THE RULES THAT determine how many of the youngest children in South Carolina are cared for are under review, a process that — if carried out responsibly — could mean a radical improvement in school readiness and child well-being.

For too long, too many aspects of child care in the Palmetto State have been regulated loosely or not at all, creating a situation that can be dangerous, or even deadly, for children. Often, the child care rules do not do enough to foster the healthy, stimulating environment that children need in their youngest years. If our state’s leaders are at all serious about their rhetoric that puts education at the top of the public agenda, this crucial part of the package can no longer be given short shrift.

A group of early childhood development advocates has been working for several years to shape new rules, which are on the brink of full consideration and implementation. That is, they are if the process is not derailed by private, for-profit child care centers arguing against the rules.

A group representing those centers opposed the regulations during an administrative law judge’s hearing last week. The objections are expected to continue as the rules move through the Legislature. That is a shame, because the regulations call for necessary and overdue safeguards.

The changes would for the first time limit the number of young children grouped together. For example, the rules would allow no more than 15 infants in one room, a maximum of 18 1-year-olds and 21 2-year-olds. There is no limit now, except for those that result from caps on the number of children per staff and minimum square footage rules.

The regulations would begin phasing in lower staff-to-student ratios, trimming the number of children who can be cared for by one person. The changes take effect first for younger children, dropping right away from 1-to-6 to 1-to-5 for infants and from 1-to-10 to 1-to-9 for 2-year-olds. Eventually, the staff-to-child ratios would be 1-to-5 for infants, 1-to-6 for 1-year-olds, 1-to-7 for 2-year-olds; 1-to-11 for 3-year-olds; 1-to-16 for 4-year-olds, 1-to-19 for 5-year-olds and 1-to-23 for older children in licensed child care.

During the hearing, Leigh Bolick of the Department of Social Services said the minimum standards are in line with requirements around the Southeast. Ms. Bolick testified that the regulations were drafted to promote quality child care. She said knowledge about child development and good child care has increased greatly since the rules were last revamped in 1993, and said that the knowledge should be a factor in child care today.

Cheryl Wood of Winthrop University helped research and draft the rules, representing parents of young children. Dr. Wood has a masters and a Ph.D. related to early childhood and family issues. She cited research showing that lower group sizes and staff-to-child ratios are among the key indicators of high-quality child care. Time in such care is also a predictor of higher readiness for school.

Peggy Ball of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services testified about her state’s experiences with lower group sizes and ratios. She noted that research has shown that smaller groups reduce the transmission of illness among children, something that can have an economic benefit in reduced medical costs and lost work time for parents.

Nancy Freeman of USC’s College of Education discussed the educational benefits of lower group sizes and ratios. Take something such as language development and literacy. When they have a smaller group to supervise, child care workers have an easier time hearing and encouraging babies who try to speak. Talking and listening are building blocks for reading, which is the skill needed to help children learn everything else. A crowded, noisy room with stressed-out workers caring for too many children can never offer the same experience.

Representatives of private, for-profit child care centers — who are singled out by the proposals — attended the hearing to object to the rules. Some of their charges amounted to nit-picking. However, their main argument — that reducing the number of children in a group and per staff member will drive the cost of child care to unreasonable levels — is worth examining.

Advocates of the rules cited research showing that similar limits have not driven prices up in other states with tighter regulations. A number of for-profit chains that operate in South Carolina also operate in states with much tighter rules, having found a way to continue making a profit there.

Affordability of child care cannot be ignored. Child development advocates suggest that no family pay more than 10 percent of its gross income for good-quality child care, or the cost becomes too prohibitive to take advantage of the service.

To ease concern about the cost of these reforms, the tighter constraints on group size and ratios are being phased in over four years. The impact on centers and parents will be incremental and, in the end, is not too much to ask in exchange for the benefits.

We know where South Carolina has long ranked in numerous measures of school readiness and child well-being. We’ve lagged in the cellar on a number of those indicators. Those are just the types of deficiencies that these new regulations are designed to attack, head-on. The rules were drafted over years of work, research and compromise. They’re overdue, and anyone working to derail them today is working against South Carolina’s future.

Reach Ms. Brook at (803) 771-8458 or nbrook@thestate.com.