Government support for child care and early learning programs has now become a “hot button” issue right across Canada. Much of the momentum for greatly expanded early childhood education has been generated by Dr. Fraser Mustard, Canada’s leading child care advocate. Early brain development has been linked to improved physical health, behaviour, and learning in later stages of life. Countries that provide universal early child development programs, Mustard contends, “out-perform’ those in which such programs are more “chaotic.” Fresh impetus was provided in January 2007 by the renowned University of Chicago economist James Heckman. “Redirecting funds toward the early years, ” he declared, “is a sound investment in the productivity and safety of American society and also removes a powerful source of inequality.”
Since the national child care plan proposed by Liberal cabinet minister Ken Dryden was abandoned in early 2006, the federal government has stepped back from providing universal, publicly-funded programs. With that policy shift, the initiative for reform has passed to the provinces. Among the provinces, Quebec stands out as a notable exception. Since 1997, that province has offered a full $5-per-day,now $7-a-say public day care program designed to support two-parent working families. In Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty has embarked upon an ambitious all-day kindergarten program for four- and five-year olds, based upon certified teachers and costing $1.5 billion over six years. Even Canada’s smallest province, P.E.I., has jumped on the bandwagon, moving kindergarten, for the first time, into elementary schools and offering a full-day, year round play-based program.
For reliable backgrounders, see http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/StateofLearning/EarlyChildhood.html; and http://www.aims.ca/site/media/aims/ChildCare.pdf
Public policy is now being approached from two radically different perspectives. Child care advocates like Ontario’s Dr. Charles Pascal focus almost exclusively on giving children “the best educational start in life” to promote the long-term well-being of children, families and, ultimately, the economy. That approach draws upon Dr. Mustard’s research and upon that of J. D. Willms and the 2002 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. “At least one in four young children is vulnerable,” according to Willms and the Canadian Council on Learning. In the absence of quality early learning programs, their chances of leading healthy and productive lives are limited, often because of social disadvantage.
Economic analysts and demographers come at the issue quite differently. Taking a more global perspective, Ian Munro of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) sees child care and early learning programs as possible solutions to Canada’s looming labour shortage, a problem particularly acute in Atlantic Canada. With our aging population and growing pension crisis, they are more worried about the potential for a sharp drop in our standard of living. If we cannot either increase the birth rate or attract more immigrants, the preferred alternatives are 1)increase the labour participation rate; and 2) improve the productivity of the workforce.
Better and cheaper access to child care and early learning programs can produce untold economic benefits. Reliable, quality programs will allow more parents ( chiefly mothers) to re-enter the workforce more quickly and more fully. It will also enable more couples to have families and others to have more children. Enhanced programs can improve the school-readiness of some youngsters and, if sustained by later educational programs, can help to reduce the incidence of youth crime, teenage pregnancy, alcohol/drug abuse, and welfare dependency. For the supporting evidence, see http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/ONT06_018869.html
Child care and early education spending can produce real socio-economic benefits, but Canadian economist Susan Prentice (2008) found the forecasted returns “giddily unrealistic.” One study of the Quebec public plan (NBER, 2005) reported that some 40% of the cost of the expensive program were recovered through increased income and payroll taxes generated by the increased numbers of working parents. An oft-cited University of Toronto study (1998) claimed that universal publicly-funded child care and ECE for all children (2 to 5 years) would have a significant payback. If the state paid 80% of the cost totalling $5.2 billion, the study saw double that value in economic returns. Most studies rely almost exclusively on American data, so their reliability can be questioned.
The emerging consensus is that investing in quality, reliable early childhood care and education makes good sense. Much of the public policy debate turns on which approach is best – universal, taxpayer-funded services or government support for “vulnerable children,” mostly drawn from poor and disadvantaged families. That leads to our Big Question: Should Child Care and Early Learning Programs be universal or targeted the those who need it most?
It may not be a simple either or question. Investing in young children could become, according to James Heckman, “a fundamentally important national strategy for building human capital, enhancing workforce productivity, and reducing welfare-type outlays.” Yet he also points out that children from favoured backgrounds are already “receiving substantial early investment” from their families, so there is little societal benefit for providing universal programs to them at zero or significantly reduced cost. In a 2006 Wall Street Journal column, Heckman went further: Paying for universal programs would be “inefficient, costly, wasteful of public dollars, and probably not effective in helping poor kids.”
Education remains the best road out of poverty, but what form should that early support take here in Canada?
Early Childhood Programs pay for themselves many times over. You missed the the Perry Study from Yipslanti Michigan. This study demonstrated that the offsetting costs of quality ECE in the form of lower law enforcement, prisons, welfare EI, + the increase in taxes makes quality ECE actually better than free. The returns to the economy are 4 dollars,at least, for every dollar invested.
Frankly, I do support Ontario premier McGuinty’s program as outlined as opposed to not doing it at all. I did suggest to Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, at the time of its inception, that the best way forward would be to implement a plan that BEGAN with the poor and placing the ELP in schools with low scores first and slowly work out towards the more affluent schools.
The program should also be free for all welfare recipients, EI recipients and possibly those below the LICO of $30 000. A sliding scale could be used above that for the daycare, (not JK) part of the program. We should also move the program slowly, to 2 year olds as Montessori pointed out, children ought to be in organized education as soon as they are toilet trained.
When/if the economy recovers, we can have a discussion about the elimination of day care fees in a more universal fashion.
Context is useful
The Perry study tracked 123 Afro-American kids living in dire poverty so it may or may not be approppriate to make all sorts of claims about what it “proves” in the big picture.
About 68 of those 123 children actually got the pre-school attention, and the rest were the control group.
The conclusions of The Perry Study are considered the gold standard in this regard but nevertheless, it is totally congruent with the Mustard McCain view the OECD view, the Quebec view, the Pascal view etc.
This is not some left wing view anymore. We are facing a labour shortage in many areas that will require the freeing up of many women to solve.
AIMS is hardly the the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It is simply commonsense now.
Keep in mind that the “Quebec view” is as much about keeping up the number of Quebeckers as it is about anything else. It also costs far more than estimated and is receiving mixed reviews as to outcomes.
The “Pascal view”? That’d be the one McGuinty didn’t really abide by and that’s coming in $500 million per year above estimated costs, a 50% runup, right? As it is McGuinty isn’t fully implementing the plan proposed by Pascal
As to the Perry study being the “gold standard”, well, if the goal is to track a very specific subset of kids it may well be. As to it having implications for kids or education in general…not so much.
What the Pascal view didn’t count on I’m sure was the race to unionize the Early Childhood Educators, which according to the rumours now beginning to surface, the ECE’s in the early goings aren’t happy being relegated to doing what the “teachers” don’t want(or like) to do like toileting the tykes.
The cost of unionization is prohibitive to most boards as it stands currently. With scales expected to increase look for more school boards to opt out of the child care business.
Boards seem also to find competing with their private partners, creating a very hostile community dynamic very distasteful.
In short the ELP as it was rolled out by the provincial government is turning out as some had predicted – expensive, unsustainable and not the wish of a huge number of parents who either make choices to stay home with their children or like their alternative arrangements.
The simple truth is that not all parents are supportive of full day kindergarten in Ontario
http://www.kindergartencredit.ca/
The fight over daycare and the downward extension of the school system began as socialist left vs all others, then the Liberals joined the left side, now business conservatives have joined in large measure, leaving social-conservatives as the last holdouts against the social progression of our society.
At first I wanted to suggest Finland’s approach, but when I did check out the facts, daycare and pre-school are indeed different.
“Child day care and maternity grant
From the beginning of 1996 all children under school age have the right to municipal day care. Municipal day care is available as full-day care and part-time care either at a day care centre or in family day care. Day care services have been arranged also for those doing shift and night work. There were 192,000 day care places at the beginning of 1996 in Finland. Day care fees are monthly fees which can be collected for a maximum of eleven months during a year of activity. The fees are determined on the basis of the caring time, the service user’s ability to pay, the size of the family and the number of children cared for.
To organise day care other than municipal day care the parents for day care of a child under school age receive a private care allowance payable in money cash. The allowance comprises, depending upon the age of the child, FIM 500-1200 and a supplementary allowance, depending on the family’s size and income. One parent may stay at home to take care of the child and if the child is under three, he/she retains his/her employment. The parents can also take turns in caring for the child.
The family of each new-born child is entitled to a maternity grant. Most often families choose this benefit in the form of a “maternity pack” including clothes and requisites for baby care. If the family takes the grant in cash the amount is FIM 760.”
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/w9/social_en.htm
Day care is not at all free, and there is probably a great variety of daycare services within any municipality. Also rules and regulations are governed under their social services department. And not the education department.
Below link, has been translated from the Finnish language to English.
“It is said that the Nordic countries are world leaders in child welfare. Still, the number of Finnish children who are clients of child protection[1] services has trebled over the past fifteen years. Likewise, during the same period of time, the number of children and young people placed outside the home has increased year after year. In the early 1990s, the Finnish economy went through a particularly deep economic recession (Harrikari & Satka 2008) and, because of this, basic social services for families with children were cut in all areas of social welfare, from maternity clinics to home-help service to youth work. Although Finland still is a welfare state and among the richest countries in the world, the relative number of children living under the poverty line has trebled between 1990 and 2004. These are some of the background facts for the total reform of child welfare legislation.”
http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/child-care-articles/the-new-child-welfare-act-in-finland
Although it is about child protection, there has been a great many changes in Finland, since the economic crisis. What has been free, fees have been charge according to income.
The Finland’s education department, is in charge of pre-school or what they commonly referred to pre-primary education. “Compulsory education starts in the year when a child becomes seven years of age. During the year before compulsory education begins, the child can participate in pre-primary education. Local authorities may provide pre-primary education in schools, day-care centres, and family day-care homes or in other appropriate places. Participation in pre-primary education is voluntary but the municipality is obliged to provide pre-primary education. Almost full enrolment (99.4% in 2009) is recorded in pre-primary education for children 6-7 years, about 70% of whom also attend day care. The aim of pre-primary education is that the child develops learning to learn skills and positive self-image, acquires basic skills, knowledge and capabilities from different areas of learning in accordance with their age and abilities.”
http://www.oph.fi/english/education/pre-primary_education
It is obvious that Canada sheer size, copying Finland’s structure and model in day care and pre-school, is not an option. Nor is the option of universal day-care charging all $7 dollars per week for one child. Nor do we have the luxury of federal dollars at the moment in day care or pre-school level, at the moment. Each province is all over the place concerning day care and pre-school, the quality, and in some communities, it just does not exist in either non-profit to private facilities.
How about creating a hybrid system? Keeping the non-private and private facilities as is, and throwing in another choice for day-care and pre-school that would be governed under the social services umbrella only, fees according to income. But the municipality will be in charge and responsible for providing day care and pre-school services.
Everyone must pay, according to income. In Quebec there are already having trouble with the one-flat fee system. “This is the model the federal government says other provinces should be following, and why not? Universal day care, high quality care, and it costs parents just $7 a day. Sound too good to be true? For thousands of Quebec families, it is. The problem is everyone wants in. And many day-cares have waiting lists 900 names long.
