child care history timeline

child care history timeline

State-led expansion of ECCE services first emerged in the Russian Federation in the early twentieth century as part of the socialist project to foster equal participation of women and men in production and in public life, and to publicly provide education from the youngest possible age. [6] This development extended to socialist or former socialist countries such as Cambodia, China and Viet Nam. [7] France was another early starter having integrated pre-school into its education system as early as 1886 and expanded its provision in the 1950s. [2] In real terms, the significant expansion of ECCE services began in the 1960s with the considerable growth in women’s participation in the labour market and extensive developments in child and family policies in Europe and the United States of America. [2] [5]
The second boost to the development of ECCE was the adoption of the World Declaration on Education for All (EFA) in March 1990 in Jomtien, Thailand. Reflecting General Comment 7, the Jomtien Declaration explicitly stated that ‘learning begins at birth’, and called for ‘early childhood care and initial education’ (Article 5). This novel recognition of ECCE as an integral part of basic education featured again in the major goals adopted at the 1990 UN World Summit for Children. Ten years later, in 2000, this expanded vision of basic education was rearmed in the Dakar Framework for Action on EFA, adopted at the World Education Forum as the first of the six EFA goals: ‘Expanding and improving comprehensive ECCE especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children’. Regrettably, unlike other EFA goals, this was stated as a broad and aspirational goal without numerical targets or clear benchmarks. [5]

Montessori-based childcare centres are available globally. Since Montessori is a very specific style, there is also a governing body for Montessori schools and educators through which they should have their certification. This is important to note since centres may declare themselves as “Montessori” while not really adhering to the true delivery of the Montessori Method. When considering putting your child in a Montessori classroom, be aware that the classroom is structured towards the individual child and their interests. This means that the children in the classroom are given the autonomy to learn and use the material in the classroom independently. This may not be effective for all children, who may require more of a structured learning environment. There may also be transitional challenges later on when moving onto traditional or “mainstream” schools.
Give the variety of approaches to early childhood education, it begs the question: which one is the best? Or, more appropriately, does one method hold sway over another? The short, and perhaps frustrating, answer is: it depends. Some programs prefer a traditional approach, adhering to a pure curriculum. Montessori and Waldorf are both approaches that can be sustained well beyond the early childhood level and into high school.

Although the approach of World War II reduced the unemployment crisis in the United States, it created a social crisis as millions of women, including many mothers, sought employment in war-related industries. Despite a critical labor shortage, the federal government was at first reluctant to recruit mothers of small children, claiming that “mothers who remain at home are performing an essential patriotic service.” Gaining support from social workers, who opposed maternal employment on psychological grounds, government officials dallied in responding to the unprecedented need for child care. In 1941 Congress passed the Lanham Act, which was intended to create community facilities in “war-impact areas,” but it was not until 1943 that this was interpreted as authorizing support for child care.
In the meantime, reformers began to formulate another solution to the dilemma of poor mothers compelled to work outside the home: mothers’ or widows’ pensions. In the view of prominent Progressives such as Jane Addams, day nurseries only added to such women’s difficulties by encouraging them to take arduous, low-paid jobs while their children suffered from inadequate attention and care. Thus she and her Hull House colleagues, including Julia Lathrop, who would go on to become the first chief of the U.S. Children’s Bureau when it was founded in 1912, called for a policy to support mothers so they could stay at home with their children. Unlike child care, the idea of mothers’ pensions quickly gained popular support because it did nothing to challenge conventional gender roles. Indeed, some reformers argued that mothers, like soldiers, were performing a “service to the nation” and therefore deserved public support when they lacked a male breadwinner. Pensions “spread like wildfire” (quoted in Theda Skocpol, “Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States,” Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992, p. 424) as several large national organizations, including the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and the National Congress of Mothers, mounted a highly successful state-by-state legislative campaign for such a benefit. By 1930, nearly every state in the union had passed some form of mothers’ or widows’ pension law, making this the policy of choice for addressing the needs of low-income mothers and pushing child care further into the shadows of charity.

John Locke was known as one of the most influential thinkers. He said that teacher make children because children do what they are taught. He believed that children are molded and shaped by their experiences in life. He pushed that morals were very important to teach a child and did not believe in traits inherited.
Morrison, G. S. (2000). Fundamentals of early childhood education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Child care history timeline

  • January 25- State and Martinez signed an order prohibiting Martinez from operating an illegal child care home
  • The order acknowledged Martinez could care for fewer than six children and Martinez agreed to pay a $3,000 civil fine
  • May 10- FSSA denied Martinez’s application for a child care home license
  • April 6- The Department of Child Services (DCS) received a report of alleged child neglect at the day care- which was now called “Little Hands, Big Hearts” on Inglewood Court
  • The allegations involved children left in portable cribs and high chairs all day, children not properly changed, and too many children for the number of staff
  • April 7- FSSA received report from DCS regarding a possible illegal child care home
  • April 15- FSSA visited home and Martinez admitted she watched 10 children daily
  • April 15- FSSA left a plan of correction with Martinez reminding her she could only watch five or fewer unrelated children at a time in her home
  • April 27- A DCS family case manager returned and found 15 children in the day care
  • April 29- FSSA mailed a cease and desist order to Martinez
  • During the DCS investigation, Martinez admitted there had been a fire at the day care, but it happened when a helper was there and was quickly contained
  • May 7- DCS completed its report and found due to lack of evidence and their interview with Martinez, the neglect allegations against Martinez were unsubstantiated
  • August 19- FSSA received another complaint about Martinez operating illegally on Inglewood Court
  • August 24- FSSA returned and found 10 children present
  • August 24- FSSA left another plan of correction with Martinez reminding her she could only watch five or fewer unrelated children at one time in her home
  • September 7- In an effort to stop Martinez from operating illegally, on behalf of FSSA, the Indiana Attorney General’s office filed a civil case in Johnson County for preliminary and permanent injunction and civil penalties


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *