Posts by Jackie Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No offence taken, Sally. At all. I'm only academic in so far as I have a BA and that was attained many years ago. I keep current with theory around teaching and early childhood education specifically, but that's it. That's why I find the discussions this community has very edifying. I don't have to do the study, I just have to read the results!
-
I know it's not on topic but can I just say how enormously I am excited that we will live in the same country once more?
-
I am very very excited, David. Our kindergarten will be ordering one, tout de suite.
-
Oh, Lilith - I LOVE Celia Lashlie. She spoke at the very first Early Childhood Symposium quite a number of years ago. I have great love and admiration for the woman. She makes a great deal of sense.
-
Okay, 23 minutes till my wee, and not so wee, ones arrive, all laughing and shouting and eager to start their new day. (Well, some aren't, but they are easily chivvied into action. Nothing a good swing won't fix). Che, that was the most beautiful, evocative passage. It made me cry. I love your writing. Love it. I don't know what it is to be a parent, but that writing made me feel a little of what that feels like. And as for awards, Sally? No. I just work with families for a couple of years. One of the things that you quickly learn in kindergarten teaching is that once a child leaves, often that's it. Your part in their lives is over, so you make it count while you can. And I work in a great community. These parents here really fight for their kids. Make no mistake - if it's what's best for their child, they won't take anything lying down. One of the ways we know that what we're doing is good is that we have a good waiting list, full rolls, and really great attendance. And they pay their optional charges. It's only $5 a week, but they pay by the term, many of them, or a few weeks in advance. That's how we know they value us. So we don't need any other rewards, or awards. And in an earlly childhood environment where people have alot of choices around the education and care of their children, where many kindergartens around the country have had to go "school day" (meaning they operate from 8.30-2.30) to justify their existence, that really really means something.
Driving into work this morning I had a sudden thought about the statistical side of the "beneficiary" debate. Maybe it is not that it is beneficiaries that commit most of the crimes, but that people who are more disposed to commit most of the crimes choose to live on benefits. Seems credible to me. -
I was talking, Ross, about people like Petra, and others who are part of the PAS community, who take care of others when no-one else will. Don't ask me about childcare centres. Please. I will probably upset someone. I accept that many parents need to work to support their families. And it would be nice if while they did that, their extended whanau were able to help with the childcare - as, I might add, is the case with most of my families. But for many people that isn't possible, and we have to accept that, for some women, and men, work outside the home is what keeps them sane. I would like to see a discussion, nationally, about how we can better support people who wish to stay home with their children, without punishing them financially. To give an example, one of our dad's is on benefit of some sort. He raises three of his children, and is his mother's caregiver. This is a man who is ex mongrel mob, and I can't help but think that if he were able to be suitably recompensed for his care of his mother, and for bringing up three beautiful children (which they are - well mannered, and very articulate) then his life would be easier.
-
Perhaps the "bad parents" (from any area, but particularly ones where money is especially tight) are less inclined send their kids to pre-school?
Oh god, yes. And if they are sending their kdis, it's because CYFs are involved, and require them to be here. However. Cresswell et al don't talk about just any beneficiaries, they talk about all beneficiaries. And that was my point. There is a culture of talking about dole bludgers etc as if they were not real people. As if people who cannot get a job, or whose husband/wife dies, or who find themselves sick and unable to cope - as if these people were all criminals. Were not human beings worthy of our love and care and compassion, and understanding, and friendship. I'm not interested in welfare bashing because the people who are doing it are making lazy and specious arguments based on nothing better than empty statistics that they haven't bothered to analyse indepth.
-
Oh, Petra. You don't need to justify yourself to anyone. You are a good mother. Are you there? Yes. Do you love your child? Yes. That someone's clothes are handed down, or that they don't have a job are not, as far as I am aware, any indicators of the quality of your mothering. I get so angry when I hear of women (or men) who feel lesser because they are staying at home with their children, especially if they do not have a choice. Because there are people out there who base the validity of their existence on how much they earn, and how many hours they work. For your child, none of that matters. If you love them, and you are there, that is enough. For me, as an educator, that is more than enough. For our society? We should be grateful that you are raising a child who knows what home baked bread tastes like. We should kiss your feet for looking after a woman that no-one else will care for. The State in my opinion should build an altar to people like you who care for other people. Because, at the end of the day, you matter more than you will ever know.
-
And, of course, Kyle I am in the position of not just teaching the families of beneficiaries, but PI beneficiaries. Who live in South Auckland. Triple whammy anyone?
But funnily enough, I feel very very safe as I sit in the sun watching, and listening to, very happy, well loved, articulate, powerful little people running around. Because it's all about relationships. And as is so often the case with generalisations, and statistics, if you get to know the people who are being maligned, you find that things aren't so bad after all.And can I just say Russell that I was a bit shocked by your request, but thank you so much for letting me do this. There's some stuff I have been wanting to say for years about the communities I teach in, and the people I have the privilege of getting to know.
-
Okay - I've read this whole thread and I just have to address something to Peter, specifically around this whole welfare=violence. There's a couple of points I want to talk about. Firstly, a bit of background. I work in Mangere. I am a kindergarten teacher. I am witness to the dynamic of about 90 families approx every 2 years. I've been here about 4 years, so that adds up to about 180 families, of whom we may have had 2 or 3 children attend. Add in some transience, and that boosts your numbers. So about 250 families then - in four years. All of our children come from Pacific Island/Maori homes or a mix, but within that ethnography, there is quite a wide range of socio-economic circumstances. Some are on benefits. Some families have one parent working, some have two working. Some are single parent families. Within the families where two parents work, the grandparents or other relatives come into their own. As so older siblings. So, let's just say I know alot of people who live in this area. Three out of all those people have been in prison. One for violence, one for manslaughter (with a vehicle) one for other stuff. I have only witnessed one child with visible signs of physical abuse (we are, as teachers, required to report any child abuse) and I dealt with that myself. I have taught one child who has been sexually abused (she was in the care of CYFS), and I have taught 2 children who were taken off their parents' for neglect. I know who hits their kids, and I know who hits their spouse. And I can count those people on one hand. Vandalism? Hmm, well occasionally, there's a weeny bit of graffiti on the back of our building. But that's it. Now to my second point, around what we do about violence in our society. Understanding that I have no empirical data to offer you. I only have my 14 years of teaching experience, as anecdotal evidence. And I wouldn't downplay that why? I know a lot of people who find themselves lumped by the media into categories, and by people like you who presume that they are a certain type of person because of where they live, or what their circumstances may be. And let me tell you, Peter, if my anecdotal data is anything to go on? You really are talking out of your behind. I don't think you are right to link welfare recipients to violence. And I would suggest that instead of flagellating others, you work with the people that you seem to think are murdering everyone. Do something proactive, instead of whining about "Enough is enough". If enough really is enough, then do something about it. Volunteer to work with prisoners, or in a womens' refuge. Give money or time to any number of organisations that work in commmunities to bring awareness. Work with people on budgeting, on parenting skills. Because once you do, you may understand that not everyone on a benefit is a child killer. Or are bad people. Or contribute to the violence statistics.