The first three years
An opinion on the need for and direction of
early childhood interventions to improve the
life chances of children in disadvantaged families
1999
Prepared for the Brotherhood of St Laurence by
Associate Professor Gay Ochiltree
Principal Fellow
Faculty of Education
University of Melbourne
First published in June 1999 by the
Brotherhood of St Laurence
67 Brunswick Street
Fitzroy VIC 3065
Telephone (03) 9483 1183
Ochiltree, Gay
The first three years: an opinion on the need for and
direction of early childhood interventions to improve the
life chances of children in disadvantaged families
ISBN
1 876250 19 4
1. Brotherhood of St Laurence. 2. Socially handicapped
children—Services for—Australia. 3. Socially handicapped
children—Education—Australia. 4. Early childhood
education—Australia. 5. Child development—Australia.
I. Brotherhood of St Laurence. II. Title.
362.708694
© Brotherhood of St Laurence, 1999
This book is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private
study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act,
no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission.
Enquiries should be addressed to the publisher.
The first three years
Foreword
Success at school is highly likely to give young people a greater chance at betterpaid, more secure and more rewarding employment in their adult life.
Given this reality, it is essential that we do not prejudice the chances of children
as they enter school.
Recent research undertaken by the Brotherhood of St Laurence into the life
chances of children born in inner Melbourne has focused on the discernable
differences in the preschool and school experiences of children growing up in
lower-income and more affluent families. The experience of Brotherhood service
staff similarly gives ground for concern over the difficulties that some children
from disadvantaged families are having.
The Brotherhood’s concern is that this disadvantage may persist in the years of
schooling ahead.
Over recent years the Brotherhood has responded in various ways, most recently
through sponsoring the introduction of the Home Instruction Program for
Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program, in inner Melbourne. However, the
organisation felt that it also needed to:
 explore or test the key assumptions which underpin future work in this area;
 consider the potential value of Brotherhood work; and
 help focus future work in this area.
As a first stage in this process, the Brotherhood asked Gay Ochiltree, a
prominent researcher in early childhood education and highly informed advocate
for good quality services for children, to provide us with some guidance which
could help us decide where the organisation should best place its efforts in the
future.
Gay’s background—as a teacher, researcher, child care expert and early
childhood educator—has provided her with insight into the several intellectual
disciplines which inform the community’s efforts to maximise the potential of our
children. The Brotherhood was delighted that she was able to provide us with an
informed professional opinion based on the balance of these different disciplines.
This report directs our attention once more to the importance of the very early
years of childhood and the risks that some children can miss out at this point. It
provides us with some important reminders of which children are at risk and of
the strengths, as well as the weaknesses, of the universal children’s services
which Australia has. It identifies some lessons from overseas approaches, while
at the same time warning us to be very cautious of differing service contexts.
We hope that other organisations will also find Gay’s insights valuable.
Alison McClelland
Director, Social Action and Research
1
The first three years
2
The first three years
Contents
Foreword
1
The brief
The context
5
5
1.
Which children require additional supports and interventions in
early childhood to ensure that low income or other aspects of
family background do not markedly limit their life chances?
7
Family background and the life chances of children
Poverty
Education and early childhood development
Resilience
Informal education
The importance of the first three years of life
7
7
10
11
11
13
2.
17
What supports or interventions are most needed and why?
Existing services supporting families with preschool children
Maternal and Child Health Service
Child care services
Preschools (kindergartens)
Specialist children’s services
17
18
19
20
20
Parenting education
Critiques of parenting education
21
23
Trends in services to mothers and preschool children in Victoria
24
Interventions for children at risk of abuse and/or neglect or
experiencing inadequate parenting
25
Improving educational opportunities for disadvantaged children
Head Start and early intervention
Evaluations of Head Start
Head Start and child care for children from birth to three
Literacy and Head Start
Lessons from Head Start Programs
Current and past Australian programs aimed at raising educational
achievement
27
27
28
30
32
33
33
3
The first three years
3.
Given the current context, in which ways can the Brotherhood of
St Laurence best contribute to reducing the lifetime disadvantages
of such children through initiatives in service practice, policy
development or public advocacy?
36
Targeted programs
37
A strategy for The Cottage
38
Advocacy and policy development
39
References
42
4
The first three years
The brief
The consultancy brief asked for an informed opinion on three questions:
1. In Australia in the foreseeable future, which children require additional
supports or interventions in early childhood to ensure that low income or other
aspects of family background do not markedly limit their future life chances?
2. What supports or interventions are most needed and why?
3. Given the current context, in which ways can the Brotherhood of St Laurence
best contribute to reducing the lifetime disadvantages of such children through
initiatives in service practice, policy development and public advocacy?
The first section of this paper focuses on the question of which children require
additional supports or interventions in early childhood to improve their life
chances. Children’s development, including new information on brain
development and its implications, is also discussed.
The second section looks broadly at the question of what supports and
interventions are most needed. Services which support Victorian children and
their families in the preschool years from birth to five years are described and the
policy trends affecting these services are discussed. Interventions through which
specific aspects of children’s disadvantage can be addressed, including lower
levels of educational achievement, are then examined.
The final section of the paper looks at ways in which the Brotherhood can best
contribute to improving the life chances of children from disadvantaged families.
Some directions and strategies, taking account of current projects, are suggested.
The focus is on acquiring literacy as this is the pre-eminent skill children need to
access education.
The context
The Brotherhood currently has several projects which support children in early
childhood and their families in different ways. They include the Cottage Centre
for Families and Children, which offers a number of services for parents and
children particularly where there is concern with children’s development or
behaviour or where the children have special needs; the Fitzroy Toy Library; the
Southern Metropolitan Pre-School Support Program which helps children with
severe and multiple disabilities participate in their local preschool; and Family
Day Care and other programs at Craigieburn. The longitudinal Life Chances of
Children study focuses on the needs and experiences of low-income families with
young children. A more recent program initiative is the Home Instruction
Program for Preschool Youngsters—HIPPY—which has worked in particular
with mothers and children in the Fitzroy Department of Housing flats.
These projects will be taken into account in analysing current trends and in
making suggestions for future directions which could be taken to support
children from disadvantaged families in the early childhood years. However, it is
The Cottage which appears to offer the greatest opportunities for practical
support and interventions for children and their families.
There is evidence that the community is seen as a less friendly and safe place for
children with information from the Australian Institute of Family Studies Living
5
The first three years
Standards study indicating that both children and parents have many fears for
their safety outside the home. Mounting evidence indicates that the home is the
place where children are most likely to be abused both physically and sexually so
stranger danger is not the greatest hazard for children.
Changes in services and policies, including the closing of smaller local schools,
and more recently the closure of many of the smaller child care centres and other
services to local communities, is making it more difficult for children and families
to feel that they belong and are valued members of society (People Together
1997). James Garborino in his book Raising children in a socially toxic
environment (1995) points out that children are conservative and like
consistency, predictability and regularity. Instability in the family and in the
community takes its toll on the trust not only of adults but of children. Children
growing up in low-income families are particularly vulnerable.
6
The first three years
1. Which children require additional supports and
interventions in early childhood to ensure that low
income or other aspects of family background do not
markedly limit their future life chances?
Family background and the life chances of children
The family context into which children are born is the major influence on their
life chances, and especially on their educational achievement. By the time
children start school at around 5 years of age many children from disadvantaged
families are unable to benefit from the educational opportunities offered to the
same extent as children from more advantaged families. These children lack the
experiences—often taken for granted—that are the foundations for school
learning. In particular they have often missed out on experiences which prepare
them for literacy.
Education is crucial to all children if they are to be able to earn a living as adults
in a post-industrial world and to exercise their rights and responsibilities as
citizens in a democratic society. Children who fail to achieve at school suffer
lifelong difficulties including low self-esteem and problems obtaining work.
Central to educational achievement is literacy and it is children from
disadvantaged backgrounds who are the most likely to have problems with
literacy. Literacy is high on the current political and educational agenda at both
state and federal government level with the problem being identified through
testing programs. There are a number of programs in Victoria operating in the
early school years to assist children with difficulties, such as the Early Years
Literacy Program and Reading Recovery, and attempts to co-locate preschools
(kindergartens) in primary schools are justified on the grounds of improved
literacy for children.
However, the foundations for literacy are laid well before children start school or
even preschool (kindergarten) in early childhood development. Literacy begins in
the home and/or in any alternative form of early child care. Children who come
from homes where parents read themselves and also read to their children,
where there is printed material, where writing is seen as a meaningful activity,
and where children have access to writing and drawing materials such as crayons
and paper, are more likely to learn to read and write at school with little
difficulty. Children who do not have these opportunities are more likely to
experience difficulties.
Considerable research over the years indicates that the educational achievement
of children born into disadvantaged families, in the circumstances discussed
below, is generally lower than that of children from more advantaged family
backgrounds and it is literacy which is often at the heart of their educational
difficulties.
Poverty
The strongest underpinning of disadvantage is poverty and it has long been
known that poverty limits the life chances of children (Harris 1990a; Harris
1990b; Edgar, Keane & McDonald 1989). Poverty may be due to unemployment,
7
The first three years
or to low-paid, part-time, casual and/or intermittent work, or to parents living on
pensions or benefits due to disability or chronic illness. Closely linked with
poverty in its effects on children is the level of education of parents. Many, but
not all, parents on low incomes have experienced school failure or have low levels
of education which has limited their employment opportunities. Some may be
functionally illiterate and unable, or feel unable, to assist their children with
school work or preparation for school. In terms of this brief the focus first and
foremost should be on children from families in poverty and particularly those
where the parents have a low level of education or are illiterate themselves. This
group of families on low incomes will include a range of sub-groups of families
that are living in poverty for a number of different reasons, including those
experiencing intergenerational poverty.
Estimates of the number of families and children living in poverty vary
depending on the way in which poverty is defined. The recent paper A portrait of
child poverty in Australia 1995–96 (Harding & Szukalska 1998) indicated that
one-in-eight of Australia’s 4.5 million dependent children live on incomes below
the poverty line although more than half of these children had a father or mother
working. A quarter of the children are under five. Birrell and Rapson (1997),
using eligibility for Additional Family Payment (AFP) as an indicator of poverty,
argue that the proportion of children growing up in low-income families is
increasing. In 1995 41 per cent of families with children aged 0–15 years were in
receipt of AFP compared with 43 per cent in 1996 (Birrell & Rapson 1997). Forty
per cent of these families were the working poor where incomes were low enough
to receive AFP; a second group were families in receipt of welfare who were
usually unemployed; the third group were those who because of their domestic
situation or disability could not enter the labour market. This group included
single parents, mostly sole parent pensioners. Birrell and Rapson also estimate
that families on low incomes are raising more children per family than middleclass families.
