Tom Kertes

The CBC today covers recent calls of BC’s child care advocates for adequate funding for families and young children in need of quality daycare and other child care programs. While advocates point to Quebec’s $1.8 billion annual investment in child care, an example for what’s possible in BC, the government response is that costs should be balanced with requests for services by the public, treating child care as a service and the government as a service provider.

But child care, more than a service, goes to heart of our values as a loving and kind community. And government is much more than a service provider. To mistake otherwise is to miss the point of democracy itself, losing sight of the role of government to ensure fairness and equity for everyone.

From the CBC coverage of what Mary Polak, BC’s Minister of Children and Family Development, has to say about why the BC government is failing to fund quality care programs for all BC children and families:

“I think it’s a matter of what people are willing to pay in taxes versus what services they request, so again we’ve continued to increase and expand our child care service in B.C.,” said Children and Family Development Minister Mary Polak. read more

This quote makes me ask: When a mother cares for her infant son, is she providing a “service”, or is she doing something more?

Polak misses a major point about both the role of government and of child care. Government is not a “service provider” but is instead responsible for providing services based on the values of fairness and justice for everyone, not just those lucky enough to be able to afford essential services on the private market. Remember, the more valuable something is, the higher the price that can be charged on the private market.

This is why life-essential services, like water, food, housing, health care and child care cannot be provided on a fair basis without the shared efforts of a community through its democratic institutions. Otherwise, the price charged would be based on profit alone, and the value of human life and the public interest would get left out of the equation. When we value something so much that we’d pay anything, such as our health or the well-being of our children, is when we work together as a democracy to make sure that our most valued needs get met.

The truth is that most child care is already done as unpaid work, by struggling parents and other family members who are trying to balance time at work, in commute and with family in order to make ends meet. Child care is so valuable to almost everyone in our culture that we’ll do it without pay, and even at considerable cost. That’s because we value the well-being of our children more than even that of ourselves. This is why public supports, ensuring fairness and supporting quality community, are so needed in child care.

We should not forget that the calls for care are constant: Just listen to the constant calls by BC’s children for hugs and attention, stories and games, time with friends, safe places to be and more time with their family and friends. Will we answer these calls by responding to the highest bidder, or by providing care for all children and families through comprehensive programs that are funded with public support? Does Polak not hear these requests from BC’s children, who are asking for more time with their families, better care programs and fairness for everyone (a value that most children that I’ve worked with hold as paramount)?

BC families overwhelmingly value taking care of their children – this is a fact borne daily by the countless hours of child care being provided almost entirely by either unpaid or under paid child care workers (parents, grandparents, daycare workers, nannies and everyone else who cares for children). This leads us to better questions than that posed by Polak: Should rich families alone be able to afford adequate supports in caring for their children? Should the children in low-income families be provided lower quality care than those children whose parents have better paying jobs? Should we pay daycare workers and nannies poverty wages, or should we pay living wages to child care workers?

Moreover, the BC’s government response to calls for adequate public investments in child care programs misses the mark in the value of child care. Beyond the value of meeting children’s need to be cared for by loving and nurturing adults and to be included in a community that cares for all its members, child care programs help us advance the values of families have more time together and of early childhood education. With increased commutes, higher housing costs and lower-paying jobs for many workers, families are struggling to have time together. Publicly funded comprehensive child care programs can help support families and increase time that families have together. Locally provided care that convenient and doesn’t add another level of commute, flexible hours and affordable prices are possible with adequate public investments and can all go a long way to providing more time for families to be together.

Child care and education occur at once and there is a public interest in providing education on an equitable and universal basis, because education helps each child realize their own potential. With public schools – for children and people of all ages – we are able to provide everyone with a fair shot in life. Schools, including early childhood care and education programs – are not merely services, but are core to democracy. If we make schooling into a commodity for only the rich, then we undermine the possibility for an informed citizenry to sustain our democratic institutions and to pass on the cultural values of fairness, democracy, respect for different cultures and inclusion of everyone.

Child care goes to the heart of what kind of community we are and can be. When we decide to work together, as a democracy, to support each other, treat each other with respect and kindness, and to care for our children we living up to our values as loving and caring people. But when we treat child care as only a service, something to be bought and sold on an out-of-control market, then we fail to live up to our values of fairness and equity or to our vision of communities working together to support each other.

Originally posted at Liberation Learning.

