In 1962, a study began that was also referred to as an experiment. It set the stage for American life proceeding in a downward spiral. While not nearly enough people these days are aware of this initial experiment, the specifics are even more important. Between 1962 and 1967, three-year-old and four-year-old children were chosen to participate in the study. The specifics:
- The children and their families lived in poverty;
- The parents of these children were uneducated;
- The children chosen had low IQ scores.
While it may bear noting a recent census report states more than one quarter of this small city's residents are still living below the poverty line, it also bears noting that the specifics of these children and their families do not represent the entire American population today. Yet parents are pressured, harassed, bullied, and otherwise influenced into believing every child needs these services. Or, a more to-the-point way of wording it: that parents do not have what it takes to take care of, raise, socialize, and educate their own children.
The Perry project had not yet come to a close when in came Head Start. In fact, this experiment was said to be largely responsible for the creation of the Head Start program in 1965. And similarly, Head Start was presented as a program or service for at-risk children.
When I was a child, I knew only one youngster whose family fell for it. Neither the youngster nor his family resembled the children and families of the Perry study. While they were by no means wealthy, they were nowhere near poor; the parents were intelligent, hard-working people; and the youngster himself was very bright. In addition to good parents and a close-in-age sibling, the little boy had a large extended family network of aunts, uncles, many cousins, and a wonderful grandmother. There was nothing about the youngster or his life that would have placed him in an “at-risk” category, yet somehow his parents were pressured into sending their four-year-old to Head Start during the summer before he started Kindergarten.
“Little Dougie's” Head Start experience occurred when I was almost eight years old, but it was the last I heard of the out-of-home-childcare trend until recent years. I was not even aware that in 1994, changes were made to the Head Start program- no longer limited to “at-risk” children preparing for Kindergarten, it was expanded to include children 'from birth to age 3.' The rationalization for this: early childhood development between birth and three years of age is the most important stage of a child's life.
What is the problem with this rationalization? First, the statement is true. It has long been known a child's basic personality- his temperament, outlook, etc.- is almost entirely established by the time he turns three years old. It is also the time when a child learns and absorbs values, and much, much more. However, when you take all of this into consideration, where and from whom should a child learn and absorb- at home, with his own family, or in a daycare setting with outsiders? Please return to the beginning of this article: parents are conned into believing they do not have what it takes to appropriately guide their own children during this all-important stage.
When I was growing up, and when I was a young parent, there was a different word or name for 'daycare' and 'early childhood education.' The word was 'Mothers.' Considering the nonsense that's been spread about the need for out-of-home-childcare in recent decades, one might wonder how any of us turned out to be solid, normal human beings. Before traditional Kindergarten, children were in their own homes- and none of the kids I grew up with turned out to be criminals, drop-outs, or in any other way disadvantaged.
As I'd heard virtually nothing about the subject since Little Dougie, I continued to believe out-of-home-childcare was a rare occurrence. When I noticed how 'popular' it was in one particular city, I decided to ask an individual who had grown up in that area. The guy, who was born in early 1957, blew his stack: “MY son was in daycare! I WANTED my wife to WORK!” And whether it was intentional or not, the way he combined those two statements together said quite a lot about lifestyles that do not work, and are certainly not in the best interests of the children.
Poor people are virtually forced to surrender their children to out-of-home-childcare- often “from birth.” Parents who are not poor, and are not eligible for government-funded childcare, have, I've been told, “other priorities.” I could not believe it when I read on a forum that on average, one year of daycare costs more than sending a kid to college for a year. With curiosity getting the better of me, I did a bit of checking; in my original hometown, daycare averages more than $13,000 per year, and preschools are somewhat higher. If the first, logical question is how people can afford these rates, the average annual income is $71,000. I'm wondering if anyone reaches the second logical question- with the average household consisting of married couples and their children, is a second income necessary, or only a matter of being 'infected' by the daycare/preschool trend?
But while government influence on this topic has made matters much worse- and I'll get to that in a separate post- the main problem is too many parents today are unaware that there is any other option. Whether individuals are teen parents, young adults, or middle-aged, many have grown up with the belief that mothers/parents should not take care of their own children.
In areas where out-of-home-childcare has been The Way for generations, there is no element of “Choice.” I first encountered this not too many years ago when a young woman, age 23, wrote in to a local newspaper about her dilemma. Although she and her husband made the decision together that he would work and support the family while she cared for their first child at home, she was 'getting flak' from nearly everyone in her life about how 'wrong' this decision was. I have known other young mothers in recent years with the same experience- called everything from 'lazy parasites' to 'gold-diggers' because taking care of their own children was their main priority.
Perhaps the Perry experiment was valid for its time and place. Perhaps children who start out in life truly disadvantaged can benefit from a little extra help. However, this does not describe most children and families in this country- and pushing daycare and pre-K on children who do not need it is a horrible disservice to children and families. And it is time parents who are perfectly capable of taking care of, socializing, and guiding their own children started to say so. It's time we put an end to out-of-home-childcare, and allowed children to gain all the benefits of spending those all-important early years at home.
http://daycaresdontcare.org/index.htm