Kevin Rudd’s pre-empted his own summit with his announcement at a Sydney Institute dinner last night of a proposal for universal early childhood centres. I don’t necessarily see any problem with that – the importance of early childhood for all sorts of things – crime prevention, skills and cognitive development, health outcomes, etc – is very well recognised in research from a number of disciplines and it’s one area where a “whole of government” focus can be very useful indeed, and should properly be debated at the summit.
Rudd’s speech can be accessed here.
In terms of the detail of the announcement, I have a lot of sympathy with the arguments of not for profit childcare centres, but the announcement is so aspirational (as it were) that there’s plenty of time to have a proper debate. It is important to note that his proposal isn’t just for childcare. It fits in with Kevin Rudd’s overall agenda of promoting equality of opportunity through policy intervention at the earliest possible stage of life – something I wrote about in my paper for the Search Foundation when I was seeking to identify a unifying ideological thread to his thought.
It’s interesting to compare what Rudd has identified as a major focus of the summit’s agenda with the results of polling conducted by the ANU. The takeout from the poll is that the environment has shot up the list of concerns in a big way, but also that healthcare and education are seen as priority areas by respondents. There are some interesting demographic differences in the results, which Andrew Leigh writes about at his blog, and I’d encourage people to have a read of his post. It’s also noteworthy that there appears to be an overwhelming sentiment of optimism about the country’s future under Rudd.
I’m all for more investment in early childhood, but I find this proposal kind of weird. Why does it have to be a one-stop shop? Is it really that beneficial to have doctors surgeries co-located with kindergartens and long-day care facilities? Not suggesting that it’s a bad thing, but I don’t see the benefit.
I can see a benefit in terms of childcare. The difficulty with competition in childcare is that the importance of geographical location means a quasi-monopoly situation exists in various suburbs and regions because choosing a different provider means going outside your normal patch with great disruption to your schedule. So any potential benefits of competition are lost, and there’s really little consumer choice in the market. Co-location of different childcare operators in one centre has the potential to avoid that.
It may also be that some benefit is envisaged by developing informal links between professionals and employees all working with the same cohort of children.
The supposed links between childcare provision and crime reduction and other problems are based on a study from a 1970s black, inner city neighbourhood in the USA. Anne Manne talks about it in her latest QE and shows that while high-quality childcare (community based or privately owned) is better than low-quality child care (corporate centres), staying at home with the kid is much better for them. I’m hooked on Manne’s thesis that growth capitalism and feminism have made strange bedfellows in getting women out to work to swell the ranks of workers and that child care (at least in its for-profit sense) is there to pick up the slack with children younger than school age.
I’d much rather see Family Benefit B, childcare rebates, and the money from the “one stop shops” rolled into a comprehensive stay-at-home parental allowance. As good as community run child care centres are/can be, nothing beats parent-child interaction.
Sam, I haven’t read Manne’s Quarterly Essay, but I taught a class in crime prevention in 2004 and I can tell you for a fact that there’s a much broader range of literature in support of the links between high quality childcare and other forms of support in early childhood and crime prevention than one study from the 70s. I don’t know whether Manne has immersed herself in the literature, or whether she’s just looked at one study in order to support her own view.
“Parent-child interaction” in this context surely means “mother-child interaction”.
It is true that one reason for the growth in female labour market participation is structural shifts in capitalism. However, there are enormous benefits to female labour market participation! If Manne is posing the alternative as “women working” vs. “needs of children being neglected because women are working”, I would suggest that her view is highly ideologically coloured rather than being based on empirical research. Even so, both economic realities and the ability and the right of women to pursue self-actualisation outside the role of parent mean that we should be prioritising better early childhood support rather than trying to use policy to encourage women to leave the paid workforce. There are enormous negative implications further down the track for children when women loose touch with the labour market, for a start. And then there’s the obvious anti-feminist aspect to Manne’s proposals.
Manne’s proposals are based on Scandinavian proposals where either parent can qualify for the assistance package and there are stay at home dads who take that option. It also includes stuff like job guarantees. Manne poses it as “mother forced to work in order to provide enough for family” rather than pushing the notion that women who work are selfish.
That begs the question of mothers who want to do both, Sam. There are benefits to working other than earning income – social interaction being one of the big ones which is highly relevant to mothers who often suffer severely from its lack if they’re “stay at home mums”. There’s also recent research which demonstrates that there are very positive benefits to children when parents have broader networks outside the family.
The existing gendered division of labour implies that it would very rarely be fathers who would take up that option, and in any case, there is a large number of women who don’t have partners but have young children. Manne may claim that she’s not suggesting women sacrifice their own interests for those of their children, but it seems to me that the realities of the situation mean that she must be implying that – it’s there in the framing of the argument.
As with just about any suggestion for changing society, it’s not going to be the best option for everyone. Those mothers who want to go in to the workforce should be able to and know that they can put their kids in high quality child care. Those (partnered) mothers/fathers who want to stay home should be able to and know that the government will help them meet the cost of living. Those single parents who have to work should also know that the government’s looking out for them with high quality child care as well.
There are potential options for social interaction for stay at home mums such as play dates, networks of local mums and one-off child care spots (or hiring a sitter). A one size fits all approach doesn’t serve all interests and needs and so we need to have a system which allows the exercise of individual choice with as few external pressures as possible.
One stop shops would be brilliant. You could make appointments for your kids when you dropped them off in the morning. Picking them up from daycare to go to the doctor then back again would be much easier and because it’s all there you are much more likely to follow up any niggling little issues that are bothering you.
Childcare and kindergarten must be a one-stop shop, because kinder hours are very short and it is a nonsense to imagine a working parent can ferry a child from one to the other during the day. Our centre was brilliant (and community run)! – it was joined to the kindergarten by a corridor so the various kinder classes were just escorted down in a gaggle and back once a day. Sorted.
If you don’t amalgamate child care centres and kindergartens, any “commitment” to every child having early childhood education is just empty words, for that logistical reason.
Can we start the push for the community health staff to be onsite too? Like a speech pathologist there to assist with the language and feeding issues, occupational therapist for the play and fine motor, physios for the early identification and therapy for those with physical needs? If it’s really a one stop shop that is
A ‘one stop shop’, depending on how it is structured, would have a range of beneficial outcomes for children and families. I completely agree with Fiona’s comment about how much more beneficial these could be.
Child Care centres, preschools and other types of early education and care settings are often the very first place a disability, difficulty or delay are identified in young children. University trained teachers in these settings have been trained to screen children and alert parents if they have a concern about a child’s development, however, we do not have the experience to diagnose a child. The only thing that teachers can do is refer families to health professionals who will then diagnose children and refer to the net appropriate professionals. These may be physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, child psychologists, neurological specialists and so on.
For many families, accessing a paediatrician in the first place is very difficult and expensive. Community health centres which provide bulk billed paediatricians may have waiting lists of at least 4 months if not longer. Private paediatricians are very expensive.
Once having a diagnosis, accessing other health professionals is just as difficult with some waiting lists of bulk billed health professionals taking up to a year. Clearly, this does not offer effective early intervention and these children fall further behind developmentally than their peers.
A one stop shop, if structured effectively, would allow families to have quicker access to these health professionals and allow for earlier intervention, leading to better outcomes for children, their families and general society.
Yes – so as iss-yews arise they won’t fall through the cracks. I’m at work, so I haven’t looked at the original news item much, but I assume that’s the thinking.
Sam, it seems to me that Manne is echoing Howard’s rhetoric about “choice”. Which of course was code for privileging one particular choice.
If that represents your position as well, it seems to me that it doesn’t provide any – I’ve just realised that you want subsidies for childcare transferred to a “stay-at home parental allowance”.
I very much doubt “parent-child interaction” is the panacea for all early childhood problems, and in any case “parent-child interaction” is quite possible when both partners are working and can be facilitated through policy – that’s another example of how Manne is erecting a series of false dichotomies.
Mark/Sam – I don’t think it needs to be a choice of either the mother or father stays at home. Why can’t it be shared with both working part time on different days? That way you get the benefit of parents having external networks plus the parent-child interaction. This could be encouraged by having similar policies for fathers being able to work part time after babies are born as are available for women.
I have quite a few friends who have recently had babies or having babies soon – must be the right age – but one interesting observation is that those who grew up in childcare overwhelmingly want to spend more time with their children while those who had parents around are much more open to using childcare.
Re: one stop shop – I can see the advantages of that especially regarding to not having to drop kids off at multiple places. However I think you’d have to be careful about giving effective monopolies to people who own the real estate around these areas which could force up the costs for the organisations running the services.
What in practice is the difference between what is done at childcare compared to kindergarten? Is there any reason the childcare providers couldn’t just do what is done at the kindergarten rather than shuffle them back and forth (eg maybe move the teacher rather than the gaggle of kidlets)?
Chris, the reason kinder teacher’s don’t like to work in childcare is that the working conditions are better in kindergartens. I can’t do the maths properly, but when I worked in a childcare centre, I got 2 hours planning for a 40 hour week, in kinder 40% of my paid time is for planning, 60% is teaching time. Childcare centre’s often have far less resources, and I’m not sure, but I think the federal award that I was employed under paid less than the state award. Then there’s the joy of being on the 7.30am shift, or the last shift and waiting for late parents to pick up their children… yeah, there’s no way I’m going back.
I’m all for that, Chris. I don’t think Anne Manne’s suggestions move us realistically towards that goal, though, for the reasons I gave in my comments in response to Sam above.
Agreed. I suspect that one of the main reasons that women end up being the ones who work less (beyond that there is a certain momentum given they have to take some sort of break after giving birth) is that in general the men are earning more than the women so from a financial point of view, in the short term it makes sense for them to not to go back to work rather than the men to work less.
So for any financial incentive to change the status quo you either need to raise women wages in general (but you’re also facing the age gap as men still tend to be older than the partners and further along in their career and so earn more) or shape the payments such that higher income earners get more of a subsidy – which will of course be seen as unfair.
The politics of this one could be a death trap. While Rudd is stressing this is an ‘idea’ not a policy it could very well take on a life of its own as parents demand this unfunded ‘vision’ (which, incidentally, I heartily approve of)be made an actual policy, regardless of cost. I’m a bit more hopeful than I was the 20/20 Conference might have some genuinely positive outcomes. OTOH, Rudd could be setting Labor up to massively disillusion voters, though not intentially, of course.
You bet there is, Mark. In my house at least.
Rudd, if his health allows, and he learns to trust and delegate to his subs, will become OZ’s greatest PM.
He lacks Keating’s turn of phrase – but he also lack’s Keating’s narcissism and chipped shoulder. He lacks Whitlam’s sense of theatre but he also lacks Whitlam’s sense of self-grandeur as a colossus bestriding a shitty British outpost.
Rudd is truly a PM for the times. Out first post-modern PM.
You’ll all scoff, of course But stick this comment in the time vault and exhume it in 50 years – and you’ll all marvel at me foresight.
Bottom line – we’ve not before had a PM with such a level of educated intelligence. I vote we make the most of it and do not fawn before him lest his head pops! I’ll do my bit by keeping him honest with my trenchant cynicism.
Transcript’s not up yet, but there was an interesting debate on Lateline between Juliet Bourke, Chair of the Taskforce on Care Costs and Barbara Romeril from the Community Childcare Association tonight.
Paul, I’m not sure that’s the case. The results of the poll ANU did, as I suggested in the post, show there’s a significant feeling in the community that Rudd has the country on the right track. I strongly suspect that there’s an acceptance that many of these issues will take a long time to solve, and I’m sure the 2020 summit is designed to reinforce that view in one sense. The Nelson/media “why didn’t you fix this yesterday?” line is so blatantly opportunistic and/or dumb I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t also support the feeling that the government needs quite a long period of time to achieve many of the objectives it’s set for itself and the country.
Crossed, wbb. But as I’ve said in a number of places, I’m a lot more impressed with the bloke than I thought I would be!
Yep – you want kindy and childcare in the same place alright. Its a nightmare – kindy is totally useless for working parents. Its seems to be based on some archaic and completely foreign to 21c Australia “Housewife might need to go shopping in the morning” model.
Time for an overhaul. Kindy is a higher level (as childcare is necessarily educational in any structured way).
I might add that Victoria has excellent council funded child and maternal health clinics which operate on the one-stop model. QLD doesnt have em – and its absolute rubbish that they dont. Dont know about NSW. They run the local nurse who visits in the first few days home after the birth (she really dorted breastfdeeding for my partner) and they run the mother’s groups etc, so first time Mums can get togehter with other first time Mums.
Some of our best friends arise from that group now – and all the elder kids are the same age so its great. I dont know this for sure, but I wager Victoria has a lower incidence of post-natal depression than the rest of AU as a result.
Victoria’s lead in this area was mentioned on Lateline, Lefty E. Be worth watching when it goes up online.
Weren’t a bad debate that one, on Lateline, Mark. But only because the left won handsomely! That Romeril knows her stuff alright.
I’d shop ABC Learning to the ACCC, Child Welfare, the CFMEU (wtf) etc and follow Rudd’s dreaming to that sunlit upland where we will think we all Swedes now.
I read your stream of consciousness pdf for the Search Foundation last nite and while impressed (as per) with your erudition and striving to stay out front of the consensus, I was slightly peeved that you chose to question Rudd’s lack of vision (139 days into his tenure).
Today’s Rudd’s “modest proposal” is, for mine, the sinew, blood and bones of vision. I think that Romerils’ palpable exhilaration that at last Politis Australis has heard her cry, is evidence of that.
I, personally, am just coming out the other side of eight years of “0-5 early childhood devleopment”, (hence my insufferably portentous tone!) and if we are missing something in that area it’s universality, coherence, portability, consistency, clarity, and full-blooded commitment to provision of said services.
Little folk are totally dependent beings. They do not exist but for our care.
They certainly do not become.
I haven’t read the latest Quarterly Essay, but in her book, Anne Manne fairly quickly talked about how women are the ones who really want to stay at home with the children, that dads weren’t really as emotionally involved. As a mother who works, with the dad at home, I ended up being unable to finish the book, as it came across to me as very hostile to my family model (because I was a woman with small children happy to be working), let alone the model which involves both parents working.
So I’m sceptical as to how gender neutral she really is on this topic.
In NSW, long day care centres are required to have a kindergarten program for the older kids – so long dare care is effectively a one stop shop in that respect (although not with all the medical bits added on, which could be quite useful). The problem with that, though, is that in my neighbourhood, long day care centres have crowded out the kindergartens, so that there were very few places you could send you child for preschool attention unless you were willing to pay the high daily fee for long day care.
I imagine that the funding model for a combined centre could be quite complex, to enable both sets of children to pay their way.
I think you’ve got me wrong, wbb. I said – contra Burchell – Rudd did have a vision. I’m just not sure it’s the sort of transformational vision I’d like to see the left articulate – which would involve the transformation of social relations as well as good humane policy. But, believe me, I’m delighted by the latter.
Don’t mind me – I’m just a bit of a libertarian socialist at heart.
I couldn’t even pick up the QE, Jennifer, after having read previous articles by Manne on the topic. I knew what she was going to say, and I really don’t need to hear it again – she cherrypicks evidence to suit her ideological view, and there’s a certain judgementality about her writing which I find really pretty offputting.
Good to hear Mark. I really feel Victoria does a lot of things right in the the post-childbirth policy area.
Yes, wbb – and the unseemly “first come best dressed” principle in pre-primary school arrangements (childcare, kindy, even council swimming classes) really is just friggin backward, if you ask me.
Ive got a crazy idea, Australia: how about enough spots for all the kids?
Oh boy. LE.
As 1/2 of a working parent outfit, kindergarten proves to be somewhat more useful enterprise than that. I dunno where to start with you on this. (btw – what did u think of Mark Davis’ report last night?)
Well wbb, you could start by agreeing it would be more useful if it was 9-5 care!
We’ve got 9-3 one day, 9-12 another. And no long daycare with it.
Useless. I mean, they’re great. But the model.
Useless.
Absolutely, LE. Took me quite a while to accept that reality. Luckily for our kids my partner is a bit more hard nosed when obtaining our collective due.
If there’s a hole in our system it’s 0-5. I’m thrilled that it’s been flagged in the manner it has been today. At last, perhaps, we are going to examine extending the idea of universal education and welfare back to when people are actually born rather than at age 5.
Anybody who’s forced to talk to a 5yo on a regular basis knows that there has been a lot of water under the bridge by that stage.
Ahh, Mark Davis’ report on ET, yes. Not much I didnt know, to be honest, but then I follow it closely for professional reasons, and so it was probably a good public summary.
I’m glad to see Horta today sinking the Reinado fan base with the Indon connection. I particularly enjoyed seeing MUNJ getting squirm under the camera. They are simply a pack of idiots and professional destabilisers, probbly of the mercenary sort. Salsinha’s been linked with Indo smuggling ops for years. Thats why he didnt get promoted, not anti-western discrimination (at least not in his case).
I tend to agree that the Pires focus is probably overstated. I reckon we have Indo crim gangs with loose and ill-defined Nusa Tengara TNI connections involved, probably not the Indo state. And crazy old Reinado himself.
At the time, I was concerned to get across the message that Reinado’s group acted alone. In terms of what actually happened on the ground, they did. ET would have blown to the sky if some of the crazy and baseless rumours (eg Fretilin paid him, some other group shot Reinado AND Horta) had gone unchallenged. All those stoires were rubbish.
At the end of the day, as we said at the time, it seems likely he thought JRH was diddling him when he learned XG was undercutting his petitioner support base. The program essentially supported that theory.
The most interesting thing was what many suspected getting a stronger airing as time goes by: the link between XG and Reinado during the 2006 crisis. Reinado was used, blows back. Frankly, I tend to think it was so. Still more to be heard here, I’ll wager.
Well, get used to it, LE. Guess what hours primary schools keep. Scandalous, isn’t it?
Talk to your boss. S/he is the problem, not the centre hours.
Ps – fascinating stuff on Davis’ report, LE, but might be better to take further discussion of it over to the Saturday Salon thread.
Yes. Nothing/nobody is pure.
Dude! Saturday Salon for East Timor discussion, please!
Yes, that was off topic!
Well, yes agreed in principle wbb, but I do think it would be easier to extend kindy/school care than institute a 30hr week!
As good as that would be!
Ah, yes. That’s why I keep coming back here. To one day understand what the heck such a beast actually is. (Not that it seems such a bad thing on the evidence.)
See here, wbb!
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/04/16/re-imagining-the-good-society-ii/#comment-457935
I’m cautious about theorising it, because I believe it has to emerge from action taken in common, and shared collective relationships. I think one has to be open to possibilities.
I work for the evil empire (IBM) itself, LE. I work exactly 30.0 hours per week. My partner works for the other evil empire (vic.gov.au) – she works exactly 25.5 hours a week. It wasn’t that hard.
And the more ppl who do it – the easier it gets. Help lower the stds will ya!
Maybe I should procreate. It sounds like it beats working 12 hour days. On the other hand…
Yep, in fact, I negotiated to work at home on the 9-3 kindy day. Which is brilliant!
Doesnt alter the fact that we’re mostly over educated cats bloggin’ here, with flexi puter-based jobs and some market power to negotiate. I hate to get all boring and talk about CLARSE but really, long day care standard, Ruddster, come on!
World of pain entry warning on that last comment, Mark! Duck!
wbb, the short hours of the kindie/preschool model rule it out for many working families, if you could juggle an late drop-off, early pickup in your family – good luck to you!
In NSW & Vic Long Day Care Centres (LDC’s) must provide a kindergarten program for all four year olds – with a qualified Kindergarten teacher, not a qualified childcare worker.
I think this might be national wide?? – part of the ‘National Standards’ that every state signed onto back in the 90’s.??
Jennifer makes a good point about the fee structure between Preschool/Kindie and Long Day Care.
In Rudd’s speech there was no mention of ‘doctors’ btw. – only maternal/child health centres being located with Long Day Care Centres (assuming LDC’s already run a Kindergarten program as above – this bit of the concept seems superfluous, unless State Govts or Rudd wants them to ‘develop’ their kindy/preschool stock….?)
I’m pretty sure Maternal/Child Health Centres are staffed entirely by specialist nurses who undertake the all checks/tests/weighing and refer you back to your doctor if they suspect or observe something isn’t right – or onto some other professional etc. (Or to the emergency dept!) In NSW and Vic these are stand alone services. And many of the very small centres I’ve noticed, have been amalgamated with neighbouring ones.
The Long Day Care Centre my daughter attended, was operated by a Council, and they had a great tie-in with their own Social Services staff, and therefore families with special needs kids or protection issues or learning/behavioural difficulties had an almost accidentally ‘integrated’ service because social/health professionals were often on-site overseeing their service and/or were called in to help etc.
The community-based centre I had been involved with, in another state, did not have the extra council staff and professionals visiting as regularly, that I noted often at the Council operated LDC. (Though the relationship was good, and that other Council did provide extra services to the non-profit community centres in the area.) I’m not sure of the protocols in respect of private centres and may depend entirely on the owner/coordinators, as to how much they get involved in these areas/referrals etc.
Amalgamating early childhood services under the one roof, I would think will especially benefit parents of multiple children, special needs kids, child with protection/behavioural or on-going health issues.
The drop-off rate of visits to maternal/child health centres decreases dramatically with each subsequent child. I’m not sure if there are any statistics in relation to “not first-born” children missing out on early intervention, but having the services located in the same facility, would mean that parents may be more inclined to use these services for their 2nd/3rd/4th etc kids.
“a late drop off”.
sorry for any other typos, am at scungy 24 hour interent cafe, again. trying to pack in 24 hours into 24 hours – will need a holiday when i get back home.
Havin fun in Melbs, jo?
could get very used to this holidaying business, mark, thx.
loving melbs, and loving staying at a hotel right in the city, rather than at a friend’s house. luxury!
Well the price for working less hours is often getting paid proportionally less. Which can be pretty hard for couples who are having children later and are used to higher salaries and have established a lifestyle based upon two people working fulltime.
Mark @ 22,
I so want to be wrong. But I well remember the first year of the Whitlam Government. There was just this kind of hope and optimism about as we have now. I think Donald Horne described it as the Days of Hope. Then, Crash! But like I said, I really want to be wtong. Despite my scepticism and cynicism, I sort of agree with wbb @ 20, and with you. But .. the lessons of history?
If there’s a hole in our system it’s 0-5.
Wait until your offspring get to high school, WBB.
You know what to expect with the downgrading of the puclic system- I really, really hope Gillard REALLY seriously turns that around. Primary school is done relatively well here in Vic.
[Off topic]:
Last time I looked your site was defunct, I s’pose it’s the insane busyness of the early years, but I thought yours was a valuable voice in the Ozblogosphere. You did have readers and they miss you.
[/Off topic]
Meant wrong not wtong @ 51.
Long Day Care is funded by the Feds under the Child Care Benefit system.
Preschool/Kinder is funded by the state governments, in different ways. The NSW Government thinks Preschool should be funded by the Feds.
The NSW Children’s Services Regulation 2004 doesn’t discriminate between Long Day Care and Preschool/Kindy per se. They are both “children’s services”.
The requirement for programming is the same for both – LDC practitioners are affronted by the view that they don’t offer an educational program like Preschool. Also see Federal Labor’s Early Childhood Policy about ironing out the perceived difference between ‘education’ and ‘care’ in these types of children’s service.
The requirement for university trained staff [ie: Teachers] is the same for both, relating to licensed children’s services, LDC or Preschool, enrolling 29 or more children. Less than 29 children and an LDC or Preschool can employ a TAFE trained Assoc. Dip. as an ‘authorised suprevisor’.
The salaries of EC Teacher/Directors in LDC and Preschool in NSW are c.r.a.p for the level of expertise and responsibility – One reason why EC teachers prefer teaching in schools. Working in LDC can be really tough – One reason why EC teachers prefer Preschool or infants teaching.
Staff:child ratio requirements are the same for both service types, varying with the age of children being cared for. In NSW, the Preschool age range is 2 until the year before school. Most NSW Preschools prefer the 3 and 4 year olds – The underfunding of Preschool by the NSW Government has led to higher fees/low affordability and the need to enrol younger children to keep utilisation/fee revenue up.
Preschool is still well used by NSW families and would be better used if it was more affordable, the non-income barriers to access for indigenous and low income families were addressed and the hours were more working family friendly.
The provisions around Australia seem to be very different. In Queensland as far as I know we don’t fund preschool education anymore since we introduced Prep as the first year of schooling. But it’s still offered in some private schools, C&K centres and commercial operations, but it’s now called ‘pre-prep’.
Child care centres offer educational programs, as apparently they must in order to obtain accreditation.
Labor’s commitment so far is only to 15 hours per week of play-based preschool education for all four year olds.
This item from July last year indicates that some experts claim that the life chances of kids are improved by quality educational programs for 2 and 3 year olds. Prof Tony Vinson has recommended that NSW spend more on education for this group.
I’m sure Maxine will sort it all out.
I find Anne Manne’s take v interesting (listened to her on Big Ideas/RN this weekend but haven’t read the Quarterly Essay), & resolved to follow up by reading her book, so naturally enjoyed reading the discussion here.
I don’t believe Manne is ideologically driven but has often been maligned as such – she is part of a tradition of child-centred feminism which has probably copped it from everyone for suggesting the inconvenient. I think the problem with this debate is that so many of us are inclined to take personally the suggestion that long day care isn’t the optimum mode. Having used both ldc and other modes of care I’m not above feeling a little miffed when my choices have been dissed, but the exciting possibility that real human-centred social progress stands a chance of a hearing inclines me to suggest these ideas should get a fair hearing without a reflexive ‘oh it’s ideological’ response.
Methinks the measure of care should be a natural concern of the left connecting to concerns about alienation and the desire for self-realisation and quality of life. Manne also spoke about caring for people with disabilities & the elderly, and this broader concern should also connect to the left’s great tradition of representing the politically unrepresented – those who are invisible or without voice.
That critical scrutiny of care policies on child-development & quality grounds (and a particular work ethic that pushes to exclude other values) should automatically be deemed an enemy of feminism reminds me of the United States assuming that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. It ain’t necessarily so – we should look deeper.
I’m with you, Shingle, except you have to admit that people who do use child care are dissed. Constantly. You might almost start to think that its a feminist issue.
With respect, Anne Manne is a privileged upper-middle-class woman married to a high-earning alpha male. She could take some years off without trashing her own prospects and still have access to travel and a social life. As for us, we would endure grinding poverty and boredom with no access to activities or social inclusion, such as sports, music etc. except for what we could get from the radio and TV. I don’t really think that our kids would hugely benefit, except in a “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” kind of way. I think people at that stratum of society need to stop and think that the stay-at-home solution, applied across the board, will destroy the opportunities and wellbeing of many people.
There’s the unabashed hippie who wrote to the AGE today boasting that he was on unemployment benefits WITH a wife not working for umpteen years because both of them believed in being there for the kids. I can sympathise with them to some extent, but boy do I predict their children will grow up to be fierce day-trading materialistic stockbrokers after living on beans for so long. And for most people, a life like that wouldn’t have such a happy outcome – poverty isn’t a game to most.
If you object to this extreme example (and it appears to be a real one), it’s partly a reaction to the anti-childcare lobby who like to use the “raised by strangers” meme, giving the erroneous impression that children in childcare are farmed out 24/7 and never see their children.
Um, never see their parents, I mean.
As do those who choose not to use childcare at all. I think that with most other baby/child choices you’re going to get criticised by someone whatever you do. I do think there is a problem with being unable to discuss what the benefits and drawbacks of the various alternatives are because people get so defensive about the choices they’ve made in the past.
Part of this I think is due to an expectation that the parents and especially the mother will do what is optimal for the child, rather than considering that perhaps what instead should be considered is what is best for the whole family and the two may not align exactly.