I believe that B.C. has the potential to provide adequate care to all its young people, by providing all families the supports required to have the time and resources they need to care for their children. As a community we already have the resources, knowledge and political capacity to make sure that every child in B.C. is treated with absolute love and respect and that every parent and other family member is fully supported. But if we have the capacity to ensure that our children are all provided with what’s needed for their potentials to be fully realized, then what’s missing to prevent this from being our reality?

What’s missing is not the desire or the capacity to be a supportive community for everyone, because we do not lack the will to treat each other right. What we lack instead is an unobstructed pathway to realize our community’s potential. Our problem is not about what’s missing, but rather is about what’s in the way. Barriers have been placed by those who are either indifferent or in opposition to the realization of full human potential for everyone. It is these barriers that block our way.

These barriers must be cleared away. This requires that we work together and work smartly at unblocking the pathway to being the a fully supportive and just community. People who care about the well-being of all B.C.’s children and families can, and I think should, work together to build our strength, to realize our capacity and to become the community we want to be. This starts with knowing the nature of the barriers, allowing us to see what stands in our way.

What blocks the way are “roadblock ideas” that include the idea that not all children are of equal worth, the idea that it is not possible for all children’s potentials to be fully realized, the idea that only self-declared experts and technocrats know what’s best for our children and for families, and the idea that the priorities of wealth should take precedence over the priorities of well-being. We should carefully critique and challenge these ideas, and replace them with ideas that make our potentials possible, rather than seem impossible, distant and merely idealistic. Push aside the roadblocks and we can work for a just reality, rather accept a mystic falsehood based on imposed limitation.

It may be commonplace for some children, such as the children of wealthy or well-educated families, to have adequate levels of freedom, respect, support, nurturance, space and materials, while others are warehoused in noisy, stressful, un-challenging and poorly resourced daycare centres. That these inequities may be commonplace does not make the tolerable. All children, regardless of familial status, should experience childhood as loving and rich with cultural experiences supported through trusting relationships by communities of learning and love.

The idea that we cannot expect more, and should instead accept intolerable systems of abuse or indifference is dangerous to our democracy and our children’s potentials. As a community we have already demonstrated the power of community action, such as what we have already demonstrated in Medicare for all, public schools for all, community centres and libraries, public broadcasting, welfare and employment insurance, public transportation, health and safety regulations and many other expressions of the common good through public action. Our well-being is advanced through the provision of these public services and programs, made possible through democratic systems of governance. We should build on what we’ve accomplished, extending and expanding our well-being for the good of the community as a whole.

Our taxes (which are simply a share of our labour, resources and other efforts) already support equity in public life, which can be extended and expanded for even greater benefit where need exists. Since most families lack adequate supports for raising a family, with too many demands on family time, and too few supports for providing care to children, we are challenged to build from what’s been already proven that our democracy can do. We’ve already ensured greater equity and higher quality of life for all people in B.C. through community effort. We can, and we should, expect more. Given that few families choose how many, or how few, hours to work, and that children cannot choose to go without care, it’s imperative that quality care be provided on a universal basis, and supported through public administration and democratic oversight.

We must imagine first our community coming together to create and sustain a community response to the challenges faced by many families. And we should go beyond overcoming challenges to also imagining possibilities. I imagine every child in B.C. laughing, hugging, thinking, communicating, learning, loving, relating, sharing and being involved in community life – fully. I imagine adults, families and other care providers working together to share and expand cultural potentials with children. I imagine more time for families to be together, more ways for families to be connected to community, more ways for everyone to be included, more dignity and more respect for all. I imagine these things, because that’s the first step to making theses imagined possibilities into human realities.

I believe that we all have the potential, as human beings, to provide for children’s wants and needs. We already have the potential to provide loving care and sharing enriching culture with our children, which we realize through our own reflective action, and which is supported through people working together in loving community. I think being human is enough to know how to care for a child, and communities working together is enough to overcome our limitations as individuals. While I think children and families benefit from reflective action, I think self-declared experts and technocrats should claim no monopoly of knowing when it comes to how loving care is best provided.

The work of caring for children is basic human work, work on which we can rely on our intuitions and common practices more so than other kinds of work in modern times. The child care worker, including a child’s parent or other primary caregiver, knows how to love, how to listen, how to guide and support, and how to share culture and ideas with the child, simply because these are basic human capacities. For the rare parent or care worker who does not act lovingly, does not listen, does not guide and support, or does not share culture and ideas with the child, what’s needed is a community to support.

Community work can be intentional and reflective, but should not be an exercise in top-down control over others. Experts, specialists and technocrats should model ethical practice, provide spaces for reflection and growth, develop and share skills, and work with others to increase supports available to everyone. We should not impose order, make pronouncements of “truth,” or exclude others from the community process we are empowered to support.

Children’s well-being, indeed the well-being of everyone, should always take precedence over the interests of private wealth and consolidated power of the few. Power and wealth should be our means to support well-being, which is to say that wealth should be the means and not the ends. B.C. is blessed in its resources, both in human and cultural capacities and also in an abundance of nature to sustain a complex and interdependent human society.

