Early Years Continuum Project: Literature Review

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review

Susan Abells, MA Henry Public Affairs Abells

November 17, 2011

Prepared for: Aligning Early Learning and Care Services, Success by 6® Edmonton

Abstract Providers of early childhood learning and care services at four pilot sites in Alberta are examining how they can address gaps in service and improve the experiences of families they serve through increased cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. Findings are intended to be relevant and transferable to other communities in Alberta, and may inform future recommendations for the development of an early learning and care framework for Alberta. The purpose of this literature review is to guide and support the work of the pilot sites. First, key terms are analyzed and defined in light of the current literature, and leading international theory and practice is examined. The Canadian government’s current approach to funding early childhood education and care is reviewed, followed by an analysis of how these services are delivered in British Columbia and Ontario. Two Canadian models are examined in detail: StrongStart BC, which is now operating in 320 communities across British Columbia, and Best Start Child and Family Centres in Peel Region, Ontario. These are examined from the perspective of how provincial policy in BC and Ontario is being translated into practice, and how these models are governed and operated, with particular attention paid to successes and challenges. A third delivery model, Early Childhood Schools in Canberra, Australia, is also reviewed, to provide a comparison from a jurisdiction outside of Canada. Finally, the implications of this investigation, and how these findings may inform the delivery of early childhood learning and care services in Alberta, are considered.


Preface On behalf of the early childhood sector, Success By 6® Edmonton, an initiative of the United Way of Alberta Capital Region, received grant funding from the Early Learning Branch of Alberta Education for the Early Years Continuum Project. This report was prepared by Susan Abells, Partner, Abells Henry Public Affairs, for Aligning Early Learning and Care Services, under contract to the United Way of the Alberta Capital Region with funding provided by the Government of Alberta. Abells Henry Public Affairs is a trade name of The Abells Group Inc. This report should be cited as follows: Abells, S. (2011). Early Years Continuum Project: Literature Review. Edmonton: Success by 6® Edmonton

i


Executive Summary There is a growing consensus, both nationally and internationally, on the importance of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in the healthy development of young children, in strengthening foundations for lifelong learning, and in supporting the social and economic well-‐ being of families. This literature review presents the latest research and trends in the provision and delivery of ECEC services. A wide range of international understandings and approaches This examination reveals the strong connection between how countries understand and value ECEC and how they govern and deliver programs and services for young children. Nordic countries, for example, understand ECEC as a societal responsibility and provide families with integrated, high quality programs and services to support broad, holistic childhood development goals that include the cognitive, emotional, social, and physical health and well-‐being of children. Other countries, such as Australia, view ECEC as a strategic plank in their government’s productivity agenda, understanding ECEC as an investment in human capital that in the short term supports the healthy development of children and in the long term the country’s economic and social prosperity. In Canada, ECEC is considered a private responsibility. Governments, both federally and provincially, have focused their policies on providing parents with a wide range of choice in early learning and care services. In Alberta, three ministries have responsibility for providing services for young children: Alberta Health; the Ministry of Human Services, which oversees child care and offers families an array of child care options operated by for-‐profit and not-‐for-‐profit providers that may be licensed or unlicensed; and Alberta Education, which offers parents half-‐ day kindergarten for five year olds, and developmental and learning services for children with disabilities or delays as young as 2½ years old. While the range of programs and services offered to parents in Alberta is varied, the availability of child care and early learning, especially in rural communities, is often limited. There is growing awareness that parents need support to access the services that are right for their families. This has led to efforts to rethink how ECEC programs and services are delivered in Alberta. The Early Years Continuum Project This literature review supports the Early Years Continuum Project (EYCP), which is working with four pilot sites in urban and rural Alberta to identify and strengthen early learning and care services for families with young children. Each pilot is examining ways to reduce gaps in service and expand programs and services to meet identified community needs. EYCP recognizes that increased cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and integration among early childhood learning and care providers will improve the experience of children and families accessing services. The findings from this study are intended to be relevant and transferable to communities across Alberta, and may inform future recommendations for the development of an early learning and care framework for Alberta. Key definitions and considerations This literature review places particular emphasis on understanding key terms, such as the meaning of “continuum.” Based on the ECEC literature, and supported by the medical literature

ii

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review on the continuum of care, continuum within the context of ECEC is defined as the experience of continuity and the careful management of transitions between settings. This definition draws particular attention to improving the continuity experienced by children and families as they navigate between ECEC services, and offers clear direction for the goal of providing for the seamless delivery of supports and services. Efforts are directed at managing transitions that occur at two levels: daily, as children move from one placement to the next (for example, from home to early morning care to preschool to after-‐school care to home), and on developmental transitions, as children mature and experience change as they move from home to daycare to preschool to kindergarten to Grade One. Within the international community, education and care are recognized as inseparable and necessary aspects of quality services for young children. Rather than trying to manage these two cornerstones of early childhood development independently, the trend is to integrate programs and services under the auspices of a single ministry, the Ministry of Education. Integration of ECEC services is seen as an important strategy in managing issues of continuity and transition. The literature identifies two key aspects of integration: conceptual and structural. Government frameworks are recognized as key to aligning the vision, principles, pedagogy, and goals of ECEC. This study examines several delivery models that require varying degrees of structural integration, such as the co-‐location of services in the “hub” model, and the more virtual “wraparound” model that depends on collaboration among service providers. Pedagogy is recognized as a unifying element in early education and the care of young children, and the research indicates that international understanding of early childhood development and learning is changing, moving away from Jean Piaget’s theory based on children constructing their own knowledge (developmental-‐constructivism) and toward Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, focusing instead on the important role that parents, peers, and educators play in guiding and mediating a child’s early learning and development. This shifting theoretical foundation is impacting the development of curricula for young children, broadening from a pre-‐primary pedagogy narrowly focused on cognitive goals associated with school readiness (literacy and numeracy) to a social pedagogy focused on broad goals that support the overall health, well-‐ being, and cognitive development of young children. From theory to practice This review provides three distinct cases studies on how ECEC is understood, governed, and delivered as a continuum of supports and services, identifying in each their unique successes and challenges. Key elements examined include the frameworks that articulate policy and guide practice; the types of programs and services offered and how these are managed and evaluated; approaches to issues of access, continuity, and transitions; and how each jurisdiction trains, organizes, and develops its workforce. Ontario’s Best Start Strategy: In 2005, the Ontario government appointed a Best Start Expert Panel to develop a long-‐term strategy and design a coherent, responsive early childhood system for children from birth to age six. By 2007, the panel had completed an early learning framework, Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT), providing a curriculum and pedagogy for use in all early childhood settings, including child care centres, home-‐based child care, kindergarten, and nursery schools. In 2009, Dr. Charles Pascal released his report, With Our Best Future in Mind. It set in motion the re-‐engineering of child care and early learning in Ontario.

iii

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review In 2010, the Ontario Government moved the responsibility for child care under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. In partnership with school boards, the government launched full-‐day kindergarten for four and five year olds, including extended care for school-‐aged children (four to 12 year olds) to provide before-‐ and after-‐school care, and care during holidays. The government also partnered with large regional and northern municipalities to implement Best Start Child and Family Centres, a virtual, no wrong door approach to providing a continuum of supports and services for parents and children from birth to three years old. This approach includes child care, preschool, pre-‐and postnatal supports, information on early childhood development, and links to community agencies. To develop its workforce, Ontario established the first College of Early Childhood Educators (ECEs). Ontario requires full-‐day kindergarten classes with more than 16 children to be led by a team of one teacher and one ECE. The major challenges facing this re-‐engineering of ECEC focus around a common understanding of key concepts (such as continuum, seamlessness, and no wrong door), structural integration of services, and development of the workforce. There is particular concern that as ECEs are drawn into the school system, with its better wages, benefits, and working conditions, there will not be sufficient staff to support the delivery of services to children from birth to three years, which are operated largely by the private sector. StrongStart BC: In British Columbia, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is responsible for child care and is guided by its framework, Child Care in BC (2009). This ministry is responsible for regulating licensed and unlicensed child care, allocating operating funds to child care providers, and providing subsidies for low-‐ and moderate-‐income families. It also licenses the ECE workforce and manages an ECE Registry. The Ministry of Education is responsible for early learning and developed the BC Early Learning Framework to provide consistent curriculum and pedagogy in all BC early childhood settings. Working with the school boards, the Ministry of Education is now launching universal access to full-‐day kindergarten for five year olds and is working with school districts to identify unused space to provide the StrongStart BC drop-‐in program in schools. The StrongStart program does not provide child care, but is a place where parents and caregivers can drop in with their children (from birth to four years) to access a continuum of supports and services. Each StrongStart program is guided by an inter-‐sectoral steering committee that links the program to other community-‐based services. An ECE leads the early learning program and acts as a facilitator, working with parents, providing information on early childhood development, and referring parents to other agencies as needed. By the fall of 2011, StrongStart was available in 320 schools across BC. A key challenge has been the structural integration of this drop-‐in program into the school system. Requiring the use of unused space can be limiting, and integrating ECEs into the school workplace culture requires leadership and professional development for principals, kindergarten teachers, and ECEs. Evaluators of the program indicated that this form of integration offers tremendous benefits to both early childhood learning cultures (traditional teaching and sociocultural learning), as each informs and influences the other. Early Childhood Schools, Canberra: In 2009, the government of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) launched a new ECEC model, Early Childhood Schools, offering early learning and care programs from preschool to Year (Grade) Two, as well as child care and other programs for parents and their children from zero to eight years old. This new public school approach is supported by Australia’s national ECEC partnership agreements on early childhood education

iv

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review between the federal, state, and territory governments, as well as national frameworks and strategies for early learning, early childhood development, national quality standards, the early years workforce, and the implementation of the Australian Early Development Index. As the program is very new, a published third-‐party evaluation is not yet available. Based on reports from the schools, school-‐readiness, as it relates to literacy and numeracy, appears to be a problem that each school has to address. The problem appears at all socio-‐economic levels and may signify one of the challenges of translating sociocultural theory into practice. Implications for Alberta and the pilot sites The Early Years Continuum Project Steering Committee conducted a meeting to facilitate discussion on the findings and implications of this literature review for the pilot projects and for ECEC in Alberta. Steering committee members discussed key definitions related to continuum, seamlessness, and integration. There was general consensus that the definition of continuum was helpful in understanding how to address management issues related to “seamless delivery” and how to measure success, based on how children and families access and experience ECEC supports and services. The workforce challenges facing both Ontario and BC were discussed. Participants raised concern regarding the impact that implementation of full-‐day kindergarten may have on the child care sector and its ability to attract and retain qualified staff to care for children zero to four years old. Steering Committee members agreed that a strategy to address the training, organization, and development of the ECE workforce is vital. Steering Committee members identified that in Alberta, choice for parents is a primary consideration, as no service delivery model would capture the full spectrum of needs in every community. Nevertheless, they concluded that the notion of conceptual integration (articulating a common vision, with common principles and goals) is of paramount importance. The Steering Committee recognized that what all the case studies had in common were frameworks aligning and focusing the efforts of ECEC program and service providers. While Alberta’s early learning and care system will need to support multiple ways of achieving its goals, a unifying framework is the essential next step.

v


Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ii List of Boxes .................................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ viii Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1. Key Definitions and Considerations .......................................................................... 2 1.1 Understanding the meaning of continuum ............................................................................. 3 1.1.1 Continuum of care .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Managing continuity and transitions to create a continuum of supports and services ........ 6 1.3 Understanding integration ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Models to improve cooperation, coordination, and collaboration ..................................... 8 1.4 Seamless delivery, one-‐stop shopping, and no wrong door .................................................. 11 1.5. Evaluating integration models .............................................................................................. 12 2. International Trends in Early Childhood Education and Care ...................... 14 2.1 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) .......................................................................... 15 2.2 Governance ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Pedagogy and curriculum ...................................................................................................... 18 2.3.1 Piaget’s theory of early childhood development .............................................................. 18 2.3.2 Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of early childhood development .................................... 19 2.3.3 Implications for an early learning curriculum ................................................................... 19 2.3.4 Implications of moving ECEC under the umbrella of Education ....................................... 21 3. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada ................................................. 22 3.1 The federal government’s record on ECEC ............................................................................ 22 3.2 Implications for Canadian children ........................................................................................ 25 4. Delivery of Early Learning and Care in British Columbia ............................... 27 4.1. Child care in BC ...................................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Early learning in BC ................................................................................................................ 30 4.2.1 Early learning programs in the schools ............................................................................ 31 4.3 Case Study #1: StrongStart BC Early Learning Centres .......................................................... 32 5. Delivery of Early Learning and Care in Ontario ................................................. 41 5.1 Re-‐engineering ECEC in Ontario ............................................................................................ 42 5.2 Best Start Child and Family Centres ...................................................................................... 43 5.3 Child care in Ontario .............................................................................................................. 45 5.4 Ontario’s full-‐day kindergarten program .............................................................................. 46 5.5 Case Study #2: The Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario ................................................... 47 6. A Case Study from Australia ...................................................................................... 55 6.1 The new Australian framework for ECEC ............................................................................... 56 6.2 Case Study #3: Early Childhood Schools in Canberra, ACT .................................................... 58

vi


7. Delivery of Early Learning and Care in Alberta .................................................. 66 7.1 Child care in Alberta .............................................................................................................. 66 7.2 Early Learning in Alberta ....................................................................................................... 68 7.3 Cross-‐ministry collaboration and partnerships in Alberta ..................................................... 69 7.4 The Early Years Continuum Project (EYCP) ............................................................................ 70 8. Conclusions: Implications for Alberta and the Pilot Sites ............................... 73 9. Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography of Key References ................................ 76 9.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 76 9.2 International trends .............................................................................................................. 76 9.3 Pedagogy ............................................................................................................................... 77 9.4 The Canadian context ............................................................................................................ 77 9.5 British Columbia .................................................................................................................... 78 9.6 Ontario .................................................................................................................................. 78 9.7 Australia ................................................................................................................................ 79 9.8 Alberta ................................................................................................................................... 79 10. Appendix B: References Cited .................................................................................. 81

vii


List of Boxes Box #1: Key Terms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……2 Box #2: Key International Trends and Concepts ……………………………………………………………………….14 Box #3: Key Canadian Events, Reports, and Findings ………………………………………………………………..22 Box #4: Highlights of the BC Government’s Approach ……………………………………………….……………..27 Box #5: Highlights of the Ontario Government’s Approach ……………………………………………………...41 Box #6: Recent ECEC Reforms in Australia ………………………………………………………………………………..55 Box #7: The Alberta Context ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…66

List of Figures Figure 1: Continuum of Care (From McBryde-‐Foster, 2005) …………………………………………..……….….5 Figure 2: Wraparound Principles. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Figure 3: Fragmentation to Integration ………………………………………………………………………………..….…9 Figure 4: Early Childhood System Framework. ………………………………………………………………………….10 Figure 5: Pascal’s Vision. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 Figure 6: Eight Elements of Successful ECEC policy (OECD, 2001) ………………………………….………….15 Figure 7: Ten Policy Options for Governments and ECEC Stakeholders (OECD, 2006) ……………….16 Figure 8: A Continuum (Range) of Curricular Emphasis …………………………………………………….………20 Figure 9: A Comparison of Pre-‐primary and Social Pedagogical Traditions (Bennett, 2004b) ……20 Figure 10: OECD’s ECEC Policy Recommendations for Canada (OECD, 2004, pp. 69-‐84) ……………25 Figure 12: StrongStart BC – Revelstoke: Interconnectedness Chart ………………………………….………35 Figure 13: Peel Vision for Seamless Services ………………………………………………………………….…………49 Figure 14: Guiding Principles for a Kindergarten Programming Framework (Government of Alberta, 2008) …………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….68 Figure 15: Aligning Early Learning and Care Services (AELCS): Principles of Practice …………….…..71

viii

Introduction The Early Years Continuum Project is working with four pilot sites in urban and rural Alberta to identify and strengthen the continuum of early learning and care services provided to families with young children in their communities. Three of the sites are located in the City of Edmonton and one is located in the Town of High Prairie in Northern Alberta. The goal at each pilot site is to provide families with seamless delivery of a continuum of early learning and care services from pre-‐natal to school age. Findings from these pilot sites are intended to be relevant and transferable to other communities in Alberta, and may inform future recommendations for the development of an early learning and care framework for Alberta. The Early Years Continuum Project is working with each pilot site to facilitate the efforts of early childhood service providers to work together to improve how families access supports and child development programs. Each pilot site is examining how they can reduce gaps in service and expand programs to meet identified needs in their communities in the following ways: • • •

Improving the experience of families accessing services by increasing cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and integration among early childhood service providers. Improving the capacity of early childhood service providers to identify children at risk and provide supports for children facing barriers prior to their entry into school. Improving the capacity of schools to ease children’s transitions to formal schooling.

The purpose of this literature review is to inform and support the work of the pilot sites. The Early Years Continuum Project Steering Committee identified three case studies to be examined. The Manager provided background information on the project, and an Advisory Committee versed in the literature provided direction to key sources published by respected local, national, and international researchers and organizations (peer-‐reviewed and non-‐peer reviewed). This literature review investigates the practice of delivering early learning and care services in seven parts: 1. Key definitions and considerations clarify the meaning of essential terms used in this investigation. 2. International trends in early childhood education and care highlight leading theory and practice in the field of Early Childhood Education Care (ECEC). 3. Early childhood education and care in Canada describes the federal government’s current approach to funding ECEC and its implications for Canadian children. 4. Delivery of early childhood learning and care in British Columbia examines current policy and practice in BC, supported by a case study of StrongStart BC Early Learning Centres. 5. Delivery of early childhood learning and care in Ontario examines current policy and practice in Ontario, supported by a case study of Best Start Child and Family Centres in the Region of Peel, Ontario. 6. A case study from Australia reviews the new Australian ECEC framework and examines a new school model, Early Childhood Schools, in Canberra, Australia Capital Territory. 7. Implications for Alberta and the pilot sites examine current supported policy and practice in Alberta and how the findings from this literature review may help inform the work of the pilot sites.

1


1. Key Definitions and Considerations Box #1: Key Terms In the early learning and care literature, the word “continuum” is used to mean a variety of things, sometimes leading to confusion and misunderstanding. Continuum is most often used to mean a sequence, or a range or spectrum, as in a range of early childhood development, care, and learning supports and services. Second, the word is also u sed to describe degrees of cooperation between service p roviders. For example, “a continuum of integration” is used by Colley (2010) to mean a spectrum, where services at one end are described as fragmented and at the other end as consolidated, with varying degrees of awareness, cooperation, coordination, and collaboration occurring at points along the spectrum. A third meaning refers to continuity, where the focus is on the careful management of transitions between d ifferent environments. The best example of this is in the health care sector, which uses this meaning when referring to a “continuum of care” (McBryde-‐Foster, 2010). The focus here is on how patients experience their care: whether they experience smooth transitions between care environments or the continuity is disrupted by gaps in service, communication, or transfer of information. Attention is placed on engaging the family and caregivers, including them as members of a care team while encouraging open, transparent dialogue and respecting family choices. Emphasis is also on improving cross-‐setting communications and accountability and implementing performance measures that evaluate family experiences (Coleman, 2011). The “wraparound m odel” of providing supports and services in education (Prakash et al., 2010; Wosnack et al., 2010) shares some of the same principles as the continuum of care model in health, such as family engagement in a team approach, parental choice and voice (where preferences are solicited and honoured), and collaborative development of individual learning plans for students. Seamless delivery is about connecting services in such a way that transitions between different services disappear. Families perceive that services are delivered by a single agency, even if they are delivered by multiple agencies. Similarly, “no wrong door,” refers, in a virtual sense, to the perception that when a family enters one agency, they enter every agency. “One-‐stop shopping,” on the other hand, refers to providing services from a single location, also known as the co-‐location of services (Government of Ontario, 2011a). The “hub model” focuses on organizing the delivery of services from a single location, such as a school or child care centre, where services are expected to be responsible to the community and responsive to community needs, simplifying access to services and easing children’s transitions between services (Mahon and Jenson, 2006). Integration is best understood from a management perspective, in terms of how a continuum, as continuity between transitions, is achieved. Integration has two dimensions. The first is conceptual integration, which involves adopting common values and a common u nderstanding of pedagogy, supported by common goals and p olicy objectives. Structural integration is achieved when supports and services are managed under common legislation, regulation, and funding; have common staffing regimes; and workforces are reorganized, trained, developed, with common oversight (Colley 2010). The most important consideration, from a management perspective, is finding the optimum amount of integration required to mange the transitions between learning and care environments to achieve, personally and directly, the experience of continuity from the child’s and p arent’s perspective.

2


1.1 Understanding the meaning of continuum The use of the word “continuum” in the literature is a cause of some confusion. The research reveals the word is used to mean different things. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “continuum” as a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, but the extremes are quite distinct (http://www.oxfordreference.com). This corresponds to how the word continuum is often used in the literature to describe a range or a spectrum of component parts. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2006) uses the word to describe a comprehensive range of services that goes beyond child care and early learning to include wider aspects of development, such as the general health and well-‐being of children, with strong linkages to services that address issues of participation and social inclusion for the parents, such as employment and English language and literacy programs. The word continuum is also often used to describe different degrees of cooperation among service providers. Colley (2010), for example, describes a “continuum of integration,” where service integration involves a process of awareness, communication, coordination, collaboration, and consolidation. The OECD (2006) suggests that cooperation between different services creates a continuum that is responsive to the needs of parents and young children, and eventually, cooperation between different services can give birth to a comprehensive service approach that is more sensitive to the full range of children’s learning and developmental needs, as well as to parents’ needs for child care and other supports. While these uses of the word continuum focus on the component parts and degrees of cooperation between service providers, it does not capture what continuum means from the perspective of parents and their children. This meaning is best captured by the definition provided by Dr. Charles Pascal in his report to the Premier of Ontario, With our Best Futures In Mind (2009, p. 19): A continuum provides a continuity of people, environments, expectations and programming for children and parents, and careful management of transitions from home to group experiences like child care or play-‐groups, between child care and preschool or kindergarten, and between preschool and primary school. Pascal also tells us how one municipal service manger describes a continuum: “We have introduced the notion of the ‘lost mitten,’ which is my way of defining the stress on children when they have to make so many transitions in a day.” (Pascal, 2009, p. 19) Key elements of this definition of continuum are continuity and Key elements of a careful management of transitions between placements. continuum: Pascal’s description of a continuum captures the idea of macro 1. Continuity transitions, as children age and move between different types of 2. Careful management care and learning environments: from home to group of transitions between experiences, and from child care to preschool and then to primary placements school. The service manager’s description captures the idea of micro or daily transitions that some children must navigate each day, for example, from home to before-‐school care to kindergarten to after-‐school care to home. Both descriptions focus on how children and their parents experience these transitions directly and personally, rather than how these management practices impact service providers.

3

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review 1.1.1 Continuum of care In the health care literature, as in other fields, the term Four main characteristics of the “continuum of care” is frequently used without continuum of care: people, definition. McBryde-‐Foster (2005) conducted a concept environment, events, and time development study that examined the characteristics and usage of the term continuum of care, with the goal of developing common understanding, consistent communications, and theory. Through an examination of 638 articles published in the CINAHL nursing journals database from 1995-‐2002, the analysis resulted in the identification of four main characteristics of the continuum of care: people, environment, events, and time. Based on these four characteristics, McBryde-‐Foster (2005, p. 630) developed a diagram that provides a framework to support a comprehensive definition of a continuum of care (see Figure 1). In this diagram, a patient from a population (represented by the pyramid on the left), experiences an initial event that brings the patient into contact with the health care system (the antecedent event, such as a risk, a disease, or an injury). This contact initiates a sequence of care events conducted by providers in discrete environments, each of which requires reimbursement by a payer (in other words, each event requires resources to be spent). Two additional major events related to the care process occur within each environment: relationships are established and communication is required, between patient and provider and between care providers. The patient progresses through successive environments of care over time, experiencing changing care events, relationships, and communications. The care events in each environment conclude with the occurrence of outcomes achieved in each environment of care. Over time, the positive or negative (or lack of) changes in the status of the patient result in end-‐continuum outcomes of care. The transition points, events that occur between care environments, are represented in the diagram by ascending arrows (A – F). Transition events denote a conclusion of care events in one environment, followed by an initiation of care events in the next environment, or a final exit point back into the population. These transition events create opportunities for gaps or duplication in care, improved or disconnected relationships, and full or limited communication, all of which can affect the outcomes of care in current or succeeding environments. Following the patient’s contact with one or more care environments, the patient returns to the population, having experienced the concluding positive, negative, or lack of outcomes of care. The changed status of the patient, in turn, contributes to the changing characteristics of the population to which the patient returns, as represented in the diagram by a cube on the right (McBryde-‐Foster, 2005, pp. 629-‐630). Based on this diagram, McBryde-‐Foster (2005, p. 630) generated the following definition for the continuum of care:

4

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Figure 1: Continuum of Care (McBryde-‐Foster, 2005)

5

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review A series of initiating, continuing and concluding care events that result when the patient seeks providers in one or more environments within the health care system. The complex and variable care events include initiating, continuing and concluding sub-‐events. Care events consume resources, including the cost of care reimbursed by a payer. Over time, the patient progresses between environments of care through events called transition points during which barriers, duplications and gaps in care may occur. Concluding events, also called outcomes, contribute to positive or negative changes in the patient and the cohort population. In the early learning and care literature, confusion arises when the word continuum is used interchangeably to describe a range or spectrum of services, the degree of cooperation between service providers, and/or the continuity experienced by those who are using the services as they transition between different care and learning environments. When the word continuum is used to mean continuity between transitions, the focus shifts from the service provider to the experience of the service users. Vague notions of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration among service providers are more clearly focused on the relationships and communication When the word continuum between service users (children, parents, family members, is used to mean continuity and other caregivers) and the service providers who directly between transitions, the impact the experience of the service users. Understood this focus shifts from the service way, this definition of continuum identifies key elements of provider to the experience of the system that need to be managed in order to successfully the service users. operationalize points of transition to achieve continuity and optimal transitions, between different services and diverse learning and care environments.

