Sunday, July 03, 2005

The Irish way

There's an article in today's Star by Thomas L. Friedman, about Ireland's improved place in the world over the past 30 - 40 years.

It started me thinking about the current Liberal focus on early childhood indoctrination.

Freidman says:

In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even better educated workforce. . . The results have been phenomenal. Today, nine out of 10 of the world's top pharmaceudical companies have operations here, as do 16 of the top 20 medical device companies and seven of the top 10 software designers.

"We set up in Ireland in 1990," Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computer, explained. "What attracted us? Well-educated workforce - and good universities close by. Ireland has an industrial and and tax policy which is consistently very supportive of businesses, independent of which political party is in power."

Childcare is getting an huge amount of attention because Ken Dryden is pushing it. He has said only regulated care can deliver high standards for health and safety, staff training, ratios of caregivers to kids, and other key elements of early childhood development. His suggestion is that parental care is inadequate, and there has been some talk of negotiations with New Brunswick (where they want greater flexibility for parents who choose to stay home with their kids) According to Andrew Coyne in yesterday's National Post, these talks have suggested that parents would have to receive 'training' in order to benefit from any government support and that they would be 'regulated'. I'm not sure how that would work, but it sounds too weird to me.

Anyway, although Dryden knows most families would prefer to have one parent stay at home with their children, or for a relative to care for them, he says the national daycare program should be like public education or medicare by creating a system that would generate demand from parents -- forcing governments to keep expanding it. "More spaces, higher quality, higher expectations and ambitions, a bigger and growing public appetite, building the pressure on each level of government, to reinforce the commitment implicit in building a system," he said. "We need to paint ourselves into a corner because it's a corner we want to be in and need to be in."

Needless to say I disagree. In a post a couple of months ago I wrote against national public daycare, and more and more I realise how the Liberals are trying to turn this from a debate about babycare to a debate about education. But the fact remains, the government is trying to get into the babyminding business. Call it 'early childhood education' if you like, but it's babysitting. Changing diapers, chasing toddlers, spit up, potty training etc.

Most parents encourage learning during infancy at home, and as Rona Ambrose has pointed out, having a caregiver from within the family enables a child to learn language and culture from his own heritage. Infants and toddlers require a lot of individual and messy attention. Daycare workers might be able to incorporate periods of 'learning' but let's not pretend we're going to be churning out child prodogies as a result of a program like this.

It would seem that Ireland's focus on post-secondary education has been a major factor in the turnaround they've made from a poor, needy country to a rich, productive country.

There are other factors of course. Friedman continues:

By the mid-1980's, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of EU membership -- subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into. But it still did not have enough competitive products to sell, because of years of protectionism and fiscal mismanagement. The country was going broke, and most college grads were emigrating.
"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under." said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."

In a quite unusual development, the government, the main trade unions, farmers and industrialists came together and agreed on a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5% (far below those in the rest of Europe) moderating wages and prices, and agressively courting foreign investment.

An educated populace realises that if you have jobs you won't need public housing and bottomless pit social programs.

Maybe we should be rethinking our education priorities, making post-secondary programs financially feasible to all citizens rather than paying billions to
strangers to mind our infants and pretending that it is better for them than parental care. A mom, dad or grandparent can as easily teach their little ones their ABCs. Handing them over to state regulated care is not going to miraculously transform toddlers in to baby geniuses.

canadianna

10 comments:

Justthinkin said...

Ahhhhhh...you have hit the nail on the head Candianna...with more education and jobs,there is less need for social housing and welfare.This result in itself is the LAST thing the socialists in gov't want.How else can they justify their needless waste on social bureacracies if there is not a need for them? You cannot keep a population at bay and comatose if you increase the level of education and allow the people to start forming indepentant ideas.As history has shown,when either communism or socialism become prevalent in a country,the first thing gone after rights is the intelligentsia.Can't have people thinking,after all,can we.The National "kiddie gulag" is just one more step towards this end.

Linda said...

"...parents would have to receive 'training' in order to benefit from any government support and that they would be 'regulated.'"

Oh. My. Goodness. Methinks Kenny took too many pucks to the head... I honestly didn't think they would be quite that quick to push their new powers realized under C-38 - that of treating parents and children as mere creatures of the State. (For those of you who haven't yet made that connection, pop over to Fr. Dowd's.)

(And Kenny should go back to his goalie net if he's so fond of corners - yikes.)

Re Ireland, the BBC reports:

"Ireland is the best place to live in the world, according to a "quality of life" assessment by Economist magazine."

The country's combination of increasing wealth and traditional values gives it the conditions most likely to make its people happy, the survey found. [emphasis added - heh!]

The Economist said: "Ireland wins because it successfully combines the most desirable elements of the new, such as low unemployment and political liberties, with the preservation of certain cosy elements of the old, such as stable family and community life." [add your own emphases - grin]

And guess what, folks? Canada didn't even make the list of top 10 countries... but I don't know where we fell as content is behind the Economist's subscriber wall.

Justthinkin said...

Canadianna...must admit I was a little skeptical of Ireland's ranking,what with the IRA and Sien Finn running around.However,after doing a little googling,more than 1 site agreed.Well,we've got the economy,now if we can just get some old-fashioned values back,who knows.In 10 years we may crawl back into the top 10!

Lester Price said...

I am with you all the way. I wrote about this almost a year ago when I first caught wind of it.

http://ronaldlaffin.blogspot.com/2004/08/ken-drydens-dream-canadas-nightmare.html

Canadianna said...

justthinkin -- sometimes I think I'd like to just save myself the step and move over there -- after all, isn't everybody Irish? or is that only on St. Paddy's Day.

Thanks for the links Linda. You are so good at gathering info!

Ron, thanks for the link. I loved your post. I've been to your site before and I like what you have to say. I'll be linking to you.

Candace said...

From this week's Economist:
"Nurseries
Toddlers and taboos
Jun 30th 2005
From The Economist print edition

What counts as heresy in schools is normal in nurseries

FEW things infuriate the educational establishment more than vouchers, and the linked idea that private providers might run schools better than the state. Yet until British children reach the age of five, that is exactly what is on offer. In England and Scotland the government provides 12.5 hours a week of free childcare, available at the nursery of the parents' choice—typically a privately run one. This has led to a lot of private provision, with parents free to top up the state subsidy as much, or as little, as they wish.

The government insists this is quite different from the previous Conservative government's voucher scheme, which was abolished in 1997. In this set-up, the money (around £1,000 a year, varying by region) goes to the local authority, and thence to the nursery. But the effect is the same: money follows the child; the parent chooses, the state pays. The result is that around half the under-fives go to places in private providers and 38% go to state-run nurseries (the rest are mostly at home).

The National Day Nurseries Association mainly represents private and voluntary providers. The government has information on learning provisions for under-fives.

The scheme is cheap to administer, popular and allows parents to decide how they want to balance their time and money..."

hmmm, sounds suspiciously like the CPC daycare plan, doesn't it?

Martin said...

CA

A few things to bear in mind about the Irish 'Celtic Tiger'.

Firstly, the resident population of Ireland is very small, approx 3 million.

Secondly, approx half the population is situated in the one place, the city of Dublin. It is still a heavily agragrian society; the amount of space devoted to farming news in Irish newspapers is markedly more than in UK ones.

Thirdly, the advances that have been made by indigenous Irish corporations seem to be almost exclusively in the provision of services, always cheaper than manufacturing. Ireland's biggest company is an airline, Ryanair, which, apart from having once lost my luggage at Stansted airport, is the undisputed top dog in the junkyard amongst the cut-throat, low-cost operators which have turned flying in Europe over the past 10 years from a pleasure into a chore.

The sources that you quote include Dell. Getting a Dell plant in Ireland is clearly a boost for the policy called 'inward investment'. In Scotland, our politicians sing hosannas every time a US corporation opens a factory or call-centre here. The plain truth is that any economic policy which promotes 'inward investment' tacitly acknowledges that your country has lots of poor people who need jobs, whether on account of lack of capital, under-developed infrastructure or previous political hostility to private enterprise. 'Inward investment' is a quick fix, whereby you get a mature business operating on your patch without having to endure the messy and expensive process of developing it from scratch.

The trade-off in pursuing 'inward investment' is that your economy becomes the investor's hostage - if trading conditions in Lower Jamjubostan become less favourable, the Irish get it in the neck with a plant closure and therefore higher unemployment, higher welfare dependence, less money, increased drug & alcohol abuse, a higher divorce rate, you name it.

But there's always tourism! In the She-Gnome's home town in Cork, tourism is so highly developed that local youngsters have little reasonable prospect of ever owning their own homes, due to 'blow-ins' (outsiders) buying up all the best lots. But they do have a wonderful range of bric-a-brac shops and seafood restaurants...

Martin said...

CA

A few things to bear in mind about the Irish 'Celtic Tiger'.

Firstly, the resident population of Ireland is very small, approx 3 million.

Secondly, approx half the population is situated in the one place, the city of Dublin. It is still a heavily agragrian society; the amount of space devoted to farming news in Irish newspapers is markedly more than in UK ones.

Thirdly, the advances that have been made by indigenous Irish corporations seem to be almost exclusively in the provision of services, always cheaper than manufacturing. Ireland's biggest company is an airline, Ryanair, which, apart from having once lost my luggage at Stansted airport, is the undisputed top dog in the junkyard amongst the cut-throat, low-cost operators which have turned flying in Europe over the past 10 years from a pleasure into a chore.

The sources that you quote include Dell. Getting a Dell plant in Ireland is clearly a boost for the policy called 'inward investment'. In Scotland, our politicians sing hosannas every time a US corporation opens a factory or call-centre here. The plain truth is that any economic policy which promotes 'inward investment' tacitly acknowledges that your country has lots of poor people who need jobs, whether on account of lack of capital, under-developed infrastructure or previous political hostility to private enterprise. 'Inward investment' is a quick fix, whereby you get a mature business operating on your patch without having to endure the messy and expensive process of developing it from scratch.

The trade-off in pursuing 'inward investment' is that your economy becomes the investor's hostage - if trading conditions in Lower Jamjubostan become less favourable, the Irish get it in the neck with a plant closure and therefore higher unemployment, higher welfare dependence, less money, increased drug & alcohol abuse, a higher divorce rate, you name it.

But there's always tourism! In the She-Gnome's home town in Cork, tourism is so highly developed that local youngsters have little reasonable prospect of ever owning their own homes, due to 'blow-ins' (outsiders) buying up all the best lots. But they do have a wonderful range of bric-a-brac shops and seafood restaurants...

Martin said...

Dang!

Clicked twice!

Pesky mouse!

Canadianna said...

Brian -- Thanks, yes I visited there and saw it. What a relief!

Hey - G-gnome! Good to see you over here.
Ireland is different too, because they have a homogenous, English speaking population. I guess foreign investment is simpler there for that reason.
I know depending on outsiders for your source of income is not the best of plans, but do you not think over the next 15 or 20 years there will be more entrepreneurs because of the foreign investment?

I think what I like about the Irish situation is their take on Uni. How is university financed in England and Scotland?

Here, tuitions are lowish (compared with the US) but young people can spend years paying of the debt accumulate in student loans.

The federal government has this scheme whereby you can get a registered education fund thingy for your kids -- You put in money, and the government will match you to a max of $400/year/kid. That's great for all those people who can afford it, but it certainly doesn't help those who it was supposedly targeted toward.

I believe there are more Irish and Scots in Canada than there are in either country. You've been writing that Scotland is big on immigration, why not a push for repatriation? If people came back, maybe they'd bring cash for local start-ups.