Preschool

A Study of Preschool parents’ and child Development Experts’ Views Concerning Child Rights Legislation

Share This Article: On Twitter On Facebook Print

By Dominic F. Gullo and Susan K. Turben (Kent State University)

Societal trends along with complex changes in family life have been responsible, in part, for an increase in child restrictive adult behaviors. There is a great deal of legislative activity both at the state and national levels to increase child protective laws. The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of three groups of adults regarding proposed policy advocating greater child rights. Thirty parents of children enrolled in Head Start, 20 parents of children enrolled in a private preschool, and 20 child development experts were administered a 21 item survey based on actual or proposed Swedish laws. The purpose of these laws was to generally increase protection and rights of children.

While all three groups generally agreed that child rights should be increased, they disagreed with over half of the items on the survey. Analysis revealed that parents tend to have slightly more restrictive views about child rights as compared to the experts, with the parents of the preschool children having the most restrictive views. Implications for the legislative process and parent training are discussed.

A major frustration for those concerned with children and their welfare is the lack of national political policy regarding children’s rights (ADELMAN, 1984). Despite significant increases in knowledge about child development over the last two decades, no comparable substantive gains in strengthening existing laws or increasing the proportion of laws that protect the rights of children has been achieved.

Theoretically, public policy promoting child welfare could have evolved out of the 1960s as a “straight line national priority” (Bohen, 1984). However, since President Nixon vetoed comprehensive child care legislation in 1971, there has been little progress to this end in the United States. As the Executive Branch of the Federal Government swings increasingly toward conservatism, the Judicial and Legislative Systems swing perpetually toward an adult centered society in which children have no voice.

In a decade when working women, divorce and desire for economic gain are prevailing trends, it seems that children bear the brunt of a society geared to adults (Ehrenreich & Melton, 1983). The incidence of child abuse, child rape and child stealing, as well as harsh punishments and other violent crimes against children have increased during the past twenty years. Moroney and Dorecki (1984) describe children of the 80’s as vulnerable persons who are “at the disposal” of adults, other then their parents, in a variety of settings, other than their homes.

Current family law in the United States assumes that the interests of children will be served by parents or caring adults who feel a duty to be responsible for safeguarding children. In fact, the adult holds judiciary responsibility for acting on behalf of the child’s interest in the law (Teitelbaum, 1982). The reality is, however, that children, as a population of “developing persons” (Bennett & MacDonald, 1977), are subjected to a variety of child-restrictive adult behaviors which do not take into account other autonomous rights and needs of the child (Clark, 1981). Hopson (1981) points out that complex changes in family life are, in part, responsible for an increase in child-restrictive behaviors imposed by adults. Studies on family stress, divorce, incest, and abandoned offspring indicate changing family patterns and lifestyles may actually be viewed as dangerous to the safety, health and welfare of children (Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1983).

It is evident from public policy research on family and children that the protective rights of children are not now, nor are they likely to be, a national priority (Burt, 1975). The present investigation was aimed at finding out what attitudes parents and experts do have about children’s rights, given the major variations in family life which now fall well below the normal range of family functioning.

Guidubaldi, Gullo, and Mcloughlin (1982) report that working women is the major variation affecting change in family and spousal relations. In 1978, 43% of married women with preschool age children worked. For single mothers, the rate jumped from 19% in 1960 to 60% in 1979, and is expected to reach 80% by 1987. Bronfenbrenner (1980) reports that 95% of heads of single parent households are women, and that the remarriage rate for women is only about one-fourth that of men. In addition, Einstein (1979) states that 40% of those reconstituted families end in divorce within the first five years.

These statistics have put great pressure on state and local social service systems. Health and welfare agencies compete for families as clients (Brazelton, 1981). Professionals working with families often do not comprehend the changing needs of single parents and children in reconstituted families (Moroney & Dorecki, 1984). Current intervention strategies do not take into account that discord, spousal separation and disruptions associated with divorce and lifestyle alterations create very different sets of problems for children and adults. (Wallerstein, 1983). If family perspectives are not clearly understood by interventionists, and if parents cannot always be counted on to act in the best interests of their children (Ehrenreich & Melton, 1983), How will America safeguard its youngest citizens?

