Ontario "blending kindergarten and daycare"

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Early Learning

Stockholm wrote:

 Instead of picking apart every single detail - I think we need to put pressure on the government to move forward or else we may NEVER get any child care in Ontario and people will go on suffering.

Amen - especially since it won't happen at the fed level with Prime Minister Iggy-Harper.

Unionist

I'm having a hard time understanding this discussion. What's wrong with universal affordable child care? Period? In Québec, it's been there since 1997 - at $5.00 per day - and then it unfortunately went up to $7.00 per day (that's across the board - not just for "low-income").

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/02/06/f-daycare.html]Here are some interesting stats about availability and subsidies.[/url]

In 2007, Québec had 364,572 regulated ($7) childcare spaces - that was 43% of all regulated spaces in Canada. And 74% of Canadian children whose fees were subsidized were in Québec. That was done without waiting for a federal program.

You should set your sights a bit higher, IMO.

Early Learning

Unionist wrote:
You should set your sights a bit higher, IMO.

Totally true - but still, the new ON plan's a start. Better than nothing (aka what Chretien, Harris, Hillier and Iggy-Harper have done or want)

remind remind's picture

Stockholm wrote:
we had Harris for eight years!
That was Ontarians own short sighted stupidity, buck up and take responsibility for your actions, and what about the years before that, as I stated BC has had it for well over 2 decades.

Quote:
anyways, the point is that subsideized child care is almost non-existent in Ontario and this report is the first attempt in many many years to actually address that horror. Instead of picking apart every single detail - I think we need to put pressure on the government to move forward or else we may NEVER get any child care in Ontario and people will go on suffering.

No one is picking apart every detail,  but things are not what they appear, it apparently is a money making scheme for the province, which most likely will soon be privatized,with part of the profits going to the school district and the rest to the day care company..

Have you never heard of holding your non-NDP governments responsible for their electoral promises?

As unionist stated, you would be better off fighting for actual universal day care subsidies and whole schools days.

Early Learning

remind wrote:

which most likely will soon be privatized,with part of the profits going to the school district and the rest to the day care company..

 

Where are you getting that?

 

See this:

Quote:

"Governance in the Public Sector

Early learning and child care will be governed   by an Early Years Division of the Ministry of Education. In addition, local municipalities will be responsible for service planning for all children from infants to 12 years old.

Community Based Early Learning and Child Care Programs

Municipalities will continue to fund early learning and child care programs. They will form Best Start Child and Family Centres to coordinate and fund services.

A core part of the original commitment to full day learning was to commit new funding to full day learning. Savings from the expansion of publicly funded programs means municipalities will have more funding to support early learning and child care for younger years. In addition, the report recommends a single transfer of funding to municipalities  that includes all existing transfers.

The report is a very important move towards universal and publically funded early learning programs for all children in Ontario."

 

http://www.childcareontario.org/?p=1816#more-1816 (I bolded the part about municipalities)

 

It's not perfect, but I'm sick of nothing. I'm also sick of "all-or-nothing".

First Harris, now Harper ... can't we have a bit of goodness now?

Stockholm

Actually in many ways this is a  better system than what exists in Quebec. In  Quebec most of the child care is privately run and the government simply pays for it. This plan is actually way more public and has it much more integrated into the public education system - which is a good thing. I've spoken with a number of child care activists and they tell me that about the only good thing about the system in Quebec is that its cheap - but its also very unregulated and is really mostly cheap baby sitting with very little early learning. 

Early Learning

remind wrote:

That was Ontarians own short sighted stupidity, buck up and take responsibility for your actions

 

Umm ... what about Gordo?

 

http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/campbells-child-care-cuts-leave-families-paying-more-getting-less

 

 http://bcelection.policyalternatives.ca/2009/04/30/bcs-child-care-crisis-is-an-election-issue/

 ETA: Oh, and plus Gordo got 3 terms; Harris only got 2.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Actually in many ways this is a  better system than what exists in Quebec.

LOL. Really. Being from outside Ontario, maybe I missed the subtleties of your "better system". Just one question:

What exactly does it do for kids under 4 years of age!?

Or, perhaps that's an unimportant demographic when it comes to working parents...

Or, perhaps you'll be advocating kindergarten for 2 and 1 year olds...

I won't even bother responding to your gratuitous unattributed statements about the quality of child care here.

remind remind's picture

It is not goodness from the looks of things, at all, and even less so with the snippet you provided.