This annoys me:

Now the Hill Times has an article about how the Conservative government’s decision to change the mandatory long form census into something elective, has affected the “morale” within the Statistics Canada department.

Am I supposed to care about how public sector bureaucrats feel about their job? This pearl-clutching melodrama has been going on for a month now, and every subsequent opinion piece on the story gets less and less interesting. read more

Adrian MacNair, who wrote the text above, says “cry me a river” because he thinks that census workers are simply annoyed with their boss – akin to a bad contractor who doesn’t put windows on a condo to spec.

But MacNair is forgetting that he is the boss of the census workers, and that the morale of his workforce matters if he wants to get the results that we need to ensure quality of life and the delivery of effective programs by our public sector workforce.  The morale problem at the census stems from the fact that we – the public, which includes MacNair – are failing to defend the important role of an independent census.

And perhaps the low-morale-problem of the condo contractor who can’t put windows on right stems from the fact that his client is a bit of a jerk who doesn’t think workers require the right tools or adequate resources to get the job done. Managers should never forget that they are responsible for outcomes, and that part of getting the desired outcomes from workers requires being able to manage a workforce by providing materials, listening to and following sound advice and treating workers with appreciation and respect.

If census agency workers were feeling low morale because of outcry over bad census management on the part of the agency, then I’d say that the census agency needs to be held to account and do its job. That’s because we – the public – depend on the quality of the analysis and data collection by our public census agency. We depend on it for our health, our safety, our education, our parks and many other essential services and programs provided by both the public and the private sectors.

But when a morale problem is because we’re failing to do our job in providing the right materials and conditions for the work of the census to meet our need for quality and impartial data collection, then I think the blame for the morale lands on us – the public in charge of supporting the agency.  We are so much to blame as we are called to respond to what our workforce is telling us.  If we want to have quality census data, then we should listen to the people who work for us to ensure that we have the information we need.

Treating the public workforce as a core part of democracy makes sense, simply because this is a fact. If we fail to have a qualified public sector workforce we’ll also fail to have effective public services and programs. As a public we work in partnership with our employees to get the outcomes we want and depend on.  Let’s not forget this, especially since democracy serves the interests of the “little guy and gal” (who are 99.9999% of the population).

In a democracy the government serves the public interest by joint effort – it is everyone joining together to ensure that we live in a fair and just community that helps us all realize our full potentials. The public interest includes the advancement of values like economic fairness, good health, safe communities, quality education and the general well-being.

I believe in democracy because I think that everyone, regardless of background, should have a fair shot at a good life. And I believe that when we create publicly funded and democratically governed programs like health care, public education, community centres, roads, parks, libraries, fire departments and police forces we increase our chances of being a fair and just community for everyone.  And that’s why I value democracy so much, since it provides a way for the public to have a role in making sure that our shared interests are protected and advanced.

But not everyone values these outcomes, or even the democratic processes that ensure such outcomes.  Some people consider government to be the “enemy” and want to replace democracy with the unfettered power of a few corporations acting in the private interest and the chaos of an out-of-control marketplace.

These attitudes are expressed in disdain for government workers, called “bureaucrats” and portrayed as  elitists who living on the hog.  Yes, government workers should be held to account, and should do the public’s work in accordance to priorities, polices and laws established by our elected representatives.  Being held to account and being expected to follow the law – the principles of democracy – is not the same thing as being treated like leeches of our society. These are our workers, and as such we should respect and appreciate them as we guide and support them in carrying out the work of the public interest.

The public sector works for us. This means that we, the community working together, forms the public sector to ensure that we can all have access to good health care, that our education be values of learning instead of values of conforming to narrow agendas, that our communities be safe, and that we have a voice in how our community works.

We should be proud when the best and brightest work on our behalf in the institutions we create. We should cherish our schools, parks, hospitals, subways, research programs and public safety programs.  We created these programs, we guide them, we sustain them and they benefit us.  Let’s not forget that by listening to those who would have us believe that the public sector is against us, elites who should be ignored and put aside.  Because if we do that, then our hospitals, schools, sanitation systems, justice programs, community centres, roads, libraries, infrastructures, etc. will simply be out of our control, out of the public’s hands.

From a posting I wrote at Liberation Learning:

The Vancouver Courier reports on the launch of a website – The Shorty List – that will provide families with access to anonymous reviews of child care centres, schools and preschools in Vancouver.  The idea is hard to criticize on one level, given that families have both a right and a need to know about the quality of their child’s care or education.

