In 1981, the execution of Dictator Nicolas Ceausecu, who had ruled Romania for the previous twenty four years, led to a revolution and the formation of a new government. For the first time the previously closed society was open to a curious Western world. One of the first discoveries of foreign visitors was the plight of 170,000 children barely surviving in abysmally run state institutions. Many of these children were so-called “social orphans.”Ceausecu, in an effort to increase the work force, rewarded families who had more than five children and punished those who did not. Many families could not afford to keep that many children who were then placed in purportedly well staffed and run facilities.This was far from being the case. In an article in American Scientist, Charles A. Nelson and his colleagues report on an ongoing study of these children (Nelson 2009). They describe the unspeakable condition in these institutions:

“Young children were found confined in cribs with filthy bedding and little sensory stimulation. In any given institution the ratio of “caregivers” to children might be fifteen to one. Staff often had little education and no training in child development. Regimentation ruled.

Children were simultaneously placed on rows of pots for toileting, wore similar haircuts regardless of gender, were dressed alike and were fed on schedule, in a largely silent, mechanical manner. Older children were physically or sexually abused.”

In their study, Nelson and his colleagues compared infants who were adopted into quality foster homes with infants who continued to live in the institutions. The results were frightening: “in almost every domain we measured developmental delays that were observed in the institutionalized children.” This was particularly true for attachment and mental development. Only 3 percent of the institutionalized children demonstrated secure attachment in comparison with a 100 percent of the foster home children. Similar results were obtained for emotional stability and mental development.

The authors conclude that timing is all-important. They found that the earlier the positive intervention the better the outcome. They argue, as did Montessori, that there are “sensitive periods in development during which time the appropriate stimulation is necessary for full development of the capacity in question.” They use the example of vision. If one eye is deprived of visual stimulation during the sensitive period, the brain will never allow the development of binocular vision. I bear witness to that. As a child I had cross eyes and wore a patch over my right eye to correct the condition. I no longer have crossed yes, but I do have a lazy (poor vision) right eye and no binocular vision.

This study highlights the importance of the quality care for infants and young children, the sort of care we have been emphasizing with Just Ask Baby. Children need the physical contact, the cuddling, and the smiling for the development of attachment. They need the ongoing conversations, the songs, the rhymes to nourish their language. And they need the age appropriate toys to stimulate their cognitive development.

But it is well to remember, that you can over stimulate the brain as well as under stimulate it with equally negative consequences. These findings simply reinforce what we have known for a long time regarding the needs of children for healthy development, namely, loving care adapted to the developing needs, interests and ability of the child.

-----------------
Nelson, C. A. F., Elizabeth A.: Fox, Nathan A.: Zeanah, Jr. Charles H. (2009). "The Deprived Human Brain." American Scientist 97(3): 222.229.