1.2 Managing continuity and transitions to create a continuum of supports and services To ensure high quality transition in health care, Dr. E. A. Coleman (2011), Director of the Care Transition Program at the University of Colorado Denver, suggests a multi-‐faceted approach characterized by six key elements: • • • •

•

Foster greater engagement of patients and family caregivers, with preferences actively solicited and honoured, and with access provided to their care plan. Elevate the status of family caregivers as essential members of the care team. Implement performance measurement to evaluate patient and family experience (known as patient’s voice). Define accountability during transitions using the following recommended protocol: the sending care team maintains responsibility for the care of the patient until the receiving care team has had the opportunity to review the goals for the care plan and the accompanying transfer information, clarifying any outstanding questions and acknowledging the assumption of responsibility. Build professional competency in care coordination, which requires more than just facilitating cross-‐setting communication and collaboration. This also requires an appreciation

6

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review for differences in culture and care delivery in the other care settings, and training to work with patients so they are prepared for the transition. • Improve cross-‐setting communications, which is a central core competency that requires knowledge and the use of standard operating procedures for modes of information exchange. This health care approach is similar to one described in the education literature as “wraparound.” The wraparound approach is described as a philosophy of care that includes a definable planning process involving children and their families. It results in comprehensive, coordinated supports and services to achieve improved learning outcomes and improved quality of life (Government of Alberta 2009; Prakash et al., 2010; Wosnack et al., 2010). This approach Figure 2: Wraparound Principles has been closely examined in Alberta • Family engagement characterized by voice and and forms the basis for the Alberta choice, with family perspectives actively elicited, Government’s Approach to prioritized, and actioned Collaborative Practices based on Wraparound Principles (Alberta • Team driven and committed to the success of Education, 2011b). The approach is the family based on the idea that the needs of • Natural supports with team members drawn children and youth with multiple from the family’s network vulnerabilities can best be served • Collaborative, sharing responsibility for when schools, agencies, and services developing, implementing, monitoring, and participate in both cross-‐sectoral and evaluating the p lan cross-‐agency collaboration (Prakash • Community based, with strategies that take et al., 2010, pp. 3-‐4). Wraparound is place in the most inclusive, responsive, and understood as a process. It is based accessible settings to promote home and on an intervention plan, developed community with the family, for services and supports that require resources from • Culturally responsive more than a single school or sector • Individualized (education, health, and social services). The plan is focused on serving children and youth in their communities. Each plan is individualized, and designed by a team consisting of family members, professionals, and natural supports (family networks of personal and community relationships). The fundamental principles of the wraparound approach are based on the belief that families should be equal partners in creating and implementing the plan, and that practices should focus on the strengths and assets of the child and family, rather than on their deficits.1 The wraparound principles described in Figure 2 are similar to the first two key elements in Coleman’s continuum of care. However, they do not include Coleman’s management elements needed to monitor, evaluate, and report on results—not just in terms of outcomes, but in terms of managing the continuum as continuity experienced by the family as they transition between services. These include performance measures, protocols to assure accountability during 1

Deficit approach: where children or certain populations are considered to be weak and lacking strength (OECD, 2006, p. 55).

7

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review transitions, and capacity building for the professional team to improve core competencies in communication, facilitation, and relationship building. The literature review on the wraparound approach (Prakash et al., 2010, p. 5) indicates that effective wraparound requires leadership that can address the challenges associated with developing a single comprehensive plan, which include articulating clearly defined team goals; overcoming policies, organizational cultures, and funding structures that work against a single comprehensive plan; and systematic organization of and access to data. The literature review also revealed that despite many advocates of wraparound, there is limited measurable evidence of outcomes. The research suggests that wraparound is intended to be multifaceted and individualized. While evidence of achieving individual outcomes is challenging, wraparound as a process may best be judged by outcomes achieved at the organizational and systems level (Hernandez and Hodges, as cited in Prakash et al., 2010, p. 6). If one of these outcomes is improved continuity, this could be evaluated from the perspective of the child or parent’s experience as they transition between the supports and services provided through the plan.

1.3 Understanding integration Integration is best understood from a management perspective, in terms of how a continuum of supports and services (as in continuity between transitions) is achieved for early learning and care. Colley (2010) identifies that integration has two dimensions. The first is conceptual integration, which involves adopting common values and a common understanding of pedagogy, supported by common goals and policy objectives. The second is structural integration, which is achieved when supports and services for early learning and care, currently managed by different government departments, are brought together under common legislation, regulation, and funding; with common staffing regimes; a workforce that is reorganized, trained, and developed; and with the curriculum reformed to support pedagogical objectives. Colley (2010) also describes integration as an on-‐going process that involves a continuum (as a range) of awareness, communication, coordination, collaboration, and consolidation. This, then, raises the most important consideration from a management perspective, which is finding the optimum amount of integration required in order to manage transitions between learning and care events, to achieve, from the family’s perspective, the experience of continuity. Defining the difference between terms such as cooperation, coordination, and collaboration remains a challenge. Each organization tends to determine which management approaches fall under which category. In a presentation to The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology (Senate Committee Report, 2009), the YMCA presented their multi-‐year project to create a “community architecture” for early childhood learning and care (Figure 3). The chart below presents a continuum (range) from completely distinct services (described as fragmented) to completely integrated. The different degrees of integration can be seen in both the conceptual and structural dimensions of the proposed architecture. 1.3.1 Models to improve cooperation, coordination, and collaboration In its 2006 report, the OECD defined “integrated services” as services for young children delivered in cooperation with education, health, social, and human services, in particular in areas of

8

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review disadvantage (pp. 229-‐230). In order to improve and coordinate service delivery to families, researchers are working to develop models that support increased cooperation and coordination of the services provided by different government departments, agencies, and organizations. These models are often initiated as demonstration projects, in order to evaluate their efficacy. As a result, movement towards integration is taking multiple forms, depending on the social aims (goals) of the project, which vary widely and may include child development, school readiness, and prevention programs, such as the promotion of healthy development, social inclusion, and belonging (Corter and Peters, 2011).

Figure 3: Fragmentation to Integration (YMCA, Building Community Architecture for Early Childhood Learning and Care – Session 5. In: Senate Committee Report, 2009, p. 42)

Fragmentation

Coordination

Collaboration

Separate: • Mandate/Philosophy • Enrolment • Management • Curriculum • Resources • Location • Legislation

Child care in schools or Kindergarten in child care centres. Shared: • Enrolment • Information • Program planning • Professional development

• • • • • • •

Integration

Blended program Shared space Co-‐management Blended curriculum Teaching team Reciprocal credentials Separate legislation

Single ministry Single professional qualification Single curriculum

• • •

Early Childhood System Framework: Bruner (2010) describes an approach developed by American researchers to support the social aim of children’s readiness for school. This framework is based on the understanding that school readiness and subsequent school success are dependent upon a child’s physical, social, emotional, and cognitive well-‐being and development, and that these dimensions of school readiness are interrelated. Researchers developed an approach that addresses the child in the context of the family and the family in the context of the community. The conceptual framework developed by the Early Childhood Systems Working Group2 (Figure 4) comprises four key components: Early Learning; Family Support; Health, Mental Health, and Nutrition; and Special Needs/Early Intervention. Services supporting these components must be available, affordable, of good quality, and accessible to all those who need them. To achieve this, emphasis is placed on systems building, where cross-‐agency planning and governance structures are designed to reduce fragmentation and better integrate services. The Hub Model: A hub model organizes the delivery of services from a single location, which can be based, for example, in a school or a non-‐profit child care centre (sometimes referred to as the co-‐location of services). Hub models are generally focused on the social aims of healthy child development and family well-‐being, and offer programs and services based on needs identified in 2

The Early Childhood Systems Working Group is composed of national leaders from policy and research organizations in the United States (Bruner 2010).

9

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review the community. These can include access to child care, pre-‐primary (preschool and kindergarten), and family support services (Colley 2010). Researchers suggest that hub models should be accountable to community representatives and focused on simplifying parental access to services and integrating multiple services for children, to ease their transitions during the day and over time (Mahon and Jenson, 2006, p. 41).

Figure 4: Early Childhood System Framework

The Government of Ontario is currently in the process of developing hubs to link families to services. Called Best Start Child and Family Centres these hubs bring all the various early childhood services under a single system managed by the municipality. This requires municipalities to work with school boards and public health units, as well as child care and children’s services providers. Dr. Charles Pascal, in his report to the Premier of Ontario, With our Best Futures In Mind (2009, p. 20), proposes that these new centres be developed and expanded “by consolidating and ‘re-‐engineering’ the resources, governance, and mandates of existing child care, family resource, and early intervention services.” Pascal’s vision of transforming the chaotic multitude of services by bringing them all under the administration of a single municipal system is described in Figure 5: Pascal’s Vision.

10


Figure 5: Pascal’s Vision

1.4 Seamless delivery, one-‐stop shopping, and no wrong door In 2011, the Government of Ontario released an update on building its new system of Best Start Centres. In its report, the Government of Ontario recognizes that integration remains its key challenge. A key recommendation from service providers asked for clarification of core concepts: “Communities need common definitions of ‘integration,’ ‘seamless service,’ and other core concepts so they know if they are on the right track” (Government of Ontario, 2011a, p. 8). In response, Dr. Pascal clarified his position on integration in this report: “While hubs and other examples of high levels of collaboration in a community among providers can be a pre-‐requisite for true integration, they are not the destination. Too many still imagine that the ‘centre’ concept means ‘one-‐stop shopping’ and that all services would be located in a single place rather than the more virtual ‘no wrong door’ notion that means when a family enters a single agency, it enters every agency” (Government of Ontario, 2011, p. ii). In its report, the Government of Ontario responded by clarifying the following key terms (Government of Ontario, 2011, pp. 9-‐10): •

Seamless service means that programs and services are so well connected that children and families may actually perceive services are being delivered by one agency, though they may actually be delivered by multiple agencies. Seamlessness is about connecting services in such a way that transitions between different services disappear.

•

Integration means focusing on client and community needs rather than on the mandate of a particular agency or organization. It means local programs and services are delivered according to a community plan that is based on information about the needs of local children and families.

11

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review It may include the consolidation of resources, the co-‐location of different service functions, and/or the re-‐engineering of existing resources. An integrated services system means there is “No Wrong Door” – families can enter the system through any service provider and receive the supports they want and need. •

Re-‐engineering is the fundamental rethinking and redesign of services and processes to achieve dramatic improvements in outcomes. The key to effective re-‐engineering is that organizations look at their programs, services, and processes from a clean slate and determine the most effective way to work with other organizations, to support the best outcomes for children and families.

1.5. Evaluating integration models Whether or not these efforts at systems building have successfully improved parenting, children’s healthy development and school readiness must be evaluated. However, these early childhood systems are difficult to evaluate for three reasons: unlike school-‐based systems, a uniform body of legislation and regulation does not govern them; there is no consensus among early childhood educators, academics, or professionals regarding the most optimal form of assessment; and types of programs and services vary dramatically among service providers (Janus and Brinkman, 2010). The developers of the Early Childhood System Framework (Figure 4) recognize that different evaluation methodologies are needed to examine the performance of systems. Traditional program evaluation measures improved outcomes for participants and program quality, based on evaluating how the program is delivered, such as classroom environments, child/staff ratios, staff qualifications and parent satisfaction (Bruner 2010; Janus and Brinkman 2010). Evaluating improved outcomes for systems requires a different set of evaluation tools. Findings from the Toronto First Duty Project (2001-‐2006) describe a comprehensive suite of methodologies used to evaluate this project, which began as a demonstration project testing a model of service integration across early childhood programs of child care, kindergarten, and family support in school-‐based hubs (Corter and Peters, 2011). Methodologies include •

Indicators of Change: The Toronto First Duty project developed this management tool. It is used to guide, track, and assess progress made towards the integration of programs (child care, early childhood education, family support programs, and kindergarten) that are linked to early intervention, community and public health, and social services (Toronto First Duty, 2005). The tool is an index made up of a suite of program indicators linked to the following categories: local governance; seamless access; learning environment; early childhood staff team; and parent participation. For each indicator, benchmarks track progress along a continuum (meaning a range) of co-‐existence to coordination, collaboration, and integration. Benchmarks are organized on a five-‐point scale from 1 (co-‐existence) to 5 (integration). This evaluation methodology was used to examine the implementation process and identified struggles related to professional turf; missing elements of space and funding; staffing and leadership turnovers; and working without a system of supports across sectors that were “siloed” at higher levels of government. Successes identified that strong leadership and time for staff to meet together did lead to improved program quality and delivery, and demonstrated that progress was made in

12

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review terms of moving from separate to integrated service delivery (Corter and Peters, 2011; Pelletier and Corter, 2006). •

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-‐Revised (ECERS-‐R): Assessed and confirmed program quality improvements (Corter and Peters, 2011). ECERS-‐R is a scale designed to assess process quality in early childhood care groups by primarily observing the various interactions that go on in a care setting between children and staff, parents, other children, the materials children interact with, etc. (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, n.d.).

•

Early Development Instrument (EDI): Identified short-‐term positive effects on children’s social-‐ emotional development (Corter and Peters, 2011; Corter et al., 2008). The EDI provides a population-‐based estimate of child development at the time of school entry. It is a tool based on several months of observation and is completed by kindergarten teachers. As a population measure, it can help governments and communities develop programs and policies to support childhood development (HELP, 2009).

•

Measuring Parenting Capacity: Indicated parenting capacity (confidence for helping learning at home and involvement with the school) was greater at First Duty sites than in schools with similar socioeconomic characteristics and traditional early childhood programs (Corter and Peters, 2011; Corter et al., 2009; Colley, 2010).

•

Dose-‐response Analysis: Based on an analysis of the number of hours the program was used by groups of families using First Duty sites, with various demographic controls. Results showed that more intense use also increased children’s cognitive and language development (Corter and Peters, 2011; Patel, 2009).

13


2. International Trends in Early Childhood Education and Care

Box #2: Key International Trends and Concepts Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): In its foundational Starting Strong reports, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2001 and 2006) used this phrase to recognize the growing international consensus that care and education are inseparable and necessary aspects of the provision of q uality services. ECEC supports an integrated and coherent approach to policy that is inclusive of all families, regardless of employment or socio-‐economic status. Most OECD countries, including Canada, use this nomenclature to describe the broad provision of a wide cross-‐section of child development services that include education, health, and social welfare. At the provincial level, h owever, many Canadian experts prefer the word “learning” to “education,” in order to emphasize h olistic theories of early childhood development that focus on broad goals of health, well-‐being, and cognition, rather than on structured, narrow approaches to teaching associated with education, with its emphasis on literacy and numeracy (see pedagogy and curriculum below). Governance: The OECD reports, which examined the status of ECEC in economically developed nations, identified two models of governance: (1) an integrated m odel (also known as a single auspice model), where care and education services (birth to age 6) are consolidated under one ministry – usually the Ministry of Education. Countries with strong welfare states (Nordic and Central European countries) generally use this model of integrated governance; (2) A split system model of governance, where services are divided among several ministries, generally under the Ministries of Health, Social Services, and Education. Countries with liberal economies (such as Canada, the United States, and Australia) generally use this model of governance. The OECD reports and other researchers recognize a strong trend towards the single auspice model, generally under the M inistry of Education (OECD, 2006; Colley, 2010; Bennett, 2010; UNICEF, 2008). Education is taking the lead because this ministry has experience managing a universal entitlement (for all school-‐aged children), and there is no stigma attached to accessing education services (Early Childhood Australia, 2003). Pedagogy: In English, this word means a teaching method, often with the connotation of being didactic. In Nordic and Central European countries, this term has a more holistic meaning, where pedagogy for young children addresses the whole person and the pedagogical relationship includes care, upbringing, and education (OECD, 2006). International trends are shifting from supporting Piaget’s theory of developmental constructivism, a pedagogy that believes development precedes learning, where each child constructs their own knowledge based on their stage of development, to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of development, a pedagogy that believes learning precedes development, and that children learn based on their interaction with their parents, peers, and teachers (Edwards, 2003, 2007). Curriculum: This changing theory of child development is impacting curriculum. The trend in ECEC is shifting away from “delivering” a detailed cognitive curriculum (focused on literacy and numeracy). Instead, it is shifting to focus on broad development goals (including health and physical development; emotional well-‐being and social competency; positive approaches to learning; communications skills; and cognition and general knowledge) where children are understood to learn best within positive relationships developed with parents, family, peers, and early childhood educators (Bennett 2004).

14

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review This section examines international trends in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), why the international community has chosen to use this term, and how it influences the way that education and care of young children is provided for and funded. This section also examines changing views and understandings of how young children develop and learn, and their impact on pedagogy and curriculum.

2.1 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) In their 2001 report, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) explained that they chose to use the phrase Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in recognition of a growing consensus in the field to treat care and education as inseparable and necessary aspects of the provision of quality services. The OECD described the term as supporting an integrated and coherent approach to policy and provision which is inclusive of all children and all parents, regardless of their employment or socio-‐ economic status. This approach also recognizes that such an approach may fulfill a wide range of objectives, including care, learning, and social support. (OECD, 2001, p. 14) In 2001, the OECD published Starting Strong, a foundational report that provided cross-‐national information and analysis to improve ECEC policy in OECD countries. This report examined all types of education and care arrangements for children under the compulsory school age, regardless of setting, funding, operating hours, or program content. It also examined policy links with family support, health, employment, and social integration domains. The report argued that integrated approaches to care and education improved the continuity of children’s early childhood experiences, used resources more efficiently, and were more likely to facilitate children’s transition from care to educational settings. It found that placing responsibility for ECEC under a single ministry promoted policy coherence and coordination3 by supporting the development of a common vision with common policies, social and pedagogical objectives, and common budgets for programs and services. Regulatory, funding, and staffing regimes, cost to parents, and operating hours tended to be

Figure 6: Eight Elements of Successful ECEC Policy (OECD, 2001) 1.

A systemic and integrated approach to ECEC policy.

2.

A strong equal partnership with the education system.

3.

A universal approach to access, with particular attention to children in need of special supports.

4.

Substantial public investment in services and the infrastructure.

5.

A participatory approach to quality improvement and assurance.

6.

Appropriate training and working conditions for staff in all forms of provision.

7.

Systemic attention to data collection and monitoring.

8.

A stable framework and long-‐term agenda for research and evaluation.

3

Policy coherence refers to the joint efforts across government departments and agencies to forge mutually reinforcing policy action towards achieving equitable access to quality ECEC. Policy coordination refers to the institutional and management mechanisms by which policy coherence is exerted across departments and sectors (OECD, 2001, Footnote 33, p. 76).

15

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review more consistent. Linkages with other services were also more easily forged (OECD, 2001, pp. 76-‐ 77). These findings led to the development of eight key elements for the development of ECEC policies (Figure 6). In 2006, the OECD conducted a second ECEC comparative analysis of another eight countries (including Canada) entitled Starting Strong II. This second analysis strongly endorsed the first report’s eight elements of successful ECEC as a framework for policy development. It also expanded on the meaning of the term, underlining that services for young children should combine care, developmental, and learning opportunities (OECD, 2006, p. 229). The report also explored other policy areas, including governance of ECEC systems, impacts of financing on quality, and contrasting pedagogical approaches. The 2006 report also identified key factors influencing ECEC policy, including the increasing participation of women in the labour market; reconciling work and family responsibilities on a basis more equitable for women; demographic challenges relating to falling birth rates and aging populations; and the need to address the issues of children living in poverty and educational disadvantage (OECD, 2006, p. 12). Within this context, the report identified supportive policies developed in many European countries that combine employment, family, and child care policies, including child benefits; family-‐friendly work practices and parental leave policies; and child care services and/or subsidies to purchase child care (OECD, 2006, p. 31). Based on this research, the OECD identified a suite of 10 policy options that should be considered by countries when developing their early childhood systems (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Ten Policy Options for Governments and ECEC Stakeholders (OECD, 2006) 1.

To attend to the social context of early childhood development (to serve social and economic objectives).

2.

To place well-‐being, early development, and learning at the core of ECEC work, while respecting the child’s agency and natural learning abilities.

3.

To create governance structures necessary for systems accountability and quality assurance (strong policy, monitoring, evaluation and reporting, and training).

4.

To develop with stakeholders broad guidelines and curricular standards for all ECEC services (that identify broad pedagogical orientations and goals for all areas of development).

5.

To base public funding estimates on achieving quality pedagogical goals (to ensure acceptable child-‐staff ratios and qualified staff, and to achieve pedagogical goals, rather than simply the creation of child care places).

6.

To reduce child poverty and exclusion through upstream fiscal, social, and labour practices and to increase resources within universal programs for children with diverse learning needs, so that all children experience successful inclusion in universal programs.

7.

To encourage family and community involvement in early childhood services, to support their children’s development and learning and enhance the continuity of children’s experience across environments.

8.

To improve the working conditions and professional education of ECEC staff.

9.

To provide autonomy, funding, and support to early childhood services (where goals and standards are articulated in national frameworks, and educators and services have the autonomy to plan, choose, or create curricula that is appropriate for and reflects the diversity of the children in their care).

10. To aspire to ECEC systems that support broad learning, participation, and democracy, so that “learning to be, learning to do, learning to learn, and learning to live together” are central to each child’s journey towards human and social development.

16


2.2 Governance

How early childhood learning and care systems are governed says much about how early childhood is understood and valued by governments (Bennett, 2011; OECD, 2001; and OECD, 2006). This understanding is reflected in how countries regulate and fund early learning and care services. Two distinct approaches to governance have evolved in developed countries.4 Bennett (2011) describes these as •

An integrated governance model of care and education services for children (birth to six years), generally under the Ministry of Education.5

•

A split-‐system governance model where services are divided among several ministries (generally under Health, Social Services, and Education).6

Countries that follow a split-‐system of governance are generally those with liberal market economies,7 where early childhood services are understood as the private responsibility of parents rather than a public responsibility. The split-‐system model has led to a division of early childhood services: child care for young children (birth to age three) followed by pre-‐primary education for children three to five years old. Researchers argue that this has resulted in a fragmentation of responsibilities and services (Bennett, 2011; OECD, 2006; and OECD, 2001). Countries with liberal market economies, however, prefer to describe their split-‐systems as “flexible” (OECD, 2006, p. 55, Note #1). In Canada, it is often described as a system that offers parents “choice.” The research suggests that child care services have tended to suffer from this division of auspices (Bennett, 2011; Corter and Peters, 2011; Canadian Child Care Federation, 2010; Colley, 2010; Kaga et al., 2010; and McMillan, 2010). As a result of this division, care and early education systems have very different regulatory frameworks, staff training and qualifications, operational procedures, and funding requirements. Unlike education, child care is left to parents to decide how their children will be cared for while they are at work, at school, or otherwise unavailable or unable to fulfill their parenting duties. These early childhood services are provided by different types of licensed organizations, both not-‐for-‐profit and private, as well as by individuals whose services may or may not be regulated. Many child care providers are self-‐employed. Those who are employed may not have employment contracts or insurance benefits. Affordability for parents is often an issue, with lower-‐income families often needing a subsidy in order to access higher quality care services. In countries with liberal market economies (such as Canada, the United States, and Australia), where spending on early childhood education and care (ECEC) continues to be far below OECD averages, the research suggests that insufficient government funding remains an obstacle to both the development of ECEC services and their integration. The literature also strongly supports the integration of early learning and care services under the auspices of a single ministry (OECD, 2006; Colley, 2010; Bennett, 2011; and UNICEF, 2008). Some governments with liberal market 4

Developed countries are described as post-‐industrial, knowledge/information societies (OECD, 2001). Examples include Iceland (1976); New Zealand (1989); Spain (1990); Sweden (1996); Norway (2005); and Netherlands (2007). 6 Examples include Canada, United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. 7 Liberal market economies identified and reviewed by the OECD include Australia, Canada, Ireland, Korea, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 5

17

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review economies, including several provincial governments in Canada, continue to resist the idea of fully integrating early learning and care systems under a single ministry.

2.3 Pedagogy and curriculum The OECD Report (2006) identified that the term pedagogy is understood differently in different countries. In English, the word pedagogue means a teacher (and often a pedantic teacher); “pedagogy” normally means a teaching method and the adjective pedagogical can be interchanged with the word didactic. Connotations in Nordic and Central European countries are broader: pedagogy is an approach to young children that addresses the whole person and the pedagogical relationship includes care, upbringing, and education (OECD, 2006, p. 230). As Colley (2010) explains, this difference in understanding arises from two distinct pedagogical traditions: one that originates in education and the other that originates in the care of young children. The way governments understand how young children develop and learn influences how early childhood systems are governed and regulated; how curriculum is developed; how the workforce is educated, certified, and qualified to teach or care for young children; and how a child’s development is assessed. 2.3.1 Piaget’s theory of early childhood development Jean Piaget’s theory is a universal description of development, where the child is the constructor of his or her own knowledge (developmental-‐constructivist view). Piaget identifies stages of cognitive development where the child, as an active learner, acquires knowledge through a process of assimilation (incorporating new events into pre-‐existing cognitive structures) and accommodation (where existing cognitive structures change to accommodate the new information). This dual process enables the child to form schema (a structured cluster of concepts) arising from the child’s empirical experiences (Edwards, 2003). This theory of early childhood development, where development precedes learning, has had a profound influence on the curriculum for early childhood education (pre-‐primary education) known as Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). The DAP guidelines argue similarly that “the most effective way of educating children would be to ensure that early childhood educational practice was appropriate for their development”(Edwards, 2003, p. 253, italics in the original). This emphasizes a particular view of development over any other possible educative purpose (Edwards, 2003, p. 254). Some theorists challenge Piaget’s core assumption that development precedes learning (Fleer, 1995). Others argue that to accept Piaget’s theory of development is to accept a particular conception of what is essential human development and success in adult life (Silin as cited in Edwards, 2003, p.254). This also raises questions regarding whose development is represented by the development theory, which primarily references white middle-‐class societies and male populations (Kessler and Bloch as cited in Edwards, 2003, p.254). As the rights and needs of local populations are increasingly recognized, so is the recognition that the needs of young children and families differ widely from one context to another, and that respect for diversity requires minority groups to be supported to continue their own child rearing and early education practices (Bennett, 2004a).

18

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review 2.3.2 Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of early childhood development Lev Vygotsky’s theory of human development, which is embedded in socio-‐historical experiences of adults and children, has gained increasing acceptance. Vygotsky’s central tenet is that learning leads the developmental process, with children learning the knowledge practices of their host communities as they interact with others (Edwards, 2003). Therefore, Vygotsky views social interaction as central to the development process, where the cognitive development of a young child is considered a function of social interaction contextualized according to the particular setting in which it occurs (Edwards, 2003). While Piaget’s theory is a universalized theory of development, where the child’s exploratory behaviour in the external world is central, Vygotsky’s is a contextualized theory. Following Vygotsky, appropriate development may take many courses involving progress towards local goals and valued skills (Rogoff, 1990). How Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of development is translated into curriculum is an area of ongoing research and development. Meanwhile, Vygotskian discourse is finding its way into policy documents that are guiding the development of early childhood curricula in many OECD countries in Europe, Australia, and North America. However, despite this increasing presence in both the academic literature and policy, the translation of sociocultural theory into practice is lagging (Edwards, 2007). 2.3.3 Implications for an early learning curriculum Bennett (2004a) argues that caution should be exercised about designing a detailed cognitive curriculum for educators to “deliver” to young children, due to the complexity of the early childhood context where the focus of young children’s learning is on broad development goals; where their learning is grounded in affective and social domains (in children’s positive relationships developed with parents, family, peers, and early childhood educators); and where the child’s learning is largely self-‐directed. As a result, governments are choosing to adopt broad guidelines and curricular frameworks that focus on the values and standards upon which early childhood services are to be provided, rather than on specific cognitive outcomes. The aim is to encourage a shared sense of purpose and facilitate communications between parents and early childhood educators/staff and children; to promote social and cultural values important for society; and to ensure a uniformity of standards. Bennett cautions, however, that to adopt such an open-‐framework approach to curriculum requires that staff be well trained and well supported: “that to co-‐construct an organized and comprehensive curriculum with young children requires advanced knowledge of child psychology and strong pedagogical training” (Bennett, 2004a, p. 2). The shift in emphasis towards a Vygotskian view of early childhood development can be seen in the 10 policy directions identified in the 2006 OECD report (Figure 7), beginning with the first recommendation of attending to the social context of early childhood development. In its report, the OECD (2006, pp. 63-‐64) describes how the social context is translated into curriculum and presented as a continuum (understood as a range), with a curricular focus on broad development goals anchored in the values of the sociocultural theory at one end, and a curricular focus on cognitive goals anchored in Piagetian theory of childhood development at the other end (Figure 8).

19


Figure 8: A Continuum (Range) of Curricular Emphasis

Curricular emphasis

Focused cognitive goals: focused skills and school-‐like learning, such as mathematical development, language, and literacy skills, with experience playing a secondary role

Focused cognitive goals

Broad development goals

Broad development goals: physical and m otor development, socio-‐emotional development, personal and social skills, artistic and cultural development, authentic (through lived situations) approaches to literacy, numeric, and science thinking

John Bennett (2004b) describes the differences between a pre-‐primary tradition that is anchored in Piagetian theory and focused on cognitive goals, and a social pedagogy tradition that is anchored in Vygotskian theory and focused on broad developmental goals (Figure 9). (Bennett’s 2004 comparison is from the Senate Committee Report, 2009, p. 32).

Figure 9: A Comparison of Pre-‐primary and Social Pedagogical Traditions (Bennett, 2004b) Pre-‐primary pedagogical tradition

Social pedagogy tradition

Centralized development of curriculum, with frequently detailed goals and outcomes. A focus on learning standards, especially in areas useful for school readiness. Teacher/child relationships tend to be formalized through reaching for detailed curriculum goals. Often prescriptive: clear outcomes are set at national level to be reached in all centres.

A broad central guideline with local curriculum development encouraged and supported. Focus on broad developmental goals as well as learning is stressed, interactivity with educators and peers encouraged, and the quality of life in the institution is given high importance. Broad orientation rather than prescribed outcomes. A diffusion of goals may be experienced, with diminished accountability. Assessment often required. Goals are clearly Assessment not required. Goals are broad. Outcomes for defined. Graded assessment of each child with each child are set by negotiation (educator-‐parent-‐child) respect to discrete competencies is an important and informally evaluated unless screening is necessary. A part of the teacher’s role. growing focus on individual language and communication competencies. Favoured in the UK, Belgium, the US, France, and the Favoured in Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, and Italy. Netherlands.

20

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review 2.3.4 Implications of moving ECEC under the umbrella of Education Following the OECD’s (2001) second element of a successful ECEC policy (a strong equal partnership with the education system), several countries moved their entire ECEC systems under the umbrella of the education ministry (Sweden, New Zealand, Spain, Brazil, Slovenia, Iceland, Norway, and Scotland). This has been seen as both a cause of concern and as an opportunity. Concern has been expressed about preschool becoming rigid and formal, losing emphasis on play and children’s holistic development (Colley, 2010). At the same time, there is an opportunity for early childhood development philosophy (from a Vygotskian sociocultural perspective) to influence the school system through the integration of ECEC. Colley (2010) argues that while a broad curriculum supports staff to ensure that a common pedagogical approach is adopted, there are also important areas of learning that need to be covered in a curriculum. The purpose of a curriculum is also to assure a prescribed level of quality and learning across age groups and regions. Colley suggests that a “blended curriculum” (that combines both social and pre-‐primary pedagogical traditions) is required to successfully integrate ECEC under the auspices of education. Edwards’ research (2003, 2007) identifies the challenges associated with the notion of “blending,” which requires a shift from “a predominantly developmental-‐constructivist to sociocultural discourse” (Edwards, 2007, p. 83). While the shift represents a continued dissatisfaction with the normative approach to development promoted by Piagetian theory, the challenge lies in translating sociocultural theory into practice in the face of long-‐held values and past practices in teacher education that support an historical commitment to Piagetian cognitive developmentalism (Edwards, 2007, p. 84). It is interesting to note that this debate has had an influence on nomenclature in Canada. At the international and national levels, governments and agencies tend to use the OECD term “early education and care,” as evident in the Senate Committee Report (2009) titled, Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada: Next Steps, and the Childcare Resource and Research Unit’s pan-‐ Canadian reports on The State of Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada (Beach et al., 2009). However, many experts in Canada prefer to use the term “early learning and care.” This is evident in titles of documents that describe curriculum frameworks for young children. For example, the Best Start Expert Panel in Ontario titled their curriculum Early Learning for Every Child Today: A Framework for Ontario Childhood Settings (2007), and British Columbia titled their curriculum the Early Learning Framework (2008). This difference in nomenclature reflects an effort to differentiate between the more holistic understanding of pedagogy associated with a sociocultural theory of learning (with its emphasis on broad development goals focused on health and physical development; emotional well-‐being and social competency; and positive approaches to learning, communications skills, cognition, and general knowledge) and the more structured approaches to teaching associated with education and traditional pre-‐primary approaches to literacy and numeracy.

21


3. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada

Box 3: Key Canadian Events, Reports and Findings 2004: The OECD prepares a Country Note on the status of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Canada that was very critical of the lack of support for these services, other than in the Province of Quebec. It described the Canadian system in the rest of Canada as a patchwork of uneconomic, fragmented services, where the child care sector is seen as nothing more than a labour market support (OECD Directorate for Education, 2004, p .6). The report went on to recommend increased public funding with a vision of creating a universal ECEC service for children zero to six years, delivered by a mix of providers and governed by publicly mandated agencies with greater equity of access, especially for children with special n eeds and for Aboriginal families. 2004 – 2006: The federal government negotiates federal/provincial agreements promising to invest $5 billion over five years in ECEC. 2006: A new federal government is elected. The bilateral agreements are replaced with a Universal Child Care Benefit, titled the “Choice in Child Care” benefit, providing Canadian families with a taxable b enefit of $1200 p er year per child under age six at a cost of $10.5 billion over five years. This reflects the new federal government’s understanding of ECEC as a parental rather than a societal responsibility. 2006: The OECD’s Starting Strong II report rates Canada last among 14 OECD countries in spending on ECEC. 2008: UNICEF publishes its first international study to rank ECEC quality, access, financing, and policy. Canada is ranked last of 25 developed nations, tied with Ireland. 2008: There are enough regulated spaces for about 20% of Canada’s young children, despite the fact that more than 70% of Canadian mothers are in the paid labour force (Beach et al., 2009, Tables 6 & 9). 2009: The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology releases its report on ECEC in Canada, stating that broad trends in Canada indicate that the provincial/territorial governments in Canada are moving in directions consistent with some of the country-‐specific recommendations made to Canada by the OECD in 2004.

3.1 The federal government’s record on ECEC In 2004, the OECD prepared a Country Note on Canada, examining its policies on early childhood education and care (ECEC). The review team’s overall evaluation of ECEC services in Canada, excluding those delivered in Quebec, was generally critical, describing them as a “patchwork of uneconomic, fragmented services, within which a small “child care” sector is seen as a labour market support, often without a focused child development and education role” (OECD

22

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Directorate for Education, 2004, p. 6). See Figure 10 in this report for a list of recommendations made by the OECD regarding policy, funding, access, and quality provision of ECEC services. Also in 2004, the federal government began to address such concerns by building a Canada-‐wide system of ECEC. By 2006, the Government of Canada had negotiated interim bilateral agreements with all 10 provinces, based on Agreements-‐in-‐Principle on Early Learning and Child Care founded on the QUAD Principles (of Quality, Universally-‐inclusive, Accessible, and Developmental care) at an estimated cost of $5 billion over five years.

Figure 10: OECD’s ECEC Policy Recommendations for Canada (OECD, 2004, pp. 69-‐84)

Upstream policy recommendations: • Strengthen federal/provincial/territorial agreements and focus them on child development and learning. • Encourage provincial governments to develop, with m ajor stakeholder groups, an early childhood strategy with priority targets, benchmarks, and timelines, and with guaranteed budgets to fund appropriate governance and expansion. • Build bridges between child care and kindergarten education, with the aim of integrating ECEC at both ground level and at policy and management levels. Funding and financing recommendations: • Substantially increase public funding of services for young children. • Ensure the creation of a transparent and accountable funding system, and a fairer sharing of ECEC funding for parents. • Devise an efficient m eans of funding a universal early childhood service for children one to six years, delivered equitably by mixed providers, and governed by publicly mandated agencies. Recommendations with regard to access: • Continue efforts to expand access while promoting greater equity. • Insofar as possible, include children with special educational needs in public early development/education services. • Reinforce policies to support and include Aboriginal children. Recommendations to improve quality: • Develop a national quality framework for early childhood services across all sectors, and the infrastructure at the provincial level to ensure effective implementation. • Link accreditation of services to structural requirements and the achievement of quality targets. • Review ECEC professional profiles, improve recruitment levels, and strengthen initial and in-‐service training of staff. • Provide publicly funded, high-‐quality intensive interventions in all disadvantaged areas. • Provide attractive indoor and outdoor learning environments. • Co-‐ordinate Canadian ECEC research and, through funding, orient it further toward important policy issues.

After the 2006 election, the new government gave one year’s notice on these agreements, replacing them with the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB), and promoting it as the “Choice in Child Care” allowance. The UCCB provides Canadian families with a taxable benefit of $1200 per year per child under the age of six, at an estimated cost of $10.5 billion over five years. Recognizing the insufficiency of child care spaces to support working parents, the newly elected

23

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review government also committed $250 million annually for five years to a program that supported private and community efforts to create 125,000 new spaces.

The hope was that the corporate and business sector would step up to create the spaces. When this initiative failed, these funds were transferred to the provincial and territorial governments for the creation of new spaces (Senate Committee Report, 2009, pp. 50, 71-‐73). From 2003 to 2007, cash transfers to the provinces and territories remained at $500 million per year based on the five-‐year federal/provincial Early Childhood Development Agreement of 2003 (Senate Committee Report, 2009, Table 6, p. 69).

In the 2006 OECD report, Starting Strong II, Canada was rated last among 14 countries in spending on ECEC. Data in the report showed that child poverty rates were largely unchanged in Canada, while the presence of vulnerable children among Canadian families of all incomes persisted. In 2008, UNICEF published the first international study to rank the quality, access, financing, and policy of ECEC programs. Canada’s provision of ECEC services ranked last of 25 developed countries (tied with Ireland), reaching only one of ten minimum standards. The one standard met by Canada was related to the workforce, that 50% of staff working in accredited early education services have qualifications (Early Childhood Education diplomas) from post-‐secondary educational institutions. (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2008). In response to these evaluations, The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology prepared the report Early Childhood Education and Care: Next Steps, which it released in April 2009. The report offered four recommendations to the Government of Canada: (1) advance quality early learning, parenting programs and child care, as well as research on human development and early childhood development and learning; (2) appoint a National Advisory Council on Children to advise the government on how to best support parents and advance quality early learning and child care; (3) establish a pan-‐Canadian framework that provides polices and programs to support children and their families; (4) create and adequately fund a robust system of data collection, evaluation, and research, including the development of curricula, program evaluation, and child outcome measures. To date, the federal government’s policy and funding commitment to ECEC remains unchanged. Meanwhile, the latest Government of Canada report on the well-‐being of Canada’s young children for the years 2004-‐2005 (Government of Canada, 2009) notes the following: •

The employment rate of mothers with young children has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 2004, the employment rate of mothers with young children under three years of age increased from 28% to 65% and for those with children from three to five years of age, from 37% to 70%.

•

55% of children from one to five years of age, whose parents were working or studying, were in some form of non-‐parental child care.

•

45.2% of children from one to five years of age who were in non-‐parental care were being cared for in someone else’s home.

•

The use of day care centres has been increasing, from 19.2% in 1998/99 to 30.5% in 2004/05.

•

35.9% of young children in non-‐parental child care spent 40 hours per week or more in their main child care arrangement.

24

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review •

Young children in urban centres were more likely to be in child care for 40 hours per week or more than children in rural areas (37.1% compared to 25.9% in 2004/05).

Other research notes that there are only enough regulated spaces for about 20% of Canada’s young children, despite the fact that more than 70% of Canadian mothers are in the paid labour force (Beach et al., 2009, Tables 6 & 9).

3.2 Implications for Canadian children Without a national framework, each province and territory in Canada is left to develop its own system of early childhood education and care. In the 2009 report, With Our Best Futures in Mind: Implementing Early Learning in Ontario (June 2009, p. 4), Dr. Charles Pascal describes the implications of the current state of early childhood services for Canada’s children: The current fragmented patchwork of early childhood services too often fails the best interests of our children, frustrates families and educators, and wastes resources. The result? More than one in four children enter Grade 1 significantly behind their peers. Too many never entirely close the gap and go on to be disruptive in school, fail to graduate, and are unable to fully participate in and contribute to society. Too many end up living lives of misery, harmful to themselves and others. Leading experts in Canada have identified the elements of quality early learning and child care (ELCC). In their national statement, the Canadian Child Care Federation defines quality (Figure 11) and identifies the following nine key elements of quality: •

ELCC practitioners with appropriate training and qualifications, operating within a code of ethics

•

Collaborative partnerships with children’s families that honour the family’s role as primary caregivers

•

Indoor and outdoor physical and learning environments

•

A purposeful learning program that promotes positive interactions and fosters emerging literacy and numeracy

•

An ELCC environment that supports the rights of children as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children (1989),

Figure 11: National statement on Quality (Canadian Child Care Federation, 2007)

Quality early learning and child care (ELCC) promotes children’s physical and psychological safety and health and their physical, emotional, social, communication, cognitive, ethical and creative development, supports the family in its role as the child’s primary caregiver and maintains collaborative working relationships with other community services working with the child. In a quality program, each child feels accepted, understood, supported and respected by the adults, enjoys positive relationships with the other children and generally finds the activities interesting, engaging and satisfying. Each family feels confident that the program promotes their child’s well-‐being and optimal development and experiences its relationship with the program as respectful of its culture, traditions, values and goals for its child, supportive of its parenting role and collaborative. The program is affordable, conveniently located near the family’s home or the parent’s place of work or study and operates for hours that meet the family’s needs. Quality ELCC is provided through a variety of settings including child care centres, family child care homes, preschools, nursery schools, Aboriginal Head Start, family resource centres and other services with group programs for young children.

25

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review reaffirmed in 2002 in A World Fit for Children •

A supported workforce with appropriate remuneration levels

•

Leadership at the program level that inspires and strives for the provision of high-‐quality ELCC

•

Administrative practices at the program level that promote program stability and viability

•

An effective infrastructure that includes system-‐wide supports for a vision of ELCC that includes legislation, policy, regulations, planning, resources, data collection, evaluation, reporting, and broad communication.

In the following sections, the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario are examined in detail, because they provide context for the case studies selected by the Early Years Continuum Project Steering Committee. To narrow the scope of the investigation, programs and services for Aboriginal communities, children with special needs, and English as a second language are identified where they form part of the management or programmatic mix, but they are not a specific focus of this investigation. Key sources of information include Early Childhood Education and Care: Next Steps (Senate Committee Reports, 2009); Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2008 (Beach et al.); the 2009/2010 Annual Reports published by provincial government ministries; and other government websites describing programs and services (accessed in July, August, and September, 2011).

26


4. Delivery of Early Learning and Care in British Columbia Box 4: Highlights of the BC Government’s Approach In BC, early learning and child care is governed under a split-‐system model. The government states that the responsibility for early childhood supports and services is “shared” among three ministries: the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), the M inistry of Education (MoE), and the Ministry of Health. Guided by its framework, Child Care in BC (2009), MCFD is the lead ministry responsible under the legislation (Community Care and Assisted Living Act) for regulating licensed and unlicensed child care; allocating child care operating funds and subsidies for low-‐ and moderate-‐income families (both of which are paid to child care providers); licensing Early Childhood Educators (ECE) and managing the ECE registry; and funding parenting supports through Child Care Resource and Referral (CCRR) programs located in BC communities. Guided by its BC Early Learning Framework (2009), the MoE is responsible for early learning for children from birth to five years old. Working with BC School Boards, this ministry is responsible for providing universal access to full-‐day kindergarten for five year olds; widely available StrongStart BC drop-‐in programs (three hours per day, five days per week) in schools for children from birth to four years old who are accompanied by a parent or caregiver; and Ready, Set, Learn events for parents and their three year olds. Case Study #1: StongStart BC Early Learning Centres StrongStart BC is an initiative of the Ministry of Education. The focus of this case study is on the 12 pilot sites established in 2006 and evaluated over a two-‐year period by the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP, 2007 and 2008). The program was originally conceived as a drop-‐in where parents or caregivers could come with their children ages three to five years old. The study examines how the Early Development Instrument (EDI) was used to select program sites and how the programs are governed, identifying the roles of the ministry, school district staff, school principals and staff, the inter-‐sectoral Steering Committees established at each site to advise the program, and the role of the early childhood educator (ECE) leading each program. The case study examines the success and challenges of integrating this new program into the school culture and of finding its p lace in the community, b uilding relationships with other service providers. The study identifies the benefits the program provides to children and parents, and also the adjustments that had to be made to accommodate parents’ schedules and their need to bring all their children, which expanded the age range from birth to five years old. In 2011, StrongStart BC programs expanded to 326 sites in schools across BC.

4.1. Child care in BC The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has primary responsibility for child care and early childhood development. This includes the policy and regulation of licensed and unlicensed child care settings, allocating child care subsidies, the licensing and registration of early childhood educators (ECEs), and approving ECE training programs.

27

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review A Framework for Child Care in British Columbia: From the fall of 2005 to January 2006, MCFD and MoE engaged stakeholders and community members in a series of public consultations to identify public priorities for child care. From these, Child Care in British Columbia emerged in 2008, a framework that identifies five key principles and priorities for child care in BC (Government of British Columbia, 2008): • • • •

•

Accessibility: increasing the number of licensed child care spaces, with parent choice being a key priority in developing services. Quality: enhancing standards of child care programs and services to support safe, healthy, and developmentally appropriate environments. Human Resource Development: developing well-‐trained and knowledgeable professionals. Integration, Co-‐location, Partnerships and Communities: developing partnerships and improving collaboration across ministries, municipalities, school districts, and community agencies to better provide an integrated continuum (range) of child development services. The government is to promote the development of neighbourhood hubs where early childhood development, child care, and family services are co-‐located to help meet family and community needs. Sustainability: Providing equitable and predictable child care funding. Decision-‐making and policy will centre on support for operating funding, community child care planning, child care subsidies for lower-‐ and moderate-‐income families, supported child development, capital funding, and recruitment and retention of early childhood educators.

Licensing, regulation, and subsidies: Like most provinces, BC’s child care delivery system combines centre-‐based and home-‐based care, licensed and unlicensed providers, and for-‐profit and not-‐for profit facilities. In BC, both licensed (regulated) and unlicensed (unregulated) care settings are eligible to obtain subsidy fees. Child care subsidies are paid directly to service providers on behalf of eligible parents, except where child care is provided in the parent’s own home (where the parent is considered an employer). Eligibility for subsidy is based on income, family size, age of children, and type of care chosen. The family must qualify under an income test and meet identified social criteria, such as working, looking for work, attending school, or having a medical condition that interferes with their ability to parent (Beach et al., 2009). •

Unregulated child care: License-‐not-‐required child care is provided in the home of the care provider who may only care for up to two children or one sibling group of two or more children (other than their own children) at any one time. Registered license-‐not-‐required is the same, restricted to the same number of children in care, but is registered with a Child Care Resource and Referral Program (CCRR). Child care provided in the child's own home by someone who lives in the child’s home (but is not a relative or a dependent of the parent) is also eligible for subsidy. A relative (but not a dependent of the parent) may provide care if they do not live in the child's home. While unregulated providers are eligible to receive subsidy fees, they are not eligible to receive child care operating funding (Government of British Columbia website, 2009b).

•

Regulated child care is licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and regulated under the Child Care Licensing Regulation. Licensed child care settings include group centres, in-‐home family child care, out-‐of school facilities, and preschools. A new category was added in 2010, In-‐Home Multi-‐Age Child Care, that allows early childhood educators to personally provide child care to up to eight children of various ages, without

28

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review rezoning their residence (Government of British Columbia website, 2011a). Operating funding is based on enrolment and ages of the children under care, and is available to all regulated care settings except the category of Occasional Child Care. In 2009/10 there were a total of 66,865 funded licensed full-‐time spaces, up from 45,871 in 2002/03 and 59,305 in 2007/08 (Government of British Columbia, 2010a). Early Childhood Educator (ECE) registry and licensing: The Registry is the provincial body responsible for approval and monitoring of ECE training programs and licensure of ECEs, ECE Assistants, infant/toddler educators, and special needs educators. The Registry does have authority to investigate and take action on a certificate, which can include placing terms and conditions, and suspending or cancelling licenses (Beach et al., 2009). A licensed ECE (five years) has successfully completed an ECE training program (minimum of 902 hours of instruction) through an approved educational institution or equivalent training, and has 5,000 hours of work experience. A licensed ECE (one year) has completed an ECE training program (minimum of 902 hours of instruction). A licensed ECE Assistant has completed one course of a basic ECE training program. Infant and Toddler Educators have a five-‐year certificate and have completed post-‐basic training of an additional 200 hours of instruction (Beach et al., 2009, p. 132; Government of British Columbia website, 2011b). The number of new early childhood educators certified in 2009/10 was 1,328, up from 622 in 2002/03 and 740 in 2007/08. The introduction in November 2007 of licensure for ECE assistants has dramatically increased the number of certified educators. However, the numbers do not differentiate between qualifications. The Annual Report simply states: “Early Childhood Educator assistants play an integral role in providing child care services throughout BC” (Government of British Columbia, 2010a). Beach et al. (2009, p. 133) notes that “licensing officers do have the authority to grant staffing exemption to facilities that are not able to recruit fully qualified individuals.” Parenting support: Local non-‐profit associations are funded by the MCFD to deliver Child Care Resource & Referral (CCRR) programs in over 400 locations across BC, including a province-‐wide Aboriginal service provided by the British Columbia Aboriginal Child Care Society (Government of British Columbia website, n.d.-‐e). CCRRs provide parents with information about quality child care; referrals to child care providers and other child care services available in their community; parenting information and parenting education workshops; resource lending libraries; and training to support both Aboriginal and non-‐Aboriginal children. Partnerships, research, and quality supports: The Early Childhood Development (ECD) Evaluation Project is creating an integrated evaluation and reporting system for early childhood development in BC. Led by the United Way of the Lower Mainland (Success By 6®), other partners include MCFD, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP), and others. In 2009/2010, the ECD evaluation project focused on two areas: (1) A community capacity building evaluation, in which 75 communities participated. Findings indicated success in building partnerships, developing ECD community plans, raising local awareness of the importance of the early years, and improving access to ECD programs for low-‐income families, Aboriginal families, and families living in rural or remote communities; (2) A parent support and education program evaluation: A logic model and parent survey. The parent survey was piloted with seven different types of programs and was completed by approximately 470 parents. The parent surveys showed

29

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review a high level of family-‐centred practice at participating sites and an increase in the parenting ability of those participating in the programs (Government of British Columbia, 2010a). The Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP): The EDI, developed in Ontario in 1999 by Drs. M. Janus and D. Offord, is a population-‐based research tool that assesses the state of children’s development. The EDI is used only as a population level measure, where results are interpreted for communities of children, not individuals. It was first piloted in BC in 1999. British Columbia was the first province to implement the EDI province-‐wide, to map the results on a neighbourhood-‐by-‐neighbourhood basis, and to make this data publicly available. In the past, HELP has worked closely with schools across BC to collect the EDI data every three years, referring to these collection years as Data Waves (Human Early Learning Partnership , 2009). Kindergarten teachers are trained to gather data in five areas of child development, after several months of observing the children in their classrooms. The five areas include physical health and well-‐being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communications skills and general knowledge (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2009). Fifty-‐ three of 59 school districts participated in the EDI, and an estimated 1,300 teachers in school districts province-‐wide received EDI teacher training in January and February 2010 (Government of British Columbia, 2010a). HELP is a collaborative, interdisciplinary research network that contributes to new knowledge in early childhood development. HELP links over 200 faculty, researchers, and graduate students from five B.C. universities. In 2009/2010, HELP implemented the annual EDI electronically across B.C. In the fall of 2009, HELP published 15 by 15: A Comprehensive Policy Framework for Early Human Capital Investment in BC. The report proposes a fundamental shift in the approach of the provincial government to incorporate stronger early childhood development policy and investments as part of a long-‐term economic strategy. The 15 by 15 report recommends: (1) Increased time and resources for families, including enhanced parental leave taken by both parents, revised employment standards to reduce work/life conflict after parental leave, and expanded financial supports for low-‐income families; (2) Increased community services, including expanded access to high quality early learning and child care services, regular opportunities for monitoring children’s healthy development, and ongoing coordination and integration of early years’ services in communities (HELP, 2009b).

