Abuse in day cares
Mon, 2007-05-28 08:27
#1
Abuse in day cares
Mon, 2007-05-28 08:27
#2
I hate this sort of sensationalist reporting, because from the headline it makes it sound like licensed day cares are bad places for children, when the vast majority of them are not.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/218357]But here is a report by the Star.[/url]
And here's what I'd really like to focus on:
quote:
Since 2000, nearly 500 licensed daycares have received provisional licences, which are granted to centres that do not meet minimum standards on the condition that they will correct serious problems. The ministry has shut down only 13 daycares during that period.Daycares in Ontario are operated by non-profit organizations, colleges, municipalities and for-profit companies.
Of the nearly 4,400 licensed daycares in Ontario, 78 per cent are non-profit and the remaining 22 per cent are for-profit centres.
Many daycares with the most serious problems, according to provincial and municipal records obtained by the Star, are for-profit operations. Studies have shown higher quality childcare is most often provided by non-profit organizations – findings that are disputed by organizations representing private commercial daycares.
At one commercial daycare in Brampton, a 2-year-old almost died of an allergic reaction to peanuts because the daycare did not call 911.
quote:
While the majority of daycares appear to be well run, child care in Ontario suffers from a lack of funding that often translates into troubling conditions and poorly trained or unqualified staff."We've had an avalanche of problems," says Bobby Bhar, who operates two Etobicoke daycares that have had repeated problems.
The inspection reports on his two Children's Corner Day Nursery locations are a parent's worst nightmare.
One centre is at Royal York Rd. and Wilson Ave.; the other is on Kipling Ave. south of Steeles Ave.
The reports detail allegations of abuse and mistreatment of children, filthy conditions and child injuries. Repeated problems have meant the daycares have operated beneath minimum legislated standards for much of the past three years.
Despite repeated visits from provincial inspectors, threats of closure and deadlines to make fixes, the two daycares have continued to look after more than 120 children.
Bhar said he would like to provide better care but lacks the funds.
When I took Early Childhood Education, it was very, very clear from our outplacements that the private, for-profit licensed day care centres sucked and were the least pleasant to have to do your placement, and the non-profit centres were the best.
I would have liked it better if this article had stated that very clearly, right up front, instead of making the teaser line, and the first many paragraphs about day care centres in general.
Publicly-funded, NON-PROFIT day care is excellent; there is no incentive to cut corners in order to eke out a profit, the staff are paid well and therefore take their jobs seriously as professionals, and the standards for Early Childhood Education professionals are high. Day care is excellent for children - provided the quality is high.
This report is good because they need to shine the spotlight on the fact that for-profit day care centres often ARE mills, and they cut corners and the quality is much poorer than in non-profit, board-run day care centres. But they should be making that a firm focus.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that no day care centre should be licensed UNLESS it is non-profit. I know it's radical, but kids are too important to be left in the care of minimum wage, non-professional employees who are working with inadequate resources so that scumbags like this Bobby Bhar guy can profit off the misery of the children and employees of his day care centres.
Mon, 2007-05-28 09:07
#3
I have been told before that non-profit daycares are on average better than for-profit. However there are some for-profit daycares that are really nice and top notch (they may charge an arm and a leg) but they offer the best. So I don't thing banning all for-profit daycares would be a good thing.
I think it's the governments fault after so many warnings Bobby Bhar daycare should have been shut down.
Mon, 2007-05-28 09:09
#4
I was just about to start this thread. I recall having a really hard time finding daycare I was pleased with. With the for profit day care, they had their facilities set up so a tour looked good, but there just didn't seem to be the staff around, and the places looked kind of dingey. We ended up at a non-profit place recommended by a friend, and were pretty happy at the time as my friend worked for the Ministry, and was in charge of licencing. My kid was pretty unhappy there, and we found them to be a bit cold, and not understanding to any kid who might have been a bit outside the norm. (which describes me and my whole family) Facilities, food, and staffing ratio were great though.
