3

Through culture, children gain a sense of identity, a feeling of belonging, and beliefs about what is important in life, what is right and wrong, how to care for themselves and others, and what to celebrate, eat, and wear. When children are raised only in their home culture, they learn those lessons effortlessly. However, for infants and toddlers in childcare settings the learning of cultural lessons becomes more complex with caregivers from different cultural backgrounds.

For caregivers, it can be difficult to know how to provide care that is consistent with family care due to the increase of diversity in our communities, which is positive and enriching for everyone. It is essential that you develop an understanding of the child’s home culture because for infants and toddlers to thrive in child care, their experiences should reflect a sensitivity to the home culture. We should support the child’s primary language and culture. Culturally sensitive care influences positively the development of self-esteem, social competence, language, and intellectual competence.

Next read the 2013 report from Child Trends titled:  The Youngest Americans: A Statistical Portrait of Infants and Toddlers in the United States  explore America’s 12 million infants and toddlers  and their demographic transformation in the U.S. What did you learn about the ways you might differ in terms of race/ethnicity, country of origin, language, and family type. What did you learn about unfairness? What practices might be harmful to infants and toddlers? How do national policies support or harm infants and toddlers?

I look forward to hearing your ideas when you share your reflection in our Blackboard discussion.

Finally, read Section 1 the article by Test (2006) below.  As you read,  think about how Americans define childcare and the implication our definition has on the daily life of infants and toddlers in child care centers.

• Section 1 •

INFANT AND TODDLER TEACHERS AS TRANSMITTERS OF CULTURE

by Joan E. Test

SUMMARY

What role do infant and toddler teachers play in transmitting their culture? Symbolic and cultural mediation approaches suggest children learn how to be members of their culture through social interactions and that this process begins at least by 9 months of age if not from birth. In previous cross-cultural studies of early childhood programs, teachers’ practices seem to reflect and be a part of their culture’s system of meanings. Some would say that cultural values are a type of hidden curriculum. This article examines practices in American infant and toddler child care contrasting them with Swedish infant and toddler child care using a symbolic and cultural mediation approach in order to understand the ways that infant and toddler teachers are involved in transmitting their culture in the United States and to some extent in Sweden. The United States is a highly individualistic culture, while Sweden has a particular mix of individualistic and group-oriented values. These differences can be seen in how teachers react when toddlers have disagreements over possession of a toy. In the United States teachers emphasize a child’s right to possession if the child had the toy first, whereas in Sweden children are encouraged to feel solidarity with those who have less. In addition, daily activities, the structure of children’s groups, and the physical design and placement of child care centers are examined as aspects of child care programs through which American and Swedish teachers of infants and toddlers transmit their culture to young children.

In the United States, and surely in many other countries, child care teachers wonder about children in their care who come from cultures or countries other than their own. They notice that parents do some things differently with their children than what they are used to, such as how they feed young children, how they put them to sleep, how they provide discipline (Gonzalez-Mena, 2005). Because these practices are different to them, teachers and other professionals may wonder how these children will develop, how they will turn out as adults, and how they will fit into the society they will find themselves in at that time. They may wonder what role they as teachers play in this process, or in general whether child care teachers and child care centers play a role in the process of passing on culture.

CONCEPTUALIZING CULTURAL TRANSMISSION

Theorists in anthropology and psychology have had a variety of ways of conceptualizing this process or this relationship, which is essentially the relationship between culture and human development, or between a society’s or culture’s values and the ways children are raised so that children will have internalized their society’s values by the time they are adults (Harwood, Miller, & Irizarry, 19951; Jahoda & Lewis, 1988). Common to almost every approach that looks at how children become members of the adult culture is the idea that parents’ and other adults’ ways of interacting with young children play a role in this process. Typically psychologists have looked at children’s development within the psychologists’ own culture and hypothesized that what they see in children in that culture are universals of development for all children regardless of culture. In the United States, American and European parents’ or child care teachers’ ways of interacting with children are considered “normal” or “healthy,” or in the early childhood profession “best practices,” and culture is not included in this assessment. Increasingly however, through the greater exposure and acceptance of Vygotsky’s theories of human development, culture is starting to be viewed as an integral part of human development (Rogoff, 2003). In Vygotsky’s views children learn through interactions with others. He describes a process whereby children are guided by adults to participate in their culture, and through this learning process children begin to think, talk, and process the world in ways that their culture does (Vygotsky, 1978). Many anthropologists have a similar view, which Harwood et al. term “symbolic” approaches, such that “human beings construct meaning through their cultural symbol systems” and “this construction occurs within a matrix of social interaction” (p.24). In this view children’s development occurs within culture and through culture, the two can not be separated. Culture is not something that affects development, rather development happens within the culture and is defined by the symbol systems or meaning systems of the culture.

Stepping back with a bit of a wider or different angle is the cultural mediation approach or model described by LeVine et al. (1996). In this view the cultural symbols are seen as part of a model of influences on how children are raised in a culture. Along with the symbol system of a culture—which includes a culture’s scripts, meanings, rationales and goals – are universals determined by biology and psychology, as well as social and economic conditions particular to that population. All these factors jointly interact in determining parents’ or other caregivers’ behaviors and strategies in raising children.

ARE INFANTS AND TODDLERS PART OF THIS PROCESS?

When does this process of transmission begin? All the approaches discussed above agree that it is in social interactions that this process of cultural transmission takes place. Some would call this cultural transmission, others socialization, and still others enculturation. This process is conceptualized as being ongoing throughout the life-span by most who follow a symbolic approach, certainly childhood and early adulthood are prime times for this transmission process. But how early in childhood does this process start? LeVine and colleagues (LeVine et al., 1996; LeVine, Miller, & West, 1988) studied infants at age 3 months and up and found at this age that differences in how mothers interacted with infants in a variety of cultures could be explained to a great extent by local social and economic factors and cultural meaning systems. Many others have looked at early interactions between parents and infants and found that ways of interacting often varied by culture and in many cases differences could be easily related to cultural goals and values – in other words the culture’s system of meaning (Caudill & Frost, 1974; Caudill & Weinstein, 1969; Field, Sostek, Vietze, & Leiderman, 1981; Leiderman, Tulkin, & Rosenfeld, 1977). This cultural system of meaning prescribes behavior as well as gives a framework for interpreting behavior (Harwood et al., 1995). Tomasello (1996, 2001) reflects on what psychological capacities a person must have in order to be a participant in the cultural transmission process. He concludes that humans’ social-cognitive skill, the ability to understand that others have intentions, that others are intentional, is a prerequisite to children being able to internalize cultural meanings. These skills emerge in infancy at about nine months of age, and it is at this point that infants are active participants in this process. While some theorists maintain that language is necessary for children to internalize cultural meanings, Tomasello maintains that actions or objects can also be cultural symbols (such as in symbolic play) which children can internalize, so that children need not yet have spoken language to be participants in the process of cultural transmission. In his theory of intersubjectivity, Trevarthen (1992) lists very similar social-cognitive processes at age 9 to14 months which can be part of this cultural transmission process: “shared interest in tasks and the uses of objects, …learning of the conventional meanings of things, use of objects that others have given value ‘recreatively,’ in fantasy play” (p.125). However, Trevarthen (1988, 1992) maintains that this is part of an innate intersubjectivity that is present at birth and is the motivation for infants to begin to partake in this cultural transmission process. At two months old, infants are already sensitive to expressions of caregivers. Trevarthen (1992) argues that innate intersubjectivity “is a species specific way of cooperating mentally…, and it is adapted to the learning and teaching of cultural understanding” (p. 127-128).

In summary, Trevarthen would say that the cultural transmission process could be actively taking place at birth as the newborn infant cooperates mentally with another human being. In addition, a range of studies shows that by 3 months of age infants’ parents and other caregivers interact in ways that vary by culture and infants themselves are interacting with adults differently at least in part due to differences in what adults do with them. Certainly by 9 months of age infants are active, socially- conscious participants in this process, being able to perceive and understand the intentions of the adults around them, who interact with children according to their culture’s system of meanings.

TRANSMISSION OF CULTURE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTINGS

Most studies of cultural transmission or of cultural patterns of child-rearing and the cultural meanings involved in this process have looked predominantly at interactions between mothers and children or – to a much lesser extent – fathers and children. A few studies have looked at how other early child care environments are structured in relation to transmission of culture. Tobin, Wu, and Davidson (1989) compare preschool practices in Japan, China, and the United States. They have teachers from the three countries report on their own practices and ideologies of early education and also respond to what they see on videotape of practices in the other countries. It is very clear from this type of analysis that teachers give meaning to what they see in each preschool setting in very different ways across cultures and that they structure the preschool physical and social environment in such a way that transmits the qualities they value for children. For instance, the regimentation and order of Chinese preschools is interpreted by the Chinese teachers themselves as teaching discipline, social harmony, and responsibility. However, American teachers saw this atmosphere as too controlled and that children were too docile and passive. In addition, while the Japanese teachers value group activity in their own programs, they found the Chinese group activities to lack the joy and warmth of groups valued in Japan.

Shigaki (1983) explores how child care center practices in Japan reflect cultural values and includes centers with infants and toddlers. A culture’s values are a kind of hidden curriculum in Shigaki’s view and in Japan these values include a strong sense of interdependence among people as well as perseverance. Some of the things that teachers in Japan do that encourage interdependence include sleeping arrangements where children sleep with their mats pulled together on the floor, and a group structure where a child stays with the same group of children throughout all their years in preschool. In encouraging perseverance, teachers sensitive to children’s abilities will offer words of encouragement to keep on trying as infants work to roll over, or toddlers slowly descend a staircase on their way to the playground. Children who are already down the stairs will also encourage the others still coming.

What are some ways that American infant and toddler teachers transmit their culture? What are the values or hidden curricula that we think are important? While it can be difficult to reflect on one’s own culture and how a person’s own practices in child care reflect their culture, this can be made easier or more illuminating when practices can be compared to those in another country. The differences between the two sets of practices can highlight areas where there may be differences due to cultural meanings, as shown in the work by Tobin et al. (1989). The current article examines American infant and toddler child care practices contrasting them with Swedish infant and toddler child care using a symbolic and cultural mediation approach in order to understand the ways that infant and toddler teachers are involved in transmitting their culture in the United States and to some extent in Sweden.

BACKGROUND AND OBSERVATIONS

The observations from which examples in this article are drawn were made in seven child care centers in the United States and six child care centers in Sweden. The centers were all located in urban and suburban areas in the northeastern United States and in the greater Stockholm area in Sweden. The majority of the observations took place as part of a larger study on interactions in child care centers in the United States and Sweden. Additional observations were made before these when the author was an infant teacher in the United States and later in child care programs with which the author was affiliated in both countries. Observations were recorded as narratives and were collected over a period of two years (one year in each country) for the majority of the observations. The additional observations were made over a period of three years in each country, however with much less frequency. Observations focused on what teachers and children said and did with each other, as well as on the daily activities of the groups, and on the physical environment of the child care centers. Narratives were detailed written descriptions of these observations. Initially brief notes were made during observations, in the breaks between more formal coding sessions for the larger study. Later the same day, detailed descriptions were written using these notes. These detailed descriptions are the narratives used as data sources here. Informal conversations with teachers that reflected their views on child care were also recorded in detailed narrative descriptions later the same day. In addition photographs were made of the physical environments in child care centers. The photographs of Swedish centers were later shown to American teachers as part of a staff training or as a talk on child care in other countries. Comments made by American teachers in response to these photographs were recorded in narrative descriptions as well. All the classrooms or groups observed included infants or toddlers. In addition, some of these groups were “mixed-age” or “sibling” groups which included older children along with the infants and toddlers.

In the reflections and analyses presented here I have also drawn on writings about child care in both countries (Ehn, 1983; Gonzalez-Mena & Eyer, 2004; Lamb, 1998; Olsson, 1984; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1999: Pramling Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2004; Swedish Institute, 2001; Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989) as well as on writings about general cultural themes in the United States and Sweden (Daun, 1991; Ehn, 1983; Triandis, 1995). These sources supplement information from my own observations. In addition, since I am a native of one culture (the United States) and an outsider to the other (Sweden) they lend some validity to my interpretations by broadening the base from which my interpretations are drawn and by allowing me to compare my perceptions to what others have said on cultural meanings in each country.

CONFLICTS OVER TOYS

In the United States when toddlers fight over a toy, teachers respond by asking, “Who had it first?” They then make sure that whoever had it first ends up with the toy. Or they ask, “What happened?” and when they find out that one child had been using the object before another child came and wanted it they will say, “This is (the first child’s) work.” This may be followed by helping the other child find a similar object, engaging them in another activity, or various other strategies.

To contrast, when I was in Sweden observing in child care, I had a general impression that there were fewer disagreements or actual fights between toddlers over objects, so I started to watch to see how teachers handled these kinds of situations. One day I saw two toddlers playing near each other with some small cars. Gradually one child ended up with most of the cars and the other had only one or two. The child with only one or two started to whine a little. A teacher was sitting nearby and watching them, but didn’t say anything. After a while she looked at the child who had most of the cars and said, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to give (child’s name) some of the cars too?” He didn’t respond at first and she continued to look at him and nod her head towards him. The child eventually scowled and tossed a few of the cars towards the other child. The teacher responded by nodding her head and smiling at him.

The American teacher was teaching something referred to in research on children’s disputes as the “prior possession rule” (Bakeman & Brownlee, 1982). According to this “rule” the person who had the object first has a right to have it. The American teachers were following this rule and guiding toddlers so that they would also respect and follow the rule when disputes arose. Navon and Ramsey (1989) also saw American teachers in their study of Chinese and American preschools engage in this same way with preschoolers involved in disputes.

The Swedish teacher did not seem to be concerned with who had possessed a toy first. She seemed to frame the situation in terms of sharing resources. She encouraged a child who had more to give some to a child who had less. In the national curriculum for Swedish child care centers, “solidarity with the weak and vulnerable” is one of the values to be promoted in work with children (Pramling Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2004). By encouraging the child to share what he has with his classmate in this way, the teacher in the above example is guiding the toddler to see dispute situations in terms of sharing resources and to act in a way that expresses solidarity with those who have less.

Sweden and the United States have both been characterized as individualistic cultures (Daun, 1991; Triandis, 1995), yet perhaps in different ways. Triandis would say that the United States is a vertical individualistic culture where the rights of individuals are of primary importance, yet people do not need to be the same. On the other hand he would characterize Sweden as a horizontal individualistic culture where individuals and individual rights are also of utmost importance, yet individuals should not stick out or be different. Triandis says that each person has some tendencies that put the individual first and some that put group needs first, the predominance of one or the other is what defines the culture as individualist or collectivist. The United States seems as a culture to be highly individualistic. In Daun’s view Sweden, while highly individualistic in some aspects, is also highly collectivist. The need to not stick out results in wanting to fit in, to be the same. In social interaction Swedes seek to find consensus and to conform to the group. They like to have collective support for their opinions, and collective solutions to problems are the norm. Daun comments that many Swedes have as an ideal that everyone should enjoy the same kind of social conditions. An ability to cooperate is also highly desired. On the individualistic side, however, independence, self-sufficiency, and time to be alone are also highly valued in Sweden.

In the example above the high degree of individualism in American culture can be seen in how the American teacher defines the dispute in terms of individual rights to possess the object. The way that she also further defines that one child has more of a right to the toy than another child reflects the vertical nature of individualism in the United States where some individuals can have more than others and might even be considered to have a right to have more than another.

In the Swedish example the teacher is also saying individuals each have rights to the toys, but in contrast she is defining and encouraging a model where the two children have the same right to possess the toys. This emphasis on having the same right to having the toys fits with the Swedish way of conceiving of resources. In addition, the emphasis on solving this in a collective framework such that the child with more is himself encouraged to create a condition where both children have the same number of toys teaches the child how to solve problems collectively by creating sameness. This condition of sameness is also given a positive valuation by the teacher as she interacts and encourages the child.

MEAL AND SNACK TIMES

In another set of examples a similar pattern in terms of the interplay of individualistic and group values can be seen. At meal or snack times American toddlers are encouraged to focus on their own food and they are not encouraged to notice anything that another child does with their food. They may be asked to pass something to a classmate, but typically this is done by teachers who pass out the food. To contrast, in Sweden I saw older children in a mixed age group helping younger children (toddlers) prepare their food, such as putting a spread on a cracker for them. This was valued and encouraged by teachers who also sat with the children and helped others.

While American teachers encourage infants and toddlers to talk at meals and to discuss what they are doing, helping each other is not encouraged or stressed. Eating itself is an individual activity consistent with the individualism valued in American culture, while the conversation is the social aspect of mealtime. Helping younger children with preparing food and with providing food for them as the Swedish children are doing reflects a more group-oriented view of mealtimes – especially in terms of eating and preparing food – and also encourages the feeling of solidarity and fitting in with the group that is highly valued in Swedish culture. This kind of helping others in the group as well as the sense of belonging to or fitting in with the group is facilitated in Swedish centers through the group structure.

STRUCTURE OF GROUPS

Another aspect of child care that differs between Sweden and the United States, and also reflects the differences in individual and group orientations, is the structure of groups. In the United States infants and toddlers are in separate groups, either infants in their own classroom and toddlers in their own classroom or infants and toddlers together. Very rarely are infants or toddlers included with older children. In fact in some states this is not allowed, based on the idea that it would not be safe for the younger children. Groups are defined by relatively narrow age ranges and a child enters and leaves multiple groups over their years in child care. Children change groups individually or with one or two other children when they reach a certain age and an older group is seen as better fitting their level of development. Thus, in the United States the individual child and his or her individual needs are emphasized, and belonging to a group over a long period of time and feeling a strong sense of group membership are less valued. A child’s classroom group is seen as providing a situation where they can interact with others at the same developmental level and be with others who have similar social and intellectual abilities and needs. The group structure in American child care centers emphasizes a focus on the individual as the defining aspect of how to provide good care.

In Sweden infants and toddlers are usually in mixed-age or “sibling” groupings with children from ages 1 through 6 years in the same group. Because of the wide age range, there are children older than the infants and toddlers who are capable of contributing to their care at meals. However at other times older children seemed to play among themselves while younger children formed their own informal small group to play. In Swedish centers children join a mixed age group when they enter the child care program and stay in that group for the whole time in the center—through age 6. This extended time in one group encourages a sense of belonging to the group which is highly valued by Swedish child care teachers. In my conversations with some Swedish teachers they said they felt it very important that children should have time to adjust to the group and become a part of it, that this was important for children’s healthy growth and development. In order to facilitate this, children have a two week transition period when beginning at a child care center, where parents come every day and stay at the center with them when they first join the group. Only as children feel comfortable in the new group do parents leave the child. The group is seen as an important part of life in child care in Sweden (Swedish Institute, 2001).

In cultures that are more group-oriented, such as Japan or Sweden, children stay with the same group of children throughout their years in child care and this is seen by some to encourage the sense of belonging or being a part of the group (Shigaki, 1983). Since children change groups frequently in the United States this sense of being a part of a group does not seem to be fostered as much as in some other cultures. From this one can conclude that the value of the group takes a lesser priority than the value of the individual in American culture as a whole and in child care. Teachers in child care transmit these “hidden” values by how the child care experience is structured and children in the United States are raised in a system which puts their value as an individual above that of group belonging, whereas in Sweden it is the reverse.

SPACE TO BE ALONE

Despite the group emphasis seen in some aspects of Swedish life, individualism is also a predominant value in Sweden (Daun, 1991; Triandis, 1995). In one area that I observed Swedish child care gives a higher priority to the individual than is seen in American centers. In the United States an infant or toddler group’s space is generally made up of one large room or area with perhaps a separate sleeping area for infants. In Swedish centers a group’s space is made up of many smaller rooms much like a home setting. I saw in a number of observations in Sweden that a child on their own volition went into a room by themselves, sat on a couch and looked at a book or had time to sit alone as they wanted after waking up from a nap. This provision of space to be alone and the valuing of being able to spend time alone differs from American child care where children are never allowed to be in a room by themselves. In order to have some space to themselves a child must find a corner of a room that is relatively unoccupied for the time being. In the United States we purport to value space to be alone in child care since this appears as an item in the original Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms & Clifford, 1980) as an aspect of high quality care, but we do not put this as a priority in our design of the physical layout of centers, or perhaps we do not conceive of this as being completely alone. In fact, having a separate room where children could get away from the main activity would be seen as a safety problem in American centers since a teacher would not be there to provide supervision. Yet in Swedish centers teachers are aware where children are and keep an eye out for them without venturing into their private space.

Daun (1991) discusses this coexistence of opposing tendencies toward individualism and collectivism in Swedish life and offers the suggestion that the emphasis on sameness and conformity to the group is so demanding that the need to be alone and to be fairly independent in personal relationships is needed as a balance. In his ethnographic study of Swedish child care, Ehn (1983) takes as one of his two main themes for describing the world of child care, the word, “tveksamhet,” which translates to “doubtfulness” or “hesitation” in English. He talks about this in part in terms of a “cultural doubtfulness” such that teachers and children feel a split between an emphasis on the individual and on the group in the daily life of child care. This combination of individualism and collectivism in the larger culture is part of what shapes the teaching and group structure in Swedish child care.

In the United States the more overwhelming emphasis on individualism also shapes infant and toddler teachers’ practices in child care, such that individual rights and a high priority on individual developmental goals is a predominant ethic in everyday interactions as well as in determining group structures.

STIMULATION AND ACTIVITY LEVEL

Another area where differences in child care practices might reflect different cultural values is in the level of stimulation or activity that are considered best practices in each country. In American centers many materials are always available for infants and toddlers. Almost all storage of materials that can be used by children is at children’s height and within children’s view and reach. An American standard of a “good” program is that it provides many materials at varying levels of abilities that children are free to select at any time and use as they wish. Infant rooms have multiple boxes of small manipulatives that are out and available for infants to explore. Toddler rooms have boxes as well as shelves full of materials that toddlers can select and use in addition to planned activities and materials placed on child-sized tables for children to explore. This results in children being engaged and involved with objects and moving from place to place fairly often to try different materials. As Americans we think it is a good thing for children to have all these many options and to be busy at work exploring them all, moving and experimenting. Curriculum books for infant and toddler care call this a “rich” environment (Gonzalez- Mena & Eyer, 2004).

In contrast, in Sweden there seemed from my observations to be more emphasis on calmness than in the United States. The Swedish classrooms had fewer materials out and available for children at any one time. Yet to the Swedish view this was a positive and healthy environment. A contented child in a pleasant group atmosphere is something to be valued (Swedish Institute, 2001). It is not that the center does not have more materials, but many are stored out of reach of children and a few at a time are put out on shelves within children’s reach, or brought out specifically for a particular child or small group of children to use. This results in a calmer atmosphere overall, and with children spending more time with a particular toy or activity. There were also times when a child had no toy or object at all and interacted with the teacher or other toddlers. American teachers react to my photographs of Swedish child care centers with surprise at the “lack” of materials and say they find it “somewhat empty” or “unusual,” yet they can see that it “might be pleasant.” They are surprised to find that the centers can afford and actually do own more materials, and that materials are stored purposefully out of children’s view and reach.

In their book on caring for infants and toddlers in group settings, American authors Gonzalez-Mena and Eyer (2004) advise to “watch out for overstimulation” (p.76), and suggest that teachers “put out the right amount of toys” and “provide the right amount of choices” and advise that “the optimum amount changes” (p.75-76). It seems from my observations that what would be considered the “right amount” varies by culture and the kind of atmosphere that a culture values. In the United States in general I think that everyday life is faster-paced than in Sweden and the pace and level of activity in classrooms in each country reflects the norm for that country.

Another aspect of this difference in level of stimulation can be found in the provision for space to be alone as described above. Swedish centers are set up in a “home- like” design, where each group has many rooms that make up the group’s area (Olsson, 1984). In Swedish centers I saw toddlers go into a room by themselves, pick up a book and sit on a sofa looking at it themselves, much like a child at home might do.

American centers have one large room for each group that is divided by low walls – that adults can see over – into different activity centers. In the United States when a toddler needs some time alone they find a corner of the room that is relatively unoccupied at the moment, however the noise and activity of the rest of the room are always present. There is no possibility to be alone, just away from the major activity.

In the United States we value activity and stimulation; we want to be in the middle of the activity where “things are happening.” In American infant and toddler care we seem to be teaching children that activity and being in the swirl of activity is valued and normal. We seem to be teaching toddlers that if they want time alone they need to learn how to make time for themselves in the midst of lots of activity and stimulation, to mentally block out the noise and activity around them when they want some time or space to themselves. In contrast in Sweden calmness is more highly valued and the way materials are presented and child care centers are designed affords and emphasizes this sense of calm and more sustained activities for children.

THE ROLE OF CHILD CARE IN SOCIETY

The last area of difference between American and Swedish child care centers reflects values of how we view child care and its role in society. This can be seen in differences in the general physical design of child care centers in the two countries, the furnishings in centers, and in the placement of centers in relation to where people live and work. American centers typically have one large room for infants, sometimes with a separate room for cribs, but equally often cribs are placed in part of the one large room. All facilities and materials for feeding and caring for infants can be found in this one room. Furnishings in infant rooms generally include pillows for sitting on the floor, an adult sized rocking chair or other comfortable chair and perhaps low shelves for some toys. Sinks and diaper-changing facilities are in this room. Toddler rooms are also typically one large room divided into different activity areas by low shelves or other low dividers. Furnishings include toddler- sized tables and chairs, pillows on the floor, child-sized pretend play furniture, and there is sometimes an adult- sized sofa. In the American view the large single room per group is required so that teachers can supervise the children more easily and make sure all are safe. The child- sized furniture is based on the thinking that the environment should be arranged specifically for the age of children in the room.

The physical design of centers in Sweden includes multiple rooms for each group, set up much like a home or apartment (Olsson, 1984). There is usually one room with two or three tables with chairs which serves as an eating area as well as for activities at tables. Other rooms have soft furniture or are open spaces combined with soft furnishings and child-sized furniture where children are free to play as they wish. There is also a large bathroom/ sink/changing room with multiple water sources. There is not usually a kitchen in the group’s area as food is prepared centrally for the whole center and brought to each group’s area. Furniture for the most part is the same size and style as what would be found at home. Tables for eating and activities are at adult height and infants are placed in highchairs designed to fit up to the table, while toddlers have adapted highchairs (also common in Swedish homes) that they can climb up into themselves and sit at adult height tables comfortably. Toileting areas and some sinks are at child height, while others are at adult height with benches or stools for children to stand on. One center had a large adult height group sink that 4 or 5 children could stand around on benches and use at the same time. The physical designs and furnishings in Swedish centers with their multiple rooms and home-style furnishings seem more homelike than American centers. This might possibly reflect a value that child care should be like home, a part of home life, or an extension of home life in Sweden, whereas in the United States we see child care more as an institutional setting separate from home, yet complementing home. Swedes see child care as an institutional environment (Ehn, 1983) and certainly it is, but it is physically much more home-like than the design and furnishings of American centers.

