Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������
���������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������
THE INTEGRATION KIT POLICY PAPERS: HOW CAN INTEGRATION OF SERVICES FOR KINDERGARTEN-AGED CHILDREN BE ACHIEVED?
Susan Colley | September, 2006
The Integration Network Project Institute of Child Study OISE/University of Toronto 45 Walmer Road Toronto, On. M5R 2X2 416 538 1950 www.inproject.ca Contact: [email protected]
Table of ContentsACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Examples of Services for 3 – 5 year olds in Other Countries .......... 4
Integration of ECE Professions ............................................... 4
Towards Change .................................................................. 5
Program Design and Delivery ................................................ 5
Curricular framework ........................................................... 6
Reorganizing the Workforce .................................................. 6
Governance and Funding Options .......................................... 7
Conclusion ........................................................................ 7
SEEING THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9An answer to questions of integration .................................... 9
The Vision ......................................................................... 9
How we got there? .............................................................. 9
What it means for young children and their families .................. 10
Our imagination continues.... ............................................... 10
Funding and Access ............................................................ 10
Governance ....................................................................... 11
Curriculum Framework ......................................................... 12
Workforce Reform ............................................................... 13
Toward The Seamless Day Program ......................................... 14
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendations ................................. 18
Summarizing the Canadian Context ....................................... 20
Key Features: Kindergarten .................................................. 22
Key Features: Regulated Centre-based Child Care ...................... 24
Family Home Child Care ........................................................ 25
Children with Special Needs .................................................. 25
Aboriginal Child Care ........................................................... 25
Support Services (Family Resource Centres, etc.) ...................... 25
Summarizing What the Research Tells Us ................................. 27
Importance of the Early Years ..................................... 27Quality ................................................................... 28Full Day or Half-Day Kindergarten ............................... 29Curricular and Pedagogical Frameworks Matter ............. 30
Summarizing the International Context .................................. 32
Towards Change .................................................................. 34
The Ten-Year Vision ............................................................. 34
Principles ............................................................... 35Quality ................................................................... 35Universality and Accessibility .................................... 36Developmentally Focussed ......................................... 36Inclusive ................................................................ 36
Policy Changes ................................................................... 36
Program Design and Delivery ................................................ 36
Adequate Public Funding ..................................................... 37
Regulation and Standards .................................................... 38
Curricular/Program framework .............................................. 38
Human Resources ............................................................... 39
Training ............................................................................ 40
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................... 41
Governance ....................................................................... 42
Governance Options ................................................. 42
THE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Importance of the Early Years ............................................... 45
School Readiness ............................................................... 46
The Lessons ....................................................................... 48
Kindergarten ..................................................................... 50
Full-day kindergarten ......................................................... 50
Quality Settings Matter ........................................................ 52
Elements of Quality ............................................................. 54
Curriculum ............................................................. 54Workforce ........................................................................ 56
Program Design ................................................................. 58
THE CANADIAN CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61The Family Context of ECEC in Canada ..................................... 61
The Federal Policy Context Of ECEC ......................................... 61
Definition of Early Childhood Education and Care ..................... 63
Kindergarten programs in the public school system ................... 63
Regulated Child Care ........................................................... 65
Centre-based Care ............................................................... 65
Regulated Family Child Care .................................................. 67
Children with Special Needs .................................................. 67
Aboriginal Child Care ........................................................... 67
Funding ............................................................................ 68
Cash benefits .......................................................... 68Unregulated child care ............................................. 69Other Innovations and Developments .......................... 69
Overview ........................................................................... 70
THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Overview ........................................................................... 71
Summary of Services in Different Countries .............................. 73
Australia ................................................................ 73Belgium ................................................................. 73Denmark ................................................................ 73Finland .................................................................. 74Italy ...................................................................... 74Netherlands ............................................................ 75Norway .................................................................. 75Portugal ................................................................. 76Sweden .................................................................. 76United Kingdom ...................................................... 77United States .......................................................... 78
Notes ................................................................................ 80
APPENDIX A: THE QUAD PRINCIPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Quality, Universality, Accessibility and Developmental Approach ................................................ 81
Quality Child Care and Developmentally Apppropriate Programming ................................................... 81
The Benefits of High Quality Child Care and Developmentally Appropriate Programming? ........................... 82
Universality and Accessibility ................................................ 83
Advantages of Universality and Accessibility? .......................... 84
Inclusion .......................................................................... 84
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Newfoundland and Labrador ................................................. 88
Prince Edward Island ........................................................... 90
Nova Scotia ........................................................................ 92
New Brunswick ................................................................... 94
Quebec ............................................................................. 96
Ontario ............................................................................. 98
Manitoba ........................................................................... 100
Saskatchewan .................................................................... 102
Alberta ............................................................................. 104
Alberta (continued) ............................................................ 106
British Collumbia ................................................................ 108
Northwest Territories ........................................................... 110
Nunavut ............................................................................ 112
Yukon ............................................................................... 114
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Integration Network Project is all about exploration – exploration of new issues and new terrain for the Early Learning and Child Care Community. It would not have been possible to even begin such an exploration without the support of the Social Development Partnerships Program, Social Development Canada who funded the project.
The author, Sue Colley, takes full responsibility for the content and ideas in the paper, but it has been aided tremendously by the volunteer contributions of the Integration Network Project Advisory Committee members: Jane Bertrand, Patricia Lee, Joan Littleford, Monica Lysack, Vivian McCaffrey, Penny Milton and Janette Pelletier.
This paper would also not have been possible without the Early Childhood Education and Care “Bible”, that is the series of publications written by Martha Friendly and Jane Beach entitled, Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada. Their detailed, painstaking work in collecting the basic information on Early Learning and Child Care – and then doing it again every three years – is invaluable. Thank you so much Martha and Jane.
I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Christine Davidson, staff member at the Institute of Child Study for her generous and spirited endeavours to ensure all the details were covered. And, finally, to Tara Cleveland for producing a lively and appealing website. And for working her butt off and staying up late and working weekends to get this paper and the web site updated even when she was really really sick with the flu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Integration Network Project was established to address one of the critical issues in the development of Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada today: the abrupt division for kindergarten-age children between “care” programs in child care centres and “education” in public kindergarten. The Project’s focus is on seeking effective solutions to the problems and issues facing parents of kindergarten-age children.
While recognizing that any model for care and education of young children must take into account the need for links between the early learning and care system for children from 0 to 6 and the compulsory education system, this paper analyzes the problem of current arrangements in Canada and explores possible solutions. This was stated as a key element of successful ECEC policy in the OECD publication Starting Strong. Kindergarten programs are the only truly universal ECEC programs offered to Canadian children under the age of six. However, they are viewed as “educational” programs, with no attempt to meet the child care needs of working parents. Child care services are largely market-driven, with some government regulation and fees that range (with some subsidization of low-income or at-risk families) from $154 (Quebec) to $600 (Northwest Territories) a month for kindergarten-aged children. (Friendly et al, 2005)
Only Quebec and PEI have attempted administrative integration between the two systems. Quebec introduced its new Family Policy in 1997-9. Jurisdiction for early childhood education was split at age 5. Children 0-4 attend child care programs under the responsibility of the Ministère de l’Emploi de la Solidarité Sociale et de la Famille. At age 5, responsibility for over 5’s lies with the Ministry of Education. Children can attend non-compulsory full-school day kindergarten in the education system. Also in inner city schools there are pre-kindergarten programs for four year olds operating for half a day. The other half-day is spent in the school based child care setting which must meet provincial child care licensing requirements but is run by the school board with principals having ultimate responsibility. There is extensive coordination between the kindergarten teachers and the child care staff as they function as a team.
Prince Edward Island has also introduced an innovative model. Kindergarten in PEI operates for half a day in child care centres, is taught by early childhood educators (minimum qualification two year early childhood education diploma plus two years’ experience), is free to parents, maintains the child care ratios of 1 teacher to 12 children and permits children to stay in the same centre for the balance of the day on a fee-for-service basis.
Recently there has been interest in the interface between child care and kindergarten. In 1998, a study by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy compared kindergarten and child care programs in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. It concluded that a majority of both kindergarten and child care programs received acceptable to good ratings. The study concluded that three-quarters of parents supported the concept of a new program model which would combine full-day, year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten-aged. (Johnson and Mathien, 1999) Similar studies in the U.S. have found that full-day programs provide a relaxed, unhurried school day with more time for a variety of experiences; allow more time for assessment opportunities and for quality interaction between adults and children; allow more time to explore topics in depth; reduce the ratio of transition time to class time; provide for greater continuity of day-to-day activities; provide an environment that favours a child-centered, developmentally appropriate approach; and relieve parents and children of the stresses associated with changing locations during the day.
Although North America has not made much progress integrating its kindergarten and child care programs, several European countries have now integrated ECEC programs for children from 0-6 under one government department and regard early childhood education and care as essential in preparing children for public school as well as an important component of family support, and a venue for identifying children and families who will need special services. (OECD, 2001) Australia and the United States have also been addressing the needs of kindergarten-aged children.
4
Examples of Services for 3 – 5 year olds in Other Countries• Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy and Portugal provide full day care for children
from age 3 or younger.
• Norway and the Netherlands commence full-day preschool access at age 4.
• The United Kingdom provides guaranteed access to free part-day preschool for all 3 year olds and older.
• Australia provides part day preschool at age 4 and full day at age 5.
• The United States now provides full-day school kindergarten programs for over 60% of 4 and 5 year olds (Cleveland & Colley, 2003)
Sweden is a case in point. In 1996, responsibility for child care in Sweden moved from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs to the Ministry of Education and Science and the government introduced a uniform framework for training child care teachers, school teachers and school age care providers (known as leisure time pedagogues). There were many fears about preschool becoming rigid and formal, losing its emphasis on play and children’s holistic development. Child care teachers also feared that the shift in focus towards “education” would threaten their profession and that preschool would become the poor sister of education.
However the reverse happened. Prior to 1996, a national study urged Swedish schools to become more responsive to children’s individual learning needs and styles, arguing that integration of the two systems would allow preschools to transform schools. Revision of the school curriculum took on many pedagogical practices of preschools; learning came to replace teaching, shifting the focus from teachers to students or learners. The Swedish Prime Minister reinforced this approach in 1996 when he announced his vision of lifelong learning for Sweden and stated that preschool education should be a component and that it should influence school education, at least in the early years. (Choi, 2002) Following Sweden’s shift, New Zealand, Spain, Slovenia, England and Scotland also moved to unify services under one department.
One indicator of the success of integration is the unification of the divided workforce. (Cohen et al, 2004) In those countries that have made the most progress in integrating early childhood services, a ‘core” profession has emerged. These professionals work across the whole early childhood age spectrum from birth to age 5 or 6 and undertake all aspects of education and care.
Integration of ECE Professions• New Zealand, Spain and Sweden have integrated the professions into the early childhood
teacher working with children under and over 3 years. (Teachers in divided systems typically work with children from age 3 and up in the schools; in Canada this applies to children 4 and up).
• Finland, Norway and Denmark have adopted the profession known as the pedagogue, who works with children of all ages, addressing the whole child with body, mind, emotions, creativity, history and social identity.
Child care teachers also feared
that the shift in focus towards
“education” would threaten
their profession and that
preschool would become the
poor sister of education.
5
• Most countries combine core professionals with assistants. In Spain, for example, most staff working with children over 3 are teachers, while most working with younger children are assistants. (Moss 2004)
In Sweden basic education for teachers or pedagogues is a university degree (equivalent to school teachers). Assistants are generally qualified to the equivalent of a Canadian community college diploma, with career ladders in place to allow them to become ‘core’ professionals.
In virtually all of the countries mentioned, the public commitment to early childhood education and care is considerably greater than in Canada (with the exception of Quebec). Canada spends 0.23% of its annual GDP on pre-primary education; most other countries spend 0.4% to 0.6%. (Cleveland & Colley, 2003)
Towards ChangeThe purpose of this paper is to generate a discussion in Canada about the policy changes that would be needed to bring about integration for kindergarten-aged children. The OECD Report suggested that reconciling the differences between kindergarten and child care is a prerequisite to achieving a coherent system of early education and care in Canada. It explained that the advantages of bringing together early education and care within integrated departments include: a more unified approach; more effective investment producing greater savings; improved public supervision leading to higher quality; more coherent policy and consistency; and enhanced continuity of children’s early childhood experiences. (OECD, 2001)
Achieving integration of kindergarten and child care services in Canada will require a major paradigm shift for all involved. Because both education and child care are in the provincial jurisdiction, each province and territory will need to devise its own strategies. Each will also need to respond to the same challenges. These will be comprised of both “structural” and “conceptual” components.
This discussion paper focuses on four key concerns: program design and delivery; program framework (curriculum); the reorganization of the workforce; and governance and funding issues. It explores possible policy solutions in these areas.
Program Design and DeliveryThe goal of integration is the delivery of a seamless program oriented to all aspects of children’s developmental needs. Children will attend one program oriented to all aspects of children’s developmental needs for health and physical development; emotional wellbeing and social competence; positive approaches to learning; communication skills; cognition and general knowledge. No longer will children be attending public kindergarten for a few hours to get “education” and then be shuffled back to a different program to be cared for while their parents work. Programs will be seamless. Existing “kindergarten” and “child care” will be integrated into one coherent and comprehensive program for at least six hours per day (maintaining and extending the portion of the day that is free to parents). Extended hours programs will exist to accommodate parents’ work schedules (at either end of the day or during school holidays) as an integral addition to the core program, or as a wrap-around service offered in, or close to, the same physical location. Children with special and diverse needs will be included within
No longer will children
be attending public
kindergarten for a few
hours to get “education”
and then be shuffled back
to a different program to be
cared for while their parents
work. Programs will be
seamless.
6
activities and provide links to other early intervention, health and community resources. These programs will be designed to accommodate parents’ needs for flexibility. Parents who wish their children to attend part-time could be accommodated without sacrificing developmental opportunities.
Curricular frameworkAll early learning and care programs should have a child-centred curriculum focusing on cognitive, social, emotional and physical development, and advocating developmentally appropriate practices within an activity-based/play-based approach to learning and care linked to the Grade 1 curriculum. Programs should be oriented to broad developmental goals rather than just cognitive goals, such as literacy and numeracy. (Bennett, 2004)
Reorganizing the WorkforceThe success of integrated early learning and care programs will depend primarily on the excellence of the human resources employed. The OECD recommended a review of professional profiles, improved recruitment levels and strengthening of the initial and in-service training of staff in both kindergarten and child care. As we move toward harmonizing developmental ambitions for young children, early childhood centres will become the foundation for lifelong learning. Staff in these centres will be required to deal sensitively with cultural issues, respond appropriately to special needs children and provide individualized support to every child in moments of vulnerability or stress.
In reviewing the training issues, the key questions raised in the other OECD countries will also be raised here in Canada.
• Is integration of the workforce possible? If so, who will be the ‘core’ profession and what will be the balance between professional and others working in the system? What educational requirements will this professional have? Who will pay for training and who will pay for a properly qualified workforce?
• What kind of phase-in period will be established for the new “core” professional? In New Zealand all early childhood teachers are required to have a teaching diploma by 2012. Incentive grants and prior learning assessment, together with time for phase-in, has made upgrading possible. Is this a model for Canada?
• Will all staff be required to have the same training – as in New Zealand – or will there be a role for an “assistant” trained at a lower level but with access to opportunities to gain additional qualifications?
• How will the workforce be reorganized to accommodate longer hours, and a longer year?
However these questions are answered, without reform to ensure adequate core funding, Canada’s ability to provide proper remuneration, training and development for a substantially underpaid and undervalued workforce will be severely compromised.
...without reform to ensure
adequate core funding,
Canada’s ability to provide
proper remuneration, training
and development for a
substantially underpaid and
undervalued workforce will be
severely compromised.
7
Governance and Funding OptionsIn view of the fact that both education and child care operate in Canada within the provincial jurisdiction, governance models that promote integration may differ across Canada. Three options are offered for consideration and discussion:
• Locating the entire ECEC system (0-6 years) within a ministry of education;
• Locating the entire ECEC system (0-6 years) within a social welfare/family services ministry;
• As in Quebec, adopting the ‘split ages’ model by locating children’s programs (kindergarten-age and above) in the school system; locating children’s programs below kindergarten-age in a social welfare/family services ministry.
There are not necessarily any perceived advantages between any of these types of ministries. The key is to ensure that there is a commitment to a vision, principles and appropriate policies.
ConclusionThere are many structural, political, professional and historic barriers to overcome before there is an integrated approach to ECEC services for kindergarten-aged children in Canada. The Integration Network Project hopes that through this paper and its other activities, the dialogue will be stimulated. The goal is to strive for collaboration, mutual respect between sectors and communities and develop options based on collective imagination. Working together – parents, teachers and child care staff – can develop a strong policy framework followed by a strategic plan, lobby for change and effectively advocate to communities of interest. The full paper and other information about the Project can be found at www.inproject.ca.
8
9
SEEING THE FUTURE
An answer to questions of integrationThe Integration Network Project presented this Vision Paper to an international Symposium held in Toronto in November, 2005, following lots of discussion and input from network participants.
We’ve used our imaginations to answer key questions about what an evolved system for young Canadians might look like. We invite you to think about it, critique it, add your own suggestions and, of course, consider strategies for cha nge.
The VisionRemember, this is entirely imaginary!
Let’s first imagine the year is 2010. The Early Learning and Child Care system has been revolutionized across the country and enjoys high levels of public support. How did we get there and what would this mean for young children and their families?
How we got there?Imagine that this fundamental change began in 2005 when policymakers questioned the foundations of the current early learning and child care systems. Early learning and child care in Canada was still deeply rooted in the split systems of “Education” and “Social Services” (or welfare). Attention to growing child poverty, apparent increase in violence, high drop-out rates and an increased focus on high levels of achievement for all students, particularly those who do not do well in school, precipitated a momentous public discourse about how to change the system to give children the best foundation for learning throughout their lives. Earlier, the federal government released a major report to launch an invigorating national dialogue on the future of Early Learning and Child Care in Canada in the context of lifelong learning. A broad discussion across Canada produced consensus about far-reaching recommendations for the system of Early Learning and Child Care for children aged 0-6 years.
The key recommendation involved a transformation from current arrangements to a system characterized by both vertical and horizontal integration between early learning and child care and formal schooling. Support emerged for the adoption of a new approach that emphasized the holistic nature of the child and the necessity of integrating caring, nurturing and learning under one roof. During the dialogue, the public embraced the concept of a system of lifelong learning from birth to adulthood in which the “child” became the focus of the institutions that served him or her. Learning and care were understood as interrelated and inseparable within an “integrative” approach. A focus on the full development of the child requires programs that support activities where care, nurturing and education form a coherent whole.
Strong support for this initiative was fuelled by public recognition of the value of kindergarten programs which were already universal, very popular and taught by well qualified staff who did not necessarily have a background in early childhood education. The need to build on the existing kindergarten programs was evidenced by the majority of parents who wanted and needed a learning opportunity for their younger children. Integration was achieved both conceptually and practically. Policies and programs for all children under 6 are now integrated into a universal Early Years Program
...the public embraced
the concept of a system of
lifelong learning from birth
to adulthood in which the
“child” became the focus of
the institutions that served
him or her.
10
under a single provincial ministry or department. For 4 and 5-year old children, whose experience had previously been split between ‘education’ and ‘child care”, full integration took place between the two programs. Previously, early years programs had frequently been described as “patchwork”, roughly sewn together to meet the needs of working parents. Child care centres, nursery schools, preschools, kindergartens and a myriad of drop-in programs existed side by side in an attempt to provide a semblance of quality programming for parents who needed or wanted them.
What it means for young children and their familiesAs a result of the reform, all early years programs are available under one roof with programs founded on the same principles and similar general approaches; most are in schools but some communities developed Early Years Centres in their own buildings. Considerable local autonomy is reflected in specific program implementation. This means that programs starting with parental leave are now universally available. After one year’s parental leave (now accessible to all new parents), parents can choose learning and care environments for children on a full-time, part-time, or drop-in basis.
Our imagination continues....Subsequently, the federal/provincial/territorial governments entered into agreements to infuse new federal funding to develop a unified, integrated or coherent system of lifelong learning starting at birth. All of the provinces and territories embraced the reforms. Public enthusiasm emerged for transforming our systems so that ‘child care’ and ‘kindergarten’ became merged. Issues of governance, financing, access, curricula, human resources, and program delivery were all reshaped with an understanding that all parts of the system must come together and inform the other. By taking account of the best of what we had learned from the pre-school and early school years policies and programs, we ensured a system that served children and families rather than institutions.
The sweeping changes covered five basic areas:
Funding and Access
Governance
Curriculum Framework
Workforce Reform
Program Delivery
Funding and AccessFunding was transformed. A key departure from the 1990s was the move away from the “marketization” of child care, based on purchase of service by parents, towards the introduction of direct (supply side) funding to the programs. Canada now spends 1% of GDP on early years’ services. One of the features of the new system is that programs for all ages of children are funded with a block grant from government. Parental fees still exist but they are limited to affordable amounts. Some provinces adopted a system of “flat parental fees” for early years’ education and out-of-school care. For example, the programs could charge a flat fee ranging between $3 and $10
Public enthusiasm emerged
for transforming our
systems so that ‘child care’
and ‘kindergarten’
became merged.
11
per day per child for programs offered beyond six hours. Other provinces introduced a sliding scale limiting the maximum parent fee to 20% of net parental income. This resulted in universal access to all early learning and care programs for children aged 0-6 years.
In 2010, jurisdiction for early years’ programs, together with funding, is provided by a provincial/territorial Ministry of Learning. For programs beyond six hours in length, modest parent fees are charged ranging between $3 and $10 per day per child, with additional subsidies available for those parents who cannot afford them. This was achieved over a five-year period. Like Quebec in the 1990’s, most provinces expanded their systems by introducing universal access on an age-related basis. The general pattern was:
2005-06 5 year olds gained universal access to integrated programs 2006-07 4 year olds gained universal access to integrated programs 2007-08 3 year olds gained universal access to integrated programs 2008-09 2 year olds gained universal access to integrated programs 2009-10 Under 2’s gained universal access to integrated programs.
GovernanceBecause both child care and education are within provincial jurisdiction, provinces and territories had flexibility about how the changes were implemented. The former social services and education ministries were each vested in their own cultures, traditions and value system. The change discourse focused on how these old cultural traditions and values could be transformed and which administrative environment would work the best. All provinces and territories are now working to create horizontally (between early learning and child care and kindergarten) and vertically (between younger and older children) an integrated system for children of all ages.
Following extensive dialogues, all provinces and territories decided to locate the new integrated services in a Ministry/Department of Learning. Schools were already well established in the community, they had a strong infrastructure, a tradition of universality, highly qualified staff and an ability to adapt to changing community needs. Hence, the Ministries/Departments of Education were transformed to become Ministries/Departments of Learning with responsibility for the public provision of learning programs from birth through to the time of transition to work or post-secondary education. The fears held by many early years’ educators that locating programs for young children in schools could result in a greater emphasis on a highly prescriptive curriculum, were alleviated by a major shift in the perspective of the education sector. Growing acceptance of research from the learning sciences had shifted the curriculum emphasis from what teachers teach to how children learn. The renewed focus on creating learning environments that best suit young children and on the quality of the relationship between adults and children and among children was welcomed by all early years’ educators, whether previously working in the pre-school or school-age sectors.
Both teacher education programs and early childhood education programs were enhanced and a curriculum framework was introduced which reinforced the practice of keeping the child at the centre of the curriculum. The importance of the child‘s activities as fostering all areas of development - social, emotional, physical, and intellectual is emphasized and celebrated. Recognizing the fundamental importance and interests of parents most school boards established early years advisory groups at the system and local school level to assist in the implementation and management of the programs.
12
Curriculum FrameworkAll programs were developed as part of a seamless whole. This occurred both horizontally and vertically. Child care is no longer a welfare service for working parents. It is a vital program supporting the emergence of a culture of lifelong learning, making an essential contribution to the well-being of families and serving an economy that is reliant on the employment of parents. Governments recognized that both education and care are essential and unified their provision.
Teams of educators, drawn from both the early childhood and kindergarten sectors, work together to provide the best experience for all children in all time periods throughout the day. Because early learning and child care programs are unified, communication vertically – across all of the age groupings under 6 as children make transitions from one class to another – is routine. For example, teachers share information about individual children under 3 when they move into the 3-5 year old program, just as they did when children moved from kindergarten to grade 1.
Previously, child care curriculum was not prescribed by policy, although individual programs may have had particular curricular approaches based on local program philosophy; kindergarten programs generally had clear expectations for learning outcomes but were fairly child-centred programs with play-based activities. Elementary school curriculum was usually prescriptive as to content, expectations or outcomes. Now, the program frameworks are developmental in orientation offering a consistent theoretical underpinning throughout the early years. The curricular and pedagogical framework for children of 0-6 years now includes the following:
• Statements of principles and values that guide early learning and child care programs.
• Policies that establish program standards covering staff to child ratios, educator qualifications, health and safety provisions, indoor and outdoor learning environments. These policies are made available to parents.
• The broad goals that the program pursues includes the attitudes, dispositions, skills and knowledge that children at different ages can be expected to attain across all five developmental areas – social, emotional, physical, learning and language, recognizing a developmental continuum rather than age-specific milestones;
• Pedagogical guidelines outlining the processes through which children achieve these outcomes; for example, through experiential learning, open, play-based programming. These guidelines now describe how educators support children in their learning through adult interaction and involvement; family involvement, centre and group management; providing enriched learning environments; programs for small group experiences; and theme or project methodology for leading children to conceptual understanding.
• At the local level, curriculum incorporates local concerns, languages and culture. Early childhood professionals work with parents to develop a specific curriculum approach that is consistent with the provincial/territorial guidelines and evaluate their own performance and children’s development. The development and delivery of specific programs and activities to achieve the broad curricular goals are determined at the local level – along with the approach. Some implement specific curriculum approaches for example, High Scope, Reggio Emilia, or Montessori.
The changes went beyond the introduction of a curriculum framework. There was recognition, emphasized in a government Report that schools needed to be transformed to be “ready for students”. Schools are now engaged in shifting focus from the idea of “school readiness” in reference to the state of the child to the idea of the school being ready to receive a community’s children through ongoing engagement with parents and community organizations and agencies.
13
Workforce ReformPrior to 2005, two discussions dominated the field of early childhood education. The first centred on issues of recruitment and retention of child care staff in the face of stagnant wages, few benefits and poor working conditions; and the second focused on how to provide a more highly qualified workforce to meet these growing challenges.
The OECD Report delivered in 2004 as well as the federal government’s report concluded that the current pre- and in-service training for the early years professions had not kept pace with more complex demands, nor did it sufficiently equip staff to respond to the social, economic and cultural challenges facing today’s families with young children. Most of the discussion focused on finding career paths for early childhood educators with diplomas through easier access to degree-level programs.
The introduction of sustained public investment in early learning and care in 2005 led to narrowing the gap in training and pay differentials between the professions because they became members of the same unions which negotiated salary scales based on experience, qualifications and specific work responsibilities.
School principals were offered training and new resources to support their leadership to all teachers involved in early years’ programs. This was achieved through special courses and professional development opportunities on a regular basis. Experience teaching the younger children also became identified as an important criteria for a promotion to the position of principal.
Beginning in 2005, funding for early years programs substantially increased making the prospect of attaining higher level qualifications a valid option for early childhood educators. The third step, then, was to reform the education and training for all staff working with children under 6 years old. There are now three qualifications for senior teachers of young children. Senior teachers, as they are called, have one of the following options for credentials:
a) A 4-year university degree, plus a teaching certificate, holding an Additional Qualification specialist in Early Childhood Education;
b) A 5-year Bachelor of Education with a specialist in Early Childhood Education
c) A 4-year university degree in Early Childhood Studies, plus an Early Childhood Education Diploma and/or a teaching certificate.
Additional educators who must have diplomas in Early Childhood Education and/or Special Needs are integrated into the local staff teams. These educators work in the program alongside the senior teachers so that all staff working with young children have training appropriate to their roles and responsibilities.
By 2010, most provinces have adopted the seamless day model with teams of teachers. Certified teachers and early childhood educators were given a six-year window to complete their upgrading qualifications, where necessary, to meet the new standards.
Based on the experience in other countries, the government had discussed the possibility of a more major workforce reform which would move the workforce towards one “core” profession whose members work across all centre-based early learning and child care programs, not just in “education” or in “child care”. The government Report recommended that eventually all staff working with children under 6 should pursue a four-year degree
...all teachers would take
the same basic training
for the first year and a half
of course work and then
specialize in specific
subject areas or early
childhood work.
14
towards the same “core” profession. They envisioned that all teachers would take the same basic training for the first year and a half of course work and then specialize in specific subject areas or early childhood work. Existing teachers with early childhood specialization certification and professionals with a degree in Early Childhood Studies would continue to teach in the classroom while the transition to the new qualification occurred. But, the government Report recognized that this would have to be a later step.
Toward The Seamless Day ProgramThe following stories of two families show us what difference the new early learning system makes for children and families.
Awet was born in Toronto. His parents were refugees from Eritrea. His mother, Tigist, a health care aide working in a nursing home, took parental leave so that she could care for her son in the first year of his life. The maximum federal Employment Insurance of $413 per week was significantly less than her prior average earnings and so her husband Bairu, worked overtime hours at the airport to lessen the impact of his wife’s income loss.
Tigist often took Awet to the drop-in program for parents and children at the local school where Awet’s sister, Sawee, who had been enrolled in all program segments of the Early Years’ Centre before Awet’s birth, now attended the Early Learning and Care program segments. Tigist developed friendships with other parents some who were on parental leave and others who had stepped out of the work world. They learned new activities that enhance children’s development, shared insights into the issues they faced as parents and watched with pride as their children flourished. Tigist made a point of being at the drop-in on Wednesdays until the noon school break so that she could provide a special treat for Saweep – lunch at home with a friend from school.
As the year progressed Tigist began to think about her return to work. Like many parents she had mixed feelings. Was Awet ready to be left for a full day? What would his experience be like? The staff of the drop-in program arranged an opportunity for working parents to share their experience of this first important transition in young children’s lives. Tigist was able not only to visit the child care programs within the Early Years Centre and get to know the staff but also to leave her son for parts of the day. When the time came for her full-time return to work, Tigist and Bairu had confidence in the choice they had made for the care of Awet.
The flexibility of program segments allows Tigist and Biaru to have both Awet and Saweep in the same Early Years Centre. They usually arrive before 8:00 am so that Tigist could begin work at 8:30 a.m. and left between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. The moderate fees of $3.00 for the breakfast program and $5.00 for the care and learning components allowed Bairu to give up his overtime shifts when Tigist returned to regular wages.
Awet and his sister, Saweep, attend first the morning breakfast program operated from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. Then Awet goes to his early learning program at 9 a.m. and Saweep goes to her Grade 1 class. Awet’s next-door neighbour, Paolo, who is also three years old does not attend for the whole day. Paolo’s grandmother lives with the family and takes care of Paolo while his parents work. Paolo attends the program from 9 a.m. till 3 p.m. when his grandmother picks him up and takes him home.
The program is seamless,
starting with the breakfast
program early in the morning;
engaging the children in
planned activities until lunch;
providing lunch in the same
facility; providing an afternoon
program to 3:30 p.m. and then
a relaxed after-school program
until parents finish work and
can pick up their children.
15
All three staff are called “teachers” and work side-by-side to create the program, plan activities, assess children and communicate with parents. They have different responsibilities and hours. Awet’s class includes two children with special needs playing alongside him and the other children. They are supported by an educational assistant with a community college “special needs” diploma. All three of the staff are at various levels of working towards upgrading their training to reach the new goals. Rose, the lead teacher, has a four-year bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Studies plus an early childhood education diploma from a community college. Sejel, a part-time teacher, has a four-year science degree plus a teaching certificate with specialization in early childhood studies. The other teacher, Michael, has a two-year community college early childhood education diploma.
The Early Years Centre operates fully all year round with staff vacations scheduled according to individual preference and the needs of the Centre.
The program is seamless, starting with the breakfast program early in the morning; engaging the children in planned activities until lunch; providing lunch in the same facility; providing an afternoon program to 3:30 p.m. and then a relaxed after-school program until parents finish work and can pick up their children. Some children opt for a part-time (mornings or afternoons only) program, while others just stay for the regular school day and others stay for the entire day. The program is also available on professional development days and school holidays.
The lead teacher, Rose, is accountable to the school principal for the quality and effectiveness of the early years’ programs. She supervises Centre staff, prepares staff schedules and oversees the child assessment processes. She manages relationships with the food service and community agencies.
At the end of the Grade 1 program each day, Saweep’s “seamless day” continues with attendance in the after-school club run by the school and supervised to ensure appropriate safety and security. There she is able to play with her friends, do homework in a quiet area, or join one of the many after-school activities offered, such as swimming, soccer, art, pottery, dance, musical instrument, computer games or chess, etc. Awet continues in his program until one of his parents picks him up after work.
Tigist’s and Bairu’s story of parenting and working remains unlike that of most families in Canada today. It is the dilemmas of David and Jennifer that still resonate with many parents.
David and Jennifer have four children. After staying home until the youngest was two years old, Jennifer was ready to return to paid work. As well as the importance of increasing the family’s income, Jennifer was well aware that the likelihood of being able to resume her professional career was reduced by every year she stayed out of the labour force. The two older children Michael and Karen, were in Grades 3 and 4 at the neighbourhood school. Since it had an after school day care program and a minimally supervised lunch program, Michael and Karen could stay where they were. David, a computer company sales person, could plan his work schedule to enable him to walk the older children to school around 8:30 am where they met up with friends in the school yard and later he met them back at home after the child care program ended.
But what about Tim and Samantha who were in Junior and Senior Kindergarten? Jennifer located an elementary school not far from her new office that had a childcare centre on site. Both the centre and the school had excellent reputations. Jennifer felt extremely fortunate to find that space would be available for the younger children, if she could make other arrangements until September. A newspaper ‘want ad’ turned up a qualified nurse seeking a short term home based position as a nanny. Jennifer interviewed and hired her. References were difficult to check
16
because of no previous experience in Canada. Although Jennifer was determined to provide proper wages and some benefits, the employment had to be ‘under the table’ because the nanny was a visitor without the legal right to gain employment. But the arrangement worked well for the first few months.
In September with Tim now in senior kindergarten and Samantha beginning Grade 1 the family began a new regimen of before school care, senior kindergarten, grade school and lunch programs and afternoon childcare. A gregarious child, Tim settled in quickly. Samantha’s experience was more painful. The school was much larger than her previous school and she felt lost as she tried to find her way from the breakfast program to her Grade 1 class and back again after school. She missed the sense of her older siblings looking out for her and was quite desperate for her friends in the old school in her home neighbourhood. After six weeks, David and Jennifer found their daughter’s sadness in the face of valiant efforts to adjust, too much to bear, and re-enrolled her in kindergarten in her original school. They prayed that the older children were sufficiently responsible to ensure that Samantha arrived home safely with them every day.
Although sometimes Jennifer wondered if all the juggling of work and activity schedules, arrangements for professional activity days and school holidays in two different schools and the high costs of child care and summer programs, was worth the effort, she felt sure that her children had adjusted well and tried hard to repress the nagging fear about her seven year old should she arrive home before either parent. At the end of the school year, an excited Tim asked if he could return to school with his sisters and brother since “I don’t need day care anymore”. Jennifer knew this would be easier for the parents and good for the siblings but she also wondered whether organizing and disrupting children’s lives around school and childcare services was the best we could do for the care and learning of young children.
Concerted efforts will be needed to bring about such a paradigm shift in the organization of care and education. The following action demands were supported by the 2005 Symposium on Integration in Toronto, Canada:
1. A call for a National Dialogue on Early Learning and Child Care in the context of Lifelong Learning
2. Active support of campaigns for additional public/direct funding for early learning and child care programs
3. Monitoring of curriculum initiatives to ensure they are consistent with program goals focused on the child’s needs
4. An overhaul of training and education for both early childhood educators and school teachers
5. Integration of all early learning and child care programs into one ministry/department so that barriers caused by exclusive silos can be eliminated.
17
INTRODUCTIONThe Integration Network Project was established to address one of the critical issues in the development of Early Childhood Education and Care1
in Canada today: the abrupt division for kindergarten-age children between “care” programs in child care centres and “education” in public kindergarten. The Project’s focus is on seeking effective solutions to the problems and issues facing parents of kindergarten-age children.
It is recognized that any model for care and education of young children must take into account the need to link with both an early learning and care system for children from 0 to 6 as well as to the compulsory education system. Any restructuring of programs for kindergarten-age children must occur within the context of improvements to the entire system. This was stated as a key element of successful ECEC policy in the OECD publication Starting Strong:
A strong and equal partnership with the education system supports a lifelong learning approach from birth, encourages smooth transitions for children, and recognizes ECEC as an important part of the education process. Strong partnerships with the education system provide the opportunity to bring together the diverse
perspectives and methods of both ECEC and schools. (OECD, 2001, p. 5)
This paper explores some of the policy solutions to overcome the complex problems of disruption and inconsistency inhibiting the healthy development of children; the insecurity, inconvenience and stress for parents; the problems of status and salary differentials for teachers and caregivers; and the problems of duplication, policy inconsistency and inappropriate resource allocation for governments. It will review the context within which the problems exist. It will then review selected characteristics of program models in other OECD countries. The paper will then focus on proposing a vision and some policy options to achieve change.
The kinds of questions to think about include:
• What does a Seamless Day mean to you? What types of services would be available for kindergarten-age children in a seamless day model? (see page 41)
• How should integrated programs be financed? Who should pay? In what proportions? (See page 41)
• Should an integrated program retain the staff:child ratios of the Education System, the child care system, or should new staff:ratios be introduced? Are there other regulations that need to be addressed in an integrated system? (See page 42)
• What would an integrated system mean for the curriculum or program guidelines? (See page 43)
• Should the workforce be integrated or continue to be divided? If integrated, who will
1 This paper will use the definition of Early Childhood Education and Care provided in Starting Strong, the summary report from the recent OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care. The review which profiles policies and programs in 12 member countries sums it up as follows: “The term early childhood education and care (ECEC) includes all arrangements providing care and education of children under compulsory school age, regardless of setting, funding, opening hours, or programme content.
18
be the ‘core’ profession. (for example, a teacher, an early childhood educator or a new profession embodying teaching and early childhood education? (See page 44)
• Should there be different levels of professionals (e.g. early education teacher and assistant early educator)? (See page 45)
• What kind of qualifications and training should professionals working in integrated programs have? Degrees? Diplomas? A mixture? (See page 45)
• What kind of research would be appropriate to conduct in relation to “integration” systems? (See page 46)
• Which Ministry/Department should have overall responsibility in an integrated system?
• What safeguards would you suggest? (See page 47)
Please use the bulletin board section of the website to post your comments and feedback.
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) RecommendationsThe OECD Canada Report, tabled in October 2004, focused attention on the problems created by the two solitudes: Education and Child Care.
The OECD Report, Early Childhood Education and Care Policy: Canada: Country Note (2004) (OECD 2004) stressed the need to heal the rift between kindergarten programs and child care and emphasized the need to:
Build bridges between child care and kindergarten education, with the aim of integrating ECEC both at ground level and at policy and management levels. (OECD, p.7)
There is recognition that learning begins at birth and that it is important to provide developmental opportunities at a young age, but North America does not have good models of integrated early learning and care programs. Historically in Canada, policies for the “care” and “education” of young children have developed very separately with different systems of governance, funding streams and training for staff. Both provincially and locally, responsibility for early childhood services is often divided among several ministries/departments, based more on the traditional divisions of governments than on the needs of families and young children.
This fragmentation produces different problems for young children, parents, educators/staff, and even governments. In practice, many programs offering similar curricula for children of the same age operate side by side in each of the two streams (“child care” and “education”) merely separated by a classroom or a hallway. Often, children are shuffled from one program before school, to kindergarten in the public education system for 2-1/2 hours, and then back to child care for the balance of the day until their parents come to take them home. Even where “child care” programs occupy space in the same schools as the kindergarten programs, teachers and educators often have very little communication, if any, about the content and curriculum in their programs, let alone case conferences about individual children.
Even where “child care” programs
occupy space in the same schools as
the kindergarten programs, teachers
and educators often have very little
communication, if any, about the
content and curriculum in their
programs, let alone case confe rences
about individual children.
19
The negative consequences of this fragmentation and inconsistency for both children and families have been well documented. In addition, linkages with other child-related programs and services such as maternity and parental leaves, public health, family support, parent and parenting programs, social services and employment policies are virtually non-existent.
This paper will therefore attempt to generate a Canada-wide discussion about the possibilities of policy change for this age group in order to bring about integration. Full conceptual and structural integration of programs is at the far end of a long continuum that starts with communication, may involve co-location, then more collaboration, coordination, joint working through to full integration. Eliminating fragmentation will involve a process of integration. In the past, terms such as “coordination”, “collaboration”, “partnership” and “integration” have often been used interchangeably. In the context of services for young children, coordination, collaboration and partnership characterizes situations in which two or more organizations work together, through a formal or informal arrangement, to meet one or more goals. The goal for resolving the fragmentation of the child’s day requires more than coordination; it requires both structural and conceptual integration. But the route to achieving it will, in all likelihood, involve a process of greater coordination and collaboration ultimately leading to full integration.
Integration is defined as both “structural and conceptual” integration such as common intake and ‘seamless’ service delivery. Structural integration occurs when the child receives a range of services from different programs without repeated registration procedures, waiting periods, different philosophies, human resource practices and funding systems. Experiences from countries, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, indicate that a simple switch into one jurisdiction or ministry will not guarantee “integration”. The ‘conceptual’ aspect of integration will be key to an effective integration process.
In the case of the ‘split day’ for kindergarten-aged children, so common in Canada, the need for full integration is urgent. Splitting the bulk of the child’s day between one program (kindergarten) mandated to provide “learning” for preschool children and another program (child care) which provides ‘care’ for children while their parents work is redundant, cost-ineffective and unhealthy for optimal child development. It would be more effective to have one program for the child for at least six hours a day which focuses on broad development goals, not just cognitive goals; a program that can also provide extended hours to meet the needs of working parents and offer access on a part-time basis.
Splitting the bulk of the child’s day
between one program (kindergarten)
mandated to provide “learning”
for preschool children and another
program (child care) which provides
‘care’ for children while their parents
work is redundant, cost-ineffective
and unhealthy for optimal child
development.
20
Sum
mar
izing
the C
anad
ian Co
ntex
t
2 The
follo
win
g ta
ble
sum
mar
izes
the
maj
or ty
pes
of E
CEC
serv
ices
ava
ilabl
e to
pre
scho
ol c
hild
ren
in C
anad
a.
Sum
mar
y of S
ervi
ce Ch
arac
teris
tics:
Kind
erga
rten
and
Child
Care
Serv
ice
Age
Char
acte
rist
ics
Prov
ince
/Ter
rito
ry
Free
Hal
f-da
y ki
nder
gart
en5
Rang
es b
etw
een
475
and
570
inst
ruct
iona
l hou
rs, a
vera
ging
2-1
/2 h
ours
pe
r day
; out
side
urb
an a
reas
pro
gram
s of
ten
offe
red
for a
full
day
on
alte
rnat
e da
ys to
redu
ce tr
ansp
orta
tion
cos
ts. W
orki
ng p
aren
ts h
ave
to
jugg
le to
mak
e su
re th
eir c
hild
ren
atte
nd k
inde
rgar
ten
and
rece
ive
child
ca
re
New
foun
dlan
d, P
EI, O
n, M
an, S
ask,
A
lta,
BC,
Yuk
on, N
WT,
Nun
avut
Free
Ful
l-da
y ki
nder
gart
en5
Nov
a Sc
otia
off
ers
a m
inim
um o
f 4 h
ours
per
day
; (us
ually
8:0
0 a.
m. t
o 2:
30 p
.m.)
New
Bru
nsw
ick
832.
5 in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
/yea
r; Q
uebe
c 84
6 in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
/yea
r.
NS,
NB
, Que
bec;
fran
coph
one
scho
ols
boar
ds in
Ont
ario
; Nun
avut
al
so o
ffer
s up
to 6
hou
rs/d
ay in
so
me
plac
es.
Juni
or k
inde
rgar
ten
(Ont
ario
), N
urse
ry c
lass
es
(Man
itob
a), P
re-k
inde
rgar
ten
(Sas
katc
hew
an),
Pre
-
4A
ppro
xim
atel
y 50
% o
f 4 y
ear o
lds
atte
nd p
ublic
kin
derg
arte
nU
nive
rsal
ly o
ffer
ed b
y sc
hool
bo
ards
in O
ntar
io; o
ffer
ed in
oth
er
prov
ince
s in
are
as o
f dis
adva
ntag
e;
pre-
kind
erga
rten
s in
Sas
k. fo
r
Prim
ary
(Nov
a Sc
otia
)ex
ampl
e. P
ilot p
roje
cts
at 1
9 si
tes
in
Nov
a Sc
otia
.
21
Publ
ic k
inde
rgar
ten
oper
ated
in
chi
ld c
are
cent
res
5Fu
nded
by
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
cati
on; l
icen
sed
and
mon
itor
ed b
y D
epar
tmen
t of H
ealt
h an
d So
cial
Ser
vice
s; ta
ught
by
child
car
e st
aff.
50%
of
chi
ldre
n th
en c
onti
nue
to p
arti
cipa
te in
chi
ld c
are
for t
he re
st o
f the
day
on
a fe
e fo
r ser
vice
bas
is. S
yste
m im
prov
es th
e tr
ansi
tion
s fo
r par
ents
and
ch
ildre
n. T
each
ers
are
requ
ired
to h
old
a m
inim
um o
f a tw
o-ye
ar d
iplo
ma
in
Earl
y Ch
ildho
od E
duca
tion
. Wag
es a
re v
ery
low
(av
erag
ing
$12
per h
our i
n 20
05)
Pare
nts
pay
for t
he n
on-k
inde
rgar
ten
part
of t
he d
ay
PEI
Wra
p-ar
ound
if c
hild
ren
are
in
the
“edu
cati
on”
syst
em4
&
5Sc
hool
boa
rds
orga
nize
and
ope
rate
wra
p-ar
ound
chi
ld c
are
for a
ll ch
ildre
n en
rolle
d in
pub
lic k
inde
rgar
ten
prog
ram
s. F
ees
are
$7 p
er d
ayQu
ebec
– (
$7 p
er d
ay)
Wra
p-ar
ound
chi
ld c
are
oper
ated
by
inde
pend
ent
prog
ram
s in
sch
ools
4 &
5
Som
e sc
hool
boa
rds/
dist
rict
s re
nt s
pace
to in
depe
nden
t chi
ld c
are
or
scho
olag
e pr
ogra
ms
to fa
cilit
ate
tran
siti
ons
betw
een
publ
ic k
inde
rgar
ten
and
child
car
e. P
resc
hool
chi
ld c
are
fees
app
ly.
On a
dis
cret
iona
ry b
asis
acr
oss
the
coun
try
Mix
ed s
yste
m o
f fre
e ki
nder
gart
en in
chi
ld c
are
cent
res
run
by s
choo
ls a
nd
fund
ed b
y th
e M
inis
try
of
Educ
atio
n
2-5
Cert
ifie
d ki
nder
gart
en te
ache
r goe
s to
chi
ld c
are
cent
re ra
ther
than
vic
e ve
rsa.
Alb
erta
; occ
asio
nally
in O
ntar
io,
one
cent
re in
Win
nipe
g.
Child
Car
e4
&
5So
me
pare
nts
keep
thei
r chi
ldre
n in
chi
ld c
are
cent
res
for t
he k
inde
rgar
ten
year
s ra
ther
than
scr
ambl
e w
ith
diff
icul
t arr
ange
men
ts. P
aren
ts w
ho d
o no
t qu
alif
y fo
r a s
ubsi
dy h
ave
to p
ay h
igh
fees
, ave
ragi
ng $
450
p.m
.
All
prov
ince
s/te
rrit
orie
s
Hal
f-da
y fr
ee k
inde
rgar
ten
in s
choo
ls a
nd h
alf-
day
‘fee
for s
ervi
ce’ k
inde
rgar
ten
in
scho
ols
5U
sual
ly o
pera
ted
by s
choo
l dis
tric
ts w
ith
cert
ifie
d te
ache
rs. O
ne h
alf o
f the
da
y is
off
ered
for a
fee
rang
ing
betw
een
$310
and
$49
0 p.
m.
BC
Priv
ate
scho
ols
reco
gniz
ed b
y M
inis
try
of E
duca
tion
(ca
n be
in
a c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
)
4 &
5
Kind
erga
rten
cur
ricu
lum
taug
ht b
y a
cert
ifie
d te
ache
r wit
hin
a ch
ild c
are
cent
re; b
ut o
pera
ted
as a
pri
vate
sch
ool.
BC,
Ont
ario
Free
kin
derg
arte
n: h
alf-
day
taug
ht b
y ce
rtif
ied
teac
hers
; ha
lf-da
y op
erat
ed b
y qu
alif
ied
earl
y ch
ildho
od e
duca
tors
.
5Cl
ose
coor
dina
tion
bet
wee
n th
e ki
nder
gart
en a
nd c
hild
car
e te
ache
rs. T
he
child
car
e st
aff e
arn
high
er w
ages
than
thei
r cou
nter
part
s in
loca
l chi
ld
care
cen
tres
, but
low
er th
an c
erti
fied
teac
hers
.
The
rati
onal
e fo
r thi
s pr
ogra
m is
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f ret
enti
on, r
ecru
itm
ent
and
expa
nsio
n of
the
Fren
ch la
ngua
ge.
Mos
t Fra
ncop
hone
Sch
ool B
oard
s ac
ross
Can
ada.
2
Mor
e de
tails
abo
ut a
rran
gem
ents
for E
CEC
prog
ram
s in
the
prov
ince
s an
d te
rrit
orie
s ca
n be
foun
d in
App
endi
x B
.
22
Key Features: KindergartenKindergarten programs are well established and the only truly universal ECEC program offered to Canadian children under the age of six. However, they are viewed exclusively as “educational” programs with no attempt to meet employment needs of working parents. Kindergarten is clearly very well accepted by parents and beneficial to children (98% of 5 year olds attend) but it is separated geographically, jurisdictionally and culturally from other ECEC programs. As a result, kindergarten children may participate in several ECEC settings during the day (e.g., before kindergarten, kindergarten, after kindergarten). Depending on the arrangements this can be difficult and stressful for children and parents. There were an estimated 469,000 children enrolled in Canadian Kindergartens (including pre-kindergartens) in 2003/4 mostly part-time. Expenditures were estimated in 2001 at $1.5 billion (Doherty, Friendly & Beach, 2003) Average class sizes vary across the country but range between 15 in the Yukon up to 25 in Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island kindergarten classes have adopted the legislated child care staff:child ratios of 1: 2 children. (Friendly et al, 2002)
All provinces/territories have curriculum or program goals for kindergartens. The OECD: Background Report observed that:
Statements of desired child outcomes for kindergarten tend to exhibit commonality across the provinces/territories in their goals – assisting children to develop a positive self-concept, a positive attitude towards learning, an understanding of appropriate social behaviour with peers and with adults, communication skills that set the foundation for learning to read and write, an understanding of numbers and of basic concepts such as length and weight, and some basic understanding of the community in which they live. These goals all reflect the objective of providing children with the basic skills for success in grade one and are consistent in intent with the goal of the early kindergartens established in the late 1800s. (Canada: Background Report, 2004, p.33)
• Quebec is the only province or territory which has attempted administrative integration between the two systems. With the introduction of new Family Policy in 1997-98, jurisdiction for early childhood education was split at age 5. Children 0-4 attend child care programs run by the Ministère de l’Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille. At age 5, children can attend non-compulsory, full-school day kindergarten in the Education System. In inner city schools, there are also pre-kindergarten programs for four year olds operating for half a day. The other half-day and after-school child care are spent in the school child care centre, which is part of the school system, run by the school boards with Principals having ultimate responsibility. School based child care centres are expected to meet the child care licensing requirements. As a result there is extensive coordination between the teachers and the child care staff.
• Prince Edward Island has also introduced an innovative model. Kindergarten in PEI operates for half a day in child care centres. Programs are taught by early childhood educators (minimum qualification two year early childhood education), is free to parents, maintains the child care ratios of 1 teacher to 12 children and permits children to stay in the child care centre for the balance of the day on a fee-for-service basis.
23
• Kindergartens do not undertake regular program evaluation. The focus is on assessment of individual children through report cards and testing at Grades 3, 6, 9 and 10 plus the national and international testing organized through the provincial and territorial education authorities. Often, a large amount of money is spent on the organization of such testing. Despite the dollars available for testing, there are very limited resources to do the extra follow up work to help children who are having problems to improve. (Cleveland, Colley, 2003)
• The Toronto First Duty Project is a partnership among City of Toronto, Toronto District School Board and participating City Agencies with funding support from Atkinson Foundation and the Canadian Autoworkers Union. It has developed a pilot project to integrate and expand early education, family support and child care activities in five neighbourhoods. This pilot project is designed to demonstrate how existing early childhood and family programs can be transformed into a system for children 0-6 years and to explore possible options for integration of kindergarten and other ECEC services. Each of the five sites: Bruce Woodgreen Early Learning Centre, Corvette Early Years, Queen Victoria Partners for Early Learning Project, York Early Years Wilcox Project and Action for Children Today and Tomorrow Secord-Dawes Hub has engaged in activities to bring together and integrate early years services to children and families in their respective communities. (City of Toronto, Toronto First Duty, 2004)
• As an example, at the Bruce WoodGreen Early Learning Centre, the kindergarten classrooms were licensed to meet provincial child care regulations to provide extended programming. Parents are encouraged to take part in their children’s activities and to participate in the parenting and family literacy activities which serve children 0-6 years. Qualified teachers and early childhood educators work side by side with each other, collaborate on program and curriculum and parent communication. There is also an active parenting and literacy program where parents can bring their children for daily activities. For children who stay in the program beyond the school day, Bruce WoodGreen has adopted the Quebec model and is charging parents a fee of $6 for the full six hour school day and an additional $6 per day for the extended hours period of child care.
• Unfortunately, Toni Schweitzer’s experience is not shared by many parents of kindergarten-aged children in Canada, because kindergarten programs are separated physically jurisdictionally and culturally from other ECEC programs. As a result, kindergarten children may participate in several ECEC settings during the day. Many
Toni Schweitzer can’t believe how lucky she is to have a fantastic kindergarten
program for her four-year-old twins. The program runs from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. at
the local community school where certified teachers and early childhood educators
work side by side to offer a child-centred program that covers her entire working
day. The program is part of Toronto First Duty, a pilot project operating in five sites
in Toronto, bringing together and integrating early years services to children and
families in their communities. This three-year project is designed to demonstrate
how existing early childhood and family programs can be transformed into a
system for children 0-6 years and to explore possible options for integration of
kindergarten and other early childhood education and care (ECEC) services.
24
programs offering similar curricula operate side by side in two streams, fee-based child care and publicly funded education, separated merely by a classroom or hallway. Often children move from child care before school to kindergarten for 2-1/2 hours, then back to child care for the balance of the day. Even where a child care program occupies space in the same school as the kindergarten program, teachers and educators communicate very little about the content, curriculum, or individual children. The result is fragmentation that is stressful for children, parents and teachers.
Fee for service half-day Kindergarten in British Columbia, taught by certified teachers, has emerged in several BC school districts offering an additional half-day kindergarten program for fees ranging between $310 and $490 per month.
Key Features: Regulated Centre-based Child CareIn Canada, outside Quebec, child care services are largely a market service with some governmental regulation and subsidization of low-income families or families deemed to be “at risk”. Programs are provided in child care centres, nursery schools and family homes, licensed by the provincial government and regulated under the Day Nurseries Act. There is a mixture of municipal, private for-profit and not-for-profit programs.
The care services in Canada are based on a fee-for-service arrangement. Fees in the regulated sector range between $154 (Quebec) to $600 (Northwest Territories) a month for kindergarten-agedd children. (Friendly and Beach, 2005) Usually, child care programs charge parents for the full day even if they are taken to kindergarten in the school for part of the day.
• Regulated child care in Canada is governed by child care legislation and regulations in each province and territory. This legislation provides for licensing, monitoring and enforcement. The regulations set out the standards and regulations for the operation of these group programs, including maximum child:staff ratios, group sizes, minimum staff qualification requirements and guidelines for parental involvement.
• In most provinces and territories, a social services/family/children’s ministry is responsible for developing policy and legislation, coordinating planning, licensing child care programs, ensuring compliance with the regulations and administering funding. Often there are decentralized ministries with regional offices. Ministry officials based in the regions license child care programs, monitor them and enforce the legislation and regulations through an annual license renewal process to ensure compliance with the regulatory standards.
• The Northwest Territories is the only jurisdiction in which the Department of Education is responsible for both child care and education.
• At present statistics are not collected on enrolment of children by their actual age so it is unclear how many kindergarten-aged children are enrolled in regulated or unregulated child care programs. In 2003/4, there were an estimated 745,250 licensed spaces for children in Canada aged 0-12; an estimated 149,000 families receive some fee subsidy. There are also waiting lists for fee subsidies in most places. (Friendly and Beach, 2005)
• Quality in child care centres is typically measured for research and evaluation purposes using scales such as the Infant-Toddler Environments Rating Scale (ITERS) and the
...child care services are
largely a market service with
some governmental regulation
and subsidization of
low-income families...
25
Early Childhood Environments Rating Scale (ECERS) and the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS). The ITERS, ECERS and FDCRS scales are 7-point scales, where a score of 1 represents inadequate, 3 represents minimal, 5 represents good and 7 represents excellent. Following the publication of the You Bet I Care Study, some provinces and territories used federal funding to work on improving quality. A number of initiatives were taken ranging from a wage enhancement grant in New Brunswick to an accreditation system in Alberta.
Family Home Child CareMany kindergarten-age children use family child care in a caregiver’s home (both regulated and unregulated) before and/or after kindergarten. Fee subsidies for low-income parents are also available in regulated family homes or in ‘registered’ homes in British Columbia.
A large number of children spend more than 7 hours a day in unregulated care, supplemented only by 2-1/2 hours of public kindergarten. As the OECD Report pointed out this raises serious problems because the research shows that unregulated care in all OECD countries is of lower quality than regulated care. They also observed that it raised equity issues because public funding of provision reaches only a very limited number of families. The quality of a system must also include equitable outcomes. Access cannot be a preserve for the fortunate children in recognized settings, but for all families and young children seeking child care. (OECD, 2004)
Children with Special NeedsKindergarten-age children with special needs are also accommodated within the regulated child care system. Most provincial/territorial governments encourage integration and inclusion of children with special needs into community child care services, but provide insufficient resources to meet the needs. Special needs funding programs provide assistance for staffing, equipment, supplies or services to support the inclusion of children with special needs in child care.
Aboriginal Child CarePrograms on reserve are usually administered under agreements between First Nations communities and the federal government. Some provinces license on-reserve child care; other provinces do not license but provide support. Licensed child care centres and family child care off reserve also serve aboriginal children.
Support Services (Family Resource Centres, etc.)Family resource centres , Early Learning Centres, Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, Community Action Program for Children (CAP-C) and a variety of prevention and intervention programs provide various support services to parents, public education, and programs for specific target groups. Most of these are not, strictly speaking, providing either education or care services to preschool children (and are therefore not included in the OECD definition above), but they may provide related services, which influence child development in different ways. Some of these programs are operated by provincial/territorial/municipal governments, others by non-profit agencies and some by the federal government. Coherence of these programs within an overall system of services is typically lacking. Some of these programs carry small user fees.
26
Funding
• The operation of child care programs tends to be driven by funding and financing issues. Unlike kindergarten in the schools, parents must pay for child care. This leaves child care programs subject to the vagaries of the market place, placing considerable emphasis on ensuring tha t the revenues will cover expenditures.
• The main form of funding available in the regulated child care sector is fee assistance paid directly to licensed service providers on behalf of parents, whose eligibility for subsidy is determined by an income or needs test. Income ceilings and other factors vary from one province/territory to the other. Most parents receiving a fee subsidy are also charged a user fee. Some provinces/territories do not require financial eligibility as a condition for subsidizing care for children with special needs; other provinces require financial eligibility for the basic fee but will support assistance for the additional supports.
The following table summarizes the essential differences between public kindergartens and regulated child care programs:
Arrangements for Kindergarten-Age Children at a Glance
Differences Between Public Kindergartens and Regulated Child Care Programs
Issue Education Child Care
Departmental Ministry of Education Various : Ministry of Social Services/Family/Children’s Services
Curricular/program guidelines Wide variations across the country3 Virtually non-existent except for Quebec
Regulatory Delegated to superintendents of education
Regulated by provincial/territorial legislation.
Access Universal entitlement Fee-for-service and subsidy based
Funding Publicly funded Fee-for-service and government subsidies for low-income and at risk children, plus a small portion of special grants.
Human Resources All teachers must have a degree plus teacher certification.
One or two-year community college diploma in child care. Not all staff are qualified.
Wages and Working Conditions Average wages in 2000: $53,764. Full benefits, school holidays; career ladder
Average wages $19,000 pa (Sector Council 2004); 37-40 hour week; 2 weeks vacation; generally no benefits; no career ladder.
Pedagogical Approach No systematic approach in either sector
No systematic approach in either sector
Community linkages Minimal in both sectors Full of seams!
Program Delivery
3 Links to provincial/territorial websites containing details of curricular/program guidelines for kindergarten programs are available on the Project website at www.inproject.ca.
27
Summarizing What the Research Tells UsImportance of the Early Years
• All children are born wired for feelings and ready to learn; early environments matter, and nurturing relationships are essential; society is changing, and the needs of young children are not being addressed; interactions among early childhood science, policy, and practice are problematic and demand new interdisciplinary approaches (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000)
• The period between birth and age six is a critical one when children acquire the essential language and cognitive skills needed to learn reading and mathematics as well as the ability to cope socially and to interact well with teachers and other children (McCain and Mustard, 1999)
• Children who go to Grade I with these skills are more likely to take advantage of the learning opportunities offered; children who do not demonstrate these skills are more likely to risk later difficulties in school. (Doherty, 1997)
• Early development has a significant impact on mental and physical health later in life. (Health Canada, 2000).
• School readiness should not be focused on the narrow goals of cognitive development but broadened to encompass a definition, which takes into account the development of the whole child.
Children are ready for school when, for a period of several years, they have been exposed to consistent, stable adults who are emotionally invested in them; to a physical environment that is safe and predictable; to regular routines and rhythms of activity; to competent peers; and to materials that stimulate their exploration and enjoyment of the world and from which they derive a sense of mastery. These factors alone would be better indices of readiness for school than any measurable aspect of child performance. (Pianta & Walsh, 1996, p. 34).
• Recognition that it’s not just poor children who need early learning experiences. For example, the data from the Early Development Instrument administered in North York, Ontario in 2003 indicated that about 32% of all children (approximately one out of three) scored poorly on two or more of the measures and were judged likely to have future problems. (TDSB, 2003);
• Parental input is a key factor in language and literacy development (Sylva et al 2000). When parents are sensitive to children’s needs, encourage independence, are non-authoritarian or highly controlling, not too permissive (overly nurturing with few standards for child behaviour), children get large benefits. Many parents need knowledgeable advice to support their children’s learning and development. Parenting skills and socio-economic status are not highly correlated; low incomes do not play a strong role in determining parenting abilities. (Willms, 2002) Any new system model clearly needs to be more creative in providing support to parents – all parents.
28
Quality• Quality early education experiences – whether at home, in child care, preschool,
kindergarten or child care – help prepare children to succeed later in school. (Meisels, 1999; NRC, 2001, Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000)
• The 2001 OECD review of early childhood care and education in twelve countries concluded that “children who receive high quality care and education in their early years show better cognitive and language abilities than those in lower quality arrangements.” (OECD, 2001)
• High quality child care “is associated with outcomes that all parents want to see in their children ranging from co-operation with adults, to the ability to initiate and sustain positive exchanges with peers, to early competence in math and reading.” (Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000)
• The large-scale Canadian study, You Bet I Care, found that higher levels of staff sensitivity were associated with: higher staff wages; teaching staff with higher levels of ECCE-specific education; better benefits; higher staff levels of satisfaction with their relationships with colleagues and the centre as a work environment; the centre being used as a student-teacher practicum site; the centre receiving subsidized rent and/or utilities (a factor that allows higher wages); the centre having favourable staff:child ratios; and the centre being non-profit. Strikingly, the mean scores did not approach excellent in any province or territory.
• The Trust for Early Education (TEE) in the U.S. concluded that pre-kindergarten teachers with bachelor’s degrees and specialized training in child development raise pre-kindergarten program quality and result in better outcomes for children. (Whitebook, 2003)
• A study of pre-kindergarten staffing in California, Georgia, Chicago, New York, and Texas found that teachers employed in publicly-operated programs attained more formal education, received higher wages and benefits and experienced greater job stability than did their counterparts in privately-operated programs. (Belim et al, 2002)
• A Report for the U.S. National Research Council (National Academy of Science) suggests that bringing the practice in line with the theory about what is needed to realize the full potential of preschoolers will require efforts in: professional development of teachers; development of teaching materials that reflect research-based understandings of children’s learning; development of public policies that support the provision of quality preschool experiences (such as standards, appropriate assessment, regulations and funding), and communication of the recent research and knowledge about the importance of developments in the preschool years. (Bowman et al, 2001)
• Auspice also matters. A recent study indicates that “on average there appears to be a substantial difference in quality between commercial and non-profit centres”. (Cleveland and Krashinsky, 2004, p.1)
High quality child care “is associated
with outcomes that all parents want to
see in their children ranging from co-
operation with adults, to the ability to
initiate and sustain positive exchanges
with peers, to early competence in
math and reading.”
29
Full Day or Half-Day Kindergarten• Very little research has been conducted in Canada, but in 1998, the Caledon Institute of
Social Policy study comparing kindergarten and child care programs in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta concluded that:
• A majority of both kindergarten and child care programs received acceptable to good (ECERS-R) scores in the program observations, although child care scores in New Brunswick and Quebec raised concerns.
• Provincial jurisdiction (Education or Social Services) made a difference in that kindergarten quality was more dependable across the country, probably because teacher certification results in more program similarity province-to-province;
• That the presence of trained staff was the most important predictor of quality in both child care and kindergarten;
• Parents and educators agreed that social features (cooperating and sharing with others) and language activities were the most important aspects of early childhood education. Learning to read and write was ranked at the low end; either 19th or 20th out of 20 program elements by both groups.
• Program integration in early childhood education is no more expensive than split provision and may cost less per child.
• Parents supported a new program model combining full-day, year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten-aged.
• The Caledon study of kindergarten and child care in four provinces found that three-quarters of parents supported the idea of a full-day integrated program. (Johnson and Mathien, 1999).
• The rapid U.S. growth in expansion of full-day kindergarten programs has engendered many studies. In 1969, in the U.S. kindergarteners usually attended short half-day programs. Only 11% were in full-day programs (more than four hours, but usually closer to six). By 2000, the percentage enrolled in full-day programs had grown to 60%. (U.S. Census Bureau of Population, 2001) The majority of studies conducted on the impact of full day kindergarten on children are extremely positive. To summarize, full-day programs:
• Provide a relaxed, unhurried school day with more time for a variety of experiences,
• Allow more time for assessment opportunities and for quality interaction between adults and children.
• Were welcomed by parents who pointed out a number of advantages: no more shuttling children from school to an afternoon babysitter or worrying about whether their child had been safely picked up.
• Allow children and teachers time to explore topics in depth, reduces the ratio of transition time to class time;
• Provide for greater continuity of day-to-day activities; and
• Provide an environment that favours a child-centered, developmentally appropriate approach. (Holmes and McConnell, 1990; Karweit, 1992; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Weiss & Offenberg, 2002; Welsh, 2002; Humphrey, 1983; Herman 1984)
30
Curricular and Pedagogical Frameworks Matter• Broad developmental goals were identified by the United States National Education Goals
Panel in 1997 (NEGP, 1997). The goals contributing to the child’s overall development and later success in school include: health and physical development; emotional well-being and social competence; positive approaches to learning; communication skills; cognition and general knowledge.
• Effective pedagogy includes the provision of enriched learning and play environments, freely-chosen activities by children and responsive accompaniment of children by educators who guide, inform, model and instruct, but do not dominate the child’s thinking. At the same time there is some evidence that endorses a greater emphasis on basic skills and direct instruction or teacher/adult-directed activities, particularly for children living in economically disadvantaged families where literacy is not modelled and valued. (Stanovich, 1993) The overall evidence, based on empirical research, does not support a basic skills approach over a child-centred approach if the goal is overall optimal child development. It does suggest the need to ensure basic skills are embedded in the program.
• The social pedagogue sets out to address the whole child, the child with body, mind, emotions, creativity, history and social identity, e.g. German Bildung define it as “a comprehensive process of developing the abilities which enable human beings to learn, develop their achievement potential, to act, to solve problems and to form relationships”. (Bundesjugendkuratorium u.a., 2002).
• Despite the apparent expert consensus that curricular emphasis for young children should be focused on broad developmental goals, the OECD identified two different traditions during the 12-country review. These trends are summarized in the Table below. The ‘social pedagogy’ approach tends to emphasize broad development goals, which contribute to children’s overall development. The pre-primary approach tends to place more emphasis on focussed cognitive goals such as mathematical development, language and literacy. (Bennett, 2004)
Pre-Primary Tradition Social pedagogy tradition
Centralised development of curriculum with frequently detailed goals and outcomes.
A broad central guideline with local curriculum development encouraged and supported
A focus on learning standards, especially in areas useful for school readiness. Teacher-child relationships tend to be instrumentalised through reaching for detailed curriculum goals
Focus on broad developmental goals as well as learning are stressed, interactivity with educators and peers encouraged and the quality of life in the institution is given high importance.
Often prescriptive: clear outcomes are set at national/provincial/territorial level to be reached in all centres.
Broad orientations rather than prescribed outcomes. A diffusion of goals may be experienced, with diminished accountability.
Assessment often required. Goals are clearly defined. Graded assessment of each child with respect to discrete competences is an important part of the teacher’s role.
Assessment not required. Goals are broad. Outcomes for each child are set by negotiation (educator-parent-child) and informally evaluated unless screening is necessary. A growing focus on individual language and communication competences.
Source: Bennett, 2004.
31
• According to the OECD review, Canada’s kindergarten and child care programs share similar broad development goals described in broad program statements. In practice, they tend to blend aspects of this preschool tradition and the social pedagogy tradition. For example, in kindergarten programs, curricular and child:staff ratios are less constraining. Kindergarten teachers organize children in small work groups and pursue broader developmental aims. Buildings and resources are generously funded. Some provinces and territories do however aim for more detailed and narrow outcomes, e.g. that children by the age of 5 years should know their letters; count fluently; have a knowledge of basic phonics and be able to read and/or write a range of familiar words. Curriuclum and pedagogical approaches in Canadian child care centres are quite varied and run the gamut from pre-primary, (structured, adult-directed curricula that focus on basic skills such as letter recognition, letter-sound associations, counting and printing) to social pedagogy (very open-ended, child-directed programs that follow the child’s interests.)
• Children may be able to take on the challenge of a focussed cognitive curriculum, but the prescribed detailed literacy goals for all young children may put undue pressure on educators and children. (Wood, 2004; Schweinhart & Welkart, 1997). When begun too early, literacy instruction may actually harm the self-concept of young children, leading to anxiety, low self-esteem and mediocre literacy results.
• There’s a need to guide the staff in centres, especially when they have low certification and little training. A curriculum helps to ensure that staff cover important learning areas, adopt a common pedagogical approach and reach for a certain level of quality across age groups and regions of the country.
• At present, Quebec is the only province to include a curricular requirement in its child care legislation. But, most educational jurisdictions do have kindergarten curricular or program guidelines. There is a wide variation across the country ranging from the “social pedagogy” approach to the “pre-primary” approach as expressed by Bennett in the table above. There seems to be a wide variation depending on the current curriculum emphasis, the materials and resources available and, in particular, the size of the classroom. Experts in curriculum indicate that it is very difficult for educators to deliver a play-based curriculum with a choice of activities for children when there is one teacher to over 20 children. (Bennett, 2004). One of the key recommendations of the OECD Canada Country Note was to develop national curricular guidelines.
• The social pedagogic approach to curriculum is found in the Nordic and central European countries. In the US there has in recent years been a swing towards a pre-elementary school approach, giving rise to concerns that there is becoming too heavy an emphasis on subject areas. (Bennett, 2004). The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) continues to promote a social pedagogy approach, known as developmentally appropriate practice. However increasing attention on emergent and early literacy and numeracy encroach on more open-ended practices and environments, even when the broad goals are holistic and developmental.
A curriculum helps to ensure
that staff cover important
learning areas, adopt a common
pedagogical approach and reach
for a certain level of quality across
age groups and regions of the
country.
32
• Curricular frameworks also help to involve families in curriculum development and implementation. Although knowledgeable about their children, many parents need professional assistance to support their children’s learning and development.
• It is not yet clear that any jurisdiction has figured out the appropriate amount of literacy, numeracy, scientific/technological knowledge in the early childhood curriculum or how it should be ensured. But experts are clear that programs must be oriented to the broad developmental goals and not just focused on cognitive goals. (Bennett, 2004)
Summarizing the International Context• Although North America has not made very much progress integrating its kindergartens
and child care programs, nine European countries have now integrated their entire ECEC systems for children from birth to age 6 under one government department and now regard early childhood education and care as an essential part of preparation of children for public school, an important component of the supports to families with special attention to those with employed parents, and as a venue for identifying children and families who will need special services. (OECD, 2001)
• Most countries which participated in the OECD 12-country review (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) provide universal preschool ECEC services for the vast majority of children who are 3 years of age and older.4 Belgium, Italy, Portugal and the U.K. provide universal access usually free of charge for children over 3 years. Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden also provide universal services but require a modest contribution from the parents usually between 10% to 30% of the costs.
• Most countries have developed curricular (or pedagogical frameworks) for children aged 3-6 years. These include the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Italy; Portugal; the Netherlands for children over 4 years and the UK. Some States in the US, New Zealand and Australia have also issued curricular guidelines for ECEC. The majority of US states have adopted early learning standards for young children (some covering children under 3) focussing on language/literacy and cognition/general knowledge. Although many states still follow the National Association for Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAE CS/SDE) - guidelines which recommend that early learning standards focus on broad overall developmental goals - the most common areas adopted are language/literacy and cognition/general knowledge areas giving rise to concerns that there is becoming too heavy an emphasis on subject areas. (Bennett, 2004)
• A number of OECD countries have moved towards integrating divided systems. For example, in 1996, responsibility for child care in Sweden was transferred from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs to the Ministry of Education and Science under the School Act. Among a number of reforms, the government also introduced a uniform framework for training for child care teachers, school teachers and schoolage care providers (known as leisure time pedagogues). Of course, there were many fears about preschool becoming rigid and formal, losing its emphasis on play and children’s holistic development. Also, child care teachers were anxious about the focus shifting towards “education” representing a threat to their profession and that preschool, which had
4 See Appendix C: The International Context for more specific details of arrangements and costs in these countries.
33
enjoyed prominence in the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, would lose its primacy and become the poor sister under education.
The reverse happened. In Sweden, child care philosophy influenced integration. Prior to moving preschool under the Ministry of Education in 1996, a national study urged Swedish schools to become more responsive to children’s individual learning needs and styles. It argued that integrating preschools with schools would allow the former to transform the latter. This point was also taken into consideration in the revision of the school curriculum, which took on many pedagogical practices of preschools. Learning came to replace teaching, shifting the focus from teachers to students or learners. The Swedish Prime Minister reinforced this approach in 1996 when he announced his vision of lifelong learning for Sweden and stated that preschool education should be a part of the country’s lifelong learning vision and that it should influence school education, at least in the early years. (Soo-Hyang Choi, 2002)
• Following this development in Sweden, New Zealand, Spain, Slovenia, England and Scotland also moved to unify services under one department. Early childhood services are now the responsibility of one government in nine European countries – either welfare or education. But departmental integration, in New Zealand and the U.K., for example, does not automatically mean full integration of the two systems. (Cohen et al, 2004) One indicator of how far integration has gone is what happens to the divided workforce and, in particular, whether the workforce has been reformed around a ‘core’ profession whose members work across all centre-based early childhood services: both child care and education.
Two ‘core” professions have emerged in countries which have gone furthest in integrating early childhood services. Both work across the whole early childhood age spectrum from birth to age 5 or 6. Both engage in all aspects of education and care.
– New Zealand, Spain and Sweden have integrated the professions into the early childhood teacher working with children under and over 3 years. (By contrast, teachers in divided systems typically work just with children from 3 and upward in the schools; in Canada this applies to children 4 and upward).
– The Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Denmark have adopted the profession known as the pedagogue who works with children in a holistic way addressing the whole child with body, mind, emotions, creativity, history and social identity. In fact, pedagogues work across a wider range of occupations. In addition to early childhood services, they work with school-age children, youth in residential settings and also care for adults with disabilities and the elderly. (Moss, 2004)
• In countries with core professions, there is usually also an assistant. In Spain, staff working with children over 3 are mostly teachers, while those working with under 3’s are mostly assistants. In countries like Denmark and Sweden about half of all workers are teachers or pedagogues. In New Zealand, the government has set a target of having the entire workforce trained by 2012.
• Whether teachers or pedagogues, basic education is a university degree (equivalent to school teachers). Assistants are generally qualified to the equivalent of a Canadian community college diploma. There are career ladders in place to allow early childhood educators to move up.
34
• In virtually all of these countries, the public commitment to Early Childhood Education and Care services is considerably greater than in Canada (with the exception of Quebec). Canada spends 0.23% (i.e., 23 hundredths of 1%) of its annual GDP on pre-primary education. Most other countries spend 0.4% to 0.6% of GDP. As a result, ECEC is a low priority in Canada, apparently a much lower priority than in Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden or the U.K. Even the U.S. spends more public dollars as a percent of its GDP on pre-primary education than Canada. (OECD, 2001, p. 189)
Towards ChangeAchieving integration of kindergarten and child care services will require a major paradigm shift from the fragmented patchwork currently available to a coherent system of services for children as a right. Because both education and child care are in the provincial jurisdiction, specific strategies for change will ultimately have to be worked out in each province and territory. Quebec has already forged ahead with the creation of a new unified system. PEI has launched its kindergarten program with integration in mind.
Getting there will, of course, present major challenges. The rest of this paper will explore issues and elements that would be addressed in a strategic plan dedicated to “healing the rift” as the OECD so aptly describes it. It is also recognized that this paradigm shift is equally necessary for all children 0-6, but as a strategic option, this paper will address the issues for transforming the system for kindergarten-age children
The integration of kindergarten and child care is not a new idea. A long list of policy documents recommend the integration of programs – both structure and content - for kindergarten children. In fact most recommend starting earlier. (McCain and Mustard: Early Years Study; Laurier Lapierre: To Herald a Child; Royal Commission on Learning: For the Love of Learning; Panel on the Role of Government, Investing in People: Creating a Human Capital Society for Ontario; OECD Canada Report) But the structural barriers seem to have maintained the boundaries. Moving towards integration will require more than gradual changes. It will require willingness to leave old identities behind – professional and programmatic. It means restructuring both teaching and early childhood education sectors to create a new, blended workforce. It will also require a re-conceptualization of curriculum and pedagogy. The structural elements – funding, legislation and regulation are essential, but not enough.
The elements of a proposed strategic plan focus on: the Vision; the Principles; the Policy Changes. Obviously budgets and timeframes would also have to be included in any Strategic Plan.
The Ten-Year Vision• All children are recognized as unique human beings with diverse needs for nurturing and
support from their families, communities and society;
• Parents are validated as the first and most important teacher of their children and are afforded supports, advice and information about their child’s development on a regular basis.
All children are recognized
as unique human beings
with diverse needs for
nurturing and support
from their families,
communities and society...
35
• All children have access to universal, high-quality, developmental and affordable programs in which care, development and learning are no longer foreign concepts alongside education, and where “learning” has replaced “teaching” and the focus has shifted from teachers to “learners”.
• All children have access to early learning and care programs at no cost to their families for at least six hours per day. An affordable parent fee may be charged for extended hours services amounting to no more than 5% of their income or 20% of the costs; services are available year round and cover the parents’ working day; these programs are publicly resourced for long-term sustainability.
• All children in special circumstances or with special needs are entitled to services and facilities alongside other children of their age;
• Programs are delivered by well-qualified, professional staff that are supported by pre- and post-employment training and development and are paid at a reasonable level.
• All governments, authorities and organizations involved in programs for young children and families work together to plan, develop, administer, fund, regulate, deliver and are accountable for a new service system built on goals and targets for quality, expansion, accessibility and effective use of resources. Separate services have become a coherent system of services;
• Communities welcome children and are engaged in developing supportive programs for families and children that are coordinated to allow parents easy access to health, social and other services in the community.5
PrinciplesThe QUADI principles6: quality, universality, accessibility, developmentally focused and inclusive are the foundation for developing an integrated ECEC system in Canada:
QualityA high quality ECEC system provides all children with excellent learning opportunities to optimize their physical, cognitive, cultural, social and emotional development. Research confirms that “quality” can be found in an enriched learning environment - indoors and outdoors; high adult to child ratios; well-qualified, well-trained and well-supported staff to plan and support developmentally appropriate programming and to provide care that respects diversity and values all children and families; public and not-for-profit delivery so that public funding is directed solely to the delivery of the ECEC programs; legislated standards and capacity for monitoring and enforcement; and stable public funding and adequate infrastructure.
5 This vision was inspired by the City of Toronto’s Children’s Charter and the Vision Document developed by the Children’s Working Group, 2004.
6 A detailed description of what is meant by these principles prepared by the Canadian Child Care Advocacy Association is contained in Appendix D: the QUADI Principles.
36
Universality and AccessibilityUniversal systems are publicly funded systems that entitle access for all children, without discrimination based on income or other criteria. Effective universal systems work to eliminate a range of social, ability-based, cultural, geographic and other barriers to equitable access and participation. Universal and accessible programs are available for all children in the community who need or want to use them. They are publicly funded and paid for through the tax system.
Developmentally FocussedIt is now widely acknowledged that learning begins at birth and has a profound affect on life long development and adult well being. A developmentally focussed program would have broad developmental goals for health and physical development; emotional well-being and social competence; positive approaches to learning; communication skills; cognition and general knowledge.
InclusiveThis means that all children can attend and benefit from the same ECEC programs. Children with disabilities go to the same programs they would attend if they did not have a disability. For children with disabilities, this means that the necessary supports of training, equipment, physical modifications and extra staffing are available to all programs at no extra cost to parents or to the individual programs. The principle of inclusion goes beyond the notion of physical integration and fully incorporates basic values that promote and advance participation, friendship and a celebration of diversity. Children with all disabilities are active participants, not just observers on the sidelines.
Policy ChangesThis vision suggests a major paradigm shift from the fragmented patchwork currently available to a coherent system of services for children as a right. Such a shift will require major policy change. Many of these changes will require significant movement by governments. For example, making the funding commitment to create a universally accessible, affordable, and high quality system will require a mammoth effort. While recognizing the importance of these policy changes, the next section of this paper will focus on some of the “newer” areas of policy discussion, particularly those issues that have been raised as a result of the OECD twelve-country review or the OECD Canada report.
Under the headings: Program Design and Delivery; Funding; Regulations and Standards; Curriculum/Program Framework; Human Resources, Training; Research, Monitoring and
Evaluation; and Governance, this paper sets out a list of policy guidelines. This is followed by explanatory paragraphs and a box asking for feedback. These are policy suggestions only and are submitted for discussion, amendment and elaboration. It is hoped that readers will participate fully in the Network Website Forum which can be found at http://www.inproject.ca/Forum/phpBB2/index.php
Program Design and Delivery• Children will attend one program oriented to all aspects of children’s developmental
37
needs for health and physical development; emotional wellbeing and social competence; positive approaches to learning; communication skills; cognition and general knowledge. No longer will children be attending public kindergarten for a few hours to get “education” and then be shuffled back to a different program to be cared for while their parents work.
• Programs will be seamless. Existing “kindergarten” and “child care” will be integrated into one coherent and comprehensive program. There will be one coherent program for at least six hours per day throughout the year.
• Extended hours programs will exist to accommodate parents’ work schedules (at either end of the day or during school holidays) as an integral addition to the core program, or as a wrap-around service offered in, or close to, the same physical location.
• Children with special and diverse needs will be included within this framework with additional supports and resources.
• The system will establish parent support programs and activities and provide links to other early intervention, health and community resources.
• These programs will be designed to accommodate parents’ needs for flexibility. Parents who wish their children to attend part-time will be accommodated without sacrificing developmental opportunities.
Developing such a program raises some challenging questions. Will the currently split programs be integrated into one kindergarten program (like Quebec), or into one early learning and child care program in a child care centre setting (like PEI)? If it is integrated into the school kindergarten program, how will extended hours programs be organized? The organization of these programs will inevitably have to be flexible to accommodate existing services.
Ideally, the outcome will take the form of the “seamless day” blending the kindergarten and child care components into one program. Under this scenario, the free kindergarten (in the form of an integrated seamless program) could be extended to a full school day (or a six hour period). An implementation plan may involve starting with full-day kindergarten with wrap-around child care for either end of the school day, professional development days and school holidays, moving towards a completely seamless model for the entire day, entire year, over time.
Adequate Public Funding• Governments will be responsible for ensuring that all programs are adequately financed.
Secure and stable funding will be established by governments and paid to programs in a fair and equitable manner so that the system becomes universally affordable to all Canadian parents. The presence of stable government funding will eliminate the downward pressure on salaries and benefits as a result of the elimination of total dependence on parent fees It will enable programs to raise quality, provide enriched learning materials, outdoor and indoor environments, etc. It will provide the opportunity for a majority of young children to have access to high quality early learning programs.
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
What does a Seamless Day
mean to you? What types of
services would be available for
kindergarten-age children in a
seamless day model?
38
• Financing will cover full operating costs, capital depreciation, full funding for resource teachers and specific grants to cover special and local conditions.
• Early learning and care programs will be established and financed in all new schools; capital programs will be available for expansion of programs in existing schools and community facilities.
• A revamped ECEC system will, like the public education system, provide a significant portion of the day (e.g. 5-6 hours like school) free to parents and funded by government.
• Currently, parents are responsible for between 34% and 82% of child care costs, no cost for public education and approximately 15% for post-secondary education. This Early Years contribution will be significantly reduced in order that children have equitable access to important developmental services. The Canadian parental share compares to a maximum 15% parental contribution in Finland or approximately 25% across Europe. (OECD, 2004)
• Modest parent contributions for services outside the regular school day could be required as in Quebec and other European countries (to a maximum of 5% of after-tax income, or 20% of actual costs, with reduced contributions for second and subsequent children). Parents who cannot afford the parent contribution will receive subsidy in an anonymous, non-stigmatized manner.
Regulation and Standards
Strong regulatory standards covering group size, physical space – indoors and outdoors, health and safety precautions, nutrition, equipment and materials will exist.
Curricular/Program framework• All early learning and care programs will have a child-
centred curriculum, or program guidelines, focusing on cognitive, social, emotional and physical development and advocating developmentally appropriate practices within an activity-based/play-based approach to learning and care. This new curriculum should be linked to the school-based curriculum, which begins in Grade 1.
• The aims of the ECEC curriculum/program guidelines will be broad and contribute to the child’s overall development as well as to later success in school.
• There must be recognition that the learning patterns of young children vary and that social-emotional and cognitive progress will proceed at the child’s own pace and take place through play and active methods, governed in so far as possible by the self direction of the child. These considerations suggest caution about designing a detailed cognitive curriculum, which staff should ‘deliver’ to compliant young children.
• Curriculum/program guidelines will also be a focus for further training.
The emphasis on approaches to program development suggests that it would be preferable to issue guidelines rather than developing a narrow curriculum. Program guidelines can also be a great help to parents
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
How should integrated
programs be financed?
Who should pay? In what
proportions?
39
Human Resources• The success of integrated early
learning and care programs will depend primarily on the excellence of the human resources employed.
• Adequate core government funding is key to Canada’s ability to provide proper remuneration, training and development for a substantially underpaid and undervalued workforce.
The OECD Country Report recommended a review of professional profiles, improved recruitment levels and strengthening the initial and in-service training of staff. The rationale is not a moral one. It points out that OECD societies are moving away from traditional notions of “child care” toward more developmental ambitions for young children, where early childhood centres become the foundation for lifelong learning. Staff, in these centres, are required to deal sensitively with immigrant and cultural issues, to respond appropriately to special needs children and to provide individualized support to every child in moments of vulnerability or stress.
The OECD team also notes that:
ECEC professionals will be expected to participate in the evaluation of achievement and learning. Increasingly, they will be trained to perceive the centre as a learning organization requiring intensive collective participation in strategic planning, self-evaluation and professional development planning. In sum, a new ECEC professional profile is emerging. (OECD Canada Report, 2004, p.81)
Key questions raised in the OECD countries have also been raised here in Canada:
• Will the workforce continue to be divided, or integrated?
• If integrated, who will be the ‘core’ professional;
• What will the balance between professional and assistant be?
• What level, type and content of education will this professional have?
• If Canada also moves to establishing this “core” professional, what training and qualifications will be required?
• Who will pay for their training?
• Who will pay for a properly qualified workforce?
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
Do you think that, in your province, the
integrated program should retain the staff:
child ratios of the Education System, the
child care system, or should new staff:
ratios be introduced? Are there other
regulations that need to be addressed in an
integrated system?
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
What would an integrated
system mean for the curriculum
or program guidelines in your
province/territory?
40
Another question raised concerns the transition to a new “core” professional.
• Will there be long period of phase-in? In New Zealand, for example, all early childhood teachers are required to have a teaching diploma by 2012. Incentive grants and prior learning assessment, together with time for phase-in, has made upgrading possible. Is this a model for Canada?
• A related question is whether all staff will be required to have the same training – as in New Zealand – or whether there will be role for an “assistant” trained at a lower level but with access to opportunities to gain additional qualifications to become the “core” professional?
• Another challenging issue will be working out how the workforce will be reorganized to accommodate longer hours, and, even a longer year, to accommodate the needs of working parents.
Training• Training and development should be provided to
all staff working with kindergarten-age children to ensure that all staff are able to provide programs which facilitate development and learning involving child-initiated activities, play and involvement.
• One of the central recommendations made in the OECD Report was the need to improve the training level of all staff. Staff training for child care was viewed as insufficient to develop skills and understanding required to administer a developmental program for children in an increasingly complex organization and society. The OECD also noted that although teachers are required to complete a university degree and receive, in general, practical training in the delivery of a curriculum, kindergarten teachers did not, generally, receive specific enough training for this age group. They suggested that:
obtaining a university degree tends to hide the fact that the degree in question may not carry a significant module of early childhood theory or training. It is problematic to have teachers working in kindergarten who have not been trained for the role – even if they receive a top up or in-service training course – particularly if that role is likely to expand downwards to junior kindergarten, as already in several provinces. (OECD Canada Report, 2004, p. 68)
• The OECD was also critical of levels of training in child care settings:
Kindergarten teachers typically work in a lager setting, a school, where the focus of the institution as a whole is also on learning. While one might not agree with a narrow school-readiness approach or the high child:staff ratios, kindergarten classes are generally well-invested with trained teachers, good pedagogical materials and suitable (indoor) furnishings.
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
Should the workforce be
integrated or continue to be
divided? If integrated, who will
be the ‘core’ professional?
Should there be different levels
of professionals (e.g. early
education teacher and assistant
early educator)?
41
In contrast, child care centres and family daycare homes may not work to a curriculum at all, even a developmental one. .... Moreover, child care centres are usually small and there is no immediate wider professional reference group for staff or a tradition of professional development, as in a school.
• Kindergarten credentials would be an obvious first step in reforming this situation.
• A comprehensive review of training requirements would be a good starting point to begin the important work of improving training for all professionals working in ECEC to ensure that a significant portion of basic training is specific to the early childhood field and to the understanding and delivery of early childhood programs.
• Coordination will, of course, be required between governments, universities and community colleges.
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation• The challenge is to retain a broad canvas of developmental aims in early childhood
programming while developing the appropriate management and support networks to ensure high quality and accountability.
• Programs will be required to set clear objectives and monitor their achievement. Again, New Zealand has produced clear monitoring guidelines for staff which are inspected by government officials at regular intervals. (Te Whariki Early Childhood Curriculum, 1996)
• Programs will be regularly evaluated using tools such as the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R) or improved tools.
• The impact of early learning and care programs on the development of children can be monitored by regular assessment of children’s early development outcomes before entry into Grade 1. For example, the Early Development Instrument (EDI) could be used to measure social, emotional, cognitive, language and physical development. The teacher report tool that is completed when children are four and five years old would not be used as an individual assessment tool, but be combined with other demographic and family socio-economic data and information about available developmental resources in order to monitor how well a community – and its early learning and care programs – is doing in supporting children’s early development.
• The Early Learning and Care system will be subject to regular data collection and research.
• Programs will be accountable for their performance to a government funding agency.
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
What kind of qualifications and
training should professionals
working in integrated programs
have? Degrees? Diplomas?
A mixture? How would the
transition occur?
42
Governance• The system will be established under one ministry
or department with the capacity to create a legislative framework, plan and develop services, provide resources and mechanisms for efficient and equitable service delivery and evaluation.
• Overlap between differently named programs for the same age group will be coordinated as much as possible. Overlap can cause administrative inefficiency and wasted resources;
• The entire ECEC system will be administered by one coherent ministry capable of understanding and communicating important aspects of provincial/territorial early learning and care programs to parents.
• One ministry will enable parents – increasingly new immigrants to Canada – to have smooth access to the entire system of care and education.
• The program preceding primary education will be designed to facilitate the child’s preparation and transition to formal schooling. Pedagogical continuity between the last year of ECE and first year of formal schooling is very important
Governance OptionsThe OECD Report suggests that reconciling the differences between kindergarten and child
care is a prerequisite to achieving a coherent system of ECEC in Canada. It also elaborates on the advantages of bringing together early education and care within integrated departments, including:
• A more unified approach to all young children, focused on early development and learning;
• More effective investment in the younger children (1-4 years) and significant savings brought about by better integration of services.
• More coherent policy and greater consistency across the sectors in regulations, funding and staffing regimes, costs and opening hours. For example, a unified approach to services would encourage a shift in kindergarten opening hours toward full-day provision – with real advantages for young children and their parents;
• Enhanced continuity of children’s early childhood experiences as variations in access and quality can be lessened, and links at the services level – across age groups and settings – are more easily created.
• Improved public supervision of services and thus easier identification of, and access by parents to quality care. Monitoring and evaluation of critical elements can be more efficiently undertaken from a single department with its own pedagogical advisors;
• The eventual emergence of a specific early childhood professional profile, trained to work with both young children and families; (OECD, 2004)
Nine European countries have now unified their systems under one ministry. Some countries have chosen to locate their integrated departments under ministries of education (e.g. New Zealand, Sweden and the United Kingdom); others have chosen to locate their unified programs under social welfare ministries (e.g. Norway, Finland, Denmark). Both options have had some success. Because both education and child care operate in
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
What kind of research would
be appropriate to conduct in
relation to “integration” of
systems?
43
Canada within the provincial jurisdiction, there may not be a single model adopted across Canada. There are perhaps three options for further discussion:
• Locating the entire ECEC system (0-6 years) within a ministry of education;
• Locating the entire ECEC system (0-6 years) within a social welfare/family services ministry;
• As in Quebec, adopting the ‘split ages’ model by locating children’s programs (kindergarten-age and above) in the school system; locating children’s programs below kindergarten-age in a social welfare/family services ministry.
There are not necessarily any perceived advantages between any of these types of ministries. The key is to ensure that there is a commitment to the vision, the principles and the appropriate policies as described above.
It is hoped that the above policy directions provide:
• a template against which to assess new policies
• a template against which to measure change
• a framework to develop a strategic plan
There are many structural and political barriers as well as professional and historic barriers to overcome before there is an integrated approach to ECEC services for kindergarten-aged children in Canada. The integration network provides a ‘safe place’ for practitioners and policy makers to explore a new approach to see how it fits and what adjustments are necessary. It may not be possible to bring together institutional support but perhaps some individual leaders will be able to fashion a new model to guide the way forward.
The goal is to strive for collaboration, mutual respect between sectors and communities and develop options based on collective imagination. Working together – parents, teachers and child care staff – can develop a strong policy framework followed by a strategic plan, lobby for change and effectively advocate to communities of interest.
The Integration Network Project is interested in establishing (or connecting with existing) committees across the country dedicated to working through these policy and strategy issues. Hopefully, the outlined vision and principles will form the basis for discussion and the eventual emergence of a strategic plan.
If you are interested in participating in a group in your province or territory, please contact us at [email protected]. For more papers and information about the Network, please visit: www.inproject.ca
FEEDBACK QUESTION:
Which Ministry/Department
should have overall
responsibility in an integrated
system? What safeguards would
you suggest?
45
THE RESEARCH
Importance of the Early Years
For decades, it has been recognized by academics and researchers that nothing is more important to children’s future than getting a good start in the early years. The findings have been publicized with increasing crescendo over the last thirty years. Even though learned commissions and task forces from across Canada have included recommendations for immediate action, the message still hasn’t penetrated the consciousness of most politicians, so it is worth repeating yet again. (Royal Commission on the Status of Women, 1970, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Education of the Young Child, 1979, Royal Commission on Learning. 1994, The Early Years Study, 1999, Alberta Commission on Learning: Every Child Learns, Every Child Succeeds, 2003, etc.)
This growing body of evidence confirms that the experiences of children with caregivers during their first few years of life are critical to children’s self-esteem, their capacity to form relationships and their ability to handle stress. Children who do not get a good start in life have difficulties rebounding and achieving their future potential. (Willms, 2002).
A summary assessment of a range of reviews on the impacts of early childhood programs on child development can be found in an unpublished literature review, Early Childhood Learning and Development in Child Care, Kindergarten and Family Support Programs (Cleveland, Corter, Pelletier, Colley, Bertrand, 2006, p. 1). The summary suggests that:
Early Learning and Child Care Programs (ELCC programs) affect children through their cognitive, language and social-emotional development in the early years of childhood. By the time children reach school, there are striking disparities in abilities among different children according to different markers of development. These disparities are associated with difference in thesechildren’s circumstances and experiences in the early years. Furthermore, these differences among children are predictive of future academic and life performance. (Cleveland, Corter, Pelletier, Colley, Bertrand, 2006, p.1)
In the ground-breaking The Early Years Study: Reversing the real brain drain, the Hon. Margaret McCain and Dr. Fraser Mustard identify the period between birth and age six as a critical one, when children acquire the essential language and cognitive skills needed to learn reading and mathematics as well as the ability to cope socially and to interact well with teachers and other children. (McCain and Mustard, 1998). Children who go to Grade I with these skills are more likely to take advantage of the learning opportunities offered; children who do not demonstrate these skills are more likely to risk later difficulties in school. (Doherty, 1997) They also have a higher drop out rate before graduation. Research also shows that early development has a significant impact on mental and physical health later in life. (Health Canada, Early Childhood Development Strategy Paper, 2000).
By grade 3, children who go on to drop out academically are behind academically, have low achievement test scores, and are already showing problems. This cycle of behaviour leads to rejection by their peers, increased conflict with teachers and deteriorating self-esteem. Studies support early identification of students-at-risk in kindergarten as a key strategy to deal with later problems. Being ready for school gives children the opportunity to benefit from all that school has to offer both academically and socially. (Doherty, 1997). The long term effects of poor school performance are also well known. Thirty-nine percent of the Canadian labour force has post-secondary credentials. Conversely, twenty percent of students leave high school without a diploma. This high dropout rate makes Canada rate with the bottom-ranked developed countries in terms of workforce literacy. (Statistics Canada, 2000). The Conference Board of Canada estimates a loss in lifetime earnings of $4 billion for every year of school drop-outs. (Conference Board of Canada, 1999).
46
Developing supportive
partnerships between families,
child care, community
resources and schools can go
a long way towards enhancing
the child’s kindergarten and
elementary school experience.
The RAND Report, Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits (Greenwood et al., 1996) provides evidence that early childhood education, combined with perinatal and infant home visits providing advice and assistance to the young mother will reduce criminal behaviour in at-risk populations (defined as young, poor, single-mother families). The calculated costs and benefits are almost equal and if any of the other expected developmental and educational effects had been calculated, net benefits would clearly have been strongly positive. RAND also projected a reduction of about 50% in child abuse in families receiving the child care and home visits.
School Readiness Because researchers are generally agreed that kindergarten teachers’ assessments of children’s readiness to learn are the single strongest predictor of future elementary school success which, in turn, are the single strongest predictor of high school completion, (Doherty, 1997; Pelletier, Morgan & Mueller, 1999; Tremblay, Masse, Perron, Leblanc, Schwartzman & Ledingham, 1992) there has been a ‘boom’ in the literature on the subject of “school readiness” or “transition to school”, particularly in the United States.
But what does being “ready for school” or “transition to school” mean? Teachers consider school readiness to include factors such as:
• good health,
• ability to attend to his/her needs;
• ability to communicate needs,
• regulate behaviour;
• having a curious disposition.
For some researchers, readiness is not simply a measurement of the child’s skills on entering kindergarten, but a product of the cumulated experiences children have had at home, in child care or other preschool settings, by community supports and level of coordination and integration of those experiences to the community school. (Pianta, 2003) And it is not just children who are in transition. Families are in transition too. Developing supportive partnerships between families, child care, community resources and schools can go a long way towards enhancing the child’s kindergarten and elementary school experience. (Pianta, 2003). Pianta and Walsh adopted the following definition of readiness:
Children are ready for school when, for a period of several years, they have been exposed to consistent, stable adults who are emotionally invested in them; to a physical environment that is safe and predictable; to regular routines and rhythms of activity; to competent peers; and to materials that stimulate their exploration and enjoyment of the world and from which they derive a sense of mastery. These factors alone would be better indices of readiness for school than any measurable aspect of child performance. (Pianta & Walsh, 1996, p. 34).
The implication is that improving school readiness must also be focused on the settings and resources experienced by children in the very early years. As we know, the experience of Canadian children is extremely fragmented and very little attention has been directed to this wider approach. Rather, kindergartens have tended to focus solely on whether children know their colours or the letters of the alphabet. (Love et al., 1992; Meisels, 1999)
47
From infancy, children learn
to negotiate transitions
such as signalling parents
to meet needs or adapting
to brief or prolonged parent
absence. Thus, by the time
children enter kindergarten,
they have a well-established
pattern of coping (or not)
with transitions.
Although the bulk of the research does view transition to kindergarten as linked to children’s readiness, other researchers consider that this transition actually begins much earlier, that is, in the first three years (Love et al., 2004). In this view transition encompasses more than the qualitative shift in context that occurs at school entry. From infancy, children learn to negotiate transitions such as signalling parents to meet needs or adapting to brief or prolonged parent absence. Thus, by the time children enter kindergarten, they have a well-established pattern of coping (or not) with transitions.
Research into fourteen “Readiness Centres” in Ontario early childhood programs also showed impressive results. (Pelletier, 2002) The Centres organized kindergarten curriculum programs offered to both parents and children of four years of age, many of whom spoke languages other than English. The programs were staffed with experienced kindergarten teachers using the provincial kindergarten curriculum. In addition to activities geared to the children, the Centres also offered parent education programs covering issues such as discipline, routines, health and nutrition, parent support and local community services. As the parents accompanied the children, teachers were able to explain to them what was being taught and offered suggestions about how this learning could be extended into the home.
Of the children who participated in the study (186 in Year 2), one third had attended the Readiness Centre with their parent the preceding year; one third had not attended, but had some other form of preschool experience and one third had not participated in either a Readiness Centre or another preschool program. Results of the study showed that participation in the Readiness Centers was linked to children’s readiness in kindergarten. (Pelletier, 2002) The importance of parent participation in programs with their children is critical, but with over two- thirds of two-parents or single parent families participating in the workforce, creating such opportunities becomes another challenge for policy. Any new system model clearly needs to be more creative in providing support to parents.
There is debate about how readiness should be measured. In a meta review of 70 longitudinal studies, La Paro and Pianta (2000) report that assessments of children’s skills and abilities are not adequate to determine readiness but that children’s social and emotional development may be more predictive of subsequent adjustment. School readiness, in this view, emphasizes the child’s ability to self-regulate. Children who are anxious, with elevated cortisol levels, are less able to attend to tasks, less able to develop positive relationships with peers and adults and less able to enjoy the kindergarten experience (Blair 2002). Children who like and are liked have greater opportunities for interaction and thus greater opportunity to learn.
Another approach current in Canada is contained in the Early Development Instrument (EDI) developed by Drs. Offord and Janus at McMaster University. It has been widely adopted as a community measurement tool in Canada (PEI, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia). The EDI has been a standard tool in the national Understanding the Early Years (UEY) project conducted at 12 community sites across Canada (Brink and Bacon, 2003). In UEY, community mapping is used to chart patterns of risk and supports, and to inform efforts to maximize outcomes.
The EDI does not provide diagnostic information on individual children, nor does it measure a school or teacher’s performance. Rather, it is an indicator of the community’s capacity to prepare its children for learning and entry to school. Students in kindergarten, in the spring of the year, are assessed individually by their teachers in five domains: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge. This data is then interpreted at the level of the classroom.
48
the preschool years are critically
important in establishing the
child’s course of early development
and learning. Children’s
experiences at home, in child care,
preschool and in kindergarten
programs have a strong effect on
their school experience.
In each of these domains, children are compared to the average of the Canadian population, from an earlier data collection exercise. The thresholds in each domain are set at the level reached by the 25th percentile of Canadian children. Children scoring poorly would meet the following descriptions:
• Physical Health – average or poor motor skills, flagging energy levels, tiredness and clumsiness
• Social Competence – regular problems with one or more of the following: getting along with other children, accepting responsibility for their own actions, ability to work independently, self confidence, tolerance
• Emotional Maturity – minor problems with aggression, restlessness, distractibility or inattentiveness, or excessive sadness on a regular basis
• Language and cognitive development – no mastery of the basics of reading and writing, little interest in books, reading, and/or problems with numerical skills (e.g., recognizing numbers, counting)
• Communication and general knowledge – problems understanding or communicating in English, articulating clearly and/or little general knowledge
Problems in one of these domains is not considered to be evidence of lack of readiness to learn. However, problems in two or more of these five domains are judged to be evidence that a child would be more likely to have difficulty in learning.
For example, in 1998-99 when the EDI was administered in North York, Ontario, about 19% of kindergarten children had problems with physical health and well-being, 26% had problems with social competence, 24% had problems with emotional maturity, 22% had problems with language and cognitive development, and 24% had problems with communication skills and general knowledge. There was a great deal of variability within the scores for a population attending any particular school in each of the components. In addition, schools would often score well on one index and poorly on another, averaged across all children.
Overall, about 32% of all children (approximately one out of three) scored poorly on two or more of these measures of school readiness, and were judged as likely to have problems. Most children scored well, but a significant number, spread across the district and in different schools, scored poorly on readiness to learn. (Toronto District School Board, 2003)
The Lessons The lessons to be drawn from this voluminous literature suggest that the preschool years are critically important in establishing the child’s course of early development and learning. Children’s experiences at home, in child care, preschool and in kindergarten programs have a strong effect on their school experience. What, then, does research specifically demonstrate about parenting, preschool, child care and kindergarten as it relates to providing appropriate developmental opportunities for early learning?
49
Parenting matters. When parents are sensitive to children’s needs, encourage independence, are non-authoritarian or highly controlling, not too permissive (overly nurturing with few standards for child behaviour), children get large benefits. But, parenting skills and socio-economic status are not highly correlated; low incomes do not play a strong role in determining parenting abilities.
The following factors are found to be associated with cognitive difficulties in children aged 0-5: stay-at-home mother, recent immigrant family, poor parenting style (as above), maternal depression, and poor family functioning. The following factors are found to be associated with decreased likelihood of cognitive difficulties: being a female child, being the first child, parents reading regularly to the child, and neighbourhood support. (Willms 2002)
Factors found to be associated with behavioural difficulties in children aged 0-5 include: single parent household, teenage mother, poor parenting style (as above), maternal depression, and poor family functioning. Factors found to be associated with decreased likelihood of behavioural problems include: being in a high-SES family, having siblings, and parents reading regularly to the child. (Willms 2002)
Vulnerable children – children who do not achieve learning and behavioural outcomes appropriate for their age – come from all different types of families and the majority come from families whose income is above the poverty line. Research suggests that at least one out of every four Canadian children is vulnerable.
Child Care and Preschool. Research on the effects of early child care on children has concluded that child care is not necessarily harmful or beneficial for children, but the quality of the child care experience is the prime factor in determining child care’s effects on children’s development. (Hayes, Palmer & Zaslow, 1990; Lamb, Damon, Sigel & Renninger, 1998; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Vandell, 2004). The evidence suggests, with significant consistency, that the quality of child care services experienced by children (measured by process quality or structural features) has significant positive effects in their cognitive, language and socio-emotional development and are related to child developmental outcomes during the elementary school years. (McCartney, 1984; Ruopp et al., 1979; Goelman and Pence, 1987; Burchinal et al., 2000; NICHD 2000a, 2002b)
There has also been research on the long term effects of quality in child care. The National Bureau of Economic Research in the U.S., Garces, Currie and Thomas (2000) investigated the longer- term effects of Head Start, the most important publicly-funded preschool program in the United States. Over 800,000 children are served by this program annually and the cost is about US $2.2 billion per year or about US $3,500 per child. They used data on young adults (in their 20’s) who had attended Head Start in the 1960s and 1970s from the nationally-representative data in the Panel Study on Income Dynamics. (Hofferth, 1997). This paper, Longer term effects of Head Start, found long-run positive effects of early attendance in Head Start on education for whites (20% more likely to complete high school, 20-28% more likely to attend college), and reduced participation in undesirable behaviours for African-Americans (12 percentage points less likely to participate in criminal activity), holding all other factors constant. These are remarkable long-term effects of a program that obviously changed the path of development of many young children.
The Perry Preschool Project also measured the long-term effects of early childhood programs on children’s future activity. Conducted in Ypsilanti, Michigan in 1962, the project was a treatment- control experiment with children randomly assigned to control and treatment groups. Children participating in the part-day preschool and parent education program were tested at different intervals up to age 19. The Project involved a sample of 123 educationally high-risk preschool children. Fifty-eight took part in the project and 65 served as controls. At age 19, there was a clear pattern of differences between experimental and control children, as shown in the Table below:
50
LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THE PERRY PRESCHOOL PROJECT Controls (%) Experimental (%)
Classified as mentally retarded 35 15
Completed high school 49 67
College or job training 21 38
Had a job 32 50
Had been arrested 51 31
Charged with serious crime 38 24
On public assistance 32 18
Source: Osborn and Milbank, 1987, p. 15
KindergartenThe child’s experience in kindergarten is viewed as essential for establishing the foundation for the child’s later school experience. Early predispositions and achievements in kindergarten predict long-term educational and adjustment outcomes. (D’Arcangelo, 2003; Tremblay, 1996) As referenced above, children who begin school ahead of others in academic achievement, tend to stay ahead. (Kuklinski & Wei nstein, 2001; Speer & Esposito, 2000; Taylor, Anselmo, Foreman Schagschneider & Angelopoulos, 2000) These children make greater gains over time due to the cumulative benefits of early learning, as well as teacher expectations, home environment and parent involvement. The research has tended to centre on the value of kindergarten and whether programs should be half or full day.
Full-day kindergarten Other than in Quebec, there has been very little commitment to the development of an early learning and child care system in Canada. (Jenson, 2002) Much has been made of the lack of public funding and the inability of private, under-funded child care programs to meet the developmental needs of children or the needs of working parents. Lack of public funding virtually ensures that quality in child care programs will continue to be mediocre. The sector is increasingly less able to attract qualified staff – the underpinning for a high quality program.
One of the solutions to this public policy dilemma is to attempt to provide higher quality programs for young children in the education system. The debate, in Canada, is in its infancy and is currently centred on the expansion of kindergarten from half-day to full-day and on extending kindergarten programs to younger children.
Most provinces and territories in Canada offer only half-day kindergarten programs for five-year olds. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec offer full-day programs. Some school districts in other provinces also offer full-day programs targeted to specific populations. Ontario also offers universal half-day kindergarten to four year olds. Other provinces offer some half-day programs for four year olds usually targeted to children otherwise deemed to be at “high risk”. The introduction of full-day kindergarten is currently under discussion in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. (Alberta: Commission on Learning In 2003; Ontario Best Start, 2005).
51
Full-day kindergarten allows
children and teachers time
to explore topics in depth,
reduces the ratio of transition
time to class time; provides
for greater continuity of day-
to- day activities; and provides
an environment that favours a
child-centered, developmentally
appropriate approach.
There has been a rapid expansion of full-day kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs in the United States. In this area, there is no shortage of research demonstrating the value of full-day kindergarten compared to half or alternate day kindergarten programs.
In 1969, in the U.S. kindergarteners usually attended short half-day programs. Only 11% were in full-day programs (more than four hours, but usually closer to six). By 2002, the percentage enrolled in full-day programs had grown to 63%. (U.S. Census Bureau).
Full-day programs provide a relaxed, unhurried school day with more time for a variety of experiences, for assessment opportunities and for quality interaction between adults and children. (Herman, 1984). Parents pointed out a number of advantages: no more shuttling children from school to an afternoon babysitter or worrying about whether their child had been safely picked up. Full-day kindergarten allows children and teachers time to explore topics in depth, reduces the ratio of transition time to class time; provides for greater continuity of day-to- day activities; and provides an environment that favours a child-centered, developmentally appropriate approach.
Research, mainly in the U.S., generally shows that attendance in full-day kindergarten has no detrimental effects on children. (Akerman,, Barnett and Robin, 2005; DeCesare, 2004; Watson and West, 2004) Conversely, research confirms that attendance in full-day kindergarten results in academic and social benefits for students, at least in the primary grades. (Cryan et al., 1992; Karweit, 1992). Cryan et al (1992) found a broad range of effects, including a positive relationship between participation in full-day kindergarten and later school performance. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, in the US, (a major US, nationally representative study) shows that children who participated in full-day kindergarten made statistically significant gains in both reading and mathematics when compared to children who participated in half-day programs. These findings held true even after adjusting for gain score differences associated with race/ethnicity, poverty status, prior reading and math abilities, gender, class size, amount of time for subject-area instruction and the presence of an teaching assistant. (Watson and West, 2004). Similar results have been found in other U.S. Studies (Holmes and McConnell, 1990; Karweit, 1992; Elicker & Mathur , 1997; Weiss & Offenberg, 2002; Welsh, 2002; Humphrey, 1983). The findings on the longer term effects are less certain.
• The introduction of the US National Educational Goals focusing on math and literacy competencies in the early grades has also boosted the expansion of full-day kindergarten. This has also led experts to warn teachers, administrators and parents to resist the temptation to provide full-day programs that are didactic rather than intellectually engaging in tone. Seat work, worksheets and early instruction in reading or other academic subjects are largely inappropriate in kindergarten.
Research in Canada is more limited. A report for the Calgary Board of Education, summarizing previous research on full-day kindergarten programs, concluded that: All studies indicated a positive relation between participation in full-day kindergarten and subsequent school performance. Higher achievement in academic development as well as greater growth in social and behavioural development is consistently reported... All studies reviewed here suggest that a full-day developmentally appropriate kindergarten program is especially beneficial to children from low socioeconomic levels and/or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. (Blades, 2002, p.8) Results from 15 full-day kindergarten programs in Edmonton also showed that children who began kindergarten with lower levels of
52
reading and writing skills were able to catch up to the other children who attended only half day kindergarten. (da Costa & Bell, 2003). Similarly with the Northern Lights School Division. At the beginning of the full-day kindergarten program, 24% of students were identified as having special needs. By Grade 1, teachers only identified 9% of the students as needing special assistance to meet the Grade 1 goals. (Northern Lights School Division, 2002). Nevertheless, there is considerable resistance to the push for more kindergarten programming amongst early childhood professionals in Canada. Kindergarten class sizes are seen as being too large to offer developmentally-appropriate programs and teachers may not have the necessary early childhood education background to deliver a quality program.
Quality Settings Matter Regardless of whether children attend child care and/or kindergarten programs, research is conclusive that quality matters. The 2001 OECD review of early childhood care and education in twelve countries concluded that “children who receive high quality care and education in their early years show better cognitive and language abilities than those in lower quality arrangements.” (OECD, 2001) These findings are confirmed in studies linking high quality to developmental outcomes, regardless of family income or background. (Bowman et al., 2000; Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes, CQCO Study Team, 1995, 1999; NICHD, 1997). In fact, the emphasis on “quality” is re-emphasized throughout these reviews and in all the literature. The recent comprehensive review of research on child development by a committee of experts set up by the American National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (Neurons to Neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development) finds that high quality child care “is associated with outcomes that all parents want to see in their children ranging from co-operation with adults, to the ability to initiate and sustain positive exchanges with peers, to early competence in math and reading.” (Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000)
The quality of the kindergarten experience is also fundamental to positive child development outcomes in just the same way as it is in child care. Probably because kindergarten is generally a secure publicly-funded program in Canada, its effects on children has not been studied as intensely as child care programs. As a result there is very little research on issues of program quality and curriculum effects on children’s development.
The elements of high quality kindergarten programs tend to focus on conditions of service: qualified teachers, small class size, age-appropriate program, early identification and intervention of learning problems, support personnel and parental involvement. (Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2001).
Class size has long been viewed as an important factor in providing quality experiences for young children. Alhussen et al (2004) studied US classrooms and found that smaller classrooms showed higher quality instructional and emotional support and that children in smaller class sizes demonstrated higher literacy skills than children in larger classes. Children from “disadvantaged” backgrounds showed stronger results than other children.
Definitions of quality are not uniform across either Canadian child care or kindergartens; much less so between them. What and how children learn in these settings are highly variable. (NICHD ECRN, 2003, Pianta, 2003, Johnson & Mathien, 1998) It is unclear whether the variation in classrooms is because teachers are attending to the children’ s needs, or whether it is a function of a lack of consensus on how and what to teach young children.
There is, however, no reliable research on the quality of Canadian kindergartens, A Study of State Policies in the United States authored by the Education Commission of the States suggested that in the absence of such research, future action needs to centre on “learning standards” and teacher qualifications. (Kauerz, 2005).
The study of quality in Canadian child care has garnered more research attention. Historically, child care quality
53
has been viewed in terms of its structural qualities: staff:child ratios, group size; staff education and training; quality of physical space, etc. Advocates have spent decades lobbying to improve or retain provincial/territorial regulations that define these elements. By international comparison, most Canadian child care programs have high standards for staff:child ratios , group size and facility conditions. We do less well on qualifications and training. (Cleveland, 2003)
A national study,You Bet I Care!, was conducted by a team of pan-Canadian researchers to study staffing and quality in child care centres and regulated family child care. To measure quality, the researchers used standardized observation scales and child assessment measurements, ECERS-R for preschool children, including children of kindergarten age. The findings were not encouraging. The ECERS-R are rated on a seven-point scale defined by the authors as follows:
Inadequate describes care that does not even meet custodial care needs, minimal describes care that meets custodial and to some small degree basic developmental needs, good describes the basic dimensions of developmental care, and excellent describes high quality, personalized care. The inadequate (1) and minimal (3) ratings usually focus on provision of basic materials and on health and safety precautions. The good (5) and excellent (7) ratings require positive interaction, planning, and personalized care, as well as good materials.” (Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas, 2000)
Process Quality Ratings: Mean ECERS-R (1998)
Province/Territory ECERS-R
N Mean
New Brunswick 39 4.0
Quebec 32 4.7
Ontario 39 4.9
Saskatchewan 33 4.1
Alberta 37 5.1
British Columbia 23 5.6
Yukon 12 4.9
TOTAL 211 4.7 Source: Doherty et al, 2000
The researchers found that higher levels of staff sensitivity were associated with: higher staff wages; teaching staff with higher levels of ECCE-specific education; better benefits; higher staff levels of satisfaction with their relationships with colleagues and the centre as a work environment; the centre being used as a student-teacher practicum site; the centre receiving subsidized rent and/or utilities (a factor that allows higher wages); the centre having favourable staff:child ratios; and the centre being non-profit. (Doherty, et al, 2000). Strikingly, the mean scores did not approach excellent in any province or territory.
The large-scale and path-breaking U.S. study by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) went further. Researchers found that the sensitive and stimulating interactions with adults in child care and early education settings that benefit children’s readiness, are more likely to occur in child care and early education settings that emphasize staff professionalism; provide training in early education and care; and have staff with degrees in child development, education, or related fields and who are more experienced. (NICHD ECCCRN, 1999)
There have not been any similar large-scale studies of kindergarten programs in Canada. The most useful study
54
was conducted by Johnson and Mathien for the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. It compared kindergarten and child care programs in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. The purpose of the project was to document changes and their impact in the four provinces that had made changes to both kindergarten and child care since 1990; to investigate how kindergarten and child care combine to meet the needs of children and families; to document similarities and difference in kindergarten and child care; to obtain the views of parents, teachers, child care staff and key informants on current early childhood education and prospects for the future.
The study found:
• That a majority of both kindergarten and child care programs received acceptable to good (ECERS-R) scores in the program observations, although child care scores in New Brunswick and Quebec raised concerns.
• Provincial jurisdiction (Education or Social Services) made a difference in that kindergarten quality was more dependable across the country, probably because teacher certification results in more program similarity province-to-province;
• That the presence of trained staff was the most important predictor of quality in both child care and kindergarten;
• Parents and educators agreed that social features (cooperating and sharing with others) and language activities were the most important aspects of early childhood education. Learning to read and write were ranked at the low end, either 19th or 20th out of 20 program elements by both groups.
• That program integration in early childhood education is no more expensive than split provision and may, in fact, cost less per child.
• Parents, educators and policymakers were asked to give their opinions on a new program model. The model was described as:
“These new programs provide a combination of, year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten age. Like kindergarten and child care now, children can attend but do not have to attend Parents may choose to have their child in half school day or a full school day or an extended day. The programs are staffed by trained staff, both teachers and early childhood educators.” (Johnson and Mathien, 1998 (p. 16)
There was support for the implementation of a new model. Three-quarters of parents supported an integrated program which would provide a combination of full-day,year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten age. No parents valued the current split provision. The parents were even more favourable if there was no fee, the program involved more government funding in order to serve more children and if all 4- and 5- year olds could attend. Less enthusiasm was displayed by teacher and child care staff for a new integrated model.
Elements of Quality Three areas of early childhood study are key to an understanding of quality: a) curricular framework; b) workforce reform; and c) design of the program.
Curriculum Kindergarten curricular frameworks or program guidelines exist in all provinces and territories; none of the provinces or territories have yet established a program or curriculum framework for its child care programs
55
While there are shifting trends
in the curriculum debate in
Canada, the child care sector has
perceived itself as at the “social
pedagogic” end of the spectrum
and kindergarten has been seen
as more firmly located in the pre-
primary tradition.
although several provinces are now working on these. There has been very little research to determine the key components of a high quality kindergarten program. For example, there are few studies exploring the links between learning, play and program curriculum. Therefore, there is very limited evidence on how play can be used in practice. In the United States, play-based curriculum is seen to be threatened with the emphasis on skill testing in programs such as No Child Left Behind. (Cooper, 2005)
There is, however, a general debate about curriculum issues in Canada. This has been stimulated by the findings of the thematic reviews of early childhood education and care, carried out by expert teams in twenty OECD countries. Much consensus is found across the countries reviewed in terms of curricular principles and aspirations, and with regard to official content. Differences emerge, however, in the practice of curriculum, especially with respect to the emphasis placed on broad developmental goals or on focused cognitive skills. “Kindergarten curriculum encompasses a set of principles that guide practice, a set of standards that guide program, a set of knowledge, dispositions and values that children will learn and a set of pedagogical approaches” (Bennett, 2004). In Bennett’s view there are two predominant approaches that guide early childhood practice: the Social Pedagogic (play-based learning) and the Pre-Primary (didactic learning). While Social Pedagogic practices are characterized by broad developmental goals and little emphasis on assessment, Pre-Primary practices are characterized by a very specific curriculum with prescribed goals and outcomes and more emphasis on assessment.
While there are shifting trends in the curriculum debate in Canada, the child care sector has perceived itself as at the “social pedagogic” end of the spectrum and kindergarten has been seen as more firmly located in the pre-primary tradition. There is undoubtedly room for more research and more collaboration between the sectors in this area.
New Zealand is a case in point. New Zealand was the first country to administratively integrate its child care and kindergarten programs under one department. An important element in the integration process was the development of an integrated, national early childhood curriculum, Te Whaariki, which was developed in partnership with Maori and after months of consultation across the country. The aims of Te Whaariki include: well-being; belonging; contribution; communication and exploration. Implementation requires staff understanding of theory and reflective practice. It has been incorporated into teacher education, professional development and ECE resources. More recently, the New Zealand Government has developed a strategic plan emphasizing improving quality and collaborative relationships. Although divisions still exist, integration is based on theory, philosophy, research and political action. Status, recognition and support for ECE has increased greatly and the system has moved from an ad hoc to a planned approach. Carr and May have found that general support for the curriculum is high but, as observed elsewhere, current regulations and funding make it difficult for centres to meet the quality expectations. Several training institutions have begun using Te Whaariki as a framework, and evaluation and assessment guidelines are underway.
Regardless of their pedagogical approach, major obstacles to curriculum quality and implementation met commonly across countries are structural failings (lack of financing, unfavourable child/staff ratios, poorly qualified and poorly remunerated staf) and inadequate pedagogical theory and practice. Against this background, three emerging issues are under debate: accountability and the new learning standards; the expansion of literacy practices and the re-positioning of educators in the early childhood field.
