Working for Change: Canada’s Child Care Workforce · CHAPTER 2 : A PROFILE OF THE WORKFORCE 9 2.1 Defining the Workforce 9 2.2 Data Sources 9 2.3 Characteristics of the ECEC Workforce

Working for Change:Canada’s Child Care Workforce

Prepared for theChild Care Human Resources Sector Council

Main Report

Jane Beach

Jane Bertrand

Barry Forer

Donna Michal

Jocelyne Tougas

Labour Market Update Study

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page a

Working for change : Canada's child care workforce : labour market update. Main report / Jane Beach ... [et al.].

Issued also in French under title: Un travail à valoriser : la main d'oeuvre dusecteur de la garde à l'enfance au Canada : mise à jour des données sur le marché du travail : rapport principal.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-9683704-3-8

1. Child care workers--Canada.2. Day care centers--Canada--Employees. 3. Child care services--Canada.I. Beach, Jane II. Child Care Human Resources Sector Council III. Title.

HQ778.7.C3W67 2004 331.7'61362712'0971 C2004-905866-5

To obtain additional copies of this report, please contact: [email protected] Care Human Resources Sector Council323 Chapel Street, 3rd FloorOttawa (ON) K1N 7Z2www.ccsc-cssge.ca

This project is funded by the Governmentof Canada's Sector Council Program.

The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page b

MESSAGE FROM THE CHILD CARE HUMAN RESOURCESSECTOR COUNCIL

L A B O U R M A R K E T U P D A T E S T U D Y c

The Child Care Human Resources Sector Council (CCHRSC) welcomes the opportunity to share thissignificant, comprehensive, and timely report with you. Working for Change: Canada’s Child Care Workforce wascommissioned by the CCHRSC—a pan-Canadian, non-profit organization dedicated to moving forward onhuman resource issues in the child care sector. The study follows up on the findings of the 1998 report ‘Our ChildCare Workforce’ and is the only labour market update completed on the child care sector in the past six years.

The findings of the Working for Change report are especially relevant now, at a time when child care is highon the government agenda. As we move into a period of promised government commitment, the momentumneeded to propel the child care agenda forward is building. Political will, coupled with the knowledge andexperience of child care advocates, is necessary to effectively address the many challenges facing the sectorand its workforce.

Child care is central to providing support to children and families, enabling parents to contribute to theeconomy and ensuring the learning, care, and developmental needs of children are met. The child careworkforce is critical to the success of these outcomes and to the well being of a healthy and productive society.Yet low income levels; few benefits; lack of respect and recognition; and barriers to training make it difficultto recruit and retain a skilled and sustainable workforce. An investment in the workforce and its humanresource issues is absolutely essential to ensure that the child care needs of all Canadians are consistently met.

A fairly compensated, well recognized workforce that is valued for its contribution to early childhood educationand care is the key to ensuring quality child care. Strong and supportive public policy, together with the solutionsoutlined in this report, will help us move forward and take action to ensure the future of child care in Canada.

The CCHRSC would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the research team of Jane Beach, Jane Bertrand,Barry Forer, Donna Michal, and Jocelyne Tougas, whose hard work and dedication made this report a reality.To the child care workforce across Canada, our deepest respect and admiration. A special thanks to the LabourMarket Update working group who provided support and guidance throughout the project. Our sincereappreciation to the Government of Canada’s Sector Council Program for funding this study and for continuingto support the work of the CCHRSC.

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page c

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page d

i

CHAPTER 1 : OVERVIEW 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Organization of the Report 2

1.3 Environmental and Policy Changes Since the Child Care Sector Study 2

1.4 The Broader ECEC Sector and the Child Care Sector: Who Is Included

in the Labour Market Update? 2

1.5 Methodology 4

1.6 Key Issues and Highlights of the Findings 6

CHAPTER 2 : A PROFILE OF THE WORKFORCE 9

2.1 Defining the Workforce 9

2.2 Data Sources 9

2.3 Characteristics of the ECEC Workforce 10

2.4 Educational Attainment of the Workforce 16

2.5 The Age of the Workforce 19

2.6 Education and Other Variables 20

2.7 Employment and Earnings 25

2.8 The Next Generation: Trends by Age, Education and Recent

Immigration from the Student Survey 28

CHAPTER 3 : AN OVERVIEW OF CHILD CARE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 33

3.1 Type and Supply of Regulated Child Care 33

3.2 Supply of ECEC Under Education Authority 38

3.3 Other ECEC Services Within Provincial/Territorial Jurisdiction 42

3.4 ECEC Programs Under Federal Jurisdiction 43

3.5 Public Spending on Regulated Child Care 44

3.6 Public Spending on Other Forms of ECEC 48

3.7 Quality in Regulated Child Care 50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L A B O U R M A R K E T U P D A T E S T U D Y i

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page i

ii C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

CHAPTER 4 : IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE DEMAND FOR CHILD CARE 57

4.1 Major Public Policy Changes and Initiatives 57

4.2 The Demographic Environment 64

4.3 The Demand for Different Types of ECEC 66

4.4 The Demand for Early Childhood Educators and a Child Care Workforce 68

CHAPTER 5 : PREPARING AND SUPPORTING THE CHILD CARE WORKFORCE 75

5.1 Post-Secondary Education Institutions 75

5.2 Labour Market Development Agreements 83

5.3 Child Care Organizations 86

5.4 Trade Unions 87

5.5 Early Child Development Research and Resources 88

CHAPTER 6 : THE WORK ENVIRONMENT CHALLENGE 91

6.1 Compensation 91

6.2 Working Conditions 97

6.3 Career Trajectories 98

6.4 Occupational Health and Safety 100

6.5 Employment Status in Family Child Care 101

CHAPTER 7 : THE SKILLS CHALLENGE 103

7.1 The Quality Problem 103

7.2 Child Care Staff Educational Attainment 104

7.3 The Skill Gaps 105

7.4 Leadership and Management Issues 107

7.5 Barriers to Pre-Service and In-Service Education and Professional Development 108

7.6 The Skill Drain from Child Care 109

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page ii

CHAPTER 8 : THE RECOGNITION CHALLENGE 113

8.1 At the Intersection of Professionalization, Unionization and Advocacy 113

8.2 Professionalization 113

8.3 Unionization 116

8.4 Advocacy 117

8.5 Strategic Directions at the Intersection 118

CHAPTER 9 : THE PATH FOR PROGRESS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123

9.1 Overarching Labour Market Issues 123

9.2 The Public Policy Challenge 123

9.3 Recommendations 124

APPENDIX 1: Members of the Child Care Human Resources Sector Council 127

APPENDIX 2-A : Staffing Requirements for Regulated Child Care Centres, 2003 129

APPENDIX 2-B : Staffing Requirements for Regulated Family Child Care, 2003 131

APPENDIX 3 : List of Key Informants and Government Officials Consulted 133

APPENDIX 4 : ECEC Organizations and Associations 135

APPENDIX 5 : Early Childhood Educator Student Questionnaire 157

APPENDIX 6 : Policy Lessons from OECD Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care 165

REFERENCES 167

List of Tables page

2.1 The Child Care Workforce and Related Occupations—Demographic

Characteristics (%), 1991 and 2001 11

2.2a Canadian Experienced Labour Force, by National Occupational Classification

for Statistics (NOC-S) 12

L A B O U R M A R K E T U P D A T E S T U D Y

M A I N R E P O R T

iii

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page iii

iv C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L


2.2b Estimated Canadian Early Childhood Education and Care Labour Force,

by National Occupational Classification for Statistics (NOC-S) 12

2.3 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants—Age Groups, Work Pattern and

Highest Level of Education 23

2.4 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Who Work at Home—Age Groups,

Work Pattern and Highest Level of Education 23

2.5 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Who Work Elsewhere—Age Groups,

Work Pattern and Highest Level of Education 24

2.6 Average Annual Employment Earnings of All Workers, by Occupation, 1990 and 2000 25

2.7 Annual Income in 2000 for Women Working Full Time, Full Year, by Occupation 25

2.8 Correlations Between the Three Demographic Variables 28

3.1 Child Care Services, 2003 34

3.2 Number of Children 0 to 12, Children 0 to 12 With a Mother in the Paid

Labour Force and Regulated Full- and Part-Day Child Care Spaces by Province

and Territory, 1995 and 2001 35

3.3 Distribution of Regulated Child Care Spaces (estimates) 1995, 2001 and 2002/2003 37

3.4 Kindergarten (Education in Year Before Grade 1): Description, Eligibility, Enrolment,

Plans and Initiatives, 2002/2003 39

3.5 Pre-Kindergarten: Description, Enrolment, Plans and Initiatives, 2002/2003 41

3.6 Early Childhood Programs Under Federal Jurisdiction 43

3.7 Average Fees and Subsidies in Regulated Child Care, 1995 and 2001,

by Province and Territory 44

3.8 Provincial/Territorial Allocations for Regulated Child Care, 1995, 2001 and 2002/2003 47

3.9 Provincial Allocation for Regulated Child Care for Each child Aged 0 to 12, 1995 and 2001 48

3.10 Estimated Expenditures on Kindergarten, 2001 49

3.11 Estimated Allocations for Federal ECEC Programs, 2002/2003 49

3.12 Training and Role of Regulatory Officials, by Province and Territory 53

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page iv

4.1 Average Length of Maternity, Parental and Adoption Benefits, 2001/2002 58

4.2 Spending on Maternity and Parental Benefits and Number of Claimants, 1995 and 2001/2002 59

4.3 Labour Force Participation of Mothers by Age of Youngest Child, 1995 and 2001 65

4.4 Part-time and Self-Employment of Women 65

4.5 Number of Children in Various Child Care Arrangements, 1994/1995 and 2000/2001 65

4.6 Mean Number of Hours per Week in Care, by Type of Arrangement, by Age Group of Child 66

4.7 Reasons for Choosing Various Child Care Arrangements (% of Children of the Appropriate

Age Groups, in Non-Parental Arrangements) 67

4.8 Provincial/Territorial Supply, Demand and Outlook Information,

Early Childhood Educators and Assistants 69

5.1 Profile of Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Programs in the Provinces and Territories 76

5.2 Number of Institutions Offering ECE Certificates and Diplomas 78

5.3 Overview of Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition 80

5.4 Examples of Distance Education in Post-Secondary ECE Programs 81

5.5 Early Childhood Education Training and Labour Market Development Agreements 85

5.6 Unionized Child Care Staff, by Union and Region 87

6.1 Provincial/Territorial Wage Supplement Initiatives Introduced Since 1998 93

6.2 Average Hourly Wages of Trained Staff in Regulated Centre-based Child Care, 1998,

Updates with Minimum Wage 96

6.3 Front-line Child Care Staff Turnover Rates and ECE Post-Secondary

Credential (minimum 1 year), by Jurisdiction, 1998 99

8.1 Child Care Workforce Certification 114

List of Charts page

2.1 The Child Care Workforce and Related Occupations in 2001, by NOC Groups 13

2.2 Work Patterns for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, and Babysitters,

Nannies and Parents’ Helpers, by Place of Work 13


M A I N R E P O R T

v

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page v

vi C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L


2.3 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants’ Work Patterns in 2000 14

2.4 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Working Outside the Home, by Province and Territory 14

2.5 Immigration Status, by Occupation 15

2.6 Period of Immigration, by Occupation 15

2.7 Visible Minority Status, by Occupation 16

2.8 Educational Attainment, by National Occupational Classification 16

2.9 Educational Attainment for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants 17

2.10 NOC-S and Urban/Rural Split 17

2.11 Education and Urban/Rural Split, by Occupation 18

2.12 Changes in Distribution of Educational Attainment, 1991 to 2001, by Occupation 18

2.13 Age Groups by National Occupational Classification, 2001 19

2.14 Changes in Age Distribution from 1991 to 2001, by Occupation 19

2.15 Age Groups by Educational Attainment, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, 2001 20

2.16 Age by Education, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, Who Work at Home 20

2.17 Age by Education, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, Who Work Elsewhere 21

2.18 Education Level for Early Childhood Educators Working Outside the Home,

by Immigration Status 21

2.19 Education Level for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Working at Home,

by Immigration Status 22

2.20 Education Level for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Working Outside

the Home, by Visible Minority or Not 22

2.21 Education Level for Early Childhood Educators Working at Home, by Visible Minority or Not 22

2.22 Annual Employment Income for Those Who Worked Full Time in 2000, by Occupation

and Educational Attainment 26

2.23 Full-time Employment Income, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, by Place

of Work and Education 26

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page vi

2.24 Full-time Employment Income in 2000 for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants,

by Place of Work, by Province and Territory 27

2.25 Full-time Employment Income for All Occupations Versus for Early Childhood Educators

and Assistants, by Province and Territory 27

2.26 Mean Full-time Earnings, 1995 ECE Graduates, by Occupation, in 1997 and 2000 28

3.1 Regulated Child Care Spaces per 100 Children 0 to 12, 1995 and 2001 36

3.2 Impact of Quebec on the Growth of Child Care Spaces 36

3.3 Provincial Spending on Regulated Child Care per Capita by Province, 2001 48

4.1 Number of New Parental Benefit Claims by Men and Women, by Fiscal Year 59

4.2 Average Length of Parental Benefit Claim in Weeks for Men and Women, by Fiscal Year 60

4.3 Overall Spending on Parental Benefits for Men and Women, by Fiscal Year 60

4.4 Projected Child Population, 2001 to 2026, by Age Groups 64

4.5 Quebec: Actual Child Care Spending and Number of Regulated Spaces

for Children 0 to 12, 1995 to 2003 68

4.6 Alberta: Actual Child Care Spending and Number of Regulated Spaces

for Children 0 to 12, 1995 to 2003 68

7.1 How Well Students Felt Prepared to Work with Various Groups 105

7.2 Percentage of Students who Felt Quite Well, or Very Well Prepared to Work with

Various Groups, by Age 105

7.3 Occupational Categories of Employed 1995 ECE Graduates, 1997 and 2000 110

7.4 Immediate Work Plans, by College 111

7.5 Work Plan 5 Years from Now, by College 111

List of Boxes page

3.1 Keeping the Door Open: An On-Site Consultation Model 51

3.2 Alberta Child Care Accreditation Program – Phase One, Pre-accreditation 52

3.3 A Comparison of Pre-kindergarten and Child Care in Saskatchewan 54


M A I N R E P O R T

vii

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page vii

viii C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L


4.1 Some Changes Since the Amendment to the Employment Insurance Legislation 58

5.1 What Are Labour Market Development Agreements? 83

6.1 Ontario Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committees and Representatives 101

6.2 The Status of Caregivers in Regulated Child Care in Quebec 101

7.1 Accelerated Early Childhood Education and Care Program, Holland College,

Prince Edward Island 106

7.2 Training Coordination Project, New Brunswick 107

7.3 Competency-based Assessment 109

8.1 Nine Occupational Standards for Child Care Practitioners 115

8.2 Sector Skills Council for Social Care, Children and Young People 120

8.3 Child Care Workforce/American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation 120

List of Figures page

Figure 2.1 A Snapshot of the ECEC Workforce, 20011 30

Figure 3.1 Overview of Child Care and Related ECEC Services 55

Figure 4.1 Factors Affecting Demand 72

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page viii

1C H A P T E RO V E R V I E W


The release in 1998 of the child care sector study, Our ChildCare Workforce: From Recognition to Remuneration,1 marked aturning point for a sector that up to that time had remainedlargely invisible. Sponsored by Human Resources DevelopmentCanada (HRDC), the study was the first of its kind to focusexclusively on the human resource and training issues facedby caregivers in the different settings that comprise the sector.Importantly, the study demonstrated that the child care sectorhas far-reaching social and economic impacts in Canada.It concluded with a set of recommendations designed to givethe child care workforce the necessary supports to providehigh quality services to children.

After the 1998 sector study’s release, there was a period ofconsultation on the recommendations in the report,culminating in the establishment in 2000 of the Child CareHuman Resources Round Table. In the fall of 2002, theRound Table received funding from HRDC (now HumanResources and Skills Development Canada – HRSDC) toconduct a Labour Market Update (LMU) of the child caresector as a follow-up to the 1998 child care sector study.

The Child Care Human Resources Round Table became aformal sector council in the fall of 2003.i The 18-memberChild Care Human Resources Sector Council (CCHRSC)is a non-profit organization through which child care andlabour organizations, together with constituents of the childcare workforce, endeavour to address human resource issuesthrough sectoral perspective and analyses.

The LMU was undertaken over a 15-month periodbeginning in February 2003 by a five-member researchand consulting team under the direction of the LMUWorking Group, a sub-committee of the Round Table.

What has changed in the sector and in society since thepublication of Our Child Care Workforce? What do thesedevelopments mean for the child care workforce of todayand tomorrow? These are just two of the questions that thefollow-up to the sector study—the LMU—sets out to explore.

The Labour Market Update (LMU), carried out in 2003 and2004, provides an updated profile of those who work in theregulated child care sector, the environment in which theywork, and the opportunities and challenges they face ineducating and caring for our youngest members of society.

The objectives of the study were to:• identify the relevant environmental changes that have

taken place since the data for the 1998 child care sectorstudy were collected and analyzed;

• assess the impact and implications of these changes onchild care recruitment, retention and recognition; and

• provide a forward-looking analysis that will be used bythe sector to devise a cohesive plan that addresses humanresource needs in the child care sector across Canada.

The LMU clearly builds on the 1998 report andrecommendations of the child care sector study, Our ChildCare Workforce. The report of the LMU study is the subjectof this document.

1.1 BackgroundThere have been considerable changes to child careregulation, funding and policy at all levels of governmentacross Canada during this period. Some jurisdictions,such as Quebec, have made significant gains in theexpansion of early childhood programs, and to the wagesand working conditions of the workforce. Others, such asBritish Columbia, have implemented major funding cuts,resulting in a number of program closures, reductions inwages and job losses. There are important differences inthe way child care is organized and managed across theprovinces and territories.

As well, there is increased recognition that the first 6 yearsof life have a long-lasting impact on children’s development.Participation in quality child care can benefit all childrenand can compensate for social disadvantage. There is widerecognition that the key to quality child care is a well-trainedand skilled workforce that is appropriately compensated.

Many other changes have also taken place during the last6 years, such as demographic shifts, changes in the natureof work and work organization, and the aging of the childcare workforce. Overall, child care spending and the supplyof regulated care have increased. Nonetheless, the sameworkforce challenges remain: low wages and minimalbenefits, high turnover among trained staff and the realitythat early childhood education and care (ECEC) servicesare available to only a small proportion of young children.

1

i HRSDC describes sector councils as follows: “Sector councils are organizations within a defined area of economic activity that are led by a partnership of representatives

from business, labour, education, other professional groups, and government. They work to identify and address current and anticipated human resource and skills and

learning challenges and to implement long-term, human resources planning and development strategies for their respective sectors.”

25018 CCHRSC MAIN-e.qxd 11/18/04 4:05 PM Page 1

2 C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L

C H A P T E R 1 - O V E R V I E W

The child care sector study identified a number of labourmarket challenges that the LMU re-examines against thecurrent social and economic backdrop. These challenges aregrouped into three main areas: • The work environment – wages and benefits, health

and safety issues, employment standards, and turnover rates• Skills – including educational requirements, and career

and professional development opportunities• Recognition – the perceived low status of providing

ECEC

These challenges remain at the heart of the sector’s centralhuman resource problems of recruitment, retention andrecognition, and pose a real threat to the sector’s future.

One of the greatest strengths in child care has been thecommitment and dedication of skilled caregivers whohave subsidized child care for years with their low wages.The lack of recognition for the value of caring for youngchildren, the low wages, few benefits, poor workenvironments, few opportunities for professionaldevelopment and career mobility take their toll. There isreal concern about the future of the child care sector asmany young people, even those who want to work withyoung children, are choosing to work in other related jobsapart from child care, or not enter the profession at all.

1.2 Organization of the ReportThe report is organized into nine chapters:Chapter One provides an overview of the study, and keythemes and findings.Chapter Two provides a demographic profile of the childcare workforce and provides comparisons with relatedoccupations in both education and caregiving occupationalclassifications.Chapter Three describes the context for providing childcare, with a focus on programs that operate under provincialchild care legislation. It provides information on the supply,the cost and funding arrangements, regulations and quality.It also provides some comparative information for relatedoccupations.Chapter Four discusses the demand for child care and thefactors that influence demand. It looks at public policy andfunding arrangements for different forms of education andchild care, and turnover within the child care sector.Chapter Five describes the range of institutions andorganizations that prepare and sustain the knowledge of thechild care workforce, as well as organizations and institutionsthat conduct research relevant to the child care sector.Chapter Six examines the work environment challenges,such as wages and benefits, working conditions, careeropportunities and job satisfaction.Chapter Seven examines the workforce skill challenges,including skill gaps and training needs.

Chapter Eight examines the recognition challenges andissues of identity.Chapter Nine provides a summary of conclusions andrecommendations for the CCHRSC to guide thedevelopment of its labour market strategy.

1.3 Environmental and Policy Changes Since the ChildCare Sector Study

In the 6 years since the completion of the child care sectorstudy, there have been considerable changes at all levels ofgovernment. Each province and territory has seen changes tochild care regulation, funding or policy; with significant gainsin some, such as Quebec, and major cuts to funding in others,such as British Columbia. There are significant differences inthe way child care is organized and managed across provincesand territories. All of these factors have an impact on thedemand for members of the child care and the broader earlychildhood workforce, wages and working conditions, trainingrequirements and employment opportunities.

As well, policy makers and the general public are increasinglyrecognizing that the quality of experiences that childrenhave in the first 6 years of life has a long-lasting impact ontheir development, on their future success at school, and ontheir overall health and well-being. Reports such as theEarly Years Study2 have played a significant role in increasingpublic awareness of the importance of early childhoodexperiences, and recognition that early childhood developmentprograms such as child care, can have far-reaching positiveeffects on all children.

Many other changes that have an impact on the childcare workforce—such as demographic changes, changes inthe nature of work and work organization, and the agingof the child care workforce—have taken place. Overall,the spending on child care has increased, as has the supplyof regulated child care; yet many of the same challenges theworkforce faced in 1998 remain, such as low wages andminimal benefits, and lack of value for the work. The agingof the child care workforce, the number of graduates of earlychildhood post-secondary programs choosing careers otherthan in regulated child care, high turnover among trainedstaff, and the very low coverage of ECEC services for youngchildren pose a real threat to the future of the sector.

1.4 The Broader ECEC Sector and the Child Care Sector:Who Is Included in the Labour Market Update?

The 1998 child care sector study attempted to include allthose who worked in child care, including unregulatedfamily child care providers and live-in caregivers. To addressthe identified issues of recruitment, retention, recognitionand skill development, and education and training, it wasdecided that members of the regulated child care sector bethe primary focus of this study. Many families rely on



M A I N R E P O R T

and/or choose unregulated child care arrangements, andmembers of the unregulated sector play an important andvaluable role in the provision of child care. However, weknow from the previous study that there is little informationabout unregulated care, and caregivers have been difficult toidentify and reach. We also know that:• Wages and ECEC-specific training are key predictors of

quality child care3; unregulated caregivers are paidwhatever the market will bear and there are norequirements for training.

• There are no mechanisms to monitor even basic safety,let alone quality, in unregulated child care, or to determineif it promotes the well-being of children.

• Efforts to reach and include caregivers in the unregulatedsector during the child care sector study and subsequentactivities of the Round Table have met with limited success.

Some available aggregate census data on “babysitters, nanniesand parents’ helpers” are used for limited comparisons ofincome, education and age with the child care sector. As well,other occupations within the broader early childhood sectorare examined for comparison, particularly teachers andeducational assistants in the education system.

1.4.1 A note about the language in the reportFor the purposes of this report, ECEC is used as the umbrellaterm to describe programs that:• support the healthy development of all children;• provide additional supports to children with disabilities,

and to those living in conditions of risk; and• enable parents to participate in the labour force, in

training and education, and in the community.

In the report, the term “child care” refers to child carecentres, nursery schools/preschools and family child carehomes that are regulated by provincial/territorialgovernments. The term “child care workforce” refers to thoseworking in the regulated child care sector, the focus of thisLMU. ECEC and the ECEC workforce will be used inreferring to the broader group of services and programsthat may also include child care. Efforts have been made touse more specific terminology where appropriate—such as“educator” when describing the centre-based workforce inQuebec; staff when referring to those working in centre-based programs; and family child care providers whenreferring specifically to that component of the workforce.The term “caregiver” is occasionally used for simplicitywhen referring to both staff and family child care providers.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) uses the term “early childhoodeducation and care” to describe a range of programs andsupports for young children. It defines ECEC as allarrangements providing care and education for children under

compulsory school age, regardless of setting, funding, opening hours orprogramme content.4 It also suggests that:• ECEC is linked to family support, health, lifelong learning,

employment and social integration policies; that is, itoperates within a broader framework.

• “Care” and “education” are inseparable concepts and thatquality services necessarily provide both.

• An integrated and coherent approach to policy andprovision that is inclusive of all children and all parents,regardless of their employment or socio-economicstatus, is required.

In recent years, the term “early childhood education andcare” has been increasingly used to describe the range ofeducation and care programs and supports for youngchildren. While the focus of ECEC is primarily onchildren 0 to 6 years—before they are of the age ofcompulsory schooling—some countries include programsfor older children, which operate outside school hours.

The terms used to describe the sector and members of itsworkforce are numerous, changing, and often confusing.These terms are imbued with values, meaning andimplications, according to specific communities orconstituents; for example, child care, early learning and care,early childhood education, early childhood education andcare, and early childhood development programs all carrywith them certain connotations, and raise certain questions.

Terms used for the members of the workforce are alsovaried: early childhood educator, child care practitioner,teacher, child care worker, provider or caregiver. The term“early childhood educator” is often used for individuals witha post-secondary ECE credential, yet Statistics Canada usesthe term to describe anyone working in the sector, with orwithout training. Some members of the sector prefer themore inclusive terms of child care worker, or practitioner;others want their training and credentials reflected todistinguish themselves from those with no formal training.

Some organizations that provide resources and support tothe sector use the term “child care” in their names, othersuse “early childhood education.” Some regulated child carecentres have “early childhood centre” or “child developmentcentre” in their names.

Part of the concern about language is due to recent policyinitiatives and shifts in program emphasis under way in somejurisdictions, which have resulted in the creation of new“early childhood” programs, which specifically excluderegulated child care. The ABC—Anything But Child Care—phenomenon has resulted in funding and support for highquality, regulated child care centres being redirected to othertypes of early childhood development programs.

3




1.5 MethodologyThe LMU was conducted in three stages: a literature review,an environmental scan, and field work, incorporating bothquantitative and qualitative data.

1.5.1 The literature reviewThe literature review examined documents producedsince 1998 that are significant to the child care sectorand/or directly related to child care human resource issues.The review drew together current information from avariety of sources that guided the consultative and otherdata collection activities of the LMU. The initial set ofdocuments was identified from the library databases of theUniversity of Toronto’s Childcare Resource and ResearchUnit and the Université du Québec à Montréal, and fromon-line searches of child care and social policy organizationsand government websites. Additional materials referenced bykey informant interviews were reviewed during the projectand included in the final literature review.

The review included:• major Canadian studies and papers related to the child care

workforce undertaken since the completion of the sectorstudy and release of Our Child Care Workforce;

• recent federal/provincial/territorial studies and reports thataddress, or which could inform issues relevant to the childcare workforce, such as salary surveys, labour marketstrategies, and issues in training and education;

• position papers of professional and advocacy associationsand/or organized labour;

• studies and publications of the Canadian educationsector and related associations that address early learningand child care and that may have an impact on thechild care; and

• international studies and documents that may be relevantto the child care workforce.

1.5.2 The environmental scanThe environmental scan included a review of relevantresearch, labour market and demographic trends, policyinitiatives, provincial/territorial funding, and how childcare professional associations, advocacy organizations andlabour unions address the human resource issues and thestatus of the child care workforce. There is no regularlycollected pan-Canadian data on members of the regulatedchild care workforce. Nor is there a clear distinction betweenthose who work in different settings and varying positionswithin the child care sector. It is impossible to delineate thosewho work in child care centres, or in family child careand/or with differing age groups. As a result, various sourcesof information were used to provide as accurate a picture aspossible of the regulated child care workforce.

Analyses of census data. A series of custom tabulations of2001 Census data were conducted by Statistics Canada.Analyses of these tabulations enabled the LMU team toexamine demographic trends for those working in childcare and related early childhood programs, as well asdemographic trends for the general population. Since thereis no regularly collected pan-Canadian information, the samefour categories of the National Occupational Classificationfor Statistics (NOC-S), used in the child care sector study,from the 2001 Census were examined and compared withcomparable data from the 1991 Census. Details of the fourNOC-S and the findings are discussed in Chapter Two.

Analyses of National Graduate Survey data. Customtabulations of data on ECE graduates in the NationalGraduate Survey were conducted to examine theemployment and income of 1995 graduates, who werefollowed 2 and 5 years after graduation.

Analyses of Cycle 4 data from the National LongitudinalSurvey of Children and Youth. Using Remote Data Access,a series of custom analyses was conducted to examine thenumber of children in various types of non-parental childcare arrangements, the length of time in these arrangements,the pattern of main child care arrangements, and parents’satisfaction with their non-parental care. All analyses werebroken down by child age and mother’s labour forceparticipation.

Existing research studies. Information from two existingCanadian research studies on ECEC and child care was usedextensively throughout this report.• Further analyses were conducted on the data set from

You Bet I Care! A Canada-wide Study on Wages, WorkingConditions and Practices in Child Care Centres,5 conducted in1998 of full-time child care centres for children 0 to 6.As well, the two You Bet I Care! studies on quality inregulated child care centres and family child care homeswere also used.6 See the LMU literature review for anoverview of the studies in the You Bet I Care! series.

• Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2001,7

produced by the Childcare Resource and Research Unit atthe University of Toronto, provided detailed informationon regulated child care in Canada and in each provinceand territory, and enabled the researchers to develop aframework with which to collect updated informationfrom federal/provincial/territorial officials.

Survey of child care organizations. A survey of child careassociations and advocacy organizations was conducted togather information on their operations and activities thatsupport the child care workforce.



M A I N R E P O R T

Survey of provincial/territorial officials. Questionnaireswere sent to the provincial/territorial officials responsiblefor ECEC and for kindergarten to collect information onthe supply of spaces, the training requirements for staffand caregivers and other legislative requirements, and onthe funding and costs of programs.

Survey of ECE students. In January and February 2003, anECE student questionnaire was developed for administrationto ECE students currently enrolled in one of 10 ECEprograms at Canadian colleges. Colleges were selected toreflect the range of delivery models, such programs offeredthrough full-time day programs, continuing education,distance education, and a “workplace” model that alloweduntrained staff currently working in the field to participatein training while remaining employed. In addition, collegeswere selected that offered both certificate and diplomaprograms. After pre-testing in March 2003, the questionnairewas administered to ECE students who were in their finalyear of study. The questionnaire contained questions in anumber areas, including the decision to enrol in an ECEprogram, satisfaction with the current ECE program,finding work in ECE, plans for further education andwork after graduating.

With the exception of the distance education program at onecollege, all of the surveys were distributed during class time.This administration method was used to ensure that onlythe target group participated (i.e. ECE students close tocompleting their course of study), and to get close to a100% return rate. Surveys were completed by 527 students.Respondents were asked if they would be willing to becontacted in the future to track their employment patternsand views on their work, and over 90% gave consent.

The pattern of results for each college was portrayed inindividual profiles by institution. Within each profile, keyvariables from the survey were summarized. In addition tothe profiles, further analyses of the overall results wereundertaken, broken down by age, education and recentimmigration. The questionnaire and the list of participatingpost-secondary institutions are contained in Appendix 5.

1.5.3 Field workBetween March and October 2003, the research teamconsulted with and sought input from the sector, fromgovernments and from ECEC experts through focusgroups, key informant interviews and a limited number ofsite visits to ECEC programs.

Focus groups. Thirty-four focus groups were held in severalprovinces across the country, with child care organizations,labour groups, ECE trainers, government officials, centre-based child care staff, family child care providers and thoseworking in “related” professions. The focus groups provided

a range of perspectives—from staff/caregivers, governments,trainers and other experts—on the strengths and weaknessesof various child care programs as they impact the workforce.

Key informant interviews. More than 50 key informantinterviews were conducted with federal/provincial/territorialofficials, representatives of child care professional and advocacyorganizations, training and educational institutions, unionsrepresenting child care workers, researchers and specialists.

Profiles and case studies. In order to capture the significantvariation in settings, context and human resource issues in theECEC workforce across the country, profiles of 18 membersof the workforce across positions, settings and geographywere undertaken. The purpose of the profiles was to:• engage the members of the child care workforce with the

work of the sector council;• increase the understanding of the members of the workforce

of the human resource issues across the country—thesimilarities and differences in different jurisdictions anddifferent settings;

• provide information to the members of the workforce oncareer opportunities in the field and successful strategies, ina manner to which they can relate; and

• create an understanding of ECEC experiences andchallenges in specific settings.

Telephone interviews were conducted with the individualsusing a common interview framework. Profiles wereprepared and presented as individual stories; they have alsobeen examined within the broader policy and organizationalcontext to assess effective strategies for addressing varioushuman resource issues and concerns.

Case studies were conducted of the City of Vancouver andthe City of Toronto and a staff person working in a childcare centre in each of the municipalities was profiled,providing both a detailed overview of the work, the contextand the setting. Both municipalities have a long history ofaddressing child care issues, conducting needs assessments,supporting innovative approaches to service delivery andquality improvement. These activities and approaches providevaluable information on strategies that have been successfulin addressing several workforce issues.

The case studies were complemented by a profile of acentre-based child care staff working in an exemplaryprogram in each of these municipalities. The case studiesexamine specific actions that have been undertaken toaddress human resource issues outside the provincial policycontext. The case study research methodology used multiplesources of evidence, including documents, interviews andobservations. Site visits were made to the workplace of bothindividuals and interviews conducted with thedirector/administrator to gather information on the

5




organizational structure, hiring practices, funding sources andbudget information, the perceived work environment and itsstrengths and weaknesses, the philosophical approach to theprogram, views on ECEC in general and issues in programdelivery. The two municipal case studies and the individualprofiles are contained in a separate, stand-alone document.

1.6 Key Issues and Highlights of the FindingsFive dominant issues emerged from the literature review:

1. Quality. Increased awareness about the importance ofthe early years in general has placed the question of thequality of child care programs under a spotlight. Reportsof quality child care indicate that Canada’s child careprograms range from those that support optimal earlychild development to ones that offer mediocre, custodialservices that meet children’s basic physical needs. Thequality of child care depends upon a trained, skilled andstable workforce. The quality of the work environment(including wages, benefits, working conditions and theorganization of the work) affects child care staff, caregiverperformance and program quality in child care settings.The child care sector is concerned about reports ofmediocre quality and is taking an active role in promotinginitiatives that will increase the capacity of the workforceto improve the quality of child care.

2.Wages and job security, stability and satisfaction.Job dissatisfaction stems from low compensation (wagesand benefits) and undervaluing the work in child caresettings. The instability of the sector is created by currentpublic policies, funding arrangements and reliance onparent fees. The combination of job dissatisfaction andinstability is exacerbated by poor compensation andcontributes to job and occupation turnover.

3. Public attitudes and awareness: The child care workforceperceives that the public does not value their work. Recentpolling about further public investments in early learningand child care programs indicates a high level of support.However, child care in Canada is perceived primarily as aservice that benefits parents. There is overall agreement thatchild care should be of high quality and support positivechild development, but many view parents to be the primarybeneficiaries of child care and see it as their responsibility tomake child care arrangements. Support for public resourcesfor child care programs is increasing, but that support doesnot seem to translate into support for public responsibility forthe provision of child care.

4. Inclusion. The child care workforce needs increased skillcapacity to ensure inclusion of children with special needs,children who live in at-risk situations, and children andfamilies who are newcomers to Canada. Qualified child

care staff and caregivers are essential to programs that canreduce social exclusion and make a difference to children’soutcomes.

5. The relationship between early child development,early education and child care. The regulated childcare sector is struggling to be a central stakeholder in othertypes of ECEC initiatives. Qualified child care staff andcaregivers, particularly those who have ECE credentials,are finding increased career opportunities in ECECprograms that operate apart from regulated child care.Although care and education are blended functions,Canada does not blend or even coordinate care andeducation systems.

Each of the emerging issues has direct implications on thechild care workforce, and is discussed throughout the report.These issues, identified in the literature review, formed thebasis for the development of questionnaires and focus groupprotocols for the field work part of the update. The themeswere confirmed and further expanded through these andother activities of the LMU.

1.6.1 Highlights of the findings about the childcare workforce

• According to the 2001 Census, there were approximately137,000 early childhood educators and assistants, of whom44,000 worked at home, and 93,000 worked elsewhere,such as in a child care centre or nursery school. Of theearly childhood educators and assistants working at home,about 33,000 work full time; of those working outside thehome, some 60,500 work full time. More than 96% ofearly childhood educators and assistants are women.

• Administrative data on licensed spaces provided by theprovinces and territories for 2002/2003 on regulated childcare would suggest that there are roughly 88,000 full-timeequivalent staff working in regulated child care, assuminga 1:7 ratio in centre-based care for children 0 to 6, a 1:15ratio in school-age care and a 1:5 ratio in family child care.

• Early childhood educators and assistants reflect thegeneral population, both in terms of those born inCanada and those who are recent immigrants, andthose who are visible minorities. Other related occupationsare less representative.

• Wages remain low—at about half the national averagefor all occupations. The overall average annual incomefor early childhood educators and assistants in 2000 was$16,167 (including those working full time and part time)and for those working full time just over $19,000. In mostprovinces and territories, income was higher for thoseworking outside of their own homes. Average annualearnings for full-time early childhood educators and



M A I N R E P O R T

assistants working at home were approximately $15,000and for those working elsewhere were just over $21,000;without a certificate or diploma, they earned an averageof $16,500 and with a certificate or diploma, $22,500.

• According to the National Graduate Survey, early childhoodeducators and assistants have seen no increase in salary from1997 to 2000. However, there is a huge range within andacross the sector—just among the individuals who wereinterviewed for the profiles the range was from just aboveminimum wage with no benefits, to an annual salary ofclose to $70,000 with full benefits and a pension plan.

• Early childhood educators and assistants have moreeducation than the general population, but the level ofeducation in the general population is growing at a fasterrate. In 2001, 60% of early childhood educators andassistants had a post-secondary qualification (up from54% in 1991), compared to 53% in the general workingpopulation (up from 43% in 1991).

• Low wages remain a concern across much of the sectorand are a key factor affecting recruitment and retention.However, some other factors were raised within focusgroups that affect job satisfaction. Overall, job satisfactionwas the lowest among those working in full-time childcare centres, for reasons that include:

• working conditions and the work environment: longhours, organization of the work, the view of their jobsas early childhood educators in conflict with theincreasing custodial responsibility in certain parts ofthe country

• the lack of employment benefits and concerns aboutthe ability to be able to stay in the job without them,especially for older workers

• the lack of leadership in curriculum, pedagogy andhuman resources, often resulting in less than desirablequality programs for children and workingenvironments for staff

• the lack of respect and recognition, especially byother professionals, including the teaching profession

• the lack of access to training and professionaldevelopment: the high cost, lack of ability to taketime away from the job

• spending much of the working day on custodialactivities, rather than on early childhood activities forwhich they are trained

• Since 1995—the year used for child care spaces in theoriginal sector study—and 2002/2003, there was anincrease of about 267,375 regulated child care spaces,including:

• 34,190 spaces in centre-based spaces for children 0 to 6,resulting in about 4,890 additional staff positions

• 172,500 centre-based school-age spaces, resulting inabout 11,500 staff positions

• 70,447 regulated family child care spaces, resulting inabout 14,100 additional regulated family child careproviders

More than 188,000 of the 267,375 additional spaceswere in Quebec.

• Significant numbers of ECE students are not planningto work in regulated child care upon graduation, or areplanning to work in child care only for a short periodof time. Instead, it appears that many are/will be seekingemployment in the education sector, in “related” ECECprograms, or are taking ECE as a first step toward aneducation degree. This finding comes from discussionswith faculty in some of the colleges where the surveywas conducted, from the student survey and focus groups,as well as anecdotal information gathered in the expertfocus groups. This finding is confirmed by the NationalGraduate Survey, which found that approximately half ofgraduates of full-time ECE programs (who enter collegestraight from high school) work in child care 2 yearsafter graduating and about 40% 5 years after graduating.

7

ENDNOTES

1 Beach, Bertrand & Cleveland 1998

2 McCain & Mustard 1999

3 Cost, Quality & Outcomes Study Team 1995; Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 2000

4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001, p.14

5 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000

6 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, Tougas & LaGrange 2000; Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 2000

7 Friendly, Beach & Turiano 2002



L A B O U R M A R K E T U P D A T E S T U D Y 9

2 A P R O F I L E O F T H E W O R K F O R C E

This chapter provides a demographic overview of theECEC workforce. It provides information on:• general characteristics of the occupation;• education; and• annual income.

It also provides a profile of ECE students compiled fromthe survey conducted for the LMU. These students wereabout to graduate from their program, and so give us aglimpse of the demographics of the next generation ofthe ECEC workforce.

2.1 Defining the WorkforceAs noted in Chapter One, the focus of the LMU is onthose members of the workforce in regulated child care.These settings include:• full-day child care centres, which children may attend

full or part time depending on centre policy;• part-day preschools/nursery schools, which children

usually attend 2 or 3 days a week; and • family child care homes, in which the caregiver is

individually licensed under provincial/territorial childcare legislation, or who works in affiliation with a licensedor approved agency.

For purposes of comparison and because there are jobopportunities for early childhood educators in relatedsettings, the study does provide some information on thewages and education of those working in the broader earlychildhood sector in settings that are not regulated underchild care legislation. Other settings that provide ECECinclude:• nursery/preschool programs in jurisdictions where they

are not licensed;• school-age programs that are operated by school boards

(such as in Quebec), and school-age programs that are notregulated under child care legislation (such as in Alberta);

• family resource centres and other parenting programs, witha component that includes child development activities;

• kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs operatedunder the education system; and

• classroom assistants in the school system.

The broader ECEC workforce therefore includes individualswho work in the settings listed above, as well as thoseengaged in regulated child care.

2.2 Data SourcesSince there is no regularly collected pan-Canadian data onmembers of the child care workforce,1 several differentsources have been used in an effort to provide as completea picture of the child care workforce as possible. Includedis information from the following sources:• census data on those in the National Occupational

Classification for Statistics (NOC-S). Early childhoodeducators and assistants categories (see details below) likelyinclude some who work in unregulated child care andpreschool settings, family resource centres and parentingprograms, and other related child development programs.Custom tabulations were conducted on 2001 Census datato provide demographic information about the workforce,including numbers in the sector, their education and theirincomes. It is the main source of data for providingdemographic details of the child care workforce.Information is provided both nationally and by provinceand territory. Some other related NOC-S categories wereused as a basis for comparison of numbers in theoccupation, education and income.

• information on the wages and education of those workingin different positions in child care centres from You Bet ICare!, a Canada-wide study on wages, working conditions andpractices in child care centres, a one-time study conducted in1998. Information is provided both nationally and byprovince and territory. The information was collectedby survey from a sample of centres, directors and staffacross the country.

• wage information from 2002/2003 administrative dataprovided by provincial/territorial officials for the LMU.Not all provinces and territories collect wage information,and those that do collect it in a variety of ways, so it isnot necessarily comparable across jurisdictions.

• wage information from the National Graduate Survey(NGS) of graduates of community college ECE programs.The information is provided nationally, from a cohortthat graduated in 1995 and followed 2 and 5 years aftergraduating. Only students who were enrolled in full-timestudies immediately following high school are includedin the NGS.

2.2.2 The National Occupational Classificationfor Statistics

As with the previous sector study, data from the most recentStatistics Canada census were used to provide demographicand income information for the child care and child care-related workforce. For the 2001 Census, Statistics Canadaclassifies workforce occupations using the NOC-S, whichwas adopted beginning with the 2001 Census. For theprevious census in 1991, Statistics Canada used the NationalOccupational Classification (NOC) system from HumanResources Development Canada. The two classificationsystems can be used interchangeably, differing only in theiraggregation structure. Given that the former NOC systemwas used in the previous sector study, the new NOC-Ssystem was used in this study to maintain consistency, and tobe able to report directly on demographic and income trends.

It is interesting to note that in the 1991 Census, earlychildhood educators and assistants were included in the

C H A P T E R



C H A P T E R 2 - A P R O F I L E O F T H E W O R K F O R C E

Childcare and Home Support Workers subgroup of Salesand Service Occupations, along with Babysitters, Nanniesand Parents’ Helpers. In the 2001 Census, early childhoodeducators and assistants had been reclassified withOccupations in Social Science, Education, GovernmentService and Religion.

The NOC-S category for early childhood educators andassistants, E217, is described by Statistics Canada as follows.

Early childhood educators plan and organize activities for pre-schooland school-age children. Early childhood educator assistants providecare and guidance to pre-school children under the supervision of earlychildhood educators. Early childhood educators and assistants leadchildren in activities to stimulate and develop their intellectual, physicaland emotional growth. Early childhood educators are employed inchild-care centres, kindergartens, nursery schools and centres forexceptional children. Early childhood educator assistants are employedin day-care centres and nursery schools. Early childhood educators whoare supervisors are included in this group.

Despite this description, 43,695 out of 136,800 (32%) of theseearly childhood educators and assistants work out of theirown homes rather than elsewhere. While in a few provincesand territories a licensed child care centre may be located inone’s own home, it is most likely that those working in theirown homes represent family child caregivers, while the92,485 others in the NOC-S E217 category represent thosewho work in child care centres. For the purpose of the LMU,the assumption is made that those working “elsewhere” workin centre-based programs, and those working at home arefamily child caregivers.

Three additional NOC-S categories that include membersof the broader ECEC workforce were examined forcomparison. These occupational groups are: • NOC-S G814 – Babysitters, nannies, and parents’ helpers2

• NOC-S E132 – Elementary school and kindergartenteachers3

• NOC-S G812 – Elementary and secondary schoolteacher assistants4

2.3 Characteristics of the ECEC WorkforceTable 2.1 shows demographic characteristics of earlychildhood educators in comparison to workers in relatedoccupations, as well as a comparison over time (1991 vs.2001). The data in the table come from the Canadian censusin 1991 and 2001, and provide the best information availableon Canadian demographics, as well as a comparison with theinformation in the child care sector study.• In 2001, early childhood educators and assistants continued

to have a younger age distribution than relatedoccupations. However, they were also the occupationalgroup with the greatest increase from 1991 to 2001 in the

proportion of workers aged 40 or older.• In 2001, babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers had the

oldest age profile of the occupations being compared,with 63% aged 40 or older, compared to 49% for workersin all occupations.

• In 2001, early childhood educators and assistantscontinued to have a larger proportion of workers witha post-secondary qualification (certificate, diploma ordegree) than the general working population—60%versus 53%.

• The proportion of early childhood educators and assistantswith post-secondary qualifications has improved from54% in 1991 to 60% in 2001.

• In 2001, 46% of babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpershad no post-secondary education, the largest proportionof all the groups in the table. Still, this has declined from56% in 1991.

• In 2001, 42% of early childhood educators and 41% ofbabysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers worked full timefor at least 49 weeks of the year. This reflects an increaseof about 5% to 6% for both occupational groups between1991 and 2001. Teaching assistants were the only group(of those compared) with a large part-time workforce.

• In 2001, for both early childhood educators and assistants,and babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers, theproportion of Canadian citizens was very close to thenational average across all occupations. There was nodifference for early childhood educators and assistantsbetween 1991 and 2001, but there was a 6% increase inthe proportion of immigrants working as babysitters,nannies and parents’ helpers.

• In 2001, about two thirds of early childhood educatorsand assistants were married or living common-law, upfrom about half in 1991.

• In 2001, the vast majority—over 96%—of the earlychildhood educator and assistant workforce were women.



