I’ve been critical of Judith’s Warner’s New York Times blog in the past; however, her latest post “The Choice Myth” is a worthwhile read. Warner recaps new data suggesting that most stay-at-home mothers are disproportionately uneducated, low-income and of immigrant backgrounds, and discusses why these findings have major policy implications. She includes a great quote from E. J. Graff, the associate director and senior researcher at Brandeis University’s Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism:
If women are happily choosing to stay home with their babies, that’s a private decision. But … [i]t’s a public policy issue if schools, jobs and other American institutions are structured in ways that make it frustratingly difficult, and sometimes impossible, for parents to manage both their jobs and family responsibilities.
This is an important point: who is choosing to stay and for what reasons have enormous implications for how we structure work and family policy. If we understand that most stay-at-home mothers are not home by choice, but because they don’t have access to education and jobs that would make working worth their time, that is a far different environment than one where mothers opt to be at home over participating in the workforce.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t policies that might help both constituencies live better lives. I recently heard Secretary of Education Arne Duncan speak about two related options: lengthening public school hours and extending the school year. My initial reaction was horror — do we really want our children to spend more time in school when play-based learning is probably as important?
But Duncan makes the point that middle class children already experience extended days through extra-curricular activities. By contrast, low-income children have fewer resources when they are released from school; after-school programs are of varying quality, and many do not offer the kinds of enrichment activities their middle-class peers experience. A longer school day that incorporates art, music and sports might better serve all children, but particularly those most in need.
Summer break also offers a challenge and an opportunity. Studies suggest that children lose knowledge over the break, requiring teachers to start from the beginning each year. Extending the school year, which is currently based on an agrarian calendar that is irrelevant for most Americans, would limit the knowledge loss and help working parent who scramble to find affordable care for their children during the long summer break.
If done right, both of these solutions would help working parents tremendously — and give their children a better chance at quality education and enrichment experiences. Even parents who have access to full-time sitters might choose to have their children in a high-quality, low-cost after-school program instead.
Not all of us are proponents of more school, particularly in places where the public schools are not meeting high standards. But even if this solution isn’t the one you think is best, we can all agree that this kind of broad thinking from federal, state and local governments is needed. Thinking that doesn’t just meet the needs of one kind of parent, but addresses the many needs of families at all socio-economic levels.
Related links:
- A fascinating report from the Nellie Mae Foundation on The Untapped Power of Summer to Advance Student Achievement.
- A report from Education Sector, On The Clock: Rethinking the Ways Schools Use Time.
- TIME article on the Obama adminstration’s plan to lengthen the school year.
- Robert Longley at About.com’s US Government Info Blog writes that teachers are cool on the idea of a longer school day.
3 Comments
October 13, 2009 at 2:50 pm
MamaBee, great post as always. I want to share a personal reality check I experienced a few years ago when I participated in a group studying whether or not to offer full day kindergarten in our town. We had already enrolled our daughter in private all-day kindergarten because I work, but I knew other working parents in our town weren’t so lucky. Naively, I thought this would be a slam dunk. Oh quite the contrary! I was outvoted by a large majority of parents who said basically, “It’s not my job to pay for the care of and enrichment other people’s children. It’s their job, and it’s their choice to work.” Seriously. To this day, my town–a suburb outside of New York City–still has half day kindergarten. So if we can’t even agree on the benefits to working families and kids from that small extension of the school for one group of kids, my heart is heavy that we may never make these broader common sense, long overdue changes. Let’s hope I am wrong!
October 20, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I am just lucky that I am working at home that I can send my son to a private school and still monitor him and support his needs.
October 26, 2009 at 5:02 am
Another inspiring and interesting post …
As well as middle class children benefiting from after school activities, they keep on learning during the summer. As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in Outliers, poor kids go backwards over the summer, eroding any “equity” built up during the year.
Last summer, my boys enjoyed five weeks of camp learning French, plus other camps which built up sporting, literacy and creative skills.
I bemoan this patchwork of arrangements as being unfriendly and difficult to organize for working parents, but at least I can afford quality care.
If I knew other parents were as lucky, I wouldn’t be so quick to say that the school system needs overhauling to be more responsive to the needs of most working parents.
We are currently running a poll “Is 10 weeks of school summer vacation too long?” http://twtpoll.com/u4zjwp #twtpoll
Please encourage your readers to take it.
Thanks.