We searched a lot for in-home unlicenced, and found both the best and the worst. Some were pretty horrid. On a recommendation though, we lucked into a woman who did in home day care. Our families remain close friends to this day and their daughters and my daughter have logged endless sleepover hours over the years. She did really good programming, and was an all-round great mom. I recall she had one litle boy who was probably diagnosable with something, and who had burned through endless day care situations who couldn't handle him. She consulted with some experts she knew, got the help and understanding of the other parents, and with a huge amount of patience, the kid was able to feel safe and at home there, and settled down. Any other place would have had him on Ritelin.
Just as a follow up, my kid's day care needs are currently being met by Innis College at the U of T. Pretty damned expensive, but you can't knock the facilities!
Mon, 2007-05-28 09:21
#5
I've told this story on babble before, but I couldn't get a subsidized spot when my son was little, and maternity leave was 6 months then. I couldn't afford to put him in $800-1000 per month day care at the time for the decent, public places (or heck, even the licensed for-profit places), so we had to search for unlicensed providers too.
We started out with a woman who went to our church who came highly recommended by others in the congregation. Our son came home on the second day with a gigantic bitemark on his arm and several bruises. Why? Because the stupid fucking idiot woman who was looking after the kids left a bunch of kids of various ages in the basement rec room to play together while she went upstairs to fix some lunch, and a toddler wanted the little jumper saucer that my 6 month-old son was romping in.
We immediately took him out of day care, my ex-husband quit his summer job he started that week (he was in college), and he stayed home with my son for the summer while I went back to work.
There were still no subsidized spaces available by the end of the summer, but we lucked into neighbours whose mother was visiting them from Iran and looking after their kid. My son loved her, and she was really great with both him and her granddaughter.
If it hadn't been for them, I have no idea what we would have done. I was absolutely sick at the thought of leaving him somewhere I wasn't sure about, but I certainly couldn't afford $1000 a month, and with my husband in school, I was the main wage earner.
P.S. A subsidized spot came up eventually - when my son was a year and a half old, and a month before we moved to Kingston to go to Queen's. Fat lot of good it did us then.
[ 28 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2007-05-29 12:02
#6
You know, when you lead off with this:
quote:
Children in provincially licensed daycares have been hit, kicked, allowed to play in filthy conditions and fed allergy-triggering food that nearly claimed their lives.
And bury this:
quote:
While the majority of daycares appear to be well run, child care in Ontario suffers from a lack of funding that often translates into troubling conditions and poorly trained or unqualified staff.
It's hard not to see this as yellow journalism. Maybe not the most dramatic example, but fer cryin out loud....
And I happen to know that provisional licences are granted not due to serious problems that have to be corrected, but because of technical ones that in no way compromises care, also.
People who don't like day care, the ones who labeled the Liberal bait and switch plan "Soviet Style Day Care" will read that article and use it to smear all Day Care.
The pleas for funding further in the article won't be read, and if so, it certainly won't register after that sensational opening.
With friends like the Toronto Star a supposed left leaning publication, we really don't need enemies.
Tue, 2007-05-29 12:06
#7
I agree. I was appalled by the opening.
But it does sound like the inspectors don't do much to reign in the really bad private facilities that don't clean up their act. Those Etobicoke day care centres, if they have the kind of problems listed in them, should be closed, and that guy shouldn't be allowed to own day care centres any longer.
Tue, 2007-05-29 13:11
#8
Well, as much as I don't really want to play devil's advocate here, I don't think it right to close down anyone based on allegations. But having said that, such allegations in fairness to everyone involved should be investigated quickly, thoroughly and transparently.
Three things that are not exactly the strong suit of government.
I think the article does a vast diservice to those professionals who work in day care who carry an increadible amount of responsibility, and take seriously early childhood education.
And get paid no where near the value of their work, due to the vile machinations of the Liberal Party inaction on day care, and the dogmatic meaness of the current tory government.
