Idolising Children?

Funky columnist at The Oz and new mum, Emma Tom has a piece today that describes really well the ongoing challenges for parent’s traversing the wide range of parenting dogma. You can read it here.

What Emma concludes with is the most sensible advice…we just hear it too infrequently.

Like Barker, I wouldn’t recommend control crying for everyone. It’s hard and heartbreaking and doesn’t always work. But I would urge other sleep-deprived parents to ignore the preposterous extremes prescribed by some of the pundits and try more nuanced approaches in the long search for that slightly sweeter-smelling bucket.

Acknowledging the fact that it will be different for all children and all parents, and to avoid dogma is advice worth listening too.

We move to where we live for a reason. That reason is becoming clearer everyday.

Respecting children inherently means respecting the future. Climate change, along with wealth distribution will grow to become the issues of our times. Ultimately, it is our children who will be left to live with the consequences of our actions.

Hats off to my local community. You make me very proud.

The Human Rights and Equal Opprtunity Commission are gaining soem more traction on the issue of maternity leave. It is good to see the call for paid maternity leave has not gone away.

What has gone away was the calls from a couple of years ago by HREOC for a partnerhsip movement. Pru Goward was a fan of this concept. She said:

Men and women are the two faces on the coin of humanity; to pit them against each other is to damage both.

A partnership movement would be different - in tone, in approach. Inevitably it’s going to be more complicated and less spectacular than the glory and spoils of war, but it might be the only real choice if we are to resolve these issues.

A refocus not simply on what women deserve, but opn what men should also be doing and deserve is needed. Otherwise the debate will continue to be out of step. Men need to be given the chance to work less and contribute more domestically. Goward used to run the line that while women statsitically have increased their workforce participation, men have not increased their participation in domestic life.

Real balance is about having a suite of options. It might be that Labor’s policy has a better chance of meeting the needs of the contemporary family who want a range of different arrangements at different stages of their life. I’d argue that it still needs some work…but it does need a greater commitment to maternity leave…along with flexibility.

My call…women must have paid maternity leave - but even when they do men still need to help cook dinner, do the dishes and look after the baby!

The government’s response to baseless concerns that teenagers are now going to be out in force trying to procreate thanks to increases in the baby bonus is to hire young mums to go and talk some sense into these teens. Reported here.

On the surface, it appears like a standard and valuable policy idea. But, given the research that came out of the NSW Young Parents Forums last year it only goes to show how little respect young people are given.

The idea that young women are having babies purely for the baby bonus is ridiculous.

A vast majority of teenage mums (which are a pretty small group anyway) have diverse and different motivations for having children. They realise

If anything, the baby bonus/teen mum issue is a socio-economic issue that comes from people already having a damn tough time. It isn’t their young motherhood that is the problem it is leaving school early, inadequate services to support them, family issues and the associated million and one problems that come with having barely enough money to survive in a consumer society.

My concern sending young mums into say “being a teenage mum is bad” is the impact that had on them. Many teenage mums say the experience was difficult, but was really valuable and worthwhile for them. It would have been better with less stereotyping and a bit more support. Many of these mums were out studying and working and contributing to society in a far more significant way that many other women their age.

No one wants teenagers to be in the situation, but surely good sex and relationship education is a far better preventative measure than sending young mums in to talk about how bad it is to be a teenage mum.

The idea of the Young Parents Forum was to begin shifting simplistic policy ideas like these ones. Obviously, there is more work to do.

The SMH published an extract from Idolising Children recently that discussed the value homework.

Consequently, I have had a lot of correspondance from people like Sara Bennett in the USA who are calling for a more sophisticated approach to the development of our children, rather than just curriculum based homework.

I still find it scary that homework may have already infiltrated our kindergartens.

Once again, childcare and supporting “working families” is dominanting pre-budget discussions.

There is good reason for it and to face the reality that Costello is definitely pursuing pro-natalist policies because he sees the impact our declining birth rate will have on economic growth.

