Liberation Learning

Image source: Vancouver Courier

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

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

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

For school reviews, a better use of the time would be would be to support more objective journalism, such as the The Tyee’s fund for investigative journalists, or getting more families involved in the school governance process.  We need websites and news organizations to let families and others know about the quality of the care and education our children are getting in the schools, because we – the public – are responsible for OUR schools.  But, according to the Courier, Karen Chester seems to say that she views public schools to be less like utilities and more like incidentals:

Sites like The Shorty List operate in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, according to Chester, who argues if individuals can easily find restaurant or movie reviews online, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to find information for the care and education of children. read more

If this is what Chester actually said, then she’s clearly forgetting that schools are not at all like movies or restaurants (a movie costs 10 bucks and couple hours of your time – compare that to the value and commitment of a K-12 education). She is also missing the mark because while we may want restaurant reviews to decide on the best tasting food, we don’t want to rely on review websites for ensuring that back kitchens are clean and food is safely prepared. For that we rely on a public system of food inspection, far more thorough and less open to manipulation by interested parties than is a review website.  The premise of the website cheapens and corrodes the true value of education, which is deeply troubling given how much our democracy depends on good public education and care programs.

Our school benefit from clear standards of professionalism, public accountability, elected governance structures and a funding model that doesn’t rely on the whims of the market. (Find any four star restaurants in a poor neighbourhood lately?) While our schools are not perfectly fair and can be improved in many ways, the way to do this is not to review them like they are nothing more than a date-night movie or the dinner after.  If we need to improve how we hold our schools to account, let’s not make the mistake of treating them like something other than an essentially public institution that stands at the core of our democracy.

As for daycares, the problem illustrated by the website becomes more vivid – because unlike most schools, daycares and other child care programs are funded in a patchwork of private and public sources, with little direct democratic oversight over the standards of care.  While there are basic regulations, akin to the food safety inspectors at restaurants, daycares and preschools are operated as if the best system for our youngest children should be the jungle of the marketplace.  Given this reality, perhaps the only available option is for families to go to a website and look up anonymous online postings about daycares and preschools in the neighbourhood.

But if this is the best option available, given how paltry a source of reliable information this forum could ever provide, we should all be concerned about the current child care system itself.  Families and children deserve fair access to quality care care and early education, which is why families seek out any and all sources of information. Just like the Courier article reports below, many families talk with neighbours to find out about most suitable teachers for their child, to learn of problems at schools and daycares and to find the best available place for their child’s care:

[Chester] asked total strangers at the neighbourhood playground for recommendations and tips when she was searching for childcare for her children. “I suppose this is just a way of taking that playground chat online, so you will have contact with a more diverse set of parents and get more opinions. Really, the opinions and comments from other parents are probably the most important things we use for finding information. read more

Public schools are public treasures and are governed in ways that allow the public to ensure that our expectations in terms of quality for all children are met. As an overall system the public schools do an incredibly good job of providing universal education for almost all children.  Just like public schools, child care too should be at the heart of a fair and democratic community. While they can do better, especially in terms of including children facing extra challenges and overcoming the dual legacies of racism and colonialism, especially for First Nations children and families, we – the public – are the one’s in charge and the one’s responsible and capable of realizing the full vision of public schools.  Let’s not lose site of this by treating schools as if they are any other service, no different from a $20 meal and $10 movie ticket.  There’s no value in cheapening the value of public schools.

Our child care system should also treated as a pillar of a just and democratic society.  Just because we’ve so far failed our children by not setting up a publicly accountable and democratically run child care system, doesn’t make child care any less valuable then our public schools.  So while the site The Shorty List may seem like a good idea, it’s actually just another indicator of what’s wrong with how we’re prioritizing child care and how far we have to go when comes to providing children and families the kinds of care programs that we all deserve.

Interesting study reported on by the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

The Tyee launched a new series today that shares the stories of “Native Youth, in their Own Voices.”  The series is an effort to go beyond stories told by others, such as number crunches who talk in statistics.  Here’s from the introduction to the series:

The aim of this series, however, is to move beyond the statistics to the people. In this introductory article, you will meet 14 First Nations young people, from B.C. communities that range from urban to remote, whom I interviewed in the course of a year. read more

The series looks promising, so I’ll be posting updates as it continues. Be sure to check it out!

