People like US

Wanna get your child on the development fast track?  Got $400 and time in the day to spare for a course of classes? Live in an affluent area in the US? Then do not fear, commercially run parenting centres like this Boston based chain may be opening in an area near you soon.  

Little Teadrinker and I sampled our first session last week - we chose the Movers and Groovers developmental class for 9-11 month olds. Having navigated our way through the centre’s enticing posh baby shop to the ‘studio’, we were greeted by a circle of 10 cheery moms and their babies.  Our Akela was an uber parenting expert and Masters qualified early years pedagogue - Brits: think Floella Benjamin meets Tanya Byron.  After an initial exchange of baby related woes and advice, events kicked off with songs and stories, the moms and the brightest babies fluently baby-signing along. Next up was a range of motor development activities involving high-tech props including a parachute. The moms enthused from the sidelines as the babies crawled clambered and toddled around happily in the centre of the circle. The vibe was relaxed, although the competitive under-tone irrepressible “Has Aiden crawled through the tunnel yet?”, “Did I hear Josie say quack already?”.  Akela rounded up with some Thanks Giving advice on safety and dealing with sensory overload, finally sharing some Christmas shopping tips on where to buy the best wooden toys.

The pushy posh parent phenomenon is by no means exclusive to the US, yet in the UK we have not seen the likes of private parenting centres.  Could the reason be that the state has captured the market?  After all, Sure Start Children’s Centres now exist across England offering families with young children universal free access to everything from baby massage to dad’s stay and play and breastfeeding consultations - where they are run well, middle class parents come flocking.  The US equivalent, which started in 1965 and was an antecedent to Sure Start, is not open to better off families.  Typically for the US, Head Start is targeted exclusively at those on low incomes.  Obama is a firm believer and used the Economic Stimulus Package to boost its funding to the tune of $2billion.

Yet in the UK the principle of a universallity is proving hard to defend in the face of massive pressure on public finances - why shouldn’t “middle class freebies” be first in line for cuts?  Ministers are hinting that Children’s Centres could go the same way as Head Start, and as the UK's Child Benefit system, with only the most disadvantaged drawing the full benefit in the future. 

The argument for targeting Sure Start seems, initially at least, pretty compelling. The original architects of the Sure Start programme argued that universal, free access was necessary to avoid stigmatisation of services - something which had been a problem with Headstart. Yet England’s Sure Start experience has shown that even an open-to-all service does not necessarily entice those in the most dire situations, many of whom run a mile from anything that looks like authority or institution.  An early evaluation showed that Children’s Centres were failing in this respect, and a lot more money had to be pumped in to reach out to those families.

But before throwing the baby out with the bath water, politicians in the UK should take time to look once more at the US experience.  It reveals at least three troubling trade-offs...

1/  Targeting early years services could be culturally divisive. As our little venture last week illustrates, while it may be pleasant to be surrounded by “people like us”, the US’s targeted approach has led to a socially segregated, two-tier system.  A sorting effect happens of course to an extent anyway when children reach school age (watch Waiting for Superman for a powerful tale on the divided US school system), but by drawing the line so clearly about who accesses what so early in a child’s life differences between social classes are being reinforced at every level: social networks, peer effects, parents’ aspirations expectations, notions of tastefulness - remember the wooden toys...

2/ There’s a risk of disenfranchising the wrong groups.  A large proportion of families are likely to be left out of the equation all together - not poor enough to qualify for publicly subsidised services and not wealthy enough to fork out for the private alternative.  Many of the would-be excluded families make up the “squeezed middle” whose needs politicians both sides of the Atlantic are now claiming to acknowledge.  

3/ A minority services is often a weak service.  Headstart has survived an incredibly long time, but only just.  Most would acknowledge that it has remained a marginalised service with significant shortcomings: notably, the most comprehensive evaluation to date came out in January showing that children's attendance in Headstart had no impact on their academic, social-emotional or health status at the end of first grade. The lack of sustained benefits has been troubling its proponents for years, but attempts to fix it have been relatively limited.  Such drift would likely not have been tolerated had pointy elbowed middle class parents seen it as in their interests to agitate for a solution.  Crucially, the lack of broad public support is now putting the programme at risk, in spite of Obama’s wish to improve and build on the programme.  


Last week, a vote to renew the fiscal stimulus money for early years was kicked into the long-grass by Congress, meaning that it might be ditched entirely and hundreds of thousands of children could be kicked off the Headstart rolls. The issue hasn’t even made the national press.

Health, wealth & happiness

Little Teadrinker has had an ear infection this week initiating us into the wonders of US health care. Having taken our lead from Campusvillemoms.com, we chose a recommended pediatrician down the road who works from a primary care clinic. The clinic is open 7 days a week and has specialists from 35 fields, all available at short notice. An impressive array of educational toys and a tropical fish-tank kept us entertained in the waiting room, although within 5 minutes we were whisked away by a nurse in Mini Mouse scrubs for a temperature check and a weigh-in.  Next it was straight to Dr Kim for an unrushed and comprehensive examination.  After writing a prescription for antibiotics she typed up a detailed note containing a number of practical tips for managing the pain until the antibiotics kicked in. We were asked to come back in ten days for a follow up,  and booked in for comprehensive 9-month and 12-month check-ups.

It seems that for those able to access it, US healthcare provides a top-rate service. Contrasted with the sort of treatment we have been used to on the NHS, it is nothing less than luxurious. Obama’s Health Reform Bill, much of which came into force last week, promises millions of less well off American families access to such services for the first time.  

Stunning as it might seem to a Teadrinking Mom from the old country, the Bill is proving one of the most divisive in years. The latest polls show that over half of the country are opposed.  A majority believe that it will benefit the poor exclusively, and that they’ll pay the price in taxes. Two thirds don’t think it will benefit them at all.  Most shockingly, 1in 3 elderly people still claim to be influenced by the ludicrous socialist death panel accusations which were put about by some of the rightwing press and members of the Tea Party last year.  The Republicans say that if they do well enough in the November Mid-term elections they will repeal the Act.

Its tempting to put this down to a political culture that is instinctively more individualist and hostile to the state than we are used to in Europe, where the ethos of collective responsibility is generally an accepted wisdom. (See Seymour Lipset’s 1996 book on American Exceptionalism for a brilliant explanation of the roots of these values). Wasn’t Obama always going to struggle, as Bill Clinton did before him, with a Bill that prioritised state regulation as a means for helping the poor?

There must be more to it than this though.  After all, America voted for Obama only two years ago and healthcare reform was one of his stated priorities.  The proposed reforms are small fry compared to welfarist policies successfully sold to the American electorate in the past such as the introduction of social security. 

What’s more, the Democrats have made a good crack of ensuring that the reforms benefit the many and not just the few.  Their analysis shows that the estimated $940 billion outlay will be more than recovered over 10 years through a package of measures in the bill, although some contest their figures.  And there will be a serious clamp down on the most ruthless practices of insurance companies that anybody can fall prey to. No longer will US parents have to endure sleepless nights because they can’t get cover for a daughter with a minor long-term health issue, or can’t foot the bill for a chronically ill son who’s been dropped by an insurer who deems them too costly.  

A quick Campusville dinner party poll reveals a good deal of consensus about what’s really going on: the Democrats are failing to get their message across to “the squeezed middle”.  A plethora of books have come out on the subject in the last couple of months penned by US politico-celebrities such as Arianna Huffington, Robert Reich and Joan Williams.  The thinking is that majority in the middle of the income distribution, and most particularly the white lower-middle/working class, have seen their lifestyles and opportunities decline over the last 30 years and are now being pushed to the limit by the economic crisis.  They are in no mood for listening to reasoned arguments by mainstream politicians, least of all Democrats. 

A little more scrutiny is needed before we accept this theory.  Nonetheless, it is unusual for Americans to make a class analysis - more often they seem to think of class as a quaint British habit, that has no meaning the Land of the Free.  The fact that they are arguing now that a significant class fault-line has emerged seems worth focusing on. If they are right, the Health Reform Bill won’t be the last we see of it.  One for Teadrinking Mom to return to...