B.C. is rich in water, sunlight, air, soil and energy. We are also rich in knowledge, ideas and technologies. We are rich in cultures and communities, with much of our cultural wealth going back to times long before colonization. Together have built systems to support health, to develop literacy, to ensure justice and to share power.

The power inherent in our wealth enables us to realize our potential as human beings, which we may share with everyone if we decide the values of equal dignity and respect, equity and opportunity and shared progress should be our guiding lights. But if we choose injustice in place of justice, then we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, such as the horrors of residential schools, devastation to the traditional ways of the First Nations people, and destruction of our natural abundance.

We make history. So it is up to us to create a society based on our values, rather than to let others take over our history and use our power to impose their over us. Working thoughtfully and cooperatively we can create the means to secure the ends of every child – indeed every person – being fully realized in our human potential.

Jack Layton was a leader beyond the realm of partisan politics, which is what I reflect on today – the day of his death. Let us remember the power of Layton’s example, in leading by love.

Layton often spoke of love, especially in his final words to Canadians. In his final letter, he thanks Canadians for our “spirit of love” in sending encouragement to him. He reminds others fighting cancer to “cherish every moment with those you love.” He writes that “love is better than anger” and he calls on us to “be loving, hopeful and optimistic.” This is how, he writes, we will change the world. Given how rarely political discourse mentions love, we should reflect on how important it is that in his final words he reminded us that love should be at the heart of our work to make the world we deserve for ourselves.

Layton also talked of love when he announced his leave of absence, saying:

We can look after each other better than we do today. We can have a fiscally responsible government. We can have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment. We can be a force for peace in the world. I am as hopeful and optimistic about all of this as I was the day I began my political work, many years ago. I am hopeful and optimistic about the personal battle that lies before me in the weeks to come. And I am very hopeful and optimistic that our party will continue to move forward. We will replace the Conservative government, a few short years from now.

And we will work with Canadians to build the country of our hopes
Of our dreams
Of our optimism
Of our determination
Of our values…
Of our love.

Love is a powerful force. Indeed it is the only force powerful enough to topple injustice by creating just peace in its place. Given love’s power to connect us to one another, to inspire us to work with each other, and to do what is right by each other, it’s shameful that love so rarely enters our political discourse. Layton reminds us, in his final words to the entire country, that power and politics are the expression of values. To him, these values were centred on universal love.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said,

“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”

Layton is a testamant to the power of love. He was courageous in his politics, pushing his party forward and daring to dream of a third way for Canadians. Layton proved to all of us that the politics of love can surpass the politics of fear, indifference, and narrow self-interest.

Layton reminded us that love should be at the centre of our community life, which is exercised through the collective effort of people working together to make a better world. As child care workers, we already know the power of love. We see this power when love is present. And we also see it when love is absent.

Child care workers are a powerful force in community life. We are responsible for children’s well-being, for the upbringing and raising of an entire generation, for economic opportunity and the shared prosperity of our community, and for the expression of love between generations of people. We can exercise this power in love, or we can exercise it absent love. In love, we extend the circle of dignity. Absent love, we become abusive and hurt those in our care.

I am moved by the power of Layton’s commitment to social and economic justice. And I also moved by his explicit dedication to love, to making love a central force for good in the political realm. He reminds us to dream of the possible, to work together to solve our common challenges. Layton, in his life and now in death, embodies what is possible when we work together to extend respect, dignity, and love to everyone. Thank you, Jack Layton.

Originally posted at Liberation Learning.

The children and I enjoyed Night Shift by Jessie Hartland. Earlier this week I read the book to a small group of 3-5 year olds. I wasn’t sure how the children would respond, given that the illustrations are not realistic and the content and vocabulary presented ideas that I didn’t think the children could directly relate to (such as the idea of an all night newspaper printer). The book explores the work of people late at night, who are “awake doing all sorts of interesting things” while you are asleep at night.

When I explained the premise of the book, saying that the book shows us people who work at night, two of the children instantly responded by explaining what they do at night. This seemed to indicate a fair amount of interest in the book’s overall concept from the start. The first set of night workers include a radio DJ, newspaper printer and department store window dresser. Again, I was concerned if the content might be too unfamiliar, so I did not read the text on these pages – simply reading the job description at the top of each page. But one child interrupted and asked why I was not reading the entire page. I asked if she wanted me to read more, and three children said yes. Clearly the text was of interest. So I read the entire book – word for word – covering the 14 different night shift workers.

The book presented each worker at a different hour of the night, starting around 10 PM and ending at around 5 AM, with all of the workers eating breakfast and having coffee at a donut shop. As we move from place to place (work site to work site) the person on the following page weaves into the current. The zookeeper waits for a shipment that will be delivered by the truck driver who will pick it up from the boat driven by freighter caption. There are three levels of structure to the text – across time, focused on each job, and through intersections of workers; at another level this is all connected to the reader, who sleeps through all of this.

Hartland tells her story in verse, with strong rhythm and rich vocabulary. The story speaks directly to the reader, text moves at a fairly fast pace. The night is an energetic, movement filled time. For each work site there are usually three to four short stanzas of prose, reading a bit like Carl Sandburg’s “Chicago”:

Hog Butcher for the World,
Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat,
Player with Railroads and the Nation’s Freight Handler;
Stormy, husky, brawling,
City of the Big Shoulders . . . more

In sum: The book was a hit. Given the interest of the children, I am going to share more “what happens at night” texts in the coming days. It is nice to see such a variety of work, and to show the connections between work, in such a well-written and energetic book. I’d like to share more realistic photos and illustrations as well, and to continue the conversation about this part of our lives as city dwellers.

Children’s well-being is priceless and costly. That’s why there’s no place for profit in daycare. And it’s also why this Globe and Mail story from last fall should serve as a warning to Canadians who care about children and families, culture and community:

Before [the Edleun daycare chain] can attempt to consolidate an industry traditionally managed by the state, the company must dispel the perception it is looking to profit at the expense of children. Unlike most Western countries, about 80 per cent of Canada’s child-care centres are not-for-profit. And in Ontario, funding regulations in several large municipalities restrict how much money can go to privately owned centres. read more

If Canada fails to support families by providing a fair and democratic child care system for all families and children, private corporations seeking to maximize profits will fill the gaps left open by government inaction. Edleun is one of many corporate chains that want to convert the high value of child care into cold hard cash. Instead of letting the likes of Edleun take over child care in Canada, we should be creating a system that supports children and families, one that maximizes public benefits instead of private gains. There is simply no room in child care for profits. There is no way for corporate culture to create a system centred on the common good. Child care is much more than a service, as it is at the heart of cultural and community life.

Everyone in Canada benefits when families are supported. Benefiting everyone by serving the common good is much more of a mandate than any corporation could manage to do at all, especially while making a profit. Unless we gave corporations the power to raise public monies and we, the public, elected their boards of directors, it’s simply too much to expect corporations to manage such a culturally essential and complex task as providing universal child care supports for the common good of all children and all families. We already elect a Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, so there’s no need to hand culturally essential jobs that should be done in the public interest to corporations. The government alone is accountable to the public as a whole. The government alone can raise and distribute resources based on fairness and equity.

Quality child care costs more than corporate advertising, which puts not-for-profit or small operators providing quality child care at a huge disadvantage when facing off with marketing mavens seeking to hide the true aim of profit-driven daycare. Child care is too valuable and too important to be run by CEOs, accountants and advertising executives. If we go this route, Canada’s child care system would mirror the health care system in the United States. Profits at patient expense is a common place equation in the United States. With corporate controlled daycare, profit would come before children and families.

Below is a Globe and Mail report on one Alberta corporation’s plan to expand corporate control of daycare – to a level that is ten times today’s numbers. This is a nightmare scenario, speaking to the urgent need for leadership to get public, universal and community-based daycare for all children and families in Canada. We need a people-driven system of child care, or we’ll end up being stuck with a profit-driven one instead.

“Canada is full of mom-and-pop shops and companies set up by a couple of real estate buddies,” said Mr. Wulf, chief executive officer of Calgary-basedEdleun Group Inc. “It’s not going to be like that any more. It’s hugely capital intensive and you need economies of scale to operate effectively. “

Edleun raised $40-million (Canadian) earlier this year after obtaining a listing on the TSX Venture Exchange, and it has already spent $20-million to expand its number of daycare centres to 20 from 11 since the spring, all of them based in Alberta. The business model is deceptively simple: build or buy daycares and fill them with children, each of whom provides a steady stream of income.

The company has no debt and with $22-million in cash reported at the end of its last quarter it is eager to expand out Alberta – it has targeted more than 280 other centres it would like to buy. It will likely accelerate those plans by taking out mortgages on the existing 20 centres, Mr. Wulf said.

If it meets its goal, Edleun will command 10 per cent of the Canadian market. read more

I have been thinking a lot the book and the movie “Where the Wild Things Are” because it’s rare for the dark side of children to be explored by adults. The film tells a dark story, made hopeful by the power to imagine darknesses and joys of being human, at any age. While the story in both book and film is not entirely dark (both are fun expressions of childhood imagination) these expressions are also acts of childhood power. Children’s power is another rarely explored subject of childhood, making the stories all the more interesting.

Certainly Max does not behave nicely to his mother, especially not the Max of the film. In fact, his behaviour in the film is shocking. And yet we relate to Max, moving beyond how the child treats his mother (who he refers to as “woman” in a most “unchildlike” display of aggression and rage, after jumping on a table because he is upset and angry). As an audience we are asked to accept his rage and also to want him to go to a place where he both expresses and moves through the rage, rather than suppress it. In the film we have been introduced to Max as complex, likable and also shockingly expressive.

Max and the Wild Things of the film are not exemplars of politeness, they are not always happy, things do not always work out for many of characters in the film. But they experience life, just as the book characters do. The Max of the 1963 children’s book, which was at first rejected by many librarians, parents and teachers, is outrageous in the depiction of non-compliance and self-expression of childhood power – even though it’s been accepted as merely fun and only about his mother’s unconditional love (which is part of, but not the only part, of the story’s meaning).

While Max’s power may seem safer, less vivid, to some adults because Sendak places power in Max’s imagination, most children (age 4-6) that I talk to about the story actually think that Max actually goes to where the Wild Things are. As a child hearing the story I was surprised that he did (and even could) come back to home. Why not stay on the island, when he’s not even allowed to make mischief at home? I found the tray of hot food a bit of a disappointment, following such an adventure – as have children I’ve talked to about the story soon after reading it together.

And yet Max, of both book and film, is also a child, who imagines Wild Things who “love him so” and cry when he goes home. The story is powerful in its expression of joy, radical in its depiction children’s power to disobey – if only through imagination and play, and fun to read and experience. As a teacher it’s a favourite because the story lends itself to rereading, instant dramatization and interesting conversations about the intent of the author and the development of the characters. As a child, it’s fun in part because feeling powerful over ideas and wishes is joyful, and fun also because Max is loved and knows that he can always come back to the world of imposed limits while he waits to grow up and keep creating through imagination and play.

I consider my occupation to be that of cultural worker, working within the context of family, community and child care. This means that I help construct culture, in all the complexities of the concept culture . Understanding what I mean by culture provides a basis for understanding why I call myself a cultural worker, in addition to and as part of my role as a child care worker and early childhood educator.

One meaning of culture overlaps with the meaning of its related concepts, such as the concepts of ethnicity, nationality, race or language. In this sense, when we ask what is your culture we might also mean what is your cultural or ethnic identity, or your heritage . Cultural identity can be more than ethnicity, nationality, race and language. People also identify by their family, region, political leaning, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, occupation, class, historic time, style, interests, and many other characteristic groupings, all of which form cultures and sub-cultures and provide an base of identity.

Culture is also a concept used to understand and describe universal characteristics of human beings. In this sense culture is used to explain theories for how and why people behave as we do. Culture is the stuff of human life. It is the things, symbols, words, actions, stories, beliefs, rituals, songs, ideologies, and values that people use in daily life. We learn about human nature by studying cultural universals and cultural differences, between individuals and groupings of people of all sizes. At one level is each person, whose behavioural patternscan be understood in terms of cultural components, which can then be compared to the patterns of others.

From this understanding of culture we can compare the patterns of people of one ethnic or national identity group to people of another such group, or compare patterns of people in different regions, different time periods (in history), different families, ages, genders, sexual orientations, etc. These comparisons are useful for a number of reasons, such as to understand what about people is learned (as culture is usually defined as learned behaviours and beliefs) and what is innate (and therefore not related to culture, but to human nature ). Cultural comparisons can also provide insights to resolve conflicts, or to relate better to people who different from ourselves, with cultural background providing a way to understand these differences.

Another way to understand culture is as collections of knowledge and ideas, which are organized into subjects or disciplines. Examples of these collections include disciplines of science and mathematics, political ideologies, religions, literature/drama and history, music and movement, fashion, culinary arts, and the visual arts. In addition to the arts and sciences, professional knowledge is related to this concept of culture, which is organized into professions. One example is the profession of early childhood educator, which is defined as a profession through cultural processes similar to those that define the arts and sciences. Universities, libraries, school systems, professional boards and association, governments, corporations, museums, school systems, cultural industries and other institutions, especially those in power or seeking to be in power, work to define what is and is not considered to be favoured, or included, within one of these groupings.

Another way to understand culture is in terms of cultural creation, or the construction of culture. In this sense culture can be thought of as a technology or tool. There are specialists at understanding culture, who study how the components of culture influence behaviour, or drive action in human social life. With this knowledge, be it intuitive or otherwise, cultural creators not only combine the components of culture, but also have the power to do in ways that drive society, or other groupings, in directions intended by the creators.

This work is usually carried out through institutions, or collectives of cultural creators, who work with others to achieve goals realized through cultural construction. Goals can range from acquiring personal wealth or power, advancing values and ideologies, promoting religious beliefs, improving health and well-being, achieving glory and honour or any number of other goals. Cultural constructors include visual and performing artists, makers of mass media, advertisers and markers, designers, public relations specialists, propagandists, politicians, managers, capitalists, leaders, writers, storytellers, scholars and academics, scientists, clerics, singers, and educators. Some would argue, myself included, that we are all cultural constructors, even if we are not all specialists in the construction of culture or intentionally aware of our role in creating and sustaining cultural life.

The palette of cultural construction centres on the tools of time, place, symbol, narrative, image, colour, movement, beat, rhythm, taste, ritual and identity. Recent technologies of cultural construction include nationalism, ideologies, economic ordering systems and power projection devices.

