Childhood in the United States:
The Assumptions and Actualities
Molly Minkkinen
University of Minnesota Duluth
A Breath
On a cold January morning a baby stirred. It was a stirring the baby’s mother knew well. For months she had concentrated on the baby’s movement. She knew details about this baby that no one knew. She knew when the baby would sleep and wake; she knew how to soothe her baby’s active movements with a stroke of her hand. But the stirring early that January morning seemed different than other mornings. This time they were accompanied by pain, meaning she would soon hold the baby she knew so well. Just a few weeks after conception, the mother’s and child’s hearts found comfort in each other’s company. They grew together; they found ways of cooperating to share the space of one body. Now the presence of this early morning pain meant they would soon separate forever. This separation would begin a journey for the baby that would include breathing her own air, feeling the touch of others, and learning the meaning of sound. She would soon know joy, sorrow, trust and hate. With her first successful breath she would begin a life she would live alone.
The Myths
A breath was taken by a child who soon would be named Mary. Her parents had already created a dream for her, and she would spend her life trying to fit into it. The dream was a familiar one, one that many children face. It was a dream designed from a foundation of unarticulated assumptions others had created about childhood. This child who had just learned how to breathe would now be taken on her journey guided by the beliefs of others.
The myths Mary will face have been shared by parents for centuries. They help us hold our beliefs about children high. They tell us how children should be valued. Every culture has myths about the children they raise. These myths are a blanket that lay over the reality of childhood. Surrounded by these myths, we convince ourselves that children are valuable to our culture. These myths tell us that childhood is a gift, and that the time spent in childhood should be nurtured. Mary’s parents are aligning themselves with another myth; that is the myth that they are willing to sacrifice all for her. They also believe they will protect her at all cost from the dark side of the world. The day that Mary took a breath on her own, her parents were sharing these myths with themselves and Mary. This is easy to do when the world has not yet come to call.
Once upon a time…
The chaos of the moment passed. The unfamiliar hands that lifted Mary into the world were gone. Now mother and daughter would find their way to each other in a dance shrouded in nourishment. As Mary’s cheek found her way to her mother’s breast, she never lost her mother’s gaze. The moments that followed were a balance of peace and tranquility felt by both. The reality that it would be days before milk would flow from mother to child was an insignificant issue of the moment. Feeling the helpless child at her breast, the woman realized that the birth and existence of Mary was tightly tied to a biological history that had been experience by many women before her.
For as long as women have been experiencing the biological process of child birth, children have been experiencing parental and social attitudes about their worth and capabilities. Centuries before the cold January morning that Mary was born, men were formulating and pronouncing opinions about the children that were born into their worlds. During the seventeenth century there was a commonly held belief about children called “great chain of knowing” (Gopnik, 1999. pg. 35). This belief suggested that there was a continuum of knowledge that started with babies having no knowledge on one end, and on the other end philosophers knowing all. It was a time when philosophers like John Locke announced that children were blank slates and that newborn babies were literally nothing at all. The belief about children evolved through the nineteenth century as philosophers/poets like Wordsworth stated that children were intuitive, irrational, uncivilized and governed by passion (Gopnik, 1999).
Although this belief was a positive step for children, the philosophers of the time continued to devalue children by stating that children were like poets, not scientists. The 1920s brought philosophers like Piaget and Vygotsky. They were instrumental in creating a “scientific” view of childhood learning. Their views added a biological and social perspective to child development. They created a belief about children that suggested that children had powerful learning mechanisms that were innate and intensely influenced by the culture. Although their beliefs were systematically researched, it took thirty years for the views of Piaget and Vygotsky to be heard primarily because prior to the 1960s children were viewed as part of a woman’s realm. They were thought to be unworthy of serious scientific interest (Gopnik, 1999). As times changed and more women began working in scientific fields, values shifted in favor of studying young children. Because of this shift, the competencies Mary will display will be viewed from a scientific, developmental, and psychological perspective.
The Facts
One month after she separated from her mother’s warm womb, Mary lay on a flannel blanket made by her grandmother. She turned her head to catch a glance of the person she heard entering the room. Her eyes could track the figure that approached; her body waited in anticipation to be picked up. The face smiled, and she smiled in response. She listened to the voices around her; she paid special attention to the songs they would sing. Mary knew the scent of her mother and the touch of her father. She knew her mother’s breast. She preferred its softness to a hard bottle. When she was held, she longed to be next to her parent’s chest. Mary always fell right to sleep when rocked in her parent’s arms.
Neural biologist, Marion Diamond provides a scientific view of Mary’s developmental process in a description of a child’s mind in her book she wrote called Magic Trees of the Mind. She says, “The child’s mind is filled with magic genies, sorcerers, and fairy godmothers; magic wands, shields, ponies, and frogs. And conjuring them all, animating these charmed apparitions, are tangled forests of branching, treelike nerve cells that interconnect at a million billion contact points and converge into a fabric of consciousness. Electrochemical currents ripple through groves of these neural trees like wind stirring a shady thicket. And from these stirrings our faculties arise: the generation of images, thoughts, words, feelings, and music, and the belief itself in genies and magic frogs.”(pg 3)
According to scientists such as Diamond, Mary’s ability to respond to voices and make decisions about her own comfort is the result of a fascinating interplay of biological systems in her developing brain. At the time of her birth, Mary’s brain had about 100 billion neurons. Each neuron had the potential to connect with fifty thousand other neurons creating a mass of neural connections. These neural connections are the result of Mary’s opportunities to see, touch, and hear the world around her. The stimulation of her environment and the emotional response of the people around her will be processed biologically and contribute to her understanding of her world and the people she will share it with. Alison Gopnick, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkley and author of The Scientist in the Crib, reinforces this theory by stating that “As children learn what other minds are like, they also learn what their own minds are like.” (p24)
Life’s Lessons
Happy Birthday to you…Mary took a deep breath and blew out the two candles that were placed carefully on her “Barney” Birthday cake. Before the last bite of cake was taken Mary started to wiggle out of her chair. There was a box across the room wrapped in bright red paper with a shiny white bow. The box that had never been there before caught her attention. “All done,” she said as her feet hit the floor. Mary made her way across the room to the box in record time. She wrapped her arms around the box. She knew it was hers without ever being told. She looked to her father for a cue. Watching him carefully, she waited for the words that would allow her to end this suspense. “Would you like to open your gift?” It was the cue she was hoping for. Without a word the bow was on the floor and a baby doll wrapped in tissue emerged. Mary hugged her new baby as she had been hugged by her own parents. She held her baby gently and kissed it on the check. As Mary opened the other beautifully wrapped boxes, her new baby lay by her side. The gifts were all opened; an empty box became her new baby’s “bed”. With a piece of tissue paper pulled from the pile of shredded wrapping paper, she tucked her baby into its “bed.” She gazed lovingly into the box at her baby and said, “ni, ni baby.” When the new baby doll and Mary awake from their naps, they will go outside to play.
Mary’s interactions with her new baby are a direct reflection of the interactions she has had with others. By the age of two Mary and other two-year olds are integrating their knowledge of the world using the behaviors of others as a template. Daniel Goleman, a psychologist at Harvard University, cited a study in his research on emotional intelligence that suggested that children demonstrate empathy, or a lack of, by the time they are two. A group of 100 two-year olds demonstrated this phenomenon in their responses to each other in stressful situations. Of the 100 children observed, half of the children were identified as being raised in “nurturing” homes; the other half came from homes that were identified as “abusive.” The children were observed in dyads. One child would have a toy taken away leaving him/her crying; the other would be an onlooker. The research findings suggested that there was a significant correlation between the responses of the onlooker and the quality of care in their home environment. The researchers found that when the onlooker was the child who was raised in a “nurturing” home he/she tried to soothe the crying playmate. On the other hand, when the onlooker was the child from the “abusive” home, he/she would hit and yell at their crying playmate (Goleman, 1994). According to this study, by two Mary has a clear understanding of her own emotions in relation to other. She has learned through modeling how to soothe and care for her new baby doll.
As a two-year old, Mary will begin testing the limits set for her. She will find many uses for the word no. She will be finding her own sense of autonomy. Mary will find that autonomy does not come without social cost; there will be a pull between what she wants and what others want for her. There will be tantrums and fits. Although these fits give Mary and her two-year old friends names like “terrible twos,” they will be instrumental in developing their ability to establish and process self-control.
By hearing language, Mary’s brain has developed pathways of language comprehension that is magical in its nature. The temporal and broca areas of her brain have created neural pathways to support and use about 500 words (Diamond, 1998). Mary will use words she has heard the people around her use. She has the capability to learn any of four thousand languages spoken, but she will make connections to the sounds she hears most often.
These words will be used to help her express her feelings, name objects, label activities, ask questions, and tell her new baby doll bed time stories.