That said, I’m interested in how much longer “family-friendly” budgets can last in a society where the traditonal nuclear family is on the decline.

The Australian Insititute of Family Studies has produced some great material that should have us thinking more about this. Firstly, their 2004 report on fertility-decision making which indicates that despite our desire to have more children, it is unlikely that young Australian’s will have the number of children that they say they want.

Secondly, is this graph based on ABS data on Projected Family Types.

This graph clearly shows the rise of couple-only families. A combination of fewer couples having children and more significantly baby boomers heading into older age with no dependants. What it shows is that in 2016 couple-only households will pass couple with children households as the most common type of household. What impact will this have on family-friendly budgets? Will Costello’s pro-natalist, populate or perish approach still stand when the more people live in households without children?

I’m not sure. But, there is the possibility that in 4 elections time the landscape of family-friendly politics will have changed dramatically and that couple-only households will begin to dictate fron-page policy debates and budget decisions.

Over at Eureka Street, which is emerging as a quality online journal since its paper version demise, children’s publisher Hilary Rogers reflects beautifully on the dilemma of raising children in a world that we didn’t grow up in and know and understand as they do. (Read it here)

Within her discussion of the challenges of publishing books that will entertain and support the development of our children are some of the key points raisied in Idolising Children. How do we include children? How do we produce media for them in a respectful way? DO we idealise our own childhood and how does it effect the way we support the development of children today?

Hilary’s final point is perfect. She tells us we must listen, but also shows the reality of the challenges of a world that needs to compete to sell products/books:

Ultimately, we need to listen, not just remember. Books have to compete with Foxtel and Playstation in a way that they used to compete with roller-skating and Dynasty re-runs for me. I’d love to think the books we are making now might one day belong in that charmed, timeless exceptions section, but first I’d like to make books that kids love now. I won’t put chocolate under those flaps, but it’s tempting.

No doubt Hardie Grant will be putting out some quality books with a publisher who engages with the issues in this way. Respect to them.

In the Victorian State Budget announced yesterday the treasurer announced a commitment of $10 million dollars over 4 years to improve access to kindergarten for all children. The solution:

“This funding will provide the opportunity for four year olds at childcare to benefit from kindergarten programs, and encourage kindergartens to offer extended hours which are more convenient for working parents”

This policy approach is a confusing one. Are the Victorian government trying to make childcare centres more like kindergartens or kindergartens more like childcare centres?

I would argue this is a clear example that reform is now needed in early childhood services. The old kindergarten vs childcare dichotomy doesn’t hold in a policy environment that argues for us to support the development of children for 0 - 6 years. We need a dynamic system that incorporates tertiary trained early childhood development teachers working in early childhood development centres that cater for all children before school age.

The issue, as usual, is federalism. States have control over kinders, while the Federal government looks after childcare. The Council of Australian Governments has done some splendid work around human capital, specifically related to children and it is time they knocked heads again and sorted out a national early childhood development system - not a framework or set of guidelines, but an actual system that embraces the hub and spoke and partnership models to provide parents and the community with an early childhood system that works with us to raise our children.

Was impressed at yesterday’s filming of the Insight program…they engaged really well with the children in the audience in a respectful way.

I made the point that the children demonstrated that they have the capacity to talk about and understand issues relating to advertising and branding…hopefully that doesn’t end up on the cutting room floor.

Anyway - you can see it at 7.30pm tonight on SBS.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/topic.php?id=130

The Brack’s government in Victoria are having a stab at influencing national early childhood policy.

My concern: the title deviates from Victoria’s usually holistic stance.

“QUALITY TIME -REGULATING FOR QUALITY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE IN VICTORIA”

The focus on education is a concern. Where has the word “development” gone?

Also, the whole idea of “quality time” has been rpoven to be bunkem…it is a play on words, but looks like this document is about reinforcing the old ideas, rather than exploring new ones. At a glance, it looks like it has some good stuff in it, but again refuses to consider systematic change.

Paul Austin at The Age writes about it here.

The 50-page policy document can be found here.