ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

I think it would be wonderful if we lived in a world where parents had the option to stay home and still get a pay check for those who would like to stay home. This is especially true for infants/pretoddlers.

I work in child care - Centers and Family Child Care. I prefer Family Child Care over Centers because it is more family like. That in itself should tell you something. We have great caregivers and some times they act just like parents and do not completely focus on the child/children.

We have challenging children and we want to put him some where else - possible a FCC home. Whoa this parent should stay home and take care of this child - i hear from staff. What an interesting concept. That leads us right back to this article.

Another interesting concept is that we are open on Saturdays however staff think that all these parents should be home taking care of their children on Saturday. If we are the right ones for their child during the week when they are working why all of a sudden are we not the right ones taking care of them so parents can go shopping and have some down time.

Seems like we only want these children some time and we only want them when we get paid to take care of them and if they are difficult we want someone else to have them and possibly even their parent should be the one dealing with them.

We live in an interesting world. I will continue to recommend FCC and parents will want Centers because there is more than one staff in the room and they feel safer with their child in a Center.

We can not hold back "Progress" -- CHANGE. but to think that we are better for the child than the parent - feeds the problem.

I am responding to Gordon Neufeld's article as it was published in August 2012. I am unaware as other responders are, of the social and political nature of his organization. I was alerted first of all to Roger's use of the term "critic" in introducing Dr. Neufeld. Why would a psychologist criticize early education programs, assuming (big assumption) that they were operated at optimal levels of early education standards set by early educators? Perhaps because he sees too much poor quality programming (his use of the term "daycares" always alerts me to a narrow view of programs for young children); policymakers in the U.S. and many in the field itself still separate child care from early education. Big mistake).

Here is what I recommend as a response to Dr. Neufeld: (1) Parents whose young children (under six years) are in an out-of-home program need to be with their children when they are with them. This means no pacifiers or use of cell phones when parent and child are in an automobile or on public transportation. Pay attention! Engage! (2) Parental leave must be taken, provided or not, for at least the first year and with no regrets. You can keep up with your field during the long naps that prevail in infancy. Paid leave should be available for 1 day a week for the 2nd year and 2 days a month for the 3rd & 4th years. (3) The quality and type of early education programs must be high quality by real standards, well paid & well educated staff are a priority. Staff must be educated as well as trained and paid enough to ensure retention and staying with a group of children over time. As John Adams sings in "1776," 'Commitment!' This offers a reply to one of the key issues raised by Dr. Neufeld: that the caregiver/teachers be committed to and engaged with their young children in groups both in depth and in breadth. (4) Parent involvement, cited heavily in the old FIDCR regulations from U.S. government (never enforced) must be strong, positive and ongoing. Its teachers, parents, children & the community that create a lasting program. (5) Academics so eagerly measured by many programs and cited by policymakers must be downplayed (omitted before the end of kindergarten) and the whole child given the opportunity to play, engage with the community through visitors and field trips, to engage with nature, science, art, and cognitive (not the same as academics, folks) activities. Children will always learn from other children, just as parents learn from other parents, and teachers and caregivers learn from each other. We don't have to choose between anything. We need to choose from the comprehensive array of education and developmental practices we know about and keep the learning process active, meaningful, and productive within the entire process of growing up. Learning IS lifelong!

I'll look forward to reading the entire article. However, this excerpt does NOT say early learning does not work. The best early learning care settings outside (AND inside) the home know that nurturing relationships of care, trust, and continuity are the foundation of healthy development. The literature on brain development, primary caregiving, emergent curriculum, developmentally appropriate practice, social and emotional welfare, family support and engagement -- ALL we do is predicated upon that most basic of commitments.

Dear Dr. Vishton:

I rarely enter into discussions such as this, but your video and description raises the hair on the back of my neck. Your reasons for conducting this empirical study might further your research agenda, but I fear the worst when a product like this reaches the shelves of Toy retailers.

I am a Child Developmentalist and, as a new mother I was attracted to devices to improve development just as you are now. Around the time when you were a baby there was a device called the Crawligator. Maybe you had one. The yellow plastic device resembled a molded skateboard with wheels that swiveled. The infant would be placed on his tummy and was expected to push with arms or feet to get going. All three of my children were frightened when placed on it. It failed to advance them in any way, except they gained my trust because they were removed from it as soon as they grunted in disapproval.

You are probably aware of the motorized 4-wheel vehicles that are sold for children ages 3 and up. There are misguided parents who proudly and eagerly give this horror to their children. I have come upon youngsters 'driving' them on steep hills, on gravel driveways, and on roads. It is another example of a toy for, what David Elkind called 'The Hurried Child'.

You write that your motorized chair would be used for only 20 minutes at a time. But once a 'product' leaves the store, there are no controls on how it is used. All we need are more children whose muscles are undeveloped and find relief as baby couch potatoes.