M A I N R E P O R T

11

Tabl

e 2.

1 Th

e Ch

ild C

are

Wor

kfor

ce a

nd R

elat

ed O

ccup

atio

ns—

Dem

ogra

phic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

(%

), 1

991

and

2001

1991

2001

1991

2001

1991

2001

1991

2001

1991

2001

1991

2001

Sex

Perc

enta

ge fe

mal

e96

.396

.298

.497

.396

.894

.591

.489

.882

.282

.746

.046

.7Ag

eLe

ss t

han

30 y

rs o

ld44

.532

.0n.

a17

.843

.446

.819

.723

.316

.015

.831

.626

.030

to

39 y

rs o

ld29

.629

.9n.

a38

.027

.716

.833

.722

.727

.727

.028

.425

.040

yrs

old

or

over

25.9

38.1

n.a

63.1

28.9

36.4

46.6

54.0

56.3

57.2

40.0

49.0

Educ

atio

nLe

ss t

han

high

sch

ool

grad

uatio

n18

.815

.334

.925

.647

.342

.425

.013

.10.

70.

628

.920

.7

Hig

h sc

hool

gra

duat

e12

.712

.920

.920

.317

.815

.418

.915

.01.

10.

815

.714

.7Po

st-s

econ

dary

dipl

oma

or c

ertif

icat

e42

.547

.925

.133

.817

.922

.231

.241

.620

.311

.229

.133

.5

Univ

ersi

ty d

egre

e11

.512

.15.

48.

24.

67.

910

.718

.174

.885

.514

.119

.2W

ork

Patt

erns

Part

tim

e32

.527

.631

.427

.838

.443

.655

.045

.820

.918

.120

.019

.7Fu

ll tim

e, fu

ll ye

ar(4

9–52

wks

)36

.542

.436

.040

.826

.023

.415

.013

.262

.265

.652

.754

.5

Imm

igra

tion

Sta

tus

Cana

dian

citi

zens

80.4

80.6

84.8

79.0

71.6

71.2

84.7

86.3

87.4

87.5

79.7

79.8

Mar

ital

Sta

tus

Mar

ried

or c

omm

on la

w50

.666

.683

.282

.244

.238

.675

.969

.874

.873

.761

.863

.4

Early

Chi

ldho

odEd

ucat

ors

and

Assi

stan

ts(N

OC E

217)

Baby

sitt

ers,

Nan

nies

and

Pare

nts’

Hel

pers

(NOC

G81

4) W

hoW

ork

in T

heir

Ow

nHo

mes

and

Are

Sel

f-Em

ploy

ed

Baby

sitt

ers,

Nan

nies

and

Pare

nts’

Hel

pers

(NOC

G81

4) W

ho D

oNo

t W

ork

in T

heir

Own

Hom

es2*

*

Elem

enta

ry a

ndSe

cond

ary

Scho

ol T

each

erAs

sist

ants

(NO

C G8

12)

Elem

enta

ry S

choo

lan

dKi

nder

gart

enTe

ache

rs (

NOC

E132

)Al

l Occ

upat

ions

Sour

ce: C

usto

m t

abul

atio

ns fr

om t

he 1

991

and

2001

Cen

sus,

Sta

tistic

s Ca

nada

. Cal

cula

tions

by

cons

ulta

nts.

Note

s:1

This

cat

egor

y w

as c

alle

d “F

amily

chi

ld c

areg

iver

s” in

the

199

8 se

ctor

stu

dy r

epor

t.2

This

cat

egor

y w

as c

alle

d “I

n-ho

me

care

give

rs”

in t

he 1

998

sect

or s

tudy

rep

ort.




2.3.1 Size and labour force participation ofthe ECEC workforce

Table 2.2a shows the total size of the workforce in the four

NOC-S categories and for all occupations, according to the2001 Census.

Source: Custom tabulations from the 2001 Census, Statistics Canada.

Table 2.2a Canadian Experienced Labour Force, by National Occupational Classification for Statistics (NOC-S)Occupation NumberAll occupations 15,524,735Early childhood educators and assistants (NOC-S E217) 136,800

• E217 Worked at home (43,695)• E217 Worked elsewhere (92,480)

Elementary school and kindergarten teachers (NOC-S E132) 238,600Elementary and secondary school teacher assistants (NOC-S G812) 80,375Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers (NOC-S G814) 92,730

• G814 worked at home (37,935)• G814 worked elsewhere (54,795)

Not all elementary and kindergarten teachers are part ofthe ECEC workforce as most work with children who arein Grades 1 or higher. In Table 2.2b, we have estimated thenumber of kindergarten teachers using administrative datafrom provincial/territorial officials, applying averageteacher:pupil ratios (where known) to the total number

of kindergarten spaces. We have also made the assumptionthat approximately half of the teaching assistants work withchildren 12 years of age or under, and have included thatgroup as part of the broader ECEC workforce. Table 2.2bprovides an estimate of the total identifiable members ofthe ECEC workforce working in 2001.


Table 2.2b Estimated Canadian Early Childhood Education and Care Labour Force, by National OccupationalClassification for Statistics (NOC-S)Occupation NumberEarly childhood educators and assistants (NOC-S E217) 136,800Estimated number of full-time equivalent kindergarten teachers (NOC-S E132) 30,000Estimated number of elementary and secondary school teacher assistants workingwith children under the age of 12 (NOC-S G812) 40,000Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers (NOC-S G814) 92,730Estimated size of the total ECEC workforce 299,530

This number does not reflect the increase in early childhoodeducators working in centres de la petite enfance (CPEs)and school-age programs in Quebec since 2001 which hasresulted from significant expansion. Nor does it include themany informal caregivers who are more “casual” workers andwho may not declare their income and would therefore notbe counted in the census as being part of the workforce.This number has been estimated as considerable and couldpossibly be equal to the number in the babysitters, nanniesand parents’ helpers category.

Chart 2.1 is intended to show two things: the size of theworkforce in these four occupational classes, and for eachoccupational class, the number of workers in the experiencedlabour force who worked full time full year (49 to 52 weeks),full time part year, part time, and who did not work. It isclear from the chart that elementary school and kindergartenteachers had the highest proportion of full-time full-yearworkers, while teacher assistants had the lowest proportion.The most prevalent work pattern for early childhoodeducators and assistants was full time, full year, unlikebabysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers for whom part-timework was most prevalent. However, only 42% of earlychildhood educators and assistants worked full time full year.



M A I N R E P O R T

13

Chart 2.1 The Child Care Workforce and Related Occupations in 2001, by NOC Groups


Note: The 2001 Census provides information on patterns of work and income for the year 2000.

Chart 2.2 focuses on early childhood educators andassistants, and babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers.For both of these occupations, those working out of their

own homes were more likely to work full time full year, andless likely to work part time.

Chart 2.2 Work Patterns for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, and Babysitters,Nannies and Parents' Helpers, by Place of Work





Chart 2.3 shows the work pattern of early childhoodeducators and assistants working at home and elsewhere,this time by actual numbers rather than percentages. In thischart, full-time full-year and full-time part-year work have

been combined into full-time work overall. For thoseworking full time, there were almost twice as many earlychildhood educators and assistants working elsewhere thanat home. For those working part time, there were more thanthree times as many working elsewhere than at home.

Chart 2.3 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants’ Work Patterns in 2000

The bars in Chart 2.4 illustrate the number of early childhoodeducators and assistants working outside the home for eachprovince and territory. The line indicates the percentage of allearly childhood educators and assistants in each jurisdiction

that work outside the home. As Chart 2.4 shows, thispercentage was highest for those in the Atlantic Provinces,Yukon and Nunavut, and lowest in Saskatchewan, BritishColumbia and Alberta.

Chart 2.4 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Working Outside the Home, by Province and Territory





M A I N R E P O R T

15

2.3.2 Immigration and visible minorities in the workforceConcern is often raised within the child care community thatthe workforce does not reflect the increasing diversity amongthe Canadian population. However, approximately 20% of earlychildhood educators and assistants are immigrants, essentiallythe same as for the workforce as a whole. Teacher assistants,

and elementary and kindergarten teachers have proportionatelyfewer immigrants than the general workforce. Babysitters,nannies and parents’ helpers have the highest proportion ofimmigrants, including non-permanent residents, of all theoccupations in Chart 2.5 below.

