Tonight for your Agenda, we're going to examine Ontario’s early education program.
What it is: Full-day kindergarten for all Ontario four- and five-year-olds.
Cost: $1.5 billion per year when fully implemented.
Who’s in charge: unionized teachers will take the lead, working with early childhood educators.
Class size: classes will have 26 students, an increase from Ontario’s class size cap of 23 students.
Who gets it: 35,000 children next year, all children by 2015.
Now tell us what you think:
Finally! Personally, I think many other countries are far far ahead of where we are. Its going to be good to see! Keeps kids busy. Idle kids are bored kids. Bored kids are kids that get caught up in nasty stuff later on in life. One of life's little rules - learn something new every day. And, Lead every day as though it is your last (as not to harm others nor leave a large foot print for others to clean up! Live within ones means!).
With the turning of the economy (tell me people aren't making easy to get at money from this economic mess - first the private sector booms then the public sector... the housing market flies and so do commodities after the private sector stock market hype etc...). Easy easy money. Who suffers - the poor mostly and middle class as the rich have the connections, power, and tools to skim off the fluff. I just look at all the 0 value added money going around now. 0 investment in future. No doubt schooling is next to go.
What I should see - is more investment in youth programs and education for the young. Innovation! Leading the way in efficiency! Diversity in education lines! Instead, its the same old same old. At the university level, I should see more technological initiatives! Who needs all those buildings!!! Makes someone some dough though, as empires form! Small is good!
I should see math, science, innovation, and some methods to get kids starting their own companies (at a small scale) etc... in their youth. Give them the fishing rode young and they will catch fish on their own before bad habits start. Wait too long (From the bleeding heart club band), and you will have kids that waste their youth... Youth = no fear and like a sponge. Lets make use of that! They hold the power to the future!
posted by jac02000 on 05 November 2009 at 5:38 PM
I am curious as to the defining ages for the full-day Kindergarten. Right now, in half-day programs the children can enter Jr. Kindergarten when they are 3 years of age as long as they turn 4 years by December 31st. Under the current system many Kindergarten classes are split with Juniors and Seniors in the same classroom. This in effect means that one can have a 3 and 3/4 year old in the same classroom with a 5 and 3/4 year old. There is 2 years difference between them. Knowledgeable persons understand that there is considerable differences in developmental abilities in all areas - academic, social, cognitive and psychological. Knowledgeable persons in education also know that most of those children entering in their 3rd year lag behind their older peers. Some of these children are barely toilet trained and are still needing naps yet really we are asking them to behave in a school-age manner (of sorts). I would hope that this government when implementing full-day Kindergarten would have the entry point to Kindergarten as being 4 Years of Age by September 1st. Three year olds are still preschoolers - we need to let them be youngsters in the proper environment. With regard to smaller classroom sizes, the 20 cap has produced more split grades including JK/SK. The age discrepancies for JK/SK is a noted concern. Certainly, for the upper years (grade 1 on) multiage groupings are not the issue, but rather it is the curriculum in that each grade is expected to learn specific content and this content is very discreet between grades (for example: grade 2's learn about animals while grade 3's learn about plants). Ultimately, one grade has to complete work independently while the other grade is working with the teacher on content objectives of the curriculum. Sure both grades can learn the process objectives together such as how to do research for a project. We need to be mindful of good pedagogy and make use of researched teaching practices.
posted by Samkeody on 05 November 2009 at 6:22 PM
What type of education will be offered? This is not a new process. It is going on everywhere. In Japan technology plays a vital role. Japanese implement play and technology to develop basic human attributes at this early stage. Thus both the individual and team participation are important parts of early childhood education. Early childhood "independent intellectual development", pays large dividends. Further, by group learning and sharing education process for problem solving develops important interactive skills. These skills encourage "harmonious" participation in a team environment. A must to succeed in future business participation's. As an aside, the current thought process flowing out of Toronto school boards, "all boys schools", and applauded by MacGuinty are counterproductive to this type of education. Simple question, how do you take a boy and girl who have no interaction in education, play separated for 12 years and expect them to work together in a harmonious environment fro the rest of their lives. What? Basic instincts takeover, or does business have to "re-educate". We simply cannot wait to cross that bridge. This will definitely be a bridge to nowhere, as the rest of the industrial world will have passed us. This is a "golden opportunity" to bring technology into the educational process. But this will all be for nought if the entire education process is not overhauled to bring "technology" into the entire education process in a greater manner. Giving early childhood a development tool and not expanding will be all for "nought".
posted by ron just bogies on 05 November 2009 at 6:23 PM
If each jurisdiction in Canada has a different model, how can we be so sure that Ontario has the optimum solution???
posted by Political Junkie on 05 November 2009 at 8:34 PM
When will the state declare the copulating parents redundant as to bring forth nothing more than 'valued producing entities' that will accomplish SOMETHING. What is this something.
