I notice in the bill reference to the continued involvement in the program of parents, and in your statement, you mentioned parents have a right to have a voice in how these projects which affect their children are operated.

I may be a little cynical after 34 years of teaching and administrating in schools, but does your experience indicate that parents will get directly involved in such programs?

Mrs. EDELMAN. They will if they are given the chance, Mr. Cornell. Title I, I suppose, is our most instructive example, and we have a large number of problems with title I funds, but one of the byproducts which I think is probably the most important and lasting one, is that a lot of parents-thanks to you, Senator Stafford-have begun to raise questions, and understand that they have something to say about the public schools.

But the struggle is an endless one. Only a minority of parents are really taking the kinds of chances to exercise the kinds of things that I think are desirable. It is going to be very hard for parents to exercise control.

It is not always an encouraging record. I do believe, however, that parents are interested, that they want to do what is best for their children, that they want to get involved, and in some school districts where community schools have made it very clear that parents are welcome-they wanted to have them there, they seek them out, they have decent outreach-I have found that productive kinds of relationships between communities and schools have arisen; but unfortunately, they are a minority situation.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Zeferetti.

Mr. ZEFERETTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just an informative type of question: are there any provisions for standards of staff or facilities in centers where the children will be taken care of?

I think the type of people we are going to involve in child care, and the type of facility where the children are going to be, are important issues.

Mrs. EDELMAN. Nothing is more important than quality and standards. That is a crucial precondition to administering programs under this act, and I think one of the things that we have assumed that would be incorporated in this legislation would be very strong Federal standards setting up the quality care of all children which we required under this provision.

We have been working for years to try to strengthen the 1968 HEW requirements on child care standards, so that it is understood, and hopefully, nothing will happen here under this act without having adequate and strong assurance that Federal standards for quality care are going to be implemented.

Mr. ZEFERETTI. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Miller of California.

Mr. MILLER. I might just make a comment in response to which you may shrug your shoulders.

When you look at the price on this bill, as was mentioned by Mr. Bell earlier, we have to be realistic; I think we also have to be realistic in assessing just what we are doing in other areas.

This bill is really asked to fund all of our inadequacies in the school lunch program, the maternal care program, the maternal nutrition

program.

I think you only have to get involved for just a very few moments in a program like the WIC, where many children for the first time were provided with health screening, where for the first time in 2 or 3 years, or the first time since the child had been born, a child was found to be anemic or malnourished.

There are ways to serve children on waiting lists, to determine needs for them.

I think you have to add up all the deficits in all the other areas. We are not feeding all the children who are qualified for the school lunch program. We are not taking care of the health problems the children are having.

But then in day care we are trying to meet some of these needs, and we are told we are spending too much money.

Second, I would certainly endorse making sure that alternatives to the current school system remain open in this program.

I think one of the real values, in my personal opinion, of day care and Head Start, is that it has broken down the traditional barriers that have been maintained between family and school, between family and learning.

I think we have seen that the participants who have come out of these programs have had a deeper involvement, are questioning the traditional system in terms of what kind of return their child is getting.

I would certainly hope we do not turn this program over to those traditional delivery systems.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just simply make the observation that I think in all fairness to public education-as you say, this has not been their traditional role, and maybe it is a new ballgame for them-and also as a former teacher, and as a parent, we cannot always be truly objective about our own children, so I would like to take a look at some of the proposals.

I do appreciate your presentation. It was very fine.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mrs. Edelman, at the outset, let me apologize for being absent for a period, but we have a meeting every week at this hour with the whips in the House, and I had to be involved in that. It is a great pleasure to welcome you back at the same stand, as it were, on this legislation.

I have read your statement, and I must say I think it is one of the most thoughtful discussions of the need for legislation of this kind I have seen; I commend you for it.

I am much heartened by the widespread support in both the House and the Senate, and on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, for the kind of legislation we are here discussing.

I am hopeful that we can move expeditiously on this bill. I know that I share the view of Senator Mondale that we want to, in these hearings, hear from as many different persons as is humanly possible. Then we want to amend the bill under consideration so that we can

really make a significant stride forward for children and their families in this country.

I have just one question to ask you, because I think my other questions have already been discussed.

In your statement with respect to the view that all child and family services should be located in the school system, you raise the question as to whether schools can either practically or legally administer a comprehensive program for children and their families.

You have. I think, alluded to some of the practical problems.

I wonder, inasmuch as you are a lawyer, if you could comment, Mrs. Edelman, on what legal problems you foresee in this respect. Mrs. EDELMAN. In some States, there may be problems in the type of contractual relations that school boards can enter into. For example, can they contract to family day care providers?

There is some potential conflict between the kind of parent control this bill envisions and school board control under existing State law. Some of the school districts have laws prohibiting teachers from entering the homes of their pupils. There are some teacher contracts that prohibit that. I think that is a rather complicated question, and I would like to give you more specific answers after doing some further research.

I would like to do a State law check and come up with very specific kinds of issues that are raised for your consideration, in addition to the other reasons we could give.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We should be very grateful to you for doing that.

The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.

