Early Childcare Education in CanadaEssay title: Early Childcare Education in CanadaThe matter being addressed is the possible implementation of an Early Childhood Education and Care Program in Canada. brought to light the dissatisfaction with our lack of a universal system as well as the reservations concerning a new approach. Michael Krashinsky in “Canada needs an Early Childhood Education and Care Program” argues that it is in Canada’s best interest while Beverley Smith in “Equal Benefit to Children: What It Really Means” argues the contrary. Both enable us to analyze the issue with sufficient information defending and arguing each aspect. When faced with such a decision one must consider the facts and how they pertain to his or her morals and values. It is clear that an Early Childhood Education and Care Program benefits the Canadian government at the expense of what is morally correct and thus should not be imposed.
”A question remains as to how these questions and their application in an actual, reality-based context with no special concerns whatsoever is taken into account. Since the introduction of a universal system in this period of the Cold War, there were two issues that were raised:
1. The United States may, through the adoption of a universal system, provide such an education for children in poor or unstable contexts. Both questions are of significant concern with respect to the future of the United States.
2.
While our current policies in Canada in recent years have provided significant assistance to the United States government and the United Nations, they have not allowed for a national and state model to be introduced to the United States.
”In all cases of such a scheme, it is not necessary to have to consider the issues raised at the outset and the consequences that may result at the present time. A fundamental question with respect to the issue of “a plan” is not how we are to prepare for an actual, permanent, or future, but how to achieve the outcome that the Canadian economy, our social fabric, and our society needs at any event. In this respect we have come to the right place.
Although this is an important issue that confronts a great many Canadians who regard education as the ultimate goal of their lives, it would be foolish to disregard the fact that the Canadian government actually is responsible for ensuring the success of education. It must look beyond its role as the “facilitator for” an alternative to the existing paradigm of education. It must take such steps as allocating resources to research efforts to identify, develop and implement a sustainable approach to the issue. It has to take such actions as the National Association of Secondary Education Leaders have done with this regard, which is to say, it needs to follow the lead of its predecessor, the United States State Department of Education. It is to be noted here that Canada in its current state is in the midst of the lowest per capita income of any developed country on earth, as it approaches the peak economic growth of any nation at the present time. The National Institute on Education and its affiliated organizations have a long history of work in this regard.
”I want now to turn to another important point, that the Canadian government has also led efforts to improve the quality education system in the United States. In our initial efforts the government and the General Accounting Office have provided education programs that are much better than in the United States. Since the 1980’s we have worked with the Canadian Institutes of Information Technology (ISICT) to establish a system of training for students of all academic fields, along with a number of other programs. Among other things, ISICT has introduced a series of “camps” within the federal colleges and universities system, for which there are currently over 3,000 of these colleges and universities. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, it would appear that in the future these plans are more limited. This would also mean that if the Canadian government continued to pursue this plan in the hope of creating a permanent solution to the problem it has raised, then this process would be over. Since these are programs that take years to implement (including through private-sector funding), these proposals have not generated many opportunities to ensure that the future quality of our education system will be better than it had been under the past.
As regards the United States, we have made no attempt to have the United States have a comprehensive approach to education. We believe that for the long run this approach will not have any impact on the quality of education in the United States. The very fact that we have adopted the Canadian approach to this issue speaks volumes about the importance
In “Canada needs an Early Childhood Education and Care Program” the author begins by stating that such a program will ultimately strengthen Canada both economically and socially. His first argument is that the number of mothers with children working in the labor force has significantly risen in the last 30 years and is likely to continue doing so. Therefore persuading women to stop working for pay would require significant cash incentives that would be far more expensive than any childcare program put in place. The children of these working mothers require supervision that is of a better quality than many of the arrangements that are currently in place. The high quality ECEC program would allow for many parents to give their children the care that they would otherwise be financially unable to provide. The upbringing of Canadian children will ultimately benefit society as a whole because it will allow for a generation of productive, content, and involves citizens. They will in turn pay higher taxes and consume fewer social services as will their parents who are entering the workforce. Also these children will be stimulated early on which will result in them being adequately prepared for higher levels of education.
Finally Krashinsky argues that many women who leave the work force to care for their children are then at a disadvantage when re-entering the workforce due to need for training and lack of acquired skills. A good ECEC program will allow women the opportunity to combine paid work and family life. This will encourage more women to enter the labor force and ultimately pay higher taxes that will allow for the government to finance the ECEC program. Krashinsky concludes his article by addressing critics that suggest ECEC is discriminatory against families who choose to raise their own children and critics who question Canada’s ability to afford such a program. In response, he states that any public program chooses to benefit those who use it over those who do not and lists public healthcare and employment insurance as examples. Lastly, the author explains that money spent on young children, who are the future generation of our country, is money well spent and that it would ultimately be a wise investment.
Beverley Smith in “Equal Benefit to Children: What It Really Means” begins by stating that her argument is not against the governments assistance to families with young children but rather that it should be given equally to all children and not solely those in daycare. She first addresses the belief that there is a need for childcare centers by explaining that there are many alternatives being ignored such as relatives inside and outside the home and parents working from home. Options such as part-time employment are preferred by most parents whose desire is to spend as much time as possible with their children, however The ECEC program does not allow for this diversity in care. Daycare is not the preferred option and so why settle for what is in our child’s “second-best interest”.
In essence, the ECEC is simply a state-appointed program that has no mandate to promote or discriminate or otherwise discriminate. This is because, as we’ve learned from the original Human Rights Campaign case where the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the equal benefits approach, the ECEC does not recognize the same principle that the American Medical Association has for its own child care programs. As the ECEC concludes, “One of the main reasons why the medical profession has not taken its role more fully today is that its members have been forced to rely on state legislative enactments which, although not identical to child care, are not always consistent with state constitutional principles of equal protection and equality of opportunity. It is worth noting that the ECEC program is a direct extension to states’ rights to privacy, due process, and due process privileges, both in the individual and state, as well as civil rights, which vary over time.”
“Equal Benefits” is based entirely on state and federal laws, and therefore does not require that the federal government make every effort to provide a child care program for all children in need. In fact, both the U.S. Supreme Court and a portion of the American People’s Supreme Court said at least they should be able to choose Medicaid eligibility under the ACA in order to get coverage. However, the ACA does not provide for “full child insurance for a child if that child is the sole caretaker of the child’s parent or legal guardian unless the child is medically determined by a caretaker within the child’s own household,” so even if a state had given an “informed but not compulsory” consent to opt-in, it would only be legally required to cover children who are the sole caretaker of the child but would not be covered under the ACA. Moreover, it does not provide for a direct state or federal decision to deny coverage for low-income children or to refuse coverage for under-served children.
The ACA does not provide for all family sizes. There can be no “full child insurance coverage” for every child under 18 in most states. Moreover, since child care providers should provide coverage for children aged 4 to 10 the state might still not have the money to cover any of the children whose cost would be prohibitive. Moreover, all child care providers should be given the option to choose coverage that does not increase their costs. There shouldn’t be any requirement that these providers should offer children the same health benefits and have access to basic health care at a reasonable price.
As we’ll see in a minute, even if a bill was passed by the Senate to provide universal pre-kindergarten eligibility that was adopted as part of the ACA, it would technically make all child care providers have to purchase a single coverage plan. That proposal was never actually enacted and instead is essentially an attempt by various states to put the health of their citizens at the expense of other residents in this nation. As one can imagine, even if the ACA was adopted as part of the ACA, and the states like North Dakota simply adopted it they must now go to court to overturn it on appeal
Each child has his or her own individual needs that a one-size fits all program is unlikely to meet. Also, a smaller adult-baby ratio allows for a better learning environment and so it is unrealistic for daycares to claim that they are equal if not better than one on one parent-child education. Although daycare is monitored and inspected to ensure that it is maintaining its standard of care, the consequences of any neglect or abuse is much stronger for parents.
The author argues that there is no democracy in the ECEC program as it is solely funding daycare and making all other options unaffordable thus denying women their right as a Canadian citizen to equal benefit. An alternative to this program would be a tax credit initiative of around $4,000 per child for all families with young children. This would allow families the option of using the money to fund daycare or aid in forfeiting one’s salary. Smith concludes her article by reminding us that there is not a shortage of care but rather two kinds: one done for love