Unlike the United States, countries such as Denmark and Sweden have taken bold steps to restrict parents and guarantee children’s individual rights (Hopson, 1981). Since 1979, Sweden has placed considerable control on parents by amending both its parent and marriage contract codes (Eckman, 1979). These amendments forbid adults from hitting or spanking children. The sale of war toys, toy weapons, and toy guns is banned. Parents who inflict harsh or undue punishments upon children are fined and detained (Hultaker, 1982). On the other hand, parents who participate in parent education activities are rewarded with tax credits and other financial incentives.

The “American Way” of addressing the need for protection safeguards for children has been to form local and state support groups and special interest lobbys. The composition of these groups has largely been recognized professionals such as child development experts, educators, lawyers, and doctors. Parent’s, on the other hand, have been token contributors, with little authority or power.

In recent years, however, parents of children with handicapping conditions have been effective in lobbying for the right of their children (Garwood, 1984). Other parent groups, such as Head Start, while charted with the overall responsibility for evaluating services to children (Lazar & Darlington, 1982), have not made any gains in accessing the legislative system. Since Head Start is a federal program backed by a stated national commitment to families (Zigler & Valentine, 1979), it was this parent group that initially became the focus of a study to test adult attitudes regarding child rights.

This study compared three groups of adults’ opinions regarding laws intended to increase child rights. The first group was parents of children attending head Start. The purpose of including this group was that it is the expressed purpose of Head Start to educate parents in these matters. The second group was parents of children attending a private preschool program. These parents were included to represent the middle socioeconomic view. Finally, a group of child development experts were included. This group was chosen in that these are the individuals likely to be asked by legislators for their opinions when they are enacting laws on the behalf of children.

Method

Subjects

Thirty Head Start parents represented the first group of parents surveyed. Each of these parents had a child currently enrolled in Head Start and was active in the parent activities offered by the program. This group will be called the Head Start group.

A second group of 20 middle class, non-Head Start parents of preschool children comprised the second group of parents. These parents also had children currently enrolled in a preschool program and were active in the parent organization offered by the preschool. This group of parents will be called the Preschool group.

Finally, 20 child development experts comprised the third group surveyed. The expert group was defined as those with graduate training in Early Childhood Education and/or child development. All wee currently delivering services to children of preschool age.

All of the subjects in each of the three groups were female.

Procedures

A survey, consisting of 21 items based on actual or proposed Swedish law was administered to each subject. The items on the survey were adapted from Kerckhoff and McPhee (1984) and were designed to measure receptivity to legislation which would increase the protection and rights of children. The actual items surveyed are found in Table I. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they “agreed,” “disagreed,” or were “undecided” regarding each of the statements. Scoring was accomplished by assigning one point to all items marked “agree,” two points for “undecided,” and three points for “agree.” For purposes of scoring certain items were reverted so the “agree” always indicated acceptance of a law that would increase child rights.

Results

In order to determine if there were differing opinions across the groups, one way analyses of variance were performed between the groups for each item. Table II presents the group means, standard deviations and whether there was significant between group effect for each item.

Post hoc analyses using the Newman-Keuls procedure was performed on those analysis showing a significant groups effect in order to determine the nature of the significance. The alpha level for all post hoc analyses was preset at the .05 level of significance. The following difference between groups were found:

Item 2: Experts and Head Start parents were in greater agreement than preschool parents.
Item 3: Experts were in greater agreement than Head Start or preschool parents.
Item 5: Experts and preschool parents were in greater agreement than head Start parents.
Item 8: Experts were in greater agreement than Head Start or preschool parents while Head Start parents were in greater agreement than preschool parents.
Item 18: Experts were in greater agreement than the Head Start or preschool parent groups.

