By Adrienne Hamill
I am writing in response to Susan Lazlo's article on child-care [in the International Women's Day broadsheet printed in GLW #262]. Child-care centres are, it seems, a necessity in an age where the extended family is no longer a reality for many people. Many parents out of economic necessity have to work and have no one to care for their children. Especially for solo parents the loneliness and sheer hard work of bringing up a child or children on their own can be overwhelming. Child-care centres can offer welcome relief and prevent an abusive situation.
However, the social necessity of these centres is being abused by capitalism. In this age of consumerism people are being seduced into wanting or thinking they need a bigger house, a bigger car, and a family which could live comfortably on one income opts for two. Some children are put into full-time child-care because of this.
I have worked in various child-care centres and feel they should only be used out of necessity. Full-time child-care is not a "fun" alternative for children; centres are not happy homely places.
Visiting a bright lively centre is a very different experience from being there all day, every day. Underneath the surface there are children suffering from the lack of love, attention and security one main carer in their life could provide (particularly a parent); children suffer from the noise and bustle (sometimes chaos) of the place. They suffer the moods of the many adults working there (some of whom are perhaps wishing they could afford to stay home and look after their own children).
Lazlo mentioned that centres provide company for children. Whilst it is good for young children to spend time mixing with other children, there's a vast difference between playing with one or two neighbours' children and "playing" in a group of 20. Often it's not playing but fighting (literally) for attention. Maybe they do learn some "social survival skills" as Lazlo puts it, but to have to learn these so young is a tragedy.
I have also experienced many times of fun, joy and genuine warmth between the staff and children at these centres. But overall the nature of them doesn't lend to a warm, homely environment. With the privatisation of many centres, they are becoming money-making machines and children the commodity. With cuts to funding, the quality of child-care will inevitably be affected.
A friend of mine, a very caring and experienced unqualified child-care worker is finding it very hard to get work. She was told on ringing up for a position that she may be right for the job, but they wouldn't even consider her because they could employ a junior for a lot less.
Staff, particularly untrained, are underpaid as it is. I can earn more as a cleaner than a child-care worker which seems to be the norm in female-dominated professions. This is one reason for the high staff turnover at centres, which leads to an unstable environment for the children.
Home-based child-care (where one or two adults look after a small number of children from their home) does seem like a good alternative to the large impersonal centres. However, the people I have spoken to involved in this barely make a living.
I have serious concerns about our present child-care system, but some parents have no choice and need the system and it could be improved. However, under the present government it seems that things are just going to get worse.