Particular groups
Many of these low-income families have additional disadvantages which are
likely to affect the life chances of their children. These families are discussed
briefly below:

Children whose parents have a chronic physical or psychiatric illness, or
where there is an alcohol and/or drug problem, may be as disadvantaged by
the low income resulting from their parent’s problems as by the actual
problem itself. Parents in these families may or may not have low levels of
education. Children with a mentally ill parent can be at risk in many ways as
the effects of the illness often result in an emotional ‘see-saw’ for the child
(Cooper & Elliot 1997).
Although up to 30 per cent of Australia’s population may at one time or
another be affected by mental illness to some extent, it is the children of
parents where the illness is severe and/or chronic that are of long-term
concern. This group of children is not large but the proportion of children
affected, and in particular preschool children, is difficult to assess. Similarly
it is difficult to assess the number of children affected by the drug and alcohol
problems of their parents. If Australia follows the pattern of the United
States it is likely that the number of children whose lives are affected by the
8
The first three years
drug-taking of their parents is increasing. If these families are in receipt of
benefits they will be included in estimates of poverty discussed above.

Fourteen per cent of Australians speak a language other than English in the
home (ABS 1991). Children from non-English speaking background (NESB)
families, particularly those who have recently arrived, some of whom may be
refugees, may also have limited life chances (Taylor & MacDonald 1994).
Where there is low income, and/or unemployment, where English is not
spoken at home, and where the parents have little education and may be
illiterate in their own language, children may experience difficulties becoming
literate in the Australian education system and their educational
achievement may be limited.
The educational opportunities of children from NESB families may be
affected not only by language differences but sometimes by quite different
expectations of the role of teachers and the school. Although there are obvious
language and cultural differences, there are also less obvious non-verbal
behaviours and meanings which are very different to the dominant culture
and may lead to misunderstandings (Elliot & Sanagavarapu 1995). If parents
are illiterate in their own language and have low levels of education it is
difficult for them to assist their children in the different circumstances
operating in Australia and this can cause problems for children even when
families have been here for a considerable time. The focus for this brief should
be on low-income, low-parental-education NESB children and families and
particularly families where the parents’ English is poor and where they are
likely to require help from English-speaking children to cope with demands of
daily life.
There are also children from culturally diverse backgrounds where English is
spoken—who may even be second or third-generation Australians—but who
come from families where there are tensions between cultural expectations
more suited to the country of origin at the time their parents or grandparents
emigrated than to expectations in contemporary Australia (Hartley 1995).
These tensions if coupled with other family disadvantage such as low income
and low levels of parental education may limit the life chances of these
children.

Children living in multi-problem, sometimes violent, low-income families
where parents are not coping are also likely to have limited life chances. Some
of these children may be identified as at risk of abuse and/or neglect. In such
circumstances children are likely to experience many difficulties, of which
lack of educational achievement and literacy skills may be only one aspect.

It is in indigenous families that poverty is most entrenched and extensive and
affects the life chances of children (Choo 1990; Sam 1992; Brady 1992;
O’Donoghue 1993). Indigenous children also have poorer health and a lower
life expectancy than non-indigenous children. Poverty is linked with the
breakdown of culture and traditions and indigenous children often do not
have access to culturally appropriate education. Aboriginal and Islander
people themselves want to determine the way in which services for their
children operate and the right to bring up their children as Aboriginal or
Islander. Butler (1993, p.11) argues that: ‘the early childhood experience (in
education) should contribute to the total development of the child as an
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person’. In terms of this brief the
Brotherhood can support indigenous people in practical terms only when they
9
The first three years
are asked but should continue advocacy to support Aboriginal and Islander
children’s needs as their community determines them.
Children in all the disadvantaged family situations described above would benefit
from appropriate interventions to improve their life chances.
Education and early childhood development
A brief look at the development of children in the years from birth to starting
school at around five years of age makes it clear why the educational
achievement of children from disadvantaged and low-income backgrounds and
some minority groups is generally lower than that of children from more
advantaged families.
By comparing the relatively helpless infant with a five-year-old child who can
walk, talk, run, climb, solve simple puzzles, cooperate with other children and is
toilet trained it is easy to see that immense developmental changes take place in
the first five years of life. Some children are born into families which support this
rapid development. Where the physical environment and family relationships are
stable, predictable and responsive, where all aspects of development are
encouraged and where children have opportunities to develop positive
relationships with other children and adults, they are well prepared to take
advantage of the opportunities offered by school.
Although the development of children is often described in terms of different
domains—cognitive, social, emotional and physical—they are very closely related.
For example, the emotional development of children is integrated with all other
aspects of development. If parents and caregivers are responsive, children often
display pleasure and affection during routine activities such as meals, nappy
changes and baths. They also try out their language and initiate verbal
exchanges even before they can talk (Berndt 1992).
As children get older and play with toys and equipment, or even the saucepans
from the kitchen cupboard, they are not just using their fine or gross motor skills
(physical development) but they are also problem solving (cognitive
development), talking (language development), and may be sharing or
cooperating with other children and adults (social development). However, some
children experience unresponsive caregiving which is not sensitive to their
emotional needs nor to their needs in other domains of development.
Parenting very young children is not easy. It is tiring, it often involves nights of
broken sleep, and most parents at times feel that they are not coping or are
inadequate. They may mistake what is normal behaviour—such as banging,
shouting or demanding attention—for bad behaviour. They may use
inappropriate methods of discipline for their children or lose control because of
stress and frustration (Ochiltree 1998). All parents want the best for their
children but may have unrealistic expectations and know very little about the
normal development of young children. Some parents try to keep children as
quiet and unobtrusive as possible all the time (most parents want this
sometimes) and as they get older television may be used extensively as a
babysitter. Children’s attempts to engage parents in verbal exchanges or play
may be ignored or met with rejection yet language development and play are
vital ingredients in children’s cognitive development and early education.
Parents who are beleaguered by the difficulties of everyday life, such as those in
10
The first three years
the families discussed at the beginning of this paper, and/or those who received
inadequate or inappropriate parenting in their own childhood, often find
parenting very young children highly stressful.
Some children are born into circumstances which are limited by poverty, by
parents who have limited education themselves, by unstable housing, by
unemployment, by parents who are under a number of stresses, or by parents
who through illness or personal social and emotional limitations are unable to
parent adequately. These children often do not experience the same secure family
relationships, stimulating environment, and encouragement of language and
cognitive skills in particular, which are so important if they are to achieve
educationally. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are also more likely to
have health problems or nutritional deficiencies which affect their development
and often live in a crowded and sometimes polluted environment (Badenoch
1995). Some children are born into families where from very early on they
experience neglect and/or abuse and sometimes family violence which inhibits
their development, their feelings of security, and particularly the development of
trust.
Resilience
However, low income and other forms of disadvantage do not inevitably spell
educational failure or other developmental difficulties as some children who are
exposed to risk factors in their family environment are more resilient than
others. There are a number of protective factors which are known to enhance the
well-being and resilience of children despite a poor environment although, of
course, there are limits to this resilience. These protective factors include: an
affectionate relationship with the main caregiver in the first 12 months of life;
the presence of a caring adult relative, e.g. a grandparent; external support from
a teacher, neighbour or the school; and the absence of a major disability or illness
in the child (Linke 1996; McIntosh 1997). The more protective factors the more
likely children are to be resilient. However, it is always a balance between the
number and quality of risk factors and the protective factors in the child’s
environment and this balance can change as circumstances change. It is clear
from this perspective that external interventions with appropriate, sensitive
support could play a part in enhancing the resilience of children in adverse
circumstances.
Informal education
Education is an integral part of child development in the preschool years, but
because it is informal it is not generally thought of or called education. Yet, the
foundations for success at school and in particular for success in literacy, which is
so important in our society, starts in the preschool years. Children who have lots
of opportunities from very early in childhood to talk, to hear stories, to handle
books, to play with writing and drawing materials, and to see writing used for
communication, are better prepared for school than those that do not have these
opportunities. The Competent Children Project in New Zealand, a longitudinal
study of children which has followed children from early childhood, has found
that library usage and familiarity from a very early age is a discriminating factor
in educational achievement. But it is parents from disadvantaged backgrounds
11
The first three years
who are less likely to feel comfortable in libraries or to use them with their
children.
The world around children has changed in many ways and so have the
opportunities for children to experience language and print as Trevor Cairney
(1997, p.4) points out.
Children learn about literacy by looking at almost any form of print: signs, labels,
clothing, television, computers, automatic tellers, and mobile phones. And not
only is print more evident in our world than it once was, it does different things.
It blinks, it moves, it is associated with other images, sounds and signs—it can
even smell when you scratch it! It gets written with pens, pencils, crayons or is
even punched in using keyboards. It is seen and written electronically on
computers, phones, games, and also tapes, plastic, gummed paper, cloth and even
on the ground. Finally, it is experienced in multiple languages by increasing
numbers of children.
However, it is also clear from Cairney’s description that children from families on
low incomes will have less exposure to some of these more recent forms of print.
But equally it is clear that some forms of print—on television, clothing, signs,
and labels—are available to children in almost all families, including low-income
families. These uses can provide the starting point for achieving familiarity with
print by alert teachers and by parents if they learn to use them as a simple basis
for learning.
Nor is emotional development separate from these opportunities, as talking,
looking at pictures, being read to, and hearing stories and talking about print in
any form can be part of the warm and affectionate relationship with parents and
other caregivers. Many children in disadvantaged circumstances miss out on
these early educational experiences. Some may have parents with very little
education themselves or who may be illiterate and print materials may have very
little meaning in the home. Some children may come from multi-problem families
where the levels of parental stress and conflict affect their ability to parent.
Stories and reading and the use of writing as a mode of communication may not
be part of the family culture.
Many Australian children come from families which are culturally different to
the dominant Anglo-Celtic population and where there is a different approach to
early childhood and education. Even within a particular ethnic community there
are enormous differences in the circumstances of families depending on whether
they are recent arrivals battling in a new country or belong to an ethnic group
which is more established and has cultural supports. Some NESB parents are
illiterate and poorly educated in their own language, and some may not realise
the significance of early opportunities to handle books, papers and writing and
drawing materials, and/or believe that children should not need these things
until they start school. Some children have heard very little English before
starting school and may experience school or even kindergarten as culturally
alien and confusing. Many Koori children experience early childhood services and
school as culturally alien even though English is the language spoken at home.
While schools should take these differences into account, they don’t always do so
effectively or sufficiently.
There is still a widespread lack of understanding of the educational importance of
early childhood development. Many people, including politicians and senior
bureaucrats, do not recognise or understand the importance of informal
12
The first three years
educational opportunities in early childhood; they see the early care of children
as merely ‘minding’ and keeping children safe and loved (especially by mother).
However, there are some exceptions such as the New South Wales Parents as
Teachers program for parents of preschool children supported by the Department
of Education (Amm & Juan 1994). There is nothing similar supported by
government policy in Victoria although there are a few scattered programs such
as Family Literacy operating. The Victorian government literacy interventions
are within the school system, although some may also involve a parent
component.