If we view child care in the widest sense to include the work of parents (including step-parents, foster parents, and other performing the role of parenting), extended families, communities, neighbours, nannies, child care workers, early childhood educators, school teachers, governments, corporations, faith institutions and everyone else who contributes to children’s care, then the cultural lens of this work leads to several questions that take us beyond the realms of learning and development, or the traditional lens of child care and early care and education theory.

First, this lens leads to the question of what is the role of children, as individuals and as participants in groups, in the creation of culture. How and why do children construct culture, and how is this similar or different from that of adults who construct culture? Do children have a special role in cultural construction? What palettes do children as cultural constructors draw from when creating culture, and what aspects of culture are of particular interest to the child as a constructor, or creator, of culture? Second, what is the role of child care workers (in the broadest sense of this occupational grouping, including parents, educators, neighbours, nannies, etc.), and of child care work, in the construction of culture, both at the level of children’s cultures and of culture in a more general sense?

I consider myself, as a child care worker, to be a cultural worker first and foremost, which is to say that what I do as a child care worker is construct culture. I work with children and families to create cultural spaces and experiences using cultural tools . We create culture together, which is most evident at the level of the culture in the learning space, or the classroom. But culture lives in people, not spaces, and therefore the work of the cultural worker extends far beyond the classroom or other space where she works.

I think that it is important for cultural workers to work with culture at all its levels, especially if we propose to create lasting, enriching, joyful, human centred cultures that reflect the human rights values of respect, dignity and sanctity of human life. Cultural creation that does not take into account how different cultural backgrounds shape meaning and understanding, and provide people with comfort and support, will leave people out, not provide for people’s needs, and not reflect the values which I believe should be at the foundation of cultural life. Cultural creation that does not take into account human nature in relation to culture will be jarring and empty, confusing and un-human-like. Cultural creation that fails to reflect the centrality of culture to being human risks stepping above creation of culture to engineering of humanity, stepping beyond what I think are the ethical bounds of cultural work.

Finally, I think that cultural workers benefit from knowing how to work with all the essential elements of cultural creation, and should use these elements to create rich and living, vibrant and dynamic cultural spaces. Cultural spaces that build on ritual, song, story, texture, taste, colour, beat, rhythm and other cultural elements are alive, deep, nurturing and human.

]]> http://tomkertes.com/128/feed 0 http://tomkertes.com/114 http://tomkertes.com/114#comments Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:45:25 +0000 tomkertes http://tomkertes.com/?p=114

Providing options for families, such as the option of full-day kindergarten or by expanding publicly funded daycare programs, helps all families. That’s because providing these options on a universal basis lets everyone know that supports are there in case of need. Just like with publicly funded and universally available health care, the availability of universal and public child care will provide assurances that in time of need, help will be there. This is good for all families and is especially important for those who are most vulnerable.

Knowing that basic health care is universal eliminates the worry about not being covered in time of need. Likewise, the knowledge that a safe and nurturing place for children is available (no matter what happens to a family) eliminates this same kind of worry. Universal supports are needed and benefit all families in case of a sudden loss of employment, cutbacks in hours, or the need to take time off to care for an elderly parent, sick spouse or child. The risks stemming from these and other kinds of family emergencies require strong public supports so that families will have ample security and equal opportunities, regardless of economic circumstances.

Health care is provided to each Canadian by their health care professional, whose job it is to apply adequate care on an individual basis. Basic care is applied differently for each person, even though it is primarily funded under a single system. In this way health care is both universal and individual. Everyone has the same assurance that their individual health needs will be met. This is true under the current single payer system, just as it would be under a truly socialized health care system. Under either a not-for-profit single payer or an entirely socialized system, everyone is saved the worry of losing coverage or forgoing basic medical care. Even though care is applied on an individual basis, the freedom from worry is extended to everyone.

The stresses that come from needing to do whatever’s required to afford health care is foreign to those Canadians who grew up under this system. But to anyone who came to Canada from a privately funded for-profit system (such as I did, immigrating to Canada from the United States) knows the general worry that comes when health care is rationed out to the highest bidder. The lack of fear in Canada cannot be missed, as all Canadians – whether healthy today or not – have more choices and greater freedom in their work and lifestyle decisions. Unburdened by the fear of being sick and uninsured we are all freed up to focus on other values and priorities, such as spending time with family and building strong communities. This untethers many Canadians from unfair working conditions, encourages many Canadians to take time to improve job skills and allows many families to prioritize time together over time for wages. While not perfect, there is less fear and greatness fairness under our health care system.

Like health care, child care and early education can also be applied on an individual basis while also meeting the diverse needs of different families. Through community-based provision of child care, the entire range of care options can be provided or pursued, while also extending security and opportunity on a universal basis. The current lack of a fully funded public child care system in British Columbia creates enormous burdens on families and children, as many in the province are currently forced to make lose-lose decisions when it comes to figuring how to balance time at work with time with family.

As with health care, caring for children is not a choice. All children are dependent on adults in the provision of their care and education. And since care includes providing children with a home, food, clothing and opportunities for learning and growth, the burdens of providing care absent adequate supports can be overwhelming for many families. While families with ample resources can readily provide their children with all of these necessities and more, it’s more common for families to make sacrifices on valuable time together or to face impossible choices – like food on the table or supervised care by qualified care providers. For too many Canadian children, care comes at an enormous price, borne by both parents and children. In a country as rich as ours this is simply unacceptable. Our children deserve better. Families want better. And we can do better. This is why the expansion of kindergarten programs currently underway in B.C., Ontario and P.E.I. is such good news, and why we should continue to look with hope at Quebec’s example in expanding publicly funded child care for our children and families.

Given that British Columbia has Canada’s highest child poverty level, the least affordable housing markets and the worst worker and minimum wage protections in Canada, we should be especially concerned about the need for adequate social supports for all children and families. The economic conditions stemming from inequality and a shrinking middle class take time away from families being together. Less time together, coupled with stressful burdens on families in fear of losing child care options due to economic circumstances beyond their control, hurts children and weakens the fabric of our communities.

The steps toward universal child care and expanded early learning programs being take today will reduce family stress and provide children with quality care and early learning opportunities. The benefits of these programs are immeasurable to every young person in the province. Moreover, the number of parents who are now rest assured when it comes to planning for their child’s care and early learning has greatly expanded. Better career choices are opening up for all kinds of families, allowing for more flexibility and greater ease in balancing unpaid work at home and paid work outside of the home. Everyone benefits under this kind of system.

Greater security for all families strengthens the entire community and provides more opportunities for the vulnerable and excluded to be fully involved in the social and economic life of the community. Doors are opened and everyone benefits. Providing caring places for all children supports the entire community as well, making the expansion our public schools this year a welcome step in supporting equity and building strong communities for all of B.C.’s children and families.

I wrote this letter to the Sun…

Dear Editor:

Shelley Fralic is rightly concerned about so many B.C. children missing out on early learning opportunities. With one-third of B.C. children failing to reach their potential at the age of five, we should be reflecting on our community and culture as a whole, not simply blaming parents.

Fralic asks if young children are “prepared for the big scary world” of kindergarten. She should be asking if families are prepared for the scary world of low-wage jobs, shrinking public supports and growing social inequalities. With the highest rate of child poverty in Canada, our province is a scary world for many families even before a child enters kindergarten.

Low wages and economic insecurity mean less time for families to be together and more time for them to be stressed. Economic well-being is not simply measured in access to heat, lights, food, television, DVDs and computers. It’s also measured in levels of security and the amount of time for leisure, in time for families to be together.

Tom Kertes Vancouver

…because this op-ed blames parents instead of calling for shared responsibility in caring for families and children…

Scratch a teacher today and you’ll hear about an increasing frustration with kindergartners and Grade 1 students who can’t tie their shoelaces and don’t know how to put a straw in a juice box, who can’t spell their names, recite the alphabet or recognize the numbers from 1 to 20, who show up with lunch boxes full of expensive junk food instead of a sandwich and a piece of fruit, and who — and this, they will tell you, is rampant — are late for class every day.

Here’s one anecdote from a kindergarten class this week in a reasonably affluent Vancouver suburban neighbourhood: During the meet-the-teacher session, attended by parents and the 25 or so students, the children were asked for a show of hands on various skills, from shoe-tying to letter and number recognition, which the teacher tested by using flash cards. In every instance, only one child, the same child, put up his hand to signify he was capable of the task.

In another class, in another school, a Grade 1 teacher spent her meet-the-teacher session lecturing parents about their chronic tardiness, and about their kids being unable to put on their own shoes or hang up their coat, reminding them that she is a teacher and not a babysitter.

With some disturbing exceptions, most children in the Lower Mainland live in homes with heat and light and food and television, with DVDs and computers, and in communities with public libraries and neighbourhood houses and playgrounds and ready access to programs that will not only help them become better parents but will ensure their children reap the benefit of a society that recognizes the importance and, often, the difficulty of raising well-adjusted kids. read more

Andrea Mrozek of the socially conservative Institute of Marriage and Family Canada asks, in a recent Vancouver Sun op-ed, “Why the incessant chatter that all-day kindergarten will save us money?”

Mrozek posses a good question, given the dubious claims made by government that expanded early care and education programs are virtually free. These claims are based on the logic that the “investments” in our children will cost less than the economic returns that the programs (via the children) generate. Minister of Education Margaret DacDiarmid talks of early care and learning as coming with limitless economic returns, rather than as something worth paying for. The government’s argument misses the mark, given that the real reason for expanding early care and learning is because it’s worth the cost, not because it’s free.

Calling government spending on social programs (like education) as “investments” means less talk of program benefits and more talk of economic interests. Rather than talk of benefits realized in the present, debate becomes reduced to claims and counter claims of future riches. This not only shift debate away from the benefits of sound social policy, but also shifts it to talking more about economic gains and less about overall qualities of life. There is more to early care and education than future economic benefits, as there is much more to children and families than their contributions to the future (and present) GDP of British Columbia.

