DATE: Saturday, November 22, 1997           TAG: 9711210040

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B6   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   61 lines

DAY - CARE REGULATIONS DO NOT DILUTE VIRGINIA'S LESS THAN ROBUST PROTECTIONS SHOULDN'T BE SCALED BACK.

A human conceit of longstanding is the belief that virtually anyone is capable of providing adequate care for a young child.

It's a sticky wicket to decree otherwise when a parent is the adult in question.

But when it comes to the thousands who watch other people's children for a living, society's standards should be far different. It's appropriate to require a level of education and experience commensurate with what is, in fact, not so easy a task - raising children well.

Virginia has moved cautiously into the arena of monitoring child day care, and it should move even more cautiously in backing away from the modest standards that have been adopted.

Unfortunately, the Child Day-Care Council is proposing regulatory changes that would weaken standards in some vital areas. For instance, in the interest of streamlining regulations and giving small-business operators a break, the council is proposing that the state require less-formal child-related education for directors. They would also allow a larger staff-to-child ratio in some cases.

Those and other proposed regulations are being debated in public hearings across the state. The changes don't require legislative approval. If the Day-Care Council adopts the proposed regulations once the hearings are complete, they'll take effect next summer.

The council prompted an uproar last winter when it issued a first-round of proposals, including dropping the requirement that teachers in day care centers have a high school degree. Fortunately, the group has backed away from some of its more extreme ideas, including that one.

Several remaining suggestions should be retooled as well. Current regulations require center directors to have formal training in early childhood education. Under the change, it would be possible for a chemistry or history teacher - with no educational emphasis on children - to move into such a slot.

Another change would allow one staff worker for every 15 children in a mixed age group, ranging from 3 to 6. Currently, all but Montessori schools must operate at a ratio of 1:10 with such a group. The Montessori exception is based on the higher level of education required of their teachers.

The 1:10 ratio is appropriate for such young children. It should be retained.

The bottom line is that Virginia's standards of day-care regulation are loose already. While simplifying language or sprucing up the arrangement of the regulations is fine, it would be a mistake to reduce expections on class size or the qualificiations of teachers and administrators.

Children are Virginia's most precious resource. Both they and their parents deserve day-care centers where professional staff are not overworked and have more than rudimentary knowledge of the educational and developmental needs of young children.

Current regulations offer reasonable assurance that day care won't be substandard. That might not be the case if protections now in place are weakened. Child-rearing is not as fool-proof as flipping hamburgers. Just because almost anyone can produce a child doesn't mean that almost anyone can manage groups of children safely or well.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu