First They Come For Your Children
October 3, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
Despite the recent addition of Richard Albert, the state of Massachusetts is spiraling into madness:
Bay State bureaucrats are turning day-care centers into stringent schools, where homespun “educators” will soon be required to write progress reports on gurgling infants, prepare toddlers for the rigors of kindergarten and even brush every child’s teeth.
I could easily go on a rant here about the loss of childhood, and it would certainly seem warranted. To the casual observer, North American society seems to be making more and more demands of children and, in the process, giving them fewer opportunities to be, you know, children… but that’s not really my schtick.
No, my issue with this sort of initiative is the ever increasing government intrusion into the lives of its citizens and into decisions that should rightfully be made by parents. For parents who choose (or feel there is no viable alternative) to put their children in daycare, they will not have the choice of the style of daycare. Their options will be, likely, further diminished as the increased burden should push daycare prices higher and, thus, out of reach for many families. This, of course, assumes that the government does not take over the provision or the payment of daycare – an added layer of bureaucracy that will do one, save the bureaucrats, any good.
This type of situation isn’t unique to Massachusetts. Ontario has decided to move towards all day kindergarten. Sure, Dalton McGuinty’s government doesn’t know how much it will cost, but what does that matter when the government can get more control over the citizenry at an ever earlier age?
Make no mistake about it; whatever the claims of supporters that this type of initiative will work to reduce poverty, this is a regressive policy. The costs of this policy will be borne by those of middle and lower income. The added tax burden will, at the margin, make either private school unaffordable or homeschooling unaffordable (the second income being necessary to support the ballooning leviathan). Only the wealthy will maintain a full selection of child raising and educational options. In addition, with de facto socialized daycare, the opportunity cost of choosing a non government sponsored alternative may be too much for many parents. These policies incentivize parents to make sub-optimal choices for their children.
The philosophy underpinning these initiatives (that it is the state, and the state alone, that can be trusted raising children) is harmful and offensive. Taking away parental choice takes away parental responsibility. Such an environment will benefit few, if any, children.
(H/T: Kathryn Jean Lopez.)
the march toward total socialism continues. i have watched for over 45 years the two steps forward and one step back that socialist have employed to advance their agenda. it will continue you can’t opt out.
Echoes of Orwell’s 1984 resonate in the linked report. Scary…
Anyway, I agree with your main point, Jonathan, about state intrusion into the family and, more pointedly, the attempts (partway successful, unfortunately) made by the state to usurp parental authority and decision-making through half-baked policy, e.g. those designed to put the squeeze on home-schooling.
One of the main goals of big-government socialism is to foster ever-increasing reliance on the state. Canada is rightly described as a nanny state, and the turn toward state management and raising of our pre-school young is symptomatic of how deeply nanny-statism is ingrained in our psyche.
Nanny-statism, of course, is predicated on belief in or trust of a benevolent state, a belief that history has consistently shown to be precarious at best. Subscribers go merrily along until the state’s policies are considered intolerable or, worse, malevolent. By the time The People figure it out, they are wrapped up in cords of state law and disarmed.
Let’s hope Canadians realize sooner rather than later that the cords they find so comforting today can make an effective noose later.
What the hell? Don’t you people have kids in daycare?
My kid has a journal where the educator is required to provide a write up on how my kid did. It actually provides useful feedback to the parents.
And yes, I would actually expect my kid to learn something while at daycare. Finally, complaining that your kid would have their teeth brushed after a meal while you are at work is hardly unreasonable.
Considering the cost of daycare, ESPECIALLY in Boston, I would expect this type of service. Ignore the socialist boogey man for a minute. Do you know how much daycare costs in Boston? What on earth are you paying for if these basic service levels are not upheld?
If parents want full control of how their kids are cared for, the best thing they can do is find a way to care for their kids themselves by having a parent stay home.
Seriously, brushing kid’s teeth?
RD,
Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct (and I think a lot of what you write is on point), what justification can you present to have your daycare preferences codified and foisted upon all other daycare customers?
(This is an honest question; I’d like to read your views.)
I think some of it comes down to mincing words. Where one person will call it “preferred style”, others (me) will call it “minimum service levels”.
I realize this is not the ideal forum to preach the importance of oversight, but I’ll give it a go.
Take this into a business scenario. I have never worked out billable contract with a client without establishing a SLAs (service level agreements). These agreements will comprise what is required of my group while delivering a service and the minimum requirements involved in delivering this service. A statement of work should include this. If we were unable to meet those SLAs, we’d be in breach.
So when a person enters into a contract with a daycare, and transfer a significant sum of money from one hand to another, I think that there needs to be a bare minimum of established services. If you send your kid to a larger chain establishment, it could cost upwards of 2000$ per month. If you are paying that much of your hard earned money, I would expect this to be approached in a professional manner — meaning SLAs.
Let’s look at the requirements indicated above.
Progress reports: I think that if my child is outside of my supervision for upwards of 8-10 hours, I would like to know how my child is doing. Even gurgling infants need to be monitored because their progress needs to be observed. These would include motor skills (strength of neck), recognition of shapes, interaction with other children etc. If you have a good pediatrician, they should be actively asking you about these areas. If a child spends 40-50 hours a week under someone else’s supervision, they need to communicate this to the parents. Progress reports via journal are an effective way to do this.
Prepare Toddlers for the rigors of kindergarten: Very general term, but I’m guessing this involves some sort of educational program. I’m guessing ABC-123 and not marxism / lenninism. If a kid is going to be at a daycare from 3-6 months to 4-5 years, 5 days per week, all year round, I’d expect some sort of prep work be included.
Brush every child’s teeth: Perfectly reasonable. I’m pretty sure dentists want children to have their parents supervise teeth brushing until they are at least kindergarten age.
So given the requirements listed, I don’t think this really involves a “style” of daycare, more than setting embarrassingly low standards that should be met anyway (a la SLA for forking over lots of money). If these standards can’t be met, then I really doubt such a daycare should be in operation. I might be accused of making strawmen but the absence of the listed requirements allows a daycare to be completely uncommunicative about the development of a child, while doing nothing to stimulate a child and prepare them for the next stage in their life, all while letting their teeth rot:)
The second part to this of course is the role of the state. I understand that this is a touchy subject because of the threat on civil liberties but the consumer alone is not in a position to judge this. First, parents might not have the expertise to know if a daycare is acceptable. (Did you test the batteries on their smoke detectors for instance?). What about maintaining ratios of adults to infants? Who decides if that is valid? Do we really want the health of children to be subject to economic forces and bottom lines? Do we leave this decision in the hands of the consumer (when there is a massive shortage of supply?) The consumer simply does not have leverage in the Boston market, or the Ottawa market, or the Montreal market etc. I know many parents that are unhappy with their daycare but can’t find a suitable replacement.
So I will agree that the state should not dictate the style of a daycare. If parents want to send their kids to a daycare that educates in Russian, and teaches kids to walk on their hands, that’s their right and the state can’t intercede.
However, I think that the requirements stated above don’t represent a style but a bare minimum in service that can be equated to other standards that must be met for a daycare to be licensed. Furthermore, any employee that claims to enjoy working with children but would complain about those 3 requirements should be ashamed.
I’d also like to argue that Quebec, though obviously with a heavier tax burden, has a successful subsidized daycare system that has made both daycare and work more accessible.
If you’d like to offer some Ontario figures for private daycare costs vs. my CPE 7$/ day subsidized daycare, which is outstanding btw, I’m fairly certain the increase in my income tax easily offsets the cost of the private service. Charest has also done a decent job with the Quebec budget despite this massive program.
I realize that I will pay for this post;)
Hi RD,
Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough post. You’re right that this isn’t a great medium for getting into the nitty gritty of the benefits of regulation. And I think you and I are just not going to agree on this matter, as it seems that you have a little more faith in government regulations generating good outcomes than I do. I don’t think it would be particularly beneficial for me to get into my arguments for limiting government regulations – this comment would get way too long if I did – but for any who are interested, a not-so-brief introduction to my objections can be found here.
There are a few specific points I’d like to make, and I’ll try not to repeat the original post too much. I’m not arguing that there should be a complete lack of regulations for daycares. There are certain things that we cannot reasonably expect parents to judge, and, thus, must have regulations. Fire codes, health & safety regulations, overcrowding rules – these all seem reasonable to me. The adult to child ration, well, that’s getting a little into the grey area, but, sure I’ll grant you that. However, parents should be able to judge whether the activities that are taking place are appropriate, and whether there is sufficient feedback from the daycare regarding child development, activities, socialization, etc.
The very notion that we can’t trust parents to make these decisions – if we all agree that we can’t – is an incredibly sad comment on the state of our society. That we must delegate these parental duties to some technocratic authority is not argument with which I will ever agree.
At the end of the first comment you left, you suggested that if parents wanted full control over child rearing then they should not rely on daycare and oversee the child personally. This is a point on which we can both agree. However, in your second comment you note that the Quebec system has made both daycare and work for accessible and affordable. I must say, these two sentences just don’t jive.
There are, crudely, two ways that parents “pay” for child care. First, they work all day and pay someone else to look after the child. Second, they forgo their salary and look after the child themselves. Either way, they are poorer than if they had not had the child in the first place. (Note: I’m a lot poorer now that I’m a dad, and I’d have it no other way.)
The Quebec system might make work and daycare more accessible, but it does so by adding an extra cost to those who choose to raise their children themselves. These parents still have to support the daycare for others. They may have a choice, but their choice comes with a price tag. By so skewing the incentives regarding child rearing, the first choice some would make absent of outside factors is no longer viable. The richer you are, the more this optimal choice becomes affordable, hence why I described such a policy as regressive.