From the new website No Child Labour in BC, part of a new campaign by BC First Call:

If you aren’t familiar with what is happening in British Columbia you might be shaking your head right now wondering why we’re raising awareness about child labour in Canada!

Well, in 2003 the BC government lowered the work-start age (that’s the age you can work without government’s permission) to 12-years-old. Yes – you read that correctly. Since 2003 children aged 12 and up can work at virtually any worksite and at any time of day (with the exception of the film industry where employers must still get a permit to hire children).

When BC did this, we became the jurisdiction with the youngest work-start age in North America.

Since then, more children are working and getting hurt in the workplace.  WorkSafeBC (BC’s workplace insurer) recorded a ten-fold increase in the number of accepted injury claims for 12 to 14 year olds on the job between 2004 and 2008.

This is unacceptable.

In June, domestic workers in New York state made history by securing legal protections, including rights to overtime pay, vacation time off and other employee rights.  Domestic workers had organized for years to get the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights passed, a major milestone for the over 200,000 nannies and other domestic workers in the state.  Here’s more, from the Media Mobilizing Project’s coverage of the victory:

NY Lawmakers passed a bill that requires overtime pay and at least one day off per week for over 200,000 nannies and domestic workers across the state of NY. This bill comes after years of successful organizing and lobbying by Domestic Workers United (DWU), which has workerd to pass the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. The last step is for Governor Patterson to sign it into law, making New York the first state establishing rights for household workers. Read more about this victory, and listen to a recent interview with Yvonne a member of DWU, conducted by Dan Jones of On Blast, and produced by Labor Justice Radio’s Kistine Carolan. read more

From the Vancouver Observer:

In response to the Special Advisor’s Report, a group of more than 200 parents representing 80% of the schools across Vancouver, Vancouver Parents for Public Education (VPPE), are requesting the Auditor General conduct an independent inquiry into whether or not the current provincial funding formula covers the actual costs of the Vancouver Board of Education.

“It’s ridiculous that politicians are playing games with children’s futures without knowing what it will take to properly fund public education” says Shoni Field, a VPPE spokesperson. “An independent inquiry from the Auditor General would allow everybody to start making informed decisions.” read more

Be sure to check out the Storytelling Festival, which started on Friday and continues through today.  Today (Sunday June 13) there will stories from 2-4 (and today is free).  More info:

Update: Added photo from Jean Djinni.

I spent today at Vancouver Change Camp, and had a great time.  The event is billed as a “participatory event to imagine and build new ways to collaborate for social change in the digital age.” I expected something far less interesting and learned a lot from many people, reflecting diverse interests, perspectives and backgrounds. Here are some of the surprises and great insights from today:

Surprise #1 – The technology enabled participation without getting in the way or being a distraction:

My expectation having not been to an open meeting event for the “digital age,” was that things might be overly “tech-focused” for sake of using or demonstrating the latest tools.  What happened instead was the use of appropriate technologies (including Post It notes, markers, brown paper bags, bulletin boards, projectors, wikis, etc.) in the fastest, most functional way.

Surprise #2 – The design of the gathering was inclusive and efficient:

I found out about the event through a Twitter post and was curious to see how it would go.

Having moved to Vancouver less than a year ago, I did not know anyone at the conference.  I expected, based on the many other conferences that I’ve attended, that the day would be spent in isolation watching and learning, but not really relating to others that much.  But within 1 minute another conference attendee and I were talking.  Even though he and I were not organizers or volunteers, we served as greeters to each other.  The design of the event facilitated connecting with each other, and I felt welcome and included the entire day.

Following the day there are people I want to reconnect with, and others who I am sure I’ll meet again. There were dozens of people that I learned from, because so many people were sharing ideas.  What was really great was how things felt focused, as if it had all been planned and pre-selected (the sessions were proposed first thing in the day).  The process was not only open and welcoming, but moved quickly and served dual functions (“stacking”).

I think that most people coming into the event, even if they did not know anyone there or did not have a lot of experience with the topics already, could have become involved and felt welcome.  There are many of my friends from school who didn’t come with me today because I described the event based on the usual conference format.  I was wrong in my predictions, and I think had others from school joined me they would of had a great time and been more engaged in the community as a result.  That’s powerful to see, and to be wrong in this way because my predictions come from many other conference experiences (generally good enough, but tedious and limiting all the same).

Surprise #3 – There was enough time to listen to others who shared interesting ideas:

The sessions were only :45 minutes, but in each period I felt that I learned new things and had a basis for following up.  The day moved quickly, but did not feel rushed.  This is not always the case for a conference, and I really appreciated how much was accomplished in a single day.  I feel like I attended a three-day conference!

Surprise #4 – The framework respected the capacity of the group members as intelligent thinkers, which brought out the best in the group as a whole:

I liked this part the best, and next time a Change Camp happens I am encouraging every child care worker I know to come and see how powerful it feels to be respected in this way.

I also learned a lot of ideas for how to facilitate decision making with preschoolers today, and saw that it works and feels great as an adult to be treated like I work to treat children I work with.  The group’s potential was more fully realized by how the event was structured, and that was wonderful to see in action.

Surprise #5 – Agendas were upfront and explicit, allowing people to network and share ideas based on both differences and similarities:

There were lots of personal, political and professional agendas today, from government workers reaching out to the community to people networking to carry out projects.  I liked how this was accepted as part of the event, but also how we moved beyond that to have time to listen and learn beyond narrow agendas.

I think it’s okay to have an agenda (I do), but want to move beyond that when working with others so that we also connect as fellow humans.  This structure of the event encouraged that.

Final Thoughts…

I think anyone organizing a conference that includes sharing and networking as part of its goals should incorporate some of the design features of this event.  By giving up control over the sequence and content, a lot more power was unleashed today.  While there are times for lectures, times for singular agendas and programs, I think we need more times like was created today.  This is especially true if we want to a community, whole and not fragmented.  Today’s event demonstrated some ideas that I was not fully aware of their power and effectiveness.  All and all, a great day!

Policy Note reports on the widening income gap in B.C. (worst in terms of inequality after Alberta) and the rest of Canada (getting worse over time) (you can also read more at Progressive-Economics.ca):

In a recent update of the Canadian data by Mike Veall of McMaster University, for the first time we have provincial data to show how dynamics have played out across in different parts of the country. In BC, for example, the top 1% received 7.8% of income in 1982, and this surged to 13.4% in 2007. After taxes and transfers, the situation is a bit better but not really that much, and the trend is the same: the top 1% received 6.6% of income in 1982, rising to 12.0% in 2007.

BC’s results roughly track the national trend, and it is notable that the top market income share is larger in both Ontario and Alberta, and smaller in every other province. After taxes and transfers, however, Ontario’s top 1% only got a measly 10% of the total income pie, making BC number two in terms of inequality after Alberta. As the Table shows, other provinces do a much better job of keeping top incomes in check. read more

Income inequality reflects a weakening of democracy, as power shifts and consolidates at one end of the political economy. Even if in absolute terms the shift in inequality did not come at the expense of greater poverty, any shift in inequality does come at the expense of democratic values and responsive government.

Worse is how the shift towards unequal incomes ends up actually contributing to greater poverty, with the more powerful using their power to reduce income supports and to privatize essential services, moving power from democratic institutions to the realm of fixed and unfair markets instead.  We cannot risk either more poverty or less democracy, which is why greater income equality and poverty reduction go hand and hand.

ECEBC’s $20 per hour strategy for British Columbia’s early childhood educators makes a good point about the need for higher wages, but misses the mark. A living wage campaign makes more sense than the $20/hour campaign because child care workers are paid poverty wages, a fact missed when we demand a dollar amount instead of demanding a living wage.

It is true that quality child care requires reasonable compensation to keep people in the profession, to recruit qualified care workers, and to pay workers at levels that reflect the actual value of child care and early education. Paying child care workers at least $40,000 per year ($20/hour) is a needed step in the right direction, but $40,000 is simply too low a wage to reflect the actual value of child care work.  We should first push for an above-poverty wage, then start pushing for adequate resources for all B.C. children and families.