56
Workforce The second element in the production of quality programs centres on the quality of the workforce. Early learning and care programs in both Canada and the United States receive children with increasingly diverse levels of skills. In order to provide a learning atmosphere that is supportive of all children, early childhood education teachers must be equipped to adapt to each child’s needs. In child care programs, the professional reality of low pay, low job satisfaction and high turnover does not provide this kind of support and has led to a crisis of staffing in child care across Canada.
The OECD Country Report recommended a review of professional profiles, improved recruitment levels and strengthening the initial and in-service training of staff. It points out that OECD societies are moving away from traditional notions of “child care” toward more developmental ambitions for young children, where early childhood centres become the foundation for lifelong learning. Staff, in these centres, are required to deal sensitively with immigrant and cultural issues, to respond appropriately to special needs children and to provide individualized support to every child in moments of vulnerability or stress. (OECD, 2004) Another recommendation made in the OECD Report was the need to improve the training level of all staff. Staff training for child care was viewed as insufficient to develop skills and understanding required to administer a developmental program for children in an increasingly complex organization and society. The OECD also noted that although teachers are required to complete a university degree and receive, in general, practical training in the delivery of a curriculum, kindergarten teachers did not, generally, receive specific enough training for this age group. They suggested that:
obtaining a university degree tends to hide the fact that the degree in question may not carry a significant module of early childhood theory or training. It is problematic to have teachers working in kindergarten who have not been trained for the role – even if they receive a top up or in-service training course – particularly if that role is likely to expand downwards to junior kindergarten, as already in several provinces. (OECD Canada Report, 2004, p. 68)
The OECD was also critical of levels of training in child care settings:
Kindergarten teachers typically work in a larger setting, a school, where the focus of the institution as a whole is also on learning. While one might not agree with a narrow school- readiness approach or the high child:staff ratios, kindergarten classes are generally well- invested with trained teachers, good pedagogical materials and suitable (indoor) furnishings. In contrast, child care centres and family daycare homes may not work to a curriculum at all, even a developmental one. .... Moreover, child care centres are usually small and there is no immediate wider professional reference group for staff or a tradition of professional development, as in a school. (OECD, 2004)
This situation is mirrored in the U.S. where there have been several studies focusing on staff qualifications, training and on the merits of the public sector vs. the community-private sector.
The concern about ensuring that pre-kindergarten programs in the U.S. retain high quality teachers has led to the conclusion that pre-kindergarten teachers with bachelor’s degrees and specialized training in child development raise pre-kindergarten program quality and result in better outcomes for children. Marcy Whitebook reviews the research on pre-kindergarten teacher qualifications to highlight teachers with bachelor’s degrees and their direct
...pre-kindergarten teachers
with bachelor’s degrees
and specialized training in
child development raise pre-
kindergarten program quality
and result in better outcomes
for children.
57
link to quality in early education and care. Among the findings of the studies reviewed are the following:
• teachers with four-year degrees in early childhood education rated higher in positive interaction with children than those without these credentials, and were less detached, less authoritarian and less punitive;
• children who had teachers with a bachelor’s or associate’s in early childhood education demonstrated stronger receptive vocabularies that those with teachers holding only a high school diploma; and
• retaining the greatest number of teachers with bachelor’s degrees or more was the strongest predictor of whether a center maintained a high level of quality over time. Taken as a group, these studies strongly show the importance of not simply more education, but specifically how the requirement of a bachelor’s degree with specialized early childhood training can be used to develop high quality center-based pre-kindergarten programs. (Whitebook, 2002)
A previous study of pre-kindergarten staffing in California, Georgia, Chicago, New York, and Texas found that teachers employed in publicly-operated programs attained more formal education, received higher wages and benefits and experienced greater job stability than did their counterparts in privately-operated programs. (Belim, Burton, Whitebook, Broatch, Young, 2002) This study also found that salaries and turnover rates of pre-kindergarten teachers in publicly operated programs more closely resemble those of K-12 teachers, while the characteristics of staff members in community- based pre-kindergarten programs operated by private non-profit and for-profit groups, more closely resemble those of workers in child care centres.
With increased discussion of universal preschool in California and the reality that at least 20 states and the District of Columbia now require bachelor’s degrees for teachers in state-financed pre-kindergarten programs, the possibility of increased educational standards for early childhood educators is under serious consideration. It has become critically important to assess the capacity of the state’s higher education system to meet rising demands for teacher preparation. (Whitebook, 2004) Thus far, the discussion is moving toward raising the bar higher than California’s current Title 5 standards, possibly as high as a bachelor’s degree with a credential for lead teachers, and an AA and Child Development Permit for assistant teachers.
From the UK, Cameron presents a vision that by 2020 the early education and care workorce will mainly be educated to degree level and will be capable of meeting the challenges of working in highly complex environments, where children’s learning and being are highly valued and demand a high level of skills and knowledge. The workforce will be drawn from all sections of the community, including men, and the current split between ‘teachers’ and ‘childcare workers’ rethought around a model of an integrated worker who employs a holistic, pedagogical approach. (Cameron, 2002)
In Europe, the focus has moved on towards a discussion of the need for and the way to create one ‘core’ profession. This discussion has been stimulated by the administrative integration of education and child care in nine countries. In assessing the impacts of integration, Peter Moss suggests that one indicator of how far integration has gone is what happens to the divided workforce and, in particular, whether the workforce has been reformed around a ‘core’ profession whose members work across all centre-based early childhood services: both child care and education. (Moss, 2004)
Two ‘core” professions have emerged in countries which have gone furthest in integrating early childhood services. Both work across the whole early childhood age spectrum from birth to age 5 or 6. Both engage in all aspects of education and care.
58
• New Zealand, Spain and Sweden have integrated the early childhood educator and kindergarten teacher professions into the early childhood teacher working with children under and over 3 years. (By contrast, teachers in divided systems typically work just with children from 3 and upward in the schools; in Canada this applies to children 4 and upward).
• The Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Denmark have adopted the profession known as the pedagogue who works with children in a holistic way addressing the whole child with body, mind, emotions, creativity, history and social identity. In fact, pedagogues work across a wider range of occupations. In addition to early childhood services, they work with school-age children, youth in residential settings and also care for adults with disabilities and the elderly. (Moss, 2004)
In countries with core professions, there is usually also an assistant. In Spain, staff working with children over 3 are mostly teachers, while those working with under 3’s are mostly assistants. In countries like Denmark and Sweden about half of all workers are teachers or pedagogues. In New Zealand, the government has set a target of having the entire workforce trained to degree level by 2012. Whether teachers or pedagogues, basic education required is a university degree (equivalent to school teachers). Assistants are generally qualified to the equivalent of a Canadian community college diploma. There are career ladders in place to allow early childhood educators to move up. (Moss, 2004) Services in Sweden share a mainly graduate workforce with (from 2001) a common framework for training for preschool and child care staff and teachers (Cohen, Moss, Petrie & Wainwright, 2004) These developments are being closely watched from Canada and pilot projects, such as Toronto First Duty, are taking their queue from these experiences.
Program Design Undoubtedly, the OECD Canada review has elevated the discussion about program alternatives in Canada. A recurring theme is whether programs be designed around the child’s needs, school schedules or the needs of the child? The backbone to the accumulated knowledge and suggested alternatives in this area in OECD countries comes from the OECD thematic reviews.
In Sweden, all children are entitled to a preschool place. For almost three decades, child care has been an integral part of the Swedish welfare state and of most families’ everyday lives. In 1996 the government moved responsibility for child care from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs to the Ministry of Education and Science as part of an effort to reform and expand early childhood education and care. In short, Sweden continues its commitment to a child care system that is designed to meet the twin aims of supporting early childhood education and promoting gender equality.
In Sweden “whole-day” schools have been introduced which combine education and child care in one setting. Schools are also increasingly linked with pre-school education and care services for children from age one, under the leadership of the school principal. In Sweden, there were already extensive publicly-funded child care services before reforms were introduced in 1996. Swedes also pay higher taxes but have low child poverty, universal and affordable services for children from the age of one and high levels of satisfaction with the services provided.
Such findings serve to emphasize the need for collaboration and coordination between parents, schools and communities. One U.S. collaborative initiative between pre-kindergarten and community child care programs is the North Carolina Partnership for Children’s Smart Start. The primary goal of Smart Start is to ensure that all
integrated professional
supports improve the
quality of early childhood
programs and reduce risks
for parents and children.
59
children enter school healthy and prepared to succeed. Smart Start has funded a variety of technical assistance (TA) activities to improve child care, including on-site technical assistance, quality improvement and facility grant, teacher education scholarships, license upgrades, teacher salary supplements, and higher subsidies for increased child care quality or increased teacher education levels. A study of this initiative between 1994 and 1999, found three main conclusions:
1. between 1993 and 2002, child care quality in this sample steadily and significantly increased;
2. participation in Smart Start-funded activities was significantly positively related child care quality, and
3. children who attended higher quality centers scored significantly higher than children in lower quality centers on measures of skills and abilities deemed important for kindergarten success. Although the study cannot identify which Smart Start TA activities have been most effective at improving quality, it does show that Smart Start-funded activities are significantly related to preschool classroom quality. Classroom quality was significantly, positively related to children’s outcomes, over and above the effects of gender, income, and ethnicity.
In Canada, examples of practice innovation can be found in programs such as Toronto First Duty, Manitoba’s Educaring: Strengthening partnerships between schools and child care, the YWCA’s project, Building a Community Architecture for Early Childhood Learning and Care, and Schools of the 21st Century program. (Finn-Stevenson and Zigler). More models like these can demonstrate how schools can provide child care, outreach services, home visits, health and nutrition services, and parenting programs.
One of the five Toronto First Duty sites, BruceWoodgreen Early Learning Centre (BWELC) has moved furthest in Canada in terms of integrating child care, kindergarten and family support programs. Features of the program as articulated in the Toronto First Duty Guide to Early Childhood Service Integration include:
• The integrated early learning and care program is delivered by a teaching team of early childhood educators, kindergarten teachers, parenting workers and educational assistants, using shared curriculum, resources and space;
• Parents choose a half, full, or extended day for their children. The parent fee for the extended day program is one-third to one-half the cost of traditional child care services;
• Kindergarten classrooms and the parenting centre are licensed by the province under the Day Nurseries Act, so that space can be used in multiple ways and that child development, health and safety standards are met.
Approximately 144 families (parents, other caregivers and children from infancy through school age) are registered in the children’s program and/or regularly attend parent-child activities; of the children 2.5 to six years, 45 attend part time; 24 attend the full day; 26 the extended day. Another 13 children attend the Grade 1 transition program and 43 parents/caregivers regularly participate in parenting workshops and drop-in activities.
2006 research on this project concluded that:
integrated professional supports improve the quality of early childhood programs and reduce risks for parents and children. By engaging parents in the school and their children’s early learning, children’s social,
60
emotional, and academic readiness for school is enhanced. Integrated program delivery is also cost-effective, serving more families, more flexibly, for the same costs. (Corter, Bertrand, Pelletier, Griffin, McKay, Patel & Ioannone, 2006, p. 5)
Although there are very few models of integration between kindergarten and child care programs in North America, as well as research studies, Europe has been proactive in this direction. Since 1996, nine European countries have now integrated ECEC programs for children from 0-6 under one government department and now regard early childhood education and care as an essential part of preparation of children for public school, an important component of the supports to families with special attention to those with employed parents, and as a venue for identifying children and families who will need special services. (OECD, 2001).
An international review of early years integration studies reports that integrated care and education was beneficial for children, particular children facing multiple risks and that early access to such programs was advantageous (Penn, Barreau, Butterworth, Lloyd, Moyles, Potter & Sayeed 2004). A study of preschool education in Britain reported that children who attended integrated early education and care programs and those who attended nursery school made better intellectual progress by the time that they entered the primary school than did children who attended regular child care centres, supervised family child care or other combinations of non-parental care and early education programs (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart & Elliot 2003).
Following the integration of education and child care, Sweden, New Zealand, Spain, Slovenia, England and Scotland also moved to unify services under one department. Early childhood services are now the responsibility of one government in nine European countries – either welfare or education.
Leadership from organizations such as the YWCA Canada are beginning to show changing perspectives and new encouragement in Canada. Four communities across Canada (Vancouver, British Columbia, Martinsville, Saskatchewan, Cambridge, Ontario and Halifax, Nova Scotia) undertook to build community models of integrated early childhood learning and care. Despite their widespread distribution, each community task force identified fragmentation of services and inadequate public funding as the fundamental barriers to achieving the best outcomes for children and families. Each of the communities produced blueprints which had a remarkable consistency and were based on a common model. (Robinson and Mayer, 2006). These are the kinds of experiences that research and practice should surely build upon in the future.
Additional research is needed. In particular, action research of the kind conducted in conjunction with the Toronto First Duty pilot project will serve to advance our thinking – and eventually our practice – in this crucial area.
61
THE CANADIAN CONTEXT
The Family Context of ECEC in CanadaFamilies have changed dramatically in the last couple of generations. The most obvious change is in the labour force participation of women in general, and of mothers of young children in particular. The figures are familiar but worth repeating. In 1967, one out of every six mothers with preschool children (17%) was in the labour force in Canada. (Friendly, Beach, 2005). By the year 2003, three out of every four mothers with children 3-5 and six in ten (65.8%) mothers with children less than 3, were in the labour force. The rise in the employment rates of mothers continues each year, for children less than 3, as for children 3-5 years of age. As a result, more and more children are in non-parental care situations for substantial portions of their preschool years. The 1988 Canadian National Child Care Survey found that 75% of children 18 months through 5 years of age were in non-parental care arrangements (including kindergarten) on a weekly basis. (Lero, 1988)
As family situations have evolved and researchers have explored effects on the development of children, governments around the world have supported different forms of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services. Some have been targeted at specific groups of children, for example Head Start and other early intervention programs in the United States. Some have provided universal full-day pre-school educational services, such as the écoles maternelles in France and the scuola materna in Italy. Some have provided an integrated mix of education and care services directed at parents who are employed or in school, as with the Swedish and Danish municipal child care centres and family homes. Some of these have been free to parents, others have required parental contributions.
Some governments have scarcely supported early childhood programs at all. In the United States and Canada, outside Quebec, ECEC services are largely a market service with some governmental regulation and subsidization of low-income families or families deemed to be “at risk”. In some other countries, the quality of ECEC services is strongly regulated and substantial direct or indirect assistance is provided to reduce the costs to parents of good quality care. In many other countries, an integrated system of ECEC services is provided at relatively low cost to parents from age 2 onwards or from the end of maternity/parental leave. Different countries have a wide range of other policies related to Early Childhood Education and Care, ranging from tax deductions of child care expenses, paid and job-protected maternity and parental leaves, and inducements to employers to provide services for employees. (Cleveland, 2003)
The Federal Policy Context Of ECECThe discussion of ECEC policies for kindergarten-age children in Canada is better understood with a little context, particularly concerning the federal government. Child care and education policy are in provincial jurisdiction; taxation issues are shared jurisdiction; payments under Employment Insurance are under federal jurisdiction. From the 1960’s through to the mid-1990’s, child care policy in all provinces and territories was shaped by federal willingness to cost-share (50-50) provincial/territorial expenditures on child care that met certain criteria (being directed at families in poverty or likely to be in poverty;
From 1995 on, with the CHST (Canada Health and Social Transfer), federal funding for child care was part of a block grant with no strings attached, including no necessity to spend on child care.
In this way, the federal government vacated its role in ECE and services across provinces/territories began to show even more differentiation. For example, Ontario used this opportunity to reduce its expenditures on both child care and kindergarten. At the other end of the spectrum, Quebec used the opportunity to introduce a radical
62
family policy reform. This reform introduced full-day kindergarten programs in the schools for five year olds and made early childhood education services more widely available for a $5 per day fee (later increased to $7 per day). (Cleveland, Colley, 2003)
Advocates continued to press the federal government and in 1998, the federal government announced a National Children’s Agenda, making early childhood development a national political priority. A number of major initiatives followed in rapid succession. In December 2000, the federal government extended maternity and parental leave to cover virtually a full year of the child’s life. Fifteen of these weeks were designated as maternity leave and thirty-five weeks as parental leave available to either parent. Since take-up of paid leave by Canadian families has traditionally been very high, it is expected that these provisions will dramatically reduce the need for expansion of infant ECEC facilities.
In addition, the federal government also provided substantial funding which provinces used for Early Childhood Education and Care services and for related child development programs. The Early Childhood Development Initiatives Agreement (ECDI) was reached with all provinces and territories except Quebec in September 2000, providing for $2.2 million of federal funds to flow over 5 years to provinces. The significance is not the size of the budget but the renewal of the federal funding role in this area, which had been suspended with the ending of the Canada Assistance Plan in 1995. Provincial and territorial governments agreed to use this funding to improve and expand services in four key areas: (a) healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy, (b) parenting and family supports, (c) early childhood development, learning and care, and (d) community supports. The agreement included provisions for provinces/territories to report regularly to their citizens on expenditures and child development. Some provinces and territories used this funding to enhance their existing early childhood care and education services; others ploughed the money solely into health-related programs.
In early 2003, as a supplement to the ECDI agreement, the federal and provincial/territorial governments (except Quebec) signed the Multilateral Framework Agreement (MFA) which provided approximately $1 billion of federal funding over five years to support investments in early learning and child care in particular. The objective of this initiative was to promote early childhood development but also to support the participation of parents in employment and training by improving access to affordable, quality early learning and child care programs and services. As the Agreement indicates, approaches to early learning and child care will be based on the principles of availability and accessibility, affordability, quality, inclusiveness and parental choice.
In the fall of 2004, the federal Liberal Minority Government announced a proposal to create a national Early Learning and Child Care (ELCC) Program in Canada with an infusion of funding of $5 billion over five years. Federal/provincial/territorial ministers met to hash out an agreement. The principles of Quality, Universally Inclusive, Accessible and Developmental were agreed to. The provinces/territories were reluctant to sign an agreement without a budget commitment and so talks were postponed. The federal political crisis in the Spring of 2005 prompted a number of provinces/territories to sign bilateral agreements with the federal government in an attempt to secure the funding should the government fall. Despite the shortcomings of the proposals, the initiative and funding stimulated an optimism and excitement about child care prospects in Canada for the first time in decades.
In fact, the Liberal minority did fall in January 2006 and was subsequently replaced by a minority Conservative Government. One of the first acts of this new government was to cancel the ELCC agreements between the federal and provincial governments and to cancel the $5 billion commitment. The funding would only continue until March 31, 2007. The Conservative Government replaced the ELCC program with taxable allowances of $1,200/year for all children under 6. It is widely acknowledged that this program will do little to improve the supply, access to and quality of child care.
the initiative and funding
stimulated an optimism
and excitement about child
care prospects in Canada
for the first time in decades.
63
Definition of Early Childhood Education and CareEarly Childhood Care and Education (ECEC) for kindergarten-age children in Canada refers to arrangements for the care and education of children aged 3 to 5 years, not including compulsory public schooling.
The definition of Early Childhood Education and Care provided in Starting Strong, the summary report from the recent OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care policies and programs in 12 member countries sums it up:
“The term early childhood education and care (ECEC) includes all arrangements providing care and education of children under compulsory school age, regardless of setting, funding, opening hours, or programme content. ...it was deemed important to include policies – including parental leave arrangements – and provision concerning children under age 3, a group often neglected in discussions in the educational sphere.” (OECD, 2001, p. 14)
Sheila Kamerman, of Columbia University (2000a) provides a companion definition of ECEC policy:
“ECEC policy includes the whole range of government activities designed to influence the supply of and/or demand for ECEC and the quality of services provided. These government activities include direct delivery of ECEC services, direct and indirect financial subsidies to private providers (such as grants, contracts and tax incentives), financial subsidies to parents both direct and indirect (such as cash benefits and allowances to pay for the services, tax benefits to offset the costs, or cash benefits that permit parents to stop working and remain at home without loss of income) and the establishment and enforcement of regulations.” (Kamerman, 2000, p. 8)
The care and education of these young children is conducted through a multitude of arrangements ranging from kindergarten and preschool programs in public schools to private informal or formal child care, centre-based to care within a family home, commercial to non-profit to public. Support programs for parents and caregivers, such as Family Resource Centres and Early Learning Centres and specialized programs oriented to specific target populations also exist. Five general categories can be identified as:
• Kindergarten
• Regulated child care programs
• Cash Benefits
• Support Services (such as family resource centres)
• Unregulated Child Care
Kindergarten programs in the public school systemThe majority of Canadian programs for five year olds are part-time operated as part of the public education system. A minority of four year olds attend part-time kindergarten in the schools. Programs are free to parents.
Since 1867, Canada has exercised responsibility for young children in the fields of health, education and social services. Public school kindergarten programs are operated within provincial jurisdiction under the auspices of provincial/territorial Ministries of Education. Kindergarten programs are free.
64
In 1883, Dr. James L. Hughes and Ada Marean Hughes introduced the Froebel kindergarten from Germany into the Toronto public schools. Kindergartens spread rapidly through the province and in 1887 they were recognized by the Ontario Government and funded with a provincial grant.
In every province and territory, kindergarten teachers must have a teacher’s certificate and/or a Bachelor of Education/Bachelor degree. Although some provinces require an elementary specialization, only Quebec requires teachers to take mandatory practica in preschool and primary. Saskatchewan is the only province that requires pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers to specialize in early childhood development. Local authorities set the criteria for hiring classroom teaching assistants and they are not generally required to have any qualifications. (Friendly, Beach, 2005).
Teachers negotiate their rate of pay through their federations. Teacher assistants are generally not unionized. In 1999-2000, it was estimated that the average salary of teachers across the country (including kindergarten teachers) was $53,764. (Table 19, Interprovincial Education Statistics Project, 1999-2000). The relative provincial/territorial salaries for teachers and early childhood educators are set out in Table 2, in the Appendix. The Canadian Teachers Federation currently estimates that minimum starting salaries range, by province, from $34,000 to $52,000 annually; maximum salary for the same levels of training ranges from $50,000 to $72,000 annually,
Comprehensive learning expectations are contained in a Kindergarten Curriculum or program guidelines laid out by each province and territory.
There were an estimated 469,000 children enrolled in Kindergarten in 2003-4, mostly part-time. It is estimated that about 98% of eligible children attend Kindergarten at age 5 and where it is available at age 4, approximately 84% of eligible children attend. The provinces/territories of Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories do not have legislated limits on class size, but in practice class sizes range from 12-13 children up to 30. Prince Edward Island kindergarten classes have adopted the legislated child chare staff:child ratios of 1:12 children. Information concerning the number of children with special needs in kindergarten is not readily available.
Kindergarten programs are well established and are the only truly universal ECEC program offered to Canadian children under the age of six. However, these are viewed exclusively as “educational” programs with no attempt to meet employment needs of working parents. Kindergarten is clearly very well accepted by parents and beneficial to children but it is separated geographically, jurisdictionally and culturally from other ECEC programs. As a result, kindergarten children may participate in several ECEC settings during the day (e.g., before kindergarten, kindergarten, after kindergarten). Depending on the arrangements this can be difficult and stressful for children and parents.
A number of new approaches to kindergarten have been undertaken by provincial governments in the last several years. Since the introduction of the new Family Policy in Quebec in 1997-98, jurisdiction for early childhood education was split at age 5. Children 0-4 attend child care programs run by the Ministère de l’Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille. At age 5, children can attend non-compulsory, full-school day kindergarten in the education system. In inner city schools, there are also pre-kindergarten programs for four year olds operating for half a day. The other half-day is spent in the school child care which is part of the school system. The child care is operated by the school boards; the Principals have ultimate responsibility and the child care centres are expected to meet the child care licensing requirements. As one staff team, there is extensive coordination between the teachers and the child care staff.
Kindergarten programs
... are viewed exclusively
as “educational”
programs with no
attempt to meet
employment needs of
working parents.
65
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also introduced full-school day, compulsory kindergarten programs in the schools. In 2005, Nova Scotia introduced a two-year pre-primary pilot project in 19 schools offering full-time pre-primary (junior kindergarten) programs on a full-school-day basis for children who are 4 on or before October 1st of the school year. The programs are staffed by educators with early childhood degrees or 2-year diplomas; the maximum class size is 18 with two early childhood educators per group. Provision has not yet been made for out-of-school programs for children of working parents, but officials anticipate that after the pilot period, this will become the next challenge.
Prince Edward Island introduced kindergarten by combining it with existing child care programs. The Department of Education provides half a day’s instruction in the centres for free; if the parents wish to keep their children there all day, they pay a fee or apply for a subsidy. The school boards are not involved in the delivery of kindergarten. Manitoba has launched an active coordination project: Educaring: Strengthening Partnerships between Schools and Child Care, emphasizing communication, collaboration and consistency.
Among other projects, Saskatchewan allocated $200,000 to Saskatchewan Learning to expand their pre-kindergarten programs for four year olds. The report of the longitudinal study of pre-kindergarten in Regina Public School Division #4 has interesting findings. The School Division hired teachers with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in the Early Childhood Intervention Program; they also had strong ECE backgrounds, which contributed to the high ECERS-R scores received.
Alberta is also reviewing changes. Alberta’s Commission on Learning, published in October 2003, recommended the establishment of new junior kindergarten programs on a phased-in basis. The Commission also recommended that kindergarten programs should be mandatory for all children and provided on a full-day basis.
In Canada, evaluation of program effectiveness is not mandated. The focus is on assessment of individual children through report cards and testing at Grades 3, 6, 9 and 10 plus the national and international testing organized through the provincial and territorial education authorities. Often, a large amount of money is spent on the organization of such testing. For example, in Ontario, the Education Quality Accountability Office has a $50 million budget. Despite the dollars available for testing, there are very limited resources to do the extra follow up work to help children who are having problems to improve.
Regulated Child CareRegulated child care programs are provided in child care centres, nursery schools and family homes, licensed by the provincial government and regulated under the Day Nurseries Act. There is a mixture of municipal, private for-profit and not-for-profit programs. The preschool child care services in Canada are based on a fee-for-service arrangement. Fees in the regulated sector range from an average of $154 per month ($7 per day) in Quebec to $600 in the Northwest Territories. (Friendly and Beach, 2005)
Centre-based CareEven though the first child care centre in Ontario, The Creche in Toronto, was established as early as 1881, current child care policy in Ontario mirrors the policies established during the Second World War when 28 day nurseries were established in Ontario to provide services to care for preschool children of women workers needed for the war effort. Since that time, child care has been shaped based on the needs of working mothers. Historically, the provincial governments’ role was to pass legislation to license and regulate child care programs and to cost share the operating costs of the services on behalf of working parents deemed to be “in need” or whose children were otherwise deemed to be “at risk”.
66
Regulated child care in Canada is primarily governed by child care legislation and regulations in each province and territory. This legislation provides for licensing, monitoring and enforcement. The regulations set out the standards and regulations for the operation of these group programs, including maximum child:staff ratios, group sizes, minimum staff qualification requirements and guidelines for parental involvement.
In most provinces and territories, one Ministry is responsible for developing policy and legislation, coordinating planning, licensing child care programs, ensuring compliance with the regulations and administering funding. Often there are decentralized ministries with regional offices. Ministry officials, based in the regions license child care programs, monitor them and enforce the legislation and regulations through an annual license renewal process to ensure compliance with the regulatory standards. Non-compliance of a serious nature may result in a refusal to renew or revocation of license. Legislation provides authority for immediate closure if children’s well-being is in danger.
The Child Care Resource and Research Unit estimated in 2005 that there were a total of 745,254 regulated spaces for children 0-12. (Spaces available for 15.5% of children in this age group.) At present statistics are not collected on enrollment of children by their actual age. (Friendly and Beach, 2005)
The Child Care Resource and Research Unit also estimated that there were 148,852 children (0-12) in Canada receiving some fee subsidy. This does not include the 321,732 children in Quebec, all of whom receive a substantial fee subsidy because the programs are globally funded. There are also waiting lists for fee subsidies in most places. (Friendly, Beach, 2005)
The median full monthly price to parents of full-time ECEC in a child care centre in Canada was estimated in 2000 to range from $531 per month for infants to $477 per month for toddlers and $455 per month for preschoolers (including children of kindergarten-aged. (Doherty, et al, 2000)
Quality in child care centres is typically measured for research and evaluation purposes using scales such as the Infant-Toddler Environments Rating Scale (ITERS) and the Early Childhood Environments Rating Scale (ECERS) and the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS). Trained observers score classrooms on a 35-43 item scale in a measurement exercise lasting for at least several hours. A study in 1998, funded by the federal government and conducted by a network of university researchers, has provided one of the first quality assessments of Canadian child care centres and licensed family homes. Data were collected in 122 infant-toddler rooms and 227 preschool rooms in 234 child care centres and 231 regulated family home child care providers across six provinces and one territory providing comparative quality estimates. The ITERS, ECERS and FDCRS scales are 7-point scales, where scores of 1, 3, 5 and 7 are associated with the terms inadequate, minimal, good and excellent respectively. Process Quality Ratings (ECERS-R) from the You Bet I Care! Study (1998) are as follows:
ECERS Scores
New Brunswick 4.0
Quebec 4.7
Ontario 4.9
Saskatchewan 4.1
Alberta 5.1
British Columbia 5.6
Yukon 4.9
Total 4.7Source: Doherty et al, 2000
67
This study had a significant impact on governments across Canada. Some governments immediately introduced initiatives to improve quality, others were expecting to allocate a portion of the new ELCC program funding for this purpose. For example, Alberta introduced an accreditation program to provide quality improvement incentives to providers and New Brunswick allocated funds to the Enhanced Child Day Services to improve quality and staff wages.
Regulated Family Child CareMany kindergarten-age children use family child care before and/or after kindergarten. The provincial territorial policies for family child care is also defined by legislation and regulation, providing for the licensing, monitoring and enforcement. In some provinces and territories government individually license family child care programs; in other provinces and territories the government licenses agencies to organize, and monitor the care. Care may be provided in homes for a specific number of children from 0-12 years. Generally, caregivers are not required to have qualifications, although some provinces require caregivers to take orientation courses, have first-aid certificates and have clear criminal record checks. Fee subsidies are also available for regulated family child care in all provinces and territories.
Children with Special NeedsKindergarten-age children with special needs are also accommodated within the regulated child care system. Governments encourage integration and inclusion of children with special needs into community child care services. Special needs funding programs provide assistance for staffing, equipment, supplies or services to support the inclusion of children with special needs in child care.
Aboriginal Child CareChild care programs on-reserve are usually administered under agreements between First Nations communities and the federal government. First Nations and Inuit organizations have responsibility for administration of funds and for developing services which are operated and controlled by their own communities in order that they reflect their traditional cultural norms and practices. Some provinces license on-reserve child care; other provinces do not license but provide support.
In May 1995 Health Canada announced its intention to develop an Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) program. Health Canada allocated 83.7 million dollars nationally for the program. For example, Alberta received an allocation of approximately 10.4 million dollars for the four-year period April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1999. The AHS programs across Canada continues to operate today. Programs are located in Northern and Urban areas. Across Canada there are 131 Aboriginal Head Start sites off reserve and more than 307 sites on-reserve. The principles and guidelines of Aboriginal Head Start are based on a holistic approach to education which emphasizes the needs of the children within family, school and community through: culture and language, education, health promotion, nutrition, social support programming and parental involvement. Aboriginal Head Start aims to facilitate whole family growth and development through parental involvement at all levels of the site’s activities. Many of the sites are licensed through Nursery Schools. In Alberta, five sites have ECS operating status-where kindergarten is taught in the sites. Mostly all the other sites partner with their local school districts to help assist with children that
Special needs funding
programs provide
assistance for staffing,
equipment, supplies or
services to support the
inclusion of children with
special needs in child care.
68
have special needs. Most sites have developed partnerships and networks with their local health units for dental, speech, audiology etc. (Murphy, 2005)
FundingThe operation of child care programs tends to be driven by funding and financing issues. Unlike kindergarten in the schools, parents must pay for child care. This leaves child care programs subject to the vagaries of the market place, placing considerable emphasis on ensuring that the revenues will cover expenditures. At the same time, strict regulations must be met. Provincial/territorial funding for regulated centre-based programs includes fee subsidies, wage subsidies, special needs resourcing, and some funding from other social assistance programs.
The main form of funding available in the regulated child care sector is fee assistance paid directly to licensed service providers on behalf of eligible parents. Eligibility for subsidy is determined by an income or needs test. Income ceilings and other factors vary from one province/territory to the other. Most parents receiving a fee subsidy are also charged a user fee. Some provinces/territories do not require financial eligibility as a condition for subsidizing care for children with special needs; other provinces require financial eligibility for the basic fee but will support assistance for the additional supports.
Cash benefits
Pregnancy and Parental Leave (and Federal Benefits)
Provinces legislate job protection during pregnancy and parental leave under their respective Employment Standards legislation. The federal government provides compensation to mothers who have been employed for at least 600 hours in the last year, generally at a rate of 55% of the previous wage up to a maximum of $413 per week, under the Employment Insurance Act. Benefits after the first fifteen weeks can be taken by the father or shared. Birth mothers are entitled to take 15 weeks of pregnancy leave. New parents can take up to 37 weeks of leave; maximum allowable job-protected leave means parents could be at home for up to 89 weeks. (15 weeks pregnancy leave – birth mother; plus 35 weeks of leave (birth mother); plus 35 weeks of leave (other parent) This combined program was estimated to cost $2,924,000,000 in 2003-04. (Friendly and Beach, 2005)
Child Care Expense Deduction
The Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) is a federal tax measure which allows eligible taxpayers to deduct the cost of child care used to earn income, go to school or conduct research from their taxable income. Generally, this deduction must be claimed by the lower income spouse. The CCED allows deduction of expenses up to $7,000 for each child less than 7 years of age and up to $4000 per year for each child 7 – 16. The tax savings available depends on the marginal tax rate of the parent claiming the CCED. This program was estimated to cost $545,000,000 in 2003/04 (Friendly, Beach, 2005)
The Child Care Expense Deduction does not reduce the amount of the parent fee that has to be paid for child care. Rather, the CCED reduces the tax that would otherwise be paid on the income used to pay for child care. Therefore, the Child Care Expense Deduction plays an important role in increasing horizontal tax equity between different types of families in Canada. (Cleveland, Colley, 2003). As the Ontario Ministry of Finance puts it “Horizontal equity
...the Child Care Expense
Deduction plays an
important role in
increasing horizontal tax
equity between different
types of families in
Canada.
69
in the taxation system requires that persons in similar circumstances bear an equal tax burden. Individuals who incur child care costs are less able to pay income tax. This deduction recognizes this reduced ability to pay tax faced by parents with young children.” (Cleveland and Colley, 2001)
Support Services (Family Resource Centres, etc.)
Family resource centres, Early Learning Centres, Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, Community Action Program for Children (CAP-C) and a variety of prevention and intervention programs provide various support services to parents, public education, and programs for specific target groups. Most of these are not, strictly speaking, providing either education or care services to preschool children (and are therefore not included in the OECD definition below), but they may provide related services which influence child development in different ways. Some of these programs are operated by provincial/territorial/municipal governments, others by non-profit agencies and some by the federal government. Coherence of these programs within an overall system of services is typically lacking. Some of these programs carry small user fees.
Family Resource centres (also known as child care resource centres) have historically provided support services to parents and caregivers in their caregiving roles. The centres offer drop-in programs, resource lending libraries, playgroups, training opportunities and educational workshops. Family Resource Centres, are usually part of the child care service sector as a provincial/territorial responsibility.
Unregulated child careUnregulated child care is provided in a child’s own home or a caregiver’s home. The vast majority of working parents use this option for their children.
Other Innovations and Developments
Toronto First Duty
The Toronto First Duty Project, funded by the City of Toronto and the Atkinson Foundation has developed a pilot project to integrate and expand early education, family support and child care activities in five neighbourhoods.
This pilot project is designed to demonstrate how existing early childhood and family programs can be transformed into a system for children 0-6 years and to explore possible options for integration of kindergarten and other ECEC services. (Toronto First Duty). There are five sites: Bruce WoodGreen Early Learning Centre; Corvette Early Years; Queen Victoria Partners for Early Learning Project; York Early Years Wilcox Project; and Action for Children Today and Tomorrow Secord-Dawes Hub. Each site has engaged in activities to bring together and integrate early years services to children and families in their respective communities.
As an example, the Bruce WoodGreen Early Learning Centre, has integrated its half-day kindergarten programs for both four and five year olds with the child care centre into a seamless model of service. Qualified teachers and early childhood educators work side by side with each other, collaborate on program and curriculum and parent communication. There is also an active parenting and literacy program where parents can bring their children for daily activities. For children who stay in the program beyond the school day, Bruce WoodGreen has adopted the Quebec model and are charging parents a fee of $6 per day for the extended period of child care.
Fee for Service Kindergarten in British Columbia
West Vancouver and Abbotsford are two examples of school districts in British Columbia which have started to offer half-day programs (including lunch) after the regular kindergarten program. KinderKids, in Abbotsford, describes itself as
70
“an innovative theme and academic-based program that complements the regular kindergarten offering. This additional half-day learning opportunity will have a monthly fee of $350.00 (for the five-day a week program). Parents will be asked to provide an expression of interest when they register their children for kindergarten this month (Jan, 2004). Space is limited - max. 20 per class. Registration forms and brochures will be made available at each elementary school in January and February.”
The K Plus Program in West Vancouver School District has expanded its pilot project conducted in three schools. The evaluation of the pilot project received rave reviews by parents, children and teachers. K Plus describes itself as “an innovative new program for Kindergarten-aged children that encourages active experiential learning, is developmentally appropriate, increases independence and promotes joy in learning – staffed by teachers who are professionally prepared to work with young children. It was established in response to community needs and is designed to complement the Primary Program.” The cost is $310 per month for a three-day program and $390 per month for the five-day program.
OverviewIn conclusion, there seems to be considerable commitment to the “idea” of integration and the need for high quality services – including a learning component – for young children. Thus far, bold experimentation has been extremely limited, although there are many attempts across the country to consciously improve collaboration and coordination between the two sectors.
Appendix B below sets out more details of both kindergarten and child care programs in each province and territory. 90% of this information comes from the invaluable resource provided by the Child Care Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto: Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2005 by Martha Friendly and Jane Beach.
71
THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
OverviewEarly Childhood Education services have become nearly universal for older preschool children in many countries over the last twenty years. Most European countries now regard early childhood education and care as an essential part of preparation of children for public school, an important component of the supports to families with special attention to those with employed parents, and as a venue for identifying children and families who will need special services. There is wide variation in policy toward ECEC for children less than three years of age, but full-day care with a developmental purpose is practically a norm in most of these countries for children of three and over. The OECD report on Early Childhood Education and Care systems summarized the variation across child age levels in this way: “A pattern of coverage is seemingly emerging across the industrialized countries: a coverage rate ranging from 20-30% in year 1-2, and reaching over 80% coverage in full-time places, some time in the fourth year [i.e., from age 3].” (OECD, 2001a, p. 148)
The United States maintains policies that are much less supportive of early childhood education and care. The United Kingdom, Australia and Quebec have moved strongly to expand financial support of ECEC services in recent years. Taken from the OECD Review, 2001 and 2006, the notes below provide a brief written overview of some of the main lines of ECEC policy in each of these countries. Several broad conclusions can be drawn from this overview:
1. Most countries reviewed provide preschool (usually free) ECEC services for the vast majority of children who are 3 years of age and older, and sometimes 4 and older.
• Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy and Portugal provide full day care for children from age 3 or before.
• Norway and the Netherlands commence full-day preschool access at age 4.
• The United Kingdom provides guaranteed access to free part-day preschool for all 3 year olds and above, with school commencing at age 5.
• Australia provides part-day preschool at age 4 and full-day at age 5; 61.5% of the 3-4 year olds using services are in licensed child care settings; 83.5% of children attended free kindergarten for 5-6 hours a day.
• The U.S. provides regulated services to about 38% of children 0-3; 56.4% of 3-5 year olds; over 90% of 5-6 year olds.
• In Canada, preschool starts later than in other countries and is only part-day at age 5 (although Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick now have full-day kindergarten at age 5, and Ontario has part-day kindergarten at age 4 for most children).
2. Outside of this core of ECEC services, there are a wide variety of different models of ECEC provision and funding adopted by different countries.
• Australia provides substantial benefits in the form of tax measures (demand-side funding) to parents for ECEC services.
• Netherlands is aggressively expanding its public commitment to ECEC services, experimenting with a move to demand-side funding, along with substantial
72
amounts of employer funding.
• Belgium provides public services above 2.5 years and demand-side subsidization below.
• Denmark provides very good public ECEC services, with a parental contribution up to one-third of the cost.
• Finland provides public ECEC services with parents paying 10% of costs.
• Italy has well-developed preschool services for all children 3 and above, usually free, but very few services for under 3’s.
• Norway has extensive public ECEC services, with a goal of universal access for all children under 6. Parents fees are capped at 20% of costs.
• Portugal provides educationally-oriented care for 3-6 year olds, free of charge under the Ministry of Education.
• Sweden provides high quality public ECEC services for children from 1 year of age, if parents work or study. Parents pay about 9% of costs (no more than 2% of income for the first child, with declining amounts for second and third children).
• In the U.K., local education authorities provide free early education places for children from 3 years up. A new and extensive set of ECEC services called Sure Start is free for children 0-3 in less advantaged communities.
• The United States provides part-day Head Start services to disadvantaged children, and some other child care subsidies to low-income families, along with part-day kindergarten at age 5. Apart from that, ECEC services are a private market service.
3. In virtually all of these countries, the public commitment to Early Childhood Education and Care services is considerably greater than in Canada. Canada spends the least of all the countries reviewed: 0.23% (i.e., 23 hundredths of 1%) of its annual GDP. on pre-primary education. Other countries spend 0.4% to 2.0% of GDP. As a result, pre-primary education is a low priority in Canada, apparently a much lower priority than in Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden or the U.K. Even the U.S. spends more public dollars as a percent of its GDP on pre-primary education than Canada. (OECD, 2006)
As a result, pre-primary education
is a low priority in Canada,
apparently a much lower priority
than in Belgium, Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden
or the U.K. Even the U.S. spends
more public dollars as a percent
of its GDP on pre-primary
education than Canada.
73
Summary of Services in Different CountriesAustraliaResponsibility for Australian early childhood education and care (ECEC) involves both the federal and state governments. Federally, responsibility is shared by the Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and the Department of Education, Science and Training. The state and territorial governments are responsible for preschool education. This has fostered a traditional separation between care services (seen as employment and family support) and education services (for child development). There are two years of (nearly) universal preschool provided largely in schools, with half days at age four and full school days at age five before compulsory schooling starts at age six. (Australian Background Report,
The OECD reports that 61.5% of children 3-4 years old are in licensed child care settings and that many of these children also attend sessional pre-school or kindergarten classes for some hours/days in the week and child care for other hours/days. (OECD, 2006). It also reports that there is a wide variation of provision for 4-6 year olds across Australia. Usually preschool services are attached to schools and operate for 5-6 hours/day during school term time. Programs for children the year before they attend primary school are publicly funded and free to parents.
Over the last decade, the government has reduced operational subsidies to community child care centres and replaced them with the Child Care Benefit which goes directly to parents and is scaled to income. Full assistance ($133 Aus per week for the first child) ends at about $30,000 (Aus) of family income; the average assistance is about $45Aus per week. Child Care Benefit is only available to families using formal or registered-informal child care services (about 22% of children 1-4 years). There are important quality problems in some centres that Australia has been addressing, through a Quality Improvement and Accreditation System. There is no statutory paid pregnancy or parental leave in Australia. (OECD, 2001)
BelgiumBelgium is split into Flemish and French communities and policies and services are determined and administered separately, although they are broadly very similar. In early education, a universal and well-organized system has been in place for decades so that children from 2 1⁄2 to 5 attend free preschools which operate 7 hours/day. Almost 100% of children attend. Extra funds are directed towards low-income and immigrant areas to promote equity and the quality of schooling.
In the Flemish community of Belgium, 38% of children aged 0-2.5 years have access to regulated services, and only 18% in the French Community. Children less than 3 years may attend child care centres and family child care, with some parents receiving subsidies according to income and all parents eligible for substantial tax benefits related to the cost of care. Paid maternity leave lasts for 15 weeks at 80% of earnings; paid parental leave for another 3 months (full-time) or 6 months (part-time), paid at a flat rate. Time-credit breaks are also available for all workers. (OECD, 2001)
DenmarkIn Denmark, services for children 0-6 years have traditionally been considered an integral part of the social welfare system. The major aim is to support the development of young children, in collaboration with parents, and to provide caring and learning environments for them while their parents are at work. Policy responsibility is with the Ministry of Social Affairs, but local authorities (municipalities) are responsible for many policy and operational matters. The Ministry of Education is responsible for policy covering preschool classes and after school care, but
In Denmark, services
for children 0-6 years
have traditionally been
considered an integral part
of the social welfare system.
74
again much responsibility for funding, policy and operations resides at the local level. Frequently, these local authorities have established unified departments bringing together care and education. Integrated services bringing together are and education for children 0-6 years are growing in Denmark.
94% of children 3-5 years have access to regulated services; 12% of 0-1 year olds; 83% of 1-2 year olds. (OECD, 2001) Fees to parents are capped at 30-33% of costs with low-income families paying much less. The average parental contribution amounts to approximately 22% of costs. Children in kindergarten classes in the primary education system (between 4 yrs-10 months and 6 years) are free. Danish child care services are generally very well run and considerable attention is paid to enhancing the developmental quality of play and educational experiences.
Compulsory school does not start till age 7; nearly all children at age 6 attend preschool classes in schools and organized after-school care. Paid maternity leave covers 14 weeks, paternity leave another 2 weeks, and an additional 14 weeks parental leave all paid at full unemployment benefit rate, to which 26 weeks of child care leave may be added, paid at 60% of the unemployment rate. (OECD, 2001)
FinlandFinland provides an unconditional right to every child to have access to ECEC services from 1-6 years of age to support the development and learning of young children. . The ECEC system is predominantly public, with some private provision. In general, municipalities provide services directly through municipal day-care centres, family day-care homes or preschool groups.
Free preschool education is available for 6 year olds for about 20 hours per week during the school year (compulsory education begins at 7 years). Access to regulated services: 27.5% of children 1-2 years of age; 43.9% of children 2-3 years; 62.3% of 3-4 year olds; 68.5% of 4-5 year olds; 73% of 5-6 year olds and almost 100% of 6-7 year olds in the pre-school class, about 70% of whom also attend day care. Parents may alternatively request a private childcare allowance to be paid by the municipality to the childminder or day care centre of their choice (about 120 Euros per month). Full fees amount to about 15% of the cost and fees. They are geared-to-income so that fees are not a barrier to low-income parents and they are also capped at EUR 200 per child per month and preschool education is free.
There are 18 weeks of paid maternity leave (six before birth), 26 weeks of paid parental leave and 3 weeks of paternity leave, paid at 66% of earned income.
In addition, for those parents opting not to enrol their children in municipal day-care, a flat-rate, three-year child care allowance is available (no job-protected leave) with payment of approximately 250 Euros per month for the first child, and 80 Euros for successive children. Finnish authorities are concerned about the negative effects of these prolonged home care allowances on children and on the position of these mothers in the labour market and in society (OECD, 2001, p. 164)
ItalyPolicy responsibility of ECEC in Italy is split between the Ministry of Education and the regions and municipalities. Responsibility for the “scuoladell’infanzia ” for 3-6 year olds falls to the Ministry of Education and the regions and municipalities are responsible for the “nidi d’infanzia” for children 3 months to 3 years. These facilities operate eight hours per day, September to June.
In Norway, an integrated
system of services for
children from 0-6, with
an extensive system of
public child care centres
(barnehager) has existed
for many years.
75
18.7% of children 0-3 years have access to regulated services; 98.1% of children - 3-4 years; and 100% of children 5-6 years. Most of the provision is by municipalities and is centred in urban northern Italy. Fees: For children 0-3 years, fees are based on parents’ income but capped at a maximum of 18% of costs. For children 3-6 years, services in state and municipal services are free.
Paid maternity leave is available for 5 months at (usually) 100% of earnings. Either parent can take up to 10 months of parental leave until the child is 8 years old; it is available at much lower compensation. (OECD, 2001)
NetherlandsThe Dutch government is moving toward an integrated framework of services for children from 0-6 years, crossing traditional education, social welfare and preventative youth healthcare lines, and achieving consensus with local authorities about ECEC policy goals. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is responsible for children 4-6 years, with compulsory schooling beginning at age 5. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has responsibility for family support, socio-educational activities and the funding and supervision of out-of-home child care.
Much work has recently been done to tighten up regulatory frameworks, training regimes and quality control. A special focus is given to children-at-risk, including children from immigrant families. Another striking feature of Dutch early childhood policy has been the use of an experimental phase to trial innovative programmes in ECEC. A number of such programmes are now being mainstreamed. Dutch employers have a much bigger direct role in the funding of child care than in most other countries.
Children who are four years of age have a legal right to a place in pre-primary school for 5 hours per day, 40 weeks per year. Attendance is virtually 100%.
22.5% of children 0-3 years have access to regulated services; 89% of children between 2.5 and 4 years and 100% of children 4-6 years. (OECD, 2001) Child care provision is private (both for-profit and non-profit) but publicly co-funded. Parents pay, on average, 44% of costs, with government and employer subsidization taking up the balance. Many employers either set up their own child care services, or, more usually, purchase or rent “company places” in child care centres. These places represent about 50% of all child care places for children 0-4 in 1998. There is a marked tendency for middle and high-income parents to use services more than low-income families. Playgroups are used by about 50% of children 2-4 years of age. These playgroups are established by private and community foundations; almost all are subsidized by local government but with some parental contribution. Children usually visit the playgroups twice a week for 2-3 hours to play with peers or participate in an intervention programme. Expenditures on child care are tax deductible from income.
Paid maternity leave is available for 16 weeks (4-6 weeks before birth) at 100% of earnings, plus additional unpaid parental leave of 6 months for parents who work at least 20 hours. (OECD, 2001)
NorwayIn Norway, an integrated system of services for children from 0-6, with an extensive system of public child care centres (barnehager) has existed for many years. The Ministry of Education and Research has been responsible for ECEC since 2005. Much responsibility has been devolved to county and municipal governments, which generally have unified early childhood services and schools under one administrative department. The county administers government grants to child care centres, family day care, and drop-in centres and supports its municipalities on ECEC policy issues. There is a national regulatory framework for child care centres, and national guidelines concerning values and objectives, curricular aims, and pedagogical approaches.
76
Most barnehager are public (municipal), but a significant number are private. Both receive national government subsidies covering between 30%-40% of costs, and municipal subsidies covering a variable further amount. Fees are geared to income, depending on income and municipality, and are now capped at 20% of the cost. (OECD, 2006). Services are free at age 6.
48% of children 1-3 years attend regulated services; and 88% of children 3-6 years .
Compulsory school begins at age 6. About 80% of children 4-6 are in child care centres and family home arrangements and about 50% of children 1-4 years of age. It is a declared political priority to achieve universal access for all children under 6 years of age. In addition to family allowances and lone-parent allowances, all families are able to claim tax deductions of child care expenses. There is also a cash benefit scheme that provides a cash grant (approx. $400) to a parent who looks after a child at home, or who uses ECEC that does not receive government grants (an informal childminder). The parents most likely to use this cash benefit and stay at home with their children are lone mothers, mothers with several children, and mothers in low-income one-earner families.(OECD, 2001, p. 173)
As of July 2005, there has been a universal parental leave of 43 weeks at 100% of earnings, or 53weeks at 80% of earnings. Where both mother and father qualify for parental leave, five weeks of “use-it-or-lose-it” paternity leave is included in the paternity leave quota. Time accounts are used to enable parents to work part-time and benefit from parental leave for two years or more. Women who do not qualify for parental benefit receive a lump sum amount of USD 4,852 in 2005.
PortugalSince the mid 1990’s, Portugal has extensively reformed the ECEC sector. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Security and Labour share responsibility for ECEC pedagogical quality in all settings and funding of kindergarten education for 3-6 year olds. The 1997 National Framework law provides the definitions, major policy aims, and implementation strategies for pre-school education, with pre-school viewed as the first stage of lifelong learning.
11% of children 0-3 years have access to crèches or crèche familiare (1.5%) 8-9 hours daily. The jardims de infancia (pre-schools or kindergartens) provide pre-school education for 3-6 year olds, free of charge for five hours per day, five days a week. Approximately 60% of 3 year olds, 75% of 4 year olds and 90% of 5 year olds attend, or 76.3% of the 3-6 age group. Care is available beyond five hours per day but is charged according to the parents’ income (11% of average annual salary).
Up until a few years ago, early childhood services in Portugal tended to be loosely structured, play-oriented and geared towards care and social aims, according to the preferred aims of the providers. The new curriculum guidelines, improved inspection methods, and enhanced training of staff are increasing the focus on learning. Every pre-school class has a qualified kindergarten teacher with a four-year post-secondary education degree. Crèches are staffed either by kindergarten teachers, nurses or social workers, who have tertiary level professional qualifications.
Sixteen weeks of job-protected maternity leave at 100% of earnings or 20 weeks at 80%. Fathers can also take the leave; an additional six months of unpaid parental leave for each parent is also available. (OECD, 2001, 2006)
SwedenSweden has long been a leader in the provision of early childhood education and care, with strong emphasis both on the quality of ECEC services and the support that ECEC services can provide to equitable gender roles. Responsibility for central policy, for the goals, guidelines and financial framework of ECEC lies solely with the Swedish Ministry of Education and Science, no matter what the age of the preschool child. Distinctions between
77
day care and kindergarten have been removed; all services below age 6 are known as pre-school services, and classes at age 6 are known as pre-school classes (compulsory schooling begins in Sweden at age 7).
Municipalities in Sweden are responsible for the provision of pre-school services, for monitoring the quality of ECEC services, and for funding. There is a National Agency for Education which is responsible for overall evaluation, data collection, and the development and supervision of ECEC service delivery at central and regional levels.
By law, every child who has reached one year of age has a right to ECEC services (within a reasonable time limit – 3 months) if both parents work or study. If a parent is unemployed or on child-related leave, children have a right to 15 hours per week of care. Pre-school (förskola) offers full-time care for children aged 1-6 years. Preschools are open all year and their hours meet the working needs of parents. Open preschools (öppen förskola) offer part-time programs for children at home or with a family care provider. Preschool classes for 6-7 years olds (förskoleklass) are dedicated to the transition to primary school.
45% of 1 to 2 year olds and 86% of 2-3 year olds attend regulated programs. 91% of 3-4 year olds attend; 96% of 5-6 year olds. Virtually all children 6 years of age are in pre-school classes, or already in compulsory schooling. Parental fees cover about 9% of preschool costs amounting to about 2% of average income. Parents with one child pay a maximum of USD 135 monthly; with two children USD 107 monthly; and with 3 children USD 54 monthly. From age 4 years preschool is free for 3 hours in the morning.
98% of staff in Swedish pre-school centres are trained to work with children. 60% have a three-year tertiary degree; the remaining 38% have a senior secondary, three-year vocational training in “Children and Leisure-time Activities”. Staff-child ratios are not regulated on a national basis, but they are monitored regularly. In pre-school centres the average ratio is 5.6 children per adult; in pre-school classes, the average ratio is 13 children per adult.
There are 480 days of parental leave divided between the two parents. 390 days are at 80% of earnings and the remaining 90 days at a flat rate of USD 8 per day. 60 days are reserved exclusively for mothers; 60 days exclusively for fathers; the remaining days are divided between them as they choose. Temporary parental benefit is paid to a parent caring for a sick child up to age 12 (16 in some cases). An average of 7 days per child are drawn each year. An additional pregnancy benefit of 80% of earnings is available for pregnant mothers who are unable to work from 60 to 11 days before birth. (OECD, 2006)
United KingdomHistorically, responsibility for ECEC policy has been shared between national governments and local authorities, with considerable fragmentation of service delivery; ECEC services were not seen as an important public responsibility. Since 1997, the government has developed a plan of action to reform the early years system. Special funding for disadvantaged areas is provided for through the “Sure Start” initiative that, from birth, brings together health, early learning and parenting support. An “Early Excellence Centre” programme has been established to test integrated approaches to care and education. Curriculum Guidelines for the Foundation Stage (3-5 years) have been developed. The Office for Standards in Education is mandated to formulate national standards to ensure clarity about the requirements for good quality service. A Childcare Tax Credit has been implemented for employed parents, targeted at low-income families. The responsibility for implementing policy and delivering outcomes has been assigned at the national level to the Department for Education and Employment and Skills. (DfEES).
98% of staff in Swedish
pre-school centres are
trained to work with
children. 60% have a
three-year tertiary degree;
the remaining 38% have
a senior secondary, three-
year vocational training...
78
Compulsory education begins in the U.K. at 5 years of age. All children 3-5 years have 12.5 hours/week of free early education for 33 weeks/year. The plan is to extend this to 20 hours by 2010 for 38 weeks. The entitlement will rise to 15 hours in 2007. Some Local Authorities are piloting free entitlement for disadvantaged 2 year olds. All forms of provision are now being changed to become part of a Children’s Centre or Extended School. Local Authorities are responsible for quality improvement and ensuring seamless coverage of ECEC provision for all who want it. Costs to parents for regulated services vary greatly according to service type and income.
Twenty-six weeks of paid maternity leave paid at 90% of earnings for 6 weeks followed by a fixed rate for twenty weeks of GBP 106/week as of 2005. An additional 26 weeks of unpaid leave is available if a mother has worked for an employer form more than 26 weeks. The goal of a 12-month paid maternity leave has been set for 2010. One or two weeks of paid paternity leave is available at birth. (OECD, 2006)
United StatesResponsibility for ECEC funding and policy is divided between states and the federal government in the United States. The federal government concentrates on funding services to children considered to be “at risk”. Head Start and Early Head Start programs are managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Child Care and Development Fund has consolidated four separate funding streams to provide child care funding from the federal government to the states. As part of welfare reform, through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the federal government provides additional funding to the states to expand provision of child care for welfare recipients seeking work. State policies towards child care and preschool education vary widely. Child care subsidies are in many states available to some low-income or disadvantaged families. There are moves towards universal access to pre-kindergarten programs in many states.
By 2002, 42% of children 0-3 had access to regulated services; 56.4% of 3-4 year-olds. Over 90% of 5 year olds enrolled in state kindergarten. At both 3 and 4, children attend a complex patchwork of public and private programs that include preschool, pre-kindergarten (pre-K), 4-year-old kindergarten, (pre-Kindergarten covers about 2.5% of 3-year-olds and 16% of 4 year olds). Georgia and Oklahoma make pre-kindergarten available to all 4 year olds. State kindergarten for all 5 year olds and increasing numbers of 3 and 4 year olds is free. Head Start programs for low-income families cover 11% of all 3-4 year olds. (OECD, 2006) In 1998, of the 4 million children attending kindergarten, 85% were in public school, 15% in private school. 55% were in full-day programs and 45% in part-day programs. (U.S. Department of Education)
Spurred by then-President Clinton’s 1997 State of the Union Address: a “Call to Action” urging a priority on improving the quality of American teachers, the demand for accountability and improved student performance has swept the U.S. The issue of “school readiness” has become a national passion. The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) and SERVE1 conducted a survey of readiness initiatives in all 50 states. There is a lively debate on what it means to be “ready” for school and politicians have been rapidly recommending the expansion of pre-kindergarten education across all states. (Kagan, 1999, Pianta (2003), Pianto and Paro, 2003, Meisels, 1999, The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) began following a nationally representative sample of 22,000 kindergarten-age children in the fall of 1998. This cohort of children will be followed from their entry to kindergarten until the fifth grade.
1 The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) is a national early childhood research center. SERVE is one of 10 Regional Education Laboratories across the United States and the lead laboratory in early childhood research.
The issue of “school readiness”
has become a national
passion. ... There is a lively
debate on what it means to
be “ready” for school and
politicians have been rapidly
recommending the expansion
of pre-kindergarten education
across all states.
79
The Trust for Early Education (TEE), based in Washington, D.C., was established in 2002 to provide a strong advocacy voice for high quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten for all three and four-year-olds. The Trust has emphasized the research on the need for high quality teachers and teacher education. It believes that “one of the most important components of any high quality pre-kindergarten education is a teacher with at least a B.A. degree and specialized training in early childhood education. Teachers with B.A. degrees are more likely to possess the skills and abilities necessary to create and maintain a high-quality learning environment. Therefore it is critical to attract and retain these high quality teachers.”
For new mothers working in firms with over 50 employees, there is a statutory right to a 12 week unpaid leave at the time of pregnancy, childbirth or illness. Employers can require that employees use their vacation and sick leave before claiming family leave. Workplace contractual agreements give paid maternity leave to some percentage of employees. Five States pay temporary disability benefit for 10 weeks.
The average quality of centre-based care in the United States is not high. Only 14% of centres and 13% of family child care homes are estimated to be of good quality. Regulations governing child care vary across states. In general, legislated child-staff ratios are from 4:1 to 6:1 for infants, from 10:1 to 20:1 for 4 and 5 year olds, with ratios for 2 and 3 year olds being somewhere in the middle.
The First 5 California initiative is perhaps the best-known US preschool experiment. In 1998, California voted in a state-wide ballot to add a 50 cent tax on tobacco products to fund services promoting early childhood development and school readiness for children prenatal to age 5. The First 5 California initiative provided for the 58 County Commissions to fund a wide range of programs within the framework of a formal but flexible strategic plan. The initiative provides for five elements:
• Integrating early child care and education services with kindergarten transition programs;
• Providing parent/family support services
• Incorporating health and social services
• Assisting schools to develop capacity to prepare children and families for school success; and
• Providing program infrastructure, administration and evaluation.
• $700 million is spent on administration, technical assistance, special projects, public media, infrastructure development, research and evaluation;
• $413 (over 4 years) is spent on the School Readiness Initiative;
• $100 million (over 5-7 years) implementing voluntary preschool for all 4-year-olds;
• $20 million (over 5 years) to ensure early identification of children with disabilities and other special needs to provide early intervention services in 10 demonstration projects linked to School Readiness sites. (Marc R. Thibault, 2004)
Apart from kindergarten services, most of the costs of child care are borne almost entirely by parents. Even with low child care worker wages and relatively low quality, the average price of child care in the U.S. is over $ Can 4,500 annually. As a result, low-income families pay, on average, 18% of their income for child care and many families choose cheaper forms of care. The Dependent Care Tax Credit permits eligible parents to pay for part of the cost of child care with pre-tax rather than after-tax dollars.
80
Research on child care and education in the United States is much better funded, more ambitious, and better done than similar research in other countries. This is true of evaluation studies and of original research. Much of what we know about child care, quality and the development of children comes from U.S. research. (OECD, 2001)
NotesThe average participation rate of women with children under 6 in the labour force in 2000 was 59.9% - as high as 74.7% in South Dakota with California the lowest at 53.1% (Williams, 2004). 14.8% of four-year-olds were served by state-funded pre-kindergarten programs in 2001-02, ranging from a high of 55.6% in Oklahoma to nil in Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. 18.3% of children received state child care studies with an average income eligibility limit for child care assistance for a family of three (2002-03) at $28,268, rising to $53,722 in Alaska. Specialized training in Early Childhood Education was required of state-funded pre-kindergarten teachers in 29 states but not required in 21 states. 21 states and the District of Columbia required a BA for Pre-kindergarten Teachers in 2001-2002.
Only 14 states and the District of Columbia required pre-service training in Early Childhood Education for child care center licensing; this meant that pre-service training was not required in 26 states.
81
APPENDIX A: THE QUAD PRINCIPLES
Quality, Universality, Accessibility and Developmental Approach
In the June 2004 federal election, the federal Liberal Party made a commitment to develop a pan-Canadian child care system based on four principles – Quality, Universality, Accessibility and Developmentally appropriate programming. This set of principles is referred to as QUAD.
These principles, along with the principle of Inclusion, are cornerstones of the child care community’s agenda. To ensure that these principles provide the foundation for developing a new child care system, we need to clearly understand what they mean.
Quality Child Care and Developmentally Apppropriate ProgrammingQuality child care promotes healthy child development at the same time as it supports families, reduces hild poverty, advances women’s equality, deepens social inclusion and builds a knowledge-based economy. Educators and researchers have concluded that the quality of child care is positively impacted by:
• the learning environment – a quality child care setting is one that is child-centred, providing care integrated with developmentally appropriate activities.
• adult to child ratios – the number of adults as compared to the number of children are crucial given that high adult to child ratios enhances the capacity of staff to more sensitively interact with the children and parents, and to engage the children in a range of developmentally appropriate activities.
• qualifications, remuneration and morale of staff – highly qualified, well-trained, well-paid and well-supported staff who experience high job satisfaction are better able to respond to all children, to plan and support developmentally appropriate programming, and to provide care that respects diversity and values all children and families.
• public and not for profit delivery – public and not-for-profit service delivery promotes accountability, community development, and stable, community based services delivered in the best interests of children and the public. Public funding is directed solely to the delivery of the child care programs.
A growing body of research confirms that access to quality child care provides
benefits across all social and economic classes. Effective universal systems work
to eliminate a range of social, ability-based, cultural, geographic, and other
barriers to equitable access and participation. Universal programs and services are
available for anyone in the community who needs or wants to use them. Universal
systems are publicly funded and are paid for through the tax system. The earlier we
invest in our children, the longer we all reap the benefits.
82
• legislated standards and capacity for monitoring and enforcement – strong regulations regarding group size, physical space, health and safety precautions take into consideration the needs of all children, best practices to stimulate play and learning, and approaches to promoting wellbeing and safe care of all children.
• funding – stable public funding and adequate infrastructure positively affects adult to child ratios, employees’ wages and benefits, staff morale and job satisfaction, provision of resources to sustain a quality physical environment, capacity for long term service delivery and accountability to the community and funders.
Experts agree that children benefit from a high quality child care system and that development
suffers when children experience poor quality care. Even an advantaged family background can’t protect children from the effects of poor quality care.
High quality child care programs have the capacity to provide all children with excellent learning environments to optimize physical, cognitive, cultural, social and emotional development. The most critical factor in determining quality is the stable, consistent and developmentally appropriate care and early learning opportunities provided by staff. This requires predictable public funding and infrastructure, good wages and working conditions for all child care employees, a supportive working environment which enhances job satisfaction, and a well educated workforce.
High quality child care programs provide day-to-day support to families and complement parenting responsibilities; they reflect the racial, ethnic and gender diversity in the population; and they support the inclusion of children with disabilities. Quality programs have the resources to coordinate and liaise with other education, health and social services in the community in order to provide a seamless transition as children grow and develop.
Canada’s current investment in child care is significantly less than most other developed countries and achieving high quality across all child care programs in Canada with the status quo presents serious challenges.
The Benefits of High Quality Child Care and Developmentally Appropriate Programming?It is now widely acknowledged that learning begins at birth and has a profound affect on life long development and adult well-being. Parents are the child’s first and most powerful teachers. Successful learning environments for children emphasize positive communication with families.
While the majority of today’s parents are in the workforce and seeking quality non parental care, many parents who are not in the workforce are also seeking developmentally appropriate learning opportunities for their children for some part of the day.
High quality child care programs simultaneously support families to balance work and family commitments while they provide developmentally appropriate learning environments for children.
Population health studies highlight the importance of positive early childhood experiences in determining healthy outcomes for all areas of children’s development. Nurturing, stimulating child care helps strengthen children’s dispositions to be life-long learners and productive participants in society.
83
Universality and AccessibilityUniversal systems are publicly funded systems that entitle access for all. At a minimum, universal systems provide access for all without discrimination based on income or other criteria. Effective universal systems also work to eliminate a range of social, ability-based, cultural, geographic, and other barriers to equitable access and participation.
By definition, universal systems are publicly funded and paid for through the tax system. In Canada we have universal systems where we agree that it is more effective to pool our resources and fund services together than it is to pay for them individually.
Public parks, libraries, fire halls, schools, hospitals, and streets are examples of publicly funded, universal systems paid for primarily through the tax system. While none of these systems are perfect – we expect that they will be there for anyone in the community who needs or wants to use them.
However, this is not the case for child care. Other than in Quebec, child care in Canada is primarily a user-fee system where individual families pay fees directly to their child care providers. Some public funding exists, but it is ‘targeted’ and mainly delivered through provincial and territorial subsidy programs. While these subsidy programs are implemented in slightly different
ways, all of them are based on a ‘market commodity approach’. This approach accepts that child care is a user fee system and directs limited public funding to assist some families who are disadvantaged in the child care market. As a result, all subsidy systems have income, employment and/or ability-based eligibility criteria that restrict and limit access.
Research over the last 30 years in Canada and elsewhere clearly demonstrate that this approach does not work. In spite of a range of attempts to ‘fix’ targeted, subsidy systems, we do not have:
• an adequate supply of quality child care.
• equitable access to the child care that does exist.
• public policy that entitles children equal access to child care.
A commitment to universality requires a fundamental system shift away from this user fee and subsidy system to a system that is publicly funded through the tax system.
As in Quebec and universal child care systems around the world, this will require:
• adequate public funding that provides a stable and primary source of operating funds for child care services.
• a significant reduction in parent fees resulting in a minimal, capped parent fee with support still available for families who can’t afford even this fee.
• a long-term commitment to grow the system so that there is adequate capacity.
84
Advantages of Universality and Accessibility?There are a number of reasons why a publicly funded, universal child care program is the right way to go. In brief, the key reasons are:
• A growing body of research confirms that quality child care provides benefits across all social and economic classes. These benefits accrue to children, families and society as a whole. As compared to other market goods, the consumers of child care are not the only beneficiaries, yet the broader public good can only be maximized if equitable access is achieved.
• An overwhelming and growing majority of mothers with young children are in the paid labour force. Their children are and will continue to be in some form of non-parental care. Positive population health outcomes can only be achieved if we ensure quality child care experiences for all of these children.
• Universal systems build community cohesion. When all families and children benefit equally, there is a high level of public support and ownership of the system. On the other hand, targeted systems lead to stigmatization and lower levels of overall public support as middle income families are expected to help pay for services that they cannot access.
• User fees and subsidies create two-tiered systems. In a market-based system, higher income families will always be able to pay more, and therefore demand more than those receiving a targeted subsidy. Increases in subsidy levels generally leads to increases in user fees for all families who do not qualify for targeted subsidies.
• Criteria used to identify and direct public funds to ‘at risk’ children and families will always miss the mark in one or more ways. Income eligibility thresholds place families whose income falls just above the ‘cutoff line’ at a particular disadvantage. Even targeted systems based on neighbourhood characteristics ignore the reality that, while there are higher concentrations of ‘at risk’ children in low income neighbourhoods, larger totalnumbers of ‘at risk’ children live in middle and high income neighbourhoods.
Finally, our response to the argument that if we only have limited resources, we should direct them to those ‘most in need’ rather than to those who can afford to pay is:
• Universal systems that are publicly funded through the tax system address this concern. Higher income families do pay more, but they pay it through their taxes rather than at the door of the child care centre.
• Families are at their lowest earning power when their children are young. When they most need child care, they are least likely to be able to afford it. Later on, as their earning power increases, their tax contributions will increase accordingly.
• Children’s development is time sensitive and cannot wait until their families can afford quality care.
• The earlier we invest in our children, the longer we all reap the benefits.
InclusionSimply put, child care inclusion means that all children can attend and benefit from the same child care programs. It means that children with disabilities go to the same programs they would attend if they did not have a disability. Inclusion means all children, not just those who are easy and/or less expensive to include. All
85
means all. For children with disabilities, this means that the necessary supports of training, equipment, physical modifications and extra staffing are available to all programs, at no extra cost to parents or to the individual programs. The principle of inclusion goes beyond the notion of physical integration and fully incorporates basic values that promote and advance participation, friendship and a celebration of diversity. Children with all disabilities are active participants, not just observers on the sidelines.
Children with disabilities need child care for the same reasons that all other children need child care. They need child care for:
• early education and learning;
• parental employment, training, and respite; and
• friendships and social inclusion.
Research is clear. Inclusion works. Children with all levels and types of disability benefit from social and developmental experiences with their typically developing peers. There is no evidence that children with even severe levels of disability are poor candidates for integrated programs. Demonstration programs and comparative studies have shown that children with severe disabilities can be successfully integrated. Typical children also benefit from inclusive experiences.
Social inclusion matters. Children are more vulnerable in communities without connection to needed supports, in segregated settings, or isolated from recreational opportunities. In inclusive settings, all children learn about respect for difference, new forms of communication, empathy, friendship and solidarity across difference. Inclusion begun at an early age leads to better inclusion for all citizens later in life.
Inclusion in child care includes six key elements:
• zero reject — no child is excluded on the basis of level or type of disability;
• natural proportions — programs include children with disabilities in rough proportion to their presence in the population;
• full participation — activities and routines are modified and adapted to include all children;
same range of program options — parents of children with disabilities have the same options (e.g. full day, part day, flexible hours) that other parents have;
• maximum feasible parent participation — parents are actively encouraged to participate in the child care program; and
• pro-action for community inclusion — staff and parents promote inclusion in the whole community.
Each of these elements must be present if inclusion is to be a reality in child care.
In Canada, many children with disabilities are still excluded from child care. Parents of children with disabilities can still be told, “We can’t include your child.” While many child care practitioners and programs have worked tirelessly to include children with disabilities, the necessary resources, training and support are often not present. Children with disabilities are excluded when programs feel overwhelmed at the challenge of providing service to
86
them, and are unable to access necessary supports.
Inclusion as a core principle in a pan-Canadian child care system would eliminate any exclusion based on disability and would go beyond non-discrimination — assuring that children with disabilities get the supports they need to benefit from child care.
Disability crosscuts all income gradients and cultures. Approximately 10% of children have a disability, health condition or disorder that requires extra support if the child is to benefit from child care. Some of these children will require very limited extra support; other children will require one-to-one staffing support, intensive consultation, specialized equipment and physical modifications to the program facility.
In a high quality child care system, many of the necessary attributes of child care for children with disabilities will already be present — in particular well-trained staff, limited staff turnover, reasonable wages and benefits, appropriate staff-to-child ratios and group sizes, developmentally appropriate curricula, and appropriate physical environments. Disability-specific supports would be added, as necessary, to assure that the system is inclusive.
In a universal and inclusive system, most child care programs will enroll some children with disabilities some of the time — in natural proportions to their presence within the general population (10%). In a small program, this might mean that in one year, one or two children with mild-to-moderate disabilities would be enrolled, but in another year, there might be a child with severe disabilities. In still another year, there might be no children with disabilities enrolled. But over time, all programs would enroll children with disabilities. Staff learn from formal training and from their experiences of including children with differing abilities; programs develop resources that help them better accommodate other children with disabilities. Eventually all programs can accommodate all children, regardless of the level or type of disability they may have.
Accountability, transparency, and third-party monitoring will be essential to assure that programs and provinces/territories are moving toward inclusion in child care. Programs must be regularly monitored for inclusion quality and governments must be responsible for assuring that targets and timetables are set with regard to enrollment of and support for children with all types and levels of disability. The tools for measurement are available; the skills for third-party monitoring already exist.
Source: Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, October 2004
87
88
APPE
NDIX
B: S
UMM
ARY P
ROVI
NCIA
L/TE
RRIT
ORIA
L ARR
ANGE
MEN
TS
New
foun
dlan
d and
Labr
ador
Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Del
iver
y In
pub
lic a
nd p
riva
te s
choo
ls.
It is
non
-com
puls
ory
and
avai
labl
e to
all
five
yea
r old
s on
a p
art-
tim
e ba
sis.
The
re a
re
575
inst
ruct
iona
l hou
rs a
yea
r. T
he ri
ght o
f acc
ess
to e
duca
tion
m
anda
tes
kind
erga
rten
in e
very
sch
ool.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s or
fam
ily h
omes
und
er
cont
ract
wit
h a
licen
sed
fam
ily c
hild
car
e ag
ency
or
indi
vidu
ally
lice
nsed
by
the
prov
ince
.
Prov
inci
al R
espo
nsib
ility
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
cati
onD
epar
tmen
t of H
ealt
h an
d Co
mm
unit
y Se
rvic
es
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
bef
ore
Dec
embe
r 31.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
455
p.m
. or i
n re
ceip
t of
one
of 1
,350
fee
subs
idie
s (f
or a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oN
o pr
ovin
cial
cla
ss s
ize
limit
s.37
-69
mon
ths
1:8
; M
ax g
roup
siz
e: 1
6 57
-84
mon
ths
and
atte
ndin
g sc
hool
: 1:1
2 M
ax g
roup
siz
e: 2
4
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsB
.Ed
is re
quir
ed. C
once
ntra
tion
in P
rim
ary
Met
hods
des
irab
le.
Stud
ent a
ssis
tant
s pr
ovid
ed to
wor
k in
the
clas
sroo
m to
ass
ist
child
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds re
quir
e a
min
imum
of h
igh
scho
ol
dipl
oma
Staf
f are
cer
tifi
ed to
wor
k w
ith
part
icul
ar a
ge g
roup
s.
Cent
re o
pera
tors
mus
t hav
e le
vel t
wo
cert
ific
atio
n (m
in
2 yr
ECE
dip
lom
a) in
the
age
grou
ps fo
r whi
ch th
e ce
ntre
is
lice
nsed
and
two
or m
ore
year
s ex
peri
ence
. Ea
ch
grou
p of
chi
ldre
n re
quir
es o
ne s
taff
per
son
wit
h le
vel o
ne
cert
ific
atio
n (m
in o
f one
yea
r cer
tifi
cate
in E
CE);
all
othe
r st
aff m
ust h
ave
entr
y le
vel c
erti
fica
tion
(30
-60
hour
s or
ient
atio
n co
urse
).
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. E
xtra
sup
port
ava
ilabl
e in
clud
ing
stud
ent
assi
stan
ts.
No
wri
tten
pol
icy.
Mea
ns-t
este
d, e
ligib
le c
hild
ren
may
re
ceiv
e a
child
wel
fare
allo
wan
ce p
aid
dire
ctly
to p
aren
t to
pro
vide
sup
port
in c
hild
car
e se
ttin
g. N
o sp
ecia
l tr
aini
ng re
quir
emen
ts fo
r sta
ff.
Enro
llmen
t5,
465
Regu
late
d ch
ild c
are
spac
es: 4
,921
(f
ull-
tim
e an
d pa
rt-t
ime)
for a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12)
Subs
idie
s 1,
350
(for
all
child
ren
0-12
)
89
Curr
icul
umPr
ovin
cial
cur
ricu
lum
gui
de: E
arly
Beg
inni
ngs
: a fo
cus
on a
ho
listi
c ap
proa
ch w
ith
outc
omes
for a
ll ac
adem
ic a
reas
and
di
ffer
ent d
evel
opm
enta
l asp
ects
and
an
emph
asis
on
hand
s-on
ex
peri
ence
.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sA
vera
ge c
ost:
$7,
700
K-12
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $9
,636
,300
(20
03/0
4) o
r $1,
835
per
child
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e; o
r $13
3 sp
ent f
or e
very
ch
ild 0
-12.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
No
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
eTw
o lic
ense
d pr
ogra
ms
on-r
eser
ve re
ceiv
ing
the
sam
e fu
ndin
g as
oth
er c
entr
es in
the
prov
ince
; Tw
o ot
her
cent
res
oper
ated
und
er th
e Fi
rst N
atio
ns/I
nuit
Chi
ld C
are
Init
iati
ve fu
ndin
g. A
bori
gina
l Hea
d St
art f
unds
pro
ject
s in
Hop
edal
e, S
hesh
atsh
iu, a
nd H
appy
Val
ley,
Goo
se B
ay.
No
info
rmat
ion
on b
asis
of a
ge.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
Kind
erst
art–
an
orie
ntat
ion
prog
ram
to k
inde
rgar
ten
– is
ava
ilabl
e fo
r eig
ht o
ne-h
our s
essi
ons
for c
hild
ren
and
thei
r par
ents
or
care
give
rs in
the
year
pri
or to
kin
derg
arte
n en
try.
The
se p
rogr
ams
are
prov
ided
at t
he d
iscr
etio
n of
sch
ool d
istr
icts
; app
roxi
mat
ely
5,00
0 ch
ildre
n at
tend
ed in
200
3/04
.
90
Prin
ce Ed
ward
Islan
d Kind
erga
rten
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y F
irst
intr
oduc
ed in
Sep
tem
ber 2
000,
PEI
’s
kind
erga
rten
pro
gram
s op
erat
e w
ithi
n no
n-pr
ofit
an
d fo
r-pr
ofit
chi
ld c
are
cent
res
unde
r the
Chi
ld
Care
Fac
iliti
es A
ct.
A k
inde
rgar
ten
prog
ram
mus
t op
erat
e no
less
than
thre
e ho
urs
per d
ay, f
ive
days
pe
r wee
k, o
r the
equ
ival
ent,
and
pro
vide
2.5
hou
rs
of in
stru
ctio
nal t
ime.
Pro
gram
s m
ay o
pera
te fo
r be
twee
n 5
and
10 m
onth
s in
a 1
2-m
onth
per
iod.
A 2
-1/
2 ho
ur d
ay is
ava
ilabl
e at
no
char
ge to
the
pare
nt.
Pare
nts
who
se c
hild
ren
atte
nd a
full
day
in th
e ch
ild
care
ser
vice
eit
her p
ay fe
es fo
r the
bal
ance
of t
he d
ay,
or, i
f elig
ible
, rec
eive
a c
hild
car
e su
bsid
y.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s or
fam
ily h
omes
und
er c
ontr
act w
ith
a lic
ense
d fa
mily
chi
ld c
are
agen
cy.
Four
yea
r old
s ca
n at
tend
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are
in li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s or
fam
ily h
omes
lice
nsed
by
the
Child
Car
e Fa
cilit
ies
Boa
rd.
Five
yea
r old
s m
ay a
tten
d no
n-co
mpu
lsor
y , f
ree
kind
erga
rten
for 2
.5
hour
s pe
r day
at t
heir
chi
ld c
are
cent
re.
For c
hild
ren
who
att
end
full
day,
par
ents
pay
a fe
e fo
r the
bal
ance
of t
he d
ay, o
r, if
elig
ible
, rec
eive
a
child
car
e su
bsid
y.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yD
epar
tmen
t of H
ealt
h an
d So
cial
Ser
vice
s is
re
spon
sibl
e fo
r lic
ensi
ng, t
each
er/s
taff
cer
tifi
cati
on
and
supp
orts
for c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds.
The
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
cati
on is
resp
onsi
ble
for f
undi
ng,
curr
icul
um d
evel
opm
ent a
nd in
-ser
vice
trai
ning
. Sc
hool
Boa
rds
have
no
juri
sdic
tion
ove
r kin
derg
arte
n,
even
if th
ey a
re lo
cate
d in
sch
ools
. B
oth
depa
rtm
ents
ar
e co
llabo
rati
ng o
n a
revi
ew o
f the
cur
ricu
lum
and
re
gula
tion
s in
200
5.
Dep
artm
ent o
f Hea
lth
and
Soci
al S
ervi
ces
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
by
Octo
ber 3
1. (
Aug
ust 3
1 by
200
8)On
pay
men
t of f
ee a
vera
ging
$42
8 p.
m. o
r in
rece
ipt o
f one
of 1
,077
(2
005)
fee
subs
idie
s (f
or a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oN
o pr
ovin
cial
cla
ss s
ize
limit
s bu
t chi
ld:t
each
er ra
tios
of
1:1
2 ar
e le
gisl
ated
und
er th
e Ch
ild c
are
Faci
litie
s A
ct in
cla
sses
bet
wee
n 12
and
24
child
ren.
3-5
year
s: 1
:10
5-6
year
s: 1
:12
Max
gro
up s
ize
not s
peci
fied
91
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsQu
alif
icat
ions
are
the
sam
e fo
r bot
h ki
nder
gart
en a
nd
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are.
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Cer
tifi
cati
on
as o
utlin
ed in
the
child
car
e le
gisl
atio
n is
requ
ired
. (C
entr
e su
perv
isor
s an
d on
e fu
ll-ti
me
staf
f mem
ber
in e
ach
prog
ram
mus
t hav
e at
leas
t one
yea
r ear
ly
child
hood
dev
elop
men
t dip
lom
a or
uni
vers
ity
child
st
udy
degr
ee.
Thir
ty h
ours
of i
n-se
rvic
e tr
aini
ng
ever
y th
ree
year
s is
requ
ired
for a
ll st
aff)
.
The
cent
re d
irec
tor a
nd o
ne fu
ll-ti
me
staf
f mus
t hav
e at
leas
t a tr
aini
ng
prog
ram
in e
arly
chi
ldho
od e
duca
tion
dev
elop
men
t dip
lom
a or
un
iver
sity
Chi
ld S
tudy
deg
ree;
30
hour
s of
in-s
ervi
ce tr
aini
ng e
very
th
ree
year
s is
requ
ired
for a
ll st
aff.
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. C
hild
spe
cifi
c sp
ecia
l nee
ds
gran
ts a
re a
vaila
ble
to c
entr
es fo
r add
itio
nal s
taff
ing
from
the
DH
SS.
A s
choo
l-ag
ed c
hild
wit
h a
spec
ial
need
may
att
end
a se
cond
yea
r of k
inde
rgar
ten.
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. C
entr
es m
ay a
pply
for a
spe
cial
nee
ds g
rant
on
beha
lf of
a c
hild
– u
p to
$11
.50/
hr.
on b
ehal
f of a
ll ch
ildre
n (w
heth
er
they
rece
ive
subs
idy
or n
ot).
Spe
cial
nee
ds fu
ndin
g us
ually
pro
vide
s fo
r add
itio
nal s
taff
to lo
wer
the
rati
o. N
o sp
ecif
ic tr
aini
ng re
quir
ed fo
r st
aff t
o w
ork
wit
h ch
ildre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
.
Enro
llmen
tKi
nder
gart
en: 1
,452
Kind
erga
rten
chi
ldre
n: 8
36 fu
ll-ti
me;
1,6
71 p
art-
tim
e; 4
yea
r old
s –
no
data
; pre
scho
ol 1
,918
full-
tim
e; 5
71 p
art-
tim
e.
Curr
icul
umD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
ado
pted
cor
e co
mpo
nent
s of
the
Atl
anti
c Pr
ovin
ces
Educ
atio
n Fo
unda
tion
cu
rric
ulum
K to
12
for A
tlan
tic
Prov
ince
s. L
angu
age,
ar
ts a
nd m
ath
are
inte
grat
ed in
to th
e cu
rric
ulum
w
hile
the
appr
oach
rem
ains
pla
y-ba
sed.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sTo
tal a
nnua
l spe
ndin
g fo
r kin
derg
arte
n: $
3.2
mill
ion.
Per c
hild
ave
rage
exp
endi
ture
is $
1,90
4.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $4
,681
,790
(20
03/0
4) o
r $1,
154
per c
hild
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e, o
r $21
5 pe
r chi
ld a
ge 0
-12;
Pare
nts
mus
t pay
ave
rage
pre
scho
ol fe
e of
$42
8 p.
m. (
full-
tim
e)
(200
3/04
) or
acc
ess
one
of th
e 1,
077
subs
idie
s.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
One
unlic
ense
d ki
nder
gart
en c
entr
e on
rese
rve.
PEI d
oes
not f
und
or li
cens
e ch
ild c
are
prog
ram
s on
rese
rve.
The
A
begw
eit F
irst
Nat
ion
on th
e Sc
otch
fort
rese
rve
oper
ates
an
unre
gula
ted
Abo
rigi
nal H
ead
Star
t pro
gram
for 2
-6 y
ear o
lds,
ope
rati
ng
from
8 a
.m. t
o 3
p.m
.
92
Nova
Scot
iaKi
nder
gart
enRe
gula
ted
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y Kn
own
as G
rade
Pri
mar
y de
liver
ed in
pub
lic a
nd
priv
ate
scho
ols.
It i
s co
mpu
lsor
y an
d pr
ogra
ms
for a
ll fi
ve y
ear o
lds
oper
ate
for a
full
prim
ary
day
(app
roxi
mat
ely
9- 2
:30
p.m
.)
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, fa
mily
hom
es o
r chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent
cent
res.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
Dep
artm
ent o
f Com
mun
ity
Serv
ices
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
bef
ore
Octo
ber 1
. On
pay
men
t of f
ee a
vera
ging
$47
0 fu
ll-ti
me
p.m
. for
chi
ldre
n ag
e 3-
5 ye
ars,
or i
n re
ceip
t of o
ne o
f 2,7
06 fe
e su
bsid
ies
(for
all
child
ren
0-12
)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oCl
ass
size
s lim
ited
to 2
5 (G
rade
Pri
mar
y to
Gra
de 2
);
aver
age
clas
s si
ze (
for e
lem
enta
ry)
is 2
3.1
stud
ents
.
604
full-
tim
e ki
nder
gart
en te
ache
rs.
36 m
onth
s- 5
yrs
(fu
ll-da
y)
1:8
30 m
onth
s- 5
yrs
(pa
rt-d
ay)
1:1
2
5-12
yrs
-
1:15
Max
gro
up s
ize
not s
peci
fied
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs: A
teac
her’
s ce
rtif
icat
e (B
.Ed)
is re
quir
ed.
Teac
her’
s Ce
rtif
icat
e is
sued
upo
n co
mpl
etio
n of
a
min
imum
of 5
yea
rs o
f und
ergr
adua
te e
duca
tion
in
clud
ing
3 ye
ars
of a
ppro
ved
unde
rgra
duat
e st
udie
s,
two
year
s of
an
appr
oved
pro
gram
of p
rofe
ssio
nal
stud
ies
incl
udin
g a
prac
ticu
m a
nd re
ceip
t of a
n ap
prov
ed B
ache
lor’
s de
gree
. Te
ache
rs re
quir
ed to
ta
ke 1
00 h
ours
of p
rofe
ssio
nal d
evel
opm
ent e
very
five
ye
ars.
Teac
her A
ssis
tant
s, w
ith
high
sch
ool d
iplo
ma
or
equi
vale
nt, a
re h
ired
to w
ork
wit
h st
uden
ts w
ho h
ave
IPPs
und
er d
irec
tion
of s
uper
visi
ng te
ache
r and
as
a su
ppor
t for
the
inst
ruct
iona
l pro
gram
.
The
cent
re d
irec
tor a
nd o
ne fu
ll-ti
me
staf
f mus
t hav
e at
leas
t a tr
aini
ng
prog
ram
in e
arly
chi
ldho
od e
duca
tion
dev
elop
men
t dip
lom
a or
un
iver
sity
Chi
ld S
tudy
deg
ree;
30
hour
s of
in-s
ervi
ce tr
aini
ng e
very
th
ree
year
s is
requ
ired
for a
ll st
aff.
93
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. E
xtra
sup
port
is a
vaila
ble
and
child
ren
have
Indi
vidu
al P
rogr
am P
lans
(IP
Ps).
Re
sour
ces
such
as
assi
stan
ts a
nd te
chno
logy
are
pr
ovid
ed.
A p
er p
upil
spec
ial e
duca
tion
gra
nt is
av
aila
ble
to s
choo
l boa
rds.
App
roxi
mat
ely
3% o
f all
Grad
e Pr
imar
y st
uden
ts h
ave
IPPs
.
Lice
nsed
chi
ld c
are
cent
res
may
rece
ive
Supp
orti
ve C
hild
Car
e fu
ndin
g be
twee
n $1
9 to
$82
per
full
day
($20
per
par
t day
) to
cov
er a
ddit
iona
l co
sts
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
incl
udin
g ch
ildre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
in c
hild
ca
re p
rogr
ams.
Pare
nts
of a
ll ch
ildre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
are
elig
ible
for s
uppo
rt b
ut
not e
ntit
led
to it
; fun
ding
dep
ends
on
avai
labi
lity;
not
ava
ilabl
e in
fa
mily
chi
ld c
are.
Ther
e ar
e 37
6 ch
ildre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e.
Enro
llmen
t9,
550
in p
ublic
sch
ools
; 302
in p
riva
te s
choo
ls.
Cent
res:
12,
600
full
and
part
-day
spa
ces
for a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12
Subs
idie
s: 3
,700
(fo
r all
child
ren
0-12
)
Curr
icul
umPr
ovin
cial
cur
ricu
lum
Fou
ndat
ion
for G
rade
Pri
mar
y.
The
focu
s is
on
the
tran
siti
on fr
om h
ome
to s
choo
l, on
th
e fo
unda
tion
s fo
r lif
elon
g le
arni
ng a
nd o
n fo
ster
ing
deve
lopm
ent i
n al
l are
as.
Spec
ific
cur
ricu
lum
ou
tcom
es in
all
area
s ar
e in
clud
ed.
.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sA
vera
ge s
pend
ing
per k
inde
rgar
ten
stud
ent:
$5,
970.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $1
9,76
7,82
1 o
r $1,
569
per c
hild
in re
gula
ted
child
ca
re; o
r $14
9 pe
r chi
ld a
ge 0
-12;
Ave
rage
fee
$470
p.m
. for
full-
day
care
.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
On-r
eser
ve c
hild
car
e as
par
t of t
he F
irst
Nat
ions
/Inu
it C
hild
Car
e In
itia
tive
is th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e Tr
i-Pa
rtit
e So
cial
Wor
king
Co
mm
itte
e. T
here
are
13
on-r
eser
ve c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s w
ith
233
spac
es.
Cent
res
follo
w p
rovi
ncia
l reg
ulat
ions
but
are
not
pro
vinc
ially
lice
nsed
or
fund
ed.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
A tw
o-ye
ar p
re-p
rim
ary
univ
ersa
l pilo
t pro
gram
in 1
9 si
tes
is u
nder
way
. Th
e pr
ogra
ms
is lo
cate
d in
sch
ools
an
d ta
ught
by
earl
y ch
ildho
od e
duca
tors
(w
ith
a tw
o-ye
ar e
arly
chi
ldho
od d
iplo
ma
or d
egre
e).
The
Dep
artm
ents
of E
duca
tion
and
Com
mun
ity
Serv
ices
an
d H
ealt
h ar
e co
llabo
rati
ng o
n th
e pr
ogra
m.
94
New
Bru
nsw
ickKi
nder
gart
enRe
gula
ted
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y In
pub
lic a
nd in
depe
nden
t sch
ools
. It
is c
ompu
lsor
y an
d pr
ogra
ms
for a
ll fi
ve y
ear o
lds
oper
ate
for a
full
prim
ary
day
(app
roxi
mat
ely
9- 2
:30
p.m
.) in
bot
h Fr
ench
and
Eng
lish
com
mun
itie
s. T
here
are
832
.5 in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
per
ye
ar.
A n
umbe
r of i
ndep
ende
nt s
choo
ls m
ay c
hoos
e to
off
er
a ki
nder
gart
en p
rogr
am.
For a
chi
ld to
att
end,
a p
aren
t m
ust r
eque
st a
n ex
empt
ion
from
the
Min
iste
r of E
duca
tion
fo
r the
chi
ld to
att
end
an in
depe
nden
t sch
ool.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s or
fam
ily h
omes
indi
vidu
ally
lice
nsed
by
the
prov
inci
al g
over
nmen
t.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
Dep
artm
ent o
f Fam
ily a
nd C
omm
unit
y Se
rvic
es
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
bef
ore
Dec
embe
r 31.
Par
ents
may
def
er
atte
ndan
ce u
ntil
the
next
sch
ool y
ear i
f the
chi
ld is
not
5
on o
r bef
ore
Sept
embe
r of t
he g
iven
yea
r.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
425
p.m
. for
full-
day
serv
ices
for
child
ren
3-6
year
s, o
r in
rece
ipt o
f one
of 2
,652
fee
subs
idie
s (f
or a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oCl
ass
size
s lim
ited
to 2
0 st
uden
ts. (
All
prov
ince
: 19.
9)
Ave
rage
/mea
n cl
ass
size
s:
Ang
loph
one
sect
or 2
0.6
Fran
coph
one
sect
or: 1
8.3
4-5
year
s 1:
10
Max
gro
up s
ize:
20
5-6
year
s 1:
12
Max
gro
up s
ize:
24
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs: A
teac
her’
s ce
rtif
icat
e, a
n un
derg
radu
ate
degr
ee a
nd a
B.E
d ar
e re
quir
ed.
Ther
e ar
e no
spe
cifi
c re
quir
emen
ts fo
r kin
derg
arte
n te
ache
rs, b
ut th
ere
is
usua
lly p
refe
renc
e in
hir
ing
for t
each
ers
wit
h so
me
earl
y ch
ildho
od c
ours
es.
Teac
her A
ssis
tant
s, w
ho h
ave
com
plet
ed G
rade
12,
are
hi
red
to s
uppo
rt c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds.
They
are
pa
id $
14.8
0 pe
r hou
r and
wor
k 25
hou
rs p
er w
eek
(on
aver
age)
. Ki
nder
gart
en s
uppo
rt w
orke
rs a
re h
ired
und
er a
D
epar
tmen
t of T
rain
ing,
Em
ploy
men
t and
Dev
elop
men
t sc
hem
e. T
hey
are
paid
min
imum
wag
e fo
r 20
wee
ks to
as
sist
teac
hers
in th
e ki
nder
gart
en c
lass
room
wit
h m
ore
than
20
stud
ents
.
The
Dir
ecto
r, h
is/h
er d
esig
nate
, or o
ne in
four
sta
ff a
re re
quir
ed
to h
ave
a on
e ye
ar c
omm
unit
y co
llege
ear
ly c
hild
hood
edu
cati
on
cert
ific
ate
or e
quiv
alen
t.
95
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
The
Educ
atio
n A
ct m
anda
tes
the
incl
usio
n of
exc
epti
onal
pu
pils
. Ex
tra
supp
orts
incl
ude
poss
ible
pro
visi
on o
f ph
ysic
al a
ccom
mod
atio
ns s
uch
as ra
mps
or e
leva
tors
; as
sert
ive
tech
nolo
gy w
hen
need
ed; d
evel
opm
ent o
f Sp
ecia
l Edu
cati
on P
lans
, and
teac
her a
ssis
tant
s an
d sc
hool
in
terv
enti
on w
orke
rs.
Som
e ch
ildre
n’s
phys
ical
nee
ds o
r m
edic
al fr
agili
ty n
eces
sita
te th
e pr
ovis
ion
of a
teac
her’
s as
sist
ant.
The
re a
re a
ppro
x. 4
22 s
tude
nts
wit
h id
enti
fied
sp
ecia
l nee
ds in
the
regu
lar k
inde
rgar
ten
prog
ram
s.
Spec
ial n
eeds
chi
ldre
n ca
n at
tend
an
Inte
grat
ed D
ay C
are
Cent
re
whi
ch re
ceiv
es e
xtra
fund
ing,
ave
ragi
ng $
3,15
0/ye
ar/c
hild
for
child
ren
ages
2-5
. Th
e m
axim
um p
aym
ent f
or a
chi
ld w
ith
high
ne
eds
is $
5,15
0/ye
ar to
pro
vide
a s
uppo
rt w
orke
r. T
here
are
no
addi
tion
al tr
aini
ng re
quir
emen
ts fo
r sta
ff in
Inte
grat
ed D
ay C
are.
Ther
e ar
e ap
prox
imat
ely
589
child
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds in
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are.
Enro
llmen
t7,
836
(Ang
loph
one:
5,5
67; F
ranc
opho
ne: 2
,269
.)Re
gula
ted
spac
es:
11,7
47 S
ubsi
dies
2,6
52 (
for a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12)
Curr
icul
umPr
ovin
cial
cur
ricu
lum
Kin
derg
arte
n Cu
rric
ulum
focu
ses
on
cogn
itiv
e, s
ocia
l, em
otio
nal a
nd p
hysi
cal d
evel
opm
ent.
It
is s
tude
nt-c
entr
ed a
nd a
dvoc
ates
dev
elop
men
tally
ap
prop
riat
e pr
acti
ces
wit
hin
an a
ctiv
ity-
base
d ap
proa
ch
to le
arni
ng.
The
curr
icul
um id
enti
fies
spe
cifi
c cu
rric
ular
ou
tcom
es a
cros
s a
vari
ety
of s
ubje
ct a
reas
. It
is c
urre
ntly
be
ing
revi
sed.
Dev
elop
men
t of a
n ea
rly
lear
ning
and
chi
ld c
are
curr
icul
um is
cu
rren
tly
unde
r rev
iew
.
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sN
o in
form
atio
n av
aila
ble
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $1
3,90
0,00
0 or
$1,
168
per r
egul
ated
chi
ld c
are
spac
e, o
r $12
9 pe
r chi
ld a
ge 0
-12;
Avf
ee fo
r chi
ldre
n ag
es 3
-6 y
ears
(fu
ll-ti
me)
is $
425
p.m
.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
The
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
cati
on h
as a
one
-tim
e ES
L gr
ant o
f $6
00, w
hich
may
be
used
for t
utor
ing
in E
nglis
h.
“Rea
dy S
et G
o” is
a p
rogr
am w
hich
pro
vide
s in
form
atio
n to
pa
rent
s to
hel
p fo
ur y
ear o
lds
‘get
read
y’ fo
r sch
ool.
Gove
rnm
ent a
ppro
ves
child
car
e ce
ntre
s on
-res
erve
on
requ
est.
Fou
r on
-res
erve
cen
tres
app
rove
d by
the
Dep
artm
ent b
ut d
o no
t rec
eive
pr
ovin
cial
sub
sidi
es.
Som
e H
ead
Star
t pro
gram
s re
ceiv
e fu
ndin
g fr
om th
e fe
dera
l Dep
artm
ent o
f Hea
lth
and
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ind
ian
and
Nor
ther
n D
evel
opm
ent.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
A tw
o-ye
ar p
re-p
rim
ary
univ
ersa
l pilo
t pro
gram
in 1
9 si
tes
is u
nder
way
. Th
e pr
ogra
ms
is lo
cate
d in
sch
ools
an
d ta
ught
by
earl
y ch
ildho
od e
duca
tors
(w
ith
a tw
o-ye
ar
earl
y ch
ildho
od d
iplo
ma
or d
egre
e).
The
Dep
artm
ents
of
Edu
cati
on a
nd C
omm
unit
y Se
rvic
es a
nd H
ealt
h ar
e co
llabo
rati
ng o
n th
e pr
ogra
m.
96
Queb
ecKi
nder
gart
enRe
gula
ted
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y M
ater
nelle
for f
ive
year
old
s de
liver
ed o
n a
full-
tim
e ba
sis
in p
ublic
and
pr
ivat
e sc
hool
s (b
oth
Engl
ish
and
Fren
ch).
It i
s no
n-co
mpu
lsor
y an
d av
aila
ble
to a
ll fi
ve y
ear o
lds
for a
full
scho
ol d
ay; t
here
are
23.
5 ho
urs/
wee
k fo
r 36
wee
ks o
r 846
hou
rs a
yea
r.
Ther
e ar
e tw
o pr
ogra
ms
for f
our y
ear o
lds:
Pr
é-m
ater
nelle
: Fro
m 9
to 1
5 ho
urs/
wee
k fo
r 36
wee
ks (
or 3
32 h
ours
) to
11.
45 h
ours
/wee
k fo
r 36
wee
ks (
or 4
12 h
ours
). I
t may
be
four
hal
f-da
ys o
r fiv
e ha
lf-da
ys.
Som
e pr
ogra
ms
incl
ude
pare
nt p
arti
cipa
tion
. In
itia
lly p
ré-m
ater
nelle
was
dev
elop
ed fo
r inn
er-c
ity
child
ren
(alt
houg
h th
is is
no
long
er th
eir s
ole
clie
ntel
e).
Mos
t pré
-mat
erne
lles
are
in M
ontr
eal a
nd w
ere
deve
lope
d pr
ior t
o th
e ne
w fa
mily
pol
icy
and
child
car
e ex
pans
ion.
The
re is
no
new
dev
elop
men
t of P
ré-m
ater
nelle
s;
thos
e ex
isti
ng a
re b
eing
mai
ntai
ned.
Pa
sse-
part
out:
Pro
gram
s ex
clus
ivel
y fo
r 4 y
ear o
lds
wer
e de
velo
ped
for l
ow-i
ncom
e ch
ildre
n liv
ing
mos
tly
in ru
ral Q
uébe
c.
Pas
se-p
arto
ut
cons
ists
of a
tota
l of 2
4 se
ssio
ns, 1
6 w
ith
the
child
ren
only
and
eig
ht
wit
h th
eir p
aren
ts.
Ther
e is
no
new
dev
elop
men
t of p
assé
-par
tout
s;
thos
e ex
isti
ng a
re b
eing
mai
ntai
ned.
Cent
res
de la
pet
ite
enfa
nce
(CPE
s) p
rovi
de c
are
in b
oth
cent
res
and
priv
ate
hom
es fo
r chi
ldre
n 0-
4 ye
ars;
als
o in
gar
deri
es w
hich
pr
ovid
e ch
ild c
are
in a
faci
lity
not o
pera
ted
by a
CPE
– in
clud
ing
for-
prof
it o
pera
tors
and
som
e no
n-pr
ofit
cen
tres
.
Mili
eu s
cola
ire
(sch
ool-
age
child
car
e) p
rogr
ams
are
prov
ided
by
scho
ol b
oard
s fo
r chi
ldre
n in
kin
derg
arte
n or
ele
men
tary
sch
ool
unde
r the
juri
sdic
tion
of t
he M
inis
try
of E
duca
tion
.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yM
inis
tère
de
l’Édu
cati
on d
u Qu
ébec
. (M
EQ)
Min
istè
re d
e l’E
mpl
oi, d
e la
Sol
idar
ité
soci
ale
et d
e la
Fam
ille
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve o
r fou
r yea
rs o
ld b
y Se
ptem
ber 3
0On
pay
men
t of f
ee o
f $7
per d
ay o
r no
fee
if p
aren
t is
in re
ceip
t of
inco
me
secu
rity
and
are
ther
efor
e en
titl
ed to
at l
east
23
hour
s/w
eek
of fr
ee c
hild
car
e.
Clas
s Si
ze/
Child
-Sta
ff
Rati
o
5 ye
ar o
lds:
Max
imum
20:
Ave
rage
18.
4
year
old
s: M
axim
um 1
8; A
vera
ge 1
5;
Mul
ti-a
ge g
roup
s: M
axim
um 1
5 ch
ildre
n pe
r gro
up.
4-5
year
s: 1
:10
Staf
f Qu
alif
icat
ions
Teac
hers
: F
our y
ear d
egre
e –
Educ
atio
n pr
ésco
lair
e et
pri
mai
re.
Ther
e ar
e m
anda
tory
pra
ctic
a in
kin
derg
arte
n an
d el
emen
tary
.
Teac
hing
Ass
ista
nts
are
not p
rovi
ded.
Two-
thir
ds o
f sta
ff in
CPE
s ar
e re
quir
ed to
hav
e a
colle
ge
dipl
oma
or u
nive
rsit
y de
gree
in E
CE. S
taff
are
cer
tifi
ed to
wor
k w
ith
part
icul
ar a
ge g
roup
s. C
entr
e op
erat
ors
mus
t hav
e le
vel
two
cert
ific
atio
n (m
in 2
yr E
CE d
iplo
ma)
in th
e ag
e gr
oups
for
whi
ch th
e ce
ntre
is li
cens
ed a
nd tw
o or
mor
e ye
ars
expe
rien
ce.
Each
gro
up o
f chi
ldre
n re
quir
es o
ne s
taff
per
son
wit
h le
vel o
ne
cert
ific
atio
n (m
in o
f one
yea
r cer
tifi
cate
in E
CE);
all
othe
r sta
ff
mus
t hav
e en
try-
leve
l cer
tifi
cati
on (
30-6
0 ho
urs
orie
ntat
ion
cour
se).
97
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l Nee
dsPo
licy:
Pol
itiq
ue d
’ada
ptat
ion
scol
aire
, add
ress
ing
incl
usio
n is
sues
, sp
ecia
lized
ser
vice
s an
d co
rres
pond
ing
budg
ets.
Sch
ool b
oard
s ca
n ad
opt a
ddit
iona
l pol
icie
s th
at e
xpan
d on
it b
ut c
anno
t res
tric
t it.
Abo
ut
50%
of c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds a
re in
clud
ed in
regu
lar c
lass
es.
Othe
rs e
ithe
r att
end
spec
ial c
lass
es in
sch
ools
or a
tten
d sp
ecia
lized
sc
hool
s (e
.g. s
choo
ls fo
r the
dea
f).
For 4
yea
r old
s w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
, th
e sc
hool
boa
rd h
as th
e ob
ligat
ion
to d
eliv
er a
kin
derg
arte
n pr
ogra
m if
pa
rent
s re
ques
t it.
In 2
004,
778
chi
ldre
n ou
t of 1
,552
iden
tifi
ed w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
wer
e in
clud
ed in
regu
lar k
inde
rgar
ten
clas
ses.
Polic
y en
cour
agin
g in
clus
ion.
One
-tim
e gr
ant f
or e
ligib
le
child
ren
of $
2,20
0 an
d an
add
itio
nal $
25/d
ay/c
hild
on
top
of th
e re
gula
r ope
rati
ng g
rant
s. A
dmis
sion
at t
he d
iscr
etio
n of
the
CPE.
2,27
4 ch
ildre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e.
Enro
llmen
tFi
ve y
ear o
lds:
76,
200
Four
yea
r old
s: P
ré-m
ater
nelle
s: 6
,126
; pas
sé-p
arto
ut: 8
,500
Regu
late
d pr
esch
ool c
entr
e sp
aces
(0-
4 ye
ars)
: 76,
240
(no
br
eakd
own
for 4
yea
r old
s)
Tota
l sch
ool-
age
spac
es in
clud
ing
5 ye
ar o
lds:
141
,977
spa
ces.
N
o br
eakd
own
for 5
yea
r old
s.Cu
rric
ulum
Prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m -
the
sam
e fo
r fou
r and
five
yea
r old
s.Jo
ues
c’es
t mag
ique
s ba
sed
on H
igh/
Scop
eFu
ndin
g an
d Co
sts
Esti
mat
ed a
vera
ge s
pend
ing
per:
Fi
ve y
ear o
ld m
ater
nelle
stu
dent
: $1,
700
Sp
ecia
l nee
ds: $
3,37
0;
Four
yea
r old
mat
erne
lle s
tude
nt: $
2,00
0 Sp
ecia
l nee
ds $
3,70
0.
Four
yea
r old
pas
sé-p
arto
ut s
tude
nt: $
970.
Fi
ve y
ear o
ld c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds a
tten
ding
spe
cial
ized
es
tabl
ishm
ents
: $5,
709.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g fo
r chi
ldre
n 0-
4: $
1,40
0,00
0,00
0 or
$7,
788
per
child
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e; o
r $3
,775
per
chi
ld a
ge 0
-4;
Pa
rent
s m
ust p
ay a
fee
of $
7 pe
r day
.
Abo
rigi
nal
Prog
ram
sN
o in
form
atio
nRe
gula
tes
child
car
e on
-res
erve
. 41
chi
ld c
are
cent
res,
thre
e fa
mily
chi
ld c
are
serv
ices
and
no
gard
erie
s on
-res
erve
.Sp
ecia
l Fe
atur
esA
lloph
one
child
ren
have
acc
ess
to s
ervi
ces
part
icul
ière
s un
der t
he
regu
lati
ons.
The
pol
icy
and
form
ula
for t
his
is e
stab
lishe
d at
the
Queb
ec le
vel.
Sch
ool b
oard
s re
ceiv
e an
d di
stri
bute
bud
gets
for t
hese
se
rvic
es to
sch
ools
. Fo
r inn
er-c
ity
child
ren,
ther
e is
a re
duct
ion
in ra
tio
in G
rade
s 1
and
2 ba
sed
on S
tati
stic
s Ca
nada
dat
a fo
r the
are
a.
Kind
erga
rten
for f
our y
ear o
lds
is n
o lo
nger
bei
ng d
evel
oped
as
they
ha
ve a
cces
s to
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are.
Use
s a
prov
ince
-wid
e pl
anni
ng p
roce
ss w
ith
repr
esen
tati
on fr
om
mun
icip
alit
ies,
soc
ial s
ervi
ces
and
child
car
e or
gani
zati
ons;
pr
iori
ties
set
by
regi
ons.
The
y de
velo
p fi
ve-y
ear p
lans
bas
ed
on p
opul
atio
n an
d la
bour
forc
e st
atis
tics
, fun
ding
and
rela
tive
re
gion
al e
quit
y.
98
Onta
rioKi
nder
gart
enRe
gula
ted
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y Se
nior
kin
derg
arte
n fo
r fiv
e-ye
ar o
lds
prov
ided
by
scho
ol b
oard
s. S
enio
r ki
nder
gart
en is
usu
ally
par
t-ti
me
exce
pt in
fran
coph
one
scho
ol b
oard
s w
here
it is
full
day
for f
ive
year
old
s as
wel
l as
som
e fo
ur y
ear o
lds.
Jun
ior
Kind
erga
rten
for f
our y
ear o
lds
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e m
ajor
ity
of s
choo
l boa
rds
(but
not
nec
essa
rily
in e
very
sch
ool)
, usu
ally
par
t-ti
me.
Som
e Ca
thol
ic S
choo
l B
oard
s al
so o
ffer
full
-day
kin
derg
arte
n. B
oth
SK a
nd J
K ar
e no
n-co
mpu
lsor
y.
They
are
bot
h de
liver
ed in
pub
lic a
nd p
riva
te s
choo
ls.
Inst
ruct
iona
l hou
rs
are
not l
egis
late
d by
the
Educ
atio
n A
ct.
Scho
ol b
oard
s de
cide
on
norm
al d
ay
sche
dule
. Fo
ur m
odel
s:
-hal
f day
; eve
ry d
ay, J
K or
K -F
ull d
ay; a
lter
nate
day
, JK
or K
-Ful
l day
; eve
r day
, Jun
ior K
or K
-Com
bine
d JK
and
K
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, n
urse
ry s
choo
ls o
r fam
ily
hom
es u
nder
con
trac
t wit
h a
licen
sed
fam
ily c
hild
car
e ag
ency
.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yOn
tari
o M
inis
try
of E
duca
tion
. On
tari
o co
ntin
ues
to fu
nd a
nd d
eliv
er
deno
min
atio
nal e
duca
tion
. In
all
regi
ons,
bot
h “p
ublic
” an
d “s
epar
ate”
sc
hool
boa
rds
are
publ
icly
fund
ed.
Min
istr
y of
Chi
ldre
n an
d Yo
uth
Serv
ices
Elig
ibili
tySe
nor k
inde
rgar
ten:
Fiv
e ye
ars
old
befo
re D
ecem
ber 3
1.
Juni
or k
inde
rgar
ten:
Fou
r yea
rs b
efor
e D
ecem
ber 3
1.On
pay
men
t of f
ee a
vera
ging
$54
1 p.
m. f
or p
resc
hool
ch
ildre
n ag
e 3-
6 ye
ars;
or i
n re
ceip
t of o
ne o
f 103
,820
fe
e su
bsid
ies
for c
hild
ren
0-12
.
Clas
s Si
ze/
Child
-Sta
ff
Rati
o
As
of 2
007-
08 a
ll pr
imar
y (J
K to
Gra
de 3
) cl
asse
s w
ill h
ave
a ca
p of
20
stud
ents
pe
r cla
ss.
The
prov
inci
al a
vera
ge c
lass
siz
e fo
r JK
to G
rade
3 in
200
0-01
w
as 2
2.2.
Sc
hool
boa
rds
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er a
nd w
hen
to e
mpl
oy te
achi
ng
assi
stan
ts.
3 ye
ars
8 m
onth
s –
5 yr
s: 1
:10
Max
gro
up s
ize:
20
5-6
year
s: 1
:12
Max
gro
up s
ize:
24
Staf
f Qu
alif
icat
ions
Teac
hers
: V
alid
Ont
ario
Tea
cher
’s C
erti
fica
te (
unde
rgra
duat
e de
gree
plu
s on
e ye
ar o
f tea
cher
trai
ning
) re
quir
ed.
Man
y JK
and
K te
ache
rs h
ave
age-
appr
opri
ate
qual
ific
atio
ns s
uch
as p
rim
ary
spec
ialis
t or E
arly
Chi
ldho
od
Cert
ific
ate
but i
t is
not r
equi
red.
Tea
chin
g A
ssis
tant
s: S
choo
l Boa
rds
set t
he
crit
eria
for h
irin
g te
achi
ng a
ssis
tant
s.
Cent
re s
uper
viso
rs m
ust h
ave
a tw
o ye
ar d
iplo
ma
in E
CE
(or e
quiv
alen
t) a
nd a
t lea
st 2
yea
rs e
xper
ienc
e. O
ne s
taff
pe
rson
wit
h ea
ch g
roup
of c
hild
ren
mus
t hav
e a
2 ye
ar
ECE
dipl
oma
or e
quiv
alen
t.
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l Nee
dsPo
licy
of in
clus
ion.
In
prac
tice
, the
re a
re lo
ng w
aiti
ng li
sts
for s
peci
al
educ
atio
n st
uden
ts.
No
wri
tten
pol
icy.
Enc
oura
ges
inte
grat
ion
and
incl
usio
n.
Mun
icip
alit
ies
resp
onsi
ble
for s
peci
al n
eeds
reso
urce
s to
pro
vide
s as
sist
ance
for s
taff
ing,
equ
ipm
ent,
sup
plie
s or
ser
vice
s to
sup
port
the
incl
usio
n of
chi
ldre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
in c
hild
car
e. A
reso
urce
teac
her m
ust h
old
a di
plom
a in
ECE
(or
equ
ival
ent)
and
hav
e co
mpl
eted
a
post
-sec
onda
ry s
choo
l pro
gram
rela
ted
to c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds.
99
Enro
llmen
tSK
129
,993
(20
02-0
3)
JK 1
16,1
94 (
2002
-03)
Regu
late
d ch
ild c
are
spac
es J
K: 6
,355
- Re
gula
ted
child
ca
re s
pace
s SK
: 6,9
16 -
Pres
choo
l: 21
⁄2-5
yea
rs: 8
6,16
3 Es
tim
ated
206
,743
for a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12
Curr
icul
umPr
ovin
cial
cur
ricu
lum
out
lined
in T
he K
inde
rgar
ten
Prog
ram
(19
98).
It i
s de
sign
ed to
hel
p ch
ildre
n br
oade
n th
eir b
ase
of in
form
atio
n, fo
rm c
once
pts,
ac
quir
e fo
unda
tion
ski
lls a
nd p
osit
ive
atti
tude
s to
lear
ning
, and
beg
in
to d
evel
op th
eir a
bilit
ies
and
tale
nts
in a
wid
e ra
nge
of a
reas
. It
is a
lso
desi
gned
to p
repa
re c
hild
ren
for t
he n
ew O
ntar
io c
urri
culu
m fo
r Gra
des
1 to
8.
The
docu
men
t ide
ntif
ies
a va
riet
y of
lear
ning
exp
ecta
tion
s. A
mon
g th
ese
are
expe
ctat
ions
rela
ted
to c
hild
ren’
s de
velo
pmen
t of l
iter
acy
(inc
ludi
ng te
chno
logi
cal a
nd c
ompu
ter l
iter
acy)
and
kno
wle
dge
and
skill
s in
m
athe
mat
ics
and
scie
nce.
Thi
s cu
rric
ulum
has
bee
n re
vise
d in
200
6 w
ith
an
emph
asis
on
lear
ning
thro
ugh
play
.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m.
Gove
rnm
ent h
as s
et u
p a
pane
l to
exp
lore
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f int
rodu
cing
a “
curr
icul
um”
for c
hild
car
e.
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sEs
tim
ate
per p
upil
(FTE
): J
K an
d SK
: $3
,800
(pa
rt-d
ay)
Tota
l exp
endi
ture
s: S
K: $
496
mill
ion;
JK:
$44
0 m
illio
n.To
tal s
pend
ing
$497
,400
,000
or $
2,40
6 pe
r chi
ld in
re
gula
ted
child
car
e; o
r $2
58 p
er c
hild
age
0-1
2;
Fees
for p
resc
hool
chi
ldre
n av
erag
e $5
41 p
er c
hild
per
m
onth
Abo
rigi
nal
Prog
ram
sN
o in
form
atio
nOn
tari
o fu
nds
and
regu
late
s on
-res
erve
chi
ld c
are.
64
licen
sed
child
car
e ce
ntre
s on
-res
erve
wit
h 2,
513
spac
es.
Spec
ial
Feat
ures
It is
up
to in
divi
dual
sch
ool b
oard
s to
det
erm
ine
addi
tion
al p
olic
ies
or
reso
urce
allo
cati
ons
for E
SL o
r inn
er c
ity
kind
erga
rten
stu
dent
s.Re
spon
sibi
lity
for m
anag
ing
and
deliv
ery
child
ca
re s
ervi
ces
is w
ith
47 C
onso
lidat
ed M
unic
ipal
Se
rvic
e M
anag
ers
(CM
SMs)
or D
istr
ict S
ocia
l Ser
vice
s A
dmin
istr
atio
n B
oard
s (D
SSA
Bs)
.
Gove
rnm
ent a
nnou
nced
Bes
t Sta
rt S
trat
egy
in 2
004.
It
prop
oses
a m
ajor
exp
ansi
on o
f chi
ld c
are
for c
hild
ren
enro
lled
in J
K an
d SK
dur
ing
non-
scho
ol h
ours
. Ov
er th
e ne
xt 1
0-15
yea
rs, O
ntar
io is
pro
posi
ng to
ext
end
wra
p-ar
ound
chi
ld c
are
prog
ram
s, fi
rst t
o fo
ur a
nd fi
ve y
ear
olds
, and
then
to c
hild
ren
aged
2.5
to fo
ur y
ears
wit
h a
univ
ersa
l and
free
com
pone
nt fo
r 2-1
/2 h
ours
per
day
. Th
e sy
stem
will
be
base
d on
“ne
ighb
ourh
ood
hubs
” w
ith
pref
eren
ce g
iven
for s
choo
l sit
es. S
ince
the
canc
ella
tion
of
the
Earl
y Le
arni
ng a
nd C
hild
Car
e ag
reem
ent b
etw
een
the
Gove
rnm
ent o
f Ont
ario
and
the
fede
ral g
over
nmen
t,
it is
exp
ecte
d th
at th
is p
rogr
am w
ill p
roce
ed a
t a m
uch
slow
er p
ace.
100
Man
itoba
Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Del
iver
y Ki
nder
gart
en:
In p
ublic
and
pri
vate
sch
ools
. It
is n
on-c
ompu
lsor
y an
d av
aila
ble
to a
ll fi
ve y
ear o
lds
on a
par
t-ti
me
basi
s. T
here
are
506
in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
a y
ear.
Stu
dent
s m
ay c
hoos
e be
twee
n En
glis
h la
ngua
ge, F
ranç
ais,
or F
renc
h im
mer
sion
pro
gram
s. N
urse
ries
: W
inni
peg
Scho
ol D
ivis
ion
1 an
d Fr
onti
er S
choo
l Div
isio
n of
fer p
art-
day
kind
erga
rten
s fo
r fou
r yea
r old
s w
ith
an a
vera
ge c
lass
siz
e of
20
and
som
etim
es w
ith
an a
ssis
tant
. The
se a
re re
ferr
ed to
as
“nur
seri
es”
but
are
not l
icen
sed
as n
urse
ry s
choo
ls u
nder
The
Com
mun
ity
Child
Day
Ca
re S
tand
ards
Act
.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, n
urse
ry s
choo
ls o
r fam
ily h
omes
lice
nsed
in
divi
dual
ly b
y th
e pr
ovin
cial
gov
ernm
ent.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yM
anit
oba
Educ
atio
n, C
itiz
ensh
ip a
nd Y
outh
Man
itob
a Fa
mily
Ser
vice
s an
d H
ousi
ng
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
by
Dec
embe
r 31.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
376/
mon
th in
cen
tres
and
$32
8/m
onth
in fa
mily
ho
mes
per
pre
scho
ol c
hild
, or i
n re
ceip
t of o
ne o
f 11,
568
fee
subs
idie
s co
veri
ng
child
ren
0-12
. M
axim
um fe
es a
re s
et b
y th
e pr
ovin
cial
gov
ernm
ent.
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-St
aff R
atio
No
prov
inci
al c
lass
siz
e lim
it.
Som
e co
llect
ive
agre
emen
ts s
peci
fy
clas
s si
ze.
4-5
year
s 1
:9
Max
gro
up s
ize:
18
5-
6 ye
ars
1:1
0
Max
gro
up s
ize:
20
Staf
f Qu
alif
icat
ions
Teac
hers
: C
erti
fied
teac
her (
B.E
d), r
equi
ring
thre
e-ye
ar
unde
rgra
duat
e de
gree
follo
wed
by
two
year
s of
edu
cati
on tr
aini
ng.
Earl
y ch
ildho
od q
ualif
icat
ions
not
requ
ired
.
Teac
her A
ssis
tant
s: N
o pr
ovin
cial
pol
icy
rega
rdin
g te
achi
ng
assi
stan
ts, b
ut s
ome
scho
ol d
ivis
ions
do
prov
ide
them
to g
ener
ally
as
sist
teac
hers
and
to a
ssis
t wit
h ch
ildre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
.
Thre
e qu
alif
icat
ion
leve
ls:
a) E
CE II
I: A
ppro
ved
ECE
III p
rogr
am a
nd a
reco
gniz
ed c
erti
fica
te p
rogr
am o
r an
appr
oved
deg
ree
prog
ram
from
a re
cogn
ized
uni
vers
ity;
b)
ECE
II: A
n ap
prov
ed d
iplo
ma
in c
hild
car
e se
rvic
es o
r com
plet
ion
of th
e Ch
ild
Day
Car
e Co
mpe
tenc
y-ba
sed
Ass
essm
ent (
CBA
) Pr
ogra
m;
c) C
hild
Car
e A
ssis
tant
(CC
A)
Not
elig
ible
for c
lass
ific
atio
n at
the
ECE
II o
r III
le
vel.
Two-
thir
ds o
f sta
ff in
cen
tres
for 0
-6 y
ear o
lds
mus
t be
clas
sifi
ed a
s EC
E II
or I
II
and
half
of s
taff
em
ploy
ed in
sch
ool-
age
cent
res
and
nurs
ery
scho
ols
mus
t be
clas
sifi
ed a
s EC
E II
or I
II.
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l Nee
dsPo
licy
of in
clus
ion.
Ext
ra s
uppo
rt p
rovi
ded
thro
ugh
both
blo
ck
fund
ing
to s
choo
ls a
nd s
peci
fic
leve
ls o
f fun
ding
allo
cate
d to
id
enti
fied
chi
ld n
eeds
(th
ese
are
dete
rmin
ed o
n a
case
-by-
case
bas
is).
Man
itob
a Ch
ildre
n w
ith
Dis
abili
ties
Pro
gram
inte
grat
es c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l ne
eds
into
mai
nstr
eam
chi
ld c
are.
Par
ents
pay
the
sam
e ba
sic
cost
of c
are
as
othe
r fam
ilies
rega
rdle
ss o
f fam
ily in
com
e bu
t par
ents
do
not p
ay th
e co
st o
f th
e ad
diti
onal
reso
urce
s to
sup
port
the
child
’s p
arti
cipa
tion
in a
chi
ld c
are
prog
ram
. Fu
ndin
g fo
r the
add
itio
nal s
uppo
rts
is p
aid
to th
e pr
ogra
m.
Enro
llmen
tFi
ves:
13,
170
Four
s: 2
,654
Tota
l reg
ulat
ed c
hild
car
e: 2
5,63
4 (P
resc
hool
2-5
); 9
,859
full-
tim
e; 4
,049
par
t-ti
me
Subs
idie
s 11
,568
age
s 0-
12
101
Curr
icul
umPr
ovin
cial
cur
ricu
lum
off
ers
an a
ctiv
ity
cent
re-b
ased
app
roac
h; it
in
clud
es e
xpos
ure
to la
ngua
ge a
rts,
mat
h, s
cien
ce, s
ocia
l stu
dies
, ph
ysic
al e
duca
tion
, art
s an
d Fr
ench
. **
Dev
elop
men
t of a
cur
ricu
lum
for e
arly
lear
ning
and
chi
ld c
are
is c
urre
ntly
un
der r
evie
w.
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sA
vera
ge s
pend
ing
per k
inde
rgar
ten
stud
ent:
$3,
896.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $7
3,00
3,60
0 or
$2,
848
per c
hild
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e. $
406
per c
hild
age
0-1
2;
Ave
rage
fee
is $
328/
child
/mon
thA
bori
gina
l Pr
ogra
ms
Abo
rigi
nal A
chie
vem
ent G
rant
giv
en to
sch
ool d
ivis
ions
Man
itob
a do
es n
ot li
cens
e or
fund
chi
ld c
are
prog
ram
s on
rese
rve
but t
he C
hild
D
ay C
are
Bra
nch
assi
sts
faci
litie
s on
-res
erve
to m
eet l
icen
sing
requ
irem
ents
. A
cer
tifi
cate
pro
gram
in A
bori
gina
l chi
ld c
are
is o
ffer
ed th
roug
h Re
d Ri
ver
Colle
ge T
here
are
50
Abo
rigi
nal H
ead
Star
t pro
gram
s Sp
ecia
l Fea
ture
sES
L gr
ants
of $
750
per c
hild
per
yea
r to
a m
axim
um o
f 3 y
ears
.
Inne
r-ci
ty c
hild
ren
are
cons
ider
ed a
sch
ool d
ivis
ion
resp
onsi
bilit
y.
Scho
ol d
ivis
ions
allo
cate
fund
s to
spe
cifi
c sc
hool
s.
Man
itob
a an
noun
ced
a ne
w fi
ve-y
ear p
lan
in 2
002
to in
crea
se s
alar
ies,
tigh
ten
trai
ning
requ
irem
ents
, fre
eze
max
imum
fees
to p
aren
ts, i
ncre
ase
trai
ned
ECEs
an
d su
bsid
ized
spa
ces,
as
wel
l as
fund
ing
mor
e fe
e—pa
ying
spa
ces.
Thi
s w
as
acce
lera
ted
as a
resu
lt o
f the
agr
eem
ent b
etw
een
the
Man
itob
a an
d fe
dera
l go
vern
men
ts.
The
canc
ella
tion
of t
his
agre
emen
t will
hav
e an
impa
ct o
n th
e pa
ce o
f cha
nge.
Man
itob
a ha
s al
so s
et u
p an
inte
rmin
iste
rial
com
mit
tee,
incl
udin
g th
e co
mm
unit
y ca
lled:
Edu
cari
ng: S
tren
gthe
ning
Par
tner
ship
s be
twee
n Sc
hool
s an
d Ch
ild C
are,
em
phas
izin
g co
mm
unic
atio
n, c
olla
bora
tion
and
con
sist
ency
.
** In
Jul
y 19
94, t
he M
anit
oba
gove
rnm
ent r
elea
sed
Rene
win
g Ed
ucat
ion:
NEW
DIR
ECTI
ONS,
A B
luep
rint
for A
ctio
n, a
com
preh
ensi
ve p
lan
desi
gned
to re
new
the
kind
erga
rten
to s
enio
r 4 e
duca
tion
al s
yste
m th
roug
h a
part
ners
hip
appr
oach
wit
h st
akeh
olde
rs. T
his
plan
iden
tifi
ed fo
ur fo
unda
tion
ski
ll ar
eas-
liter
acy
and
com
mun
icat
ion,
pro
blem
sol
ving
, hum
an re
lati
ons,
and
tech
nolo
gy-t
o be
incl
uded
in te
achi
ng a
nd le
arni
ng w
ithi
n al
l sub
ject
are
as.
In
199
5, a
s pa
rt o
f the
Wes
tern
Can
adia
n Pr
otoc
ol fo
r Col
labo
rati
on in
Bas
ic E
duca
tion
, Man
itob
a, w
ith
the
othe
r wes
tern
pro
vinc
es a
nd tw
o te
rrit
orie
s, d
evel
oped
th
e do
cum
ent C
omm
on M
athe
mat
ics/
Mat
hém
atiq
ues
Outc
omes
from
Kin
derg
arte
n to
Sen
ior 4
. Thi
s in
itia
tive
led
Man
itob
a Ed
ucat
ion
and
Trai
ning
to p
ublis
h M
anit
oba
Curr
icul
um F
ram
ewor
ks o
f Out
com
es a
nd S
tand
ards
in m
athe
mat
ics.
Thi
s ne
w c
urri
culu
m e
mph
asiz
es c
reat
ive
thin
king
, log
ical
thin
king
, pro
blem
-so
lvin
g sk
ills,
dat
a an
alys
is s
kills
, and
coo
pera
tive
inte
ract
ion
in k
inde
rgar
ten
to s
enio
r 4 m
athe
mat
ics.
Alt
houg
h m
athe
mat
ics
shou
ld b
e vi
ewed
as
a co
nnec
ted
who
le o
f con
cept
s, s
kills
, and
pro
cedu
res,
the
curr
icul
um is
div
ided
into
four
str
ands
: pat
tern
s an
d re
lati
ons;
sta
tist
ics
and
prob
abili
ty; s
hape
and
spa
ce; a
nd
num
bers
(ea
ch o
f whi
ch is
furt
her d
ivid
ed in
to s
ub-s
tran
ds).
For
eac
h su
b-st
rand
, gen
eral
and
spe
cifi
c le
arni
ng o
utco
mes
des
crib
e th
e kn
owle
dge
and
skill
s th
at
stud
ents
are
exp
ecte
d to
lear
n at
eac
h gr
ade
in m
athe
mat
ics.
102
Sask
atch
ewan
Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Del
iver
y Ki
nder
gart
en:
Sask
atch
ewan
fund
s an
d de
liver
s no
n-co
mpu
lsor
y de
nom
inat
iona
l edu
cati
on.
Bot
h “p
ublic
” an
d “s
epar
ate”
sch
ools
are
pub
licly
fund
ed.
Part
-tim
e ki
nder
gart
en is
pro
vide
d to
all
five
yea
r old
s. T
he
Educ
atio
n A
ct re
quir
es a
t lea
st 8
0 fu
ll sc
hool
day
equ
ival
ents
. Pr
e-Ki
nder
gart
en:
Over
100
pre
-kin
derg
arte
ns a
re p
rovi
ded
part
day
for c
hild
ren
aged
3 a
nd 4
and
dee
med
to b
e “a
t ris
k”
in ta
rget
ed c
omm
unit
ies
that
mee
t spe
cifi
ed e
ligib
ility
cri
teri
a.
Scho
ols
in th
ese
com
mun
itie
s m
ay b
e de
sign
ated
“co
mm
unit
y sc
hool
s” a
nd if
they
cho
ose
to o
ffer
Pre
-K, c
an re
ceiv
e pr
ovin
cial
fu
nds.
Se
lect
ed 3
and
4 y
ear o
ld c
hild
ren
in c
omm
unit
y sc
hool
s ar
e re
ferr
ed b
y pu
blic
hea
lth
nurs
es, s
choo
l boa
rd o
ffic
es o
r Soc
ial
Serv
ices
. Th
e fa
mily
may
als
o m
ake
a re
ques
t bec
ause
of
inab
ility
to a
ffor
d ot
her o
ptio
ns o
r the
chi
ld m
ay m
eet c
rite
ria
for s
peci
al e
duca
tion
. Th
e pa
rent
s m
ust m
ake
a co
mm
itm
ent
to p
arti
cipa
te in
the
prog
ram
s w
hich
mus
t be
offe
red
for a
m
inim
um o
f 12
hour
s/w
eek.
In
2003
/04
ther
e w
ere
over
100
Pr
e-Ki
nder
gart
en p
rogr
ams.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, g
roup
fam
ily c
hild
car
e ho
mes
or f
amily
chi
ld
care
hom
es in
divi
dual
ly li
cens
ed b
y th
e pr
ovin
cial
gov
ernm
ent.
N
on-p
rofi
t cen
tres
are
adm
inis
tere
d by
par
ent b
oard
s; 5
1% o
f the
boa
rd
mus
t be
pare
nts
usin
g th
e pr
ogra
m.
For-
prof
it c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s ar
e re
quir
ed to
hav
e pa
rent
adv
isor
y co
mm
itte
es.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
ySa
skat
chew
an L
earn
ing
Resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r Ear
ly L
earn
ing
and
child
car
e w
as tr
ansf
erre
d to
lS
aska
tche
wan
Lea
rnin
g in
200
5.
Elig
ibili
tyTh
ere
is n
o pr
ovin
cial
ly le
gisl
ated
spe
cifi
c ag
e; th
is v
arie
s be
twee
n di
visi
ons.
Fo
r Gra
de 1
, a c
hild
mus
t be
6 by
Dec
embe
r 31
. U
sual
ly c
hild
ren
mus
t be
five
yea
rs o
ld b
y D
ecem
ber 3
1 th
e ye
ar in
whi
ch th
ey b
egin
kin
derg
arte
n.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
409
(age
s 3
to 6
yea
rs),
or i
n re
ceip
t of o
ne o
f th
e 3,
716
subs
idie
s av
aila
ble
to a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12.
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oN
o pr
ovin
cial
cla
ss s
ize
limit
s. S
ome
scho
ol d
ivis
ions
set
lim
its.
A
vera
ge m
ean
clas
s si
ze n
ot k
now
n.
Pre-
kind
erga
rten
s: s
taff
:chi
ld ra
tios
: 1:8
wit
h m
axim
um g
roup
si
ze o
f 16
(1 te
ache
r and
one
ass
ista
nt)
30 m
onth
s to
6 y
ears
1:1
0 M
ax g
roup
siz
e: 2
0
103
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs re
quir
e ce
rtif
icat
ion.
Thi
s re
quir
es a
min
imum
of
four
yea
rs p
ost-
seco
ndar
y ed
ucat
ion
and
eith
er a
Bac
helo
r of
Educ
atio
n, o
r oth
er re
cogn
ized
deg
ree,
plu
s 48
sem
este
r hou
rs
of te
ache
r edu
cati
on in
clud
ing
a pr
acti
cum
.
Ave
rage
kin
derg
arte
n te
ache
r sal
arie
s in
200
3/04
wer
e $4
9,98
1.
Teac
her A
ssis
tant
s: N
o qu
alif
icat
ions
requ
ired
. N
o pr
ovin
cial
po
licy
rega
rdin
g te
ache
r ass
ista
nts;
man
y sc
hool
div
isio
ns
prov
ide
teac
her a
ssis
tant
s w
hen
a cl
ass
reac
hes
a ce
rtai
n si
ze.
Thre
e ce
rtif
icat
ion
leve
ls:
d)
ECE
III:
tw
o ye
ar d
iplo
ma
in c
hild
car
e or
equ
ival
ent;
e)
EC
E II
: one
yea
r cer
tifi
cate
in c
hild
car
e or
equ
ival
ent;
f)
EC
E I:
120
-hou
r chi
ld c
are
orie
ntat
ion
cour
se o
r equ
ival
ent.
Si
nce
2001
, cen
tre
dire
ctor
s ha
d to
mee
t or e
xcee
d th
e EC
E II
I. A
s of
Ja
nuar
y 20
02, a
ll st
aff e
mpl
oyed
in a
cen
tre
for a
t lea
st 6
5 ho
urs
/mon
th
had
to h
ave
an E
CE I.
Sin
ce J
anua
ry 2
005,
30%
of s
taff
mus
t hav
e a
one-
year
cer
tifi
cate
and
by
Janu
ary
2007
, a fu
rthe
r 20%
of s
taff
mus
t hav
e a
two
year
dip
lom
a or
equ
ival
ent.
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Prov
inci
al p
olic
y se
t out
in C
hild
ren’
s Se
rvic
es P
olic
y Fr
amew
ork
(200
2) o
utlin
ing
polic
y an
d pr
oced
ures
for E
arly
Chi
ldho
od
Educ
atio
n fo
r chi
ldre
n w
ith
disa
bilit
ies
wit
hin
the
scho
ol
syst
em.
Child
ren
thre
e ye
ars
and
olde
r who
mee
t the
cri
teri
a fo
r de
sign
atio
n ar
e el
igib
le fo
r ear
ly e
ntra
nce
prog
ram
s. F
undi
ng is
pr
ovid
ed to
sch
ool d
ivis
ions
. D
urin
g th
e 20
03/0
4, s
choo
l yea
r fu
ndin
g w
as p
rovi
ded
for m
ore
than
500
chi
ldre
n be
twee
n 3
and
5. A
ppro
xim
atel
y 30
0 of
thes
e ch
ildre
n w
ere
thre
e or
four
yea
rs
old.
Ide
ntif
ied
child
ren
have
a P
erso
nal P
rogr
am P
lan.
The
Child
Car
e In
clus
ion
Prog
ram
pro
vide
s th
ree
type
s of
gra
nts:
-i
ndiv
idua
l inc
lusi
on g
rant
s of
$20
0-$3
00 p
er m
onth
(de
pend
ing
on th
e ne
ed)
to c
entr
es a
nd h
omes
; -a
n en
hanc
ed a
cces
sibi
lity
gran
t up
to $
1,50
0/m
onth
may
be
prov
ided
to
assi
st w
ith
the
addi
tion
al c
osts
for a
chi
ld w
ith
exce
ptio
nally
hig
h ne
eds;
an
d -a
trai
ning
and
reso
urce
gra
nt o
f $10
0-$2
00 p
er c
hild
wit
h di
vers
e ne
eds,
pl
us $
600-
$1,2
00 fo
r ada
pted
equ
ipm
ent r
equi
red.
Pa
rent
s pa
y fo
r the
chi
ld c
are
spac
e bu
t not
for t
he a
ddit
iona
l sup
port
s.
Enro
llmen
tFi
ve y
ear o
lds
(in
both
pub
lic a
nd p
riva
te k
inde
rgar
ten)
(2
003/
04):
11,
229;
Thr
ee a
nd F
our y
ear o
lds,
app
rox.
1,5
00.
Regu
late
d ch
ild c
are:
7,9
10 (
0-12
) Pr
esch
ool:
3085
(30
mon
ths
to 6
yea
rs)
Subs
idie
s 3,
716
for a
ll ch
ildre
n 0-
12
Curr
icul
umPr
ovin
cial
cur
ricu
lum
: Chi
ldre
n Fi
rst:
A C
urri
culu
m G
uide
for
Kind
erga
rten
(19
94).
App
roac
h is
“le
arni
ng th
roug
h pl
ay”
in
a de
velo
pmen
tally
app
ropr
iate
cur
ricu
lum
. Fo
r Pre
-K, s
choo
ls
expe
cted
to d
evel
op a
pro
gram
bas
ed o
n th
e K
curr
icul
um a
nd to
co
llect
dat
a an
d in
form
atio
n fo
r eva
luat
ion
purp
oses
.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sN
Av.
per
chi
ld s
pend
ing
on k
inde
rgar
ten:
gra
nts
per c
hild
: rur
al:
$2,4
29; R
egin
a/Sa
skat
oon:
$2,
330.
Co
st o
f pre
-kin
derg
arte
n is
est
imat
ed a
t $3,
022
per c
hild
.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $1
9,63
9,00
0 or
$2,
483
per c
hild
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e.
$123
per
chi
ld a
ge 0
-12;
Fee
s av
erag
e $4
09 p
er c
hild
per
mon
th fo
r pr
esch
ool c
hild
ren.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
No
Spec
ial P
rogr
amSa
skat
chew
an d
oes
not l
icen
se c
hild
car
e pr
ogra
ms
on-r
eser
ve.
The
Firs
t N
atio
ns/I
nuit
Chi
ld C
are
Init
iati
ve h
as re
sult
ed in
app
roxi
mat
ely
45 o
n-re
serv
e ch
ild c
are
cent
res.
App
roxi
mat
ely
15%
of a
ll re
gula
ted
child
car
e pr
ogra
ms
off-
rese
rve
have
an
Abo
rigi
nal p
rogr
am c
ompo
nent
.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
Two
com
mun
ity
scho
ols
serv
ing
vuln
erab
le c
hild
ren
are
pilo
ting
fu
ll-da
y ev
ery-
day
kind
erga
rten
. Sa
skat
chew
an L
earn
ing
is
unde
rtak
ing
a pr
ovin
ce-w
ide
need
s as
sess
men
t tha
t inc
lude
s qu
esti
ons
abou
t ful
l-da
y ki
nder
gart
en.
The
Sask
atoo
n Sc
hool
Boa
rd is
see
king
fund
s to
pilo
t an
“int
egra
ted”
kin
derg
arte
n/ch
ild c
are
mod
el to
be
laun
ched
in
the
Fall
of 2
007.
Kids
Fir
st:
Esta
blis
hed
in 2
001,
this
is a
five
-yea
r ini
tiat
ive
to p
rovi
de “
earl
y ch
ildho
od s
uppo
rts”
targ
eted
to “
high
Ris
k” fa
mili
es.
Inte
rgov
ernm
enta
l un
it s
taff
ass
ist c
omm
unit
ies
wit
h th
e de
velo
pmen
t and
impl
emen
tati
on o
f th
e pr
ogra
m.
In
200
4, th
e go
vern
men
t ann
ounc
ed C
hild
Car
e Sa
skat
chew
an, a
pla
n to
de
velo
p 1,
200
new
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are
spac
es o
ver f
our y
ears
as
a re
sult
of
the
Sask
atch
ewan
and
fede
ral g
over
nmen
t Ear
ly L
earn
ing
and
Child
Car
e ag
reem
ent.
Can
cella
tion
of t
his
agre
emen
t will
resu
lt in
a re
duct
ion
of th
is
prog
ram
.
104
Albe
rtaKi
nder
gart
enRe
gula
ted
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y Ea
rly
Child
hood
Ser
vice
s (k
inde
rgar
ten)
(EC
S) m
ay b
e of
fere
d in
pub
lic s
choo
ls, p
riva
te s
choo
ls, b
y pr
ivat
e EC
S op
erat
ors
(non
-pro
fit s
ocie
ty o
r for
-pro
fit c
ompa
ny).
Fund
ing
is p
rovi
ded
to a
ppro
ved
ECS
oper
ator
s on
a p
er
diem
bas
is (
$2,2
72/c
hild
to d
eliv
er th
e pr
ogra
m).
The
pr
ogra
m m
ust o
ffer
475
inst
ruct
iona
l hou
rs.
Pare
nts
pay
appr
oxim
atel
y $5
0/ye
ar to
off
set n
on-i
nstr
ucti
onal
co
sts
such
as
supp
lies,
sna
cks,
fiel
d tr
ips
and
addi
tion
al
prog
ram
hou
rs.
If th
e pr
ogra
m is
pro
vide
d at
a c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
, par
ents
may
be
elig
ible
for c
hild
car
e su
bsid
y fo
r th
e ba
lanc
e of
the
day.
Ful
l sub
sidy
is g
iven
to e
ligib
le
fam
ilies
wit
h ki
nder
gart
en c
hild
ren
if th
ey a
re in
the
child
ca
re c
ompo
nent
for m
ore
than
100
hou
rs.
The
sche
dule
of
the
“nor
mal
day
” de
pend
s on
the
oper
ator
. EC
S is
not
co
mpu
lsor
y bu
t is
an e
ntit
lem
ent.
98%
of f
ive
year
old
s at
tend
kin
derg
arte
n. T
here
is n
o ES
L or
inne
r cit
y po
licy.
Alb
erta
is o
ne o
f the
thre
e pr
ovin
ces
that
fund
s an
d de
liver
s de
nom
inat
iona
l edu
cati
on.
Bot
h ‘P
ublic
’ and
Ca
thol
ic s
choo
l boa
rds
are
publ
icly
fund
ed.
Alt
erna
tive
kin
derg
arte
n pr
ogra
ms
are
also
off
ered
, in
clud
ing:
Abo
rigi
nal,
Fren
ch Im
mer
sion
, Gal
ileo
Tech
nolo
gy ,
Germ
an B
iling
ual,
Lear
ning
Thr
ough
the
Art
s - F
ine
Art
s/Te
chno
logy
, Man
dari
n (C
hine
se)
Bili
ngua
l, M
edic
ine
Whe
el C
entr
e) -
Abo
rigi
nal C
ultu
re B
ased
Le
arni
ng, M
onte
ssor
i, S
pani
sh B
iling
ual,
Trad
itio
nal
Lear
ning
Cen
tre
(Dir
ect I
nstr
ucti
on a
nd C
hara
cter
Ed
ucat
ion)
Wor
kpla
ce s
choo
ls
Kind
erga
rten
is a
lso
avai
labl
e fo
r chi
ldre
n fr
om 2
-4 w
ith
disa
bilit
ies.
In
200
4, M
edic
ine
Hat
Sch
ool D
istr
ict #
76 b
ecam
e th
e fi
rst
to o
ffer
full-
day
ever
y da
y ki
nder
gart
en in
all
12 d
istr
ict
scho
ols.
In
addi
tion
, sch
ools
off
er s
choo
l-ag
e pr
ogra
ms
run
by th
e sc
hool
s.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, n
urse
ry s
choo
ls o
r fam
ily h
omes
.
105
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yA
lber
ta L
earn
ing,
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Ser
vice
s (E
CS)
Alb
erta
Chi
ldre
n’s
Serv
ices
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
by
Febr
uary
28.
21⁄
2 ye
ars
if th
e ch
ild h
as
a se
vere
dis
abili
ty; 3
1⁄2
if c
hild
has
a m
ild o
r mod
erat
e di
sabi
lity
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
532/
child
/mon
th fo
r chi
ldre
n ag
es
19-8
3 m
onth
s, o
r in
rece
ipt o
f one
of 1
0,61
4 fe
e su
bsid
ies
(for
all
child
ren
0-12
)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oN
o po
licy
on c
lass
siz
e3-
5 ye
ars:
1:8
- M
ax g
roup
siz
e: 1
6
5-6
year
s: 1
:10
- Max
gro
up s
ize:
20
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsEC
S te
ache
rs m
ust h
ave
a va
lid A
lber
ta T
each
ing
Cert
ific
ate
(B.E
d). T
each
er c
erti
fica
tion
requ
ires
a
min
imum
of 4
yea
rs u
nive
rsit
y st
udy
in a
bas
ic te
achi
ng
prog
ram
or a
bac
helo
r’s
degr
ee s
uppl
emen
ted
wit
h a
basi
c te
ache
r pro
gram
(2
year
s po
st d
egre
e fo
r tea
cher
trai
ning
an
d pr
acti
cum
). T
here
are
no
ECE
requ
irem
ents
for E
CS
teac
hers
. Te
ache
rs m
ust c
ompl
ete
a pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent
Grow
th P
lan
as o
utlin
ed in
the
Teac
her G
row
th,
Supe
rvis
ion
and
Eval
uati
on p
olic
y.
Teac
her A
ssis
tant
s ar
e no
t req
uire
d to
hav
e qu
alif
icat
ions
. Th
ey a
re h
ired
bas
ed o
n th
e bu
dget
at t
he d
iscr
etio
n of
th
e sc
hool
. Th
ey h
elp
child
ren
wit
h ac
tivi
ties
, pre
pare
m
ater
ials
for l
esso
ns, p
rovi
de o
ne-t
o-on
e ca
re to
chi
ldre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
und
er th
e su
perv
isio
n of
a c
erti
fied
te
ache
r.
Thre
e qu
alif
icat
ion
leve
ls:
Leve
l thr
ee: c
ompl
etio
n of
a tw
o ye
ar E
CE d
iplo
ma
or e
quiv
alen
t, o
r a
four
yea
r bac
helo
r of E
duca
tion
deg
ree
wit
h a
maj
or in
ECE
; Le
vel t
wo:
com
plet
ion
of a
one
yea
r ECE
cer
tifi
cate
or e
quiv
alen
t or
a fo
ur y
ear B
ache
lor o
f Ele
men
tary
Edu
cati
on;
Leve
l one
: com
plet
ion
of th
e go
vern
men
t’s
orie
ntat
ion
cour
se o
r eq
uiva
lent
. (Th
is in
volv
es a
t lea
st 4
5 ho
urs
of c
ours
es re
late
d to
ear
ly
child
hood
edu
cati
on).
Ce
ntre
dir
ecto
rs re
quir
ed to
hav
e le
vel t
hree
cer
tifi
cati
on o
r ex
empt
ion.
25%
of s
taff
in e
ach
cent
re re
quir
ed to
hav
e le
vel t
wo;
al
l oth
er s
taff
requ
ired
to h
ave
leve
l one
.
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Inte
grat
ion
is re
com
men
ded
to th
e fu
llest
ext
ent p
ossi
ble.
Ex
tra
supp
orts
are
ava
ilabl
e w
ith
appr
opri
ate
fund
ing
allo
cate
d to
spe
cial
ists
.
Incl
usiv
e Ch
ild C
are
Prog
ram
pro
vide
s fo
r inc
lusi
on o
f chi
ldre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
. Fu
ndin
g va
ries
dep
endi
ng o
n th
e ne
eds
of th
e ch
ild, t
he ty
pe o
f ser
vice
requ
ired
and
the
regi
on.
Fund
s ar
e pa
id to
op
erat
ors
on b
ehal
f of e
ligib
le c
hild
ren.
Add
itio
nal t
rain
ing
for s
taff
w
orki
ng w
ith
child
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds n
ot re
quir
ed.
Enro
llmen
tFi
ve y
ear o
lds:
41,
562
Four
yea
r old
s: 1
,704
(w
ith
mild
/mod
erat
e di
sabi
lity)
Th
ree
year
old
s: 2
87 (
wit
h se
vere
dis
abili
ty)
Tota
l:
43,
553
Tota
l reg
ulat
ed c
hild
car
e sp
aces
0-7
: 65,
726
Subs
idie
s fo
r chi
ldre
n 0-
7: 1
0,61
4
106
Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Curr
icul
umM
anda
tory
pro
vinc
ial K
inde
rgar
ten
Prog
ram
Sta
tem
ent.
It
des
crib
es e
xpec
tati
ons
in s
ix le
arni
ng a
reas
: En
glis
h La
ngua
ge A
rts,
Mat
hem
atic
s, C
omm
unit
y an
d En
viro
nmen
tal A
war
enes
s, P
erso
n an
d So
cial
Re
spon
sibi
lity,
Phy
sica
l Ski
lls a
nd W
ell-
Bei
ng a
nd C
reat
ive
and
Cult
ural
Exp
ress
ion.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sPe
r cap
ita
cost
s fo
r kin
derg
arte
n: $
2,27
2.To
tal e
xpen
ditu
res:
$53
,600
,000
; or $
816
per r
egul
ated
spa
ce fo
r ch
ildre
n 0-
12;
$104
per
chi
ld (
0-12
) A
vera
ge fe
es fo
r pre
scho
oler
s (a
ges
19-8
3 m
onth
s): $
532
per c
hild
per
mon
th.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
Abo
rigi
nal H
ead
Star
t pro
gram
s on
and
off
rese
rve.
Fiv
e si
tes
have
ECS
ope
rati
ng s
tatu
s-w
here
kin
derg
arte
n is
ta
ught
in th
e si
tes.
Child
car
e ce
ntre
s on
rese
rve
not l
icen
sed.
On-
rese
rve
child
car
e ce
ntre
s ar
e el
igib
le fo
r fed
eral
gov
ernm
ent f
undi
ng e
quiv
alen
t to
par
ent s
ubsi
dies
if p
rovi
ncia
l lic
ensi
ng s
tand
ards
are
met
. 24
app
rove
d ch
ild c
are
cent
res
on re
serv
e w
ith
1,11
4 sp
aces
(M
arch
, 200
4) S
igni
fica
nt n
umbe
r of M
étis
chi
ldre
n an
d fa
mili
es
in A
bori
gina
l Hea
d St
art.
Sig
nifi
cant
Inui
t pop
ulat
ion
rece
ivin
g fu
ndin
g fr
om b
oth
Hea
lth
Cana
da F
irst
Nat
ions
and
Inui
t Hea
lth
Bra
nch
and
from
the
Nor
ther
n Se
cret
aria
t. T
he N
orth
ern
Secr
etar
iat
mon
itor
s th
e of
f-re
serv
e po
rtio
n of
the
fund
s th
at g
o to
war
ds th
e N
orth
as
wel
l as
the
Firs
t Nat
ions
fund
ing.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
Alb
erta
’s C
omm
issi
on o
n Le
arni
ng (
2003
) re
com
men
ded
exte
ndin
g ki
nder
gart
en fr
om p
art t
o fu
ll-da
y an
d th
e in
trod
ucti
on o
f Jun
ior K
inde
rgar
ten.
The
se
reco
mm
enda
tion
s ar
e st
ill u
nder
revi
ew.
The
gove
rnm
ent
is in
volv
ed in
dis
cuss
ions
wit
h st
akeh
olde
rs.
In 2
002,
Alb
erta
intr
oduc
ed a
vol
unta
ry C
hild
Car
e A
ccre
dita
tion
Pr
ogra
m b
y w
hich
ear
ly c
hild
hood
pro
gram
s de
mon
stra
te th
at th
ey
mee
t def
ined
chi
ld c
are
stan
dard
s (e
xcee
ding
cur
rent
regu
lato
ry
stan
dard
s).
In 2
003-
04, t
he P
re-A
ccre
dita
tion
Fun
ding
pro
gram
pr
ovid
ed fu
nds
to a
ssis
t pro
gram
s to
gai
n ac
cred
itat
ion.
Albe
rta (c
ontin
ued)
107
108
Briti
sh Co
llum
bia
Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Del
iver
y In
pub
lic a
nd p
riva
te s
choo
ls.
It is
ava
ilabl
e to
all
five
yea
r ol
ds o
n a
part
-tim
e ba
sis.
The
re a
re 2
.4 in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
du
ring
the
day
on s
tand
ard
scho
ol d
ays.
Lim
ited
pro
visi
on
exis
ts fo
r fou
r yea
r old
s ta
rget
ed to
‘spe
cial
’ pop
ulat
ions
.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, p
resc
hool
s fo
r gro
ups
for n
o m
ore
than
4 h
ours
/da
y fo
r a m
axim
um o
f 20
child
ren
(30
mon
ths
to s
choo
l-ag
e), o
r fam
ily h
omes
in
divi
dual
ly li
cens
ed b
y th
e pr
ovin
cial
gov
ernm
ent.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yM
inis
try
of E
duca
tion
Min
istr
y of
Chi
ldre
n an
d Fa
mily
Dev
elop
men
t
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
bef
ore
Dec
embe
r 31.
Par
ents
may
def
er th
eir
child
’s e
nrol
men
t to
the
next
sch
ool y
ear.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
494
per c
hild
per
mon
th fo
r chi
ldre
n ag
es 3
-5,
$419
for k
inde
rgar
ten
child
ren,
or i
n re
ceip
t of o
ne o
f the
est
imat
ed 1
1,00
0 fe
e su
bsid
ies
(for
all
child
ren
0-12
)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oSp
ecif
ied
in T
he S
choo
l Act
whi
ch s
ets
a m
axim
um o
f 22
stud
ents
; the
ave
rage
in a
ggre
gate
mus
t not
exc
eed
19
stud
ents
.
30 m
onth
s to
sch
ool-
age
1:8
Max
gro
up s
ize:
25
Pres
choo
l (3
-5)
1:15
M
ax g
roup
siz
e: 2
0
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs re
quir
e ce
rtif
icat
ion
whi
ch re
quir
es a
B.E
d or
B
ache
lor d
egre
e pl
us p
ost-
degr
ee te
ache
r tra
inin
g. N
o EC
E re
quir
emen
ts.
A
vera
ge S
alar
ies
(200
3/04
): $
60,8
44.
Teac
her A
ssis
tant
s: H
ired
at t
he d
iscr
etio
n of
the
loca
l sc
hool
boa
rd.
Qual
ific
atio
ns a
re e
stab
lishe
d by
sch
ool
boar
ds a
nd p
aid
on a
vera
ge $
20/h
our.
Thre
e ty
pes
of s
taff
: Ea
rly
Child
hood
Edu
cato
rs; A
ssis
tant
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Ed
ucat
ors
and
Resp
onsi
ble
Adu
lts.
Th
e tr
aini
ng re
quir
emen
ts fo
r eac
h ar
e:
Earl
y Ch
ildh
ood
Educ
ator
: •
Earl
y Ch
ildho
od E
duca
tor:
bas
ic (
at le
ast 1
0 m
onth
s) p
rogr
am +
500
hou
rs o
f su
perv
ised
wor
k ex
peri
ence
; •
Infa
nt/t
oddl
er e
duca
tor:
bas
ic o
ne y
ear e
arly
chi
ldho
od e
duca
tion
trai
ning
pl
us s
peci
aliz
ed tr
aini
ng re
late
d to
infa
nt/t
oddl
er c
are
and
educ
atio
n;
• Sp
ecia
l nee
ds e
duca
tor:
bas
ic e
arly
chi
ldho
od e
duca
tion
pro
gram
plu
s sp
ecia
lized
trai
ning
rela
ted
to c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds.
As
sist
ant E
arly
Chi
ldho
od E
duca
tors
•
This
cat
egor
y in
clud
es s
taff
in th
e pr
oces
s of
qua
lifyi
ng fo
r an
ECE
cert
ific
ate
or w
ho h
ave
com
plet
ed a
trai
ning
pro
gram
reco
gniz
ed a
s eq
uiva
lent
to o
ne
cour
se o
f a b
asic
ear
ly c
hild
hood
edu
cati
on p
rogr
am.
Resp
onsi
ble
Adul
ts:
• Th
ese
staf
f mus
t hav
e co
mpl
eted
a c
ours
e on
the
care
of y
oung
chi
ldre
n or
ha
ve re
leva
nt w
ork
expe
rien
ce.
Staf
fing
requ
irem
ents
var
y de
pend
ing
upon
the
type
of c
are
prov
ider
and
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n. F
or g
roup
car
e 30
mon
ths
to s
choo
l-ag
e:, e
ach
grou
p re
quir
es o
ne E
CE p
lus
Ass
ista
nts
ECEs
. Sp
ecia
l nee
ds fa
cilit
ies
(whe
re a
t lea
st 2
5% o
f chi
ldre
n ha
ve s
peci
al n
eeds
) re
quir
e on
e Sp
ecia
l Nee
ds E
duca
tor f
or e
very
gro
up o
f fou
r or f
ewer
chi
ldre
n.
Larg
er g
roup
s re
quir
e on
e Sp
ecia
l Nee
ds E
duca
tor p
lus
Earl
y Ch
ildho
od
Educ
ator
s.
109
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Scho
ol b
oard
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r pro
vidi
ng fa
cilit
ies
to
allo
w e
qual
ity
of a
cces
s to
edu
cati
onal
pro
gram
s.
Child
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds a
re ty
pica
lly in
clud
ed in
full-
day
kind
erga
rten
. Le
arni
ng A
ssis
tanc
e Te
ache
rs p
rovi
de th
e lin
k to
sup
port
ser
vice
s in
the
com
mun
ity.
A s
peci
al d
iagn
osis
is re
quir
ed fo
r a c
hild
to a
cces
s su
ppor
ted
child
car
e (r
ange
pay
men
ts).
The
add
itio
nal s
uppo
rts
are
not i
ncom
e-te
sted
and
pa
rent
s do
not
pay
fees
for s
uppo
rts
but t
here
are
wai
ting
list
s.
Enro
llmen
tKi
nder
gart
en: 3
6,55
2 90
4 ch
ildre
n w
ith
iden
tifi
ed s
peci
al n
eeds
(75
2 pa
rt-d
ay;
152
full-
day)
.
Tota
l reg
ulat
ed s
pace
s: 8
0,23
0.
Subs
idy
spac
es: 1
1,00
0
Curr
icul
umA
K-G
rade
1 c
urri
culu
m is
pro
vide
d as
par
t of t
he “
Prim
ary
Prog
ram
”. I
t inc
lude
s pr
escr
ibed
lear
ning
out
com
es
spec
ific
to K
-Gra
de 1
for e
ach
area
of s
tudy
.
No
prov
inci
al c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
s$5
,520
for f
ull-
tim
e eq
uiva
lent
; for
par
t-ti
me
$2,7
60.
Tota
l pr
ovin
cial
spe
ndin
g on
kin
derg
arte
n is
$11
1,46
0,00
0.To
tal e
xpen
ditu
res:
$14
0,72
5,00
0; o
r $24
1 pe
r chi
ld 0
-12;
or $
1,75
4 pe
r reg
ulat
ed s
pace
for c
hild
ren
0-12
; 25
% o
f chi
ldre
n re
ceiv
e on
e of
the
11,0
00 s
ubsi
dies
; 75
% o
f par
ents
mus
t pay
the
full
fee
whi
ch, f
or a
ll ki
nder
gart
en
child
ren
is $
419
and
for p
resc
hool
ers
(age
s 3-
6) a
vera
ges
$494
/chi
ld/
mon
th.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
No
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
eB
C fu
nds
and
licen
ses
on- a
nd o
ff-r
eser
ve c
hild
car
e in
65
Firs
t Nat
ions
co
mm
unit
ies.
Tra
inin
g is
ava
ilabl
e fo
r Fir
st N
atio
ns e
arly
chi
ldho
od
educ
ator
s.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
Full-
tim
e ki
nder
gart
en m
ay b
e av
aila
ble
for s
peci
al
popu
lati
ons.
The
se in
clud
e A
bori
gina
l chi
ldre
n, c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l nee
ds o
r ESL
. Th
ere
are
appr
oxim
atel
y 4,
000
full-
day
kind
erga
rten
chi
ldre
n Th
e M
inis
try
of C
hild
ren
and
Fam
ilies
has
a p
olic
y on
inne
r-ci
ty s
choo
ls th
at m
ay p
rovi
de a
sch
ool m
eals
pro
gram
. So
me
loca
l sch
ool b
oard
s al
so h
ave
polic
ies.
A
ddit
iona
l hal
f-da
y pr
ogra
ms
are
offe
red
by s
ome
scho
ol
divi
sion
s (s
uch
as W
est V
anco
uver
and
Abb
otsf
ord)
pr
ovid
ing
kind
erga
rten
chi
ldre
n th
e ch
oice
of a
n ad
diti
onal
hal
f-da
y pr
ogra
m (
3 da
ys o
r 5 d
ays)
at a
mon
thly
fe
e of
$31
0 or
$39
0. A
Tea
cher
Ass
ista
nt is
hir
ed to
su
perv
ise
the
child
ren
over
lunc
h.
110
North
west
Terri
torie
s Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Del
iver
y In
pub
lic a
nd p
riva
te s
choo
ls.
It is
non
-com
puls
ory
and
avai
labl
e to
all
five
yea
r old
s on
a p
art-
tim
e ba
sis.
The
re
is a
max
imum
of 5
70 h
ours
and
a m
inim
um o
f 485
hou
rs
of in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
a y
ear.
Wit
hin
this
, dec
isio
ns a
bout
ho
urs
are
mad
e by
loca
l sch
ool b
oard
s. C
onti
nues
to fu
nd
and
deliv
er d
enom
inat
iona
l edu
cati
on; b
oth
“pub
lic”
and
Cath
olic
sch
ool b
oard
s ar
e pu
blic
ly fu
nded
.
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s, n
urse
ry s
choo
ls o
r fam
ily h
omes
indi
vidu
ally
lic
ense
d by
the
Terr
itor
y.
Nur
sery
sch
ools
ava
ilabl
e fo
r chi
ldre
n le
ss th
an s
ix y
ears
of a
ge fo
r fou
r co
nsec
utiv
e ho
urs
or le
ss a
day
.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
, Cul
ture
and
Em
ploy
men
tD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
, Cul
ture
and
Em
ploy
men
t
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
bef
ore
Dec
embe
r 31.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
600/
pres
choo
l chi
ld/m
onth
full-
tim
e, o
r in
rece
ipt
of a
fee
subs
idy.
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oN
o te
rrit
oria
l cla
ss s
ize
limit
s,4
year
s 1
:9 -
Max
gro
up s
ize:
18
5 ye
ars:
1:1
0 - M
ax g
roup
siz
e: 2
0
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs:
A te
achi
ng c
erti
fica
te (
B.E
d. o
r pos
t-se
cond
ary
degr
ee p
lus
one
year
cou
rse
wor
k in
a F
acul
ty o
f Edu
cati
on)
or o
ne o
f the
follo
win
g th
ree
leve
ls o
f edu
cati
on a
nd
expe
rien
ce s
peci
fic
to k
inde
rgar
ten:
In
teri
m K
inde
rgar
ten
Teac
hing
Cer
tifi
cate
: 2 y
ear
dipl
oma
in E
arly
Chi
ldho
od p
lus
25 h
ours
of t
each
er
trai
ning
; St
anda
rd K
inde
rgar
ten
Teac
hing
Cer
tifi
cate
: Hol
ds
an in
teri
m K
inde
rgar
ten
Teac
hing
Cer
tifi
cate
and
has
co
mpl
eted
two
acad
emic
yea
rs o
f tea
chin
g;
Kin
derg
arte
n Sp
ecia
list
Cer
tifi
cate
: Hol
ds a
Sta
ndar
d Ki
nder
gart
en T
each
ing
Cert
ific
ate
and
has
succ
essf
ully
co
mpl
eted
an
appr
oved
one
yea
r tea
cher
trai
ning
pro
gram
. Te
ache
rs a
re re
quir
ed to
take
120
hou
rs o
f pro
fess
iona
l de
velo
pmen
t ove
r 5 y
ears
, wit
h a
min
imum
of 1
5 ho
urs
each
yea
r.
Educ
atio
n As
sist
ants
: St
uden
t sup
port
fund
ing
is
prov
ided
to s
choo
l boa
rds
base
d on
the
num
ber o
f stu
dent
s an
d sc
hool
boa
rds
usua
lly a
ssig
n as
sist
ants
to a
ssis
t wit
h st
uden
ts w
ho h
ave
spec
ial n
eeds
.
Mus
t be
at le
ast 1
9 ye
ars
of a
ge a
nd h
ave
a fi
rst-
aid
cert
ific
ate
and
a cl
ear
crim
inal
reco
rd w
ith
rega
rd to
off
ence
s re
spec
ting
chi
ldre
n. N
o ea
rly
child
hood
ed
ucat
ion
trai
ning
requ
irem
ents
.
111
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. C
hild
ren
have
acc
ess
to th
e ed
ucat
ion
prog
ram
in a
regu
lar i
nstr
ucti
onal
cla
ssro
om s
etti
ng.
Boa
rds
are
requ
ired
to p
rovi
de s
uppo
rt th
roug
h Sc
hool
Su
ppor
t fun
ding
. Th
ere
is a
n ex
empt
ion
for c
hild
ren
wit
h ex
trem
e ne
eds
(e.g
. med
ical
); th
e ch
ild m
ay b
e in
a
trea
tmen
t cen
tre
inst
ead
of a
cla
ssro
om.
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. C
are
prov
ider
s ar
e fu
nded
to p
rovi
de e
xtra
sup
port
an
d pa
rent
s ar
e el
igib
le fo
r fee
ass
ista
nce
for t
heir
chi
ldre
n w
ith
spec
ial
need
s.
Enro
llmen
t61
5To
tal r
egul
ated
chi
ld c
are
spac
es (
2-5
year
s) 1
,219
Curr
icul
umTh
e ap
prov
ed K
inde
rgar
ten
curr
icul
um fo
r the
NW
T is
Ch
ildre
n Fi
rst:
A C
urri
culu
m G
uide
for K
inde
rgar
ten
(199
4 Sa
skat
chew
an)
wit
h N
WT
cont
ent i
n m
ost s
ubje
ct a
reas
.
No
terr
itor
ial c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sA
vera
ge s
pend
ing
per k
inde
rgar
ten
stud
ent:
$5,
900;
tota
l te
rrit
oria
l spe
ndin
g on
kin
derg
arte
n, $
3.6
mill
ion.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g fo
r reg
ulat
ed c
hild
car
e (2
001)
$2,
542,
000;
or $
2,08
5 pe
r ch
ild (
0-12
) in
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are;
or $
273
per c
hild
0-1
2.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
Ther
e is
blo
ck fu
ndin
g to
sch
ool b
oard
s fo
r Abo
rigi
nal
Lang
uage
and
Cul
ture
. In
som
e pl
aces
Abo
rigi
nal H
ead-
Star
t is
beco
min
g th
e ot
her h
alf-
day
of k
inde
rgar
ten.
A
bori
gina
l lan
guag
es a
re re
cogn
ized
as
Offi
cial
lang
uage
s al
ongs
ide
Engl
ish
and
Fren
ch.
(11
offi
cial
lang
uage
s)
NW
T is
com
pris
ed o
f Inu
it a
nd D
ene
com
mun
itie
s ou
tsid
e Ye
llow
knif
e.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
The
cult
ure(
s) o
f the
com
mun
ity
is /
are
refle
cted
in
all a
spec
ts o
f the
sch
ool.
Cult
ure,
in th
is c
onte
xt, l
inks
re
spec
t for
and
pri
de in
the
past
, und
erst
andi
ng o
f and
in
volv
emen
t in
the
pres
ent,
and
vis
ions
and
asp
irat
ions
fo
r the
futu
re.
Cult
ure
enco
mpa
sses
the
lang
uage
s,
valu
es, b
elie
fs, l
ifes
tyle
s an
d is
sues
that
are
inte
gral
to th
e co
mm
unit
y. T
he c
omm
unit
y sc
hool
see
ks th
e gu
idan
ce
of E
lder
s an
d ot
her k
ey p
eopl
e in
the
child
ren’
s liv
es, a
nd
acti
vely
inco
rpor
ates
thei
r vis
ions
and
thei
r kno
wle
dge
into
all
scho
ol p
rogr
ams.
A n
umbe
r of s
choo
l boa
rds
offe
r hal
f-da
y ki
nder
gart
en
wit
h ha
lf-da
y Ea
rly
Child
hood
pro
gram
s fo
cusi
ng o
n Fr
anci
sati
on a
nd li
tera
cy.
Prog
ram
s ar
e co
-loc
ated
, may
be
coo
rdin
ated
and
par
ents
may
pay
a fe
e de
pend
ing
on
fund
er a
nd ty
pe o
f pro
gram
.
112
Nuna
vut
Kind
erga
rten
Regu
late
d Ch
ild C
are
Del
iver
y In
pub
lic s
choo
ls u
nder
regi
onal
sch
ool o
pera
tion
s. I
t is
non-
com
puls
ory
and
avai
labl
e to
all
five
yea
r old
s on
a
part
-tim
e ba
sis.
The
re is
a re
quir
emen
t for
no
less
than
485
ho
urs
and
no m
ore
than
6 h
ours
/day
inst
ruct
iona
l hou
rs/
year
.
In li
cens
ed d
ay c
are
cent
res,
nur
sery
sch
ools
or f
amily
hom
es in
divi
dual
ly
licen
sed
by th
e Te
rrit
ory.
Nur
sery
sch
ools
for c
hild
ren
less
than
6 y
ears
of a
ge fo
r fou
r con
secu
tive
hou
rs o
r le
ss a
day
, inc
ludi
ng A
bori
gina
l Hea
d St
art P
rogr
ams.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
cati
on
Elig
ibili
tyFi
ve y
ears
old
bef
ore
Dec
embe
r 31.
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
577/
child
age
3-6
/mon
th, o
r in
rece
ipt o
f fee
su
bsid
y.
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oN
o te
rrit
oria
l cla
ss s
ize
limit
s,4
year
s 1
:9 -
Max
gro
up s
ize:
18
5 ye
ars
1:10
; Max
gro
up s
ize:
20
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs:
Mus
t be
a ce
rtif
ied
teac
her w
ith
a B
.Ed.
or a
ce
rtif
ied
kind
erga
rten
teac
her w
hich
requ
ires
a 2
-yea
r pr
ogra
m in
ECE
, suc
cess
ful c
ompl
etio
n of
two
acad
emic
ye
ars
of c
lass
room
teac
hing
and
com
plet
ion
of c
ours
es fo
r on
e-ye
ar te
ache
r tra
inin
g, o
r hav
e a
Lett
er o
f Aut
hori
ty
whi
ch re
quir
es o
ne y
ear E
CE o
r som
e co
urse
wor
k to
war
ds a
B
.Ed.
and
mus
t be
rene
wed
ann
ually
.
Stud
ent S
uppo
rt A
ssis
tant
s (S
SA)
used
to e
nabl
e a
child
w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
to h
ave
acce
ss to
the
prog
ram
. N
o qu
alif
icat
ion
requ
irem
ents
but
ther
e is
a c
erti
fica
te
prog
ram
ava
ilabl
e.
Mus
t be
at le
ast 1
9 ye
ars
of a
ge a
nd h
ave
a fi
rst-
aid
cert
ific
ate
and
repr
esen
t the
cu
ltur
al b
ackg
roun
d of
the
child
ren.
No
ECE
trai
ning
requ
irem
ents
.
113
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. E
xtra
sup
port
s in
clud
e st
uden
t sup
port
as
sist
ants
, Ind
ivid
ual E
duca
tion
Pla
ns a
nd s
peci
alis
ts
prov
ided
thro
ugh
Dep
artm
ent o
f Hea
lth.
Care
pro
vide
rs fu
nded
to p
rovi
de e
xtra
sup
port
for c
hild
ren
wit
h sp
ecia
l ne
eds
thro
ugh
daily
ope
rati
ng g
rant
s ba
sed
on th
e ag
e of
the
child
and
th
e ar
ea.
Fund
ing
also
ava
ilabl
e fr
om th
e H
ealt
hy C
hild
ren’
s In
itia
tive
fo
r ada
ptiv
e eq
uipm
ent a
nd e
xtra
sta
ff s
uppo
rts.
Fin
anci
ally
and
elig
ible
pa
rent
s w
ith
a m
edic
al re
ferr
al re
ceiv
e fe
e su
bsid
ies.
En
rollm
ent
671
Regu
late
d sp
aces
0-1
2: 1
,014
Pr
esch
oole
rs: 5
47 fu
ll-ti
me
and
214
part
-tim
eCu
rric
ulum
Ther
e is
a tw
o ye
ar p
roce
ss in
volv
ing
elde
rs u
nder
way
to
wor
k on
dev
elop
ing
terr
itor
ial c
urri
culu
m w
hich
will
in
corp
orat
e cu
ltur
al tr
adit
ions
and
lang
uage
and
will
in
tegr
ate
Hig
h/Sc
ope
mat
eria
ls w
ithi
n a
Nor
ther
n co
ntex
t.
No
terr
itor
ial c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sA
vera
ge p
er c
apit
a co
st $
8,54
5To
tal s
pend
ing
$1,7
86,0
00 o
r $1,
761
per c
hild
in re
gula
ted
child
car
e, o
r $2
05 p
er c
hild
0-1
2.
Abo
rigi
nal P
rogr
ams
Sinc
e 19
96, t
he F
irst
Nat
ions
and
Inui
t Chi
ld C
are
Init
iati
ve (
FNIC
CI)
has
prov
ided
fund
ing
for t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f app
roxi
mat
ely
20 c
entr
es in
N
unav
ut.
Ther
e is
an
Abo
rigi
nal H
uman
Res
ourc
e D
evel
opm
ent S
trat
egy
(AH
RDS)
regi
onal
off
ice
in e
ach
of th
e th
ree
regi
ons.
Eac
h re
gion
al o
ffic
e to
ok o
n th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
for t
he d
eliv
ery
and
adm
inis
trat
ion
of th
e In
uit
Child
care
Pro
gram
in th
eir r
egio
n.
All
child
car
e ce
ntre
s re
ceiv
e bl
ock
fund
ing
from
thei
r AH
RDS
offi
ce (
in
addi
tion
to c
apit
al fu
ndin
g) A
ppro
xim
atel
y 20
cen
tres
+ 7
Abo
rigi
nal
Hea
d St
art p
rogr
ams
fund
ed th
roug
h H
ealt
h Ca
nada
. Sp
ecia
l Fea
ture
sIn
stru
ctio
n in
Inuk
titu
t is
prov
ided
from
kin
derg
arte
n to
Gra
de 3
. A
tran
siti
on to
Eng
lish
in G
rade
4 w
ith
som
e In
ukti
tut f
ollo
ws
from
that
poi
nt o
n. 9
5% o
f the
chi
ldre
n ha
ve a
firs
t lan
guag
e ot
her t
han
Engl
ish
or F
renc
h.
In 2
004,
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
cati
on b
egan
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f N
unav
ut-b
ased
reso
urce
s fo
r ear
ly c
hild
hood
pro
gram
s re
leva
nt to
loca
l co
mm
unit
ies.
All
wri
tten
mat
eria
ls w
ill b
e av
aila
ble
in th
e fo
ur o
ffic
ial
lang
uage
s of
the
terr
itor
y.
114
Yuko
nKi
nder
gart
enRe
gula
ted
Child
Car
e
Del
iver
y D
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
fund
s an
d de
liver
s de
nom
inat
iona
l edu
cati
on.
Bot
h pu
blic
and
Cat
holic
sc
hool
boa
rds
are
fund
ed.
Ther
e ar
e no
pri
vate
sch
ools
in
the
Yuko
n. K
inde
rgar
ten
is n
on-c
ompu
lsor
y an
d av
aila
ble
to a
ll fi
ve y
ear o
lds
on a
par
t-ti
me
basi
s. T
here
are
475
in
stru
ctio
nal h
ours
a y
ear.
Exp
erim
ents
und
erta
ken
wit
h th
e op
erat
ion
of a
full-
day
kind
erga
rten
pro
gram
for f
ive
year
old
s th
at in
clud
ed fo
ur y
ear o
lds
on a
hal
f-da
y ba
sis,
an
d co
mbi
ned
4 an
d 5-
year
old
kin
derg
arte
n pr
ogra
ms
offe
red
to p
rovi
de c
hild
ren
wit
h m
ore
tim
e to
pre
pare
for
Grad
e 1.
The
re a
re 2
8 ki
nder
gart
en p
rogr
ams,
6 fu
ll-da
y.
Thre
e ar
e in
Whi
teho
rse,
two
in ru
ral c
omm
unit
ies
and
one
fran
coph
one
prog
ram
.Whe
re 4
yea
r old
s ar
e en
rolle
d,
the
Child
Dev
elop
men
t Cen
tre
may
pro
vide
ass
ista
nce
for
part
icul
ar s
tude
nts.
Regu
late
d ch
ild c
are
is p
rovi
ded
In li
cens
ed c
hild
car
e ce
ntre
s or
fam
ily h
omes
.
Ther
e ar
e al
so u
nreg
ulat
ed p
resc
hool
pro
gram
s av
aila
ble
for c
hild
ren
3-6
for l
ess
than
thre
e co
nsec
utiv
e ho
urs.
Prov
inci
al
Resp
onsi
bilit
yD
epar
tmen
t of E
duca
tion
Dep
artm
ent o
f Hea
lth
and
Soci
al S
ervi
ces,
Chi
ld C
are
Serv
ices
Uni
t
Elig
ibili
tyFo
ur y
ears
and
eig
ht m
onth
s as
of S
epte
mbe
r 1st
On p
aym
ent o
f fee
ave
ragi
ng $
514/
child
age
3-6
/mon
th, o
r in
rece
ipt o
f one
of
786
fee
subs
idie
s to
a m
axim
um o
f $45
0/m
onth
(fo
r all
child
ren
0-12
)
Clas
s Si
ze/C
hild
-Sta
ff
Rati
oTh
ere
is a
terr
itor
ial c
lass
siz
e lim
it o
f 22.
Ave
rage
/mea
n cl
ass
size
:14.
Sm
alle
r cla
ss s
izes
exi
st in
rura
l sch
ools
(5-
10 s
tude
nts)
.
3-6
year
s 1
:8 -
Max
gro
up s
ize:
16
Staf
f Qua
lific
atio
nsTe
ache
rs:
Tea
cher
s’ c
erti
fica
te re
quir
es a
B.E
d or
a
Bac
helo
r deg
ree
plus
an
appr
oved
pro
gram
of t
each
er
prep
arat
ion
of a
t lea
st o
ne y
ear.
No
spec
ial r
equi
rem
ents
fo
r kin
derg
arte
n bu
t app
lican
ts w
ith
Earl
y Ch
ildho
od
trai
ning
are
giv
en p
refe
renc
e.
Cl
assr
oom
Ass
ista
nts:
Tw
o ty
pes:
Edu
cati
on a
ssis
tant
and
re
med
ial t
utor
. So
me
trai
ning
is p
rovi
ded
thro
ugh
Spec
ial
Prog
ram
Sta
ff, w
ho d
eter
min
e th
e ne
eds
of in
divi
dual
st
uden
ts.
Ave
rage
sal
arie
s: K
inde
rgar
ten
teac
her f
ull-
tim
e: $
67,2
00;
half-
tim
e: $
33,5
00.
As
of 2
000,
20%
of s
taff
ha
d to
mee
t or e
xcee
d Ch
ild C
are
Wor
ker I
II
qual
ific
atio
n; 3
0% C
hild
Car
e W
orke
r II a
nd th
e re
st m
ust m
eet o
r exc
eed
Child
Ca
re W
orke
r I.
Child
Car
e W
orke
r III
: 2 o
r mor
e ye
ars
of tr
aini
ng in
ECD
or e
quiv
alen
t Ch
ild C
are
Wor
ker I
I: O
ne y
ear t
rain
ing
in E
CD o
r equ
ival
ent
Child
Car
e W
orke
r I:
60-h
our i
ntro
duct
ion
to E
CD c
ours
e or
equ
ival
ent.
115
Child
ren
wit
h Sp
ecia
l N
eeds
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. C
hild
ren
are
incl
uded
in re
gula
r ki
nder
gart
en u
nles
s th
ey h
ave
seve
re, m
ulti
ple
spec
ial
need
s. E
xtra
sup
port
ava
ilabl
e; th
e D
epar
tmen
t of
Educ
atio
n as
sign
s ed
ucat
iona
l ass
ista
nts.
Ser
vice
s su
ch a
s sp
eech
and
lang
uage
, phy
sica
l and
occ
upat
iona
l the
rapi
es
and
psyc
holo
gica
l ser
vice
s fo
r tes
ting
are
pro
vide
d. T
he
num
ber o
f chi
ldre
n w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
is a
ppro
xim
atel
y 48
st
uden
ts.
Polic
y of
incl
usio
n. A
n In
divi
dual
Pro
gram
Pla
n m
ust b
e de
velo
ped
for t
he d
esig
nate
d ch
ild o
utlin
ing
goal
s an
d ob
ject
ives
for t
he c
hild
. Fu
ndin
g av
aila
ble
for c
entr
es a
nd fa
mily
hom
es th
roug
h a
Supp
orte
d Ch
ild C
are
fund
, bas
ed o
n in
divi
dual
nee
d of
the
child
. Fu
ndin
g fo
r ada
ptiv
e eq
uipm
ent,
tran
spor
tati
on, p
rogr
amm
ing
supp
ort a
nd
addi
tion
al s
taff
.
Fina
ncia
lly e
ligib
le p
aren
ts re
ceiv
e a
fee
subs
idy;
par
ents
not
fina
ncia
lly
elig
ible
, pay
the
full
fee
but n
ot fo
r add
itio
nal s
uppo
rts.
Enro
llmen
tFi
ve y
ear o
lds:
334
; fou
r yea
r old
s 44
(ap
prox
) Sp
ecia
l nee
ds: 4
8Re
gula
ted
child
car
e: 1
,369
Su
bsid
ies
786
Spec
ial N
eeds
: 45
Curr
icul
umU
ses
the
BC
curr
icul
um.
The
focu
s is
chi
ld-c
entr
ed w
ith
a ba
lanc
e be
twee
n pl
ay-o
rien
ted
cent
res
and
grou
p in
stru
ctio
n. I
n so
me
scho
ols,
Fir
st N
atio
ns la
ngua
ge ti
me
is in
clud
ed.
The
focu
s is
on
pre-
liter
acy
and
pre-
num
erac
y sk
ills
as w
ell a
s la
ngua
ge a
nd s
ocia
l dev
elop
men
t.
No
terr
itor
ial c
urri
culu
m
Fund
ing
and
Cost
sPe
r cap
ita
spen
ding
K-1
2 is
$5,
500,
exc
ludi
ng c
apit
al.
Tota
l spe
ndin
g $5
,197
,284
(20
03/4
) or
$3,
796
per
chi
ld in
regu
late
d ch
ild c
are;
$1,
109
per c
hild
(0-
12)
Ave
rage
fee
for p
resc
hool
ers:
$51
4 p.
m. (
2000
)A
bori
gina
l Pro
gram
sN
o sp
ecia
l pro
gram
sN
o re
serv
es fo
r Fir
st N
atio
ns p
eopl
e in
the
Yuko
n. F
irst
Nat
ions
rece
ive
the
sam
e st
art-
up a
nd o
pera
ting
gra
nts
from
the
Yuko
n go
vern
men
t as
othe
r lic
ense
d pr
ogra
ms.
The
y al
so re
ceiv
e fu
ndin
g fr
om th
e fe
dera
l Fi
rst N
atio
ns a
nd In
uit C
hild
Car
e in
itia
tive
. Th
e Co
unci
l for
Yuk
on F
irst
N
atio
ns a
lso
prov
ides
fina
ncia
l sup
port
to o
ne a
ddit
iona
l chi
ld c
are
cent
re a
nd s
ever
al fa
mily
day
car
e ho
mes
for F
irst
Nat
ions
chi
ldre
n.
App
roxi
mat
ely
225
regu
late
d sp
aces
ope
rate
d or
sup
port
ed b
y Fi
rst
Nat
ions
in 7
cen
tres
; thr
ee A
bori
gina
l Hea
d St
art P
rogr
ams,
two
as p
art o
f re
gula
ted
Firs
t Nat
ions
chi
ld C
are
cent
res
and
one
stan
d-al
one
unlic
ense
d pr
esch
ool.
Par
ents
are
elig
ible
for f
ee s
ubsi
dy.
Spec
ial F
eatu
res
Eigh
t rur
al s
choo
ls a
nd o
ne u
rban
sch
ool c
ombi
ne fo
ur y
ear
olds
wit
h th
e re
gula
r kin
derg
arte
n pr
ogra
m.
The
targ
eted
co
mm
unit
ies
are
mai
nly
Firs
t Nat
ions
wit
h m
any
child
ren
dete
rmin
ed to
be
at ri
sk.
The
focu
s is
on
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t, s
ocia
l ski
lls, p
re-l
iter
acy
and
pre-
num
erac
y sk
ills.
117
REFERENCESAckerman, D.J., Barnett, W.S. & Robin, K.B. (2005) Making the Most of Kindergarten: Present Trends and
Future Issues in the Provision of Full-Day Programs, New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.
Alberta. Commission on Learning. (2003) Every child learns, every child succeeds: report and recommendations. Alberta.
Andersen, Lotte Bogh And Jeppe Bogh Andersen (2001), “Costs, Output, and Institutional Differentiation in Danish Childcare Policy” Scandinavian Political Studies, Volume 24, Number 3, 2001, pp. 195-214.
Atkinson Charitable Foundation, (2004) The Atkinson Letter, October, Atkinson Charitable Foundation, Toronto, 2004.
Barnett, W.S. (1995) Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and social outcomes. The Future of Children, 5, 25-50,
Barnett, W. Steven, Kenneth B. Robin, Jason T. Hustedt, and Karen L. Schulman. (2003) The State of Preschool: State Preschool Yearbook. New Brunswick: The National Institute for Early Education Research, 2003.
Barnett, W. Steven and Donald J. Yarosz, (2004 ) “Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does It Matter” in Preschool Policy Matters, National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers.
Belim, Dan, Alice Burton, Marcy Whitebook, Linda Broatch, Marci P. Young; Center for the Child Care Workforce (2002) Inside the Pre-K Classroom: A Study of Staffing and Stability in State-Funded Prekindergarten Programs.
Bennett, John. Curriculum in early childhood education and care in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Bennett, John. (2004) Early Education Financing: What is Useful to Know? in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 2004.
Bennett, John. (2004) Curriculum issues in national policy making, Paris, OECD.
Blades, C.M. (2002) Full-day kindergarten: “A blessing or a bane for young children?” in CBE mile and moderate full-day kindergarten project (2001-2002). Calgary, AB:Calgary Board of Education.
Blair, C. (2002) School Readiness. American Psychologist, 57(2), 111-127.
Bowman, Barbara T., Suzanne Donovan, and M. Susan Burns, Editors; (2000) Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, National Research Council
Brink, S., & Bacon, J. (2003) Understanding the early years: Research results for five pilot communities. Education Canada 43(1).
Bundesjugendkuratorium u.a., (2002) Education is More than School, Bonn, Germany.
118
Burchinal, M.R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D.M. & Clifford, R. (2000). Children’s social and cognitive development and child-care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 149-165.
Cameron in (2002) “Building an integrated workforce for a long-term vision of universal early education and care” in Leading the Vision Policy Papers: No. 3, London: Day Care Trust
Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, Ottawa, 1970.
Choi, Soo-Hyang. (2002) Integrating Early Childhood Into Education: The Case of Sweden, in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Choi, Soo-Hyang. (2003) Lifelong Learning and Social Policy for Early Childhood in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Choi, Soo-Hyang. (2003) Cross-sectoral Co-ordination in Early Childhood: Some Lessons to Learn in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Choi, Soo-Hyang. (2002) Planning for Access: Develop a Data System First in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Choi, Soo-Hyang. (2002) Early Childhood Care? Development? Education? in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Cleveland, G & Krashinsky, M, (2003) Fact and Fantasy: Eight Myths about Early Childhood Education and Care, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.
Cleveland G. & Krashinsky M. (1998) The Benefits and Costs of Good Child Care: The Economic Rationale for Public Investment in Young Children – A Policy Study, Toronto.
Cleveland G. & Colley, S. (2003) “The Future of Government in Supporting Early Childhood Education and Care in Ontario” in Investing In People: Creating A Human Capital Society: Panel on the Role of Government, Toronto.
Cleveland, Gordon, Sue Colley, Martha Friendly and Donna Lero, (2001) Early Childhood Care and Education: An Agenda for Data Collection: Final Report. Toronto, Ontario: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.
Cleveland, Gordon, Carl Corter, Janette Pelletier, Sue Colley, Jane Bertrand, Janet Jamieson (2006) A Review Of The State Of The Field Of Early Childhood Learning And Development In Child Care, Kindergarten And Family Support Programs, Ottawa, Canadian Council on Learning.
Clifford, R.M. & J. Gallagher, (2001) First in America Special Report: Designing a High Quality Pre-Kindergarten Program, Frank Porter Gram Child Development Center: NC Education Research Council.
Coffey, C & McCain, M. (2002) Commission on Early Learning and Child Care for the City of Toronto, Final Report,
119
Cohen, Bronwen, Peter Moss, Pat Petrie and Jennifer Wallace, (2004) A New Deal for Children? Re-Forming education and care in England, Scotland and Sweden, The Policy Press, Bristol.
Conference Board of Canada, (2001) Investing in Innovation, 3rd Annual Innovation Report. Ottawa.
Corter, Carl, Jane Bertrand, Janette Pelletier, Theresa Griffin, Donald McKay, Sejal Petal and Palmina Ioannone, (2006) Toronto First Duty: Phase 1 Summary Report: Evidence-based Understanding of Integrated Foundations for Early Childhood, Toronto.
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995, June). Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers, Technical Report. Denver: University of Colorado at Denver, Department of Economics, Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy.
Cryan, J., R. Sheehan, J. Weichel, and I.G. Bandy-Hedden (1992) Success Outcomes of Full-Day Kindergarten: More Positive Behaviour and Increased Achievement in the Years After. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 7(2, June): 187-203. EJ 450 525.
Currie, Janet And Duncan Thomas (2000), “School Quality and the Longer-Term Effects of Head Start”, Journal of Human Resources 35(4): 755-774.
Currie, J. & D. Thomas (1997), “Do the Benefits of Early Childhood Education Last?”, Policy Options 18(6): 47-50.
Currie, J & Tomas D. (1995), “Does Head Start Make A Difference?” American Economic Review 85(3), 341-64.
Da Costa, J.L, & Bell, S. (2003). Full-day vs. half-day kindergarten: Narrowing the SES Gap. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Halifax, NS.
D’Arcangelo, M. (2003). On the mind of a child: A conversation with Sally Shaywitz. Educational Leadership 60(7), 6-9.
Dockendorf, Maureen and Susan Close, (1990) Our Primary Program: Taking the Pulse, Part I, A Journey Through the Classrooms. Educational Innovation (A Division of the B.C. Ministry of Education).
Doherty, G. (1997). Zero to six: The basis for school readiness. Research paper No. R97-8E. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.
Doherty, Gillian, Donna Lero, Hillel Goelman, Jocelyne Tougas And Annette Lagrange (2000), You Bet I Care!: Caring and Learning Environments: Quality in Regulated Family Child Care Across Canada, Guelph, On: Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being, University of Guelph.
Doherty, Gillian, Martha Friendly, Jane Beach, (2003) OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care: Canadian Background Report, Canada.
Doherty, G., Lero, D.S., Goelman, H., La Grange, A. & Tougas, J. (2000) You bet I care! A Canada-wide study on Wages, working conditions, and practices in child care centres. Guelph, On. Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being, University of Guelph.
Drew, M. and C. Law (1990) Making Early Childhood Education Work. Principal 69(5, May): 10-12. EJ 410 163
120
Early Years Review Group, (2004) What is the impact of out-of-home integrated care and education settings on children aged 0-6 and their parents? EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Education Commission of the States, (2004) Kindergarten Policies Database, Washington, DC
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. (2001) Kindergarten Matters: The Importance of Kindergarten in the Development of Young Children, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Toronto.
Elicker, J. & Mathur, S. (1997) What Do They Do All Day? Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12 ((4), 459-480.
Entwhistle, D., Alexander, K., Cadigan, D., & Passas. (1986) The schooling process in first grade: Two samples a decade apart in American Educational Research Journal, 23, 587-613.
Finn-Stevenson, M. & E. Zigler (1999) Schools of the 21st Century: Linking Child Care and Education. Boulder, Colorado. Perseus Books.
Friendly, Martha & Jane Beach (2005) Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2004, Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.
Friendly, Martha, Jane Beach And Michelle Turiano (2002), Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2001 Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.
Fuchs, V.R. & Reklis, M. (1998) Mathematical achievement in eighth grade: Interstate and racial differences, NBER Workin
Garces, E., Currie, J & Thomas, D. Longer term effects of Head Start. (2000) NBER Working Paper 8054, Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goelman, H. & Pence, A.R. (1987). Some aspects of the relationships between family structure and child language development in three types of day care. Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT:US.
Graue, M.E. (1992) Social interpretations of readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 225-243.
Greenwood, Model, C. Peter Rydell and James Cheisa, (1996) Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits. Final report of a project in RAND’s Criminal Justice program, prepared for the University of California, Berkeley, James Irvine Foundation. RAND.
Hayes, C.D., Palmer, J.L., & Zaslow, K.J. (1990). Who cares for America’s children? Child Care Policy for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Health Canada. (2000) Early Childhood Development: Strategy Paper
Heckman, James (2000) ”Policies to Foster Human Capital”, Paper for the Aaron Wildavsky Forum, Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley
Herman, Barry E. (1984) The Case for the All-Day Kindergarten. Fastback 205. Bloomington, IN:Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Hofferth, S.L. (1997) Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Survey Research Centre, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
121
Holmes, C. & McConnell, B. (1990). Full-day versus half-day kindergarten: An experimental study. (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Boston, MA, April 16-20, 1990)
Homes, C.T. and B.M. McConnell (1990). Full-day versus Half-day Kindergarten: An Experimental Study. Unpublished paper.
Housden, T., and R. Kam (1992) Full-Day Kindergarten: A Summary of the Research. Carmichael, CA: San Juan Unified School District.
Humphrey, Jack W. (1983) A Longitudinal Study of the Effectiveness of Full-Day Kindergarten. Evansville, OH: Evansville-Vanderburgh School District.
Janus, M. & Offord, D. (2000). Reporting on readiness to learn in Canada. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 1, 71-75.
Jenson, Jane (2002), ”Against the Current: Child Care and Family Policy in Quebec” in Sonya Michel and Rianne Mahon (eds.) Child Care Policy at the Crossroads: Gender and Welfare State Restructuring pp. 309-32. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, L. and Mathien, J. (1998) Early Childhood Services for Kindergarten-age Children in Four Canadian Provinces: Scope, Nature and Models for the Future. The Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Ottawa, 1998
Kamerman, Sheila (2000a), “Early Childhood Education and Care: An Overview of Developments in the OECD Countries” International Journal of Educational Research 33: 7-29.
Kamerman, Sheila (2000b), “Parental Leave Policies: An Essential Ingredient in Early Childhood Education and Care Policies” Social Policy Report Society for Research in Child Development, 14(2).
Karweit, N. (1992) The Kindergarten Experience. Educational Leadership 49(6, Mar):82-86
Katz, L.G. (1995) Talks with Teachers of Young Children. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kauerz, Kristie. (2005) Full-Day Kindergarten: A Study of State Policies in the United States, Education Commission of the States, Washington, DC.
Kuklinski, M.R. & Weinstein, R.S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 1554-1578.
Lamb, M.E. (1998), “Non-parental childcare: Context, quality, correlates and consequences” in I.E. Siegel and K.A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.) Child Psychology in Practice, W. Damon (Series Ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology (5th edition) New York: Wiley.
Lapierre, Laurier, (1982) To Herald a Child: The Report of the Commission of Inquiry in the Education of the Young Child (Ontario Teachers’ Federation)
Lero, D.S., Pence, A.R., Shields, M., Brockman, L.M. & Goelman, H. (1992). Introductory report. Canadian National Child Care Study. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada andHealth and Welfare Canada.
Love, J.M., P.Z. Schochet, & A.L. Meckstroth (1996), Are They In Any Real Danger? What Research Does – And Doesn’t – Tell Us About Child Care Quality and Children’s Well-Being Princeton, N.J.:
122
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Love, J.M., Aber, J.A. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1992) Strategies for assessing community progress toward achieving the first national goal. Princeton, NJ: Mathematical Policy Research.
McCain M. & Mustard, F. (1999) Reversing the real brain drain: The early years study. Ontario Children’s Secretariat. Toronto.
McCain, Hon. Margaret And Dr. J. Fraser Mustard (2002), The Early Years Study: Three Years Later. Toronto: The Founders’ Network.
McCartney, K. (1984) Effect of Quality of Day Care Environment on Children’s Language Development. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 244-260.
Masse, L.N. & W.S. Barnett (2003), A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention NewJersey:National Institute for Early Education Research..
Meisels, S. (1999) Assessing Readiness, in R.C. Pianta & M. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten: Research, policy, training, and practice. Baltimore: Paul Brookes
Moss, Peter. (2003) Re-forming the Education and Care Workforce in England, Scotland and Sweden in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Moss, Peter. (2004) The Early Childhood Workforce in ‘Developed’ Countries: Basic structures and education in UNESCO Policy Briefs on Early Childhood, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Moss, P & Penn, H. (1996) Transforming Nursery Education, Paul Chapman, London.
Mayer, D. & Begg, F., (2006) Building a Community Architecture for Early Childhood Learning and Care: Analysis and Recommendations, Unpublished paper.
National Association for the Education of Young Children, “Position Statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8,” Young Children, Vol. 41, No. 6, September 1986, pp. 66-80.
National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Teacher Quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington: NCES, US Department of Education.
National Institute for Early Education Research, (2004) National Early Education and Care Enrollment Trends – Overview, NIEER, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
National Research Council (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. Barbara T. Bowman, M. Suzanne Donovan and M. Susan Burns, editors. Commission on Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
New Zealand Ministry of Education, (1996) Te Whariki Early Childhood Curriculum, Wellington, N.Z.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1999). Child outcomes when child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. American Journal of Public Health 89(7), 1072-1077.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000a). The relation of child care to cognitive and
123
language development. Child Development, 71, 960-980.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2002b). “Child-care structure-process-outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development.” Psychological Science, 13(3), 199-206.
Ontario. (1995) Royal Commission on Learning, For the Love of Learning, Report of the Royal Commission on Learning, 4 vols., Queen’s Printer, Toronto.
OECD. (2004) Early Childhood Education and Care Policy: Canada: Country Note, OECD Directorate for Education.
OECD (2002), Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life: Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands Volume 1. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2001) Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care Paris: OECD.
OECD (2006) Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care Paris: OECD.
OECD, Statistics Canada. (2000) International Adult Literacy Survey, Literacy in the Information Age. Final Report from the International Adult Literacy Survey. Ottawa.
OECD Directorate for Education, (2004) Early Childhood Education and Care Policy: Canada: Country Note, OECD.
OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care: Australian Background Report
Osborn, A.F. & J.E. Milbank (1987). The effects of early education: A report from the child and health education study. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Panel on the Role of Government (2004). Investing in People: Creating a Human Capital Society for Ontario; University of Toronto.
Pelletier, J. (2002) Parents Come to Kindergarten: A Unique Junior Kindergarten Program for Four-Year-Olds and Their Families, Harvard Family Research Project, Cambridge, MA.
Pelletier, J., Morgan, J. & Mueller, M. (1999). Early assessment: Development indices of achievement in kindergarten. Toronto, Ontario: Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto.
Penn, H., Barreau, S., Butterworth, L., Lloyd, E., Moyles, J., Potter, S. & Sayeed, R. (2004) What is the impact of out-of-home integrated care and education settings on children aged 0-6 and their parents? Unpublished paper.
Phipps, Shelley (1999), “An International Comparison of Policies and Outcomes for Young Children” CPRN Study No. F | 05. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks
Pianta, R.C., (2003) The Transition to School: A Focus on Children, Families, Schools, and Communities, in Focus On Pre-K & K, (16-2), Olney, MD
Pianta, R.C. and K. La Paro, (2003) Improving Early School Success, Educational Leadership, Volume
124
60, Number 7, (24-29)
Pianta, R.C., and D.J. Walsh (1996) High-risk children in schools. New York: Routledge.
Pindus, Nancy, Robin Koralek, Martinson Karin, and John Trutko, (1992) Coordination and Integration of Welfare and Workforce Development Systems, Washington, D.C.:GAO.
Rostgaard, Tine And Torben Fridberg (1998), Caring for Children and Older People – A Comparison of European Policies and Practices Social Security in Europe, Vol. 6. Copenhagen, DK: The Danish National Institute of Social Research.
Ruopp, R., et al (1979) Children at the Center: Summary Findings and their Implications. Final Report of the National Day Care Study, vol. 1, US: Massachusetts.
Saluja, G., C. Scott-Little and R. Clifford, (2000) Readiness for school: A survey of state policies and definitions, Early Childhood Research and Practice, Volume 2, Number 2.
Schweinhart, L. & J., Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(2), 117-43.
Seefeldt, Carol, (1989) “How Good Is Your Kindergarten Curriculum?” Principal, Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 11-15.
Shonkoff, Jack P., & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000) National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
Smith, A. (2005) Integrating Care and Education in New Zealand. Presentation at The Unhurried Day: Learning and Caring Seamlessly. Toronto, Integration Network Project, Institute Child Study, University of Toronto.
Speer, P.W., & Esposito, C. (2000). Family problems and children’s competencies over the early elementary school years. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20(1/2). 69-84.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4) 360-406.
Statistics Canada. (2000) Education Indicators in Canada, Catalogue 81-582-XPE. Ottawa,.
Statistics Canada (1988) Canadian National Child Care Survey, Introductory Report, Catalogue 89-526, Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada
Sylva,K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2003) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from the Pre-School Period. London, England: Institute of Education, University of London and Sure Start.
Taylor, H.G., Anselmo, M., Foreman, A.L., Schatschneider, C., & Angelopoulos, J. (2000). Utility of kindergarten teacher judgments in identifying early learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 200-210.
Thibault, Marc R., (2004) “Two Solitudes: Bringing child care and early childhood education together” paper prepared for Child Care for a Change: Shaping the 21st Century Conference,
125
Winnipeg.
Toronto District School Board, personal communication, 2003.
Tougas, J. (2002) Reforming Quebec’s Early Childhood Care and Education: The First Five Years, Occasional Paper No. 17, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.
Tremblay, R.E., (1996) From childhood physical aggression to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal prevention experiment in R.D. Peters & R.J. McMahon(eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 268-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tremblay, R.E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Leblanc, M. Schwartzman, A.E., & Ledingham, J.E. (1992. Early disruptive behaviour, poor school achievement, delinquent behaviour and delinquent personality: Longtitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.
U.S. Census Bureau of Population, (1996) Census of Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau of Population, (2001,) Census of Population Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau (2002) “Preprimary School Enrollment of People 3 to 6 Years Old, by Control of School, Mother’s Labor Force Status and Education, Family Income, Race and Hispanic Origin” in Current Population Survey Reports, Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, (1999) Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999.
Vandell, D.L. (2004) Early Child Care: The Known and the Unknown. Merrill Palmer Quarterly Journal of Developmental Psychology, 50(3) 387-414.
Watson, J. & West, J. (2004) Full-Day and Half-Day Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Weiss, A.M.D.G., & R.J. Offenberg, (2002). Enhancing urban children’s early success in school: The power of full-day kindergarten. Paper presentated at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA
Welsh, J. (2002). Full-day kindergarten a plus. Pioneer Press. Minneapolis Public Schools.
West, Jerry & K. Denton & E. Germino-Hausken, America’s Kindergarteners: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
West, Jerry, E. Germino-Hausken & W. Collins (1993). Readiness for Kindergarten: Parent and Teacher Beliefs (NCES 93-257). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Whitebook, M. (2003) Bachelor’s Degrees are the Best for Raising Pre-Kindergarten Teacher Quality, in Early Education News, The Trust for Early Education, Washington.
Marcy Whitebook, (2003) Bachelor’s Degrees Are Best: Higher Qualifications for Pre-Kindergarten Teachers Lead to Better Learning Environments for Children.
126
Marcy Whitebook: (2004) Training the Next Generation of Teachers: A Preliminary Survey of California’s Higher Education Programs in Early Childhood Education and Child Development.
Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., and Howes, C. (2001). Then & Now: Changes in Child Care Staffing: 1994-2000, Technical Report. Washington DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.
Williams, Erica, Anne W. Mitchell, (2004) The Status of Early Care and Education in The States, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Washington, DC.
Willms, J.D. (Ed.) (2002). Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada’s National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press.
Wood, Elizabeth, (2005) Play learning and the early childhood curriculum, Paul Chapman, UK.
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������
