Can You Afford to Have Children?

As someone who is intimately involved with the Early Learning and Child Care pilot project here in Alberta (aka "$25/day daycare"), I often follow related posts on Twitter, and I inevitably read some of the comments.

I am careful to pick who I engage with--choosing to respond to those who seem like they have legitimate questions, concerns, or thoughts. ...And occasionally the wildly ignorant person who needs a quick slap of education.

However, one refrain I see in response to tweets related to the topic of universal childcare runs along the lines of, "if you can't afford to raise children, then don't have them."

This statement irks me to no end, but 280 characters does not even scratch the surface to respond appropriately. I've learned that for some, "raise children" means not putting them into child care at all. These individuals don't seem to understand that child care is not just glorified babysitting; early learning and child care centres are rich learning environments, and educators deserve way more respect from society than they often get. ...But that is a different post, for a different time.

However, I think most are simply implying that parents who are raising children should include the cost of child care in their budget if both parents choose, or are required, to work.

If you are one of the misinformed (or ignorant) who have made such statements as outlined above, then this post is for you.

First, let me come clean and admit that I have been guilty of making such statements. I acknowledge that I was young and naive, though those are explanations--not excuses--for such narrow-minded thinking.

I soon landed on a career path that involves working closely with families, and my eyes were quickly opened to the nearly infinite definitions and functions of family. We are long past living in the world of "mom and dad and 2.5 kids." Perhaps that's why the statement irks me so much. In addition to lacking empathy, such a statement fails to understand the complexity of families and life in general.

"Parents who can't afford to raise children shouldn't have them," you say?

• What about the family that decides they can afford to raise one child, then ends up with twins?

• What about the family whose child is born with an unforeseen disability? (Hint: it is often more expensive to raise children with disabilities)

• What about the family who thought they were done having children, then accidentally gets pregnant?

• What about the young woman who gets raped, and instead of aborting, chooses to keep and raise the child?

• What about the two-parent family who endures the death of a parent, and now lives off one income?

• What about the family who is required to relocate for work, to an area where the cost of living is higher than expected?

• What about the refugee family that had children in their home country before knowing they'd need to ask asylum out-of-continent?

• What about the family who ends up dealing with a chronic illness and its associated medical bills?

• What about the family who loses everything to fire or flood? (because that never happens in Alberta)

• What about the parent in a family who unexpectedly loses their job?

...I could go on.

Perhaps you're feeling defensive now, thinking, "but that's different--those are exceptions." No. They're not. Each one individually, maybe. However, many of those hypothetical situations are not rare, and collectively, they make up a sizeable amount of the families that live and grow in Alberta.

Some families are able to easily make the decision for one parent to stay home, or to have other family members help out with child care. If that's your family, and you have that luxury, go for it. I advocate for healthy families as much as I advocate for quality education.

However, for the parents that choose to, or are required to, put their children in child care, it should be quality and affordable--regardless of financial state.*

Knowing that life can change in an instant, can any family truly afford to raise a child outside of the present moment?

I'm not so sure.



*For further reading on why universal childcare might be beneficial to society, click here.

Going Old School OR SOTC 15/365

I am part of a photography meet-up group, and we found ourselves out and about today at the Stony Plain & Parkland Pioneer Museum. A small historical museum, this little place was quiet and just the perfect size to spend an afternoon behind the lens.

I meandered in and out of several buildings, but my favourite was the school house. The bookshelf lined with old novels and readers; the amazing natural light coming in through the tall windows; the nice, neat rows of desks. Clearly, I am an educator.

As I moved around the small school house snapping photos, I also thought a bit about what it meant to be a teacher back in the early 1900's (and earlier, even). One teacher in a school house of about twenty children, ranging in age from 6-16. Thinking about the dynamic that would come out of that, I almost wonder if early 20th century schools had a better understanding and practice of differentiated instruction than some of our present-day classrooms have.

The teacher in 1900 would have be teaching at several different levels throughout the day. With one child, she would be demonstrating simple addition and subtraction, while with the teenager at the back, be working on algebra. Teaching the six-year-old to print his name, and the nine-year-old to do the same in cursive writing. She needed to know where each student was at in his/her learning, and support that level of readiness, whatever it was. I'm also guessing that older students were responsible for helping the younger ones with their learning from time to time, as well as caring for them in general.

Somewhere along the way, we lost that individualized learning, and started to present the set curricula in a set way to students. That being said, in the last several years, we have started to realize that differentiated instruction--teaching a subject in a variety of modalities to meet the unique learning styles of each student in the class--produces more successful students. We also recognize that peers can be powerful teachers, too. Peer-mediated instruction can be especially helpful for students with special learning needs.

Sounds a lot to me like what was old has become new again.

Now, don't hear me wrong. I don't think we're headed for mixed-age classrooms and abandoning a formal curriculum; nor do I think that's necessarily a good idea. But just the concept of the teacher being intentional about taking each person's learning needs into account when presenting material, and establishing a class culture where everyone works together to support each other's learning and take care of each other a little bit... I think those are quite foundational characteristics for student success in the classroom.

And clearly, some have known this all along...

My Job Matters

I realize that the title of my blog post could come off sounding arrogant--as if to say, "my job matters, and yours doesn't." Not the intention at all. I really just want to emphasize that my job matters, period.

I work with children with disabilities. Really, my role is quite a bit more complex and varied than that, but that's the simplest way to outline it.

And my job matters.

I help give kids without verbal speech a way to communicate effectively.
     That matters.
I help parents learn how to advocate for their child's needs.
     That matters.
I make learning fun.
     That matters.
I watch children, whose parents are told they would never walk, take their first steps.
     That matters.
I teach children how to play.
     That matters.
I teach others how to modify activities so their child/student can be successful.
     That matters.
I make sure children are fully included with their peers in school.
     That really matters.

Our new premier has already given due attention to education cuts that have were made in this province previously. I hope this decision is contagious among other provincial decision-makers, and that funding for children with special needs--which has been frozen the last few years--will thaw. After all, inclusion means supporting all students.

In the mean time, The GRIT Program does everything in its power to meet the needs of the children and families it serves. It takes a village to raise a child. We are so thankful for the community partnerships we have formed that help keep GRIT providing quality service to families. That matters.

"...we don't know a child's full potential,

so we will assume it's limitless."

-- Barb Reid

http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3339494

When in Reggio OR 68/365

Because The GRIT Program (where I work) is a family-centred educational program, we work in family's homes, as well as neighbourhood preschools and kindergartens. We don't have a classroom of our own. We do, however, have a playroom, and run a small playgroup a few times each month for the kids in our program.

As we always try to adhere to current research and best practice for child development and education, we are presently trying to adopt many aspects of the Reggio Emilia Approach in our playroom. One of the most salient changes we are making is to the decor and 'ambience' of the environment.

On a tight budget, my partner and I have been brainstorming the little things we can change in the classroom--for little or no cost--to make it more conducive to learning through play and discovery. Knowing some of the benefits of plants, we placed a few in the classroom last month--each originally a cutting from a plant or two in our homes. They are thriving quite nicely. I also managed to obtain some fish for free, and they have drawn interest from some of the kids over the last few weeks. We have also gathered some natural materials (namely, sticks and pebbles) for the children to play with and explore in the different centre areas.

We also know that when we display the children's art work, it will 'pop' more if the playroom isn't busy with the primary colours (vibrant red, yellow, green and blue) so traditional of preschool and kindergarten classrooms and equipment. While there is nothing wrong with these vibrant colours, per se (after all, they're generally the first colours children learn developmentally), they're certainly not easy on the eyes. And sometimes there can be too much colour in one's learning space. So this weekend, I undertook Project: Ikea Meets Reggio.

For several years, the Play Doh Table has been a bright green and yellow Ikea table. My partner and I felt no guilt in covering it over with a few coats of paint (sorry, Ikea!). We were given some paint by a colleague in a natural taupe and chocolate brown. Perfect. With the long weekend at hand, I knew I would have ample time to prime and paint new life into the table.

So it was that on a Friday evening, I found myself dismantling the legs from the top (thank you, Ikea!), and applying two coats of primer over the bright, glossy colours. It looks better already.

My Work Rocks

I am blessed. I work for a great organization doing great things. Lately, we have been given a decent amount of media coverage. The timing of this has to do with our upcoming fundraiser. Still, we are an organization that makes sure it is always following best practice. We believe in empowering families, inclusion, learning through play, and learning through life. These are great values to run a business by, and I think it's one of the reasons that The GRIT Program is such a great place to work. Here is a little bit of what I get to experience every day.



The GRIT Program, through Carson, also got some coverage in a free local paper, The Edmonton Examiner: