TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Government Funded Daycare program
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Government Funded Daycare program
I posted this in the COR in hopes of getting a wider range of response than just in here, but I wouldn't mind you guys' thoughts.
| quote: |
| Government Funded Daycare program Allright peeps im writing a paper on this, im almost done and i just wanted to feel the waters on what people think. Basically i want to know how many of you are actually against having a government funded national daycare program. All studies have found that early interventions, specially for lower income children have great positive effects. Some argument the effects are shortlived and fade out as soon as 3rd grade but most of the fading effect is explained by family situations and quality of latter educational centers. There are proven economic gains also such as more single mothers entering the work force, and couples being able to juggle work/children more effectively and thus increasing productivity. Anyone have arguments against? I want to have a balanced review of the issue in my paper, but arguments against are far and few in between and usually don't hold up. Anyone interested in looking at current models for implementation of a nation wide daycare system can look at the Carolina Abecederian and Headstart in the US. In Canada there's Quebec's recently implemented province wide government funded daycare program. |
I'm very much against it.
Daycare is no substitute for the individual attention of a parent. Anyone who chooses to have a child should be prepared to accept the responsibility of actually raising that child and not just dumping him or her off with a bunch of other neglected children all day so that the parents can just go about their business.
If the parents are not prepared to shoulder the commitment of time and energy that raising a child entails, then they should not be having children at all, and we most certainly should not be publicly subsidizing their negligent parenting by making it cheaper or easier for them to shirk their responsibility to properly raise their child.
Daycare in the case of an emergency or other unusual situation on a short-term basis is fine, but the practice of leaving children there regularly is disgusting and needs to end entirely, not be paid for by the government.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter I'm very much against it. Daycare is no substitute for the individual attention of a parent. Anyone who chooses to have a child should be prepared to accept the responsibility of actually raising that child and not just dumping him or her off with a bunch of other neglected children all day so that the parents can just go about their business. If the parents are not prepared to shoulder the commitment of time and energy that raising a child entails, then they should not be having children at all, and we most certainly should not be publicly subsidizing their negligent parenting by making it cheaper or easier for them to shirk their responsibility to properly raise their child. Daycare in the case of an emergency or other unusual situation on a short-term basis is fine, but the practice of leaving children there regularly is disgusting and needs to end entirely, not be paid for by the government. |
Well here in Canada, if Daycare worked 'so well', why are Chinese immigrants forced to send their babies back to China after one year when they can't afford it? ($1200/mnth)
Or how about NO accountability when things are subsidized...
Like this winner:
| quote: |
[size]Director billed T.M.R. daycare for flowers, china, suit alleges[/size] ANN CARROLL The gazette Monday, May 29, 2006 The former director of a non-profit daycare in Town of Mount Royal charged clothes, restaurant meals and spa visits to the daycare centre, a civil lawsuit filed in Quebec Superior Court alleges. The Centre de la petite enfance Mont Royal is seeking repayment of $616,049.43 jointly from former director Jeany Tsitsos, accounting secretary Karen Goldfield and Rejean Carbonneau, the chartered accountant who audited the centre's books. The allegations of misspending and negligent audits have not been proven. The parties in the lawsuit are to appear in Superior Court on June 20 to set a date for the hearings. Tsitsos, Goldfield and Carbonneau could not be reached for comment. Sonia Lacombe, president of the centre's board of directors, declined to discuss details of the lawsuit while it is before the courts. But she said the case should serve as a cautionary tale for other parents who volunteer a couple of hours a month to sit on their child's daycare board. Parent volunteers are often untrained in financial management and must rely on the honesty of daycare staff and the diligence of chartered accountants hired to verify daycare account books, Lacombe said. "We have no experience of how much it should cost to feed 80 kids a year, or how much to budget for office supplies and cleaning equipment." Since Tsitsos's departure in 2005, the board of directors has revised the daycare budget and dropped the daily fee and surcharge from $13 to $9, Lacombe said. (Non-profit CPEs charge a basic $7 a day, but many add small surcharges to cover outings and special events.) If parent-run boards of directors are in the dark about daycare costs, who is keeping tabs? Lacombe said the government, which subsidizes about 80 per cent of CPE budgets, expects accountants to check the centres' revenues and expenses. "But in our experience, the CAs don't go to the micro level, to check what each invoice was for," she said. "They rely on the board to go to the micro level." The CPE Mont Royal lawsuit alleges that a closer look at the daycare's $1.4-million annual budget and Tsitsos's spending from April 2004 to July 2005 might have uncovered: $25,802 for restaurant meals $19,827 for china $13,107 for flowers $12,475 for clothing Goldfield helped the director cover up her purchases, the lawsuit alleges. Clothing bills, for example, were classified as "personal development" or "educational material," the lawsuit claims. Tsitsos worked at the daycare centre on Laird Blvd. for 18 years, first as a child educator and, from 1991 to 2005, as director, according to the lawsuit. Goldfield was employed at the centre as accounting secretary for 25 years, from 1980 to 2005, and Carbonneau audited the books for 12 years. The parents who sit on CPE boards of directors often change from year to year, and are unprepared to oversee million-dollar budgets, Lacombe said. That could soon be remedied. Quebec is now preparing a course for parents who volunteer to run their children's public daycare centre. "Training courses will be offered within the next year," said Stephanie Tremblay, spokesperson for the Quebec family and child-care services department. The course responds to parents' complaints and "our own awareness" of the need, Tremblay said. Each CPE board is independent and responsible for managing the centre's money, resources and staff, Tremblay said. Quebec produces a written guide - available online - that outlines parents' roles and responsibilities, and offers advice to boards of directors on specific problems, she added. But the government relies on the daycare director to bring the information to the attention of new board members, Lacombe said. Goodwill works in 99 per cent of daycares, but training courses will save parents in the other one per cent a lot of grief, she added. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter I'm very much against it. Daycare is no substitute for the individual attention of a parent. Anyone who chooses to have a child should be prepared to accept the responsibility of actually raising that child and not just dumping him or her off with a bunch of other neglected children all day so that the parents can just go about their business. If the parents are not prepared to shoulder the commitment of time and energy that raising a child entails, then they should not be having children at all, and we most certainly should not be publicly subsidizing their negligent parenting by making it cheaper or easier for them to shirk their responsibility to properly raise their child. Daycare in the case of an emergency or other unusual situation on a short-term basis is fine, but the practice of leaving children there regularly is disgusting and needs to end entirely, not be paid for by the government. |
In this business world, when both spouses usually have to work to sustain themselves and kids, there's little time to look after kids. And so if there will be no government support for daycare, then in 50, 100 years Canada's population will be all middle-aged and retirement-aged, causing an economic problem. Plus the Asians would outnumber us 1000 to 1 by then. Something needs to be done, we need to multiply and fuel the economy - the kids will be the future of Canada. I guess some people dont understand that.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium In this business world, when both spouses usually have to work to sustain themselves and kids, there's little time to look after kids. And so if there will be no government support for daycare, then in 50, 100 years Canada's population will be all middle-aged and retirement-aged, causing an economic problem. Plus the Asians would outnumber us 1000 to 1 by then. Something needs to be done, we need to multiply and fuel the economy - the kids will be the future of Canada. I guess some people dont understand that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Well here in Canada, if Daycare worked 'so well', why are Chinese immigrants forced to send their babies back to China after one year when they can't afford it? ($1200/mnth) Or how about NO accountability when things are subsidized... Like this winner: >>Source<< The problem, as with all government programs here in Canada, they figure that throwing money at a problem actually solves the problem and us taxpayers are left watching our hard-earned cash dissolve before our eyes into the same problem... It would be easier to take the cash out of our own pocket and throw it in the fireplace; at least I know what happened to it rather than have it show up in a newspaper article like the one above. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Then how would you propose parents balance their work duties and child rearing? If you say that if they can't do it then they shouldn't have any then you would eventually kill out all the lower strata of society because only people that can afford to juggle work responsibilities and child raising responsibilities would be having children. Parent that are below the poverty line obviously can not work and provide proper care for their children, and demanding that they do albeit logical is unreasonable. The fact is the problem is here and unless you ban poor people from having children the need for a daycare system is there. So how would you propose to plausibly solve this problem. Don't go all it's their fault and they should deal with it, it falls on society to help. Good early education is associated with less criminality and better educational and economic prospects for people how benefit from having it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter I'm sorry, but I don't buy the excuses. In other parts of the world, people in general are far poorer, have less resources, and have far less provided for them than even the poorest people in western nations. Historically, people were poorer, had less access to resources, and had less of their needs provided for than people are in modern times. But it is in western countries, not the rest of the world, and in modern times, not the past, where we see children recieving the least time and attention from their parents. It does not compute. People with far less than our "lower strata" made it work and raised their children personally, maybe not perfectly but they did the best they could and at least they were there. If we, with all our modern resources, can't do that, then we have bigger problems that clearly need to be addressed. And the solution to those problems is certainly not daycare. |
if this is to be entertained at all, then where are the states on this?
why is all of the burden put on the Federal Government first and not the states and municipalities who should be more intimate with the needs of it's tax base in the first place?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter I'm very much against it. Daycare is no substitute for the individual attention of a parent. Anyone who chooses to have a child should be prepared to accept the responsibility of actually raising that child and not just dumping him or her off with a bunch of other neglected children all day so that the parents can just go about their business. If the parents are not prepared to shoulder the commitment of time and energy that raising a child entails, then they should not be having children at all, and we most certainly should not be publicly subsidizing their negligent parenting by making it cheaper or easier for them to shirk their responsibility to properly raise their child. Daycare in the case of an emergency or other unusual situation on a short-term basis is fine, but the practice of leaving children there regularly is disgusting and needs to end entirely, not be paid for by the government. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Edit2: Also what do you mean by the sending back babies thing? Is this in Quebec, because it is the only place in canada were there is a well established day care program. Also where did you get and what means that $1200/month number? In Quebec day care is $5/day which is way less than $1200/month. |
| quote: |
In Toronto, the cost of licensed child care, without subsidies, can range from approximately $615 to $1,000 per month, depending on the type of care and the age of the child. The average cost is $750 per month. Care for infants is the most expensive. Less expensive care ($30-35 per day) is available from unlicensed caregivers who provide care in their own homes. |
| quote: |
Liberal�s �Universal� Childcare Leaves Out 75% of Canadian Families OTTAWA, Ontario, January 5, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) � Despite the Liberal Party�s claim that the goal of their childcare program is to �meet the needs of all families,� statistics show that only a small minority of parents would actually benefit. By offering funds to institutional daycares only, the Liberal Childcare Plan effectively ignores three quarters of all Canadian families. Less than 25% of Canadian families use institutional daycare, according to Statistics Canada. For 75% of Canadian parents who do not use daycare services, the Liberal plan has nothing to offer. (Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050207/d050207b.htm) The Liberal daycare plan also ignores the 90% of Canadian parents who would prefer to raise their children at home, if possible. Only 10% of all Canadian families list institutional daycare as their first choice in caring for young children. (Vanier Institute study: http://www.vifamily.ca/newsroom/pre...c.html#endno...) A truly universal daycare program in the mould of Medicare would cost an estimated $10 billion per year � ten times the amount allocated by the Liberals. (Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto: http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/res...amework_high...) In contrast, the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, has pledged to commit $1,200 per child annually for care costs. Although the amount is far below actual costs most parents incur for having someone else care for their children even for a few days per week, the Conservative plan does leave the choice of care up to the parents. �We will give all parents $100 per month per child under age 6 to spend on child care needs as they choose � whether that means formal day care, a babysitter, neighborhood child care, or helping one parent stay at home,� the Conservative website says. Harper listed �helping parents with the cost of raising their children� as one of the five top priorities of a new Conservative government. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Your analogy is not a valid one. You cant compare how society worked before and the demands parents experienced from society in the past to our standards right now. In antiquity parents could discard their child, throw it away or forget about it all they wanted, and they would not face any consequences. |
| quote: |
| You can not try and hold parents accountable and at the same time say that it is their sole job to care for the child. It doesn't work. It's easy to dismiss the problem by saying that they gave birth to the child and they should solve it. You have also failed to answer my questions. What do you suggest people do? |
| quote: |
| You are also neglecting all the positive benefits of early education. |
| quote: |
| Basically you're brushing off the problem without providing any real arguments by using arrogant and 'im correct your not' wording in your posts. You can just say you don't like and have no real reason as to why, or you can provide me with concrete examples of why implementing this program would have more negative effects than not implementing it. |
I think Arbiter hit the nail on the head.
We already have enough problems with parents being absent in a child's life as it is; why perpetuate the problem with taxpayers funding it?
That's not to say it doesn't have its uses but children are a huge responsibility that doesn't belong in the hands of, least of all, government.
....they can barely manage ADULTS... 
All the points you two raised are debating if parents should be accomodated or not. None of them address if the program is beneficial, if the costs are too high, etc.. You guys are arguing ideology, which is valid, but has very little relevance in if the program is important. Being idelogically correct won't help any children, and won't solve any problems. I guess im more inclined to a practical discussion of these issues.
In any case I'm interested in how you guys would implement policy to deal with the current parenting situation. Or if it would just be a status quo policy and let things run whatever course they may.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX All the points you two raised are debating if parents should be accomodated or not. None of them address if the program is beneficial, if the costs are too high, etc.. You guys are arguing ideology, which is valid, but has very little relevance in if the program is important. Being idelogically correct won't help any children, and won't solve any problems. I guess im more inclined to a practical discussion of these issues. In any case I'm interested in how you guys would implement policy to deal with the current parenting situation. Or if it would just be a status quo policy and let things run whatever course they may. |
Western child rearing is a mess, not only is it prohibitively expensive if you look at it from simply a financial point of view like I've been doing, but it's just 'expected' that the mother be back into the workforce within a couple of months. That's further compounded by the problems of society expecting you to be there and general living expenses which won't let you get by on just one wage.
