25 Dec

Maddie Goes to a New Child Care Program

Maddie goes to a new child care program

Maddie is three years old. She has been in a family child care home since she was a baby so she is used to being away from her family during the day. But her family child care is having to close and Maddie’s parents think she is ready for a preschool experience anyway so she can be ready for kindergarten. Maddie’s parents have explained all this to her but she is not too sure what this all means except that she is leaving her family child care provider, Shelly, and the other children. She is not happy about that but understands that its going to happen no matter what. She had a little party at Shelly’s with cupcakes and now it is time to go to the new place.
Maddie arrives with all her stuff from Shelly’s to put in her new cubby. The new lady – or Teacher – is called Miss Watkins and she smiles at Maddie when she comes in. Miss Watkins puts her stuff in a cubby with her new lunch box and Maddie says goodbye to her Daddy who brought her. When he leaves, Maddie starts to look around and she is really surprised at how many children there are and how many different kinds of things and a big rug and a bookcase full of books. Maddie looks around and is confused but not too upset. After a minute she spots the dolls and the play kitchen area and she knows all about that so she goes over to check it out. She sees so many dolls on the shelf! But she inspects them all until she finds one she likes and she tucks it under her arm with a blankee and crosses the room to see what else there is to play with. There are just so many things and there is music playing and tables and chairs with more things and all the children are very busy. Maddie explores carefully, with her doll still under her arm and then a bell goes off and everyone scurries around for clean up time – she knows about this! She helps other children put things where they seem to go and then Miss Watkins – and another lady – say its time for snack. Again Maddie knows what that means and she is ready to sit at a table because she is very hungry and thirsty! But when Miss Watkins tried to take her doll away, Maddie grips her even more tightly and tugs back at Miss Watkins who frowns but goes back to serving snack. Maddie keeps an eye on everybody through snack and wishes there were graham crackers like at Shelley’s but it’s okay.
Now it is time for “circle time” and Maddie isn’t sure what that means until she sees everyone go sit on the floor in front of a teacher’s chair and the other lady sits there with a book. Maddie knows this is a story time and even though she doesn’t know the songs or fingerplays they are doing, she is ready for a good story! The book is a quick one that Maddie doesn’t really understand and she couldn’t see the pictures very well but she and her doll sit quietly even though some other children are wiggling and get scolded by the other teacher-lady.

Time to go outside! Maddie finds the cubby that has her coal inside of it and she puts it on like Shelly taught her. She gets in the line at the door, doll still tucked in her arm with blankee straggling. Waiting and waiting. Then Miss Watkins opens the door for everyone to go out but when Maddie gets to the door, Miss Watkins firmly takes her doll and put its on a nearby shelf out of her sight and says “no dolls outside.” And that is the point at which Maddie is now really really unhappy and she knows not to cry and fuss but she just stands outside. Looking at her feet. Overwhelmed finally and very unhappy.
Miss Watkins doesn’t give her back the doll when they go inside and Maddie cant find her on the shelf now. The day is not fun any more and Maddie is not happy to go back the next day.

14 Dec

Choose your own adventure – it depends.

Choose your Own Adventure  Maybe you are of a mind to think that this is a good learning opportunity for Johnny.  He experiences a “moderate” amount of stress and is learning how to be tough and self sufficient- something we value in American children. And that could be what is happening – but it depends on what happens next and there are a number of important possibilities.

    Maybe his teacher realizes Johnny hasn’t had much experience with other kids – a new Covid norm.  She appreciates that he may not yet know about sharing – its a sophisticated skill for any three yr old but appropriately it is a newly developing one for that executive function part of the brain.  To share, Johnny must have learned to control his impulses, to wait, and to trust that he will get his turn soon.  His teacher might sit with Johnny and walk through a sharing episode with getting a car to play with, from start to finish,  so that he learns how this sharing thing works.  In this scenario Johnny  will also learn that his teacher will help him – so he learns to trust (and listen to) her.  

