I’ve mentioned before that I had this terrible feeling that the extended school days were a way to pull kids away from their parents — keeping kids in school until 5:00, a very long day for them — and essentially breaking up families. They no sooner get home, and have to do homework. If they are involved in after school sports, with the added time for homework, they essentially have no down time with their parents. No time to just sit and think.
The child would be on a bus two hours before school. No time for breakfast….so the school would provide one. This also applies for smaller communities that don’t have that bus time, but nevertheless, the parents are poor and cannot afford to feed their own children healthy, nutritious breakfasts. This was one of my pet peeves when working as a substitute — kids would be sooo hungry by 10:00 a.m. that they could not concentrate on their schoolwork. It upset me that parents were either too poor to feed them, or they were so rushed because they had jobs to get to that the child went without breakfast.
And when I see programs for breakfasts for kids…I think “why aren’t they paying parents enough so they can afford to feed their children…?
In the 60s and 70s, with a stay-at-home Mom, kids got breakfast and most households could afford the basics. The importance of this becomes more and more apparent as I see the fabric of society tearing. I see the kids being put in childcare before they can even speak. They are handed over to adults whose only connection is the paycheck they get each week from the parent. This is not their child, so their involvement stops at there. Nobody is going to care for one’s child more than a parent. I’ve seen horror stories of childcare workers bullying children and even pitting children against one another for their own entertainment.
The stay-at-home Moms also have a chance to really get to know their child. I wonder now at young Moms who are rushed in the mornings to get to a job, rushed at night to get dinner on (or worse, pop something in the microwave that is not nutritious and introducing radiation into the home); and not really having a chance to understand their child and the child’s unique pace of development.
So…this morning, I’m watching the Weather Channel, which sidesteps chemtrails/geoengineering, but will go on and on about tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes. During this segment, they were talking about whether a child should be sent home during a tornado warning.
Now, that in itself seems pretty normal.
But what was not normal was how they were talking –my Communications ears perked up at the language.
They said things like “perhaps the child does not have a safe home to go to…”
They also said things like the school should determine whether the school was safer than the child’s home.
They insinuated that they knew better than the child’s parents. And that they were construction engineers that would determine the safety of the child’s home. Yep.
And the school that was flattened in Oklahoma a few years ago flashed in my head.
There is no way that they could tell whether a child is safer at home or at the school. A tornado is so powerful and so unpredictable that there are countless stories of tornadoes flattening one building while leaving the one right next to it untouched. One cannot say with certainty that a person is safer in one building than another. And the Weather Channel itself glorifies those storm chasers who will be right next to a tornado, out in the open…and survive. Hmmm…
So…that begs the question of why they are now trying to say a school will determine whether a child is safer at school than at home. That is a parent’s right to decide. I got that sick feeling in my gut about this…