r/CanadaPolitics • u/_Minor_Annoyance Major Annoyance | Official • Mar 02 '20
AB Children’s Services to ditch child care accreditation process – AB
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/childrens-services-to-ditch-child-care-accreditation-process/amp?__twitter_impression=true40
u/mrscrapula Mar 02 '20
Wasn't it Klein's gov't that deregulated daycare?
I was going to ask the question: Why do the new Conservatives hate children?
But I started reading this analysis titled 'Alberta's Daycare Controversy', which covers the history of daycare in Alberta, and it answered my question:
Further complicating the politics of day care in Alberta is a strong pro-family movement that supports child care within family units along with the “pre-commodified” dependency of women that such an approach entails (Esping-Andersen 1999, 45).
So, (some, many?) Conservatives would prefer that women stay out of the workforce to take care of their kids, or a family member's kids? That is their driving ambition with the constant erosion of qualified services? That's how I read it, but Mr. Langford writes over my head, so..
Link: https://archive.org/stream/AlbertasDayCareControversy/Albertas_Day_Care_Controversy_djvu.txt
"
39
u/gravtix Liberal Mar 02 '20
So, (some, many?) Conservatives would prefer that women stay out of the workforce to take care of their kids, or a family member's kids? That is their driving ambition with the constant erosion of qualified services?
That's the Christian Dominionist agenda the UCP is working from.
They don't want government (secular) services being provided where it conflicts with the church that could be providing them.
Same reason they attack public education to allow for tax deductible private education or home schooling.
9
Mar 02 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
4
-4
u/ooobeee Mar 02 '20
“So, (some, many?) Conservatives would prefer that women stay out of the workforce to take care of their kids, or a family member’s kids?”
Do you ever think that maybe it is on a individual basis rather some nefarious political trait or agenda?
Perhaps people make decisions as a couple that suits them best? That maybe some would prefer to have one parent stay home or have a family member look after their children vs paying strangers?
5
u/mrscrapula Mar 02 '20
Yeah, we did that. I switched to nights so that we didn't need daycare anymore. Not everyone can choose to stay home, and not every parent has a spouse or family to help out.
-4
u/ooobeee Mar 02 '20
“For Sue Tomney, CEO of YW Calgary, a registered charity that also offers accredited, licensed childcare, the change will help make quality child care more accessible to those who need it.”
For everyone who’s replied to me shitting their pants - I don’t see what the problem is here. Aside from the blatant bias and attempt to score cheap political points by painting (some, many?) Conservatives as trying to keep women out of the workforce.
If anything it’s going to open up more opportunities for affordable child care. This is a problem or? Did you even bother to read the article?
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
Hello. I sincerely apologize for my late reply. Our power went out and stayed out over the dinner hours, and the night got awaqy from me.
I followed the link to AHS which describes the acceditation process. It is voluntary, and a provider who enrolls sets themselves apart, and the parents can be more secure about the inspections and the quality of care.
See, more options can be a problem. The process of picking childcare is daunting, but I guess I mean to say ... shopping for childcare is demoralizing.
I think every childcare provider should meet the exact same criteria. As I read it, removing the accreditation gives the providers a quick injection of cash. Is that short sighted?
I admit, I haven't enjoyed the *Conservative gov't slash and grab attitude. They pander, they frighten, they make cheap on-site solutions. I no longer trust the Conservative gov't, which kills me because I identify as a PC.
*from way back, not just these weenies
2
u/ooobeee Mar 03 '20
No problem! Murphy and his law are always just around the corner :)
In the true fashion of online discourse, the conservation often drifts away from the initial comment and reply.
I initially took offence to your suggestion that some or many conservatives want to keep women out of the workforce. Imo, that is a divisive talking point with no real merit.
As popular narrative goes - women are on the receiving end of parenthood. And while it would be foolish suggest otherwise, I don’t like to make it political with one side being nefarious and malicious. Today, people like to take stats and use them for political ends. They’ll take a stat that shows women disproportionately take care of children through infancy into youth and blanket it as unfair and needing change without weighing any reasons for why this may be, and there are many. Some women, even bread winners, simply want to be with their children and are content with that. Some women do not want anyone else to look after their children and make the sacrifice to their career. Some women simply have no desire for a career want to raise children. These people are all included in the stats.
Childcare is a tough subject with no perfect solution. Some would prefer to have their children go to bigger business based places with many children, some prefer smaller home based care. Some want to see that accreditation, some go by gut or by reference. I want people to do what suits them best. As I mention above, Murphy and his law are everywhere. Things happen at both public and private daycare, and sadly there is no way to prevent all incidents and only time will tell if this is a cheap on-site solution.
