Content uploaded by Gabriel Schoyerer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gabriel Schoyerer on Apr 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti
Journal of Early Childhood Education Research
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2015, 2–21
© 2015 Suomen Varhaiskasvatus ry. – Early Childhood Association Finland. Peer-review under responsi-
bility of the editorial board of the journal ISSN 2323-7414; ISSN-L 2323-7414 online
Family Day Care in Germany – the gap
between vision and reality
Gabriel Schoyerer & Nina Weimann-Sandig
German Youth Institute, Munich
schoyerer@dji.de
weimann-sandig@dji.de
ABSTRACT: In Germany, family day care has dominated for a long time as a more or less
informal provision of childcare. With massive legal changes in the system of Early Childhood
Education and Care (ECEC) since 2006, family day care became a part of the formal ECEC system
and has now the same comprehensive legal tasks of education and care. This leads both to pro-
found changes and to challenges for the system of family day care. This report provides an over-
view of current developments in family day care in Germany and the perspectives of its enhance-
ment. In addition to considering the quantitative development, it mainly deals with the paradigms
of a qualitative upgrading, which in particular emphasizes the current structures of the public
support for family day care such as an adequate advisory system or qualification. We have based
this overview mainly on qualitative and quantitative data from research at the German Youth In-
stitute within the last five years. There is still a gap between the development of day care and its
legal equality in the ECEC system on the one hand and the conditions condition and everyday
structures on the other hand. The quantitative development of family day care does not yet in-
volve a necessary qualitative upgrading of this day care system yet.
Keywords: Early Years Professionals, Family Day Care Systems, Child-Minders
3
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Introduction
The German child care scene has focused for many years mainly on the care of children
aged from three to six years old. The reasons for this are the social system of standards
and values but at the same time the developments of family and labor policies as well. The
defined role models of women as housewives and mothers and the men being the bread-
winner have just recently changed in Germany. The emancipation movement during the
1970's in Germany has only led to a discussion about the breakup of traditional roles in
favor of an intensified educational and work integration of women. The more and higher
qualified women have different requirements in their lifestyles which is often reflected
with the keyword "reconcilability of family and work life" in Germany.
Since the 1970’s, the demand for a lifestyle allowing career advancement as well as start-
ing a family has caused a continuous increase in the provision of child care in Germany.
Family day care in particular originated as an alternative movement to the more conser-
vatively and restrictively managed day care centers of the past (Jurczyk et al. 2004). An
eyewitness remembers his kindergarten time as follows:
"50 years ago all children were set around the table either on a bench or if you were
lucky, on a small chair. You were not able to choose your own toy since the nursery
staff allocated a small bowl with playing material either building blocks, sorting
blocks or material to be positioned in the correct order. (…) No child was allowed
to walk around during the free play time. It was ensured that the children were only
talking quietly to one another (Kindergarten St. Pius, Moosburg)".
Contrary to today's common pedagogical concepts in German day care centers, in those
days an authoritarian educational style dominated. The child was not seen as a self-deter-
mined learner worthy of development but the view was based on the inability of children
not being able to make their own decisions. In regards to the relationship between the
staff and thirty children, the focus was simply on keeping an eye on them and not actually
providing educational or pedagogical based care, which was based on the child’s best in-
terest in developing themselves. Criticism of this concept aroused as mentioned before in
particular due to the emancipation movement in the 1970's. At that time, family day care
has also aroused as counter-concept. In contrast to the care, conditions that were consid-
ered as not much appropriate for children in the centers it established a family-friendly
form of care. In particular, mothers with small children or women who have their children
already at school were looking for a meaningful task such as a childminder.
4
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
We can conclude from this that family day care came into existence as an alternative form
of care but is also seen as a competitor to day care centers and therefore was not strongly
supported by politics. However, family day care in Germany has been established over
decades as an alternative form of care which only well-educated families with good in-
come were able to afford and were having another demand in content of day care settings
in comparison to the regular offers of day care settings centers (also refer to Pettinger
1996).
Since the end of the 1990s, the realities in regards to family and labor market politics
changed again in Germany. Since then a demographic change can be observed (Stock et
al. 2012), which is being characterized by falling birth rates and a continuously increasing
number of elder people (ibid. Kocka/Staudinger 2010). The implications of family policies
subsequently consisted in making the starting of a family more attractive for people in
Germany. According to labor market policies, it is necessary to make considerably use of
the labor potential of women in order to cover the increased requirements in welfare ben-
efits and care services for more and more elder people in Germany (Weimann-Sandig
2013). The integration of women into professional life is increasingly one of the top re-
quirements in the German labor market politics.
Furthermore, on the one hand it was necessary to take the findings of recent research in
early childhood education, developmental psychology and neurophysiology into consid-
eration (Becker 2010; Pauen 2012), on the other hand the included increased expecta-
tions of parents in the quality of extra-familial care (critically Leu/von Behr 2010). From
the perspective of educational policy, these developments lead to a new professional and
social paradigm, which does no longer accept day care settings as just “care” for children
but expects also early childhood education which would have positive effects on the child
development and the further development in school and profession.
Family day care as part of the German system of Early Childhood Education and Care
(ECEC) has to conduct to these demands and is therefore faced to new challenges. This
article (1) describes recent developments of Family Day Care in Germany based on the offi-
cial Statistics on Child and Youth Welfare. These developments are (2) primarily analyzed
by means of a multi-methodological longitudinal study (Pabst/Schoyerer 2015), qualita-
tive-reconstructive studies (Schoyerer 2014; Schoyerer/Weimann-Sandig 2015) and con-
tent analytical or documentary studies (e.g. Kerl-Wienecke et al. 2013; Heitkötter/Pabst
2014; Schoyerer et. al. 2015) from the scientific working environment of the German Youth
Institute. Finally (3) tendencies for further developments of Family Day Care and necessary
steps can be appointed.
5
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Data and facts of family day care in Germany
The U3 claim and the legal promotion claim in day care
The Childcare Federal Government decided to establish a legal entitlement for children
from the first birthday, since August 2013. In order to guarantee a sufficient availability
of childcare and to accelerate its extension, the so-called Childcare Funding Act (Kinder-
förderungsgesetz (KiföG)) came into force on December 16th, 2008. Since politics was
aware that childcare could not only be provided by childcare centers, the Childcare Fund-
ing Act (KiföG) provided for an extension of Family Day Care by 30 %.
At the same time, the day care system for young children experienced some basic changes
in federal law in the Eights Social Security Statute Book (SGB VIII) for the past few years,
which also corresponds to a formal redefinition of the contents of tasks. Family day care
and day care centers have the same comprehensive legal task of Early Childhood Education
and Care since 2005 (§§ 22 sq. SGB VIII). This shift from a mainly care orientated setting
with complementary character to a public responsible form of care and education tasks
means a considerable upgrading and at the same time a major challenge for the system of
family day care. After all, family day care was mostly unsupervised for a long time and
organized with only a few standards in the private field. It was often oriented as a "casual"
activity, which did not provide a living wage as well as the pedagogical matters, were
mainly individualized on the personal commitment of the childminder depending on sin-
gle municipal initiatives (Schoyerer 2014).
Evolution of the number of family day care since 2006
In Germany, the extension of the numbers in family day care was dynamically developed
in the past years. Figure 1 shows how the number of children under 3 in family day care
increased in Germany's old and new states from 2006 to 2013. For instance, in the east,
the number of children during this term increased from 9.031 to 16.506, which corre-
sponds to an increase of about 83%. In western Germany, the number of children under
three years old in family day care almost tripled in the same term from 20.969 (2006) to
70.841 (2013).
6
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Figure 1 Development of the number of children U3 in family day care (2006-2013), (German
Statistical Office 2006-2013, own calculations)
The enhancement of children in family day care did not correspond to a comparable in-
crease regarding the number of childminders. Figure 2 shows the comparatively re-
strained growth rates of childminders. In the new German Federal States, the number of
new childminders since 2012 is even declining.
20.969
28.932
36.090
43.654
52.998
59.880
67.346 70.841
9.031 10.577 11.752 13.898 15.278 16.090 16.506 21.522
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Western Germany without Berlin Eastern Germany without Berlin
+7,158
(+25%)
+7,963
(+38%)
+7,564
(+21%)
+9,344
(+21%)
+6,882
(+13%)
+7,466
(+12%)
+3,495
(+5%)
+416
(+3%)
+5,016
(+30%)
+812
(+5%)
+1,380
(+10%)
+2,146
(+18%)
+1,175
(+11%)
+1,546
(+17%)
7
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Figure 2 Development of the number of childminders (2006-2013), (German Statistical Office
2006-2013, own calculations)
Two reasons for the restrained growth rates of new childminders can be mentioned: on
the one hand, in Germany we can see an increasing development towards the care of sev-
eral children by one childminder and on the other hand, this activity in family day care is
still not very attractive with regards to the currently applicable labor and wage condi-
tions. Furthermore, since 2011, childminders are obliged to pay social security contribu-
tions, the obligation of equally treated tax payment as well as the charges of payments
from the SGB II. In addition, the different implemented guidelines on country and munic-
ipality level in the field of food hygiene may also contribute to this declining development.