And this is also why the site is a sign, or a symptom, of several problems with BC’s current approach to child care. The site may hurt more than help, because it moves us away from treating schools and care programs as essential and core to our democratic society; moving us to a less fair, more unjust community.  This worries me a great deal, especially given some of the quotes attributed to the site’s founder, Karen Chester (excerpted below).

The site also provides a way to contrast what’s right about how we care for and educate children over six years of age to what’s wrong with how we care for and educate younger children. That’s because the site misses the point that most older children in BC attend publicly funded and publicly run schools, that can (and are) held to account by democratic processes and institutions (such as elections, journalism, public forums, advocacy organizations and pubic sector unions), making this review site approach a step in the wrong direction for school-aged programs.

For school reviews, a better use of the time would be would be to support more objective journalism, such as the The Tyee’s fund for investigative journalists, or getting more families involved in the school governance process.  We need websites and news organizations to let families and others know about the quality of the care and education our children are getting in the schools, because we – the public – are responsible for OUR schools. read more at Liberation Learning

(Screen shot from the website.)

“Not news” from the Globe and Mail today:

More than 300 scientists from around the world, including several Canadians, hope to blunt some growing skepticism about climate change with a new report that says global warming is a fact and the Earth is hotter than ever.

“The conclusion is unmistakable – yes, the planet is warming,” said Derek Arndt, a co-editor of the report, called State of the Climate, which was published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

“The facts speak for themselves, and speak simultaneously,” said Mr. Arndt, who runs the Climate Monitoring Branch at NOAA. “And, they all point toward the same conclusion – the globe is warming.” read more

Interesting study reported on by the New York Times:

Mr. Chetty and his colleagues — one of whom, Emmanuel Saez, recently won the prize for the top research economist under the age of 40 — estimate that a standout kindergarten teacher is worth about $320,000 a year. That’s the present value of the additional money that a full class of students can expect to earn over their careers. This estimate doesn’t take into account social gains, like better health and less crime. read more

I don’t agree with how the study is reported, and didn’t read the study itself – so I don’t know if I agree with the study or not.  As for the Times article, I don’t think that the value of a teacher is measured in the additional wages their students will make.

Moreover, the article pushes the idea that paying “better” teachers more than others improves educational programs, which comes with a whole set of problems (starting with: who and how to decide which teacher is “better”).  In contrast, I support public schools that hold all teachers to high standards, that support teachers with reasonable class sizes and adequate materials (and time to plan and reflect), provide teachers with ongoing professional development, involve families, and recruit highly educated and caring people to be teachers. Teachers, like everyone, should be paid fairly for their work, and communities should invest heavily in schools and child care programs.

But these objections aside, I think it’s interesting that even from a traditional economic perspective the value of excellent teaching is being recognized.

(Cross posted at LiberationLearning.com.)

The essay excerpted below is from the Ottawa Citizen and is by Lawrence Scanlan.  It starts:

There’s been a sea change, a darkening of the political climate in this country. The first instinct is to discount such troubling thoughts. So perhaps the view of someone born elsewhere, but long on our shores, is more to be trusted. read more

The essay that follows is rather remarkable in tone and message. The tone is cautionary, but not bombastic. The concern being expressed is dire, with Scanlan raising the question if Stephen Harper is actually opposed to democratic processes and principles.  I deeply value democracy, and choose to be involved in democratic processes because this alone – our involvement and insistence that the system works – is what sustains the possibility that it can work.  Democracy, like any system of government, is based solely on culture and ideas, starting and ending with the idea that the system itself works.

While not perfect, I believe that within democracy is the possibility of justice for all.  And so it concerns me to hear reasonable arguments against Harper’s position on democracy itself.  It’s one thing to have differing ideas about priorities, different values and visions, than it is to be outright opposed to the very idea (or at least the practice) of democracy.

If Harper is truly anti-system, then we should be deeply concerned given how powerful a majority government is under our parliamentary system.  The dismantling of democratic institutions and processes would be a major setback for all of Canada, which is why we should carefully consider the troubling trends embodied in the approach to G20 security, the proroguing of parliament, the rhetoric of division, the bullying of the opposition and, most recently, the partisan interference of the census.

