- Email: [email protected]
Educational programs and policies to care for our children
Educational Programs and Policies to Care for Our Children
Robert Halpern, Guest Editor Erkson Institute
When I was first asked to sewe as guest editor for this special issue I sat down with the articles, to see where the common threads might lie. Upon first reading they seemed a diverse group - parent support programs, undergraduate training for future child care workers and teachers of vulnerable childten, a parent swey on school age child care issues, an interpersonal skills-training program for at-risk mothers. As I kept reading I began to see not so much common threads as a common message, indeed a profoundly important one. These articles signal a shift in the burden of caregiving-of nurturing, protecting, socializing, and caring for others--in American society. Traditional sources of care and nurturance are no longer available or able to perform these functions. New sources am being envisioned, trained, and deployed, or in some cases involuntarily drafted, to address our society’s camgiving ntcds. Such shifts have occurted in the past. Some would argue that they occur continuously. But there is an ominous quality to the current state of caregiving in our society, a sense that the fabric has been so weakened that it may disintegrate even as we am trying to renew it. What makes 1990 any different from 1890 or 1930 or 1960? It is different because it seems more difficult than in any past period of our history to identify sources of support, guidance and protection for children and adults alike. It is different because American society has reached a degree of fragmentation, even polarization, that will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. It is different because for the first time a segment of our societal community feels, and in fact is, completely detached from mainstream expectations, norms and opportunities.
265
Guest Editorial The weakness in the fabric of caregiving can be seen in the changing character of after school life for children. One of the central driving forces in children’s lives historically has been to escape adult scrutiny and authority. That is why children have always loved the streets, and struggled against adult-supervised play situations lie after school programs. Children could build their lives around the pursuit of freedom because they knew deep inside that they were not on their own. But today at least some children, perhaps many, can no longer claim that powerful certainty. When a six or seven or eight year old child goes home, double locks the door and waits for the turn of the key; or finds herself simultaneously raising her two younger siblings and worrying about the health of her single mother who is working two jobs; or cannot play in the street because she might accidentally be shot, but has nowhere else to go, such a child might be assumed to be feeling too much on her own. There has got to be something wrong with the society that fmds it necessary to proclaim as a public policy objective that “every inner city child should be able to identify at least one adult who cares about him or her”. Parents and other caregivers may themselves be feeling “on their own”. Public policies, cultural norms and the marketplace all confirm that caregiving is not a valued activity in American society, wherever it occurs. Morality aside, we are as usual being short-sighted. ‘Ihe social fabric of a society is as strong as the caregiving that occurs among the members of that society. The quality of such caregiving, whether by family members for each other, among community members, or by formal providers, is strongly dependent on the support and nurture provided to caregivers themselves. The articles in this special issue of the Review point to specific ways in which such support and nurture can be provided, to parents, teachers, and other human service providers. The essay review by Heather Weiss outlines one such set of ideas; that is, thinking of caregiving as the joint and interdependent responsibility of family, state, voluntary community, and the corporate sector. Weiss illustrates how these ideas are being reflected in the thinking of a number of important commissions and professional groups in different sectors of society. But she also reminds us that a real breakthrough in definition and expression of caregiving responsibility is going to require a lot more than rhetorical consensus in commission reports. Indeed. if such change is to occur, debate about “responsibility for caring” must somehow be extended beyond the boundaries of state and national commissions into the mainstream of our communal life. We are in critical need of ideas that can move us beyond our paralyzing ambivalence about responsibility for the well-being of children and families. In the second article I examine the rationale and evidence base for programs designed to support low-income patents in their efforts to
Children and Youth Services Review
267
care for their children, struggle for personal development and cope with poverty-related stresses. ‘Ihe two articles by Brenda Eheart and colleagues describe strategies for attracting undergraduate college students to and preparing them for careers as camgivers for children, in day cam settings, schools and other human service settings. Eheart and her fellow authors remind us that children’s developmental and support needs do not fit the boundaries of categorical programs, and that education programs for caregivers should prepare them to attend to the range of children’s needs. ‘Ihe article by Mick Coleman illuminates school-age child care issues, through a discussion of the findings of a parent survey. Robert Halpern, Guest Editor Erikson Institute
