The Quality of Early Child Care and Children’s Development Nancy L. Marshall

Wellesley College

ABSTRACT—The past half-century saw dramatic changes in

families that altered the daily experiences of many young chil-

dren. As more mothers of young children entered the labor

force, increasing numbers of young children spent substantial

hours in various child-care settings. These changes gave rise to

a large body of research on the impact of the quality of early

child care on children’s development. However, a full under-

standing of the role of the quality of early child care requires

consideration of the interplay among child care, family, work-

place, and society. This article places what we know about the

quality of early child care and children’s development in this

larger ecological context, and suggests directions for future

research and practice.

KEYWORDS—child care; maternal employment; child develop-

ment; child-care services

The past half-century saw dramatic changes in families that altered the

daily experiences of many young children. In 1970, only 24% of

mothers with a young child (birth through age 3) were in the labor

force; by 2000, this figure had risen to 57%. This growth in maternal

employment was accompanied by changes in children’s daily experi-

ences. By 2000, 80% of children under the age of 6 were in some form

of nonparental care, spending an average of 40 hours a week in such

care (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003).

Research on children’s experiences saw a parallel change that was

equally dramatic. Early research in the field focused primarily on the

question of whether child care (or maternal employment) per se was

good or bad for children; current research asks questions about the

relation between children’s development and variations in the quality

and quantity of child care that they experience. The field also now

recognizes varying types of child care, including center-based care,

licensed or regulated home-based care by nonrelatives (family-child-

care homes), and other home-based care, such as care by relatives or

in-home sitters. There have been methodological advances as well.

Early research was more likely to study small samples and examine

correlations between child care and children’s outcomes at a single

point in time; current research is more likely to involve large samples

at multiple sites, to use experimental or quasi-experimental designs,

and to follow participants over time.

Perhaps the most important advance in child-care research has

been theoretical. Early research tended to study the effects of child

care in isolation from other significant aspects of children’s lives.

Current research is more likely to be grounded in ecological systems

theory, which considers children’s development in the context of the

child-care system as well as the family system, and recognizes the

links between these systems and the larger society.

In this article, I focus on one segment of current research on early

child care—the links between the quality of child care and children’s

development—drawing on ecological systems theory to provide an

overview of recent advances and to suggest directions for future research.

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY AND EARLY CHILD CARE

Ecological systems theory places child development in an ecological

perspective, in which an individual’s experience is nested within in-

terconnected systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Microsystems, such as

families or child-care settings, are characterized by face-to-face

connections among individuals. Mesosystems consist of two or more

microsystems and the linkages or processes that combine or connect

them. These mesosystems exist within the larger context of the exo-

system, those settings in which the child does not directly participate

but that influence the lives of parents and other adults in the child’s

world, such as a parent’s workplace, educational institutions that train

child-care teachers and providers, and government agencies that set

regulations for child-care facilities or establish welfare-reform poli-

cies. The mesosystems and exosystems operate within the context of a

macrosystem of societal and cultural beliefs and practices. Note that

these systems are not static, but may change over time.

The Mesosystem of Family ! Child Care Children inhabit both families and child-care microsystems, and these

systems are linked. Parents select particular types of child care, of vary-

ing quality, for children of different ages—and these decisions vary with

family structure, parental characteristics, geographical location, and other

factors. Singer, Fuller, Keiley, and Wolf (1998) argued that child-care

researchers must consider these selection effects if they are to accurately

model the impact of child care on children’s development over time.1

Through their selection of particular child-care arrangements,

parents have an indirect impact on their children’s development (in

Address correspondence to Nancy L. Marshall, Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College, 106 Central St., Wellesley, MA 02481.

1Selection effects refers to the effects of family-level and community-level factors on decisions about the selection of child care.

CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Volume 13—Number 4 165Copyright r 2004 American Psychological Society

 

 

addition to their direct impact within the family system). But this

linkage between the family system and child-care system operates in

both directions: The child-care system can also influence the family

system. For example, Ahnert, Rickert, and Lamb (2000) described a

particular mesosystem characterized by shared care; in this meso-

system, mothers adapted their interactions with their toddlers in re-

sponse to the toddlers’ experiences in child care.

The Exosystem

The family ! child-care mesosystem operates within the larger context of the exosystem of parental employment—one of the primary

functions of child care is to enable parents, particularly mothers, to

work outside the home. Historically, the child-care system has de-

veloped in response to characteristics of parents’ employment. For

instance, the current child-care system includes child-care centers,

which tend to have operating hours that match those of parents who

are working weekdays, as well as family-child-care homes and kith-

and-kin care, which are more likely to meet the needs of parents who

are working evenings, weekends, or variable hours. However, in in-

dustries that operate around the clock, particularly those with highly

skilled workers such as hospitals, we are more likely to see on-site

child-care centers, sick-child care,2 and other accommodations to

parents’ employment needs.

