jump to navigation

Sex education in Irish schools March 5, 2014

Posted by Tomboktu in Education, Health, Human Rights.
3 comments

In yesterday’s Irish Times, Jacky Jones uses her column to attack the advocacy of sexual abstinence until marriage as part of Relationships and Sexuality Education in Irish second-level schools. She reminds her readers that “Anyone over 17 years of age, married or single, gay or straight, can choose to have, or not have, consensual sex at any time.”

One of the interesting nuggets she draws attention to is that the Department of Education and Skills cites European human rights law in its 2010 circular to schools reminding them of their obligations (pdf of circular here).

1.5. Access to sexual and health education is an important right for students under the terms of the Article 11.2 of the European Social Charter. The Council of Europe European Committee of Social Rights, which examines complaints regarding breaches of the Charter, has indicated it regards this Article as requiring that health education “be provided throughout the entire period of schooling” and that sexual and reproductive health education is “objective, based on contemporary scientific evidence and does not involve censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting information, for example as regards contraception or different means on maintaining sexual and reproductive health.

Jones asserts in her article that Catholic schools are not entitled to promote Catholic views on sexuality. I don’t know enough about the rights of a Catholic school to know if that is correct, but there is a further aspect Jones did not mention. The Department of Education circular she quotes from also cites the Education Act:

1.4. Regard must also be had to Section 30 (2) (e) under which a child may not be required to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student, or in the case of a student who has reached 18, the student.

At some stage in the mid 1990s I attended the launch, in the city’s museum, of the Derry Pride Festival. A few of us were amused when some Free Presbyterians showed up outside to protest, singing hymns: a handful of zealots were not a threat. But we were mistaken to see it only as amusing. One of the people at the launch inside the museum was the teenage son of one of the singing protesters outside.

Jones points out in her article that we have no information on whether restrictions on young people’s rights to objective relationships and sexuality education are practised, although I would bet that the Opus Dei school in Dublin does not teach objectively about the role of contraception.

The Education Act was passed in 1998, before the European Committee of Social Rights was asked to rule on the Croatian case that the Department quotes in its 2010 circular. It is time to re-visit Section 30(2)(e) to ensure that it cannot be used by parents to restrict their children’s rights to full RSE education.

School bullying, inspectors, and the Oireachtas February 26, 2014

Posted by Tomboktu in Education, Irish Politics, Oireachtas business.
2 comments

Last week, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection heard evidence from senior managers in the Inspectorate at the Department of Education and Skills. The hearing followed the publication last November of the Chief Inspector’s Report for 2010–2012 (119 pages, pdf here)

Among the points he made, the Chief Inspector, Dr Harold Hislop, told the Committee that the Inspectorate now uses anonymised questionnaires completed by students as part of its process of gathering data to assess a school’s performance. And one item he chose to highlight how that was the following.

One of the interesting things from the pupil questionnaires and student questionnaires is the extent to which Irish students feel safe in schools. There are very high percentages there — often over 90%. What is really interesting is when the questionnaire data comes in for an individual school, if that is significantly lower than we would expect normally, we would immediately say to the school that it might think it is dealing well with bullying but there is clear evidence that it needs to go back and go through its anti-bullying lessons and make sure that children know who to talk to and who to report bullying to. It can be quite a shock sometimes for a school because when we interview those involved they say the school has an excellent anti-bullying policy and it is doing an excellent job on that but when we get the data they throw up a completely different set of questions.

None of the TDs or Senators questioned what that rule-of-thumb means in practice (although the meeting suffered from both being rushed and clashing with a Seanad sitting):

  • None of them asked what the threshold is for the Inspectors to come to the view that enough students feel safe in their school.
  • None of the TDs or Senators asked if it is a single figure or changes in different circumstances.
  • None of them asked if this is matched with or adjusted for the presence in the school of any vulnerable groups.
  • None of the TDs or Senators asked if any further probing is done in an inspection to see why any student feels unsafe in the school.

As I understand the Chief Inspector’s comments, if the school has a small number of — say — Traveller students each of whom is bullied, or openly gay students none of whom feels safe, or students with a severe lisp all of whom have to put up with hell from one or more of their classmates, the Inspectorate does not identify their lack of feeling safe as a problem until the constitute a sizeable group.

That seems to me to be a weak model of assessing an essential aspect of school safety. And it was poor oversight by the Oireachtas Committee that this was not examined by it.

