Liberal universal child care plan

[BubberMiley]

I thought you said you could only find manitoba....which isn't a license either...feel free to show where individuals are licenced

I said I only know Manitoba. It doesn't mean I can't use the google machine to find out new stuff. If you tried it, you would find this.

[M.Dancer]

I said I only know Manitoba. It doesn't mean I can't use the google machine to find out new stuff. If you tried it, you would find this.

Okay...so at least one province has a licensing system.

Would you agree then, this is a provincial matter?

I also notice there seems to be no guidelines or standards for the curriculum of the children..I assume it includes running with scissors and playing well with others...something almost every stay at home Mom also teaches

[Scotty]

Wonderful. Now we're being told to make electoral decisions based on anecdotal stories.

No, you're being told to use your bloody head and think about things a little.

[Scotty]

Yeah, so? Do you want them to work, make money and contribute to taxes, CPP and EI or do you want them at home on social assistance because they can't afford private childcare? Or do you expect extended family members (grand-parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc...) to work for free as babysitters?

Family One probably see their kids for maybe an hour a day (mother works lots of unpaid overtime), more on the weekend, though both parents often do some work on weekends. The Second family do exactly as you say. The father takes care of them all day, and the mother has foregone promotion so as to not work overtime so she too can spend time with her kids. Whenever any other child care is required their extended family take care of it. Their children have never had a non-family babysitter.

It should be interesting how those four kids turn out. The oldest son in family One is already showing behavioural difficulties.

[Bryan]

I said I only know Manitoba. It doesn't mean I can't use the google machine to find out new stuff. If you tried it, you would find this.

There IS a licence in Manitoba, but it is not required. There are plenty of daycares that are not licenced, and plenty of parents that would not put their child in a daycare that was.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bryan

[ToadBrother]

Family One probably see their kids for maybe an hour a day (mother works lots of unpaid overtime), more on the weekend, though both parents often do some work on weekends. The Second family do exactly as you say. The father takes care of them all day, and the mother has foregone promotion so as to not work overtime so she too can spend time with her kids. Whenever any other child care is required their extended family take care of it. Their children have never had a non-family babysitter.

It should be interesting how those four kids turn out. The oldest son in family One is already showing behavioural difficulties.

And just in case you didnt' buy the anecdotal story the first time, we'll throw in some more.

Care to cite the per capita rate of "behavioral problems" among families with two working families versus one, or would that sort of thing muck up a great "just-so" story.

[Scotty]

How do you know that? If there was a national daycare program, perhaps they would have put their children in daycare and both partners would be working in the second family.

Because I know. They decided the kids were better off with a stay-at-home-parent.

In any case, so what? Is it not better to give people the support they need so that they may both work?

I'm all for providing parents with support. But a national daycare only provides support to people who put their kids into daycare. I would be more in favour of tax breaks and direct aid to families. That, at least, helps all parents.

]It's also great that they are a couple and have that support, but let's be honest here. Child daycare programs are primarily designed to benefit single mothers in particular.

Again, direct aid and tax breaks would do this just as well. And besides, I don't want to provide overall complete child care to parents. It's not up to society to pay for the raising of their children. There SHOULD be economic sacrifices in raising a child. There are economic sacrifices in all the positive choices we make. that's what life is about.

[BubberMiley]

I'm all for providing parents with support. But a national daycare only provides support to people who put their kids into daycare. I would be more in favour of tax breaks and direct aid to families. That, at least, helps all parents.

So instead of a public school system, would you be in favour of tax breaks and direct aid to families instead? That way, parents who choose to educate their children at home benefit equally to children in public schools.

[M.Dancer]

There IS a licence in Manitoba, but it is not required. There are plenty of daycares that are not licenced, and plenty of parents that would not put their child in a daycare that was.

The license is for the daycare, not the staff.

ECE is quite frankly, a joke. They teach the children nothing more than they learn quite naturally at home...

[Scotty]

And just in case you didnt' buy the anecdotal story the first time, we'll throw in some more.

