Kids are crawling around in the dirt, screaming, and have not yet had their diapers changed because the day care provider seems to be in a trance watching the latest episode of the Montel Williams show. One of the workers strikes a child because she won’t stop crying about how hungry she is. The other worker just sits in her chair drinking Jack Daniels with a little Coke mixed in. Not all is well at the Wee World Child Center. But is this the impression that the public perceives of our daycare system in America?
Well, most people would say that this is how only a few daycares are run. But many people would still state that kids who have not been in daycare have a better chance at a more enjoyable life than those who have. Susan Faludi, who frequently writes about women’s issues and is the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, promotes daycare as an enhancement in a child’s life. In her essay, The Kids Are All Right, she claims that kids who attend daycare are more social, experimental, self-assured, cooperative and creative. Faludi’s argument is convincing because she provides solid authoritative sources, gives personal experiences of other girls who have been in day care, and refutes other researchers claims.
Susan Faludi dives right into her argument and hits us with an informative source. Faludi cites Alison Clarke-Stewart, a professor of social ecology at the University California at Irvine, who found that social and intellectual development of children in day care was six to nine months ahead of children who stayed at home. This source is reliable because the author of the statement is an expert in the field of social ecology. Therefore this is an opinionative informative source because the researcher could be biased toward one side of the argument or the other. This matters to Faludi because audience could question the reliability of the source.
Aggressive Behavior and Classroom Management Many people wonder what the "normal" behavior for child is before anyone else is to think that the child has a behavior problem or I should say is a "problem child." But what many people don't understand is that every child is unique, and the process of growing up and their behavior all depends on how well the parent or caregiver provides the love, ...
Susan Faludi also cites personal experience in the form of interviews done by Delores Gold and David Andres in paragraph number two. The interviews of the girls provide not only data on childcare accountability, but also serve to put a personal and more intimate effect on the argument. The interviews have a great effect on the reader because they are grounded in reality and have been conducted by experienced researchers. Readers find this type of persuasive tactic convincing because audiences respond better to real people rather than statistics.
The final part of Susan Faludi’s essay refutes and disproves other researchers claims that childcare has negative effects on children. Her critics state that in day care newborns will suffer permanent damage. The studies concluded that infants who were taken from their mothers had tendencies later toward juvenile delinquency and mental illness. Faludi then goes on to state that these studies do not apply because the test subjects had not been taken from childcare centers, but rather from orphanages and hospital institutions. Faludi clearly uses the argumentative tool of rebuttal. First, she gives a different perspective on the issue that has not agreed with the rest of her paper. Then she explains to the audience why the source is unreliable.
The other source she finds to be unreliable is that of Jay Belsky, once a leading supporter of childcare. Jay Belsky, a psychologist from Pennsylvania State University, stated that “there were few if any significant differences between children raised at home and those in childcare centers.” Then he announced that he had changed his mind: Children whose mothers work more than twenty hours a week in their first year develop an insecure attachment towards their mothers. Faludi refutes the previous statement by saying that in one of the tests the study’s panel of judges found the infants to be insecure and in the other the panel found just the opposite. The difference in the results was traced to the judges’ own bias against childcare. In the one study the judges were not told ahead of time which babies were in day care and which were not, but in the other study they were.
Child Study Observation To begin, I observed two children, one boy and one girl, at the Lakeview child study center. I observed substantial differences in how the two children interacted with other children, as well as adults. First, I observed the boy. He went through periods of verbal and non-verbal interaction.For example, he would speak to a teacher by asking her to watch him hoola-hoop. Then, ...
Both of the previous paragraphs serve to refute a claim made by a critic of childcare. This way of argument is most convincing because she provides two good sources on the subject of the argument then disproves them and finds holes in their reasoning. Faludi does this to establish rebuttal in her essay. The purpose this serves is to give the audience another valid viewpoint on childcare, then give reasons why that viewpoint may not be so valid.
In her essay, Susan Faludi successfully shows that childcare is beneficial to children of all ages. The essay changed my view of daycare also. I was a daycare child for most of my youth. Until I read this essay, I never considered that my days in childcare could have been the reason for my independent and socially advanced nature. Certainly the daycare I attended was nothing like the one I described in the opening paragraph. The target audience, which is working parents, childcare providers, and people who have doubts about childcare, would be affected in a positive way by this essay.