Dear Small Talker,
Welcome to the forty sixth edition of Small Talks. Every Friday, I highlight 6 areas of weekly joys and reflections in early childhood and the whole family. Small Talks leverages my experience at the intersection of education, philanthropy, and impact investing. Enjoy!
What I’m celebrating -
It is refreshing to see advocacy experts across political lines align and present a consensual view in this report. The conclusion: Kids first; We need to invest more in children.
It includes an illuminating chart highlighting how disparities start early- the one that I was left pondering is “secure emotional attachment to parents”. Why and how can we address?
Comprehensive new report by Child Care Aware on the state of child care, and good summary here. Two sobering points:
16,000 child care providers shut down in pandemic:~10% loss in supply.
Cost of child care outpacing inflation.
Just in time for Valentine’s Day, heartwarming message.
What I’m listening to -
With so many discussions about the Metaverse, I found this GettingSmart podcast intriguing, especially from an equity perspective. It features Taylor Shead, CEO of STEMuli. STEMuli is the first educational Metaverse ever integrated into a U.S. public school.
What I’m reading -
Published in 2005, “Unconditional parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason” by Alfie Kohn centers on the basic need that all children need to be loved unconditionally. It questions many conventional approaches to parenting:
punishments (no “time-outs”)
rewards (no praise- this one was the most counter-intuitive for me)
grades (it lays out the evidence on why grades are not conducive to learning)
What I’m watching -
TED Talk What we learn before we’re born? by Annie Murphy reviews the evidence on what fetuses learn when they are in the womb: voices from parents (esp. mothers), native language, food taste, emotions, and more.
What I’m learning and exploring more deeply -
This essay from Fordham Institute senior fellow Robert Pondiscio made me think…While I don’t believe in many of the points he makes (e.g., reading books such as Harry Potter, or being taught socio-emotional learning linked to our youth mental health crisis), I agree with the symptoms and the question he is raising about the fundamental purpose of education.
This piece by NPR journalist Anya Kamenetz examines why the Tennessee pre-K program did not yield positive outcomes. Key takeaways: Children need to be loved, valued, and listened to -universally. Play is key in an ideal early learning environment, and should be accessible to children from low-income families.
Also, excellent summary on what we know on pre-K research here and on Head Start evidence here.
Finland has it right…This may explain why they have some of the highest education achievements and the highest levels of happiness. This chart of competencies is inspiring. It includes metacognition (thinking and learning to learn), cultural competence, taking care of oneself and others, building a sustainable future, entrepreneurship, and more.
Quote I am pondering -
From Ratatouille…
Feedback is a gift. Which part above is your favorite? What did I miss? What do you want more or less of? Other recommendations? Please kindly let me know. Thank to all of you who are sending me amazing suggestions.
If you enjoy this newsletter, please help spread the word by sharing with your friends, colleagues, and networks.
Have a wonderful week. Please stay safe and care for each other.
Isabelle
Isabelle, about the AEI/Brookings report and your question about addressing disparities in the measure of “secure emotional attachment to parents.” The chart shows disparities linked to income level. Studies show that relieving poverty has positive impacts on parent and child well-being. I don't know of a specific study that shows how alleviating poverty improves parent-child attachment, but I do know that poverty impacts parental depression, which is a factor in attachment. How many more studies do we need before we give mothers or other primary caregivers simple, monthly cash support? Other countries have proven the success of cash support; why is the U.S. searching for other answers?
The U.S. is a leader in developing unhealthy practices and cultural attitudes about children and parents (see Darcia Narvaez, PhD and The Evolved Nest for the science supporting this statement).
Unfortunately the AEI/Brookings report fails to recognize two of the fundamental shifts in mindset needed if we want children to thrive.
To illustrate the first shift in mindset needed, I did some editing. Here is the report’s introductory paragraph:
"The future of America rests in part on how the country prepares the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments that last a lifetime. Yet, many children in the United States do not have the resources or relationships they need to build a strong foundation for their future."
This is my edited version:
The future of America rests in part on how the country supports parents in preparing the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments in the well-being of both children and their parents in order to improve children’s life-long physical, mental and emotional health. Many parents in the United States invest their time and resources in their children with little support from policies, systems and society. As Marc C. Bornstein, Head of Child and Family Research at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development declares: “Parents create people.”
My second critique:
Throughout the report, the value of parents’ time together with their children is referenced, but the next step is ignored: valuing and compensating parents’ time. As economist Nancy Folbre observed: "resources are redistributed from parents to nonparents, with the “resources” being the parents’ (especially mothers’) investment of time and expense" ("The Invisible Heart," 2001).
It seems the pandemic's crisis of care, and mothers' role in providing much of this essential work, has taught the experts nothing.
This paragraph from the report's introduction points to its mindset of valuing parental employment:
“The working group agrees that public investment, adequate family income that is based in part on parental employment, and loving relationships in safe and nurturing environments are all critical to ensuring that children have what they need to prosper.”
Issues of the value of waged work and caregiving are not new. It's time to tackle them head-on: why is care by a parent perceived (and counted in the GDP) as “non work”? Why is caregiving worth paying for when it’s done by a child care provider but worth nothing when it’s done by a parent?
As maternal feminist Enola Aird wrote in “Watch Out for Children” (2001): “Fundamentally, we face a conflict of values. It is a conflict between the values of the money world and the values of the “motherworld” — the values of commerce and the values required to raise healthy children.