Child care is not generally recognised in policy terms as educational, and the
historical link of child care services with welfare rather than education helps to
perpetuate this perception in many people. The fact that child care in Victoria is
within the Department of Human Services rather than Education also supports
this view. The educational aspects of child care and the opportunities it presents
to enhance later educational performance and level of literacy of children from
disadvantaged backgrounds largely go unnoticed. Yet research on the effects of
child care as early as the 1970s, indicated that children from disadvantaged
backgrounds in good quality child care generally had improved developmental
outcomes, particularly in language and cognitive development (Ochiltree 1994).
The importance of the first three years of life
The first three years of life have long been considered especially important not
just for all-round development but for establishing the psychological foundations
for emotional well-being. Attachment theory, based on Freud’s psychoanalytic
theory, is currently the most influential theory about infant and toddler
development. John Bowlby, who developed attachment theory, and Mary
Ainsworth who worked with him, believe that the most important aspect of these
first three years is establishing a secure attachment to mother (Bowlby
1952,1963,1973; Karen 1990). It is attachment theory that has led to such
concern about the possible negative effects of child care on children but
particularly on infants and toddlers. The focus of these concerns is that child care
will affect the security of children’s attachment to mother and that children who
have insecure attachments will later develop emotional difficulties and be more
aggressive and non-compliant. However, research indicates that this is not the
case if children are placed in good quality child care.
Some attachment theorists believe that a secure attachment to more than one
person, not necessarily just to mother, is an advantage to children (Rutter 1981;
Tizard 1986) and research has shown that children can attach to more than one
person. This trusting predictable attachment relationship is seen as the basis for
social and emotional well-being as children grow and develop. The following is a
description of attachment behaviour in children indicating exactly why it is
considered so important:
[Attachment is] the term for a relatively durable affective relationship between a
child and one or more specific persons with whom it interacts regularly. Children
attached to a caregiver will try to remain in his or her direct vicinity, in
particular at moments of sadness, fatigue, tension, and fear. In more or less
unfamiliar surroundings—a new play area or when visiting strangers—the
attachment figure is the secure base from which the environment is explored, and
only this person provides a sufficient feeling of security for the child to play freely.
Especially under circumstances of stress, the child will resist the departure of and
13
The first three years
separation from this person, and upon this person’s return, it will cling to him or
her or express in one way or another joy at the renewed presence of this most
important source of security and confidence. (Tavecchio & van Ijzendoorn 1987,
p.6)
The other theoretical perspective which has influenced child-rearing and
understanding of children’s early development is that of cognitive psychology
(Berndt 1992). In the 1960s research and theory developed by cognitive
psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky emphasised that children
are active learners and attempt to master their environment from infancy. They
found that infants and young children experience pleasure and satisfaction in
predicting and mastering both human and physical aspects of their environment
as they grow and develop.
Recent research, from a practical rather than theoretical perspective, has once
again emphasised the importance of the preschool years, and in particular the
first three years of life. The latest information comes from neuroscientists who
have researched brain development. In the last 10 to 15 years, due to
technological progress which enables neuroscientists to chart the workings of
children’s brains, major breakthroughs have occurred in understanding the role
of the brain in the development of children. They have demonstrated the way in
which the actual brain development of infants responds very directly to the
environment.
Because of these scientific breakthroughs a group of neuroscientists, and other
early childhood specialists such as psychologists and pediatricians, met in the
United States to discuss the implications of this research. This meeting was
important enough to be funded by a number of foundations. The result was the
book Rethinking the brain: new insights into early development by Rima Shore
(1997) in which research on the brains of young children and the implications for
their development is discussed. The following is a brief outline of the findings.
Until about 15 years ago, it was believed that the structure of children’s brains
was genetically determined. Now it is known that when children are born their
brain is not fully developed and its growth, in both size and activity, occurs as a
result of the interaction with the immediate environment. Most of this brain
development occurs in the first three years of life and infants and young children
need appropriate stimulation for healthy brain development.
The brain works by the transmission of signals from one part of the brain to
another on a network of pathways. These pathways are made up of brain cells
(neurons) and connections (synapses). Establishing these brain cell connections
or pathways is essential to development and learning. As the child interacts with
the environment these pathways are activated and they must be re-activated and
reinforced many times. Pathways that are not used or re-activated often are
usually eliminated. The majority of neural pathways are established in the first
three years of life and the number of pathways produced at this time remains
stable over the first decade of life.
Much has been learned about the way in which these pathways are developed,
maintained and strengthened. Warm caring nurture of infants and young
children appears to positively influence the development and activation of neural
pathways and to give children some protection against the effects of later stresses
and trauma.
14
The first three years
Although learning continues throughout the lifecycle there are ‘prime times’ or
‘critical periods’ such as the first three years that provide the greatest
opportunities for learning.
Conversely, there are critical periods when lack of appropriate stimulation will
have more persistent and negative effects and can affect particular areas of the
brain. For example, maternal depression can impede brain development in babies
if it persists longer than a few months and can affect the area of the brain
involved in the expression and regulation of emotions. Abuse and trauma before
or after birth can affect areas of the brain that are associated with anxiety,
depression and the inability of children to form secure attachments to others.
Likewise, adverse experiences throughout childhood can be associated with
impaired cognitive abilities. Poverty affects the environment of children in many
ways and these effects are cumulative and increase with age.
A major implication of this research is that it is in the first three years of life that
intervention is most effective in improving developmental outcomes. Shore
argues that:
… study after study shows that intensive, well designed, timely intervention can
improve the prospects—and the quality of life—of many children who are
considered to be at risk of cognitive, social, or emotional impairment. In some
cases, effective intervention efforts can ameliorate conditions once thought to be
virtually untreatable … (Shore 1997, p.xi)
In other words, opportunities and risks for development are greatest in the first
three years of life and it is at this time that appropriate interventions can be
most effective.
15
The first three years
16
The first three years
2. What supports or interventions are most needed
and why?
Existing services supporting families with preschool children
Despite the general lack of understanding of early childhood development and of
the underpinnings of educational achievement in early childhood, there are a
range of services in Victoria (and in Australia) which support and encourage the
healthy development of young children. These services provide support for
parents but particularly for mothers in the early years of parenting. There are
also services which provide support for families where children have special
needs. The focus in these services is usually on the health of mother and child, on
the care of children and on positive developmental outcomes for children in
general. (It is worth remembering throughout the following discussion that
although the acquisition of skills linked with literacy requires a specific range of
opportunities and experiences, literacy is also linked closely with children’s
overall development and well-being.)
Australia is often compared to the United States and American programs and
research findings are often used to inform policy and practice in this country
although the situation is very different. This is particularly so in regards to
programs for young children and to overall policies. As American programs and
research will be discussed later in this paper, particularly in the discussion of
early intervention programs, it is important to understand the broad differences
in services to mothers and young children in this country compared to the United
States. Australia has always made much greater provision for the health and
well-being of mothers and children in both the prenatal and postnatal period and,
despite recent cut-backs in Australian services, this remains so. There is a long
tradition in this country of the state providing support for the health of all
mothers, babies, and preschool children at no cost or low costs to the families
through mother and child services (such as Maternal and Child Health in
Victoria), through pre and post-natal services in maternity hospitals and through
funding the costs of visits to general practitioners and specialists through
Medicare.
The United States, on the other hand, is a ‘user pays’ society and the
disadvantaged, including babies and pregnant women, suffer the consequences if
they are poor. The cost of health insurance is usually paid by the employer,
except for the working poor, and Medicaid provides very limited cover for the
families of the unemployed. But many children and pregnant women have no
health coverage and these are typically where parents work in low-wage jobs.
One-in-four infants is born to a mother who has not received prenatal care, and
infant mortality is higher in the United States than in 21 other industrialised
countries (National Commission on Children 1991). There is little income support
for the poor, for single-parent families, or for the unemployed and their children.
Child care is generally privately provided and mostly of a lower standard than in
Australia and there is little government support for services. As 50 per cent of
American mothers return to workforce in the first 12 months after the birth of a
baby and 70 per cent in the preschool years, some form of child care plays a much
bigger part than do preschools (kindergartens), about which there is very little
information or discussion. These facts must be taken into account when
considering programs, policies, practice and research findings which originate in
the United States. When considering replicating any program originating in the
17
The first three years
United States under Australian conditions a judgment must be made about
whether it is appropriate or if it should be modified. In Australia the benefits
from some of these programs are already gained from the general social
infrastructure.
Early childhood services in Australia, in contrast to those in the United States,
range from those such as maternal and child health that are universally
available and free, to those that are means-tested and have some associated costs
and which may, like child care, also have priority of access restrictions. The
major services available to families with preschool children in Victoria are the
Maternal and Child Health Service, centre-based long day care, family day care,
occasional care, preschools and early intervention services for children with
special needs, and more recently an expansion of parent education.
The trend in all services to young children and their parents is to lower effective
levels of subsidy with the exception of parenting programs. Reduced funding has
effectively reduced access to these services. The next section provides a brief
overview of trends in the major early childhood services in Victoria.
Maternal and Child Health Service
The Maternal and Child Health Service is free and available to all families with
babies and preschool children. Similar services exist in all states and territories.
These services began early this century in order to promote breast-feeding and to
educate mothers in the care of infants and children, and over the years have
broadened this supportive and educative role. Mothers and babies with problems
and illnesses are referred on to suitable services as needed. In recent years,
policy changes at state level have reduced access to this service. There is a
recommended minimum number of visits based on children’s ages with more
frequent visits when the child is very young (Department of Human Services
1997; Rice 1994; Brown, Lumley & Small 1995). The service is now largely run on
an appointment basis fitting in with these timed visits. The first visit is usually
in the home and mothers can make additional appointments when needed. In
Victoria, the compulsory competitive tendering process, which has led to efforts
to keep costs as low as possible in order to gain the tender, along with the policy
changes discussed above, have led in recent years to a reduced service to mothers
and babies compared with the past.
The Maternal and Child Health Service is indispensable to mothers and young
children as not only is children’s developmental progress monitored but so is the
mother’s health and well-being (Department of Human Services 1997). Nurses
provide information to mothers on breast-feeding and other aspects of mother’s
health, nutrition, home safety, parenting, and also information on other relevant
local services and resources. In this sense they are very much the gatekeepers in
a web of community resources and information and can direct mothers and
children to needed services.
Maternal and Child Health Nurses are trained to be alert for signs of postnatal
depression in mothers and also for any sign that a baby may be at risk of neglect
or abuse. They often initiate the formation of new mothers’ groups, and
sometimes playgroups, and are able to bring together mothers who may
otherwise have been quite isolated. By providing this support so early in
children’s lives they have a vital function in our community which is appreciated
by most mothers (Gilley & Taylor 1995; Ochiltree 1991). However, the long-term
18
The first three years
importance of their preventative and supportive role is sometimes overlooked by
those who fund these services. It is Maternal and Child Health nurses who are
most likely to identify children with problems, including family problems, and
those whose development and later education will suffer because of the
restrictions and limitations of their early childhood environment.