This seems to bring to conclusion the trial balloons over the decades to destroy the family unit, which by some on this program deem incompetent, and bring forth the solution from the chaos created by the "two parent working" family unit.
I am offended by the innuendo comments by the participants which attempt to discredit those whom CAN educate their own. The word "universal" is paraded about as if historical 'family education' no longer has any value.
Has any really learned any thing from the past?
posted by onecansay on 05 November 2009 at 8:45 PM
This is a great idea, but more details needed!! I worked as an ECE for 20 years and at one daycare and school in Toronto that incorporated ECE's in the classrooms for half a day(APS). I was in the kindgarden room. My question is will there be a specific job description and University quality re-training for ECE's? ECE's receive play based training and know absolutely nothing about the TDSB curriculum.
As an ECE assistant in a kindergarden room, I felt useless and basically wiped noses, helped them get their coats on, and set up paint on the easel. I had no job description or direction from the teacher or school. The teacher did the curriculum, and we had no time to plan as a team. ECE's can monitor play extremely well and do behaviour management, but we are not trained to help incorporate curriculum based learning. I couldn't even help the kids who had special needs because I wasn't given any direction or independent learning plan to administer to them.
posted by PJB on 05 November 2009 at 8:46 PM
It should be noted that early childhood educators may seem "cheaper" than teachers, because they make less money right now. However, the main reason that they make less is that they have traditionally worked in a system that is not universally funded, like education. Parents have to pay fees that support the salaries earned, child care is never truly free. The child care system has never been able to support the actual and well-deserved expense of a properly paid ECE. Further, the ECEs have worked with the youngest children and the occupation has been undervalued as women's work that is close to mothering i.e. "free" (even when they hold 4 year university degrees).
posted by Lizabet on 05 November 2009 at 8:49 PM
I suggest that the course content of teachers and early childhood professionals training programs be evaluated with reference to child development, early learning, child centred pedagogy, planning, observation, play-based learning, inclusive programming and working with parents. It would be interesting to see if a general degree paired with a one year teacher's college programme contains equal content as an intensive, focussed two or four year degree or diploma in early childhood development. When I taught at a community college, students with teaching credentials were required to take an additional 5 courses to obtain equivalency.
posted by LMR on 05 November 2009 at 8:49 PM
Too much money is already being spent on extremely expensive unionized teachers and public service workers.
Once again, in a few years, another government will need to dramatically cut back public services in order to recover from the careless deficit spending by this Liberal government. This is incredibly short sighted and thoughtless policy.
posted by NP7 on 05 November 2009 at 8:54 PM
posted by Missy on 05 November 2009 at 8:59 PM
As an elementary teacher I would wholeheartedly support a few unpaid days a year if it meant meeting the needs of my students and their parents. I have witnessed first hand in my classroom, and with my own children, the importance of early education and by 'early' I mean before the age of 6 years. A child's attitudes towards learning and concept of them self as a capable learner is shaped long before they enter grade 1. I fully believe that full day kindergarten could provide children with the skills and tools they would otherwise not receive in the piece-meal system of child care that is currently the norm. I entered the teaching profession since I value and respect the responsibility that public education has in shaping our province. I would consider a few unpaid days another opportunity to 'pay it forward' so that I, and the rest of Ontario, might benefit in the future from having a fully literate and educated population.
posted by teachermom on 05 November 2009 at 9:11 PM
Why is it that teachers should have to give up pay for the government's initiative of having full day kindergarten? So that means that doctors need to give up pay to improve the wait time in hospitals.
I'm a parent of three children who are currently in daycare. I am also an elementary school teacher. I think full day senior kindergarten and every other day JK are excellent ideas. My reasoning behind this is that SK students are able to handle it and it helps with the transition into grade one. Also, by separating the two kindergartens we will ease the cost on the taxpayers.
With my comment to JK, I do believe that the children could remain at the same school as the SKs. Here is my proposal. We already have a wonderful government run organization that works with children from birth to age five years old: The Parent and Child Centre. This organization has already in place half-day preschool programs existing for children for 3 to 5 days/week. This program would work perfectly to off set the half-day JK program. However, the complications to this balancing act would be that each school would either have to have buses that could transfer the children between the school and the centre or centres would need to be added to the schools. The parents would pay for the government subsidied daycare aspect of the program - if needed. (This is approximately $210/ month - for 3 days/week.)
