The Homeschool Journey

Is Childcare as Good as Mama-care?

Every once in a while I have one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" moments - you know what I mean. In this story, the emperor is gullible and gets taken in by two con-men who claim to make him the most beautiful clothes in the world when indeed they are just pretending and taking his money. But he doesn't want anyone to think he's stupid so he plays along - and then when he leads a parade naked to the world, all his people also play along, also not wanting to seem stupid to their neighbors: for surely they can see the clothes if the emperor says there are indeed clothes. So there's this big conspiracy of silence with everyone playing along. Everyone except a little boy, too young to be taken in, who asks " Why is the emperor wearing no clothes?"

 

Well for me, the "no clothes" issue has to do with the enormous myth in our society that childcare - good childcare of course - and definitions of what constitute good childcare differ wildly - is just as good as care a child can receive from his mother. From 6 weeks on it is perfectly acceptable to hand a child over to strangers because "good childcare is as good as care from a mother".

 

No, it's not that I ever agreed with this patently absurd assertion, but that I never, until recently, had a colorful way to explain its obvious flaws. This is my "emperor" moment - or maybe, more accurately, my "little boy" moment. One can become numb to the arguments back and forth about an issue such as this. But sometimes, if one just steps back from a situation and looks at it with a different slant, then one might just awaken to insight into a dilemma.

 

So let's look at this assertion. People taking this position are basically saying that a mother is replaceable by a stranger and that childcare (good childcare) is just as good as the care a mother can give her child. Let's think about that. So....the woman who conceived the child,  who has a karmic and spiritual connection to him; who carried him in her body for 9 months and shared dreams and life with him during that time; who gave birth to him; who fed him from her body - even if not successfully; who lives with him; who shares a name with him and a family history;  and who  is creating a family and a future together with his father (or another committed loving adult) is totally replaceable by a stranger who has none of these characteristics.

 

Hmmmm.....

 

So what I'd like to know is this: do people who believe this also believe that, say, a woman can be told: "Sorry, your husband is not available to you right now. Here's Fred. He attractive, articulate, shares the same hobbies as you and is willing to spend a few hours with you (paid of course - but not very well) instead of your husband. Off you go."

 

Would you be willing to go off with Fred if you want to be with your husband, the person you have committed to, had a child with, are creating a home with and a future? Is a husband substitute (a good husband substitute) good enough?

 

Don't you want your sister, best girl friend, aunt, grandfather, brother or mother when you want that person? Are they completely replaceable by a person who meets certain criteria outlined by people outside of that relationship?

 

I don't think so.

 

What is missing? A mother's love is what is missing. That is the "glue" that made it possible for the woman to conceive, carry, bear and mother her child. That is the bond that works from the past into the future between her and her child. The spiritual, emotional, physical and intellectual connections between a mother and her child just are not imitatable or replaceable by anyone else. Not even a father - who has, of course, his own very special role. But he is not a mother.

 

An adopted mother also has this mother love - she "falls in love" with her adopted child and she has many of the above outlined connections with her child. She also is not replaceable by good childcare - because she, like her sisters who are the birth mothers of their children, are mothers. They are all mothers - not carers. And if people cannot see the difference between a mother and a carer, then I give up.

 

Of course there are many childcare people who definitely love the children they look after and care for. No doubt about it. But is that love the same as a mother's love? Not for one minute. I know what it is like to love many children - I have worked with children in a variety of settings (including as a day care provider) for over 25 years and have loved many of them. Do I think that I ever loved any of them in the same way I love my own sons? Never. Of course not! Does that mean I was not dedicated to those children - of course not. But it is just not the same thing as a mother's love. I would never have the arrogance to think for one moment that my love for a child I looked after could in any way be like the love from his mother or father.

 

There will always be a need for good childcare (now I'm going to use that phrase!). There will always be reasons for children to be looked after by people who are not family members. And there are many ways we can improve childcare in our society - valuing the work of women who look after children would be a good place to start. But we must work unceasingly to shout out that the Emperor has no clothes on - that childcare is not the same as a mother's care. Or a father's or grandmother's or other long term committed person's care, someone who has an ongoing relationship with the family, is part of the family really.

 

Let's remember Fred the next time someone tells us that good childcare is as good as - or worse still - better than - the care a child can get from his mother. Let's work to help women who must use childcare to find good childcare which does not seek to replace her, but seeks to empower her as a mother, despite the fact that she must work or needs childcare for another reason, such as ill health. Let us work to create mother/child programs which support mothers in their lonely journeys and do not undermine them, telling them that "here is best - you should leave your child here." And when families break down or there are problems which impede a mother's ability to love her children in the way she should, then let's work to support her and her mothering and not remove her children or treat her as a criminal.

 

Some months ago I wrote  about the Madonna Cloak Project. Its launch takes place in a couple of weeks and my hope is for it to grow as a beacon to those who know in their mother's (and father's) hearts what is best for their children.

 

 

Revisiting Jean Liedloff and the Continuum Concept

The very first book that I read that set me off and running on the road to "natural parenting" was Jean Liedloff's The Continuum Concept. Having devoured Ina May Gaskin's Spiritual Midwifery and militantly given birth to my first son at home, I was off and running. Co- sleeping, using a sling, breast feeding on demand...off we went.

 

The Continuum Concept was a relavation. I had been a youth worker for many years and had studied child development at college - but here was a new way to conceptualize and bring together parenting practises in a coherent and, to my relief, humane form. The "in-arms" phase made so much sense to me. Having been a Waldorf teacher, the information about not making life centered around the child made so much sense. I loved this book!

 

But...I did have a few doubts. One doubt grew over the years and that was seeing women who followed the Continuum Concept  becoming, in my mind, punch-bags and door mats to their children. I also witnessed parenting that was very verbal and centered on a child's choices. People took Liedloff's writing about the innate wisdom of children to mean that little ones could verbalize this potential - and thus slid toward a child centered approach which often created very unpleasant children, just the opposite of what Liedloff advocated.  It was interesting to me to see, over the years, how those parents who favored the non child centered approach went toward Waldorf education and those who followed children's choices headed toward unschooling or free school options.

 

To make a long story short, I have spent 20 years trying to understand child development and a healthy way to bring new human beings into the world. My conclusions? That anthroposophy (ie Waldorf) has the strongest and most healthy way of parenting children but that people like Jean Liedloff have very important contributions to make.

 

So one of my problems with Liedloff is the core upon which she sets out her work - as a materialist, her methods are based on what I would see as a very limited understanding of human development (if human beings are spiritual beings, then a way of understanding development which takes no notice of the spiritual element is of course going to be restricted). And this is the basis of her work - that human consciousness is a continuum and that modern babies carry their needs which were formulated in the dawn of human awakening with them. Anthroposophy, on the other hand, tells us that human beings, most importantly, human consciousness, has developed over the millennia and that our present modern consciousness is worlds away from that of previous eras or epochs. Liedloff says that what we need to do is to get in touch with our innate wisdom that has been programmed (sic) into us and which is wise. Anthroposophy tells us that we no longer hear the voices of the ancestors and that our task as modern free human beings is to develop heart-warmed thinking which will help us form the correct conclusions.

 

So we can see that from the start we have two positions which are pretty much opposed. Nevertheless, I still maintain that there is enough in Liedloff's work which can be of use and that, moreover, I believe that some of her findings can be brought into the light of anthroposophical research and understood in new ways.

 

For example, in the  article entitled The Importance of the In-Arms Phase, Liedloff makes some tantalizing observations about the effect of being held (or carried) on babies' energy. She talks about how the adult who is carrying the baby absorbs this excess energy and how this then is the reason why the Yequana babies are so peaceful (the Yequana are the non Westernized Amazon tribe she studied). I am fascinated by this - I too have observed that by carrying a baby, by not making him the center of attention and, critically, by that adult being peacefully centered and busy working with her hands, that this creates happy, content babies. In my anthroposophically-enriched terminology, this is a living example of the Madonna Cloak at work. This is the etheric link between the mother and child which nurtures and supports the baby and then young child, especially in those critical first three years.

 

Another example: near the end of The Continuum Concept, Liedloff talks about the phenomena of extreme sports and of children and then young adults who do not seem to be able to settle down, to be content in their bodies, who crave (or reject) stimulation. Whilst of course acknowledging that there are many reasons for this, I am intrigued by Liedloff's assertions regarding the need every baby has to absorb movement passively from his mother and, should this need not be met, that later in life, children or adults will find other ways to meet these needs. With the overwhelming number of children having some sort of issues with sensory integration, restlessness and basic uncomfortableness in being in their bodies, I wonder about this need and about how something as simple as wearing one's baby might help dramatically with this.

 

However..... as a Waldorf educator, I need to stress that another fundamental need of little children and babies is to not be over stimulated by sense impressions. So here we have a problem - how can one wear one's baby all day long and be engaged in movement and yet live in the modern world? We are not Amazon tribes people. We use cars or public transportation; we could have new experiences every day instead of walking down the same forest tracks that our ancestors made; we are surrounded by the hustle and bustle of modern technological life. We flip a switch instead of working from dawn to dusk engaged on tasks for our survival. And as I certainly do not advocate a rejection of all that is modern and technological, we have a potentially monumental challenge in front of us!

 

So wearing a baby is not an end unto itself - it is wear the baby AND nurturing the senses. And that can be very difficult. We need to demechanize our lives so we can spend more time in healthy active occupations at home; we need to slow down and make our lives more human-friendly; we need to let go of our driven modern go get 'em consciousness and instead Zen-out, bringing peace and centeredness to our mindful daily existence. And somehow, we need to not totally isolate ourselves while we create our lives.

 

There's much more to be said on this. As I've mentioned a number of times recently, we are creating a new website and there will be sections devoted to conversations like these. I hope to stimulate research and study on how we can bring health to our babies and little children and find new ways to nurture our children, based on modern consciousness and freedom.

 

By the end of the month (June 2009) our new website should be done. Please visit us and have a look and contribute to the discussions in the Madonna Cloak section of the website, which will host these explorations.

Early Years Rant 3

(So if this was a movie, I'd entitle it Early Years: The Rant Continues......!)

 

Do have a read through my original piece on this topic and then the follow-up. There have been many wonderful contributions by readers as well - which I am so grateful for. It is incredibly helpful for others who feel isolated or even persecuted for their beliefs about keeping their children home to have a place to go to read the words of those who have made similar choices.

 

In today's contribution to this theme, I want to address the question: Why might Waldorf early years educators be favorable toward including younger and younger children in their facilities? We know why conventional educators do this (it's better for children; get'em while they're young; better early than late etc). But why do some (and I must emphasize that this is ion no way universal!) Waldorf educators feel this way?

 

I would say that it comes down to the potentially dangerous assumption, either verbalized or implicit, that "experts" know better and can provide a healthier atmosphere for one's children.

 

And I think that this is an incredibly dangerous attitude - where does it end? At what point does someone (and who is that someone?) determine that a parent is not doing a good job and that others can do better? Those of us who are staunchly in favor of homeschooling know this attitude well - whether we are Waldorf folks or not. Experts - the Teachers Union, superintendents of schools, much of the court system, many social workers etc - take this opinion and do all they can to discredit and undermine homeschooling. One only has to hear the bone-chilling accounts of parents fighting a divorce where one parent is in favor of homeschooling and the other  is not to see with whom the legal system in this country usually sides.  One can read articles in many teachers publications and pay some small attention to policies passed by Teachers' Unions and by teachers' professional bodies to know that homeschooling is seen as an aberration at best and totally unacceptable at worst.One only has to hear the accounts of parents who got into some tangle with the public schools and then chose to homeschool and ran into problems, perhaps with a school official who decides to investigate or perhaps with a social worker who got involved to know that homeschooling is not 100% accepted in this country! And I know for a fact it is like that in most other parts of the world as well. Homeschoolers don't routinely get threatened with removal of their children by social services anymore (thanks in large part to the fact that in the '80's homeschoolers did some serious organizing and developed strategies to protect themselves) but.... it is not warmly embraced by many of the people who, in their professed interest in the welfare of children, should educate themselves and their colleagues about the benefits of homeschooling.

 

I have had conversations with Waldorf teachers which run along these lines:

 

Me: So why do you take babies into your day care?

