To Close or Not to Close

Everyone is being affected by the Covid-19 pandemic – for some it may be just a mild inconvenience, for others it may be a major disruption to their daily lives. Some people are overwhelmed and beginning to panic while others are completely nonchalant.

For those of us working in childcare the big question has been ‘Is the daycare going to close?’ and the only available answer has been ‘We don’t know.’

Even in the field there are arguments both for and against closing childcare facilities. Many think that because the schools are closing, childcare facilities should too. Others argue that childcare is an essential service and must remain open for those parents who need to go to work.

My personal, possibly not popular opinion, is that licensed childcare facilities should NOT be forced to close.

Certainly, any sick children or staff should not be there and should be isolated at home, but what about those children whose parents still need to go to work? If they have a spouse or other family member who is temporarily off work then they have options but what if they don’t?

What if their only available childcare option is Grandma – whose immune system is already compromised? Maybe another choice is the unlicensed childcare provider who wasn’t forced to close and now has agreed to temporarily take in any and all the children who need childcare.

Wouldn’t a licensed childcare facility – with strict cleaning and disinfecting procedures already in place – be a better option?

Yes, social distancing is a very difficult if not impossible concept for children but most trained early childhood educators have the skills to implement games and activities to limit direct contact. Many of us will actually be spending most of our time playing outdoors in the fresh air.

If licensed facilities are forced to close where will those children go? Are they able to be with their family or are their parents at work and the children are huddled on the couch watching movies with their friends. What if their parents’ only option now is to send them to that one person on the block who says ‘No problem, send them all here, we’re having a party’.

Sure, if parents are off work and able to use this situation to be isolated at home spending quality time with their family that is probably the best option. The reality is that there are still a lot of parents who need to go to work and closing all licensed childcare facilities might just be the worst thing to do.

My Dream

In Manitoba a licensed family childcare provider can care for a maximum of eight children under 12 years of age.  Of those eight children, no more than five may be under six – the other three must be in grade one or older.  I love having a mixed age group and the opportunity to build a relationship with the children in my care from infancy through school-age.

Over the twenty years I have been providing childcare in my home I have known many amazing school-age children who have thrived in this setting.  Some struggled with peer relationships in their school environment but enjoyed being the ‘leader’ here – idolized by the younger children.  Some embraced responsibility and enjoyed helping the little ones.  Some were wildly creative and independent and of course there were also some who resented being with ‘babies’.

I’ve watched older children gain confidence and build their self-esteem by mentoring the younger children.  I’ve seen younger children develop skills they learned from watching and copying the older children play. I’ve also had some older children that taught the little ones things/words that I wish they hadn’t. *sigh*

I’ve noticed something else – the cost of providing food, craft supplies, activities and equipment for school-age children often exceeds the income I receive for their care.  I find that the school schedule is disruptive – breaking up what could be longer periods of engagement in learning activities for the preschoolers.  So, for several years now I haven’t made an effort to fill empty school-age spaces.

Summer was the exception.  I loved having all the ‘big kids’ here for the summer – working in the garden, going on adventures, making incredible creations, sharing fantastic stories – without the rigid school schedule.  It was wonderful to have all this time with the older children instead of just the fleeting moments before/after school when everything was so hectic and there wasn’t really any time to do anything.

Yet, when I only enrolled school-age children for the summer I was finding that the first month was spent getting everyone acquainted with each other, learning routines etc. Then, just when we were starting to develop relationships, summer was over and they were gone. The ‘freedom’ of summer wasn’t quite the same with ‘new’ school-age children instead of ones we already knew.  So, for the first time ever – I didn’t fill any of my school-age spaces  this summer – and I’m loving it.

The school-age table has been empty;

The little ones are engaging in more age-appropriate dramatic play.  They are demonstrating their creativity instead of copying someone else. I haven’t heard ‘I’m bored’ once this summer, nor have I had to spend hours shopping for tons of additional food and supplies.

I’ve also been imagining what the little ones and I could do with that extra space I have set aside for bigger children and all the supplies they need but the little ones don’t.  I’ve started to think that it would be really, really nice if the province would let me exchange those three empty school-age spaces for one more preschool space.

Group childcare homes have two licensed providers and up to 12 infant/preschool children – that’s a 1:6 ratio.  I have five preschool spaces and although three of those five could be infants I rarely have more than one or two – sometimes even none. If they stay with me until they start school each one year of infant care will need four years of preschool care.  Hence, I’d have to kick out preschoolers if I wanted to keep those infant spaces full - I would never do that.  One more preschool space would help.

Big dream – I know.

The 'Un' Factor

 'Un' is a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, giving negative or opposite force in adjectives and their derivative adverbs and nouns.  In the field of family childcare we often use the words 'unlicensed', 'unregulated', 'untrained' yet for many government officials and people outside the field of childcare those 'un' words are not viewed as negative - simply a choice that parents should be allowed to make regarding the care of their children.

There are regulations governing the manufacturing of items like cribs, strollers, carseats, and toys etc so parents know they are safe.  There are regulations regarding the production, packaging, and labeling of food products to ensure they meet predetermined standards so people know what they are buying. Why do government officials and the general public think that parents should be able to choose unlicensed, untrained childcare but need regulations to assist them to safely feed, house, and transport their own children?

What other career field allows some businesses to operate unlicensed and/or untrained when others providing the same service are licensed?  What is the incentive for any business to be licensed if they can legally operate without any oversight?  Without any licensing/training requirements?  What if, like in childcare, they could actually make more money if they were not licensed/trained than if they were licensed/trained?

