Early Learning and Child Care in Saskatchewan - University of Regina
Early Learning and Child Care in Saskatchewan - University of Regina
Early Learning and Child Care in Saskatchewan - University of Regina
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> Institute <strong>of</strong> Public PolicyPublic Policy Paper Series<strong>Early</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong><strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>:Past, Present <strong>and</strong> Futureby Martha FriendlyOctober 2005Public Policy Paper 36$5.00; ISBN# 0-7731-0540-9SIPPwww.ureg<strong>in</strong>a.ca/sipp
<strong>Early</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>:Past, Present <strong>and</strong> FutureSIPP Public Policy Paper No. 36October 2005Martha Friendly<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> TorontoISBN# 0-7731-0540-9ISSN# 1702-7802
Everybody now underst<strong>and</strong>s......that early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care fused together is thek<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> objective which any civilized society strives for…that it becomes an<strong>in</strong>dispensable <strong>and</strong> vital dimension <strong>of</strong> a child’s life, enhanc<strong>in</strong>g all <strong>of</strong> the familycharacteristics which shore up the child but pr<strong>of</strong>oundly <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the mostpositive imag<strong>in</strong>able way the opportunities for the child...Stephen Lewis, speak<strong>in</strong>g at <strong>Child</strong>care for a Change!, a national policy conference,W<strong>in</strong>nipeg, 2004Great ExpectationsThe past year has been a time <strong>of</strong> great expectations for Canadian child care advocates <strong>and</strong>for parents <strong>of</strong> young children. Preceded by two decades <strong>of</strong> political promises to improve childcare, <strong>in</strong> 2004 Paul Mart<strong>in</strong>’s Liberals promised that if elected they would put a national earlylearn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care (ELCC) system <strong>in</strong> place. This program – called “Foundations” – was tobe built <strong>in</strong> collaboration with the prov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories over time. The election platform said thatit would be based upon four pr<strong>in</strong>ciples – Quality, Universality, Accessibility <strong>and</strong> Developmental(programm<strong>in</strong>g) or “QUAD” (Liberal Party <strong>of</strong> Canada, 2004:29). After the election, earlylearn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care rema<strong>in</strong>ed a high priority 1 .In the spr<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 2005, the m<strong>in</strong>ority federal government began to sign bilateral agreementswith prov<strong>in</strong>ces to beg<strong>in</strong> to put the ELCC program <strong>in</strong> place, <strong>and</strong> the March 2005 federal budgetcommitted to $5 billion over five years. On 29 April 2005 <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> was one <strong>of</strong> the firstprov<strong>in</strong>ces to sign an agreement (Government <strong>of</strong> Canada <strong>and</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>,2005). Under this agreement-<strong>in</strong>-pr<strong>in</strong>ciple, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> will get $29 million <strong>in</strong> 2005-2006. Likethe other prov<strong>in</strong>ces, subsequent payments will be transferred after submission <strong>of</strong> a more detailedplan <strong>of</strong> action. The <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> plan is scheduled to be submitted by December 2005 <strong>and</strong>transfer payments, <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g to $44.6 million <strong>in</strong> 2009-2010, will follow.1 It should be noted that while commitments to improve ELCC have been made before, <strong>and</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the same arguments havebeen used s<strong>in</strong>ce the 1960s to justify its provision, with the exception <strong>of</strong> the Multilateral Framework on <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong>car (2003) no previous commitment has moved beyond the promise stage to implementation.1
systems, but most <strong>of</strong> the other western European nations as well. Few Canadian three, four or evenfive year olds have the early childhood opportunities available to children <strong>in</strong> countries with betterdeveloped public policies. Although 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> Canadian mothers with a youngest child 3-5years old are <strong>in</strong> the paid labour force, child care programs to support this are available for less than15 per cent (estimated) <strong>of</strong> Canadian preschool-age children (Friendly <strong>and</strong> Beach, 2005).Part <strong>of</strong> the current context for ELCC has been the keen <strong>in</strong>ternational <strong>in</strong>terest generated by itspotential to achieve a variety <strong>of</strong> societal goals such as lifelong learn<strong>in</strong>g, women’s equality, social<strong>in</strong>tegration, amelioration <strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>and</strong> economic prosperity. The work on ELCC by the OECD’sEducation <strong>and</strong> Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Division exemplifies this. Its review <strong>of</strong> Canada was the 17 th <strong>in</strong> a multicountryThematic Review conducted between 1998 <strong>and</strong> 2004. While the report covered all <strong>of</strong>Canada, four prov<strong>in</strong>ces (Pr<strong>in</strong>ce Edward Isl<strong>and</strong>, British Columbia, Manitoba <strong>and</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>) werereviewed more <strong>in</strong>tensively, as they hosted program visits <strong>and</strong> meet<strong>in</strong>gs with government <strong>and</strong>community ELCC experts. The OECD report showed that Canada has fallen far beh<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>ternationaldevelopments <strong>in</strong> early childhood education <strong>and</strong> observed that Canadian policy approaches to ELCCat both national <strong>and</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>cial levels are <strong>in</strong>coherent <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>effective, that ELCC programs areseverely underf<strong>in</strong>anced, <strong>and</strong> that neither quality nor access are adequate (OECD, 2004).The Canadian ContextWhile we know that ELCC provision for Canada as a whole lags far beh<strong>in</strong>d that <strong>of</strong> manyother countries, with<strong>in</strong> Canada, prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial development <strong>and</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> ELCCprograms is so unevenly developed that the term “patchwork” is not merely rhetorical. This is, atleast <strong>in</strong> part, a consequence <strong>of</strong> Canada’s approach to federalism (Friendly, 2001). Theconventions <strong>of</strong> Canadian federalism mean that early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care (like other health,3
social <strong>and</strong> education programs) is def<strong>in</strong>ed as the responsibility <strong>of</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorialgovernments. Indeed, <strong>in</strong> the years between the term<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the Canada Assistance Plan <strong>in</strong>1996 3 <strong>and</strong> federal/prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial agreement on a Multilateral Framework on <strong>Early</strong><strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> <strong>in</strong> 2003, there was no significant federal <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> early learn<strong>in</strong>g<strong>and</strong> child care.Experience with Medicare illustrates that prov<strong>in</strong>cially-delivered social programs can bebound together by national pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>and</strong> policy frameworks to create a “national” approach thatgoes a long way to provid<strong>in</strong>g Canadians with some basic assurances <strong>of</strong> equivalent access. Whilethere are some similarities between Medicare <strong>and</strong> the emerg<strong>in</strong>g ELCC program, such asoverarch<strong>in</strong>g general pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>and</strong> federal f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g, the environment <strong>of</strong> federalism that becameentrenched <strong>in</strong> the 1990s 4 has not lent itself to the strong federal leadership that created theCanada Health Act. Thus, the process <strong>of</strong> putt<strong>in</strong>g the “national” ELCC program <strong>in</strong> place is basedvery much on negotiation between Ottawa <strong>and</strong> the prov<strong>in</strong>ces. The commitments are shared <strong>and</strong>agreed to at a common table; there is a “shared vision” <strong>and</strong> shared pr<strong>in</strong>ciples; prov<strong>in</strong>cialreport<strong>in</strong>g is to each prov<strong>in</strong>ce’s respective “public” rather than to the federal government; <strong>and</strong>there is a shared federal/prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial work on knowledge, <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>and</strong> effectivepractices such as evaluation, a National Quality Framework <strong>and</strong> a strategy for data. The ma<strong>in</strong>condition set out by the federal government is that the federal funds be spent <strong>in</strong> regulated 5 earlylearn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care programs for children under age six that are not part <strong>of</strong> the formal school3 The Canada Assistance Plan, Canada’s national welfare program, was <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> 1966 <strong>and</strong> term<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> 1996. Its welfareorientedchild care provisions which provided 50-50 cost-shar<strong>in</strong>g to prov<strong>in</strong>ces laid the groundwork for today’s child careprovision with its reliance on a fee subsidy system.4 Dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1990s, Canada’s approach to social programs became more decentralized as federal transfer payments were reduced<strong>and</strong> specified fund<strong>in</strong>g programs were replaced with block fund<strong>in</strong>g (the CHST). This culm<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> the Social Union FrameworkAgreement (SUFA) <strong>in</strong> 1999. SUFA stated that new national social programs would not be <strong>in</strong>itiated without the agreement <strong>of</strong> amajority <strong>of</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>ces; that is, not by the federal government as Medicare was. For an analysis <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> this on ELCC seeFriendly, 2001.5 With regard to child care, “regulated” is understood to mean meet<strong>in</strong>g specified prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial st<strong>and</strong>ards with mechanismsfor monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> enforcement.4
system. With<strong>in</strong> this loose framework, how each prov<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>and</strong> territory develops its own ELCCprogram will be critical.What Does <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Mean?“<strong>Early</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care”, not “early learn<strong>in</strong>g” <strong>and</strong> “child care”The term “early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care” or “early childhood education <strong>and</strong> care” (ECEC)refers to what <strong>in</strong> Canada are multiple programs – child care (or day care), nursery schools,k<strong>in</strong>dergarten <strong>and</strong> parts <strong>of</strong> parent<strong>in</strong>g programs 6 . Over the years, the idea that these should bedelivered as one seamless program (“early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care”) has ga<strong>in</strong>ed considerablecurrency <strong>in</strong> Canada (Colley, 2005, OISE-UT, 2005). Generally, ELCC programs are moreseamless <strong>in</strong> many other countries than they are <strong>in</strong> Canada, where k<strong>in</strong>dergarten for five year oldsis usually part day <strong>and</strong> where the ma<strong>in</strong> ECEC programs – k<strong>in</strong>dergarten, preschool or nurseryschool, <strong>and</strong> child care are usually dist<strong>in</strong>ctly separated, not <strong>in</strong>tegrated (that is, “early learn<strong>in</strong>g” <strong>and</strong>“child care”).There is also strong support for the idea that ELCC programs should be accessible to allchildren whether they are from low or middle <strong>in</strong>come families, typically develop<strong>in</strong>g or not,whether or not the mother is <strong>in</strong> the workforce, <strong>and</strong> whether they live <strong>in</strong> downtown Toronto, rural<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, or a northern Métis community – that is, they should be universal. Public op<strong>in</strong>ionpolls show a high level <strong>of</strong> public support for this idea (Environics, 1998; Elliot, 2001; <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong>Advocacy Association/<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Federation, 2003).F<strong>in</strong>ally, a pert<strong>in</strong>ent question is “What is ‘early learn<strong>in</strong>g’¨? Does this mean that elementaryschool<strong>in</strong>g should be pushed down several years to produce “early literacy” or “school6 While all these programs are considered to be part <strong>of</strong> ELCC, <strong>in</strong> this paper, most <strong>of</strong> the data refer to regulated child care; data onother ELCC programs are even less available than data on child care.5
ead<strong>in</strong>ess”? While the idea <strong>of</strong> early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> current popular culture <strong>of</strong>ten connotes theserather narrow goals, the early childhood education field generally conceives <strong>of</strong> school success asonly one among multiple goals 7 . Indeed, there is considerable discussion <strong>in</strong> the early childhoodliterature about how ideas about the nature <strong>of</strong> the child <strong>in</strong>tersect with the goals <strong>of</strong> early childhoodeducation programs – that is whether the child is an active learner <strong>and</strong> a citizen <strong>in</strong> his own rightor an “adult <strong>in</strong> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g” (Cohen, Moss, Petrie <strong>and</strong> Wallance, 2004).One characteristic that has dist<strong>in</strong>guished Canada from countries with better developedELCC systems is the absence <strong>of</strong> a clearly articulated ELCC vision or goals at either the federalor prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial levels. Over the past few decades, Canadian rationales for ELCC haveswung back <strong>and</strong> forth among life-long learn<strong>in</strong>g, school read<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>and</strong> child development toemployability, women's equality, balanc<strong>in</strong>g work <strong>and</strong> family, reduc<strong>in</strong>g poverty, alleviat<strong>in</strong>g atriskstatus <strong>and</strong> social <strong>in</strong>tegration. These multiple rationales fall <strong>in</strong>to four broad policy goals: childdevelopment/lifelong learn<strong>in</strong>g, parents’ employment, social <strong>in</strong>tegration, <strong>and</strong> equity 8 . However,the prom<strong>in</strong>ence <strong>of</strong> these rationales <strong>and</strong> goals have tended to be serial <strong>and</strong>, like the rest <strong>of</strong> theELCC l<strong>and</strong>scape, fragmented.Neither nationally nor prov<strong>in</strong>cially has there been the k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> “published <strong>and</strong> coherentstatement <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>tent for care <strong>and</strong> education services to young children from birth to six years…set[t<strong>in</strong>g] out pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, specify[<strong>in</strong>g] objectives <strong>and</strong> def<strong>in</strong>[<strong>in</strong>g] objectives” recommended by theEuropean Commission <strong>Child</strong>care Network (2004:12). The OECD experts also commented onthis <strong>in</strong> their review <strong>of</strong> Canada: “We propose recommendations to stimulate discussion amonggovernments, policy makers, researchers <strong>and</strong> other stakeholders…This we believe is a first task,7 A good example <strong>of</strong> this can be found <strong>in</strong> a position paper by the British Columbia <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Child</strong>hood Education Prov<strong>in</strong>cialArticulation Committee: “In the early childhood education sector, the word read<strong>in</strong>ess is troublesome <strong>and</strong> has been activelyavoided <strong>in</strong> a philosophy <strong>of</strong> care with a developmental focus.that precludes discrim<strong>in</strong>ation between ‘ready’ <strong>and</strong> ‘not ready’ (Coalition <strong>of</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Advocates <strong>of</strong> British Columbia, 2005).8 See the <strong>Child</strong>care Resource <strong>and</strong> Research Unit website at www.childcarecanada.org for a fuller description <strong>of</strong> these four ELCCgoals.6
oth at the federal <strong>and</strong> the prov<strong>in</strong>cial level: to sit down together to conceptualize a coherent,long-term vision for each prov<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>and</strong> country as a whole, based on the best available evidence<strong>and</strong> prioritized <strong>in</strong>to def<strong>in</strong>ed steps <strong>and</strong> time frames” (OECD, 2004:69).ELCC <strong>in</strong> Saskatachewan: Demographic ContextThe demographic context is a key backdrop to underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g ELCC.Demographics such as child population, mothers’ labour force participation, child poverty, <strong>and</strong>diversity all not only play a role <strong>in</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the need <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> for services but are useful forassess<strong>in</strong>g the adequacy <strong>and</strong> appropriateness <strong>of</strong> policies <strong>and</strong> programs. The follow<strong>in</strong>g section providesrelevant <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> demographic data <strong>and</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g national data to set the context 9 .<strong>Child</strong> PopulationIn Canada, the number <strong>of</strong> preschool age children has been dropp<strong>in</strong>g for some years.Nationally, the 0-5 population decreased 9 per cent between 1992 <strong>and</strong> 2003; <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, itdecreased by 19 per cent <strong>in</strong> the same period. Birth rates across Canada ranged from 9.2 to 12.4 per1000; <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, the birth rate was 11.8 per 1000. In <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> <strong>in</strong> 2003, there were atotal <strong>of</strong> 34,100 children aged 0-2 years; 35,100 aged 3-5 years; <strong>and</strong>, 91,100 aged 6-12 years.Mothers’ Labour Force ParticipationOver the past two decades, the labour force participation rate <strong>of</strong> mothers <strong>of</strong> youngchildren has <strong>in</strong>creased year after year. Nationally, it <strong>in</strong>creased for mothers with children <strong>in</strong> allage groups between 1992 <strong>and</strong> 2003 – up 8 per cent with a youngest child 0-2; up 7 per cent witha youngest child 3-5; <strong>and</strong> up 6 per cent with a youngest child aged 6-15. <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> has one<strong>of</strong> the higher prov<strong>in</strong>cial labour force participation rates for mothers with young children. AsTable 1 shows, <strong>in</strong> 2003, it exceeded the national average <strong>in</strong> two <strong>of</strong> the three age categories.9 The source for the data <strong>in</strong> this section is <strong>Child</strong>care Resource <strong>and</strong> Research Unit, 2005 <strong>and</strong> Friendly <strong>and</strong> Beach, 2005.7
Table 1 Youngest child 0-2 Youngest child 3-5 Youngest child 6-15years (%)years (%)years (%)National 69 75 82<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> 67 77 86In 2003, 20,600 children aged 0-2 years, 22,200 children aged 3-5 years, <strong>and</strong> 63,600children 6-15 years <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> had mothers <strong>in</strong> the paid labour force. Compared to othercountries, Canada has a high labour force participation rate for mothers with young children. Forexample, <strong>in</strong> France the labour force participation for mothers with at least one child less thanthree years was 55 per cent <strong>in</strong> 2001; <strong>in</strong> Australia it was 47 per cent for mothers with at least onechild under three years <strong>in</strong> 2000.<strong>Child</strong>ren Identify<strong>in</strong>g with an Aborig<strong>in</strong>al GroupA key demographic feature <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> is its large Aborig<strong>in</strong>al population. Nationaldata show that the proportion <strong>of</strong> the child population <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> with an Aborig<strong>in</strong>alidentity is larger than it is <strong>in</strong> Canada as a whole (about 25 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> 0-4 year oldswere identified with an Aborig<strong>in</strong>al group compared to about 5 per cent <strong>of</strong> 0-4 year olds forCanada as a whole). In 2001, there were 16,785 <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> children aged 0-4 years <strong>and</strong>17,885 children aged 5-9 years identify<strong>in</strong>g with an Aborig<strong>in</strong>al group.<strong>Child</strong> PovertyA commonly used measure <strong>of</strong> child poverty is the proportion <strong>of</strong> children liv<strong>in</strong>g belowStatistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off (LICO). Although there are criticisms <strong>of</strong> the LICO, it isused here as it is the most commonly used Canadian poverty measure. From this perspective, thenational child poverty average is about 15 per cent, with considerable variation among prov<strong>in</strong>ces.Recent immigrants <strong>and</strong> Aborig<strong>in</strong>al families are overrepresented <strong>in</strong> poverty figures. As Table 28
shows, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s child poverty rate is quite high; for children aged 3-5 years, it is thehighest among the prov<strong>in</strong>ces.Table 2 Percent <strong>of</strong> children aged 0-2 Percent <strong>of</strong> children aged 3-years below the LICO 5 years below the LICOOther prov<strong>in</strong>ces (range) 11.6 - 28.3 ( range)11.2 - 26.8<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> 21.5 (7,100 children) 26.8 (9,200 children)The Present: Tak<strong>in</strong>g Stock <strong>of</strong> <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>An Overview <strong>of</strong> Programs, Access, F<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> QualityThe follow<strong>in</strong>g section provides an overview <strong>of</strong> the current ELCC situation <strong>in</strong><strong>Saskatchewan</strong> to the extent that data are available 10 . It should be noted that one concern aboutthe overall ELCC situation <strong>in</strong> Canada is the absence <strong>of</strong> comparable, consistent, <strong>and</strong> regularlycollected data, particularly data that shed light on quality issues. The issue <strong>of</strong> data is addressed<strong>in</strong> the federal/prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial agreements, with commitments to common <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>in</strong>specified areas, <strong>and</strong> funds were set aside <strong>in</strong> the 2005 budget for a data strategy.What Programs are Available Nationally <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>?K<strong>in</strong>dergartenNationallyFive year olds – All p/ts provide atleast universal part-day (several haveuniversal full-day every day)Four year olds – Only Ontario hasuniversal, usually part-day. Severalp/ts provide limited targeted programs.Usually an entitlement<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>Five year olds –Universal part dayFour <strong>and</strong> three year olds – Pre-Kprogram, targeted to at-risk children.An estimated 1,500 three <strong>and</strong> fouryear olds were enrolled <strong>in</strong> pre-K <strong>in</strong>2003/04.Not an entitlement – at school boarddiscretion10 The sources for the data <strong>in</strong> this section are <strong>Child</strong>care Resource <strong>and</strong> Research Unit, 2005; Friendly <strong>and</strong> Beach, 2005.9
<strong>Child</strong> careAll p/ts regulate <strong>and</strong> provide somefund<strong>in</strong>g for centres, family day care,school-age, primarily <strong>in</strong> the form <strong>of</strong>fee subsidies for low <strong>in</strong>come families.<strong>Child</strong> care centres, family day care,school-age day careregulated <strong>and</strong> some fund<strong>in</strong>g –primarily fee subsidies – provided.__________Preschool/nurseryschool_______Other -Aborig<strong>in</strong>alHead Start(on <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>freserve)All p/ts permit for-pr<strong>of</strong>it, most providesome fund<strong>in</strong>g for for-pr<strong>of</strong>itsMajority regulate <strong>and</strong> fund on-reservechild careNever an entitlement_______________Most p/ts regulate part-daypreschools/nursery schools under childcare legislation______________________________Available through Health Canada,<strong>in</strong>clude part-day early childhoodeducation programs (which may ormay not be regulated) as well as otherelements for Aborig<strong>in</strong>al children <strong>and</strong>familiesFor-pr<strong>of</strong>it permitted, no fund<strong>in</strong>g.(Currently there are no for-pr<strong>of</strong>itsoperat<strong>in</strong>g)On-reserve child care is neitherregulated nor funded by the prov<strong>in</strong>cebut is under the aegis <strong>of</strong> theFederation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> IndianNations.Not an entitlement_____________Part-day preschools not regulated__________________________Both on <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>f reserve Aborig<strong>in</strong>alHead Start programs may be providedAccess (Percent <strong>of</strong> children 0-12 for whom a regulated space is available - Coverage)Nationally, there are enough regulated child care spaces for 15.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> the childpopulation aged 0-12. There is a considerable range, however, among the prov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories.As Figure 1 shows, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s coverage is the lowest, at 4.9 per cent <strong>of</strong> the child population0-12 (the next lowest <strong>in</strong> Newfoundl<strong>and</strong> with 6.8 per cent). The highest coverage is <strong>in</strong> Quebec,where there are enough spaces to cover 29.9 per cent <strong>of</strong> children aged 0-12.10
Figure 1. Percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Child</strong>ren Aged 0-12 for Whom a Regulated <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Spaceis Available by Prov<strong>in</strong>ce/Territory 2004Overall, coverage <strong>in</strong>creased nationally by 8 per cent <strong>in</strong> the period 1992-2004. This,however, is distorted by Quebec, where coverage <strong>in</strong>creased much more rapidly than theaverage. 11As Figure 2 shows, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> coverage – 1.8 per cent <strong>in</strong> the twelveyears – was the lowest <strong>in</strong>crease after Alberta’s, where coverage deceased.Figure 2. Percentage Increase/Decrease <strong>in</strong> Coverage (Percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Child</strong>ren for whom a Regulated<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Space was Available by Prov<strong>in</strong>ce/Territory 1992-200411 Quebec began to develop a universal ELCC program <strong>in</strong> 1998. As the program <strong>in</strong>cluded very significant expansion <strong>of</strong> spaces<strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives to improve quality, Quebec data now skews the cross-Canada averages.11
Across Canada as a whole, there were 373,678 more regulated spaces <strong>in</strong> 2004 than <strong>in</strong>1992. However, Quebec’s massive <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> spaces distorts this figure. Outside Quebec, theoverall <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> spaces was 130,337 <strong>in</strong> that period. In <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, there wasan <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>of</strong> 1,492 regulated spaces over the 12-year period from 1992-2004.F<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>gTotal Budget Allocations for Regulated <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> (unadjusted) 1992-2004In 2004, total prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial spend<strong>in</strong>g for regulated child care was $2.4 billion, but<strong>of</strong> this total, Quebec’s spend<strong>in</strong>g represents 65 per cent. Outside Quebec, total prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial spend<strong>in</strong>g on regulated child care was $842 million. There was considerable variation <strong>in</strong>the amount <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>crease between 1992 <strong>and</strong> 2004 among prov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories; the range (exclud<strong>in</strong>gQuebec) was from a more than five-fold (500 per cent) <strong>in</strong>crease (<strong>in</strong> Newfoundl<strong>and</strong>) to –20 percent (a decrease, <strong>in</strong> Alberta).<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> spent $12.3 million on regulated child care <strong>in</strong> 1992; this <strong>in</strong>creased to $19.6million <strong>in</strong> 2004, an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>of</strong> about 60 per cent. As a po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> contrast, Manitoba, with arelatively similar child population, demographics, <strong>and</strong> prairie traditions, spent $73 million <strong>in</strong>2004, up 73 per cent from $42.2 <strong>in</strong> 1992.Allocation for Each <strong>Child</strong> 0-12 years 2004 12Nationally, the range <strong>of</strong> public dollars spent on regulated child care for each child 0-12 isfrom $104 to $1,448 <strong>in</strong> 2004 (the highest, Quebec, distorts the average somewhat).<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> spends $123, the lowest after Alberta.12 This was calculated by divid<strong>in</strong>g the total prov<strong>in</strong>cial budget for regulated child care by the number <strong>of</strong> children aged 0-12 years.12
QualityAllocation for Each Regulated Space 2004 13Nationally, the average spend<strong>in</strong>g per regulated child care space was $3,223 <strong>in</strong> 2004. Therange, however, is substantial, with Quebec’s spend<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong> distort<strong>in</strong>g the cross-Canadaaverage; the range is $816 per regulated space (<strong>in</strong> Alberta) to $4,849 <strong>in</strong> Quebec. Sevenprov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories spent less than $2,000 per regulated space.While six prov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories spent less per regulated space <strong>in</strong> 2004 than they did <strong>in</strong>2001, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> was not among them. <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s spend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> $2,483 was an <strong>in</strong>crease<strong>of</strong> $565 (<strong>in</strong> unadjusted dollars) from $1,918 <strong>in</strong> 1992.AuspiceNationally, <strong>in</strong> 2004, 80 per cent <strong>of</strong> all regulated child care was operated on a not-forpr<strong>of</strong>itbasis 14 , an <strong>in</strong>crease from about 70 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total <strong>in</strong> 1992. There is considerablevariation among prov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories on this variable, with a majority <strong>of</strong> child care provided byfor-pr<strong>of</strong>it operators <strong>in</strong> some <strong>and</strong> fund<strong>in</strong>g for for-pr<strong>of</strong>it provision not available <strong>in</strong> others. While<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s legislation permits for-pr<strong>of</strong>it operation <strong>of</strong> regulated child care, fund<strong>in</strong>g for it isnot available. In practice, there was no for-pr<strong>of</strong>it child care <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> <strong>in</strong> 2004.Human ResourcesThe importance for quality <strong>of</strong> staff tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> early childhood education as well as otherhuman resource issues such as wages <strong>and</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g conditions has been well documented <strong>in</strong>research (for example, see Whitebook, 2003). No Canadian jurisdiction requires all child care13 These figures were calculated by divid<strong>in</strong>g the total prov<strong>in</strong>cial budget for regulated child care by the number <strong>of</strong> regulated childcare spaces.14 Here “not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it” <strong>in</strong>cludes both private non-pr<strong>of</strong>it (community-based, co-op or voluntary organization) or publiclyoperated. Publicly operated child care is found only <strong>in</strong> Ontario, where about 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> spaces are operated by municipalgovernments, Quebec, where school-age child care is operated by school authorities <strong>and</strong> two centres <strong>in</strong> Alberta (Jasper <strong>and</strong>Beaumont). Research shows that not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it child care is more likely to provide good quality than for-pr<strong>of</strong>it child care(Prentice, <strong>in</strong> preparation).13
staff to have a post-secondary credential <strong>and</strong> none requires university-level tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. The length<strong>of</strong> tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> early childhood education required for (some) staff <strong>in</strong> regulated child care rangesfrom none to a community college diploma or certificate <strong>of</strong> one to three years.<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> recently <strong>in</strong>creased its ECE tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g requirements so that by January 2005, 30per cent <strong>of</strong> all staff <strong>in</strong> a centre had to have a one year certificate <strong>in</strong> child care or equivalent; byJanuary 2007, a two year diploma or equivalent will be required for an additional 20 per cent <strong>of</strong> staff.DiscussionAs the first sections <strong>of</strong> this paper po<strong>in</strong>ted out, comparative policy research such as theOECD Thematic Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Child</strong>hood Education <strong>and</strong> <strong>Care</strong> has documented how Canadaas a whole has poorly developed ELCC. Further, as the <strong>in</strong>terprov<strong>in</strong>cial comparison shows,<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s ELCC situation is one <strong>of</strong> the more poorly developed with<strong>in</strong> Canada from theperspectives <strong>of</strong> quality, f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> access. The demographic data show that <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>has a high rate <strong>of</strong> women who are mothers <strong>of</strong> young children <strong>in</strong> the paid labour force, a highchild poverty rate, <strong>and</strong> a larger than average child Aborig<strong>in</strong>al population.<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, like other prov<strong>in</strong>ces, <strong>of</strong>fers public k<strong>in</strong>dergarten to provide early childhoodeducation for five year olds but as that program is part-day, it is unlikely to meet the needs <strong>of</strong>many work<strong>in</strong>g parents. As well, the enrollment <strong>of</strong> the pre-K program specifically targeted to “atrisk” three <strong>and</strong> four year olds – an estimated 1,500 children – is considerably below the 9,2003-5 year olds liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> families with <strong>in</strong>comes below the LICO. Neither do the pre-K programsoperate for a long enough day to provide child care arrangements for mothers <strong>in</strong> the paid labourforce, <strong>in</strong> job tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, or <strong>in</strong> school.14
It is <strong>in</strong> the area <strong>of</strong> regulated child care where <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s provision is particularlyunderdeveloped. At 4.9 per cent coverage, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s regulated child care coverage is thelowest <strong>in</strong> Canada. The <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> supply <strong>in</strong> the last decade or so (1992-2004) has been very slow –an average <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>of</strong> only 124 spaces a year or a total <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>of</strong> less than 1,500 regulated spaces<strong>in</strong> a twelve year period. With regard to overall f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g for child care, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> thelow spenders <strong>in</strong> Canada, spend<strong>in</strong>g only $123 per child aged 0-12.It should be noted that theavailable supply <strong>of</strong> regulated child care <strong>in</strong> most prov<strong>in</strong>ces <strong>in</strong>cludes a complement <strong>of</strong> part-daypreschool or nursery school spaces. While regulation is considered to be a prerequisite for goodquality ELCC programs, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> does not regulate these (Friendly <strong>and</strong> Beach, 2005).Access to early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care means that not only must a space be available butthe parent must have the f<strong>in</strong>ancial means to have access to it. In all jurisdictions except Quebec,a system <strong>of</strong> fee subsidies for eligible low <strong>in</strong>come families is <strong>in</strong>tended to allow f<strong>in</strong>ancial access toregulated child care. In <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, 3,716 children 0-12 years were subsidized <strong>in</strong> March 2004(3,662 <strong>in</strong> December 1992; 3,683 <strong>in</strong> March 1995; 3,634 <strong>in</strong> 1998; 3,684 <strong>in</strong> 2001). Two elements <strong>of</strong>the fee subsidy system, <strong>in</strong> particular, have an impact on access – the <strong>in</strong>come eligibility level <strong>and</strong>whether there is a surcharge. In <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, a family earn<strong>in</strong>g up to $21,000 gross <strong>in</strong>come(one or two parents <strong>and</strong> two children) can be “fully subsidized”. But after be<strong>in</strong>g granted the fullsubsidy, the family will be surcharged a m<strong>in</strong>imum <strong>of</strong> 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> the fee. 15Average spend<strong>in</strong>g per regulated space is related to quality; that is, low or <strong>in</strong>adequatef<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g makes it difficult for a child care program to deliver a high quality program. Between2001-2004, six prov<strong>in</strong>ces experienced a drop <strong>in</strong> spend<strong>in</strong>g per regulated space; <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> wasnot among them. However, public spend<strong>in</strong>g per regulated space <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> is still quitelow at $2,483 per space (calculated). This <strong>in</strong>cludes operational fund<strong>in</strong>g equivalent to $775 per15 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to prov<strong>in</strong>cial <strong>of</strong>ficials, the average surcharge to a subsidized family is 30-40 per cent above the fee.15
staff <strong>in</strong> centres as well as a maximum monthly subsidy paid to a centre to care for a preschoolagechild <strong>of</strong> $255 a month; the subsidy is $355 per <strong>in</strong>fant (Friendly <strong>and</strong> Beach, 2005).F<strong>in</strong>ally, with regard to ELCC staff, the heart <strong>of</strong> a high quality early childhood program,<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> was one <strong>of</strong> the few prov<strong>in</strong>ces to <strong>in</strong>crease its early childhood tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g requirementsfor child care centres <strong>in</strong> the last few years. Nevertheless, they are still quite low, even amongCanadian jurisdictions, which all have relatively low ECE tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g requirements 16 .How these characteristics affect the quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s regulated child careprograms is unknown as Canadian data on the quality <strong>of</strong> early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care are notregularly collected. In the only Canada-wide study <strong>of</strong> quality, which <strong>in</strong>cluded observational data 17(collected <strong>in</strong> seven prov<strong>in</strong>ces/territories <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>), at one po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> time, 1998,<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s mean rat<strong>in</strong>gs on widely-used quality assessment tools were 4.1 (ECERS-R), 4.2(ITERS) <strong>and</strong> 4.5 (FIDCRS) (Goelman, Doherty, Lero, Lagrange <strong>and</strong> Tougas, 2000). It should benoted that quality <strong>in</strong> the pre-K programs appears to be higher; <strong>in</strong> a longitud<strong>in</strong>al study <strong>of</strong> theeffectiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s pre-K programs, the ECERS-R (designed to be used <strong>in</strong> child carecentres) was used <strong>in</strong> 10 Reg<strong>in</strong>a pre-Ks. In a first observation, the total mean score was 5.94; it roseto 6.21 <strong>in</strong> a second observation (Krentz, McNaughton <strong>and</strong> Warkent<strong>in</strong>, 2002). (In these scales, ascore <strong>of</strong> 3 is considered “m<strong>in</strong>imal”, 5 “good” <strong>and</strong> 7 is the highest possible score; 1 is the lowest.)It has been observed that a general weakness <strong>of</strong> Canadian child care is that itsdevelopment has followed a market model (<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Advocacy Association <strong>of</strong> Canada, 2004).That is, there is little or no public responsibility for overall service plann<strong>in</strong>g or for develop<strong>in</strong>g orma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g services. To some extent, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>of</strong> this market approach has been justified by16 Post-secondary early childhood education tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g is a key predictor <strong>of</strong> quality <strong>in</strong> child care centres.17 The study, You Bet I <strong>Care</strong>! Used several widely used <strong>in</strong>struments to collect rat<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> observed quality, the <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Child</strong>hoodEnvironmental Rat<strong>in</strong>g Scale (ECERS-R), the Infant-Toddler Environmental Rat<strong>in</strong>g Scale (ITERS, the Family Day <strong>Care</strong> Rat<strong>in</strong>gScale (FIDCRS) <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Care</strong>giver Interaction Scale. Data were collected <strong>in</strong> 1998.16
