The evidence is overwhelming that this is the best possible way to spend eucation money. Reformers seem to like to say that kids need far more hours or days in class (implying that it might be free somehow). When progressives reply, OK we will add 2-3 years in the early years, all of a sudden, the state, the deficit OMG.

The evidence time and time again is that the program is better than free due to the savings in productiving and reduced social spending. Every dropout costs us over $4000 per year. This is the very best dropout prevention program.

Below the link for the report. The evidence is overwhelming that the report, and the supporting evidence has been cherry picked, especially the science, and in particular the brain studies.

http://earlyyearsstudy.ca/media/uploads/report-pdfs-en/eys3_en_full_report.pdf

Cherry picked, and massaged into messages that parents and their families are not the folks who should be looking after their own children, since they cannot possibly have the expertise of those who has a certificate.

“Early childhood education (ECE) refers to programs for young children based on an explicit
curriculum delivered by qualified staff and
designed to support children’s development and
learning. Settings may include child care centres,
nursery schools, preschools, pre- or junior kindergarten and kindergarten. Attendance is regular and children may participate on their own or with a parent or caregiver.”

The quote above, is taken from the introduction explaining the terms of the report. Over the years, I have read many papers like this, suggesting in so many ways, that only people who have been trained should be the ones in charge of education of children, including the very young. As I read the report, if one calls it reading, as it was scanning, and I slowed down when it became obvious to me that the whole report was carefully constructed to delivered the message to manipulate the public into buying the stock and trade of state-run, institutionalized care by the State, as well as education from cradle to grave.

Canada AM, had a bit, where I learn that the cost of early childhood education, full day SK and JK, and the other initiatives in Ontario, amounts to $9000 per child, and as suggested, the $9000 could be handed to the parents, and it would be a better quality than any state-run facility, based on the report’s vision.
http://www.ctv.ca/canadaAMPlayer/index.html

In the report, after reading the supporting evidence of cherry-picked information from the brain research, as well as DNA science, the reports soon turns into what the vision of early childhood education would be, using examples taken from the report of what if would look like.

“Darlene and Zehra sing their special song as Zehra mounts the stairs; the same song they have used at each diaper change. Now Zehra gets a clean diaper and initiates the song to let Darlene know she wants to be changed. Her physical competency and sense of self are encouraged
as she mounts the table on her own and lies
down, rather than being lifted and put in place. The
song calms Zehra as she transitions from playing to
being cleaned. As part of the routine, Zehra hands
the diaper to Darlene; in exchange, Darlene gives
Zehra a cloth to wipe her hands. Darlene explains
each step and Zehra now delights in indicating to
Darlene what comes next.”

I could only think about my youngest child, and what she would have done if she was in the same situation as the child in the quote above. It certainly would not be the above image, but more importantly, the whole reports stinks of downplaying parents, their abilities, and even right down to their own DNA. Somehow parents are lacking, and at the same time, pushing the message that Early childhood education done their way is the key to achievement, reading, writing and numeracy levels, at the start of grade 1.

If so, the thousands of students that do have a good start, including early childhood education, all that has been gained, is lost starting in grade one. The children quickly form the 40 percent or so who struggle in the 3 Rs. Why? The poor instruction and practices of the education system, that rests on a philosophy, and not embedded on the science. Cherry picking the science especially in brain research to support the particular vision of the report, but at the same time, the public education system of the K to 12 system, ignores all the brain and cognitive research when it comes to the education of our children, to serve the best interests of those who work within the education system and their pocketbooks.

From the other side of the coin, and what schools do not provide - “Truth is, the skills learned in Reading Rocks are no different than how any other kid learns to read, says McNamara.

The difference is that kids with learning disabilities need one-on-one, direct, explicit instruction with lots of repetition—something that’s tough, if not impossible, to get at school, he says. “

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3377368

Another example of what schools do not provide, nor are the best ones to provide education services.

So you know more about this than Mustard-McCain? You can try the old voucher bit but I don’t expect there will be any takers. No accountability. I guess you can see things like ECE moving away from reform now as new Premier od Alberta cancels grade 3 and 6 testing to bring her province more in line with world leading Finland.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/canada/alberta+premier-+designate+alison+redford+to+name+cabinet+within+two+weeks/6442493957/story.html

Doug, I would not let the so-called experts near my pet ferret, who naturally has attention deficit problems. As for the comments in the many newspaper articles, the majority are against it for many different reasons.

I really like this article written by Mustard, on collecting the stats. “This is all good because when it comes to building a better Canada, the top indicator of national progress ought to be reflected in how we support the development of the youngest of our young in a consistent manner across the country. Is there a better measure? Don’t think so. Shouldn’t it mean the same to be a child whether in Kamloops, Sudbury or a small fishing village in Newfoundland or on reserve? Either we mean it when we say “our kids are our future” . . . or not!”
http://www.thestar.com/article/1091070—provinces-fill-void-on-early-education

However, if the public education system and other government agencies are allow to collect the stats, even here they will buried the failures in a massive grave of spin. As well as to continue to buried the stats on the 40 to 60 % who fail to reach grade level on the 3 Rs by the end of grade 3. If anything, and a great deal of many parents, no matter the excellent childhood education a child has, the current education practices and policies will put an end to any gains made children start grade school.

