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

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.