Some comments on all-day learning

Earlier this week I shared my concern about teachers standing in the way of proposed all-day learning in Ontario elementary schools.

Today social justice reporter Laurie Monsebraaten has a positive update on the early learning front - Education Minister Kathleen Wynne says the province DOES support the idea of integrated education and childcare.

Some of the commenters had very interesting things to say, so I'm going to share those with you here:

"S. Morgan" made a very good point about having the physical space to accommodate childcare, particularly for kindergarten students:

Please be sure that you are representing the thoughts of actual individual teachers, not the unions that represent them. The opinions of individuals are not necessarily the same as the party line. The one huge concern over full day kindergarten, and the creation of education hubs is the space! Where will we put the children? In a school with 6 classes of half-day kindergarten children, you currently need 3 rooms. If they stay all day, you need 6! The government would have to invest millions to enlarge existing school buildings and the current daycare centres would be boarded up.

Certainly, bricks and mortar are huge factors here. While it seems fairly achievable that before- and after-school programs for grade-school students could be housed in current classrooms, gym facilities, cafeterias and play yards, it is potentially very tricky to figure out what to do with double the kindergartners.

However, the expectation is that it WILL take time to roll out the program at all schools where there is demand. It will take creativity and juggling and out-of-the box thinking. But it's also important to note that it likely won't be quite a doubling of kindergarten kids. Some will still have stay-at-home parents, grandparents or other caregivers that their families prefer to use.

When we look at how universal childcare supports families in countries elsewhere in the world, it's reasonable to expect that the program will become quite popular (in fact, we only need to look at Quebec's $7-a-day childcare to see that). Here's what "Secondina" had to say (clever alias, by the way):

I am a Canadian expat living abroad for over 14 years now. I live in Italy. I have two small children and no family living close by. We have a school system identical to the one proposed and I must say that it is by far the best situation one could hope for in my situation. My children are in Kindergarten (my 3 yr old) and in 1st grade. We take them to school in the morning at 8-8.15 and pick them up between 5-5.30. We pay a minimal cost of approx 400 Euros each per year for pre- and post-school programs and would be lost and financially inhibited without them. My children get hot lunches served from a school catering service and are cared for throughout the day, which allows me to work serenely and not worry about them being picked up by a baby sitter or neighbour and taken to daycare or sitting in front of someone's TV for hours!

I can relate to "Secondina" because I also have no family nearby to help with pick-ups and drop-offs, and there are many thousands of us in the same boat here in Toronto. "M. Lucic" concurred the proposed program would be a huge weight off:

What a great idea. Not only do the kids get early stimulus and education but the parents would get piece of mind knowing that their child is in a safe learning environment, and you don't have to worry about mid-day transportation to and from school and daycare. If this had been available when my kids were young I would have gladly paid a fee for such a program. Government will always find reasons to tax us at least this one would be worth the expense.

Predictably, there are always those who think programs like this are nanny-state interference. That children are some kind of extravagant lifestyle choice for which parents should shoulder all expenses. And that (snore) the only moral choice is for one parent to stay at home to look after the children. "Not amused" says:

Let's call it what it is: daycare, not education. It's an extra half day of play time so mom and dad don't have to spend a couple of years paying for daycare or spending time with preschoolers. But its also $500 million out of the pockets of the taxpayers, so there are other reasons to consider this kind of thing very carefully.

I could respond to this but I'd rather share the words of commenter "M. Alton:"

Note to "Not amused" I am on the board of a not-for-profit daycare, which is exceptional in its delivery of not only good, safe care, with playtime, but also education. Housed in a public school, almost all of the children graduate to grade 1 knowing addition, subtraction, and, if not reading, then the alphabet and how words fit together. I am always surprised at not only the under-estimation of children's abilities but the disdain that the public-school teachers in our school give our ECE educated staff. By properly instituting early education in caring environments we could give all kids a better start. We could relieve the most incredible stress on parents - knowing that our children are safe - while we work, which, please, most of us need to do. The 500 million out of the pockets of taxpayers is much better spent educating our children than the billions spent bailing out auto manufacturers.

Comments

[Lexa]

As a teacher, I would like to share some of our worries:

- Space, many schools are overcrowded. What plans are there for expansion not just more portables?

- Workload, Kindergarten is one of the hardest grades to teach and it takes a specialist teacher to do so. ECEs have a different (and valuable) skill set. What guarantee is there that ECEs won't be forced to take on the responsibilities of teachers?

-Childhood development, children need unstructured playtime and rest time. Many children in grade 1 struggle to stay alert and awake all day, younger children find this even more difficult. By being in a structured environment, will children lose out on some of these age appropriate activities?