4.2 Early learning in BC Early learning for children birth to five years old in British Columbia is under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. The British Columbia Early Learning Framework: Developed in 2007, the framework describes the vision, pedagogical principles, and key areas of learning for children from birth to five years (before school entry). The framework was developed in partnership with the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Healthy Living and Sport, and Education. The document was designed to be applicable to all early learning environments, including child care, StrongStart BC programs, and any other preschool and early childhood development or child health program. A companion document, Understanding the British Columbia Early Learning Framework: From Theory to Practice, was developed in January 2009 to provide ideas and suggestions as a guide to

30

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review early learning practitioners in implementing the framework into their practice. The document provides tools for reflecting on vision, principles, and learning goals. The framework complements and builds on the BC Program Standards for Early Childhood Settings and the Child Care Licensing Regulation, which require child care facilities to provide a comprehensive program of activities to address all areas of child development (Government of British Columbia, 2007). In 2009, the government partnered with three post-‐secondary institutions (the University of Victoria, Selkirk College, and Northern Lights College) to deliver professional development courses that support implementation of the framework. This training was provided to various audiences, including early childhood educators, staff in early childhood education training institutions, and other service providers. Trainers/field leaders were early childhood educators with specialized training and a minimum of five years of experience working with young children. Between January and June of 2009, more than 1,000 participants took part in the training. Field leaders and college instructors remain available to offer professional development on the framework. In a new report issued in April 2011, the Coalition of Child Care Advocates in BC issued its Community Plan for a Public System of Integrated Early Care and Learning. With the implementation of full-‐day kindergarten for all five year olds, the plan calls for the integration of child care programs with early learning programs delivered by schools under a new Early Care and Learning Act, under the auspices of the Ministry of Education, and under the democratic control of elected Boards of Education. The purpose of this realignment would be to create universal entitlement to child care and early learning for all children from birth to age five (Coalition of Child Care Advocates in BC and Early Childhood Educators of BC, 2011). 4.2.1 Early learning programs in the schools Full-‐day kindergarten: Since 2009, the Ministry of Education (MoE) has been phasing in universal access to full-‐day kindergarten for all five year olds. By September 2011, full-‐day kindergarten will be available across the province for children who turn 5 by December 31 (an estimated 40,000). Children living in BC are now entitled to an education program in the school year they turn five (before January 1). Parents must enrol or homeschool their children in the school year in which they turn six. Parents may choose to delay enrolment of their five year old until they turn six (Government of British Columbia website, n.d.-‐a). Provincial class size limit is specified in the School Act, which sets the maximum average aggregate for kindergarten at 19 students. MoE expects schools to use surplus classrooms for kindergarten expansion. The ministry also expects schools to preserve StrongStart BC programs and existing child care programs that use school space, as the government recognizes their importance to early learning. MoE and the British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association (representing BC’s 60 public boards of education) developed a recruitment initiative (Make a Future) to provide support and tools to help meet recruitment needs (British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association, 2008). The curriculum for the expanded kindergarten program is play-‐based and designed to address all areas of child development, including the physical, social, emotional, language, and cognitive areas. The philosophy and goals contained in Primary Program: A Framework for Teaching are to guide and support teachers in designing and delivering full-‐day kindergarten programs. The Primary Program guide reflects an understanding that children learn through active engagement and play, and describes its approach in the following terms: “The Primary Program reflects

31

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review current knowledge about early childhood development and learning along with new understandings of developmentally appropriate practice, and an increasing sensitivity to learner diversity” (Government of British Columbia, 2000). The 2010 Kindergarten Curriculum Package compiles into one document all current Prescribed Learning Outcomes and Suggested Achievement Indicators from each of the subject-‐based Integrated Resource Packages (Government of British Columbia, 2010b). These resources are intended to guide teachers as they translate the pedagogical philosophy of the curriculum into practice. StrongStart BC Early Learning Centres are described as drop-‐in services located in school facilities; they operate five days per week for a minimum of three hours per day. They provide school-‐based early learning services for parents and caregivers of young children, aged birth to five, at no cost to families. They are not licensed day cares; they require the involvement of parents and caregivers. Licensed early childhood educators (ECEs) facilitate play-‐based learning activities to support children’s learning and development. The programs, which are guided by the BC’s Early Learning Framework, give children who are cared for at home access to high-‐quality learning environments and to the benefit of social interaction with other children, while adults learn new ways to support their children’s learning. StrongStart BC Outreach Programs provide quality early learning experiences for children in rural and remote communities. Outreach programs operate on a reduced schedule to accommodate the many remote locations they serve. StrongStart BC started with 12 pilot programs in 2006. In 2011/12, it will expand to 326 programs. Nine new programs are intended to specifically reach under-‐served communities with no early learning programs and vulnerable neighbourhoods (Government of British Columbia, 2011c; also, Government of British Columbia website, n.d.-‐b). Ready, Set, Learn (RSL): MoE provides funding to BC’s 60 Boards of Education to offer RSL events in schools. Families and their three year olds can engage in play-‐based early learning activities while finding out about other early learning programs and services offered by the local school district and/or school. Many schools also provide additional resources to help support the children’s readiness for school. Events can include school tours, visits to the school library, interactive play activities for children and their parents, information sessions for parents and caregivers, presentations by community agencies, and other activities that support preschool-‐ aged children’s learning. The parent booklet, Ready, Set, Learn: Helping your preschooler get ready for school, has been translated into 12 languages and offers parents helpful tips and learning activities for three year olds.

4.3 Case Study #1: StrongStart BC Early Learning Centres This case study examines StrongStart BC, an initiative of BC’s Ministry of Education. This study pays special attention to how the initiative uses the Early Development Instrument (EDI), a population-‐wide measure of children’s development, and how StrongStart BC supports families in both urban and rural communities. Background StongStart BC Early Learning Centres are school-‐based, free, family drop-‐in centres. They are not designated child care, so a parent, family member or caregiver (collectively named parents in this study) must accompany their child at all times. The program was initially developed to fill a niche for preschool children (three to five years old) not in child care. The aim was to support school-‐

32

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review readiness, by offering children who are cared for at home an opportunity to attend high-‐quality early learning programs: “Children who have had exposure to language rich environments and play-‐based early learning experiences are more likely to develop the skills, knowledge and dispositions to support success in school” (Government of British Columbia, 2009c). StrongStart Early Learning Centres are created through an agreement between school districts and the Ministry of Education. They are designed to be located in schools with available space, preferably where there is a kindergarten. They are to be open five days per week for 3 to 4 hours per day during the school district’s calendar, although operating hours may be extended. The StrongStart BC curriculum must promote the five areas of children’s development described in BC’s Early Learning Framework and in Understanding the British Columbia Early Learning Framework: From Theory to Practice (Government of British Columbia, 2009c; HELP, 2007). The pilot projects StrongStart BC began in 2006 with the establishment of 12 pilot projects in urban and rural school settings across the province. To select the sites, the Ministry of Education invited all school districts to participate, and set expectations and parameters for all participating districts. Programs were to be located in school facilities with unused space. School principals were to be informed about the goals of the StrongStart program and committed to contributing to the effectiveness of the program. School districts were to collaborate with their community stakeholders and provide a proposal identifying locations that met the unique needs of their community (Government of British Columbia website, n.d.-‐c). The programs were to demonstrate access to the families they serve and identify strategies to engage hard-‐to-‐reach families. Each program was to be run by a certified Early Childhood Educator (ECE) with a current license to practice, or by a person actively enrolled in an approved ECE training program and mentored by an ECE with a current license to practice (Government of British Columbia, 2009c). School districts were also responsible for creating and maintaining StrongStart BC data and records, including assigning each child a Personal Education Number (the same number a student is assigned when entering the school system and has throughout their schooling years), and using the British Columbia enterprise Student Information System (BCeSIS) to report enrolment and attendance to the province. Each district was also required to submit two reports per school year regarding enrolment (Government of British Columbia, 2009c). The purpose of the data collection was to enable both school districts and the Ministry to understand uptake patterns, help to assess the effectiveness of StrongStart BC in supporting school-‐readiness, and to make evidence-‐based policy and program development decisions (Government of British Columbia website, n.d.-‐d). The Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) was hired to evaluate the pilot projects. Their report was submitted in two stages. A Stage One report was submitted in September 2007 and the final report was submitted in September 2008. Using the Early Development Instrument (EDI) The EDI is a population-‐based tool used to provide a snapshot of the overall development of children in their communities in five areas: physical health and well-‐being; social competence; emotional maturity; language and cognitive development; and communication skills and general knowledge. The BC Early Learning Framework identifies these same five areas of development. Kindergarten teachers complete the EDI in February of each year, after they have had several months of interaction with their students. The results are analyzed at different scales (such as

33

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review neighbourhood, school district, health region, and province) to understand children’s development at a population level, identifying patterns of vulnerabilities in communities (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2011). See the end of Section 4.1 for more information on the EDI. In addition to the pilot site proposals from the school districts, the Ministry also considered the characteristics of the communities being served when selecting the 12 pilot sites in 2006. These included each community’s EDI vulnerability; the community’s socio-‐economic status and cultural identity (such as immigrant, Caucasian, or Aboriginal populations); and the availability of other early childhood development programs in the area, as one of the key criteria for the programs was collaboration with other service providers (HELP, 2007, p. 9). Of the 12 pilot sites selected, nine 9 had high EDI vulnerability, two had moderate EDI vulnerability, and one had low EDI vulnerability. For example, •

Burnaby (Edmonds Elementary school) had the highest EDI vulnerability in the school district. The community has a high immigrant population (15 languages) and low socio-‐economic status. The community also hosts eight other family centres with childhood development programs.

•

Okanagon (OK Falls Elementary School) had a moderate EDI vulnerability. The cultural identity of the community was largely Caucasian. The socio-‐economic status was low. The StrongStart program was to be co-‐located with a licensed child care program and share the gymnasium with the municipality’s Parks and Recreation.

•

Prince Rupert (Conrad Elementary School) had a high EDI vulnerability. The cultural identity of the community was 77% Aboriginal. Full-‐day kindergarten was available for children in the community.

Collaborating with service providers Following BC’s Early Learning Framework (Government of British Columbia, 2007), StrongStart BC Centres were developed to open up new opportunities for dialogue and partnership between early childhood educators (ECEs), early childhood service providers and agencies, and the K-‐12 education system: Research studies have long been clear that when services to young children and their families are integrated, they are more effective. The Ministry of Education had asked districts to co-‐locate other services with their sites and connect the community agencies where possible. (Human Early Learning Partnership , September 2007) Steering Committees or inter-‐sectoral coalition committees were established to connect each of the pilot sites to their community. In several communities, previously established committees for early childhood development assumed the role of the steering committee. These committees/coalitions were a key factor influencing how well the StrongStart BC program connected with the other services and agencies, both inside and outside the school (HELP, 2007, p. 14).

34


Figure 12: StrongStart BC – Revelstoke: Interconnectedness Chart

35

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review When the StrongStart BC centres were first announced, the evaluation team reported there was tension felt in the communities about the possible threat to other services and agencies outside the school. They reported that this occurred because “congruent with the StrongStart announcement, Child Care and Referral Resources (CCRR) groups experienced funding cuts” (HELP, 2007, p. 15). Tensions were reported resolved when the purpose of StrongStart was clarified and joint planning sessions were conducted within the communities. Overall, the research team was impressed by the degree of inter-‐connectedness in most districts (HELP, 2007, p. 13). Figure 12 is one example of an interconnectedness chart developed by the evaluators of Revelstoke’s Mountain View Elementary (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, p. 44). The evaluators identified that the most effective StrongStart sites were those that developed interdependent relationships with other agencies and service providers and recommended that school districts consult with the inter-‐sectoral groups and other child/family service providers to assess current offerings and consult on the best school location to meet family needs before designating StrongStart sites. The evaluators also recommended establishing a formal relationship with local inter-‐sectoral coalitions/steering committees to collaborate on early learning initiatives, establish partnerships, share resources, and develop interagency referral processes that can be implemented through StrongStart BC programs (HELP, 2008, p. 55; 60). Reaching out to families Hard-‐to-‐reach families: Most StrongStart pilot sites developed brochures to distribute in the community, and some sites developed a cooperative plan with their local inter-‐sectoral coalition to distribute the brochures. The sites reported that word-‐of mouth was the best way of attracting parents – which was confirmed by the parents – but that it was not the most effective way to reach hard-‐to-‐reach families. Approximately half the sites made a great effort to reach these families by leaving flyers in apartment lobbies, approaching families in parks, and holding private meetings with Aboriginal groups to extend personal invitations. Pilot sites reported that their attempts to reach out to Aboriginal families and other families most in need proved challenging (HELP, 2007, 19-‐20). Surveys indicated, however, that 49.5% of respondents reported a family income of less than $40,000, and half of those reported an income of less than $30,000 (below Statistics Canada’s poverty line for a family of four). Evaluators found that Aboriginal families in particular were not attending most programs regularly, even though they were offered in neighbourhoods with high numbers of Aboriginal families (HELP, 2008, p. 59). Working parents: While most parents were happy with the morning/weekday hours, access to the program was described as difficult for working parents who wanted the program to be available on weekends. Some sites altered hours to accommodate a greater number of working parents by including Saturday and evening openings. In some communities there were legitimate needs for varied hours to accommodate seasonal workers, shift workers, the attendance of fathers, and also the needs of other program offers. Evaluators recommended that sites be encouraged to vary (or supplement) their program hours to meet community needs, and to share their classroom space with other community agencies when mutually beneficial (HELP, 2008, p. 56).

36

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Multi-‐age accessibility: The most important on-‐the-‐ground change made to the program came when parents were allowed to bring all their children to the drop-‐in program. Initially, StrongStart was designed to serve parents with children between three and five years of age. However, evaluators found that the range of children being served was from birth to age 5. Parents appreciated the opportunity to bring their babies, toddlers, and preschoolers at the same time to the same program. This change, however, caused additional preparation and organizational pressures on staff (HELP, 2007, p. 21). Ten pilot sites reported they were over-‐subscribed and over-‐ crowded. Integrating the StrongStart program and staff into the school system Leadership: At nine sites, champions of the StrongStart programs emerged in the form of district staff, school principals, new early learning coordinators, and librarians. Evaluators identified that StrongStart BC programs thrived where the Early Childhood Educator (ECE) leading the program worked within clearly defined reporting relationships, where the principal was a strong supporter of the program, and where guidance was provided by district staff. Evaluators recommended that school district staff and school principals be provided with professional development training to support their efforts to integrate StrongStart programs into their school systems (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2007). Evaluators identified that effective programs require integration of the StrongStart program into the school system, which will require funding to support professional development activities, classroom maintenance, data collection, supervision, staff evaluation, and financial management, all of which require attention from district employees. The evaluators recommended that extra funding be provided to acknowledge the additional workload placed on district staff and school administrators, as well as on clerical, maintenance, and other district services that provide critical administrative support (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, p. 57). Staffing: The StrongStart BC program calls their Early Childhood Education staff “facilitators,” as the role of the ECE is a varied one, being called upon to be a role model, counsellor, and teacher. All those employed by the pilot sites had the required ECE certificates and most were experienced, having had “considerable and impressive experience in the Early Child Development field” (HELP, 2007, p. 16). The evaluators reported that in every focus group, parents expressed admiration for the skills, compassion, and caring provided to them by the facilitators, and saw them as the greatest assets of the program. To support the integration of the StrongStart program into the school system, the evaluators recommended that the job description of “facilitator” be supported by adding facilitator skills specific to family drop-‐in programs to the training curriculum and professional development offerings, in order to better prepare ECEs for their role building relationships with a wide range of parents and service providers. They recommended formalizing the ECE employment relationship with the school system, so that roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships are consistent throughout the province, and to include the ECEs in school staff’s internal activities and professional development activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 56-‐ 58). In April 2010, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) prepared a briefing note regarding StrongStart and the importance of program integration and staff development (CUPE, 2010). The note explained that many (but not all) StrongStart programs were operated internally by the

37

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review school districts, and staff employed within the programs form part of the support staff bargaining units, which include Education Assistants. A survey completed by 4,000 Education Assistants indicated that one in five (1,800 workers province-‐wide) reported having early childhood education training and/or credentials. A joint labour-‐management Support Staff Education and Adjustment Committee has provided $6 million for skills enhancement, with a significant portion directed at early childhood education upgrading activities. However, only those districts with StrongStart workers inside K-‐12 support staff bargaining units have the opportunity to use portions of this available funding to advance skills development for StrongStart workers. The Ministry of Education, in their BC Early Learning Newsletter (Government of British Columbia, 2010, p.1), reported that professional development opportunities were offered during the summer months, to support the development of stronger relationships between kindergarten teachers and StrongStart BC facilitators, who are mostly ECEs. Evaluation: The evaluators also recommended that the Ministry of Education develop and publish guidelines for the evaluation of StrongStart BC programs consistent with the BC Early Learning Framework, literature and best practices, and that school districts develop local policies and procedures consistent with these guidelines to evaluate StrongStart BC programs at the school district level. (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 58-‐62). The challenges Staffing: Communities reported they were worried that as StrongStart grew, it would attract ECE staff away from other community-‐based programs due to a higher pay scale, additional benefits, and an enhanced work environment. Evaluators recommended developing a coordinated strategy to address issues of availability of trained workers, working conditions, and access to professional development opportunities, in order to ensure a knowledgeable and stable ECE workforce (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 56-‐58). Data collection: Evaluators found that many parents, especially those most in need of the program, were unable or unwilling to provide the required documentation to the drop-‐in program (birth certificate or equivalent identification needed for Personal Education Numbers) and as a result did not return to the program. Evaluators found that record keeping (such as attendance) was inconsistent at the pilot sites. Recommendations included exploring creative ways to encourage parents to provide the required identification and to work with data analysts and researchers to improve methods of data collection, using EDI data as the main outcome of interest. They also recommended that school districts compare attendance data with local demographics, on a site-‐by-‐site basis, to monitor success and improve strategies for hard-‐to-‐reach populations. (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 58-‐62). Curriculum and pedagogy: Evaluators found most StrongStart programs were following the ministry-‐ stated expectations identified in BC Early Learning Framework. They did, however, document some practices that were neither consistent with the framework nor considered exemplary. They recommended that the Ministry of Education publish examples of program best practices that are consistent with the BC Early Learning Framework and that school districts provide professional development for principals, kindergarten teachers, and StrongStart ECE facilitators based on best practices (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 58-‐62). The benefits To children: Over 90% of parents surveyed were positive about the perceived learning and

38

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review benefits to their children as well as to their family. Some of the benefits identified by parents included increased attention span, learning to be in a structured program, learning the English language and language development in general, and the ability to listen and cooperate in a group. The research team was unable to document specific child outcomes due to the newness of the programs and deficiencies in attendance-‐gathering mechanisms (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, p. 46). To parents: Beyond the economic benefit of being a free program, parents reported that role modeling by the ECE facilitator was most beneficial. The program helped them understand their children’s behaviour better, develop new parenting skills, and learn how to play with their children (for learning). They developed a positive view of coming to school, confidence in the school, and had an opportunity to build a social network with other parents (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 46-‐47). To the community: The evaluators concluded that on their own, communities could not afford to offer the same type of service as the one offered by StrongStart BC, due to the fact that StrongStart programs are located in schools, are open regular hours on a daily basis, provide children with a natural transition to kindergarten, and provide connections and referrals to other early childhood services. Respondents to the parent survey indicated that 20.9% had been referred to other agencies. The evaluators reported that “interagency referrals were becoming a natural, efficient and commonplace part of the integrated approach to young children in most of these communities” (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, p. 45). The ECE facilitators, however, felt they needed clearer protocols for referring families to different services, as they sometimes felt uncertain about how to proceed, and whether the referral should be made to school district staff or interagency staff. Evaluators recommended that clearly defined protocols be established for referrals to both the school system and to community agencies (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, p. 60). To the schools: School staff reported learning more about the needs of early learning, and that the presence of the StrongStart program renewed a child-‐centred atmosphere in the school. Some kindergarten teachers noted that children coming into their classes from a StrongStart program had less separation anxiety, more familiarity with routines, and demonstrated better transitions between activities (Human Early Learning Partnership, September 2008, pp. 50-‐51). The Ministry of Education, in their BC Early Learning Newsletter (Government of British Columbia, 2010, p.1), quoted one Early Learning Project Manager from School District No. 59 (Peace River South): There is a new sense of team emerging in our schools and communities that is delightful to witness. The local Child Care Resource and Referral Agency is now on the SD 59 loop for resource pick-‐up and drop-‐off to all StrongStart BC programs and Kindergarten classes. The Words on Wheels (WOW) Bus is partnering with community agencies to offer the Parents as Literacy Supporters (PALS) program. Pairing up Kindergarten teachers and StrongStart BC facilitators for future workshops is also in the works. Conclusions Overall, the evaluation of the StrongStart pilot sites by the Human Early Learning Partnership (2007, p. 55) “presented strong evidence that StrongStart BC is welcomed, needed, and valued by

39

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review parents, caregivers, and community members involved with the programs.” The report made 20 recommendations to strengthen the program, the first of which was to expand the StrongStart BC program into schools and communities across BC, in collaboration with local community leadership. In 2011/12, StrongStart BC will have grown to 326 program sites, including over 30 outreach programs serving remote rural communities. The Ministry of Education’s Early Learning Newsletter (Government of British Columbia, 2011, p. 2) reported that new programs in the 2011/12 fiscal year are being added to reach more rural communities with no early learning programs, vulnerable neighbourhoods, and under-‐served communities.

40


5. Delivery of Early Learning and Care in Ontario

Box 5: Highlights of the Ontario Government’s Approach In 2010, the Government of Ontario passed the Full Day Early Learning Act legislating full-‐day kindergarten for four and five year olds. The government also announced that it was transferring child care from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to the Ministry of Education with a new Early Years Division led by an assistant deputy minister. In 2010, child care policy, management, and subsidy programs were transferred, to be followed by the licensing of child care services in 2012. There are two frameworks guiding the Ministry of Education’s work. In 2007, Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT) was developed to guide learning in all child care settings. In 2009, With Our Best Futures in Mind set the direction for the re-‐engineering of child care and early learning in Ontario. In partnership with Ontario’s school boards, full-‐day kindergarten for four and five year olds will be fully implemented by 2015. School boards are also responsible for providing extended child care programs at the schools. Extended care includes before-‐ and after-‐school and summer care programs for children up to 12 years of age, where at least 15 parents identify their need for the program. Parent fees, with income-‐based subsidies available for eligible families, fund the extended care. In partnership with large regional and northern municipalities, Ontario is implementing Best Start Child and Family Centres for children from birth to three years old, to include child care, play-‐based learning, information resources and links to community agencies, nutrition information, pre-‐ and post-‐natal supports, and early intervention services. Municipalities are also managing subsidy programs that are cost-‐shared by provincial, municipal, and First Nations governments; are income-‐ based and available to eligible families; and are paid to service providers. In 2007, Ontario established Canada’s first College of Early Childhood Educators (ECEs). Full-‐day kindergarten programs are required to be led by teams of one teacher and one ECE. This requires the training and recruitment of 20,000 new positions, and there is concern that the child care service providers (for children from birth to three years) will be unable to attract and retain trained staff because the school system, which is unionized, generally provides better wages, working conditions, and b enefits. Case Study #2: Best Start Child and Family Centres, Peel Region, Ontario This case examines how early learning and care is being delivered in the Region of Peel, Ontario within the context of Ontario’s new provincial framework, With Our Best Futures in M ind: Implementing Early Learning in Ontario, developed by the Premier’s Special Advisor on Early Learning, Dr. Charles E. Pascal (Pascal, 2009). The Regional M unicipality of Peel serves Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon. It is a fast growing region with a large immigrant population, where one in five children live in poverty and 32% are not ready for school. This study examines Peel’s vision for the seamless d elivery of early learning and care services, the governance structure supporting it, the challenges faced in re-‐engineering the system, and the benefits reported for parents and children.

41


5.1 Re-‐engineering ECEC in Ontario Without fundamentally changing the approach to delivery and doing the re-‐ engineering required to integrate services into something new, Ontario will be stalled at the level of “improving coordination.” To invest in more improved coordination would be the enemy of the real change required. Dr. Charles Pascal (2009, p. 15). In 2005, the Best Start Expert Panel on Early Learning, a panel of professionals from the early childhood education and the formal education sectors in Ontario, was established to develop an early learning framework for formal preschool settings. This framework was designed to link with the junior/senior kindergarten program (for four and five year olds) and ultimately support the development of a single integrated early learning framework for children ages 2½ to six years. Early Learning for Every Child Today: A Framework for Ontario Early Childhood Settings (ELECT) emerged from the work of the Best Start Expert Panel on Early Learning. Released in January 2007, it is based on an extensive review of early childhood curriculum and pedagogy, both in Canada and internationally. ELECT describes how young children learn and develop, and provides a guide for curriculum for all early learning and care settings in Ontario, including licensed child care centres, regulated child care in home settings, nursery schools, kindergarten, Ontario Early Years Centres, family resource programs, parenting centres, readiness centres, family literacy, child development programs, the Community Action Program for Children, Healthy Babies Healthy Children, and early intervention services. It is intended to complement and not replace the Ontario Day Nurseries Act (which governs the licensing of child care), Ontario Early Years Centre guidelines, and the Kindergarten Program, the curriculum guiding kindergarten (Government of Ontario website, 2007). In 2007, the Government of Ontario also passed the Early Childhood Educators Act, establishing the College of Early Childhood Educators. It is the first professional, self-‐regulatory body for early childhood educators (ECEs) in Canada, and is focused on developing quality standards in the practice of early childhood education. The College sets registration requirements for members; maintains a public register of early childhood educators; establishes a code of ethics and standards of practice for the profession; investigates complaints from the public about the conduct of its members; and if necessary, disciplines members. Members of the College are held accountable to practice in accordance with the Act and the regulations and by-‐laws made under the Act. Only members of the College can use the titles “Early Childhood Educator” or “Registered Early Childhood Educator.” By the end of its first year of operation, the College had 15,764 members. By the end of its second year of operation (2009/2010), the College reported having 27,875 members (College of Early Childhood Educators website, 2011; College of Early Childhood Educators, 2010). When full-‐day kindergarten for four and five year olds is fully implemented by 2014, the schools will need to hire an estimated 20,000 ECEs (Government of Ontario website, 2010a). In response to this demand for ECEs, Employment Ontario developed a retraining program for laid-‐off workers called Second Career (Government of Ontario website, 2008). Nearly 700 people returned to school to pursue careers as ECEs over the last two years. This program helped with the cost of tuition, books, living, and other expenses associated with retraining. In November 2007, the Premier of Ontario asked Dr. Charles Pascal to recommend the best way

42

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review to implement full-‐day learning for four and five year olds. Dr. Pascal released his report, With our Best Futures in Mind, in June 2009. This early learning plan envisioned a seamless continuum (meaning continuity between transitions) of early learning and child care with family supports for children from prenatal to age 12. The report calls for the creation of a system of services based on four key components: • •

•

•

Full-‐day learning for four and five year olds provided by school boards. Before-‐ and after-‐ school and summer programs for school-‐age children to the age of 12 provided by school boards. Known as extended care, these programs are to be funded by parent fees, with income-‐based subsidies available for eligible families. Quality programs for younger children provided by Best Start Child and Family Centres, created by consolidating existing child and family programs under the systems management of municipalities, and located in or partnered with schools. Programs include providing full-‐ day, full-‐year, and part-‐time child care for children up to age four, paid for by parent fees and with income-‐based subsidies available for eligible families. Enhanced parental leave by 2020 that provides parents with 400 days’ leave after the birth or adoption of a child, with expanded coverage to include the self-‐employed.

Another key recommendation was the creation of a new Early Years Division within the Ministry of Education, to lead policy, funding, and accountability for programs for children from birth to age eight (Government of Ontario website, 2009). When the government passed the Full Day Early Learning Act in April 2010, it also announced that it was transferring child care from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to the Ministry of Education, with a new Early Years Division under the direction of an assistant deputy minister. This transfer was described as a significant step in the government’s plan to enhance seamlessness between the two systems and integrate programs and services for young children under one ministry. Putting the care and education of our children under one ministry will make them more coherent, consistent and responsive to Ontario’s families’ needs. (Government of Ontatio website, 2010b, p. 8) The transfer of responsibility for the new integrated system under the Ministry of Education is to be phased in. Child care policy was transferred in April 2010; program management, including subsidies, was transferred in the fall of 2010; and child care licensing will be transferred in 2012 (Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board, 2010). A portal for information about child care is now found under the Ministry of Education’s website and is included under Ontario’s Education System (Government of Ontario website, 2011c).

5.2 Best Start Child and Family Centres Municipalities are a key partner in the administration of child care in Ontario, as they are now responsible for managing Best Start Child and Family Centres, the name of Ontario’s new integrated system of early childhood learning and care services from birth to age three. Following Dr. Pascal’s Recommendations (#4-‐8) in his 2009 report, With our Best Futures in Mind, municipal authorities in Ontario are now mandated to plan, develop, support, and monitor an integrated

43

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review network of Best Start Child and Family Centres, in partnership with school boards and community partners. Each system is to be based on the following key principles: they are to be family-‐centred; there is “no wrong door” (meaning that when a family enters the system through one service, they enter the whole system); each service is to provide intentional support (meaning that staff is to act purposefully with goals and plans); all services are to share common conceptions (common understandings and practices), as well as common structures with common core functions (in terms of how they provide information, referrals, quality child care supports, and parent literacy supports); all services are to share the same outcomes regarding timelines, quality, and availability; and all services are to be reliable and built on evidence-‐based research and information (Government of Ontario, 2011, pp. 9-‐10). To manage these integrated systems, the Ministry of Education and school boards are now contracting with upper-‐tier urban municipalities through Consolidated Municipal Services Managers (CMSMs) and with rural municipalities in Northern Ontario through District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs) to provide planning, management, and coordination of social and community services at the local level. Each Best Start Centre focuses on providing child care options for children up to age four; prenatal and postnatal information and supports; parenting and family support programming, including nutrition and nutrition counselling; and early identification and intervention resources, including links to special needs treatment and community resources, such as health care, family counselling, housing, language services, and employment/training services. In 2011, the Government of Ontario released Building Our Best Future: Realizing the Vision of Ontario Best Start Child and Family Centres – An Update. This report recognizes that integration remains the key challenge. Originally, Dr. Pascal envisioned that Best Start Centres would be located in schools. However, in the Ontario government’s 2011 update, Dr. Pascal clarified his position regarding the actual location of the Best Start Centres: While hubs and other examples of high levels of collaboration in a community among providers can be a pre-‐requisite for true integration, they are not the destination. Too many still imagine that the “centre” concept means “one stop shopping” and that all services would be located in a single place, rather than the more virtual “no wrong door” notion that means when a family enters a single agency, it enters every agency. (Government of Ontario, 2011, p. ii) The 2011 update reported that parents still find the system difficult to navigate. While most parents rely on the Internet to access information, they reported that information is often out of date and unreliable. They suggested adding a “systems coordinator” position in communities to help them navigate the system. Parents also find wait times for services too long and stressful; they want a more streamlined and efficient service experience and a single, well-‐advertised place (a physical location or a website) that every parent knows to go to and find services and support. Parents also want consistent service delivered no matter where they are or where they live in the province. Service providers reported similar concerns. They also find the current system complex and difficult to navigate, and they want services available to all families no matter where they live. At the same time, service providers expressed the concern that “one-‐size-‐fits-‐all” solutions don’t work – they want flexibility to meet the individual needs of communities and families. They also identified the need for common definitions of core concepts, such as “integration” and “seamless

44

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review service” (Government of Ontario, 2011, p. ii). See Section 1.4 of this report for definitions of these terms.

5.3 Child care in Ontario The Ministry of Education is now responsible for child care policy and program management, including subsidies. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) is currently responsible for monitoring, inspecting, and renewing all licensed child care programs until these responsibilities are transferred to the Ministry of Education in 2012. Like BC, there are both licensed and unlicensed child care settings. Unlicensed child care: A caregiver may look after up to five unrelated children under the age of 10 without needing a license. The ministry does not regulate unlicensed care arrangements. However, the ministry will investigate complaints received from the public about a caregiver taking care of more than five unrelated children. The ministry can prosecute offenders. If convicted, a person can be fined up to $2,000 per day (Government of Ontario Website, 2010e). Licensed child care: Programs have to meet and maintain specific provincial health, safety, and caregiver training standards that are set out in the Day Nurseries Act. Licenses have to be renewed at least every year. The ministry may issue provisional licenses (giving the provider time to make changes to meet all regulations) and may suspend licenses (Government of Ontario website, 2011d). Licensed child care choices include home-‐based child care in a caregiver’s home; centre-‐ based child care; and extended care programs for school-‐aged children (six to 12) that provide care before and after school and when school is closed (Government of Ontario Website, 2010e). Subsidies: The Ontario government, municipal governments, and First Nations Communities share the cost of the Child Care Subsidy Program. The municipalities administer the program. Subsidies are provided to child care programs on behalf of eligible families. Child care subsidies are available for licensed child care programs only, for children from birth to nine years (10 to 13 years in special circumstances). The amount of subsidy provided to families is determined through an income test (determined by Line 236 of the most recent Federal Notice of Assessment for each parent; total family income from the Canada Child Tax Benefit; or the total income from the Ontario Child benefit) (City of Ottawa website, n.d.). Wait list management policies apply where demand exceeds available funds (Government of Ontario, 2010c). Parenting supports: These programs are currently under the auspices of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Over 100 Ontario Early Learning Centres across Ontario offer parents and caregivers free programs and services for children up to the age of six. Programs and services include early learning and literacy programs for parents and children; support for parents and caregivers in all aspects of early child development; programs on pregnancy and parenting; and links to other early-‐years programs in the community, including referrals to licensed child care programs as well as to family, health, and social services for children with special needs. Satellite sites and mobile programs are available to parents in remote communities. Centres employ trained early-‐years professionals and have volunteers (Government of Ontario website, 2010f).

45


5.4 Ontario’s full-‐day kindergarten program Children’s participation in full-‐day learning is not mandatory. Parents can place their child in half-‐ day or full-‐day programs, or choose to keep their child at home until age six when they must attend school (or be homeschooled). Ontario is in the process of implementing universal access to full-‐day kindergarten for four and five year olds, to be completed by 2014. In the first year (September 2010), nearly 600 schools offered the program to over 35,000 students five days a week. In the fall of 2011, nearly 800 schools will offer full-‐day kindergarten. Within five years (2014), all schools (serving 250,000 Ontario students) will offer full-‐day kindergarten (Government of Ontario, 2011e). Extended care services: When the Full Day Early Learning Act was first passed in April 2010, it was expected that “at full implementation, full day early learning will be a seamless and integrated program delivered by school boards” (Government of Ontario website, 2010d, p. 2). To create this seamless experience, school boards are required to operate extended care programs (before-‐ and after-‐school care) for four and five year olds during the school year, and the ministry wanted school boards to provide extended care programs year round (covering professional days, school holidays, and summer breaks), where there is sufficient parent demand and board capacity. When announced, school boards were required to transition from child care programs offered in agreement with third parties to the integrated, board-‐operated model (Government of Ontario website, 2010d, p. 3). The legislation does allow for agreements with municipalities to administer subsidies related to extended care programs. Although the Pascal report and the ministry called for school boards to assume responsibility for extended care, school boards were reluctant to take on this added responsibility and end long-‐ standing successful relationships with organizations currently providing those services (Mississauga, 2011). In May 2011, the Ontario government agreed and gave school boards the options of providing extended care programs themselves, continuing existing arrangements, or negotiating new deals with third-‐party organizations. Currently, under the Education Act, where a board chooses to enter into agreements with third parties to operate before-‐ and after-‐school programs for junior and senior kindergarten, these programs must be delivered at least every instructional day, on school premises, led by a Registered Early Childhood Educator (ECE), or by an individual approved by a director under the Day Nurseries Act. A non-‐profit organization delivering such programs is eligible to receive fee subsidy payments for children enrolled in the program. Program content must be the same as a school board is required to deliver (Government of Ontario, 2011b, pp. 2-‐3). The 2011 Annual Report on Ontario’s publicly funded schools, prepared by People for Education, reported that across Ontario, 30% of elementary schools have on-‐site child care programs for kindergarten-‐aged children, and 24% of schools report having a family support program, up from 20% the previous year (People for Education, 2011). Staffing: The new legislation specifies if there are 16 or more pupils in a full-‐day kindergarten classroom (average class size is 26), a qualified ECE registered with the College of Early Childhood Educators will work alongside a certified teacher registered with the Ontario College of Teachers. The teams of two professionals in the early learning classroom have a “duty to co-‐operate” on planning for and providing education to students; observing, monitoring, and assessing the development of the students; communicating with families; maintaining a healthy physical, emotional, and social learning environment; and performing all duties assigned to them by the

46

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review principal with respect to the full-‐day early learning program (Ontario Public School Board Association, 2010). Curriculum: The new full-‐day early learning document combines The Kindergarten Program (2006), Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT), and Every Child Every Opportunity. The new program is holistic and play-‐based. It focuses on creating an environment that promotes each child’s physical, cognitive, language, emotional, social, and creative development and well-‐being (Ontario Public School Board Association, 2010).

5.5 Case Study #2: The Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario This case study examines how early learning and care in the region of Peel, Ontario is being delivered within the context of Ontario’s new provincial framework, With Our Best Futures in Mind: Implementing Early Learning in Ontario, developed by the Premier’s Special Advisor on Early Learning, Dr. Charles E. Pascal (Pascal, 2009). The Regional Municipality of Peel serves Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon. Background In June 2009, Dr. Pascal presented the Premier of Ontario with an action plan to implement Ontario’s vision for a comprehensive, continuous and integrated system of early learning and care in Ontario for families with children from birth to age 12. The plan contains 20 recommendations to be implemented over 10 years (2010–2020) in two equally important areas of focus: •

The implementation of full-‐day kindergarten for four and five year olds under the direction of the school boards, with extended care (before-‐ and after-‐school programs) available for children in the school, where there is enough demand for these services from parents.

•

The implementation of Best Start Child and Family Centres that are focused on the development of a system of integrated services for children from pre-‐natal to three years, preferably located in the schools.

This case study reflects on the progress made towards the implementation of this action plan in the Regional Municipality of Peel. The Regional Municipality of Peel is a young, fast-‐ growing municipality, with approximately 25,000 immigrants arriving each year since 2003. Statistics Canada reports that the Peel Region grew by an estimated 22.4% between July 2009 and June 2010, with international migration accounting for nearly 90% of Peel’s growth. In July 2010, Statistics Canada reported that Peel had one of the youngest median ages in Ontario, with seniors accounting for less than 10% of the population (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011, pp. 9-‐10). Following are some key statistics identified (Success Map: From Peel Status of Children 2009 Pamphlet by 6® Peel, 2009): • One in five or 21,200 children in Peel are living in poverty.

47

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review • • •

49% of recent immigrants in Mississauga and 39% in Brampton live in low-‐income situations. The 2007 Early Development Instrument (EDI) data for Peel reports that 32% of children are not ready for school. See Section 4.1 for information about the EDI. In 2008, for every 1,000 children aged birth to under 12, there were only 10.5 licensed child care spaces available in Peel.

Full-‐day kindergarten Ontario School Boards are now mandated to offer full-‐day kindergarten for all four and five year olds by 2014. In the Peel Region, an implementation schedule was developed in collaboration with its four school boards (English and French Public School Boards; English and French Catholic District School Boards). In Year One (2010), 35 schools were selected for implementation. By Year Five (2014), all 284 schools will have implemented full-‐day kindergarten. According to the Peel District School Board, schools were selected based on available space, community need (using the Social Risk Index data), impact on existing local child care, student achievement, and readiness to implement (Peel District School Board website, n.d.-‐a). Peel District School Board trustees approved the implementation of full-‐day early learning kindergarten programs subject to the Ministry of Education meeting several conditions of compliance. These conditions include sufficient capital funding to create appropriate student spaces far enough in advance to allow time for site acquisition, planning, and building processes, and full funding per student through Grants for Student Needs. This is of particular concern in Year Five, when the total number of full-‐day kindergarten spaces is projected to exceed original projections by almost 5,000 students (Peel District School Board , 2011).8 Extended care (before-‐ and after-‐school care): Of the 26 public schools currently offering full-‐day kindergarten (in 2011/2012) in the Peel Region, seven are not providing extended care due to low demand from parents (Peel District School Board website, n.d.-‐a). School boards charge parents a fee of $23 a day. In Peel, all extended care programs in schools are run by licensed third-‐party providers and are led by early childhood educators (ECEs). PLASP Child Care Services is a non-‐profit organization that provides child care programs for children from 18 months to 12 years of age. It operates 182 before-‐school, lunch, after-‐school, and professional development day programs in schools in the Toronto and Peel regions, and 20 early learning and child care locations in Mississauga and Brampton, providing toddler, nursery school, preschool, and kindergarten programs. Family Day Care Services is a non-‐profit organization that provides licensed child care in supervised homes for children (six weeks-‐12 years). It also operates the Mississauga Ontario Early Years Centres, 10 child care centres (five in Mississauga and five in Brampton); and 13 before-‐ and after-‐school programs (Peel Community Information Partners, 2011). The YMCA provides before-‐ and after-‐school care in Caledon. Peel Best Start Child and Family Centres Collaboration among service providers in Peel began in 1998 when leaders from Peel Health and the Peel Children’s Centre launched meetings to create a vision and mandate for service provision for children birth to six years of age. This collaboration led to the formation of Success by 6® Peel. A Peel Best Start Network was formed in 2005, with a mandate to provide a seamless and 8

Five conditions of compliance must be met by the Ministry in order for the Peel board to implement full-‐day kindergarten in the proposed Year Four, five sites.

48

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review integrated network of child care and early learning services for families in Peel (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011, p. 1). Peel’s vision for providing services to children and families is anchored in Peel’s Children’s Charter of Rights, which was developed through a collaborative effort led by Success by 6® Peel with community representatives, school boards, child care providers, and input in the form of words and pictures from more than 4,000 children living in the Peel Region: Although written by children, the Charter needs the support of adults to make it more than a document hanging on our walls. The vision behind the Charter is that we are all stewards of the words and that we have an obligation to honour, listen to, and most importantly act on children’s rights. (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011, p. 2) The Best Start Network has over 40 organizations working collaboratively to provide Peel’s integrated network of early years services (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011). Combined, these early learning services provide •

Universal opportunities for early learning and development: parent support, play-‐based learning, child care, language and literacy, early identification, physical activity and recreation.

•

Nurturing relationships/community involvement: parenting/child attachment and bonding, parent participation, information resources, links to community agencies.

•

Health and safety: pre-‐ and post-‐natal support, home visiting, family planning, nutrition, health and dental care, mental health services.

•

Figure 13: Peel Vision for Seamless Services

Early intervention services: early intervention and identification supports for children with special needs.

In 2006, the Peel Best Start Network established an Integrated Programming Committee to set the overall strategic direction, vision, objectives, and operating policies for the Best Start initiative in Peel. Participating partners include • •

• •

Government ministries and agencies: Ontario Ministry of Child and Youth Services, Region of Peel Children’s Services (Peel’s Consolidated Municipal Services Manager), Region of Peel, Health. Four school boards: Peel District School Board, Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board, French District School Board (Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-‐Sud-‐Ouest), French Catholic District School Board (Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique Centre-‐Sud). Community agencies/stakeholders: Resource Centres, Neighbourhood Services Centres, Ontario Early Years Centers, Success by 6® Peel. Child care service providers: PLASP Child Care Services, Family Day Care Services, Centre éducatif Éveil aux saviors, Le Cercle de l’Amitié.

49


Special needs services: Brampton Caledon Community Living, Community Living Mississauga, ErinoakKids, Peel Children’s Centre.

The Committee reports to the Best Start Peel Network and is accountable to both the partners and to the community. Accomplishments to date include • • • • • • •

A partnership agreement describing how agencies and organizations will effectively integrate service delivery. Protocols for informal and ongoing sharing of information. Development of research partnerships and research projects. Implementation of Indicators of Change, measuring the level of integration at each Best Start site. Release time for Best Start site staff, allowing for regular meetings and collaborative movement towards integration. Access to specialized services for parents and children at the Best Start Sites. Engaged parents in the movement towards integration, through surveys and interviews examining their “daily hassles” and vision of services to meet their family needs (Region of Peel website, n.d.-‐a).

The Regional Municipality of Peel is the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) responsible for managing the Early Learning and Child Care service system. The CMSM is a key partner in the Peel Best Start Network, a member of the Integrated Programming Committee, and contributes to planning and developing Best Start Child and Family Centres. Under the CMSM’s Human Services Department, the Early Learning Services Division plans and administers approximately 24,000 licensed child care spaces for children from birth to 12 years. This division provides child care fee subsidies and manages over 150 service agreement contracts with community agencies across 450 sites. It also provides access to a range of coordinated family and child support services, through Best Start in Peel, SNAP (Child Care Special Needs Access Point), and family literacy workshops and programs. The Children's Services Operations Division operates 12 Learn.Play.Care Child Care Centres, parenting programs, family shelter programs, a Valley Infant Parent Program, programs and workshops for volunteers and students, and emergency management. The Peel Best Start Network reported the following accomplishments (Region of Peel website, n.d.-‐b): Established an Integrated Programming Committee to plan all aspects of integration. Established the Peel Aboriginal Steering Committee and the Peel Francophone Steering Committee to plan services for Peel's Aboriginal and Francophone children and families. • Increased the number of licensed early learning and child care spaces. • Invested in Early Childhood Educators’ wages to attract and retain staff. • Integrated early learning and care with schools by establishing seven child care centres. • Increased resources for young children with special needs. • Created a neighbourhood program in partnership with Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre and other community partners at St. John Fisher School to support families with children under six years of age. • •

In 2010, the Peel Children and Youth Initiative (PCYI) was established to expand the vision of Success by 6® Peel and to strengthen and support services from pre-‐natal to 24 years. PCYI is a collaboration of some 100 community partners who will develop a comprehensive approach to

50

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review planning and capacity building, to produce positive outcomes for children and youth living in Peel. PCYI has developed a strategic plan which focuses on three priorities: opportunities for children and youth in Peel; a recreation and after-‐school initiative; and integrating organizations and activities that support parents and children age birth to six years (Region of Peel website, 2011-‐ 229). Navigating the system There are a number of ways to find out about services available for children and families in Peel. The Regional Municipality of Peel website has “Child Care” identified on the homepage under “Peel Services.” Clicking “Child Care” links you to “Children’s Services” that in turn links you to information about child care, subsidies, programs (including workshops for family literacy and parenting), special needs, licensing, and full-‐day learning (http://www.peelregion.ca/). Community Information Partners Peel is an online database (http://peel.cioc.ca/) which leads you to Child Care Information Peel, a no-‐fee phone service where you can speak with an Information and Referral Specialist, who will provide information about child care costs, locations, subsidies, and contact names and phone numbers for options in the caller’s neighbourhood, as well as directions to the nearest Ontario Early Years Centre. Interpretive services are available. Information is available in 12 languages, under the languages section on the website (Peel Community Information Partners, n.d.-‐b). Peel Family Early Years (http://www.peelearlyyears.com/) can be accessed through the Community Information Partners Peel portal and provides information on programs and services for parents and caregivers of children pre-‐birth to six years of age. Child Care SNAP (Special Needs Access Point) provides a single point of access to coordinated services, to help children with special needs from birth to six years participate in licensed child care programs. Services are provided by special needs resourcing agencies working in partnership with licensed child care centres across Peel. There is no charge to the family for special needs resourcing (program fees still apply). In 2010, SNAP received 4,096 inquiries. Most inquiries were redirected to other community resource agencies (when the request for services did not meet the criteria of the agencies partnering with SNAP). Total referrals to partner agencies were 455 (Region of Peel, 2010b, p. 2). Information can be accessed through the Community Information Partners Peel portal. Community Information Peel – Special Needs provides services for children, youth, and adults with special needs, including information on dual diagnosis, autism, mental health, child protection, behaviour management, infant and child development, respite, and other special needs. Information can be accessed through the Community Information Partners Peel portal. Evaluation of Peel Best Start Network The Peel Best Start Project was evaluated over a two-‐year period, from the fall of 2008 to summer of 2010 (Pelletier 2011a and 2011b), following the same sites over two years. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed. Qualitative data included interviews with key informants, open-‐ended survey questions, puppet interviews with children, and children’s drawings. Quantitative data included a staff survey, Indicators of Change analysis, parent survey, survey of parenting “daily hassles” and child measures of vocabulary, early reading phonological awareness, early writing, and number knowledge. The evaluation revealed that the greatest concerns related to governance and operational issues, specifically in areas of funding, space, and

51

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review staffing. Findings from the evaluation are presented in relation to concerns raised during a visioning session hosted by the Region of Peel in October 2009 (Region of Peel, October 2009). Staffing: In the visioning session (Region of Peel, October 2009, p. 5), ECEs and teachers identified challenges faced in working as a team. They identified that the two professional groups were divided by differences in roles, designation, ideology, compensation, qualifications, governance, unionization, and status in a child’s life. They envisioned a future where they would be able to understand, respect, and complement each other’s unique knowledge, skills, strengths, and contributions. The research and evaluation report indicated that staff teams of kindergarten teachers and ECEs hold different beliefs about the benefits of integrated staff teams. Teachers were initially more skeptical about the benefits, but the evaluation indicated that their views changed significantly over the course of the first year, and they became much more positive about the team approach (Pelletier, 2011a, p. 60). Professional development and team/relationship building was identified as still being needed (Pelletier, 2011b). Key informants from the evaluation project also identified that it was difficult to find ECE staff, especially for French schools, and there was concern expressed regarding the numbers of ECEs required to fully implement the full-‐day learning program over five years, and the impact this may have on the ability of other child care service providers to find, recruit, and retain qualified ECE staff. The Indicators of Change analysis, which measures integration in stages from co-‐existence to cooperation to collaboration to integration, showed all sites moving forward in all areas, especially in the areas of integrated staff teams and the early learning program. ECERS-‐R quality ratings ranged from average to excellent at all sites. Ratings were stronger in areas of Space/Furnishings than of Activities. A unique analysis identified a relation between ECERS-‐R and Indicators of Change ratings across the sites, where integration was related to quality in some areas (Pelletier, 2011b). Benefits to parents: In the 2009 visioning session, parents worried about affordability, being disadvantaged or excluded from essential services due to their geographic location, limited language skills, special education needs, and cultural heritage or religion. Parents were also concerned about being “on their own, dragging their children from place to place, coordinating various drop-‐offs and pickups, and desperately trying to navigate a confusing system while plagued with uncertainty” (Region of Peel 2009, p. 5). In the evaluation report, Best Start site parents reported they were more aware of services and were happier with services in their communities. On the whole, Best Start parents reported fewer “Daily hassles” than control parents. Control group parents reported feeling more stressed about parenting issues than did Best Start parents. Analysis of Grade 5 community survey data showed that although most parents of older children (in Grade 5) had not heard of Peel Best Start, the majority of them supported having integrated early learning services in schools and were willing to have their tax dollars support children’s education including early learning, elementary, and secondary levels. The large majority of parents supported the implementation of universal full-‐day kindergarten (Pelletier, 2011a). Benefits to children: While Peel Best Start children have the same developmental profiles as children in other child care centres, overall, children who have full-‐day, high-‐quality early learning experiences have higher scores in most developmental areas and make greater gains than children who spend the other part of their day at home, ”at least in this culturally and linguistically diverse population” (Pelletier, 2011a, p. 61). Puppet interview data revealed a notable finding that Best

52

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Start children reported significantly fewer transitions in their day. Children in all programs identified play as the best part of kindergarten. Funding: In their response to the Best Start Survey, Peel reported suffering from severe funding inequities. Following is a lightly edited exert from the survey response: As of July 2010, Peel residents make up 10.1% of Ontario’s population, yet receive only 4.4% of funding allocated for social services. Areas in particular need of additional funding are early learning and child care, children and family services, and developmental services. As of March 2011, there are approximately 24,900 child care spaces in Peel. Based on current funding levels, Peel provides child care subsidies to approximately 20% of children. Peel has been managing a child care waiting list for many years. As of March 2011, there is a child care waiting list of 3,030, and the list continues to grow at an unacceptable level. Approximately 230 new applications are received monthly. As Best Start funding is depleted, the wait list is set to increase further. Children currently on wait lists “age out” prior to receiving services and miss key developmental milestones. (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011, Appendix C) The Best Start Survey also revealed that implementation of full-‐day kindergarten has resulted in child care services losing revenue from programs for four and five year olds, which was used to offset the cost of operating the more expensive programs for infants and toddlers. Peel makes the case that their statistics clearly demonstrate the need for increased investment in programs and services for infants and toddlers. They argue that the availability of child care spaces for infants and toddlers is limited, as made evident by the fact that infant and toddlers comprise the majority of the child care fee subsidy wait list (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011). Peel’s Child Care Service Plan for the fiscal year of 2010-‐2011 states , according to early estimates, child care centres may report a 25-‐50% revenue loss due to the exit of four and five year olds, and “the ability to re-‐invent child care spaces is dependent on adequate operating funding and transitional funding including fee and wage subsidies” (Region of Peel, 2010). The plan praises the school boards for committing to third-‐party service delivery for their extended day programs, to ease pressures during the transitional period (Region of Peel, 2010). The Best Start Survey also reports that funding inequity is hampering Peel’s performance in early learning and child care, as evident in the 2010 Ontario Municipal Chief Administrative Officer’s Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) child care measures. In these measures, Peel continues to rank lower than the OMBI median, and below 13 other reporting municipalities. Peel argues that cumulatively, these indicators reflect capacity shortfalls in Peel and point to a correlation between municipal ranking and lack of sufficient funding for early learning and care: Peel’s poor performance in these measures is not reflective of Peel’ s high-‐quality services and collaboration in early learning and child care but rather points to poor access to and timeliness in the delivery of these services as a result of longstanding funding inequalities. (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011, Appendix C, p. 9) Improving integration: On May 10, 2011, a diverse group of 75 stakeholders were asked to identify key elements that would make integrated service system planning successful. The goal was to reduce duplication among existing planning tables without losing key elements of the Best Start Planning network. Stakeholders identified three key elements: centralized service coordination; long-‐term adequate funding; and working toward a common goal and outcome.

53

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Steps to achieve these elements were also identified. These included establishing one system-‐ planning table for prenatal to 12 years under the new PCYI structure; engaging Best Start Network and the Community Advisory Committee (both of which are linked to Success by 6®) to discuss expanding the composition and developing a new structure for the planning table; identifying how the community (including parents) can be linked in to inform planning and decision making; and embedding the collective system vision within the vision of every organization (Region of Peel website, 2011). The Peel Best Start Network also identified the indicators it anticipates using to measure success going forward. These include reduced waitlists; increased Early Development Instrument (EDI) scores; increased high school graduation rates; reduced need for specialized services; and increased public confidence in the early learning system (Best Start Network of Peel, 2011).

54


6. A Case Study from Australia

Box #6: Recent ECEC Reforms in Australia In 2007, a new federal government was elected in Australia. The Labour government was elected with a “productivity agenda.” Central to this agenda is the government’s “education revolution” (Sumsion et al., 2009). Federal, state, and territory governments, working through the Council of Australian Governments, made a commitment to making early childhood an area for national reform. These reforms include the following: National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education: All Australian governments have endorsed and committed to this major funding agreement, to provide universal access to a quality early childhood education program (kindergarten) for all children five year olds by mid-‐2013. The Early Years Learning Framework: Australia’s first national framework for guiding early childhood curriculum and p edagogy for children from birth to age five. National Early Childhood Development Strategy – Investing in the Early Years: For children from before birth to eight years, in six priority areas including health and early development. National Quality Framework: To support the delivery of a higher standard of care in the areas of education, health, and safety. National Early Years Workforce Strategy: Aimed at improving the supply and quality of the early childhood education and care workforce. Australian Early Development Index (AEDI): First implemented nationally in 2009, it is similar to the Canadian EDI, and is collected by kindergarten teachers every three years. As in Canada, state and territory governments are responsible for the delivery of early childhood development services. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has a split-‐system of governance, where responsibility is shared across three departments: Education (early learning); Community Services (licensing and regulating child care); and Health (maternal health and pediatrics). At the municipal level, Canberra, the capital city of Australia and located in the Australian Capital Territory, developed its own vision of a child-‐friendly city, beginning with its first Children’s Plan (2004-‐2014), which was updated in 2010. Case Study #3: Early Childhood Schools in Canberra, Australia Capital Territory (ACT) Early Childhood Schools represent a n ew p ublic school model developed by the government of the Australia Capital Territories (ACT) and launched in 2009. As a very new initiative, third-‐party evaluation of this model has yet to be completed. This study is therefore based on government framework d ocuments and annual reports p roduced b y cross-‐sectoral school board committees responsible for leading the development of each school. The study examines how this new model is governed and profiles three schools serving very different demographics and populations of children, comparing how each school perceives and reports on its successes and challenges.

55


6.1 The new Australian framework for ECEC This new framework is briefly reviewed to provide a context for the examination of Early Childhood Schools, in Canberra, Australia Capital Territory (ACT), Australia, which was selected as one of the case studies by the Early Years Continuum Project Steering Committee. In 2007, a new federal government was elected in Australia. The Labour government was elected with a “productivity agenda” for strengthening Australia’s economy through increased investment in social and human capital. Central to its productivity agenda is the “education revolution” (Sumsion et al., 2009, p. 5). Like Canada, Australia has a long history of often strained federal, state, and territorial relations. Nevertheless, despite a complex, multilayered decision-‐making structure and a compressed timeline, the federal, state, and territory governments, working through the Council of Australian Governments, made a commitment to making early childhood an area for national reform (Australian Government website, n.d.-‐a): The Australian Government’s agenda for early childhood education and child care focuses on providing Australian families with high-‐quality, accessible and affordable integrated early childhood education and child care. The agenda has a strong emphasis on connecting with schools to ensure all Australian children are fully prepared for learning and life. Investing in the health, education, development and care of our children benefits children and their families, our communities and the economy, and is critical to lifting workforce participation and delivering the Government’s productivity agenda. Australia’s early childhood reform agenda is supported by •

The National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education: All Australian governments have endorsed and committed to this major funding agreement, to provide universal access to a quality early childhood education program for all children in the year before full-‐time schooling (often referred to as preschool or kindergarten) by mid-‐2013. These programs are to be delivered by a university-‐trained early childhood teacher, for 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year (Australian Government website, n.d.-‐b).

•

The Early Years Learning Framework: Australia’s first national framework for guiding early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. It describes the principles, practice, and outcomes essential to support and enhance young children’s learning from birth to five years of age, as well as their transition to school. An educator’s guide and a family’s guide (translated into 20 languages) support the framework. Early Childhood Australia also provides ongoing professional development to support implementation of the framework (Australian Government , 2009a).

•

National Early Childhood Development Strategy – Investing in the Early Years: For children from before birth to eight years, this strategy has six priority areas: strengthening universal maternal, child, and family health services; supporting vulnerable children; engaging parents and the community in understanding the importance of early childhood development; improving early childhood infrastructure; strengthening the workforce; and building a better information and evidence base (Government of Australia, 2009b; Australian Government , 2009a).

56


National Quality Framework: To support the delivery of a higher standard of care in the areas of education, health, and safety. The framework requires providers to improve services and provide families with information so they can make informed choices about their child’s care. Key areas include improved staff/child ratios, staff qualifications, a new quality rating system, and a new national body to monitor quality (Australian Government website, n.d.-‐c). The new National Quality Standard is divided into seven areas of early childhood education and care: educational programs and practice, children’s health and safety, physical environment, staffing, relationships with children, collaborative partnerships with families and communities, and leadership and service management (Australian Government, n.d.-‐d); (Early Childhood Australia, 2011).

•

National Early Years Workforce Strategy: Aimed at improving the supply and quality of the early childhood education and care workforce. Commitments have been implemented to increase the number of ECE university places, reduce course fees, recognize prior learning, and provide benefits to improve retention (Australian Government, n.d-‐e). By 2014, half of all staff at day care and preschool will have (or be working towards) a diploma level ECEC qualification; remaining staff will have (or be working towards) a Certificate III level ECEC qualification. An early childhood teacher will be required for day care and preschool services with 25 children or more. Family day care coordinators will need a diploma level ECEC education, and family day care staff must have (or be working towards) a Certificate III level qualification (Early Childhood Australia, 2011).

•

Australian Early Development Index (AEDI): First implemented nationally in 2009, it is similar to the Canadian EDI, and is collected by kindergarten teachers every three years. (Australian Government Website, n.d.-‐f).

As in Canada, state and territory governments are responsible for the delivery of early childhood development services. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has a split-‐system of governance, where responsibility is shared across three departments: The Department of Education and Training is responsible for early learning, including preschool education and early intervention programs. The Department of Community Services (formerly Disability, Housing, and Community Services) is responsible for licensing and regulation of child care, administration of children’s services and family support funding plans, Care and Protection, and Child and Family Centres. Child care is delivered through community, private, and corporate providers and regulated by the Children’s Policy and Regulation Unit. ACT Health is responsible for child and maternal health, mental health, and pediatrics (ACT Government, 2009a). At the municipal level, Canberra, the capital city of Australia and located in the Australian Capital Territory, developed its own vision of a child-‐friendly city, beginning with its first ACT Children’s Plan (2004-‐2014). This plan has been acknowledged as “a landmark step in putting children on the agenda and was instrumental in facilitating many changes across the ACT for the benefit of children, for example, the development of Child and Family Centres and Early Childhood Schools” (ACT Government, 2010). The plan has since been revised in 2010.

57


6.2 Case Study #3: Early Childhood Schools in Canberra, ACT

This case study examines Early Childhood Schools, a new public school model developed by the government of the Australia Capital Territories (ACT) and launched in 2009. This study examines how theses schools are expected to support children and families in Canberra, Australia. As a very new initiative, third-‐party evaluation and analysis of the efficacy of this approach has yet to be completed. This study is therefore based on government framework documents that support the development of this model, and the annual reports produced by cross-‐sectoral school board committees responsible for leading the development of each school. The study examines the purpose of this new model and how it is governed, followed by brief profiles of three schools that serve very different community demographics and populations of children, describing how each school perceives and reports on its successes and challenges. Background Children in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) live in a mostly homogenous, fairly affluent community. According to the ACT Government (2010): • • • • • •

1.2% of the ACT population is Aboriginal 10% of children speak a language other than English at home 90% of children are born into two-‐parent families 50% of children live in families with both parents employed 41.8% of children from birth to five years use formal child care 11.5% of children live in poverty.

In 2008, The ACT Department of Education and Training released Early Childhood Schools: A framework for their development as learning and development centres for children (birth to 8) and their families (ACT Government, 2008). The ACT Government gave three reasons for providing this choice to parents: the research that identifies the importance of the early years; changing social structures, with increasing numbers of parents seeking to have their children in care at an early age; and return on investment, due to prevention being less expensive than intervention, plus increased productivity as adults (ACT Government, 2008, pp. 5-‐6). The Early Childhood School is a new school model: The government is adding this new model for preschool to Year (Grade) 2 to its current models of P-‐6, P-‐10, 7-‐10, and 11-‐12.9 This model is intended to provide parents with the choice of a school that allows them to be associated with an early childhood learning and development centre from the time their children are born (or earlier if prenatal services are offered) until their child reaches the end of Year (Grade) 2 (ACT Government, 2008, p. 14). The schools are expected to provide high quality early learning programs supported by a range of family and child services, with links to services in the community (ACT Government, 2008, p. iii). These schools have been identified as centres for integrated delivery of services for children and families focused on “preparing children for effective participation in school”(school-‐readiness) and “to ensure that they experience the rich environment and nurturing relationships they need before they come to school and in their early years” (ACT Government, 2008, p. 6). Early Childhood Schools as hubs: The framework provides each school with the flexibility to

“P” stands for “preparatory” and refers to the pre-‐year (kindergarten) before Year (Grade) 1.

9

58

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review develop early learning and development services in a way that is responsive to the needs of its community. Each school is expected to develop, over time, its own unique mix of services in partnership with regional community services and other agencies. Possible components of such an integrated model include child care; playgroups and playschools; P-‐2 education; parent education; school-‐aged care (before/after and vacation care); access to health care; pre-‐ and post-‐natal care; supports for children with special needs; and links to other social services, such as housing and employment (ACT Government, 2008, p. 10). This is neither an exhaustive nor a mandatory list. Not all services are required to be on-‐site. Each school is to develop its own action plan. Initially, in addition to their preschool to Year 2 classes, the schools are expected to provide child care; school-‐aged care (before/after school and vacation care); parent support and education; and targeted services for children and families with specific needs. The framework is to guide leaders across ACT government departments and agencies to establish the physical/human infrastructure for the schools, and to monitor progress and evaluate processes (ACT Government, 2008, p. 4). The framework quotes Dr. Morag McArthur (Associate Professor at Australian Catholic University and founding Director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies): “In an integrated service model, there are no wrong doors. Knocking on any door will lead families and children to the services they need” (ACT Government, 2008, p. 10). Early Childhood Schools are to focus on improving continuity and transitions: The framework suggests that an important role of the school is to provide identified pathways beyond the early years, for the next phase of children’s learning and development. The framework identifies that “continuity of service provision – in education and in other children and family services -‐ needs to be supported beyond the early childhood school” (ACT Government, 2008, p. 14). It is also anticipated that the schools will provide a valuable research base that will help improve ECEC across the ACT school system (ACT Government, 2008, p. 7). The ACT Government has commissioned a report on Development of an Evaluation Model for the ACT Early Childhood Schools (Butler et al., 2009). Evaluation reports have not yet been completed. The curriculum is to be play-‐based, provide responsive and reciprocal relationships between adults and children, and provide support for scaffolding problem-‐solving, taking into account children’s cultural background (ACT Government, 2008, p. 9). Early Childhood Schools are to support prevention and early intervention: In June 2009, the Social Policy and Implementation Branch of the Chief Minister’s Department prepared Investing In Early Intervention for Young Children (ACT Government, 2009a). They defined primary interventions as usually of a universal nature, involve whole communities in building resources and putting in place actions that are geared to address factors that contribute to child abuse and neglect, such as poor parenting skills, poverty, parental mental health, use of problematic drugs/alcohol, family violence, etc. (ACT Government, 2009a, p. 11) The report suggests that the quality provision of preschool and child care programs are both a preventative and early intervention investment: “The new ACT Early Childhood Schools fit into the definition of prevention and early intervention as they are in targeted locations across Canberra and provide a range of accessible additional supports” (ACT Government, 2009a, p. 12).

59

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Governance The framework requires principals of each school to be committed to the vision of an Early Childhood School and to developing them as early learning and development centres. ACT’s split governance structure requires the chief executive of each department to have a key role in establishing the direction of Early Childhood Schools as early learning and care centres. The framework requires a cross-‐agency advisory group (a cross-‐ministry group), to report to all three chief executives, to support planning and operations, and to monitor progress and outcomes for all schools. At the local level, the framework requires that an Early Learning and Development Centre Board be established at each school, the structure and function of which is to be adapted from the school board model (as set out in the Education Act of 2004).10 This Board is to be responsive to local needs, and is responsible for monitoring and reviewing performance and for reporting to the chief executives of all three departments (ACT Government, 2008, p. 13). In ACT, preschool and primary schools had begun to amalgamate since 2008. One of the five schools identified as an Early Childhood School, O’Connor Cooperative School, has been operating as a model of preschool to Year 2 education for several years. Four other existing school sites were redeveloped in 2008 to open as Early Childhood Schools in 2009: Lyons, Southern Cross, Isabella Plains, and Narrabundah (ACT Government, 2009b). A profile of three Early Childhood Schools Although there has yet to be a formal, third-‐party evaluation of the schools, a comparative analysis of three of the schools provides interesting insights. Schools in ACT are each listed on Australia’s My School website, which profiles over 10,000 Australian schools. My School is an Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority (ACARA) information service, an independent authority that publishes nationally comparable data on all Australian schools (http://www.myschool.edu.au). Each school profile offers a description of its programs and services. ACARA provides information for 2008, 2009, and 2010 on the following: School facts: type of school, total enrolment, and location. Student population: based on an Index of Community Socio-‐Educational Advantage (ICSEA). Variables used to calculate a value on the ICSEA scale include student-‐level data on the occupation and education level of parents/carers and/or socio-‐economic characteristics of the areas where students live; whether a school is in a metropolitan, regional, or remote area; the proportion of students from a language background other than English; and the proportion of Indigenous students enroled. Scores are based on an average value of 1,000, where a score of 500 represents a very disadvantaged population and 1,300 represents a very advantaged population. School staff: teaching and non-‐teaching staff. Students enrolled at the school: number of girls, boys, Indigenous students, students with a language background other than English, and student attendance rates. School finances

• •

• • •

10

In Australia, a school board is elected for each school. The board is responsible for selecting the principal, who is accountable to the board. The board is accountable to the directorate (ministry). The board is responsible for strategic direction and the principal is responsible for school operations. Most board members are elected. The board may appoint up to two non-‐voting members from the community (ACT Government, 2011).

60


Links: to the school website and the ACT Department of Education and Training.

An Early Childhood School Board Report was found on each school website. Four out of five of these reports were for the calendar year 2010. One school had only its 2009 report posted. Each report identifies that it supports the work of the ACT Department of Education and Training, as outlined in the Department’s Strategic Plan 2010-‐2013, Everyone Matters. Each school board reported on its programs, school satisfaction of parents/carers and staff, and how their students scored in the Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS) assessment (a reading and numeracy skills assessment taken on entry into kindergarten). Scores are submitted as part of Australia’s National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). For this study, three of the five schools that have very different profiles were selected. The following information is from each school’s My School profile and from its 2010 School Board Report. (1) Narrabundah Early Childhood School, Narrabundah, ACT Socio-‐economic and cultural profile: Narrabundah opened as an Early Childhood School in 2009. It had a total student enrolment of 18, 50% of whom were Indigenous students. Its school ICSEA value was 988. In 2010, the total student enrolment was 108, 25% of whom were Indigenous, and 35% with a language background other than English. The school’s ICSEA value in 2010 was 939, with 28% in the bottom socio-‐economic quarter, 60% in the middle two quarters and 12% in the top quarter. Stated school aim: for children to experience relationships that support them through the transitions from babyhood to age eight, so they develop into confident, competent learners for the next phase of their learning journey (My School, 2010). Programs offered in 2010: childcare; preschool programs for three to five year olds; a Koorie Preschool Program (Koorie is the Aboriginal name for First People with traditional lands in the Australian states of New South Wales and Victoria); Kindergarten to Year 2; out of hours and vacation care; community activities; parent education. Partnerships: Red Cross (community breakfast); Marymead (playgroup and men’s health); Southside Community Services (Paint ‘n’ Play and Yoga for All). The School Board reported a “high number of participants and positive feedback” (Narrabundah Early Childhood School Board, 2010, p. 8). Staffing: seven teachers. All have their certificate/diploma/degree qualifications. None have postgraduate qualifications, and there are no Indigenous staff. All staff reported they were satisfied with the education provided at the school. All teaching staff participated in several professional learning opportunities (workshops and conferences on the curriculum, including the Early Years Learning Framework; numeracy and literacy; English as a Second Language; and Quality Learning seminars). Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS): Data shows that children started below the ACT average in reading and well below in maths. The end of the year assessment indicated that children were further below in reading and still significantly below in maths. The school suggested the scores reflect the small size of the cohort being assessed, which included two students with identified learning disabilities and several children from language backgrounds

61

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review other than English. Their own analysis of their students from preschool to Year 2 has led to a number of initiatives for 2011, including individual goal setting for each child in the school; First Steps Writing training for all teaching and support staff; newsletter contributions by the Numeracy Coordinator, focusing on parent support for children’s learning; and weekly professional learning for all staff, addressing literacy and numeracy as priorities. Family experience: Student attendance rate was 84%, up from 79% the year before. The school manages non-‐attendance and late attendance by contacting parents by telephone and providing support from the Community Development Coordinator and other executive staff members. Identified challenges relate to establishing reliable transportation options for families living within the enrolment area but outside school/public bus routes. School satisfaction: in 2010, 89% of parents reported they were satisfied with the education provided at the school. In 2010, the School Board reported that a wide variety of volunteers (including parents, students from local schools, non-‐government organizations, and local businesses) gave 300 hours of their time. School retention: Retention of children from preschool groups (for three year olds) from 2010 to 2011 was 93%, up from 80% in 2009-‐2010. Retention of preschool groups (for four year olds) to kindergarten was 50%, up from 35% in 2009-‐2010. Measuring progress against school priorities: The school identifies 6 priority areas: (1) Improve literacy outcomes for all children; (2) Integrate child care, department, and health components of the school so that 90% of the parents feel the school is a single entity; (3) Provide effective mentoring and supervision of staff and increase their opportunities for practicing leadership; (4) Strengthen student engagement by improving teachers’ practice so that all children experience appropriate early childhood pedagogy; (5) Improve communications strategies across the school; and (6) Promote the school as a school of choice for the inner south to increase retention rates. (2) Southern Cross Early Childhood School, Scullin ACT Socio-‐economic and cultural profile: Southern Cross opened as an Early Childhood School in 2009. It had a total enrolment of 38, 5% of whom were Indigenous students. Its school ICEAS value was 1038. In 2010, the total student enrolment was 114, of which 3 students were Indigenous and 29 were students with a language background other than English. The school’s ICSEA value in 2010 was 1055, with 13% in the bottom socio-‐economic quarter, 75% in the middle quarters, and 12% in the top quarter. Stated school aim: ensuring continuity for children in both their learning and relationships. Programs offered in 2010: childcare; Preschool to Year 2; family health services; and community programs. Their curriculum is focused on play-‐based learning; explicit teaching of literacy and numeracy with Switch on Time (a program that targets fundamental motor skills required for successful literacy learning); environment education; the arts; and the Relationships Management Plan to help children develop nurturing and responsive relationships. Staffing: seven teachers. All have a certificate/diploma/degree; a small number of staff have some postgraduate qualifications. There is one Indigenous staff member, and 92% of staff indicated they were satisfied or highly satisfied with the education provided at the school. In

62

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review 2010, teaching staff engaged in approximately 320 hours of professional learning to improve pedagogical practices and the learning of their children. Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS): For two successive years (2009 and 2010), students at the school made less than expected growth in reading. In 2010, the majority of students made expected growth in maths with 5% making better than the expected growth. Through this assessment, the school identified a small number of children with special needs or significant learning challenges in English as their second language, for which they received learning support assistance funded by the Department (ACT government). Other strategies identified and put in place: (1) Inclusion of daily ‘Switch on Time’ to improve motor skills required for successful literacy learning; (2) Modification of the learning approach to include teaching clinics, to target children with special needs; (3) Daily literacy and numeracy blocks introduced across the school from K-‐2 so that all children participated in explicit teaching of literacy and numeracy during the middle teaching session of the day; (4) Support for children with English as a second language; (5) Individual Learning Plans redesigned to match teachers’ classroom planning processes, which articulate directly into school reports. Family experience: Student attendance rate was 92% in 2010. The school manages non-‐ attendance with a phone call, followed by a letter. The school community coordinator “uses assertive outreach to providing home support where required. The school works proactively with the Department to ensure regular attendance once a child is over the age of six years, and where required, attendance is noted on the children’s Individual Learning Plans.” (Southern Cross Early Childhood School Board, 2010, p. 2). School satisfaction: Overall, 90% of parents and carers were satisfied or highly satisfied with the education provided by the school. In 2010, the Board reported that 46 volunteers gave over 1,900 hours of their time to support the school. School retention: The 2010 School Board Report did not report on this factor. Measuring progress against school priorities: This school board identified the following priorities: (1) Work in partnership with stakeholders to ensure children and families are provided with individually appropriate learning and development programs and supports when required in order to improve the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) results; (2) Improve satisfaction survey data; (3) Achieve “high” in the school’s child care component in quality areas related to the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) Quality Improvement and Accreditation System; (4) Ensure scaffolding, explicit teaching for K-‐2 children in literacy and numeracy. Expected target for this priority is that the PIPS result will reflect an improvement of 5% per year over a three-‐year period. (3) O’Connor Cooperative School, O’Connor, ACT O’Connor Cooperative School was the model upon which the Early Childhood Schools were developed. Information on the MySchool website goes back to 2008. It is also the school with the highest socio-‐economic status. Socio-‐economic and cultural profile: In 2008, the school had a total enrolment of 58 students, in 2009, it had 56 students, and in 2010, 82 students. On its website, the school announced that enrolment for 2012 is closed with no vacancies (O'Connor Cooperative School, 2011). In 2010,

63

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review the school’s ICEAS value was 1221, with 90% in the top socio-‐economic quarter and 10% in the upper third quarter. There were 17 students with a language background other than English, and no Indigenous students. Stated school aim: committed to excellence in Early Childhood Education. Programs offered in 2010: The school has one class each of preschool, kindergarten, Year 1, and Year 2. The school has a strong arts program in visual arts, music, and drama, as well as circus sports, creative movement, and sustainable school programs with a range of “green” initiatives. The School Board reported that all four classes and the day care program share the play space. Teachers prepare preschool students for their first year of formal teaching in kindergarten: “Their transition to Kindergarten is a very comfortable process for them” (O'Connor Cooperative School Board, 2010, p. 3). Staffing: four teachers. All teachers have a certificate/diploma/degree, and most have postgraduate qualifications. There are no Indigenous staff at the school. In addition, there are specialists to support students and teachers with literacy, mathematics tutoring, creative arts, and violin. All (100% of) staff indicated they were satisfied or highly satisfied with the education provided at the school. The School Board reported that the staff undertook a range of professional development in 2010. Performance Indicators in Primary Schools (PIPS): Results indicated that reading and mathematics were both below ACT averages. The only stated response was that “our literacy/numeracy coordinator will work shoulder to shoulder with the class teachers to track and work with all students as an in-‐class support teacher” (O'Connor Cooperative School Board, 2010, p. 3). The School Board reported that it is focused on best-‐practice play-‐based learning. Teachers are to link their explicit teaching in literacy and numeracy to student work at the Investigations Stations. If there is no chance for this linking, then explicit teaching for early years learning is still programmed and taught. Family experience: Student attendance rate was 95%. Parents are to inform the school when their child is absent. The Business Manager or Principal contacts parents/carers regarding unexplained absences. School satisfaction: Overall, 94% of parents and carers were satisfied or highly satisfied with the education provided by the school. Parents and community members gave 1,385 hours as volunteers. School retention: was not reported. There are no vacancies at the school for 2012. Measuring progress against school priorities: The School Board identified five priorities: (1) Improve writing through professional learning that is integrated into school-‐based processes, with results being at or above NAPLAN system averages; (2) Improve school-‐wide assessment strategies that support improved learning outcomes and are more meaningful to parents; (3) Collaboratively develop a school vision; (4) Improve management of resources for rebuilding and restoring infrastructure; (5) Develop effective partnerships with parents through timely and effective communications; (6) Increase satisfaction with the YWCA Out of School Hours Care, and increased attendance at Thursday’s playgroup.

64

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review A brief comparison of the three schools Without a third-‐party evidence-‐based evaluation, an in-‐depth analysis is not possible. The profiles do, however, provide insight into the different cultures and approaches developing at each school. The school with the lowest socio-‐economic profile and highest number of Indigenous students (Narrabundah) had the least qualified staff and lowest student retention levels. The school’s approach to non-‐attendance was more focused on contacting parents and building relationships. Their response to low PIP scores appears balanced, setting goals for children individually, providing their staff with professional development, and eliciting parent support for their children’s learning. Southern Cross, with the highest number of students in the middle socio-‐economic quarters, had some teachers with qualifications beyond their basic training and one Indigenous staff member (even though the school had only had three Indigenous students). Their approach to non-‐attendance appears to be more on enforcing the rules than on building relationships with parents. This school’s response to low PIP scores was to develop strategies to support all their students, specifically those with identified special needs, and focusing more on explicit teaching of literacy and numeracy. O’Connor had the highest socio-‐economic profile and most homogeneous student population, as well as the most highly educated professional staff. Their focus is on supporting curricular objectives with programming that reflects their values (in the arts, physical fitness, and environment). Parents are simply expected to contact the school if their child is absent. The school’s response to low PIP scores is to focus on best practices, and to more closely link these practices with explicit teaching of literacy and numeracy. Their school priorities are expressed in a style reminiscent of corporate communications, as illustrated by their first priority statement: “Improve writing through professional learning that is integrated into school-‐based processes, with results being at or above NAPLAN system averages” (O'Connor Cooperative School Board, 2010, p. 6). The three school board reports suggest that more research is needed to examine why, in this region of Australia, young children from across the socio-‐economic spectrum are falling below NAPLAN averages.

65


7. Delivery of Early Learning and Care in Alberta

Box #7: The Alberta Context Governance: Early learning and care are governed u nder a split-‐system model. Child care: Alberta Children and Youth Services is responsible for regulating child care programs under the Child Care Licensing Act (2009). In addition to licensing, child care services are subject to a voluntary accreditation process operated by the Alberta Association for the Accreditation of Early Learning and Care Services. In 2011, 81.4% of services were accredited (553 of 679). Under the framework Creating Child Care Choices (2008-‐2011), the ministry created 19,875 new child care spaces over the last three years. Workforce: Alberta Children and Youth Services is also responsible for certifying the Early Childhood Educator workforce. There are three levels of certification: Child Development S upervisor (Level 3); Child Development Worker (Level 2); and Child Development Assistant (Level 1). A report on recruitment and retention issues (Massing, 2008) found the p roportion of Level 3 certification had decreased since 1998, while the proportion of Level 1 had increased. The research also found that 50.8% of the centres were not filled to their licensed capacity, and the most recently cited reason was lack of suitable staff. Early learning: Alberta Education is responsible for Early Childhood Services, which includes kindergarten (475 hours/year) and early learning for children with disabilities, beginning at 2½ or 3½ years of age). The curriculum is based on the guiding principles outlined in the Kindergarten Program Statement; they are to help teachers reflect on the nature of young children and their learning. Collaborations and partnerships: The government has identified 11 principles to support Alberta’s Approach to Collaborative Practices, based on the wraparound approach, and h as focused on developing various cross-‐ministry initiatives, which often involve community-‐based service providers.

7.1 Child care in Alberta Alberta Children and Youth Services (CYS) is responsible for child care in Alberta. Licensing, regulation, and subsidies: Like most provinces, Alberta’s child care system combines centre-‐ based and home-‐based care, licensed and unlicensed providers, and for-‐profit and not-‐for profit facilities. •

Unregulated child care: Maximum number of children permitted is six, including the caregiver’s own children under 12. A maximum of three children may be under the age of two. Statistics regarding the number of children under this type of care are not provided.11

•

Regulated child care: As of January 2008, regulated care includes licensed day care centres, nursery schools, out-‐of-‐school care programs (for children ages 6-‐12), approved family day homes and licensed drop-‐in centres. Child and Family Services Authorities (CFSAs) license and monitor child care, including day care centres and family day home agencies. Approved family

11

Statistics updated January 2008: http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/584.cfm

66

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review day homes are not subject to regulations but to standards that describe the roles, objectives, responsibilities, and expectations for the CFSA, the agency, and the approved family day home provider. CFSAs are responsible for entering into and monitoring agreements with agencies for the operation of a family day home program. Agencies are required to monitor homes at least quarterly, and CFSAs monitor agencies (Government of Alberta, 2011c). •

Subsidies: Parents must demonstrate need, and an income test is applied. Service providers are paid directly on behalf of eligible parents. Subsidized children may be enroled in not-‐for-‐profit or for-‐profit regulated child care centres and approved family day homes. Centres and family day homes may surcharge above the subsidy rate (Beach et al., 2009, p. 116). Provincial subsidies are not available for drop-‐in centres or for school-‐age care; however, some municipalities provide grants or subsidies for school-‐age care through Family and Community Support Services (Beach et al., 2009, p. 119).

Accreditation: In addition to establishing minimum standards through licensing, Alberta has developed a voluntary accreditation system. Initiated in 2003, the three goals of the accreditation program are to raise standards and improve best practices in early learning and care; provide families with identified quality care; and address issues of staff recruitment and retention. In March 2008, 298 pre-‐school programs had been accredited (Senate Committee Report, 2009, p. 127). As of March 31, 2011, the ministry’s 2010/11 Annual Report (p. 23) reported that more than 96% of licensed day cares and contracted family day home agencies are participating in accreditation, and 81.4% of programs (553 out of 679) are accredited. More than 84% of out-‐of-‐school care programs are participating in accreditation and more than 31% of programs are accredited. Forty-‐three (43) net new child care programs were created in 2010-‐11, most of which are working through the voluntary accreditation process. New programs usually take between 15 and 21 months to become accredited. Resources are available to assist providers, and accreditation provides additional financial benefits, including higher operating and wage subsidies that rise with the level of accreditation, and listing privileges as an accredited service. The government also responded to staff retention issues by introducing incentives to encourage trained child care professionals to re-‐enter the field, as well as providing wage top-‐ups and wage supplements. The Alberta Association for the Accreditation of Early Learning and Care Services (AELCS) evaluates and awards accreditation to service providers. It is a non-‐profit organization funded and contracted by the ministry to provide information and services about accreditation standards and processes. Framework strategy: Creating Child Care Choices (2008-‐2011) was just completed. This strategy emphasizes parental choice and is committed to creating 14,000 new spaces over three years in a variety of settings, including family day homes, nursery schools, day cares, and out-‐of-‐school care programs for children up to the age of 12. The ministry’s 2010/11 Annual Report (p. 21) reports successfully concluding this plan, which created a total of 19,875 new child care spaces over the past three years (5,875 more than the original commitment). Human resources: All staff working directly with children must be certified for licensed day care programs, out-‐of-‐school care programs, and pre-‐school programs. There are three levels of certification, depending on the worker’s post-‐secondary training in early childhood education or equivalent: Child Development Supervisor (Level 3); Child Development Worker (Level 2); and Child Development Assistant (Level 1). A research report on recruitment and retention issues (Massing 2008, pp. 163-‐164) identifies low wages as the most important reason caregivers gave for leaving the profession. They also tended to see limited opportunities for advancement in their place of work. The

67

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review majority of caregivers (67.9%) who left their jobs moved to a position outside of child care. The proportion of caregivers having Level 3 certification decreased since 1998, while the proportion with Level 1 certification increased. The research also found that 50.8% of the centres were not filled to their licensed capacity, and the most frequently cited reason was a lack of suitable staff. Parenting support: There are 56 Parent Link Centres across the province and one online website. Each centre provides information and support for parents and caregivers on how to assist with children’s learning, development, and health. Information is available on becoming a parent, healthy pregnancy, locating and choosing child care, health issues, communicating with children, discipline, and a section entitled “Ages and Stages,” providing parents with insight into what to expect as their children develop and grow from birth to age five. The ministry’s 2010/2011 Annual Report (p. 23) states that Parent Link Centres served approximately 92,000 children, youth, and parents/caregivers.

7.2 Early Learning in Alberta Alberta Education is responsible for Early Childhood Services (ECS), which refers mainly to kindergarten programs, which may be offered by public schools, charter schools, private schools, and private (non-‐ profit) operators. Access to a kindergarten program is not Figure 14: Guiding Principles for a Kindergarten Programming legislated nor is it Framework (Government of Alberta, 2008) compulsory; however, 98% of five year olds in Alberta 1. Childhoods differ depending on social and cultural circumstances. attend kindergarten the year 2. Children’s development is influenced but not determined by their early before Grade 1 (Beach et al., experiences. 2009, p. 111). Children with 3. Children interact and learn in a variety of contexts. disabilities are also eligible 4. Children are co-‐constructors of knowledge and partners in learning. for assistance through Early 5. Children are unique and active contributors to their learning. Childhood Services. Services 6. Children construct and represent knowledge in a variety of ways. are available for children at 7. Children are citizens and active participants in school and society. 2½ years if the child has a 8. Children are active collaborators in and users of assessment. severe disability and 3½ years 9. Children may require specialized programming and supports to develop if the child has a mild or knowledge, skills, and attitudes that prepare them for later learning moderate disability. (modified instructional strategies).

Kindergarten: Alberta 10. Children and their families may need coordinated community services provides funding for 475 to m eet their needs. hours per year per child when they are five years old by February 28. There is no provincial policy on class size. Funding is provided to operators and school boards that offer ECS programs on a per child basis (Government of Alberta, 2011d, p. 83). All ECS programs must provide 475 hours of basic programs at no charge to parents (although schools may charge fees to offset non-‐ instructional costs such as supplies, snacks, and so on). Kindergarten teachers: All teachers must have a valid Alberta Teaching Certificate (B.Ed.). There are no specific early childhood education requirements for ECS teachers. There are no provincial

68

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review qualifications required for Teacher Assistants or Education Assistants; however, their work is done under the supervision of a certified teacher. Curriculum: In their Kindergarten Program Statement (2008, p. 1), the ministry states that “Early Childhood Services (ECS) refers to a continuum of programming that is developmentally appropriate and meets the diverse needs of young children and their families.” The term continuum is not defined. The statement also provides guiding principles (Figure 14) to help Kindergarten to Grade 3 teachers “reflect on the nature of young children and their learning, to make informed instructional decisions and create learning environments that are responsive to children’s diverse needs, capabilities, learning styles, dispositions and cultural, social, and linguistic backgrounds” (Government of Alberta, 2008, p. 1). The Kindergarten Program Statement (2008, p. 9) provides learner expectations in seven learning areas: early literacy; early numeracy; citizenship and identity; environment and Child development community awareness; personal and social responsibility; physical skills and well-‐being; and creative expression. The learning areas provide a transition to the subject area expectations of elementary schooling. It is intended that expectations will be integrated through learning activities that are developmentally appropriate for young children, to be adapted and modified to meet the individual needs of each child. The seven learning areas are portrayed in the form of a Venn diagram, to suggest that young children learn in an integrated way, and that learning in many areas will be accomplished simultaneously.

7.3 Cross-‐ministry collaboration and partnerships in Alberta As part of its new Action on Inclusion initiative, Alberta Education is developing a province-‐wide approach to collaborative practices based on wraparound principles (see Section 1.2, Figure 1). Schools, school authorities, and service providers are working together to better understand how they can provide seamless access to a continuum (understood as continuity between transitions) of supports and services that address the needs of vulnerable students and their families (Government of Alberta, 2011b). These new collaborative practices are grouped into themes: Collaboration; Shared Leadership (team-‐based, school-‐community linked, and persistent); Family Voice and Choice (culturally responsive, natural supports from a family’s own network); and Individualized (strength-‐ based and data-‐informed). Alberta Children and Youth Services’ 2010/11 Annual Report (p. 23) reports on cross-‐ministry initiatives in support of a collaborative approach to early childhood development, including •

Family Support for Children with Disabilities (FSCD) and Program Unit Funding (PUF) Pilot Projects, a collaborative effort examining how supports and services are delivered to meet the learning needs of all children under Alberta Education’s Action on Inclusion initiative.

•

Early Childhood Development Mapping Initiative, led by Alberta Education, which is gathering data to gauge the “readiness to learn” of five year olds as measured by the Early Development Index (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2011); collecting information on socio-‐economic factors that influence children’s development; and taking inventory of the local services, programs, and facilities for families with young children in each community across the province

69

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review (Government of Alberta website, n.d.-‐a). •

Alberta Triple P Network, a coordinated approach for the delivery of the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) across partnering ministries. Triple P was developed at the University of Queensland, Australia and targets the developmental periods of infancy, toddlerhood, pre-‐ school, primary school, and adolescence (ages 0-‐16). The program offers training to professionals in five levels of intervention, ranging from the very broad, targeting entire populations, to quite narrow, targeting only high-‐risk children (Triple P website, n.d.).

•

Raising Children, a website project led by Alberta Education and now online at http://www.programs.alberta.ca/RaisingChildren. This website provides a centralized location that brings together all government information on services and programs targeted at families and caregivers of children from birth to six years of age.

7.4 The Early Years Continuum Project (EYCP) The Early Years Continuum Project (EYCP) is working with four rural and urban pilot sites in Edmonton and Northern Alberta, to enhance access to the early learning and care services they are providing to families with young children in their community. The project will identify barriers and challenges related to accessing these services, as well as strategies and opportunities to improve delivery and build a stronger continuum of supports and services for early learning and care for families with children prenatal to school age. (This literature review will help the project define its use of the term continuum.) Partners in the EYCP include Success by 6®,12 Aligning Early Learning and Care Services (AELCS),13 and Alberta Education (lead funding agent). EYCP is an AELCS project and follows the group’s principles of practice (Figure 15). The EYCP is governed by a Steering Committee, whose responsibilities are provincial in scope. The findings of the EYCP are intended to be relevant and transferable to other communities in Alberta, and may inform future recommendations for the development of an early learning and care system/framework for Alberta (Early Years Continuum Project, 2011a). The Steering Committee includes representatives from Success by 6® and Alberta Education (the project funder). The Committee also includes representatives from a cross-‐section of stakeholders, including two urban school districts (Edmonton Public School Board and Edmonton Catholic School District); Children and Family Services Authority (CFSA, Region 6); three non-‐profit organizations (Interagency Head Start Network, the Getting Ready for Inclusion Today (GRIT) Program, and the Early Child Development Mapping Project (ECMap); and regional staff members from Children and Youth Services (CYS) and Alberta Health Services (AHS). The EYCP Project Manager is also a member of the Steering Committee. 12

Success by 6® is a community initiative managed by the United Way of the Alberta Capital Region (Edmonton, Alberta and area) with a mission to strengthen the well-‐being of children from prenatal to age six, and their families.

13

Aligning Early Learning and Care Services (AELCS) is a broad-‐based group of professionals in the field of child care and early learning, facilitated by Success by 6® over the last three years (2008-‐2011).

70

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Figure 15: Aligning Early Learning and Care Services (AELCS) Principles of Practice 1.

Children are born with the desire to learn and are competent, capable, and unique individuals.

2.

Children are valued members of our community and are supported and included as citizens. They have rights, which must be protected and upheld.

3.

Children’s development is experiential and contextual. Physical, social, emotional, intellectual, and cultural areas of development are recognized as inter-‐related and interdependent.

4.

Children’s healthy development is supported when their environments provide consistent, responsive, and nurturing relationships. These environments allow for play experiences that are rich in language and the opportunity for exploration.

5.

Families have the primary influence and capacity to support children’s healthy growth, learning, and development. Communities and services are informed by and supportive of parents and families in their role.

6.

Families and children have support that is inclusive, culturally competent, and integrated into Early Learning programming.

7.

Accessibility, affordability, and equity are essential within a comprehensive range of services, to ensure that families have opportunities for high quality supports within their community in a timely fashion.

8.

Communities provide a continuum of services that are adaptable and responsive to their specific needs and that m aximize the resources of the existing system.

9.

Early learning services are continually evolving, based on evidence, current research, and practices.

10. Early Childhood educators are highly skilled and have supports for on-‐going professional development.

The goals of the EYCP are to •

Connect better with families in the community and improve their access to and experience with supports and services available in their community for parents and their children (from prenatal to school age).

•

Develop a continuum of services that identifies and responds to the needs of families within their community by addressing gaps in services that are either unavailable or not easily accessed by parents and children.

•

Ensure that families experience timely, seamless access to the continuum of supports and services.

•

Enable service providers to

o

Better explain all services available to families and their children, and not just the services they provide.

o

Directly link families to all needed services by providing them with complete contact information and, where required, formal introductions and joint meetings.

o

Better coordinate efforts among service providers by collaborating on service delivery and building deliberate and formalized relationships among service providers, so that a single,

71

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review unified, coherent team is created to provide all the individualized supports and services identified as being needed by any one family and their young children. o

Remove barriers so that agencies are better able to work towards an integration of services to support the work of service providers and the needs of families, including the co-‐location of services for the benefit of service providers and families.

o

Ensure that agencies and service providers build and formalize the Early Years Continuum of Supports and Services in consultation with families, striving for the smooth transition for families from one service to another, strong collaboration between service providers, and the reallocation of resources, where necessary to better support families.

The role of the EYCP is as a facilitator, to support the efforts of service providers working together at each pilot site.

72


8. Conclusions: Implications for Alberta and the Pilot Sites The Early Years Continuum Project (EYCP) intended the findings from this literature review to be relevant and transferable to communities in Alberta, and to inform future recommendations for the development of an early learning and care framework for Alberta. It is also expected that it will be used to guide and support the work of the pilot sites. On November 8, 2011, the EYCP Steering Committee met to discuss the implications of this literature review for Alberta and the pilot sites. Following are key points raised during this discussion. Gaps in the literature: Participants identified that supports and services provided by private Early Childhood Services (ECS) operators is absent from the literature review. In Alberta, these operators generally provide learning supports for children with disabilities or delays. These supports are provided by teams of professionals, including psychologists, speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists, as well as special needs assistants in areas of child development, functional and behavioural management, and issues related to special populations, such as autism spectrum disorder and fetal alcohol syndrome. Other participants in the discussion clarified that the literature on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) generally refers to programs and services for Aboriginal communities, children with special needs, English as a second language, and low-‐income families, from the perspective of rights and in relation to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Research specific to the development and learning of children with special needs is generally found in the special education literature. The literature in public health and primary prevention may also include research in this field of study. Continuum: The Steering Committee agreed that the meaning of the phrase “seamless delivery of a continuum of supports and services,” in relation to early childhood learning and care, should refer to the continuity that parents and their children experience through careful management of transitions between placements, programs, and services. Some participants suggested that this approach requires careful mapping of the system of supports and services available to families in Alberta: “We need to know what services are available, and how they are accessed.” It was suggested that a visual representation might help the pilot sites to describe the system in their community. Others suggested that the value of this definition of continuum lies in how it focuses efforts on identifying points of transition within the system, and on what families need to support their experience of continuity. This definition places the emphasis on determining the needs of families, avoiding the assumption that the services we currently have are what is needed. Framework: Participants identified the need for an early childhood learning and care framework to support the delivery of services to families and their children. Without a framework that articulates a common understanding of our vision, values, and goals, including a common pedagogical approach to early childhood development and learning, efforts are limited to incremental change, one program at a time: “The purpose of the framework is to outline where we want to go.” Participants stated that in Alberta, choice for parents must be central: “There may not be a single model that captures the full spectrum of needs in Alberta, but that does not mean we don’t need a cohesive approach that reflects our common values and helps us achieve our common goals.” One participant suggested that if a framework was drafted from the perspective of children and families (rather than from the perspective of government), then others might be able to develop a “straw dog” that could spark future discussion.

73

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Participants also stated that a framework does not mean a top-‐down approach: Just as the pilot sites provide us with insight and information on how things are working at the local level (bottom up approach), this work should be supported by a conceptual framework that identifies where we want to go collectively – an iterative approach between the two levels. Integration: Both conceptual and structural integration were identified as important. Conceptual integration was identified as essential for articulating common goals, principles, and direction that are best described in a framework. Participants also identified a third aspect of integration – the importance of relationships. Some cautioned that collaboration, which relies too heavily on relationships and the abilities/passions of individuals, tends to disappear when key people change jobs or leave the community. Relationships are important, but successful collaboration in the long term requires structural support. Structure was identified as helping to translate goals into action. It supports continuity and ensures long-‐term success. One participant summed it up by suggesting that all three elements were important: theory (conceptual integration) and practice (structural integration), supported by strong relationships. While participants agreed that a single auspice (where ECEC is placed under the responsibility of a single ministry) is not a path of apparent interest to the Government of Alberta, they recognized how different ministerial mandates create significant barriers to the seamless delivery of services. Participants identified specific elements of structural integration that would be helpful, such as having common policies supported by all three ministries (Education, Human Services, and Health); common protocols for sharing information; shared plans; and common practices. A common conceptual framework was identified as critical to overcoming barriers presented by separate ministerial mandates. “Territoriality,” particularly in rural communities, was identified as a major barrier to collaboration, as was access to resources. One participant suggested that this is where the pilot sites can play an important role, where service providers can lead through practice, identifying protocols that can help to facilitate cooperation between sectors. While each community is unique, the pilot sites may help to identify what each has in common, contribute to our conceptual understanding of what the goals should be at the provincial level, and help identify structural elements that need to be aligned to support continuity and management of transitions (a continuum of supports and services). Alberta Education’s publication, Alberta's approach to collaborative practices...based on wraparound principles (Government of Alberta, 2011b) was identified as a guide that might be helpful to the pilot sites. Co-‐learning was identified as an important aspect of collaboration, as well as a means of breaking down “silos” and developing common understanding and respect between the disciplines and cultures of early learning and care. “Partnership tables” were identified as a means of getting people from different disciplines together to discuss common issues. Another participant suggested establishing multidisciplinary teams to match the needs identified in each community. If the goal of each team is to ensure continuity and seamless delivery of services, a culture of collaboration that reflects these values must develop. Some suggested that the pilot sites have an opportunity to identify common values, principles, practices, and policies, and to build and test new approaches from the ground up.

74

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Models of integration: One participant clarified that the hub model (the co-‐location of services) is the “one-‐stop shopping” model while the “wraparound model” is a more virtual approach. The participant also stated that the literature review on wraparound indicated that, in practice, there are many barriers to the successful delivery of this model: natural supports (extended family and friends) were rarely involved; cultural sensitivity was not well interpreted; and instead of collaboration, service providers displayed “territoriality.” In practice, “there are many things getting in the way of acting on the wraparound principles.” Another participant suggested that wraparound was a more clinical/therapeutic approach and that the hub model, where the school becomes the hub, was more responsive, inclusive, community-‐ oriented, and collaborative, with the school providing an actual location for children and families to meet and communicate: “The hub model is supportive in so many informal ways.” One participant from the education sector suggested that the involvement of schools in the provision of early learning and care indicates that child care in Alberta is beginning to be recognized as a societal responsibility and not a private one. Referring to the issue that children are coming to school at age five not ready to enter kindergarten, the participant stated: “Five to ten years ago, schools said child care was not our problem. There is a sense now that it is our problem.” Concern was expressed that schools need to expand their pedagogical approach to education: “Schools need to view the creation of healthy school environments (physical, social, emotional) as part of their mandate. It isn’t just about academics.” Family centres were suggested as preferable to schools, to avoid early learning becoming absorbed into school culture. ECE workforce: Participants agreed that Alberta needs to train and pay professionals to look after young children: “We need to recognize that it takes more than 50 hours of training to be certified to work in a day care centre. We need more skilled workers.” Concern was expressed that if Alberta moves towards providing full-‐day kindergarten, a strategy is needed to ensure that child care operators can compete, so they can attract and retain skilled workers in the zero to three year old child care sector. Universities need to train students who are enroled in their early childhood programs in social pedagogy, and add collaboration and facilitation skills to their curricula. Alberta’s accreditation system has to respond by raising its standards: “Workforce planning, organization, and coordination is essential.” Case studies (StrongStart, Best Start, and Early Childhood Schools): Participants identified that there is no single model that could meet all needs. To be inclusive and responsive requires diverse programming. There were, however, elements in each model that were compelling. For example, drop-‐in programs, as exemplified by StrongStart, were identified as an important component of an early learning and care system because they bring children cared for at home into contact with the system, which is important for their learning and development. The EYCP Steering Committee identified that what all the models had in common was that they were each working within the context of a government framework. While Alberta’s early learning and child care system will need to support multiple ways of achieving its goals, all Steering Committee members agreed that a framework is essential and the next step needed in Alberta to align the efforts of the early learning and child care sector.

75


9. Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography of Key References 9.1 Definitions Pascal, C. (2009). With our best future in mind: Implementing early learning in Ontario. Report to the Premier by the Special Advisor on early learning. Retrieved from http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/STEL02_198770 Dr. Charles Pascal was appointed as a Special Advisor on early learning to the Premier of Ontario in 2007. This report describes Dr. Pascal’s vision for implementing early learning in Ontario: full-‐day learning for four and five year olds; before-‐ and after-‐school and summer programs for school-‐age children (four to 12 years); quality early learning and care programs for children from birth to age three; and enhanced parental leave by 2020. This report includes key definitions, including Dr. Pascal’s definition of “continuum” as the family’s experience of continuity and careful management of transitions between settings. Government of Ontario. (2011a). Building our best future. Realizing the vision of Ontario Best Start Child and Family Centres: An update. Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/english/documents/topics/earlychildhood/bestStartUpdate2 011-‐en.pdf The Government of Ontario accepted Dr. Pascal’s recommendations and began implementing his vision in 2010. The report provides an update on progress made. It responds to requests for clarification of key terminology, and provides definitions for “seamless delivery,” “one-‐stop shopping,” and “no wrong door.” McBryde-‐Foster, M., & Allen, T. (2005). The continuum of care: A concept development study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50 (6), 624-‐632. Coleman, E. A. (2011). What will it take to ensure high quality transitional care? Retrieved from University of Colorado Denver: http://www.caretransitions.org/What_will_it_take.asp These two reports provide further clarity for Pascal’s definition of “continuum” as continuity and the careful management of transitions. Taken from the medical literature, McBryde-‐Foster provides a more detailed definition of this meaning. Coleman provides insight into the protocols required to effectively manage transitions. Colley, S. (2010). Integrated early childhood education and care services: Care, upbringing, education, and health. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition), 104-‐109. Missouri: Elsevier. Colley provides insight into the meaning of “integration,” describes a “continuum of integration,” and identifies two key elements: conceptual integration and structural integration.

9.2 International trends OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2001). Starting strong I: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.

76

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review The OECD is an international forum where 30 member democracies discuss the economic, social, and environmental challenges of globalization. In 2001, the first Starting Strong report reviewed the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) policies and services of 12 countries. This report identifies eight key elements of successful ECEC policy. In 2006, the OECD reviewed the policies of another 8 countries, including Canada. This second report strongly endorses the eight elements identified in the first report and proposes an additional ten policy options for governments to improve their delivery of ECEC.

9.3 Pedagogy Bennett, J. (2004a). Curriculum in early childhood and care. UNESCO Policy Brief on Early Education, Number 26. Paris: UNESCO. Retreived from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001374/137401e.pdf John Bennett, the OECD’s Director of Education, authored the Starting Strong II report for the OECD. In this report, he identifies key features that a curricular framework should include and identifies the challenges of implementing a program guided by broad development goals. Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental-‐constructivism to sociocultural theory and practice. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5 (1), 83-‐106. Edwards, S. (2003). New Directions: Charting the paths for the role of socioclutural theory in early childhood education and curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4 (3), 251-‐266. Previously at Monash University and currently an Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education at the Australian Catholic University, Edwards is a leading researcher in early childhood curriculum and sociocultural theory. These two articles describe two competing theories of early childhood development, Jean Piaget’s developmental-‐ constructivist theory and Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning and development. She also discusses the challenges of translating sociocultural theory into practice.

9.4 The Canadian context OECD Directorate for Education. (2004). Early childhood education and care policy: Canada country note. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/34/33850725.pdf In the fall of 2003, an OECD research team reviewed the early childhood policies and services in Canada. While recognizing the advances made in ECEC in Quebec, the review team focused its research on the provinces of Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The report challenged Canada to develop and fund an early childhood strategy and to integrate ECEC policies. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. (2009). Early childhood education and care: Next steps. Ottawa: Government of Canada: Senate. This report represents the Canadian Senate’s response to the OECD’s Country Note on ECEC in Canada and to the report’s recommendations. While it recognizes that some provinces in Canada are responding to the challenges identified in the report, it calls upon the federal government to become a champion of ECEC. The Senate Committee heard from child care providers and advocates from

77

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review across Canada as well as Canadian and international experts in early childhood development. The report undertakes an in-‐depth analysis of the OECD Country Note on Canada and provides recommendations for the expansion and integration of more comprehensive ECEC services for parents and their children in Canada.

9.5 British Columbia Government of British Columbia. (2008). British Columbia early learning framework. Retrieved from Ministry of Education: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/pdfs/early_learning_framework.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2009a). Understanding the British Columbia early learning framework: From theory to practice. Ministry of Education. Victoria: Government of British Columbia. BC’s Early Learning Framework describes in broad terms the vision, principles, and areas of early learning to support the development of young children. The pedagogy is grounded in sociocultural theory, recognizing the important role of families, communities, and educators in a child’s early learning. From Theory to Practice provides ideas and suggestions to guide early learning practitioners, and provides specific tools to help them reflect on the framework and translate its vision, principles, and learning goals into practice. Government of British Columbia. (2009c). Policy document: StrongStart BC early learning centre. Retrieved from Ministry of Education policy site: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/strong_start.htm# HELP (Human Early Learning Partnership). (2008). Evaluation of StrongStart BC: Stage One (2007); Stage Two (2008). Vancouver: HELP. The policy document outlines the StrongStart BC program’s vision and principles, as well as the expectations of school boards and other community members to implement the program. The two reports by HELP evaluate the first two years of the 12 pilot sites established in 2007; identify successes, challenges, and lessons learned; and provide recommendations to improve delivery of the program. Based on the success of the pilot sites, in 2011 the program has expanded to 320 sites across BC.

9.6 Ontario Government of Ontario. Best Start Expert Panel. (2007). Early learning for every child today: A framework for Ontario early childhood settings. Retrieved from Ministry of Children and Youth Services: http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/earlychildhood/early_learning_for_every_c hild_today.aspx The Best Start Expert Panel on Early Learning was a panel of professionals from the early childhood education and the formal education sectors in Ontario, appointed by The Minister of Children and Youth Services in 2007. Steeped in sociocultural theory, the framework, Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT), describes how young children learn and develop, and provides a guide for curriculum in all of Ontario’s early childhood settings.

78

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Pelletier, J. (2011a). Peel Best Start research and evaluation report. University of Toronto, Dr. Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study, OISE. Toronto: University of Toronto. Dr. Pelletier’s research evaluated the implementation and impact of the Peel Best Start program from fall 2008 to summer 2010. The report examines the implications of moving towards the integration of early childhood services and the effects on stakeholder groups, including the Regional Municipality of Peel, early learning staff, parents, children, and other community members.

9.7 Australia State of Victoria. (2008). A research paper to inform the development of an Early Years Framework for Australia. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. The paper was authored by Dr. Susan Edwards, Professor Marilyn Fleer, and Dr. Joce Nuttall from Monash University. It identifies core components of an effective Early Years Learning Framework and reviews the research and literature supporting such an approach. Their approach is grounded in sociocultural theory and the work of Lev Vygotsky. Australian Government. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. The Australian Early Learning Framework is grounded in sociocultural theory, and is focused on assisting early childhood educators (ECEs) in enriching children’s learning from birth to five years and through their transition to school. It provides broad direction for ECEs to facilitate children’s learning in early childhood settings. Sumsion, J. B. (2009). Insider perspective on developing Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34 (4), 4-‐13. Like Canada, Australia is a federation and faces similar challenges to developing national policy frameworks. This article describes these challenges and refects on lessons learned and implications for early childhood curriculum development. ACT Government. (2008). Early childhood schools. ACT Department of Education and Training. Canberra: ACT Government. This is a framework document for the development of these schools as learning and development centres for children (from birth to eight years) and their families. The document outlines the rationale for the schools, common goals, core elements of service provision, and identifies critical success factors, including collaboration among service providers and a focus on transitions.

9.8 Alberta Massing, C. (2008). Caring for our future: Working together to address recruitment and retention in Alberta child care. Retrieved from The Aberta Resource Centre for Quality Enhancement: http://www.arcqe.ca/media/uploads/documents/rr_report_web.pdf This research report reveals the staffing challenges faced by the Alberta child care sector. The data provides information about the rates of staff retention and turnover, as well as professional development activities.

79

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Prakash, M. L., Bisanz, J., Chalmers, G., Daniels, J., Gokiert, R. J., McNeil, D. C., Michailides, M., Schnirer, l., Varnhagen, S., Walker, C., & Wosnack, N. (2010). Integrated supports for children, youth and families: A literature review of the wraparound process. Alberta Education, University of Alberta, and Edmonton Public School Board. Edmonton: Community-‐University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth and Families. Wosnack, N., Daniels, J. S., Bisanz, J., Chalmers, G., Gokiert, R. J., McNeil, D. C., Michailides, M., Prakash, M., Schnirer, L., Varnhagen, S., Walker, C. (2010). Wrapping supports and services around Alberta's students: Research summary. Community-‐University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth, and Families (CUP). Edmonton: Alberta Education. Government of Alberta. (2011b). Alberta's approach to collaborative practices...based on the wraparound principles. Alberta Education. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. Wraparound refers to a philosophy of care that promotes an integrated planning process for the delivery of supports and services to vulnerable children and students in their communities. It has drawn significant attention and support within the Alberta Government. Collaboration is foundational to the wraparound approach. However, the literature review (Prakash et al.) reveals there is little evidence-‐based research to support this approach. In terms of the practice in Alberta (Wosnack et al.), the research suggests that, as a planning process, it is in its early stages of development, and there is significant variability in the protocols used to support it. To facilitate its development and implementation, the Government of Alberta developed a guide, based on wraparound principles, to help schools and school authorities build a culture that supports collaboration, and to help them plan and coordinate supports and services to address the needs of vulnerable children, youth, and their families within the context of school and community.

80


10. Appendix B: References Cited ACT Government. (2011). School boards. Retrieved from http://www.det.act.gov.au/school_education/school_boards ACT Government. (2010). ACT children's plan 2010-‐14. Retrieved from ACT Department of Disability, Housing, and Community Services (now known as the Department of Community Services: http://www.children.act.gov.au/documents/PDF/ACT%20Children's%20Plan.pdf ACT Government. (2009a). Investing in early childhood intervention for young children. ACT Community Inclusion Board, Social Policy and Implementation Branch, Chief Minister's Department. Canberra. ACT Government. (2009b). Lyons early childhood school. Retrieved from http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/32353/Lyons.pdf ACT Government. (2008). Early childhood schools. ACT Department of Education and Training. Canberra. ACT Government. (2003). School excellence initative: Achieving excellence in ACT government schools. Retrieved from http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/17962/school_excellence_infopaper.pdf Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board. (2010). Full day kindergarten early learning program: Key facts. Retrieved from http://schools.alcdsb.on.ca/earlylearning/Important%20Documents/Key%20Facts.pdf Australian Government. (2009a). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government. (2009b). Investing in the early years: A national early childhood development strategy. Council of Australian Governments. Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government. (2008a). Universal access to early chilhood educaton. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/ECUA/Documents/UA_ECE_Factsheet.pdf Australian Government. (n.d.-‐a). Early childhood policy agenda. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Pages/home.aspx Australian Government. (n.d.-‐b). Universal access to early childhood educaton. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/ECUA/Documents/UA_ECE_Factsheet.pdf Australian Government. (n.d.-‐c). National quality framework for early childhood education. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Pages/home.aspx Australian Government. (n.d.-‐d). National quality standard. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Pages/QualityStandards.aspx Australian Government. (n.d-‐e). Early childhood workforce. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Earlychildhoodworkforce/Pages/home.aspx Australian Government. (n.d.-‐f). National rollout of the Australian Early Development Index. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/Policy_Agenda/AEDI/Pages/home.aspx

81

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Barnett, W. S. (2003). The state of preschool. The National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER), New Jersy. Beach, J., Friendly, M., Ferns, C., Prabhu, N., & Forer, B. (2009). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2008, 8th edition. Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Toronto: Child Care Canada. Bennett, J. (2011). Early childhood education and care systems: Issues of tradition and governance. OECD, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.childencyclopedia.com/enca/recherche.html?lang=EnCa&q=Centre+of+excellence+f or+early+childhood+development Bennett, J. (2010). Investing in early childhood education and care: Some policy implications. In Organisation for Economic Co-‐operation and Development (OECD), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 55-‐62). Missouri: Elsevier. Bennett, J. (2004a). Curriculum in early childhood and care. UNESCO Policy Brief on Early Education, Number 26. Paris: UNESCO. Bennett, J. (2004b). Curriculum issues in national policy-‐making: Keynote address. Malta: OECD. Best Start Network of Peel. (2011). Regional Municipality of Peel: Response to Best Start Family and Child Centres survey. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/children/pdf/bscfc-‐survey-‐bsn-‐ mail-‐resp.pdf British Columbia Public School Employers’ Association. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.makeafuture.ca/ Bruner, C. (2010). What young children and their families need for school readiness and success. In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Bruns, E. J. (2008). The evidence base and wraparound. In The resource guide to wraparound (Vol 1). National Wraparound Initative, Research and Training Centre for Family Support and Children's Mental Health. Portland. Butler, K. M. (2009). Development of an evaluation model for the ACT early childhood school. Canberra: Australian Catholic University. Canadian Child Care Federation. (2010). Reflections on shaping an integrated system of early learning & child care and education for children in Canada. Ottawa. Canadian Child Care Federation. (2007). National statement on quality early learning and child care. Ottawa. Canadian Child Care Federation. (2006). National statement on quality early learning and child care. Ottawa. Canadian Network for Leadership in Education and Early Learning & Care. (n.d.) Draft for discussion: Environmental scan on education and learning & care.Vancouver: Council for Early Child Development. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). (2010). Briefing note. StrongStart: The importance of program integration and staff development. Retrieved from http://bcschools.cupe.ca/updir/bcschools/StrongStart_BN_Apr-‐2010.pdf

82

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Child Care Canada. (2010). The state of early childhood education and child care in 2009. Retrieved from http://www.childcarecanada.org/ECEC2008/pdf/ECEC08_State_of_ECEC_2009.pdf City of Ottawa. (n.d.). Child care subsidy. Retrieved from http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/child care/ottawa/financial/index_en.html Coalition of Child Care Advocates in BC and Early Childhood Educators of BC. (2011). Community plan for a public system of integrated early care and learning. Retrieved from http://www.cccabc.bc.ca/cccabcdocs/integrated.html Coleman, E. A. (2011). What will it take to ensure high quality transitional care? The Transition Care Program. Retrieved from University of Colorado Denver: http://www.caretransitions.org/What_will_it_take.asp College of Early Childhood Educators. (2011). About us. Retrieved from http://www.collegeofece.on.ca/en/AboutUs/Pages/default.aspx Colley, S. (2010). Integrated early childhood education and care services: Care, upbringing, education and health. In International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed. pp. 104-‐109). Missouri: Elsevier. Cool, J. (2007). Child care in Canada: The federal role. Political and Social Affairs Division. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. Corter, C., & Peters, RDev. (2011). Integrated early childhood services in Canada: Evidence from Better Beginnings, Better Futures (BBF) and Toronto First Duty (TFD) projects. Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development (online). Retreived from the Centre For Excellence for Early Childhood Development: http://www.child-‐encyclopedia.com/pages/PDF/Corter-‐ PetersANGxp1.pdf Corter, C., Bertrand, J., Pelletier, J., Griffin, T., McKay, D., Pater, S., Mir, S., Wilton, A., & Brown, D. (2007). Toronto First Duty Phase 1 final report: Evidence-‐based understanding of integrated foundations for early childhood. Toronto: Toronto First Duty. Corter, C., Patel, S., Pelletier, J., & Bertrand, J. (2008). The Early Development Instrument as an evaluation and improvement tool for school-‐based, integrated services for children and parents: The Toronto First Duty Project. Early Education and Development, 19 (5), 1-‐22. Corter, C., Pelletier, J., Janmohamed, Z., Bertrand, J., Arimura, T., Patel, S., Mir, S., Wilton, A., & Brown, D. (2009). Toronto First Duty Phase 2, 2006-‐2008: Final research report. Toronto: Toronto First Duty. Denburg, A., & Daneman, D. (2010). Pascal’s wager: From science to policy on early childhood development. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 101(3), 235-‐36. Retrieved from http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/viewFile/1876/2102 Doherty, G. F. (2003). OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care: Canadian background report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/36/33852192.pdf Early Childhood Australia. (2011). Our future on the line: Keeping the early childhood education and care reforms on track. Retrieved from http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/pdf/our_future_on_the_line.pdf Early Childhood Australia. (2003). The national agenda for early childhood. Retrieved from http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=549

83

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Early Years Continuum Project. (2011a). An overview (draft June 2, 2011). Edmonton: Success by 6®. Edmonton: United Way of the Alberta Capital Region. Early Years Continuum Project. (2011b). Interim report: April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011. Success by 6®. Edmonton: United Way of the Alberta Capital Region. Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental-‐constructivism to sociocultural theory and practice. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(1), 83-‐106. Edwards, S. (2003). New directions: Charting the paths for the role of socioclutural theory in early childhood education and curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(3), 251-‐266. Families First Edmonton. (2005-‐2011). Working together: Building Successful Partnerships (Assessment Tool). Edmonton: Families First Edmonton. Fleer, M. (1995). DAPcentrism: Challenging developmentally appropriate practice. Watson, ACT: Australian Early Childhood Association. Government of Alberta. (2011a). Annual report 2010-‐2011. Alberta Children and Youth Services. Edmonton. Government of Alberta. (2011b). Alberta's approach to collaborative practices...based on the wraparound principles. Alberta Education. Edmonton. Government of Alberta. (2011c). Family day home standards manual for Alberta. Retrieved 2 August 2011 from Children and Youth Services: http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/documents/child care/Family_Day_Home_Standards.pdf Government of Alberta. (2011d). Funding manual for school authorities 2011/2012 school year: For school jurisdictions, accredited funded private schools and private ECS operators with students/children in ECS to Grade 12. Alberta Education. Edmonton. Government of Alberta. (2010). Department information and newsroom: About an inclusive education system. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inclusion/about.aspx Government of Alberta. (2009). Setting the direction. Alberta Education. Edmonton. Government of Alberta. (2008). Kindergarten program statement. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/312892/kindergarten.pdf Government of Alberta. (n.d.-‐a). Early Child Development (ECD) mapping initiative. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/ecs/ecd.aspx Government of British Columbia. (2011a). Child care operating funding program: FAQ’s for multi-‐age child care settings. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child care/pdfs/qa_multi_age.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2011b). Early childhood educator glossary of terms. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child care/ece/index.htm Government of British Columbia. (2011c). BC early learning newsletter. Vol. 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/pdfs/newsletter_spring11.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2010). BC early learning newsletter. Vol. 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/pdfs/newsletter_fall10.pdf

84

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Government of British Columbia. (2010a). Early years annual report 2009/2010. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/early_childhood/pdf/EarlyYearsAnnualReport2010.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2010b). Kindergarten curriculum package. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/curric_grade_packages/grkcurric_req.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2009a). Understanding the British Columbia early learning framework: From theory to practice. Ministry of Education. Victoria: Government of British Columbia. Government of British Columbia. (2009b). BC child care settings eligible for subsidy. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child care/pdfs/eligible_child_care_arrangements.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2009c). Policy document: StrongStart BC early learning centre. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/strong_start.htm# Government of British Columbia. (2008). British Columbia early learning framework. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/pdfs/early_learning_framework.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2008). Child care in British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child care/pdfs/child_care_in_bc_2008_final.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2007). The BC early learning framework. Victoria: Government of British Columbia. Government of British Columbia. (2000). The primary program: A framework for teaching. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/primary_program/primary_prog.pdf Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-‐a). Full day kindergarten. Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/fdk/qa.htm Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-‐b). Early learning initiatives. StrongStart BC. Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/strongstart_bc/faq.htm Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-‐c). Early learning network. StrongStart programs. Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/strongstart_bc/faq.htm Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-‐d). Early learning initiatives. StrongStart BC. Reporting. Q & A: PEN, attendance, reporting and data requirements. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/strongstart_bc/qa_pen_reporting.htm Government of British Columbia. (n.d.-‐e). Child Care Resource & Referral programs. Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child care/cc_resource.htm Government of Canada. (2009). The well-‐being of Canada's young children: Government of Canada report 2008. Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Government of Ontario. (2011a). Building our best future. Realizing the vision of Ontario Best Start Child and Family Centres: An update. Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/english/documents/topics/earlychildhood/bestStartUpda te2011-‐en.pdf Government of Ontario. (2011b). Memorandum EL4: Regulatory amendments for full day junior kindergarten and kindergarten and extended day and third party programs. Retrieved from http://www.opsba.org/files/2011EL4ExtendedDay%2BThirdPartyJun0811.pdf

85

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Government of Ontario. (2011c). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/child care/about.html Government of Ontario. (2011d). About child care. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/child care/about.html Government of Ontario. (2011e). Parent information: Full day kindergarten for four-‐ and five-‐year-‐ olds. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/EarlyLearnFS.pdf Government of Ontario. (2010a). Media release: McGuinty government preparing for ongoing implementation of full day kindergarten. Retrieved from http://www.news.ontario.ca/tcu/en/2010/09/more-‐early-‐childhood-‐educators-‐ready-‐for-‐the-‐ classroom.html Government of Ontario. (2010b). Memorandum to directors of education from Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/memos/may2010/2010EL6_Bill242.pdf Government of Ontario. (2010c). Memorandum 2010: EL9. Full day kindergarten: Administration of fee subsidies for the full day kindergarten extended day. Retrieved from http://cal2.edu.gov.on.ca/june2010/2010_EL9E.pdf Government of Ontario. (2010d). Memorandum to directors of education from Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/memos/may2010/2010EL6_Bill242.pdf Government of Ontario. (2010e). Child care licensing standards. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/childcare/licensingstandards.html. Government of Ontario. (2010f). Ontario Early Learning Centres: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/earlychildhood/oeyc/questions/index.aspx Government of Ontario. (2009). With our best future in mind: Implementing early learning in Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/ONT06_018876 Government of Ontario. (2008). Second career. Retrieved from Employment Ontario: http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/secondcareer/SecondCareerBrochureEn.pdf Government of Ontario. (2007). A framework for Ontario early childhood settings: Best Start Expert Panel on early learning. Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/earlychildhood/early_learning_for_every_ child_today.aspx Harms, T. C. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2003). Building upon the theory of change for systems of care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 711(1), 19-‐26. Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP). (2011). Early Development Instrument. Vancouver. HELP. (2010). BC smart family policy 2010 report card: A status update on how BC is doing. Vancouver. HELP. (2009a). Creating communities for young children: A toolkit for change. Vancouver.

86

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review HELP. (2009b). 15 by 15: A comprehensive policy framework for early human capital investment in BC. Retrieved from http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/wp-‐uploads/web.help.ubc.ca/2010/01/15by15-‐ Full-‐Report.pdf HELP. (2008). Evaluation of StrongStart BC. Vancouver. HELP. (2007). Evaluation of StrongStart BC: Stage one documentation. Vancouver. Janus, M., & Brinkman, S. (2010). Evaluating early childood education and care. International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 25-‐31). Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., & Moss, O. (2010). Caring and learning together: A cross-‐national study of integration of early childhood care & education within education. Paris: UNESCO. Mahon, R., & Jenson, J. (2006). Learning from each other: Early learning and child care experiences in Canadian cities. Retrieved from http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-‐policy-‐ practice/06/07/learning-‐each-‐other-‐early-‐learning-‐and-‐child-‐care-‐experience Massing, C. (2008). Caring for our future: Working together to address recruitment and retention in Alberta child care. Retrieved from the Aberta Resource Centre for Quality Enhancement: http://www.arcqe.ca/media/uploads/documents/rr_report_web.pdf McBryde-‐Foster, M., & Allen, T. (2005). The continuum of care: A concept development study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(6), 624-‐632. McMillan, R. (2010). Voices from the field. Early learning care and education: Applying an integrated approach. In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development (online). Retreived from the Centre For Excellence for Early Childhood Development: http://www.child-‐ encyclopedia.com/pages/PDF/McMillanANGps.pdf Mississauga. (2011). Kindergarten care approved. Retrieved from http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1030464-‐-‐kindergarten-‐care-‐approved Mitchell, D. (2010). Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special educational needs. Retrieved from Government of New Zealand: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/special_education/education-‐that-‐fits-‐review-‐ of-‐international-‐trends-‐in-‐the-‐education-‐of-‐students-‐with-‐special-‐educational-‐needs2/1 Narrabundah Early Childhood School School Profile. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.myschool.edu.au/MainPages/SchoolProfileRep.aspx?SDRSchoolId=7100802_1106& DEEWRId=10342&CalendarYear=2010&RefId=vtNmG5RnDXXCHIKkYCyNZ1iltjt%2bIm2Z Narrabundah Early Childhood School Board. (2010). Narrabundah early childhood school board report. Canberra: ACT Government. O'Connor Cooperative School. (2011). Enrolment information. Retrieved from http://www.coop.act.edu.au/about_us/enrolment_information O'Connor Cooperative School Board. (2010). O'Connor cooperative school board report. ACT Government. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2001). Starting strong I: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.

87

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review OECD Directorate for Education. (2004). Early childhood education and care policy: Canada country note. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/34/33850725.pdf Ontario Public School Board Association. (2010). Full day kindergarten. Early learning program. Key facts. Retrieved from http://www.opsba.org/index.php?q=system/files/ELPkeyFacts.pdf Pascal, C. (2009). With our best future in mind: Implementing early learning in Ontario. Report to the Premier by the Special Advisor on early learning. Retrieved from http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/STEL02_198770 Patel, S. (2009). Integrated early childhood program participation, parenting and child development outcomes: The Toronto First Duty Project [Thesis]. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Peel Community Information Partners. (2011). Record details. Retrieved from http://peel.cioc.ca/record/MAL0003 Peel Community Information Partners. (n.d.-‐b). Child Development Resource Connection Peel. Retrieved from http://peel.cioc.ca/start.asp?UseCICVw=54 Peel District School Board . (2011). Media release. Retrieved from http://www.peel.edu.on.ca/media/news2002/11A0511.htm Peel District School Board. (n.d.-‐a). Get the facts: Full day kindergarten. Retrieved from http://www.peel.edu.on.ca/facts/FDEL.htm Pelletier, J. (2011a). Peel Best Start research and evaluation report. University of Toronto, Dr. Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study, OISE. Toronto: University of Toronto. Pelletier, J. (2011b). Peel Best Start research evaluation: What did we learn? Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/children/working/early-‐learn-‐toolkit/ Pelletier, J., & Corter C. (2006). Integration, innovation, and evaluation in school-‐based early childhood services. In B. S. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (3rd ed., pp. 477-‐496). Matwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. People for Education. (2011). Annual report on Ontario’s publicly funded schools 2011. Retrieved from http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-‐policy-‐practice/11/06/annual-‐report-‐ ontarios-‐publicly-‐funded-‐schools-‐2011 Prakash, M. L., Bisanz, J., Chalmers, G., Daniels, J., Gokiert, R. J., McNeil, D. C., Michailides, M., Schnirer, l., Varnhagen, S., Walker, C., & Wosnack, N. (2010). Integrated supports for children, youth and families: A literature review of the wraparound process. Alberta Education, University of Alberta, and Edmonton Public School Board. Edmonton: Community-‐University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth and Families. Region of Peel. (2011). Early learning program update: Volume 9. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/children/working/early-‐learn-‐toolkit/pdfs/EL-‐Program-‐Update%20V9-‐ June-‐2011.pdf Region of Peel. (2011-‐229). Peel Children and Youth Initiative (PCYI) and Peel Children’s Charter of Rights. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/council/decisions/2011/03-‐24-‐2011.htm Region of Peel. (2010). Child care service plan 2010-‐2011. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/children/about/childcareserviceplan.htm

88

Early Years Continuum Project Literature Review Region of Peel. (2010b). Child care special needs access point Peel. Annual report. Human Services. Mississagua: Region of Peel. Region of Peel. (2009). A report on early learning in Peel: A visioning session. MIssissagua: Region of Peel. Region of Peel. (n.d.-‐a). Children’s services. Integrated programming committee. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/children/resources/committees/integrated.htm Region of Peel. (n.d.-‐b). Children’s services. Best Start Network. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/children/resources/committees/peel-‐best-‐start-‐network.htm Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Southern Cross Early Childhood School Board. (2010). Southern Cross early childhood school board report. Canberra: ACT Government. Success by 6®. (2010). Early years collective pilot project: Conditional grant request. Edmonton: United Way of the Alberta Capital Region. Success by 6® Peel. (2009). Status of children in Peel. Retrieved from http://www.successby6peel.ca. Sumsion, J. B. (2009). Insider perspective on developing Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 4-‐13. The College of Early Childhood Educators. (2010). Seizing opportunity: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.collegeofece.on.ca/en/Documents/Annual%20Report%2009_10.pdf The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. (2009). Early childhood education and care: Next steps. Ottawa: Government of Canada: Senate. Toronto First Duty. (2005). First Duty indicators of change. Toronto First Duty: Early Learning and Care for Every Child. Toronto: Atkinson Centre. Triple P. (n.d.). What is Triple P? Retrieved from http://www19.triplep.net/?pid=29 UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. (2008). The child care transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries. UNICEF. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (n.d.). Environment rating scales. Retrieved from FPG Child Development Institute: http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/ Vandenbroeck, M. (2011). Participation in early childhood education and care programs: Equity, diversity and educational disadvantage. In International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 81-‐85). Missouri: Elsevier. Wosnack, N., Daniels, J. S., Bisanz, J., Chalmers, G., Gokiert, R. J., McNeil, D. C., Michailides, M., Prakash, M., Schnirer, L., Varnhagen, S., & Walker, C. (2010). Wrapping supports and services around Alberta's students: Research summary. Community-‐University Partnership for the Study of Children, Youth, and Families (CUP). Edmonton: Alberta Education.

89