Ideas, News and Views for Child Care Workers in British Columbia

UVic Says Yes to Non-Profit Care

Filed under: Democracy — Tom Kertes @ 2:06 pm November 28, 2009

The Times Colonist reports that UVic has decided to forgo outsourcing to a for-profit child care chain, reporting:

Big-box daycare will not be coming to the University of Victoria in the forseeable future, the UVic board of governors decided this week.

The university was considering asking Kids and Company– a for-profit company with centres across Canada — to open a centre at UVic to help ease the shortage of child-care spaces.

But the proposal drew protests from organizations such as the UVic Childcare Action Group and the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C., who said corporate child-care chains have no place at UVic.

Forum on Universal Public Care

Filed under: Community — Tom Kertes @ 2:04 pm November 26, 2009

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.

18.8% of B.C. Children in Poverty

Filed under: Equity — Tom Kertes @ 2:03 pm November 24, 2009

Despite the federal government’s 1989 pledge to “end child poverty” by 2000, there were over 150,000 children in B.C. still living in poverty in 2007.  B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, with over 18.8% of children living in poverty.  Poverty is a political choice can be ended through changes in the economy.  While this would take a lot of effort and creative thinking, and a willingness to stand up to those who benefit from the current system, ending poverty is the only way to ensure that the human rights of all B.C. people are respected. The report (PDF) was released by First Call B.C..

From the CBC:

British Columbia’s child poverty rate has remained the highest in Canada for six years in a row and it’s time the provincial government took action, according to a child and youth advocacy group.

In its annual Child Poverty Report Card released Tuesday, the advocacy group First Call said B.C. had 156,000 poor children in 2007 — even though that was a good year for the provincial economy.

From The Tyee:

B.C. had the highest child poverty rate of any province in 2007 using any of three common measures, said First Call B.C.’s 2009 Child Poverty Report Card released today. The rate was 18.8 percent using the low income cutoff before tax.

Until 2000 the rate in B.C. and Canada moved up and down together depending on the strength of the economy, the report said. “The big change took place in the current decade, when the national rate continued to decline as the economy continued growing, and the BC rate shot up dramatically. In the absence of corrective action through government policy, rates are likely to go up again in 2008 and 2009 as a result of the current recession.”

Ed Broadbent on Child Poverty

Filed under: Equity — Tom Kertes @ 2:01 pm

The Globe and Mail has an op-ed by Ed Broadbent on Canada’s poverty and child poverty record, asking why we’re becoming more unequal and failing to live up to our own expectations when it comes to poverty reduction.  His answer: Tax the rich.  Taxes are a means not only of supporting public programs, but also are a means of distributing wealth and power in accordance with democratic and social values.  If one part of society gets too much power this power can be abused and used to concentrate power even more.  Taxes are one way to keep the balance of power and wealth intact, an essential ingredient for stable democracy.

Why is it that Finland, Sweden and Denmark have almost wiped out child poverty, and we have not? Why do more than 600,000 Canadian kids wake up hungry and go to school trying to read, write and think on an empty stomach?

First, we should have no illusions about where our poor children are to be found. Most are in families with two adults. Most poor adults work. Most of them have incomes so low that they can’t afford housing and can’t adequately feed or clothe their kids. If kids are members of aboriginal or immigrant Canadian families, the odds are even much greater that they will be poor.

Second, this poverty was not inevitable. Mostly it is the product of governments that have neither shared nor cared. As a Unicef report last Friday pointed out, Canadian politicians have failed our children. During the 1990s, the federal government abandoned a leadership role for Canada’s poor. It unilaterally cancelled the Canada Assistance Plan with the provinces, eliminated all low-cost housing programs, ceased to set the pattern for minimum wages and failed to bring in a national child-care program. Perhaps most serious and unbelievable of all, it exacerbated the inequality that was emerging in the marketplace by changing the income-tax system to the advantage of the richest Canadians.

Power and Powerlessness in Child Care

Filed under: Shared Responsibility, Unconditional Respect — Tom Kertes @ 1:00 am November 4, 2009

I believe that all persons are born sacred; individual human life is sacred. I also believe that each person is born equally sacred – without distinction and without condition. I do not make or take these statements lightly, and I struggle to reflect the meaning of the statements in my daily work as an early childhood educator.  This is not always an easy thing to do, but I try nonetheless.

As sacred beings, all persons are born equally worthy of unconditional respect. I also believe that sacred persons – all persons of all ages – should be treated not only with respect, but also with reverence and in love.  I am therefore obligated to treat children and adults with respect, in dignity, and with total and complete reverence for the unique person that each and every person is. This is an obligation I struggle with daily, and that I hope to live up to, no matter how difficult or how often I fail to act in accordance this aspiration.

My cultural work in child care and early childhood education is intended to reflect what I believe, including how I demonstrate respect for children’s power. There is no respect in taking power from others. There is no dignity in the imposed condition of powerlessness over others. This is why it troubles me to see the numerous ways in which power is taken from people of all ages, and especially, but not exclusively, to see the ways that power is taken from children while in care.

Now that I am once again working with young children as a child care worker, I am reminded of the many ways in which children’s powerlessness, or the perceived right of adults to take power from children, is taken for granted. I see it in many details of early education practice and in the many contradictions of early education theory. I also see it in how early childhood educators are treated by others, in how our work is not respected in part because children are not respected.

I understand that children are young and are novices in many of the tasks and responsibilities of community life. But the fact that children are  novice community members is no excuse for taking away children’s power to act as they are currently able. We should respect children’s power to make all choices that may be carried out without harming the well-being or safety of the child or others. I believe that we should restrict our control over children’s lives only insofar as such control is required to support the well-being and safety of children.

This does not take anything away from adults in terms of our role as both caregivers and teachers. Adults care for children and should continue to do this because caring reflects the values of respect, dignity and sacred life. And we share culture, ideas, knowledge, viewpoints, stories, experiences and other learnings with each other, regardless of the age of the learner, for these same reasons. Respecting the power of the child to exercise agency and make choices does not limit the capacity of the child to learn, nor should it restrict others from assuming the role of teacher in working with children and supporting children’s learning and development. Giving up unnecessary control over children doesn’t necessarily mean giving up influence in guiding children to be positive contributors to community life.

Participation and inclusion in community life should be voluntary. Invitations to community should be welcoming and based on willing entry, nobody should be brought in through coercive means. The community life to which children are welcomed should be something people of all ages will actually want to be part of. If children don’t want in, or want out, then we should first question our community values, and not only question the decision of the child to resist or decline entry.  Rather than force children into a society, we should direct our intentions, resources and values at creating spaces that people of all ages want to be part of, such as spaces where all people are safe and supported, and are loved and cared for as members of a community of dignity.

Economic Human Rights

Filed under: Equity — Tom Kertes @ 12:07 am

{VIEWS} Tom Kertes

I believe that all people are born worthy of the right to be treated with dignity and respect.  I also believe that human life is sacred.  These three values – respect for all, dignity for all, and the sanctity of life – are expressed in human rights.

A society based on the belief that all persons are born individually and equally sacred would extend care and education to all people, of all ages – from birth to natural death, and would treat the work of child care as sacred work.

Our society is either being driven by different values or is failing to live up to its core values.  Either way, it’s time for a new direction in child care.  Child care in British Columbia and the rest of Canada should reflect human rights values, and should fulfill the promises we’ve made in human rights agreements and covenants on the rights of the person, including the special rights of the child.

There is no excuse for a country as rich as Canada to continue to fail to live up to our human rights promises, including the promise to ensure freedom from poverty for all.  Every child has a right to an education and quality child care.  Every child care worker has a right to a wage worthy of human dignity.  Every person has a right to housing, rest and leisure, health and dental care, social security and adequate food.

Until these rights are fully realized for all, we will continue to fail to live up to the most profound promises that we’ve made to each other as a society.  We should choose to either keep these promises, or at least be honest with ourselves about what we really value and rescind the promises from treaties, charters, covenants and law.  Empty words must become promises fulfilled. Is human life sacred, or is consumption and concentration of power sacred?  Do we value respect and dignity for all, or only for the rich and well-off?

If we believe that human life is sacred, then we should protect all persons from avoidable harm or early death and do what we can to ensure that the human potential of everyone is achieved.  This means that the rights to freedom from oppression, freedom from harm, and freedom from mistreatment would be respected.  It also requires that economic human rights be respected, and that we structure our social, political and economic systems in ways that respect the dignity and sacredness of human life.