Care to cite the per capita rate of "behavioral problems" among families with two working families versus one, or would that sort of thing muck up a great "just-so" story.

Hey, if I wanted to make a story up I could do a better job of it and make.

I don't know what the stats say but I personally have no doubts whatever that parents make better parents than some 'early childhood educator' in an institutional setting.

[Scotty]

So instead of a public school system, would you be in favour of tax breaks and direct aid to families instead? That way, parents who choose to educate their children at home benefit equally to children in public schools.

I thought that was what I said, so yes.

[ToadBrother]

Hey, if I wanted to make a story up I could do a better job of it and make.

I don't know what the stats say but I personally have no doubts whatever that parents make better parents than some 'early childhood educator' in an institutional setting.

Translation: I have these prejudices that cannot be assailed by hard facts!

Just imagine public policy set by anecdotal stories and a lack of "personal doubts".

Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Scotty]

Translation: I have these prejudices that cannot be assailed by hard facts!

Just imagine public policy set by anecdotal stories and a lack of "personal doubts".

How come when it's me it's 'prejudices' but when it's you it's 'opinion?' Or do you even equate your words with opinion as opposed to gospel.

I've never seen anything which contradicted that parents raise their children better than a rotating bunch of ill-paid babysitters in an institutional setting. Children like and need the security of knowing their care-givers, and institutional daycares change employees all too often. That's in addition to the fact that none of those employees feel for the children what parents do. They don't have the same degree of commitment and interest and never could.

And by the way, go ahead and assail my 'prejudices', but so far you haven't produced any of these 'hard facts', and I think you'll need a few.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Scotty

[Guest American Woman]

Whenever any other child care is required their extended family take care of it. Their children have never had a non-family babysitter.

Not everyone would see that as a good thing. There are generally two sides to every story, two views to every issue, and of course a lot of gray area in between -- and in most instances, there are positives and negatives with each side/view.

[ToadBrother]

How come when it's me it's 'prejudices' but when it's you it's 'opinion?' Or do you even equate your words with opinion as opposed to gospel.

I don't usually equate my opinions with fact and demand public policy be made by them. I may not always demark my opinions from what I believe to be factual and evidenced statements, but I do try to. Certanly, if called out on a naked assertion, I'll either try to back it up or admit that I can't.

I've never seen anything which contradicted that parents raise their children better than a rotating bunch of ill-paid babysitters in an institutional setting. Children like and need the security of knowing their care-givers, and institutional daycares change employees all too often. That's in addition to the fact that none of those employees feel for the children what parents do. They don't have the same degree of commitment and interest and never could.

You have absolutely no evidence for your assertion, and you seem bound and determined not to provide, or probably look for any. What you have is a personal prejudice, apparently backed up one event with one kid for which there may be numerous explanations for behavioral problems. Apart from all the other substantial problems with your claim, at the top of the list is you seem to believe that correlation implies causation; that the child has problems because both parents work and he spends lots of time in daycare. You provide no body of evidence to show that children who attend daycare are more likely to have such problems. In fact, you don't even have a diagnosis, I'll wager, so at every point you have absolutely no justification for your claim. You have pulled it out of thin air, quite literally, and used it to justify your particular social views.

It's the worst kind of claim; naked, unevidenced and backed by nothing but prejudice and fallacy.

Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Scotty]

I don't usually equate my opinions with fact and demand public policy be made by them. I may not always demark my opinions from what I believe to be factual and evidenced statements, but I do try to.

This being the exception, then?

You have absolutely no evidence for your assertion, and you seem bound and determined not to provide, or probably look for any.

What've you produced but hot air?

What you have is a personal prejudice, apparently backed up one event with one kid for which there may be numerous explanations for behavioral problems.

I don't have any personal prejudices but I'm starting to get that you do. Let me guess, put your kids in daycare, right?

My belief that parents raise kids better than institutions is hardly unique. It's actually fairly widespread. Why you're going off on it as if nobody's ever offered that opinion to you before is somewhat confusing unless your reaction is coming from guilt and self-doubt...