 

Waldorf Person: Well, someone has to.

 

Me: Yes... but couldn't you try to help the mother see the problems she might be creating? Couldn't you help her keep her baby at home?

 

WP: But you have no idea how chaotic some people's lives are - I can provide a really healthy place for the little children and then the parents can learn how to do this themselves.

 

And so on.

 

So my answer - or retort - is yes, I am very well acquainted with the utter chaos that rules in many people's homes. But I am also well acquainted with the incredibly empowering process of helping a parent feel like she can actually provide the best for her child and get her homelife and act together! What an utter transformation I have witnessed in people - and how utterly strengthening that has been! My happiest moments in my Christopherus work have been when consulting relationships have ended because the client no longer needed me - she had gained the self confidence and just a handful of tools to be able to do it herself. How beautiful it has been on my discussion forum to read the heart warming struggles mothers have shared as they coach and encourage each other to work through their challenges.

 

And what is more important in adult life than to learn how to do something oneself? Can there be anything more important than for a mother to be validated in her ability to create the right kind of family life to support the needs of the people in it? Isn't human freedom about learning for oneself - and not relying on others? And can there be any realm of human life more important for people to feel empowered than in their family relationships?

 

So I have told my Waldorf early years friends my position. I have told them that while I can see the wonderful benefit from the examples they give and from the parent education they share with the parents of the little ones who come to them, that this is a world of difference away from teaching mothers with their children. To remove the children and effectively say "here - I can do this better - watch me" is, in the end, no matter how compassionately and gently said, wrong. And I don't care how much of a mess those parents are making!!! They remain the parents of those children and they need to learn how to be with them. They need to learn to work through their own stuff and the challenges their particular children bring and break through. By removing the children, one does not get to the root - sure, some parents, through their efforts, will learn to improve their parenting skills. But isn't it more effective and much more human centered to do this with the mother and child together and to promote the intrinsic worth of that sacred place which is a vessal for primary human relationships - the home? Mothers need to learn how to be at home with their children. This is a huge need - why on earth else do so many parents frenziedly ferry their children here and there and everywhere or buy them every thing imaginable - to stave off the sheer misery of being unable to cope with the huge difficulties that parenting entails!!  And if, on top of that, they are told by  the very people who are meant to hold sacred the hearth and home, ie Waldorf educators, that not-at-home meets their children's needs better, then those mothers are doubly undermined.

 

Do you know what one of my biggest concerns about all of this is? Teens. Yup - the teen years. If a parent can't handle the early years, isn't helped to develop the tools she needs to be able to be clear in herself and clear with her children (which, in my opinion, constitutes about 80% of the problems that parents encounter in their early years of parenting) then look out - this will return with a vengeance in the teen years. Somehow, there seems to be a lull in the middle years of childhood - children at school are more orientated toward school (which I'd say can also cause problems but that's another topic!) and life can, more or less, be easy at home - and yet no issues from the earlier years have been substantially healed.

 

But the teen years hit and suddenly it's like those parents have toddlers again - "I can't control him" "he is all over the place" "who is this person I am living with" and - most commonly of all - "I can't communicate with my son/daughter".

 

See, I think that if children are mainly in the home in their early years and if parents find the support (yes - from experts - I have nothing against expertise per se - it's how it is used!) to learn how to parent in the best ways that they can, then the hellishness of the teen years can be much reduced. And even if there are still times of hell (I speak as a parent of teens and as a high school teacher and mentor of teens) then at least some communication is possible. One can deal with this stage of life of one's child because one has suffered through all the other stages - in an up close and in your face way! YOu and your child know each other intimately - all the bumps and warts, all the uglyness. AND - all the joy, compassion, grace and love. There are no gaps - there is no possibility of feeling like strangers. One might have issues - every parent has issues with her teen and vica versa - but they are healthy issues which can be dealt with in a human and healthy way. The child - now teen - is secure in who he is because you have provided him the security of your presence and of making all the sacrifices that go along with that. Whether he admits that ot not, he knows this, somewhere in his soul. And no matter what he gets up to, this can provide an unshakeable anchor in a very scary and unsafe world.

 

The teachings of all great spiritual traditions tell us that problems avoided come back in one way or another. Our culture is not one which seeks the long term slow method of healing (of anything). Quick fixes do not work - especially in human relationships. Time, energy, sacrifice, steep learning curves, pain and discomfort are all a part of parenting. Identifying the bedrock needs of children can be unsettling. But little children need to be at home with their mothers. That is a primary need. Our society does not support this, does not encourage this, does not value this. It is a hard, lonely and frightening job for a parent to take on.

 

I wan to end this blog here - and I very much want to encourage comments to move it along. Over the next weeks and months I want to add substance to a number of my assertions - especially this core assertion that littles are best off at home. This is not what Dr Phil or Oprah  or others say - so how is it that I can say it?

 

The other last thing I want to say is that I have plans to bring some of these questions to WECAN (the Waldorf early years association). A  friend of mine is the local WECAN rep and she and I spent a couple of hours in my garden the other day discussing some of these issues. She was very open and very interested. I told her that one of things I am hearing is that parents are very, very grateful for Waldorf mother/child groups - and also how dismayed many are at being considered second class citizens if they choose to keep their littles at home. I told her that when the time is right, I want to make a formal appeal to WECAN to encourage not so much the growth of early years care, but of  Waldorf parent/child groups. I am thinking of ways that other parents who would like to support this move can join me.

 

I will let you know more as things unfold. For now - I need to hear more from you all.

Follow-Up - Early Years Rant

Well, well, well - I have been bowled over by the responses to the Early Years Rant I wrote last month. It seems I have hit a chord. I am honored to be able to hold a safe space for those of you who have made the often painful and almost always lonely decision to stay at home with their young children. Paul and I are looking at setting up a place on our website where we can offer resources and sharing for Stay at Home Moms , whether they intend to homeschool or not. I will let you know what we come up with when we do!

 

For now, I'd like to respond to some of the issues that were raised.

