children playing

Early learning is only civilized [CA]

Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version
Counterpoint
Author: 
Friendly, Martha
Format: 
Article
Publication Date: 
6 Jun 2006
AVAILABILITY

See text below.

EXCERPTS

A May 30 National Post editorial opined that if not for the "entrenched," "blinkered child-care establishment," there would be no worries about current directions in early learning and child care.

The Post's campaign against publicly organized and funded early childhood programs has been documented by University of New Brunswick sociologist Luc Theriault, whose 2005 analysis noted that "the position of the National Post seems clearly based on ideology more than research or anything else." Predictably, in its latest attack on early childhood policy, the Post relies heavily upon fiction and distortion to makes its points.

The Post claims, for instance, that "big government solutions ... had their chance" in the 1990s. But that's not true. Yes, Jean Chretien did muse about improving child care in the early '90s, as did Brian Mulroney before him, but no sustained effort was made by his government. To the contrary, federal social spending was considerably reduced in the mid-1990s.

The numbers used to support the Post's claim are bogus, too. According to the editorial, "less than 125,000 spaces materialized" during that period, significantly understating the 222,000 new regulated spaces between 1992 and 2004. That's still not adequate coverage, but let's at least use the right numbers.

The Post alleges that the child-care community and provincial governments insist upon "government daycare." This, too, is fiction. Most Canadian child care is community-based; very little is government-operated.

Today, early learning and child care is no longer an unknown quantity that can be easily misrepresented. It is a mainstream topic with extensive publicly available research. We know that quality early learning and child care is good for children no matter what their mothers do, which is why many parents -- regardless of labour force status -- opt for early learning programs when that choice is available to them.

We know that parenting and early childhood education are mutually supportive. We know that early learning and child care enables mothers to work and contributes to other social goals -- women's equality, equity across class, ethnic/racial and ability lines, and social cohesion. We know that early learning and child care is not a "magic bullet," but one pillar of good family policy.

We also know from available knowledge -- not opinion -- that a comprehensive early childhood system, rather than a scattershot approach, is what works. And we know that most countries now aim for quality early learning and child care provision for all children. At a child-care conference last year, keynote speaker Stephen Lewis noted that "early learning and child care fused together is the kind of objective which any civilized society strives for."

If we are not among those striving for this goal, what does that tell us about Canada?

- reprinted from the National Post

Region: