Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:11:52.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Day Care Policies and Parenting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Miriam E. David
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Policy Review Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 81 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bruner, J. (1980), Under Five in Britain, Grant McIntyre, London.Google Scholar
Bryant, B., Harris, M. and Newton, D. (1980), Children and Minders, Grant McIntyre, London.Google Scholar
Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS) (1978), Services for Young Children with Working Mothers, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Challis, L. (1981), The Great Under-Fives Muddle: Options for Day-Care Policy, Bath Social Policy Papers, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Coussins, J. and Coote, A. (1981), ‘The family in the firing line: a discussion document on family policy’, Poverty Pamphlet 5, CPAG, 03.Google Scholar
David, M. (1978), ‘Women caring for preschool children in the USA’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2:3, Autumn, 440–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, M. and Shaw, J. (1980), ‘Women and children first?’, Marxism Today, 24:3, 03, 11–12.Google Scholar
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (1978), I want to work but what about the kids? EOC, Manchester.Google Scholar
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and National Union of Students (NUS) (1980), Nurseries in Colleges and Universities, EOC, Manchester, 07.Google Scholar
Ferri, E., Birchall, D., Gingall, V. and Gipps, C. (1981), Combined Nursery Centres: A New Approach to Education and Day-Care, Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, J. (1981), ‘Women, recession and the tones’, Marxism Today, 25:3, 03, 5–11.Google Scholar
Garland, C. and White, S. (1980), Children and Day Nurseries, Grant McIntyre, London.Google Scholar
Hughes, M., Mayall, B., Moss, P., Perry, J. and Pinkerton, G. (1980), Nurseries Now, A Fair Deal for Parents and Children, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
B., and Jackson, S. (1979), Childminder, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley.Google Scholar
Kamerman, S. (1979), ‘Work and family in industrialized societies’, Signs: Journal of Women and Culture, 4:4, Summer, 632–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamerman, S. (1980), Parenting in an Unresponsive Society, Basic Books, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kellmer-Pringle, M. (1980), A Fairer Future for Children, Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, P. (1979), Who Cares? Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Mayall, B. and Petrie, P. (1977), Minder, Mother and Child, University of London Institute of Education.Google Scholar
National Union of Teachers (NUT) (1979), Campaign for Nursery Education, Fightback Series No. 2, NUT, 07.Google Scholar
Penn, H. (1981), Personal Communication, 07.Google Scholar
R., and Rappaport, R. and Strelitz, Z. (1977), Fathers, Mothers and Others, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley.Google Scholar
Smith, T. (1980), Parents and Pre-School, Grant McIntyre, London.Google Scholar
Sylva, K., Roy, C. and Painter, Mr. (1980), Childwatching at Playgroup and Nursery School, Grant McIntyre, London.Google Scholar
Trades Union Congress (TUC) (1977), Under Fives, report of a working party, TUC, London.Google Scholar
Trades Union Congress (TUC) (1979), Charter on Facilities for the Under Fives, TUC, London.Google Scholar
SirYoung, G. (1981), reported in the Guardian, 28 04.Google Scholar