 

One of the things that is flung at SAHMs is that they are doing their child a disservice, are not providing that child with enough opportunities, are not meeting their needs. Kyrie, who responded to my Early Years Rant, mentioned that the teacher who ran the all day four days a week Waldorf pre kindergarten program near her (my emphasis) implied (or perhaps said) that Kyrie was doing her child a disservice not to enroll her/him in the programmed. This just blows me away - it really does. People come to Waldorf education because they seek an alternative to the information-driven accelerated pace of conventional education, hoping for a place of refuge for the tender years - especially those few precious early years - of their children's lives. They find Waldorf and, looking a bit deeper, they see how it has a very profound and comprehensive view of child development which, in a nutshell, seeks to protect and nurture especially those early years. And then within that supposed same method of education, Waldorf is increasingly bringing younger and younger children into the school setting! What a betrayal! What a heartbreaking betrayal. I don't know if that's how you all feel - but I certainly do.

 

When I started teaching, I had already worked for a number of years with children in non Waldorf settings - mainly with impoverished youth and children in play projects in London. I already knew how damaging it was - by meeting the children themselves - for little ones to be shuttled out of the home and into various kinds of daycare situations. I also knew how special Waldorf kindergartens were, having been to one myself (and then getting to study them when I was a senior in my Waldorf high school). At the very small Waldorf school where I taught we had a strict rule - no kindergarten children to be admitted under 4 1/2. Period. This was because we really wanted 5 year old's, but knew we had to be a little flexible. There was strong feeling amongst the teachers that tiny children should be at home.

 

Unfortunately, this wasn't always shared by the parents interested in the school..... When I started up a Mom and Toddler's group when my own sons arrived, it was full and very lively. But then there was this gap - my group only went to 2 1/2 and there were 3 long years before kindergarten. So parents who were interested in Waldorf started to look down the road at the Montessori school, which took children from 6 months (six months!!) of age.

 

This was dilemma! We were "losing" families. So I began a preschool - the Merlin Nursery  I started a program for children from 3 to 4 1/2 (and yes - I wound up with a few 2 year olds!). We were only three mornings a week, for three hours at a time. Within a year I closed the preschool (it later merged with the kindergarten so there was no longer a pre school - the name, however, remained). I could not bear the hypocrisy of the work. Sure, most of the children were ok - but there was one little girl who clung to me the whole time, sobbing. Even for those few brief hours, even only three days a week, this was just too much for her. She desperately needed to be with her mommy. I felt that by ensuring we - the school - did not lose families, that we potentially damaged children and families. We were not supporting the needs of the children - we were supporting the needs of the school (in a limited non creative way).

 

Another story..... a couple of years later I started to do parent education work in support of a different Waldorf school  and ran groups where we all brought our babies and toddlers and I gave talks on breastfeeding, co-sleeping, child development and so on. The women who attended were mainly career women - and they "needed" to get back to work in a few months. So we started having more conversations about "good child care." Seeing which way the wind was blowing, I mainly recommended in-home child care - with the grave caveat that frequent change of nanny or au pair could be devastating to a young child. Then several of the women, who were breastfeeding their babies and co-sleeping with them announced that they were not going to go back to work.... at least "not yet." By attending my group, they had learned ways of bonding with their little ones that helped them see that they did have a choice and that they could indeed stay at home with their tiny children, that being with one's child was as fulfilling as other work they had done - and perhaps a sight more important. Yippee - I was jubilant each time this happened.

 

But there were a few who remained - and so I decided to get a short term part time job at one of the "best" child care providers in Cambridge, where we were at the time, to have direct experience of what it was I was talking about from a differnt point of view. (For those of you wondering about my own children: they were between a year and 4 years during this time. They came with me to the parent education classes and my husband worked part time - he was a homeopath then - so he was with them when I was out).

 

I was hired.

 

Well, I lasted all of 2 weeks. I couldn't bear it any longer! What hit me most was one little boy, a little fellow of about two. I watched him day in and day out literally attach himself to one worker until she went off shift, then have this time of complete meltdown before he again, literally, attached himself to the next. This happened each day. I asked the other workers if he was new - no, he had been there for about 6 months. The clincher then came when one day I hovered when his mother came to collect him. The director of the center was there and I listened as the mother asked her how her son had been that day. "Fine," she said. "No problem at all." I felt as if someone had turned the world upside down. I felt like the little boy in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes - I could see how distressed this child was but no one else could. For that was what really got me - the director of the daycare center was not lying. She honestly thought that this child was fine - that this was normal behavior and that there was no problem. I should add that when I spoke to the other women who worked at the center about their plans for their own children (they awere all young and childless) that every single one of them said they would never send their children to day care and would stay at home with them!

 

OK - so I am making this WAY longer than I meant to - and have not gotten to a lot of points I wanted to touch on. So I shall close with one last thought - hopefully some of you will post responses and then I will be back with more. I especially want to get back to this phenomena of  pre k Waldorf education outside of the home.

 

My closing thought is this: it is time for more of us to be like that child in the story - to speak out and tell the truth of our experiences and observations. We need to speak out about what is normal and what isn't. Too many so-called experts in this country reach their level of expertise without having any contact whatsoever with normal children in normal home situations. It is becoming a part of the deception pushed on parents - and often with the best will in the world - as to what is normal and what children need.  Studying children in clinical situations is nothing like being with children in the slow pace of the home setting. To those of you who know what it is like to watch a 3 year old, happy and content, quietly burbling on the kitchen floor, perfectly happy with just a wooden spoon and a pot, following you around the house and being a delight to be with (most of the time!!) - we need to share what we know. New parents are terrified of being alone with their children - and the present culture of what is supposedly best for children only heightens this. We can reaffirm the need - the absolute need - that all children have to be with their mothers (or another adult who loves them and is comitted to being with them throughout their childhoods) especially during those crucial early years when a new humanbeing need his mother to learn what it means to be a human being. We can reach out with compassion to those women who cannot stay at home and do what we can to help mothers who must work outside the home to find the best solutions they can - but we will not take the position that any "good" childcare is the same as care from a mother. Most of all, we will be relentless in speaking out in Waldorf communities, reminding them of Waldorf''s mission to foster health in children, and of caring first and foremost for the needs of young children, which necessarily means a life mainly in the home.