No thank you, I no longer want my children, or future grandchildren being guinea pigs for the state and to serve the state.

The next link, is from my own province, and the so-called experts jumping on board. Otherwise, parents, including one of the ministers who clearly expressed that child care should be left in the hands of the parents, and whatever is coming down the pipeline, choice of daycare, and within the budget. There is no province that can afford Mustard’s vision.

Go with the experts? Go with Nancy? Hmmm

It is extremely feasible and cheaper to teach effectively
K-3 and have avoided this spending.
No guarantees on the quality and effectiveness of what they are doing-I only hope they have effective learning,at this price our province deserves results.

Fraser Mustard is a great supporter of youth and nurturing and teaching our youngest,he probably realized they are stuck in political mayhem.

Nevertheless, the world is moving to public education beginning at age 2 as Montessori suggested many years ago. The smoke is out of the bottle now. The progress will be relentless and it will be in the public sector. Even with McGuinty’s all day JK he is only in the middle of the pack in Canada.

The world asked for more hours and days in school and it is being delivered.

While I think early publicly-funded childhood education is a good ideea, especially in urban centers where a lot of mothers work full time, Ontario’s implementation is unfair because discriminates against the parents who choose to educate their children someplace else than their local school and is conducive to low quality.

It is profoundly unfair that families where parents choose to take care of their young children at home or choose to send their children to an early childhood program different than the local school pay taxes and see no public support whatsoever for their children.

From a quality perspective, where is the quality when the children spend half the day with one set of educators the other half with others, and where in addition to that working parents have to figure out a before 9 o’clock and after 3:30 pm daycare arrangements that may be in another place with another set of people?
Moreover, where is the quality coming from when there are no expectations about what the program hopes to achieve, no choice and no accountability?

Essentially dr. Mustard’s ideas about a high-quality early childhood program have morphed into a low-quality program that saves about 500$ a month for the parents that use it at a cost of around 850$ per child for the province.

The program as it is today has nothing to do with Dr. Mustard’s high quality vision and with the benefits to the child such a program would provide!

Unfortunately a good ideea - because I do believe that publicly-funded early childhood education is a good ideea - has become the means to buy the votes of working parents and of some teachers and to extend the monopoly of the public schools to lower age groups.

Gradually, the state is moving public education downwards to I expect 2 year olds (toilet training). The state is establishing a program and also telling parents who do not agree that you are free to keep your children home until age 6. If they fall behind that is on you. Please don’t expect the tax payer to fund every whim that a local parent might want instead of the state program. Take it or leave it.

Programs like this are only cost efficient if publically financed and controlled. The space is generally available in public schools and will play a role in keeping rural schools open.

I’m not necessarily against allowing parents who’d like to use it an opportunity, however I suspect it’d morph into a massive subsidy program, as in Quebec, where parents contribute next to nothing, drive out the private suppliers and punish parents who don’t participate.

By all means offer it to those who want it and expect them to cover a big chunk of the cost.

Keep on dreaming Doug, especially on toilet trained 2 year olds. As well as well-behaved two year olds, and no doubt if your version becomes a reality, a betting pool will start, to who would be first school in a board district to suspend two year olds from day care. Lots of stories like this in the U.S., and all of them are dealing with early childhood centres and day cares of the public run versions and the handing out of suspensions for the three year olds.

Cost efficient, no not by a long shot especially when it is heavily subsidized by the public purse strings, as well as costly for parents. Of course, schools are not open on the weekends, holidays, snow days, and what do you expect parents to do than? Or on the flip side, what will the state-run day care do, when the two and three year olds, running around with their blankets sucking on their thumb, some with pacifiers, others still with a bottle, and all the other neat things that little kids will do that sometimes drives adults crazy? Blame it on parents, or tell parents that their children are no longer wanted?

The whim of parents are not whims, but represent the deep knowledge of their own children, as well as knowing their needs better than anyone else including day cares.

The program IS NOT cost efficient.

In GTA parents can find good early childhood education for 4 and 5 year olds at approximately 900-950$/months. For that money their child is with the same set of educators all day, in an environment with less than 15 children per educator and if they choose well - children will learn how to sound words and print -.
At that price before 9 o’clock and after 3:30pm care and lunch are included.

Let’s compare with sending the same 4 or 5 year old to the public school’s early education.
The child is with one set of people for half the day, another set of people for the other half for a price to the province of about 850$. No lunch included.
In addition, the parents have to arrange for before and after care which may yet be in a different place with different people for usually at least another 400$, most likely 450$.

Quality?? Choice??
Money saved by the parent 500$.
Money spent by the province from the taxpayer’s money, including that parent’s money 850$.

Total cost
- public early childhood program, no lunch, no choice, no guarantees = 850 + 450 = 1300$
- existing early childhood education program, lunch parents can choose = 950$

Where is the efficiency?
Where is the quality?
Where is the fairness?

If the government’s priority was children’s interests, they would give a tax break of 450-500$ to all the parents, or all the low income parents, and allow them to choose.