The economic human rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights extend to all persons, and preclude the continuation of poverty for anyone, anywhere. The Declaration includes the economic human rights to:

  • freedom from slavery or servitude
  • protection of the family
  • social security
  • just working conditions
  • protection against unemployment
  • pay worthy of human dignity (a living wage)
  • equal pay for equal work
  • participation in organized labour
  • rest and leisure
  • periodic holidays with pay
  • health care
  • food, clothing, adequate housing
  • special protection for parenthood and childhood
  • free education
  • full participation in cultural, civic, scientific and economic life

Human rights are not limited to those expressed by documents and treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are expressions of human rights values, or expressions of our aspirations for how to achieve a society based on these values.  These documents should not limit or be the sole focus of our human rights efforts, as human rights are first about values.  Laws and policies should reflect our shared human rights values, and should not limit or constrain our efforts to create a society based on these values.

The values of respect for all, dignity for all, and sanctity of human life should compel us to work together to ensure that human potential is fully realized. This includes realizing human rights law, but does not start or stop there.  Far more important is the realization of human rights values in daily life.  We should create a culture based on these values, reflected in our cultural, social, economic and political life.

Part of this culture includes the cultural spaces of children, the cultural work of child care and education, the cultural life of families, and the intersection of children’s and family culture with the cultural, social, economic and political life of our society.  Human rights values should be at the centre of all this.

Human rights values should be at the centre of children’s lives, at the centre of child care work, at the centre of cultural life of families, and at the centre of society.  The values should also be supported and celebrated by all those with power and responsibility in the lives of children and families.

Canada is a rich country with no excuse for continued poverty within its borders. We have no excuse for children and families to experience the indignities of poverty within our country. We can create and sustain a social economy that respects human rights, and can do so in the lifetime of all children born in the first decade of the 21st century.

The generations of adults in power today have the means to end poverty and respect human rights for all. Our failure to ensure full participation and equal participation in the cultural, social, economic and political life of our society reflects a disconnect between our stated values and our will to realize the rhetoric of human rights and equity exposed by those in power. It is up to those who truly value human life as equally sacred – for all ages, in all places, at all times – to organize society to reflect our values.  It up to the vast majority of people who love everyone equally and believe in justice for all to participate in decision making, ensuring that these values prevail.

Human rights extend to all persons, of all ages.  While children may participate in the cultural, social, economic and political in ways that differ from that of adults, children are no less human, or less sacred, than are adults.  We share a collective responsibility to support families and children, to respect the rights of children and to treat children with the dignity and respect to which each child is born entitled.  When we have fully realized our values there will be no poverty, including an end to child poverty.  Again, Canada is a country with the resources to make this a reality in this time.  All that is required is the political will, which comes simply from people working together to realize our common values by making a moral commitment to ending poverty.

Child Care as Cultural Work

Filed under: Culture — Tom Kertes @ 12:03 am

I am a cultural worker, working in the context of community organizing and child care.  As I cultural worker I help construct culture.  I construct culture with others in the community, including with children and families.

Child care is cultural work, centred on the co-construction of childhood culture with children, families and other child care workers.  Childhood culture is part of our community’s culture, both part of and distinct from our other cultural spaces.  I believe that children are, and should be, the prevailing force in the construction of childhood as culture, without diminishing the place that adults have both within and beside this space.  Culture is a complex concept, with different meanings from different vantage points.  The cultural worker holds onto and constructs culture within all its meanings at once.

Below are several meanings of culture:

Culture as Identity
One meaning of “culture” overlaps with the meaning of its related concepts, such as the concepts of ethnicity, nationality, race or language. In this sense, when we ask “what is your culture” we might also mean “what is your cultural or ethnic identity, or your heritage”. Cultural identity can be more than ethnicity, nationality, race and language. People also identify by their family, region, political leaning, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, occupation, class, historic time, style, interests, and many other characteristic groupings, all of which form cultures and sub-cultures and provide an base of identity.