Early Years Rant

Every once in a while a thread on my discussion forum hits me in such a way that I let lose with what basically amounts to a rant.... Most of my "sensitive spots" have to do with issues having to do with societal  expectations that it is fine, even healthy, for tiny little children to be outside of the home for most of the day, most of the week. For me "tiny little children" are children under 6 years of age. And when this "norm" is within a Waldorf context - which is becoming increasingly common as Waldorf early years works starts with younger and younger children outside of the home, my outrage spills over as I rail against the spectre of Waldorf becoming involved in what is basically an unhealthy practice, undermining a child's development and possibly health and failing to nurture healthy family dynamics.

 

A forum member prompted a discussion on early years pre school and kindergarten schedules - and told us that the Waldorf kindergarten near her had sessions from 10  to 2. The following is my response....

 

But first let me please hasten to add that my outrage is directed at the societal expectation that early years childcare is a good thing. I am always feel compassion when a parent is in a situation where she must send her little one to daycare or pre school - I myself went to daycare from age 2 on due to my father's death and my mother's need to return to work. But it's when people start talking about how it is better for tiny little children to spend most of their time out of the home - that's when I see red! And now that this is becoming part of the accepted Waldorf practise, I fume!

 

Yet another example of a Waldorf program which seems to have lost sight of the needs of children.... sorry to be so damning - it's just getting to be a tediously everyday occurrence.

Programs for little children should be in the morning - and that's that. This is when they are most awake, when their digestive systems are supporting their growth and the outward gesture of being with other people. We in Waldorf talk about rhythms all the time - where is the healthful rhythm of having kindergarten in the afternoon or all day?! Kindie should end at lunch, when the children go home to have a hot meal and then a nap. Period.

But.... parents work and even those whose schedules can accommodate the inclusion of their children still send their little ones away, convinced that this is what they need. And so kindergarten programs, even in Waldorf schools, have now grown into full days. THIS IS WRONG! It is criminal! It makes cranky, tearful, stressed out children and is bad for their health and their development. And yes, there are many who seem just fine. But we are looking at a larger picture of health - and ill health does not always manifest in obvious ways. Sure, children can cope - even apparently thrive. Millions of children all over the world go to day care from babyhood - but is this, in the long run, healthy? Does it foster the kind of human relationships which we want? I would say NO! Yes - children can indeed adapt. But there is no good reason under the sun for policies or beliefs that little ones' needs are better served outside the home.

When I was a girl at my Waldorf school (the Rudolf Steiner School in NYC ) there was no all day kindergarten - that was unthinkable. Even first grade was half day and it wasn't until SECOND GRADE (not yelling - emphasizing!!) that a couple of full days were phased in. Until we graduated in 12th grade we still had two "short days", ending an hour earlier than usual.

When, as an adult, I lived in the UK, we lived in a Camphill community which was one of three such communities in the immediate area (curative communities where we lived and worked with developmentally handicapped adults or children, based on the work of Steiner)  We were the majority of families at the local Waldorf school (the Ringwood school). We were from communities which deeply understood the developmental needs of growing children and so guess what - kindergarten was a half day program (which many of us only used sparingly anyway) and full days were very gradually phased in for first or second graders (you could opt - as we did when my son was briefly there - for half days in first grade). And the entire school, grade 1 through 8, had a half day on Thursdays when the teachers were then able to have a sane time for their meeting, instead of it crowding into their own family lives.

A pre -k program which runs from 10 to 2 is weird in my mind - I can only think that the rational is that people with little ones tend to get out the door slower than those with older children (true, true!) and that there is something healthy about the children eating together. Nice - but I think it is FAR healthier for a family (even if one parent is out at work) to eat their meal together at home.

Rant over.

Sorry - I seem to explode onto the forum when I'm here! But it's these early years topics that do it to me - I feel so strongly about this and see it everywhere. Even Waldorf early years teachers who themselves know that what they are doing is detrimental to little children's health do it.... It's time to stand up and reclaim Waldorf early years education for its health-enhancing effects and not bow to popular pressure.

OK - I'm done....

When A Child Kills A Pet

(this is a post from our discussion forum. The thread was from a distressed forum member whose 3 year old son killed their pet rabbit. She was concerned that he did not seem to show any remorse and that he showed interest in cutting the dead animals eyes open.  The thread elicited great warmth and support from forum members eager to assure this member that her son's reactions were quite normal.)

 

 

Oh dear. Poor bunny, poor boy, poor you.

I echo what Forum Member X says - have a simple burial for bunny to say good bye. And then it's closed. If your child mentions it - fine. But don't bring it up again.

Your little fellow is WAY too young to be trusted with a small animal. No child under about 6 or 7 - and older for some - should ever, ever be left alone with a small animal. Impulse control is just not a feature in little children - and less so in some. You know your boy can be rough so he has an issue here.

I do not say this to rub your nose in this - but so often people think tiny children can do more than they should ever be expected to do. Even if your son was never rough with his sister, it is putting a huge burden on such a tiny child to give him responsibility which is too heavy to carry. I say all this gently though it might sound harsh. I do not blame you - but now you know.

I actually think the best thing would be to get a new bunny. In this way your son will not carry the doubt about himself in relation to an animal like this. And words are no good in such a situation - he has to experience that he can indeed be around - appropriately - small animals without harming them. He needs to feel carried by his parents so that he does not have to inappropriately rely on capacities which he cannot - and should not - have developed to ensure the animal's safety and his own behavior.

You must ensure that the rabbit's cage is such that your son can never get it out by himself - he must always ask. And do not expect that just because you tell him he must ask and he says yes that this has any bearing on his ability to do what he said - as a society we place way too much value on what comes out of a small child's mouth. We must instead hear and feel behind what a tiny one says and hold the space for him or her because they are not able to do so themselves - not yet. We must hear that by saying yes in such a situation that the child sincerely wants to do the right thing - like all little ones - but cannot yet. And that is where the parent steps in. It is unfair and totally out of touch with the realities of child development to expect that a little tiny child can monitor himself, has the awareness of self, ability to control impulses and self awareness to be able to do this - or that a small child in any way should have those capacities.

However, popular parenting advice is riddled with this kind of advice which goes by the Orwellian name of "gentle parenting". To my mind putting such a load on young children is anything but gentle.

So get that bunny and just take him out to play from time to time. While you hold him, say things like "what a soft and gentle bunny. See how we must stroke his fur like this? We must always be gentle with bunny." Let your son hold him if he asks - but only while sitting down so if bunny wriggles and your boy lets go - again, perfectly understandable - bunny won't have far to fall.

Your son might not want to touch the bunny. That's fine. Don't push. Just play with the animal yourself and if your boy comes to watch just murmur softly "hello bunny. This is your new home. We know how to be gentle and care for you." Your son might even come and hit the rabbit - this might be a way he is punishing himself for what he did - and a gesture of "help!" to you. Do NOT get emotional or alarmed if something like this occurs. Just stay centered and say "here, sweetie, this is how we pet the bunny" as if it never happened. Take your little boy's awful feelings about himself and what happened and transform them.

If your son says anything like "I killed the other bunny" you can say "Yes. That was sad. But now we will be able to care for this bunny and you will know how to be gentle with him." One doesn't want to cover up or pretend something didn't happen - but one also needs to take the emotion out of it (because such a young child can't) and transform it into a healing possibility. This rabbit remains in your protective sphere.

As for cutting its eyes open - very normal reaction. Don't buy into it - it is a way of covering up, perhaps his own attempt to push away the hurt. He might also know that this gets a rise out of you and does this to diffuse the situation - and of course all of this is absolutely unconscious. There is no "bad" or "good" here. You do what needs to be done - and never get into his stuff. If he cannot yet show the "right" emotional response, then you do it for him (whilst never pointing this out to him). There are many cases where children of this age seem to not react even to the death of a parent - please always remember that children of this age do not have a sense of "I" and therefore cannot be compassionate in the way which we adults might expect. By 7 or 8 he will be on the way.

Which doesn't mean that young children don't do things which look like compassion and even selflessness - but I would say that they are imitating. They are feeling and acting - but not out of self, rather out of what those around them do.

__________________

Daddy Central

Here's a post from my old yahoo group on a popular question : how to cope with the chaos that Daddy's daily arrival home wrecks on the peaceful pre-bedtime routine?! How to honor Dad's need to see his children - and their need for him - whilst still preserving critical rhythms which support the children's healthy early bedtime and the parents need for couple time?

 

Of course it has to be "Daddy Central" when your husband come home, Member X! What an exciting time of day - sounds just great - because it's not just centered around the girls - it's centered around the important daily celebration of Dad coming home.I don't know how old your children are but something to think about in all this is that at some point in the evening while they are still up, it could be good for them to see that you and he need a few quiet minutes to talk together. Here is a point where they experience that though they are important, you and your husband's relationship is important too - that Daddy is as special to you (and you to him) as they are to the both of you.

 

Once he gets in the door and everyone jumps on him etc, organize things so that he then helps you quite them down. You need to talk this through with him so that you and he are on the same page - on this and  everything else to do with parenting, hopefully! This can be tricky! Dad might want to play and unwind as much as the children do! One possible cue (that you and Dad have worked out together in advance)could be like this:  At just the right moment you say, "Daddy and I need to check in for a few minutes and then we'll be back to you".

 

They can play in another room - and really, at first maybe for only 5 minutes so you and he can talk for a moment - and it will take time and perseverance to do this - they are not going to be willing at first! And obviously, if he gets home late and they are very little, then this is not realistic - this can be saved for a weekend perhaps. As Member X mentioned in her post the other day, it is vital for parents to maintain and cherish their bond together - absolutely, absolutely!! And isn't it important for our children to witness that?It may be that this few minutes of checking in between you and your partner takes place during dinner - that after everyone has had a chance to share their news that you say to the children, "OK - now it's time for me and Daddy to talk for a bit - you may listen". It is good for us to model conversation for our children. This is not aboutVictorian 'children shall be seen and not heard' - it's practical Child Rearing 101! How can they learn if they never get to experience how adults talk and listen and share? And if life is not centered on them but rather includes them, then they need to see how we talk with another adult. It is important for them to listen in to all that interesting grown up stuff (within limits) and soak it all up and to see that they are not the only important ones. How much easier it is for a little person to relax into life when she or he isn't center stage all the time!

 

Another important consideration here, though, is time. What time is it when Daddy gets home? If it's not until after 6 or even 7, it may well be that eating together is a laudable but impossible goal. Obviously it is ideal if a family can eat together - but work schedules do not always allow for this. And though some people will try to simply adjust the children's sleep schedule to accommodate this (late to bed and late to rise) this will not work for everyone. There are a significant number of  children whose body rhythms dictate that they are tired by early evening and that they rise not long after the sun. This is a really healthy thing - do you really want to mess with it? The human body, like every other living thing, has real and discernible rhythms - and rhythms are a key to good health.

 

And is it really worth it if your children are cranky, whiny and miserable because they are utterly exhausted? It is unfair to expect them to behave well under such circumstances. What benefit is it to anyone in the family to sit through excruciating meals with horribly tired children?

Again - not all children are like this. Some adapt well to having their internal clocks moved to suit adult schedules. You will know - if the children are miserable and unpleasant to be with, it is likely that they simply cannot adjust. Have a look whether they truly are able to sleep late in the morning as well - children under 4 need about 12 hours of sleep; 4 - 6 about 10 hours; 7 and up around 9 hours. (And teens also need about 9 hours of sleep - they also get cranky and horrible - but that's another story!!)

 

If this is the case in your family, can you try to feed the children first and get them bathed and in their jammies before Dad gets home? Then when Daddy arrives there is 5 minutes of rough housing. Don't let this go too long as it can become impossible to calm the children down again. And, unfortunately, there are a significant number of children who simply cannot handle pre bed time exuberance, no matter how brief. They spiral out of control and cannot then get to sleep. They need Daddy t arrive home peacefully and quietly - quite an exercise in self control for a husband to take on!

 

Assuming the children can handle some "Daddy Central" time, Daddy needs to be aware that he is responsible for transitioning to quiet time and to bed. Once play time is over,  he can start to quietly hum a soft song whilst "putting the house to sleep" - closing curtains, dimming lights and then quietly taking the children to their bedrooms (or to the family bed). He reads or tells a story, says a verse or a prayer and sits with them for 10 minutes while they fall to sleep.

 

In the meantime, Mom cooks dinner for herself and her husband.For many couples, this solves it all - children see Dad, children get to bed at a decent time and get the sleep they need, dad gets to have a special time with the children, and parents have precious couple time.

 

A Question of Control

Here's a somewhat reworked piece that I wrote on my forum in response to a member wondering whether she was being too controlling of her children. She has three little girls - a pair of twins and another child, all under 5. Her children demand that she bring things to them - and then reject what she brings. They say what they want to do all day long - and she finds herself following them.

 

I don't think you are being too controlling - I would even gently suggest you are not being controlling enough!

Your children are too little to be "told" that books shouldn't be ripped - they must learn by example. And so I would suggest that books live on a high shelf and only come down when you are looking at the books with them - and you are holding the book and guiding how it is looked at. Our precious books lived on a high shelf until my youngest was about 5 or 6. After that, they knew how to handle precious things. Books are not junk to be torn and drawn on - they have beautiful stories in them.  So much of what one wants to do out of Waldorf has to do with cultivating a feeling of reverence in the soul of the child - and to create the right mood for learning. Allowing children to destroy things only destroys such feelings and never allows the right mood to develop. To allow a child to destroy is to allow something within that child to be destroyed. Exuberance is one thing - destructive behavior is another. But.... at this age it cannot be left to the child to determine how to act. And so the mother must create (or control if you will) the environment and help the children learn. No child comes to earth understanding how to live as a human being - this is something we must  start to learn as children (and continue to refine all our adult lives!)  and is the most important lesson of all. It is a major reason why I am so in favor of homeschooling - because the family is the right place for such lessons to unfold. For some children such lessons are learned slowly - others really do seem to already know how to act.

 

Out in the garden the children can mash and build and destroy in the sandbox - no harm is done. But they need to learn to not hurt plants and animals - and can never be assumed to know how to do this when they are under 5 or 6 - or even older for some (especially those who have impulse control issues). "Look at this lovely tree - let's watch how the wind dances with the leaves" - no moralizing ("you must not rip tree leaves"). Speak to what lives in the child's soul - the innate sense of Oneness.  To be One is to completely empathize with the Other - including if the Other is a tree. Thus is laid the moral foundations for life.

As for puzzles, I would suggest you thank your friend warmly - and put them away.. No tiny child needs 15 puzzles! This creates the kind of "more, more, more" situation which, again, is absolutely counter to what one wants to achieve! I would also gently suggest that you think long and hard about having  any puzzles for such tiny children anyway. A puzzle has one right way to be done. One has to develop a kind of linear thinking to complete a puzzle which is totally at odds with the kind of free flowing picture-based thinking that should be allowed to live in very young children. Logic and linear thinking are great - but they are the domain of much older children and adults. Tiny children  should not be pushed into acquiring this kind of thinking until it unfolds naturally, when they are ripe.

Back to your relationship to your children's play, Forum Member X -  I would never get into "bringing the children" their entertainments - you do your work and that's that. On occasion you could find times to play with them or read to them. Otherwise they follow you around - and if they don't join in, then they can get their things themselves. You could have a special time when you are involved  with them doing things like cutting up, drawing etc. Otherwise it's dollies and blocks and the few other things they have free access to. Everything else comes out only when you are involved and you are carrying the situation. (and when Mama is having a rest that is also not a time for fetching and carrying - they are not too young to start to learn that).

You are not there to fetch and carry for your children - remember - it's child inclusive, not child centered!! This is a huge difference! And with three tiny ones, I strongly suggest you consider what that means and implement it before you become exhausted!!

You do - they join in or are in your aura, your place of work. You create, carry, transform, and ensoul the home. They learn via your actions and your mood. This stage will not last - but if you want the years to follow to run smoothly I strongly suggest you turn things around and make sure that you do - and they follow. Then they will have a template as it were to build upon - they will know that "this is how we look at books;" "this is where the toys live;"  "this is what Mommy does and what we do"- not because of your words and their premature choices and so-called freedoms.... but because what you have done is imprinted upon them. This is just what the article (we read on the Forum)  by Michaela Glockler is about. Morality (which can be understood as a sociable way of living with other human beings) comes through activity in the young child, from her having her parent (or teacher) work in the right way with her, establishing what is good, true and beautiful. Then she can work on that herself as she grows older. When real freedom and choice start to appear at adolescence then she won't flounder - she has something upon which to build and to push off from, to find her own individuality and real freedom.

So rein those little girls back in! Set up just a few select things they can play with - and find ways to engage them in your work. No choices - "We are in the bathroom now - let's fill the tub with bubbles and you scrub the walls". It is no wonder they prefer to draw - they are seeing whether you will give them what they ask for. This is interesting - Mommy says she wants us to help her in the kitchen - but when we say we want to draw she gives in.... This sounds like manipulation - but it's not. But it is the way that little children learn about the world, themselves and the adults around them. They need to test and they need to learn where you begin and end and where they begin and end.

 

 If all of this makes sense to you and is the way you now wish to work with your children,  don't expect your relationship with them to transform overnight! They will perhaps scream or fuss or refuse. That's fine. You carry on - there's no harm in the children having a fuss when they don't want to do something. You just carry on. Reach out to them from your heart as you continue with your tasks about the house - be at peace and do not get into their "stuff". This is not about you . It is about three tiny little children learning and growing - and throw out any AP notions you might have that some crying is harmful for children of their age. It is not - it is how they learn. Do not feel you have failed your children if they cry. They are not babies lying alone in a crib at night - they are toddlers and young children learning to deal with their frustrations and pain - and learning how to be social and part of a family.

 

 At their age they are entering the most powerfully compelling time of imitation  which comes to the fore at about 5 years of age - trust in that. Just keep on scrubbing that tub and perhaps do something interesting like starting to whisper a story. Chances are they will have to quiet down because they will be interested to hear what you are saying - and then they will forget about screaming. However.... as two of them are twins, this could take a long time as they might support and reinforce each other. But don't give up! You don't want 7 year old twins who are demanding and refuse to do as you ask! As horrible as that could be for you, it could be 100% worse for them. No child wants to be unpleasant to be with.

__________________

Helping Little Ones with Manners

Here's another reworked post from our Waldorf at Home discussion forum.... If this is a topic which interests you, do consider purchasing my talks on Good Manners and on Talking Pictorially to Young Children for more practical help with this! The following is my response to a post from a member who asked a number of questions about what she should expect from her children (under 5 years of age) in various social situations.

 

 

I think it's right to want one's children to be pleasant to be with - and I wish all parents thought about that! There are a lot of folks out there who seem to think there's no problem when their children are anti social - either thinking that it doesn't matter or that "that's what kids are like." Neither is true. All children like to be pleasant to be with - we are, after all, social beings. But it takes a long term for children to learn how to be social - and longer for some than for others!

However.... everyone has different parameters here - and that's where the confusion can start. I think that tiny children who are shy should not be expected to say thank you etc - but that it is quite right for the parent to say it to the person for them. As they get a little older, you could start to whisper to them (perhaps bending down to them "shall I thank Granma for the present or will you?" Or - "Let's thank Granma together" and playfully trying to do it.) Sensitive adults should see that your children are shy - but I do think it's important that they are seen as participating in good manners in some way - it could be that you pick each one up as you thank the person - they are thus participating via you.

I think the whole kissing and hugging issue is very sensitive and very difficult. Part of me (despite a part Jewish part Italian very huggy and kissy family) thinks it's awful to submit children to that ordeal. On the other hand, on the rare occasions when I brought my sons (brought up in the UK where people stand about a mile apart when expressing gladness to see each other) to NYC to see the family, I figured it wouldn't kill them to be kissed and hugged and thrown around and generally passed from hand to hand by my enthusiastic relatives. OK - they were a bit shocked by the end of it - but they survived - and they learned something about the other side of their family.

So there's a lot of cultural issues here - very hard to navigate.

As for the play thing.... stop talking and start doing!! You need to keep them fairly close during those times that such squabbles are most likely to develop and get right in there and show them how to play. Remove the toy from the offender. Give it back to the one who had it stolen. Take the offender away from the situation and go peel carrots with her in the kitchen. Accompany her back and hand her a new toy - if she insists on the old toy, take her back to the kitchen. If she cries and screams - let her. It is ok for children to cry. There's a bit of an AP (attachment parenting) thing against crying which sneaks in, inappropriately, to the post-baby years. Letting a baby cry it out in a crib - I also could never do that and don't think it's healthy. But as the child grows, if she needs to cry out of frustration or anger, that's ok. She has no other way to express herself - and does not need another way until she grows into an ability to start to express her feelings - and that kind of self awareness should not come at such an early age. Many of us fear our children's strong emotions, feeling somehow we are failing them if they rage or cry. Thus so many parents try their hardest to teach their children various skills so that they can speak and name their feelings. But I would say that this is actually far more harmful than letting the child cry or rage. By bringing her precociously into self awareness (which is  what one needs in able to name ones feelings) then one is shortening the pre intellectual stage of consciousness of the young child, the stage of oneness where there is no true sense of "I". These are the years of working and learning via the physical body - and physical responses from the child such as crying and screaming are part of that.

As for the whole apologizing for hitting her sister thing, I would just say simply but firmly to the child in such situations "No - that's not ok." Remove her. Then later on, help her do something nice for her sister (redemption - always redemption). At 3 1/2 she is too young to do this on her own. So you say "We're going to draw a nice picture for your sister. She felt bad before when you hit her." No recriminations, no guilt, no therapy-speak, no fuss. Simple fact - this happened, this how we make it better. Even if she does not cooperate - you do it. You are still powerfully connected to your little ones and what you do influences them. You give the other child the picture in the "offender's " presence - and in her hearing say "This is a card from X. " You don't even need to explain. They know.

I think part of your quandary, Member X, might be a missing piece from the modeling/ discussion thing - it's the physical aspect. Little ones need to be picked up, handled, moved from one place to another, removed from situations, held when they scream etc etc. This is scary - and hard. But without it, one is forced into discussion with them - and we all know how useless that is. And you have discovered the limitations of modeling - it is important what we do, but when the child is in a state of anger, is out of herself, she can no longer copy our behavior. She needs the parent to provide a physical response.

__________________

Caring for a Cat

(I am now starting to put selected posts which I have written on my discussion forum here on my blog... I can't re-print the whole conversation which we have, but just a few snippets here and there which I think others will find useful. The following was about how to involve very young children in the care of a household cat)

 

 

I do think that lots of animal stories can help - and also stories about your cat in particular. Involve the children in kitty's care - "look sweetie - see how kitty purrs when we pet her? When she arches her back like this, she's telling us how much she likes us. Can you arch your back?" Help them enter into the cat's experience by imitating and "being" the cat (to some extent). "Can you purrrr..." "Here let me brush your hair gently just like we brush kitty." And so on. Tell them little stories about how your kitty was born - how you got her and brought her home... tell them little stories about a cat that lived in a family with two children and how kind the children were to the cat... and always, always, always use imitation when interacting with the cat around the children so they can see. No mention of negative stuff - just model and tell strories about the right way to handle a cat.

Telling such tiny children "not to" won't work - they don't have the inner experience yet to use such information. They are experimenting - kitty does interesting things when they are "mean" to her. And though they can know that it is not ok to hurt kitty, their "meanness" is not introspective, is not arising out of a moral basis - so it can't really be termed "mean".

This is not in any way to say that it is ok for them to hurt the cat! But what it does mean is that you will have to be extra vigilant and make sure that you are right there so that kitty does not get hurt. And it might mean you need to put the cat out more or close her into a room where they can't get at her - if you would not know that they did this. You have to both protect the animal and be preemptive to avoid them hurting her.

If you put the cat out and the children ask for her to come in, you can say something like "Kitty would like to come in - but only if we all have our gentle hands on. Can you show me how you use your gentle hands?" etc. If the "rough hands" start to be used, then kitty must go back out (or into another room) and you need to say something like "Oh dear. Looks like you forgot your gentle hands. Kitty needs to go away now. She doesn't like rough hands."

Good luck - this could take a lot of energy on your part - but in the end it'll be worth it!

__________________