A $20/hour wage simply isn’t sufficient to resolve the challenges of turnover and recruitment that plague the child care sector, and therefore promotes the wrong message about the value of child care or the resources required to provide adequate care to children and families. Sure, shifting wages up will improve things, but not solve the crisis. Our messages should be clearly focused on two points: (1) Poverty wages for any workers are unacceptable, including child care workers; (2) Child care is valuable, highly skilled work that requires adequate resources provided on an equitable basis.

The $20/hour strategy muddles these points, by not communicating that currently most child workers are paid poverty wages (unjust regardless of the value of our work) and by advancing a wage that doesn’t reflect the value of the work ($20/hour is simply too low to recruit and retain qualified child care workers). Qualified child care workers are competitive at pay rates far greater than $40,000 per year.  Workers with the skills and education at levels required to be an effective educator or care worker can demand wages far beyond $40,000 per year, as evidenced by wages of social workers, public and private school teachers, and most health care workers.

Moreover, child care should not be entry level work for other fields. Children and families benefit with experienced workers and a stable child care workforce. We should not be demanding a dollar amount that is based on an undervalued wage at the entry level of other professions. Incremental improvements are needed, but each step should communicate the value of our work because each step forward should get us to the final step of adequate, equitable and universal care for all B.C. children and families.

While the demand for at least $20 makes the point that current child care wages do not reflect the actual value of child care work, this point becomes muddled because the demand focuses on a dollar amount that’s below the actual value of our work. Even when child care work is paid $20 an hour, this wage and resources to pay it will remain grossly inadequate to meet the needs of B.C.’s children and families, and we need to make this point even as we demand to get beyond the current tragedy of child workers getting paid a poverty wage.

In contrast to a $20/hour strategy, a living wage strategy is based on the quality of a wage, rather than on the quantity of a wage (quantity as expressed in dollars per hour worked). This means that our demands for living wages communicate that a poverty wage is unacceptable in terms of universal human rights, regardless of the kind of work being performed. For human rights values to be realized, the value of a job is irrelevant to the value a person’s time spent working. Paid employment should not result in poverty. Period. Nobody should be paid less than a living wage, because an economic system based on poverty wages is an affront to human dignity.

Nobody should be expected or need to work for a wage that puts them in poverty, even if the work performed is undervalued by decision makers and leading political forces. This is as true for highly valuable work, like child care, health care, education, community building, production of food, public safety, art and cultural work, and public sanitation work. It is also true of less valuable work, like production and distribution of non-essential consumables or delivery of unnecessary personal services.

No matter the purpose or social value of a job, wages and working conditions should be worthy of human dignity. This is the point of a living wage, a wage that is based on a set of values reflecting what a person requires to live in dignity – above poverty – within a given place and at a given time. When the process for setting the level of a “living wage” is a public process, such as through a city wage commission, then the public is expressing an important value. Living wage benchmarks become a reflection of this value, which is more meaningful than workers simply seeking higher wages as part of job market negotiations.

Child care workers demanding to be paid a living wage, rather than a $20 wage, are better able to communicate that we are not simply seeking a raise as we are instead seeking to be treated with basic respect and dignity. Child care workers demanding a living wage are not just seeking wage increases for themselves, but are also advancing the living wage cause for all workers. We do this simple virtue of pegging the lowest acceptable wage for our work to the living wage benchmark for all work.

This helps our struggle become part of a universal struggle for justice and fairness, rather than about which kind of work should be paid more or less. A living wage has nothing to do with the value of a given job because it speaks only to value of human life. We should all be paid above poverty wages – regardless if we work in a spa, in a field, in retail, as a janitor, in fast food, as a nanny, in a daycare or as a sanitation worker – because human life is sacred. Low-wage workers benefit from demanding a living wage first, as the first demand before demanding reasonable wages based on other values.

Child care workers, like all underpaid workers, benefit from city governments pegging their lowest wage to living wage standards, even if not employed by the city or its contractors. That’s because government recognition that work should not result in poverty provides a platform for workers in need of basic dignity and respect. Most child care workers, including most daycare workers, family care providers, and nannies, are paid poverty wages. We are part of the vulnerable workforce in general, made vulnerable in part by unacceptable wage and working conditions as set by the law. When we demand, as underpaid workers, that every worker be paid at least a living wage we make ourselves less vulnerable and extend the benefits of fairness and equity to everyone in our community.