Tue, 2007-05-29 13:20
#9
I don't think it's about allegations. This guy was inspected and they found multiple problems and they still kept giving him provisional licenses with a "fix it by such-and-such-a-time" orders. That's just wrong, as far as I'm concerned. And it was stuff that directly affected care.
Tue, 2007-05-29 13:37
#10
I accompanied my daughter when she inspected a potential daycare in Toronto yesterday, the day that Star article got splashed on front page. Kinda sets a tone as we were looking.
Now I've just read in the Star that the Ministry will set up a website outlining complaints about various centres, but not until the fall. Does anyone know of a website open now, or know of a good daycare they could recommend in east central Toronto?
Tue, 2007-05-29 17:21
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I don't think it's about allegations. This guy was inspected and they found multiple problems and they still kept giving him provisional licenses with a "fix it by such-and-such-a-time" orders. That's just wrong, as far as I'm concerned. And it was stuff that directly affected care.[/b]
Well, I guess I put myself in the role of devil's advocate.
I would think that no one gets into the day care business as a get rich quick scheme. I would bet that what has happened on the "repeated problems" is that his licence was granted and his day care was okay at a certain level of children. He's probably exceeded that level, in order to be profitable. ( or to maximize profits ) That means the problems could be being one toilet short of the required number, for example, or not quite enough square footage for the outdoor play area, or maybe he utilized a room that does not have a window.
Perhaps I am being naive, but if there were issues concerning imminent danger, such as no fire alarm, not enough extinguishers, or not enough emergency exits, what inspector wouldn't shut him down at once?
I'm playing devil's advocate because the whole tone of the article makes me suspicious about the reporter.
----------
Banjo when you are looking for a day care center, ask how many of the care givers have their ECE certificates and if they keep current with update courses. Inquire as to employee turn over, or the length of service of employees. The longer, the better. It speaks to happy employees and a stable environment. Always remember, it is the caregivers that are the daycare.
I would have thought that a licence means you could take certain things for granted, but apparently not. So check for things, in regards to safety and hygiene. And be aware that they might be on their best behavior for a tour.
Observe the children in the day care. See how they play, take measure of their development.
Ask about the curricullum.
Tue, 2007-05-29 18:15
#12
WHat I find sad is the phenomena of governance by media exposure.
Though aware of issues, the governnment keeps lethargic until the issue hits the media.
Happens often in many sectors of public life. And that is very sad.
Wed, 2007-05-30 03:25
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]I would bet that what has happened on the "repeated problems" is that his licence was granted and his day care was okay at a certain level of children. He's probably exceeded that level, in order to be profitable. ( or to maximize profits ) That means the problems could be being one toilet short of the required number, for example, or not quite enough square footage for the outdoor play area, or maybe he utilized a room that does not have a window.Perhaps I am being naive, but if there were issues concerning imminent danger, such as no fire alarm, not enough extinguishers, or not enough emergency exits, what inspector wouldn't shut him down at once?[/b]
Well, keeping some salt on hand, here's what the article had to say about his two day care centres:
quote:
The reports detail allegations of abuse and mistreatment of children, filthy conditions and child injuries. Repeated problems have meant the daycares have operated beneath minimum legislated standards for much of the past three years.
Abuse and mistreatment of children? That doesn't sound very benign to me, especially coupled with "child injuries".
Thu, 2007-05-31 04:08
#14
Sorry, I missread that. For some reason I thought that what you quoted were about other day care centers, and the allegations about abuse were singular in nature, and not an ongoing problem.
Yes, it's probably time to shut him down.
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:06
#15
I've worked as an administrator for a number of for-profit daycares.
While there may be centres that cut corners in order to make a profit that is certainly not the case in many of the centres that I am familiar with.
This *is* a funding issue and not a profit vs. a not-for-profit issue.
I want to point out that a trend in the non-profit centres is really bad management. I know I'm generalizing but they often have an anti-business approach. And there's no reason why that should translate to quality child care. It just means that they operate their centres in an inefficient manner. And while that may mean that sometimes they spend loads of subsidized dollars in certain areas, it can also mean that because of that at other times they fall short. Sometimes they are bailed out with additional gov't subsidies but this isn't always the case.
While the incentive of private business is on making a profit the other important component of their approach most often is providing a quality product or service.
I agree, though, that when child care space is in short supply you get an environment where parents' often have to resort to low quality options.
Fri, 2007-06-01 14:32
#16
I'm on the board of directors for a non profit day care. At one time, the nature of the business end was very secure, and that went a long way in instilling complacency and a lack of appreciation for the business end of things.
There was a change in the security of the business, to such a degree that most thought the day care would just fold.
But it was decided that the workers were the day care, and that "all we needed" was a building.
Well, three years later, what looked like the last moments on the Titanic has been turned into a secure business again.
But as I was saying to another board member that has a solid education and experience in business, the security and objectives of the day care depend on a solid business model, which includes a project to pay off the mortgage. This would allow us to become a driving force for higher wages and benifits for the teachers while maintaining high curricullum standards delivered at the most affordable price reasonable.
I am a bit cautious about government subsidies as they exist today. It would be nice to run a day care without needing them.
What the government gives, it will surely take away some day.
Fri, 2007-06-01 15:38
#17
[b][i]"At one commercial daycare in Brampton, a 2-year-old almost died of an allergic reaction to peanuts because the daycare did not call 911.
Instead, staff at Rise-N-Grades Montessori School and Daycare monitored the child and eventually called the parents. When Sylvia and Neil Miggiani arrived they found their daughter covered in hives, eyes nearly swollen shut, vomiting and choking. Sylvia ordered staff to call paramedics who saved the girl's life.
"I went through so much to have a child and to think that in one meal at a daycare centre, that it could have all ended," says the mother.
"I can't even begin to tell you how horrible that was."
Contacted by the Star, Tim Waghorn, who runs the daycare with his wife Karen, declined to comment on the allegations, saying they now have a clear licence to operate.[/i][/b]
How the heck did these clowns manage to get licensed as a day care centre after they had so CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED they lacked the basic judgement necessary to run one? Neglected to call 911??? Hives? Vomiting? Choking? Could anyone actually be this stupid?
Welcome to Ontari-ari-ari-o, I suppose.
Sat, 2007-06-02 02:45
#18
I know. I find that astounding.
Of course, if their workers had half a clue and were, oh, say, up to date on basic first aid training, never mind their ECE training, they'd have known to IMMEDIATELY call for an ambulance!
Sat, 2007-06-02 06:37
#19
At our day care, there are instructions for the use of an epi-pen posted, and staff is certified, and recertified in CPR.
Recently, due to the lead scare in London, as I dropped off snarfy the wonder girl at the day care I stopped to see the program director to recomend that we get the water tested even though the day care was not in the parts of the city in concern.
She told me water samples had already been taken. And when the results came in they were posted for parents to see. ( well below safety standards )
The policy of the day care is that all workers have an ECE certificate, although there are some floaters that do not have them. Floaters are needed due to fluctuations in the number of children throughout the day.
I believe they are the most professional staff in London, and perhaps in the province-- although my basis for comparisson is limited.
I'm bragging.
But even saying this, there are incidents. Kids fall down in the normal course of play. Sometimes kids bite each other. And it all happens very fast.
The infant and toddler staff's hands are raw from constant disinfecting of toys and surfaces, but gastro bugs still course through these groups from time to time, even when it is required by the parents to keep their kids home when they get sick .
I suspect a lot of parents bring their ill children in anyway because they can't afford to take the day off with them.
Sat, 2007-06-02 12:15
#20
Yes, there will always be injuries in a day care centre. Children bite and hit and fall off of playground equipment.