Table I

Survey on “Children and the Law”

It should be illegal for parents to spank their children.
It should be illegal for parents to ridicule their children.
Children should have an attorney when their parents are being divorced.
Children should be permitted to divorce their parents.
The state should provide an official ombudsman (an advocate) for children.
It should be illegal to sell war toys.
Children should be permitted to sue their parents for limiting their life-chances if they were born out of wedlock.
Children should be permitted to sue their parents for limiting their life-chances if they are neglected or affection is withheld from them.
Children should be permitted to sue a non-family adult who took the parent’s affection from them.
In general, the law should be revised so as to give children more protection.
A principle of law should be that children cannot be punished for an act for which an adult cannot be punished.
The law should forbid the state from removing children permanently from their parents no matter what the parents have done.
Adopted children should have the legal right to know the names of their biological parents.
Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children.
In general, the law should be revised so as to give children greater rights.
The right of a child to perform a specific act (such as buy beer, marry, etc.) should depend on the child’s developmental level, not on their chronological age.
Juvenile courts should provide the same rights for children (such as trial by jury, representation by counsel, etc.) as adults enjoy in other courts.
Preschool and primary school education should be designed by law to obliterate sex role differences in child rearing.
In cases where the rights of children conflict with family rights or the rights of a parent or parents, the law should support the rights of children.
Children should be allowed to do adult things such as marry, drive a car, and buy beer at a younger age than what the law now specifies.
Children should not be allowed to do adult things such as marry, drive a car, and buy beer until they are older than the law now specifies.

(This survey was adapted from a survey designed by Richard Kerckhoff and used with permission.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine what the attitudes of early childhood experts, Head Start parents, and preschool parents were concerning proposed laws designed to increase the individual rights of children. The findings of the study indicated that there was little consensus among the parent groups or early childhood experts concerning their overall attitudes towards increasing the rights of children.

While all three groups were in agreement with items to10 and 15 in the survey, which stated that in general, laws should be revised so as to give children more protection and greater rights, all three groups disagreed with 10 of the remaining 19 proposed child protection laws. This finding is consistent with Kerckhoff and McPhee’s (1984) findings. They reported that professionals in the legislative and judicial systems have conflicting attitudes both for and against increasing protection and rights of young children. This apparent contraction may be a function of the items surveyed. It may be that although the groups believed that in general the rights of children should be increased, the specific proposed laws in the survey did not represent those areas where they felt children needed additional protection or rights.

The survey results indicate that parents seem to have slightly more restrictive views about child rights as compared to the experts. This is especially apparent in situation where these rights conflict with adult priorities and privileges. On the five items which showed significant differences among the groups concerning their attitudes (items 2, 3, 5, 8, 18) experts consistently indicated a higher degree of agreement with the items that the two parent groups surveyed. The preschool parents indicated a lesser degree of agreement than either of the other groups with the Head Start parents being in the middle. One might expect that early childhood experts would demonstrate the highest degree of agreement with these proposed laws in that it could be conjectured that they possess an “idealistic” or theoretical view of childhood and children’s needs. The interesting finding is the one concerning the Head Start parents. On 16 of the survey items the Head Start parents received scores which indicated that they were in greater agreement with the laws than the preschool parents. While only two of those differences reached significance, this finding represents a trend indicated that Head Start parents are more accepting of liberal child advocacy laws. One of the major purposes of the Head Start program is to make parents more aware of advocacy issues so as to make them more effective advocates for children (Zigler & Vlentine, 1979). This finding implies that direct parent training on social issues may be effective as part of Head Start’s parent education program.

The findings of this study may have implications for policy-makers, as they seek to utilize community expertise as the “grass roots” level. From the highly idocyncratic results, it seems legislators would benefit form surveying individuals from diverse professional and nonprofessional backgrounds. Input from both parents and professionals would provide parents with credibility and a measure of authority and power not often relinquished by elected officials. Experts, on the other hand, would benefit from gaining practical insights form parents which may lead to a greater base of support for increasing the care and protection of children.

Further study in this area needs to include greater numbers and different samples of para and nonprofessionals, as well as lawyers, social workers, nurses, child care specialists, and educators. While making children a priority may be out of reach in conservative political times, a greater consensus may be possible if parents, as well as other concerned adults are identified and given responsibility for formulating policy.

The future of children depends on considering and debating differing view sin order to insure a broad base of public support. How can any national afford the consequences of a society that fails to make its children a national priority?