I think it must be clear that educating and protecting our children is our number one concern because when we are old and grey, it is these children that will be the ones who are taking care of us. 'There where your treasure is, there will be your heart.' Professor Dumbledore
posted by Morrigan on 05 November 2009 at 9:24 PM
...TO STEVE PAIKIN.....Early Childhood Education is very important....Because of its great positive potential effect on a child's future, it must be funded even in difficult economic times. We've helped GM, Chrysler and others....why not invest in our future....OUR CHILDREN!!!! ....However....Steve......I really must disagree with your or your producer's choice of John Snobelen as a guest commentator on this issue. I really have difficulty in giving him credibility on educational issues because he himself is a grade 11 dropout who has admitted to contriving a 'crisis in education' to expedite a cost cutting agenda by the former Harris government...and....who has moved to the USA to farm cattle!....What possible relevance could his comments have, given his short, tumultuous tenure as a ridiculously underqualified Education Minister in a Harris government which slashed educational budgets and alienated the teachers and parents of a generation of Ontario's children? I believe that including John Snobelen as a commentator on your show has impacted negatively on the usally high standards that you set!
>>>>Robert.
posted by Bogdan on 05 November 2009 at 9:31 PM
As I watched tonight's agenda episode on full-day kindergarten, I was struck more by the omissions than by any of the opinions shared. In the brief discussions of research demonstrating the benefits of full-day kindergarten, there was no mention of what kind of supports are in place in these successful educational systems following the early full-day programs. Surely, success or failure of an educational system can't be attributed solely to what happens for 1 or 2 years, with no regard to what happens during grades 1 to 12. At this time in Ontario, there is little support for children between grades 4 and 8, where class size is often over 30 and there is often very little assistance for struggling children, including those with learning disabilities and mild intellectual disability. Perhaps where full-day kindergarten has been proven effective, supportive conditions have existed throughout their education, unlike in Ontario.
I was surprised that there was no discussion of how the billions could be better spent within the educational system to enhance student success; with the above-mentioned class size situation and lack of support, it wouldn't take much creativity to figure out alternatives for this cash which could have a more obvious impact. Assertions that funds spent on reducing class size are wasted beyond age 8, whether put forth by "experts" or bureaucrats, are truly perplexing for elementary school teachers. We witness daily the negative impact of students who are unable to receive the attention they need and deserve.
posted by IMR on 05 November 2009 at 10:22 PM
If children are able to learn so much at these early ages I assume it means we will be getting rid of grades 11 and 12 to pay for it.
If not, it's a lunatic idea, coming from a government who's looking at a $24.7 Billion deficit this year, and according to their own figures, deficits for years to come.
Get a grip folks.
posted by joannie on 05 November 2009 at 10:42 PM
It's fun (for a New Democrat) to see you Grits thumping Dalton, and you Tories dismissing Snobelen.
People, you should ask yourselves "Do I see things the way they are, or do I see things the way I am?"
I have little use for John Snobelen, but he did provide a unique point of view on kindergarten expansion. There are still a couple of million neo-conservatives in Ontario. Let's hear what they have to say, as selfish and narrow as it may be.
posted by Ex-T on 05 November 2009 at 11:09 PM
I am ECE, am was very frustrated to listen to last nights discussion like it was something new. Kindergarten children have been going to school full time in a teacher/ECE partnership classroom for 10 years in the French Catholic Board in Ottawa. Come on now! We don't need "more research" to prove that it works. It's been working amazingly for years now.
I have also worked in the program for the first 5 years, when the program was first developed. Although it was difficult at first, we learned how to work with one another, communicate and figure out how to make the program work. The children don't realize what is going on. All what matters to them is that they are school.
What is also frustrating is that I keep on hearing about bringing "daycare" to schools. This program is FAR from daycare. The goal is for ECE's to help and collaborate with the teachers to develop new ways for the little ones to learn through play. As ECE's, that is our specialty! That is what we studied in college for. We have qualications that teachers don't have and vice versa.
It's a great program and it makes a great partnership when all the parties are willing and able to work together.
posted by ~Dove~ on 06 November 2009 at 9:00 AM
Janet Ecker and John Snobelen and Mike Harris did more damage to education in Ontario than any previous legislators. Note that Harris and Snobelen were indifferent students and Ecker doesn't seem to like kids. I wouldn't characterize any of them as expert in early childhood education or in fact as "expert" in anything other than self-aggrandisement On the other hand, there are many experts in childhood education. many of them actually TEACH early childhood Education Many of these teachings are based on the research results of many experts since Piaget not the "if I were in charge" musings of ill-informed and ill-intentioned adults who form their opinions on their own limited experiences Teachers on the other hand get ver little training in many things one would consider important--how children think, how to stimulate language,how to teach kids to read. The latter is truly sad because teachers should be taught how children learn so they can modify teaching to the needs and developmental level of children Many teachers follow the precept that they taught the subject, and the child didn't learn it so had something to do with a fault in .the child Kindergartens were introduced in Ontario because of the teachings of Maria Montessori who recognised that children needed many experiences in various areas of perception in order to acquire academic skills later. Kindergarten curriculum until Mr.Harris came along, was directed toward socialisation and training to auditory and visual perceptual development as a preparation for learning to read when they reached the appropriate level of maturation in these areas The early intoduction of formal reading and writing skills is creating frustration and failure in young children The job description for both teachers and Early Childhood educators should be directed to the needs of this age group. teachers should be required to take courses in Early Childhood education to qualify for teaching this age.
posted by JMAdams on 06 November 2009 at 3:49 PM
J.MAdams wrote: "The early introduction of formal reading and writing skills is creating frustration and failure in young children".
If this is true, then the current system is all that's required for the average child to develop socialization, and training in auditory and visual perceptual skills in preparation for learning to read and write.
I suggest the proposed program is nothing more than fancy daycare. Sounds like a nice frill for parents with young children.
If it's daycare, then lets just be realistic about what we can afford and start to provide high quality subsidized daycare for the parents who really need it, and it should be income tested. Higher income families are quite welcome to send their children to Montessori or a wide variety of other daycare centers. Most parents who have the time do early childhood education with their kids by introducing them to a wide variety of experiences.
If producing a good education is the desired result, perhaps our money would be better spent by properly equipping our schools with computers, science lab equipment, gym equipment, musical instruments, books etc.
posted by joannie on 06 November 2009 at 5:24 PM
Well - the topic is motherhood and apple pie, and nobody is against it. Even this old cynic. The program would be critical for children from deprived or dysfunctional families. However, and as usual, the matter of payment was diligently swept under the rug. So, given the current economic restructuring how exactly will Ontario pay for it ? Our historic manufacturing baseline is being emasculated by foreign competition, I would suggest never to return. If anybody thinks otherwise they are dreaming in technicolour ! So our structural deficit will be permanent unless some economic miracle happens. Since I don't believe in miracles I believe there will be teacher salary adjustments on the political horizon. It will be the automotive union pull back all over again !
posted by DieterH on 06 November 2009 at 5:51 PM
Is it education pedagogy or finance for the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. Dwindling enrolment, and aging teachers retiring on mass to suck dry the wealth in the pension plan. How to restore the money in the plan? Create all day kindegarten with full time teachers , smaller class sizes , and more prep time. What happens with early chilhood education once the end of June arrives? I have to agree with Mr. Snobelen on this point ! Also, where are the studies and evidence that this will make society marginally better ?
posted by charge on 09 November 2009 at 7:56 PM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Get a behind the scenes take on each night's show from the producers of The Agenda.
Erica Balch (is a producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Erica on Twitter.)
Judy Brake (is a senior producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin.)
Mark Brosens (is an associate producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Mark on Twitter.)
Alan Echenberg (is The Agenda with Steve Paikin's Ottawa bureau chief. Follow Alan on Twitter.)
David Erwin (is the packaging director for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow David on Twitter.)
Sandra Gionas (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Sandra on Twitter.)
Daniel Kitts (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Daniel on Twitter.)
Melissa Martin (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Melissa on Twitter.)
Meredith Martin (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Meredith on Twitter.)
Mike Miner (is a producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Mike on Twitter.)
Stavros Rougas (is an associate producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Stavros on Twitter.)
Yasmina Sekkat (is an associate producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Yasmina on Twitter.)
Wodek Szemberg (is a senior producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Wodek on Twitter.)
Navin Vaswani (is an associate producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Navin on Twitter.)
Stacey Dunseath (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. )
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
John Snobelen to debate early childhood education?
Wasn't this the grade 11 dropout Minister who sought to "improve" educaton in Ontario by deliberately creating a crisis?
posted by BorisTheYounger on 05 November 2009 at 2:30 PM