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.

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!

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!

From the Times Colonist:

The provincial government recently pulled the rug out from under the Children in the Home of a Relative Program, funded through the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. On April 1, it stopped accepting new applications.

The government offloaded this program onto the Ministry of Children and Families with a new name — the Extended Family Program.

The criteria state only a “biological parent” can apply for funding. This disqualifies any relative with legal guardianship of the child even if they have great need. This has created a roadblock, particularly if the child does not live with the biological parent.

About 4,000 grandparents and relatives were receiving this funding and as the biological parents often don’t exist, are suffering from a mental illness or addiction, may be incarcerated or street-engaged, and could have an estranged relationship with the grandparents caring for their child, the care-givers will not be receiving any kind of assistance from the government. read more

The Vancouver Sun’s Report Card blog reports that a branch of the private Core Education and Fine Arts academic preschool has been approved to open in Vancouver. According to the preschool chain’s website, Core Education and Fine Arts offers a variety of programs and pricing levels from Platinum to Bronze for children ages 2-6.

Child care workers and other members of the public met at the Vancouver Public Library yesterday for a panel discussion on universal public child care.  Read the release at Canada Views for more information.  Here’s a preview:

Keynote speaker Susan Prentice said that child care is an urgent social justice issue. “Yet it is instead becoming an area in which commercial interests are operating. Child care needs to be taken out of the buyer-beware market,” she said. Sharing some of the key findings and recommendations of About Canada: Childcare, which she co-authored with Martha Friendly, Prentice put forward strong arguments for a publicly funded and delivered system.

The YMCA does good things. And this video by the Y makes a good point: Community is important and to build communities requires places and processes for community life to thrive.

But it also misses the mark, given that it ignores the reasons why people are spending less time eating together, more time indoors, less time walking to school and less time as a community. The Y may ignore these reasons in part because it is part of the problem. As a charity organization, funded by both private and public funding, the Y treats community as important but not as an entitlement.

Community spaces – like community centres, libraries, parks, preschools, daycares and schools – should be publicly funded and publicly run, as they are core to a functioning and just democracy. Our tax dollars, which unlike user fees and charity donations, may be collected on an equitable basis, should fund community spaces and community building programs and services. Publicly run institutions, accountable to the public and with the sole mandate of advancing the public interest, should use these funds to build and sustain vibrant communities. A robust public system, instead of a private or charity system, is required if we are to prioritize community as a shared value. Even though everyone should be free to decide how to be involved in community, opportunities and invitations for inclusion should be extended to everyone. Democracy, by its nature and core values, is alone suited to ensuring that such a community be sustained.

The Y’s video also misses the point about why people are struggling to be involved in community life, aside from the lack of adequate public resources for supporting communities. Many people who work and struggle to make it simply don’t have the time to be involved in community. Economic policies that don’t support families and others in having more time for community get in the way of communities coming together.

Our time is being organized by economic interests that want more time to them, and less time to community. These interests build and design cities based on long commutes, build and design workplaces built around low wages and limited vacations, and create unhealthy work arounds and poor substitutes to the lack of time for people to relax, study, care and simply be part of community. Fast food and frozen dinners and television reality shows are a poor substitute to healthy communities. For people to eat better food and be part of a richer cultural life will require a re-prioritizing of our time – less time at work and in commute and more time at home and with community.