HIQA Report let government off hook. November 14, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Abortion, Bioethics, Culture, Irish Politics.
add a comment

A very welcome post by Brendan Young, member of Action on X. As Brendan notes “‘Action on X’, which campaigned for legislation based upon the ‘X Case’ – but regards James Reilly’s recent abortion law as unacceptably restrictive. Action on X has the support of the National Women’s Council of Ireland, SIPTU, UNITE the Union, the ICTU Women’s Committee, USI, and the African women’s support network AkiDwa.”

Recent comments by Dr Sam Coulter Smith (Master of the Rotunda maternity hospital) about the strains the hospital is under, and the findings in the recent HIQA Report (into the death of Savita Halappanavar) that our maternity hospital records are not systematically centralised and monitored, highlight the deep problems in the Irish health service. But the HIQA Report, while it revealed problems with the medical care given to Savita Halappanavar, avoided the issue of the law. And there is a risk that the Galway University Hospital medical team, who may have made errors, will be scapegoated for Savita’s death. Yet it is Irish law, including Art. 40.3.3 of the Constitution and the recently-passed Reilly Act on abortion, that continues to pose risks to women – including those going through inevitable miscarriage.

Doctor Peter Boylan hit the nail on the head in saying that the state, through HIQA, did not ask the obvious question in relation to the death of Savita Halappanavar. What impact did the law on terminations have on the actions of the Galway medical team? Would an earlier delivery – a termination of pregnancy – have saved her life? In his opinion it probably would have. HIQA didn’t ask. Why not?

Last year’s HSE Report into Savita’s death raised the legal issues. It said ‘concerns about the law … impacted on clinical professional judgement’. It quoted the consultant obstetrician as saying “If there is a threat to the mothers’ life you can terminate. If there is a potential major hazard to the mothers’ life the law is not clear…. There are no guidelines for inevitable miscarriages.” The same consultant also said: “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart (sic).”

The HSE Report’s Recommendation 4b makes clear that the law restricts clinical decisions, and suggests change: “… We recommend that the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators, and the Oireachtas consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage… These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting delivery for clinical reasons. We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.”

It is also clear that the consultant obstetrician considered a termination when Savita asked for it but felt legally bound to rule it out because there was a fetal heartbeat – even though the demise of the fetus was inevitable. Yet the HIQA Report poses the issue exclusively as management of sepsis – making no suggestion that ‘expediting delivery’ could have been done to avert infection / sepsis in its list of 13 ‘missed opportunities’ to intervene.

Flowing from its enquiries, HIQA’s Recommendation N10 says: “The HSE should develop a national clinical guideline on the management of sepsis… This guideline should incorporate an escalation/referral pathway that includes clinical, legal and ethical guidance for staff at critical clinical points …”

HIQA’s ‘escalation/referral pathway’, by definition, assumes the woman’s health is deteriorating due to sepsis. Recommending ‘… legal and ethical guidance for staff at critical clinical points’ is to accept that a woman must reach a critical condition before termination can be considered – the only issue where the law becomes relevant. Why would a woman, her loved ones or her doctors wish to allow sepsis to develop to such a potentially lethal extent? Yet termination of pregnancy to prevent infection is not considered in HIQA’s Recommendations. The HSE Report is commended in passing, but its key arguments to legislators are glossed over.

By placing the blame for Savita’s death on the consultant obstetrician’s failure to manage sepsis and ignoring the legal restrictions upon her clinical choices, the HIQA Report is letting Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin off the hook. They can all comfortably point to the need for better management of hospitals and / or more resources – all of which are needed. 

The consultant obstetrician may have made errors, but she should not be made the scapegoat for Savita’s death. A fundamental problem in dealing with inevitable miscarriage is that Art. 40.3.3 of the Constitution, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court, effectively preclude termination of pregnancy during miscarriage if there is a fetal heartbeat – until a woman’s life is at risk. This legal restriction on clinical action contributed to Savita’s death and politicians have a responsibility to deal with it.

If the HIQA Report is used to inform the medical guidelines accompanying James Reilly’s abortion law, its focus on management of sepsis will entrench a perverse situation where medical conditions due to pregnancy that are not in themselves life-threatening (eg inevitable miscarriage) must be allowed become life-threatening before it is legal to perform a termination of pregnancy – on a fetus that will die anyway. The same legal restriction that allowed sepsis to develop in Savita Halappanavar will remain.

