One Adult Versus Eleven Toddlers? How Could THAT Be a Bad Idea?

As a (presently) childless individual, there are many anxieties of which I am blissfully unaware.  Car seats, adolescent nutrition, and college funds have yet to enter into the landscape of my personal woes.  And, most likely because of my ignorance of the angst that appears to be inherent in parenthood, I am intrigued by a February 24^th, 2012 editorial published in the Houston Chronicle tackling the issue of toddler safety (or lack thereof) in Texas day cares.  The author begins by asserting that the majority of parents--not surprisingly--are lulled into the belief that if a day care is “state certified” it will automatically serve as a secure place to park their offspring during the day.  Sadly, this is not the case in Texas the author contends.  Why?  The trouble turns out to be that pesky matter of teacher to student ratio.  The author reports that even Texas’ Department of Family and Protective Services deems the current legally acceptable limit (eleven two-year-olds per one adult) to be too lax to provide for the safety of little ones.  The author goes on to declare his or her solidarity with Carol Shattuck (CEO of Collaborative for Children) who feels that the preschool numbers problem in Texas is desperate enough to require immediate attention.  Predictably, this potential adjustment of more teachers/fewer students—though positive in and of itself—creates a new dilemma by increasing costs to child care facilities, forcing them to raise tuition rates, and rendering day care unaffordable for many low income families.  This, according to the author, is where the Texas government should man-up and boost its anemic subsidies for child care for the working poor.

Judging from the subject material of this piece, the author is targeting readers who are personally invested in, and would advocate for, the safety and education of Texas youth.  Namely: parents and educators.  The author also seems to be drawing from a relatively liberal perspective with his or her conclusion that the government should step in and assist those families that are struggling to pay for proper child care.  The author’s credibility is solid as he or she backs up opinions with data, such as current versus ideal ratio numbers in Texas day cares.  Also contributing to the solidity of the author’s argument, is the reasonable recognition that government money is limited, meaning that we may have to, in the near future anyway, compromise in our quest for improved child care safety. 

As someone who has experienced first-hand the solitary charge of a roomful of eleven screaming toddlers, I would have to agree with the author’s call for the state to reduce the legal limit of allowable number of children left to the care of a single adult.  Not addressing this issue at the governmental level, is not only endangering our precious progeny, but, in the end, abusive to day care workers, who, last time I checked, tend to be outrageously under compensated.  As for the author’s comment in favor of state relief of the burden of child care costs for low-income families, that’s kind of a no-brainer as well.  Not creating governmental provisions for families who require, but may not be able to afford, outside child care only serves to perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty by either limiting parents in their efforts to work or forcing them to jeopardize the healthy development of their kiddos by placing them in less than optimal circumstances.           

              

Birth Control: Who Knew It Could Be So Complicated?

In a February 12^th, 2012 article published in the Texas Tribune, Holly Heinrich addresses the awkward conflict between some sizable Texas employers, and a recently passed federal mandate requiring a provision for birth control in corporate health care packages.  The source of friction lies partially with faith-based organizations, such as the Seton Network of Hospitals, which harbor ethical opposition to artificial contraception, thereby making them squeamish about paying to make it available to staff.  Heinrich goes on to report that President Obama (in an effort of appeasement) implemented an option for religiously affiliated employers to forgo the contraceptive requirement, with the caveat that third-party insurers would furnish access to birth control for employees who seek healthcare privately.  Obama’s concession has only led to further disputes, however, for while it serves as a placation for religious groups like the Catholic Health Association, it angers the members of The Texas Association of Business, who contend that (moral qualms aside) legal conditioning of healthcare leads to unnecessary cost elevation.  I found this article to be intriguing as it highlights potentially the most charged point of contention—family planning—between the orthodox and the temporal, as well as the complex ways that it can bleed into the lawmaking process.