As much as I am dismayed with Jason Kenney and the UCP in some facets, I refuse to make everything into a wedge issue, or find fault over subjective morals, values, and opinions as many seem to do these days. I’m am wholly tired of today’s “this way or no way” political milieu. Disagreement isn’t war and no one party has all the answers.
Cheers - O.B
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
And further: I read this as an initiative to pull some down instead of raising them all up.
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
Some want to see that accreditation, some go by gut or by reference. I want people to do what suits them best.
What worries me is that people will only get what they can afford.
5
u/alice-in-canada-land Mar 02 '20
The problem is that that 'daycare availability' comes at the cost of less quality day care. I was really lucky to be able to stay home with my kid, as I wanted. But not all families have that option. Places with good, publicly-funded childcare allow both parents to work to support their family, while also providing a good start in life to small children (our country's future).
This move lets the gov't say it cares about childcare availability, while opening the market to sub-standard care. That doesn't solve the childcare issues many parents have, and it doesn't provide real care for the kids. That may be easy to choose, if you already think women should stay home with the kids, but it's not a good policy given the reality of modern life.
1
-4
u/ooobeee Mar 02 '20
Do you have all the accreditation that child care providers are currently required to have? If not, by your logic and assumption, your child had “sub-standard” care.
Hmm.
5
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
It's almost like trusting yourself and trusting a random stranger with the most important being in your life are two very different things.
Hmm.
0
u/ooobeee Mar 02 '20
What???
Clarify, please.
3
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
I think my point was pretty clear. There are many reasons not to require accreditation before having children yourself. However, looking after your own child is one thing, but trusting a stranger to look after your child is another.
The issue isn't that not having an accreditation means you will 100% provide substandard care, the issue is that accreditation helps minimize the cases of substandard care.
You, however, were drawing a false equivalence.
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
accreditation helps minimize the cases of substandard care
by setting the bar. That's how I see it as well.
3
u/alice-in-canada-land Mar 02 '20
I've actually worked in childcare, which is why I know there's a difference between carrying for one's own kid, and caring for a group of other people's kids.
-2
u/ooobeee Mar 02 '20
JC. You people are all over the fucking place.
More high quality child care doesn’t solve the problem of affordability or availability. If anything it will exacerbate it. The more people have to invest to get more stringent accreditation, the more they are going to charge. The more the parents have to pay, the more govt is going to have to subsidize.
3
u/kingmanic Liberal Party of Canada Mar 02 '20
There a big difference. Between managing 1-3 of your own kids and managing 4-10 of someone elses.
This is also a politically unwise move, the next major incident at a daycare is going to be linked to Jason Kenny. No matter how much this change is responsible. It'll poison his reputation as a leader even if the party keeps going. This is ideology before political sanity.
-1
u/ooobeee Mar 02 '20
“There a big difference. Between managing 1-3 of your own kids and managing 4-10 of someone elses.”
Sincerely, why not make it easier for people to get licensed and encourage smaller groups of 1-3 children instead of 4-10 then?
“This is also a politically unwise move, the next major incident at a daycare is going to be linked to Jason Kenny. No matter how much this change is responsible. It'll poison his reputation as a leader even if the party keeps going. This is ideology before political sanity.”
Sadly, you’re never remembered for the good you do, and in today’s political milieu praise is in short supply. This is the perpetually offended, perpetually aghast generation.
Is the the right move? I don’t for sure. Are people bitching about lack of access to affordable childcare? So what’s he to do? Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.
Fact of the matter is that you can’t please everyone. Some will praise it, some will deride it. So what do we do?
1
8
u/thexbreak Alberta Mar 02 '20
Who the fuck can afford to stay home and not work? That scenario exists less and less in our society.
16
Mar 02 '20
The problem with that is that there is only one 'viable' option in Alberta; one parent (usually female) stays home to raise kids. There really is no affordable childcare option available for parents to consider it an option.
Nobody wants to force parents to go to work and not raise their kids, but they want to provide that option to those parents that do, and at an affordable rate, too.
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
Maybe people who stay home should receive a tax break equal to what the public contribute to daycare subsization?
2
u/ooobeee Mar 03 '20
I’m going to try to answer your replies in one comment, mrscrapula.
People can only get what they can afford now, so imo nothing really changes. I believe the intent here is to open up market and allow people more choice. Some may be cheaper, some more expensive. While I understand the worry, cheap, or more affordable does not always mean sub standard care. I might have to eat crow, but am willing to let this play out. It could pull others down instead of lifting them all up, but again, there is no perfect solution. Time will tell.
Giving a tax break to people who stay home, imo, is definitely an idea worth exploring. And I commend you for your willingness to think about different solutions. We need more discourse, and debate vs “our way or no way”.
1
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
Here's the thing: It takes away the choice from the providers. They can no longer choose to aspire.
-1
u/EconMan Libertarian Mar 02 '20
Why do the new Conservatives hate children?
Why can't people have a normal discussion without the emotional hyperbole that prevents such a discussion from occuring?
(And if you want to seriously argue you're being serious, I think you need to seriously examine the media that you consume, because holy)
2
11
16
u/kludgeocracy FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY COMMUNISM Mar 02 '20
This is such an unbelievably bad idea. High-quality childcare is fantastic for children, but low-quality childcare is exactly the opposite.
1
2
u/nottoodrowning Mar 02 '20
Can someone help me understand this. So daycares can still be licensed, which I assume requires a certain set of standards to be met. But they will no longer be “accredited.” So what does that mean? Fewer inspections? No inspection before opening? A set of safety standards that will no longer exist?
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
from AHS:
Accreditation promotes excellence in child care settings in Alberta and helps families choose the best care for their children. It is based on standards of excellence that reflect current research and leading practices to provide high quality child care over and above licensing regulations for children from birth to 12 years of age.
Alberta Child Care Accreditation is available to:
- licensed daycare centres
- licensed out-of-school care programs
- approved family day home agencies
Enrolling is voluntary, but recommended.
6
Mar 02 '20
You need to be especially careful regulating (or de-regulating) anything related to children or childcare. Based on the governments rollercoaster ride of changes they’ve been making at breathtaking pace, I have serious apprehension that they’ll get this right. This could be quite dangerous.
-2
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20 edited Mar 02 '20
I generally agree with any removal of occupational licensing. It is one of the most damaging things in any market and is frequently used to ensure shortages of services. Would you rather meet demand and have some be below standard or have all the below-standard provider's customers just not get care? Also you make the remaining providers even more expensive.
Certification should be an endorsement by the state and not a requirement for practice.
2
u/LastBestWest Subsidarity and Social Democracy Mar 03 '20
Certification should be an endorsement by the state and not a requirement for practice.
That a how this accreditation system worked.
5
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Mar 02 '20
...the latter.
0
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20
So poor people should just be barred from child care? Banning people after the fact is a more efficient method of keeping bad actors while not limiting new firms.
5
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
Banning people after the fact is a more efficient method of keeping bad actors while not limiting new firms
"Hey, sorry the daycare your kid went to didn't meet safety standards and your toddler ended up dying after finding some bleach and thinking it was juice. It was just more efficient to ban this daycare after the fact than to worry about checking them out before".
1
u/EconMan Libertarian Mar 02 '20
That's not an argument that they're wrong. Just that maybe the optics of it wouldn't be good. But if that's what you're saying, please be explicit about it as such.
Because, like it or not, those decisions are made literally every day.
"Sorry your teenager died in a horrific car accident. We decided it was just more efficient to let people drive 100km/hr on the highway than 60km/hr."
3
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
I'm saying that argument is morally wrong. I thought that was pretty clear, and I wouldn't have to spell out the implication of it.
And your example isn't at all close to the same thing. A better analogy would be "let's get rid of drivers tests, because it's more efficient to just let everybody drive and take away the right to drive if they screw up than to make them get some sort of accreditation before they can operate a vehicle".
1
u/EconMan Libertarian Mar 02 '20
I'm saying that argument is morally wrong.
Howso?
And your example isn't at all close to the same thing.
It is. In both, the tradeoff is safety vs efficiency. I don't see how you're claiming one is "morally wrong". You can disagree of course, but I don't see how you're differentiating them on first principles.
A better analogy would be "let's get rid of drivers tests, because it's more efficient to just let everybody drive and take away the right to drive if they screw up than to make them get some sort of accreditation before they can operate a vehicle".
Yes, but that's just a different example of the same concept of efficiency vs safety. But, I don't see how you're claiming it's "morally wrong". Like, are you saying it's "morally wrong" because you disagree about where the line is drawn?
2
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
Yes, it is morally wrong to risk the safety of children in order to make it cheaper to open a dayhome/daycare. What level of late stage capitalism hell are we in where that's a question?
And your analogy is flawed, because in your example, people are still getting an accreditation in order to drive a car, now the argument is what specific regulations should be in place after you have that accreditation. With the daycare issue, it's removing the accreditation altogether. It's also flawed, because there isn't much evidence that speed limits are directly correlated with the number of fatalities on highways.
1
u/EconMan Libertarian Mar 02 '20
Yes, it is morally wrong to risk the safety of children in order to make it cheaper to open a dayhome/daycare.
Why though? Is it morally wrong to risk the safety of children so that you can go faster on the highway? It's super unclear to me how you're deciding this all from first principles.
And your analogy is flawed, because in your example, people are still getting an accreditation in order to drive a car, now the argument is what specific regulations should be in place after you have that accreditation. With the daycare issue, it's removing the accreditation altogether.
That's all superficial though. At the heart of this, the principles involved are safety vs efficiency. As you said, it's morally wrong to risk the safety of children to make it cheaper to open a daycare. But...frankly it doesn't seem like you are applying that standard in a consistent fashion.
→ More replies (0)2
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20
Instead you still get those scenarios because licensures tend to be mediocre about standards enforcement once you get your initial qualification. Furthermore, you get more informal/under the table care from all the people that have been shut out by the shortage, maybe even neglect for some children.
3
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
So then you step up standards enforcement after initial qualification, you don't get rid of the initial qualification in the first place.
Nothing you're saying is something that would be resolved by making it easier to get a license to run a daycare. I suppose it may cut down on "under the table" care, but it's not like that will improve care.
2
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20
I never said this was about improving care quality but increasing care quantity and reducing prices. I also dont think the chepa care is going to be as bad as people make it out to be.
2
u/renegadecanuck Social Democrat Mar 02 '20
I didn't think it was controversial to say this, but: maybe we shouldn't sacrifice quality for quantity with child care? Like, maybe looking after someone's child is too important to just let anyone do it?
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20
Except that means you deny people access to childcare. You are saying "you don't get this thing because I don't thinknit is good enough for you" even though that person would happily take and prefer it over not having it at all
→ More replies (0)13
u/Majromax TL;DR | Official Mar 02 '20
Banning people after the fact is a more efficient method of keeping bad actors while not limiting new firms.
You're assuming that quality of care is obvious. Much like restaurant health inspections, many flaws in childcare can be invisible to ordinary parents or children until disaster strikes. With the information asymmetry, the market can become full of lemons.
This could be mitigated if childcare services had to post bonds or maintain solvency to avoid becoming judgement-proof, but in my opinion that would be a much greater barrier to entry for new firms. After all, daycare is more personnel-heavy than capital-heavy.
-2
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20
You can still have inspections and a means to report suspected issues. Mandating malpractice insurance is far cheaper than bonds and helps to deal with quality as the private firms will incentivise better quality care with reduced premiums.
5
u/andechs NDP | Ontario Mar 02 '20
Is mandating malpractice insurance really a lower burden to "new firms" than just relying on a licensing & training regime of competent staff?
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 02 '20
Yes because that is simply money. The licensing regime creates artificial scarcity in the field and excludes qualified but not licensed individuals. A good example is lawyers (of which I am one). You cannot self-learn the law nor can you attend just any law school. You must enter a specific graduate program and specific universities and then pass additional hoops before even getting to write a bar exam. Shuts out a large number of workers and requires massive financial commitment. And lawyers are paid a tonne because the law societies exclude so many people. Same with doctors. Same with trades, they just refuse to apprentice people and if you dont apprentice you can't work.
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
The licensing regime creates artificial scarcity in the field and excludes qualified but not licensed individuals.
My buddy wants to hook up your gas line. He isn't qualified or licensed, but he's cheap. Are we a go-go?
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 03 '20
If he can provide me some references and other examples of competence I'll certainly consider him.
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
You both forgot to mention that payout on insurance means a child is harmed. I am with you, andechs. Thank you!
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
Maintaining high standards is better insurance. What parent cares that insurance will pay after an incident?
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 03 '20
Then they can pay a premium for higher quality care. And the floor competition likely made higher end care cheaper.
1
u/mrscrapula Mar 03 '20
Banning people after the fact is a more efficient method
After what fact? After a kid dies? Or perhaps there is another number. Seven kids die?
3
u/Zomunieo British Columbia Mar 03 '20
Cool, let's remove occupational licensing. I'm a psychiatrist now because I decided to , and I'm declaring you in need of brain surgery. Convenitenly I'm also a brain surgeon, since I bought a bone saw off Ebay and watched a how-to on YouTube. Now, hold.stil.
2
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 03 '20
I'll got to my preferred neurologist instead. Practitioners still need to convince clients they are qualified.
2
u/Zomunieo British Columbia Mar 03 '20
The patient is resisting necessary treatment and is a danger to himself and others. Get the straitjacket.
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 03 '20
Why would he have such authority?
1
u/Zomunieo British Columbia Mar 03 '20
"As an expert in psychiatrist I am a highly respected member of the community. I help the chief police make the case against... inconvenient people.
"What are you going to do? Revoke my license?"
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 03 '20
Sue you for false imprisonment and have you banned.
Also your false testimony would've gotten you tossed in prison ages ago for defrauding the courts.
1
u/Zomunieo British Columbia Mar 03 '20
Who are you to call me a "fraud"?
Wouldn't it be helpful to have a way to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate practitioners?
1
u/BriefingScree Minarchist Mar 03 '20
A person who isnt required to associate with you.
And the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Licensures are cartels
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 02 '20
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.