It's the way those incidents are treated, and the quantity of incidents (especially repeat incidents, which might indicate that the staff is not responding to the issue), and the circumstances that is the key.
When my son came home with a giant bite mark and bruises on his arms and torso at 6 months old, I didn't know about it until I got him home and undressed him to change his diaper. I just about had a fit. I called the babysitter (I refuse to call her a day care provider) and she told me, oh yes, an older child had hurt him when she wanted to have the jumper saucer my son was using.
How did he get such a beating? Oh, because she was upstairs preparing lunch, leaving a bunch of children of varying ages in the rec room together, including older toddlers and my infant.
There's a difference between some kid managing to get a bite in behind the teacher's back, and being able to bite and clobber a baby. If she'd been in the room when that happened, that kid might have gotten ONE bite or ONE smack in, but she'd have been able to separate them right away as soon as she heard my kid's first wail.
I think people take that into account when there are child injuries at day care centres. How well are they documented? Where was the day care worker and how did s/he respond when it happened? Were the parents notified, either immediately if serious, or as soon as they picked their child up if just a scrape or bruise or bite? How are the staff following up to minimize the risk of it happening again? (E.g. keeping a sharp eye on the biter - and my kid was the biter for a few hairy months [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] - or keeping kids who don't get along separated and doing different activities if necessary - talking to the parents and the kids in order to have reinforcement both at day care and at home that certain behaviours (biting, hitting, etc.) are not appropriate. Etc. etc.
I don't think anyone expects a day care centre to be injury-free. They just expect the day care centre to respond appropriately to injuries when they happen, and to minimize the risks.
Sun, 2007-06-03 07:51
#21
Well, I know that at our day care, not only are the children never, ever, ever, ever, left unsupervised, the number of children are constantly monitored as parents come and go, and if the number reaches where the day care act specifies another teacher has to be there, they are there, even if it means the program director has to pitch in.
And, when mishaps occur, there are incident reports to fill out for the parents and the day care records.
We once toured a day care closer to our house to see if we could cut down on commute time. But as dedicated the staff were, the day care was in an old house, and there were just too many dead spots in the sight lines for the teachers to see everything.
Our day care is a renovated light industrial building, and the rooms are just like rooms in an elementary school, where there are no hidey-holes where kids can be out of sight.
I have always been impressed by our day care, but more so now after this thread.
Sun, 2007-06-03 11:34
#22
quote:
Of course, if their workers had half a clue and were, oh, say, up to date on basic first aid training, never mind their ECE training, they'd have known to IMMEDIATELY call for an ambulance!
Hmmm... I had the same response when I read the article. Sometimes things are complicated.
As it stands now there is NO meaningful 'whistle blower' (or 911 caller) protection for child care workers. To go against the wishes of a supervisor can easily mean dismissal or other punitive measures for an employee. Most of us in the field are living pretty hand to mouth and the loss of a job or a cut in hours can be devastating. I once lost 12 hours a week for reporting the violation of policies and abusive behaviour by staff while I was working in an after school program.
The higher ups were all nicey nice about how much I cared about the kids, but who kept their hours?
Even ECE workers with qualifications, seniority, and a union can face serious problems for challenging a manager. The same goes for other social service workplaces like seniors homes and homeless shelters.
Mon, 2007-06-11 07:06
#23
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/223892]Day care operator attacks, bites Star reporter.[/url]
quote:
Solodar would not speak to the Star, and reacted angrily when approached about eight children seen in her care by reporters on Thursday, ripping camera equipment from one and biting another.
Mon, 2007-06-11 07:41
#24
And the part everyone should be concerned about:
quote:
Experts say illegal daycares are a product of a childcare crisis in Ontario, where 17,000 families sit on waiting lists for licensed daycare – 9,000 in Toronto. Huge demand, with a chronically underfunded system, has fostered an underground industry many say compromises child safety and development.
