|
Re two distinctly different views of national childcare
Ms. Martha Friendly, of the Child Care Resource and Research Unit of the U of T has published to her website July 14,
a paper outlining her case for a federally funded childcare system instead of funding to parents for all styles of childrearing.
Her paper can be accessed at
http://www.crru.ca
http://childcarecanada.org
Reply to the paper by Martha Friendly of the CRRU about the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Canada’s
childcare policy
Paper July 14 2006
Reviewed July 15 2006 by Beverley Smith
Care of the Child Coalition
_______________________________________________________________________
Ms. Friendly makes a case which selectively quotes from documents to support only one side of the argument. She makes
a case that advocates for universal daycare funding.
Though she makes a passionate case to support early learning, saying that most mothers of young children need daycare
so they can earn, and that children have the right to such care, more must be said to counterbalance some of the claims.
1. rights of the child
Ms Friendly is claiming that ONLY 3rd party care deserves funding. Though she makes this argument saying kids need care
and mothers can use the care option, she may be proving the case that daycare should be good or that parents may like it.
She is however not proving the case that ONLY daycare should be funded by the state.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child does not just talk about the right to 3rd party care. It also defends the right
to equal benefit under the law. Therefore it we fund 3rd party care for those who use or prefer it, it is reasonable to say
that the Charter also argues those in family-based care deserve equal benefit.
Article 26(1)
States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social assistance,
and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.
Article 27 -1
States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical,
mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
In other words, the Convention defends the right to all children at the end of the day thrive and benefit equally. It
does not say this should happen only for children in daycare.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child in several sections also strongly defends the right of the child to the presence
of the parent, in fact to care suggesting that if there is to be bias, is for family-based care over 3rd party care.
Eg. Preamble
The States Parties to the present Convention, convinced that the
Family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural
Environment for the growth and well-being of its members and particularly
Children, should be afford the necessary protection and assistance so that
It can assume its responsibilities within the community, recognizing that
The child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality
Should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness,
Love and understanding
Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child we read similar statements
Principle 4
The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled
To grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection
Shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate
Prenatal and postnatal care. The child shall have the right to adequate
Nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.
Principle 6
The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality,
Needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up
In the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case,
In an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child
Of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated
From his mother.
Not only does the child have the right to be in the presence of those who love him or her, but the child has the right
to be raised in the language and culture of those parents.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 26-3
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be
Given to their children
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 29 (1)
States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to the
Development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural
Identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in
Which the child is living; the country from which he or she may originate and
For civilizations different from his or her own
What Ms. Friendly does not mention but should, is that a one-size fits all daycare system no matter how innovative cannot
possibly operate in all languages, celebrating all traditions and values. To have a universal state-run system would by definition
standardize language instruction and culture, would not fine-tune or adapt to individual needs and would therefore deprive
children of these basic rights. If daycare is an option that fact is quite different from daycare being essentially forced
on a person by virtue of the fact that only daycare gets government funding. Were all children obliged to use daycare in
order to access federal support for social wellbeing, we would face a tilted balance that in essence would reward those who
sought out dominant language culture and punished those who did not.
Again Ms. Friendly in arguing that people need access; to a standardized system, does not make an adequate distinction
between funding one option and funding all options. It is reasonable to argue that 3rd party care should get funding. It is
not reasonable to argue that only 3rd party care deserves funding. To only fund 3rd party care not only deprives children
of the equal benefit rights of the convention but also of the language and culture rights.
2, early learning
Dr. Friendly claims that early learning is a right. What she is apparently assuming is that only in daycare do children
learn. In fact children are born ready to learn and they learn wherever they are. The case therefore that children deserve
to learn is not adequately proven by saying we should fund only one location or style.
In the teaching profession of which I am a part, we are actually moving to two currents which Dr. Friendly seems to ignore.
One is that we value all locations of learning and funding flows with the child. School boards are now funding Distance
learning, homeschooling, charter schools, private schools, independent schools and many variations of school locations including
ski schools and schools on boats, as well as many focuses of schooling
Including womens rights based, Canadian culture based, arts based.
If we in education are noticing that learning is not restricted to location
it is certainly appropriate that for the preschool years from birth we dont limit funding to location.
The second principle Ms. Friendly seems to ignore that is that children
Learn in unique ways. In the education profession we are moving to
Smaller and smaller class sizes and to adjusting a lot of our testing
Procedures and objectives to recognize the unique learning styles of
Kids. We simply cant have a one-size fits all curriculum. A standardized
System may sound efficient from an administrative point of view
For safety and health inspections but for learning a standardized
Approach is actually inconsistent with best practices for learning.
Parents are the first and main educators of their children. Ms. Friendly
seems to assume that only people with formal certification are
Competent but that way of assessing expertise ignores the entire
Feminist tradition where experience matters. A parent by the
Time the child is even one month old has gotten to know that
Baby with an intensity that few paid strangers will invest for
years. Parents have an emotional bond with the child
That not only provides an anchor of security to the child but
Also predisposes them to go the extra mile to help that child.
Parents are most likely to notice when a child shows aptitude
In sports or music or the arts and they are the ones most keenly
Interested in ensuring those aptitudes are developed. They are the
Ones most motivated to drive across town for medicine in a thunderstorm or to find that violin class or that ballet tutor
that the child needs.
Again Ms. Friendly makes a logical case that it is nice to
Have someone teach the child the letters and numbers but she
Is mistaken to suggest that such skills are unlearned or learned
Poorly anywhere outside of daycare. They are in fact often
Very well learned when children are at dayhomes, with grandparents,
With sitters or with moms and dads.
Ms. Friendly also uses the expression education without actually
Being willing to specify testable skills as the unique domain
Of daycares. Much research about daycare centres has been done
Often with mixed results, dependent often on who funded the study.
Ms. Friendly has often uncovered research showing advantages of
Daycare but again we cannot know how the child would have fared in
Attentive parental care since we cant run a control group of the same
Child raised differently.
We do know that parents vote with their feet. There are wait
Lists at some daycares but vacancies at many others. Many
Polls have shown parents actually like family-based care more
Than they like 3rd party care. We must assume parents have
The best interests and education of the child as a consideration
When they express such preferences and a democracy would
Accommodate those assessments and preferences.
Eg. 2006 July
Fleishman-Hillard Canada (formerly GPC Research) has released results of a Nov 2005 pre-election Canadian survey of childcare
policy (July 2006) asking 2012 respondents their views. (310 in Atlantic, 401 in Quebec, 500 in Ontario, 200 in Manitoba and
Sask, 301 in Alberta and 300 in BC) Results included:
-over 80% preferred parental care in the home as the ideal care arrangement for young children
-85% of rural residents and 80% of urban residents preferred to have a parent at home
- 75% of Quebecers up to 91% of Albertans preferred to have a parent at home
82% of males and 81% of females preferred having a parent at home
-86% of married Canadians and 76% of single-never married Canadians preferred to have a parent at home
84% of low income Canadians compared to 78% of high income Canadians preferred to have a parent at home
88% of Canadians over age 65 and 79% of younger Canadians preferred to have a parent at home
-78% of parents with children under age 6 at home preferred to have a parent at home
-70% of Quebec parents of young children and 78% of Ontario parents of young children preferred to have a parent at home
If parental care were not an option the preferred other choices are 53% relative-based care, 20% family daycare, 7% for-profit
daycare and 17% nonprofit daycare
- In Quebec 33% of parents preferred as their second choice relative based care.
In that province 35% preferred a family daycare (dayhome) arrangement
-regardless of household income level, gender, age of parents,
or rural-urban the trend to prefer
relative-based care as second was consistent
Given options of how government should invest $5 billion per year for care of children,
62% preferred giving all parents a tax deduction, 57% preferred cash payments to parents, 45% preferred an overall tax
reduction, 38% preferred subsidies to childcare centres and 35% preferred building a national daycare /childcare system
-Asked whether a European plan for paid parental time at home with a baby for 3 years was advisable in Canada, 69% said
it was a good or very good idea, 27% said it was a bad or very bad idea.