the idea <strong>of</strong> parental choice; that is, by the idea that as some parents prefer to use unregulatedELCC arrangements - perhaps provided by relatives or friends - or not to use any form <strong>of</strong> ELCCoutside the nuclear family, it is <strong>in</strong>appropriate for government to support the development <strong>of</strong> anELCC system.<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> has used a market approach <strong>in</strong> which there was little support fordevelopment <strong>of</strong> ELCC throughout the 1970s, 1980s <strong>and</strong> 1990s. As there was neither a proactiveapproach to exp<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g supply nor support such as capital fund<strong>in</strong>g or <strong>in</strong>frastructure for non-pr<strong>of</strong>itcommunity groups, non-pr<strong>of</strong>it expansion has been very slow. In other prov<strong>in</strong>ces with little<strong>in</strong>stitutional support for develop<strong>in</strong>g child care (such as Alberta or Atlantic Canada), for-pr<strong>of</strong>itoperators moved <strong>in</strong>to the vacuum. As research shows, for-pr<strong>of</strong>it provision is less likely todeliver high quality ELCC (although it is obviously not the sole factor) (Clevel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>Krash<strong>in</strong>sky, 2005). In <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, full-day for-pr<strong>of</strong>it programs were not licensed until the1990s <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g has never been available for them. This approach – while it has contributedto <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s current low level <strong>of</strong> coverage – has had the dist<strong>in</strong>ct advantage that theentrepreneurial sector that operates a substantial part <strong>of</strong> child care supply <strong>in</strong> some jurisdictionsdid not develop (Prentice, <strong>in</strong> preparation).Overall, <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s ELCC cannot be called a “system”. The “early learn<strong>in</strong>g” part –pre-k<strong>in</strong>dergarten <strong>and</strong> k<strong>in</strong>dergarten – is part <strong>of</strong> the public school system. The “child care” partconsists <strong>of</strong> a collection <strong>of</strong> small, poorly supported community-based programs – <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>in</strong> poorfacilities – that struggle while public policy fails to support them adequately enough to ensurethat the quality is high enough to make them “early learn<strong>in</strong>g” programs.17
Orig<strong>in</strong>sIn a historical analysis <strong>of</strong> child care <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, Judith Mart<strong>in</strong> makes the po<strong>in</strong>t that<strong>in</strong> the 1970s, while <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s NDP government was pursu<strong>in</strong>g social democratic policiessuch as public ownership, occupational health <strong>and</strong> safety, <strong>and</strong> Medicare, child care was a “hardsell”. She attributes this to the “fixed notion about which mothers merited state support to workoutside the home” (Mart<strong>in</strong>, 2001:175). Mart<strong>in</strong> quotes a key NDP cab<strong>in</strong>et m<strong>in</strong>ister’s address tothe legislature: “the lowest priority is where the parent has adequate <strong>in</strong>come…but merely wantssomeone else to look after the children. In all possible cases, people who have children shouldraise them too”. Another NDP member – who was then appo<strong>in</strong>ted m<strong>in</strong>ister responsible for childcare – stated to the legislature: “the mother’s place is <strong>in</strong> the home” (Mart<strong>in</strong>, 2001: 175).The language <strong>of</strong> the 2005 agreement between <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> <strong>and</strong> the federal governmentis quite different from that <strong>of</strong> the 1970s cited by Mart<strong>in</strong>. It identifies the benefits to children <strong>of</strong>high quality ELCC, provision <strong>of</strong> “stimulat<strong>in</strong>g enrich<strong>in</strong>g experiences <strong>and</strong> healthy physicalenvironments” <strong>and</strong> the value <strong>of</strong> “qualified <strong>and</strong> dedicated early childhood educators”. It identifiesobjectives <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g “measurable <strong>and</strong> demonstrable improvements <strong>in</strong> quality” <strong>and</strong> “better accessto early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care”. F<strong>in</strong>ally, it, like the other federal/prov<strong>in</strong>cial agreements, agreesto develop <strong>and</strong> release a five year Action Plan, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g specific priorities for spend<strong>in</strong>g,measurable targets for monitor<strong>in</strong>g progress, <strong>and</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> how <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> will addressthe ELCC needs <strong>of</strong> Aborig<strong>in</strong>al communities <strong>and</strong> others <strong>in</strong> “special circumstances”.As the OECD experts commented <strong>in</strong> their review, “<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> is start<strong>in</strong>g from a verylow base <strong>of</strong> child care – reach<strong>in</strong>g only 5.4 per cent <strong>of</strong> the population [0-6]” (OECD, 2004:51)”.Based on the data presented here, the OECD <strong>in</strong>ternational team’s comments about the quality <strong>of</strong>Canadian child care services overall would seem to apply to <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>:18
Some <strong>in</strong>dividual services, such as those portrayed <strong>in</strong> our examples, have setthemselves more ambitious aims <strong>and</strong> objectives, but from our limited experience,they seem to be atypical. In many centres, ideas about safety dom<strong>in</strong>ated theactivities <strong>and</strong> environment. Some <strong>of</strong> the accommodation, even <strong>in</strong> newly builtcentres, was very poor, although it met the required health <strong>and</strong> safety st<strong>and</strong>ards.Rooms were barren places, <strong>of</strong>ten poorly lit, with relatively few resources to<strong>in</strong>terest young children <strong>and</strong> little evidence <strong>of</strong> children's own work (OECD,2004:138).There is no “Magic Bullet”An important lesson learned from research <strong>in</strong> the past decade has to do with “earlylearn<strong>in</strong>g”. There is considerable research that shows that it is the quality <strong>of</strong> ELCC programs thatdeterm<strong>in</strong>es how developmentally beneficial they are; that is, whether they provide “early learn<strong>in</strong>g”(Shonk<strong>of</strong>f <strong>and</strong> Phillips, 2000). While children from low <strong>in</strong>come families may derive more benefit,research consistently documents that there are social <strong>and</strong> cognitive advantages for children <strong>of</strong> all<strong>in</strong>come groups from high quality ELCC programs (V<strong>and</strong>ell, 2004). For the majority <strong>of</strong> Canadianchildren whose mothers are <strong>in</strong> the paid labour force, however, unregulated arrangements(unregulated family child care 18 , a relative, a babysitter or a nanny) are the norm. While these are<strong>of</strong> unknown quality, it is generally agreed that they do not provide developmental early childhoodeducation. From this perspective, quality <strong>and</strong> access are <strong>in</strong>separable. That is, even if ELCCprograms are <strong>of</strong> excellent quality, if limited supply or high cost makes them <strong>in</strong>accessible, theirbenefits are available only to the lucky few. While it may be that some families might not chooseto use high quality ELCC programs for their children even if they were accessible, without theirprovision, the choice is not available. Further, the Canadian experience <strong>in</strong> most regions shows thatwhen such programs are available, families choose to use them.18 Family child care is <strong>in</strong> the private home <strong>of</strong> an unregulated provider. In Canada, a m<strong>in</strong>ority <strong>of</strong> family child care is regulated byprov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial governments; the rema<strong>in</strong>der is not regulated. Research shows that quality <strong>in</strong> family child care is improvedby regulation <strong>and</strong> support (Doherty, 2001).19
Another important lesson derived from policy research is that if high quality ELCCprograms are to be the rule rather than the exception, a high quality system is key. Thecomponents <strong>of</strong> such a system operate as a whole; that is, there is no “magic bullet”. Balaguer, amember <strong>of</strong> the European Commission <strong>Child</strong>care Network who was <strong>in</strong>strumental <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g apan-European scheme <strong>of</strong> 40 quality targets for ELCC services, commented that the targets are<strong>in</strong>terdependent: “They form a totality [<strong>and</strong>] tak<strong>in</strong>g any <strong>of</strong> them <strong>in</strong> isolation may be mean<strong>in</strong>gless<strong>and</strong> mislead<strong>in</strong>g” (2004: 8). A conception <strong>of</strong> the essential, <strong>in</strong>terdependent components <strong>of</strong> a highquality ELCC system <strong>in</strong> a Canadian context has been developed by the Quality by Designproject 19 . This conception <strong>in</strong>cludes the follow<strong>in</strong>g elements;● Ideas, or a conceptual framework (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g ongo<strong>in</strong>g debate <strong>and</strong> discussion aboutthe ideas; a clear statement <strong>of</strong> the values that underp<strong>in</strong> the program; a def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> quality;system-level goals; pedagogy related to the values <strong>and</strong> goals <strong>and</strong> a curriculum def<strong>in</strong>ed as ashort general framework);● Infrastructure (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g skillful policy development; regulation def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>imumbasic st<strong>and</strong>ards; monitor<strong>in</strong>g to ensure st<strong>and</strong>ards are met; mechanisms for ongo<strong>in</strong>g qualityimprovement; ongo<strong>in</strong>g consultation at a program level; ongo<strong>in</strong>g program assessment; publiceducation about ELCC);● Governance (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g clear def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> roles <strong>and</strong> responsibilities <strong>of</strong> government atdifferent levels, parents <strong>and</strong> the community; public management at a system level; policy,plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> program delivery organized <strong>in</strong> one lead department; program delivery managed atthe local level; not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it operation; <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>of</strong> parents);19 The <strong>Child</strong>care Resource <strong>and</strong> Research Unit’s Quality by Design project has been work<strong>in</strong>g with prov<strong>in</strong>cial child care <strong>of</strong>ficials<strong>and</strong> consult<strong>in</strong>g with the ELCC community <strong>in</strong> several prov<strong>in</strong>ces. It is funded by Social Development Partnerships, SocialDevelopment Canada.20
● Plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> policy development (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g best available knowledge re: bestpractices <strong>in</strong> policy <strong>and</strong> practice; m<strong>and</strong>ated <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>of</strong> experts <strong>and</strong> stakeholders <strong>in</strong> policyprocesses at all levels; critical mass <strong>of</strong> knowledgeable policy makers; system-wide plann<strong>in</strong>gwith targets <strong>and</strong> timetables; local service plann<strong>in</strong>g);● F<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g to cover capital costs; susta<strong>in</strong>ed f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g sufficientto support ongo<strong>in</strong>g program operation; core or base fund<strong>in</strong>g that covers the majority <strong>of</strong> programoperation costs; affordable parent fees);● Human resources (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g leadership at all levels (program, supervisory,educational, <strong>and</strong> policy); post-secondary level tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> early childhood with lead staff at adegree level; human services management tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g for program supervisory staff; pre-service<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>-service tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g; good wages; work<strong>in</strong>g conditions that encourage good morale <strong>and</strong> lowturnover; system support for program level staff; support, respect <strong>and</strong> recognition for the value<strong>of</strong> the work);● Physical environment (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g sufficient well-designed <strong>in</strong>door <strong>and</strong> outdoor spaces;first-rate equipment <strong>and</strong> program resources; amenities (staff room, outside play space, kitchen,w<strong>in</strong>dows for natural light); connections to the surround<strong>in</strong>g community); <strong>and</strong>,● Data, research <strong>and</strong> evaluation (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g collection <strong>and</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> data to monitoreffects <strong>of</strong> policy <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g; a research agenda to address key policy <strong>and</strong> program issues;evaluation <strong>of</strong> various approaches <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>novation).21
To the FutureOne <strong>of</strong> the first commitments <strong>of</strong> the April federal-<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> agreement is to design aprov<strong>in</strong>cial Action Plan for beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to meet the “QUAD” pr<strong>in</strong>ciples. A key OECDrecommendation seems a good start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for this:We encourage…all prov<strong>in</strong>ces…To develop a prov<strong>in</strong>cial plan for early childhoodservices development…with clearly spelt out goals, targets, timel<strong>in</strong>es,responsibilities <strong>and</strong> accountability measures… While universal <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tent, the planshould <strong>in</strong>clude annual targets <strong>and</strong> specific fund<strong>in</strong>g for disadvantaged children,Aborig<strong>in</strong>al children <strong>and</strong> children with special needs. The plan should aim to br<strong>in</strong>gprov<strong>in</strong>cial regulations <strong>and</strong> pedagogical regimes <strong>in</strong>to l<strong>in</strong>e with current knowledge.Criteria for centre performance such as m<strong>in</strong>imum benchmarks, outcomemeasures, tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g levels <strong>and</strong> the like should also be <strong>in</strong>cluded so that parents canbe assured that services are properly resourced <strong>and</strong> monitored (OECD, 2004: 70).As was po<strong>in</strong>ted out earlier, one characteristic that has dist<strong>in</strong>guished Canada from countries withbetter developed ELCC systems is the absence <strong>of</strong> a clearly articulated ELCC vision or goals ateither federal or prov<strong>in</strong>cial/territorial levels. A necessary first step to a mean<strong>in</strong>gful <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>Action Plan will be to flesh out the first component <strong>of</strong> the early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care systemoutl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> a previous section – the ideas. This should <strong>in</strong>clude open discussion with an objective<strong>of</strong> a clear statement <strong>of</strong> the values that underp<strong>in</strong> the program as well as system-level goals,consider<strong>in</strong>g such questions as: What is the purpose <strong>of</strong> the program? Who is it for? How do wesee children? What is the vision? From these ideas, a conception <strong>of</strong> pedagogy, an approach tocurriculum (def<strong>in</strong>ed as a short general framework) <strong>and</strong> a plan for the system’s human resourcescan flow.The quality <strong>of</strong> child care programs <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> is perhaps the paramount issue.Build<strong>in</strong>g quality is a complex, evolv<strong>in</strong>g process that must beg<strong>in</strong> with the ideas that underp<strong>in</strong> theprogram; it requires a systematic approach. The emphasis <strong>of</strong> both the OECD <strong>and</strong> the EuropeanCommission <strong>Child</strong>care Network on the importance <strong>of</strong> a “democratic <strong>and</strong> participatory approach”22
to def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> improv<strong>in</strong>g quality is noteworthy. While variety <strong>and</strong> flexibility have to date been afeature <strong>of</strong> Canadian early childhood education, improv<strong>in</strong>g quality would be well supported if theimportant ideas <strong>and</strong> questions were openly debated with the objective <strong>of</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g agreement onthe ideas necessary to underp<strong>in</strong> program development. As Balaguer has described this <strong>in</strong> thecontext <strong>of</strong> the European Union’s work on quality, “def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g quality is a process, important <strong>in</strong> itsown right…<strong>and</strong> the process should be democratic <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uous” (2004: 8). Overall, however,responsibility for improv<strong>in</strong>g quality must be led by the prov<strong>in</strong>cial governments whose publicpolicy def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong> supports the system.Among the challenges for all prov<strong>in</strong>ces is mov<strong>in</strong>g from “early learn<strong>in</strong>g” <strong>and</strong> “child care”to “early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care”. As the OECD said: “the aim is to conceptualize <strong>and</strong> delivercare <strong>and</strong> education as one seamless service to young children. In the view <strong>of</strong> the OECD reviewteam, greater <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> k<strong>in</strong>dergarten <strong>and</strong> child care would br<strong>in</strong>g real advantages <strong>in</strong> theCanadian context” (OECD, 2004: 71). This would be particularly so <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, with itslow level <strong>of</strong> child care provision, quality challenges, <strong>and</strong> targeted approach. A variety <strong>of</strong> modelsfor <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g k<strong>in</strong>dergarten <strong>and</strong> child care can be found <strong>in</strong> other countries <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Canada; severalprov<strong>in</strong>ces provide full-day k<strong>in</strong>dergarten for five year olds <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> k<strong>in</strong>dergarten <strong>and</strong>child care is be<strong>in</strong>g evaluated by the City <strong>of</strong> Toronto’s First Duty project (Toronto First Dutyresearch team, 2004). Study<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> adapt<strong>in</strong>g elements <strong>of</strong> these models to create an <strong>in</strong>tegratedapproach would be valuable <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>.To beg<strong>in</strong> to move towards meet<strong>in</strong>g the “QUAD” pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>of</strong> universality <strong>and</strong> access,<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> will have to tackle a low level <strong>of</strong> accessibility. Expansion <strong>of</strong> child care has beenvery slow, the supply <strong>of</strong> programs is very limited (<strong>in</strong>deed, <strong>in</strong> some areas, they are not available atall), <strong>and</strong> affordability is an issue even for subsidized parents. System-wide plann<strong>in</strong>g with “goals,23
targets, timetables, responsibilities <strong>and</strong> accountability measures”, as well as local serviceplann<strong>in</strong>g, is key to improv<strong>in</strong>g accessibility. This would mean that the government would need tobeg<strong>in</strong> to assume some responsibility for develop<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g programs, as well asensur<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>ancial accessibility. In addition, capital f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g would support not only improvedaccessibility but improved quality <strong>of</strong> provision.Transformation <strong>of</strong> the way <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> child care is f<strong>in</strong>anced would contribute toquality as well as accessibility. The OECD recommended a “substantial <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> publicfund<strong>in</strong>g”. The “low public expenditure rates per child”, “market-determ<strong>in</strong>ed fee structures”,“<strong>in</strong>efficient subsidy systems with widely vary<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> complex eligibility criteria” <strong>and</strong> “generalunder fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the child care sector” (OECD, 2004: 76) that they s<strong>in</strong>gled out are certa<strong>in</strong>ly part<strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s situation. The OECD’s recommendation is pert<strong>in</strong>ent:A change <strong>in</strong> grant fund<strong>in</strong>g may also be envisaged, with a move away from personalsubsidy mechanisms toward operational fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> an entitlement for children, as <strong>in</strong>the traditional educational model. Earmarked operational fund<strong>in</strong>g seems to be a surermeans <strong>of</strong> ensur<strong>in</strong>g more highly qualified personnel <strong>and</strong> enriched learn<strong>in</strong>genvironments <strong>in</strong> the centres – both <strong>of</strong> which are strong <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>of</strong> quality <strong>and</strong>learn<strong>in</strong>g” (OECD, 2004:76).<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s overall level <strong>of</strong> fund<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> regulated child care <strong>and</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> thatfund<strong>in</strong>g has been very low – among the lowest among prov<strong>in</strong>ces. The OECD recommended acomb<strong>in</strong>ed federal/prov<strong>in</strong>cial <strong>in</strong>vestment approach to mov<strong>in</strong>g towards universal provision with<strong>in</strong>cremental budget <strong>in</strong>creases over the next decades, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that federal <strong>and</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>cialgovernments contribute 40 per cent each <strong>and</strong> parents 20 per cent. This would mean that newfund<strong>in</strong>g should come from the prov<strong>in</strong>cial government as well as from the federal government(the new federal transfer <strong>in</strong> the first year will be $29 million, whereas prov<strong>in</strong>cial spend<strong>in</strong>g wasonly $19 million <strong>in</strong> 2004).24
When sign<strong>in</strong>g the federal/prov<strong>in</strong>cial agreement on early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care on 29April 2005 <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> Premier Lorne Calvert likened it to <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s leadership role <strong>in</strong>establish<strong>in</strong>g Medicare:Today's agreement reflects the value that families place on the development <strong>of</strong> theirchildren, <strong>and</strong> the importance <strong>of</strong> ga<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g better access to early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child careservices. This agreement also mirrors the establishment <strong>of</strong> Medicare <strong>in</strong> Canada. Fromthat small beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, a system has developed that is part <strong>of</strong> thefabric <strong>of</strong> Canadian society, <strong>and</strong> is at the heart <strong>of</strong> social policy (Social DevelopmentCanada, http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/comm/sd/news/2005/050429c.shtml, retrievedAugust 1, 2005).Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to meet the agreement’s commitments to the QUAD pr<strong>in</strong>ciples – quality,universality, affordability <strong>and</strong> development (programm<strong>in</strong>g) – will require “considerable time,commitment, collaboration” (as the agreement states), focused public policy <strong>and</strong> considerablepolitical will. While it will also take more money <strong>and</strong> more years than those <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itialfive-year commitment, the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>and</strong> the commitments seem a good first step. The essentialnext steps, however, are to develop the policy <strong>and</strong> structures necessary to put these <strong>in</strong> place.25
ReferencesBalaguer, I. (2004). Build<strong>in</strong>g a shared vision for quality. <strong>Child</strong>ren <strong>in</strong> Europe Issue 7, 8-9.<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Advocacy Association <strong>of</strong> Canada. (2004). From patchwork to framework. A childcare strategy for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Author.<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Advocacy Association <strong>of</strong> Canada/ Canadian <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Federation. (2003). 90% <strong>of</strong>Canadians support national child care plan, 86% want publicly funded system. Ottawa, ON:Author. Retrieved August 2005 fromhttp://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/archives/2003/0127e.htmlClevel<strong>and</strong>, G. <strong>and</strong> Krash<strong>in</strong>sky, M. (2005). The quality gap. A study <strong>of</strong> non-pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>and</strong>commercial child care centres <strong>in</strong> Canada. Toronto: Department <strong>of</strong> Management <strong>and</strong> Economics,<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Toronto at Scarborough.Cohen, B., Moss, P., Petrie, P. & Wallance, J. (2004). A new deal for children? Re-form<strong>in</strong>geducation <strong>and</strong> care <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>, Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Sweden. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Colley, S. (2005). Integration for a change: How can <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> services for k<strong>in</strong>dergartenagedchildren be achieved? Toronto, ON: Integration Network Project Retrieved August 2005from http://www.<strong>in</strong>project.ca/Work<strong>in</strong>g_Papers/Fullpaper.pdfDoherty, G. (2001) Mov<strong>in</strong>g towards achiev<strong>in</strong>g quality child care. In Clevel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Krash<strong>in</strong>sky,M. (Eds.) Our children’s future. Toronto: <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Toronto Press: 126-141.Friendly, M. (2001). Is this as good as it gets? <strong>Child</strong> care as a test case for assess<strong>in</strong>g the SocialUnion Framework Agreement. Canadian Review <strong>of</strong> Social Policy. 47, 77-82.Friendly, M. <strong>and</strong> Beach, J. (2005). <strong>Early</strong> childhood education <strong>and</strong> care <strong>in</strong> Canada 2004.Toronto, ON: <strong>Child</strong>care Resource <strong>and</strong> Research Unit, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Toronto.Elliot, D. (2001). <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> child care needs <strong>and</strong> preferences survey: A report for<strong>Saskatchewan</strong> social services. Saskatoon, SK: <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> social services.Environics Research Group (1998). <strong>Child</strong> care issues <strong>and</strong> the child care workforce: A survey <strong>of</strong>Canadian public op<strong>in</strong>ion. Summary. Prepared for the <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong> Sector Study Steer<strong>in</strong>gCommittee.European Commission <strong>Child</strong>care Network. (2004). Quality targets <strong>in</strong> services for youngchildren. <strong>Child</strong>ren <strong>in</strong> Europe. Issue 7, 12-15.Goelman, H ., Doherty, G., Lero, D.S., Lagrange, A., <strong>and</strong> Tougas, J. (2000). You Bet I <strong>Care</strong>!Car<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g environments: Quality <strong>in</strong> child care centres across Canada. Guelph, ON:Centre for Families, Work <strong>and</strong> Well-be<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Guelph.26
Government <strong>of</strong> Canada <strong>and</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>. (2005). Mov<strong>in</strong>g forward on earlylearn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care: Agreement-<strong>in</strong>-pr<strong>in</strong>ciple between the government <strong>of</strong> Canada <strong>and</strong> thegovernment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>. Saskatoon, SK: Author. Retrieved August 2005 fromhttp://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/comm/sd/messages/2005/PCO_<strong>Saskatchewan</strong>_e.pdfKrentz, C., McNaughton, K. <strong>and</strong> Warkent<strong>in</strong>, B. (2002). Interim report: Summary <strong>and</strong>recommendations <strong>of</strong> the first two years <strong>of</strong> a six year longitud<strong>in</strong>al study exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g theeffectiveness <strong>of</strong> the prek<strong>in</strong>dergarten program <strong>in</strong> the Reg<strong>in</strong>a Public School Division #4. Reg<strong>in</strong>a,SK: Reg<strong>in</strong>a Public School Division #4.Liberal Party <strong>of</strong> Canada. (2004). Mov<strong>in</strong>g Canada forward. Foundations - A national earlylearn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> child care program. Ottawa, ON: Author.Mart<strong>in</strong>, J. (2001). History, lessons <strong>and</strong> a case for change <strong>in</strong> child care advocacy. In S. Prentice(Ed.), Chang<strong>in</strong>g child care: Five decades <strong>of</strong> child care advocacy <strong>and</strong> policy <strong>in</strong> Canada . Halifax,NS: Fernwood Publish<strong>in</strong>g: 171-185;Organisation for Economic Co-operation <strong>and</strong> Development. (2004). <strong>Early</strong> childhood education<strong>and</strong> care policy: Canada Country Note. Thematic Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Child</strong>hood Education <strong>and</strong><strong>Care</strong>. Paris: Author. Retrieved August 2005 fromhttp://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/reports/2004-002619/Country.pdfOrganisation for Economic Co-operation <strong>and</strong> Development. (2001). Start<strong>in</strong>g Strong: <strong>Early</strong>childhood education <strong>and</strong> care. Summary report <strong>of</strong> the Thematic Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Child</strong>hoodEducation <strong>and</strong> <strong>Care</strong>. Paris: Author.Prentice, S. (In preparation). Old issues, new evidence. An exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> child care for pr<strong>of</strong>it.W<strong>in</strong>nipeg: Department <strong>of</strong> Sociology, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Manitoba.Shonk<strong>of</strong>f, J. <strong>and</strong> Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science <strong>of</strong> earlychildhood development. Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, D.C.: National Academy Press.Social Development Canada. (2005). Press release: Mov<strong>in</strong>g forward: Governments <strong>of</strong> Canada<strong>and</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> sign an agreement on <strong>Early</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Care</strong>. Ottawa, ON: Author.Retrieved August 2005 from http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/comm/sd/news/2005/050429c.shtmlToronto First Duty research team. (2004). Toronto First Duty June 2004 progress report.Toronto, ON: City <strong>of</strong> Toronto. Retrieved August 2005 fromhttp://www.city.toronto.on.ca/firstduty/jun04_report.pdfV<strong>and</strong>ell, D. (2004). <strong>Early</strong> child care: The known <strong>and</strong> the unknown. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly.50, 3: 387-414.Whitebook, M. (2003). <strong>Early</strong> education quality: Higher Teacher qualifications for betterlean<strong>in</strong>g environments. <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> California, Berkeley: Institute for Industrial Relations.27
About the AuthorMartha Friendly is a Senior Research Associate at the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Toronto <strong>and</strong> Co-ord<strong>in</strong>ator <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Child</strong>care Resource <strong>and</strong> Research Unit (CRRU) at the <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Toronto. CRRU is apolicy research facility that specializes <strong>in</strong> early childhood education <strong>and</strong> care. It ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s acirculat<strong>in</strong>g resource library, a comprehensive website, publishes a work<strong>in</strong>g paper series <strong>and</strong> otherdocuments, engages <strong>in</strong> research, <strong>and</strong> takes an active role <strong>in</strong> ELCC policy development at thelocal, prov<strong>in</strong>cial <strong>and</strong> national levels.Martha’s recent publications <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>Early</strong> childhood education <strong>and</strong> care <strong>in</strong> Canada 2004(2005), Next steps on early childhood education <strong>and</strong> care, (Canadian Review <strong>of</strong> Social Policy,2005), Strengthen<strong>in</strong>g Canada’s social <strong>and</strong> economic foundations: Next steps for early learn<strong>in</strong>g<strong>and</strong> child care, (Policy Options, 2004) <strong>and</strong> a chapter <strong>in</strong> Social determ<strong>in</strong>ants <strong>of</strong> health: Canadianperspectives (D. Raphael, (Ed.) 2004). Recently she was co-author <strong>of</strong> Canada’s BackgroundReport on ECEC for the OECD (2004) <strong>and</strong> a member <strong>of</strong> the expert team for the OECD’s Review<strong>of</strong> ECEC <strong>in</strong> Austria.She has been actively <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> advocat<strong>in</strong>g for progressive social policy for many years <strong>and</strong>works closely with a variety <strong>of</strong> community <strong>and</strong> advocacy groups as well as with governmentpolicy makers <strong>and</strong> other researchers, support<strong>in</strong>g a universal system <strong>of</strong> early learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> childcare for all children.Martha was born <strong>in</strong> New York City <strong>and</strong> educated <strong>in</strong> the United States, study<strong>in</strong>g psychology <strong>in</strong>undergraduate <strong>and</strong> graduate programs. Before immigrat<strong>in</strong>g to Canada <strong>in</strong> 1971, she worked onone <strong>of</strong> the first evaluations <strong>of</strong> the American Head Start program. She has two grown children,both <strong>of</strong> whom attended community-based child care from an early age.28
SIPP Public Policy PapersThrough SIPP Public Policy Papers, the Institute aims to provide background <strong>in</strong>formation, encouragediscussion <strong>and</strong> contribute to the debate on policy-related issues. The op<strong>in</strong>ions <strong>and</strong> views expressed <strong>in</strong> thepapers are those <strong>of</strong> the authors. Other works <strong>in</strong> the SIPP Public Policy Papers series:No. 1 Debt Accumulation, Debt Reduction, <strong>and</strong> DebtSpillovers <strong>in</strong> Canada, 1974-98 by Ron Kneebone <strong>and</strong>John Leach (October 2000).No. 2 The West <strong>and</strong> the Liberal government at thebeg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the new m<strong>and</strong>ate: the need to work bettertogether by The Honourable Stéphane Dion, PC, MP(March 2001).No. 3 <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s Commission on Medicare: FiveCommentaries by Tom McIntosh, Michael Rushton,Denise Kouri, Martha E. Horsburgh, Ronald Labonte<strong>and</strong> Nazeem Muhajar<strong>in</strong>e (April 2001).No. 4 Public-Private Partnerships: A Review <strong>of</strong>Literature <strong>and</strong> Practice by Dr. John R. Allan (June2001).No. 5 Should Canadians Be Concerned? Food Safety<strong>in</strong> Canada by Dr. Louise Greenberg (December 2001).No. 6 On the Concept <strong>and</strong> Measurement <strong>of</strong> VerticalFiscal Imbalances by G.C. Ruggeri <strong>and</strong>R. Howard (December 2001).No. 7 Economics, Equity <strong>and</strong> Urban-Rural Transfersby Michael Rushton (November 2001).No. 8 Changes <strong>in</strong> the Prairie Economy, 1980 to 2000:With Emphasis on Agriculture <strong>and</strong> Some Implicationsfor Prairie Transportation Policies by Peter Arcus <strong>and</strong>Graham Parsons (February 2002).No. 9 Equalization Reform <strong>in</strong> Switzerl<strong>and</strong>: IdealSolutions, Unpredictable Outcomes byAnne-Béatrice Bull<strong>in</strong>ger (March 2002).No. 10 Respond<strong>in</strong>g to Wife Abuse <strong>in</strong> Farm <strong>and</strong> RuralCommunities - Search<strong>in</strong>g for Solutions that Work byJennie Hornosty <strong>and</strong> Deborah Doherty (March 2002).No. 11 Value-for-Money <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> K-12Educational Expenditures by Dr. John R. Allan(2002).No. 12 Higher Education Policy <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> <strong>and</strong>the Legacy <strong>of</strong> Myth by Dr. James M. Pitsula(February 2003).No. 13 Self-determ<strong>in</strong>ation, Citizenship, <strong>and</strong>Federalism: Indigenous <strong>and</strong> Canadian Palimpsest byDr. Joyce Green (March 2003).No. 14 Productivity <strong>and</strong> Popular Attitudes TowardSocial Welfare recipients <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>, 1970-1990by Dr. Robert Wardhaugh (April 2003).No. 15 <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>’s Universities – A Perception <strong>of</strong>History by Dr. Michael Hayden, Dr. James Pitsula,<strong>and</strong> Dr. Raymond Blake (May 2003).No. 16 A Survey <strong>of</strong> the GM Industry <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong><strong>and</strong> Western Canada by Dr. Crist<strong>in</strong>e de Clercy, Dr.Louise Greenberg, Dr. Donald Gilchrist, Dr. GregoryMarchildon, <strong>and</strong> Dr. Alan McHughen (May 2003).No. 17 Should <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> Adopt RetailCompetition for Electricity? by Dr. Michael Rushton(June 2003).No. 18 Labour Issues <strong>in</strong> the Provision <strong>of</strong> EssentialServices by Pavel Peykov (September 2003).No. 19 Demographic Trends <strong>and</strong> Socio-EconomicSusta<strong>in</strong>ability <strong>in</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>: Some PolicyConsiderations by Janice Stokes (October 2003).No. 20 Youth Justice Policy <strong>and</strong> the Youth Crim<strong>in</strong>alJustice Act by Ross Green (November 2003).No. 21 Right<strong>in</strong>g Past Wrongs: The Case for a FederalRole <strong>in</strong> Decommission<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> Reclaim<strong>in</strong>g Ab<strong>and</strong>onedUranium M<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> Northern <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> by IanPeach <strong>and</strong> Don Hovdebo (December 2003).No. 22 Weather<strong>in</strong>g the Political <strong>and</strong> EnvironmentalClimate <strong>of</strong> the Kyoto Protocol by Raymond B. Blake,Polo Diaz, Joe Piwowar, Michael Polanyi, ReidRob<strong>in</strong>son, John D. Whyte, <strong>and</strong> Malcolm Wilson(January 2004).
No. 23 Performance Measurement, Report<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>Accountability: Recent Trends <strong>and</strong> Future Directionsby Dr. Paul G. Thomas (February 2004).No. 24 The Charter <strong>of</strong> Rights <strong>and</strong> Off-Reserve FirstNations People: A Way to Fill the Public PolicyVacuum by Ian Peach (March 2004).No. 25 St<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g on Guard Canadian Identity,Globalization <strong>and</strong> Cont<strong>in</strong>ental Integration byRaymond B. Blake (June 2004).No. 26 The Death <strong>of</strong> Deference: National Policy-Mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Aftermath <strong>of</strong> the Meech Lake <strong>and</strong>Charlottetown Accords by Ian Peach (September2004).No. 27 Immigrant Skilled Workers: Should CanadaAttract More Foreign Students? by Pavel Peykov(November 2004).No. 28 Reth<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g the Jurisdictional Divide: TheMarg<strong>in</strong>alization <strong>of</strong> Urban Aborig<strong>in</strong>al Communities<strong>and</strong> Federal Policy Responses by Janice Stokes, IanPeach <strong>and</strong> Raymond B. Blake (December 2004).No. 29 This “New Europe”: Historic PolicyOpportunities for Canada by Dr. Karl Henriques(January 2005).No. 30 Legitimacy on Trial: A Process for Appo<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gJustices to the Supreme Court <strong>of</strong> Canada by Ian Peach(February 2005).No. 31 The Equalization Quagmire: Where do we g<strong>of</strong>rom here? by Gary Tompk<strong>in</strong>s (March 2005).No. 32 Social Policy <strong>and</strong> Intergovernmental Relations<strong>in</strong> Canada: Underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the Failure <strong>of</strong> SUFA froma Quebec Perspective by Joseph Facal (April 2005).No. 33 The <strong>Saskatchewan</strong> Voluntary Sector <strong>in</strong> theContext <strong>of</strong> Social Enterprise: A Case Study <strong>of</strong> FamilyService Reg<strong>in</strong>a by James M. Pitsula (May 2005).No. 34 Keep<strong>in</strong>g up with the Joneses: A Policy for theGovernment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Saskatchewan</strong>'s International Relationsby Robert McLaren (June 2005).No. 35 A Conceptual Comparative Analysis Betweenthe British <strong>and</strong> the Canadian Mad Cow Crisis:The Cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>Learn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> by Sylva<strong>in</strong> Charlebois(September 2005).Papers are available for download at no charge at www.ureg<strong>in</strong>a.ca/sipp.Pr<strong>in</strong>ted copies are available at a cost <strong>of</strong> $5.00 per paper. Please contact SIPP at 585-5777 to order your copy.