    Or maybe Johnny’s teacher has so many children in her classroom that she doesn’t notice or she doesnt think its important to assist Johnny with this skill. After all, some kids in here know how to share – whats the matter with this new kid – grabbing, entitled, aggressive?  Or maybe she thinks he will figure it out himself – which could happen, if he has a temperament that can be patient, persistent and/or he is not too hungry or tired to switch on some executive thinking.  But what if he is a young three and doesn’t have the capacity to wait quite yet ?  Maybe the stress of being in this new place, alone, makes sharing impossible today because he is on his last (limbic) nerve.  

    Whichever teacher response he gets can set the trajectory for both his and the teacher’s expectations and we know how that ends -You get what you expect to get.   And all of this conjecture does not take into account the temperament, development or issues of the other child(ren).  If Johnny has inadvertently provoked someone’s tantrum – who is to blame?  Who will the teacher be mad at?

    Of course we have just described – at most 20 minutes – of a child care event in which an individual child’s development is evident.  (Hint:  they all are).   Now we are about to encounter the next predictably contentious event of the day: Clean Up Time.  Johnny: “What?????”

Johnny  may have been asked to put toys away at home (maybe not) but likely there haven’t been so many WRONG places to put things.  Nor has it been so loud and confusing with everyone singing some crazy song and moving quickly.  If Johnny had been getting used to things, now his limbic system switches right back on.

Johnny’s bumpy first day can be…okay.  If it goes very badly Johnny’s behavior will let us know – tears, hitting, defiance, withdrawal.  Will he want to come back tomorrow?  It depends.  

Oh, and does Johnny speak the same language as his teacher?

11 Dec

Childrenology

 Prologue: “Teacher, Teacher, what do you see?” A new call to action.

With gratitude to Bill Martin, Jr and Eric Carle (from, of course, Brown Brown Bear, What do you see?)

I am writing about children in child care (and day care).

I am writing to describe what I think is invisible to most adults – what the experiences of children might actually feel like underneath what we see as their “behavior”.  The meaning we make of their behavior is sometimes so influenced by what we want to see, expect to see or what our culture has primed us to see, that we don’t fully understand the impact our interpretations have on young children.  This is not intended to scold anyone using child care or working in child care.  It is my attempt to reveal and lift up  the reason that our profession fights so hard for what we sanguinely call “quality” child care.  

Children do benefit when they are with other children and in the care of adults other than their parents and family.  But the nature of that care has a significant impact on their well being and development.  I hope that with an inside vantage point for understanding children’s behavior, we can better support good teachers and programs and make the best possible choices for our children.

These stories are intentionally limited to three-year-old white children, whose parents are working and need child care.  I am narrowing this perspective to hold off the unavoidable interpretations that would be applied to children who are of color or from any diverse background.  We live in a biased society and I am putting blinders on only to make a point.  By focusing on young white children I am trying to unpack “children” writ large, knowing full well that white children do not represent all children but that white children’s behavior is not as quickly, unfairly or negatively labelled with inevitable unconscious prejudice.  If these scenarios reflect an imagined typical experience of white children, they most certainly under-represent the experience of all the children who also carry the burdens of prejudice, poverty, disability, and more.

Each story is told from the perspective of an imagined child – of course that is presumptuous.  My story is constructed out of my own observations and experiences; it likely will test our best intentions for child care to be great.  I am holding some presumptions in these stories – I assume all parents want what is best for their children (thank you, Touchpoints).  I assume teachers are doing the best they can with what they know, how they are feeling themselves and with the resources available to them, both in their preparation as teachers and within this model of child care in America.

I also assume what the research confirms – that all children are learning all the time – they are learning about themselves, about people, relationships, about their environment.  I also assume that at age three, (and of course for all development) relationships are the most important single factor influencing what and how children learn.  Early brain development research explains that our brains process all information first through the emotional filter of our limbic system, which has no access to language or to the executive functioning of the prefrontal cortex.  These are simplistic, but basically true, premises which I overlay with the developmental, psychological expectations of three year olds – all of whom are individual, with individual temperaments and experiences.  Child care is never a one-size-fits-all experience for children.

10 Dec

Childrenology – Chapter One

Chapter One – Johnny

Johnny gets awakened by his Mom at 7am.  She reminds him it’s his first day of big boy school and he needs to hurry to get ready!  A cereal breakfast, some cajoling, looking for shoes, Mom packs a backpack – what’s in that backpack?  nothing.  She forgets to put a clean set of weather-appropriate, labeled, extra clothes in a plastic bag in there. But everyone has a backpack with something cool on it so Johnny does too.  

She drives Johnny to ABC Little Learners Academy, which she calls “daycare” so that’s what Johnny calls it too.  She carries him in, puts him down in the foyer where she signs him in and then walks him down the hall to his classroom.  Johnny: “what is happening? What is happening? What is happening?  Where are we going? What is happening? It smells funny here.  What is happening?”  Johnny’s limbic system is perfectly responding, sensing that anything  unfamiliar is potentially dangerous.  He is on high alert, curious and cautious.  Mom says “Here we are!”  and they stand in the doorway of a brightly colored, rather hysterically decorated room that is noisy, smelly and full of moving things that are, he senses correctly, other children!  This is maybe ok and interesting and Mom is talking to a woman and he is shown his cubby where his backpack gets put.   As he is biologically adapted to do, he is checking out the environment to the degree his senses are comfortable.  After one minute, the noise and colors begin to overwhelm him and his eyes are wide.  It is at this moment, unfortunately, that Mom announces she is leaving.  him.  here.  now.   The other woman is talking to him but because his limbic system is fully in charge, he is not really hearing her, nor is he able to answer her questions. He shrinks against his mom and now she is anxious – about his discomfort, his refusal to go play, the judgment of the teacher? or is it the director? and that she is in danger of being late to work.  And she hasn’t paid the center yet – can she get out the door without them asking her for money she doesn’t have until payday?

Back to Johnny.  The woman – his teacher – gives up or gets distracted and leaves him alone to “get comfortable.” A good healthy limbic response for him is to freeze in place until he understands what is happening.  He never really does.  But he sees nearby children playing on the floor with cars so he goes and stands there and watches for a bit.  After a few minutes, Play With Cars wins and he sits down and tries to get a car to play with but when he picks one up, another child yells bloody murder and an angry grown up comes over and takes the car out of his hand, speaks in a scolding way, and then leaves.  Johnny moves away and resumes watching. A typically developing child with a temperament that is curious, mildly anxious (appropriately so) and a determination to survive – he has a trait optimistically called ‘grit’ and Johnny survives the first hours of day care.

Did Mom or the teacher do anything wrong? This is a pretty typical description. No one meant for Johnny to be upset.

24 Jun

Caring has Consequences. Not just niceness.

The Caring Workforce took on a profound burden with Covid and is reverberating still – caring professions (teachers, nurses, eldercare providers, (gulp) day care workers are leaving these jobs and few-to-none are stepping up to replace them. Attention is being paid to the reduction of this “workforce” with significant acknowledgments of the unconscionably low wages, institutionalized racism, misogyny and classism that has always plagued those that “care” for work. But as I struggle to find a way to articulate how caring for children is the most important Caring arena, I wanted to look at “caring” as our society frames it with language and attention.

The definition of caring is “the act or practice of showing concern for, displaying attentiveness to, or tending to the needs of others.” The schema it calls up is “niceness”. That does not call up, for me, the vital role that say, nutrition, does. Doggy day care, senior day care, self care, caring for and about gardens, birds, the arts – so many things we apply “care” to and should! But there is something integral and urgent that is lost in the casual use of the word care and indeed, in the warm and fuzzy feelings we get about caring. Caring describes our affection and interest in something and/or someone and it is an important expression of emotions and sense of responsibility. It defines one of the ways we relate to each other and to society at large – it might be a part of our identity. We are glad people do it. It’s nice.

But regardless, “caring” fails to describe the seriousness of its consequences when it comes to children. Even caring for an elderly adult has consequences that effect their health and their quality of life. It is part of the social fabric of a culture. However, I distinguish between the consequences of caring for children, especially young children. (read education here if you must).

Caring for young children is indeed about an expression of love and appreciation of cuteness, but it is so much more consequential than that. Early brain research gives us clear indications of the “natural consequences” of caring for children, and the impact of the quality of that care. Early – and adolescent- brain research reminds us that we are biological constructs that thrive or not, in direct relationship to the “care” we receive in our growing stages. Its not about being nice. Its not even about competition. It is about nothing less than survival – not the short sighted version of our own family or ego. But of the outcome of the human experience of being the dominant, most impactful species on the planet.

