Making sure Families Don't Fail.
In the recent State of the Union address President Obama outlined his plan for the solution to our education problems. It was my take from his speech that the solution was simply preschool education. After several interesting conversations with fellow Stay at Home Moms we received this message in the email by our very passionate friend Bev Smith. She is a staunch supporter of the family in Canada and around the world. We are happy to reprint her response and discussion about this issue. We would love to hear from you. What are your thoughts and how can we best strengthen the family while providing the best for our children.
Response to David Brooks- New York Times Feb 14. 2013
"When families fail"
response by Beverley Smith
women's and children's rights activist
David Brooks, renowned journalist, author and social policy pundit has taken a stance for formal early childhood education. He says that Head Start's 'dismal' outcomes with 'no measurable advantage' to children, as observed by Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institute, are to be excused. He wants more of the same.
Brooks argues that with better trained teachers, better curriculum, stricter standards and measurement of outcomes, the Head Start plan is still vital for children.
It is an odd argument, like saying if the road has potholes in it, when cars have trouble driving around, build more potholes. Maybe the answer is in early childhood learning as he argues, but not in Head Start programs. Maybe the answer is to help parents spend time with their kids.
Brooks' column oozes contempt for parents. He says that 'millions' of American children grow up in homes which apparently fail them. He says they are not learning' the skills they need to succeed in life', and they can't regulate their emotions and have tiny vocabularies. He says millions of parents 'don't have the means, the skill, or in some cases the interest' to help their kids. And since parents are so grossly incompetent apparently, he will ride in on his white horse to rescue them from the parents.
I beg to disagree. I find his arguments circular.. He says state programs he wants would help 'in getting parents to be more engaged in their kids' education'. Well, hey, if you stop whisking the kids away, the parents would have more chance to be engaged.
He says that Head Start systems would work best if they were built to 'adapt to local circumstance'. Well how about fine-tuning that literally and adapting to the needs of this child to be with someone who loves him, the need of that child to have funding for new shoes, the need of another child to have money for milk? What kids need is love and money not necessarily escape from parents.
He says that' millions of parents don't have the means' to help their kids. Well give them the means. What about a birth bonus as in Singapore? What about a universal maternity benefit for a full year as in Australia? What about universal funding per child till age 18 as in much of Europe, money that flows with the child to wherever the child is? Head Start does not address the need even Brooks identifies - the lack of means.
Yet Brooks has landed on some key issues society must address, blinders and biases that hang over us from the traditional economic paradigm. When work is defined only as what is done for pay, those who historically have not been paid, such as mothers at home, are just ignored in the economy. Unpaid labor is estimated to be one-third of the GDP were it counted but since it is not, we get skewed economics. We get suggestions mothers at home with small kids are not doing any work at all. We get suggestions that women even in labor are not in the labor force or that those who produce children and human life are not productive.
And we get suggestions that kids at the mother's knee learning to sit, talk, walk and share are not learning anything and are desperately in need of 'early childhood education' which only some paid stranger can give.
It is a serious problem when economics ignores expertise that way. It is true that some parents are not as intense teaching 3-4 year olds to read as others are, but the differences are not due to the building the child is in, or even to the education level of the parent. The differences are mostly due to the time the parent has available to spend with the child, the money the parent is able to use to provide for the child's basic needs and the confidence the parent has that the parenting role matters. Surely whisking kids away from the parent as incompetent actually may cause harm to the child's stability and to the self-esteem of the parent. It surely does nothing to help with the funding or the time.
It is a serious problem when economics ignores expertise that way. It is true that some parents are not as intense teaching 3-4 year olds to read as others are, but the differences are not due to the building the child is in, or even to the education level of the parent. The differences are mostly due to the time the parent has available to spend with the child, the money the parent is able to use to provide for the child's basic needs and the confidence the parent has that the parenting role matters. Surely whisking kids away from the parent as incompetent actually may cause harm to the child's stability and to the self-esteem of the parent. It surely does nothing to help with the funding or the time.
It was bad enough when women were told by male chefs that they were not good cooks and only men were. It was bad enough when male pediatricians wrote books telling women how to breastfeed when they themselves sat in offices passing judgment. But to tell women with small children that they are not even good at parenting small children, is a pretty big leap.
As a teacher, mother and grandmother I have some concerns about such moves to devalue parents We need to empower parents to help with the money and the time so they can be great parents, so they can rise to the occasion and provide that trip to the museum, that library visit,, that nightly lap time cuddle with a book. We are not headed that way if we have more Head Start and it is no surprise that results are not stellar.
The solution of more formalized care for younger kids is a tragedy waiting to happen. Putting very little kids, say 2-3 year olds in a school building with older children warehouses them. They become cogs in a wheel and they lack that attachment and bonding critical to mental health. They are socialized to rigid rules, to line up and sit up and listen, en masse, to do as others do. And this stifles the creative spirit and ignores the very crucial attention kids need to individual pace of learning and learning style. It literally turns kids off learning.
I agree with Brooks that kids matter and that early education is absolutely vital for any nation's children to become happy productive citizens. But for that very reason we must not put all kids into some large group program. Kids learn wherever they are and we must not assume only strangers are experts about kids. Parents are the experts. Even the UN Convention on the Child says it.
President Obama would be very wise to fund kids, directly. Especially in America where faith in the individual's rights and judgment should be a given. The best head start for a child is parental love and attention.
References for further info
Comments
Post a Comment