THIS is why we need subsidized, universal, PUBLIC day care. Anyone who has been the parent of a toddler and has agonized over not being able to afford $1000 per month for a private facility space, and only has unlicensed options available to them (and can't be sure whether the unlicensed providers are like this freak), knows that there is a child care crisis in this country.
Mon, 2007-06-11 07:54
#25
quote:
..despite numerous complaints filed with provincial and municipal authorities.
Wait to see the authorities suudenly sring to action.
Governance by media exposure is a very disturbing trend of our pseudo-democracy, purportedly based on "good government".
Mon, 2007-06-11 07:58
#26
On the other hand, this is the role the media is supposed to play - exposing flaws in the system. I'm glad they ran this article.
Mon, 2007-06-11 10:14
#27
I am not saying that the media should not play its role. I am saying that there shouldn't be "governance by media exposure".
I am very surprised that you do not seem to see the difference, Michelle!
Tue, 2007-06-12 09:37
#28
This is a slight aside from this thread, but I went for dinner with a friend last night, who I hadn't seen in a number of years. She's since graduated from Early Childhood Education, and has worked in a number of centres. This being said, she's absolutely appalled by the state of daycare in this country. She said on her last day of class, in a room full of nearly fifty students, a teacher asked how many of them would actually like to go on to work at a daycare, given the knowledge they had of the system, and not one put up their hand. Basically, she said, like every other business, there is a lot of the industry (and please don't rip me a part if you're a childcare work or own your own business, this is a general statement) that cares so much more about making money, then actually properly serving families. She named a few cases where she was asked not to call Children's Aid, when it was in the child's best interest (which of course she ignored), and so on and so forth. Incredibly sad.
Wed, 2007-06-20 19:22
#29
We have been having trouble finding a non-church related daycare for my sister.(3 years old) [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-06-26 03:31
#30
Hey hockeychick. Have you tried high schools and universities and community colleges? They often have excellent public daycare centres. The best places we took our son was first to a high school day care centre, and then a university one. They often allow people not from the school to use the centre.
I'm not sure what the situation is like in the US, however. Good luck!
Sun, 2007-09-02 04:04
#31
[url=http://www.thestar.com/Investigation/article/252259]Ministry plans to post red notices in day care centres[/url]
quote:
Dozens of daycares in Ontario are operating below minimum standards – staff are poorly trained, playground equipment is unsafe and the daycare is not following health and fire regulations.Sixty-five daycare centres across the province are currently caring for children despite failing to meet minimum provincial standards, according to information the province has made public following a Star investigation.
They've got a picture of some guy who runs a Montessori day care on his SECOND provisional license, whining about how the ministry "picks on" for-profit day care centres. Yeah, that's because it's usually the for-profit centres that cut corners in order to make a profit for the owners. And golly, that would be you! And that's likely why you have a second "provisional license".
In my opinion, day care centres shouldn't GET second provisional licenses. They should get a first one, and then if they don't fix the problem, they get shut down until they do.
The funny thing is, so many parents see "Montessori" in the name of the centre, and they get this idea that it's some brilliant, high-quality centre. Nuh-uh. Not necessarily. And there are lots of opponents of Montessori methods, too. I'm on the fence about Montessori methods, personally - Montessori has some good points, but some not-so-great ones too if you ask me.
Sun, 2007-09-02 04:37
#32
On one hand, I can't wait to see how the day care I am on the board of directors does. I know we will look very good.
But on the other hand, the way things are reported on the web sites might be misleading.
quote:
"recommendations or instructions of the medical officer of health regarding the health or well-being of children."
If it's that kind of sparse reporting, that doesn't help parents much except to frighten them. Anything from a byzantine interpretation of a requirement to, well, raw sewage backing up into the day care.
I recall that at one time the Law Society of Upper Canada, in an attempt to be more transparent, published names of lawyers who had been found by the society in some kind of misconduct. All they did was publish the names and the length of their suspension, but not[i]why.[/i] For all the public knew, it could have been for misrepresenting a client, stealing client's money, or, I guess, failure to pay dues to the Law Society. Unfair to the public, and the members of the Law Society at the same time.
And, here's an example of Byzantine application of rules. I attended the intake interview for Snarfy the Wonder Girl's after school care, which is run at her public school by a non profit day care. At this interview we were told that during the time she is in care, she cannot play on the school play ground equipment.
Why? Because the Thames Valley board of Education is only required to preform to a ( memory here, dates might be off) 1997 safety standard, while the Day Care act specifies a 2003 standard.
So, at recess the playground equipment is "safe" but a few hours later it isn't "safe".
I suppose if she gets caught by an inspector playing on the equipment after school, it would be written up as "care givers ignored play ground hazards" or something, leaving parents to surmise that kids were outside playing darts with discarded syringes and chewing on used condoms.
Can't help it as a libertarian lefty. I may not be opposed to government regulation, but I am damned suspicious of it.
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-09-02 04:57
#33
Wow, that's ridiculous.
I wonder, though, whether the playground equipment WOULD conform to the 2003 standards? Maybe it would, but it's just not certified?
I think that when it comes to stuff like that, we're way too cautious. I mean, it's kind of ridiculous, the way we sanitize playgrounds now. I remember going to one playground with my son, where it looked really neat from far away, but when you got up close, you could see that there was actually no place for kids to take safe risks at all. The huge jungle gym had stairs (golly, ladders would've been WAY too dangerous!), and safety rails everywhere. Actually, I think there was a ladder, with safety rails along it. The ground was spongy material around the jungle gym because apparently the sand surrounding it wasn't soft enough I guess.
My son was bored in about 5 minutes. And this wasn't supposed to be a playground for toddlers - it was a high structure, with absolutely no place for kids to hang, swing, etc. Because golly, they might fall! And we can't be having that.
Sun, 2007-09-02 05:03
#34
Yes, I tend to agree. But we don't hang out in Emergency Wards too often, either, so maybe our impressions that things are too safe are not based on data. We... hmm... or at least I grew up going to school with some classmate or another in a cast at any given time. We don't seem to see that as often now. And it's likely a good thing.
And early childhood head trauma might go a long way to explain the current generation of political leadership and voting patterns. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-09-02 05:16
#35
I don't know. I guess it's a good thing that kids aren't breaking arms and legs now - but at what cost? I knew kids who had broken arms and legs in school. It didn't kill them. They had something to brag about for six weeks, and had all their friends sign their casts.
Not that it's a great thing for kids to break limbs, of course. And you want playgrounds to be relatively safe. But there's a certain point at which it gets ridiculous, and I think we've passed that point.
Sun, 2007-09-02 05:45
#36
Oh, I know. It's a constant debate in my own head, the health and safety issues involving our children. And Rebecca West will tell you I am no slouch when it comes to "worrying" about our children.
Case in point, yesterday we had an outing (will return to day care issues at the end of this) that involved using the 401. Not only was Scarfy with us, but one of her friends from day care. Whenever I go on the 401, or any significant hwy driving, I always clean my mirrors, my tail lights, headlights and reflectors. Not that not doing so will make my drive "unsafe" but because I believe in giving myself every edge for safety that I can.
When Rebecca and I were married, we had all of my eldest's friends over for a party. We were having a fun time, when I mentioned something along the lines of safety, and they all started laughing-- it seems I am a running inside joke, because, at my insistence, my eldest always checks to know where all the exits are when they go out to bars drinking.
As I always did, and do. After I have scanned the place for likely nefarious characters. Then I'll try to squeeze in some fun.
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Back to the day care issue though.
quote:
In one example, the Kids and Company daycare on Wellington St. in Toronto has had problems with mould and sewage backing up into the centre since 2004. The province has received complaints describing the problem.
To me, that is immanent danger to the children, and the day care should have been shut down at the first occurrence. And if I was an inspector, I would not allow it to reopen until the root cause of the plumbing problem had been found and repaired by a licensed plumber.
The fact the ministry allows it to still be open is reprehensible and a dereliction of duty.
Sun, 2007-09-02 06:10
#37
TemporalHominid
these safe playground and child safety measures are not for children, they are for the parents' peace of mind. It plays on basic human psychology and instincts, as no parent wants to see their children in pain, its emotionally disconcerting.
All these measures may be proving to be counter-intuitive anyway, as the safety measures mean that kids never get to experience the pain that would give them information to pay attention, for self preservation. Kids end up taking more risks. In Hockey, kids and adults are hitting harder. With the introduction of safety gear in schools and organized sports, kids are hitting harder, taking more risks, slashing more. dog piling more, and not developing a healthy sense of self-preservation because they feel protected, to the point of invincible.
Now playgrounds are being installed with soft plastic padding so kids don't scrape their knees or experience pain when they fall. Health experts warn that a sanitised environment may create more problems because children need to experience bumps and scratches to build up their auto-immune response.
Making playgrounds and our children's environments safer and safer is counter intuitive.
Actually this applies to adults as well, as our vehicles gain more and more safety features. Drivers are taking more risks, driving more aggressive etc. People are not content at driving at posted speed limits, they are now driving consistently (city and highway) 30, 40, 50 km over the speed limit. It may be theoretically safer to hit a moose or be involved in a head on collision in your car when it is going the speed limit, but when people are going 160 km down the highway there are not any safety features I know of in vehicles that controvert the laws of physics. People are getting more and more comfortable placing their faith in the safety features of their vehicles.
....
Another angle I have been thinking about as well, is that these safety concerns are middle/ upper class concerns, because only the middle to upper class can afford the daycare safety equip upgrades, the safe sports equip. These activities and day cares are exclusive.
For example, skateboarding is a relatively inexpensive activity for kids in lower income families and inner city communities. These kids are rarely in organised sports that involve a large cash start up such as hockey. Skateboarding can be done anywhere, anytime, does not require a special facility.
quote:
The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) says that skateboarding injuries cause about 50,000 visits to emergency departments and 1500 children and adolescents to be hospitalized each year.
[url=http://www.stayinginshape.com/3osfcorp/libv/d03.shtml]safety equip[/url]
Local middle/upper class citizens call for huge investments (millions of $$) from their municipalities in hockey arenas that the middle / upper class can have access to that the lower class will not, because of location and finances.
Note too. that Harper's government gave tax credits for people that sign up kids for organised sports like hockey, but nothing for parents that buy a skateboard.
The middle/upper class gets to dictate where tax dollars are spent, and it is usually to support activities only the mid/upper class can afford.
[ 02 September 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
Wed, 2007-09-05 04:41
#38
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/253249]From the Toronto Star[/url]
Wed, 2007-09-05 05:56
#39
From the brief statement from "Amy" the supervisor, it sounds like the day care did the right thing in that they informed the CAS as soon as they knew.
I guess any day care centre could get a crappy employee by accident. No screening or interview process is perfect. It's how they respond to such an incident that matters to me.
What concerns me, however, is that they have reason to suspect that she might have been physically abusing other children. If that is the case, then I think the issue is that there isn't enough oversight.
When I did my placements at day care centres (and had my son in one), there were constantly other workers popping in and out of the classroom, there were often two workers per room (because they would have a certain ratio per teacher, so they'd have a room big enough for two teachers and their ratios of kids), etc. This is the kind of thing that makes it much, much more difficult for abuse to happen in child care settings.
First of all, because with another adult in the room, or at least somewhere close by, you have that adult contact that keeps you from losing your mind. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Secondly, because if you're getting frustrated (and the best of us do with kids!) the other can help out, and that way you don't get overwhelmed and lose your judgement or lapse into unprofessional behaviour.