Natural Competence
A car pulled up outside of Mary’s house. A grandma’s visit deserved nothing less than a freshly baked batch of chocolate chip cookies. Three-year old Mary was prepared for the visit. Earlier that morning Mary and her mother planned for the baking of their heartfelt gift of food. In the morning sunlight Mary’s mother brought out measuring cups, bowls, flour, and spoons. As the ingredients filled the bowl, they discussed the changes taking place. Mary noticed that the butter made the flour turn to paste and the chips fell like rain as they were added to the batter. Mary mixed with vigor making sure that all the flour had disappeared. Mary and her mother waited in anticipation for the baking timer to ring. Three minutes…two minutes…buzz. The doorbell rang. Mary and her Grandma shared a cookie, some milk, and the story of how they came to be.
As Mary made cookies for her grandma, she was engaged in scientific inquiry, mathematical processing, and the development of motor skill, social skill, and language competence. The visit from grandma and the subsequent baking activity provided a meaningful platform for skill development that was hidden in play and social responsiveness.
Mary’s interest in the social dance of hospitality is an indication of her continued development. At three, Mary’s new developmental stage shows evidence of problem solving and reasoning. She is developing a sense of time and order and her vocabulary has expanded to 1,500 words. Along with her expanding language capabilities has come an expanded imagination. She is telling tall tales, little fibs, and believing in the antics of fairies (Diamond, 1999). Mary has moved away from the self-centered play of a two year old and is more likely to engage in play that includes others.
When Mary was younger she relied on the people around her to help her make sense of her world. At three Mary is creating her own understanding of the world through play. Her play has become her vocation.
The Actuality
On a cold January morning a little girl stirred. Four-year old Mary dreamt quiet dreams as her father awoke her for the day. Her sleepy state would give way to the reality of a cold floor and an urgent need to go potty. As she slipped into her “school” clothes Mary shared her hopes for the day with her father. “Today during art I will paint you a picture of me and Spotty.” Spotty, the beagle, entered the room with the sound of her little girl’s voice. Mary and her father laughed as the puppy wiggled her way between them to be touched. “I will paint a picture for you too. It will be a picture of me and Daddy”. “Oh she is a lucky dog to have you,” Mary’s father replied. With the plan for the day established, Mary’s backpack was filled, the puppy was kissed, and off Mary and her mother went into the cold day.
As Mary and her Mother entered the preschool she had been attending for many months, Mary hoped it would be Susan at the door to meet her. Susan was the teacher who had met her at the door the first day she came to “school” in September. For weeks after that first day, Susan met Mary with a smile each morning and let her feed the fish as soon as her mother kissed her goodbye and left for work. Mary told Susan stories about her puppy. She always knew Susan was listening to her stories because she would bend to her knee and look Mary in the eyes as they talked. Susan had a quiet voice and a gentle touch. On those mornings, after Mary had fed the fish she would run to the painting easel and paint beautiful picture for Spotty and her father.
When Susan sang the cleanup song, Mary and her friends knew that something exciting was about to happen. They would pick up their blocks, put the puzzles away, and put the babies back on the shelves. With their preschool room all picked up, they would stand at Susan’s feet and wait to hear what adventure was in store for them. For example, one rainy day she announced that they were pirates. They needed to build a ship using a refrigerator box that had magically appeared in the preschool room. On a sunny Monday they all pretended they were zoo animals. Mary was a penguin and spent her day pretending to eat fish and swim in the pillow area (an area that had been used for reading just days before).” On those days of great adventure Susan would hug Mary as her father collected her things at the end of the day. She would thank Mary for playing with her and tell her that she would be “needing” her help in the morning. The fish would be hungry.
As they approached the preschool room, Mary’s smile faded. This cold January morning would be like the others. No Susan. Susan had been offered a job as an elementary school teacher. She loved her work at the preschool but could be paid much more as a public school teacher. Susan said goodbye to her preschool friends on a Friday afternoon.
They all said goodbye with a smile like all the other goodbyes. They thought she would be back to help them create a new adventure on Monday. So many Mondays and still no Susan. Mary’s preschool friends had continued to come to play, but the play had changed. There were no refrigerator boxes in the preschool room, and the zoo had not been mentioned since Susan left.
Beth, Mary’s new teacher, did not know the clean up song. “Clean up your toys so we can go out side…you are wasting you’re outside time…” had taken its place. The quiet voice and gentle touch were gone and a harsh tone from across the room let Mary know that another child had made a bad choice. The art area had changed as well. Materials with exciting color and texture had transformed into white paper and markers. Mary and her friends did art projects all together…Beth showed them what to make and had everything cut out and ready to paste. She was very helpful when they made mistakes, fixing their project so that it would look like hers.