“We have 30 children who are leaving to go off to kindergarten. Just the brothers and the sisters of kids who are already in the program are filling up those spaces. So we’re not even opening our doors to anybody from outside or somebody who may have their first child,” says Selina Itzkowitz of CCJ Daycare.
There’s always been a waiting list but since universal day care was introduced eight years ago, things are out of control.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/canada_snapshot.html
After reading the last link, it is all about the affordability. The ELP of Ontario is costly, because it uses schools as the base, which in turns plays havoc with other non-profits and profits that are in the area. The hybrid that I was thinking of is store-front operations, where fees are according to income, and only early childhood educators at these facilities, to keep not only costs down, but in line with the other private and non-private facilities in an area. For parents it will become another choice that is very much needed, but not too popular as what is happening in Quebec but still affordable to most parents. It will still allow the private and non-private daycares that specializes in certain children to continued to do so. It will still allow the pre-schools of private and non-private to operate, offering choice to parents, along side with the government ones charging according to income. No parent is getting a free ride, and parents who can afford to pay more, will pay there fair share in the government ones, and if not will still pay their fair share in another arrangement. Another condition for the government ones, is offering part time daycare as well, for parents who only worked part-time. It is rather difficult to find part-time daycare services, and sometimes the costs are not worth the time spent at work. It would be a plus in rural areas, where part-time work is often the only work available.
Who knows with the additional daycare services of this type of hybrid, could actually lower costs for parents in other private and non-private situations, and provide creative solutions for meeting the needs of a community and their citizens. It would also provide a very much needed solution in rural areas where day care options are few and pre-school just does not exist. Plus, lots of empty government buildings, or store-fronts that could be put to good use as well, without charging high rents in the first place. Another thing that could be under consideration, is taxes could be reduce for all certain daycare, health facilities that are dealing with children.
“We trust parents. Research continually shows that strong childhood development occurs only when and if parents are empowered to act as their child’s ‘first agent’. This plan by the McGuinty government, if coupled with the full recommendations in their commissioned ‘Early Learning Report’, goes well beyond all-day Kindergarten to include the potential for a wholesale restructuring of social policy for families with children from ages 0 to 12. It would diminish the role of parents in the lives of their own children. ”
Typically of the union mantra to sheeple our children as if they were theirs to do with what they wish.
Nancy – Doug’s concern doesn’t mask anything at all. The Early Learning Program is yet another loser of an idea hellbent to earn McGuinty votes – it’s going to fail miserably. Sounds like it’s heading that way already.
Those parents who do not want the service don’t have to get it. It seems they are trying to stop those who DO want the service from getting it. In Ontario you don’t have to put your kids in school until grade 1 if you are happy that they will begin far behind the others.
What could be more perfect, those who want it get it. Those who don’t want it, don’t get it.
Oh I think Pascal fully anticipated the unionization of daycares. Everything that is good about Canada has come from unionization, our high general standard of living foremost.
What schools to provide day care – let the users pay for it themselves and give those who stay home the benefit of a tax credit for their services rendered and for what it saves taxpayers.
Seems to me that Ontario will not be happy until the unions have watered down everything educational to the point that schools where learning takes top priority will be hard to find.
Tell me please. In Ontario when schools try to be all things to all people who is leading the charge to stop the unions from devaluing learning there?
Doug you either just don’t get it, or you really do believe in a communist set-up for all in a democracy, when it comes to services. Health care is a service that is needed by all the population, and thus it makes sense to have a universal design in health services. However other services such as day care, not everyone is in need of day care, but everyone at all times will be in need of health care. As much as you like to think unions are the credit for the high standard of living, there are also credited for widening the wage gap between work of non-union and unions of similar jobs. Credited for increasing the non-ability of non-union workers, to save for a pension, and lastly unions can be solely credited to increasing the costs of private medical, dental and other types of insurance for those who are non-union. Not bad , for unions only composed less than one third of the work force now a days. Unions are not making gains in membership, because no one can afford them.
Any government service that is provided, should be provided and designed to serve the intended target, and not to have the intended target to serve the government workers. The way ELP in Ontario was set up, was doom to fail in the first place, because the intended target was to serve the government workers. It is about time that services are designed to served the citizens. Within daycare, and pre-school, it would never have worked because at the end, the program was designed to only serve a certain portion of the population whose working hours were in sync with the operating hours of the school’s daycare, and the ability of the users to pay for the system. In the end, there was not the anticipated demand for various reasons held by the parents, and those who desire it were more or likely to be parents of low income looking for a break on the fees, and finally a spot for their child who had to more or less put up with the next door neighbour or an unlicensed daycare. Also for parents who are already paying high fees at a private day care, the parents saw daycare at the school level, as paying the same with less perks such as meals included.
As for it being voluntary, most things are voluntary Doug especially government services, and no one is stopping another person from seeking a service or another person who is not taking advantage of a service. As for the claim that is made often by educrats, on children who do not enter the education system until grade 1 are much further behind than children who have gone through the public education JK and SK. I would say poppycock on that one, since parents I have known either sent them to the private nursery schools or their children who have multiple health problems, had to seek alternatives to the public school system. Hell, there is some schools still not wheel chair accessible in this country, because it cost 3 times as much to put in the ramp, because of unionized public labour costs.
And Doug, you probably should not be praising unions since it was probably the unions’ push that actually killed the original ELP program, and help to run up the costs. Plus it was becoming obvious the ELP program was only serving the unionized workforce, and not the best interest of the children.
I do not believe in user pay at all for education at either end. I oppose tuition fees, book fees, daycare fees, JK fees. As it is with medicare, it is far more efficient to democratically decide what it is we want as a democratic society and then universalize it. You get far more bang for the buck.
We all pay for K-12 education whether we have children in school or not because education benefits everyone. I am simply extending this concept from toilet training to PhD.
Canada advances when more Canadians have more education and this rising tide raises everyones boat.
There is no place for user pay in education just as there is no place for user pay in health. Medicare needs to cover dentistry, drugs, and all forms of orthopedics.
It is more efficient and fairer to do it this way. America as a society pays more and gets less health care because they see it as an individual commodity not as a universal right as we Canadians do. Education is not about the individual, it is about society.
The full-day Kindergarten fiasco is making things worse – even in Toronto where it’s pitting people and facilities against one another – same taxpayer will NOT stand for this much longer.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/01/11/16845066.html
Day care and pre-school is not part of the education process. Education should be clearly define, as it is in Finland. Personally, if the current public education system and the ELP along with day care was in place back in 1997, I highly doubt that type of system would have picked up any concerns over my child’s lack of speech, basing it on the smashing job of ignoring my child’s reading and writing problems.
It was the health system along with the current system in Ontario for early pre-school, playtime and early childhood educators that did indeed picked up the speech delay, and within 6 weeks my child had her first appointment with a speech pathologists. Parents in the current public education system, can look forward to long waiting lists for services at the school level, and many parents questioned the quality and time spent, compared to other options that are outside the public education system.
“We all pay for K-12 education whether we have children in school or not because education benefits everyone. I am simply extending this concept from toilet training to PhD. ”
And Doug, what happens to all the failures that are missed on such obvious examples like my child, in your world. And there be plenty of children like them, where parents would be a little peeve off if the public education and their ELP did not picked up on such things as speech delays, and than made arrangements for speedy pathway to a speech pathologist. Most young children need at least two hours per week on one to one, and not group sessions that public education likes to do, regardless if it meets the learning needs of the child.
Yes everyone pays for government services through tax dollars, but as a taxpayer I certainly expect a public education system to teach the individual child first keeping in mind their unique learning needs. However it is only in public education, where the individual learning needs are ignore, in favour of one-sized-fits-all approaches. A student could conceivably go through today’s public education system never learning to read and write well, enter into a post-secondary institution to find out that he or she has a learning disability or another disorder. Having a user fee for day care infers something of great importance to the workers of the day care system. The parent expects to have their expectations meet their standards, and not someone else’s standards. The trouble with the public education system, is parents and their children are always meeting someone else’s expectations , and may not meet the needs of their children at all. The public education system does a poor job on all the outlier students, and perhaps one of the reasons is that the public education system is no longer meeting the needs of all of their students, since it is no longer concern with meeting the individual learning needs of a child.
Even a nominal sum for fees, can do wonders for an organization to keep focus on, their clients rather than meeting their own needs, that may actually impact their own clients’ in a negative fashion.
It appears that interesting discussion happened here on this issue as well
http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2010/12/15/cancelling-key-to-early-learning-program-another-mcguinty-flip-flop/
well said Nancy!
Children should be in an organized educational setting as soon as they are toilet trained- Maria Montessori
Child care, daycare whatever you want to call it, is not babysitting. It is ECE and if it is not it should be. Much of the opposition to the ELP is simply coming from business people who run private childcare and realize they will lose all of their customers to school-based sites and all of their good workers to the better paid unionized school-based sites. What we are talking about is the downward extension of public education. It is good for everyone. If you don’t want to participate you don’t have to but you will get your share of the bill.
I want to pay much less to the police and military as well but so far I still have to pay whether I agree with ill advised foreign missions or not. Same for those who don’t want to pay for childcare. The majority does so too bad, you need to pay as well.
Boo hoo, I have zero sympathy for them. None whatsoever.
Whether it is health, or some other service other than education, failures are not tolerated well with the public. The public would be well put off by a government agency who did not service a particular group in society, as the public does tolerate services disparity in public education. It would not be much of a health service, if services were denied to a person based on how bad the medical condition is, as it is in the public education system at the present time. Or the need of having the army come in to help weather a severe storm and its aftermath for their citizens. The disparity in the public education system is evident, as you move from one area code to the next area code, as you move from one school to the next, and it always seems to be the case that within the public education system, the lower the income, the less they have in all services and resources. Try that one with hospitals, sending patients away according to income and where one lives, hell will break loose among the populace. But in the public education that is par for the course.
As for the quote from Montessori to be used as the reason for organized public education as soon as they are toilet trained, the public education system has a lot to learn about the pre-schoolers and their needs. Below is a passage cited from the many sites on the Montessori method.
“The difference between day care, nursery school and preschool is that day care will provide basic care to a child. Nursery school will provide play and socialization with other children. Preschool provides education based play with socialization with other children.
Montessori Preschool Versus Traditional
Montessori preschool is a type of preschool but very different from a traditional preschool setting. Montessori schools foster independence in children and children learn as they play and socialize on their own. Traditional preschool is much like a regular classroom with a teacher educating to a group. ”
More or less, all my children were exposed to the Montessori methods, although only my oldest went to a true Montessori school, which happened to be in my neighbourhood. For my youngest, she went to two different types that patterned some of the Montessori methods to essentially promote speech, and it is a good thing that she did, because it did keep her independent spirit intact within a highly structured play environment. They work with my child, and did not force my child into things that she was not ready for, or was not willing to do. So unlike public schooling, where my child was force to dance the public education tango with little concern if the child was ready to move onto the next stage. Whether children or not are ready, progress is done by groups or grades in the public education system. More focus is put on outcomes, than the processes that leads to outcomes. It is probably an important reason by grade 3, there is a substantially big drop of children struggling to stay at grade level in reading, and the start of the roller coaster ride in future grades where any classroom has differences of 4 grade levels or more across the span of a classroom. Often it is the processes that are ignore, and the only thing that matter is the results.
It is not that everyone has to pay for services, regardless if they use the services that bothers people. It is when one avails of the services, the processes becomes the traps, trapping people within the processes never obtaining the ending result or the goal. Just like a primary student who is struggling in the process of reading, but is still reading although poorly, the student is unlikely to ever become a fluent reader. Timely effective interventions are not put in place, in primary grades to prevent the dropped in reading levels at grade 4 or above. It is how the money is being spent, that really bugs people. How money is being spent to actually prevent the individual teacher from doing his or her job, the education of all the children, including those who are struggling. How the money is being spent to facilitate the smooth well-oiled operations of a public education system, leaving the crumbs for the actual learning needs of the children and fewer crumbs for children who are struggling.
Schools should only be in the business of education, until the education system can effectively educate each individual child to his or her potential, the education system has no business involving themselves with daycare and pre-school operations. Unless the public education system is willing to provide comprehensive training in child development for all their employees, including the educrats who designs the policies, ELP in the public education system, will be a waste of money.
Not every child will be well served in any system public private, Finland or Canada, voucher or catholic, charter or whatever.
Not every patient that goes to the doctor or to the hospital is cured or saved. This does not mean that our health system is to be condemned. There is no such thing as a school system that will educate every child well. You are blaming all the wrong people for the failures of a tiny group that will fail in anyone’s system.
I am rapidly finding out about a group of “school shoppers” in the private system that place their child in a different private school every year, abandon them to a boarding situation and blame every school the student has been in, public, private and catholic but fail to look inwards for the answer.
Either they raised the child poorly or the child was born with limited ability and NOBODY can get him to Harvard or MIT so all educators suck because the parents had high goals for the child but did nothing to actualize them.
The public education system can’t even ensure that each and every child will have a firm foundation in the three Rs, by the end of grade 5. The necessary skills to do advance learning that occurs in grade 6 and up. It is where choice should be present, to picked up the children that are not being well-served by the public education system.
As for your little rant about well-to-do parents, who have the means to go private school shopping represents 2 % of the population in most school districts. The majority of the population does not have the luxury even going public school shopping within a district. And once again Doug, you place the blame on parents on their parenting skills and high expectations for their children. It is not until a child steps in a public school, is when the high expectations of parents clashes with the lower expectations of the public education system.
Over the year 2010, the education ministries across Canada have been busied redoing their mission statements on their sites. A new insert on the rights of a child. No where does it state that a child has a right to learn how to read and write well. But it does state that all children have the right to an inclusive education. Oh yes, I almost forgotten that children have the right to be accommodated. I guess that means the child does not have the right to learn how to read well, but if the child runs into difficulty with reading, the child can be accommodated, to by-passed the reading hardship. Oh, I do hope the Supreme Court of Canada will rule on the Moore case, telling education ministries across Canada that one of their duties is to teach all children to learn how to read and write well, no matter the costs and hardships that are put on the school and the board.
Being a parent since 1974, I have seen parents of all different social/income levels clashed with the public education system on all kinds of issues dealing with their children. In a lot of households, it is a topic that is discussed as much as local politics is but not as much as the latest gossip in the grape vine. One day in the mid-1980s, I was sitting in the local watering hole with my friends, catching up on each other lives when by chance a stranger said out loud for everyone to hear, how stupid the kids are, and the parents are even dumber than the kids are. He felt free to express himself, even though he was a teacher, teaching special education. He not only had me and my friends to deal with, but he had to deal with the rest of the regulars, including the bartender who happened to be one of the co-owners. For his troubles, he was evicted from the bar, along with his fellow co-workers and banned from ever stepping into that particular watering hole. After they left, the people who were parents were not blaming all the teachers in the public education system, but rather we felt sorry for the Toronto high school who employed this individual, and thanked our blessings our children were under the Peel board, Catholic or public. Even children with limited cognitive ability, can learn, and thrive under the right conditions. Too many parents have proven that over the years, teaching their own children with low cognitive ability to read to a grade 3 level or even higher, and where the children were written off as not having the stuff needed to learn basic levels of reading. Research has also provided the supporting evidence that close to 98 % of the population can learn how to read well, if given the proper instruction and resources.
Another piece of evidence that Doug chooses to ignore, is the waiting lists for private tutoring for the three Rs and the specialized tutoring concerns, for children who are not being well-served by the public education system. It is not a coincidence in rural areas, where there is far less private options in tutoring, that there is far more students have difficulties in reading and writing. Where there is private tutoring in rural areas, there is an increase in the number of students who are reading well, as well as a slight increase in the number of students who become excellent readers.
And what should be mentioned is the schools inside the juvenile detention facilities, being run by the education departments of provincial governments. From the stats, about 75 % of the juveniles being held have problems in reading, writing and numeracy either in all three areas or one problem area. According to the information that I have read, not much is done concerning the education of these juveniles, and they leave the facilities without never having their reading and writing problems addressed effectively. Can anyone expect a public education system to do a good job with the tots under the age of 4, in the light of the public education system and the job that they are doing addressing the literacy and numeracy ability of the detained juveniles?
There is no system that can do better with the entire public school population than the public school system. The public system cannot guarantee every child will learn all they should because some children are very hard to teach. They simply have VERY limited ability.
You are looking for some kind perfection that NOBODY can deliver.
Can’t have it both ways Doug, Either the public education system is the best system, or the public education system can only educate and meet the needs of a certain set of students within certain parameters, behavioral norms, and anything outside the norm, the public education cannot meet these students unique learning needs. So which is it? What students are hard to teach? Students like my child, who had a major speech delay and intervention took place in the form of intensive speech therapy, compliments of the Ontario health system before my child started school? Or is the cutting line based on cognitive ability, and where the science has shown that even children with the lowest cognitive ability are quite capable of learning , but not at the standards of a typical public school and the norms?
And you wonder why, parents are not clamoring aboard the ELP train in Ontario. With your type of attitude, and it is a good thing that most if not all educators does not share your opinion, because if they did – every child in the current ELP program in Ontario would be put at high risked for not making the grade, and being sorted earlier and streamed into the academic or non-academic groupings. Or can Ontarians expect to see a rise in the cases of oppositional defiant disorder by the public education system at a much younger age, and where the medical and psychology field has already stated there is far too many cases being diagnosed for a very rare disorder. The children’s frustration lies with the little problem of being poor readers and writers, according to the health experts.
The majority of parents know quite well what their children are capable of, and fully expect a public school system to teach their children well, so they have the skills and abilities to meet the challenges of life after graduating from grade 12. What some do not expect, is to see their child take remedial lessons after 12 years of schooling that should have been taught to them back in grade school. And if ELP kicks in, add another 3 years for 15 years of schooling.
Yes I can, it is both one of the best systems on Earth AND it cannot educate every single child to the level you would like but no system public or private can educate every child and almost no system (Finland yes, Korea Singapore maybe) on Earth does better.
Lets just count the kids in the ELP in say 3 years. Every child that joins is a vote that says I am right and every child that stays out is a vote that you are right.
One would not bet on the public education side in ELP, when one just has to take a look at early learning in the United States. Mainly the early learning that is taking place in the United States, is for the low income and even here the public education system only enrolls a small percentage, compared to the other options where ithe early learning programs for low income are being operated by other agencies and non-profits that are not part of the public education system. Even low-income are choosing not to enrolled their children in the public education environment.
I bumped into an article that is of interest.
“The Ontario government, like other governments
across Canada, is seeking solutions to this problem. One
particularly simplistic solution involves opening school
doors to younger and younger “students” through the push
for all-day kindergarten and the Pascal plan for early learning.23
This expansion of the authority of the Ministry of Education increases student rosters. A member of the educational establishment confirms anonymously that at an education meeting in downtown Toronto discussions turned to one
reason for implementing all-day kindergarten—to fill empty class rooms due to declining enrolment.24
The Government of Ontario has sought other approaches to address declining enrolment by establishing the Declining Enrolment Working Group in May 2008.
The goal of the Working Group was to help the elementary and secondary school communities by “provid(ing) advice and recommendations on strategies to advance
the province’s priority goals for student achievement while addressing the impact of declining enrolment.”25.”
Click to access IMFC%20-%20Public%20Education%20And%20Parental%20Choice%20-%20May%202010.pdf
Well, at the same time alternative education enrollment is increasing. Could it be that the real motive for ELP and all day kindergarten is to fill empty seats, and not the education of children?
As John Irving, who did not discovered he had a learning disability, until the day his child was identified as having a learning disability. This is what he states about public education. “In theory, equal educational opportunity sounds like the American way. But what about parents who want more than what the states are willing to provide? Should they be allowed to spend their own money to make their childrens’ schools better? One such parent, novelist John Irving, calls legislation to equalize education funding “Marxism.” “It’s leveling everything by decimating what works… It’s that vindictive ‘We’ve suffered, and now we’re going to take money from your kid and watch you squirm.'”2
Read more: Trends in Educational Funding – Public Schools: Where Does The Money Come From?, Public Financial Support Of Education, Public Schools: Where Does The Money Go? http://social.jrank.org/pages/973/Trends-in-Educational-Funding.html#ixzz1AndWoSHU
Sure sounds like other parents who know the dance steps really well in the public education system, that promotes equality for all, except those who do not meet the norm and criteria for funding.
The USA is an educational basket case due to the MISALLOCATION of funding. It is often pointed out that they spend more than most nations that outperform them but the money is not spent on poor kids. It is all spent on middle and upper middle class suburban kids. Read Jonathan Kozal ‘Savage Inequalities’.
Basically rich suburbs use their rich property tax base to fund super schools and hire the best teachers because they are desirable places to work. The inner cities are radically underfunded, many of the teachers are very dedicated but get burnt out. I have toured these schools. They also have a number of teachers who are to be kind ‘marginal’ but without them there would be no replacement except ‘Teach for America’ untrained teachers.
The Americans are reaping what they have sown. No other nation in the developed world neglects its poor students in the way that the USA does, which is why they score very badly on international tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Inequalities
Time to get back on the subject at hand Doug.
Which in case you’ve forgotten is full-day kindergarten, which, has not fared well at all in small towns or rural Ontario.
It was rumored to be the saving grace for schools threatened with closure, except the flaw in the McGuinty program is that if there are no kids and the school are closing you’re also not going to have kids to fill a full-day kindergarten.
I agree with those who have chalked this attempt at early learning as another poorly thought out McGuinty boondoggle designed to win him votes….not do what’s best for families or children.
Parents who make their own financial sacrifices to have a parent home with children, should not be expected to pay for the choice of others.
As someone here wrote before, as the population ages, my priority for the province is to put money in securing better healthcare services, and infra structure than early learning programs, no matter how important I might think early learning may be.
The program unveiled by McGuinty and coopted by the unions who fought over the ECE’s like dogs with a bone is going to prove too expensive and not nearly the priority Doug would like us to believe.
Those people who want it will get it. Those people who do not want it will not get it. Nobody is forced into it. You sound very much like someone with a financial interest in the status quo Cate.
I will bet anyone that within 3-5 years, 90% of the kids will be in the program.
The parts of Ontario where it is not that popular are the parts that vote conservative anyway so they are no skin off McGuinty.
People without any children pay for schools because they are good for everyone
People who buy their own books pay for libraries
People who drive pay for public transportation
People who are seldom ill pay for hospitals
People who don’t cause any trouble pay for the police.
People who choose not to avail themselves of the ELP are expected to pay regardless. We settle what is to be paid by whom at the ballot box.
I do not like paying for wars in Afganistan and elsewhere but there is no “opt out” clause on paying for war or for paying for the ELP.
Doug, or others from Canada should not outright dismiss United States, and feel smug everything is all right in Canada. There is the same problems in Canada, but it is more hidden from obvious sight
. What is the same for both countries, is the tax system that relies heavily on the middle-class to pay the freight of big government, targeted social programs aimed at low-income, and the majority of tax credits are selectively targeted aimed mostly at incomes in the upper range of middle-class income. The past couple years there has been a lot of literature, and talk about the hidden welfare state, the visible welfare state and reforming how taxpayers’ money is being spent by big government.
“Knowledge about the hidden welfare state is also important because it shows that a larger portion of the U.S. population benefits from welfare than it is usually believed. Many of the social welfare programs are targeted to help lower-income families, who have throughout history been racial minorities, such as African Americans. Socio-economic and racial issues such as those have both caused controversy and a stigma to be attached to social assistance programs. In contrast to the reasons for that stigma, wealthy and poor beneficiaries of many of the aforementioned tax expenditure programs are net-contributors to IRS receipts, unlike many of those who receive “visible” welfare, i.e. the portion who are receiving it due to long-term unemployment. Nonetheless, many affluent whites benefit from the welfare state, too, through tax expenditures related to retirement saving, charitable contributions (although these often help those in need of “visible” welfare, not only the philanthropist), higher education, and home ownership.
The argument on the other side would be that those receiving “hidden welfare” have an amount that is supposed to be paid in taxes but is credited back whereas those receiving visible welfare do not have an amount that is supposed to be paid in taxes and receive additional welfare. One produces a theoretical loss (those getting the tax deductions) and the other an actual loss (those receiving welfare without paying in more than 100% of benefits).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Welfare_State
That said, Canada has the same problems but dealing with different numbers and two differences – universal health care and education funding. Even though education ministries and school boards, like to make good feel announcements about equal funding per student, portraying a picture of each student receiving the same amount and quality of education across the board, the reality is different for each individual school, between boards and between provinces.
There is nothing more disheartening walking into a remote rural school, seeing the blank walls devoid of colourful paintings done by the students. Instead, the propaganda of the education ministry adorns the wall, displaying messages of new programs and a few more messages from the school board that may or may not be at all effective for a particular school, especially if the school is in need of other things that usually does not hold any significance to the central educrats. They have higher priorities such as introducing new literacy programs or bully programs for all schools. Far more important and besides as they tell the good citizens, targeted funding has been provided, and it is up to the principal on supplying the school with the extras such as paint. Meanwhile, the principal is scratching his head, since the targeted funding is not quite enough to cover all costs, and has to play the game of ‘robbing peter to pay Paul’ again. There is no hope in the rural school, to stopped playing the ‘peter’ game, unless the school acquires more students. Or the fairy godmother, known as the school board comes to their rescue.
The above scenario is much like the provincial ELP program. Where schools and boards are scrambling to meet the requirements and mandates of the province, and no one at the central office gives a toss about the ramifications of other school funding being redirected to the ELP program, or the ramifications of education policy that impacts the wider community. Much like the negative impact that the Toronto council is dealing with, “The city’s kiddie kitty will be empty by 2012 and 3,500 subsidized day care spaces would have to be cut, the budget committee heard Tuesday.” So the city of Toronto cuts subsidized day care spaces, that is targeted at the low income groups, that forces the school boards to scrambled to make room for the children who have been displaced at the schools. Would these children be moved to a wealthier area code, or will the Toronto board decide to used a whole school for the primary purpose of day care and full day kindergarten. Could this be the reason why the ELP program was targeting to the low income schools first? To destroy the City of Toronto day care facilities and operations? If this is happening in the City of Toronto, what about smaller cities, that also fund subsidized day care facilities? Would they not be in the same position in a few years from now as Toronto is, since it is a program that specifically targeted low income families.
Impact in rural areas, would be much different, and there is not much of a chance for public education to take over subsidized day care and early learning, in the same way as it is beginning in Toronto.
This got me thinking on targeted social programs, universal programs, tax credits, the wage gap and the damn inequalities that often surface by the targeted social programs or the universal programs and funded by the government. Municipalities does a much better job at targeted social programs for low-income, than any government department, especially when provincial programs comes with a heavy dose of social engineering, political agendas, and political correctness is the norm. How the costs increase 10 fold where ever government is out to correct some social injustice completely ignoring the structure of the tax system, and other important considerations such as the negative impact at all facets in society, when government moves to institutionalized some aspect in society, and in this case ELP.
The American homeschoolers have a good article, on why public education should stay out of early education. It really go me thinking, that municipalities is really the best option for running such things as ELP, because it is at this level of government that knows the needs of their citizens, their values, income levels, neighbourhoods and so forth, and can easily custom-make an ELP that fits the needs of their citizens, that may be quite different from the next door municipality. Municipalities are more likely to adapt to their citizens needs, than a government department who is more adapt to force citizens to adapt to their programs. Municipalities seems to do a much better job, and it clearly shows in homework clubs and other small programs at a much reduce costs.
“In the realm of early education, there is neither compelling evidence nor constitutional justification for government involvement. Institutionalized early education programs are an assault on parental rights and limited government. It is parents, not the government, who know what is best for their children. Many early education bills are geared toward military families; it is especially outrageous to use the families who have sacrificed so much for our country as proverbial guinea pigs for government experimentation. Given institutionalized early education’s appalling track record in regard to its effectiveness and expense, and the high probability that such programs will be ripe for government mandated morality, early education legislation ought to be strongly and unequivocally opposed.”
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200907200.asp
Which begs the question, is the ELP push by government really about jobs and achievement? Or is it really about government mandated moraility………….
We also settle who speaks for “the people” at the ballet box Doug and that’s not you.
The people as you suggest are not happy with the wasting of money and will get their priorities very straight in short order.
Hip replacements for thousands or day care for a few?
Plumping up salaries of those who care for a few or those who care for thousands?
Not much of a choice.
As most predictions have enrolments continuing to nose dive and baby boomers growing older and needing those knees and hips, we can’t afford for gov’t to pay for it all.
No reason whatsoever not to have both. You act as if nobody can raise taxes? I think we need a vote so that we can raise taxes on the wealthy enough so that we can easily have both. My attitude is that there is no trade off required.
High union wages are the reason that Canada has a high standard of living in the first place. Look around at all the rich successful countries. They all have strong union movements, strong teachers unions, and highly developed public education systems.
In the USA states with strong teacher unions have the best test results. States with weak teacher unions have terrible results. They go hand in glove. They are not just corelated, powerful teachers’ unions actually cause test scores to go up.
Read Geoffrey Simpson in today’s Star and Don Martin from Rotman School of Business. We choose health over education at our peril. Health, for the most part is a cost on our balance sheet, education is not a cost at all it is an investment that returns many X its expenditure.
“They are not just corelated, powerful teachers’ unions actually cause test scores to go up.”
If that was the case, than why it is so difficult to remediate the typical garden variety type of reading problems, in a fast and effective way? What takes the public education system to do in 3 years to move 1.2 grade levels, alternative and private tutors can do within 1 year, and often moving the child to grade level and a little above. Of course using the correct reading instruction goes a long way, but hell using the correct reading instruction in the first place would actually reduce costs and labour compared to the three years costs in resources and labour. What unions are especially skilled at is driving the costs up on the labour side, and ensuring that any resources and training are tied to the labour and contracts.
As Doug mentioned a site called Toronto Foundation for Student Success, with the board packed with people within the public education field. Although a charity that is probably needed in the Toronto area, but it is a typical charity foundation that is being used as a vehicle to promote education political agendas, social democracy agendas, and very much like the agenda of the UN. One just has to take a look at the fiasco of Haiti, and the millions of dollars donated to see it only help the government and the rich, and to ensure that the poor stay in their tents, fighting off disease, violence and starvation.
“Enable all students to reach high levels of achievement and to acquire the knowledge, skills and values they need to become responsible members of a democratic society.”
http://www.studentsuccess.ca/our_programs.html
The above statement is pretty mild. Other statements state in black and white that they are advocating for the needs of low income students, and parents of low income students are portray as being poor advocates for the needs of their own children.
The Toronto Foundation, pretty much follows the social justice format of the Toronto school board.
“Social Justice is a specific habit of justice that is based on concepts of human rights, equity, fairness, and economic egalitarianism. Social justice requires inspiring, working with, and organizing others to collaboratively accomplish a goal consistent with these concepts. As such, it is an activity that requires a broader range of social skills than do acts of individual justice. These skills are considered fundamental to a civil society. Social justice is, in plain terms, the movement towards a more socially just world through the actions of a group of individuals working together to achieve its goals. Students and staff who participate in social justice actions often categorize their efforts as attempts to “give back” or to contribute to the greater good in their community or abroad.”
All about group actions, where individual actions have lesser value than group actions. That said, the Toronto Foundation for Student Success, does many good things. However, it did not disappoint me that it does no advocacy in the political arena so their would be a great need to fundraise huge amounts of money, to finance clinics for children who do not have a valid health card, and other problems that illegal and legal immigrants have. Or advocate for changes within the tax system, so low-income to mid-middle income level, can access nutritious food at a lower retail cost. There has to be a better way, than asking the wider community to subsidized, in many ways a hidden taxation nickle and diming the parents who have a bit more money to buy that cookie, or donate to the latest fundraising at school. Or is it another ploy to create legions of volunteers so students can easily meet the require hours for volunteering in the community?
The answer is not to raise taxes, since real wages have actually decline in the last 20 years, once inflation and consumer prices are taken under consideration. The answer is better advocacy at the political level, and a smarter method of spending tax dollars. ELP the vehicle that should be used is the municipalities , who would know best the needs of their citizens. The public education system is not the best vehicle to be used, due to the high costs associated with it. It might turned out to be fancy babysitting for getting the same results in achievement, compared to the other alternatives that are available. What is suited for a Toronto child, may not be as suitable or does not even apply to another child 500 kms away from Toronto.
There is nothing better than to have pretty much every daycare in a public school under the control of a PS principal with unionized childcare workers so they won’t be an exploited cheap labour pool.
The workers should not subsidize the system with cheap wages.
Funny thing, I have been reading some interesting reading material on how unions have played a hand by remaining silent on the massive job losses in North American, and exporting the jobs out to other countries. Both the big private and public sector unions have for the most part kept silent, and have been busy shoring up their defenses by keeping their own unionized labour pool highly regulated, certification, and regular training, which makes it difficult for new workers to entered into a unionized work place. The new workers must meet the qualifications. This results in a chronic shortage of high skilled workers, but more to the point, it results in steady work since the labour pool is limited. This situation serves the corporations well, as it serves the globalization movement well. Corporations as well as in the public sector, the need is for cheaper labour to do the grunt work, the farm work, the fishing, the taxi drivers, the cashiers, and other lower skilled work. The larger the labour pool for lower skilled workers, the larger the profits, steady tax revenues since lower skilled workers spend most of their money, and it creates the conditions that low-skilled workers are willing to work for lower wages, because there is another 100 waiting in line to take over his or her job.
