family Child Care study. In doing so, they provide students with an overview of some major policy questions related to quality and affordability such as: Should the government take a more active role in subsidizing child care? How do current subsidies and tax credit programs affect the cost of child care for families? Helburn and Howes (1996) also acquaint students with different notions of child care quality. Structural quality measures important features of the child care environment that are regulated by the government (e.g., group size, teacher to child ratios, and teacher training). In constrast, process quality refers to the nature of children's experiences in child care arrangements (e.g., interactions with care providers, and learning experiences in child care). Helburn and Howes (1996) suggest that mediocre quality tends to be the rule among the majority of child care arrangements in America and, much to the contrary of public opinion, they suggest that child care quality is only very modestly related to cost. Along with providing an overview of quality issues, this reading highlights some of the challenges and tradeoffs facing policy makers interested in improving the quality of child care in America today. Stoney and Greenberg (1996) describe the complicated mix of federal, state, and local policies that affect the early care and education experiences of preschool children in America. My lecture will provide an overview of these mostly federal policies, with particular emphasis on recent child care reforms passed as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which consolidated four programs (AFDC Child Care, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant) into two funding streams. One of the main points for students to take away from these readings and my lecture is that the U.S. lacks a comprehensive system of support for child care and education and that this has resulted in families shouldering primary responsibility for the cost of care and early education. Stoney and Greenberg (1996) argue that the largest source of fragmentation in existing policies stems from an unclear relation between child care and early education policies in America. The goals of child care and early education policies differ substantially. Child care policies, consisting of child care subsidies and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, are designed to foster parental employment by enhancing access to care for the maximum number of recipients. Early child education policies, like Head Start, are designed to provide enriching experiences for the educational and developmental needs of children. Stoney and Greenberg suggest that there has always been an inherent tension between the need to maximize child care benefits coverage to subsidize maternal employment and the desire to provide educational experiences to young children. The authors conclude the fragmentation of government policies will not be alleviated. 12

The final reading by Besharov & Samari (2001) presents a counter argument to the concerns about early care and education policies in America expressed by Stoney and Greenberg (1996) and Helburn and Howes (1996). Besharov & Samari (2001) use data from several sources to argue that child care and education policies in America are meeting the needs of working parents, especially after the 60% funding increase for child care that took place with the creation of the Child Care and Development Fund. They do so by showing that current demands for child care are being met under the existing system. Unlike the other articles from this week's readings which imply a need for improvements in the quality of child care, Besharov & Samari (2001) argue that too little is known about which characteristics of child care enhance children's development. Consequently, they express great caution toward government intiatives to improve child care quality. Instead, Besharov & Samari (2001) believe additional research, characterized by stronger experimental designs, is necessary to determine how to best allocate resources toward quality improvements. Finally, Besharov & Samari (2001) express hesitation about increasing child care subsidies to enable low-income families to purchase higher quality care, since most middle and upper income families cannot afford such care arrangements. In doing so they raise important philosophical concerns that are inherent in debates surrounding early care and education policies. After reviewing the arguments of Besharov & Samari (2001), I will encourage students to discuss the merits of the arguments encountered in these weeks readings about the adequacy of child care and education policies in America today. Furthermore, I will challenge students to consider the validity of Besharov & Samri's criticism of existing research on early care and education policies in America. Like Moore, Zaslow, McGroder, & Tout (2001) I will express concern with Besharov & Samari's failure to discuss the needs of children in the context of their discussion of whether current child care policies meet the needs of working families. However, I will also argue that their assessment of research on associations between child care quality and child outcomes has substantial merit. Indeed, later in the quarter during our discussions of research on child care and child development we will revisit some of the methodological problems that plague existing research on associations between child care and children's development. Week 3: The Evolution of Child Care and Early Childhood Intervention Policies Prior course readings document the nature of modern policies related to care and education in America, but do little to explain how U.S. policies came to be. Readings from Week 3 provide a rich account of the evolution of current policies in America. My lecture will give a broad overview of five periods of American history. These include: 1) Late 19 th Early 20 th Century, 2) Great Depression, 3) World War 2, 4) War on Poverty & Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971, 5) Era of Welfare Reform. As I trace the development of American policy over time I will discuss ideological shifts that took place over time across the dimensions outlined by Lamb (1998), in the first week's readings. 13

During the class discussion, I will ask students to reflect on the unique historical, social, and political contexts that shaped the development of policies during each of these six periods of American history. I will encourage students to think about the basic assumptions of policies over time regarding the role of women and men in families and the labor force, the role of the government in family life, the nature of child learning and development, and the broader social and political treatment of the poor children and families. Special attention will be paid to the role played by developmental research in the policy process, especially during the period spanning the 1960s and 1970s. Students should come to class prepared to discuss the major debates that have taken place across disciplines about the needs of young children and women, the impact of maternal employment on children, the centrality of maternal care in early development, and the importance of the early years in determining children's long term developmental trajectories. Particular attention in lecture and class discussion will be paid to the period in American history spanning the mid 1960s and the early 1970s, when early childhood education and care policies were exceptionally salient on the national agenda. This period of American history will be used to illustrate how political, social, economic, and intellectual contexts have shaped policies related to early care and education throughout history. During the mid 1960s and early 1970s, Congress and the President considered two important pieces of legislation related to early care and education, Head Start and the Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971 (CCDA). Chapters from Zigler & Muenchow (1992) provide a detailed account of the political success of Head Start, which became the first federal program to provide early education services to low-income children. Michel (1999) provides a vivid description of the events leading up to the development of CCDA and its successful passage in Congress. CDDA represents the first and only successful attempt by policy makers to integrate early care and education into a single policy. Much of the early political success of CCDA was attributed to the accomplishments of Head Start and the broad based coalition of activists that coalesced to advocate for Head Start during its earliest years. Ultimately, however, CCDA met its demise with a veto from President Nixon, who believed the legislation undermined American family values by replacing family responsibilities with government policies. Large factions of the American public agreed with Nixon. Drawing on Cold War rhetoric, Nixon argued that the passage of CCDA would have represented the first step down a slippery slope to the acceptance of totalitarian or communist governance. Cahan (1986) & Michel (1999) suggest, and I will stress to students, that Nixon's veto of CCDA and the concurrent political success of Head Start represented a critical juncture in American policymaking related to early care and education policies. Passage of CCDA would have represented a break from past policies, where government provision of early care and education were viewed primarily as social welfare programs for low-income families. CCDA differed from existing policies because it recognized the universal need for high quality care and education services for 14

children in families across the income distribution. Instead, the passage of Head Start and the ultimate failure of CCDA reaffirmed existing political divisions, whereby early care and education policies were deemed an acceptable form of social welfare for poor families and for middle to upper income families they were considered destructive to the fabric of the American family. One of the most important themes for students to take away from this weeks' readings, that builds on the prior week's readings by Stoney & Greenberg (1996) and is articulated by Michel (1999) and Cahan (1989), is that early child care and education policies in America have always consisted of a two-tiered system. The first tier consists of programs and policies designed to facilitate women's employment, with particular emphasis on low-income women. This tier includes the Social Services Block Grant, Title IV At Risk Child Care, and the Child Care Development Block Grant. Its precursors were early day nurseries or child minding programs started by middle and upper class reformers concerned about conditions facing the children of low-income women who were employed outside the home in 19 th century America. Privately run kindergarten programs dominate the second tier, which consists of public and privately funded early childhood education programs. These programs were created to provide mostly middle- and upper- income children with enriched developmental experiences to supplement maternal care as the primary form of supervision. It was not until the creation of Head Start in the middle of the 20 th century that early education programs were designed specifically to provide enriching early experiences to low-income children. Week 4: Theoretical Approaches to Child Development Week 4 is the first of three weeks where students will be exposed to developmental theories and research that will prepare them to consider potential processes by which child care and early education programs influence children's development. Readings from week 4 cover some of the major theoretical perspectives on child development in context and some of the methodological difficulties these present to research examining environmental influences on children. Readings representing transactional and behavioral genetics theories of development dominate this set of readings, because these perspectives are implicit in nearly all research on the influence of child care and early childhood education programs on children. An additional reading is included from the sociocultural perspective to challenge some of the assumptions inherent in more traditional notions of development. I will begin this class meeting by giving an overview of some of the most influential theories of development and the relative importance they place on the contributions of individuals and environments to children's development. The article by Sameroff (1994) will be used as a framework for organizing theories of child development along these two dimensions. Sameroff describes four categories that situate models of child development along a continuum according to how active or passive individuals and environment are in 15

shaping development. These four categories will be used as a way for students to compare and contrast theories of child development from their prior course work, along with this week's readings and readings in weeks 5 and 6 that examine domain specific theories of development. Throughout the course I will stress the importance of considering assumptions implicit in theories and research about the role of individuals and context in shaping development. Following this more global introduction, I will describe the major tenets of the theories presented by Scarr (1996) and Bronfenbrenner & Morris (1998) and the methodological challenges of testing these theories addressed in Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves (2001). Scarr (1996) presents the genotype environment theory of human development that is characteristic of behavioral geneticists' theories. She argues that genetic variation accounts for the majority of developmental differences between children. Unless children experience severe deprivation, which Scarr argues is for the most part nonexistent in Western industrialized countries, environments have little influence on development. Scarr's theory of development emphasizes the importance of children's construction of their own experiences and the influence of non-shared or child specific environments. Failure to control for the contribution of genes in studies of environmental influences, Scarr argues, often leads researchers to attribute to environments what should in fact be attributed to genes. Unlike Scarr's genotype-environment theory of human development, Bronfenbrenner & Morris's (1998) Bioecological Model of child development suggests that children and their environments are both active participants in developmental processes. While the Bioecological Model recognizes the importance of genetic contributions to child development, it considers them less deterministic than Scarr. Instead Bronfenbrenner & Morris (1998) suggest that child development is driven by proximal processes, which are influenced by characteristics of the developing child as well as the multiple environments that they inhabit over time. Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves (2001) discuss the merits of the more traditional theories of child development and proposes empirical strategies, including adoption and twins studies and natural experiments, to test their credibility. While the prior articles are primarily theoretical in nature, Rutter et al. (2001) is included in this week's readings to make a direct connection between developmental theory and empirical tests of theory. This piece is intended to encourage students to consider the methodological challenges researchers face in identifying the contributions of individuals and environments to development and will help students evaluate the methodological rigor of the research on child care and early education program they examine later in the semester. When considering research on early child care and education programs during weeks 8-11, I will emphasize the importance of identifying the theoretical frameworks reflected in different analytic strategies and evaluating their validity for particular research questions. 16

Rogoff (1998) is included to challenge students to think carefully about dominant definitions of development and to open their minds to the cultural construction of the meaning of development over time. Rogoff (1998) questions traditional notions of child development, such as those presented by Scarr (1996) and Bronfenbrenner & Morris (1998), and sets sociocultural theories apart from other theories emerging from the nature versus nurture debate. Sociocultural theorists believe that child development consists of changes in the nature of children's participation in sociocultural activities, rather than the acquisition or possession of additional knowledge within an individual over time. Rogoff (1998) draws an interesting distinction between the role sociocultural theorists attribute to the environment and the role attributed to the environment by what she calls theories of "social influence". The latter consider environmental influences as inputs or independent variables and children are conceptualized as the targets of these inputs. Researchers ascribing to this tradition examine the "impact" of environmental influences. Sociocultural theorists, on the other hand, believe that the individual and his or her environment are interdependent. Therefore, the challenge for researchers interested in development is to understand and document changes in the roles and meanings of an individual s participation in sociocultural activities over time. Week 5: Early Cognitive Development: Language Development and Reading Following a broad theoretical overview of child development in context in week 4, the course turns to a focus on specific domains of child development. Readings in weeks 5 and 6 expose students to influential theories of cognitive and social development, as well as empirical articles that examine environmental influences on development. These two weeks will provide a developmental foundation for upcoming weeks when we will consider the influence of child care and early education programs on children's development. As students consider empirical work in subsequent weeks, I will argue that one of the biggest shortcomings of the existing research on child care across social science disciplines is the lack of attention to developmental process. Existing studies linking child care to child outcomes typically draw global conclusions about relations between aspects of non-maternal care arrangements, such as type, quality or hours in care, and child development without testing specific mechanisms of influence. By exposing students to theoretical and empirical work on normative social and cognitive development in context, readings from Weeks 4 and 5 will prepare students to think from a developmental perspective about potential processes in weeks 8-11. Unlike other class meetings, I plan to lecture for the majority of the fourth session because of the broad scope of material to be covered. Early language and literacy development are two domains of cognitive development that are particularly salient in early childhood. Research in these fields has been particularly influential on early child care and education programs. Therefore, when considering the effects of these programs on children's development, it is important for students to be 17