25.552 27.953 30.946 32.793 34.713 36.591 37.158 37.406
3.533 3.872 4.113 4.457 4.707 4.698 4.675 4.772
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Western Germany without Berlin Eastern Germany without Berlin
+2,401
(+9.4%)
+2,993
(+10.7%)
+1,847
(+6.0%)
+1,920
(+5.9%)
+1,878
(+5.4%)
+567
(+1.5%)
+248
(+0.7%)
+339
(+9.6%)
+241
(+6.2%)
+344
(+8.4%)
+250
(+5.6%)
-9
(-0.2%) -23
(-0.5%)
+97
(+2.1%)
8
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Figure 3 Children cared for in family day care and the average number of children per a
childminder, 2006-2013, (German Statistical Office 2006-2013, own calculations)
In 2013 a total of 139.668 children of the age of 0 to 14 years were cared in family day
care (German Federal Statistical Office, report on child and youth welfare 2013). Com-
pared to the same year about 1.9 million children were cared in child care centers (Ger-
man Federal Statistical Office, report on child and youth welfare 2013). So these figures
illustrate the dominance of the institutional care offers but also reflect the increasing
numbers in Family day care especially under 3 years old.
Figure 4 Children cared for in family day care and the average number of children per a
childminder, 2013, (German Statistical Office 2006-2013, own calculations)
139 208
132 048
123 015
111 448
98 813
87 459
75 338
62 735
43.953
43.435
42.697
40.853
38.658
36.383
33.136
30.427
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Anzahl der Tagespflegepersonen Anzahl der betreuten Kinder
2,1
2,3
2,4
2,6
2,7
2,9
3,0
3,2
7%
93%
Children in
family day
care
Children in
day care
centers
139.208
1.928.461
Total of cared children
15%
85%
Children in
family day
care
Children in
day care
centers
92.363
508.926
Cared children under 3 years
Number of cared children
Number of Childminders
9
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Qualification, care permit and control of childminders
The examination of the qualification of childminders represents one tool for quality as-
surance in family day care. Without successfully having past the qualifying exam of the
youth welfare office a child must not be given to a childminder.
The examination of the qualification is prescribed by federal law and in the SGB VIII it is
formulated in two contexts: On the one hand, in the § 23 SGB VIII the quality requirements
in family day care in terms of education and care is formulated including the guarantee of
qualification of the childminder (§ 23 Para. 3 SGB VIII). On the other hand in line with the
child and youth welfare development law (KICK), in § 43 SGB VIII an independent regula-
tion of the permission for family day care was included. The regulation interpreted as
averting of danger identifies the state's function as a watchdog, which the youth welfare
offices holds in order to protect children in Family Day Care relations. The permission is
given by the youth welfare office, which requires that the childminder has the necessary
qualifications for the activity in family day care. A person is regarded qualified for the
activity in the family day care (§§ 23 Para. 3 and 43 Para. 2 SGB VIII), if
this person is characterized by its expertise and willingness to cooperate with the
parents and other childminders,
he/she disposes him/herself of rooms suitable for children,
he/she possesses knowledge about the requirements in an activity as a
childminder gathered in deep and qualified training courses or in any other way.
A well-maintained aptitude is always required, if family day care is
publicly supported, i.e. attributed and/or financed by the municipal responsible
body of the public youth welfare (§ 23 SGB VIII) or
subject to authorization (§ 43 SGB VIII). I.e. the statutory permission requirements
includes governmental supported as well as private forms of Family Day Care at
which
o one or several children and up to five foreign children are being cared at the
same time outside the household of their parents
o for more than 15 hours a week
o at a certain time of the day, regardless if during daytime, in the evening or at
night (other than center based child care according to § 44 SGB VIII)
10
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
o against payment (payment by public responsible bodies according to § 23 SGB
VIII or any financial contribution in terms of money /near-cash income) and
may be
o (presumably) cared for more than three months.
The examination of the quality of potential childminders is in its extent a peculiarity in
family day care and thus would not exist in any other pedagogical field. Finally, this tool
offers the possibility to examine the personal and social competences before and during
the qualification of potential childminders and intervene to the activity in family day care,
if the corresponding person is not sufficiently qualified (Kerl-Wienecke et al. 2013). Thus
a conscientiously and systematic procedure of determining the qualification is also im-
portant regarding its effect on the pedagogical quality. Such assumptions are not yet em-
pirically proven in Germany but international studies point out these circumstances
(Doherty et al. 2006; Bromer et al. 2009; Raikes et al. 2005).
