Reflections for week of Sept. 14, 2009

After reading "Early Childhood Education and Care as a Community Service or Big Business?", I feel extremely blessed to being employed by a non-profit agency dedicated to serving young children and their families. Head Start is a federally funded program focused on serving low income families and young children certified with special needs. The procedure of establishing eligibility has its checks and balances to insure that each application is processed fair and accurately.
The article focused on programs that have a bottom line of seeing our field as a lucrative venture. They have lost sight of the importance that separates quality care from not caring at all (about the children, families, and staff). Working parents can easily fall prey to establishments that provide a service, however it lacks ethical values. I believe, if given a choice, parents would select a program that provides qualified staff, adequate materials for children to explore, and all other factors that make a program one of quality. I honestly believe that having a focus to make money is not a negative thing - it's realistic to want to be successful in a business. What makes me feel uncomfortable about the article is the way corporations are marketing the business to make themselves rich in a selfish way. If funds were reinvested into the program to benefit children, staff, and families - this would create a balance. By cutting services, hours, or stripping the program of essential supplies, this is stealing from the program's potential. It's obvious that these "corporate" individuals never looked in the eyes of a child to know what it's like to be a teacher.

I wanted to comment on the "Pressure-cooker Kindergarten" Exchange message dated 9/8/09. Head Start once had a "test" titled NRS - National Reporting System. This test was administered in the fall to collect a baseline, and again at the end of the program year (Spring) to obtain a measurement of progress. The test was only administered to children transitioning to Kindergarten. The Head Start community despised this test - it was completely inappropriate, asking young children questions that many of them did not know the answer to. Many individuals believed that this was a means to diminish the Head Start program by the Bush Administration - using the information as proof that Head Start was not a successful program; after all - the test was difficult and complex, so how many children would actually answer all questions correctly. There was even a section that resembled a complex math problem regarding a pie cut into wedges. Children were asked how many slices were left if one was given to fictitious children. I remember having children look at me like "what in the world are you talking about?". I felt like I wanted to say - never mind - let's go look for something fun to do together - like getting a real pie and eating it. We can count the pieces for real, instead of playing this unfair game.
The Head Start community voiced their opinion LOUDLY! Community advocates and early childhood professionals spoke out in protest to the NRS. Another thorn in the side of many Head Start administrators was the fact that this project cost an enormous amount of money, which could have been allocated to increase funds for program improvements, staff salaries, expansion of more Head Start programs - the list could go on! In the end, the Head Start community won. In 2007, the NRS was no longer a requirement, producing a sigh of relief throughout the nation.
I have heard from parents and other professionals that Kamehameha Schools has an entry "test" that children complete to qualify for placement. I'm not sure how accurate the information is, however I have been told that parents get themselves so worked out about this process that they pressure their children to pass. This is such a sad state to be in - especially because it's really not that important in comparison to the child's feelings of self worth and competence.
Another interesting read from Exchange was "Biting Solutions" from 9/10/09. I chuckled to myself when I read the statement, "As directors of early learning programs, we have to deal with a myriad of issues on a daily basis." This lead me to think about one in particular, which is a very sensitive subject for parents and teachers (and directors) - it's masturbation. I have witnessed several children that relax their bodies using a form of rubbing themselves on pillows before falling asleep. It never bothered me personally - I did not want to bring attention to the child that this was "wrong". On several occasions, the child's mother walked into the classroom at the start of rest time and witnessed her child relaxing himself. She was very embarrassed and, after we had a discussion about her son's habit, asked me to help him stop. Although this is a totally separate issue from biting, I wanted to share this in my blog to see if anyone else has experience with this sort of situation. If yes, please share your story and what you did - how did you respond to the parent and what actions (if any) did you take with the child?
In closing, I want to answer a few questions that Jeanne had for me from last week. Head Start was designed (in my opinion) to empower parents. The structure of Head Start is built on the understanding that parents have a voice, and they do. Parents are involved in program design, providing information ranging from curriculum ideas to establishing goals for their child. We promote parents to always ask questions, to be involved in their child's education. We want parents to speak up and know that their voices make a difference. Parents are their child's first teacher - a cliche for many perhaps - but in Head Start, this is respected and practiced as a mantra. Parents are leaders in the program by being on Policy Council (shared decision governing board) or as an officer in the parent committee. So many opportunities to be involved and successful at being involved. As an administrator, I need to monitor activities to insure that parents HAVE a voice. This means no rubber stamping of approvals - parents are at the table providing input, having a say, and not being told how to vote or what to think. Parents can see right through you - they know when a person is sincere and wants to be supportive. I have witnessed parents that started out as shy individuals, grow into confident, strong men and women. So exciting to see the transformation of empowerment!!
The war on poverty was real in 1965, and history has a way of repeating itself...here we are in 2009 and it's still a war we continue to fight. It's so sad that millions of dollars are spent on military defense efforts - when we have so many families and young children that are homeless, without food, and struggling to survive. I know that many people have strong feelings about this statement, so I'll leave it as is in respect to others that might share or disagree in my thought. For many that live in poverty, choices are limited to what you can get based on the resources available. Individuals with money can buy what they want and need to fulfillment, based on the amount of income they have. The more money, the more they can purchase, the more various and options available. The lack of money, the least they can purchase, and options become scarce or nonexistent. Head Start was designed to provide children of low income households a means to obtain a "head start" before kindergarten - to experience an educational setting to gain basic developmental skills in preparation for school success. Parents played a tremendous role in Head Start, and they still do until today. I believe this was done intentionally, to offer families the opportunity to grow as nurturing individuals in support of their child. Head Start is actually a family development program.
In closing, your final inquiry was regarding New Zealand and what the US might learn from them regarding being voted the most peaceful country in the world. It would be highly beneficial to study practices from New Zealand and adopt several into the US. It would mean making changes, it would mean implementing systems that are different and that might make some feel uncomfortable. In the longrun, it would mean a more peaceful place to live and raise communities that help one another. The US is competitive and wants to be recognized as the most powerful. As a nation, seeking peace for the world has to start at home, then resonate outward to others. We have a great deal to learn from New Zealand and change is inevitable in order to promote peace.