Our Babies and the Nanny State

                                   Our Babies and the Nanny State

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal 11/5/17

I’ve always been troubled, even saddened, by the expression “pre-K.”  PRE-kindergarten?  PRE-5 year olds in school? 

            For public educators and policymakers so anxious to get hold of our babies, one tiny question:   Is it your aim to one day stand in delivery rooms waiting for babies to be placed in your charge?

            The picture isn’t about to change soon, but still, a few more questions for all citizens: Where are mothers?  Why in the world are we thinking about formal learning for 3 and 4 year olds? What’s wrong with the informal learning a child gets from parents, brothers and sisters, and even pets?  What happened to “free play” without structure from adults?

            We know the answer to the question about mothers.  Mothers are working, some who must, others who don’t have to.  As for academic achievement, educators have almost convinced us that formal education, started early, is the key to success.  It is not. Good parents and strong families are the key to a child’s success.

            Educators often use “socialization” to argue their case.  Small children must have it, else they will land in prison.  No, both children and teenagers need to spend more time with adults.  One might ask educators, “What kind of socialization are you offering?  Can you assure us it will be positive?”

            My half-century observation (and participation) says the strongest influencers of children are other children.  The strongest influencers of teenagers are other teenagers.  Parents might want to consider this when educators emphasize socialization.  Children of all ages need more socialization with parents and grandparents and less with their peers.

            The desire for Trophy Children has fueled the rush toward academics, but academics are not the foundation on which to shape Trophy Children.  Character is.  All children need moms and dads who talk with them, not tests administered in hopes that early testing will boost SAT scores in high school, or boost prospects for getting into a Trophy Child university.

            I know how the educational establishment views the position I am advancing here.  They argue that most working parents and single moms are unqualified to give children what they need to succeed. That argument is elitism at its worst.

            Over twenty years ago psychologist David Elkind stirred controversy with his book, “The Hurried Child.”  Arguing that much of what schools are doing is not age-appropriate, Elkind bemoaned the fact that children are actually hindered by the rush into academics.  The results, he claimed, are stress, confusion, and even aggression. 

            More recently, psychoanalyst Erica Komisar expanded Elkind’s thesis in her new book, “Being There: Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters.”  Komisar asserts that respect for mothering is steadily waning.  She states that for a child’s first three years, mothers should be with their children because according to many neuro-scientists, a baby’s central nervous system is supplied and developed by its mother.

            Denying that men are equally equipped to attend to babies, Komisar argues that women have a “nurturing hormone” that men don’t have.  Dads are equally important but in different ways.

            Guess what. Komisar is a liberal Democrat.  Yet, neither the liberal press nor National Public Radio will grant her an interview, and her own professional organization ignores her.  That’s probably because Komisar says things like “Day care is over-stimulating for ages 1 through 3, given their neurological un-development.”  Her colleagues accuse her of making women feel guilty.

             Elkind and Komisar argue that mothering is denied respect and common sense is being abandoned.  Small children need mothers and mothering, not classrooms full of children.

            Educators will argue that modern social realities (single moms, absent fathers, etc.) have led to the need for early childhood education.  Actually it’s nanny state intrusion, derelict fathers,  and the decline of mothering that led to these social realities in the first place.  Are we any better off since the inception of Head Start 52 years ago?  Have the social realities improved? 

              If only for at least the first three or four years of our children’s lives we could let Dad go kill something and drag it home while Mom works her magic.  It worked for centuries.  There’s something about the human heart that yearns for it, still, and there are more and more young parents who are pursuing it.  For moms who just can’t do so, research indicates that grandmothers and wisely chosen small settings are best for small children.

            The triumph of nanny state culture has eroded old values, and a thoughtful, liberal, female psychoanalyst has pointed it out.

Roger Hines

11/2/17