Learning to Adapt; As Two-Worker Families Have Become More Common, Co-op Preschools Have Had to Adjust
Wisconsin State Journal
Jessica Vanegeren
September 26, 2006

This article was about the changing scope of families and how that idea is affecting co-operative preschool. Co-op preschools are schools for children under the age of 5 or 6, created by parents with a common belief system of how to raise children. With their own backing and funds they start the preschool and elect a teacher to teach. The parents do all but the actual teaching, (ie. volunteering, cleaning, baking etc.) Because of the higher instance of two working parent households, this type of school is becoming a distant dream. It is more common now that these schools have optional parental involvement to allow for the parent to help out when they can and if they aren’t working. More and more parents are relying on day care or preschools with a day care option for they are not home to watch their children all day. The specific preschool in the article is the University Houses Preschool of Dane County, in Madison Wisconsin. The school is generally designed for faculty and staff of the school and their children. It’s located on campus and allows for easy access for the parents. This is one of 13 co-op preschools in the area. The idea is to create a home schooling type environment for the children where parents are present for aiding in the growing and nurturing. One particular preschool in Madison doesn’t have a day care license, thus children can only stay for up to 5 consecutive hours a day. This option becomes unsuitable for many working parents who need full day care options. Many parents of children who attend the school were interviewed and also the director of the school and executive director of a child care tracking organization in Madison. It seems like the concept is very good and all parties involved are working to keep it alive, while changing it slightly to fit the needs and demands of two working parent households. The statistics seem to come from reputable sources and fit general knowledge trends of the high instance of working mothers. It’s clear there are still parents out there though, that hope to be centered in their children’s lives while young, even if they hold a job. The article seems to show that despite the fact that more mothers are working outside of the home, they’re still just involved in their kids lives –and schools are changing to help meet these important needs.

Parents Can Learn How to Balance Work and Family Wisconsin State
JournalPR Newswire US
University of Chicago
February 3, 2006

This article was about how parents are learning to cope with the changes of the work place. It focused a lot on the increase of woman in the work force who attempt to balance family life without compromising career security. The article is a compilation effort of a study done at the University of Chicago about the effects of over working on family life. The statistics are credible, coming from senior social scientists and the director of the Center of Parents Children and Work (who also is the principal investigator for the new Data Research and Development Center at the National Opinion Research Center). The article suggests that spending time with kids and sharing chores will help bring the family closer together and create a positive family experience that can’t be duplicated elsewhere. This also helps to quell the stress of over working (upwards of 40 hours a week). The research finds that most adolescents are forgiving and understanding of their parents working more since generally they can physically take care of themselves, of course they still emotionally benefit greatly from family time. Younger children are less forgiving towards parents thus creating a high tension situation. In general, it seems that kids are also affected negatively when parents miss special events, not so much when they are just unavailable. The article also suggests that work places need to be more accommodating to families with children and not judge woman who are family oriented. Rearranging schedules in the work place seems to be a desirable option to aid working families. Kids still want to be with their parents and it seems that there is still really no solution to the complex problem of raising children and having a job. I believe that fact of the matter is, if a woman chooses to work she has the right too, even if she wants to have children. There’s no reason why a job should inhibit her from doing both, especially if two incomes are needed. Why should she have to compromise her career when a father is rarely expected to? Personally, I still feel that these articles which offer solutions don’t put any responsibility on the father to raise children. All people, situations, and children are different. Some adapt well to change others don’t, a mother working isn’t always a negative thing. I believe in many respects it motivates the children to work hard and succeed in all their endeavors, and the article touches on this. Over all though, the article does provide some useful tips for balance both work and home time –still no solution.

Parenting by Shift 'is Harming Children'
The Daily Mail
December 1, 2006

This article, while short, pointed out a few important things about the children of two working parents. It claims that while it is important that two parents work if need be, that there are harmful effects on the children who get passed back and forth from parent to parent while one is working and the other isn’t. The claim is that most children are missing out on the important bonding activities that take place with the whole family because one parent is forced to work antisocial hours so that one partner can be there all the time. For example, a mother is forced to work weekend and night time to make ends meet thus missing out on important family activity social times (baseball games and shows etc.) This article is based on the opinion of Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman of London. It may not be an accurate portrayal of life elsewhere. I am personally under the opinion that most people are working normal hours and relying on child care for their children when possible and not working opposing hours. This may just be a trend in the US where jobs are generally readily available. I can also only judge based on my surrounding and situation, where most people aren’t struggling to put food on the table. The article did make some valid points though, suggesting that jobs should allow for paid sick leave when children are ill so parents can stay home to watch their kids when they would generally be at school and also having better part time positions. It seems to be a pattern that many people agree that more and more parents need to work together to make ends meet but the problem of child care is having a negative effect on the children. The article even suggests that it would be better economically for parents to not marry and simply cohabitate and share responsibilities. I think these ideas make sense though it doesn’t explicitly explain what these negative effects on the children are and how that’s affecting their performance in school/work etc. A lot of these articles merely point out the fact that there is a problem but do little to offer advice or really analyze what this means for the plight of the two parent working household. Also, there are few positive effects given for two working parents, where children might actually benefit in having independence and being better able to leave home for college.

Put The Kids to Work
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
July 4, 2006

This article is merely an editorial about the plight of working parents. The author touches on a lot of points which I’ve brought up previously, how there are tons of articles and books out there on how to support a family. But few actually give any helpful advice that might really ameliorate the stress factors of overworked parents. The text does provide a perhaps practical and helpful piece of advice to parents. It suggests that parents should instill in their children a strong work ethic from the very start and stress that life isn’t a free ride. While not supported with specific statistics from any reputable source, the author explains that almost all children in Canada live without providing anything to their household. While it is true that kids should have time to play, do homework, participate in sports etc., they should also have chores to do. It would not be too much to ask for kids to take out the garbage, make their bed, cut the grass, and help with dinner. If kids just aided their parents a little, it would significantly cut out stress factors that working parents have to face when they return home each night from a long day at the office. I think this advice makes sense in the short run. It’s not a solution either, but it is sound advice to lessen the burden of much stressed adults. Helping out together I think would increase family bonding time for many families and instill important values in the children’s heads about working to live. Though it doesn’t say who the author is, it seems to be a parent who wishes that children would contribute more to family life, suggesting that parents shouldn’t be merely satisfied with their child cleaning up their room once a month. Things have changed, and children are no longer required to act as little parents when they reach a certain age, but a few chores wouldn’t kill anyone.

Day-care Dilemma
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
December 2, 2006 Saturday
Barbara Correra

This article offered a different perspective on the working parent dilemma- the need for day care. It discussed different family’s very different needs for child care. The article mentioned a few different categories of families, those with two parents who work because they need the money to make ends meet. Some work because they want to and don’t want to sacrifice their careers, while other mothers work to have extra money to go on nice vacations etc. Some mothers choose to stay home because their husband’s income can support the family and they believe being a stay home mom is the best option for children. Some parents like Erika Schickel, mother of two girls from Los Angeles, sent her daughters to day care when they were younger in order to have some free time to work on her career as an author. There are several statistics offered in the article of seemingly reputable sources. One states that more than 80 percent of parents said they used child care because they needed to work. This is based on a survey done by the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. This seems to suggest that finding someone to watch the kids is a big problem and the changing economics of the US is forcing most mothers to go to work. Another survey taken by the Urban Institute discovered that 73 percent of children under 5 with an employed parent were in an arrangement other than care by a parent. Again, further statistics that indicate that childcare of some sort is necessary while parents work. Many mothers do have to make the choice whether or not to pursue a career with young kids or stay home and watch them all day. Mothers interviewed indicated that whatever the choice, there seems to be inner turmoil, a “double-edged sword” if you will. It’s nice to have the extra money but it’s also difficult to feel guilty all the time while earning it. The crux of the article focuses on the idea that mothers should be able to choose what they feel is best for themselves and their family and that child care options should be readily available for mom’s who choose to work. I agree wholeheartedly with this for it’s important that society stress the importance of a work ethic and the woman’s right to choose and be happy.