James Reilly’s abortion law, based upon Art. 40.3.3, codifies this restriction by giving legal protection to the ‘unborn’ from the moment of implantation in the womb until delivery. Such restriction on doctors, which HIQA did not examine, must be removed so that women’s lives can be protected. At minimum, the HSE Recommendations must be acted upon. Both Art. 40.3.3 and Reilly’s abortion law must be repealed.

The benefits of going to a private college? List them again… August 29, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Economy, Education, Irish Politics.
12 comments

There was a short piece in the SPB a while back on the ‘benefits of going to a private college’. It’s odd, in a few hundred words one would think that such benefits could be outlined clearly, but apparently not. After starting well, suggesting that the ‘points required for entry onto courses in private colleges are generally significantly lower than colleges in the state sector – as a result of the fees, rather than a reflection of the quality of the courses’ it sort of sputters to a halt.

For it continues as follows… ‘if finances allow, studying a private college may allow a student to simply get on with their studies without having to repeat or go over seas’. Of ‘for many students, if finances allow, private college can be the yellow-brick road to the career of choice in law or business or provide courses in areas such as game design, journalism, psychology or ICT’.

One can see the key phrase in all that. But aren’t these pretty nebulous in any case? Once ‘can’ or ‘may’ come into play generally there aren’t hugely concrete advantages.

And what of this? While discussing the lower entry requirements it suggests that:

‘However this does not mean that standards within the private colleges are not demanding. Students have to measure up, be well motivated and be able to cope with the demand of undergraduate programmes.’

Which differs from the state institutions in what way?

And raises the question, what are the benefits again? Other than ‘if finances allow’.

***

Some may remember this piece too…

A private education… August 21, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Economy, Education.
13 comments

Some interesting underlying assumptions about education and private education in particularly in this judgement here, aren’t there?

A 12-year-old boy ranked in the highest percentile of scholastic achievements for his age is to be enrolled at a private school by order of a High Court judge.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan today ruled that the boy, whose education is one of a number of divisive issues in a broken marriage, should not have to attend a particular non fee-paying school as earlier ordered by the Circuit Court.

And as ever with private education it points up the role of availability of money as the card that trumps everything else in terms of gaining access, in fact this case points up in perhaps the most stark way not merely those assumptions working in relation to (private) education but also suggests how inequitable they can be in the way they work out both at the individual and general level.

Private schools? A ‘luxury’? Well I never… July 25, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Education, Irish Politics, Social Policy.
8 comments

According to the Insolvency Service guidelines…

Mortgage-holders who cannot repay their home loan will be warned today that they must be prepared to forego sending their children to private schools and give up luxuries such as a second car and satellite television if they seek to enter an official insolvency arrangement to settle the debt.

And…

One of the cornerstones of the package is the release of official guidelines on a “reasonable standard of living” for insolvent debtors and “reasonable living expenses”. These are expected to prove contentious given the expenditure limits they will impose on insolvent debtors.

It will, no doubt, be informative to see how the proponents of such schools deal with this given their enormously entertaining line in the recent past of how they’re really doing the state some financial service by keeping those children who attend them out of the public system. I await their letters pointing out this contradiction with the insolvency guidelines with some interest.

Moreover it cuts directly across the trope some would like to see take hold more widely that private education is simply an additional extra, something that is entirely ordinary. Of course it is not. In the main it is indeed a luxury, available broadly to only those who can afford it.

Anti-social media… July 24, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Crime, Culture, Social Policy, Uncategorized.
1 comment so far

I’ve no particular interest in the Amanda Knox case. It appears both tragic, for all involved, and beyond any capacity for effective action by any but the Italian authorities. Which means that all comment appears superfluous, or at least vicarious. But what does interest me is the antagonism Knox herself has had heaped upon her.
For a taste of same just go to this thread here on Slate which discusses some of the relevant issues where the sheer vehemence of some is a sight to behold.

What’s most amazing is that they cannot possibly know. And it’s hard to understand the sheer rage directed against her.

An SBP piece from some months back noted that:

In Britain and Italy, much of the coverage seemed only tangentially related to the specifics of the case. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, it can seem as if she was condemned in the court of public opinion for two traits in particular: ‘weirdness’ and sexual assertiveness.

In relation to the first there is the sense that there is a generalised expectation of a ‘proper’ display of emotion in the aftermath of desperate events.

