Child Care Media Coverage: Past, Present, and Future

1
Child Care Media Coverage Past, Present, and
Future Kathleen McCartney Harvard University
2
How U.S. Newspapers Portray Child Care
3
Berkeley Media Studies Group surveyed the Nexis
database and their archives for stories in which
1/3 of the content concerned child care.

• New Your Times
• USA Today
• Wall Street Journal
• Los Angeles Times
• Seven Californian newspapers

4
Main finding

• Silent Revolution
• stories about child care represent only a
  fraction of one percent of the stories in
  newspapers (p.2)
• Why? Child care falls between traditional
  newspaper beats

5
How often is child care covered in the business
section?

• This is surprising given that licensed child
  care is a
• 5.4 billion industry.
• Child-care stories appeared in other sections
  of
• newspapers with varying frequency, as you can
  see
• from this table.

6
How is child care framed on business pages?

• They coded six frames or themes
  safety-security,
• economic, educational, social, health, and
• regulatory/political.
• The vast majority of stories from the business
• section of newspapers are about the economic
  
• benefits of child care.
• Stories in the business section and elsewhere
  also
• highlight the fact that demand for quality
  child care
• is outstripping supply.

7
Whom do reporters quote?

• Businesspeople are most likely to be quoted in
  the
• business section.
• In other sections, there is a bit more
  diversity among
• sources.
• Researchers are quoted 22 to 27 of the time.

8
What is the lead in most stories?

• The need for universally accessible child care
  of
• high quality.

9
The Mommy Wars
10
The need for universal child care represents a
dramatic change from past frames for child care.

• Necessary evil
• Support for welfare
• Risk of child abuse
• Maternal deprivation

11
Frames continue to be important
Day care early childhood education
terroristfreedom fighter
12
These are the stories we remember

• McMartin Center
• Louise Woodward
• Day Care Causes Aggression (NICHD Study of
• Early Child Care)

13
Why the negative spin?

• Bad news sells newspapers.
• Public concern over high stakes.

14
Risks of discussing research with the press when
there is a war

• Risk of being misquoted.
• Risk of being misunderstood.
• Risk of being misrepresented.
• Risk of being perceived as an advocate vs.
• a researcher.

15

• Media coverage of the mommy wars lead to
• the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
• and Youth Development

• Mid-80s stories on whether infant child care
• disrupts the mother-child bond.
• Study launched in 1989.
• 10 Principal Investigators, representing both
  sides
• of the war.

16
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

• Virginia Allhusen University of California at
  Irvine
• Jay Belsky University of London
• Cathryn Booth University of Washington at
  Seattle
• Robert Bradley University of Arkansas at Little
  Rock
• Celia Brownell University of Pittsburgh
• Margaret Burchinal University of North Carolina
  at Chapel Hill
• Bettye Caldwell Arkansas Childrens Hospital
• Susan Campbell University of Pittsburgh
• Alison Clarke-Stewart University of California
  at Irvine
• Martha Cox University of North Carolina at
  Chapel Hill
• Sarah Friedman National Institute of Child
  Health and Human Development
• Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek Temple University
• Aletha Huston University of Texas at Austin
• Elizabeth Jaeger St. Josephs University
• Deborah Johnson Michigan State University
• Jean Kelly University of Washington at Seattle
• Bonnie Knoke Research Triangle Institute
• Nancy Marshall Wellesley College
• Kathleen McCartney Harvard University

17
Overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
and Youth Development
18
Why is the study unusual?

• Team Formed via competitive application process.
• Scope 1 collaborative study vs. 10 studies with
  common measures.
• Sampling plan stratified random sample of 1,364
• families to reflect economic, racial, and
  maternal employment diversity.

19
Sampling Plan and Subject Recruitment

• Sites selected by competitive review of
  proposals (scientific merit), not on basis of
  demography.
• Ten sites and the associated 24 hospitals
  define the sampling domain of the study.
• All births in study hospitals during the
  recruitment period define a catchment which is
  the reference population of the study.
• Sampling designed to produce unbiased estimates
  of effects for the catchment while assuring
  adequate representation of major
  socio-demographic niches.

Location of Data Collection Sites
20

• 4. Assessment Gold standard observational
  assessments in home, child care, and lab.
• 5. Cost 80 million as of year 13.
• 6. Value to field Data can be used to address
  questions on topics other than child care.

21
Early Childhood Data Collection Schedule

• Major assessments were done at 1, 6, 15, 24, 36,
  and 54 months as well as first grade, third, and
  fifth grade.
• Intervening phone contacts were made every 3 to 6
  months.
• Questionnaires were completed in kindergarten.

22
School Data Collection Schedule
23
The NICHD Study of Early Child Care Youth
Development is not an experiment.

• What parent would allow a researcher to
  randomly
• assign a child to an experience like child
  care?
• Therefore, we need to control for possible
• differences among families.
• Therefore, we need to rule out rival
  hypotheses.
• Child-care debates often revolve around
  arguments
• about whether a seeming child-care effect
  might
• merely be an index of another unaccounted for
  
• variable.

