ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 TAG: 9702260032
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAROLYN KRISHA
IN RESPONSE to your Feb. 6 news article (``Day care centers turn to candy sales for teacher bonuses'') regarding a for-profit child-care center's attempt to provide part of its worker compensation through candy sales:
I am amazed that a profit-making business would value its employees so little as to make their compensation dependent on the charity of others. But considering the state of child care as a profession, it isn't too surprising.
In historical terms, child care is a fairly recent phenomenon. With the advent of the industrial revolution and the progressive dissolution of the family unit as caregiver, a need arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for persons outside the family unit to care for children. Initially, care was often provided by volunteers. Parallel to this development, the kindergarten movement, which sought education for young children, began in Germany. Kindergarten was a half-day program, most often taught by mothers or teachers desiring part-time work.
Increasing numbers of women entering the work force in the late 1950s and 1960s hastened the need for child-care centers. As demands for early-education programs increased in the late 1960s and 1970s, attention focused on the government's Head Start programs. Training for teachers who specialized in early-childhood development was created.
In the past 20 years, the demand for child care has increased fourfold as many more women have entered the job market. Reports indicate the demand for workers will increase at a rate greater than that for the average occupation through the year 2005.
A phenomenon peculiar to the child-care industry is that while the demand has increased, actual wages for child-care workers have declined by 25 percent when adjusted for inflation. In most professions where demand and training have increased, so have salaries. Why have child-care workers suffered the opposite?
There are several reasons, beginning with the tradition of child care as a charitable service. The fact is that parents have never paid the actual cost of child care. This cost has been underwritten by workers who have worked for a substandard wage and by sponsoring governmental or social-service organizations. Almost all the workers are women - our society's traditional caretakers - who are in their profession because they love children. Our society places less value on women and ``women's'' work. Although children are valued commercially, their social status is congruent with that of women.
Child-care workers who achieve training at the certificate or associate-degree level soon become discouraged over wages, opportunities and the lack of respect from the community, and leave the field. The turnover rate is as much as 40 percent a year.
Three types of sponsoring organizations in the child-care industry are government, social-service organizations and private business. Of these three, only federal, state and local governments have endeavored to pay child-care workers a fair wage. Human-service agencies must balance wages with tuition payments, increasingly fewer donations and increases in other expenses.
Also, the for-profit child-care centers influence the costs of child care. While some are concerned with adequate teacher training and maintaining a sufficient teacher/child ratio, others are interested only in profit and seek out workers they're able to pay the least while at the same time placing the maximum allowable number of children in the classroom.
The for-profit child-care lobby in Virginia is currently exerting influence on the Day Care Council, a review council appointed by Gov. George Allen to recommend changes in child-care regulations. Changes the council has proposed include eliminating the ``good character'' requirements for center owners, eliminating the minimum educational requirements for lead teachers and increasing teacher/child ratios to 2-to-15 for 4-year-olds. Fortunately, our legislature is taking steps to preserve basic standards.
No other profession would expect its workers to accept that a portion of their compensation would be funded by candy sales and not by their employer. Prospective employees and parents (consumers) need to determine if a profit-making center is capable of providing fair compensation for its staff while still providing adequate care.
Those of us concerned with quality child care are working to improve educational standards and increase wages and benefits for child-care workers. The ethical dilemma is choosing who should lose in the balance between adequate care and adequate teacher pay. Increasing tuition costs and classroom enrollment size are ways to increase funds to compensate teachers. Adding children to the classroom would, however, diminish the quality of our care and place teachers in a stressful situation.
Unfortunately, competition between centers is great, and many parents' ability to shoulder large tuition increases is limited. Parents often tend to choose the cheapest center available.
It's time our nation realized that quality care is as necessary for our children as elementary education. This issue isn't about government interference in business; it's about quality care for our children and who will pay for this. Whether the financial burden falls on the public or private sector, it's clear the child-care crisis will continue until someone is willing to pay for adequate worker compensation and quality care
Carolyn Krisha is Associate in Children at First Baptist Church in Roanoke.
LENGTH: Medium: 94 linesby CNB