Here is a great quote from someone in Head Start long ago that articulates the consequences of our caring for children in real and stark terms

“It is in the early years that children learn that they are safe – or not.”

If not, their brains are not available for learning anything other than how to be safe.

“It is in the early years that children learn that they are loved – or not.”

In this world, we need empathy and compassion, the ability to care about someone other than ourselves.

“It is in the early years that children learn that they are encouraged to explore the world – or not.”

A provincial, limited, territorial mindset can be dangerous- but a curious mindset leads to critical thinking, tolerance and open mindedness.

These are not simply nice things that we wish for all children. The answer to these statements are consequences that will shape how their brains develop, shape their expectations of other people, will set them in toxic stress or trauma, or create biological environments in which they can develop brains that can calm down (self-regulate), learn abstract constructs (like reading), form healthy relationships (secure attachments) and make “good choices” (have critical thinking and executive function skills).

I know what the world I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in looks like and I shudder to think of the consequences of a society that refuses to understand the central foundational need for care of young children. Its not just a fleeting expression of affection – it is the instrument of growth – and contributes mightily to the people all of us – any of us – will grow up to be.

So pay close attention to the actions our society is taking about young children – we will all reap the consequences and we are responsible.

07 Dec

Paleo child care

The other day my 7 yr old grandson began a conversation/debate with “in my opinion”.  Blessings upon whomever taught him that.  It’s a necessary preamble.

Which made me think about how, in my opinion, we have not traveled very far out of the box when thinking about how to re-create or restore child care for parents who are working.  The nerd in me was intrigued and thrilled with the quick cultural adoption of the Paleo Diet and the rationale that surely thousands of years would have insight and wisdom into how we eat and how we raise our offspring.  Limitations of the Paleo Diet notwithstanding, I think we should be curious about how we raised our ‘offspring’.

I think anthropology has assured us that we didn’t group offspring into the same age groups, like a litter of pups, and “manage” them all day.  And at the same time if no one cared for them – even only casually – we wouldn’t be here. (think tigers).

My research into the literature suggests we ceded protection and entertainment of children to a perhaps fluid group  of trusted adults until children returned to the care of their parents.  I doubt we assigned that responsibility to the group member we trusted the least (or “paid the least”) or that we expected that one individual would spend all sunlight hours only chasing children.  This gem of an article sent by my fellow ponderer of such things, suggests that children’s young brains  are wired to form a number of relationships, all of which need to be secure and kind, if not fond, and presumably with group members who liked children, not to control freaks or warm bodies or bullies.  (Since I am a teacher of young kids I can say that.. I bet big sisters and cousins were likely recruits and mothers of other youngsters, already engaged in the preservation of the offspring.  And for goodness sakes, fathers!

My point here is that, in my opinion, we have stubbornly stuck to the Industrial Revolution model in care and education and I am thoroughly alarmed at the results.  We can wrap our minds around the legitimate craving of an occasional Paleo steak but we can’t integrate the science that tells us that our offspring thrive when they play?

That is pretty far out of the box for us, but if we can entertain Paleo, we can entertain re-imagining how best to care for, protect and “educate” our children.  Because we are doing a terrible job at it.  Turns out you don’t even need the tiger.

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-hunter-gatherer-approach-childcare-key-mother.html#google_vignette

20 Nov

A Timely Policy Parable

Having read a bit of news that was intended to be hopeful this week, I keep recalling a Policy Parable by Dr. James Gallagher at Frank Porter Graham a number of years ago. He re-told it many times and each time it rang a AHA truth bell..

Imagine: there is a little girl who is very sick with fever and a sore throat and her worried parents carry her to the doctor who diagnoses strep throat and prescribes a 10 day prescription of penicillin. Within 24 hours, the child (and her parents) start to feel better! After three days, the little girl feels much better and her parents send her back to child care, still checking her temp and giving her the 2 doses of medicine each day. A week later, the little girl is feeling MUCH better, back to her old self and everyone is relieved this episode is over. Parents forget or forgo the last days of penicillin. When she gets sick again in 2 weeks, we can see the error in not following the full dose of medicine, and now, inadvertently, but surely, we have contributed to a more resistant strain of strep – making it harder to cure the next time.

