Tax Dollars Shouldn’t Pay for Massage Classes
I learned from this blog post that Parents as Teachers offers infant massage classes. I can’t be sure, but based on browsing the blog’s archives, it appears that the blogger and her family live somewhere in Missouri.
This is an example of a Parents as Teachers activity that shouldn’t be publicly funded. Infant massage is not crucial for every child’s development. You don’t need any special massage program to prepare your child for kindergarten. If your baby grows up without experiencing infant massage, that fact alone won’t cause him or her to be a burden on taxpayers.
I understand that infant massage isn’t the whole focus of Parents as Teachers. But I want to point out that not everything Parents as Teachers does is essential, and there is room for cuts when the state budget necessitates them (as it does now).
I agree; these classes shouldn’t be funded by PAT. But here’s what really bugged me about the blogpost. The mom said she’d done the classes with “her other” children. WHAT? You had to take the classes like three times? Why couldn’t you translate whatever massage skill you learned the first time, into a massage session for your current child?
Which I guess leads to another question. Why didn’t the PAT skills you ostensibly should have picked up with Child No. 1 carry over to whatever subsequent child you bore? Which says to me that PAT is a different animal from the way it’s promoted by politicians and participants.
Comment by ray — March 17, 2010 @ 9:33 a.m.
Sarah, I thought you were in favor of PAT-provided group classes given in public places. I see this massage class as meeting your recommendations in the third paragraph of your post here:
http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/01/how-to-build-a-more-effective.html
There is ample evidence of the benefits of infant massage. Just one example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061108154347.htm
Comment by DaveG — March 18, 2010 @ 10:34 p.m.