In Search of a National Child Care Policy: Background and Prospects

• DOI: 10.1177/106591298103400111
• Date: 01 March 1981
• Author: Jill Norgren
• Published date: 01 March 1981
• Subject Matter: Articles

IN

SEARCH

OF

A

NATIONAL

CHILD

CARE

POLICY:

BACKGROUND

AND

PROSPECTS

JILL

NORGREN

John

Jay

College,

City

University

of

New

York

MERICANS

express

ambivalence

about

the

desirable

role

of

the

State

in

the

upbringing

of

their

children.

The

imposition

of

compulsory

school

JL

attendance

achieved

between

1852

and

1918

occurred

in

an

atmos-

phere

rife

with

dissension.

Compulsory

attendance

laws

brought

unresolved

issues

of

the

Republic

into

sharp

relief

by

imposing

explicit

values,

and

the

resulting

costs,

on

the

lives

of

citizens

and

their

offspring.

These

education

laws

not

only

authorized

the

State

to

demand

the

presence

of

a

child

in

school

but

also,

once

there,

to

inculcate

uniform,

increasingly

national

values

and

atti-

tudes.

While

at

one

level

debate

centered

upon

the

question

of

State

versus

parental

custody

of

the

child,

the

broader

issue

was

the

spectre

of

standardized

behavior

and

thought

which

threatened

the

American

tradition

of

&dquo;being

one’s

own

man&dquo; -

the

liberal

value

of

individualism

1

Today

Americans

have

arrived

at

a

consensus

concerning

the

need

for

compulsory

schooling

and

the

acceptability

of

the

government’s

role

in

this

function.

The

same

cannot

be

said

for

child

care

programs.

Despite

the

momentum

gathered

in

the

Johnson

and

early

Nixon

administrations

and

a

monotonically

increasing

rate

of

employment

among

women

with

small

chil-

dren,

a

clearly

defined

national

policy

in

the

area

of

child

care

has

yet

to

be

enacted.

Nevertheless,

the

issue

fundamental

to

the

debate

concerning

day

care

-

one

the

day

care

lobby

must

address

more

forcefully

-

is

the

same

as

that

presented by

the

compulsory

school

attendance

controversy:

In

what

ways

do

changing

social

and

economic

conditions

require

new

relationships

between

the

family

and

the

State?

While

Americans

accept

schooling

as

necessary

preparation

for

an

increasingly

technological,

homogeneous

soci-

ety,

rejection

of

a

comprehensive,

national

child

care

policy

continues

de-

spite

conditions

which

advocates

cite

as

justification

for

government

in-

volvement.2

Between

1971

and

1979

three

major

congressional

initiatives

1

Such

sentiments

were

formally

expressed

by

various

men

in

public

life.

The

governor

of

Pennsylvania,

for

example,

vetoed

a

compulsory

attendance

bill

in

1893

on

the

grounds

that

it

was

un-American.

Jack

Culbertson,

"Attendance,"

Encyclopedia

of

Educational

Re-

search,

3rd

ed.

(New

York:

Macmillan,

1960),

p.

94,

cited

in

Charles

Burgess,

"The

God-

dess,"

Harvard

Educational

Review

46

(May

1976):

213.

2

Foremost

among

reasons

given

is

the

increase

in

the

number

of

working

mothers

in

the

United

States

in

the

past

thirty

years,

a

trend

forecasters

believe

will

continue.

The

Urban

Insti-

tute

recently

estimated

an

increase

of

3.1

million

working

women

with

very

young

chil-

dren

by

1990

—

a

56

percent

increase

over

the

1978

level.

In

addition,

an

increase

of

5.5

million

working

mothers

with

children

between

the

ages

of

6

and

17

is

projected

(also

a

rise

of

56

percent

over

the

1978

level).

Ralph

E.

Smith,

The

Subtle

Revolution

(Washington,

D.C.:

The

Urban

Institute,

1979),

pp.

14, 19,

133.

The

growth

of

one-parent

families

and

the

decrease

in

extended

family

child

care

are

also

cited

by

proponents

of

day

care.

Studies

such

as

Mary

Keyserling’s

Windows

on

Day

Care

(New

York:

National

Council

of

Jewish

Women,

1972),

for

example,

indicate

the

need

for

child

care

by

demonstrating

the

number

of

latchkey

children

in

the

United

States.

A

totally

different

argument

for

day

care

is

offered

by

those

concerned

with

the

increasing

number

of

Americans

on

public

assistance

who

see

child

care

programs

as

a

means

of

decreasing

welfare

dependency.

Another

justification

for

day-care

centers

and

supervised

family

care

rests

upon

argu-

ments

made

on

behalf

of

compensatory,

developmental

education,

that

is,

all-day

nursery

school

or

a

Head

Start

type

program.