The appointment system affects families using Maternal and Child Health
Services differentially. Low-income families, particularly those involved in an
intergenerational cycle of poverty, do not respond well and frequently do not keep
appointments (Personal communication with providers in Hume, Yarra, and
Banyule Councils 1998). Recently arrived refugees, for example Vietnamese
families in the Broadmeadows area, often fail to access this service. Families
from non-English speaking groups will access the service if it opens at times that
suit them. For example, in some areas Arabic-speaking women will attend if the
service is open at times when their husbands can drive them to visit and perhaps
help with English (Personal communication with Maternal and Child Health
coordinator at Hume 1998).
Maternal and Child Health nurses also report that flexibility of response to
specific situations is restricted by funding in their own and other services
(Personal communication with Maternal and Child Health coordinators at Hume,
Banyule and Yarra 1998). For example, when referring mothers and children to
other services there is often a longer waiting period than is desirable and this
makes difficult situations even more so. Positive outcomes for mothers and
children become less certain.
Child care services
Child care is available in long day care centres, family day care and occasional
care. Child care centres and family day care both provide long day care and
occasional care to preschool children. Occasional care is also provided separately;
often in neighbourhood houses. Families where both parents are working or
studying have top priority for places. Places are available to other families for
only 20 hours a week. There is means-tested fee assistance and a cash rebate to
help cover the costs of centre-based and family day care. However, the level of fee
assistance was frozen by the Federal government in 1996 while the actual costs
of child care have risen since then.
Currently, even when families are entitled to full fee assistance and the cash
rebate, the difference between this assistance and the actual cost puts child care
out of the reach of many low and middle-income families, especially those with
more than one child or where the mother is working part-time (Tasker & Siemon
1998). Up until the last 18 months or so there were waiting lists for entry to
many child care centres. However, centres now report that many places are
available and increasing numbers of centres, both private and community owned,
are closing because they are no longer financially viable. Although family day
care is less costly than centre-based care they also report places available.
Anecdotal evidence is that unregulated ‘backyard’ child minders are on the
increase and these are unlikely to provide the quality care that children from
disadvantaged homes in particular require.
In addition to means-based fee assistance, there is special fee assistance which is
available for emergencies when families are faced with short-term financial
19
The first three years
hardship or temporarily on a very low income. This could be due to loss of
employment, a death or serious illness in the family or because the child is at
risk of abuse or neglect. Special Childcare Assistance can provide the full cost of
child care including the ‘gap’ fee but there is a 13 week limit on its use.
Preschools (kindergartens)
These are funded by state government and are open to all four-year-olds and
some three-year-olds. Preschools are seen by most parents as important to the
social development and education of children, and as a preparation for school
(Taylor 1997). Because they are educational they are highly valued by most
parents and there has always been a high rate of utilisation of the service. For
some children, preschool provides the first real opportunity to mix with other
children without their mothers. Traditionally preschools have provided half-day
sessions, sometimes only four days a week, but parents have made great efforts
so that their children could attend even if they were working and their children
were in child care. The Australian Institute of Family Studies Early Childhood
study in the early 1990s found that sometimes working parents changed the form
of child care in the year before their children started school from centre-based
care to family day care or informal care so that their children could more readily
attend preschool. Family day care workers, grandparents or babysitters took
children to and from preschool so that they did not miss out on the experience
(Greenblat & Ochiltree 1993). The extent to which this still occurs is difficult to
assess. More recently a number of long day care programs have provided
preschool programs within their schedule, but as indicated above, many families
can no longer afford to have their children in centre-based child care.
Changes in the funding arrangements since 1993 have increased the costs of
preschool programs and are a barrier to some children from low-income families
(Taylor 1997). The indications are that quality, in terms of group size and the
employment of less experienced staff, has also been affected. Some preschools
have coped with the increased costs and reduced funding by reducing hours of
opening and preparation time for staff. Others have coped by offering more
variety in programming including a limited number of full days rather than
sessional.
Specialist children’s services
These are targeted specifically at children with special or additional needs.
Children may have additional needs because their development is delayed or
different to other children and they may require assessment and specialised
support (Office of the Family 1996). Specialist children’s services provide
information and education to families on issues relating to children with
additional needs; they provide specialised services such as physiotherapy or
speech therapy programs to meet the individual needs of children and families
and they facilitate access to services such as child care and preschool.
There are specialised interventions for children including special education and
therapy programs. Counselling is also provided for families related to their
child’s special needs. Special needs children are largely integrated into other
services such as child care and preschool although there are sometimes problems
obtaining sufficient financial support for aides (McLeod 1994).
20
The first three years
Services are accessed through Maternal and Child Health nurses, general
practitioners or paediatricians, or parents may access them directly. These
services have also suffered from funding cuts and rationalisation and other
services such as Maternal and Child Health report delays in obtaining assistance
for children and families.
Parenting education
In addition to direct services to mothers and children, more recent government
initiatives at both the State and Federal level aim at supporting parenting
through parent education. In many ways this is a sensible response when it
appears that so many new parents, including parents in disadvantaged families,
are anxious about their parenting and therefore may have unrealistic
expectations of their children and themselves. However, the important question
is whether these educational approaches reach the parents who are most in need
of support, and in terms of this brief, whether it makes a difference to the
educational achievement of children from the disadvantaged families discussed
earlier in this paper.
The Victorian Government is involved in a range of parent education initiatives
operating from the Office of the Family in the Department of Human Services.
These consist of the Positive Parenting Program, Parent Resource coordinators
across the state including rural areas, the Parenting Skills Development
Initiative, the Victorian Parenting Centre and Parentline. These initiatives are
not only related to the care of preschool children but to parenting children of all
ages. However, because they are viewed as a highly desirable policy direction for
government they are worth more detailed description and analysis of their
usefulness to the disadvantaged families discussed earlier. Nevertheless, not
every single aspect of every program will be included. Rather, the focus is on the
major program and policy thrusts at the time of writing.
The Positive Parenting Program (PPP)
The first of these parenting initiatives is the Positive Parenting Program (PPP), a
joint program with the Department of Psychology at the University of
Queensland.
PPP provides a range of parent information products, professional resources and
training programs for Victorian service providers who play critical roles in
supporting parents in the task of raising children. Service providers include
Maternal and Child Health nurses, general practitioners, family counselors, child
care workers and kindergarten teachers. (Office of the Family 1997, p.4).
The aims of the program are to promote the health and independence of families
through enhancing the skills and knowledge of parents; promoting nurturing
environments for young children; the development of healthy and competent
young children; and the reduction of child abuse, behavioural problems, mental
illness, delinquency and homelessness.
Parentline
21
The first three years
Parentline is a centrally-operated telephone help line which provides parenting
information and advice for parents of children from birth to18 years. Parents will
be referred to local services if appropriate. The aim of Parentline is to improve
the development, health, safety and well-being of children. This service has close
links with the Maternal and Child Health After Hours Telephone Service and the
After Hours Child Protection Service.
The Victorian Parenting Centre (VPC)
This newly created centre will undertake research and evaluation, program and
resource development, professional training and statewide coordination relating
to parenting and parenting programs. The centre will work closely with the
Regional Parenting Resource Services and has been funded initially for three
years. It has already initiated an audit of current parenting programs.
Regional Parenting Resource Services (RPRS)
The nine regional parent resource services work in conjunction with the Victorian
Parenting Centre. Again services are to parents and other caregivers of children
from birth to 18 years. Their activities include linking and coordinating existing
services and forming a parent education and support network, provision of
information and resources aimed at enhancing family functioning, provision of
information about relevant services to parents, training for professionals and
support for the Positive Parenting Program, and promotion and advocacy of
parenting.
Parenting resource coordinators
Parenting resource coordinators commenced in the regions in1989. They are
resourced by state and federal governments. Their role is very similar to that of
the regional parenting resource services and discussions have occurred to ensure
appropriate sharing of information and resources.
22
The first three years
Commonwealth parenting education initiatives
‘Supporting families: a national parenting initiative’ was launched in July 1998
by the Federal Minister for Family and Children’s Services. This initiative has
been funded through the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy and
includes seven projects focusing on primary prevention and early intervention to
support families. These projects include programs for adolescents and their
parents as well as for parents of younger children. They are based on the belief
that effective parenting can improve the mental health of children and
adolescents and provides extra supports for families facing difficulties. All
programs funded under this initiative will be evaluated and the results fed back
into further funded initiatives. The National coordinator is located within Jesuit
Social Services.
Critiques of parenting education
It is clear that both state and federal governments intend to continue supporting
a network of parenting education services and programs of various types, linking
programs, and sharing information. However, the extent to which parenting
programs in general reach parents in disadvantaged circumstances is uncertain.
Indirectly the training of service providers in parenting may prove useful when
working with parents from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, poverty,
stress, violence and/or language and cultural differences make it unlikely that
these parents will access parenting programs directly unless the programs are
especially designed to reach them. The Federal initiatives are more targeted to
specific groups of parents, often those in difficult circumstances but usually with
older children.
Hamner and Turner (1996) have reviewed parenting education programs in the
United States, many the same or similar to those used here. They make two
important criticisms. The first is that strategies suggested within many
programs do not differentiate between the ages and gender of children. The
second is that they do not take into account cultural and social class differences
nor do they take account of poverty. A group of American researchers (Thompson,
Grow, Ruma, Daly & Burke 1993, cited in Hamner & Turner 1996) who
investigated parenting programs argue that most are oriented to the middle
classes. Where programs have been successful with disadvantaged families they
… have used methods designed especially for low income families—home visits to
individualize the support, make-up sessions for families unable to be present for
all treatment sessions, and financial incentives for completing the program. They
found that lectures/discussion/reading approaches did not work with low income
parents, but a modeling/role-playing approach was more successful for teaching
new skills. (Hamner & Turner, p.148)
These researchers also emphasised the importance of practical skills which can
be immediately implemented at home. Hamner and Turner suggest that a more
profitable approach for parents would be to provide basic information about child
development rather than parenting guidelines.
Some of the programs in the Federal Government-initiated strategy are targeted
to specific groups with difficulties and will also be evaluated. These targeted
programs are more likely to make a difference to families in disadvantaged
23
The first three years
circumstances but there are a limited number of programs across a very large
country.
Trends in services to mothers and preschool children in
Victoria
Most services to preschool children and their families in Victoria have been
affected by economic cutbacks at all levels of government. The restriction of
budgets and compulsory competitive tendering for Maternal and Child Health
services appears to have gone beyond efficiency gains to restriction of access.
Similarly, reduced funding to child care through the freezing of Childcare
Assistance, the loss of the operational subsidy to the community-owned sector
and the resulting increased costs to parents using either privately or communityowned centres has restricted access. Reduced funding and increased costs for
preschool attendance has again restricted access for the children of families on
low incomes—often the very children who could benefit most from attendance. All
sectors of the early childhood field also report that there is a much longer waiting
period for any specialist assistance for children with special needs or other
difficulties such as behavioural or health problems.
Only two sectors of service have not been cut back: the first is crisis intervention
when suspected child abuse is reported; the second is parenting education which
aims at preventing parenting problems through empowering parents and
enhancing their parenting skills and confidence. Neither program is restricted to
early childhood but covers older children also.
Overall, it is families from disadvantaged backgrounds that appear to be most
negatively affected by restricted access to early childhood services. Conversely, it
is children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to be reported
as at risk of child abuse and neglect. Thorpe’s (1994) analysis of reports to the
Child Protection section of the Department of Community Services in Western
Australia indicates a much higher representation of families from disadvantaged
backgrounds, including Aboriginal children, in those reported for abuse or
neglect, although not all cases were substantiated. James Garborino (1995)
makes a similar point in discussing American research. It appears that those who
could most benefit from supportive services do not use them because they are
either too difficult to access, not suited to their circumstances, or, in the case of
child care, too expensive except where services make special provision for access
and/or target programs to these families.
What is apparent, but is not new, is the fact that services for preschool children
are handled by several government departments and by three tiers of
government: local, state and federal. This makes for additional complications in
serving the needs of young children and their families. For example, child care is
particularly difficult because while the State government Department of Human
Services is responsible for regulating these services, the Federal government
influences policy directions through funding which at present is linked with
accreditation and quality assurance. Some local councils in turn manage
community-based long day care centres and sometimes family day care schemes.
Preschool on the other hand is a state responsibility although at times local
government may be involved. In terms of any educational intervention in the
preschool years this presents particular difficulties in raising enthusiasm for new
policy directions in the years prior to school. The Victorian Education
24
The first three years
Department is not involved in child care or health and only marginally involved
with preschools. It is also unlikely that the three tiers of government will change
their responsibilities to make sense from the point of view of children and
families.
In addition to the difficulties involved in sorting through the practical and policy
directions of these various influences, both direct and indirect, staff who work in
the various early childhood services come from a range of different disciplinary
and training backgrounds. This sometimes makes communication between
services, and between services and parents, more difficult than it should be.
Interpretation of children’s behaviour, needs and difficulties is often at cross
purposes because of the different backgrounds of the professionals working in the
services. There is no way round these difficulties at present other than more
sharing of staff development opportunities and eventually some sharing of ‘core’
courses during basic and further training. Universities and TAFE are unlikely at
present to be interested in major changes in basic training and pre-service
courses unless it brings in more students and more money. A postgraduate
diploma is a possibility but the same caveats apply. It is very difficult to make
these types of changes and even where there is a will it usually takes several
years to achieve.
Interventions for children at risk of abuse and/or neglect or
experiencing inadequate parenting
Beyond these general support programs, there are a number of intervention
programs which are aimed at minimising the danger of child abuse or neglect in
children from families with a variety of risk factors—behavioural, psychiatric,
drug and alcohol problems. These programs usually originate from a child
protection perspective. The families involved are usually disadvantaged socioeconomically or locationally (by isolation and lack of services) but not necessarily
so. There are a number of these programs in Victoria and other states of
Australia and many in the United States. Some Australian programs have been
developed here and others are based on American models. The programs focus on
the parents—usually mothers—rather than the children.
In Australia, mothers taking part in some of these parenting intervention
programs are selected on the basis of assessment or identification of need as soon
as possible after the birth of their child. In some programs assessments are
carried out in the hospital and followed up at home but usually mothers having
difficulties which may place their child at risk are identified by the Maternal and
Child Health nurse, a GP or some other person who comes in contact with the
family. (Currently the Department of Human Services is embarking on an overall
cohesive strategy for identifying children at risk.) Programs usually provide
additional support to the mother in the home and monitor and support her
parenting. Sometimes mothers are given the opportunity to take part in a live-in
program which aims to improve her parenting and her knowledge of child
development and children’s needs. Children may or may not be placed in child
care for additional support and to provide respite for mothers. Sometimes support
is not part of an organised or evaluated program but provided by the local council
or some other organisation which works within the community to support
families with high needs or serious problems.
25
The first three years
The following are two of the better known and evaluated programs of this type in
the United States.
The Prenatal Early Infancy Project focused on the prenatal period and the first
two years of life. Four hundred mostly (85 per cent) low income, unmarried,
teenage women expecting their first child were involved until their children were
four (Shore 1997). The program aimed at improving the health of the mothers,
strengthening their parenting skills, helping them to learn to problem solve and
plan their futures, and to help set their children on the pathway to success. The
program involved home visits by nurses, screening for health problems, and
transport to health care. It helped mothers to become economically self-sufficient
through planning for the future.
For these vulnerable mothers there was an 80 per cent reduction in the rate of
neglect and abuse, an 83 per cent increase in the number of years they
participated in the workforce and reduced public assistance expenditure leading
to cost savings. Follow-up research indicated that participants continued to
benefit and were less likely to rely on welfare, and that there was a 50 per cent
reduction in the rates of abuse and neglect.
The Healthy Start scheme is a home visiting program which operates in various
parts of the United States and which is committed to reducing the incidence of
child abuse and neglect by supporting vulnerable mothers and children (Shore
1997). Healthy Start systematically identifies and intervenes with at-risk
families. It works to improve family functioning, to promote good parenting and
positive parent-child interactions and to promote children’s development.
Evaluations of Healthy Start programs indicate that there are significant drops
in the level of child abuse and neglect and in risk factors. Healthy Start uses an
early identification screening process and an intensive home visiting program
tailored to the needs of particular families. The home visiting program is focused
on the needs of the child and the overall orientation of these programs is
prevention.
There are a number of programs running in Melbourne which aim at improving
early parenting, particularly of children at risk. Some are based in areas of low
socio-economic status and with high numbers of NESB families, sometimes
recently arrived, such as in Heidelberg, Broadmeadows, Collingwood and
Richmond. Most of these are pilot programs and funded through the Department
of Human Services New Initiatives Program. Some programs, particularly those
in areas such as West Heidelberg, aim at early intervention to prevent children
ending up in child protection services. They deal with broad issues, such as
inappropriate housing, safety and family violence, as well as with parenting
issues. Child care is often used for the children, and as the centre in West
Heidelberg is co-located with the health service, it is easy to coordinate usage.
What is important to note in these projects is that although they aim to improve
the circumstances of children through better parenting and to prevent child
abuse or neglect, on the whole they do not go further and have no direct aim of
improving the educational achievement of children. Such interventions, while
protecting children and making family life a little easier for them and improving
their life chances more generally, may be insufficient to improve their future
educational achievement. However, there is always the possibility of extending
such a program and working with the children with the specific aim of improving
their educational outcomes as a joint project.
26
The first three years
Improving educational opportunities for disadvantaged
children
Much of the knowledge of early interventions to improve the life chances of
children in low-income families comes from the experience of Head Start and
similar programs in the United States. Until recently, most of the Head Start
programs have been more closely akin to our preschools (kindergartens) with a
broader program more directly focused on health and preparation for school
learning. Government-supported preschools as they exist in Australia are not
available to disadvantaged children in the United States. These Head Start
programs usually include components for parents such as information on child
development, parenting, nutrition, educational issues and general parenting
information but they are directly focused on improving the educational outcomes
for children.
Head Start and early intervention
Since the 1970s it has been known that well-designed preschool interventions can
be successful in improving the educational performance of children from
disadvantaged and minority families (Ball 1994; Carnegie Task Force 1994;
Ochiltree 1994).
The country which has led the field in educational interventions for children at
risk of educational failure is the United States. (Australia has very few
educational interventions in the preschool years and some of these will be
discussed later.) Project Head Start, the most well-known of the interventions,
commenced in the 1960s as part of the ‘War on Poverty’. However, there were
also a number of research-based longitudinal early intervention projects which
started around the same time (Ochiltree 1994).
The major influences on these programs, which initially aimed to raise the IQ
scores of poor and disadvantaged children, were the Civil Rights movement with
its support for racial and economic equality, and scholarly works which pointed
out the importance of the environment in the development of intelligence.
McHunt argued in his 1961 book Intelligence and Experience (cited in Condry
1983) that intelligence was not genetically fixed but the product of the
environment. (This is not the same as the brain development research. McHunt’s
views were based on research which showed that the IQ could be increased by
intervention.) He believed that IQ scores of disadvantaged children could be
raised by as much as 50 to 70 points. Later there was much questioning of what
IQ tests actually measure and recognition that middle-class children are more
motivated and better prepared to cope with the format and content of IQ tests,
but at the time improvement in IQ seemed a reasonable aim. Head Start thus
started out to change the environment of poor and disadvantaged preschool
children in the hope of improving their educational achievement when they
entered the school system. The projects started out as brief eight-week programs
but quickly changed to year-round programs for 3 and 4-year-olds. Only
relatively recently has Head Start faced the challenge of integrating child care
into programs so that parents can take employment.
Head Start programs were based on the belief that the educational achievement
of children would improve if they were given opportunities to experience and
27
The first three years
learn the skills of middle-class children. Nevertheless, it was also argued that
these disadvantaged children had cultures and skills different from, rather than
inferior to, those of middle-class children and that it was the schools that needed
to change and be more accepting of these differences. However, children from
disadvantaged backgrounds without doubt benefited from access to different
forms of knowledge and they benefited even more where schools were involved
and more accepting and supportive.
Early intervention projects, including Project Head Start, despite originally
aiming at increasing the IQ of children, took a holistic approach to children’s
development and included both health and parenting support in these programs.
Education and learning were interpreted broadly and there was concern to
promote social competence. Programs encouraged the development of children’s
language skills, self-reliance and self-esteem; health programs provided medical
and dental examinations and immunisation; parents were involved as teacher
aides, and there were classes for parents on a range of subjects including child
rearing and English language; meals and snacks were provided for children and
nutrition information for parents. Access to social and psychological services were
also provided through referrals (Condry 1983). However, the major focus was
always on improved educational outcomes for children.
Evaluations of Head Start
Initial evaluations of Head Start programs, the most famous being the 1969
Westinghouse study, showed early and immediate effects of the program on the
IQs of children but also found that these gains did not last (cited in Condry 1983).
The control groups of children from similar backgrounds soon caught up with the
children in the Head Start groups and both groups had poor levels of academic
achievement. The achievement of children in both control and Head Start groups
could be predicted from the low socio-economic status of the families.
Nevertheless, although IQ gains made by children were not sustained and at this
time Head Start was seen as a failure, parents expressed strong approval for the
programs and the effects on children.
The early evaluations of Head Start were criticised for methodological limitations
and cultural biases but later evaluations, particularly those of the research-based
longitudinal early intervention studies, found positive gains made by the children
who had participated. Participating children had higher IQ scores than controls,
although IQ gains did not remain after completion of the programs, but there
were also positive effects on their motivational, social, and emotional behaviour.
It was in the very long-term evaluations that the most important gains became
apparent.
Long-term evaluations of the various early interventions programs in the US,
including Head Start, indicated that although children involved in these
programs did not reach the same levels of achievement as children from more
affluent and advantaged families, as had originally been hoped in the 1960s,
there were positive effects on both the cognitive and social development of
children. The chances of later success at school were raised by these programs:
there were greater rates of school completion, children were less likely to be in
special education classes or to repeat a grade. It appeared that while the early
cognitive gains were not sustained, children were better prepared to cope with
the educational opportunities offered by schools rather than experiencing early
28
The first three years
failure. Where support was offered in the transition to school and in the early
years of schooling, the earlier gains of children were more likely to be sustained.
What these programs appeared to do for children was to keep educational doors
open so that they could progress through school with their peers.
The Perry Preschool Program in particular demonstrated that the gains of early
intervention extended into adulthood and that there were long term benefits to
society (Barnett 1993). This program, which was for low-IQ African–American
children aged three or four from disadvantaged families who attended the
program for a daily half-day session for either one or two years, led to improved
school success. When they were older, participants were less likely to be involved
in delinquency or experience teenage pregnancy and had improved their
likelihood of employment.
Many early intervention projects, and especially the Head Start programs,
involved parents in a variety of ways so that they were part of the learning. They
also provided health support, social and educational services, and linked families
with other services in the community. In the United States where health care is
expensive and based on user pays, parents particularly appreciated the
additional benefits of these programs.
Other achievements of Head Start were the gains for adults from low-income
families, as the programs have largely been run by the poor for the poor. Seventy
per cent of the teaching staff have been from low-income families and many
unqualified people have received training and qualifications through the program
and have thus increased their earning capacity. In 1993, more than a third of
Head Start staff were current or former program parents (Collins 1993).
There have been some other interventions that were not so successful. These
provide useful information about difficulties that can be met in planning
programs. As a result of Congress concerns about young children in high-risk,
low-income families, in 1988 the Comprehensive Child Development Program
(CCDP) was created within the Head Start Bureau (Head Start home page 1999).
This program, which was not directly focused on the children, was not successful
in improving child outcomes. Thirty-four demonstration programs were funded
where case managers linked families with specific services in their community or
they created special services within their agencies to meet the particular needs of
families. The families involved were those with very low-income, mostly minority,
single unemployed mothers who were dependent on welfare benefits. The
program aimed to improve developmental outcomes for children and improve
family self-sufficiency by referring families to services to meet their identified
needs.
The CCDP program was evaluated from the outset by randomly assigning the
4,000-plus families to either the experimental or control group. The evaluators
found no consistent differences between families in the two groups. The major
reason given for the failure of CCDP was that the services to which the families
were referred did not focus directly on child outcomes but indirectly on things
such as helping parents to improve their parenting skills and that some of the
services were of low or poor quality. It was concluded that:
… intensive, focused services provided directly to children and linked to distinctly
defined outcomes are critical to success. As the evaluation asserted, several
recent studies confirm that early childhood programs achieve important benefits
and the most impressive long-term effects on children’s cognitive development
29
The first three years
and on mothers’ parenting skills and behaviors when the families participated in
intensive early childhood programs. The evaluation confirms ‘… the best way to
achieve positive effects is to provide intensive services directly to the individuals
that you hope to affect’ (Head Start 1998a, p.2).
According to Schweinhart and Weikart (1986), who were involved in the Perry
Preschool Program, there is no need for further evaluations of early intervention
programs as they have demonstrated that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
children from low-income families who attend a good preschool child
development program are better prepared for school academically and
socially;
this better start in school helps children achieve greater school success
and there is less likelihood of failure; and
greater school success leads to more success in adolescence and adulthood
and less likelihood of delinquency and teenage pregnancy, higher rates of
secondary school completion and employment and less use of welfare
support.
Most Head Start and early intervention programs discussed involved programs
which started when children were 3 or 4 years old. In some ways they are like
our sessional preschool programs but more specifically focused on the needs of
disadvantaged children and with additional services and supports for their
parents. The benefits of involving parents in these programs and improving their
skills meant they continued to influence their children’s development as they got
older and to provide appropriate role models.
Head Start and child care for children from birth to three
The social context for these early educational intervention programs in the
United States has changed since the 1960s and 1970s. The greatest family
change overall has been the increase in the proportion of mothers of preschool
children who are in the workforce, often full-time. There has been an increase in
the number of female-headed single-parent families in the United States, usually
due to divorce, but also to teenage pregnancies and ex-nuptial births, and the
difficulties for these mothers in gaining well-paying work have left many on very
low incomes. Certain minority groups such as African and Latin–Americans in
the United States have higher levels of unemployment.
To accommodate these changes and to encourage single mothers to seek
employment, the United States Head Start programs adapted by extending the
hours and services to provide full day care for infants and toddlers as well as for
older preschool children. Parent involvement in these projects also needed
restructuring to accommodate working parents. Some early intervention projects
began including child care as part of their programs (not all were Head Start
programs). It is from these programs that perhaps the most relevant information
for current Australian circumstances can be gleaned.
The Abecadarian project successfully combined early intervention and child care
in an experimental program (Ramey & Campbell 1987;1991). The program
involved 120 children from predominantly African–American low-income
families. It aimed at enhancing cognitive and linguistic development of children
in the treatment groups and ensuring that these children should experience
mastery and success. The children were randomly assigned to one of four groups.
30
The first three years
The first group of children started in child care from about four months of age
and the intervention continued until they were aged eight; the second group of
children started in child care from four months and intervention continued until
they were five; intervention with the third group started at five years and
continued until they were eight; and the fourth group received no special early
childhood intervention. The program involved early childhood education, family
counselling, home visits, health and nutrition services, speech and language
services, transport and social work services. It was claimed no intervention was
involved that could not be incorporated into other preschool services and school
systems.
The Abecaderian project found that intervention for children in low-income
families is most successful and most enduring when it is in the preschool years
rather than the school years—and the earlier the better. Intervention is also
more effective when it continues in the early years of school. Children who did
not receive intervention until they started school showed no gains in academic
performance. Other studies of the intellectual development of socio-economically
disadvantaged children have found that enrolment in good quality early
intervention day care programs has improved the intellectual development of
children, including their language skills and social development (Phillips 1987;
Burchinal & Ramey 1989). Project CARE (which followed the Abecaderian
project) found that children who received full day centre-based child care and
home visits did better than those who received home visits only or the control
group which received no intervention services (cited in Shore 1997).
Ramey and Campbell (1991) argue that:
The Abecaderian experiment and several other carefully designed interventions
demonstrate that early educational intervention can significantly benefit children
at high risk of academic failure. Early childhood education can enhance
intellectual growth and improve later school performance. Taken together with
results from similar experiments with disadvantaged children, our results
suggest that educational intervention should begin early in the life span and
continue at least into the primary grades. Children who appear to benefit most
are those born to low-IQ, impoverished mothers. To put it another way, those
children who need intervention the most appear to benefit the most. (p.218)
Similarly, the Report of the Carnegie Task Force Starting points: meeting the
needs of our youngest children (1994) in the United States pointed out the crucial
importance of the first three years of life in children’s development. The report
recommended, in the light of new research and experience, that for Head Start to
be most effective in alleviating the effects of disadvantage it needs to start in the
period from birth to three and provide continuing support until children start
school. In the American context it is recommended that the service starts before
birth so that mothers and children receive health care and advice, as this is not
readily available or free as it is in Australia.
The Head Start Bureau has initiated a number of Early Head Start programs for
the age group birth to three. The key elements of these Early Head Start
programs are: an intensive focus on all aspects of child development, social,
emotional, cognitive and physical; involving the parents as partners in the
development of their children as caregivers and teachers; and supporting parents
in their efforts to become self-sufficient (Head Start 1998b). The cornerstones of
quality in this program are child and family development, community building
and staff development.
31
The first three years
Early Head Start programs include quality early education both in the home and
out; home visits especially to families with infants; parent education and
activities involving parent and child; health services and nutrition; parent
support through case management and peer support groups. Both centre-based
and home-based child care is used in these Early Head Start programs. (This
appears a good model that could be used in Australia but would be very
expensive and require considerable planning and coordination.)
It appears from these American programs that interventions targeted directly on
developmental outcomes for disadvantaged children in the first three years of life
are successful. The practical programs described above, and recent information
on brain development in the first three years, suggest that very early
intervention improves educational achievement and the long-term life chances of
children from disadvantaged families particularly where there is additional
support at school.
Literacy and Head Start
‘Head Start has long recognised the importance of supporting parents’ efforts to
attain family self-sufficiency and to be their child’s first and most important
teacher’ (O’Brien 1990, p.1). Literacy is seen as a critical aspect of achieving
family self-sufficiency and it is important that parents place a high value on the
acquisition of literacy skills.
Family literacy was identified as a Head Start priority at the start of the 1990s
and a critical aspect of social competence. The aim for Head Start was that by
1992 every program should have a literacy program for families in place. The
difference between these programs and many literacy programs in schools is that
they focus on the family and promote literacy for both parents and children and
they aim to break the intergenerational cycle of illiteracy that exists in many
low-income families. Family literacy programs are not distinct from the rest of
the Head Start program, but are one aspect of regular activities based on an
assessment of family needs. Parents’ desire to support their child’s emerging
literacy motivates interest in improving their own skills. The focus is on
intergenerational literacy as parents who are literate themselves are better able
to take an active role in their children’s education.
32
The first three years
Lessons from Head Start programs
There is much that can be learnt from the Head Start programs after
approximately 30 years of experience. Head Start has always aimed to improve
the social competence of children and has always recognised the importance of
parents in achieving this goal. Involving parents improves outcomes for children,
but it also provides parents with skills, both as a parent and as an individual.
Many parents go on to work in Head Start programs and later to other work on
the basis of their experience. The self-esteem of parents improves as a result of
Head Start experience and they in turn provide models of efficacy to their
children. Because parents are included in programs they are able to continue
supporting their children even when the program finishes.
As discussed, Head Start programs work with parents in many ways: teaching
them about health and nutrition, parenting skills, sometimes giving them access
to counselling or health services and also knowledge about children’s
development and learning. In the first instance parents often learn together
separately from their children. However, they are able to put what they learn
into practice with their children at home as they go along so that practice is very
related to the learning. Some programs, but not all, will involve parents and
children together at times. If parents are at work and the children are in a form
of Head Start that involves child care, the parents and children rarely have the
opportunity to be together except at home. Nevertheless the aim in these
programs is always to bring needed information and changed behaviour into the
family setting so that it influences the relationship between parents and children
and continues to do so even when the program has concluded. Parents involved in
Head Start gain control and mastery in their parenting roles and cease to feel
helpless and/or inadequate.
Current and past Australian programs aimed at raising
educational achievement
Despite the fact that services to families with preschool children in the United
States are very different to those in Australia, particularly in regard to the
availability of free health services for mothers and children pre- and post-natally,
there are still some important things we can learn from American programs and
evaluations, provided the differences in basic policies and demographic
differences are taken into account.
Australia has had little in the way of these early intervention programs in the
past with the exception of a major project to improve educational achievement of
children in Mount Druitt in the 1970s (Braithwaite & Alexander 1983). Currently
there is the HIPPY program which was recently started in Victoria by the
Brotherhood and is also operating in some other locations. There are also family
literacy programs but they are not always aimed specifically at children from
disadvantaged families (Cairney 1997).
As the Brotherhood is now providing a HIPPY program it is worth looking more
closely at what is involved and what the evaluations indicate about the
effectiveness of this program
33
The first three years
The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Children (HIPPY) is a parenting
program which originated in Israel. It is a franchised program which operates in
a number of countries throughout the world including New Zealand where its
effectiveness has been evaluated comprehensively. The HIPPY program is
expensive and costs much the same as providing a place in a preschool.
HIPPY is designed to provide educational enrichment for 4 and 5-year-olds from
educationally disadvantaged families. The emphasis is on improving learning but
particularly language and cognitive development. It builds parents’ awareness
and skills as home educators although it includes a centre-based component. The
materials used in the HIPPY program are highly structured and also contain
many ‘Americanisms’. Children join the program when the child is about 4 years
old and it consists of a 30-week schedule each year for two years. Each child
receives about 50 hours of activity per year.
The program operates through a HIPPY coordinator and a tutor who work with
the parents. Tutors visit the parents in their homes once a fortnight and work
through the worksheets with them. Parents meet with the coordinator and tutors
as a group on the alternative fortnights. Modules in the program include problem
solving, language, sensory discrimination and mathematics.
A review of the literature associated with this program (New Zealand Ministry of
Health 1997) indicates that when mothers drop out of the program they can
suffer a fall in self-esteem which lasts for two years or more and thus target
families should be carefully selected to avoid those that are highly stressed by
internal and/or external pressures. An evaluation (New Zealand Ministry of
Health 1997) suggests that the HIPPY program is not suitable for use with
highly stressed families or only after other more imperative needs are met.
Mothers who remained in the New Zealand program felt satisfied with the
program and the progress of their children at school. Teachers were more
circumspect about children’s success than were parents. Tests indicated that
HIPPY children had improved their language skills compared with a control
group of children from low-income families who were taking part in the
Competent Children study, and there was a trend to improved reading ability.
HIPPY children were also holding their own in regard to mathematics.
Just under half the New Zealand families who started in the HIPPY program
dropped out or did not complete the program. Much of this was due to the
mobility of the target group and the highly structured nature and organisation of
the program with only one time of entry per year. There were also problems in
defining the target group. There was fear of stigmatisation of participants but
also recognition that the program would not benefit middle-class children.
The New Zealand evaluation found there was a need for cultural modification of
the program materials to suit Maori people and to cope with other cultural
differences and also so that the communities using the program felt a sense of
ownership. Overall, with the qualifications already mentioned, children who were
involved were more able to ‘hold their own’ at school than might have been
expected from features of their family background.
The big advantage of the HIPPY program is that it is pre-packaged and marketed
in a way that makes it easier for people to be aware of the program and to use
it—regardless of the limitations pointed out in evaluations.
34
The first three years
35
The first three years
3. Given the current context, in which ways can the
Brotherhood best contribute to reducing the lifetime
disadvantages of such children through initiatives in
service practice, policy development or public
advocacy?
The evidence presented suggests that interventions are most effective in
improving the educational achievement of children from disadvantaged families
if they commence in the first three years of life, as it is in this period that it is
likely to have the greatest impact on children’s brain development. By enhancing
children’s environment and the important relationships with their parents at this
stage, there are improved opportunities for physical, intellectual, social and
emotional development which can lead later to greater educational achievement
when children reach school. Crisis intervention may be effective for particular
problems in the family, but the most effective strategy for enhancing children’s
life chances appears to be to focus specifically on their development and to
empower parents through practical knowledge of the developing child and
through improving their own skills.
Where children are likely to be disadvantaged educationally by their family
backgrounds, it appears that universal services, particularly as they now operate
in these straitened times, are necessary but not sufficient to cope with the
additional needs of these families. Services often need modification to suit
specific family circumstances (see the earlier discussion of Maternal and Child
Health services and programs to meet the needs of particular families) and
special funding of some sort is needed. This is particularly so for multi-problem
or highly stressed families; for families in an intergenerational cycle of poverty;
for recently arrived migrants; for refugees and families from non-English
speaking backgrounds and indeed for most of the families discussed at the start
of this document.
Waiting lists for specific health and psychological assessment services mean that
families cannot get the help they need without waiting, sometimes for a
considerable time, and for many families this presents difficulties with transport,
with arrangements for the care of other children, with the availability of
interpreters etc. and added stress for the family. For many families this is all too
difficult, particularly if they have to access several services, unless they are
supported through the process. These days it is difficult for services to find the
time and resources involved to support families through the web of other
agencies and services. Public hospitals are also short of money; there are long
waiting lists for many services; emergency services are stretched to the limit and
waits with small children can be a ‘nightmare’.
For universal services such as Maternal and Child Health services to attempt to
improve the educational achievement of children from disadvantaged families
directly seems almost impossible unless they mount a special program which
they may well see as outside their brief. They may improve the parenting the
child receives in general, and the health of mother and/or child, but they are
unlikely to have a direct effect on educational outcomes for the child.
Furthermore, specific programs originating out of these services usually focus on
improved parenting, child protection and improved health outcomes for mother
and child. However, there is always the possibility of linking in with an
education-focused initiative from another agency.
36
The first three years
Child care, which can provide respite for stressed mothers and families, and a
supportive and stimulating environment for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds, is now too expensive for most disadvantaged families to access even
when they are entitled to full fee assistance and the cash rebate, unless they are
funded under a special program. Children who are placed in child care in these
circumstances, however, are likely to be there because they are ‘at risk’ of abuse
or neglect rather than because they are at risk of educational failure.
These children may well benefit from the stimulating environment of good
quality child care. However, we know that centres are finding it difficult to
remain financially viable and quality may suffer as a result. Victorian
regulations now stipulate a staff–child ratio of one staff member to five children
under three and of one qualified staff member to fifteen children under three.
This makes the care of babies and toddlers in child care problematic as they need
more physical and emotional attention from a few well-known caregivers than
older children.
Targeted programs
If centre-based child care or family day care is to be used to raise the educational
achievement of children from disadvantaged families, it should be within a
targeted and monitored project which would need to be funded by some
specifically allocated money. The focus should be on improving the educational
achievement, and in particular literacy, of the children involved when they
commence formal education in the school system. Ideally these children should
also be supported in the first years of school. All new initiatives with specific
objectives related to education should be evaluated.
Targeted programs always have the possibility of stigmatising the participants
but it appears from the research discussed earlier that they also offer the
possibility of greater success for children and improved skills for parents.
Targeted programs, which not only focus on the specific child outcomes but also
include improving the skills, knowledge and self-esteem of the parents, have
much greater chances of success in the long-term. However, if targeted programs
mean that children from disadvantaged families have no chance to mix with
children from more advantaged families, they may miss out on learning and
friendships within a wider social group.
Targeted programs which involve parents provide opportunities for them to learn
in a supportive and accepting environment where they do not feel they are out of
step with other parents and where there is the possibility of raising their selfesteem through success and mastery.
In planning any targeted program aimed at improving the educational
achievement of children, the first step is to determine the target group—for
example, all families in a particular location or neighbourhood; families which
are economically disadvantaged; those where the children are ‘at risk’; those
where English is not spoken at home, etc. In a targeted program the selection of
the families is an important component. (Witness the problems associated with
the selection of families for the HIPPY program [New Zealand Ministry of Health
1997].)
37
The first three years
A targeted project from the early years through to early schooling would be very
expensive and the Brotherhood is currently supporting parents and children
through The Cottage and the HIPPY project. Both should have positive outcomes
for families at some level and HIPPY should be successful within the limits
discussed earlier. The Cottage offers the greatest opportunity to provide small
specific programs aimed at improving educational achievement possibly focusing
on activities which are associated with success in literacy.
A strategy for The Cottage
Family literacy programs seem to offer the greatest opportunity to test the
effectiveness of small intervention programs aimed at improving children’s
educational achievement and focusing on literacy. Such programs should focus on
both parent (mother?) and child, sometimes together—if possible, but also quite
separately. The objective should be to improve child outcomes. Evaluations
should assess this although there are likely to be secondary objectives for parents
such as improving their own literacy and/or English and improved parenting
skills. Programs should provide parents with the skills to help their children
acquire literacy by assisting parents to improve their own skills as well as
learning about their children’s development.
Interventions could be over a very short period of a few weeks or for a longer
period. Occasional care could be used while the parents met as a group. Direction
and objectives for programs could be developed in consultation with the parents
and would depend to some extent on the composition of the group and/or how it
was targeted. For example, programs could be targeted at new mothers, or those
with children under three, or restricted to NESB families.
The publication Promoting family literacy through Head Start gives a
comprehensive overview of family literacy. It includes: intergenerational literacy;
first steps in promoting family literacy; volunteers as family literacy resources;
designing activities to promote family literacy; increasing access to family
literacy opportunities; supporting parents as teachers; supporting Head Start
parents as adult learners; and insights from Head Start literacy demonstration
projects. There is also a useful appendix listing relevant publications and
organisations. (Located in the AIFS Family Information Centre F 649.1 O’BR.)
This publication is an excellent easily-read starting point for new programs and
would be a useful starting point in designing programs for The Cottage as the
focus is directly on working with disadvantaged families.
A second useful Head Start publication is A handbook for involving parents in
Head Start (Head Start Bureau 1992). This is a more general introduction to
involving parents in programs but again based on the view that parents are
children’s first teachers. It has chapters on getting parents involved, making
decisions with parents, supporting parents as prime educators of children and so
on. (Located in the AIFS Family Information Centre F 649.1 HAN.)
Intervention programs in The Cottage (or elsewhere) should be viewed as
developmental. Documentation and evaluation should be seen as integral to the
program and successful interventions could be used as model programs that
could be replicated or modified in other places and by other organisations.
38
The first three years
The appropriate choice of staff to work on such projects is vital to any success.
Teachers are sometimes too ‘middle-class’ in their orientation while staff from
other sectors do not understand how literacy develops. Staff need an
understanding of emerging literacy and, if working with NESB families, some
knowledge of English as a second language would be necessary.