Beth liked her work with the preschool children. She was surprised at how much she could “teach” them. Beth was still adjusting to meeting all of their needs but felt that as soon as they knew her rules, things would get better. Although some days seemed overwhelming, Beth had plans to go to school to learn more about child development. If this job works out she just might.
Mary spilled her backpack onto the living room floor. “Spotty, here is the picture I promised I would make for you today.” She held the picture up to Spotty’s nose. “Miss Beth said I could color in this dog picture for you. Sorry it’s not a beagle. Miss Beth doesn’t have a picture of a beagle to color.” Mary smiled an apologetic smile, “But see, I stayed in the lines”. Mary leaned and whispers into Spotty’s ear, “Maybe tomorrow I will be able to paint a picture of us for daddy…I sure hope Susan comes back.”
Reality
Mary is one of many children in the United States in care outside of her home. The past 20 years have brought about a shift in the social experience of young children in the United States. Children are no longer in the care of stay-at-home moms and neighborhood friends. Instead they spend their childhood in institutionalized and organized care. According to The Family and Work Institute, 72% of America’s children under the age of one were in non-parental care in 1994. By the time children were four, the number was 86% (Shore, 2002). The total number of children in non-parental care more than doubled between 1990 and 1994, with 5 million children in care in 1990 and 10.3 million children in care in 1994 (Shore, 2002). Further studies have found that children who attend child care programs in the United States are in attendance for an average of 35 hours per week (Shore, 2002). These findings become even more significant when we listen to what scientists are saying about early brain development and the impact stress has on long-term cognitive abilities.
Mary’s parents hear the stories of her day. They hear the losses and make peace with themselves in the notion that Mary will soon be going to “real school”. The Myths turn into temporary adjustments of parenting. Mary’s parents are in good company. Mary spends her day with children who have parents that are dealing with the same issues and making peace with the way things are…going to sleep each night in peace depends on it.
Our Social Experiment
While the number of children in care outside of their homes continues to increase, the quality of care becomes an issue of concern. Research released by the Carnegie Corporation (1995) states that 12% of the child care programs in the United States provided positive experiences and support for young children, while 35-40% were found to be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of children.
The fact that there are large numbers of children spending the majority of their waking time in care outside of their homes is a significant issue in the United States. Children in the United States are living out a social experiment with unknown results. The majority of today’s children are experiencing a childhood that is different from the childhood of the past. A large number of today’s children spend their days with people who do not love them unconditionally, people who come and go from their lives at a time when their brains are organizing attachment patterns. These attachment patterns have significant effects on the child’s ability to acquire and retain relationships throughout life.
Research findings from economists and child care advocates have found that the quality of care is inherent in the care provider, whether the care provider is a child care teacher, or neighbor. In order to ensure that care is of high quality critical characteristics need to be present. They are education, specialized training, and a positive attitude about their job and the children they work with. Employment factors such as adequate pay, child-to-staff ratios, and group size contribute to the attitude and subsequent retention of child care staff. Unfortunately, the issue of low quality child care persists because the child care industry is plagued by high staff turnover which is the direct result of inadequate pay, high child-to-staff ratios and large group sizes (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2001).
The need to change is obvious. As we initiate change we will be in the company of professionals who are new to the cause of quality care and early childhood development. Neurobiologists, sociologists, and economists are joining early childhood educators and child psychologists to bring expertise from their respective fields to early care and brain development. The current knowledge-base generated through these new professional relationships has provided the opportunity to influence the outcome of our social experiment.
Our societal experiment has two important components. First, data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) suggests that large numbers of children are in substandard non-parental care in the United States (2001). Second, scientific research provides us with information that indicates that brains begin developing before birth and have significant developmental growth between birth and five years of life. These two factors, although independent, are critically inter-related.