Further, Quebec is not a financial island. Historically, Quebec has received massive federal transers. Consequently, parents in provinces like Ontario and Alberta have been essentially funding the Quebec daycare system. These parents are given added costs through excess taxation (not to mention wealth destroying government initiatives), that, again, it becomes more expensive to forgo that second income.
I would suggest that the idea that we should compare the prices and values of the Quebec and Ontario daycare industries is completely beside the point. The encroachment on the freedom of parents, the infantilization of parents, and the perversion of incentives through excessive tax burdens are all harmful to society and insulting to individuals.
Cheers.
You dodged the entire point that “Style” is not at issue here. The 3 requirements listed do not comprise a style or preference but a standard.
You dodged the fact that there is a shortage of daycares and that parents, particularly low income parents do not have the option to pull their kids out of daycare. Now that you are a father, have you attempted to enroll your child in a daycare? What were the costs associated with this? Did you experience any difficulty in finding one?
“I would suggest that the idea that we should compare the prices and values of the Quebec and Ontario daycare industries is completely beside the point. ”
-Of course you would. How could we possibly measure the value of a system by measuring what it delivers versus the cost of the system.
The encroachment on the freedom of parents, the infantilization of parents,
–What??? We’re talking about brushing teeth and updating journals, in a market where the consumer has next to no leverage to choose another supplier.
The irony in all of this is that it comes from complaints from lazy daycare workers that don’t want to be required to do their job properly. Had they been unionized, many conservatives would not have hesitated to completely reverse their position.
Oh yeah, one last thing.
With regards to equalization, now’s the time to fix it for Conservatives.
They should either remove non-renewable energy from the calculation of income, or include hydro revenues on Quebec’s calculation of income. This would level the playing field much more and Charest would need to make some tough budgetary decisions. I’d expect we’d see the daycare subsidy decrease, but it would still be a vastly superior program to what’s in place in other provinces.
RD,
I’ve spilled a lot of ink/bytes over this, so I’ll attempt to be brief – though I’ll probably fail.
First I’ll respond to your second response (since it’ll be shorter). You’re right. Regardless of whether or not equalization payments are a good thing, the system is a mess, and not everyone is treated equally. I don’t want to get into a big discussion of the best solution, but I agree with your point.
Alright, on to the things I didn’t (or didn’t sufficiently) address.
Even if I grant you that differing standards or levels of care do not equate to different “styles” of care, this doesn’t alter my point. This constitutes excessive regulation that takes responsibility away from parents and perverts incentives.
I have heard that there is a shortage of daycare spots in Quebec. I’m not sure that this is an argument for more government intrusion in the market.
Further, I won’t suggest that there could never be a shortage of spots in a non-socialized daycare industry. However, the way to address is this is to probably open up the industry more, or give parents more choices regarding daycare options. A crushing tax burden does not open up options, nor does restricting the daycares that are allowed to function by outlawing daycares that have different standards of care than the government deems appropriate. If the government makes it difficult for new service providers to enter a market, it takes a lot of chutzpah to then argue that we need the government to address this market failure.
I’ve never brought up measuring the value of daycare systems (I didn’t feel it was relevant to the debate about personal choice). I’m arguing for specific types of political and social systems. I understand that you have a strong preference for the Quebec daycare system (both in terms of price and value), but your preference puts no burden on me to offer empirical evidence to support a point I never made in the first place. Still, let me go one further, even if parents choose poorer daycare options in Ontario than would be imposed on them in another jurisdiction, I still support parents having such a choice (though, again, I support some regulations, like building codes).
If all we’re talking about is brushing teeth and updating journals, your arguments still don’t sway me. I maintain that it is better for parents to dictate the standard of care than the government.
Without getting into detail about my personal situation, our bloated governmental systems (federal, provincial and municipal) and the associated tax burdens are far bigger barriers to providing my child with quality care than is the lack of government regulations forcing journal entries and report cards.
Once again, RD, thanks for participating in the debate.
no problem.
btw, there are daycare shortages in every urban center I’m familiar with. I have relatives in Boston paying 1600 uSDper child per month for sub standard care (the standard being Quebec care) because they are on “waiting lists” in Boston.
I know 2 families in Ottawa that also struggled to place their child in daycare and their bill is over 50$ per day, per child plus fees.
So, this is not a Quebec based problem.
Further, I’m getting the impression you don’t even have kids in a daycare. Is this true?
Hi RD. I agree, industry shortages likely occur (and will surely continue to occur) in a variety of locales, and are, by no means, exclusive to Quebec.
No, I don’t have any kids in daycare. So, no, I don’t have to pay someone to take care of my child. However, my wife and I have switched to a single income family. Our choice of child care has cost much more than $1600/mo, and turning Ontario’s bloated educational system into a publicly sponsored daycare provider means we will be paying for other people’s child care as well. I hate to argue by anecdotes, but I do not know how my particular situation could used to justify even more government intrusion into the daycare industry (or the education industry, for that matter).
Cheers.