Putting children back into the child care debate

Dr Priscilla Seyfort’s PhD thesis examined forays into the media by several high-profile public commentators, academics and children’s health experts, including Michael Leunig’s “infamous” cartoon, Thoughts of a baby lying in a child care centre, and the responses he received.

Dr Seyfort says Leunig was “virtually demonised” for the cartoon, which drew fire from those concerned that mothers would feel guilty for choosing care for their babies, or who saw the cartoon as part of a conservative backlash against working women.

This response and others like it in the media inspired a study by Dr Seyfort into the nature of the child care debate in the media.

“In 2001 a number of contributors to the print media had begun to assert that public discussion of centre-based child care was subject to claims of gatekeeping, censorship and political correctness,” she says. “Allegations were made that asking questions about child care, or raising potentially negative effects of child care, was seen as unwelcome and unnecessary and various protagonists suggested that as a consequence of such silencing, the voice of the child was missing from public debate.

“Most study participants said that their participation in public discourse in the print media has come at a personal cost. Several people cited this personal cost as the reason for choosing to disengage themselves from the discourse. These admissions lend support to the view that the way in which public discussion about child care operates, often at a very personal and vitriolic level, serves as a disincentive to many who otherwise may choose to contribute to the debate.”

In terms of the content of the debate, there was consensus among study participants that public discourse about child care is generally not about, or motivated by, children’s interests. Conversely, it is usually either overtly focused on the concerns, interests and needs of adults, or is motivated by such issues.

“People are generally comfortable discussing adult concerns about child care – things like availability, accessibility and affordability or the effect on parents’ careers and parents’ feelings about leaving the child in care. All these things are important, but they are adult parameters. The needs and interests of the child are rarely discussed,” she says.

Dr Seyfort says we need to move beyond the simplicity of the current debate, which in its most basic form comes down to the question of whether child care is good or bad for young children, and have a comprehensive discussion about the best way to provide education and care that supports children as well as working parents. Such discussion should involve vigorous interchange but be characterised by a climate which is open, receptive and inclusive. Those who contribute to it should be able to do so free from fear or favour.

Dr Seyfort says experts in children’s development remain divided about the effect of extended long-day care, particularly for the very young, and says that rather than being too afraid to tackle the issue in public, a debate about ways society could place children’s needs at the centre of the issue is long overdue.

She says there needs to be a wide range of options for working parents – more options for flexible working hours in the early years, access to parental leave, more child care in workplaces so that long separations between mothers and babies can be avoided, a re-valuing in society of parenting, and a willingness to see young children as important citizens in their own right.

In addition to Michael Leunig, Dr Seyfort interviewed commentators including journalists Dr Anne Summers, Virginia Haussegger and Pamela Bone, ethicist and commentator Dr Leslie Cannold, commentator Bettina Arndt, researcher and social policy analyst, Dr Don Edgar, pediatrician and community health expert Professor Frank Oberklaid, and early childhood expert Associate Professor Kay Margetts, among others.

 “Let’s hear all the views and consider all the research, engage the experts on early childhood development, and not shut down the debate by vilifying those who in good faith present an unpopular message,” she says. In so doing we will be more able to promote discussion and policy development in which children’s interests and needs take precedence over all others, in which children are truly put first.”