Human life and human well-being is priceless. Given this, it makes sense for us to spend our money and time on developing communities that improve the quality of life. That’s why we build schools, parks, libraries, early learning centres, community centres, water works, health care systems, transit and other public infrastructures, because we’re worth it. The benefits of these programs to our community improves life, increases security and well-being, ensures healthy democracy and helps everyone realize their full potential.

Crime reduction and economic gains: Not the whole picture

In her criticisms of justifications for universal full-day kindergarten, Mrozek points to recently released studies that echo the government’s argument that early childhood programs can save money over the long term, because early interventions reduce crime and other social and economic costs of inequality or inadequate support. She leaves the empirical question of whether or not early interventions actually reduce future costs to reasoned debate, but she goes on to directly challenge the relationship between these findings and the government’s own justifications for full school-day kindergarten in British Columbia.

The relationship isn’t there, she writes, because universal education is not targeted only to the “disadvantaged,” the kinds of programs that the researchers she cites actually studied. Mrozek is right to point out that as a universal program full school-day kindergarten doesn’t compare to the kinds of programs that early learning proponents wrote about in their recently released studies. On this point, I agree with Mrozek. Calls for targeted programs are not the same as calls for universal programs. The logic of the programs is different, the intended outcomes are different, and the results will likely be different as well. I agree that we should be comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Should we provide all children and families with adequate child care supports?

But Mrozek and I disagree on whether on not it makes sense to provide universal early care and learning programs, such as kindergarten and other public child care programs for every child and family in British Columbia. Rather than keep comparing apples and oranges, a clear distinction between the different approaches will help us understand the real choices before. This is how’ll begin to figure out the consequences of our decisions.

One choice is between universal programs and targeted programs. Another choice is between community programs accountable to democratic institutions, and systems of care dependent on the individual economic means of each family. Mrozek and her socially conservative organization proposes targeted programs and systems tied to individual family means (which I call a “go-it-alone” approach). I support universal, public and community-based programs that are based on the value of economic fairness, accountable to democratic institutions. I support child care supports for all of B.C.’s children and families, so that families can have adequate time together. This provide supports so that all B.C. families can stop worrying about how to keep it together and start spending more time together.

Community programs should reflect our shared values

When considering how communities can best provide essentials like health care, education, child care, social security and public safety, we should be reflecting on a set of questions that really gets to the heart of our values. We should be asking if the benefits we’re seeking reflect our values. Do we provide essentials to everyone in the community? Or do we provide essentials only for some people and not others? Do we operate programs through democratic institutions, with public oversight and accountability? Or do we do operate programs on a private basis with limited community involvement and input? Additionally, on what basis do we provide programs? Is the basis centred on serving the public interest and the common good, or should be based on private profits alone?

These questions are the right questions to be asking since there are different outcomes depending on the answers. For example, the question of providing essential community services on the basis of the public interest or on the basis of private gain involves life or death matters. What we decide sets general levels of insecurity and worry across an entire society, moving security up or down depending the level of support we provide each other.

Some things are of such great value (like water, food, health care) that everyone is vulnerable if restricted access (such as too high of prices) to essentials forces people into poverty and economic insecurity. Since pricing in the private market works on maximizing profits, prices are usually higher than some people can afford to pay. This is okay for things like dog manicures, which nobody depends on for their survival. But for life and death essentials, universal access should be paramount, if we are to treat all human life as equally sacred. The public sector alone has the resources and the mandate to seek to maximize public benefits, rather than private profits.

Essentials are best provided through universal and public programs

For life and death essentials, like water, it makes more sense to have it be universally available. That’s why water is priced so that everyone can afford it, regardless of how much profit is made. Even though many would pay an arm and a leg for water, since we need it to live, we price water low enough for everyone to keep their limbs intact and still have plenty of water. This obviously makes sense from the public benefit lens, but not the from the private profit lens.

We also maximize public benefits of water access by spending money to keep it universally clean and safe, affordable, accessible and available. The costs of pipes and sanitization, water shed protections and the whole water works system are worth it, regardless of any economic benefits, simply because with water we are alive. Even if the total price of a safe water system is more than that of a unsafe one, the public benefits of safe and accessible water is worth this higher price, especially when we share the costs on a fair basis that allows everyone equal benefits to the water.

Additionally, the availability (or lack thereof) of essentials drives other decisions as well. Health and economic security shapes decisions on how many hours we spend at work or with family, and how much effort and worry we direct to survival or to contributing to community life. Economic security allows us to plan for the future and build healthy communities together. A society where everyone is generally secure is safer, healthier and stronger.

Considering values, costs and benefits when setting priorities

A healthy democracy involves considering priorities as a community, looking at the costs and benefits to different proposals and setting a course based on our shared values. When considering costs, either private costs or public costs, three questions are considered. The first is: Can we afford the costs? The second is: Are the costs worth it? The third is: Can we afford not to pay the costs?

