Sims, Margaret

2003

Originally evolving out of a welfare model of services (Brennan, 1994; Sims & Hutchins, 1996), child care has traditionally been the underdog of early childhood programs. Child care workers remain on lower wages than early childhood teachers (Press & Hayes, 2001). Training requirements to work in child care are less, and the industry is characterised by high caregiver stress levels, high staff turnover and poor working conditions (Commonwealth Child Care Advisory Council, 2001; Press & Hayes, 2001; Sims, 2003, in press). It is no wonder child care is perceived as a 'necessary evil' for those parents whose needs require them to be in the workforce. The Western world is strongly influenced by an 'Ideology of Motherhood' (Hutchins & Sims, 1999) which implies that the ultimate achievement of womanhood is to parent children. In this context, women who 'pass on' their child caring role to others are judged as poor examples of womanhood. The child care industry, therefore, is seen as having a '...financial interest in separating infants and young children from their mothers ...' (Cook, 2002). Alternatives to child care, such as extended parental leave, are debated without challenging the fundamental assumption that children are better off in their homes, being cared for by a parent. Formal child care is often perceived as the opposite, and less desirable end of the child care continuum, with parental care at the most desirable, end. Proving child care is bad for children is often assumed to prove the converse: that parental care is the best for children. The question thus becomes imbued with all the power and emotion surrounding the whole issue of parenthood/motherhood.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(4), p. 34-39

0312-5033

https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/3098

en

Early Childhood Australia Inc

Are we asking the right question when we ask 'Is child care bad for children?'

Journal Article

Publication