This special issue is dedicated with love and q@ection to Shirk
Robert Halpern, Guest Editor Erkson Institute
When I was first asked to sewe as guest editor for this special issue I sat down with the articles, to see where the common threads might lie. Upon first reading they seemed a diverse group - parent support programs, undergraduate training for future child care workers and teachers of vulnerable childten, a parent swey on school age child care issues, an interpersonal skills-training program for at-risk mothers. As I kept reading I began to see not so much common threads as a common message, indeed a profoundly important one. These articles signal a shift in the burden of caregiving-of nurturing, protecting, socializing, and caring for others--in American society. Traditional sources of care and nurturance are no longer available or able to perform these functions. New sources am being envisioned, trained, and deployed, or in some cases involuntarily drafted, to address our society’s camgiving ntcds. Such shifts have occurted in the past. Some would argue that they occur continuously. But there is an ominous quality to the current state of caregiving in our society, a sense that the fabric has been so weakened that it may disintegrate even as we am trying to renew it. What makes 1990 any different from 1890 or 1930 or 1960? It is different because it seems more difficult than in any past period of our history to identify sources of support, guidance and protection for children and adults alike. It is different because American society has reached a degree of fragmentation, even polarization, that will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. It is different because for the first time a segment of our societal community feels, and in fact is, completely detached from mainstream expectations, norms and opportunities.
265
Guest Editorial The weakness in the fabric of caregiving can be seen in the changing character of after school life for children. One of the central driving forces in children’s lives historically has been to escape adult scrutiny and authority. That is why children have always loved the streets, and struggled against adult-supervised play situations lie after school programs. Children could build their lives around the pursuit of freedom because they knew deep inside that they were not on their own. But today at least some children, perhaps many, can no longer claim that powerful certainty. When a six or seven or eight year old child goes home, double locks the door and waits for the turn of the key; or finds herself simultaneously raising her two younger siblings and worrying about the health of her single mother who is working two jobs; or cannot play in the street because she might accidentally be shot, but has nowhere else to go, such a child might be assumed to be feeling too much on her own. There has got to be something wrong with the society that fmds it necessary to proclaim as a public policy objective that “every inner city child should be able to identify at least one adult who cares about him or her”. Parents and other caregivers may themselves be feeling “on their own”. Public policies, cultural norms and the marketplace all confirm that caregiving is not a valued activity in American society, wherever it occurs. Morality aside, we are as usual being short-sighted. ‘Ihe social fabric of a society is as strong as the caregiving that occurs among the members of that society. The quality of such caregiving, whether by family members for each other, among community members, or by formal providers, is strongly dependent on the support and nurture provided to caregivers themselves. The articles in this special issue of the Review point to specific ways in which such support and nurture can be provided, to parents, teachers, and other human service providers. The essay review by Heather Weiss outlines one such set of ideas; that is, thinking of caregiving as the joint and interdependent responsibility of family, state, voluntary community, and the corporate sector. Weiss illustrates how these ideas are being reflected in the thinking of a number of important commissions and professional groups in different sectors of society. But she also reminds us that a real breakthrough in definition and expression of caregiving responsibility is going to require a lot more than rhetorical consensus in commission reports. Indeed. if such change is to occur, debate about “responsibility for caring” must somehow be extended beyond the boundaries of state and national commissions into the mainstream of our communal life. We are in critical need of ideas that can move us beyond our paralyzing ambivalence about responsibility for the well-being of children and families. In the second article I examine the rationale and evidence base for programs designed to support low-income patents in their efforts to
Children and Youth Services Review
267
care for their children, struggle for personal development and cope with poverty-related stresses. ‘Ihe two articles by Brenda Eheart and colleagues describe strategies for attracting undergraduate college students to and preparing them for careers as camgivers for children, in day cam settings, schools and other human service settings. Eheart and her fellow authors remind us that children’s developmental and support needs do not fit the boundaries of categorical programs, and that education programs for caregivers should prepare them to attend to the range of children’s needs. ‘Ihe article by Mick Coleman illuminates school-age child care issues, through a discussion of the findings of a parent survey. Robert Halpern, Guest Editor Erikson Institute
This special issue is dedicated with love and q@ection to Shirk