Contrary to day care centers, which are taking place in properly build and tightly regi-
mented rooms, family day care disposes of most different forms which are represented
below. However, Figure 5 emphasizes with regard to group sizes that there is a consider-
able difference between day care centers and family day care:
Figure 5 Children in family day care according to the size of groups cared for by childminders,
2013, in %, (German Statistical Office 2006-2013, own calculations)
46%
18%
15%
13%
7%
5 and more children per
childminder
4 children per childminder
3 children per childminder
2 children per childminder
1 child per childminder
Total
number of
children in
the day care:
139.208
11
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Forms of family day care in Germany
In Germany, there is a distinguish between roughly four forms of family day care (Pabst
& Schoyerer 2014): Family day care within the household of the parents, family day care
in the household of a childminder, family day care in rented rooms such as the so-called
Group Family Day Care. In family day care within the household of the parents the
childminder is generally employed by the parents and thus instruction-dependent. In the
current language these childminders are called "nannies".
In family day care within the household of the childminder, they provide their private
rooms which were considered to be suitable for the care of children at disposal. For this
form of care, the childminders may care for a maximum of five children at a time, if they
do not have any pedagogic education. If they have a pedagogic education, they are not
allowed to care for more children than a comparable day care center. In any case, the ac-
tivity of a childminder in their own household requires the permission of the responsible
youth welfare office and generally valid care permission (Schnock 2009; Kerl-Wienecke
et al. 2013).
The conditions for family day care in rented rooms are not uniformly stipulated by the
German legislator but delegated as legal reservation to the federal states. The result is that
the federal states are using this reservation in different ways and subsequently the regu-
lations considerably deviate in the different federal states. For instance, the national law
may be the condition for ruling the rented rooms which shall provide among others suffi-
cient space for playing, a stimulating design, suitable playing and occupational materials,
accident prevention and good hygienic conditions as well as a sleeping accommodation
for infants.
In the group family day care several childminders join together but each childminder
needs an official permission to be able to work. Contrary to a day-nursery or a kindergar-
ten the childminders obtain care permission for a maximum of five children. Therefore
the childminder is in legal form still bound to be responsible of his/her children in order
to ensure a care setting "similar to life in a family" as well as an acceptable relationship
between the children and the responsible childminder.
The possibilities of the organization and legal basics of group family day care also vary
due to legal reservation from one federal state to another and partially considerably dif-
ferentiate itself (Pabst & Schoyerer 2014; Heitkötter/Pabst 2014). Some states exclude
this form of family day care up to now among others with a reference to an unclear and
little evident education and care profile between classical family day care and day care
12
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
centers. It is often critically argued that group family day care could have a negative im-
pact on existing standards in day care centers and thus might advance to a "kindergarten
light" (Seckinger 2014). On the other hand, from the perspective of the childminder, in
particular the group family day care, can promote the exchange to provide more reliability
and contribution to living incomes. Regarding the pedagogic quality of group family day
care, it is little known up to today, so it will not be possible to make a final decision even
though group family day care would be referred to quite positively in this context (Tietze
et al. 2014).
In western and eastern Germany there are several different trends regarding the devel-
opment of family day care forms. Figure 6 illustrates this by means of the regional distinc-
tion according to the number of the cared children per childminder. In eastern Germany
a much stronger trend to care for several children by one person and towards group fam-
ily day care is being illustrated. In western Germany there is still a considerable trend to
family-similar family day care with one or two children to be cared for.
Figure 6 Childminders according to the number of children cared for and areas, 2013, parts in
%, (German Statistical Office 2006-2013, own calculations)
Whereas the care of one to a maximum of two children by the childminders is mainly per-
formed as an additional income to the main income of the husband; the trend in eastern
Germany is much more towards having the family day care activity as main income. Ac-
cordingly a consideration seems to be worthwhile which is based on the employment re-
lationships in family day care in Germany.
1 and 2
cared
children
3 and 4
cared
children
5 and
more
cared
children
East
47 %
14%
39 %
1 and 2
cared
children
3 and 4
cared
children
5 and
more
cared
children
West
30 %
22 %
48 %
13
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Employment relationships in family day care
Up to now family day care in Germany is mainly organized as independent activities. Ac-
cording to substantiated estimations only 2-4 % of the active childminders are having an
employment subject to social security deductions (Pabst/Schoyerer 2014). However, the
self-dependent work may have advantages for childminders in particular with regard to
the specific care events in form of relatively self-responsible and independent organiza-
tion of daily routines. The disadvantage of independent work is the "economic personal
responsibility" which particularly targets on the payment of social security contributions
as well as the field of long-term securing of living income. Of course, each childminder has
to care for needs to register.
