Daycare defence

Flipping through some junkmail I found an ad for Daycare Defence. For only $34.99 a month, you too can give your child a daily dose (individually packaged in sachets for convenience) of probiotics to protect them from the host of germs that other people's children have.

A sensible precaution? A sop to middle-class guilt?

Interesting marketing angle regardless.

I'm reminded of a seminar thing I attended a couple of years back where lots of daycare for babies was labelled a public health issue.

Go to your room!

So, a lecturer in early childhood education recently told a conference that techniques popularised in the Supernanny show (such as the naughty step, and time out) were unprofessional for teachers.

She's quoted in our local newspaper as saying: "What you're really doing is you're punishing the child for doing something that is not appropriate, instead of teaching them, which is our mandate".

And furthermore:

"Children are competent and capable, so if we're saying that, then we should give them the opportunity to engage in problem solving instead of putting them under a time-out sort of system".

And such techniques breach Te Whariki, the early childhood curriculum, because:

"That talks about respectful, responsive relationships".

And yet she is also quoted as saying that the techniques "were OK in the home but did not belong at early childhood centres".

Huh? So are we saying that punishing, rather than teaching is the mandate of parents? Or that opportunities to problem solve at home are unimportant? Or that respectful, responsive relationships do not exist at home?

Obviously not. I suspect that criticism of popular parenting techniques is a large can of worms that she was not keen to open. And for all I know, the article may have used selective quoting. In fact I would be surprised if it didn't, as the way it was written (under the headline "Nanny's step 'breaches kids' rights' " seems designed to provoke a response rather than educate or inform.

And so of course the article spurred a couple of letters to the editor, predictably blustering about children's apparent love of boundaries and how things were much better back in the day. (How that actually relates to the educator's key points is not immediately obvious).

For interest, it is worth saying that exclusionary time out is prohibited at Playcentre.

Louise Porter (I reviewed a book of hers earlier: http://thefloydfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=louise+porter) is one of the few writers to detail a genuine alternative approach to discipline. I'm reading another of her books at the moment. I don't agree with everything she says - but then again that would be an unrealistic expectation of any author or idea.

Anyway, I would be interested to know exactly what the educator's thoughts were on the role of parents and techniques suitable for use in the home.

Every firework is doing you damage

A fireworks addendum:

One of New Zealand's two main supermarket chains refused to stock fireworks this year, piously stating this was on grounds of social responsibility.

And yet they sell cigarettes....

Obama

Sooo....Obama.....

I can now sit here being very smug as I predicted, back when Colin Powell first came to international prominence, that a black man would be in the White House before a woman. Gender is the most fundamental human divide of all, pervading across and beyond race, ethnicity, religion or political persuasion.

Anyway, an historic occasion to be sure.

Some thoughts...

According to the graphic in today's paper, the popular vote was 51% Obama, 47% McCain (not all votes were counted at that stage). The Obama victory was more pronounced where it counted - in the electoral college. But it's hardly what I would call "an Obama tsunami" or "a nation coming together" or any of the other excited comments I heard being bandied around today. Well, history is written by the victorious I guess.

I am actually made distinctly uncomfortable by the New Zealanders who have got themselves wound up to the point of tears listening to Obama's acceptance speech. Do they know anything at all about this person? (Apart from his skin colour, party preference and that he is not a Bush?). Do New Zealanders realise where in the political spectrum the US Democrats are relative to New Zealand politics? (A win for the "left" it may be, but this is hardly the Progressive party). Certainly, he seems to have the goods, and even a quick look at his achievements to date show us that he is an exceptional, intelligent and talented individual. But policies anyone? Do you know what they are?

And more to the point, would it have mattered?

And soon, when January 20th has come and gone - what real changes will he be able to make?

But the biggest thing for me is that, far from showing us that skin colour is no longer important, the talk around this election has shown me that it is very important. Very very important indeed. Electing a black President is an incredible symbol of hope. But the fact that we are talking about that so much....perhaps we haven't come as far as we have thought.

What I've been reading: Sarah-Eve Farquhar

I've posted this elsewhere but thought I would add it here too.

I'm not saying that this author has all the answers, nor that I agree with everything that is said in the full article. But I think it is worth reproducing her overview which you will find in that link (with my emphases) here:

Early childhood education/childcare policy in New Zealand is based on ideology and not on evidence of what is best for children. In other words our ECE policy is not evidence-based. In September 2002 the government released a 10 year plan for ECE and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research Competent Children, Competent Learners study was drawn on to justify the values underpinning the plan and ECE policy. But the study had limited findings relating to ECE effects and quite major methodological problems. Policy development and implementation proceeded without a clear understanding and knowledge of positive and negative childcare/ECE effects. A systematic review (in difference to a general review of the literature) of the best evidence, independently conducted by Childforum Research, using a set of criteria for selection was carried out. This first working paper outlines the major pieces of evidence and discusses these in the light of current ECE policy considerations and directions in New Zealand.

The best evidence points to parents/family having a far greater impact than the childcare/ECE experience on children’s developmental outcomes. This suggests that effort put towards supporting families to provide great home learning environments for children and allowing parents to make child-rearing arrangements that are best for their child and for family well-being would pay off. Such efforts would more likely make a greater difference to children’s immediate and long-term developmental outcomes than simply encouraging parents to make more use of non-parental childcare as present ECE policy does.

Children attending full-time ECE/childcare as compared to part-time (around 12.5 hours per week or 2.5 hour sessions) do not have significantly better developmental outcomes. In other words there is no advantage to be gained for children attending non-parental ECE for longer hours than parents require for childcare. This suggests that the way ECE policy financially incentivises early childhood services to increase the length of sessions and to promote 20 hours or 6 hour days as an optimal minimum, is unnecessary in terms of any added benefits for children. (It may also be at the cost of children not accessing formal ECE still not being able to access it).

The evidence also points to ECE/childcare having both developmental risks and benefits. While there may be cognitive gains (at least in the short-term) there can also be negative outcomes for children’s health, mothers’ sensitivity in interaction with their children, problem behaviours and aggression in children. Public policy that emphasises telling parents about the benefits of formal ECE and not about risks and other childcare options may increase the risks for children further. Enabling parents to be informed and to make informed choices would put parents in the position of being able to better manage risks and understand the size of potential benefits of ECE in interaction with home factors and later schooling choices and experiences.

Your "tax cut"

And while we're talking about the wisdom of academics, here's a quote:

When governments adjusted the nominal tax bands upwards to offset inflation this used to be portrayed as a cut in income tax or increased government generosity. We now see this is pure inflation illusion. The adjustments are required to merely maintain the real burden of income tax unchanged....And the press no longer hails as income tax cuts the increases in tax bands that are necessary purely to keep up with inflation.

Begg, Fischer Dornbusch (1984) Economics. McGraw-Hill: London. pp. 630

I'm glad the press were "no longer" doing that. In 1984....

Just elaborating a bit...

...on that qualifications thing I mentioned below.

Do I think that the qualifications I have done through Playcentre have made me a better parent and a more skillful practitioner? Yes. But only relative to my former self. Just because I have reached a certain level doesn't mean that I am more effective than someone at our Centre who has a smaller number beside their name. Early childhood stuff doesn't come naturally to me. I'm passionate about it at the moment because I am mother to three small people. But I have no doubts that there are people with less training than me who would do (and do do) an equal or better job of it.

So while I have great respect for training (and academic training), it can give such an incomplete picture.

If only assessing competence were as simple as following the equation of qualifications times years experience....

But the research shows that this is GOOD for children - doesn't it?

Yesterday I went to an early childhood education symposium. There were about 700 delegates there from many parts of the sector - Playcentre, kindy, creches, daycares, academics, Montessori, Steiner etc. So here are my impressions.

First, I was fairly amazed at the low quality of some of the research supporting early childhood policies - or possibly, to be more kind, use of the research in an inappropriate way. Sample sizes of five children? Only observing children doing structured, adult-led tasks? Failure to observe what I would have thought were some fairly basic research methodologies (use of controls, level of proof to determine causal relationships, sample size (again), non-random and/or non-representative selection of research subjects). The famous quote "the plural of anecdote is not data" came to mind. This might not be a problem if the research was carefully reported and used in appropriate contexts (for example, as interesting case studies) or even maybe as explorations of research methods. But millions and millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent right now with some of this research presented as evidence for why these policies are such great ideas. This strikes me as somewhat important....

Second, much of the stuff surrounding the use (or over-use) of non-parental ECE for under 2s pretty much reinforced my personal prejudices. (Or maybe I only took in the information that agreed with my biases!). The importance of solid attachments, relationships and stability in primary carers was emphasized often. I thought there was great evidence for one speaker's description of having under 2s in all-day care as "a public health issue" given that half of the attendees seemed to have hacking coughs and runny noses!

Finally - a little story from the day. Orla (with Brendon and Aidan) came in to see me for a breastfeeding appointment during the lunch break. Orla toddled around exuding cuteness, smiling and making eyes at people. I was suddenly struck with how funny it was that at a day devoted to early childhood, that there were not any actual children around! Then I thought that if I needed to put Orla into daycare, then I would choose the people who, out of their work setting, made eye contact with her as she walked around, mirrored her expression and greeted her with their body language, rather than the ones who ignored her and continued their conversations. Because despite the research that tells us that teacher training is important for quality in an early childhood setting, I can't help but feel that the most important things are having a strong interest in young children, an empathy for them, understanding of their family context and a warm and loving approach. This cannot be learnt in books, but can only be nourished while working alongside those children themselves.

Oh yeah, the research that tells us the importance of qualifications...actually having done some reading today, that's not on such solid ground either.....

Newspaper angst

Well, it is true. This blog is filled with little anecdotes about my children (gorgeous, cute and talented, of course) rather than insightful analysis of social issues and informed opinion. Actually I write my best analytical commentaries in the shower each morning, but I haven't perfected multitasking to the extent of making use of any of that.

So, to compensate, here is a sample of my usual essays of high-powered intellectual criticism, the arguments fully informed by research and consideration rather than prejudice, half truths and half the information. Ahem.

Shake newspaper.

"What, Tonks Ave historic precinct a haunt of drunks, druggies and prostitutes?! What's new! Surely it was like that in the 1800s. Those by-pass protestors should be happy at retention of historic culture!"

Shake newspaper. Turn page.

"Celebrate their lives. Celebrate their lives! What's wrong with being in mourning? Are we not allowed to grieve anymore? Isn't there a season for everything? Humph".

Shake. Shake shake shake.

"Well humph! No, Mr Police Officer, No! It is certainly NOT just an accident that could happen to anyone. It is NOT just an unfortunate take-my-eyes-off-for-one-minute thing. Dangerous dogs and toddlers do not mix and this was ENTIRELY preventable".

SHAKE. SHAKE SHAKE.

"Oh why even bother interviewing the Sensible Sentencing guy".

Flick. Smooth.

"Oooo permaculture".

Turn page gently.

"Well what's with that? Elderly woman living on her own. In a new house described as "compact". Which is larger than ours which is home to five people. Next to comment that it is the young who expect vast acres of house space. Who writes this stuff?"

Oh well, keeps me busy in the morning. And I still have some of the paper in reserve, unread for tomorrow...

Growing forward

Here's a photo of Orla taken not so long ago on her ride-on.

Orla got her ride-on for her birthday. It is one of her favourite toys. Although she was not physically able to ride it when she received the gift, she took to it immediately. She knew exactly what it was for and decisively claimed it for her own. (This was helped no doubt by repeated, excited viewings of Aidan zooming past her on his identically-coloured motorbike). Very soon after, she was able to sit on it herself. Then she rocked to and fro. Now she can propel herself forward (although she hasn't really got the hang of steering yet, so she tends to head for the wall/couch/chair and get stuck). In the last day she has been able to clamber on by herself if the ride-on is steadied by a hand or if it is propped up against a wall.

Children appear to have a built-in drive to develop, grow and learn. For me it is a wonder to watch! They are natural experimenters and explorers. They are never content to stay in one zone - once sitting, there is a drive to be mobile, once crawling an unyielding urge to stand and walk. They want to know how things work, how this relates to that, and they pursue their goals with a singular sense of purpose.

Today Orla stood unaided. Just for a moment. But she stood nevertheless! It was purposeful and I watched the expression on her face as she realised her position. Satisfaction. Wonder. Acknowledgment that something different was happening. Momentary concern. Instability. A hand reached out to reclaim a supported stance.

I guess that one of our jobs as first teachers is to nurture this drive. It gets more difficult to maintain this natural momentum in the longer term. For Isabelle and Aidan, it is more intellectual and social, about answering the whys and engaging in conversation when it would be far easier to just say "Because" or "I'm busy right now". It gets harder too when they are heading in three different directions simultaneously, all demanding a different kind of attention or support.

But it is such a pleasure to be there when they achieve their goals. And such a privilege to facilitate this.

Morning play

There is a certain perfection in the fine summer morning. The air is warm and inviting, yet still crisp and refreshing. The sun beams happily and brightly down, yet the fear of burnt skin is far less intense. Energy levels are relatively high.

And so it was this morning! We walked to work with Brendon, parting company at the duck pond. The ducks benefited from the bread that had gone mouldy in our hotter and moister than usual kitchen. They had quite an appetite (which always makes duck feeding more fun), as yet unsated by the bread brought by the hordes of children who arrive by morning tea.

We proceeded to the playground, which was happily deserted. Here's Orla in the swing watching Isabelle and Aidan below her in the shade on the seesaw.

After a play we took the cable car to Lambton Quay, and were home on the bus by quarter past ten.

I've always thought that humans evolved in hot climates to rise with the sun, sleep through the hot afternoon, to rise again when the day cools. This worked well in Barcelona - our children were certainly not the only ones playing outside at 11.00 pm! And perhaps parental obsessions with "sleeping through the night" would be eased if the "night" were shorter!

Back in our temperate climate this arrangement probably works less successfully.

In the meantime I shall suppress my atavistic desire to sleep after lunch and stay up late with my children, playing in the warm twilight.

Happy birthday?

Being interested in the health and wellbeing of my baby, I picked up an information sheet on iron at the Plunket rooms recently. All interesting stuff - facts and figures, haem vs non-haem foods, suggested eating plans.

One sentence caught my eye: "Continue breastfeeding until about 1 year".

Why one year?

The World Health Organisation says that breastfeeding should be continued up to two years of age or beyond (see this for example).

Anthropologist Kathy Dettwyler notes that the predicted age for weaning for humans is somewhere between 2.5 and 7 years here.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is closest to the 12 months thing, recommending breastfeeding for at least 12 months and as long thereafter as mutually desired (taken from here - my emphasis). However, if you've ever read breastfeeding literature from the States or the breastfeeding blog listed in my links over there on the right, then you may notice that attitudes to breastfeeding, especially in public, appear to be much more conservative than those which we enjoy in New Zealand.

From my reading and discussions with mothers, it appears that true self-weaning in Western societies seems to occur somewhere between 18 months and 4 years for most children. In other words, there's significant variance.

So where has this one year figure been plucked from?

My thoughts are that culturally, in this country breastfeeding is usually seen as being for babies. Once your baby is walking - at about one year - they are uncomfortably toddler-like. Surely they don't need it anymore. Surely....I don't know, it just doesn't seem right .

Taking a step back a little - in New Zealand, we appear to be focusing on ensuring that the youngest babies get breast milk. This seems an entirely appropriate strategy, given that our breastfeeding rates, which for 2006 were:

At six weeks, the full and exclusive breastfeeding overall rate was 66% with a breakdown of 70% of European/Other babies, 59% of Māori babies, 57% of Pacific babies and 55% of Asian babies.

At three months, the full and exclusive breastfeeding overall rate was 55% with a breakdown of 60% of European/Other babies, 45% of Māori babies, 48% of Pacific babies and 53% of Asian babies.

At six months, the full and exclusive breastfeeding overall rate was 25% with 29% of European/Other babies, 17% of Māori, 19% of Pacific babies and 25% of Asian babies.

I got those stats from the Ministry of Health.

It makes sense to target your initiatives where you are going to get best bang for buck - and let's face it, if you start talking 2-7 years to a woman who is pregnant or has just given birth, I think that the most likely reaction would be shock and horror! Start small, get breastfeeding established - and worry about duration once our smallest and youngest citizens have been looked after.

And why does it matter anyway?

Because on public health grounds alone, breastfeeding is a continuous good news story. From cancer to obesity, from ear infections to gastro-intestinal complaints, breastfeeding just keeps oncoming out on top.

"We need to remind mothers that breastfeeding remains the most powerful prevention against both malnutrition and infectious diseases."

1. Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General,
   World Health Organization;
   August 10, 1998 (from here)

And it's cheap. And it's environmentally sound. And convenient. And a powerful emotional experience for mother and child. These benefits don't just stop when a child turns one. Sure, marginal benefits apply and the relative benefits of breastfeeding diminish as a child grows. But the benefits are still there.

However, breastfeeding doesn't necessarily come easily. It may be natural, but it is a learned activity. Breastfeeding families need support to learn the art, and to solve any problems that come their way.

So where am I going with this?

Well, New Zealand Beef and Lamb marketing people, if you are going to distribute information on iron you had better make sure that your factual statements are actually factual, and that opinions are identified as opinions. Or else rabid breastfeeders will blog about you!

I am sure they are quaking in their (leather) boots. ;-)

The Crying Game

Finally read an article in the September edition of North and South magazine that I had been wanting to look at for a while.

"The Crying Game" is about getting babies to sleep better. It challenges the dominant theories of sleep training currently recommended in New Zealand by many babycare providers. These theories are based on babies learning to self-settle without parental assistance from an early age. Interestingly, it dares take on Plunket, who are very rarely criticised in mainstream media.

One of its main points is that "[t]oday, when we know more about infants and development than at any other time in our history, there's a huge gap between what is known and what is practised".

If you are pregnant or even thinking about ever having children (or giving advice to those who already have them!), read it. Twice.

They're missing the point

I see that the Green party's Sue Kedgley is revitalising her push to get country of origin labels onto food that is sold to New Zealand consumers. Despite an apparently enthusiastic public, New Zealand's Food Safety Authority is very lukewarm on the prospect. They cite costs (which of course, the consumer eventually pays). They say that, well, it's not even a food safety issue - food sold in New Zealand must meet this standard or that standard etc etc.

They're missing the point.

They may well be right. It may not be a food safety issue at all.

It's a consumer rights issue.

If consumers want to know where what they're eating comes from, then that information should be available. Consumers don't have to have a rational reason for that. Sure, some people will take country of origin labeling as an excuse to exercise a bit of xenophobia or racism in the guise of national pride. But others will be interested in the human rights record of some countries. Maybe some consumers care about the environmental record of some regimes, or about oppressive work practices. Still others will realise that food safety standards, in terms of permitted chemicals and the like, differ around the world.

And no, this is not a veiled slight at China, or even any third world producer. Even our neighbour to the west allows certain chemicals in their pork production which are banned in New Zealand (and that encourage me to buy New Zealand made).

So in lieu of any rules about this, consumers can make their voices known by not buying goods that are not properly labeled - and by enquiring at point of sale when the labels aren't clear. Smart producers and retailers will react accordingly. If they can sell more to us (and be more profitable) by giving us the information we want, that's the ultimate incentive - with or without regulations.

The challenge too is to ensure that when we are forced or requested to label our produce as "Made in New Zealand" that we can do so confident that the label represents quality produce from a country with pride in its workers' and human rights record, and from a clean environment.

So it may not be a food safety issue. And it might not even require regulation.

But it's a fine idea.

Gifted education?

I heard part of a radio item today about a one-day school for gifted children. It was, of course, very enthusiastic about the school and what it did for its pupils. The school seemed to have the following characteristics:
- excellent pupil/teacher ratio enabling one-on-one interactions and discussions;
- self-directed learning;
- children follow their own interests;
- opportunities to be creative and make things; and
- children don't follow a set schedule, but can discuss and explore things until they are finished.

Sounds like a Playcentre.

That's actually a serious comment!

Another serious observation is what children wouldn't excel and be enthusiastic about learning if their school had those five attributes. I suspect that the successes and positive outlook of the children interviewed on the radio had very little to do with matching their curriculum to their intellectual abilities, but more with the quality of education they were receiving. My comment about the school sounding like a Playcentre doesn't at all mean that Playcentre children are any more or less gifted than anyone else - rather that many aspects of the Playcentre philosophy have a sound basis in educational theory and the provision of quality early education.

Another idea - we can be self-directed learners in mainstream education during early childhood, and at advanced tertiary education --- but for most in the middle, that idea gets lost.

So why don't all children have these opportunities? I guess it comes down to money. Think of the salary and buildings costs if every class was no more than, say, 12 pupils in size. When the school system was set up, I imagine it was a clear choice between excellent education for the few (at a high price), or an OK education for almost all (considerably cheaper).

Smash bang crash

Aidan likes smash bang crash.

He likes to perform smash bang crash, hear and talk about smash bang crash, and think about smash bang crash.

He is attracted to long sticks and pipes (which he uses to thrash the foliage around the property). Sometimes the sticks are swords or light sabres. He likes superhero play - Spiderman swinging from building to building using webs, pirates with swords, Yoda (Aidan) fighting Darth Vader or Count Dooku (Brendon). He likes tackling and play fighting on the carpet with whoever is up for it - whatever their size!

His most recent choices of books from the library were one about the Titanic (a particular fascination with the pictures of the ship breaking up and sinking) and ones about the solar system. He likes the theory of how Saturn got its rings - a comet smashing a moon into smithereens which, attracted by the large planet's gravity, stayed around in circular form. He looks at pictures of planets orbiting the sun, learning each name by heart. He likes to hear about comets blazing through the skies.

Aidan likes to throw things and watch as items fly through space, across floors, onto high places. Balls are good, but random household items are even better, as they tend to attract more adult attention. He likes to take things to pieces, break things apart, and scatter them.

Theoretically, Aidan can be described as expressing two related schema interests - trajectory and disconnection. I was interested to read how our friend Hazel (who is also a trajectory child) has taken up disconnection recently. She's a bit older than Aidan, and her disconnections seem to be taking a slightly different form. They are possibly using similar methods to explore different concepts. However, I wonder if a connection between these two schemas is a common one?

Practically - all this can make Aidan a real handful! Throwing, thwacking and scattering are three things that adults and bystander children can (understandably) find difficult to manage. Redirection seems to help, as does positive attention (catching him doing the socially acceptable versions of smash bang crash and encouraging them, rather than the less desirable manifestations).

I'm really pleased I did a workshop on superhero play and read a book (We don't play with guns here - author forgotten I'm afraid ) on all this while Aidan was still a baby. Recent thought on the kind of robust play that is most commonly (but definitely not exclusively) associated with some boys of a certain age is that it should not be suppressed. Children who are driven to play war games, tackle and the like tend to do it in secret behind the bike shed if it is officially banned. It's thought that instead, this kind of play should take place out in the open where it can be moderated by the supervising adults and some basic rules can be observed and enforced. So embracing smash bang crash helps. Adults who join in with the robust play can help Aidan learn how to smash bang crash in a way that ensures that nobody and nothing gets damaged. Talking and imagining about smash bang crash extends him mentally in a way that he finds captivating and attractive.

So, despite our desire for just a minute's peace and nice quiet children so I can have a cup of tea, it seems to be better in the long term to provide for children to do what children have always done, in a way that keeps everyone happy and safe.

Yes, Aidan can sometimes frustrate me and tire me out. And it's no fun being the parent of the child who's just given another child the bash. But I wouldn't change my cheeky, energetic little rogue for anything! I think our society would be the poorer if we tried to suppress the risk takers, the challengers of authority, those who test and question the limits. As in most things, the challenge is in finding the balance and keeping everyone safe. I sometimes say to Aidan: "Are you using that toy for the power of good or the power of evil?" (He likes and responds to the Star Wars-ish language!) He knows full well that a turn to the dark side results in confiscations and other undesirable consequences.

The next step of course is getting him to internalise the moderation that the supervising adults provide. Many years' work I think! But parenting has always been a marathon rather than a sprint.

Spot the difference

Words matter.

What do these words mean to you?

Babysitting
Child care
Day care
Early Childhood Education

Let's see....to me....(generalising of course...)

Babysitting - low status, short time period, might mean just ensuring the kids don't kill each other, burn the house down or harass the cat. Done by teenagers for pay, or relatives for a favour.

Child care - professional. Looking after your child, ensuring their needs are met. Longer term, longer duration.

Day care - like child care, except has the connotation of being used while you go to work.

Early Childhood Education - ahhhh! All the good stuff. Empowering! Learning! Growth! Development!

I wonder if we as parents feel differently about our choices if we label them differently.

How much I don't know

Why won't you answer my questions?
Why oh why oh why?
Because I don't know the answers, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye!

from Songs To Grow On For Mother And Child, Woody Guthrie.

Having young children highlights for me just how much I don't know. The constant "why" questions make one's knowledge gaps uncomfortably clear.

Some things I know well enough. Examples might be "Why is it Tuesday?", "Why do we have teeth?" or "Why do I have to wash the germs off my hands?". Other things I know to a reasonable level - but nagging questions remain in my own mind after I've given the age-appropriate explanation that (sometimes!) satisfies the youngsters' curiousity. Examples of this category are more "Why are there germs?", "What is dirt made of?" or "Why is there the sun?".

Sometimes we do the "learning together" thing - "I'm not sure myself, let's look it up on the computer". However, this is mighty hard to do in the car, or during the frantic meal-preparation time of day. And sometimes they just want a quick answer, not necessarily a full-on exploration of all the ins and outs.

I think the main thing to do is to take the questions seriously, not to fob them off with "Because I say so". Discretion is required in terms of which questions need a full answer, and which ones can be answered via the express route. It's about fostering that curiousity and moulding it into the life-long love of learning that many of us wish for our children to have. It's about making them aware of how to get and evaluate information - from the computer, from books, from parents, from other adults and peers. It's also about children seeing that parents have a lot of valuable information and knowledge, but that they do not know it all either.

S. 59

After being a drafter of Ministerial correspondence, I'm just not the type of person who writes or emails politicians. However, I found myself sending out an email this morning on the repeal of s. 59 bill from this website.

What finally made me do something was the stuff on the front page of the Dominion Post this morning. Children being given "time off" from their Christian school to march and wave placards supporting their parents' rights to hit them. Quotes from said children like "If someone truly loves his children he will discipline them according to God's word, which is with the rod. If you don't, you hate them".

What rot are these children being fed? For a start, the rod of scripture is a metaphor for guidance, not beating. That is, the shepherd uses the rod to guide his sheep, not to whack them. (Otherwise the whole "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" thing would be a little weird). And I just cannot reconcile the notion of a compassionate and loving Jesus with showing love through physical discipline.

I never like seeing children at political rallies anyway - in many instances, it's just manipulative and ethically dodgy.

I can understand people being opposed to the bill for reasons like practicality, "social engineering", or concerns that we should be spending out time on things that directly result in child abuse, rather than the more symbolic legislative gestures. But I just can't understand getting so upset about having this "right" taken away that you would spend $40 000 on advertising campaigns, march on the streets, or make such jaw-dropping statements in Parliament like "I smacked my children and I'm proud of it".

Being the parent of three pre-schoolers, I can well understand "I smacked my children because I was just so mad and so tired and they had tried my patience to its limits". I don't think anyone is in a position to judge this (except perhaps the aforementioned Jesus!). And there is a fine line between physical discipline in the form of smacking, and forcefully putting a child into time out, for example. What I can't understand though is how smacking would make anyone proud.

The thing is, I don't really see what the fuss is about. Right now, every bar room brawl doesn't result in a court appearance. Neither does every punch up on a rugby field. The bill simply extends legal protection against assault to children - as the law already provides for adults and animals. Most of the "dreadful" scenarios being painted as what might happen as a result of this law can already happen under the current law (which doesn't provide for carte blanche physical discipline, merely a defence for "reasonable" behaviour).

Anyway, off the soapbox for me. The vast majority of parents in this country genuinely want to do what is best for their children. And most of us get by by being "good enough", rather than perfect.

An education

An episode of Blues Clues got me thinking last week. It's my least favourite - here's why. One of the characters (Periwinkle) goes to school for the first time. (Blues Clues is American, and given the target audience, I suspect this is "nursery school" - more like kindy than NZ "school"). After playing, Periwinkle goes to play with the blocks. The teacher admonishes him - it is not time to do blocks, it is time to paint. But I feel like building, says Periwinkle. However, it's not time to build - Periwinkle must wait until tomorrow.

Not a big deal I guess, but I'm so glad that we have free play at Playcentre! The children decide for themselves if they are feeling creative or constructive within a few simple guidelines (such as "clean up time" and respecting the play of others). Simultaneously, little kids get to be little kids, and learn the more adult skills of making decisions for themselves rather than being led from here to there at appointed times.

I then started thinking about something else on the box - a sixty minutes-type programme which was looking at a flash pre-school in Australia that offered expensive, but apparently rigorous education for your child from six weeks of age. It was the old debate of whether or not your child is better off being educated in a formal sense almost from birth, and about how rich environments and highly qualified teachers affect outcomes. Like most of these programmes, it didn't dig too deep, but did offer some sound bites from a commentator who seemed to indicate that research was not on the side of early formal learning.

Then I remembered the publicity we have been receiving lately about 20 free hours early childhood education a week for 3-4 year olds. Not my 4 year old though - as Playcentre is a parent co-operative rather than teacher-led, we get.....nothing.

Which brings me to the research. What I've read is fairly clear. What you need to do with the very young is nurture them, love them, give them security and a love of learning. It is more difficult to achieve this if they spend extensive amounts of times separated from their primary caregiver, if caregivers change frequently, or if formalised learning is commenced too early. Rather than a love for learning, you are more likely to make them dread "book time", "maths time" etc. The value of play should never be underestimated - both as a learning tool and (from my perspective) simply a time when children can enjoy their childhood and have fun. Yes, my daughter learns physics as she pours water through our water play toys. Yes, my son learns numeracy as we count the number of pushes we give him on the swing. But best of all we have fun together.

New Zealand research (the "competent children" study) also has a lot to say. I don't have my reading materials to hand, but this study showed that Playcentre children did at least as well (in terms of measurable outcomes at various ages) as children who went to other early childhood education providers. Playcentre graduates did particularly well with perseverance - a handy attribute to have. It is thought that this is because they get to choose when to commence an activity, and are not interrupted unnecessarily until they have finished. They get to experience the satisfaction of problem solving and concentrating on one thing for a sustained period of time.

And this is why Playcentre's exclusion from the latest hand out of funds feels like a slap in the face for parents who work hard to provide education for their children, volunteer for extra duties, and spend time doing parenting and education courses to enable the sessions to happen. (On the side, this frees up places with other providers for those for whom Playcentre, for whatever reason, is not good for them, which has got to be good for parental choice).

Then I thought about Susan's blog, when she wrote about her daughter starting school. Susan's an experienced Playcentre person. I don't remember the exact words she wrote, but I remember the feelings, and I remember thinking that my little Isabelle will be sent out into the world in only a few month's time. I hope we are preparing her well. I hope that she will remember Playcentre with a smile, but also as a place that she was happy and ready to move on from.

So that's what I was thinking about as my older children figured out last week's puzzle on Blues Clues and Orla had second (or was it third?) breakfast.

Oh, and in case you were wondering - no, I'm not considering home schooling! But that's another post....