-Rational, is a school better than a daycare? If not, is the only benefit parental convenience? If a school is better, then it's because of the staff and facilities, which are expensive and will cost a lot more in the long run.

The teachers in my school are only concerned with being able to implement this in a good way. Sometimes provincial decisions make sense on paper but harm the actual classroom environment.

I'll admit we also (selfishly) worry about having to share limited resources amongst even more classes. Even something as simple as where these young children can have their outdoor playtime can cause disruption, because they need a seperate (often fenced) space. Obviously to create such a space means children in another grade lose some of their playspace.

In summary, I believe strongly that ALL teachers agree a safe environment for young children is a great idea. However, there are a lot of details involved in such a big change and so far no one seems to have thought it through.

Thanks for considering my opinion, Lexa

[William Steig]

I love the ignorance of people who think that kids in daycare lie around like lumps all day, as if all my child in daycare does is unstructured rest time. ECEs build a structure into the day which includes free play and rest, as well as structured learning. My three year old son can write his name, has studied weather, spiders, bears, etc over the past few months. I believe the proposal for full day kindgergarten recognizes that naps and unstructured time are still required. Moreover, it's not someone who got bored working at Pizza Pizza who is developing the full day plan, it is people with understanding of childhood development including age appropriate rest breaks.

I agree about the space issue, although many downtown Toronto schools are not at full population, I have no idea where the extra kids would fit in our local school.

[jr]

Yes, the all-day programs become popular wherever they are implemented, but do they really result in better end-products (adults).

I am concerned with this trend, because it hides the cost of daycare in a general tax on everyone (and because I believe it isn't healthy for kids). Normally, when households choose to be dual-income (yes, "choose"--most of us could certainly choose to live a simpler life and survive on one income, and the planet would be a better place for it) they do a cost-benefit analysis, and often realize that they will be mostly working just to pay daycare. And so they find another solution---whether it means one-income, or extended family if they are close by.
There is NOTHING that comes close to the quality.
I say this knowing several ECE's personally who do not want to put their own children in daycare, and having three kids---all of whom were cared for at home while one parent worked part-time and the other full-time in low-paying jobs.

[the graduate]

There is a significant body of research which suggests that all-day (typically meaning the average business+commuting hours) care for young children (ages 2 or 3 and up, depending on the research) provided by fully certified, well-educated, and strictly regulated professionals (Ont. teachers are regulated by the OCT, which hold teachers accountable for their choices in planning and executing such care--though I'm not sure if they also regulate ECEs, if anyone out there can clarify that point) has significant positive impacts on improving student achievement in later years. This includes curbing drop-out rates, especially among students living daily with the several risk factors associated with poverty.

In regards to the plagues of poverty, we must take into account not only the challenges faced by parents forced to work several minimum-wage jobs in order to support their families (and thus taken away from the home for significant parts of the day) but also the lack of resources which such families may have, which the middle-class often takes for granted. With the growing popularity of breakfast programs in schools it is clear that for some families, providing well-balanced meals can be enough of a financial and temporal challenge. Now, visualize such a home and ask yourself: would you be likely to find a healthy selection of age-appropriate picture books, readers, educational playthings, and the like? The fact of the matter is that a certain degree of financial comfort affords all kinds of hidden (or "invisible," alluding to the "invisible backpack" theory) opportunities which most of us with the time to read these blogs take for granted as "givens" in every Canadian family home.

Now ask yourself another question: should young children be put at distinct, quantifiable disadvantage in all future academic endeavours (which can then influence their economic standing and in turn the care which they are able to provide to their own children in their own homes down the road) due to the socio-economic status of their parents? This is a tough question, and some of you without children, or who believe that you have managed entirely through your own agency to ensure a certain degree of comfort for your family, may respond with gripes about tax payers footing the bill for raising other peoples' children. But in meditating on such a question, we must also take some time to consider what type of society we hope to have in the future, since there is much more at stake in such an issue that simply the happiness of today's children, the convenience of today's parents, or the politics of friendship between today's teachers and ECEs.

[john l]

Keep in mind that hiring certified teachers, at considerably higher salaries, will mean we'll have far fewer perfectly capable staff in the system which seems to fly in the face of the claims that a low pupil-teacher/educator ratio is required at younger ages. Put another way we're imposing larger class size on our kids which is certainly not a desirable goal. I find it telling that the head of the ETFO, Sam Hammond, is pushing a plan that is clearly NOT in the best interests of children.

Either we accept that the Pascal plan is an appropriate means of delivering the desired goals or we don't; cherrypicking it to suit one's personal agenda is an attack on the kids we keep hearing are the top priority.