This, Dr Gallagher would say, is what happens when we apply a Non-Therapeutic Dose of Policy. Just enough relief to tamp down the drama but ultimately not enough to fix the problem. And with the predictable unintended consequences, the problem is now better entrenched and resists easy solutions.

I fear this where we are in the “child care crisis”. Our non-therapeutic dose of federal monies is over, and the smaller gestures aren’t up to the job, but they feel like we are doing something. We have been in this cycle for a long time. A financial analysis 10 years ago concluded that the way to fix the compensation problem was to pay child care teachers a wage commensurate with their responsibilities. Imagine that.

29 Sep

children going over the child care “cliff”

As federal dollars supporting child care during the pandemic dry up at the end of September, we are all watching, noting and bemoaning the serious impact it will have on employers, parents, child care businesses and teachers. Yet, woe is the society that treats its families as financial commodities only. There are children in there – who learned to say goodbye to Mommy and Daddy every morning by connecting with Miss Mary, or Kashama or Claudia (all real teachers I know). But those children who will see teachers leave because of this event are set to suffer disruptions in one or more of their primary relationships. We like to think kids are resilient (and of course many are by nature or in the right circumstances), but breaks, especially abrupt ones, in the relationships that are the building blocks of trust and interactions, erode and complicate young children’s sense of safety and predictability in the world. We grown ups complain about change and stress, but its a biological event and it effects early brain development (see https://developingchild.harvard.edu/) if you need convincing.

The reason that the adults in child care are worthy of professional wages and compensation is that their skills and knowledge about this important relationship have a profound effect on young children. But when predictable, kind adults disappear abruptly, it sends a biological message to the brain and influences responses and other relationships. Efforts to mitigate that will help – other familiar teachers, visits, talking about it. But the continued callousness and self-centered attitudes of our society and government will impact young children – who will become adolescents – and eventually just and trusted adults (or not).

23 Sep

“How are the children?”

“How are the children?”

Saturday, September 23, 2023

11:53 AM

Many years ago this was a common way we would have opened an early childhood policy conference or training conversation.  A reference to a Masai greeting among travelers, it prioritized the welfare of children as the important indicator that it is.  But we have moved a far piece from this wisdom, for a variety of pressing issues. It seems from here that there is more interest in how to convince people to come care for children than whether they are any good at it.  Of course both are necessary efforts but I take the frequent absence of the word “quality” from the conversation about accessibility and affordability as an obvious hint as to where our real efforts are going.  Corporate America wants their money makers (parents) back to work and children are “resilient” anyway. 

I despair at what this means.  We used to spend hours debating what kind of puzzles were developmentally appropriate for 3 yr olds so teachers would score well on environmental rating scales. I have a lot of opinions on the matter actually, so I am talking about myself.  Now I wish we had seen that, in the future, puzzles would become pretty irrelevant and that what we really needed to pay attention to were how the adults were supported to relate – or not – to children.   We apparently went for the “low-hanging fruit” (always a mistake, a misdirection, an easy distraction) and gave less intellectual, policy and emotional energy to the health and strength and wisdom of the teacher her/himself.  Too late, throwing money at them alone will not really nourish them.  When will we realize that the answer to “how are the children” is not really related to “how much does their teacher make”? 

On the other hand, as a dastardly underpaid ece educator for my adult life, believe me, I know how important salary is.  But it is not the only thing – apparently we can think about policy for compensation band-aids (apologies) but not about funding for teacher education, professional development, better working conditions (see actually implemented Model Work Standards) and, finally, professional acknowledgement, sometimes meekly referred to as, respect.

Please lets put ALL the needs of the teachers on the table – not just break times, and bonuses, but child development science and how to tend each child with informed attention and understanding.  Fostering those skills benefits teachers commensurate with their responsibilities, while also helping to inform the answer to “How are the children?”

We can’t be entranced by the very mention of “compensation”. Lets demand what is good for us and the children.