Senator STAFFORD. If you would indulge me, as the ranking minority member of the Senate subcommittee, Mrs. Edelman, I want you to know that you have two-thirds of the entire delegation of the State of Vermont in Congress present.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We are very pleased to have Mr. Jeffords as a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Your statement was extremely interesting. I will pass any questions at this time.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair wants to ask if any other members wish to put any more questions to Mrs. Edelman before we move to the next witness.

Again, Mrs. Edelman, we are very grateful for your testimony.
Mrs. EDELMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We are pleased to welcome now to the committee Ms. Carmen Maymi, Director of the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor.

STATEMENT OF CARMEN MAYMI, DIRECTOR, WOMEN'S BUREAU, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ms. MAYMI. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Congress persons, I am pleased indeed, to have an opportunity to appear before this committee today to discuss a matter which has had high priority in the Women's Bureau for decades.

However, I must point out that I have been invited here, not to support the bills under consideration, nor to critique them, but to express the concern of the Bureau and to share our thinking on the subject of child care services for working families.

Admittedly, there are many reasons why large numbers of children in the United States need day care. Illness or death of the mother, mental or physical handicaps borne by the child; the presence of emotionally disturbed persons in the home, poor family relationships, or poor living conditions are among the factors that place child care needs high on the list of national concerns. But the major demand for child care facilities stems from the employment of mothers outside the home.

There has been a steady upward trend in the number of working wives with children. Since 1960 the labor force participation of married women with husbands present and with children under 6 years has increased from 18.6 percent to 34.4 percent. The rate of labor force participation for women who were family heads, at 54 percent, was higher than that of wives, but has remained little changed for many

years.

Almost 27 million children in the United States under the age of 18 had mothers who were in the labor force in March 1974. About onefourth of these children were below regular school age, and required some kind of care while their mothers worked.

Since 1970, the number of children of working mothers had risen sharply by 1.2 million, while the total number of children in families has dropped by 2.2 million. These opposing trends can be attributed to the continuing long-term rise in the number of working wives, both with and without children, a declining birth rate, and an increase in the number of families headed by a woman which is due largely to a rising divorce rate.

While the labor force participation rates of wives with children rose significantly between 1970 and 1974, the absolute increase in the total number of children with working mothers occurred almost exclusively in female-headed families.

In March 1974, over 12 million children were in families where the father was either absent, unemployed, or not in the labor force. This figure is highly significant in view of the fact that in families headed by a woman, the median income in 1973 was only about $6,195 if the mother worked and only $3,760 if she did not.

These data point out that the need for child care facilities is acute now and that it will increase over the years. Latest estimates indicate that care in licensed centers and homes is available for only a little over 1 million of the children needing day care. By 1985 we expect that 6.6 million mothers, aged 20 to 44, with children under age 5 will be working or looking for work. The demand for child care facilities can be expected to increase accordingly.

The availability of child care is often the pivot on which a woman's decision to work or remain at home turns. Often it is the earnings of the mother that keeps the family above the poverty line and off public assistance. However, if she is unable to find good care for her children, a woman is usually forced to stay at home and depend on welfare allowance to support her children.

57-649 Opt. 176 11

The problem is particularly severe for women heads of families who so often are poor. Of the 6.8 million families headed by a woman in March 1974, 32 percent had incomes below the low income level in 1973.

For families headed by a man the figure was 6 percent. The percentage of female-headed families with related children under 18 that were poor in 1973 was 42 percent for whites and 67 percent for blacks. Among families headed by Spanish-origin women 51.4 percent had incomes below the low income level in 1973.

Much as we deplore these conditions, we must not be tempted to seek out easy solutions in order to get families off relief rolls and on to payrolls. It is unfair to the child and self-defeating to a society concerned with a healthier, more intelligent, more productive population in the future, to settle for mere custodial care, or worse-substandard care for our children.

When quality care is not available, we can hardly blame the family that chooses to live in poverty rather than subject the children to experiences that could retard their development and mar their future.

Many families are reluctant to leave young children in the care of aging grandparents, or of brothers and sisters who are only slightly older. Some feel that care in day care centers or the homes of others may separate the child, emotionally, from his or her own family, and still others fear that being parted from the mother is damaging to the emotional stability of the young child.

Clearly these attitudes argue for working parents' involvement in the care of their children by others. Parents need to know the kind of care their children receive, something about the persons who give that care, and the physical surroundings in which their children will spend the better part of their days.

Concerned parents want to be able to work without having to worry about their children, and mothers, in particular, want reassurance that they need not feel guilty about leaving their children in the care of others. Parents also want to be sure that the child's sense of the importance of his or her own family is strengthened and that the experience in the day care settings are consistent with the child's background and with the parent's values.

This last point is of particular concern to minority parents. Spanishspeaking, American Indian and black families want their children to develop a sense of pride in their cultural and racial or ethnic background. They look to the child care center or the family child care home to substitute for the extended family which is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, supplanted by the small nuclear family. The child of a working family is not the only one to benefit from good day care. The parents also gain. The welfare mother, of course, is freed to acquire training and a job. But it is a mistake to think of day care exclusively as a welfare measure.

Middle class women, struggling to provide their families with an adequate standard of living, can enter the work force as they see fit, and women with professional and technical skills can continue to contribute those skills to fill the needs of our society in the area of health, science, business and industry, politics, and other fields.

Day care, in fact, is a boon to woman of all economic levels who want the freedom to choose for themselves their own lifestyle and decide for