What is really amusing, it is the talk of the left questioning the studies that claims the only way to raise wages, and get a competitive economy is to invest in education. So the new workers have the skills to go after the high paying jobs, but since the high paying jobs have self-imposed caps due to them being highly regulated and meeting certain criteria, the only thing that is left is the lower skilled jobs. So in effect, only the cream of the crop will get the high paying jobs, and the rest are streamed into the lower skilled jobs.
So money is pumped into education, not to provide a solid education for the future workers, but to provide skills that are needed in a work place situation. It is not a coincidence that quality of public education went downhill, at the same time globalization was implemented, As math, reading and writing skills were downgraded in the public schools, social skills were upgraded, team work was promoted and moral character values became part of the grading. There is only a need for a certain percentage of future workers to have high skills in literacy and numeracy, and for those that have lower skills, technology will take care of that one. And besides the future workers will be well versed that it is good to help one another when one has a weakness in numeracy, and the other co-worker his strength is in numbers, and to become a team player. Life is better when helping one another, if only to keep a job.
But along the way there has been major hiccups. A major problem with bullying, violence, and students who do not seem to have skills in critical thinking. Just this afternoon, a group of male teenagers decided to skip school, and break into the old hospital that has been closed down. Before they left, they asked other students to come along, and they turned down the boys since they were going home for lunch. So this group of boys break into the old hospital, and start to vandalized the place. Unknown to the boys, the RCMP does a regular check on the place, and noted the broken window. So they investigated and caught the boys red-handed along with being caught with illegal drugs. These boys were charge with a number of offences, and the boys that knew ahead of the other boys breaking into the hospital have been suspended from school for a week. A total of 20 boys suspended for a week, and within the 20 boys, 5 boys who have criminal charges to deal with. My child comes home ranting and raving how stupid, how idiotic and how very dumb and so forth. Once she finished her rant, I asked her if the boys had any problems with the 3 Rs. A light came on, and than she started on her new rant that all 20 boys could used the same lessons in reading and writing as she still currently needs. The 20 boys are not trouble makers, they simply do not have the skills to think critically. Good readers and writers develops the skills to think critically, but it is doubtful under the public education system, the current curriculum and social justice policies that children will learn how to think critically and become good citizens making a contribution to society.
I am telling the story to make a point. Children who received a solid foundation in the 3 Rs, will enter high school better prepared for doing high school work, and less likely to commit bone-headed crimes as the one that transpired this afternoon in my community. As my 15 year stated, at least be smart about it, and break into a place at night. I laughed when she said that, and was thankful that the hard work I put in at home, is paying off where critical thinking skills are at play, despite her reading and writing difficulties that would not be a problem today, if my child had received the proper reading instruction in the first place.
Going to the articles that are coming from the left side of the political spectrum, questions are being asked not only of unions, but government institutions including education, and their role in dumbing down the North American population. And now the public education system wants to take care of children and their education from cradle to the end of high school. Perhaps there is a good reason why most ELP programs run by the education system, starts off with the low income, because they are least able to defend their parental rights, and in the end allow the state to become the parent, and the parents become the baby sitter. Unionized the early childhood educators and workers, raising the wages in this labour poor to reflect only certified early childhood educators and workers should take care of children from cradle to grade 12, and all non-unionized including parents are inferior, and cannot do a good job, unless they are unionized and certified. Just like certified teachers, and Doug’s rants only certified teachers can teach.
It should really be an interesting year, and perhaps teachers’ unions and big government may be looking forward to restless citizens demanding better government and downsizing might be on the table at all levels of government. Especially the high priced help…….
Don’t know about everyone else but I’m thinking Nancy’s winning this one – hands down.
She represents more of he sentiments from parents that I hear too often to ignore.
The future for students is in good hands when parents become educated to their choices and the spin those mired in
an old system who push their views publicly but don’t walk the walk.
I really hope our American readers come back and participate.
I miss their long years of battling “the blob”.
I think that would be “perspective” I hardly read Nancy’s posts because they are far too long, and wander all over the map. They are like some stream of consciousness full of folk wisdom and endless references to special ed and her daughter. I know she is a good parent who has taken care of her daughter but not every single debate in education can be reduced to special ed or one child.
It begins to sound like this “I believe I got bad service, therefore I believe everybody got bad service every time.”
Our juvenile detention centers are not full of straight A students. It’s a well worn path from trouble with learning to trouble with the law. The Nunn Inquiry here in NS told that whole story, top to bottom.
Yes jails are full of illiterates and people with mental health challenges.
BTW Cate ELP and ECE programs are not just free, they are better than free. They actually generate both savings and tax revenues that are many X their costs, thus allowing us to do more hip replacements.
The savings on welfare, law enforcement in all of its forms, EI, and similar savings are added to the increased revenue that is paid in taxes by those from ELP/ECE programs. This is especially true as it frees up far more women to enter the labour force at a time of a looming labour shortage.
Business owners have a great fear of the looming labour shortage because, since nobody has repealed the Law of Supply and Demand, this bids the cost of labour up and makes unions much stronger. Providing many more women the opportunity to work, increases the supply and lowers the costs.
This is one of the main reasons big business is swinging behind the ELP leaving only social conservatives to oppose it. You know the type, they actually think women should be at home with their kids. Just so 20thC.
The “it pays for itself many times over” thing has been done to death. Given that, depending on the source, the claims are all over the map I suspect there’s no real ability to come up with a correct number.
Sorta like the claim that each and every dollar spent on education is equally valuable.
Yes the educrats working hard even providing dubious research on the savings and revenues in the far off future. Even the Bank of Canada, cannot reasonably predict that far off in the future. Five years at the most, because they is far too many factors influencing a tot who had some form of early learning education.
But the educrats have been really busy over the pass few years, conducting research and coming up with conclusions that would make a sane person think, that low-income kids does not share the same human traits as other income groups. But it is par for the course, as one blogger points out 10 years ago, “Sadly, the opposite is what is actually being done in our public schools. Instead of returning to somewhat rigorous standards, the new “high standards” will have little to do with real academics. The new focus of education, via the STW/Goals 2000 legislation, will be vocational training and more social engineering, sold deceptively as preparation for the “high skills/high wage” jobs of the 21st century. Academics, although already woefully inadequate in our public schools, will be even further watered down in order to focus on job skills and “real life” education, even so far as having students leave campus during the school day to perform tasks at local businesses for class credit. Already, students in South Dakota are receiving class credit for bagging groceries and waiting tables. High standards? High skills?
Although there are many palpable threats to America’s status as a free republic, there is none so pervasive and disturbing as the federal plans to restructure the public schools to resemble vocational training centers. The legislation called the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, passed in 1994, has resulted in all fifty states planning and implementing School-to-Work (STW) programs, which will lead to complete control of the labor force, and a planned, centrally controlled economy. Note that the system is not yet fully in place. Block scheduling and career academies, as well as career surveys administered in elementary school, are sure signs that STW is on its way.”
http://www.learn-usa.com/education_transformation/stw003.htm
One of the conclusion of a study from BC.
“The researchers say it’s possible that the socioeconomic conditions of children’s early residential neighbourhoods exert a strong effect later because acquiring reading skills involves the collective efforts of parents, educators, family friends and community members, as well as access to good schools, libraries, after-school programs and bookstores.
“Sadly, our findings demonstrate the lasting effect of neighbourhood poverty on children’s reading comprehension — highlighting that children’s literacy is not simply an important issue for parents, but also for community leaders and policy makers alike,” Lloyd says.”
I read it three times, and it is now neighbourhoods that will become the blame for acquiring reading skills, and the solution is the collective efforts of parents, and everyone else to ensure reading comprehension. “Absolutely no mentioned of what is the most important factor, if not the only factor whether one is rich, in between or poor, the reading instruction.
http://www.learn-usa.com/education_transformation/stw003.htm
In the United States, Chester Finn expresses doubt on the new bill that increases funding for early learning.
The bill creates a new national commission on standards, charged with reviewing “the status of state and federal early learning program quality standards” and recommending new benchmarks for such standards–and sets aside a very generous $30 million a year for this purpose. That may or may not turn out to be a good thing–quality standards in the early-childhood field surely need an overhaul–but in the meantime the bill lends oomph to the antiquated notions that prevail in this field. These center on paper credentials for staffers and staff-child ratios that boost costs with no certain impact on effectiveness.
Most troubling, H.R. 3221 forbids states to assess children’s school readiness in ways that can be traced back to their pre-school teachers or individual pre-school centers and operators. This echoes the Head Start lobby’s success a few years back in strong-arming Congress to block then-assistant secretary Wade Horn’s effort to establish a “national reporting system” by which Head Start centers would be judged according to their effectiveness in preparing 4-years-olds to succeed academically in kindergarten.”
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/22/early-childhood-education-bill-opinions-contributors-chester-e-finn-jr.html
Forbids states to assess school readiness that can be traced back to their pre-school teacher or centres? No wonder the educrats are estatic. Can’t have parents questioning the educrats in the primary grades, on why their kids are regressing, and are struggling in school when they child knew how to count to 20, even doing a bit of simple addition and subtraction, and my child could write her name, and now she can’t do any of these things. They got that one covered, when parents start to asked questions, the blame will be put on them, just like it did when I started to questioned the school in grade 1. My child went to a high-quality ELP program, that fully prepare her to be school ready. Somehow by grade 1, all the gains disappeared to where my child could no longer count to 20 and after that the other gains made disappeared too. And when I started to questioned it, it was my fault, the child’s fault but never the school’s fault or in my case the instruction.
Preparing the low-income kids to become good little drones, to prepare them for the future jobs of low skills.
“
“pays for itself many X over is repeated over and over because most groups who look at the situation come to the same conclusions that it reduces crime, reduces EI and wefare, increases government tax revenues to the point that it does not just pay for itself, it returns huge revenues to the public coffers.
“Education is expensive but ignorance is a lot more expensive.”
The OECD believes it. Do you know what the OECD is? It is one of the preeminent think tanks of western capitalism.
The world economic leaders are clueing into the fact that it is much cheaper to offer high quality ECE than not to offer it.
The last ridout of anti-ECE feeling is the social-conservative community that wants to make life difficult for women who want to work. They still believe women should be barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen.
Keep in mind that you’ve worn out your welcome elsewhere by making inaccurate or aggressive claims about other contributors. The reality is that you don’t have the foggiest idea about what others think about, say, women in society.
I suspect you don’t have a mandate to speak on behalf of “world economic leaders”, heck you routinely regale us with the horrors of capitalism, the private sector, et al.
Heck, the corporate sector here in Canada are busy pushing for more corporate tax cuts, not more ECE.
No one is against early learning. What people are against is the state run early learning program, from cradle to the grave. Based on, ” an off-the-wall philosophy of near-Nature worship, mixed with extreme Darwinian genetic evolutionary notions, and is enforcing this on all the school children as a grand experiment in social “growth and evolution”.
http://www.sntp.net/education/The_Reading_Wars.htm
Education questionable. More like a plan to keep the population dumb and compliant, that would be incapable of questioning the state, political policy, and how could anyone indeed question anything, when one does not have the skills for informed judgment?
As for the OECD, they in charge of the collection of stats world wide, and to spread throughout the world to educate the children of the world to practice group think, parroting other people’s thoughts as the truth. Pretty easy for a government to control the masses, and to accept their word as the truth. “. ” In other words, the captains of industry and government explicitly wanted an educational system that would maintain social order by teaching us just enough to get by but not enough so that we could THINK for ourselves, question the sociopolitical order, or communicate articulately. We were to become good worker drones…..”
http://www.rense.com/general78/stranger.htm
The trouble is, in the Western world and especially in North America, the public education system ignores the results after grade 12. American businesses spends billions of dollars, on remedial reading for their employees. Apparently, they can read but not well enough to operate the machine. Some businesses have tried pictures instead of words, to avoid the costs of remedial reading. Of course in Canada, the stats are hidden and remediation of reading, writing and numeracy is finance mostly by tax dollars under the covered of a multitude of programs. It would be a labour of love, for someone to uncover the costs of remedial reading, writing and numeracy in today’s society. Much like the costs of the off the wall philosophy in public education that has spread like a cult religion throughout the education structures of the world.
And your claim that it is much cheaper to have early learning be run by the public education system, that is debatable. Especially when, teachers’ unions are involved because all they see is bigger salaries, lots of jobs, and big increases in union dues. And keep the early childhood educators as the gophers for the teachers, and potty duty, since they do not have a teachers’ certificate to teach.
Thank-you John L. You are correct. I expect what we’re witnessing are the dying days of an old out-dated mantra that’s worked for generations toward mediocre achievement while the money pool runs dry.
As I read in researching other education blogs at the Retired Educator Sandra Crux rightly suggests that Doug wants it all ways….mostly his.
It is far more efficient for the state to control all social, health, education and other expediture first due to economies of scale and second because the profit motive is excluded. They can also control the quality and keep out the fast-buck rip off artists from the private sector.
Canadians get far more from their medicare and actually pay far less than Americans due to this “single payer” model. The state is our benevolent benefactor because the state is us.
“Our study shows that the neural machinery used by adults to understand words is already functional when words are first being learned,” said Halgren, “This basic process seems to embody the process whereby words are understood, as well as the context for learning new words.” The researchers say their results have implications for future studies, for example development of diagnostic tests based on brain imaging which could indicate whether a baby has healthy word understanding even before speaking, enabling early screening for language disabilities or autism.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110107094908.htm
“But Russ Whitehurst, a researcher at the Brookings Institution who studies these issues, warns that, though laudable, teaching a low-income mother to talk to her baby as she walks through a grocery store will not by itself transform the educational achievement gap.
“If that’s not followed with good stimulation in school with continued positive parent interactions, if that experience is not built on, it’s not likely to have an enduring effect,” Whitehurst says.”
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132740565/closing-the-achievement-gap-with-baby-talk
The first is the steady advancements being made in language. It caught my eye, because my child as young as she was, was being tested in the same manner by pointing at the object, when the word was spoken. It told them that she had language, but was still puzzled why she was not talking. It also told them that she had a vocabulary three times the size of a child her age. At the time it give me some comfort that the problem did not rest with my abilities, and it may not be autism. It was in the middle of testing for a number of disorders.
The second article, when a lot of good work is being done with children under the age of 5, including their parents – often the gains made there go to waste as soon as they enter a public school.
The public education system is loath to used research that does not come from their own field in education. Yet it is in the other fields, where assessments, other evaluation material, and strategies are developed from the research. It is another reason why I distrust public education to be in charge of early learning.
You can distrust all you want. The majority want it and any who don’t are not forced to use it. What could be fairer than that?
Getting back to the topic, and Paul’s question,
Education remains the best road out of poverty, but what form should that early support take here in Canada?
There is much to be learned from the preschool project at the University of Illinois in the 1960’s — one that got a lot less press than the Perry Preschool Project, but with significantly more impressive outcomes. Carl Bereiter, of OISE, was one of its originators:
Click to access A1988M295000001.pdf
(see also the articles cited at the end of the review)
I think, Paul, you would find this book very instructive and on-point even given the passage of time. It’s easily found on used book sites such as abebooks.com or alibris. The results of this multi-year project which had control groups and both middle-class and disadvantaged (black, low-IQ poor kids) experimental groups, were published in peer-reviewed journals and have lots of data.
This article by Shepherd Barbash is worthy of note:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_pre-k.html
In the original preschool project, the experimental kids from “the projects” all had family members with “mental retardation” as it was then called, and many had low IQ’s at the start. The low-SES kids were solicited from urban tenements and were 4 years old at beginning of the program and continued for two years (half-days, equivalent to Pre-K and K). At the end of the two years, the mean IQ of the low-SES, mainly black, kids had risen from 95 to 121 (several kids gained between 30 and 45 points, the difference between being “slow learners” and “gifted”), putting them on even footing with their middle-class controls, and ahead of their middle-class controls in some academic areas. There’s a lot of detailed data which is fascinating.
These kids continue to do well in school, despite attending rather poor inner-city elementary schools. They finished high school; some, maybe most, went to college and have “middle class” occupations today. One (a girl) became an engineer (electrical engineer, I think); another is a loans manager for a major Chicago bank, another became an officer in the Marines. They did well for themselves and their promising beginning did not “wash out” the way many other early interventions do.
This quote from the study published in the Helmuth collection is apt:
The primary issue is: Can a program meet the educational objectives to which it addresses itself? In the case of the present experiment, can the program teach disadvantaged preschool and kindergarten children basic skills in reading, arithmetic and the logical use of language? The IQ scores of the children reflect the effectiveness of the language program. The achievement scores in reading, arithmetic and spelling indicate the effectiveness of the arithmetic and reading programs. Not one experimental child scored below 100 in IQ after two years of instruction (compared with 14 children in the comparison group who scored below 100). Not one experimental child scored below 1.6 grade level in reading or 1.4 grade level in arithmetic. In other words, there were no instructional failures. All of the children were taught. …the experimental subjects, at the end of their kindergarten year, performed as well as “average” disadvantaged children two or three years older… If children can be accelerated by 3 years (as the present experiment indicates) the general failure in the public schools is not necessarily a result of the children’s innate inferiority or lack of aptitude. It is a function of inadequate instruction
Preschool/ELP can have tremendous value but the instructional component is vital and must be targeted to the needs of the students for best outcomes. This should not shock the Left — remember, “to each according to his need.”
Ummm…
You all recall that Doug and his wife own a private school, catering largely to affluent Asian families, operating in the private sector, right? I suspect his claim of “quick buck rip-off artists from the private sector” is a little overblown…again.
As to “those who don’t want it not being obliged to” there’s no way of judging how fair or unfair that’d be unless and until we know why they’re not using it. Keep in mind that there’s no universal set of acceptable reasons that can be imposed on families.
Repeated again: “Preschool/ELP can have tremendous value but the instructional component is vital and must be targeted to the needs of the students for best outcomes. This should not shock the Left — remember, “to each according to his need.”
And in the the Barbash article, “Central to the typical early-childhood educator’s worldview are three ideas: that it’s better for young children to learn through play than through work; that children learn best and are happiest when they can help direct the pace and content of their own learning; and that a child’s mental abilities develop at a natural pace that adults cannot do much to accelerate. If a child fails to learn something, it’s not because the teaching is faulty, in this view; it’s because the child is either “learning disabled” or not yet “developmentally ready” to learn it—a notion derived from the theories of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who believed that mental abilities developed in age-determined phases.”
What really bugs me the most on child-center theories is the idea that adults cannot do much to accelerate learning, because mental abilities develops in age-determined phases. There is so much evidence that states the opposite, and yet the public education system continues on this destructive path. Where is the outrage within the education system? What do they fear? Parents? Their union head? The teachers’ college?
Where is the outrage within the education system? What do they fear? Parents? Their union head? The teachers’ college?
None of the above. The “outrage” in the education system mirrors the “outrage” in the general population. The knowledge of how to accelerate learning, and the technology for teaching to effect this, has been out there for close to 50 years, and has rapidly accelerated in the last 15-20. But there is little demand for it, in either public or private education. There are individuals who want to see more rigour, accelerated learning and the like, but they are few and far between.
Gotta love the free market, eh?
You would think, with all the “reform” activity in the U.S., that there would be some interest in these proven initiatives. But the much-publicized KIPP schools reject them; reformers like Gates are aware of them and also reject them. Maybe the possibility of REALLY closing the gap is too big a threat to the status quo. The late U.S. edupundit Gerald Bracey is on record as saying that “we must continue to produce an uneducated underclass,” or who will clean toilets and collect the garbage? He went on to say that our economic system would collapse if all citizens actually attained to a high level of education and critical thinking. Aldous Huxley, in Brave New World came to the same conclusion. The social order depends on maintaining a default caste system. There is not much demand for substantive change, only for cosmetic changes.
And don’t forget to follow the money.
You are a wise man TDSB but what we can see in the big cities is that the underclass, what Marx would have called a Lumpenproletariat, is increasingly composed of visible minorities and immigrants, usually both.
The white population, increasingly a minority has mainly graduated to a minimum of the true working class jobs, often unionized, truckdriver, construction, skilled and semi-skilled labour. It seems we need to import our poor class.
The USA has practically assigned these jobs to black, Latino, and a few poor white people. This is one reason why they seem to care nothing at all for their educational success, in case they get “upidy”.
What some of the advanced brains in the business community are starting to realize is that we face a serious looming labour shortage in many areas and if 2-5 year olds are mainly in childcare-ECE they we will fail to realease their mothers onto the job market to ease this supply problem.
Unions are really looking forward to the labour supply problem because guess what goes up? Wages you guessed it. Seems the only way to mitigate this shift in the balance towards labour and Labour is ELP-ECE.
That is why big business is increasingly joining the socialist-Liberal coalition for more and better childcare.
Hmmm…
Isn’t “big business” the epitome of the greedy, private sector profit-seeking sort we should all be afraid of?
In any event there’s not much evidence “big business” is willing to advocate for more resources into “more and better childcare” if its done at their expense through, say, increased corporate taxes or reduced breaks for business.
Being fully in favour of something so long as it requires nothing in the way of contributions on one’s part isn’t nearly as altruistic as it looks at first glance.
Have “big business” report back once its willing to walk the talk
Perhaps “big business” will eventually get so frustrated with the quality of graduates coming to their employ that Corporate schools will start in Canada. That way they can be assured of their own quality control.
If the public system wants to be all things to all people than in that way it can be the daycares and rec. centres and meeting places – but places of esteemed learning – nope.
Corporations also have what the gov’t claims it does not – cold hard cash to reinvest in what works for them, their employees and their employees’ families.
NASA offers their employees, childcare, and schools on-site to make it convenient for parents.
If the public system hasn’t the will to change something’s got to give and new delivery of education should be on the table.
The perfect place for childcare is part of a total wrap around service in the public school system. Nobody said the corporations were not greedy but they are also very smart. They read the research that says one of the only ways to upgrade the education system is to do what Montessori advocated a long time ago, get kids into school as soon as they are toilet trained (age 2) so that we can take full advantage of their absorbent minds.
What do the corporations get from state sponcered JK+ECE childcare? Higher quality graduates and a larger pool of workers. The only opponents left are the curmugeons among the social-conservatives.
Nobody is forcing anybody into JK+childcare. You can keep your children home until grade one if you like but the majority wants the program.
Most of the opposition are people with a financial stake in the old system or people who just believe mother ought to stay at home.
Some problems of pre-school.
“The greatest academic and social progress seen in preschools is in children from deprived backgrounds. However, few programs have the quality necessary to bring about the benefits promised. The costs of a high-quality program can be far greater than the costs of education at some public universities. Most children in preschool, however, are not disadvantaged, and some researchers believe the same gains can be had at home by providing educational toys , games and books for the child. In some preschools, the emphasis on groups might mean that children will not receive the individual attention they require. This is a particular risk if the preschool does not follow the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s recommended teacher-to-child ratio of no more than ten preschoolers per staff member. One-on-one instruction is an advantage parents will not likely find in any preschool. Opportunities for playing with other children exist in churches, clubs, and other outlets, where the child can learn social skills. Some believe that what children need most is lots of play and free time and close interaction with their parents, something that may be compromised if the child is away from home for long periods of time. Another disadvantage is that some children experience acute separation anxiety , indicating that they are not yet ready to make the transition to the preschool environment. Many programs also expect the child to be toilet-trained, a milestone that not all children have achieved at the preschool age.
Read more: Preschool – average, Definition, Description, Common problems http://www.healthofchildren.com/P/Preschool.html#ixzz1BDuXMFTW
From my own observations of business, big or small investing in public education, is mostly literacy concerns. Rarely is there concern of a low income school that has three computers, or a low supply of good quality library books, or the concern of buildings that are in need of repair. If anything that I have observed or read, is that business leaders seem more concerned with the end results after 12 years of schooling. Literacy seems to lead the pack, as to where they are willing to invest and give back to their communities. Such as the literacy summit coming up in Montreal, that is being sponsored by big business.
Now Doug, what happens with the children that are not toilet trained by two years old? Tell them to go take a hike? A bit of a sticky problem when public education has a tendency to define policy by age-determined phases. What will be next, the banning of children who still on their baby bottle, or the child who is still sucking on his blanket?
This is the very reason why early learning and day care should have as much choice as possible, so day care or early learning can be fitted to their child’s needs, and not have the child be force into fitting the needs of the day care or early learning program and the adults that are around them.
In the next link is the historical aspect of Montessori, in what Doug has claimed to be Montessori was advocating for. Personally, toilet training probably was not high in her list of things to do, and the link will show it.
“Montessori education is sometimes criticized for being too structured and academically demanding of young children. Montessori would have laughed at this suggestion. She often said, “I followed these children, studying them, studied them closely, and they taught me how to teach them.”
Montessori made a practice of paying close attention to the children’s spontaneous behavior, arguing that only in this way could a teacher know how to teach. Traditionally schools at this time paid little attention to children as individuals, other than to demand that they adapt to external standards. Montessori argued that the educator’s job is to serve the child, determining what each student needs to make the greatest progress. To her, a child who fails in school should not be blamed, any more than a doctor should blame a patient who does not get well fast enough. Just as it is the job of the physician to help people find the way to cure themselves, it is the educator’s job to facilitate the natural process of learning.
Montessori’s children exploded into academics. Too young to go to public school, they begged to be taught how to read and write. They learned to do so quickly and enthusiastically, using special manipulative materials that Montessori designed for maximum appeal and effectiveness. The children were fascinated by numbers. To respond to their interest, the mathematically inclined doctor developed a series of concrete math learning materials that still fascinates many mathematicians and educators to this day. Soon her four- and five-year-olds were adding and subtracting four-digit numbers, soon progressing on to multiplication, division, skip counting, and increasingly advanced and abstract concepts.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/maria-montessori#ixzz1BE6zsAN0
It is where public education fails children and these words need repeating once more. ” Montessori argued that the educator’s job is to serve the child, determining what each student needs to make the greatest progress. To her, a child who fails in school should not be blamed, any more than a doctor should blame a patient who does not get well fast enough. Just as it is the job of the physician to help people find the way to cure themselves, it is the educator’s job to facilitate the natural process of learning.”
In the pre-school that my youngest attended they strive to serve the child, by determining what each child needed. One day, the early childhood educators were wondering why my child was staying away from playing in the sand box area. After asking a few questions to me, within a few days another sand box arrived filled with corn meal, sitting along side the box filled with sand. It was a great hit with my child, and the other children. And the silver lining for my child, she took her engineering feats of blocks and legos and began applying it to the sand box, building sand castles or rather complicated road structures for the toy trucks and cars. It probably would never happen, if the box filled with corn meal never appeared, so my child could get over her objections playing with sand.
Would a state-run ELP program be effective, when considering how the public education is structured in having the children and their parents to adapt to the needs of the education system, but as well as asking the students to teach themselves, by just presenting them with opportunities of learning.
Ya lets cut back education funding and disrespect teachers, seems like a good plan eh?
Where does the New York Times article, is advocating eduction cuts and disrespecting teachers?
It is those that disrespect teachers who do so at their peril. The nations that are speeding ahead do not hurl abuse at the teaching profession for the shortcomings of the public education system any more that we blame the doctors because some patients die.
Teachers, the teaching profession and teacher federations ar blameless in the education debate and it is time to move on and blame the governments that can’t seem to understand that underfunding education destroys the nation’s ability to compete internationally.
We need radical increses in funding for education if we hope to progress as a nation.
Hard to see how what we keep hearing is one of the best school systems on the planet needs a “radical increase in funding for education”.
Spending enormous amounts of money to make minor improvements makes sense only to those with little or no regard for the needs of the rest of society.
As to those with a “financial stake” in the status quo that’d include just about every teacher drawing a paycheck. Does it follow, then, that we should disregard them?
Time for some folks to rest and reset.
We cannot rest on our laurels as John advocates. We do have one of the best systems in the world but others are catching up. We need to rocket ahead to keep our competitive advantage.
We need to replace the billions removed from the system between 1995-2003 that has not been done since 2003.
There is no need to “play off one aspect of society against another”. Some need to get it through their heads that education does not cost money. Our high standad of living rests on high education spending in the past including the Bill Davis years.
High education spending is the R+D of the whole society. It is where wealth comes from.
If we spend even more on education, which is better than blue chip stocks, we will become richer so that we can afford a high spending health system.
Education is not a cost to a society, it is an investment in the future prosperity. The more you spend, the richer we all become.
Why does every family hope that their children will go as far in school as possible? Because they know that the students economic well being, general happiness and social usefullnes is bound up in their eduation. Now just multiply that by every family in Canada and we have national economic wealth, national happiness and a socially useful state.
Pretty hard to make much of the last one, Doug.
What, apart from feelgood fluff for those in the system, was the point being made?
As to “economic wellbeing, general happiness and social usefullness” I suspect all sorts of people who don’t fit your template of what qualifies as “educated” would disagree.
Keep in mind that you’re not in the echo chamber of the fed offices now surrounded by the like-minded nor in a classroom full of bored teenagers; you have to make compelling arguments in the real world.
Every other nation realizes that the economic health of the nation depends on a radical upgrade of the education system This means more ECE, JK, more places on college and university, higher graduation rates etc. It all cost a lot of money.
Is that clearer John?
A few points:
-You don’t know what “Every other nation” believes.
-There’s no way of even defining what “radical upgrade”
means.
-We already spend “a lot of money” here in Canada.
Keep in mind that shotgunning out all sorts of opinion isn’t the same thing as thoughtful analysis or commentary.
In any event this line of discussion is getting pretty stale.
I laughed so hard on the latest of Doug’s warnings disguise as a rant. It is bizarre and even illogical to separate the agencies of government and the executive arm of the government in separate camps, to assign any wrong doing of a government on the shoulders of the executive arm of the government. But Doug, would like us to pretend the problems lie with the government, and only the government. No matter, the Premier or a minister of education has no control over the every day activities at an individual school. How could anyone know, within a system that requires an army of bureaucrats and educrats to operate the education system, where accountability is code to kick it to someone else. It is a system where common sense is banned and realms of rules/regulations are made, to keep the children and parents at bay from individualized thinking and creativity. Group think the rage, where government acts on the behalf on the goodness of their heart for the welfare of all, and any history is revise to reflect the collective group thinking of mankind, but not the individual acts that actually change the world.
In the world of education, the problems lie with the arms of education and the agencies that are in charge of education, where collective group thinking is treasured and highly value, above all other things. Independent thinking of the kind that changes group thinking into independent thinking is frown on, and in some cases the responsible individuals will be punished for doing so. Punished for breaking out of the collective group thinking, that hurts the collective goals and aims of the group.
I was brought up in the public education system, at a time where the individual schools had more say in the education of their children. I never realized at the time, nor the many years after, I had a private education within the public education system. We had a firm foundation of the basics, along with a healthy dose of the classics, writings that warn about governments and their potential to take advantage of their citizens. If anything, history has shown that one, but as we all know history no longer holds a position in our schools. And what history there is, has been revised to where our Canadian first settlers and the settlers that followed them, as being pathetic followers that needed the guidance of the ruling powers of the day. The real truth is buried, that it was the ruling powers that needed the guidance of the motley collection of settlers with various abilities and skills, and the skills of the aboriginals.
As history was tossed, the arts and music was tossed, than physical activities, along with recess. Spelling, grammar and the other essentials needed for a firm foundation were downgraded to the point a child must meet the criteria to avail of basic lessons that are deemed no longer needed for the average student. And Doug, would like us to see teachers and unions as being blameless. Or as he puts it, ” Teachers, the teaching profession and teacher federations are blameless in the education debate and it is time to move on and blame the governments that can’t seem to understand that underfunding education destroys the nation’s ability to compete internationally.”
Collective group thinking in action, that has one major disadvantage among many, and that it sets up the conditions to avoid accountability, responsibility, and to cater to self-serving interests. If anything, the public education system is a prime example where collective group thinking is the norm, and individualism is the biggest threat to collective group thinking.
I probably would never have written this, if I was not for posing a question in the search engine, in response to Doug’s post. A very simple question, and well over 5 million hits. To my surprise from a Japanese teacher, other educators in different countries, to the politicians and the individuals all over the world – what struck me the most was the theme of collective group thinking, the hatred of it and how it destroys independent thought, and in the end it destroys creativity, innovation and responsibility of the individual.
The site called the Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto does describe the public education system in much the same way as I have tried to. I found this link in several places by individuals who told their stories of the bad education they received in the public education system. They did not blame the government, but they did blame the structure of the public education system.
” Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be “re-formed.” It has political allies to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.”
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm
Time to rethink education, to make what is hard to do, once again easy to do.
Face it John L you just don’t want to spend the money but you want the quality.
Ya I would like a Lexus at the price of a Tercel to but the world just sadly does not work like that. High quality education, like everything else in life that is high quality, happens to be expensive.
Luckily in our case, not spending the money is even more expensive.
Last comment on this one; its getting a little creepy.
I probably wouldn’t take the Tercel salesman word for it when he tell me what I should pay for it; I might be paying Lexus prices for a Tercel.
As to what I “want”…you don’t have the vaguest idea.
Move on.
Nancy that is just one cliche after another posing as an argument.
Read Herb Kliebard, basically we have the system that the people have demanded that we have. It has been shaped by the political wars over education over many decades. When any one force, socialist, liberal, conservative, business, labour, environmentalist, religious, whathave you, begins to assert any type of hegemony over the system, all other forces band together to push they back. No political, social or economic camp can win any type of “final victory” because all other forces will not allow that to happen.
The education system we have is in fact, the treaty of peace between these warring factions so that each can recognize something of themselves in the system but no faction can dominate to the point of “having it all their own way.” We have lived with this tension for 140 years in Canada and I expect it to go on forever.
Last comment on this one; its getting a little creepy
Well, Deo gratias for small mercies. John L is quick to tell us (on other threads) that it is time to “move on” or change the topic, but I note that he has not addressed Paul’s questions on THIS thread — Should ELP be universal or targeted? (and if targeted, targeted how?) And how shall we design early learning support to minimize poverty in Canada?
I also note that several commenters have nothing to say except to argue with Doug in a personal vein (to point out how wrong, misguided, ideological or hypocritical he is, etc.). How about leaving the personalities out of it and addressing Doug’s points, if he has them. If he doesn’t have them no response is warranted. The signal to noise ratio in the discussion is disturbingly low. More content, less vituperation and off-topic ’tis-‘taint syndrome, please.
Paul has posed some very important questions. They deserve thoughtful, focused and informed replies. Personally I vote for (1) targeted and (2) instructional, compensatory-focused ELP along the lines of the models outlined by Shep Barbash in his City Journal piece. How about some properly funded control models in Canada with sufficient data taken to determine effectiveness and worthiness for replication.
well siad TDSB
How be we let the moderator decide TDSB? I would also suggest that your comments apply as much to Doug as to the rest of us.
Doug is here to provoke the right – as is stipulated on his own website.
Getting back to Paul’s original question of whether ECE programs should be universal or targeted, I think they should not be universal. There are some neighborhoods where most of the working moms (where they are working) have nannies! Sorry, but I agree with some of the other posters–in an aging population where health care costs are stretched to the limit, paying for childcare for families that can afford it themselves is wasteful, if not ludicrous.
I acknowledge the plan is popular in high needs areas, therefore think the program should be targeted and used where the local school board and/or community feels it is necessary. I also strongly agree with TDSBW that there should be some proper monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of these programs.
In neighbourhoods where people have nannies or other support, we still give them a public school. The program should be universal. We can start with the poor and work out if you prefer but eventually totally free childcare should be available in all neighbourhoods. It makes no more sense to change for childcare than it does to charge for grade 4. The public system is under expansion and this is how it should be.
Some day if the world evolves in a positives direction, there will only be public schools, they will go from age 2 to PhD and every grade will be free. This is the goal we should be working towards.
All other routes are distractions.
Seems Professor John Richards at Simon Fraser, who has made a study of dropouts, agrees mainly with me that Canada has an outstanding record since only 8% of 25-34 year olds do not have a HS grad certificate compared to the OECD avg of 20% but to improve he recommends early childhood programs (of course they help the poor more but they help everybody). He lists school sports, a focus on Aboriginals, not concentrating ar risk students together (streaming) and retaining the long form census.
Not bad.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Staying+school/4118474/story.html
“Some day if the world evolves in a positives direction, there will only be public schools, they will go from age 2 to PhD and every grade will be free. This is the goal we should be working towards. ”
Perhaps 500 years from now. Even in looking at one province, would be a feat in itself. What do you do with the laggards, that really are hanging out in university for something to do, but has no interest? What do you do with the young adults graduating from whatever post-secondary institution in a job market with no jobs? Finland is going through that, and have now start charging fees for their social programs. Fees according to income, and more than likely taxes are on the increase, along with cut backs in services and benefits.
Can any country afford universal education, without taking away the quality of life in other areas? One just has to look at China, where there locked up the poor areas in a city for the night, until 6:00 in the morning. Than the residents are allow out in any part of the city. Even though crime still happens, the low income areas filled with the migrant workers are blamed for all the crime. Targeted programs would be better money spent, and if follow through and monitoring for effectiveness is implemented, better yet. The funding can be targeting in real time to improve the programs of EL, compare to what is happening today. Improvements take place after the results come in, and usually take another year to implement it.
The trouble with the public education system, is the slow response time to adjust programs, and the bureaucracy that goes with it. From what I have read on the Head Start programs, this is the problem. Furthermore economists have jumped into the debate, looking at pubic services including the idea of universal early learning.
“Because openly acknowledging this as their tactic would be embarrassing, pre-K advocates have devised the rhetorical device of asserting that universal programs will be better than programs confined to low-income families and disadvantaged kids. In The Sandbox Investment, David Kirp summarizes—and endorses— this reasoning:
“Helping all of us and not just them—that division makes all the difference in the world. In theory, concentrating state pre-kindergartens entirely on poor children should help to close the education gap, and that would be a good thing. But a study carried out by two World Bank economists concluded that, when the voters effectively set tax levels, the poor are in fact worse off when a program is targeted, because the citizenry is willing to pony up much less money.”
Sophism is not too strong a term for such reasoning. Evidence from states with universal programs show that they differ profoundly from the circa 1965 bells-and-whistles prototypes so often cited by today’s advocates—precisely because that sort of boutique program is wholly unaffordable when large and broad based. We will indeed encounter problems with the big federal Head Start program, but those arise from its interest groups and ideology, not from its war-on-poverty-style income targeting. Berkeley law professor Kirp, Pre-K Now’s Doggett, and their philanthropic bank-rollers have got themselves into a misleading, even dishonest place, using arguments about gap closing to advocate universal programs that will not and cannot close gaps.
From the perspectives of boosting educational achievement in general and life prospects of needy youngsters in particular, there are better ways for America to proceed. These include highly targeted, heavily cognitive, intensive pre-K programs for the neediest children. Done right, focused on the right kids, and melded with the right K–12 school reforms, pre-K education is a good thing. Universal pre-K programs of the sort pressed by most of today’s advocates are not.”
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/5499
In Canada, no matter what province – universal early learning would be tough to do when considering the present education struction, and to add the other end including PHD programs, impossible to do within a vast country, where region to region have unique features and the problems that come with it. Like a low-income child in the inner city of Toronto is much different from a low-income child in the remote North. Their look-out, attitudes, their experiences, that are bound to impact their cognitive behaviour. What works good for low-income kids in the city, may not work at all for a kid in a rural community. I am afraid that the fans of universal early learning, are also fans of one-sized-fits-all programs, including the educrats and unions who have always dislike intensive cognitive programs. It represents increase training costs, and teachers’ colleges would be force to step up, providing the training.
The interesting thing is that Finn thinks it is a juggernaut. Sounds like it is very popular south of the border as well.
It is education not baby sitting. Education is a universal program. It is just being extended gradually both upwards and downwards in a universal fashion. No problem.
I believe McGuint’y ELP has an annual pricetag of $1.5, as opposed to Pascal’s $1 billion estimate. One wonders what a 50% runup in cost actually bought.
Just like TDSBNW I vote for:
(1) targeted:
The financial benefit for the society has only been proven for the children who need to catch up.
To avoid having the children in need become prisoners of program providers, these kindergarden programs should not be run only by the public schools.
The parents should be able to choose between several providers of such programs.
All the providers including schools if they choose to provide kindergarder programs should be evaluated every few years and unless they can prove a track record of effectiveness should not be allowed to continue.
The public schools are not able to do a good job with elementary students? What makes us think they would do a good job with kindergarden?
and
(2) instructional, compensatory-focused ELP along the lines of the models outlined by Shep Barbash in his City Journal piece
Children’s lives are changed and society benefits ONLY if these programs are effective.
Otherwise it is just free daycare which is not without merit but is a totally different kettle of fish.
Engelmann’s programs have alreay been proven to be effective. Why don’t we start with what we already know that works?
To summarize, first of all we should ONLY agree to and fund a program that has been proven to work.
There is no magic associated to the words full day kindergarden. The program has to be proven effective in order to make a difference.
I have read nothing, I have heard nothing in this respect about the current program.
For the parents that use it, it is about free or reduced-cost day care.
Interesting post on this topic on the Huffington Post site:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-ochshorn/where-the-achievement-gap_b_798701.html
For a good read on early cognitive development (well-written, informative but lucid and engaging from some talented cognitive scientists) see:
The Scientist in the Crib by Alison Gopnik and a coauthors Meltzoff and Kuhl
http://www.alisongopnik.com/TheScientistInTheCrib.htm
and a review here:
http://brainconnection.positscience.com/topics/?main=bkrev/gopnik-scientist
and
What’s Going On In There? by Lise Eliot
Very readable and comprehensive.
Interesting post from Joanne Jacobs’ blog on a longitudinal study of a successful preschool program in Chicago (links embedded to source documents, commentary etc.). Suggests some factors to consider in designing effective programs chez nous.
http://www.joannejacobs.com/2011/02/high-quality-preschool-pays-off/
Jonah Lehrer’s “Head Case” column in The Wall Street Journal (January 22, 2011) entitled “Why Rich Parents Don’t Matter” shed some new light on Early Childhood Education and is worth considering.
Here is a key excerpt:
” How much do the decisions of parents matter? Most parents believe that even the most mundane acts of parenting—from their choice of day care to their policy on video games—can profoundly influence the success of their children. Kids are like wet clay, in this view, and we are the sculptors.
Yet in tests measuring many traits, from intelligence to self-control, the power of the home environment pales in comparison to the power of genes and peer groups. We may think we’re sculptors, but the clay is mostly set.
A new paper (in Psychological Science) suggests that both metaphors can be true. Which one is relevant depends, it turns out, on the economic status of families.”
For the full story, see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576090020541379588.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
He bottom line, according to Lehrer, is:
“As wealth increases, adults play a much smaller role in determining the mental ability of their children.”
All of this suggests that early intervention can be critical, especially for children in low SES families.
“Such statistics have led many researchers to highlight the importance of improving the early-childhood environments of poor children. Economists such as James Heckman, a Nobel laureate at the University of Chicago, have long advocated for increased investments in preschool education, but this latest study suggests that interventions need to begin even earlier. One possible model is the “Baby College” administered by the Harlem Children’s Zone, which seeks to equip brand-new parents with better parenting skills.
Eliminating such inequalities in the early years of life would simply create a new kind of inequality, driven by genetics. But such a world would at least let more children come closer to their mental potential, unconstrained by the mistakes or impoverishment of their parents. The greatest luxury we can give our children, it turns out, is the luxury of being the type of parent that doesn’t matter at all.”
I would not jumped ahead, without exploring the culture and values that various people hold. Education levels are not discussed, nor the experiences of the parents.
I find the last line, “The greatest luxury we can give our children, it turns out, is the luxury of being the type of parent that doesn’t matter at all.”, as another way that is telling readers, that the state should be in charge, and the parents are seen as the caretakers.