-the highest support for the idea was in Quebec at 79% of all parents
-60% of men and 71% of women supported such parental leave
-77% of young adults and 60% of senior adults approved of such paid leave
-asked where policies should be in place to encourage grandparent-based care of young children, 53% thought it a good
or very good idea and 42% thought it a bad or very bad idea
-60% of young adults approved but only 53% of senior adults
The polling firm has concluded that most Canadians do not prefer a national daycare childcare system and that parents
even in Quebec prefer direct supports to parents.
2006 Carrie Lukas of the Independent Womens Forum in the US has reported on three recent US polls about womens roles (May
2006)
-PEW survey of mothers with children under 18 found that the majority of women prefer part-time paid work over full time,
and 20% would cut back paid work hours if they could in order to spend more time with the children.
-Public Agenda, a US polling firm, surveyed parents of children under age 5. 6% felt that quality daycare was the ideal
care arrangement 70% felt that it was best for a parent to be at home if possible. Given a list of options the majority of
those asked felt daycare was the least preferred option. 70% agreed with the statement Parent should only rely on a daycare
center when they have no other option
Lukas concluded that daycare should be one option but the best resolution is to lower taxes for families so being able
to be home with a young child is an affordable option for those who want it. Lukas wrote the book The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism
Daycares do not teach children to read. They do not teach children
In fact any testable skills that parents at home can’t teach.
This means that daycare is a sufficient but not necessary site of
Education. To fund it is logical because it offers education
To fund only it is not logical since other sites offer education
Equally well.
3 earning patterns of women
Ms Friendly cites statistics about the high proportions of women earning.
She does not however itemize how or where these women earn. Many earn from home, right with the child for instance even
operating a dayhome, telecommuting, operating a home-based business ,freelance writing, selling merchandise, tutoring piano.
Many earn evenings or weekends while the kids are in the care of the spouse or a sitter. Many do work outside the home but
they take the child with them such as driving a school bus or at a mom and pop grocery store or on the farm. Many earn and
are away from home to do so but they use and prefer care by a trusted neighbor, sitter or even relative such as a grandma.
ALL of these women earn and do not need daycare.
Ms Friendly is making her case as if any woman who earns needs daycare. If she itemized how women earn and how many
of them earn only part-time in order to prioritize being with the children, she would have a much more realistic number about
how many woman actually earn away from home full-time and have no one else at all that they would like to leave the child
with.
Ms. Friendly also has in the past made the claim that wait lists prove need of daycare.
However this too is misleading. Many names on wait lists are for funding and if daycare is the only funded way to take
care of a child, we cant be sure if the desire is for financial help or actually a preference for daycare. We would only know
what people actually wanted if we funded all care. Only then would we see if people actually preferred daycare.
But the wait lists are also misleading because most centres have vacancies (www.kidsfirstcanada.org) and most centres
with wait lists have names on there that also appear at 3-4 other centres. Some names on the wait list are of children not
even born yet and some are names of children who are born but whose parents dont actually want the daycare space for several
months. Therefore the wait list exaggerates need today by at least 400%.
Ms. Friendly has not made it clear how many daycare spaces she would like but in the past the daycare groups with which
she is affiliated have argued that each child in the nation should have access and that ideally daycare would be free. What
Ms. Friendly is not admitting then is the total cost of that proposal but for 2.1 million preschoolers it would at $10,000
per space be $21 billion per year.
It seems evident that Ms. Friendly does not really expect the government to provide such lavish funds, 4 times what the
Liberals promised over a five year period, or 20 times what they promised per year. How could the state afford this? Apparently
it is being argued that we need to ensure that the current winners continue to get all this funding for themselves, and the
others get nothing to ensure that those who get funded can be so generously funded.
The Friendly argument for one-sided funding of daycare is the problem. The argument for funding of daycare as one style
of car,e matched with funding for all other styles, could be a good policy- but it is not the case Ms Friendly is making.
Many young mothers do indeed do have income, and did not in earlier generations. But we must not assume their work
is only outside the home or 9 to 5. In fact recent studies have found that a majority of all paid workers work nonstandard
shifts. To set up a daycare plan for 8-6 PM for instance would not meet the needs even of those who did want daycare. We
then have to look at what is the most efficient use of the taxpayers dollar. If we are to fund 2.1 million cribs and highchairs,
most of which are empty, just so a child can have the choice of being there or not, and we dont fund the child unless the
child is in that spot, we are wasting tax money. It is simply much more efficient to fund the child where the child is. That
would end child poverty, add to household financial stability and would actually be the real enabler of parental choice.
In addition it is problematic in any case for daycare to argue about the needs of women who work, as if taking care of
a child at home is not work. Many women at home with a newborn taking care of it 18 hours or more a day feel strongly that
they are actually still doing intense work for society. And feminist economists agree. If care of a child is useful work
when done by a daycare employee it is not less useful if done by a mother. Ms. Friendly does not seem to define both as work
though, which seems inconsistent.
If however we do agree to go along with the traditional economics definition of work, that only those who get paid are
working, and that mothers at home are not being paid so are not working, we still have a problem. The argument is circular.
It is only not called work because it is unpaid and Friendlys argument refuses to pay it because it is not work. It could
easily and logically be said that care of a child is work, wherever it happens.
If however we do say that women at home are a minority now and that 70% of mothers do earn, this is also not a justification
in a democracy for saying we should only encourage and support that 70%. It is unfair in a democracy to deprive the other
30% of equal benefit under the law and it is particularly unfair to deprive their children of equal benefit under the law.
If daycares really were offering very desired services, they may even get increased enrolment if we funded the child directly.
But we wont know as long as Ms. Friendlys argument carries the day and people get no funds unless they use daycare.
4 universal childcare/ daycare
The health care plan is universal. Everyone who breaks his leg can get it treated at any hospital or clinic or even in
an ambulance on the street, for free. The health care plan has all of us contributing to it so that since we all run a chance
of randomly needing care of a broken leg, we have equal access to benefit.
Daycare is not like that. A child is not a random act but a planned event. With birth control and abortion available,
and 9 months gestation parents can anticipate and plan for the likelihood that a baby will need care. The care the child
receives has historically been given very competently by family members and though trained 3rd parties can also change diapers
and spoon feed, their ability to do so is no better than is that of the parent. This is in stark contrast to the expertise
of the medical community who really do have extensive training beyond that of the general public. Therefore the case cannot
be made that we must fund universal daycare because it is like universal health care.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women did envisage helping women who in emergency had to have 3rd party care of
their children. It did not want such crisis situations to result in children lacking care.
But we must not go past this to generalize that all children are in emergency. It is intriguing to see how often Friendly
quotes rights of disabled children to special professional level and possibly institutional care. However we must not assume
that all children are in such dire circumstance that parental care is not competent.
In the US several studies have been done of 3rd party are. The Head Start program for instance found that children given
help by a home-visit or by brief periods with other kids did fare well. But these were children from high-risk homes and
in dire poverty. We must not assume that all parents are unable to figure out what their child enjoys or how to provide it.
Not all homes are high risk and the state should tread softly when it intervenes at any point but particularly it should not
intervene to take over claiming all homes are high-risk. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women clearly had more faith
in parents than that.
5 The Royal Commission on the Status of Women
Ms. Friendly quotes this document from 1970 as if it roundly endorses universal daycare. In fact it does not. The commission
actually eloquently defends the rights to equal funding of all care styles, daycare or not.
Here is a quote from that document
The solution we recommend is to provide substantial cash allowances for
Dependent children. The allowance should be taxed to avoid subsidizing
Wealthy families
It would replace the present system of family allowances and the income tax
Exemption for a dependent child under 6 years of age.
No tax receipts would be required as evidence of childcare expenses because the child care allowance would be paid to
all mothers whether the parents themselves care for the children or pay for a substitute.
The contribution made by mothers who stay home to care for children would be
Recognized and fewer mothers would be forced to work outside for financial reasons.
Conclusion:
The documents Ms. Friendly quotes actually support funding all children not just children in daycare. Her paper is unfortunately
selecting only sections to quote which could be used to ask for preferential funding for only one care style.
Legislators however need to consider all children and benefits for all children
The nice thing about the equality case made by many groups including the
Care of the Child Coalition is that it seeks to benefit daycare children also.Though Friendlys argument excludes us, ours
includes her.
Beverley Smith
403-283-2400
|