Let's use truck drivers as an example.  The majority of adults have a class 5 driver's license and have experience driving their own or a friend's vehicle.  What if there were no restrictions on what size of vehicle you could drive and anyone could just decide "Hey, I'm going to buy a big truck and start a business delivering things for other people."

 Why, is an experienced driver with their own vehicle not allowed to start up a trucking business without additional training or license? Why don't people argue "It's his truck, he can do what he wants with it.  If other people are OK with letting him transport their stuff why not let him/them.  He's never had an accident and doesn't need a little piece of paper to prove he's a good driver."

What if that same driver or another class 5 driver then decided "A bus isn't much different than a big truck.  If I had a bus I could earn money driving people around."  What if you'd seen that driver on the street with his bus full of happy passengers and decided to take a ride on his bus.  Then imagine that one day there was an issue - something was wrong with the bus or the driver.  What if it is too late to get off the bus before the accident happened?

Some argue that licensing all childcare facilities and requiring training for all childcare workers doesn't ensure quality - but it helps.  Just like trained bus/truck drivers in licensed companies will still have accidents there are standards and checks in place to limit them.  Why don't we hear arguments that training/licensing truck drivers doesn't prevent accidents so let's save some money and not bother requiring them to be licensed?

Do we need more incentives for family childcare providers to become licensed or do we need to eliminated the option for them to operate unlicensed childcare homes?  Currently only licensed providers can accept government subsidized families but private paying families usually pay higher rates than the maximum subsidized rate so that isn't an incentive to be licensed.

What about training?  Currently family childcare providers with Early Childhood Educator II/III training can receive slightly higher subsidized rates than untrained providers but those rates are still lower than the private rates most unlicensed/untrained providers charge so why bother?  Just think of all the tax dollars we could save if we had trained and untrained police officers  - both had the same duties but the city could pay the untrained ones less - but either trained or untrained officers could go work privately for more money without a gun permit or any other type of license.

In an effort to increase the number of licensed childcare spaces, the provincial government is considering lessening the requirements and 'red tape' needed to open licensed childcare homes.  Why, when there was a shortage of family doctors was it never suggested that we lower the requirements to become a doctor?  I don't think lowering FCC licensing requirements will increase the number of licensed childcare spaces and I'm absolutely positive it won't improve quality.

What part of licensing do they think is unnecessary?   Criminal record/child abuse registry checks? First aid training or a 40 hour course? Behaviour management, nutrition, safety and supervision policies? Adequate equipment? Developmentally appropriate activities? Documentation and record keeping?

I don't think any part of the licensing process is difficult or unnecessary.  If fact, I'd like to see more.  I'd like to see MANDATORY licensing for ALL childcare homes.  Greater incentives for trained providers (possibly higher ratios).  MANDATORY annual professional development and more.  I'm thinking about the best interests of the children, not just convenience and the cost for quality and safety.

Licensing Manual

Going For a Walk

I love hiking.  My favourite outings to take the children on are those that allow us to explore our neighbourhood, nearby parks or hiking trails in forests and nature preserves around the city. Adventures like collecting leaves in the fall, following footprints in the snow in the winter, watching the activities of the birds in the spring or checking out the trees and plants in various seasons.

Many years ago I used a Safe-T-Line when out walking with a group of young children.  It looks similar to this one which is available at Quality Classrooms

  

Mine has twelve pieces in total - two adult belts with a long lead, two additional extensions which can be attached to the adult belts, and eight children's belts with clips.  I usually wore both the adult belts and fitted each toddler with a waist belt before we headed out.

Most of the time the children roamed freely through familiar trails and open spaces. However the walking line came in handy for the parts of the outing where we encountered busy roadways, major intersections or large crowds where noise and distractions made it difficult to communicate.  I could quickly attach the toddlers belts to my belts to ensure we all stayed together until we reached an area where we could explore independently again.

It was like having extra hands and the best part was that all of us had our 'real' hands free to pick up treasure along the way, point out exciting things we saw, wave at passing motorists, tie shoes etc.  It allowed the toddlers to venture freely within an acceptably safe distance.  They could begin to learn self control and to follow verbal directions.  Even the strong willed toddlers who balked at holding hands and staying with the group seemed to feel independent.

Then, a few years ago when my coordinator was here for a licensing visit she informed me that I was not allowed to use the safety line as it was designed because it 'restrained' the children.  I was instructed to make the belts into loops and have the children hold the loops with their hands - as long as they were free to let go when they chose to.   Sigh.

I don't really mind not being able to use the safety line but it has limited our outings.  When new children are enrolled our walks are very short - just out the front door around the block and in the back yard to play.  Once I am confident that they understand the safety rules we expand the distance we can travel a block at a time.  I never take the entire toddler group beyond our secluded residential area and I rarely let the children decide the route - those major intersections are so enticing.

Recently, curious to see if my new coordinator would have the same response as the previous one, I asked for her opinion on the safety line.  She reiterated that the children could hold on to the belts with their hands but the belts could not be attached to the children as this would be considered restraining the children.  Just to clarify I then asked if it was acceptable to put them in a stroller with a belt.  She said yes.

So, I still can't use the safety line as it was designed but I could go for a 'walk' if I piled my group of toddlers into one of these.

Apparently a five point harness in a vehicle that doesn't allow the children to touch the ground or anything else is not considered a restraint.

I would disagree.