Another important aspect of the exosystem is government policies

and regulations that affect both the demand for child care (such as

welfare-reform efforts that require low-income mothers to seek em-

ployment) and the affordability of child care. Although the United

States provides some child-care subsidies for families, many low- and

moderate-income families do not have effective access to subsidies.3

Given the links between the quality of care and the cost of care, it is not

surprising that children in low-income families who are not in the

higher-quality, government-subsidized programs tend to receive lower-

quality child care than children in middle-income families (cf. Phillips,

Voran, Kisker, Howes, & Whitebook, 1994). In this way, the exosystem

of government policies and regulations provides an important context

for the operation of the family ! child-care mesosystem.

THE QUALITY OF EARLY CHILD CARE AND CHILDREN’S

DEVELOPMENT

Using ecological systems theory as a framework, I turn now to the

question of the relation between the quality of early child care and

children’s development. I begin with a discussion of the concept of

quality, and then move on to an overview of what researchers currently

know about the role of the quality of early child care in children’s lives.

What Is Quality?

The underlying assumption of all definitions of quality is that a high-

quality early-child-care setting is one that supports optimal learning

and development. However, quality has been measured in a variety of

ways across different studies. Measures of child-care quality can be

categorized as either structural or process indicators. Structural

characteristics include the child:staff ratio (the number of children

per teacher or provider), the group size (number of children in the

setting), and the education and specialized training of teachers, pro-

viders, or directors. The features of structural quality can be regu-

lated, and most states set minimum standards for at least some aspects

of structural quality, at least in center-based care. Studies that assess

structural quality are most useful in evaluating the impact of features

that can be regulated.

Although understanding the links between structural indicators of

quality and children’s development is important, we also need to

understand the mechanisms by which structural quality affects chil-

dren’s development, which requires examining what actually happens

in the early-care setting (i.e., the process). How do adults and children

interact? What materials are available for the children, and how do

adults support children’s use of those materials? Process quality refers

to the nature of the care that children experience—the warmth,

sensitivity, and responsiveness of the caregivers; the emotional tone of

the setting; the activities available to children; the developmental

appropriateness of activities; and the learning opportunities available

to children. Unlike the features of structural quality, process quality is

not subject to state or local regulations, and it is harder to measure.

One of the more commonly used measures, the Early Childhood En-

vironment Rating Scale (ECERS; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998),

assesses multiple aspects of process quality. Such multidimensional

process measures tell us much more about the quality of care that

children receive than do structural measures alone.

Structural Indicators of Quality and Children’s Development

What do we know about the links between the structural indicators of

quality in early child care and children’s development? The research

to date has found that better ratios (fewer children per adult) and more

education or training for teachers are associated with higher language,

cognitive, and social skills of the children cared for (National Re-

search Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003). However, many of

the studies that have examined structural indicators have employed

small samples (fewer than 100 children) or have not considered se-

lection effects in their analyses, so studies that do not have these

limitations are of particular importance. In an interesting study that

assessed the links between structural quality, process quality, and

children’s outcomes, the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network

(2002) found that the relation between caregiver training and child-

staff ratio, on the one hand, and children’s cognitive and social

competence, on the other hand, was mediated by process quality—

that is, higher levels of caregiver training and lower ratios of children

to adults in child-care settings were associated with higher levels of

process quality, which were, in turn, associated with children’s greater

cognitive and social competence.

Process Quality and Children’s Development

Among studies published in the past 15 years, those that employed an

ecological model4 consistently found that higher process quality is

2Sick-child care consists of backup child-care arrangements for children who are mildly ill and cannot go to their regular child care or school, but do not require full-time parental care.

3Middle-income families may receive subsidies through the child-care de- ductions in the federal tax code and through employers’ Dependent Care As- sistance Plans that allow eligible families to pay for child care with pretax dollars. Low-income families may receive subsidies through federal Head Start programs or through state-administered Transitional Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, as well as other state and local programs.

4The ecological model might be explicitly specified, or implicitly indicated through statistically controlling for key selection effects, such as the effects of family income or education.

166 Volume 13—Number 4

Early Child Care and Development

 

 

related to greater language and cognitive competence, fewer behavior

problems, and more social skills, particularly when multidimensional

measures of quality, such as the ECERS, are used or quality is as-

sessed at more than one point in time. For example, the Cost, Quality

and Child Outcomes Study (Peisner-Feinberg, Burchinal, & Clifford,

2001) found that higher process quality in preschool classrooms

predicted fewer behavior problems 1 year later, and predicted higher

language and math scores in kindergarten and second grade, although

the magnitude of these associations declined over time. This same

study also found a link between the child-care and family systems,

such that the association between child-care quality and children’s

school performance was moderated by mothers’ education; specifi-

cally, the association was stronger for children whose mothers had less

education.

