Recent events have gotten me to thinking about why our young children appear to be broken and why is it that our youth appear to crying out for help. It reminded me about a catch phrase that was the topic of debate in the 80’ about latch key children.
According to Wikipedia the term is described as a child who returns home from school to an empty home because his or her parent are away at work, or who is left at home with little or no parental supervision.
While we do have more single parents in our society, many of the children are left alone because of neglect. This term gave some parents the legal ok to leave their children alone. The National SAFEKIDS Campaign recommends that no child under the age of 12 be left at home alone. States like Maryland and North Carolina have given parents’ permission to leave children at home as young as 8 years old. Other states won't even list an age. Illinois list the acceptable age as 14. Some sources even go so far as to state that the parents should consider the child level of maturity. This is a loophole that should have never been open. Nowhere does it state in the rules to consider the parent’s level of maturity.
Children need parental supervision or they will continue to make decisions without consequence. It saddens me that we live in a society that it takes two full time salaries to provide for a family. For a single parent, the financial strain to provide that extended childcare service represents a large part of their budget. Even if the parents are caring and thoughtful of their children, it takes master planning to be sure someone is there to care for the children.
Those children from the eighties are now are 20-25 year olds who are unmotivated and find it hard to respect authority. This is a lost generation and we a now see the fruit of this decision. The schools have taken on enough, let return some of this responsibility back to the parents.
How can we do this? Not through the schools or through community service, but through a labor movements that will propose shorter work days.
- Offer up work days that are in line with school hours.
- Maintaining the wages will help encourage family support
- More people will be able to work, this will help reduce unemployment.
- Creation of more jobs, will help put more money into tax pool
- Our children will get the much needed support they need.
I hope this article will help spark the conversation about the elephant in the room. Our children spend too much time alone making decisions without the support of their family. Let’s work on putting an end to this. After all, this is the “first crop” and if we tend to our children with more care, our next batch should yield much higher potential. Considering this means considering the future of our country.
Most employer are quite
Most employer are quite comfortable with part time employees and fewer benefits. Employers can add more labor fewer benefits; only this time it is focus and with a purpose. Offering employees the option to opt out of benefits over wages is worth considering.
Latch key children have low self esteem and often suffer from depression. If the parent is not paying attention to the child, how will they be able to recognize the mental health of the child?
It's a good plan. The only
It's a good plan. The only problem is how do we get employers to pay more people more money, for working fewer hours? Seems to me the only place that happens is when the employer is the state or federal government. That magical, alternate realm where balance sheets and budgets are like unicorns and pixie dust.
The State of Illinois does
The State of Illinois does not pay "people more money, for working fewer hours". The federal government does not do it either. Back up your propaganda with some facts.
Link 1 Link 2 [8]
Link 1 [9]
Link 2 [10]
Yes, state workers work 37.5
Yes, state workers work 37.5 hours per week. Not all private sector employees work 40 hours per week also.
Yes, many occupations in state employment require skills that are comparable in private sector employment. Look at IT personnel, counselors, caseworkers, etc. compared to private sector employees. You will see that they earn less in most cases. How many teachers are in the private sector?
Your point was that state, and federal employees have the benefit of taking care of their children to prevent them from being "Latchkey-Kids". That is blatantly untrue. Your using a 2.5 hour public vs. private sector employee difference per week if it exists. Your, also, not being occupational specific. Your using some data to fuel your propaganda.
You want to believe in your right wing ideology based on envy, and hate. So you resort to partial facts, and expand them to be something else.
Actually, that wasn't my
Actually, that wasn't my point in the least bit. My point is that it would be nice if all employers just paid their employees more money for working less hours, but those changes cannot simply be ordered in the private sector. Those changes can and are ordered in the public sector. However, paying extra money to people with the expectation that they use it to take better care of their children is pointless. People are either going to take care of their kids and raise them to become productive members of society, or they are not. Not to mention the kids also have the final say in what they become, and honestly a few thousand dollars a year isn't going to change that fact.
This I agree with, although
This I agree with, although the links you posted to are inaccurate ate best. The reality is that government workers are paid less for similar qualifications. Look at attorneys, for instance. While the federal attorney pay is great at $150K, that's nowhere near what someone with similar qualifications (top schooling and top-flight recommendations and grades) gets in the real world. Factor in bonuses and the potential for partnership status, and the difference becomes staggering.
There *is* an increase in pay for public sector teaching - but this is primarily due to exactly what would be private sector. The majority of those schools are religious institutions that don't pay much for just that reason. In comparison to private schools that are not religiously-based, private teachers make significantly more. The same goes for most real professions, for not just salary reasons. A lot of the difference can relate to mobility issues - many of the people moving out of government that take a "pay cut" (which I dispute anyway) do so for a job with far more upward mobility than the government offers.
I'm surprised nobody brought
I'm surprised nobody brought up the role of the unions in all of this. Before the child labor laws children were off the streets. If they weren't they didn't eat. They had jobs when they were 10 years old so they had adult responsibilities. Those weren't 8 hour days either. When I looked up my grandfather's census records for 1940 it documents how he had a third grade education. Then he went to work for the railroad because his family needed the money. Children died in those conditions back then so they changed them. We have gone from the constant supervision of the family to the employer to the partial supervision of the school. With each change we expect less of our children. And we give less. So we get less. We have always had so-called latch-key children but it's how we treated them. A favored line of parents today is "they are just being kids". Nobody's teaching them self discipline. Self-control. That has nothing to do with money, or time, it has to do with effort and reality.
I was a latchkey kid (with
I was a latchkey kid (with responsibility over my younger sister) from the age of 7.
Responsibility, discipline,
Responsibility, discipline, and comraderie was the childhood for many of us in my generation. We stood in line to eat. We stood in line to enter the classrooms. We stood by our tables to answer questions from the instructor. We stood when we gave our oath. We stood when we sang. The older children were appointed to lead the younger children. Leaders were appointed in each class. We dressed alike. Our haircuts were identical. We were one team, one unit, and one large family. Bullies were not tolerated. Leaders were respected. It was an honor to be selected to raise the flag in the morning, and take it down in the evening. Competition was encouraged both in the classroom, and on the field. I have no regrets about my childhood.
In what alternate universe
In what alternate universe were bullies not tolerated?
Also, schools still do the majority of those things.
In the 40's, and 50's in a
In the 40's, and 50's in a different place than suburbia. Not everyone grew up with Ozzie, and Harriet dads, and moms. Not everyone grew up with dads, and moms. Kids do not stand by their desk to answer questions, or wear identical clothes and haircuts nowdays. Maybe in some parochial schools; but not in public schools. American schools are lax; and it shows in the performance scores.
But that has always been the
But that has always been the case.
When was the last time you
When was the last time you were in a public school classroom? There is a great variety in dress, haircuts, and discipline now. Bullying is a national topic now. America's educational system has fallen behind most Asian, and European countries. Your point is that nothing has changed? Are you referring to universities, or primary schools?
America's educational system
America's educational system has been behind many of those countries for a very long time. The book "Why Can't Johnny Read?" was published in 1950. Much of what people see now as being so terrible is not out of line with what was happening in schools decades ago - people just have selective memories.
Bullying may be a national topic now, but more is actually done to combat bullying now than has ever been done before. I'm referring to primary schools, by the way.
As I stated, my memories were
As I stated, my memories were of the 40's and 50's in another place. Also, I would dispute the difference in American schools decades ago versus now. Was corporal punishment for discipline infractions allowed decades ago? Were electronic device distractions around decades ago? Is there more individuality of appearance now than the regimentation of the past?
Where I was educated, bullying was not tolerated because the leaders allowed the victims to mutually defend themselves. Bullying was seen as dishonorable. Leadership was encouraged. It was awarded based on the respect of others. Competition was encouraged. The best won. There was no everyone wins. Some excelled in one thing, and others excelled in others. There were leaders in different things. The goal was to be well rounded in multiple things.
Regarding
Regarding testing:
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/my-view-rhee-is-wrong-a... [26]
And while I would not dispute that American Schools are not the absolute greatest thing since sliced bread, my point is simply that they never were. The original post seems to point out how things are getting worse. They aren't. It's a common fallacy - look at politicians, and their generalization of a golden age of whatever it is they're trying to focus on. Those golden ages never existed, by and large. For every Leave it to Beaver existence, there was McCarthyism run amok, rampant racism, dogs being set on black people, ghettos, poverty, drug abuse, and just about everything we complain about now. It's a cognitive bias that tends to filter out all of the bad as we move about our lives. That's the same thing here with education. People do not remember that education was just as bad, if not worse, when they were growing up (though I do have issues with our current focus on Math and Reading to the detriment of all other subjects).
As for bullying - maybe you're talking about Japan - I'm not sure. I did not notice that you had mentioned "another place." My point was simply that bullying in America has always existed, and the current focus is only a focus on an age-old problem.
Once again the more money,
Once again the more money, and less working hours is only in the public sector according to you, the Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal. "A few thousand dollars a year"? The state did not "order" anything. The workers collectively bargain for raises, and working conditions. It is called a contract. The private sector used to do the same until their collective bargaining rights were destroyed by the private sector employers. Now, the Right's mantra is "do the same to everyone that was done to us".
I do agree with your statements regarding people raising their kids to become productive members of society; and kids having the final say in what they become. Rand Paul is having problems with his 19 year old son now just like lower income people are having problems with some of their children. Money does not make the difference. Neither does whether the parents are employed in the public sector, or the private sector. The major influence is the parents in the formative years.