When the government claims that full school-day kindergarten costs nothing because of its limitless returns, it is trying to avoid the first and second questions. The government simply focuses on the third question of the harms stemming from inaction. This leaves the other questions unanswered and opens the policy debate around full school-day kindergarten to attacks from critics of an expanded public sector. Avoiding questions about the costs and benefits of an expandded public sector leaves policy to stand on only one leg, when three are required. The policy of expanding early care and education is too important for all three questions to be be fully considered.

But just because the government avoids the questions, we don’t have to. For the first question, about being able to afford the costs, the simple answer is that we’re already paying the costs. As a society we already have a system in place for caring for and educating young children. The costs are largely borne by individual families, as what have now is an “on your own” model of child care. Child care and early education are of such great value that families already put considerable resources into these endeavors. Public programs would simply shift the burden from individual families to the community at large.

It is the second question that speaks to the underlying values and desired benefits of public child care and education for all children, and also of education and child care generally. This is where a dialogue is most called for, which may be the reason government avoids the question almost entirely, and why Mrozek and her socially conservative organization opposes universally available full school-day kindergarten. I say almost entirely avoids the question, because the government does speak to some benefits, such as future economic gains stemming from education. But why the government focuses so narrowly presents a quandary of sorts, since benefits to be realized in 30 years time are the hardest to track or predict, requiring the most complicated of analysis and modeling. This approach makes little sense, given how many values and benefits that are to universal public education and care for young children.

How children benefit

Children benefit by having a community to be involved with and included in, one that it is multi-generational but focused on the generation of the child. Public schools are located within communities, serving as community hubs that bring people together and strengthen community. As a universal program, everyone is included in public schools, bringing people of different backgrounds together into a common civic space. Children meet their neighbours and are introduced to the diversity of Canadian society. Children benefit by having parents who are less stressed and more economically secure, allowing for more time for families to be together and for parental decisions around hours of employed work to reflect the value of family time.

Children also benefit from being in a place organized by professional and educated teachers, who are committed to the values of public education. These values centre on inclusion, toleration of and respect for differences, open mindedness and critical thinking. Professionally trained educators have the skills of working with a diverse range of families, and are bound to be generally inclusive in their practice. Teachers are also highly educated, having a foundation of skills and knowledge in literacy, science and mathematics. This means that they are able to share this knowledge with children. Children benefit from this in the present, becoming more aware of the world and more capable members of the world.

Additionally, Children benefit by having a social support network that cares for them. Children who are in harm’s way have role models in schools, caring professionals, friends, and other supports in place that a school provides. This results in safety and security for many children in need. This benefits all children, since all children are vulnerable to abuse, given their limited age and dependence on others for survival.

How families benefit

Families and parents benefit from universally available public education and care programs as well. While children are in school, families are reassured that their children are safe. This is of tremendous benefit to parents employed in the paid workforce, allowing for economic security and greater mobility. As with universal health care, the absence of insecurity benefits everyone, because it provides for a better balance between the need to make an income and the need to focus on other priorities, such as time with family or time contributing to community life.

With universal programs, insecurity diminishes for everyone. This helps everyone make decisions based on factors other than our worst-case fears. If our health care were privatized and tied to employment, as in the United States (which does provide publicly funded programs targeted at some of the most vulnerable), then many of our choices about where to work, how much to work and how to work would change dramatically. The freedom that comes from health security benefits everyone, as people’s choices reflect a wider range of values. The same is true with the freedom coming from security in child care and employment. Not only would women’s equity advance, but choices around part-time employment in exchange for more time volunteering at schools and in the community would increase.

How everyone benefits

The society at large benefits because democracy depends on human development programs to continue. Democracy is entirely dependent on a thoughtful and critical citizenry that is capable of working as a community and who can create and maintain institutions for the public good. We live in a pluralistic economy and mulch-cultrual society, which includes both the public and private sectors and a wide range of social and political values. There are many benefits to the balance between sectors, which is at the heart of our economic and community systems. The benefit of education being within the public sector is that it can be focused on values beyond making profits, such as finding common spaces for people to come together and work together in dialogue and respect.

If you value democracy, then the expansion of public education is likely something you value as well. Universal public programs can provide the benefits of economic fairness in ways that other approaches cannot, since with the public sector everyone contributes to and benefits from the program on an equitable basis. Public programs are accountable to the electorate and are mandated to serve the public interest, providing benefits to the community at large.

While critics of universal public child care can point to claims of limited financial returns of non-targeted programs, proponents of universal programs can point to universal programs are best at maximizing benefits. In short, it is worth the cost of these programs because the benefits of expanded early care and learning is so great. Economic security, social equity, vibrant communities, accessible education, care for all children, and a healthier democracy are worth the costs. Add these benefits to the fact that public universal programs are far more cost effective than other approaches (such as profit-laden privatized approaches), and you can see why we already have public schools, public Medicare, public roads, public parks, public libraries and so many other public community services in place.

The benefits that these programs provide are well worth the costs we pay into them. It is right seek the most benefits when spending public dollars. We should therefore seek to maximize benefits with the dollars spent, rather than merely focus on reducing costs – especially if at the expense of reducing public benefits.