Edited April 1, 2011 by Scotty

[Bonam]

You have absolutely no evidence for your assertion, and you seem bound and determined not to provide, or probably look for any.

I don't see an assertion like "a kid benefits most from being raised by his parents" as really needing evidence, to be honest. Excepting the rare situations of abusive or dysfunctional families, it is obvious that parents love their children more and have a greater stake in raising their children well than a paid caretaker ever would. Certain assertions are sufficiently self-evident to individuals sharing the basic reference frame of human society as to not need evidence.

Asking for proof of children benefiting from being raised by their parents is merely a stonewalling/delaying tactic. It would be no different than demanding proof that the sky is blue before accepting that statement in a debate.

[ToadBrother]

I don't see an assertion like "a kid benefits most from being raised by his parents" as really needing evidence, to be honest.

And yet the scientific revolution was and continues to be based on challenging things that people see no need to be challenged.

Excepting the rare situations of abusive or dysfunctional families, it is obvious that parents love their children more and have a greater stake in raising their children well than a paid caretaker ever would. Certain assertions are sufficiently self-evident to individuals sharing the basic reference frame of human society as to not need evidence.

"Sufficiently self-evident" seems like a long-winded, self-aggrandizing way of saying "prejudice".

Asking for proof of children benefiting from being raised by their parents is merely a stonewalling/delaying tactic. It would be no different than demanding proof that the sky is blue before accepting that statement in a debate.

In other words, you have no evidence either.

Do you think it's sensible to make public policy based on this sort of thing? Don't you think actually having some actual data at hand, you know, to actually see if the assertion is true, would be helpful?

[ToadBrother]

This being the exception, then?

Odd, I don't recall stating my opinion on this topic. I recall asking you to back up yours.

What've you produced but hot air?

I've determined you have no actual methodological justification for your claim. Who is it that's blowing hot air?

I don't have any personal prejudices but I'm starting to get that you do. Let me guess, put your kids in daycare, right?

My wife stayed home and raised them, oddly enough. Like I said, you've made the leap that somehow because I questioned your assertion that I must fit into some neat little category that you can easily dismiss. It was a nice try, the standard play of those who suddenly find themselves sawing on the branch they're standing on.

My belief that parents raise kids better than institutions is hardly unique. It's actually fairly widespread. Why you're going off on it as if nobody's ever offered that opinion to you before is somewhat confusing unless your reaction is coming from guilt and self-doubt...

Lots of beliefs are widely held. Truth is not determined by democratic vote.

If you want me to buy that children, as a large group, in fact, have fewer "problems" (and it would be good for you to define precisely what you mean by problems) then you need to justify it with more than just simply bald statements, naked assertions that you seem most unwilling to flesh out with meaningful data.

[Bonam]

And yet the scientific revolution was and continues to be based on challenging things that people see no need to be challenged.

Well, actually people did see a need to challenge them, or else they wouldn't have challenged them. As a scientist and engineer I am all for investigating things scientifically, but I haven't seen much good come out of social science in recent years. Almost all such studies fail to control for multitudes of important known variables, and likely entirely miss other variables that the experimenters didn't even consider, and in the end find whatever result the experimenters wanted to find according to their biases. The studies also endlessly suffer from small sample size, self-reporting bias in questionnaires, and other problems.

"Sufficiently self-evident" seems like a long-winded, self-aggrandizing way of saying "prejudice".

In other words, you have no evidence either.

I did not claim to have evidence. I explicitly stated that I believe such evidence is not necessary. And yes, I have a prejudice towards two parent families where one parent spends time at home to raise the children.

Do you think it's sensible to make public policy based on this sort of thing? Don't you think actually having some actual data at hand, you know, to actually see if the assertion is true, would be helpful?

If there existed a study that carefully examined this issue, had millions of samples, did not rely on self-reporting, and controlled for every variable that could be of relevance, and was confirmed by other independent studies of similar quality from organizations with opposite biases, I would indeed consider the conclusions of these studies. In the obvious absence of such a body of evidence to either support or refute the notion, I will stick with my statement that it is self-evident that having a parent raise their children is beneficial.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

If there existed a study that carefully examined this issue, had millions of samples, did not rely on self-reporting, and controlled for every variable that could be of relevance, and was confirmed by other independent studies of similar quality from organizations with opposite biases, I would indeed consider the conclusions of these studies. In the obvious absence of such a body of evidence to either support or refute the notion, I will stick with my statement that it is self-evident that having a parent raise their children is beneficial.

So your scientific mind tells you the rational thing to do in absense of evidence is to continue to believe something you have no evidence for.

I imagine Urban VIII felt much the same way.

[Scotty]

Odd, I don't recall stating my opinion on this topic. I recall asking you to back up yours.

The belief in the superiority of parents as caregivers is pretty universally accepted in our culture (and all other cultures). As such, I feel no particular need to defend it, especially in the complete absence of evidence to contradict it.

I've determined you have no actual methodological justification for your claim. Who is it that's blowing hot air?

So far? You. Then again, maybe that's just my 'prejudice' speaking.

Lots of beliefs are widely held. Truth is not determined by democratic vote.

Perhaps not, but widely held beliefs can't be successfully challenged without evidence and a reasonably coherent theory against them, neither of which have been presented.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Scotty

[ToadBrother]

The belief in the superiority of parents as caregivers is pretty universally accepted in our culture. As such, I feel no particular need to defend it, especially in the complete absence of evidence to contradict it.

I needn't go through a laundry list of the other things pretty universally accepted by our culture in the past.

Perhaps not, but widely held beliefs can't be successfully challenged without evidence and a reasonably coherent theory against them, neither of which have been presented.

All I asked for was some data demonstrating that children who spend time in daycare while their parents work are more likely to have "problems", and all I get is a lot of handwringing.

Edited April 1, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

So your scientific mind tells you the rational thing to do in absense of evidence is to continue to believe something you have no evidence for.

In the absence of evidence, one still needs to make decisions, rather than being paralyzed waiting for such evidence to materialize.

Fundamentally, implementing the liberals proposal means endorsing the idea of more parents giving their children over to the state for raising and care. Not implementing it means endorsing the idea of those parents continuing to raise their own children. In fact, the first option is stronger, since it means specifically changing something, taking new action to achieve some end. I would argue that it is proponents of the liberal proposal that have the burden of proof that more state childcare would be beneficial.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

In the absence of evidence, one still needs to make decisions, rather than being paralyzed waiting for such evidence to materialize.

Fundamentally, implementing the liberals proposal means endorsing the idea of more parents giving their children over to the state for raising and care. Not implementing it means endorsing the idea of those parents continuing to raise their own children. In fact, the first option is stronger, since it means specifically changing something, taking new action to achieve some end. I would argue that it is proponents of the liberal proposal that have the burden of proof that more state childcare would be beneficial.

It would be valuable if both sides were to provide proof. But the fact is that the economic conditions make one parent staying at home very difficult in many areas, so the arguments against have a potentially large impact on a rather large group of families. As dangerous as setting policy based on no evidence is making policy based on some sort of optimal and ultimately unachievable situation.

Beyond that, the whole thing is a load of bull anyways. The Liberals have promised this so many times now that even if I sat firmly in the pro-daycare camp, I wouldn't see any reason to believe it. But what makes me uncomfortable is that the Tories and their social conservative supporters want to use this as part of some sort of social engineering-oriented benefits system. I would prefer that if one side or another be chosen, that something other than prejudices, naivete and nostalgia were at play.

But the reality is, whether you, I, or anyone else likes or dislikes it, there are a significant number of parents placing their children in daycare and a significant number who want help from the government. Whether it's right for them to have their hand out, they are also voters, and clearly the Liberals have mined that vein... several times in fact.