Convention wisdom has it that the public heavily subsidizes post-secondary education. The illusion of a subsidy comes from the fact that tuition fees, high as they are, don’t cover the entire cost of education. But this common misconception ignores a second way in which students pay for their education: through higher taxes after graduation. When these tax payments are added up over the course of graduates’ careers, it turns out that university students fully repay the cost of their degrees and then some.

The report’s main findings are captured in this infographic:

There’s a broad based agreement in this country that higher education is important for our long-term social and economic prosperity, and that it’s something that, as a society, we should promote and invest in. My report finds that we all come up ahead when more people have access to education. Then why is it that what we’ve seen the BC government increasingly withdrawing its financial support for advanced education and downloading the costs to students?

Thirty years ago, government funding covered 88% of BC university operating revenues, but in 2009, government only paid for 58% of the costs of educating students. Universities made up the shortfall by hiking tuition fees, which now account for 44% of all university operating revenues according to CAUT (see fig 1.2 and 1.3). Tuition fees in BC now run over $4,800 per year, and, along with the erosion in student grant programs, present a significant barrier to education.

There’s no better time than now to start reversing these trends. Expanding our society’s investment in higher education today will pay dividends in higher tax revenues, lower unemployment and better social mobility for decades to come.

You can also read my op-ed on this topic in the Vancouver Sun. Or check out the full report, which contains some really interesting — and little known — tidbits about just how big the gap between men’s and women’s earnings is when annual incomes are considered.

Almost everything that is vital to a healthy community, from life expectancy to levels of depression to crime rates, is affected by inequality. This is true in both rich and poor countries.  (The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett).

Social factors begin to affect us at conception, so that life in the womb and the perinatal period can affect well-being later on.  Even if exposed to stress in the womb, however:

A nurturing environment after birth can provide the child with enormous potential to change their course of development. This is known as “developmental plasticity,” which means that the brain can adapt and change as the child grows with a positive environment.

The important message here is in how we as a community support pregnant women. Stressful lives are most often linked with socioeconomic disadvantage. This research shows we should be targeting these women with support programs to ensure the stress does not negatively affect the unborn child.  (Repeated Stress in Pregnancy Linked to Children’s Behavior)

Poverty can even cause brain damage. Researchers discovered that U.S. children from “low socioeconomic environments” displayed a response in their pre-frontal cortex that was similar “to the response of people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke” (Poor Children’s Brain Activity Resembles That Of Stroke Victims, EEG Shows).

The damage may result from conditions such as poor nutrition, lack of time with over-worked and over-stressed parents, or fewer opportunities for intellectual stimulation – all of which may affect the quality of care that a child receives.  This does NOT mean that all poor children are so afflicted, but the average poor child is more likely to suffer.

Every dollar invested in the young not only saves lives and prevents illness, but it will also save at least $7 dollars in future social costs. For instance, lead poisoning, ADHD, and autism resulting from toxic chemicals and pollution in the United States cost $77 billion annually. Globally, almost 350,000 women die each year in childbirth – most of whom could be saved for the cost of just six fighter jets. Even worse: over 22,000 children under the age of 5 die every day from hunger and preventable diseases – almost 9 million every year. This year’s U.S. military budget is around $800 billion, and the world spends twice that on war. The simplest change would be to redirect wasteful military spending to end the worst elements of global poverty.

In 2009, the combined net worth of the world’s 1,011 billionaires increased to $3.6 trillion, up $1.2 trillion in just one year. This NEW wealth alone could end global poverty.

Perhaps the most important point is that none of these social, economic, and environmental problems are necessary. All scarcities, as Murray Bookchin pointed out over 40 years ago, are artificial. We possess the knowledge and the wealth to eliminate the worst of these afflictions. Why aren’t we doing so?

This strong progressive voice in Parliament coming from Quebec was a distinct voice and Harper’s recognition of that distinctiveness was responding to this.

The NDP, as Quebec’s voice in Parliament, is not going to be able to fill the space that the BQ had on progressive issues. I fear Quebec will be simply not be part of the equation whenever social policy is at stake. Harper will simply reject the NDP voice on these issues as socialist programs we can’t afford and since no other opposition party will have the political credibility the BQ had, Harper will be free to do his worst.

So if one parent earns $70,000 and the other parent stays at home to look after the kids, under the current system the family pays the lowest 15% tax rate on the first $41,544 of their earnings and 22% on the next $28,456. With income splitting, the family can declare that each parent earns $35,000 (i.e., they split the income), which puts both parents into the lowest tax bracket. So the family pays 15% tax on all of the $70,000 of earnings, saving the difference in the tax rates between the bottom and the second tax bracket — 7% — on those $28,456 that would have fallen into the second tax bracket.

$28,456 x 0.07 = $1,991.92

This is rounded to $1,992 in the Conservative Party’s backgrounder on the issue.

Similarly, we can calculate the savings from income splitting for a family where one of the parents earns $60,000 and the other earns $20,000 (the other Conservative example). Under the current system, the family pays 15% tax on the $20,000 earned by one of the parents and on the first $41,544 earned by the other parent. The family pays 22% tax on the remaining $18,456 that the higher income earner brings home. With the proposed income-splitting, the family would share the income between the two parents, each reporting $40,000. This puts them in the lowest tax bracket, so the entire family income of $80,000 gets taxed at 15%. The family saves 7% tax on the $18,456 that would have fallen into the second tax bracket.

$18,456 x 0.07 = $1,291.92

This is rounded to $1,292 in the Conservative Party’s backgrounder on the issue or $1,300 in Stephen Harper’s announcement of income-splitting on March 28th.

Of course, neither Stephen Harper nor the backgrounder mentioned that families with single earners in higher tax brackets get more than that.

In fact, the highest possible benefit goes to the few families with a single earner whose taxable income falls at least $50,000 above the cut-off for the top tax bracket. With the current tax brackets in Canada, this means a family with a stay at home parent and an earner who brings home $178,800 or more per year — a doctor or a lawyer perhaps, or a business executive.

This family will be able to allocate the maximum allowable $50,000 towards the income of the stay-at-home parent. Instead of having these $50,000 taxed at the hands of the earner at the highest bracket rate of 29%, they would be taxed as follows: at the bottom rate of 15% for the first $41,544 and at the second lowest rate of 22% for the next $8,456. This will save the family 14% of tax on the first $41,544 and 7% on the next $8,456.

$41,455 x 0.14 + $8,456 x 0.07 = $5,816.16 + $591.98 = $6,408.08

This is the maximum possible benefit from the proposed income splitting under the current tax brackets.

Of course, the 2 million single-parent families in Canada will get no benefit from income splitting, as there’s no spouse to split the income with. Dual-earner families with spouses who earn equal incomes will also get nothing. Single-earner families with an earner whose taxable income falls in the bottom tax bracket (currently under $41,544) get nothing. And among families with a stay-at-home parent or a parent working part-time only, the higher the salary of the working parent, the higher the benefit.

Now that you know how to do the calculation, how much would your family get from the proposed income splitting?

Does this sound like a good way to spend $2.5 billion of our taxpayers money?

For my take, see this earlier blog post.

For a party that is campaigning on fiscal responsibility, income splitting for families with children under 18 is a rather irresponsible way of spending $2.5 billion.

Let’s be clear — this is not a policy that helps young families. This is a policy that helps a small minority of families — about 13% or 1 in 8 of all Canadian families with children. The Conservatives themselves estimated that income splitting would benefit 1.8 million families, which sounds like a lot until you look at the total number of families in Canada, which at last count was 14.1 million.

The kicker is that income splitting does not help the 1.8 million Canadian families that need it most — those who live in poverty or barely make ends meet slightly above the poverty line.

Income-splitting works by allowing families to allocate more of their earned income to a lower tax bracket by sharing the earned income between the spouses when filing taxes. Automatically, this means that the 2 million single-parent families in Canada will get no benefit from income splitting, as there’s no spouse to split the income with. Dual-earner families with spouses who earn equal incomes will also get nothing. Single-earner families with an earner whose taxable income falls in the bottom tax bracket (currently under $41,544) get nothing. And among families with a stay-at-home parent or a parent working part-time only, the higher the salary of the working parent, the higher the benefit.

The highest possible benefit — $6,408 — goes to the few families with a single earner whose taxable income falls at least $50,000 above the cut off of the top tax bracket (at the 2011 tax brackets, you’ll need taxable income of at least $178,800 to get the maximum benefit). Calculation details are here.

What we have here is a reverse Robin Hood situation, where the government would be giving more money to the people with the higher incomes. This is hardly a fiscally responsible way to spend taxpayers money.

While I’m sure that every single family with children, no matter what their income, can easily find a way to spend another $1,000 or even $6,408, we need to get smarter with our government spending and make sure that our limited resources go to the families which need the most support.

There are better ways to spend $2.5 billion to support young families. Increasing the per-child benefit amount of the Canada Child Tax Benefit would be my first choice, as this is an effective income-tested tax benefit for families with children that most Canadian families receive (currently up to family income of about $110,000).

But it won’t be your first choice if you wanted to subsidize families with a stay-at-home parent. In fact, if you asked tax experts to design tax policy to give women incentives to stay home with the kids, income splitting is what they’d come up with. This is family tax policy based on the outdated notion of the 1950s family where women stay home to take care of the kids while men go to work to support the family.

Conservatives claim that our tax system is unfair to stay-at-home parents, but we already provide plenty of incentives to keep women home. The high costs of child care make work pay a lot less for women, especially those with more than one child under 12. Add to this the extra transportation costs and other work expenses, and you have a significant barrier for women who want to go back to work after maternity leave.

A friend of mine, Mary, is a smart and well-educated software engineer with 7 years on the job before she decided to start a family. She went back to work for a year after her first child was born, then had a second one. Going back to work after her second mat leave, she calculated that her well-paid, full-time software engineering job is only netting her family about $470 extra per month after childcare and work-related expenses are paid. Needless to say, she quit. And that’s before any income splitting. Add income splitting to the mix, and her family would be netting another $200 per month more with her off work than if she was working (given her and her husband’s tax brackets).

While Mary can afford to stay home because her husband’s salary is high enough, and she enjoys taking care of the children, what do you think is happening with her software engineering skills? If she takes 5 or 10 years off work while her children are young and need childcare, do you think she’d just be able to walk into the same job when the kids grow up? That’s highly unlikely.

What expensive child care and tax incentives for stay-at-home moms (all the way to children’s 18th birthday) lead to is a tremendous erosion of job skills among women. With an aging labour force and looming skill shortages, the Canadian government should be looking for ways to tap women’s skills and potential in the workforce, not providing incentives for them to drop out of the workforce.

But Mary is not representative of the average Canadian family, because most Canadian families cannot live on one parent’s salary alone. Half of all two-parent Canadian families with children earn a combined income of $80,000. And that’s largely with both parents working.

For most families, there is no choice between earning $40,000 each or having one parent bring home $80,000 while the other one takes care of the kids. The choice is between earning $40,000 each or having one parent quit their job while the other continues to earn $40,000.

Statistics tell us that people with higher education and higher earning potential tend to find spouses with similarly high education levels and earning potential. So we really are talking about significant skill erosion here if income splitting is successful because the only families who can afford to take advantage of this tax subsidy offer are families of software engineers or other professionals.

In summary, the Conservatives are proposing a $2.5 billion subsidy to stay-at-home mothers, where the higher your husband’s income is, the more you get. A tax subsidy, which, if successful at incentivizing more mothers to quit their jobs will lead to a large-scale erosion of women’s labour force skills at a time when we need all hands on deck to keep our economy running.

Though clearly fiscally irresponsible and aimed at subsidizing an outdated notion of the family, I don’t think we should get too excited about this spending announcement, given that it’s not likely to come into effect during the 4-year term of the next elected government. This is clearly a non-commitment to support families as the earliest it could possibly be implemented is 2015/16 and that’s if deficit-reduction goes as planned. But in politics — and economic forecasting — 4 years is an awfully long time. Who knows what our top priorities would be then?

Canadians know what the Conservatives’ real priorities are — these are the ones that have actual dollars attached to them now. The list includes a new round of corporate income tax cuts that’s costing us $2.8 billion this year alone, fighter jets estimated to cost $29.6 billion, more prisons at who knows what cost. These were all deemed priority initiatives that are worth borrowing for.  Support for families, on the other hand? According to the Conservative Party, that’s not worth borrowing for.

Dr. Glenn, who is the Dean of the Santa Barbara Graduate Institute, began by saying that, “Economists, writers, and researchers are beginning to discover…what we have known for decades: that the events and environment surrounding pre-conception, pregnancy, birth, and early infancy set the template out of which we live our lives.”

“The time is right,” she added, for a shift in the paradigm.”

Recent coverage such as on prenatal health in “Time” magazine, and epigenetics in “Newsweek”, symbolize this profound change in consciousness.

Some of the specific insights that Dr. Glenn mentioned included:

*  “Early experiences determine brain architecture.”
*  “By the sixth prenatal month, most of the 100 billion neurons found in the adult brain are already there.”

She also highlighted the most important point of all: preventing trauma in the first place.  For instance, she noted that a father’s supportive involvement during pregnancy can reduce infant mortality.

Dr. Glenn also quoted Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman, who points out that every dollar invested “in the very young” not only saves lives and prevents illness, but it will also save from $4-17 dollars in future social costs.

Heckman has written:

“Recent research demonstrates important differences in the family environments and investments of advantaged and disadvantaged children. Gaps in cognitive stimulation, affection, punishment, and other parental investments for children from families of different socioeconomic status open up early.” (Read the full article here.)

My presentation at the Congress overlapped with Dr. Glenn’s focus, beginning with the current state of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy, and how the emerging consensus supports his long-held contention about just how fragile we are while in the womb.

I pointed out how Janov believes that too many children have been emotionally damaged from an early age, and that one element of healing is to re-connect with the buried memories.

The second part of my talk discussed how to PREVENT hurting children in the first place.  In short, research has shown that providing optimal conditions for pregnant women, such as low stress, adequate nutrition, and quality pre-natal care could prevent children from suffering from a host of intellectual, emotional, and physical illnesses.

In addition, around 500,000 women die each year in childbirth.  Adam Jones (UBC Okanagan) has pointed out that most of those mothers could be saved for the cost of – six fighter jets.

Canada, for instance, could set an example for the world by forgoing the unnecessary purchase of the F-35 fighter jets, save the lives of countless women, and still have money left over for vital domestic needs.

Providing optimal conditions for mothers and their children would cost only a tiny fraction of what the world spends on advertising, or the Olympics, or the military.

This Paradigm Shift can’t happen too soon.

You can hardly tell by their actions. BC did introduce full-day kindergarten in some communities this fall, but other than that the family policy front has been rather quiet lately.

The latest childhood vulnerability numbers won’t tip you off either as vulnerability has grown over the last decade, reaching 30.3% in 2009/10.

Don’t get me wrong. Setting goals is an significant first step and the government should be commended for taking a stand on this important issue.

However, without changing policy and taking action goals remain nothing more than laudable aspirations.

This is precisely the point that the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) at UBC makes with their new BC Smart Policy Report Card, released earlier in September. The report card assesses government actions in the area of family policy and compares them to benchmark recommendations developed by HELP in their 15 by 15 report, which was commissioned by the BC Business Council last year.

The findings? There has been some movement on the family policy front over the past year, but the BC government has only made about 5% of the recommended new investments in family policy. At this rate, the researchers estimate that it would take 20 years to reduce early childhood vulnerability to 15%, or 15 years longer than the government’s stated goal of “15 by 15.” It seems that the provincial government is well on its way of failing to achieve their goal unless they take decisive action on family policy and soon.

Many would have been satisfied to end it here with calling current government family policy a failure and making a call for bolder action. But HELP’s report card moves beyond name calling and assigning failing grades to analyze what it would take for smart family policy changes to be implemented.

HELP researchers recognize that politicians are rarely leaders; they follow what they perceive to be the popular mood among their constituents. So HELP’s report card looks beyond the need for political leadership and explores the role of the broader community in pushing for increased investments in smart family policy. Here’s their read on where the broader community is at and where it needs to be:

HELP’s recommendations for moving forward? An broad-based, frank discussion about priorities and trade offs around family policy.

British Columbians need to talk about how to find new funding or reallocate existing dollars in order to invest in the social and economic benefits that smart family policy will promote.

HELP researchers end their report card with an appeal to all British Columbians to take responsibility for changing the status quo:

Please start talking about [the key questions and trade offs] at your dinner tables, among your neighbours, in your offices and with your political leaders.

I fully agree that starting the conversation is how we move forward. So why not start by posting a comment here on the blog and, as I’ve noted before, by participating in the 2011 BC Provincial Budget Consultation?

As a young woman in Canada, I have not felt discriminated against. Throughout my university career, my gender didn’t seem to matter and professors encouraged me to pursue a PhD and the life of an academic as much as any of my male fellow students. Growing up in Bulgaria was a different story – my own mother stopped me from going to a physics-based high school program at home because she felt that physics in not for women (those were her words). As an electrical engineer herself, she obviously had experienced discrimination and wanted to prevent me from going down that same road.

In Canada, however, I didn’t get any of that. Maybe it’s because I live in Vancouver, but what I hear Canadians tell their girls is that they can grow up to become anything they aspire to — rocket scientists, surgeons or presidents. Many of the young women I meet feel similarly – they feel that they are free to make choices and say they are as much in control of their career paths as their male friends.

Yet, when we look at the numbers, women are not growing up to be rocket scientists, surgeons or presidents. Nurses, teachers and social workers is more like it. Women are woefully underrepresented in “non-traditional” occupations such as high-level management and natural sciences. Even in the public sector, where women make up the majority of the workforce, they’re less likely to hold senior management jobs than men.

Yes, there are some women in leadership positions in areas that were previously closed to our gender in politics, business and academia. But they are few and far between.

So, if young women feel that gender is irrelevant for economic success, then why are women’s average annual earnings for full-time, full-year work in 2007 only 71 .4% of men’s? Why are average hourly wages so different: in January 2010, women got paid on average $20.59 per hour, compared to men’s $24.49? Why do women continue to be overrepresented in low-wage jobs? Over 60% of minimum wage workers are women and the proportion of workers earning under $10 per hour is similar.

It would seem that something happens somewhere along the line between school, when the sky’s the limit, and the demands of real life which pushes women into traditional sectors. The older I get, the more convinced I become that this something is children. Or rather, that it’s the outdated family policy that we have in Canada (and the US) that forces women to choose between motherhood and career or economic success.

Recent studies from the US show that in corporate America, childless women’s earnings are on par with men’s, and the earning discrepancies appear when women start having children. Research by Statistics Canada shows that having children is associated with an earnings loss that persists throughout a woman’s working career. At any given age, women with one child earned about 9% on average than childless women, while those with two children earner 12% less, and those with three or more children earned 20% less. The earning gap was larger for women with higher education than for those who only had high school diplomas. Curiously, this parental penalty does not seem to apply to men – men with children earn more on average than childless men.

The more I dig into the research, the more it seems that women with children earn less because they end up taking years away from work. And the reason that they are often forced to do so is that women remain the primary caregivers for children and we lack the social supports to allow women to work and care at the same time. Changing this would require a concerted effort by governments and the private sector.

What governments have control over is Canada’s family policy, and it is sorely in need of change to catch up to social realities of the 21st century – many women with children work, whether by choice or by necessity, and we need to put in place adequate programs to support these women and their families.

Providing accessible childcare that families can afford is an obvious one. Improving parental leave provisions is another way to improve many women’s lives. Statistics Canada quotes a recent survey showing that 40% of new parents could not take the entire parental leave because their family’s financial situation required them to go back to work. Increasing benefit amounts to reflect costs of living would be a great start.

Employers will also have to adapt, and we’ve already started to see some of that. More and more employers allow flexible working hours, opportunities to work from home and an increased availability of part time work. These are all changes that make it possible for women to care for children without having to completely withdraw from the workforce for years at a time.

Some companies are even in the business of raising awareness that women have not achieved nearly equal representation on the top of organizations both in the private sector and in government. McKinsey & Company is probably the largest and best-known professional services firm that is calling attention to the shortage of women in leadership positions in America’s businesses. Their reports, Women Matter and Women Matter 2, demonstrate some important relationships between the presence of women in corporate leadership roles and the financial performance of organizations and explore why that may be the case. This is a good start, but more work needs to be done.

The need to support women to work and to care would only become more pressing as the population ages and we start to experience labour force shortages. We need the women to fully participate in the labour market, as workers and as decision-makers. Changing family policy and making workplaces more flexible is the way to do it.

So go ahead and continue telling the girls that the sky’s the limit, but let’s also make sure that it’s really true.

Happy international women’s day to all.

It’s hard for me to see friends struggle financially, so I’ve tried to encourage Emily to get a better job. Though she doesn’t have a degree, Emily is bright and a hard worker — she should be able to do better.

But Emily doesn’t want to get a better paying job. There is no point, she tells me, because she’s close to the cut off point of many of the government subsidies she relies on and if she made even $1,000 more per year, she’d lose so much in government benefits that her net income would end up lower.

She’s calculated that she needs to earn thousands of dollars more per year to compensate for the value of the lost benefits and she figures that she can’t get such a job without finishing her degree. Which she can’t afford because her low income doesn’t allow her to save up for school. But she can’t get a higher-paying job to help finance her education because if her income went up she’d lose her childcare subsidy, her housing subsidy and will have to start making payments on her student loans.

It seems like the system is stacked against her.

And she’s not the only one. Many low-income people find themselves in a similar position as the majority of government benefits are targeted to the lowest income categories and phased out quickly as soon as the family’s income gets above the bare minimum. A recently released CCPA brief addresses the problem of benefit “stacking” and presents some possible solutions. You can read more about it here.

It’s a classic case of unintended consequences: policy-makers start with the laudable goal of helping the most needy first and they try to avoid spending scarce resources on those who are able to pay for themselves, but in targeting benefits narrowly to the lowest income families they make it very difficult for people like Emily to break out of the low-wage cycle of economic insecurity. For those who need to obtain further post-secondary education or training to be able to move up, the system becomes a catch-22 when BC’s high tuition fees are taken into account.

Benefit stacking is a real problem in BC and it needs to be considered carefully in the design of all new low-income tax credits and other benefits. I haven’t run the numbers, but my guess is that the new low-income credits the government just introduced in the last budget (the HST credit and the new premium assistance) are only compounding the problem.

These cuts have been devastating to many service delivery agencies and will result in the cancellation of programs that benefit the least fortunate in our society: children growing up in low income families, women at risk of violence, the poor. In a recent news release, the CCPA has called for the government to repeal all the cuts made since the February budget.

Make no mistake: these cuts are made because our provincial government wants to end up with a smaller deficit at the end of the fiscal year, not because we cannot afford to help vulnerable groups during a serious recession. Despite the recession, BC is one of the wealthiest provinces in this country. Our provincial debt is relatively low. We certainly have the capacity to cushion the blow of the economic downturn to the more vulnerable individuals and families among us. But our government is choosing not to.

In fact, in their obsession with minimizing the size of the deficit, our policy-makers are pushing people into further hardship. And those who have to endure the pain are those who can least afford it. Kudos to Bill Good for recognizing this simple fact on his CKNW show this morning.

The savings from reduced government grants to social service agencies are $354 million, a mere 0.9% of the overall $40 billion provincial budget for 2009/10. These cuts could easily have been accommodated in only a slightly higher deficit.

The recession is temporary, and so are the current deficits, but the lost educational opportunities for children would never be recovered. It’s penny wise but pound foolish to cut funding to programs that have already been pared to the bone and that provide services with long-term payoffs.

The government is trying to create the impression that cuts are concentrated among “nice to have” but non-essential programs. This is simply not the case. Many of the initiatives that are now being cut have been set up to fill a need that exists because the government is not providing adequate social services and supports out of its core budget. Literacy initiatives, supports for violence against women and children or seniors’ activity programs that keep people healthy and out of hospitals should not be left to the whim of discretionary grants funding. We need to ask ourselves questions such as whether we prefer to pay for programs that enrich the lives of disadvantaged children as they grow up, or for policing and anti-gang measures a few years in the future.

The secrecy with which these cuts have been implemented is also egregious. Without knowing exactly what is being cut, we cannot evaluate the impact of the cuts, and without openness and transparency it is simply not possible to have an honest public debate about priorities. This is why we’ve launched our own effort to track the cuts and we are asking affected groups or individuals to come forward and share their stories.

A new Early Childhood Learning Agency will be established. It will assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year-olds. It will also undertake a feasibility study of providing parents with the choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012. That report will be completed and released within the year.

If you can’t seem to recall ever hearing about that report, you’re not alone. The report was quietly posted on the BC Ministry of Education website just before Easter this year (a little behind schedule) and left for interested web-surfers to discover for themselves. With no government news release announcing the report completion (that I could find), it’s hardly surprising that it received virtually no media attention. The only mention of the report that I have seen so far is in this article by Pieta Woolley in the online version of the Georgia Straight, and it came almost a month after the report’s release.

This is a pity because the Early Childhood Learning Agency produced an excellent report. Expanded Early Learning in British Columbia for Children Age Three to Five draws on the latest research on early child development and a year-long consultation with parents, childcare providers and other stakeholders to conclude that expanding early learning programs in BC is both desirable and feasible.

The Agency estimated the total operating costs to about $615 million per year for full day programs available to all three, four and five-year-olds. The report recommended that the program be introduced in stages over several years and even outlined next steps for the government to take right away, taking into account the fiscal constraints that the current recession imposes. Next steps include:

1. carrying out a detailed facilities analysis and starting to prepare space for programs;
2. creating a human resource strategy; and
3. developing program standards for full day kindergarten for five-year-olds and pre-kindergarten for four-year-olds

Yet, you won’t find any of the reports’ recommendations reflected in the BC Liberals’ election platform. The closest the current government comes to committing to action is this paragraph on the BC Ministry of Education website:

Based on the findings of the feasibility work and its commitment to expanding early learning, the British Columbia government is still committed to pursuing the vision for full day kindergarten and other enhanced early learning opportunities for our youngest learners as soon as reasonably possible. [emphasis added]

The NDP is not doing much better on the childcare front. Their platform states that they will introduce full day kindergarten for five-year-olds “as finances permit” (where have I heard that before?) and promise to create “targets and timelines to build an affordable, accessible, quality child care system” (but we are left to wonder what these targets and timelines might be).

Both parties have made it clear that childcare and early childhood education are not priorities for them, hiding behind the recession as an excuse. But there is no need to make children wait for quality early learning programs until after the recession. $615 million is not a trivial amount of money, but it is only about 0.3% of provincial GDP and, as a society, we can easily afford it if we make it a priority.

It is not only possible but also desirable to invest in early childhood education in times of recession. Because as Susan Prentice points out in Old Dollars, New Sense: Recent Evidence and Arguments about Child Care Spending, childcare is better seen as “a productive investment instead of an economic drain on the public purse – one that will more than pay for itself in the future.”

As an added benefit in these hard economic times, setting up a universally available province-wide preschool program will create jobs when they are most needed. New classrooms/early learning centres would have to be built, employing construction workers in the process. Additional teachers and early childhood educations will be required to staff the programs, creating jobs (which, incidentally, would be mainly filled by women – a group that has been largely ignored in the government’s stimulus package so far).

What surprises me is that we don’t hear more outraged voices on this issue, considering the large number of people who stand to benefit from an expanded and improved childcare system. Pieta Woolley reminds us that:

Given that about 30.4 percent of British Columbians live in a household with kids 12 or under, the child-care issue theoretically affects more citizens than seniors’ issues (14.6 percent of B.C. is 65 or older), aboriginal issues (4.8 percent of the B.C. population is status), and public transit (4.7 percent take transit to work; all numbers according to the 2006 census).

UBC’s Paul Kershaw, assistant professor of political science, proposes an interesting theory as to why childcare is neglected in this year’s party platforms:

1. The costs scare politicians.
“By today’s standards,” he said, “it’s relatively expensive. And by that I mean we haven’t had to create a new social program in quite some time, as we did having to create health care and unemployment insurance and pensions. These are very expensive programs, but they’ve become normalized so we don’t view them as such. Health case is $15 billion, and childcare is $1.5 billion, so it’s no small chunk of change for any provincial budget. That’s one of the key reasons it’s a hot potato.”

2. Politicians won’t fund health promotion.
“We’re wonderful about treating illness after the fact. We will spend hundreds of thousands—if not millions—to save one preterm baby, but we are very uncomfortable about promoting housing for families with children that is affordable, or making the case that no one goes hungry in our province, or is homeless. Even when you get into the middle class, and childcare is largely a middle class issue, we don’t seem too concerned that we get these kids off to a good start in life. We let parents put together a patchwork of inadequate supports. We could really do so much to promote health if we go it right in the early years.”

3. Feminist arguments are considered fringy by politicians.
“No one wants to talk about gender inequality anymore….Even when both parents work full-time, women shoulder the responsible to shoulder childcare alternatives when regular care falls through, they stay home when the kids are sick. That’s just how houses are making decisions. Just 15 percent of people taking parental leave are men….Public policy seems content to say, women, figure it out yourselves….We are content to burn out women.”

4. The baby boomers are a “Canadian blight”.

“We are unwilling to ask tough questions about generational inequality….This is the generation that has their hands on the levers of power that’s tolerating 30 percent of our school-age population showing up vulnerable. These intergenerational justice questions are getting sidelined, because the dominant question seniors are wanting to ask is how much money is going to be there for me to get that next knee replacement. We need to make sure people are comfortable and cared for, but before we start debating whether people are eligible for three knee replacements, I think we really do want to think about what it means to promote health over the lifecourse and get that part right.”

I find the last point particularly interesting, as it starts raising questions about generational inequality. Can it be that politicians pay more attention to seniors because unlike children, seniors can vote? Consider also that seniors traditionally have high voter turnout rates, much higher than those of young people, the group that includes most parents of young children.

I hope I’m not being too cynical here. But it would be nice if the parties running for election would do something to dispel that cynicism. (if I may borrow from the conclusion of a recent Paul Krugman blog post)

For more excellent coverage on childcare in the election campaign, check out Ms Woolley’s articles Parties mum on time lines for child-care plans, Political parties ignore recent government-written plan for childcare and UBC prof gives four reasons BC isn’t delivering childcare.

And while we’re at it, how about a commitment to an affordable, universal child care program ala Quebec, so more parents, especially women, can join or stay in the workforce?

These would be two of the best investments and economic recovery policies, if we’re thinking long term. Any takers candidates?

But, to stimulate the economy, surely we need to invest in both social and physical infrastructure. Lets take child care as an example. A provincial commitment in tomorrow’s budget to begin building a universal, quality publicly funded child care system will create construction jobs – just like other traditional infrastructure investments. But, it will also create jobs for women - who are the overwhelming majority of BC’s early childhood educators. nvestment in child care will also make it possible for parents to work or go to school to train or retrain. And, most importantly, an investment in child care will support children’s development – something that is even more important now that families are stretched and stressed. 

I can’t think of a better way to stimulate the economy and build strong communities.  Can you?