Saturday, October 01, 2005

Week in review

It's been an exciting week in my small corner of the District. OK, not really, but I'll talk it up anyway.

Biggest news of the week: Last night I saw my first hockey since leaving civilization. It was only a pre-season Caps/Penguins game, and definately not up to WCHA standards, but when living in a foreign land, even approximations are good sometimes.

Other news: The house is likely going to be really quiet today and tomorrow as 2 of the roommates are out of town, and Ang just signed a lease with Joe a few blocks away. That means Smalls and Ange are out shopping for "apartment stuff" most of the time.

Then there's the new "job". I'm working at a place that does early childhood program development, and is possibly trying to break into doing more political advocacy work. It's a great mission and they're trying to and (seemingly for the most part) succeeding. It's officially a 3 week temp assignment, and I'm happy for something to do during the day, and a bit of income to help defray rent and other expenses. It's just "not my bag, baby"--thanks Mr. Powers.

I guess there are things I can understand having honest differences about when it comes to politics, economics, and the whole millieau. But not early childhood programming. Evidence is mounting on unprecedented scales showing how high-quality early-childhood programming is beneficial to children. The evidence also shows that it's disproportionally beneficial to under-priviledged, and poor children. This means that a society investing in early childhood programs is likely to make it's least-likely to succeed citizens MORE likely to be MORE successful.

That sounds like the first case of a rising tide that actually raises all boats that I've ever heard of. And that's why I don't think it's for me to push. I can't see any logical way for a local, state, or federal government to say, "No, those kids aren't worth investing in." It's basically like saying, "if kids want to succeed, they should choose their parents more carefully." Or, from a business-minded approach, it's like saying, "I'd rather spend a lot of money training under-qualified people to do jobs they are not likely to stay in very long, than I would spend a little money on training highly-qualified workers who are likely to stay for quite a while." Just bad business plan. And what happens to bad business plans in the medium to long term? They lose to good business plans.

So, to get off my soapbox, I'll work at this place for a few weeks, but I don't think I'll be there long-term. It's just too frustrating to see something that actually is clearly beneficial, and see it ignored because of a lack of political or economic leadership. I'd rather find other ways to be professionally frustrated.


alektra said...

What's wrong with throwing your lot in with the people who are doing the right thing, though? What cause is worth more your time than this? You're obviously passionate, and God knows this area could use a white hetero male on its side.

Chinahand said...

I agree, but disagree. I'm enthusiastic about the topic because to me it's a no-brainer. That makes the wrong kind of advocate. Second, white, hetero males should be supporting this effort--but only supporting it. Things are only going to get better for early childhood programs and practitioners when *they* are taken seriously, not just some
"respectable" face put on the issue. Basically, I'm saying this is an issue for people with "priviledge" to play the supporting role.

alektra said...

But if EVERYONE stands behind it, from all walks of life, everyone is going to listen...

I understand it doesn't interest you, but I don't think someone should back away because they're not close to the issue. That means they should REALLY support the issue, because the issue is logically sane, not because people want funding. etc.