See text below.
EXCERPTS
As a new grandparent, my interest in child care has been rekindled.
The recent media coverage of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's proposal to cut a $1,200 cheque for every child under the age of 6 and his intention to follow through on his campaign pledge has also refocused my attention.
In truth, there are similarities among the parties - as acknowledged even by Hugh Mackenzie, an NDP strategist. The differences lie in the amount and funding mechanisms as well as the particular provider or delivery system.
Unfortunately, the ideological fervour of both the right (only stay-at-home moms) and the left (only subsidized spaces in regulated non-profit daycare centres) masks the fundamental questions of parental choice and what is best for the child at what age.
On other issues, politicians point out that "one size doesn't fit all" - why not on child care?
Child care that is appropriate in social housing communities may not be appropriate in other communities.
And, notwithstanding what the advocates say, there is no neurophysiological evidence that the first three years provide the only critical window of learning opportunity to enrich children's lives. There is evidence that secure mother-infant attachment is a significant factor in early childhood development. So why not provide a buffet of options, i.e. stay-at-home moms or dads, nannies, family daycare and regulated child care - both private and non-profit? And, why not fund the purchaser of those services rather than the provider, thus empowering the taxpaying consumer?
...
Obviously, there are different perspectives on child care and its funding - even within the same party. There are no absolutes, and ideology is a poor substitute for informed debate.
This sentiment was emphasized by John Kenneth Galbraith at the Inaugural Senator Keith Davey lecture on Jan. 9, 1997. Speaking about the role of the public and private sector in the economy, he said "Conservatives need to be warned (as we must also warn ourselves) that ideology can be a heavy blanket on our thought. Our commitment must always be to thought."
While universal institutional subsidized substitute child care as the solution is arguable, the importance of child-rearing in contemporary society is not.
There are significant socioeconomic costs if we don't commit to "thought" but cling to ideology. Gun violence and youth alienation are our daily reminders. No one wants that for their children or grandchildren.
- reprinted from the Toronto Star