It pisses me off a lot. 
I'll be damned if I won't be spending at least 5 years out of the workforce to have a child because I'll certainly not be lumping the poor little mite into some nasty childcare centre before they go off to pre-school. I just don't think it's fair on the child, they'd feel unwanted and unloved like someone's little afterthought in between commuting and work.
| quote: |
| The only thing government funding helps perpetuate are people who keep having babies, stay out of the workforce and suck the system dry but put nothing back into it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Private businesses should take a more active role in supplementing childcare for their employees. The only thing government funding helps perpetuate are people who keep having babies, stay out of the workforce and suck the system dry but put nothing back into it. If anything, it should help those that are at least gainfully employed. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith Western child rearing is a mess, not only is it prohibitively expensive if you look at it from simply a financial point of view like I've been doing, but it's just 'expected' that the mother be back into the workforce within a couple of months. That's further compounded by the problems of society expecting you to be there and general living expenses which won't let you get by on just one wage. It pisses me off a lot. I'll be damned if I won't be spending at least 5 years out of the workforce to have a child because I'll certainly not be lumping the poor little mite into some nasty childcare centre before they go off to pre-school. I just don't think it's fair on the child, they'd feel unwanted and unloved like someone's little afterthought in between commuting and work. Probably shouldn't go there... people don't like it. No, sod it. I earn roughly 8-10 times more than a single mother on welfare who isn't doing any part time work after their kid(s) goes off to school and what irritates me is that they DO NOT get off welfare. A lot of them just end up having more kids and I'm damned if I know how well those kids are being raised and if their quality of life is at risk? In between my mortgage, supporting my (part time employed) partner through uni, paying taxes I can't find the damn money for a child of my own. Don't know how the hell they do it |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith Western child rearing is a mess, not only is it prohibitively expensive if you look at it from simply a financial point of view like I've been doing, but it's just 'expected' that the mother be back into the workforce within a couple of months. That's further compounded by the problems of society expecting you to be there and general living expenses which won't let you get by on just one wage. It pisses me off a lot. I'll be damned if I won't be spending at least 5 years out of the workforce to have a child because I'll certainly not be lumping the poor little mite into some nasty childcare centre before they go off to pre-school. I just don't think it's fair on the child, they'd feel unwanted and unloved like someone's little afterthought in between commuting and work. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX And what about the children? You keep shifting the focus to the parents. This system if not for the parents. Yes parents derive some benefit from it, but the main beneficiaries are the children. Early education is heavily correlated with better financial outcomes, higher education and less brushes with the law. Those are some benefits to society right there. By educating the current children you're increasing the probability that they themselves won't end up depending on welfare, won't end up in jail, and their own children will also be better off. So right there, you're reducing future need for welfare and reducing criminal activity. It is also known that more educated people, have less children on average. See how many indirect and direct benefits this program brings? Yet you, and arbiter, and lillith below this post are concerned with the short term benefits some douchebag that is too irresponsible to care about getting of welfare will get. There has been econometric studies done on the impact of some of the day care center systems already in place. There is an increase in single mothers being incorporated into the workforce. There you go, some people actually trying to get off welfare just by implementing this. There is also an argument to be made that most people that will use the day care centers will be using it so that they can study and/or work. No study has been able to show that people actually become lazier, work less, are become more dependant on welfare. You guys are just bringing your ideological baggage into this. That's why you keep focusing on the parents, not the children. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r ...and you're forgetting that one parent can stay home, home school their own kids and take responsibility for what they brought into this world. Personally, I'd rather my kids pick up my habits than someone's we don't know. It's personal preference and I simply DO NOT TRUST government to know what's good for my child. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX I sincerely understand your concern. But you have to keep in mind that this service will be aimed at lower SES children. Their parents cant afford to have one of them stay home. That's the problem. If you can afford to stay home and raise your child, surely your child will be better off, but poorer people cant. |
what arbiter and others are forgetting, is that subsidised daycare is also about gender equality. how can you ever expect a woman to maintain her position in the marketplace if you expect her to be out of work for 10 years every time she wishes to have a child? who is going to employ a woman if she's likely to be out of work for long periods of time to rear children?
subsidising daycare is a necessary step if you wish to allow as many people as possible to participate in the workforce.
i dont see a problem with it, as much as you try-hard laissez faire wannabes like to complain about big bad government 
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.