Whereas most persons in Germany who are employed in a dependent employment and
are subject to social security would be therefore insured against possible risks such as
illness or accident the self-employed have to pay social and pension insurance payments
on their own. If the monthly income of the childminder for instance exceeds 395 €, it
would be no longer possible to include her in the family insurance of her husband and
therefore has to arrange her own health insurance. The same applies to the pension in-
surance: if the monthly income of the childminder exceeds 450 €, she has to pay contri-
butions for the pension insurance. Also the third liability insurance forms an integral part
of the activity. Since January 1st, 2009, childminders have to pay taxes on all incomes from
family day care activities (this includes all incomes for the acceptance of sponsorship as
well as the reimbursement of material costs) independent from how many children they
care for and if the incomes have been paid privately or publicly. Previously only private
incomes were liable to tax payment.
Contrary to these charges sometimes considerably varying and highly diverging incomes
of the childminders in the federal average have been observed (Sell/Kukula 2012). Even
though Family Day Care is accepted as an equal form of child care in Germany, according
to the federal statutory regulations, not all federal states pursue the real equality in re-
gards to a comparable financial treatment which might be regarded as an infringement of
the equality prescribed in the SGB VIII. Thus, childcare in a day care center in some federal
states is free of charge whereas the parents have to pay for care in family day care. Also,
childminders often can only invoice actually worked hours for care, i.e. with regard to
illness of the children or holiday of the parents often do not have constant income but
have to bear the cost incurred in case of replacement offers provided by the local body if
they used these services (Schoyerer/Weimann-Sandig 2014).
14
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
In family day care regular flat sums are withdrawn from the parents regardless of the fact
that the children have used care or not. To sum up the self-employed activity of childmind-
ers can be described as regionally highly varying. At this point, being a childminder is
deemed as less rewarding or embarrassing depending on the federal state where the
childminder is working.
Currently, the options of an employment subject to social insurance contributions are in-
tensively discussed. Starting from the assumption that a permanent position as an em-
ployed person would contribute to eliminate social uncertainties of the childminder and
guarantee their continuous integration into employment. The option of a permanent po-
sition of childminders is not only reserved to public bodies but can also being perceived
by private bodies. Through this, the childminders might have the advantage of having a
contractually fixed monthly income. Furthermore, the options of permanent positions
might increase the chance of a recall to institutionalized network structures as well as the
integration into a regular specialist exchange. Permanent position structures might ren-
der a better care continuity and reliability for parents. Furthermore, parents perceive an
upgrading regarding the care quality since they hope that childminders are continuously
trained in the interest of the body. This is insofar important since the activity of
childminders in Germany does not coincide with the necessity of a completion of an inde-
pendent training. In point of fact family day care contrary to the day care centers, which
presumes approved state qualifications, this activity is a low-threshold access to the field
of child care and is particularly suitable for career changers (Schoyerer/Weimann-Sandig
2014).
Qualification and vocational training of childminders in Germany
The federal law indicates in SGB VIII § 23 that childminders need to be qualified for their
activity and need to submit the proof of knowledge regarding the requirements as
childminder. The specialization needs to be proven with an approved qualification or in
any other way. A certain level regarding the amount of qualification is not given in the SGB
VIII. A pedagogical training is not imperatively required – except for an activity in group
family day care. The amount and scope of the required qualification are given by the re-
sponsible local authorities that would take the state laws into consideration. Since each
local authority independently determines the qualification conditions for its area of activ-
ity this leads to quite different qualification structures of childminders throughout Ger-
many ranging from pedagogic professional qualifications up to persons without any qual-
ification (Pabst/Schoyerer 2014).
15
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
In 2013, the majority of childminders in Germany have completed a qualification course
for Family Day Care where the major part could prove at least 160 qualification hours or
more. Nonetheless, these qualification measures do not represent an approved profes-
sional qualification compared to pediatric nurses, socio-pedagogical assistance or educa-
tors. In 2013, at least one third (31 %) of all childminders had a pedagogical (higher-)
education. This includes persons within the range between a qualification on the level of
a socio-pedagogical assistance as well as a pedagogical higher education or a technical
college qualification. As Figure 7 shows, almost 14 % of the childminders have been qual-
ified as educators (German Federal Statistical Office, child and youth welfare statistic
2013).
Figure 7. Development of level of qualification of childminders, 2006-2013, (German Statistical
Office 2006-2013, own calculations)
Accordingly, the assumption can be stated from the increase in obtaining the basic quali-
fication of childminders in the last few years in Germany. However, currently there is a
lack of discussion about a standardized qualification of family day care which offers ap-
propriate options for an opportunity in a recognized vocational training in modular form.
Although there were first impulses from the family politics in the frame of the "Action
Program Family Day Care" which promoted accompanying professional education from
childminders to educators, the program has been stopped after a trial period of two years.
Lack of demand and mainly the still missing uniform structures of the childminders in
6,9
123
13,9
28
10,6
12,6
38,9
5,1
23,8
34,3
5,9
32,9
2013
2006
Staff between over qualification and under qualification
with pedagogical training
with pedagogical training and qualification course 160 hours and more
with pedagogical training and qualification course under 160 hours
only qualification course under 160 hours and more
only qualification course under 160 hours
withour qualification course and without pedagogical training
16
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Germany might be mentioned as reasons for this (Schoyerer/Weimann-Sandig 2014). The
different qualification conditions in day care centers and family day care however upset
the parents since the striking characteristics of family day care are still little known.
Quality and quality assurance in family day care
As shown above childminders have a considerably lower level of formal qualifications.
However, empirical studies on pedagogical quality and child development parameters
have so far shown them to be on a par with day care centres. The German NUBBEK study
(Tietze et al. 2014), for example, compared descriptive results from family day care and
nursery groups for children under three, taking into account aspects relating to measur-
ing methodology and found hardly any difference in the level of pedagogical quality. Both
receive medium scores for pedagogical quality. As a possible reason for this the authors
point to a possible over-representation of “larger family day care facilities and childmind-
ers with higher pedagogical qualifications” (ibid., p. 15). This finding is somewhat confus-
ing, given that the proportion of educators with pedagogical training is much higher
among day care staff than in family day care.
The confusion increases, if we look at the studies by Ahnert (2010) and Ahnert et al.
(2014). These were able to demonstrate that children cared for by a childminder showed
significantly higher values for attachment quality (AQS) and, on average, higher values for
cognitive development (BSDI), than children looked after by educators (Erzieher/Er-
zieherinnen) in day care centres. The surprising thing here is that the good results of chil-
dren cared for by childminders may have quite different causes, since the sample used by
Ahnert (2010) and Ahnert et al. (2014) includes various types of childminders in compa-
rably sized samples. Thus this result cannot be ascribed solely to the degree of qualifica-
tion.
It is therefore considered that the system advisory and support in local authorities is im-
portant for the extension and the insurance of quality in family day care (Schoyerer 2014;
Pabst/Schoyerer 2014). It formally applies as core piece of the professional control and
coordination of the local systems of family day care and refers in their understanding to
all questions of childminders and parents. Other than for day care centers the German
legislator formulated in the SGB VIII also an explicit advice claim which is binding for all
youth welfare areas. Also the regulation of the representation is a binding obligatory task
for the public youth welfare bodies regarding federal law.
17
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
As a central target of the professional advisory and support system the development and
further enhancement of structures is applicable which have quality insuring and quality
increasing effects on the care of children in Family Day Care. Since Family Day Care is no
independent pedagogically professionalized occupational field it falls in the tasks of the
advisory and support system to ensure the quality of the care in a way that the tasks of
education and care can be realized. The practice-oriented advice of childminders regard-
ing pedagogical questions and organizational questions of their everyday education resp.
regarding questions of the enhancement of their Family Day Care setting or the independ-
ence applies as important part of the system of Family Day Care.
Current results point out that the advisory and support system for childminders often do
not have sufficient staff resources in order to be able to provide a sufficient quantity of
advice and support to the childminders. Moreover, additional resources are required for
this system in the course of an increasing differentiation as required by the care settings
within the legal term of Family Day Care how it may be currently observed in particular
on the example of Group Day Care (Pabst/Schoyerer 2014).
Outlook and current development lines
The paper points out, that family day care in Germany went through a highly dynamic
development, which still progresses further on. Within a few years it merged from a side
issue in the spectrum of child and youth welfare to an approved and demanded form of
care in the system of child care. A glance at other European countries shows that family
day care quite exists in the spectrum of public child care, thus it is highly established only
in a few countries like in France, Austria, Belgium or the Nordic countries (Eurydice
2014).
It also stated that the initially low degree of federal law regulations in Germany at munic-
ipal level led to the fact that under the legal term of Family Day Care numerous different
care settings and forms with different profiles are developing (Schoyerer 2014). Thus,
family day care differentiates itself not only regarding the forms, but also subsequently in
particular regarding the pedagogical contexts of activity and care characteristics. Alt-
hough it is assumed that the peculiarities of family day care are based on the personal
relationships between the childminder and the child resp. its parents as well as its family-
like reference to everyday life simulating real life the question of the specifics of family
day care from the empiric point of view is still mostly unsettled.
18
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Despite of these unsettled questions, current findings regarding the pedagogical quality
point out that family day care and center based child care can be compared under certain
circumstances. Taking high variances into consideration in particular in family day care
both forms of care have an average pedagogical quality. Developmental research could
even show that infants cared for by a childminder present higher value of attachment
quality as well as on average higher values of the cognitive development than children
cared for by educators. Possibly this can go back to the favorable care setting with small
groups of children and a good care key for infants. Also parents are very content with the
form of family day care on an average and compared to parents with children in child day
centers are even more content (BMFSFJ 2012).
In conclusion, the current discussion on further developments of family day care focuses
in particular on (1) status, profession and qualification-related developments at the level
of Childminders, (2) on the structural conditions of the advisory and support system at
the level of the local authorities as well as (3) the aspects in connection with control and
integration of family day care into the local system of child care. It is sensible to check at
which level standards are reasonably increased and how guidelines of (federal) law need
to be made, in order to achieve the effects which are aimed for qualitative enhancement
of the system of family day care. Therefore, the self-conception of family day care as fam-
ily-similar alternative towards day care centers which developed historically needs to be
considered, if family day care will remain recognizable in the spectrum of provisions in
Germany’s day care system for young children. A well-meant but insufficiently thought-
through standardization strategy of family day care would possibly have opposite effects
of what one has originally intended.
Nonetheless, in the next few years, it should be considered how the quantitative develop-
ment of family day care can be further qualitatively outnumbered. The childminders need
structures allowing them a long-term safeguarding as well as continued care. The compe-
tition taking place between day care centers, which court for the care of children of less
than three years, due to the guidelines for financial support and allocation and the
childminders due to the U3 legal claim are often at the expense of the latter. Therefore,
the legal equality of family day care in Germany is not yet realized in the reality for the
concerned children, parents and childminders. It remains to be observed in how far this
step can be further implemented in the frame of the political system.
19
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
References
Ahnert, L. (2010). Wie viel Mutter braucht ein Kind. Bindung – Bildung – Betreuung: öffentlich und
privat. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Ahnert, L. (2014): Was brauchen Kinder? Eine psychologische Perspektive auf kindliches Wohl-
befinden und Entwicklung. Vortrag auf dem DJI-Fachforum Bildung und Erziehung am
22.10.2014, München
Becker, N. (2010). Hirnentwicklung und Lernen in der frühen Kindheit – Möglichkeiten und Gren-
zen neurowissenschaftlicher Forschung. In H.-R. Leu & A. von Behr (Eds.) Forschung und
Praxis der Frühpädagogik. Profiwissen für die Arbeit mit Kindern von 0-3 Jahren, pp. 26–38.
München und Basel: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.
Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) (2012). Dritter Zwischen-
bericht zur Evaluation des Kinderförderungsgesetzes Bericht der Bundesregierung 2012
nach § 24a Abs. 5 SGB VIII über den Stand des Ausbaus für ein bedarfsgerechtes Angebot an
Kindertagesbetreuung für Kinder unter drei Jahren für das Berichtsjahr 2011. Berlin.
Bromer, J., Van Haitsma, M., Daley, K. & Modigliani, K. (2009). Staffed support networks and qual-
ity in family child care: Findings from the famiiy child care network impact study. Chicago,
III: Herr Research Center for Children and Social Policy, Erikson Institute. Available at
http://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/Full_report_web.pdf. (Accessed
20.10.2014).
Doherty, G., Forer, B., Lero, D. S., Goalman, H. & LaGrange, A. (2006). Predictors of quality in family
child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21 (3), 296–312.
Heitkötter, M. &Teske, J. (Eds..). Formenvielfalt der Kindertagespflege. Standortbestimmung, Qua-
litätsanforderungen und Gestaltungsbedarfe. München: DJI.
Heitkötter, M. & Pabst, C. (2014 i.E.). Verlässt die Kindertagespflege den lebensweltlichen Raum
der Familie? Zum Formenwandel der Kindertagespflege – eine empirische Bestandsauf-
nahme. In M. Heitkötter & J. Teske (Eds.) Formenvielfalt der Kindertagespflege. Standortbe-
stimmung, Qualitätsanforderungen und Gestaltungsbedarfe., pp. 68–99. München: DJI.
Jurczyk, K., Rauschenbach, Th., Tietze, W., Keimeleder, L., Schneider, K., Schumann, M., Stempinski,
S., Weiß, K. & Zehnbauer, A. (2004). Von der Tagespflege zur Familientagesbetreuung. Zur
Zukunft öffentlich regulierter Kinderbetreuung in Privathaushalten. Weinheim und Basel:
Beltz.
20
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Jurczyk, K.& A. Kerl-Wienecke, A. (2010). Qualität und Qualifizierung in der Kindertagespflege. In:
F. Becker-Stoll, J. Berkic, & B. Kalicki (Eds.) Bildungsqualität für Kinder in den ersten drei
Jahren, pp. 96-106. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Kerl-Wienecke, A., Schoyerer, G. & Schuhegger, L. (2013). Kompetenzprofil Kindertages-
pflege. Kinder in den ersten drei Lebensjahren. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Kocka, J. & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.) (2010). More Years, More Life. Recommendations of the Joint
Academy Initiative on Aging. Nova Acta Leopoldina N. F. Available at http://www.jp-demo-
graphic.eu/about/documents/more-years-more-life.-recommendations-of-the-joint-acad-
emy-initiative-on-aging (Accessed 20.10.2014).
Leu, H.-R. &v. Behr, A. (2010). Neuentdeckung der Krippe: Herausforderungen für Ausbildung,
Praxis und Forschung. In H.-R. Leu & A. von Behr (Eds.) Forschung und Praxis der Frühpäda-
gogik. Profiwissen für die Arbeit mit Kindern von 0-3 Jahren, pp. 11–25. München: Reinhardt.
Pabst, C. & Schoyerer, G. (2014). Wie entwickelt sich die Kindertagespflege in Deutsch-
land? Empirische Befunde und Analysen aus der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des
Aktionsprogramms Kindertagespflege. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
Pauen, S. (2012). Wie lernen Kleinkinder? Entwicklungspsychologische Erkenntnisse und
ihre Bedeutung für Politik und Gesellschaft. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (APuZ) 62
(22), 8–14.
Pettinger, R. (1996). Zum gesellschaftlichen Wandel von Familien – Konsequenzen für die
Kinderbetreuung. In Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend
(BMFSFJ) (Eds.): Kinderbetreuung in Tagespflege. Tagesmütter-Handbuch, pp. 29-52.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Raikes, H. A., Raikes, H. & Wilcox, B. (2005). Regulation, subsidy receipt and provider char-
acteristics: What predicts quality in child care homes? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20 (2), 164–184.
Schnock, B. (2009). Eignung von Tagespflegepersonen in der Kindertagespflege. Praxisma-
terialien für die Jugendämter. Herausgegeben vom Bundesministerium für Familie, Se-
nioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) Nr. 2. Berlin und München. Available at
http://www.fruehe-chancen.de/fileadmin/PDF/handreichung_eignung_nr_2.pdf (Ac-
cessed 20.10.2014).
Schoyerer, G. (2014). Kindertagespflege zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Pädagogi-
sche Orientierungen in der Fachberatung. Marburg: Tectum.
21
Schoyerer & Weimann-Sandig. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER 4(1) 2015, 2–21.
http://jecer.org
Schoyerer, G. & Weimann-Sandig, N. (2014). Tagespflegepersonen in tätigkeitsbegleitender
ErzieherInnenausbildung. Die Sicht von Tagespflegepersonen auf Berufsmotivation,
Alltagsmanagement und öffentliche Förderung. München: DJI.
Seckinger, M. (2014). Formenvielfalt der Kindertagespflege aus Sicht der institutionellen
Betreuung – kritische Reflexionen. In M. Heitkötter & J. Teske (Eds.) Formenvielfalt der
Kindertagespflege. Standortbestimmung, Qualitätsanforderungen und Gestaltungsbe-
darfe, pp. 169-183. München: DJI.
Sell, S. & Kukula, N. (2012). Leistungsorientierte Vergütung in der Kindertagespflege. Von
der aktuellen Praxis zu einem zukunftsfähigen Modell? Herausgegeben vom Institut
für Bildungs- und Sozialpolitik der Hochschule Koblenz (ibus). Koblenz.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2006-2013). Statistik der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe. Kinder und tä-
tige Personen in Tageseinrichtungen und öffentlich geförderter Kindertagespflege.
Wiesbaden
Stock, G., Bertram, H., Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A., Holzgreve, W., Kohli, M. & Staudinger, U. M.
(Eds.) (2012). Zukunft mit Kindern. Fertilität und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung in
Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Tietze, W, Becker-Stoll, F., Bensel, J., Eckhardt, A. G., Haug-Schnabel, G., Kalicki, B., Keller, H.
& Leyendecker, B. (Eds.) (2014). Nationale Untersuchung zur Bildung, Betreuung und
Erziehung in der frühen Kindheit (NUBBEK). Weimar und Berlin: Verlag das netz.
Weimann-Sandig, N. (2013). Drohende Altersarmut von Frauen: Welche Jahrgänge beson-
ders betroffen sind. IAB-Forum, Nr. 1, 104–109.
