My first response to The Shriver Report:

A Woman’s Nation Pushes Back from the Brink

Comments following the discussion of Head Start.

I’m working my way through the Shriver Report (at section 2981 of 8215), and I find it curious that it seems more important to get women working than raising their children.  In some cases, childcare accounts for “from 20 percent to nearly 50 percent of that mother’s monthly salary” (US Census, 2011), which doesn’t leave much for living expenses like rent, food, etc.  I was lucky.  I was not put in day care.  I was not sent to preschool.  My mother was on welfare from the time I was a toddler until I started Kindergarten.  Looking back, it was a very precarious time, but I don’t remember learning to read-  I just always did.  I saw my mother read.  We went to the library for free reading.  

If I was sick, my mother took care of me.  My mother prepared my food, made my clothes when she got discounted fabric, and we got by.  My belief is that the consistent care I had in my early childhood gave me a solid foundation for learning and ultimately working.  Where are the studies comparing childhoods like mine to HeadStart childhoods or early childhoods which start daycare within the first year of life?  I have gone on to be very well educated, and when I became a single parent with an infant, I made specific choices to ensure that I would not have to rely on daycare centers.  My daughter did not go to HeadStart or PreK.  I worked part time, and when I wasn’t with her, she was in the consistent care of my mother.  

Now in school, my daughter reads beautifully.  I am still working part time, which allows me to flex my schedule if she is ill or has a school function to which I am invited.  We live within our means.  We are still sharing housing and expenses with my mother.  My boys have finished high school, and one has finished community college.  

When we discuss national policy regarding stability for early childhood, the discussion always turns to getting the children out of the home.  We do not sufficiently support the family dynamic, and so we undermine parents.  We try to justify it by elevating babysitters to child care providers or child development specialists, or early childhood teachers, with the attendant advanced education (and typical student debt which means the qualified professionals must command greater wages— wages greater than the parents of their charges can often earn).  It is insidious.  

I value education.  I value work and its financial compensation.  I also value mothering- and the fact that there is no one correct way to be a mother.  I used cloth diapers with all of my children.  I nursed my children.  I worked part time in such a way that my boys were primarily cared for by a parent.  I made many of my sons’ early clothes, but I have managed a few items for my daughter, despite a more intense work load during her early years.  We read (mainly library books!) most nights before she goes to sleep.  The parenting hints outlined in the discussion of Save the Children (Schriver Report, section 2835 of 8215) are great tools.  Some parents need to be instructed or reminded to take the time to speak with pre-speech children.  Humans need exposure to language.  Human language, not just tech-based recordings of speech.  Can an early childhood classroom always beat out the one to one attention a parent can give?  Can a school day with limited recess take the place of playtime available if a parent is able to watch a child in a yard or at a playground?  

We need to do more as a society to support children and their need for parents, not just professional caregivers.  This does not have to be expensive.  Knowledge is power.  Our education of students needs to include economics from early grades.  Students need to know how to apply math to money.  Loans mean interest.  What does life cost?  How can choices impact a budget?  Students need to know what food costs, and how to build a nutritious menu from a budget.  Parents need to be able to evaluate the possible benefit of having two people work different shifts so they share child care time.  Some parents are able to form co-ops, so a group of children has a consistent core of adults caring for them.  There are many ways to manage, and many ways yet to be tested.  

I am severely under-employed.  The implication of the Shriver Report is that I am unlikely to be able to offer my children the best start from my circumstances.  Education may be an answer, but I have an MBA and a range of skills.  I am one person, and not likely to skew the national statistics, but maybe what I am doing has societal value.  Perhaps I am able to offer the best situation to my family by limiting my professional advancement and potential income.  We have food and housing.  We even have fun!  An executive career would require relocation away from a family support network, longer hours away from my household, and curtailed parenting.  Much as I want a home of my own, life in a warmer climate, and some of the finer things in life, I am not willing to undervalue my role as mother to accomplish it, and I will not be convinced that I am doing my family a disservice by Leaning Back, so to speak.  I am not wasting my potential.  I am maximizing it to suit my priorities.

There is absolutely huge need in this country.  Parents are struggling, so children are struggling.  We must work to eradicate poverty.  There is no excuse for children in our country to have food insecurity.  We need to identify our primary concerns and consider multiple strategies for addressing those concerns.  PreK may be one answer, but it is not the only answer.  Child care for working parents may be one answer, but it is not the only answer.  We need to expand our understanding of poverty, and the Shriver Report addresses many faces, causes, and consequences of poverty.  Many people who seem to be on track are on the brink of disaster, since one unexpected expense can throw off a whole budget, and lead to utility shut offs, homelessness, hunger, and no easy path back.  

We cannot make the assumption that poverty equates to un- or under-educated.  

We cannot even assume that poverty means unemployed.