What is the point of having an infant increase her perceptual status? If this is necessary, would the effect be achieved by having a human being carry the baby to various sights and sounds? Won't the brain be stimulated by the skeletal, muscular and neural actions associated with crawling?
And please keep in mind, Although a child can do something, is no reason to contend that she should do it.

I encourage you to pursue another important research agenda that will inform all of us about child development. Have you thought of what you could do to educate parents of infants?

Thank you,


Eileen Borgia Ph.D.

I am familiar with Neufeld's work, and it is not necessarily in conflict with early childhood education. Neufeld stresses the importance of young children's attachment to caring adults, which can be achieved in a child care setting, given the right conditions/philosophy. Unfortunately, when I was a new mom finishing my PhD and I took my baby to my university's accredited child care center, I was told that my baby would be cared for by different people all the time, to avoid his becoming attached to any one caregiver. This was meant to protect my baby from the desolation he might feel if his attached caregiver were to be absent one day. This made no sense to me, and I chose to leave my baby with my mother instead, though it meant significantly more commuting time.
In my opinion, a good setting for young children must include the capacity for each child to be attached to one or more caring adults, just as would be found in any family or village anywhere. I think Neufeld would agree whole-heartedly with this. It is only a problem for early childhood centers when they are operated with a factory philosophy, with the idea that interchangeable adults can meet the needs of interchangeable children.

I totally agree, Eve, and thank you for that response. But I have to wonder what approach Dr. Neufeld advises for unfolding "healthy relationships" with infants and toddlers that would delay the beginning (his word) of "emotional intimacy" until age five. If he's all about attachment theory and its application within the family, then the first two years are the crucial time for the developing parent and child to experience growing emotional intimacy, hopefully with early patterns of beneficial dependencies and healthy independencies, fostering trust and autonomy for both. Magda Gerber's Educaring® Approach, (www.rie.org) offering a preventative and effective operationalization of Bowlby's theory, “honors infants and young children as equal members in relationships, seen as competent human beings worthy of deep respect and appreciation." The brand new book on her pioneering seminal work, Baby Knows Best, is receiving many kudos in the field, being read by parents and professionals gaining support to find balance in letting go, not just "holding onto" (with all due respect to Dr. Neufeld's premise) children, so self-awareness abounds. Gerber's advice to "Observe more, do less, enjoy most" while consistently and respectfully meeting the needs of society's very youngest can provide the preparatory foundation for school readiness every child deserves. What happens next is the bigger question lately as preschool becomes the new kindergarten, etc.

I very much agree with most of Dr. Neufeld's perspectives from a psycho-social development stance. It is a bit concerning however, that the presentation of this view came though a highly conservative, right wing organization that defines " family" so narrowly.

I see so many children and young adults in schools and in the community who clearly have attachment issues, often looking like ADHD, conduct disorder, or anxiety. Weak or insecure, or disorganized relationships with primary attachment figures has significant impact on an individual's ability to feel secure in themselves, to form secure and positive relationships, and to control behaviors. Until there is renewed awareness of the importance of assuring that all children and families develop secure attachment in the early years of a child's life,we need to continue to provide the highest quality early education and care settings, with family support, we can. Perhaps as early childhood educators and caregivers, we need to even more strongly advocate for employers, governments, and the popular culture to provide for all parents the resource of time to parent, the skills to parent in healthy, balanced and unhurried ways, and to feel valued in that role as one of the most important things they will ever do.

Thank you, Terry Kelly, in Aurora, a neighbor to the frozen north (although it is pretty cold here in Boston today) for your comment on the importance of recognizing all kinds of families.

The message Dr. Neufeld emphasizes, that parents and parenting matter fundamentally and hugely in children's lives, seems to be missing in the rush to teach them stuff. Writing that word 'stuff' makes me wonder: are we trying to stuff things, like vocabulary words, into their little brains when we should be developing the vessels that are their hearts.

Emotional awareness in parents, is, in my view, a cornerstone of children's social-emotional learning (SEL) and SEL in turn is a cornerstone of children's intellectual development.

Interesting way to share the opinion of Dr. Neufeld through the spin of this conservative, right wing, Christian organization, IMFC. I find the research and opinion of Dr. Neufeld compelling, but best practices in early learning and care support the family (all families by the way; not just one man,one woman married couple families), and therefore optimal child development. For a more balanced organization's take on the family and support of child development, check out www.frp.ca They have great resources to support all families in many languages too, and are not touting the benefits of one kind of family over another. Perfect article, as today is Family Day in some provinces.

This article comes from a political (Christian conservative) organization, so must be discounted as biased and written with an agenda. Shame on you, Exchange, for not making note of this.