Discussion in 'Canada' started by Said1, Oct 25, 2004.
I am not sure what the last sentence means, but it doesn't sound good.
I meant to elaborate on that, but was rather hurried when posting.
I would fall under the category the last sentance is describing. I work for smaller part of a much larger community organziation catering to the native community in the city. I work with children in my home, and as a program facilitator 2 mornings a week. There is also a head start program for pre-schoolers which is a wonderful program, and works with parents as well as children. The pre-school program is not able to cover all languages, so it mainly focuses on 2 dominate languages spoken within the native population.
I don't disagree with everthing the article mentioned, but I was really surprised to see they had such bad things to say about programs offered to aboriginal children. They are not soley designed for teaching your everyday stuff, they offer family support and pre-school education.
The waiting lists are not long in all cases, and some have made their programs available to younger children.
I think a lot more onus needs to be placed on the parents for providing care for their children. Somewhere over last two generations, our society has moved out the trend of having family take care of children and shifted the focus on private and governmental care providers. While this is no doubt a reflection on our evolving cultural trends towards greater number of single parents or two bread winners in a family, I would like to see more responsibility in terms of time and money be placed on the parent.
Having a kids should be a conscious decision, with time and money being one of the costs. It just seems to me like we're tackling the wrong problem.
holy crap people...why can't parents take care of kids themselves??
Funny... OECD usually paints a fairly good picture of our education system
Really, I don't know what can be taught to kids that age. I look back, and I'm glad they didn't start preparing us for factory work years ahead of schedual...lol...instead it seemed they were letting us grow up, become creative and try to enjoy the first few years of our life and get used to school, I mean factory training.
I agree totally. I'm fairly old fashioned, I think one parent should stay home with their children until they are in school full time. At least help your children learn if staying home is not possible. How much are kids supposed to learn in 2 1/2 hours anyway?
Politicians screaming for a national childcare program may have something to do with this, who knows??
Actually, I'm in favour for a national childcare plan... not for increasing our intelligence... as that is debatable... but for the parent (let's face it, mothers) who do not want to stay at home that long and have careers that do not allow them to, be it scientific, corporate, political...and more importantly, the families that cannot monetarily afford to have one parent not working... and thus cannot afford daycare or a nanny either...
It has also been shown that national childcare plans increase fertility, but so does maternity leave (and again much more with paternity leave for fathers). But overall it's not tipping any scales...
I guess if women could take 2 paid years off work and still have their jobs available to them, by law, like ultra maternity leave hehe, lots of women would have kids just for that deal, nothing else (probably lead to lots of unhappy fathers too)... BUT if we're not going to go that route, which we won't, the only other way for many couples to have a life and properly raise children is national child care...since many couples can't afford to do what you speak of with one child, let alone more...again, not unless we opt for ultra materinity leave :duh3:
BTW where did you get your avatar from? It's cool, but it seems like it's part of a theme with some others here..?
There are exceptions, but the tax payer is not responsible for people who can't afford childcare, especially when the conception of the child was planned. Sorry if they don't want to stay home, but it is their child, and they should consider childcare costs before making that choice (remember, I did say there are exceptions).
If you are under the impression childcare subsidies are difficult to get, they are not. The problem lies within finding spots for your child. Subsidized spots can pay up to $15.00 a day less than providing care privately. There is little incentive to be in this business, but it has afforded me the opportunity to stay at home with my daughter, and pursue other things while making money at the same time.
I'm in favour of subsidized spots, but any extra cash should go to building daycares, and increasing pay rates for workers, especially home care providers (just a little plug for me LOL). If this is falls under the guidelines for a national plan, then I'm for it.
In the end, for most people, I really think it depends on the sacrifices you are willing to make. Keep in mind, your children are only at home for a short time, you don't need much to have a life and raise your kids properly, it all depends on your definition of having a life. I'm not knocking working mothers, but you can't get those years with your kids back, so many are working to provide material things that are meaningless in the end.
Thanks, and I forget. As for a theme, I'm not sure I noticed that. Welcome by the way! Are you located on the west side of the country?
I'm in favour of a program that will make child care level all across the nation. With the divorce rate at like 50%, there are a lot of kids growing up with only one parent. If this parent is going to provide any type life for their children, there needs to be a system to help out. Coming from such a family, I know how hard it is for a single mother.
Separate names with a comma.