Good Policy

[Melanie_]

You obviously had a bad experience, and that is a shame. It’s true that there is poor quality care out there, but there is also a lot of higher quality than what you are describing. Most of what you are saying is not the result of the government regulations – outside of child to staff ratio (1:8 for preschool), every other problem you’ve listed is directly connected to the centre you chose. Each centre is autonomous – they follow the basic licensing regulations, but the board of directors (made up of parents) sets the policies and approves the budget, with the guidance of the director of the program. Parents have the final say in policies – you had more opportunity to change that centre than you are aware of. There is very little government involvement, outside of licensing regulations and some funding. The government funding could be used to provide higher wages, which might attract a better quality of caregiver – again, a choice made by the board of directors.

While you may have eventually found a private sitter who met your needs, that isn’t the case for the majority of parents. Instead, they find patchwork care - one day with grandma, two with the neighbour down the street, etc. Or they put their kids in less ethical care than what you are describing – your caregiver stayed beneath the limit of 4 children in a home for unlicensed care, but there are many illegally operating caregivers who take in far more children than they can reasonably care for. And what about the caregiver you use? As an unlicensed provider, she probably isn’t eligible for EI, health benefits, sick time, paid vacation (unless the families who bring their children there are willing to pay her for it), etc. She can’t be making a lot of money, if she is only taking in the maximum of 4 children, so in effect she is subsidizing you.

Turning to the issue of subsidy… the $100/month doesn’t cover the cost for low income families, so they are still dependent on taking spots in programs that are eligible for subsidies. You’ve questioned the quality of these programs (although I disagree that it is as widespread as you claim), but the Harper plan does nothing to increase the quality – in fact it has taken money out of the system. What are the options for those families?

Bryan, I honestly do recognize that the system has flaws, and I’m sorry to hear that your son had such a bad experience. But I go into centres on a regular basis, and I see much better care than this. I’d rather try to work to improve the system, than abandon it because of the bad experiences of the minority.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Melanie_

[Bryan]

You obviously had a bad experience, and that is a shame. It’s true that there is poor quality care out there, but there is also a lot of higher quality than what you are describing. Most of what you are saying is not the result of the government regulations – outside of child to staff ratio (1:8 for preschool), every other problem you’ve listed is directly connected to the centre you chose. Each centre is autonomous – they follow the basic licensing regulations, but the board of directors (made up of parents) sets the policies and approves the budget, with the guidance of the director of the program. Parents have the final say in policies – you had more opportunity to change that centre than you are aware of. There is very little government involvement, outside of licensing regulations and some funding. The government funding could be used to provide higher wages, which might attract a better quality of caregiver – again, a choice made by the board of directors.

While you may have eventually found a private sitter who met your needs, that isn’t the case for the majority of parents. Instead, they find patchwork care - one day with grandma, two with the neighbour down the street, etc. Or they put their kids in less ethical care than what you are describing – your caregiver stayed beneath the limit of 4 children in a home for unlicensed care, but there are many illegally operating caregivers who take in far more children than they can reasonably care for. And what about the caregiver you use? As an unlicensed provider, she probably isn’t eligible for EI, health benefits, sick time, paid vacation (unless the families who bring their children there are willing to pay her for it), etc. She can’t be making a lot of money, if she is only taking in the maximum of 4 children, so in effect she is subsidizing you.

We were members of the board. Every change we proposed was shot down as either too difficult, or not allowed under government regulations. When push came to shove, they always hid behind regulations. That's what made me determined that I would never use one that was regulated again, including my fantastic babysitter if she was.

The issue of benefits is the same for any self-employed person. They tell you the price, you pay it. We didn't tell her how much, she did, and when she raised the rate, we gave it without question, The rate is the rate.

Another issue for me: why were these kiddie warehouses allowed to go 8:1, but my babysitter was not allowed 5:1. That actually really made me angry, especially since the government was trying to tell her that her own daughter counts as one of the kids in daycare even though by the time she gets home from school, her dad is home, and he's taking care of her?

Don't you think it's easier to find a private babysitter in Winnipeg than a licensed spot right now? There are ads in the weekies all the time. My daughter and two of her freinds are starting school in september, so I know of three open full-time spaces right now, as opposed to the waiting lists of institutions crying to the government with their hands out.

Turning to the issue of subsidy… the $100/month doesn’t cover the cost for low income families, so they are still dependent on taking spots in programs that are eligible for subsidies. You’ve questioned the quality of these programs (although I disagree that it is as widespread as you claim), but the Harper plan does nothing to increase the quality – in fact it has taken money out of the system. What are the options for those families?

They have a lot more options now, because that $100 can be applied anywhere instead of only to the place the government tells them, and as it stands right now, that $100 is over and above any subsidy that space gets, so it's even better for them than it is for me. Like I said, I favour the entire subsidy system to be removed from the daycares entirely. No institution should get any funding whatsoever, it should only be given to the parents, on a needs basis. That needs basis is what determines the regulated daycare subsidy. I'm saying let the parent apply it where ever they want. Let the rate be the rate, then the daycare or other caregiver gets full value for the spot, and it's none of their concern what portion of the payment is out of the parents pocket.

Bryan, I honestly do recognize that the system has flaws, and I’m sorry to hear that your son had such a bad experience. But I go into centres on a regular basis, and I see much better care than this. I’d rather try to work to improve the system, than abandon it because of the bad experiences of the minority.

Should we name names here (or at least what area of the city)? Because I checked out a lot of them (all of the ones within reasonable driving distance), and if there are acceptable ones in my area, I'd sure like to know which ones they are. Most of the ones I saw, I could not figure out how it was possible for them to get a license, the conditions were so bad.

[Michael Hardner]

IOW, this is "hand picked" representative democracy. I think that's kind of like what they do in Kuwait or Libya and ultimately, it's a fraud.

If we're going to pick representatives to voice public opinion, we'd be better off with a lottery system. (Our current system is arguably better than either: we have a harsh obstacle course to eliminate the amateurs and incompetents and then, we choose by lottery.)

Hi, 1991.

If you read all of it (there's a lot, granted) then you'll see that there are different models for engaging the public.

These are experiments and pilot projects. I don't think you can reject the paper based on that. The point is that there is an effort underway to engage with the public in a new way, that recognizes the problems that we've all been talking about on these boards.

When a new democracy has their first election, often there is voter fraud but we still focus on the big picture and hope for improvement.

[Michael Hardner]

I think there is a third option. This option should be based on mistrust and the certain knowledge that power corrupts. Concentrate on making the uppermost echelons of government and corporate management totally transparent so that honesty and decency trickle down through the rest. Just like wealth is supposed to but for real. We used to talk about the need for process guardians to ensure the public's processes could be protected from special interests intent on capturing them and either steering them in a direction favourable to their own or over a cliff if this didn't work. Your report touches on this in the section on Complexity, Consultation and Conventional Leadership: A Toxic Mix. It is a mix that thrives on secrecy. Killing the suffocating culture of official secrecy that surrounds conventional leadership is the key to getting out of the way of communities sustainably managing their own affairs. We were unsuccesful at establishing the required transparency and if Harper's gang is anything to judge by we're going nowhere fast. I only expect more of the same when the Liberals return.

As for transparency and mistrust...our fishermen volunteered and paid to have surveillance cameras mounted on their boats to prove they could be trusted to manage their use of a public resource. They offered to pay for the installation of security cameras in the offices of the DFO bureacrats responsible for managing fishermen so the public could learn to trust them too, but DFO declined.

EB,

Your "third option" could also be phrased as "checks and balances" that were built into the system from the beginning.

As for your example, it's a little vague to me. You're making it out like a bunch of "city slickers" came in and stole all your community's money. Did somebody lie to you, or not ? If so, who did it and why were they not held responsible ? Was overfishing a problem or not ? If it was, was the camera option a realistic approach ?