- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 2017 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by sfphoto at 2017-12-2 08:00|
Jaaja Post time: 2017-12-1 21:33
First of all, I believe that this is the national level ratio. It corresponds with what I argued in my previous post, that (commercial) childcare operators exist where there is sufficient market for them, and that is in bigger cities. If you venture deeper in those statistics, you will find that the ratio of enrollment is much bigger in developed housing neighbourhoods.
Secondly, many families consider sending their children to kindergartens (commercial or not) only after they are over 3 years old.
Of course, that's for the national level. But those stats rebut your premise that most middle-class and rich families in the big cities patronize commercial for-profit childcare centers which is not true.
national funding for early childhood education in China accounted for only 1.2 to 1.3 percent of its overall educational budget. Meanwhile, the number of children under 6 years old in China has long exceeded 100 million, accounting for about one-fifth of the world's population of the same age. This further reflects the severe shortage of affordable care for toddlers in the country.
The above quote from the OP is true which supports my view that the State should fund an INSTITUTIONALIZED form of childcare by allowing community-owned SOCIAL enterprises to provide these SOCIAL welfare services.
You advocate for publicly funded childcare. But I know, that even in primary school system in China, in many locales children born later in the year are being told to wait until next year before enrolling in first grade - that is because of lack of resources in public schools. I believe that in early education the lack of public resurces is even bigger, because families are expected to take bigger role in early childhood.
Banning private childcare would make the situation double worse - first it puts more pressure on the public providers, and secondly it removes employment and tax revenue brought in from the commercial operators. The state would have to serve even more children with less resources than what it already does (and already fails).
I don't advocate banning private childcare but the State should promote publicly-funded but community-owned enterprises providing childcare services.
Certainly in a perfect world the state would provide everything that people need, yet nobody would have to work or pay taxes.
Low-income people don't have the means to pay commericial for-profit childcare service providers.
I want to again bring in personal perspective. I live in Kunming city in Yunnan, in a complex of high rises that was built less than 10 years ago. There is a private kindergarten just outside, and a public elementary school next to it.
Our kid is not yet kindergarten age, so I am not sure, but I can safely say that there is at least one kindergarten in the neighbourhood that is operated from public funds. And that happens to be a kindergarten reserved for children of city officials, equipped with swimming pools and other amenities.
That demonstrates the reality of state funded childcare in China. The bigger people get more than the small people, even regardless of how much they contribute to the society. In your capitalist system, at least the wealthy would also pay more taxes toward financing the rest of the society.
That's elitism which I oppose.
Again, that may be true for nurseries for 0-3 years old children, but after 3 years most families (at least in my neighbourhood) start thinking about the social aspect of childhood education, and prefer to send their children to kindergartens where they can interact with other children. China's one/two-child policy has contributed sufficiently to self-centered youth.
Yes, there's a need for childcare services. We agree on that.
No it does not. Can you state for record what that accountability means in practise? Historically in China it has meant bribing city officials to cover up malpractises, and jail complaining individuals for stirring up trouble.
You keep making these strawman arguments. What does "bribing city officials" have to do with covering up malpractices in childcare? I am advocating COMMUNITY-OWNED social enterprises NOT State-owned enterprises. The role of the State is to fund, audit and regulate these social enterprises whose management will be accountable to and held liable for any malpractices by the COMMUNITY. For-profit commercial enterprises will be accountable only to its shareholders who only care about the return on their invested capital as the community won't have control over the management nor would they actively participate in the operation of the for-profit commercial enterprise. This kind of practice is contrary to traditional Chinese Culture.
If public service providers were the only option, the people could only hope and trust that the management does the right things. Is that enough? With private service providers, dissatisfied customers can vote with their feet and wallets.
These are not "public service providers" but social enterprises. Instead of hiring nannies or relatives to do childcare in their homes, groups of families can pool their resources together to form COMMUNITY-OWNED social enterprises to be financed by private donations or State funding. The COMMUNITY as a group of families will have control over the management as they will be able to participate actively in the operation of the enterprise. Think about fundraising events, or birthday parties, or staff volunteers, etc.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never lived in the coastal cities. Inland provinces is where you have the left behind children and broken families. Of this I have personal experience.
But I have lived in both coastal cities and inland provinces.
The coastal cities are full of migrant workers who send their hard-earned RMBs back to their rural villages so that their relatives or villagers can take care of their children or elderly parents. That's the MORAL OBLIGATION imposed by Traditional Chinese Culture which is alive and well indeed. But the fact that these migrant workers have to work so far away from their rural villages supports the issue of State-funded but COMMUNITY-owned social enterprise. The rural village could constitute itself into a social enterprise which would receive funding by the State as well as private donations by the migrant workers to provide social welfare services such as childcare, elderlycare, etc. In other words, these unpaid social welfare work in the informal sector of the social economy should be professionalized and institutionalized as part of State-funded but COMMUNITY-run social welfare enterprises.
And as they say here, the mountains are high and the emperor is far away.
Sure, but China has built more than 20,000kms of high-speed rail and more than 1,000,000 4G base-stations in order to bridge the economic disparity between the coastal cities and the inland provinces. I see it myself right here in Chengdu which is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. And the jobs being created here are not sweatshop or smokestack jobs but HIGH-TECH jobs in software, biotech, aviation, semiconductor, auto, internet, e-commerce industries. In fact, the Sichuanese who used to work as migrant workers in the coastal cities are now coming back to their home province while the Fujianese, Zhejiangese and Cantonese enterpreneurs are setting up shop here.
China has done an excellent job of building its infrastructure and developing its manufacturing industries, don't you think so? Now China has to build up its social welfare industries which will create millions of knowledge-based service jobs involving childcare, elderlycare, maternity care, etc.