Culture as What Makes Us Human
Culture is also a concept used to understand and describe universal characteristics of human beings. In this sense culture is used to explain theories for how and why people behave as we do. Culture is the stuff of human life. It is the things, symbols, words, actions, stories, beliefs, rituals, songs, ideologies, and values that people use in daily life. We learn about human nature by studying cultural universals and cultural differences, between individuals and groupings of people of all sizes. At one level is each person, whose behavioural patternscan be understood in terms of cultural components, which can then be compared to the patterns of others.

From this understanding of culture we can compare the patterns of people of one ethnic or national identity group to people of another such group, or compare patterns of people in different regions, different time periods (in history), different families, ages, genders, sexual orientations, etc. These comparisons are useful for a number of reasons, such as to understand what about people is learned (as culture is usually defined as learned behaviours and beliefs) and what is innate (and therefore not related to culture, but to “human nature”). Cultural comparisons can also provide insights to resolve conflicts, or to relate better to people who different from ourselves, with cultural background providing a way to understand these differences.

Culture as Knowledge and Idea Collections
Another way to understand culture is as collections of knowledge and ideas, which are organized into subjects or disciplines. Examples of these collections include disciplines of science and mathematics, political ideologies, religions, literature/drama and history, music and movement, fashion, culinary arts, and the visual arts. In addition to the arts and sciences, professional knowledge is related to this concept of culture, which is organized into professions. One example is the profession of early childhood educator, which is defined as a profession through cultural processes similar to those that define the arts and sciences. Universities, libraries, school systems, professional boards and association, governments, corporations, museums, school systems, cultural industries and other institutions, especially those in power or seeking to be in power, work to define what is and is not considered to be favoured, or included, within one of these groupings.

Culture as Creative Toolbox
Another way to understand culture is in terms of cultural creation, or the construction of culture. In this sense culture can be thought of as a technology or tool. There are specialists at understanding culture, who study how the components of culture influence behaviour, or drive action in human social life. With this knowledge, be it intuitive or otherwise, cultural creators not only combine the components of culture, but also have the power to do in ways that drive society, or other groupings, in directions intended by the creators.

This work is usually carried out through institutions, or collectives of cultural creators, who work with others to achieve goals realized through cultural construction. Goals can range from acquiring personal wealth or power, advancing values and ideologies, promoting religious beliefs, improving health and well-being, achieving glory and honour or any number of other goals. Cultural constructors include visual and performing artists, makers of mass media, advertisers and markers, designers, public relations specialists, propagandists, politicians, managers, capitalists, leaders, writers, storytellers, scholars and academics, scientists, clerics, singers, and educators. Some would argue, myself included, that we are all cultural constructors, even if we are not all specialists in the construction of culture or intentionally aware of our role in creating and sustaining cultural life.

The palette of cultural construction centres on the tools of time, place, symbol, narrative, image, colour, movement, beat, rhythm, taste, ritual and identity. Recent technologies of cultural construction include nationalism, ideologies, economic ordering systems and power projection devices.

If we view child care in the widest sense to include the work of parents (including step-parents, foster parents, and other performing the role of parenting), extended families, communities, neighbours, nannies, child care workers, early childhood educators, school teachers, governments, corporations, faith institutions and everyone else who contributes to children’s care, then the cultural lens of this work leads to several questions that take us beyond the realms of learning and development, or the traditional lens of child care and early care and education theory.

First, this lens leads to the question of what is the role of children, as individuals and as participants in groups, in the creation of culture. How and why do children construct culture, and how is this similar or different from that of adults who construct culture? Do children have a special role in cultural construction? What palettes do children as cultural constructors draw from when creating culture, and what aspects of culture are of particular interest to the child as a constructor, or creator, of culture? Second, what is the role of child care workers (in the broadest sense of this occupational grouping, including parents, educators, neighbours, nannies, etc.), and of child care work, in the construction of culture, both at the level of children’s cultures and of culture in a more general sense?

I consider myself, as a child care worker, to be a cultural worker first and foremost, which is to say that what I do as a child care worker is construct culture. I work with children and families to create cultural spaces and experiences using cultural tools. We create culture together, which is most evident at the level of the culture in the learning space, or the classroom. But culture lives in people, not spaces, and therefore the work of the cultural worker extends far beyond the classroom or other space where she works.

I think that it is important for cultural workers to work with culture at all its levels, especially if we propose to create lasting, enriching, joyful, human centred cultures that reflect the human rights values of respect, dignity and sanctity of human life. Cultural creation that does not take into account how different cultural backgrounds shape meaning and understanding, and provide people with comfort and support, will leave people out, not provide for people’s needs, and not reflect the values which I believe should be at the foundation of cultural life. Cultural creation that does not take into account human nature in relation to culture will be jarring and empty, confusing and un-human-like. Cultural creation that fails to reflect the centrality of culture to being human risks stepping above creation of culture to engineering of humanity, stepping beyond what I think are the ethical bounds of cultural work.

Finally, I think that cultural workers benefit from knowing how to work with all the essential elements of cultural creation, and should use these elements to create rich and living, vibrant and dynamic cultural spaces. Cultural spaces that build on ritual, song, story, texture, taste, colour, beat, rhythm and other cultural elements are alive, deep, nurturing and human.

B.C.’s Child Care Workers

Filed under: Work — Tom Kertes @ 12:01 am

British Columbia’s child care workforce includes parents, step-parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, other formal and informal caregivers, nannies, domestic workers, preschool teachers, daycare workers, other early childhood educators, before and after school care providers, school teachers, other school staff, community organizers, faith leaders, community centre workers, cultural workers, librarians, social workers, nurses, doctors, public health workers, psychologists, therapists, education specialists, child development consultants, child care regulators, labour organizers, scholars, and everyone else whose work contributes to the care, education and well-being of children.

Despite how much B.C.’s people value child care, much of this work is either under paid or unpaid.  Child care is also inadequately supported by governments and employers. My hope is to draw attention to ways that we can improve the child care provided to B.C.’s children. I also hope to draw attention to all child care workers, especially those who are under paid or unpaid. Exposing the conditions faced by low-wage workers and poor families, who cannot afford to go unpaid for their child care work, are of special interest to Liberation Learning.

Child care workers who are unpaid include:

  • Parents, step-parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters
  • Neighbours and friends
  • Other primary caregivers

Child care workers who are under paid often include:

  • Domestic workers
  • Nannies
  • Daycare workers
  • Family or home-based child care workers
  • Preschool workers
  • Other early childhood educators
  • Babysitters
  • Informal care providers

Child care workers who are paid dignity-wages include:

  • Public sector child care workers (including public school teachers, librarians, social workers, scholars, regulators)
  • Child care workers at quality preschool and daycare centres (by definition, quality preschools and daycare centres pay workers dignity-wages)
  • There are many other child care programs that pay workers dignity wages, all of which should be recognized for respecting human rights and reflecting the contributions of child care workers in supporting families and communities

B.C.’s People Value Child Care

Filed under: Work — Tom Kertes @ 12:01 am

Child care is highly valued work.  Families contribute a lot of time, effort and money to the work of caring for children.  Neighbours and other community members also contribute to children’s care.  Most people would agree that caring for and educating children is a paramount duty of the adult generation, and want to do whatever is required to realize this value for all children.

Given that most people, especially almost all parents, grandparents and other primary caregivers, place child care at the top of their priorities and values, why don’t governments and employers reflect these values? Where is the backing from government to provide support for families and children who need quality child care?

Child care is much like time off from work and paid holidays, dental care and pharmacare, affordable housing, unemployment insurance, and social security.  These are things that we deeply value, but are also the things that too many politicians and employers seem to only value in terms of how they can use them to motivate us to do more of the things that we don’t value (like working extra hours, struggling to make ends meet, or contributing our time and effort to those opposed to our values and interests).

This paradox might be why most child care work is either unpaid or poverty-paid.  What families need, instead of this paradox, is more community support in realizing our shared human rights values of dignity, respect and sanctity of human life.  This includes supports that allow families to have more time together and publicly funded and controlled safeguards to ensure that all children have access to the care to which they are entitled.  Community support can come in many forms, including publicly-funded, community-controlled child care programs available to all children and families.

With 18.8% of B.C. children in poverty, and most early childhood educators receiving poverty-wages, it’s time for a change in our approaches to supporting those who care for children. New approaches should reflect the ideals and values of most people (those who consider children’s care and well-being to be a paramount value), not the values of the few who think that “go-it-alone” is the only support that children, families and communities require when caring for children.