Much of that reaction lay less with the finer points of the evidence than with the widely-reported instances in which Knox seemed to act strangely shortly after Kercher was murdered.
The examples are legion: how she and Sollecito allegedly clowned around in the police station, she sitting on his lap and the two making faces at each other; suggestions that she turned cartwheels in the same police station; a conversation with one of Kercher’s friends in which the friend was quoted as saying: “I hope she didn’t suffer” and Knox allegedly replying: “How could she not? She got her [expletive] throat slit.”
In her book, Knox claims that the behaviour with Sollecito was the result of her shock at Kercher’s murder and her boyfriend’s attempt to ease her distress.

Moving beyond the specific one sees this in case after case where opprobrium is heaped upon families or individuals in families for supposedly lacking emotion. Given that we have seen deceitful floods of tears at press conferences from those who have been part of appalling crimes it is hard to seriously sustain the idea that that indicates anything one way or another. But it does suggest that – for women in particular – there remain concepts of propriety that are deeply deeply disenabling and that if there is a divergence from them the immediate assumption is of guilt.

I’ve met more than enough people in my time who have acted in good bad and plain old bizarre ways when faced with death (and ironically when relatives have died some of the oddest behaviours was from people unable – perhaps due to embarrassment – to actually even so much as ask how I or those around me were). I cannot imagine what it is like when faced with violent death, particularly murder and particularly when that occurs in one’s own domestic space. It’s not difficult to believe that a range of responses from the seemingly numb right through to outright mania are all possible and all would be – depending upon the individual – understandable.
Actually it raises the point that at one time Knox’s actions would have been regarded as a form of ‘hysteria’ (a loaded term at the best of times and one I don’t like for that reason) and therefore almost expected. Which only goes to prove that in some instances women whatever they do cannot come through such events without unreasonable criticism.

It’s also worth noting this, from Slate – again earlier in the year, which provides clues why people act in what others regard as atypical ways:

In the past decade, neurobiology has evolved to explain why victims respond in ways that make it seem like they could be lying, even when they’re not. Using imaging technology, scientists can identify which parts of the brain are activated when a person contemplates a traumatic memory such as sexual assault. The brain’s prefrontal cortex—which is key to decision-making and memory—often becomes temporarily impaired. The amygdala, known to encode emotional experiences, begins to dominate, triggering the release of stress hormones and helping to record particular fragments of sensory information. Victims can also experience tonic immobility—a sensation of being frozen in place—or a dissociative state. These types of withdrawal result from extreme fear yet often make it appear as if the victim did not resist the assault.

In relation to sexual assertiveness is part of this simply due to the following:

Knox, in her memoir and in the interviews accompanying its release, has been forthright about sex. She wrote that “I hadn’t sought out men because I was obsessed with sex, I was experimenting with my sexuality”. She added: “Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.”
Those kinds of comments have produced some tut-tutting from somewhat unexpected quarters. An article last week in the New Yorker magazine, generally considered a bastion of US liberalism, pronounced such statements to be “a dispiriting account of prevailing mores”.

One can almost hear the finger wagging. One wonders though if it would be quite so censorious were it a man’s comment – indeed would it even be noted?
Though fair dues to the following:

That, in turn, brought other writers to Knox’s defence, at least as far as her sexuality is concerned. Feminist writer Jessica Grose complained in online magazine Slate that the person who had penned the New Yorker article was “primly upset that Knox wanted to have sex uncoupled from feelings” and noted: “Most women who have a few one-night stands don’t end up dead or embroiled in internationally publicised murder trials”.

And most most men neither.

Of course this isn’t entirely new, or in fact not at all knew. We saw aspects of this in relation to the O.J.Simpson case and so on. But social media perhaps allows for an immediacy of response.
I’ve often mentioned that one reason there is some credibility to my online activity despite using a pseudonym – not in the sense of I’m right or wrong, but that you know where I’m coming from and what my positions are likely to be – is that if I do comment people can refer back to a track record built up over the best part of a decade.
But I wonder can that also be problematic, that for some once they’ve made a statement however well or poorly thought through online they can be anchored to that and that it can define their responses subsequently. A sort of exaggeration of the ‘I’m never wrong and even if I am I’ll never admit to it’ effect in online debate. We’ve all been prey to that dynamic to a greater or lesser extent. Indeed it’s one of the great pities to me that certain people on here who took a divergent line from most of what is posted or commented on went over the top, because it is essential to have people who will point up errors or miscommunications.

And add to that emotional identifications which may or may not be appropriate given the proximity of those commenting to the events and it is easy to see how matters can veer sharply off the rails.