Feminists

argue

for

child

care

programs

on

the

grounds

that

mothers

ought

to

be

provided

time

to

develop

themselves.

Community-

focused

activists

portray

day-care

centers

as

institutions

capable

of

enhancing

communica-

tions

and

solidarity

in

neighborhoods

and

as

agents

of

social

and

economic

change.

128

toward

the

development

of

comprehensive

child

care

policy

were

defeated

-

one

by

presidential

veto.3

3

This

essay

reviews

the

history

of

day

care

in

the

United

States

and

examines

the

political

events

and

ideological

backdrop

that

contributed

to

the

defeat

of

committed

congressional

sponsors

and

a

broad

coalition

of

lobby

groups

over

this

eight-year

period.

The

specifics

of

each

legislative

episode

vary,

but

similar factors

undermined

all

the

efforts.

Political

factors

including

the

cost

of

potential

programs,

a

diffuse

and

contentious

coalition

of

lobby

groups,

and

substantive

programmatic

differences

precipitated

de-

feat.

Fundamental

myths

about

American

life

exacerbated

by

the

bleak

popular

image

evoked

by

day

care

centers,

however,

fed

a

political

atmos-

phere

that

permitted

these

repeated

defeats

to

take

place.

Political

conserva-

tives

continue

to

manipulate

these

myths

as

part

of

their

effort

to

defeat

the

concept

of

a

national

family

policy.

THE

DEVELOPMENT

OF

PUBLICLY

FUNDED

DAY

CARE:

THE

POWER

OF

IMAGES

AND

IDEOLOGY

Early

Years

In

1971

President

Nixon

vetoed

the

first

comprehensive

child

care

legislation

passed

by

Congress.4

In

the

message

accompanying

his

veto

Nixon

referred

to

the

legislation

as

having

&dquo;family-weakening

implications,&dquo;

suggested

that

it

would

&dquo;commit

the

vast

moral

authority

of

the

National

Government

to

the

side

of

communal

approaches

to

child

rearing

over

against

the

family-centered

approach&dquo;

[sic],

and

claimed

that

the

legislation

before

him

would

be

&dquo;truly

a

long

leap

into

the

dark

for

the

United

States

Government

and

the

American

peoples

The

severe,

even

caustic

language

reflected

significant

differences

between

the

White

House

and

Congress

over

technical

content

-

the

nature

of

the

means

test,

the

prime

sponsor

provision

and

the

level

of

funding

for

a

comprehensive

program.

More

than

this,

however,

the

Nixon

veto

underscored

the

negative

social and

political

image

long

attached

to

day

care

in

the

United

States.

Traditionally

Americans

have

viewed

day

care

centers

as

bleak,

under-

staffed

institutions

where

children

from

poor

or

troubled

families

could

be

cared

for

under

the

aegis

of

a

charitable

organization

or

the

State.

More

recently,

the

use

of

day

care

centers

in

socialist

and

communist

nations

has

touched

the

already

negative

physical

image

with

political

tones

suggestive

of

State-controlled

and

therefore,

critics

say,

family

weakening

child

rearing.

The

images

of

grim

physical

surroundings

and

the

incipient

communism

referred

to

in

the

Nixon

veto

stand

in

sharp

contrast

to

the

generally

positive

regard

for

nursery

school,

kindergarten

and,

more

recently,

Head

Start,

all

3 In

1971

President

Nixon

vetoed

the

Economic

Opportunity

Amendments

bill

because

of

his

opposition

to

Title

V,

"Child

Development

Programs."

Both

the

1975

"Child

and

Family

Services

Act"

sponsored

by

Senator

Walter

Mondale

and

Representative

John

Brademus,

and

the

1979

"Child

Care

Act"

authored

by

Senator

Alan

Cranston

failed

to

emerge

from

committee.

Perceiving

a

dim

future,

Cranston

even

withdrew

his

bill

before

the

comple-

tion

of

hearings.

4

Title

V,

"Child

Development

Programs,"

Economic

Opportunity

Amendments

of

1971

(S.

2007).

For

the

veto

message

see

Richard

Nixon,

"Veto

of

Economic

Opportunity

Amend-

ments

of

1971,"

Weekly

Compilation of

Presidential

Documents,

December

13,

1971,

pp.

1635-36.

5

Ibid.,

p.

1636.

The

message

may

have

taken

its

language

from

the

September

9,

1971,

com-

ments

of

New

York’s

conservative

Senator

James

Buckley

who

described

the

child

devel-

opment

bill

as

one

that

"threatens

to

destroy

parental

authority

and

the

institution

of

the

family."

Congressional

Record

(daily

ed.),

September

9,

1971,

p.

S.14010,

cited

in

Gilbert

Steiner,

The

Children’s

Cause

(Washington,

D.C.:

Brookings,

1976),

pp.

108

and

113-15.