babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Focused childcare

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Focused childcare
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 12 August 2006 06:01 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm putting this in this topic because it is pertinent to the 'When universality is regressive' thread.

The Globe and Mail has an editorial today advocating that childcare funding be focused on low income Canadians rather that instituting a universal program.

Editorial

quote:
If Canada is going to invest in child care, Mr. Richards and Mr. Brzozowski suggest, it would be better to focus the money on "at risk" children from poor or troubled families than to spread it around to everyone. As they put it, "many studies over several decades have documented educational benefits from targeted child-care programs for children in 'at risk' families." The children of couples with weak parenting skills, left in dodgy care as their mothers and fathers go off to work, stand to gain most from good daycare, though even for them the benefits may be modest.

But...

quote:
John Richards and Matthew Brzozowski argue in their C. D. Howe Institute study that there is little evidence daycare improves the wellbeing or the prospects of children in most stable, middle-class families.

From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 August 2006 06:17 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
YTF is this news, when all they've done is re-cycle their own tepid neo-con tripe?

The Globe continues to rot, obviously.

I don't have a huge issue with the papers printing new "research" from right-wing organs (the CD Howe in this case), but I do find it disgusting when they allow them to recycle and re-release their drivel unchallenged at politically opportune moments.

The mindset behind it is clear: Our man Harper is being called on the disruption of childcare programs across the country. How(e) can we throw up a smokescreen?

[ 12 August 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 12 August 2006 10:01 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The link you posted appears to be an earlier draft of the paper they just released.

I don't understand your smokescreen comment. I posted the link because it addresses the question being discussed in the other thread: Why is it better to for tax dollars to be directed to both the rich and poor, rather than just the poor?

I don't see why this arguments provides any cover for Harper's policy. He certainly isn't focusing the UCCB on low income families, as the study suggests would be better.

[ 12 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 August 2006 10:07 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is it better to for tax dollars to be directed to both the rich and poor, rather than just the poor?
Because universality guarantees the quality of such a program, because the politically active and effective middle-class will monitor its quality. Restrict it to the poor, and it is guaranteed to be underfunded and set to deteriorate from day one.

[ 12 August 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 August 2006 10:14 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is rather tiresome, isn't it, that we are always stuck explaining the same basics over and over and over to the neo-con trolls.

Even when they are one of the polite ones.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 12 August 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
LTJ, he's referring to the discussion in this thread.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 12 August 2006 10:41 AM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because universality guarantees the quality of such a program, because the politically active and effective middle-class will monitor its quality. Restrict it to the poor, and it is guaranteed to be underfunded and set to deteriorate from day one.

Are you saying that universal programs are not underfunded?


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 August 2006 07:32 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Are you saying that universal programs are not underfunded?


We know that health care and post-secondary education have been underfunded for a long time. These crises were created by our two old line parties across Canada since the policy-induced recession of the 1980's and lingering into the 90's when unprecedented national debt was allowed to accrue. The federal Liberals had a debt monster to point to in underfunding our social programs, and premiers like Ralph Klein would allow big foreign corporations off the hook with sweetheart deals, like accepting bottom of the barrel oil royalties as an excuse for avoiding social responsibilities at the provincial level.

There is an unwritten rule of capitalism that says public money should not be used to compete with private enterprise. I think we are seeing a proliferation of private colleges here but few new public universities. Bob Rae says China is building twelve new M.I.T-style engineering universities, and students there are complaining now about repayment of student loans taking an avg of two years to pay back. Of course, China does have a larger tax base than Canada. But I also get the feeling that some European-based corporations are de-emphasizing the need for traditional four year degrees with emphasis on theory. Certain corporations are demanding more practical in-school and on the job experience. I still think higher education is priceless though. I believe our universities are gradually becoming more flexible in granting community college credit toward baccalaureate degrees in certain fields. This is something students from low income families could not pursue several years ago. We do have a handful few universities who do college diploma to a degree in a little over two years time. Tuitions in those programs are still expensive though.

ETA: In my hometown, and before the publicly-funded nursing home for the elderly closed down for a lack of public funds, the queue for admittance of elderly people in that facility was longer than private for-profit run homes. The public home also paid better wages for unionized nursing and cleaning staff. And after speaking with family and friends who worked in both the private and public health care sectors, I know which of the Shady Pines I'd choose in my old age.

[ 12 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca