----------
> From: Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> On June 11, 1998, the House of Commons Standing Committee on
> Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
> Disabilities was used as a venue for a four hour Roundtable
> on (Canadian National) Children Prenatal to 6 Years -
> Readiness to Learn. The full transcript of that meeting is
> at:
>
> http://interparl.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/HRPD/Meetings/Evidence/
> HRPDEV40-E.htm (note that the URL is line-wrapped)
>
>
> These discussions are likely to shape (or reflect) Federal
> thinking with regard to the funding of services aimed at the
> wellbeing of children in the prenatal to six age bracket,
> and to shape the Federal position when negotiating with the
> Provinces.
>
> It would be useful for CLICK4HP if several of the CLICK4HP
> subscribers dug into the discussion and captured the main
> points and contested areas for the benefit of others on this
> list, and for the benefit of the wellbeing of children
> across Canada. Any takers?
Thanks for the reference Sam.
I went and read the hearings. A big theme was what I call: "Bad Brains".
And example is:
"The significance of this is that young children brought up in environments
where there's violence or abuse between the
parents—it could be physical or verbal—will actually start to confuse the
wiring of this core function of the brain. This leads to
children who get to, say, five or six and have very complex emotional and
behavioural problems when they enter the school
system."
What bothers me is how many children in fact have these "bad brains"? And
how bad is bad? Is there a scale of "bad brains"?
Then what bothers me is what causes bad brains, it seems that the "risk"
assessments tools that I have seem link single parenthood, being on social
assistance, living in poverty, age of mother as all risk factors for, I am
not sure what all.
But all the stuff I have seen seems to blame the parent (the mom) thus we
end up with what I call:
Bad Moms- Bad Brains
The proposals I have seen, do not seem to link (as the Premier's Council
had said) ending disadvantage with addressing disadvantage. Thus it feels
to me all these people concerned with the well being of children are not
concerned with changing the resources their mothers have to parent them.
Recently the Children's Defense Fund released a study on Poverty and
Children:
http://www.childrensdefense.org/fairstart_povmat.html
In Poverty Matters: The Cost of Child Poverty in America, CDF spells out
the costs of child poverty and explores why poor children fare worse than
do nonpoor children. The report challenges conservative arguments claiming
that flaws of poor parents (such as failure to marry or low motivation)
rather than lack of basic economic resources are at the heart of poor
children's problems. According to Poverty Matters:
Poverty is a greater risk to children's overall health than is living in a
single parent family, according to government researchers.
~ Even within the same family, children born into periods when the family
was poorer tend to finish less schooling than their brothers or sisters
born into periods of greater family prosperity, according to recent
studies. These sibling studies are among the strong new
evidence that poverty itself — not ingrained parental flaws — does
lasting damage to children's chances to succeed, prosper, and
contribute to society.
As I have said before in Ontario, we have seen welfare benefits paid to
parents reduced by $50. and month and that money is to be reinvested into
programs that address "risk". I find this immoral and will be paying close
attention to the "reinvestment" measured against the number of children who
go hungry. I think we need to start looking at tracking the impact of
welfare benefits themselves on children, thus "every dollar paid in welfare
benefits saves society $25. dollars down the road".
Anyway that is where I start, if someone can explain "bad brains" to me
that would be helpful.
S
Sherrie Tingley
Barrie Action Committee for Women
[log in to unmask]
|