Conclusion

Of all of these articles, though very different and dealing with different aspects of the two working parents crunch, are centered on one issue: the fact that more and more women are required to work for economic reasons and that leaves children without supervision. Different experts and citizens disagree over whether or not it’s ok for women to spend a large amount of time out of the house pursuing careers when they could be spending time with their children. I personally do not believe this is the issue. Women, like men, should have the right to do whatever it is they wish and have children. It’s perfectly natural to procreate and have a career, its part of life. The issue at hand is how we deal with the fact that children then need other forms of care. I think most can agree that parents are best suited to raise their children, but just because mom works doesn’t mean she doesn’t raise her kids. There is still as much love and care in a house with a working mom than in a house where the mom stays home. Personally, I have a mom who works a lot. Every moment I do get to spend with her then means that much more to me. I realize how important our time is together and I cherish it. She works hard to give us everything and I do what I can to make it easier on her (help out around the house, care for my sister etc.) We’ve always had a nanny to drive us around and make us dinner when were younger, and fortunately we had the means by which to pay for one. Many families of course are no this fortunate. They must rely on day care, other family members, after school programs, and neighbors to watch their children. I still stand by the fact though that this kids will grow up just as adjusted if not more so than kids whose mom’s stay home. They learn a sense of independence from parents which makes leaving the home when they go off to school or work that much easier. I think that it’s nearly impossible to be objective about this issue. It’s so hard to judge what’s best for kids when it’s something that’s so personal to each individual and each family. For some kids it can be argued that having a parent around all the time is the best answer, but I don’t think this is the case for all children. Kids need to be separated from their parents to learn valuable lessons about independence and self sufficiency. As long as parents (or caretakers) show love and affection for their children it seems they will turn out just fine. Experts can present as many statistics as possible, but no one statistic will satisfy the masses. Parents have to make the best informed decisions as possible when raising their children, and if that means both parents have to work to make ends meet, then so be it. A child is better off in day care and fed then at home with their mother and no food. We spend too much time worrying about what the popular press says and not enough time caring for our children’s well being. You do what you have to do to get by, and that’s the best anyone can ask for.

David Popenoe's American Family Decline, 1960-1990 was a very interesting social commentary on the state of the American family and it's seeming breakdown into the bare essentials, mother, father and child. His essay discusses the inevitable change from the 1950's nuclear family that took on a very different shape and scope then families today. He cites changes of women's equality, working, and economic independence as one of the key reasons for the breakup of the family. His conclusion is that the continual breakup of this family will have detrimental consequences for the future and for the children of these families. He states that divorce is on the rise and that people don't value marriage and children as much as they once did due to "me-reasons" (people are more self-interested than they once were and aren't as likely to give up personal ambitions to support a family." Essentially he states that the main structures that hold a family together are being torn apart: procreation, socialization of children, affection, companionship, economic cooperation, and sexual regulation. He asserts that many of these structures have been better placed in different institutions (ie. education to the public school system and out of the home) but that it's leaving little left for the family and time together. His critics, Stacey and Cowan both seem to agree with his main statement that family is in decline but disagree about the details. Stacey who supports a seemingly more liberal approach to this idea says that his definition of a family doesn't allow room for change and seems to suggest that the changes are positive and are allowing for greater equality for women. She says that his evidence lacks proof and that he makes casual relationships between things that don't add up. Cowan also agrees that the American family is in decline but he states that Popenoe gives no advice on how to help it. He gives a lot of statistical facts that fail to appeal to any sort of sense and that he gives no sort of opinion on how to respond to these changes.

I am more likely to agree with Stacey. I thought Popenoe's analysis lacked any type of substantial argument either way and sort of just proposed facts for the mere sake of proposing facts. I agree with her that the family is a lot more difficult to define now and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the traditional family is just something we created to feel emotional connection to another set of humans. It's not written in a textbook that a family consists of a mother, father, and child and that they have to live and support each other. This is a nice notion, and if it works it should continue to thrive, but it doesn't always and it's not something we should mold ourselves into for the sake of social convention. While I think the idea of family is important, because all humans need someone they can rely on to care for and love them. But this doesn't necessarily stem from a parent. Many times it doesn't. Often love and compassion is found from different sources entirely. Like Stacey states, we need to focus more on how to support the types of families that are emerging and not on preserving the traditional family --that isn't necessarily the best family structure.

I also agree with Cowan's observations. He states that Popenoe doesn't focus enough on consequences on the changing shape of the family on children. It could be for better or for worse, but Popenoe fails to adequately analyze these effects. I also believe that he doesn't really identify the positive aspects of the changing role of the family, --mother's working and becoming economically dependent. Cowan also brought up another good point, Popenoe fails to mention changes in technology and thought which have allowed for family planning, like of course birth control. It's entirely possible that families were so large in the 1950's because they need the kids to survive and support them in old age and additionally had no way in which to prevent more.

In conclusion, I agree most with Stacey's observations about the changing scope of the family and how we need to reevaluate our definition of what a family is before we start saying it's in decline. We need to figure out how to support the idea of a family that we have now instead of trying to recapture the past. Why should women stay in failed marriage just for the kids? That's illogical. Most likely the child will suffer greater consequences from living with unhappy parents then from seeing their parents separate. Also, many very responsible parents are single, gay, fathers etc. There is no reason to say why the biological nuclear family is the best.
I learned a lot about this argument but it's hard to draw any specific conclusions about the topic until you create a specific definition of the family in your head. Whether or not it is in decline is really irrelevant though, as long as people are growing up healthy and happy.