Stage 8: Childcare Surveillance

Childcare Regulations tend to stay off of most of our radars unless you are a parent or have an interest in the child development field. After reading Olive's blog about Texas enforcing a surveillance camera in the preschool room, I realized it should be a topic more people discuss in order to get different views and thoughts.

Olive is both a mother of a three year old and a teacher, so it's pretty safe to say that her understanding of child safety is relatively high. She brings up excellent points to defend the concept of recording the child's classroom such as: a positive step to confirm any accusations and a way to give parents a peace of mind about their child's safety. These are comforting and reassuring measures that a childcare facility can take in order to reassure the parent(s) that it is a secure and exceptional environment with honorable staff members.

Having experience with teaching a classroom of preschoolers, its understandable why a parent would want to have the option to see what goes on in the room. Preschoolers are extremely active and unfortunately do not have full coordination development or understanding of what can hurt them, so it is easier for them to fall down, bump their head, bite/hit each other, or even have an accident. It is inevitable that any classroom will have at least one child that falls into this category, and that is something a parent has to understand from the very beginning. It is both the facility supervisor's (or director) and the teacher's job to maintain an accommodating environment to minimize any harmful activities or behavior. Camera surveillance will not stop an abusive act, it will simply reveal it, and that can be helpful for suspicious situations.

It is important to explore the disadvantages of surveillance, as well as all the advantages. A comment made on Olive's blog gives a different approach to the camera recording idea. If the facility were to create a webpage for parents to access in order to watch in on their child, the facility is putting a lot on the line. If a sexual predator were to hack onto the site, it can compromise the safety of each child in the classroom, as well as the teacher. Nothing on the internet is private these days, so the phrase "password protected," does not mean a thing.

The cost of camera will be expensive initially or later down the line. Unless the facility has the means to fund this type of security, it will create a financial burden that could ultimately run it out of business. Childcare facilities in lower income neighborhoods cannot afford to be shut down because the parents depend on them for help when they are working countless hours or multiple jobs.

The parent(s) need to understand that by putting their child into someone else's hands, there will always be a risk. At some point the child will attend school or outside function that the parent will not be present and neither will a camera. It is vital that the parent do thorough research on the facility before enrolling or dropping their child off. Yes, anything can happen, but it is less likely when the facility has an outstanding reputable background/reviews.

As helpful as the surveillance would be in certain circumstances, making it mandatory does not seem like the best choice. It should be further explored and most definitely optional. The risks will always be there, and to enforce camera recording, the government is literally opening the door for all the avoidable risks to walk right through.

Blog Stage 7: Texas Universities Tuition Increase

According to the Austin American Statesman, Texas Universities are trying to devise a plan to appease Governor Perry after his criticism regarding how universities spend their money. The boards are considering the idea of raising tuition 2.6 percent for residential undergraduates and 3.6 percent for non-resident undergraduates. This plan will raise millions of dollars that will help improve academic advising and expand classes/programs made to help students graduate in four years. 

While this could be a beneficial change for the universities, the stress of being able to afford this will cause more problems for most of the families that already need financial assistance. Unless the universities are willing to distribute more scholarships or provide substantial financial assistance, students will be forced to take out loans and eventually graduate in four years with thousands of dollars in debt. How is a university supposed to sell itself to a student knowing that when he or she walks away, they are taking added expenses that should have been aided or paid for from the beginning? The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M have the Permanent University Fund which provides extra funds for academic and university expenses. The remaining public universities in Texas do not receive money from this fund and therefore do not have as much room to spare when it comes to where their money is spent. It is the job of the university to manage their spending in ways that benefit the quality of education for each student as well as any activities associated with (or funded by) the school. If they have been able to produce successful students before with tuition being less than it is today, they should be able to provide the same, if not better, quality of education (i.e. better technology, more classes, department advances, internships) with the increase in tuition since then.

The whole concept of attending a university is get the education that will award the student with the bachelor or master degree in which so many companies and businesses now require. With that in mind, is Governor Perry implying that the those who have already graduated from Texas universities within the past 10, 15, 20 years lack the academic essentials necessary to succeed in today’s society? Clearly, there are thousands of Texas university alumni from the 70’s and 80’s who have built independent businesses or professional careers with the help of their degrees without paying a ridiculous amount in tuition.