LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- March 13, 2007
To The Editor;
A strong start it ain't! Early childhood programs and services in BC a vast wasteland.
"Up to 80 Strong Start Centers will open in underutilized school spaces over the next year" - Speech from the Throne, February 13th, 2007.
The simultaneous announcement of the expansion of the BC Liberals much-vaunted early childhood initiative, erroneously labeled 'Strong Start,' and the sharp cutbacks in the established provincial network of Child Care Resource and Referral centers for young children in the same Throne Speech, highlights the disarray and confusion around the provincial government's approach to a crucial area of public policy in this province.
In response to uproar from the child care community Linda Reid, Minister of State for Child Care, in a recent back-pedaling email message to resource and referral programs promised to reinstate part of the funding. But $5 million is still being cut and lay offs of workers and center closures are still going ahead in parts of the province.
Additional cuts for child care operating funding will force operators to raise parent fees and a cap on capital funding for new spaces guarantees that families will languish on wait lists for existing spaces.
Given the conflicting announcements by various ministers over the past three years, the recent disbanding of the interministerial sub committee on early childhood, the fragmented, ad hoc approach to the use of federal funds awarded last year by Ottawa, the slashing of funding to provincial resource centers that helped families find childcare spaces and the current jurisdictional split between Tom Christensen's Ministry of Children and Family Development, Linda Reid's Ministry of State for Child Care and Shirley Bond's Ministry of Education we now find ourselves in early childhood disarray.
By comparison with jurisdictions in Britain and France and, closer to home, in Quebec and Ontario it is no exaggeration to say that given three decades of research and practice in this area, when it comes to planning and implementing a comprehensive continuum of quality care and learning programs and initiatives in early childhood BC is close to being in the Dark Ages.
It is ironic that the self same speech from the throne that boasted about the progress in working for pre-schoolers and about making BC "the most literate jurisdiction in North America" pointedly contained the following statement: "It is widely recognized that early learning experiences and development play a major role in the child's later academic success. Currently, approximately 25 per cent of children (in BC) are not ready to learn when they enter kindergarten."
The launch last year of pilot 'Strong Start' programs of which there are 15 currently in operation, according to Susan Kennedy, the provincial coordinator, who works out of the ministry of education, is off to a good start.
However, closer examination of these programs, of which there is little or no information on the ministry's web site, and no written evaluation available, indicates that they are simply 3 hour drop in programs for parents or care givers and as Ms. Kennedy was at pains to stress they are "not pre school or child care programs."
While there are many models for early childhood programs in existence, 'Strong Start,' modeled on a Toronto School Board program, should be viewed as merely a marginal intervention in the comprehensive early childhood continuum needed in BC. This was forcefully underlined by the hundreds of angry child care protesters in front of the legislature in Victoria when the House resumed sitting.
And school boards, or rather newly-named boards of education will, under an upcoming 'expanded mandate,' be responsible for 'Strong Start' programs if they avail themselves of the measly $20,000 in funding (with $30,000 in start-up funding). According to Ms. Kennedy no decision on ongoing funding has been established, so school boards beware!
The 'excessive demands' placed on some of these 'Strong Start' centers, as noted by Ms. Kennedy, highlights the current crisis in child care in BC. This essential component of any worthwhile, quality, early childhood program, was forcefully rejected by the BC Liberals during their first mandate and by Stephen Harper's Conservatives with the latter's $100 a month cheque to pre school parentscalled a housekeeping allowance by some critics --- in lieu of child care. It seems that there are clear ideological bases for these rejections.
But what about pre-school education programs in this province with one in four kids arriving in BC schools, by the ministry of education's own admission, ill- prepared for formal schooling?
We are truly looking at a vast wasteland.
Thousands of kids by the time they arrive in Grade 1 with their variations in oral language, vocabulary and comprehension so great that it is difficult for classroom teachers to narrow the gap between children who are more or less ready to learn in a formal setting.
Compare BC with the early childhood infrastructure in Ontario for the past decade where carefully researched and proven programs for 4 and 5 year old pre-schoolers with an emphasis on literacy and numeracy are now an integral part of the public school system in that province.
BC, with the highest child poverty rate in Canada, currently does not have a single pre-kindergarten class for 4 year olds in our public schools funded directly by Victoria.
Yet both the research and practice strongly supports structured and developmentally appropriate intervention for poor kids, and indeed for all other kids, at this key juncture in their early lives.
The continuation of limited and discriminatory admission to all-day kindergarten programs (only ESL, First Nations and special needs children are funded) is also an affront to equality of educational opportunity.
And handing out books to preschoolers and developing parent guides while welcome in themselves do not an early childhood program make. Neither does the recent, one-off, grant of $12 million to the BC School Trustees Association for promotion of pre school programs by school boards constitute a substantial initiative.
Unwilling to make a major, comprehensive, and long term investment in early childhood education programs, the fragmented and sometimes overlapping policies of two separate ministries under the BC Liberals undermines the future of thousands of children about to enter our public schools.
In his recently released and excellent book on early childhood education entitled, 'Building Blocks,' subtitled: Making Children Successful in the Early Years of School, researcher Gene Maeroff of Columbia University notes that his impressions, "formed over decades of observation in classrooms, that students may have a lifetime of troubles awaiting them if schools don't get it right at the beginning."
BC has yet to get it right at the beginning.
- Noel Herron, former elementary school principal and Vancouver School Board trustee.
To The Editor:
Is not the family the pillar of society? But it is sadly so suffering and is this not because of the rush to more profits by companies, and of speculation. Of hyper commercialization, the high cost of food and clothing and also the exploitation of wages in fact everything that touches what is essential for living? Where is our government who should protect the family? Government by neglecting their responsibilities do they not oblige in many cases to force both parents to go out to work?
Do not the couple and the children become victims? Do they not miss having time for themselves and other members of their family to appreciate one another? Should not education begin at home and not in daycare?
Are not daycares a place of destruction for children for they receive but secondary and non essential needs: such as love, affection, attention which they need? Is it not a violation of the first rights of children?
Is it not sad that the government invest large sums of money thinking that they are doing good by accommodating a number of mothers who do not realize the harm they do to their children? Does all this not contribute to encourage the materialist and a monoparental life style?
Children who are developing: especially in their very young stage of their lives, which is the most important because of their developing character on the psychic and psychological aspect? A certain pathology is at risk of developing when a child is in conflict with his needs, because he does not feel loved by his parent.
This generally hurts the child on the affective plan, thus resulting in costly consequences for the child, the family and the society; drugs, violence, delinquency, gangs, crimes etc.
Should not love be given in the homes with loving and responsible parents who know the dignity, the vastness and the demands of their work? Should we not and take conscience of the vastness and the social productivity of the mother who stays at home to take care of her children to avoid the suffering and the sadness which is spreading throughout our society?
Today in our world of speed and the rush for riches and comfort, parents have no more time for their children. Parents have little time for one another. Is this not the way peace in the home and in the world is broken?
The worse poverty that exist in the family is the lack of love in the couple and for the children, it cause s great suffering such as solitude and indifference and the sentiment of not being loved. The parents and children have a great need of love but it is not there.
Most of the parents who work think only of money and material things.
The children feel rejected and abandoned. Should we not do something about this type of poverty in our homes and in our society? Do we not mislead our children in error by showing them that money and material things are more important than love and family.
Why is it that the government takes possession of our families and our children by taking away the rights and responsibilities of the parents by establishing the most cruel, criminal, ignorant and irresponsible army who believe themselves above the Supreme Court. They take away the authority, the dignity and the respect of the parents by giving the children the authority that belong to the parents - I am speaking of the Children's Aid.
This organization prevents the parents from disciplining their children because they live in terror of losing their children. Disciplining a child with a slap in considered an assault on the child. 'THIS IS FALSE.'
But with the Children's Aid a child at the age of 12 year old can have sexual relations because according to them the child is mature enough to make his own decisions where is the logic?
Is it not time for the government to stop wasting our money that serve to destroy the families and our children? And stop financing this army so costly for our society; More than $ 1.165 billion dollars is invested in destroying our families and our country.
Would we us parents and other members of our society be too lazy or indifferent to not take our responsibilities and stop this devastation?
Yours truly
Bertrand Jetté,
Hawkesbury, Ontario
