Imagine if the Department of Health and Human Services announced it wouldn't monitor or control the Swine Flu until millions of people were ill. Or if the Department of Homeland Security refused to track Al Qaeda until it launched multiple attacks inside the United States.
Needless to say, there'd be outrage.
Unfortunately, when it comes to another dangerous threat -- a failing education system -- we have a similarly unimaginable but very real public policy nightmare.
Scientists tell us 90 percent of our brain's growth occurs from birth through age six, making that period a crucial determiner for future success in school and in life. But here's the catch: the bulk of our public investment in education doesn't begin until age six!
That means it falls entirely on parents of infants and toddlers to read their children books every day, listen to music together, play learning games and ensure they are engaged at every level of social, emotional and cognitive development.
We're both parents of very young children and have the resources to enrich our children's lives with these kinds of activities. But many poor families in this country don't even have minimal resources for their children's education. That in part is why two of three fourth graders in America aren't reading at grade level.
Earlier this month, Jennifer joined Save the Children's U.S. Program as our newest ambassador and advocate for early childhood education.
Our work began with an April 2nd visit to Save the Children's in-home and reading exchange programs in California's Central Valley, one of the poorest rural areas in the nation. Jennifer met and played with 12-month- old-Xavier, read "Baby Bear, Baby Bear, What Do You See?" to a group of toddlers, spoke with parents, worked alongside Save the Children experts and toured the local area.
Yesterday, we released Save the Children's 2009 State of the World's Mothers Report at a local D.C. child care center. Among other startling findings, the report reveals that America ranks 18th out of 25 other developed nations on early childhood education.
With a supportive new president and a strong yearning for renewal across America, now is the time to invest in the next generation and early education is the key to doing it.
Today, one in six children lives in poverty in America. In rural America, including Jennifer's native West Virginia, that number is one in five. To help begin reverse this situation, we are calling for an increase of $2 billion for early childhood education on top of President Obama's $4 billion investment in the stimulus bill. In fact, yesterday afternoon, we met with more than a dozen Congresspeople and Senators who hold the keys to this funding need. We were very heartened by the support we received.
We can have a debate in this country about the role of government in helping poor families. But when it comes to the youngest Americans, there's one thing that's clear: three year olds don't even have bootstraps to pull on.
So you would have children in schools before they are actually developed enough to benefit from what is being presented? Education is very important but to claim that it must be provided in a uniformed and controlled environment in order to produce successful people lacks any scientific substantiation.
Resources are limited and so should be allocated to improve the educational capability of our current school systems, return them to institutions of learning not merely daycare wherein graduation is a federally mandated minimum.
You can improve daycares or start preschools with stimulus money. Libraries or Community Centers or other non-government groups might develop preschool enrichment programs--money spent on enrichment activities for babies and preschoolers is far better spent than on training kids to pass exams when they and their teachers are already hopeless about their school prospects.
How about this: we structure school so that kids are safe, interested, cared for and fed, and learn at a place that allows for single parents to work. At present we fail at this, and act as though there is no other way. Pathetic.
You asked if two parent families are a guarantee of a healthy family life. No, but it gives a kid of hell of a lot better chance to succeed.
Instead of continually highlighting the successful individual from a single parent home, we should show what the reality is for far to many of these children.
I was a single mother, widowed, but a widow is a 'single mother', after all, and my kids have turned out fine.
When folks throw up their hands and uncritically reduce this lack of commitment on our part to a "matter of dollars" without questioning how we divert our resources to other projects (the military, corporate agriculture), it's clear that the ideologues who have dismantled and devalued the public school project have won. We need to reframe the debate - by insisting that healthy school systems are the basis for healthy families, and that our working lives depend on this. I say they are inseparable, and yet they are portrayed as discrete issues
The Montessori method is a child-centered alternative educational method for children, based on theories of child development originated by Italian educator Maria Montessori (1870-1952) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is applied primarily in preschool and elementary school settings although some Montessori middle and high schools exist.[1][2]
The Montessori method is characterized by an emphasis on self-directed activity on the part of the child and clinical observation on the part of the teacher (often called a director, directress, or guide). It stresses the importance of adapting the child's learning environment to his or her developmental level, and of the role of physical activity in absorbing abstract concepts and practical skills. It is also characterized by the use of autodidactic (self-correcting) equipment for introduction and learning of various concepts.
The Montessori method teaches reading via phonics and whole language, the comparative benefits of which are presently being recognised.[3]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-gregory/childcare-as-infrastructu_b_147555.html
Imagine where we would be now, had we invested education dollars where it would give the highest return - Head Start programs, parental education programs, educational materials for low-income families, neighborhood pre-schools.
America's poor have a much better standard of living compared to the majority of the world's population. For most Americans, poverty is a short term situation. For more info check out the US Census, www.census.gov. Poverty doesn't necessitate illiteracy. History is full of those who rose from poverty.
Government needn't be the solution. Responsible parenting is the greatest single solution. If parents, single or married, would devote just a few minutes a few days a week to educational activities the problem would probably be virtually nonexistent.
Single parent families are usually those who suffer the most. The breakdown of the nuclear family has consequences. Statistically, the best way to avoid poverty is to graduate from high school and get married. If government involvement is necessary, emphasizing the benefits of marriage for the family would be a good start.
There are resources already available to boost early education. Most Americans have access to libraries. Reading is Fundamental, (rif.org) has programs. Local charities and churches are a source for help too.
I have little faith that the federal government is the solution as it seems that many issues are exaggerated so that programs can grow with more taxpayer funding with little to no accountability to show results. With a layers of bureaucracy involved, much of the money intended for its recipients is lost.
It's time for change; more people changing for the better, less government growth.
I know that what I am saying may come off as bashing poor people...that is not the case. BUT we need to understand why the cycle of poverty continues to happen. Much of it is at the family level and we need to figure out how to fix this in order to REALLY fix the problem.
Alternatively, there are models that we could learn from other cultures, some of which do not even give women the opportunity to become economically enslaved. Many, many cultures still respect and live with their elders and exercise a tradition where the elders become the providers of what we call "day care." Personally, I know that both set of grandparents had a considerable calming effect on my three boys and gave them more hugs and kisses than my wife and I were physically and emotionally capable of.
Elders living in squalor and/or in nursing homes is a foreign concept to most cultures. Why is it that we Americans accept and sometimes pay handsomely to facilitate this anomaly?
Because of these certain circumstances that are none by fault one can not neglect our nation's children. I agree, children should be getting the nurturing love, affection and attention (with cognitive learning, gross motor skills, social/emotional skills, and proper language development) at home, but it is not happening and we are seeing the repercussions of this through our nation's academics.
1. Who would spend the money? DSS? School districts? Local charities?
2. What accountability procedures would be in place to ensure that the money gets spent for its intended purpose?
3. Will there be safeguards in place to ensure that the money is spent on those who truly cannot, through no fault of their own, afford said services? If so, what are they, specifically?
4. Are there other, more effective alternatives?
Thanks!
People want the right to have children when and where they see fit...without accepting the responsibility. In a more sensible era, those who weren't yet prepared to take care of a child would have considered ABORTION. But, this is now taboo. It is now more acceptable to bring a child into the world who won't have the proper care and attention he/she deserves.
I'm sure this will get all sorts of negative responses. But, if you are not emotionally AND financially prepared to take care of a child, you simply shouldn't have one. It's not the government's responsibility to provide someone to read to your 3 year old.