It appears, as ever, that the chaotic human responses – whether in terms of developing sexuality, or confusion in the aftermath of terrible events. The Slate article about new research in neuroscience which suggests reasons why there are divergent responses argues that those directly charged with looking after those who are victims of a range of crimes have to be retrained in respect of their perceptions, but in a way one would think that to some degree society more broadly needs retraining too.

Sitting on a fence… July 20, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Bioethics, Irish Politics, Social Policy.
9 comments

John Waters was exercised by the nature of the abortion ‘debate’ this last week and complaining that the criticism of Senator Jim Walsh’s speech to the Seanad which graphically sought to outline the abortion process, albeit from the testimony of an US based anti-abortion activist and obstetrician. There’s a whole bunch of reasons why one might query that testimony, not least its somewhat hazy relationship with the general scientific and medical consensus on fetal pain.

Waters argument is worth considering, though I suspect it raises issues that might not be entirely congenial to his position on the issue in the way they work out, and I’ll return to them some other time.

But here’s the thing. There’s a certain element of Waters having his cake and eating it on this for it is notable that in this column he doesn’t follow Walsh’s lead. Now, there’s no onus upon him to do so, but logically if he believes it is an appropriate, no – necessary, approach then it does raise the question as to why he wouldn’t be quite so blunt. After all, he has a public platform, he has a weekly space in a national newspaper, so if he thinks that Walsh is correct…

And this is surprising and good news… June 13, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Bioethics, Economy, Science, Social Policy, US Politics.
1 comment so far

…from a somewhat unexpected quarter.

The US supreme court has ruled unanimously that natural human genes cannot be patented, a decision that scientists and civil rights campaigners said removed a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation.

Though whether the Court’s view that DNA a “product of nature” may have implications when applied to other areas is an interesting question.

Childcare June 6, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Education, Irish Politics, Social Policy.
2 comments

A most interesting thought in the SBP from Richard Curran who when writing about the current debacle in childcare notes that:

It [the childcare industry] emerged out of a market demand, rather than by a thought-out government policy.

In that respect he regards it as a product of the Celtic Tiger and he’s probably not entirely wrong there. Certainly, having had the opportunity to see it up close myself it’s very evident that standards are variable in the extreme, that the marketisation of the process has not been to the best and that the incidents and – perhaps more accurately – attitudes – noted in the RTÉ Prime Time last week were far from a surprise.

My own experience is of an excellent community creche in the inner city. There was never anything approaching concern at any stage. And yet, it is fair to say that it has all seemed very contingent. It was pure luck that there was a place there. And even there it was obvious just how great the challenges were for staff.

Curran makes a sensible point here:

The fact that the programme affected so many people reflects just how enormous the private childcare industry has become. The industry has emerged relatively recently and is clearly not sufficiently regulated and monitored, reflecting the speed and haphazard way in which it came about. It exploded onto the scene in a hurry at the back end of the economic boom.

Haphazard is a very appropriate term to use. There’s this sense that this is something that has sprung up almost out of nowhere. An example. Around the corner from where I lived there was talk about six years ago that there would be a creche in a house on the road. These are terraced streets, small gardens or yards, but it struck me at the time that it seemed reasonable in that it would be in the community but that the location would be very constrained.

Curran argues that women’s participation in the workforce is an enormous driver of this increase in childcare needs.

When Bertie Ahern became taoiseach in 1997, there were 539,000 women in employment. Within two years, that number had grown by 130,000, and within five years nearly 200,000 more women were in the workplace. This peaked at around 890,000 in 2008, just before the crash – an increase of 350,000 in just over a decade.

Of course the other way of looking at that is that there was already in 1997 an enormous need and that this was masked by a societal indifference to the issue. The state wasn’t going to take charge – the RoI state never does. So instead the ‘problem’ was addressed piecemeal and in an ad hoc fashion.

Curran also argues that tax individualisation had its part to play making it more attractive for women to work (though note in passing that it is women who are regarded as the supposedly ‘natural’ childcare agent in families)

There were a number of reasons for this. In December 1999, the then finance minister Charlie McCreevy announced the introduction of tax individualisation measures for two-income married couples. This meant that, instead of having a single tax credit for a married couple, if both partners were working they could each have their own tax credit. Each year the benefits to dual-income families increased.
It meant that a single-income married couple earning €68,000 or above in 2007 would pay €6,240 more in taxation than a married couple where both went out to work.