Another difference is in the location of centers. In the United States centers tend to be in or near workplaces, in business areas, and at universities where parents might work or study; they are often centrally located in a city or town to attract more customers. In Sweden centers are placed in the areas where children live, in apartment areas or residential neighborhoods. From this it would seem that child care centers are seen as more part of residential or home life in Sweden, and more part of economic or business life in the United States.

Although in both countries child care supports parents so they can work or study, and good quality child care is seen as important for children’s development, there are subtler differences in the role within the society that child care plays. As can be seen from the examples above, in Sweden child care is more likely to be viewed as a support to family life or, more recently, as an educational opportunity for preschool age children, and in the United States it is more associated with economics and the business world. This difference in how child care fits into the society, in the culture’s definition of the role of child care in society, has implications for the daily life of children in child care centers, through the design, furnishing, and location of child care centers. For example, children who have a short walk or bicycle ride to their child care center and home each day have a different experience than children who must commute by car or public transportation to a center at a much greater distance from home.

This difference in each culture’s definition of how child care fits into society can be seen in other aspects of child care as well, such as who is responsible for administering and running child care centers, what kinds of regulations govern the running and programming of child care centers, and what issues play a role in determining what centers will look like in terms of program and quality. In the United States we treat child care centers as a business

and most are run independently as nonprofit or for profit businesses or under the auspices of another business. Government regulations for child care relate more to physical safety than to children’s psychological development or to the educational program. In many ways, because of the business orientation, economics tend to drive what child care programs look like in the United States. As a result it seems, there is a great variety in the quality of child care programs in the United States (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2000) with programs with fewer financial resources often providing lower quality care (Lamb, 1998; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1997).

In Sweden child care centers were until recently run through the national social services bureau as a service to support parents and families. Currently child care centers are part of the national educational system, so that child care is seen as an educational opportunity particularly for older preschoolers. Regulations that govern child care emphasize children’s well-being in terms of both social and educational goals (Swedish Institute, 2001). Values, such as equality and solidarity, are emphasized (Pramling Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2004). In general, issues of quality and children’s well-being drive what child care programs look like in Sweden. Historically there has been an emphasis on providing high quality care rather than lots of care. Economics – while certainly an issue – tends to take a back seat to issues of how child care can best support family life and children.

Cultural values of the role of child care in society seem to be intertwined with cultural values concerned with vertical versus horizontal individualism as well. In the United States, tolerance for the difference in quality of care provided for different individuals can be traced to the vertical individualism of American culture. Americans tend to look out for themselves rather than for the group as a whole, and it is acceptable for individuals to have different status and access to resources within the culture (Triandis, 1995).

In Sweden, due to the cultural emphasis on sameness, collective or uniform solutions concerning public services – such as child care – are the norm (Daun, 1991). Child care in Sweden is provided to all children and is of high quality universally (Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development, 1999). This approach in many ways grows out of and is facilitated by an ethic such that, according to Daun, many Swedes share the ideal that everyone should enjoy the same kind of social conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

From the above examples, infant and toddler teachers can be seen to transmit their culture in a variety of ways. Through interactions they teach their culture’s ways of defining relationships with others and teach how to interact in ways their culture values. They also teach about the importance of individuals versus groups in their culture through interactions as well as through how groups are structured. Through the ways they present materials teachers further transmit ways that their culture defines a “good” level of activity and stimulation. Through the physical design, furnishing, and placement of centers, values about how child care fits into society are reflected and passed on to children.

These are some of the ways that infant and toddler child care programs reflect their culture and exist within a system of cultural meanings, and that infant and toddler teachers become transmitters of culture. In the United States our high emphasis on individualism influences many of our practices in infant and toddler programs, and the particular mix of individualistic and group- oriented values shapes how care is provided to infants and toddlers in Sweden.

While this article focuses primarily on differences between American and Swedish child care, this is only a means to make cultural values and practices more easily visible. There are a multitude of similarities in practices in American and Swedish infant and toddler care particularly in ways that encourage children’s individual growth and development. Interested readers can find out more from a wide variety of research and scholarly articles on both American and Swedish child care as well as from other sources describing child care in each country (such as, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1999; and, Swedish Institute, 2001). American cultural values as presented in this article have been taken from the mainstream Euro-American view. This does not incorporate the diversity of cultures present in the United States, unfortunately. An analysis of cultural transmission in child care which included this diversity would be of great interest as well, however was beyond the scope of this article. In addition there may be areas of differences between American and Swedish child care programs that are not identified here but also reflect cultural values, such as a greater emphasis on nature and the outdoor curriculum in Sweden. Perhaps characteristics of interactions where objects are not involved might also differ in some way. These topics would be interesting to explore in future work.