familiar with normative language and literacy development. Chapters from Bjorklund (2000) offer an overview of language and reading development. My lecture will begin by discussing the history of research on language development, with a focus on the tension that existed in the middle of the 20 th century between behaviorists theories, like the work of B.F. Skinner, and the nativist views, most notably expressed in Noam Chomsky's theory of the language acquisition device (LAD). After a brief discussion of neonativism, which is the dominant theoretical paradigm among language researchers today, I will trace normative language development in children from the early stages of prelanguage communication in infancy, to the acquisition of language beginning around 12 months of age and continuing through childhood. My lecture on language development will pay special attention to evidence suggesting that children between 12-36 months are particularly sensitive to opportunities for language learning. Bjorklund (2000) reviews this literature on critical periods and presents several theories that have been advanced to explain their existence. During this discussion, I will draw connections to our earlier readings on the history of child care and early childhood education programs and point out the use of language development research in policy debates surrounding Head Start. Hart & Risley (1995) complement Bjorklund (2000) by illustrating the importance of early environments for explaining differences in language development among children from low-income, working class, and professional families. Their detailed, longitudinal account of children's language development, suggests that disparities in the type and amount of language exposure children receive in their home environments explain differences in the language trajectories of children from low-income families compared to their more advantaged counterparts. Hart & Risley (1995) conclude by discussing the implications of their study on early childhood education interventions for low-income children in America. Their research suggests that a highly intensive intervention, including more than 40 hours a week, would be required to equalize the language skills of low-income children with those of children from working class families. I will encourage students to keep this in mind in upcoming weeks when we consider the effect of early childhood education interventions on children's development. Early literacy is another domain of development that has been particularly influential in debates around early care and education policies, so the second half of week 5's lecture will focus on the development of literacy skills. Adams, Treiman, & Pressley (1998) provide a broad overview of normative reading development, from early letter recognition to reading comprehension. They describe some of the most influential stage theories of literacy development as well as the great debate that continues to be waged within education and developmental psychology between whole language and phonics approaches to reading. Adams, Treiman, & Pressley (1998) also review existing research on environmental influences on literacy, focusing specifically on the importance of shared reading experiences and print exposure. 18

Whitehurst & Lonigan (1998) present the notion of emergent literacy and argue against the dominant trend in traditional literacy research, evident in Adams, Treiman, & Pressley (1998), to define prereading skills as simply the abilities necessary for children to benefit from formal reading instruction. The emergent literacy perspective pushes researchers to consider prereading and conventional notions of literacy (e.g. reading development) as part of a continuous process of literacy development. Whitehurst & Lonigan (1998) specify several components of emergent literacy that are necessary for the development of fluent reading and categorize these components as "outside-in" or "inside out" skills. "Inside-out" skills and processes are those necessary for the child to decode print into units of sound and units of sound into units of language. They define "outside-in" skills and processes as those central to placing sounds and words in conceptual and contextual frameworks that gives them meaning. They argue that successful reading development requires the simultaneous development of both sets of skills. Whitehurst & Lonigan (1998) review the literature on the importance of emergent literacy environments, including home, child care, and preschool. Their discussion of the mixed success of interventions attempting to improve different domains of emergent literacy, will be particularly relevant to later class discussions about the processes of child care and education programs influences on child development. They argue that in order for early interventions to be successful they must focus on both the "outside-in" components of literacy, such as increasing children's exposure to print and their frequency of interaction with adults and reading materials, and the "inside-out" components, which requires much more explicit teaching to improve skills like phonological processing and syntactic awareness. I will encourage students to remember this recommendation and consider its implications for existing policy questions facing researchers and policy makers. Week 6: Early Social and Emotional Development Two of the major challenges children face in the early years that have significant implications on their later social and emotional functioning are forming secure attachments with responsive caregivers and acquiring the ability to self-regulate their attention, behaviors, and emotions. Readings from week 6 ground students in selfregulation and attachment theory and research, which are particularly relevant to early care and education policies. During my lecture on these issues, I will review important issues in the literature and take students a step beyond course readings by challenging them to integrate early socioemotional and cognitive development. Because of the course s prerequisites, students will already have been exposed to attachment theory. Marvin & Britner (1999) will re-familiarize students with the basic tenants of attachment and with the implications of attachment for later social and emotional development. During the class discussion, I will briefly review the four phases 19