BEYOND SELECTION EFFECTS

I began this article with a discussion of the importance of considering

children’s development from an ecological systems perspective, which

considers the family ! child-care mesosystem as a context for children’s development. Many studies of child care now consider the

role of selection effects by statistically controlling for family charac-

teristics. However, other linkages within the mesosystem must also be

considered if one is to adequately understand the role of child-care

quality in children’s development. For instance, aspects of the family

system, such as the mother’s education or depression, parenting

practices, and family income, may have independent effects on chil-

dren’s development. In fact, in a study of 1,100 children, the NICHD

Early Child Care Research Network (2001) found that although the

quality of early child care consistently predicted socio-emotional and

cognitive-linguistic outcomes during the first 3 years of life, family

factors were more consistent predictors of children’s development than

quality of child care, or any other child-care factors examined.

Research on the family ! child-care mesosystem is familiar territory for many psychologists. However, Bronfenbrenner’s ecologi-

cal systems theory calls attention to other influences on children’s

development—the exosystem of parental employment and government

policy and the macrosystem of societal beliefs about the desirability of

maternal employment and the desired outcomes for children. For

example, there is a complex interplay between parental employment,

government policy, child care, and children’s development for low-

income families. Government policy and the macrosystem of societal

beliefs promote employment for low-income parents. However, low-

income parents tend to have less education and fewer marketable

skills compared with other parents, and are likely to be employed in

sectors of the labor market where jobs are part-time or contingent

(temporary), allow little flexibility for managing family demands, and

offer few benefits. Work schedules are also likely to include hours

outside of the typical Monday-through-Friday daytimes when child-

care centers normally operate. Although government subsidies are

available to some low-income families, most do not receive subsidies.

As a result, children from low-income families are likely to be placed

in lower-cost and lower-quality center care or informal care that is

itself often of lower quality (cf. Henly & Lyons, 2000). Viewing this

‘‘choice’’ as a selection effect leads one to interpret it as parental

preference—but an ecological perspective suggests a different inter-

pretation: Regardless of their individual preferences, low-income

families’ choices are constrained by the operation of the exosystem of

the workplace and government policy.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Current state-of-the-art research has provided clear evidence that the

quality of early child care matters to children’s development. Children

who attend higher-quality child-care settings have greater language

and cognitive competence and greater social competence than chil-

dren who receive lower-quality child care. However, several studies

have documented the prevalence of mediocre or inadequate child care

in the United States (National Research Council and Institute of

Medicine, 2003, pp. 53–54). In addition, the high-quality care that

does exist is not equitably distributed—lower-income children are

less likely than higher-income children to have access to it.

The next step is to answer the question: How can we best raise the

quality of early child care for all children? Ecological systems theory

draws our attention to the importance of placing this question in the

context of family processes, parental employment, governmental poli-

cies, and societal beliefs and goals when developing theoretical models

and models for practice. We must integrate our societal goals of sup-

porting healthy families, economic self-sufficiency, and women’s em-

ployment with our goals of supporting healthy development and school

readiness for children, if we expect to advance research and practice in

the area of early-child-care quality and children’s development.

Recommended Reading Lamb, M.E. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates. In

W. Damon, I.E. Sigel, & K.A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 73–134).

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Committee on Inte-

grating the Science of Early Childhood Development, Board on Children,

Youth, and Families. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science

of early child development (J.P. Shonkoff & D.A. Phillips, Eds.). Wash-

ington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Division of Behavioral

and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Children, Youth, and

Families, Committee on Family and Work Policies. (2003). (See Refer-

ences)

Phillips, D.A., Voran, M.N., Kisker, E., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994).

(See References)

REFERENCES

Ahnert, L., Rickert, H., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Shared caregiving: Comparisons

between home and child care settings. Developmental Psychology, 36,

339–351.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child Devel-

opment, 6, 187–249.

Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment

Rating Scale: Revised edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Henly, J.R., & Lyons, S. (2000). The negotiation of child care and employ-

ment demands among low-income parents. Journal of Social Issues, 56,

683–706.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Division of Behavioral

and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Children, Youth, and

Families, Committee on Family and Work Policies. (2003). Working

families and growing kids: Caring for children and adolescents (E.

Volume 13—Number 4 167

Nancy L. Marshall

 

 

Smolensky & J.A. Gootman, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies

Press. Retrieved August 14, 2003, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook/

0309087031/html/R1.html

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal care

and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD

Study of Early Child Care. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22,

457–492.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Child-care structure! process! outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development. Psychological Science, 13, 199–206.

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., & Clifford, R.M. (2001). The relation

of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social devel-

opmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72,

1534–1553.

Phillips, D.A., Voran, M.N., Kisker, E., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1994).

Child care for children in poverty: Opportunity or inequity? Child De-

velopment, 65, 472–492.

Singer, J.D., Fuller, B., Keiley, M.K., & Wolf, A. (1998). Early child-care se-

lection: Variation by geographic location, maternal characteristics, and

family structure. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1129–1144.

168 Volume 13—Number 4

Early Child Care and Development