To assist in developing programs and objectives and to keep things on track the
Brotherhood could set up a small and very focused steering group with the task
of supporting staff and consulting on design and direction of programs. This
group should include someone with a good knowledge of family literacy, someone
with experience working with disadvantaged families with children in the early
childhood years, a member with knowledge of English as a second language and
perhaps someone with a knowledge of research and evaluation. This group
should be carefully chosen for sensitivity to the uncertainties that staff may
experience in developing and working in such programs, so that they not only
provide information but also support and sharing of ideas.
Guests with specific skills could be invited in the planning stage to discuss the
possibilities, and later to discuss progress and new possibilities. For example,
Professor Trevor Cairney of the University of Western Sydney, who has an
excellent and practical knowledge of literacy (including family literacy) and cuts
through a lot of impractical ideas, could make a useful contribution. Links should
also be made with the range of services working with young children so that they
can also provide support and within their own services build on what they learn
from the broader perspective of the project(s).
One useful step that could be taken by the Brotherhood is to contact the Head
Start Bureau in the United States to obtain more specific information about
successful family literacy programs and materials used in some of the Early
Head Start programs. This could provide a starting point for further
consideration. (The Head Start Bureau can be found on the internet with lists of
their currently funded programs.) The ultimate aim of the project could be to
obtain funding to set up a broader Head Start program or, on the other hand, to
remain small and to run a series of intervention programs which respond flexibly
to the different needs of disadvantaged families and children.
Advocacy and policy development
Information on the development of the child’s brain in the first three years of life
underlines the importance of these early years for later developmental outcomes
in a way which has more impact than theories about the psycho-social
importance of the early years. All young children, whether at home or in some
form of alternative child care need a stimulating, responsive and supportive
environment. If this need is not met it leads not only to lower educational
achievement but to other social and emotional difficulties for many children. The
Americans are using information on children’s brain development in all their
advocacy: for intervention projects; for more money and better services for
families with babies and young children; and for government policies that
acknowledge the special needs of children in this age group.
In terms of advocacy to improve the life chances of preschool children in the
disadvantaged families in circumstances discussed at the start of this paper the
Brotherhood should continue to lobby for policies which address the issues
39
The first three years
relating to poverty. The Life Chances Study is an excellent and effective vehicle
for this. But some families need specific advocacy rather than general: for
example, families where there is violence or where there are drug and alcohol
problems which clearly affect children’s well-being as well as their life chances.
Of paramount importance in terms of improving the life chances and educational
achievement of children from these families is the promotion of an understanding
of the way in which education is involved in early childhood development from
birth.
Continued support for parenting that specifically focuses on the needs of children
often involves respite care in some form of child care. Good quality child care is a
haven for children in difficult family circumstances as it gives them opportunities
to be with other children and adults who are less stressed and gives their parents
a break. But families need child care at a cost they can afford and this is not
readily available at present.
Maternal and Child Health Services are also vital to the well-being of mothers,
babies and young children. These services need to be saved from further funding
cuts which reduce their ability to respond flexibly to specific needs in the
community. Ideally, they need increased funding but this is unlikely to happen in
the current economic climate.
Practitioners in all early childhood services, including those in more affluent
areas, need constant reminders of the needs of children from the disadvantaged
families discussed earlier. They need to be fully aware of the way in which
families affect not only the daily lives of young children but also their life chances
in the much longer term. Many practitioners have an excellent understanding
but others can be prejudiced or limited in their attitudes, beliefs and practice. Inservice training on things like early literacy and early learning as well as other
aspects of child development may also help relevant staff in all services assist
children and parents from disadvantaged families.
40
The first three years
41
The first three years
References
Amm, R & Juan, S 1994, ‘A parent education success story: the parents as
teachers program in the United States and Australia’, Australian journal of early
childhood, Vol.19, No.2, pp.10–15.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1991, Multicultural Australia, Cat. No.2505.0.
Badenoch, R 1995, ‘The relationship between socio-economic factors and chronic
conditions in childhood’, The CAFHS forum on child and youth health, Vol.3,
No.3, pp.29–33.
Ball, Sir Christopher 1994, Start right: the importance of early learning, RSA,
London.
Barnett, S 1993, ‘Benefit–cost analysis of preschool education’, American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, Vol.63, No.4, pp.500–508.
Berndt, T 1992, Child development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth,
Texas.
Birrell, B & Rapson, V 1997, ‘Poor families, poor children: who cares for the next
generation?’, People and place, Vol.5, No.3, pp.44–53.
Bowlby, J 1952, Maternal care and mental health, World Health Organisation,
Geneva.
—— 1963, Child care and the growth of love, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England.
—— 1973, Separation: anxiety and anger, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England.
Brady, M 1992, The health of young Aborigines: a report on the health of
Aborigines aged 12–25, National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies, University of
Tasmania, Hobart.
Braithwaite, J & Alexander, J 1983, Explorations in early childhood education:
the Mount Druitt Early Education Project, ACER, Melbourne.
Brown, S, Lumley, J & Small, R 1995, Reasons to go, reasons to stay, Centre for
the study of Mothers’ and Children’s Health, Melbourne.
Burchinal, M & Ramey, C 1989, ‘Type of day-care and preschool intellectual
development in disadvantaged children’, Child development, Vol.60, No.1,
pp.128–137.
Butler, B 1993, ‘Aboriginal children’, Family matters, No.35, pp.7–12.
Cairney, T 1997, ‘Parents and literacy learning: new perspectives’, Every child,
Vol.3, No.2, pp.4–5.
Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children 1994, Starting
points: meeting the needs of our youngest children, Carnegie Corporation, New
York.
42
The first three years
Choo, C 1990, Aboriginal child poverty, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
Collins, R 1993, ‘Head Start: steps toward a two-generation program strategy’,
Young children, Vol.48, No.2, pp.25–38.
Condry, S 1983, ‘History and background of preschool intervention programs and
the Consortium for longitudinal studies’, in As the twig is bent: lasting effects of
preschool programs, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Cooper, V & Elliot, A 1997, ‘Ordinary children in extraordinary circumstances:
working with families where there is mental illness’, Every child, Vol.3, No.4,
pp.8–9.
Department of Human Services 1997, A new baby: what next?, Office of the
Family, Melbourne.
Edgar, D, Keane, D & McDonald, P 1989, Child poverty, Allen & Unwin,
Melbourne.
Elliot, A & Sanagavarapu, P 1995, ‘Cultural connections for learning’, Every
child, Vol.1, No.4, pp.7–9.
Garborino, J 1995, Raising children in a socially toxic environment, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Gilley, T & Taylor, J 1995, Unequal lives: low income and the life chances of
three-year-olds, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
Greenblat, E & Ochiltree, G 1993, Use and choice of child care, Australian
Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), Melbourne.
Hamner, J & Turner, P 1996, Parenting in contemporary society, Allyn & Bacon,
Boston.
Harding, A & Szukalska, A 1998, A portrait of child poverty in Australia 1995–
96, National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, University of Canberra,
Paper presented at Sixth Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference,
Melbourne.
Harris, P 1990a, Child poverty, inequality, and social justice, Child Poverty
Policy Review 1, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
—— 1990b, All our children, Child Poverty Policy Review 4, Brotherhood of St
Laurence, Melbourne.
Hartley, R (ed.) 1995, Families and cultural diversity in Australia, AIFS,
Melbourne.
Head Start Bureau 1992, A handbook for involving parents in Head Start, US
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington.
—— 1998a, ‘Evaluation of the comprehensive child development program’, web
page, p.2.
—— 1998b, ‘Administration for children and families: Early Head Start fact
sheet’, web page, pp.1–2.
43
The first three years
—— 1999, web page, http://www.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/.
Karen, R 1990, ‘Becoming attached’, The Atlantic Monthly, Feb, pp.35–70.
Linke, P 1996, ‘Resilience’, Forum on child and youth health, Vol.4, No.2, pp.3–8.
McIntosh, J 1997, Promoting well-being in child development, Victorian Health
Promotion Foundation, Melbourne.
McLeod, J 1994, Like any child: planning for children with disabilities,
Department of Employment, Education and Training, Melbourne.
National Commission on Children 1991, Beyond the rhetoric: a new American
agenda for children and families, US Government Printing Office, Washington.
New Zealand Ministry of Health 1997, ‘The HIPPY Programme in Family Service
Centres’, Chapter 11 in Final report: Family Service Centres evaluation, New
Zealand Ministry of Health, Wellington.
O’Brien, J 1990, Promoting family literacy Through Head Start, US Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Washington.
Ochiltree, G 1991, An ear to listen and a shoulder to cry on, AIFS, Melbourne.
—— 1994, The effects of child care: forty years of research, AIFS, Melbourne.
—— 1998, Who’s bringing up baby, HarperCollins, Sydney.
O’Donoghue, L 1993, ‘Aboriginal families and ATSIC’, Family matters, No.35,
pp.14–15.
Office of the Family 1996, Specialist children’s services: how we can help,
Department of Human Services, Melbourne.
—— 1997, Parenting initiatives, Department of Human Services, Melbourne.
People Together 1997, Community: the impact of government reforms on
Victorians and their local communities, People Together Project, Melbourne.
Phillips, D 1987, Quality in child care: what does the research tell us?, NEYC,
Washington.
Ramey, C & Campbell, F 1987, ‘The Carolina Abecaderian Project: an educational
experiment concerning human malleability’, in The malleability of children, eds J
Gallagher & C Ramey, P H Brookes, Baltimore.
—— 1991, ‘Poverty, early childhood education, and academic competence: the
Abecaderian experiment’, in Children in poverty: child development and public
policy, ed. A Huston, CUB, New York.
Rice, P L 1994, Asian mothers, Australian birth, Ausmed Publications,
Melbourne.
44
The first three years
Rutter, M 1981, Maternal deprivation reassessed, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Sam, M 1992, Through black eyes: a handbook of family violence in Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities, Secretariat of National Aboriginal and
Islander Child Care, Melbourne.
Schweinhart, L & Weikart, D 1986, ‘What do we know so far? A review of the
Head Start Synthesis Project’, Young children, Vol.41, No.2, pp.49–55.
Shore, R 1997, Rethinking the brain: new insights into early development,
Families and Work Institute, New York.
Tasker, G & Siemon, D 1998, Is child care affordable? Pressures on families and
their use of formal long day care, Brotherhood of St Laurence & Community
Child Care, Melbourne.
Tavecchio, L & van Ijzendoorn, M 1987, Attachments in social networks, North
Holland, Amsterdam.
Taylor, J 1997, Kids and kindergarten: access to preschool in Victoria,
Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
Taylor, J & MacDonald, H 1994, Disadvantage and children of immigrants: a
longitudinal study, Bureau of Immigration and Population Research, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Thorpe, D 1994, Evaluating child protection, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Tizard, B 1986, The care of young children: implications of recent research,
Working and Occasional Papers 1, Thomas Coram Institute, London.
45