Infant and toddler teachers both reflect their own culture and play a role in passing on their culture to the next generation. This is something uniquely human according to Tomasello (2001), and teachers of infants and toddlers in many ways are actively involved with this process on a daily basis.

REFERENCES

Bakeman, R. & Brownlee, J. R. (1982). Social rules governing object conflicts in toddlers and preschoolers. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 99-111). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Caudill, W., & Frost, L. (1974). A comparison of maternal care and infant behavior in Japanese-American, American, and Japanese families. In W. P. Lebra (Ed.), Youth, socialization, and mental health (pp. 3- 25). Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Caudill, W., & Weinstein, H. (1969). Maternal care and infant behavior in Japan and America. Psychiatry, 32, 12-43.

Daun, A. (1991). Individualism and collectivity among Swedes. Ethnos, 56, 165-172.

Ehn, B. (1983). Ska vi leka tiger? Daghemsliv ur kulturell synvinkel [Do you want to play tigers? Day care life from a cultural perspective]. Stockholm: Liber.

Field, T. M., Sostek, A. M., Vietze, P., & Leiderman, P. H. (Eds.). (1981). Culture and early interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2005). Diversity in early care and education: Honoring differences (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. & Eyer, D. W. (2004). Infants, toddlers, and caregivers: A curriculum of respectful, responsive care and education (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Harms, T. & Clifford, R. M. (1980). Early childhood environment rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perceptions of the child in context. New York: The Guilford Press.

Jahoda, G. & Lewis, I. M. (1988). Introduction: Child development in psychology and anthropology. In G. Jahoda & I. M. Lewis (Eds.), Acquiring culture: Cross-cultural studies in child development (pp. 1- 34). New York: Croon Helm.

Lamb, M.E. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates, and consequences. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 73-133). New York: Wiley.

Leiderman, P. H., Tulkin, S. R., & Rosenfeld, A. (Eds.). (1977). Culture and infancy: Variations in the human experience. New York: Academic Press.

LeVine, R. A., Dixon, S., LeVine, S., Richman, A., Leiderman, P. H., Keefer, C. H., & Brazelton, T. B. (1996). Child care and culture: Lessons from Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LeVine, R. A., Miller, P. M., West, M. M. (Eds.). (1988). Parental behavior in diverse societies. New Directions for Child Development No. 40. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (1997). Familial factors associated with the characteristics of nonmaternal care for infants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 389-408.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116-135.

Joan E. Test 63 Navon, R. & Ramsey, P. G. (1989). Possession and exchange of materials in Chinese and American

preschools. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 4, 18-29. Olsson, N.-O. (1984). Stockholms Barnstugor 1974-1984 [Stockholm’s child care centers 1974-1984]. Stockholm: AVEBE-grafiska.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1999, December). Early childhood education and care policy in Sweden: OECD country note. Paris: Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development. Retrieved February 5, 2004 from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/52/31/2534972.pdf

Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Sheridan, S. (2004). Recent issues in the Swedish preschool. International Journal of Early Childhood, 36, 7-22.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shigaki, I. S. (1983). Child care practices in Japan and the United States: How do they reflect cultural values in young children? Young Children, 38, 13-24.

Swedish Institute. (2001, December 1). Childcare in Sweden. Retrieved January 27, 2004, from http://www.sweden.se/templates/FactSheet____4132.asp

Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H., & Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tomasello, M. (1996). The child’s contribution to culture. Culture and Psychology, 2, 307-318.

Tomasello, M. (2001). Cultural transmission: A view from chimpanzees and human infants. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32, 135-146.

Trevarthen, C. (1988). Universal cooperative motives: How infants begin to know the language and culture of their parents. In G. Jahoda & I. M. Lewis (Eds.), Acquiring culture: Cross-cultural studies in child development (pp. 37-90). New York: Croon Helm.

Trevarthen, C. (1992). An infant’s motives for speaking and thinking in the culture. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 99-137). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Correspondence about this paper should be addressed to:

Dr. Joan E. Test jtest@siu.edu
Department of Curriculum and Instruction Southern Illinois University
625 Wham Drive, Mail Code 4610 Carbondale, Illinois 62901, USA