24
Three Big Questions
25
First, does child care disrupt the mother-child
relationship?
The short answer is no (see NICHD ECCRN, 1997).
26
Key attachment findings

• To assess childrens attachment relationships
  with their mothers, we observed mother-child
  separations and reunions.
• No main effects of child care, age when child
  care started, type of care, continuity of
  care, amount of care, quality of care.
• Main effect for mothers sensitivity.
• Some indication that low-quality child care can
  add to the risk of insensitive mothering
  (dual risk).
• Front-page story in major newspapers.
• Important findings for employed parents.

27
Second, is the amount of time spent in
care related to behavior problems?
The short answer is maybe on CBCL ratings (see
NICHD ECCRN, under review).
28
Key quantity findings

• CBCL assesses aggression (e.g., gets in many
  fights),
• disobedience (e.g., uncooperative), and
  assertiveness
• (e.g., demands/wants attention).
• But important caveats

• Percent of children 30 hours/week in child
  care with
• above-average ratings of behavior problems
  17
• Percent of children in the norming sample with
  above-
• average ratings of behavior problems 17
• Percent of children with little time in child
  care with
• above-average ratings of behavior problems 5

29

• Are children with 30 hours at risk? Which
• comparison group should we use?
• What is risk? Experiences in child care? Lost
• experiences at home?
• We have a provocative finding that we are
  following,
• e.g., Is it exposure to peers?
• Enormous press coverage Lead story in
  newspapers
• and national news programs.
• Recommendations from experts that mothers
  should
• stay home.
• The fact that 83 of children in 30 hours did
  not have
• behavior problems was lost.

30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Third, does quality matter?
The short answer is yes (see NICHD ECCRN, 1999
2002).
34
Key quality findings

• Children who experience higher-quality child
  care
• perform better on school readiness and
  language
• development than other children.
• Language stimulation is an important dimension
  of
• quality and a predictor of school readiness
  and
• language development.
• Participation in center-based care shows more
  benefits
• than participation in other types of child
  care.
• Children in exclusive maternal care do not
  perform any
• better than children in child care on
  cognitive and
• language tests.

35
What are the characteristics of high-quality
child care? (see NICHD ECCRN, 1996)

• Smaller group sizes.
• Lower child-adult ratios.
• Better educated caregivers.
• More experienced caregivers.
• Less authoritarian beliefs/more child-centered
  beliefs.
• Safer and more stimulating environments.

36
Some of these characteristics are regulated by
the state.
37
What kind of child care do children
experience? (see NICHD ECCRN, 2000)

• Positive caregiving
• Very uncharacteristic 6
• Somewhat uncharacteristic 51
• Somewhat uncharacteristic 32
• Very characteristic 12
• Therefore, 61 of children in our study were in
  low-
• quality child care.
• This is especially important in light of the
  prevalence
• of child care 81 of children experience
  some
• regular child care in the first year of life.

38
New Findings From the NICHD Study of Early Child
Care and Youth Development
39
Newsworthy journal articles that did not get much
news coverage.

• Child Outcomes When Child Care Center Classes
• Meet Recommended Standards for Quality
  (American
• Journal of Public Health, 1999).
• The Relation of Child Care to Cognitive and
  Language
• Development (Child Development, 2000).
• Child-Care Structures ? Process ? Outcome
  Direct
• and Indirect Effects of Child-Care Quality on
  Young
• Childrens Development (Psychological
  Science,
• 2002 Released May 1st!).

40
Papers in press

• Early Child Care and Childrens Development
  Prior to
• School Entry Results from the NICHD Study of
  Early
• Child Care (American Educational Research
  Journal).
• The Relation of Global First Grade Classroom
• Environment to Structural Classroom Features,
• Teacher, and Student Behaviors (The
  Elementary
• School Journal).

41
Overview of Psychological Science paper

• Two Main Findings
• Better caregiver training as well as lower
  staff-child
• ratios lead to better non-maternal
  caregiving,
• which in turn leads to childrens cognitive
  and
• social competence.
• Quality of maternal caregiving is the
  strongest
• predictor of cognitive competence.

42
Why these findings are important

• From a researcher perspective, this is the
  first study
• that has provided a link from structural
  aspects of
• child care ? process measures ? child
  outcomes.
• From a policy perspective, these findings
  provide
• strong empirical support for policies that
  improve
• regulations, at least in some states, for
  caregiver
• training and child-staff ratios. In other
  words, these
• findings refute claims that state regulations
  of the child
• care industry are not necessary.

43

• Family Structure
• Mothers Education
• Income-to-Needs

• Family Process
• Maternal Caregiving

• Child Competence
• Cognitive
• Social

• Child Care Structure
• Child-Staff Ratio
• Caregiver Training

• Child Care Process
• Non-maternal
• Caregiving

44
Implications

• Caregiver training and child-staff ratios lead
  to better
• as well as more interactions between children
  and
• adults. The end result is higher-quality
  child care. This
• is true for relatives, other in-home
  providers, and
• teachers in child-care centers.
• Because children from families with fewer
  economic
• resources are most likely to experience
  poor-quality
• child care, these findings suggest that
  high-quality
• child care might serve as an important early
  childhood
• intervention for children living in poverty

45
Future story ideas

• Child care as a social construction.
• Story on child care media coverage.
• Why federal funding for child care is all
  indirect.
• Broken child care market.
• Profiles on programs reflecting best practice
• (e.g., Moran Jarvis, 2001).

46
Study web-site

• http//public.rti.org/secc
• Summary of study
• List of study investigators
• List of papers