But in fairness Curran continues:

The move provided a clear financial incentive for married women in general, and young married mothers in particular, to go out and work outside the home. This was no bad thing. But it needed a proper childcare system to emerge in tandem.

And that’s the crucial point. No such system emerged. Anything but.

Despite the state being awash with money and running up surpluses, it didn’t provide the funding. Instead, McCreevy and other cabinet ministers wanted to see the state’s role in these matters reducing not increasing. Childcare would have to develop along an American market-driven model.

The older I get the more I am convinced that the period between 0 and 12 is the most important in a person’s life in terms of shaping future potential. It’s now very evident that life chances are impacted negatively (or positively) to a remarkable degree by this point. That requires that the greatest support and assistance has to be channelled to that age cohort. But this isn’t what is or has happened.

Women responded to the tax changes in their droves. Tens of thousands of mothers were taking up jobs, and trying to do the best they could with family and friends to help out with childcare.

And a central point:

Employers realised that they didn’t have to provide proper childcare support, and that they would get more and more women to work for them anyway.
By 2001, these factors had combined in a way that highlighted the need for a proper childcare system. The state had allocated just IR£46 million for state childcare provision in its 2000 budget. This was paltry.

And there were other dynamics at play:

The economic boom, combined with the individualisation measures and other changes, was providing more and more mothers with career opportunities and better incomes to help support their families in the long run. The boom was also opening up a world of opportunity for the family as a whole to enjoy a better standard of living.
However as house prices continued to skyrocket, the decisions that families made then would restrict their options into the future, should anything go wrong with the house-price bubble.

But still the state didn’t enter into the equation in any meaningful way.

However there was no real state provision of childcare. At the time, there were no tax credits for childcare expenses. It was clear even back then that the childcare crisis was not going to go away, but would only get worse.
Instead of defining a vision for how the childcare system should work, defining the state’s role in it and providing the necessary funding, successive governments allowed market forces to take over.
Undoubtedly, there has been a lot of progress in recent years in developing standards and improving the professionalism of childcare provision. But it remains a relatively poorly-regulated industry, often driven by profit.

It’s essential to consider the latter point. This isn’t service provision for it’s own good, at least not in most cases. It is a hard-nosed business where profit is central. It is this, for me, which sets alarm bells ringing much more loudly because if we’ve learned anything at all it is that when profit-oriented institutions – of whatever sort – are poorly regulated the chances of negative outcomes are much greater. Catherine O’Mahony, also in the SBP, makes a similar point but from a different position:

I reckon we have a handful of options. First, we could stop complaining and push government for a thorough overhaul of the childcare system, making early childhood education a proper formalised career option for ambitious young people, and moving toward universally available state-backed childcare provision.
There would be a significant cost.
Second, we, as parents, could demand of creches that all childcare workers have decent qualifications. By doing so, we would need to accept the need to pay them more.
Or third, we could stop kidding ourselves and accept the limitations attached to placing our children in the care of a for-profit organisation. This requires developing a healthy scepticism about claims that every creche will immerse our children in some kind of toddler nirvana.

The thing is that three isn’t in contradiction with either one or two. And one would obviously be my preferred choice. O’Mahony recounts how she found in a creche that there was something while not actively negative appeared sub-optimal in terms of what she expected.

Although…

[her] daughter remembers her time at the creche very fondly, so whatever momentary neglect or roughness was there went over her head…That said, I still couldn’t keep her there.
Her next home from home was a happier choice, an independent Montessori school with a notably high ratio of staff to children and – crucially – a far higher standard of education among the carers. And yes, the cost was a small fortune.

But the problem is that that is not an option for many people. Buying your way out of a negative situation isn’t a solution except in a very limited number of cases, and it leaves the obvious question, what of those who are left behind?

Far far better to recognise that far from ‘accepting limitations’ and ‘developing a healthy scepticism’ it is better that there is a systemic shift to state-wide provision of child-care as a service paid out of taxation and properly regulated and regularly inspected.

One final thought, I was surprised at the idea of daily ‘reports’ on what took place in the creche as being quite a normal experience. The most frequent reports, and they were more like activity books, received were on a three monthly basis. To be honest I think that’s grand as long as there’s an on-going engagement by parent(s) and creche. But then perhaps such daily reports are all of a piece with the sort of pretension that would see a creche named ‘Little Harvard’.

These things are clues.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,256 other followers

%d bloggers like this: