We need a plan. How do you successfully social distance children? How do you provide services while balancing the increased costs? If you reduce number of children per space, then you need to increase staff. If you keep same numbers, you need more staff to monitor the kids. Then you’re better off creating more sections with smaller groups & independent bathrooms, with well scheduled “shifts” for play and lots of cleaning and gloves. Kids adapt. They will. Even if they have to wear masks. Parents are scared though. So, will we see a resurgence of nannies? How about neighbourhood daycares? Trouble is the infrastructure linked to government are larger, licensed daycares. Non-licensed just became a whole lot sketchier because they aren’t linked to the funding systems in place.
Businesses are opening and single parents are fucked. Incomes that rely on the person that take care of the kids and household economics are in a bind. A big, big bind. Most of this population are already in vulnerable, low-income jobs. Also, never forgot the parents stuck in the middle where they make just enough and are loaded with debts and lack of supports, plus they make just enough that they aren’t eligible for anything. The very idea of going back to work without childcare is scarier than scary. Parents in provinces like Quebec are petrified. We are lucky in New Brunswick. Wait... what is with New Brunswick? Limited migration patterns. But totally predictable. Limited city centres. Limited incomes for recreational travel. Large informal economies. New Brunswick is safe because we are already self-sufficient.
We can use the assumptions made by the Government of Canada as our guidepost in understanding COVID-19 (Government of Canada, 2020). So far, the transmission from person to person is from respiratory droplets as occurring in sneezing and moist talkers that enter via the person’s eyes, nose or mouth. This is why masks are being encouraged by everyone because you never know if you have the virus, and well, moisture happens. It is also why people need to NOT touch their faces. Longer exposure time increases risk. It is possible for transmission to happen via other bodily fluids, so clean bathrooms are essential. People as well as inanimate objects are potential carriers. We are cleaning more than ever, which means more people are getting sick from cleaning products. Surfaces can keep the virus up to 24 hours, but up to 5 days, depending on type of material. Unfortunately, there are no notes on the impacts of cross-contamination, which is the number one battle in food and health services. The final note: “The virus is easily inactivated by using simple disinfectants”. So, again, cleaning. If we also look at what New Brunswick has been doing to have a successful low rate is that it closed its borders to restrict migration, acted early on, and implemented social distancing practices. I want to look specifically at bubbles as being a key element of success. Allowing people to still move around within their bubbles has been a boon for many people, especially parents who need their village to raise their children. What if our bubbles were out local communities?
The face of community has even changed locally in face of domestic violence. I call it domestic because it happened within a household and to our neighbours. I see posts to call for help to check-in on people. However, vulnerable people may not have or believe they have healthy supports in place to reach out to for help or may not even know how to ask for help. Botton line: They lack an established, healthy community. Example, do you know your neighbours name? Which brings me back to neighbourhood schools. How many small buildings can you think are empty right now within your area? How many of you have been or are involved in your schools? Low enrolment is not a “problem”, in fact, it is our savior! All those little schools that have closed over the years have their place in the world! These community schools are our boons.
What does this history tell us today? Stop trying to gentrify New Brunswick. Gentrification is defined as the process of making a person or activity more refined, usually more to middle class taste. Education has been called the great leveller to provide equal opportunity. But really, it’s a gentrification of a population that’s been put into policy effect since the 1871 education act first set into place. Gentrification is theorized to bring improvements and good to a lot of people’s lives, but it also reduces culture and social capital while raising property values. The gentrification of our school system has definitely been expensive. And now we have Covid-19.
So, what do you do? Well.... Here’s some of what I know:
· New Brunswick has shown that preventative measures and social distancing is effective. This is characterized by limited interaction within small groups. These groups have been defined as 5-10 people.
· Limited exposure is key.
· New Brunswick rocks.
This is where my brain goes: Remember one room schoolhouses? When everyone wore gloves? When veils were more than just a fashion statement? Believe me when I say that these items were not just for fashion. The Victorian era was manufactured that way to keep at bay the germs of the masses. Gloves. Masks. Personally, I like full face veils because I can still see the other persons face. Everything was washed in crazy hot water... to kill germs. Education? It was small schoolhouses or nannies. Large congregations were limited. Populations were also smaller. New Brunswick’s population is small. The one room schoolhouse was like a daycare but covered a wide range of ages and grades. This works in limited numbers (less than 10, so far).
In New Brunswick, our entire education system is thanks to pioneers of the Women’s Institute in our province. In the 1930s it was members of the Women’s Institute who put pressure on improving education in rural areas but being granted “high school privileges” (Page 58, Otty, 1962). These were the years where community involvement was strongly urged, mostly by women of New Brunswick. However, it was the community funds they raised that made the biggest impact by providing scholarships and funding opportunities to those who would otherwise struggle in their successes. Complimentary to the women’s institute, there was the YMCA that provided a space for “reading, debates and games… to all the young men in the parish” (Palmer, 1970, p. 9) that served the urban centers Moncton and Saint John. A large difference between the Y and the institutes is that the Y had salaried members and were focused on leisure activities to keep unemployed former shipyard builders something to do while the institutes built up social capital through skills training. It wasn’t really schools that trained our youth for life, it was societies and clubs created by members of society who had the means (time and/or money) to dedicate to building social capital. It as the Women’s Institute who fought for our children to have equal opportunity.
Schools only became obligatory for rural areas in 1941 with the School Attendance Act for children 7 to 14 years old in rural districts (this was highly influenced by the aforementioned Women’s Institute). Two more acts came into play in 1943 for funding and assistance for the schools. Until then, the cities were managed by their own rules (Wery, 1997). In the cities, children 6 to 16 years old had to go to school while children in rural areas (7 to 14 years old) only had to go to class a certain number of days a year. Really, we have only had a minister of education since 1936, who was very active with the Women's Institute. The make-up of the province is much the same today as it was then: made up of two communities and in the greater Canadian landscape, New Brunswick was poor (Wery, 1997). Even back then, there was a concern that the rural areas could be left behind due to parental uptake who saw less need for formal education in their industries. However, the government had bigger plans to create an educated society. Before restructuring, schools developed pell-mell in different communities, using different structures, and cultural lenses (ie. Acadians often focused on their battles and cultural importance to advance their cultural minority population. In my opinion, these schools were very community based as they raised the social capital of a particular community, for example, the Acadian culture. New Brunswick adopted geographical catchment zones for the schools rather than ones based on culture, community, or religion. Geography became the community. Schools did eventually become the great leveller where all children have the same skills and therefore greater economic success than those without any schooling. The administrative power was in the districts hands for streamlining books and pedagogical philosophies. Every time a school area was centralized, communities strongly opposed closing the small schools (ie. ones with a dozen children). Also, the public has long left felt out of consultations, not understanding the pedagogical reasoning behind curriculums that they cannot mentally link to real life living. In reality, our schools provided skills training that led to economic viability, primarily through home economics. Even in 1961, the employment rate was 20% less than national average in New Brunswick (Ruff, 1973). At the same time, only half of the population in New Brunswick had gone past elementary school level and a mere 2.9% had university education (Ruff, 1973). I suspect that given the technical and entrepreneurial natures of locals, informal apprenticeship made up for the rest of education.
In both thesis I read (Wery, 1997 & Ruff, 1973), they talk about the large economic gaps between communities and areas, especially Anglophone versus Acadian and rural versus urban. These gaps are often referred to as “disparities”. New Brunswick has been highly in need of federal assistance. To this day, New Brunswick only spends 2,746$ per capita, versus 3,236$ for Canada (2015/2016) (Statistics Canada, ND). Our systems are still young as they were still very independent on urban centres, county budget boards, and independent municipal fund raising until it became a provincial responsibility in 1967 (Ruff, 1973). There’s been a strong argument for centralized school systems throughout education politics from 1930s through the 1960s, even to obtain proper financial management that provides equal opportunity to all children “irrespective of who have the wealth” (Ruff, 1973, p. 340). This is evident in the number of school districts: 1936 saw 1518 independent districts, come 1967 it was 359, (Ruff, 1973) and its now seven districts with 326 schools as of 2007 and 295 schools as of 2019 (DEECD, 2020). Thus, the trend of centralization has continued. It has been so centralized that now we are looking at having the same online/distance education for the entire province, regardless of economic or technological infrastructure accessible to children of New Brunswick. The divides found in the 1960s still exist: English, Bilingual (English & Immersion), and Francophone.
We also need to remember demographic numbers:
· In 2016, our fair province had a population of almost 750,000 people living in 400,000 private dwellings, and 110,500 kids ages 0-14 with another 40,000 ages 15 to 19 (Statistics Canada 2017). An astounding 40% of households are two-person with the average being 2 people per household (Statistics Canada 2017). This could be couples, but I suspect there are a lot of single parents in there. This is supported by the fact there are 28,650 households with female lone parent households (Statistics Canada, 2017). Most lone parent households only have one child. There were 112,070 households with children in a census family.
· There are 97,895 kids enrolled in 2018-2019 with 14,200 child care spaces open as of July 2019 (DEECD, 2019). So, in theory, every child has a space in our province. But remember, available does not mean accessible. To continue, we have 25,500 people working in education services (3% of total population) with another 51,300 in health care and social assistance (7% of total population) (Statistics Canada, 2017). But guess which genders serve both of those industries? Women at 69% in educational services and 85% in healthcare and social assistance!
· Geographically, overall, we are a population who goes to work at a “usual place” (83%), 11% do not have a fixed address for their workplace and a mere 6% work at home. So, it is no surprise that of the employed workforce who go outside of the home that 84% of them drive with an additional 8% of the pop who travel as a passenger, so they rely on the drivers in their area. More interesting, 43% only have to travel less than 15 minutes, with another 37% who travel 15-29 minutes. So not many people really travel far to go to work.
· Educational levels are another element of consideration with 14% of the population 25 to 64 years old not holding any formal education certificates, 29% with high school or GED, with only 20% who hold a university degree but 26% with college diplomas (Statistics Canada, 2017). The numbers show an even less for graduates when including the 65 and up group, but that is because the gentrification of education is still just as young. Given the agriculture and industrial leanings in the province, asking blue collar and welfare parents to do a white-collar job of teaching kids is what the entire education system has been actively trying to avoid since the school attendance became mandatory. At best, parents in our province are capable of trades like mentoring or instructing their kids for real life learning. The upside is that this type of learning builds culture that was once found in these communities.
Community only funding and support for education fails. Centralized education fails the community’s individual identities. I believe that there must be is a blend between the two without the crippling financial implications. The move to centralization was based on requiring large high school units (Ruff, 1978). The trouble is that with smaller populations, offering certain programs because costly. In 1967, they could not offer technical nor practical courses to schools with less than 600 students, no vocational programs below 1000 students, and certain technical and occupational course under 1500 students (Ruff, 1978). Technical schools were built in cities, which encouraged migration . Ruff (1973) stated that “the high and persistent net out-migration found in the Atlantic province is in general symptomatic of their relatively slow growth, low levels of productivity and small employment base” (p. 31-32), which retards the economic growth of the area at the same time. This is all probably still quite accurate. There has always been a push to close the smaller schools in favour of centralization. After 70 years or so, it’s time to stop closing our community schools. Now let’s have small classrooms, small schools like the communities need but offered within a larger scale of centralization using technology. How do we make sure every student can access the technology? Right now the infrastructure required for complete and full access is really really expensive and takes times to build. Remember, available does not mean accessible.
The areas that have a poorer school service requires more money (Wery, 1997). Cities have always been beacons of proper education, an often-cited reason for migrating to cities is “better” education. Now all the kids re being levelled again with distance learning across the board. However, infrastructure once again comes as being the cost that divides the haves and have nots of the province. We still have the same communities’ committees as identified by Wery (1997): Anglophone, Acadian and Bilingual. High schools were means to employment and located largely in urban centres. The way a school is designed, its infrastructure is important to consider. A Masters student once wrote on the design implications of a Maritime middle school. In her conclusion, she says that,
“It is necessary to understand the role of place in the traditions, cultural specificities, and aspirations of the local population. The material traditions established social values, and pedagogy of community learning must be considered in creating an environment of education and exchange. A venue to nurture and promote the desire to become involved can be achieved through the employment of contextually appropriate practices of construction, material tectonics and design theories” (MacEwan, 2003).
Previous governments used 50 students as the marker for ideal number of students per school in the 1930s in efforts to centralize schooling (Wery, 1997) Enrolment was actually 29 students compared to the average of 31 in Canada, with some teachers reporting in 1965 having only 20 students per teacher in some counties in New Brunswick (Ruff, 1973). Teacher education was also on the lower end in terms of education levels of the teachers and salary as well as the lowest expenditure percentage on the public school system at 32% versus the average of 52%) (Ruff, 1973). Really these class numbers are about the same with the average class size in 2018-2019 for grades 1-8 as 21 students with a pupil/educator ratio of 13 students per educator with lower grades (K-2) at roughly 17 students per class (DEECD, 2019). I also look at these numbers with a grain of salt. Look at the statistics and see how they define educator because in truth, there are 6,405 teachers within the total of 7,610 full time and part time educators (DEECD, 2019), so these numbers could be off as teachers represent only 84% of the educators in these statistics. Not to mention when they start getting into calculating full-time equivalent to downplay the part timers., it fudges the reality of the numbers a bit. There are educators, support staff, and teachers that are all mixed within different reports. Honestly, I found a lack of consistency throughout the education department reports that I will tackle another day (already sent out one email asking for a verification).
So, here we are: One, kids touch everything including their faces by instinct up until a certain age and schooling happens in large groups. Two, parents need to work. Three, the education and social infrastructures in place are fragmented and expensive. Parents rely on daycare and schools to be economically viable, which Quebec has proven many times over in regard to high levels of women’s participation in the workforce. I think we need to pioneer something different.
The economy is shifting. The workday is changing. Moncton has been a 24-hour city for a long time thanks to the call centres and a strong retail sector that services many outlying areas. Daycares haven’t caught up. Now it’s time. Shift work. Daycares need to run in 5-hour shifts, maximum. Tiredness increases everyone’s risk of exposure. Thus, shifts change in the business sector. Does this mean a reduced work week? Yes. Do a 7:30am-12:30pm and then 2pm to 7pm. We have the daylight to accomplish this. The one hour between gives time to for people to make it through the shuffles required in social distancing world. Does this mean reduced wages? I don’t think it should. In fact, I believe it’s imperative to maintain and increase wages. In result, there will be increased productivity as people will feel safer. A person who feels safe and secure is way more likely to thrive in any circumstance.
Would this type of schedule this unfair to non-parents? Perhaps. So much of this is unfair to many. However, I also dream of a better life and this is a massive opportunity for everyone to finally put their foot in their mouths about the 4-day work week or however-many-hours-work-week and all that bullshit. It’s time. I also think going back to work full time after being away from work for such a long time is equally damaging. Look, we are all tired. We all want to return to work. We all want what’s best for kids and adults alike. No one needs to compromise their health systems and we need those who can participate to take care of their homes and communities. We need to build social capital. Big time. There are a lot of people missing social nets that are assumed to exist. We are at an opportunity to establish healthy ones. In fact, we are being encouraged.
Children need safe places to go to outside of the house such as school and libraries. The removal of these community spaces has been witnessed with unfortunate results. Women have been long the driving force, either behind the scenes or working in the educational sector, for education in New Brunswick. They are also most at risk of being put under incredible stress. There are more university level educated women in this province compared to men, so imagine the debt loads they are probably also balancing on top of running households, then imagine running household with children to homeschool. This is not sustainable. What if we had miniature community schools to rely on instead, like the ones many communities sadly lost? Depending on the population, everything can be done in shifts to address size of bodies in a space, and cleaning between is very important.
A lot of underpaid work must be recognized now. Cleaners, sitters, nannies, and care workers. They are all women and women are the ones who are often shouldered the responsibility of children. Yes, men fall into this category too and are just as vulnerable, particularly low-income men. Government infrastructure needs to better recognize those who fall outside of their mandated systems to bring them in under the umbrella where they can be paid, supported and recognized. The democratic obligation of school must be superseded by the necessity of community social capital. Yes, it will cost even more money, but the savings will be unlike anything ever imagined in a very good way: mentally, economically, and socially.
I am trying really hard to imagine something in particular to how this would look. Honestly, it will keep picking at the back of my brain even after I publish this blog article. I suspect I will write more on this topic yet. But before I go, you know which document already has a pretty good handle on managing small groups of kids? The Operator Manual for Early Learning and Childcare Homes. What would schools look like if they followed this manual closer for facilities? What kind of crossover could be found between the defined curriculum objectives and facility function that the province has already spent a lot of money and resources on creating? We are much closer to a solution than most places in the Covid-19 world. I think this is another example of a way in which New Brunswick will thrive in difficult circumstances.
References
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). 2018. Operator Manual Early Learning and Childcare Homes. New Brunswick. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/ELCC/OperatorManualEarlyLearningChildcareHomes.pdf
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). 2019. Education Outline 2019. New Brunswick. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/StatisticalReports-RapportsStatistiques/EducationOutline2018-2019.pdf
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). March 2020. Summary Statistics: School Year 2019-2020. New Brunswick. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/StatisticalReports-RapportsStatistiques/SummaryStatistics2019-2020.pdf
Government of Canada. 13 April 2020. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Summary of assumptions. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/assumptions.html
MacEwan, Monique D. 2003. This aint no two-room schoolhouse: Examining a Nova Scotia Village through tehdesign of a community school. Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. Thesis for Master of Architecture: https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=MQ77512&op=pdf&app=Library
Otty, M. G. 1962. Fifty years of Women's Institutes in New Brunswick, Canada 1911 -1961: A history. New Brunswick: The Institute.
Palmer, K. D. 1970. The Moncton Family Y.M.C.A: A century of service for youth. Moncton, N.B.: Moncton Family YMCA.
Ruff, John Norman. 1973. Administrative reform and development: a study of adminsitartive adaptation to provincial development goals and the re-organisation of provincial government and local government in New Brunswick 1963-1967. McGill University, Montreal, QC. Thesis for Doctorate in Political Science. https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=TC-QMM-70832&op=pdf&app=Library
Statistics Canada. 2017. New Brunswick [Province] and Canada [Country] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed May 10, 2020).
Statistics Canada. ND. Table: 37-10-0025-01 (formerly CANSIM 477-0138). Combined public and private expenditure on education per capita and index of change. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710002501
Wery, Anne. 1997. Bruits et silences savants. Les politiques du ministere de l’education au Nouveau-Brunswick, 1937-1943. Universite de Moncton, Moncton, NB. Thesis for Master of Arts in History. http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq23740.pdf
Comments