|
Memorandum submitted by Beverley Smith Some often overlooked factors when evaluating Sure Start or other centres: Criteria for a government run children's centre- three vital categories The There are 3 categories that should be noted in such a review and applicable also to any review of any children's programs internationally. A. Factors that are often cited, but which may not be very important to children B. Factors which are important to children but which are minimal and nearly a 'given' in terms of health and safety and well-being. In other words these are so critical that they are not themselves to be deemed to make a program 'excellent', outstanding or 'high quality' but only to claim it as minimal. C. Factors which actually do matter to kids, to wellbeing beyond the minimal and that would represent a wise use of the public purse Let us look at those categories now in detail: A. Factors that are often cited, but which may not be very important to children -cost to parent in terms of fees, with and without tax deductions claimed -cost to government in terms of subsidy, operating grants, set-up grants etc. - other funding sources -quality of care defined as the amount of funding. This type of definition of 'quality' sadly is circular, since it calls something high quality if it has been funded in the past. - age of staff, number of staff, adult-child ratio when administrators are counted as staff -wage level of employees, promotions available, medical, dental benefits, pensions, courses for upgrading -training level of staff in a formal course, certificates, diplomas, degrees in an academic institution -the number of mothers who now are in paid work because their children use the service. This figure would be represented as the number of women who now can 'work' but in fact such a representation assumes that those mothers who are outside paid labour are not contributing to the economy or doing any useful work. Such a statistic therefore has an unspoken intent of insult of the child-rearing role and this is particularly ironic when a service which helps with child-rearing is claiming child-rearing is vital. -age of the children at the service or centre -socio economic class of the children at the centre. The figure may be represented as a way to lift women out of poverty but in fact if the funding from government is conditional on using the service, this means that women are not necessarily choosing or preferring this service but only that they are pressured into it. This pressure may be very effective and many women may find themselves unable to afford any option but use of the service, but the statistic should not be misinterpreted as reflecting preference or free choice. -use of the service. In the market place, a restaurant is deemed a success if it is popular and people, given a wide range of similar options, prefer this one. A childcare service that is the only funded one in the area is not giving such options unless there are also equally well funded options of sitters, nannies, and unless funding goes to parents at home or to those using grandparent or other family-based care. In other words a service only proves it is successful and popular if it is chosen when all other factors would make it easy to choose something else. -number of parents wanting a 'space' for the child- this figure is often represented as demand for the service. It may however be demand for a given location, or demand for a subsidized spot while there may be vacancies at other spots that lack subsidy so this in effect is demand for a subsidy and financial help not just or only for the service -amount of money the mother was able to earn because of the service or value to the state of her taxes -number of vans or other transport vehicles -number of fridges, stoves, type of kitchen equipment and supplies -size of the 'space' per child, room area\ B. Factors which are important to children but because they are basics, minimal level and not evidence of any outstanding or high quality level of service -basic safety standards being met - minimal room size, windows, carpeting cleaned, toys cleaned and inspected, cleanliness of diaper and toileting area -basic health standards met - protocol followed for hand-washing, feeding and cleaning up, toileting, diaper changing -basic health rules enforced - rules about admission of children ill with viruses or bacterial infections, rules about administering medicine, providing quiet areas for needed naps -supervised safe play equipment indoors and outdoors -daily outings, minimally one but ideally two per day -opportunity to nap when child is tired -being read to and opportunity to leaf through and look at books -being instructed in basic skills of counting, singing, listening, colouring, cutting and pasting, organizing and sorting -being instructed in basic social skills like listening, taking turns, sharing, and group organizational skills like lining up, sitting up, obeying -drop in of parent to visit and observe is permitted at any time -phone calls and enquiries from parent are permitted at any time -registration is flexible and meets the needs of the child and the parent. A child can enrol for an hour, a half day, a full day, several half days, several full days etc. This of course is a scheduling nightmare for the operator of the service but the needs of the operator for convenience are not paramount. A childcare service is like a restaurant and should be open a set of hours but clients can arrive when they wish. Sadly many centres and services fail on this criterion because they are funded based on number of children enrolled full-time, and this creates a scenario of dictating to parents how to raise their children. The parent gets priority for the placement of the child if that parent can commit to full-time use of the service and this may not be what the parent actually wants or what is in the best interest of the child. Those who want less than full-time care are often relegated to a lower place in the line-up if they are placed at all, and this in fact discourages care of the child outside of the centre and is government clearly favouring some lifestyles over others, and unfairly. To correct this governments should fund children not centres and then the funding would be redirected by parents in the amount and in the direction of their personal preference. If that is not the situation then this would count against the service for being ideal. C. factors which matter to kids, to wellbeing beyond the minimal and that are therefore a wise use of the public purse -presence of the same staff member for at least 3 years for that child without a change in identity of the staff member - therefore consistency, dependability and continuity of knowing the child and greater chance of bonding, trusting, and explaining past events to link to present ones to make child's world logical -facility in speech of the care provider and expert knowledge of correct grammar and use of appropriate polite terminology when dealing with children. Fluency in the language is vital to the child learning the language well. Sadly jobs for care of children are often very poorly paid and the only ones likely to apply are those who are marginalized in some ways in society. A fair hiring policy would not have any racial or ethic or colour discrimination but competency in language is actually a relevant factor for the care of the child -knowledge of this child's culture, dietary needs, allergies, food preferences, play favourites, fears and phobias and sensitivity to all of these, permitting the practice of the child's culture and religion as the parents require -attentive listening to the child's questions and responding to them as they come, one at a time to ensure responsive individualized education -flexible time to play at a variety of activities each day to ensure no boredom and a necessary change in the entire range of activity options at least every week- to stimulate the mind -opportunity to go on many outings to parks, museums, science centres, airports, bus stations, shopping centres, swimming pools, libraries to get to know the world in a supervised and safe exposure - and this opportunity comes at least once a week -ability to contact the parent at any time of the day when feeling insecure and to go home to the parent if the child wants to go home- flex scheduling -stimulation in the child's native language, birth tongue, to enhance skills in that area -exposure to the dominant language of the community if it is not the child's birth tongue is delayed until the child is fluent in the maternal tongue -graduated, gentle, academically sound instruction in the skill of learning to read by a course designed by a certified teacher and geared to the very young. eg Anchors and Sails by Bev Jaremko- and not chanting, memorized word lists or early reader book memorizing and word guessing. It is vital that children do not get misled into what reading is, and that they become empowered to sound out words and figure out printed text they have not seen before but the method of instruction must be one of tiny steps of progress to ensure success and self-confidence -feeling loved, valued, cuddled, hugged, understood - these are not measurable factors in any evaluation of a program but they are probably the most important to the small child. When small children are reluctant to take part, crying on arrival, sad for much of the day, or when they are aggressive, bullying and attention seeking, biting, hitting, scratching, pulling hair, these are signs the child is not happy there and these should be seen as key indicators the centre is not meeting their needs The goals of children's services are often to intervene, to come in and save the day both financially, so women can get out and earn, and socially, to help children deemed 'at risk' for some reason, often because they are in a situation of poverty or single parenting.
Programs often assume that women are 'better off' financially and in terms of self-esteem if they can earn money, provide for the child, and make a good life. However well those theories may be in sync with current economic theory, they also do ignore the drive many women have to actually be with their young, to love them and bond with them and to have that time valued by the state. Moves to push women out to earn are also moves to push women away from their young and the state bears some responsibility for the anxiety, depression and mental health issues that crop up occasionally when this forced separation is far from what either the child or the mother want. What would be very useful now that children's services have been in place for a while would be to do a few studies of results and looking back at patterns and causes.. In other words instead of looking at how much the mother earned last year or how well the children did in kindergarten, look down the road farther -for those who graduate high school with top marks, what type of early childhood setting did they have? Were any in such children's services and if so, where and for how long and what was the care like? -for those who win community service awards in church, school or the community what was their early childhood care style? -what is the reading level of those who were in the program, once they get to grade 7 or 12 and how does it compare to children raised in other care styles? -number of children who during or after the sessions are diagnosed with behavioural disorders -per cent of children who use the service who end up as accused or convicted in the criminal justice system It is impossible to take a child and rerun it through its childhood another way and see which way worked better. However any intervention program is assuming the intervention is going to be positive for all parties as if the child would have turned out quite differently unless the state or the service got involved. Sadly there are sometimes negative experiences based on the intervention itself, the forced separation of parent and child, the demeaning feeling those who are counselled get that they are not handling their lives well and others can do it better for them, and the anger that results when children and adults feel a system is basically judging them as personally incompetent. Helping parents is a good thing. Intervening however, must be done very carefully and services that do this in the end should be voluntary not forced on the public by financial or social pressure. Beverley Smith Editor Recent Research on Caregiving newsletter October 2009 |