|
| |
|
ßBack |
Quotes
from web articles about daycare -
2001,
p5
|
Nextà |
|
Reference |
Quote |
Child Care Concerns by Bill
Muehlenberg, The
Australian Family, March 2001, p.19
© 2000-2003 Australian Family Association
www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010319.html |
And as Patricia Morgan explains, "Affordable
care is low-quality care. Universally available high-quality care is
achievable nowhere on earth".
Category =
Economics, Quality
|
Child Care Concerns by Bill
Muehlenberg, The
Australian Family, March 2001, p.19
© 2000-2003 Australian Family Association
www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010319.html |
...daycare work is a thankless and underpaid job.
To enable daycarers to better perform their tasks, they need all the
comforts other workers get; rostered time off, lunch and tea breaks, shift
work, vacation time. But this is the Catch 22 situation: the better we
make working conditions for the carers*, the
more we disadvantage the infant! That is, the more flexi-time we give the
carer*, the less continuous, long-term
attention the baby gets from one carer*.
*Carer- Caregiver
Category =
Quality |
Child Care Concerns by Bill
Muehlenberg, The
Australian Family, March 2001, p.19
© 2000-2003 Australian Family Association
www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010319.html |
As (Penelope) Leach
(British maternal & child expert) says, "That vital continuous one-to-one
attention can rarely be achieved in group care, however excellent the
facility may be. Babies in their first year need one primary adult each,
and while that may be inconvenient, it is not very surprising. Human beings
do not give birth to litters but almost always to single babies."
Category =
Quality |
Child Care Concerns by Bill
Muehlenberg, The
Australian Family, March 2001, p.19
© 2000-2003 Australian Family Association
www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010319.html |
A 1996 survey of Macquarie University early child
care students with experience in day care found that not one student said
they would put their baby in a child care centre.
Category =
Quality
|
Child Care Concerns by Bill
Muehlenberg, The
Australian Family, March 2001, p.19
© 2000-2003 Australian Family Association
www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010319.html |
If the majority of young
mums with young children would rather be at home, why does government policy
so often promote the opposite? Indeed, why the double jeopardy
for these women? Why must stay-at-home mums forego economic relief for child
care while at the same time have to, through taxation, subsidise those who
do?. Says Patricia Morgan, "Whatever else might be said about families with
a mother at home, they are every bit as deserving of relief as families with
employed mothers".
Category =
Politics |
Child Care Concerns by Bill
Muehlenberg, The
Australian Family, March 2001, p.19
© 2000-2003 Australian Family Association
www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010319.html |
This raises the question of equity.
Why should mothers who choose to stay at home with
their young children receive no or little financial support, while mothers
who put their children into formal daycare and return to the paid work force
get various benefits, subsidies and financial assistance for doing so?
Why are stay-at-home mums in effect penalised (eg, via the taxation system),
while non-stay-at-home mums are rewarded? Why should dual income families
receive government subsidies for day care when single income families
receive no or very little by way of subsidies? Why this discrimination?
Governments should not be in the business of showing
partiality to one kind of mother over another. It should treat
all mums fairly. This is not a call for special favours or rights for stay
at home mums, simply equity and fairness.
Category =
Politics |
|
ßBack |
Quotes
from
web articles about daycare -
2001,
p5 |
Nextà |
Last updated:
12/02/2006
|