Here’s a longer excerpt from the essay – A Less Proud Canada:

The annual gathering of the Writers’ Union of Canada took place in Ottawa in June, with many former chairs on hand to offer memories of their time in office. Susan Crean remembered encountering a young, blue-eyed politico at a constitutional conference in Calgary in 1992. When the man learned that she had co-authored a certain book about American domination of Canadian and Quebec politicians, the man responded: “You should not have been allowed to write that book.”

The man: Stephen Harper. Crean never forgot his words, but especially the word allowed. The room full of writers in Ottawa issued a gasp.

Crean later elaborated on the encounter. “Harper spoke to me first and asked if I had written ‘that book.’ I asked which one, and he mentioned Two Nations, which I wrote with Quebec activist/sociologist and well known independentiste Marcel Rioux. Harper was clearly still angry about having had to read it at university. In his view, I took it, the book was treasonous. I was so shaken by his words, and his open hostility, that I immediately left the dining room.”

No PM should be held strictly accountable for every utterance before taking office. But this exchange suggests an instinct to control and suppress, and that is precisely — 18 years on — what the Harper government is being accused of. read more

Image source: Vancouver Observer/Lauren Keogh

Here’s an excellent update in VO on my 2nd favourite Canadian singer Joel Plaskett:

Hailed as one of the best singer/songwriters in Canada, Plaskett has plenty of ‘Best’ awards to prove it after becoming a prominent figure on the music scene since 1992 with his band Thrush Hermit and his more successful solo career with his backing band The Emergency. With a mantelpiece that is taking the strain and being handpicked by Sir Paul McCartney as a supporting act, you wouldn’t expect to witness Plaskett in a venue that holds no more than 150 people. But that is the case for his three London shows. read more

Image Credit: Flickr

Here’s a study that’s covered in today’s Globe and Mail that shows a correlation between cuddliness of moms during infancy and later psychological well-being. While I haven’t read the study itself, and I am sure that the Globe article skims over good reasons to be somewhat skeptical of this kind of study, it’s always nice to hear more calls for affection of infants.

People generally like to be cuddled and touched, but this doesn’t mean that there’s only one “right” way to parent, or that if your family doesn’t cuddle you’ll end up a psychological mess (even though studies like this may lead many to think otherwise).  There are many reasons why there may be a correlation between cuddly moms in their child’s infancy that have nothing to do with the affection itself… but even so I think that those of use who want to show affection towards infants should keep studies like this on the bookshelf, to ward off anyone who suggests that too much affection will spoil the child.

Here’s a clip from the Globe article (too tired to source the original study – sorry!):

New research published in the latest issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health suggests the more affectionate mothers are with infants, the less likely their children will struggle with anxiety and other mental health issues as adults.

The study, completed by a team of researchers at Duke University in Durham, N.C., initially examined 482 people when they were eight months old.

During a series of developmental tests, psychologists observed how warm and affectionate mothers were with their babies and assigned each a rating on a five-point scale based on their interactions. Most mothers were rated as expressing “warm” affection towards their babies (84.9 per cent) while 8.9 per cent were “occasionally negative” and 1.5 per cent were rated as “extravagant” in the warmth they heaped on their little one.

Decades later, when the offspring were adults (average age of 34), they participated in a battery of mental health tests to determine how emotionally distressed they were.

Across the board, those who had been showered with the most amount of affection in infancy (rated “extravagant” or “caressing”) had the lowest levels of distress as adults. read more

Okay, so I was going to go for USA all the way, but after Wednesday’s show by Spain I think I simply can’t justify saying that the first show was the better one.  Spain’s show was right for the scale, great use of colour and contrast.  Hope Mexico brings it home for North America, though!

Here’s someone’s photo set on Flickr…

Greg Rosenthal on veterans and civilian allies organizing around values to build a movement for universal dignity as an alternative to militarism and war:

I am truly hopeful and inspired by the work and leadership of IVAW and Civ-Sol and believe they can be the new and needed leadership of a vibrant peace movement in the U.S. Additionally, they are taking calculated and intentional steps toward fulfilling that role.  There is a deep interest and acknowledgment of the need for sound strategy (not in the rhetorical sense) and focus their efforts to develop leaders from the ranks of veterans. They aptly view campaigning as a medium in which to focus them, develop leaders and construct the terrain in which to engage in struggle and deepen the commitment of their members. If they continue along this path and take the time for critical reflection they will move from being a reactive anti-war force, to an offensive force of visioning and creation of a more just, humane and dignified order not solely for veterans and service-members, but for all, home and abroad. read more