How can you have "savings" from the expansion of publically funded programs, especially when there isn't any funding according to stock anyway? It is an oxymoron, and pure propaganda.  Let alone enough "savings" to allow municipalities to expend apparently more on day care subsidies.

Bottom line is, if they were publiclly funded they would not be charging 27 bucks a day.

Again, look at my basic projections, they are not talking about extending funding, they are talking about changing rules to allow schools which are unionized and publically funded to hire ECE's, and charge people for their services. This would entail PROFITS over and above the wages paid to the ECE.

I see you never answered my question about how many children below 6 years old are ECE's allowed to look after? As most likely the rules for this would change too to accomodate 1 person being allowed to look after 20 or more children under the age of six.

Moreover, I guess you do not realize they just down loaded it to the municipalities, as opposed to making it part of the ministry of education responsible for guess what, SCHOOLS and education. this way they can blame the municipalites for whatever goes wrong.

Getting political smarts may help some Ontarians more than anything I think.

remind remind's picture

Oh early learning I have taken full responsibility for Gordo being in power here at babble long ago, which is why I can state that. :D

And perhaps in more direct ways than non-voting.

Nowadays it is the GP voters stupidity that allowed him to stay in power. ;) But I am confident that 4 more years of him and the destruction of everything will wake em up.

 

Stockholm

$27 wouldn't come close to paying the actual cost of the service, but I for one think that it means something for a service to be publicly OPERATED and not just publicly funded. In Quebec almost all the money goes to for-profit private child care operators. In Ontario there is the possibility that this could be a publicly-operated regulated system with all employees being unionized.

Incidentally, I've noticed that the Ontario NDP has been dead silent on this report. I suspect that means that they support it but don't want to come out publicly hailing a report from a commission that McGuinty struck - if the NDP was opposed to early learning we would have been hearing it loud and clear over the past week.

Unionist

Sorry Stockholm, my hearing's on the fritz again. Where do the under-4 kids go in your system??

Oh, as for being unionized, not only are they all unionized in Québec, but even people providing daycare in their own homes fought for and won the right to unionize, beating back the Liberal government's legislation aimed at taking their right away.

[url=There">http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/qu%C3%A9bec-home-base...'s a babble thread about it.[/url]

Fidel

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html]Daycare costs across Canada - 2005[/url]

 

Quote:
Note: In Quebec, $7-a-day day care is available - but all those spaces are allocated and there are long waiting lists. Rates at private day-care centres are much higher than those at the official $7-a-day centres

 

We need national daycare in Canada.

Stockholm

Here is what the report proposes for kids up to 5:

"To give parents more time to bond with their babies and reduce the need for infant child care, the report also recommends an additional six months of parental leave by 2020, including six weeks exclusively for the father or non-birthing parent. This is up from the current 52-week parental leave funded through employment insurance.

The plan would include self-employed parents; flexibility for new parents to return to work part-time; and 10 days of legislated leave annually for parents of children under 12. However, the report doesn't say how these new parental benefits would be funded.

For children younger than 4, Ontario's patchwork of children's services – from parenting centres to daycares – would be consolidated into one-stop Best Start Child and Family Centres, preferably located in schools. These community hubs would fall under the mandate of a new early learning division in the ministry of education and be overseen by municipalities, which have authority over other services for families including recreation, libraries and public health."

 

Sounds a helluva lot better than what we have now which is NOTHING. Unless we take some major steps in the righyt direction we will get no where.

remind remind's picture

BS stockholm,  of course 27 bucks would pay for the costs of the service and leave profits. Did you not read the "savings" portion of the press release?

You are warehousing 20, and most likely more, children under the care of 1 ECE,  which is being undertaken in a facility which is already there, has to be heated whether children are in the building or not,  and whose up keep is paid for by the Ministry of Education.

There would be no overhead in those respects, with the only over head being basic admin costs, most likely minimal after the initial output, as the municipalites would just include it into their fee structure computer programs, and ECE wages.

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

OH GOODY another 2020 initiative, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Stockholm

If you prefer the status quo you can have it and have NOTHING.

remind remind's picture

Hello, you are still going to have nothing until 2020, 11 years from now, what a fucking joke, that is 3 election cycles away, and  that some are trying to sell it here as a "good thing" is even more of a joke.

They basically just put up a BS piece to shut people up and deflect away from their breaking campaign promises.

 

Fidel

They dont call him Pinocchio in Toronto for nothing.

Stockholm

No, there are some elements of what the commission is recommended such as extending mat leave by a further six months that are supposed to be phased in overt the next ten years, but the part about full day junior and seniro kindergarten is supposed to happen much sooner. I don't know why you are so resistent to admitting that there might actually be SOME good stuff in this report - whether McGuinty will actually act on it is another question - but the child care advocates are all ecstatic over the report - so obviously its seen as a vast improvement over the status quo.

Early Learning

remind wrote:

How can you have "savings" from the expansion of publically funded programs, especially when there isn't any funding according to stock anyway?

 

You're dead wrong on this and other things.

 

First of all, you've majorly misread the "snippet." I mean majorly. It simply means this: When age-fours and age-fives will be in the province's (that's right, the ministry's) plan, the municipalities will have more of their existing $ for spaces for those under 4. That's where the under-4s will go. That's what "savings" means. Read it again carefully. Again, not perfect but also not what you're making it look it at all.

Also, there is public funding for the new kindergarten plan. You totally missed that in this:

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/650782

 

And yes, the plan IS a Ministry of Education thing. So you're dead wrong there too. Your downloading comment doesn't work here. You're the one who's not "realizing" the thing. Figure out correctly what the thing is before you hate it.

 

See this:

 

Early learning and child care will be governed   by an Early Years Division of the Ministry of Education. In addition, local municipalities will be responsible for service planning for all children from infants to 12 years old.

 http://www.childcareontario.org/?p=1816

 

And by the way, the "snippet" from OCBCC. That's the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. Guess you've never heard of them. They're a public daycare advocacy group, they know what they talk about, they've read the report, and they're liked by the NDP.

 

AND, OH, FOR THE RECORD: THE NDP (THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR PARTY) SUPPORTS THE PLAN TOO:

 

QUOTE: "New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath said parents in Ontario have waited a long time for improvements in early education and urged the Liberals to get moving bringing them in.

"It's a report we have to make sure doesn't stay on a shelf somewhere," she said. "Early learning is absolutely necessary and we have to find a way to implement it."

http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1614289

 

So, many of you (including Stockholm) have been dead wrong on where the NDP is on this. And you were saying, Cueball??????

 

Horwath's words = my thoughts exactly.

 

With all due respect, read the report. Get the real facts straight before hating it. The NDP's gotten its facts straight. So should you. I know you want to hate it but at least figure out what it is first, then think what you like. And, going back a bit, where the heck do daycare companies come into this? They don't. Read the report.

 

Is it perfect? Heck no. But is it still something decent? Heck yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early Learning

Unionist wrote:

Sorry Stockholm, my hearing's on the fritz again. Where do the under-4 kids go in your system??

Existing daycare would get freed up for them. See this:

"Universal full-day kindergarten would free up 44,175 licensed daycare spaces - including 18,000 subsidized spaces - for 4-year-olds and 40,105 licensed spaces - including 16,000 subsidized spots - for 5-year-olds.

Since they are only half-day spaces now, it's the equivalent to about 42,000 full-day spaces and 17,000 full-day subsidies that will be available to younger children."

 

www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/253727

 

Not perfect but still a start.

 

Look unionist, I'm with you on Quebec daycare. I don't agree with Stockholm's dissing of Quebec daycare. But the new ON plan's better than nothing.

Stockholm

"So, many of you (including Stockholm) have been dead wrong on where the NDP is on this."

I'm happy to have been wrong.

With regards to child care in Quebec, I don't mean to "diss" it. I think that its wonder ful that there is such a cheap system that is so accessible to people, but its also not perfect and I have met a number of child care advocates who blanche at the thought of making an exact copy of the Quebec system in Ontario because the system in Quebec has a number of major deficiencies from their POV as well.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

I have met a number of child care advocates who blanche at the thought of making an exact copy of the Quebec system in Ontario because the system in Quebec has a number of major deficiencies from their POV as well.

That's funny - I just had coffee with six child care advocates this morning who said that your child care advocates only appear to blanche, but actually they have unnaturally pale complexions. Over to you.

Early Learning, the Star article you quoted explains how 17,000 subsidized spaces (seems like an awfully low number to me) would be freed up for younger kids. But how much would it cost users to access them? Is it comparable to the $7 per day we pay here? And how much on average for the 42,000 other non-subsidized spaces?

 

Early Learning

Stockholm wrote:

"So, many of you (including Stockholm) have been dead wrong on where the NDP is on this."

I'm happy to have been wrong.

