Someone once mentioned to me that a Catholic school in San Antonio that had high incidence of unwed mothers decided to try a radical method of correcting the situation. Instead of expelling the unfortunate mothers and ostracizing them, contributing to their disgrace and difficult financial situation (or providing implicit pressure for the girls to have abortions to avoid being expelled), this school set up a daycare on the campus that was staffed, in part, by the girls themselves, and that this did more than Home Ec and Sex Ed combined to make the girls understand the realities of life with a child and to consider the consequences of their actions more carefully. Now, this did attract negative attention as I understand it, but the results spoke for themselves. This seems to be an example of a positive move towards helping mothers and educating young people. It also represents a bringing of children into unaccustomed spaces where they might be accessed by their own mothers periodically. I'm sure there were those who doubted that the students would get anything accomplished with their babies and others' close by.
This may not actually be too different from the move by some employers (especially schools) to include child care for employees. If a high school teacher could pick up her child from an on-site child development center at 3, that would be infinitely better than 5, and a step in the right direction! If she were able to spend the lunch hour with her own baby, even if only twice a week or so, this would provide valuable bonding time. (The idea has good breastfeeding potential, too!) If the facility also provided credit or work-study for the students and supervised child care experience, so much the better!
Utopian? Maybe. But many times the point of a utopian vision is to illustrate an ideal with the hope that it might influence our vision of what is possible in our own world, and give us ideas of things to implement. Unless you take the definition of utopia that sees the utopia as necessarily ironic, since the utopia is a place that does not and can not possibly exist. I take most utopias as sincere attempts to influence change, though there are exceptions.
The question of whether the facility would be faculty-only, or if faculty children would be kept apart from students' children (if applicable) would be a bit stickier, but this might even be sticky if we were talking about university faculty's or grad students' or undergraduates' children, hierarchies being what they are. Which actually leads me to another point: At the university from which I have my B.A., there was a child care center that was available to faculty, staff and students alike. Rather than requiring the parents to keep their children in the center for fixed hours, parents could, at the beginning of each semester, register for the number of hours and specific hours needed for their particular teaching, work or class schedules. Thus, child care was available when necessary, and no one was forced into predetermined hours to maximize either the child's hours in the facility or the facility's profit. And no one had to pay for more hours than they needed or wanted, which often leads to the feeling that, "Well, if I'm paying for it, s/he might as well stay!" By contrast, the children's center on the university campus where I currently teach has fixed hours, was (at one time--perhaps still is) full-time only, and was at one time for faculty only (or at least preference given to faculty/staff), though I believe this has changed, as some grad students--like my office mate--have their children enrolled in the center.
9 comments:
A great idea. There is such a school in the area I work at - a private school that is non-Catholic. I've often wondered if I should try to make the switch. On the other hand, a group of teachers tried to influence the administration to consider a day care facility on its campus and was met with resistance. The liability insurance the school would have to carry would break the bank; the updating of the facilities in order to pass building inspections was also another consideration. The administration felt the expense would be too great. So, I think what you are suggesting has already been implented in some very wealthy schools (at least here); our own Catholic schools on a tight budget, on the other hand...maybe we could get help from the diocese. Hmmm....
C
I agree. A great idea. Especially the point you make about helping the girls understand the realities of life with a child. As you mentioned in a previous point, the real problem is that there are too many child-free spaces and too many people who have no contact with infants and children. I think many teen pregnancies are not accidents, but the result of girls who have never been around babies having a very unrealistic idea of a baby as "someone who will love me unconditionally" and who have no idea of the work involved in parenting.
When my husband and I took child birth classes there were several people in the classes who had never held a baby, never spent any time around babies. This is the obvious result of more people choosing to have no children or only one or two. People have never had siblings or cousins or nieces and nephews, never had friends with children. Babies become an exotic species and thus subject to all sorts of odd misconceptions.
Yes, I did always pretty much feel prepared, but I had been around 5 siblings and numerous cousins of various ages all of my life. It definitely helps. On the other hand, I didn't have an idealized view of child care, and I did become pregnant at 19. I just had more of an idea of what I was facing. I also knew (from relatives' experience) that not every baby was "planned," even within marriage, and that that was O.K.; that the baby was not responsible, and that I, on the other hand, was responsible for him, and that babies' love can make a real difference in a difficult situation if you let it. But your absolutely right that people's own experiences with children dictate how they feel about children in their own lives.
As for various financial realities, sometimes they are easier to overcome if those involved in the decision-making (and fund-raising, grant acquisition, etc.) have a vision that is favorable to the project being discussed. But if the expense is not seen as a priority--or if there is opposition more generally, resources will not be utilized to their fullest potential. This happens in businesses, politics, and families every day. I would assume that the faculty would pay for the care, just as they would elsewhere, but it would not necessarily be a for-profit venture (which might be another reason the initial cost would not seem justified to those in power). Many things can be overcome, if people have the vision to do so. Again, I just feel that it comes down to what we value and our perspective on how things should be. I'm sure this makes me wildly impractical, but money has always been in short supply in my family, yet somehow, we managed to hold on to visions of what could be. (Yet I consider myself a pessimist. Hmmm... Perhaps because I know that more people are tallying dollars than creating visions.)
I was at the bookstore, today, and couldn't help but take a peek at some parenting books. Most of them, for infants, involved getting them to sleep on their own so mom and dad could free up time for themselves. As a mommy who loves cuddling and sleeping with her baby (an idea that is strongly discouraged in these books), I thought of you. I think you're onto something. Society really seems to want us to get rid of our children ASAP.
C
Yup. For our "convenience." Or so they can be trained by "professionals" sooner. :P
For good parenting info (some would say "feminist"--and they wouldn't refute that designation), I like Mothering magazine. It's very pro-parent, pro-family, pro-child, pro-bonding. Some might think it odd of me to prefer this one, since it is liberal in a sense (and I guess I'm not), but it's very wholistic, granola, organic parenting advice. The kind of thing that "earthy" moms on both sides of the political spectrum can appreciate, not the kind of empty, feel-good fluff that you find in Parenting or American Baby.
I was talking to a friend yesterday on the phone and made some (derogatory sounding, I guess) remark about the large number of nannies in my neighborhood. These kids spend half the day with their nannies, and then the rest of it in 'play-school' (we're talking 1, 2, and 3 year olds), regardless of the hours their mothers work or don't work. My friend (who is nannying right now) asked me "but, you have a kid, don't you sympathise?"
Yes, I have a son who requires round the clock attention. And no, I can't sympathise, because I love being with him. In another way, I do sympathise. These aren't 'bad' parents. They love their kids, I know they do. They spend all kinds of time thinking about their kids and what they need and want. They even enjoy their children when they are not sending them away for 'enrichment' or getting away themselves for 'me time'.
But they've bought into, consciously or unconsciously, the idea that children are burdens that you need respite from or obstacles that you need to work around. Children are wonderful and life-affirming miracles, sure, but having them is so stressful you need to get away from them every day.
It's a kind of poverty, I guess. I don't think these kids will be hugely screwed up by it, but I know that already, what they want, is more of their parents, and its sad that they aren't getting it.
What about the research that says that daycare kids fare just as well as stay-at-home with mom kids? Is the research biased? Can we just ignore it? I think it was Superdiscomama who mentioned the research but am not sure. Another question I have...I think we all agree that parents do need the occasional night out away from children. How much is too much?
-C
I mentioned the research. There is research to support either option, interestingly. But I think that the difference might be whether the research to support daycare is looking for what is adequate or what is the best for the child. Those who support attachment parenting say that having more access to the parents, being assured of the parents' accessibility, leads to more confident behavior. "Attached" babies are, ironically perhaps, more independent. Do with that what you will.
And the other question I have is how long-term the studies are. Are the children followed-up through adolescence and beyond to see who is better adjusted overall? No, because too many different factors affect each outcome. So of course, the quality of the time spent with parents at home once the child is home from daycare is important too, as Supadiscomama suggested. And yes, I would say that the majority of children raised in either manner do "just fine," whatever that means.
I liked Kate's comments, btw! ;)
Post a Comment