See text below.
EXCERPTS
The real question about the final list of nominees for The Greatest Canadian contest last fall was not: Why were there so few women or artists? It was: Why were there no kindergarten teachers or child care workers?
It tells a lot about social priorities, which is what the fate of the national child care program, subject of a "summit" today in Vancouver, should also do.
A recent Globe editorial was refreshingly frank, like a partner who dumps you honestly. Sure child care is a good idea, it suggested, but now is choosing time, which means money-spending time, and other things matter more, like the military. Why does our society have trouble, at such moments, opting for child care?
Ken Dryden, the minister in charge, says it has to do with the model, which has always been babysitting. Babysitting, he says, will never become a national priority. Early childhood education might.
On the other hand, having the debate at all raises a scary question: Why would a society not make the welfare of its youngest members its top priority? Could anything be more pertinent to the general good? If the family were still in charge, that might be okay, but we know it is no longer so for most young kids, and will not be again. Saying no to such a program does kind of amount to child abuse.
Is it possible some people are cool because it all reminds them of how neglected their own childhoods were? If a doctor treats you badly, it hurts and you complain. If you were badly raised or parented, there are strong reasons to avoid acknowledging it. (We didn't have a national child care program and we turned out fine. Yeah, right.)
The whole area, as a subject of political debate, is fraught. It involves parental guilt and denial. Plus, it's not very glamorous. You don't see TV series on child care workers. They, like teachers and therapists, operate mainly in the oral tradition, where the deepest impressions are made, but most results are hard to quantify.
- reprinted from the Globe and Mail