Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Organizational Responses Canadian Centre for Policy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study highlights ‘uncomfortable truth’ about racism in the job market December 12, 2018
    "Racialized workers in Ontario are significantly more likely to be concentrated in low-wage jobs and face persistent unemployment and earnings gaps compared to white employees — pointing to the “uncomfortable truth” about racism in the job market, according to a new study." Read the Toronto Star's coverage of our updated colour-coded labour market report, released […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Early learning and child care strategies

For as long as I can remember (i.e. when I was a kid) Ontario has had junior kindergarten for four-year-olds. It is mostly half-day, I think, as is senior kindergarten for five-year olds. Here in BC they just have one kindergarten for five-year-olds, and is generally two-and-a-half to three hours per day.

In the recent BC Throne Speech, the government announced something very interesting. Here’s the text:

A new Early Childhood Learning Agency will be established. It will assess the feasibility and costs of full school day kindergarten for five-year-olds. It will also undertake a feasibility study of providing parents with the choice of day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010, and for three-year-olds by 2012. That report will be completed and released within the year.

This proposal has been somewhat divisive for advocates of child care in BC. Some are supporting it, some not. This was the basis of a front-page Vancouver Sun article on the weekend (which also addressed the roll-out of drop-in early learning “StrongStart” centres). One prominent child care advocate and Vancouver School Board trustee, Sharon Gregson, says:

“Most people would agree that the time has come for full-day kindergarten … Two hours and 15 minutes of morning or afternoon kindergarten doesn’t serve anybody well.”

But interestingly, the BC Teachers’ Federation has come out against the proposal:

The B.C. Teachers’ Federation is strongly opposed to kindergarten for children younger than five and worries about the government’s push for early learning in StrongStart centres. The union says children need social supports and well-funded, accessible daycare rather than early learning centres that stress letters and numbers.

“If a child is well fed, has decent housing, has good social supports, has medical and dental support and has good, high-quality daycare … they will be ready for kindergarten,” president Irene Lanzinger said in an interview. “Readiness isn’t knowing how to read or do your numbers because there’s lots of time for that.” Children under five should concentrate on play, she added.

This seems puzzling to me. First of all, why would a union oppose action that would increase its membership, and in particular, unionize workers in the early learning and child care field who are woefully underpaid. Second, in policy terms, I think this dichotomy between work and play is a false one. My experience as an observer is that the best early learning environments are a mix of work and play (this is certainly true of existing kindergartens) and that learning-through-play is an ideal as espoused in popular Montessori programs, etc.

Finally, it sets up the classic dynamic of labour force participation on the part of (mostly) mothers (“baby sitting”) versus early childhood development (“education”), when really a good system would do both. But the key is in the politics: the BC government has demonstrated essentially no interest in expanding the patchwork of child care as we know it, but this new tack may in fact undercut the issue of child care from the opposition NDP. My prediction is an “education budget” next year prior to the next scheduled provincial election.

So, backing this proposal may in fact be the most politically feasible means of expanding early learning and child care down at least to three-year-olds (there would still be missing pieces, including one and two-year-olds and after-school care). My (untested) assumption is that a roll-out based on an education theme is more likely to be a political winner than just “child care”. After all, no one calls the K-12 system “child care”; that is just one of the side benefits.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Sara Landriault
Time: April 7, 2008, 6:10 am

There is a simple answer to why the unions don’t want kindergarten. Daycare workers are not teachers and it will put them out of work.

Though i agree there should not be 4 year old kindergarten, I do not agree with the unions.
Daycare workers deserve the right to work and get paid, but not off the back of children that are at home with their parents.

Write a comment





Related articles