Quality of child care in the United States not only affects children but also parents, and society as a whole. The quality of care children experience affects areas of development which include social, emotional and cognitive development. The “Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study” cited by Helburn, found that children who had attended higher quality child care centers performed better overall at the end of second grade than children who had attended lower quality child care centers. (2002). The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study also found that sensitive and responsive caregivers are important to children’s development. After taking into consideration home environments and children’s attributes, children in better quality care tend to score higher on cognitive tests (Helburn, 2002). In addition, parents are affected by the quality of child care in many ways both personally and professionally. Personally, parents find peace in the belief that their children are experiencing the same heartfelt attention from the people who care for them. Quality care also affects a parent’s ability to work reliability and focus on their jobs. Having a level of security about the quality of care their children are receiving while they are at work helps parents focus on their work and be more productive employees. Society is affected by the quality of child care as well. The experiences children have early in their lives affects what kind of adults they will become. The quality of a child’s early care helps determine how psychologically secure, emotionally mature, and economically productive they will be as adults.(Helburn, 2002, p.3).
According to neurobiologist Marion Diamond (1998), developing brains require quality care to assure they have the tools needed to be productive adults. These are specific elements to quality care according to Diamond: environments which are supportive and nurturing, free of undue stress, provide proper nutrition, allow children to assess their own learning, and encourage children be active participants in their own learning. Children need to be cared for by people who understand the significance of these elements on both an educational and biological level. Quality child care is dependent on early childhood educators having the educational background necessary to understand not only why elements like the ones Diamond described are essential to quality programming but, also, how to design and implement environments that support them. Quality child care will exist when parents, educators, and policy makers understand the biological underpinnings of physical, emotional, and cognitive development. The impact of quality care will be visible in the adults who are products of a child care system that understood and met their needs as young children. These will be children who grow up to be responsible citizens in any culture.
Our responsibility
We are all participants in this experiment whether parents, grandparents, politicians, teachers, business owners, or community members. We all have a stake in the positive outcome of this experiment. Substantial research data indicate that there are implications for not nurturing early neurological development and that children do not thrive in negative environments and with substandard care. It is also known that a person’s social, emotional, and cognitive development is impacted by the care received early in life. Furthermore, the large number of children identified by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development who are in low quality child care will grow up to vote, own businesses, teach, and parent.
The information is before us; now we all need to take stock of a system that is failing, a system that serves a portion of the American population that does not have a voice. Children like Mary will never write to their legislators to demand change. They will never organize to ensure better child care services. They will never ask the government for more qualified teachers and care providers. They are silent subjects in this experiment. The system will not change until adults step in and demand the change that the children deserve and have no language to ask for.
“Maybe tomorrow I will be able to paint a picture of us for daddy….I sure hope Susan comes back.”
Bibliography
Brazelton, T.B (1973) Neonatal behavior assessment scale, Clinical Development Med, p. 50.
Carnegie Corporation (1995) Starting Points, Carnegie Corporation, N.Y.
Diamond, M. & Hopson, J. (1999) Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy
emotions from birth through adolescence. New York, NY: PLUME
Dubowitz, L. M., Cowan, F., Rutherford, M. Mercuri, E., Pennock, J. (1995) Neonatal neurology, past present and future:
A window on the brain. Brain and Development, 17, pp.22-30.
Goleman, D. (1994) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P.(1999) The Scientist In The Crib, New York: HarperCollins.
Gunnar, M. R., Barr, R.G. (1998) Stress, early brain development, and behavior, Infants and Young Children, 11(1),
pp. 1-14.
Gunner, M.R., Brodersen, L., NachMarys, M., Buss, K., Rigatuso, J., (1996) Stress reactivity and attachment security,
Developmental Psychobiology, 29 (3), pp. 191-204.
Helburn, S.W., Bergmann, B.R. (2002) America’s Childcare Problem: The Way Out. New York: PALGRAVE.
J. Ehrle, G. Adams & K. Tout. (2001) Who’s Caring for Our Youngest Children? Care Patterns of Infants and Toddles.
Washington D.C.: Urban Institute.
Johnson, M. (2000) Functional brain development in infants: elements of an interactive specialization framework, Child
Development, 71(1), pp. 75-81.
Johnston, M. V. (1995) Neurotransmitters and vulnerability of the developing brain, Brain and Development, 1995(17),
pp. 301-306.
Pally, R. (1997) How brain development is shaped by genetics and environmental Factors, International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 78, pp. 587-593.
Panksepp, J. (1998) Affective neuroscience: the foundation of human and animal Emotion,New York: Oxford University
Press.
Prechtl, H.F. (1977) The neurological examination of the full-term newborn infant: a manual for clinical use, Clinical
Development Med, 63.
Shore, R. (2002) What Kids Need: Today’s Best Ideas for Nurturing, Teaching and Protecting Young Children, Boston:
Beacon Press.
Shonkoff J. P., Phillips, D. A., (2001) From Neuron to Neighborhoods, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
|
