Yesterday was the first time I subbed for daycare for a particular district. B______ Children Center. It wasn't really anything like pre-K for the other district, at least not 15 years ago. Perhaps CDC is more like daycare now. Or I should say, the "temporary orphanage." Which is what it reminded me of, when the children were all lying down for nap time, on their mats, covered by sheets and blankets supplied by home. Those who were working there seemed nice enough, but how can a childcare "provider" take the place of a parent? Some of the children had some behavior problems -- kicking others, and so on.
I don't know what is required for parents to be able to "enroll" their children at district-provided daycare, if the children have to come from "high-risk" families, or if the family has to be "low-income." As far as I know, it is free, but I could be wrong. I can understand why those families that need to have two parents working out of the home need childcare. I can understand why single parents need child care, though maybe they should feel a bit more guilt and shame over bad life choices. But daycare conditions, while they may conform to state regulations, are still less than ideal for the healthy development of a child. Someone who is paid to take care of a child cannot offer that care in the same way as someone who loves the child and has genuine affection. (And then there is the question of numbers -- one provider must divide his attention among many children.) One of the boys was telling me yesterday that he was mad with his mom and hates her; I couldn't elicit the reason for his feelings from him.
While I was taking my lunch break today, some middle schoolers walked by with their teachers. I couldn't help but have a visceral reaction to them, since they dressed in accordance with ghetto fashion, and some gave a gang-banger vibe, even though they weren't wearing gang colors. My first reaction was that of disdain -- if they were "well-behaved" my reaction would be different, but they were rather surly and using profanity. I couldn't see myself living in community with these children and their parents. Even if there be charity, how could someone with a family be commanded to live with them, or just have a service-oriented career among them?
I don't know what is required for parents to be able to "enroll" their children at district-provided daycare, if the children have to come from "high-risk" families, or if the family has to be "low-income." As far as I know, it is free, but I could be wrong. I can understand why those families that need to have two parents working out of the home need childcare. I can understand why single parents need child care, though maybe they should feel a bit more guilt and shame over bad life choices. But daycare conditions, while they may conform to state regulations, are still less than ideal for the healthy development of a child. Someone who is paid to take care of a child cannot offer that care in the same way as someone who loves the child and has genuine affection. (And then there is the question of numbers -- one provider must divide his attention among many children.) One of the boys was telling me yesterday that he was mad with his mom and hates her; I couldn't elicit the reason for his feelings from him.
While I was taking my lunch break today, some middle schoolers walked by with their teachers. I couldn't help but have a visceral reaction to them, since they dressed in accordance with ghetto fashion, and some gave a gang-banger vibe, even though they weren't wearing gang colors. My first reaction was that of disdain -- if they were "well-behaved" my reaction would be different, but they were rather surly and using profanity. I couldn't see myself living in community with these children and their parents. Even if there be charity, how could someone with a family be commanded to live with them, or just have a service-oriented career among them?
Then I thought about it... would these children have more respect for themselves and others if they had more control over their lives and environment? If they were learning in accordance with a different curriculum? Maybe the politicians can't do anything but maintain the welfare state, since it's not "practical" to restore true economic freedom to people. But that's to acquiesce in the decay that the welfare state inevitably brings as the citizens become degraded. Have these children gone to the local community garden/farm? Would producing their own food bring about a restoration of authentic self-esteem and bring about better behavior?
I watched the first episode of the current season of Friday Night Lights yesterday. I don't watch it for the drama of the high school students, though now that Tim Riggins has left college and is ostensibly no longer with Lyla, will he hook up with the daughter of his one-night stand? No, I watch it for Coach Eric Taylor.
Now that he's the coach of the restored East Dillon football team, will he be able to lead the underdogs to victory over West Dillon? I've written elsewhere that I don't like how the writers portray his family life and his place within the family, but there is little on television that rivals the depiction of a male authority figure when he is on the football field.
Some may think that a woman can fulfill the same role as a man with respect to coaching football, but they're wrong. Biological fathers aren't the only ones who are called to account for giving a positive masculine role model to young males and mentoring them, and we would be wrong to compartmentalize the tasks of education in this way by claiming that coaching or teaching is ideally gender-neutral. (As for men coaching girls' and womens' teams -- we aren't talking about recreation but competitive sports. Which sex is more inclined to competition?)
(source)
Madison Burge plays a student at East Dillon, and possibly Tim Riggins's new love interest.
Alas, her character talks so casually about her cougar-mom sleeping with so many men. Defense mechanism?
Madison Burge: American Actress
No comments:
Post a Comment