With regards to child care in Quebec, I don't mean to "diss" it. I think that its wonder ful that there is such a cheap system that is so accessible to people, but its also not perfect and I have met a number of child care advocates who blanche at the thought of making an exact copy of the Quebec system in Ontario because the system in Quebec has a number of major deficiencies from their POV as well.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make you sound bad. I'll choose better words next time.

I think both the ON and QC styles have pros and cons. But Stockholm, I thought QC did have early edu. in theirs. But I don't know now. Maybe you're right, I'm not sure.

Early Learning

Unionist wrote:

Early Learning, the Star article you quoted explains how 17,000 subsidized spaces (seems like an awfully low number to me) would be freed up for younger kids. But how much would it cost users to access them? Is it comparable to the $7 per day we pay here? And how much on average for the 42,000 other non-subsidized spaces?

I don't know what the fees for those spaces are yet. I'll ask someone. And yes, it's a low #. There should be more. I'm with you there. But it goes back to this: it's a start and better than noting. Future improvements can be added. More spaces for below-4s and this plan aren't opposites you know. Or at least they don't have to be. But some folks will get something now. The new ON plan is a first step. Yes there should be more funding, but that doesn't make the basic gist of the plan evil. And yes I like the QC $7 policy.

Early Learning

Oh, and remind: I'm sorry if I sounded a bit cross. But still, the plan's not the evil thing you think it is.

remind remind's picture

Stockholm wrote:
No, there are some elements of what the commission is recommended such as extending mat leave by a further six months that are supposed to be phased in overt the next ten years, but the part about full day junior and seniro kindergarten is supposed to happen much sooner. I don't know why you are so resistent to admitting that there might actually be SOME good stuff in this report - whether McGuinty will actually act on it is another question - but the child care advocates are all ecstatic over the report - so obviously its seen as a vast improvement over the status quo.

mat leave and other paternal extensions are not the jurisdiction of a provincial government. So really that point in the report is mute anyway, it serves only to paint a glowing social utopian vision, as the sales hook for what was coming in the rest of the Report.

Sure enough there are some fine points in the Report, which appear to be a step forward, albeit a small one in many cases, except for the recommendation for a single co-ordination of services as opposed to a scattered one, which is a good one and supports universality. However, I am not sure how co-ordinated it will  really be as each school district and municipality will be running said program deliveries, under universal guidlines.

Having said that, I am not so naive that I cannot see where  government action on this report would be going and what the full implications mean. I have watched the privatization schemes of government service provision, in BC for the last 9 years, and understand completely the process steps, and have also watched/participated in the planning by corporate entities to get them.

For example for 3.1 of the Report:

The Early Years Policy Framework should mandate school boards to offer: 

  • a two-year, full-day Early Learning Program prior to Grade 1, available to all children who turn 4 by December 31. Children’s participation would be by parental choice, with parents having the option of a half, full (school hours), or fee-based extended day of programming;

Seems like a pretty good action on the surface of it. But what it really indicates is that it will remain a half of a day of "school", or parents would not have the choices they do. So this is where the ECE comes into effect for the other half day and the extended day of programming. As such there is really no "full day" of education being advocated as per campaign promises, or there would not be the "or" in the report, it would be an "and".

Then of course there is the rider to this that states there must be 15 or more families wanting said  extended beyond a half day of services in any given municipal school. So if there are NOT 15 families, everyone  is shit out of luck for full school days and extended days care.  Ask yourselves why is threshhold of 15 families by request outlined in the report.

As yes, early learning, I see from the flow chart that the recommendation is that schools boards would have the mandate to run said recommend programs. However, it also states that the school board can basically contract out to other service providers in the community, and the NP and FP will all have to adhere to the Best Start Child and Family Guidelines. This is where privatization of said programs will  happen.

Glowing narrative of socialist utopia aside,  the Report notes, once you break them down to meaning, in sections 3.1 points 6 & 7 that said  half day of extended hour/day programs do not have occur in the same school setting that children attend for their half a day. Essentially, the children could be moved to/from a secondary setting.   Again an opening for privatization of services. And we can see this reaffirmed in point 8 of section 3.1 by way of "community partners" beyond the school district and municipal government oversight and provision of services.

Also, I would suggest that this would be the occurance more often than not, as wages would be lower outside of the school or municipal government settings. Think about implications, such as, children going to a day care centre first thing in the morning, then being transported to school and then back to the day care centre for the remaining time. So, while the apparent advocation seems to be good, the underlaying implications and potential avenues are not so good. It would be up to Ontarians to look at all implications with a careful eye and make sure that the government does what is best for them, and not for businesses and NGO's that would profit. IMV, and as the report notes, the best thing of course would be that the children remain in one setting, the school,  for the entire school and extended day. However, that points 6, 7 and 8 are included in the report, says a great deal.

From taking this and more, in the report, one can/should understand there will be a profit occuring from the minimum 15 family threshhold (which was why it was recommended) at 27 bucks per family, which is 405.00/per extended  day, at minimum, with wages being anywhere from 10.20/hr to 20 or so, depending on who gets the community extended 5 hour contracts and whether the municipal districts want it, or not. Or whether school boards would individually decide whether or not they wanted to hire their own ECE's and provide the extended hour services themselves.  Of course, this means elected school boards have the intiial say, as such who comprises them would become of primary importance. The report would have actually stated/advocated for something for families if it stated absolute service provision by the school board, and no one else for the 4 and 5 year olds.

So really, it could/will become, or remain, a mish mash of service provision, from municipal district to municipal district and from school board to school board. And the report does recognize the possibility of this occuring and suggests it should not just become a best practises framework for all and that it be a fully intregated system, as per it's utopian lala land description. But again I state, points 6-8 negate this completely, if the Report wanted to really have said socialist utopian ideal, it would not have included those point's recommendations. And that it did is a huge warning sign. Hence my understanding of what is in play, the program development has not even started to occur, and the Report states that there will be avenues for NPO's,NGO's and FPO's to make money, thereby assuring their support of said Report. In fact, I can mentally image their and EDO's submissions to the report advocating for such a thing.

The slippery slope to the actual distopia that the Report itself indicates could happen, actually is happening right in the Report itself. Families need to to be aware of this and not dellude themselves that this is anything other than a glossy covering, unless families themselves ensure the slippery slope is not gone down and lobby the government to get rid of points 3.1 6-8, and instrument school board service provision and not just oversight for all extended day programs 4-12 years old.

And ya gotta love the Current Chaos flow charts and the utopian one, in reality they would be exactly the same components, fancy label aside, as the Report itself notes what agencies would be involved, and there are agencies that have to be involved that were excluded in the utopian model which are present in the chaos model, like public health, and commnuity sevices, because the report states there will be several ministries, plus municipalities and school boards, involved in overseeing Best Start and Families Centres. And indeed we can see the lumping of what should be 7 separate  flow chart bubbles into one  bubble, in order to mask the reality of what would/could happen because of point 6-8.

Not even going to bother with detailing the 15 family or nothing threshhold pitfalls as it/they should be self evident, as well as the 27 dollar a day levy recommendations as being too high, nor the 2020 projections that are absurb. But will conclude with:

In its bare bones, maximum potential recommendations can, and should be supported,  and then only with the removal of the 15 family threshholds and a lower flat rate. It creates a potential, but only if families ensure that potential is gained and they can only do that if they understand implications present in the Report and under stand the processes and what avenues to take actions in, and that can only be done with a critical eye on slippery slopes leading right back to the current chaos, and positive support for maximum potential recommendations of absolute school board provision of full day and extended day services, with municipal districts providing the remaining day services.

 

Caissa

NB has all day academic kindergarten. Hours at our youngest school are 8:30- 2 p.m.

remind remind's picture

Early Learning wrote:
Oh, and remind: I'm sorry if I sounded a bit cross. But still, the plan's not the evil thing you think it is.

No where did I indicate that I thought it was evil, I indicated that I was fully aware of the indications in it, both specified and implied. I even indicated above at the start of the thread, that first tier provision of service recommendations would be a good thing. It is the subsequent tiers, 11 year ahead action plans and profit making, that I have issues with, and do not believe anyone is taking them into account in a serious manner, as being no better than what is now present, unless much grass roots awareness and activism occurs.

However, I will apologize for being so flip with my comments and thinking it would be self evident to others too, instead of  detailing what it is I saw in the first place.

Stockholm

"Think about implications, such as, children going to a day care centre first thing in the morning, then being transported to school and then back to the day care centre for the remaining time."

That is exactly what this report is trying to remedy by putting child care and kindergarten under the same roof. Remind, a lot of your complaints seem to be less about the report than they are your hypotheses about McGuinty may or may not do with it. So instead of picking away at a report that is a great step forward - why don't you hold your fire until the Ontario government annnounces what they will actually do and THEN if you don't like it - be my guest to attack away.

remind remind's picture

Stock, what I am saying is people should NOT be waiting for McGuinty to impliment anything, they should be telling McGuinty WHAT to impliment and how from the Report. As well as demanding the lowest possible payment fee.

And the report is not trying to put anything under one roof, it is suggesting that it should be so, while recognizing that other avenues are also available. That it does this, indicates why families should be telling McGuinity what they want, not waiting.

remind remind's picture

So what stock, you do not agree that people should be insisting on the what the government does before it does it? After all your insisiting in respect the TO CUPE strike about people and their governments, one would think you could carry the same premise to here, eh! I mean imagine the poor people being taken advantage of.

Stockholm

Yes, but you seem to be so busy attacking the report itself (one that was drafted by a commission of non-partisan experts on early learning and child care) befdore the government has even said what it plans to do with it.

Right now "poor people" in Ontario have NOTHING, NADA when it comes to child care before they get to half days in kindergarten. Even if the barest minimum is implemented and there is free full day kindergarten and very cheap universally available child care - that sure beats the status quo of NOTHING. If I were poor and had kids that were 4 and 5 years old, I'd be thrilled at having my kids taken care of and educated all day for free as opposed to the current half day. It wouldn't solve all my problems by a long shot - but it would be a big step in the right direction.

remind remind's picture

Talk about me seeing things before they happen, at least my view is based upon concretes, while yours is based  on selling airy fairy propaganda before the government releases what it is going to do.

Stockholm

What "concretes" are your views based on?? Nothing "concrete" has actually been anounced yet - its all just your wild hypotheses and conspiracy theories.

My view is based on selling the report and building up as much support for it as possible to make it more difficult politically for McGuinty to water it down. If you do nothing but make wild attacks on the report all you do is play into the hands of the rightwing - which would like nothing more than to have the whole early learning strategy die on the vine so that we can go on having NOTHING.

Unionist

Having looked a little more closely at this report, I'm leaning toward the view that it is not "better than nothing". In fact, it is so remote from affordable universal childcare, and so cynical (sorry for saying so) in its "2020" prognostications, that its adoption would provide an easy excuse for successive Ontario and federal governments to stall forever on real childcare reform. To suggest that Ontario can't get - immediately - to where Québec was 10 years ago is a statement of desperation and capitulation. Sometimes you have to say "no" to the crumbs when the deal is that the loaf will never be yours.

 

remind remind's picture

The concrete is the Report itself is watered down as I noted with excerpts above. You are trying to sell them that it is a wonderful thing, when it isn't.

Also, I have more to go on to support my "wild" position than you do and Iposted it all above and noticed you wanted to bury the expose. Plus you wanted  people to wait and see what McGuinty gave, while I advocated immediate action, see the postings just above, and now you are trying to portray it as the opposite. get a grip and stop with the propaganda okay!

And I am not sure the right wing would be against this, as church day cares and the religious lobby's take over of schools boards could benefit them significantly monetarily wise. Just as privatization has in BC.

Stockholm

huh??? where does the report suggest handing school boards over to the religious lobby? I think you're really losing our marbles if you are reading that into this.

Maybe Unionist thinks that expanding kindergarten from half day to full day next year is "worse than nothing". I suspect that hundreds of thousands of struggling parents of 4 and 5 year olds would be overjoyed not to have to pay for private unregulated child care for half the day and be able to lave their kids at school all day while they work.

Early Learning

Remind, I'm going to reply to a # of things you've said right now, but I'll do it in multiple posts because I want to quote multiple things from multiple posts of yours and I'm not sure how to do that in one single reply. (Yes, I know, my bad there. Sorry.) I'll reply to unionist too, but a bit later, once I'm done with your comments.

But first:

remind wrote:

The Early Years Policy Framework should mandate school boards to offer: 

  • a two-year, full-day Early Learning Program prior to Grade 1, available to all children who turn 4 by December 31. Children’s participation would be by parental choice, with parents having the option of a half, full (school hours), or fee-based extended day of programming;

Seems like a pretty good action on the surface of it. But what it really indicates is that it will remain a half of a day of "school", or parents would not have the choices they do. So this is where the ECE comes into effect for the other half day and the extended day of programming. As such there is really no "full day" of education being advocated as per campaign promises, or there would not be the "or" in the report, it would be an "and".

First, the "or" means you can put your kid either in half-day K as it exists now or in the new full-day plan (consisting of K and fee-requiring after-school daycare and that other non-fee-requiring ECE part that's part of the 9-or-8:30am-to-3pm "traditional school day," totalling three different parts of the day). That's what the "or" means. You won't be forced to put your kid in the full-day plan if you don't want to. The new plan and the choice of half-day K. will exist side by side.

Unionist

Yeah, like they would be "overjoyed" if Harper gave them $200 per kid instead of $100. But what about universal public affordable child care? 2050?

Early Learning

remind wrote:

As yes, early learning, I see from the flow chart that the recommendation is that schools boards would have the mandate to run said recommend programs. However, it also states that the school board can basically contract out to other service providers in the community, and the NP and FP will all have to adhere to the Best Start Child and Family Guidelines. This is where privatization of said programs will  happen.
Glowing narrative of socialist utopia aside,  the Report notes, once you break them down to meaning, in sections 3.1 points 6 & 7 that said  half day of extended hour/day programs do not have occur in the same school setting that children attend for their half a day. Essentially, the children could be moved to/from a secondary setting.   Again an opening for privatization of services. And we can see this reaffirmed in point 8 of section 3.1 by way of "community partners" beyond the school district and municipal government oversight and provision of services.
...
From taking this and more, in the report, one can/should understand there will be a profit occuring from the minimum 15 family threshhold (which was why it was recommended) at 27 bucks per family, which is 405.00/per extended  day, at minimum, with wages being anywhere from 10.20/hr to 20 or so, depending on who gets the community extended 5 hour contracts and whether the municipal districts want it, or not. Or whether school boards would individually decide whether or not they wanted to hire their own ECE's and provide the extended hour services themselves.  Of course, this means elected school boards have the intiial say, as such who comprises them would become of primary importance. The report would have actually stated/advocated for something for families if it stated absolute service provision by the school board, and no one else for the 4 and 5 year olds.
So really, it could/will become, or remain, a mish mash of service provision, from municipal district to municipal district and from school board to school board. And the report does recognize the possibility of this occuring and suggests it should not just become a best practises framework for all and that it be a fully intregated system, as per it's utopian lala land description. But again I state, points 6-8 negate this completely, if the Report wanted to really have said socialist utopian ideal, it would not have included those point's recommendations. And that it did is a huge warning sign. Hence my understanding of what is in play, the program development has not even started to occur, and the Report states that there will be avenues for NPO's,NGO's and FPO's to make money, thereby assuring their support of said Report. In fact, I can mentally image their and EDO's submissions to the report advocating for such a thing.


 
1, It could be contracted to be physically located in places like daycare buildings and churches, and those buildings would admittedly get $ for use of space (in case of not enough space in the school), but the program would still be controlled by the ministry's curriculum and the program material and details would still be owned by the ministry. True, the chance of that getting twisted and privatizing happening is there hypothetically. That should be dealt with too. So again, you're not totally wrong there. But that's not guaranteed to happen either. That doesn't make the report itself crap. (Having said that, I admit that you're now not saying that it's "evil," so I'll take that back at this point, but I still think you were implying it was until now.)
2. The fees would add to the revenue needed to keep the plan alive in the 1st place, so not really much room for "profit" there. Yes, there should be more gov. funding instead, but still...

Oh, and CUPE agrees:
 
"We endorse Dr. Pascal's recommendation to create a seamless, publicly-funded, not-for-profit learning system for Ontario's four- and five-year-olds.
"Dr. Pascal's proposals are very much in line with what CUPE has advocated-A public, not-for-profit system ..."
 
http://cupe.ca/child-care/CUPE-Ontario-commend
While CUPE goes on to express "concern" about "reorganizing existing funding streams," that means they worry existing daycare $ might just get shuffled from existing daycare to the new plan. May happen, agreed, but not guaranteed to. And so far that's not happening (see what I'll say to Unionist a bit later).

Early Learning

double post

Early Learning

remind wrote:

So if there are NOT 15 families, everyone  is shit out of luck for full school days and extended days care.  Ask yourselves why is threshhold of 15 families by request outlined in the report.

That refers to after-3pm daycare for those right up to age 12, March Break service, and summer programs. (See the link below). That's not for the full-day (9-3pm) part for kindie students. And notice that just means that if they don't offer all those three services even after at least 15 families want them, they'll be breaking the law. It doesn't mean they'll refuse to deliver those three until at least 15 want it.

To be fair, though, I'll agree that loophole could possibly be a problem, and that detail should be fixed. So to be fair, you're not entirely wrong. But still, it's not quite what you make it sound to be and it's better than nothing.

And by the way, I never said it was "wonderful," I've just used the words "a start" and "better than nothing." Or was that remark of yours just aimed at Stockholm (though even he isn't saying its perfect, or at least I don't think he has)? And your point doesn't disprove that at all.

 

Now, on to part 3:

 

eta: sorry, forgot the link:

 

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/650782--full-day-learning-starts-next-year

 

Quote: "At the request of 15 families, every school would be required to

Early Learning

remind wrote:

 

Think about implications, such as, children going to a day care centre first thing in the morning, then being transported to school and then back to the day care centre for the remaining time.

1. Would only happen rarely if needed.

2. Parents won't have to skip work to do the moving anymore. That's the change.

3. Again, not perfect, but better than status quo.

Early Learning

OK I've just got an important phone call and have to go soon, so I'll make the rest really really quick:

To remind:

Right-wingers like Hiller are already dissing it. And I'll add more links about other right-wingers later. That includes religious right-wingers. And the ON curriculum would still control the thing even when its physically in a church, so your point about the religious lobby taking things over is weird (with all due respect).

I'll say even more later when I don't have to dash.

To unionist:

I'll post more later, but the report wants the full-day plan fully in in the next 3 years. (See the first Parentcentral article in this thread.) And Dalton's announced a bit of $ for 2010. So your suggestion that nothing will happen until 2020 isn't right.

Unionist

Ok, I deleted my post, because I don't know enough about the subject. Pascal's report is so complicated that it's wrong to make simplistic comments. He has recommendations that will never happen, alongside others that are not good enough. I think simple solutions are needed, and I don't see that here - but I'll withhold judgment.

Early Learning

Wrote mine before Unionist rescinded. Sorry Unionist.

Early Learning

Unionist wrote:

Early Learning - did you think Harper's $100 per child per month was "better than nothing" - "better than the status quo"?

Let me do full disclosure. I argued vehemently against that here. I blasted the NDP for not saying: "Not one child-care penny for stay-at-home parents!" But the NDP was viscerally unable to stand up and say, "This is not universal public child care, and it's not acceptable - the money must be saved and used to build the necessary infrastructure." Instead, they went with a hybrid, afraid that people would be sucked in by the cash and not understand - and all they could do was say that the money should be tax-deductible.

"Better than nothing" doesn't cut it for me. Child care is a necessity to free women from the home and help elevate people from poverty. The "learning" part is wonderful, but that's not the prime objective. Or is it in your view?

 

Missed the bus so here another 28 mins, and I'll use a bit of that to reply now:

How the hell can you compare Harper's plan with this??? Huge difference between giving money away without creating daycare and creating a full-day kindergarten-ECE combo that at least keeps some age-4s and age-5s somewhere during the day while moms work and frees up a few (though of course not enough) daycare for those below 4.

The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care AND CUPE see the difference. Why can't you??

Your comparison is wrong, and don't you dare suggest that I don't support child care. Don't you f***ing dare. We disagree about whether "better than nothing" is shitty. We don't disagree on basic values. Get that f***ing straight. Don't slander me.

And for the one millionth time: I've said it's not perfect but it's a start. I never said it's what I want. See my comments about QC daycare.

remind remind's picture

Stockholm wrote:
huh??? where does the report suggest handing school boards over to the religious lobby? I think you're really losing our marbles if you are reading that into this.

Maybe Unionist thinks that expanding kindergarten from half day to full day next year is "worse than nothing". I suspect that hundreds of thousands of struggling parents of 4 and 5 year olds would be overjoyed not to have to pay for private unregulated child care for half the day and be able to lave their kids at school all day while they work.

Schools boards are elected, and if there is money to be hd for NGO's and FPO's deriving from the school boards, or even possibly deriving from the schoools, then there will vicious contests to control the school boards.

And please do keep personal commentaries out of this like loosing your marbles stock, in order to try and defame...seriously, it is digusting.

Anyhow carrying on, I know the bid, that is going on across Canada to privatize all government services, or as many as possible. Here in BC, a significant amount of the privatization contracts when to religious organizations.  And they have moved into to take over hospital boards, schools boards, etc, especially when they know their orgs can get government contracts.

So when you have a report for new government services, that already contains sections refering to contracting out, you know that is what exactly will happen, first and foremost.

Wanting to blindly/naively believe in something contrary to what we all know is occuring is fool hardy, and lacks any political awareness, when a great deal is needed.

I am not going to bother responding to early learning's posts, as I believe said person is being more disengenuous than stock, is.

Pages

Topic locked