Chart 2.5 Immigration Status, by Occupation


Chart 2.6 shows that babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers whoare immigrant workers were also more likely to have immigratedmore recently than immigrant workers in other related occupations.

A similar pattern of diversity can be seen among the visibleminority population. Chart 2.7 shows that early childhoodeducators and assistants, particularly those working in centres,are more reflective of the general workforce than other ECECoccupations. Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers had thehighest proportion of those who are a visible minority.

Chart 2.6 Period of Immigration, by occupations





2.4. Educational Attainment of the WorkforceChart 2.8 below shows educational attainment by occupationalgroup. Early childhood educators and assistants most resembleteacher assistants; both groups have a larger proportion of theworkforce with a post-secondary certificate, diploma or degreecompared to the overall working population. Elementary andkindergarten teachers had the most education, and babysitters,

Chart 2.7 Visible Minority Status, by Occupation

Source: : Custom tabulations from the 2001 Census, Statistics Canada.

nannies and parents’ helpers the least, of the occupationalgroups considered. Chart 2.9 focuses on the educationalattainment for early childhood educators and assistants by theirplace of work. Forty-six percent of those working in their ownhomes had a post-secondary certificate, diploma or degree,compared to 67% for those working elsewhere.


Chart 2.8 Educational Attainment, by National Occupation Classification



M A I N R E P O R T

17

Chart 2.9 Educational Attainment for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants


Chart 2.10 shows that early childhood educators andassistants are more concentrated in urban areas than those in

the overall Canadian workforce, while babysitters, nanniesand parents’ helpers reflect the split in the general workforce.

Chart 2.10 NOC-S and Urban/Rural Split





As shown in Chart 2.11, rural early childhood educators andassistants had only slightly less education than their urban

counterparts; the same trend was true for babysitters, nannies andparents’ helpers, but the rural/urban difference was a little greater.

Chart 2.11 Education and Urban/Rural Split, by Occupation


Chart 2.12 shows how educational attainment has changedbetween 1991 and 2001, by occupation. In 1991, 54% of earlychildhood educators and assistants had a post-secondarycredential. This percentage rose to 60% in 2001—an increaseof six percentage points. This percentage is still higher thanthe 53% in all occupations in 2001. However, there was an

overall increase of close to 10 percentage points of thosewith post-secondary credentials in all occupations.The percentage of early childhood educators and assistantswith a degree remained static over the same 10-year period,while it increased about 5% across all occupations.

Chart 2.12 Changes in Distribution of Educational Attainment, 1991 to 2001, by Occupation




M A I N R E P O R T

19

2.5 The Age of the WorkforceWorkers in different occupational categories (and placesof work) had distinctive age profiles, as seen in Chart 2.13below. Across all occupations, 16% of workers in 2001 wereunder 25 years old, while 35% were 45 or older. Elementaryschool and kindergarten teachers were the oldest of thegroups, with 44% of that workforce aged 45 or older.Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers who work outsideof their own homes were the youngest group—40% wereunder 25 years old. The age profile of early childhoodeducators and assistants differed by place of work.

Those working in their own homes are much less likelyto be under 25 years old than those working elsewhere.Early childhood educators and assistants have fewer workersover the age of 45 (about 28% for those working at homeand 24% for those working elsewhere) compared to alloccupations. Those who work at home, both in the earlychildhood educators and assistants category and in thebabysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers category, had aconsiderably higher proportion of workers over 35 thanearly childhood educators and assistants who workedelsewhere (i.e. in centres)

Chart 2.13 Age Groups by National Occupational Classification, 2001


Chart 2.14 shows that early childhood educators and assistantswere the occupational group with the greatest increase from 1991to 2001 in the proportion of workers aged 40 or older, rising from

27% of the workforce to 38%. Early childhood educators andassistants also saw the greatest drop in the percentage of workersunder 25—a 12% drop compared to 5% in all occupations.

Chart 2.14 Changes in Age Distribution from 1991 to 2001, by Occupation





2.6 Education and Other VariablesAs shown in Chart 2.15, early childhood educators andassistants with no post-secondary education tended tobe older than those with post-secondary education.This reflects the emphasis over time on greater

post-secondary qualifications for those working in child care.However, this trend was less strong for those early childhoodeducators and assistants working in their own homes(Chart 2.16) than those working elsewhere (Chart 2.17).

Chart 2.15 Age Groups by Educational Attainment, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, 2001


Chart 2.16 Age by Education, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants, Who Work at Home




M A I N R E P O R T

21

Chart 2.18 Education Level for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants Working Outside the Home,by Immigration Status


For those early childhood educators and assistants workingoutside the home (who we normally think of as the centre-based care workforce), immigrants and non-permanent

residents were more likely than non-immigrants to have auniversity degree, but less likely to have a post-secondarycertificate or diploma (see Chart 2.18 below).

Chart 2.17 Age by Education, Early Childhood educators and Assistants, Who Work Elsewhere


For those early childhood educators and assistants who workin their own homes, non-immigrants were least likely tohave a university degree, but there were no differences by

immigration status in the likelihood of having a post-secondary certificate or diploma (see Chart 2.19).




There were also some differences in educational attainmentfor early childhood educators and assistants by visible minoritystatus. For early childhood educators working outside thehome (Chart 2.20), those from visible minorities were morelikely to have a university degree (22%) compared to all others(13%), and a little less likely to have a post-secondarycertificate or diploma (47% vs. 54%). For those working asearly childhood educators in their own homes (Chart 2.21),the same trend was evident. Nineteen percent of those from avisible minority had a university degree, much higher than the7% of the other early childhood educators. However, only32% of the early childhood educators from visible minoritieshad a post-secondary certificate or diploma, compared to 38%of all other early childhood educators.

Chart 2.19 Education Level for Early ChildhoodEducators and Assistants Working at Home,by Immgration Status

Source: : Custom tabulations from the 2001 Census, Statistics Canada.

Chart 2.20 Education Level for Early ChilhoodEducators and Assistants Wrling Outside the Home,by Visible Minority or Not


Chart 2.21 Education Level for Early ChildhoodEducators and Assistants Working at Home,by Visible Minority or Not


Note: The 2001 Census provides information on patterns of work and income

for the year 2000.

2.6.1 Provincial comparisons Tables 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 show a cross provincial/territorialcomparison of early childhood educators and assistantsby three variables: age, work pattern and highest levelof education. Table 2.3 gives the information for all earlychildhood educators and assistants, Table 2.4 and Table 2.5give the same information, broken down by those whowork at home (family child care providers) and those whowork elsewhere (in centres).



M A I N R E P O R T

23

Sour

ce:

Cust

om t

abul

atio

ns f

rom

the

200

1 Ce

nsus

, St

atis

tics

Can

ada.

Cal

cula

tion

s by

con

sult

ants

.

Not

e:W

ork

patt

ern

perc

enta

ges

do n

ot a

dd t

o 10

0%,

as t

he “

Did

not

wor

k” c

ateg

ory

has

been

om

itte

d.

Hig

hest

leve

l of

educ

atio

n pe

rcen

tage

s do

not

add

to

100%

, as

the

“So

me

post

-sec

onda

ry”

cate

gory

has

bee

n om

itte

d.

Tabl

e 2.

3 E

arly

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tors

and

Ass

ista

nts—

Age

Grou

ps, W

ork

Patt

ern

and

Hig

hest

Lev

el o

f Ed

ucat

ion

Cana

da32

.029

.938

.142

.426

.127

.615

.312

.947

.912

.1N

ewfo

undl

and

49.0

25.7

25.2

37.3

32.8

27.0

12.7

5.4

57.8

10.8

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

44.8

27.6

27.6

55.7

28.4

15.9

16.3

14.0

52.3

10.5

Nov

a Sc

otia

33.7

30.6

35.7

40.1

23.4

32.3

10.7

8.5

50.4

17.1

New

Bru

nsw

ick

39.3

28.7

32.0

37.9

29.7

27.4

13.3

18.9

40.7

10.9

Queb

ec31

.230

.638

.243

.030

.322

.613

.414

.350

.711

.9On

tari

o31

.929

.738

.345

.522

.728

.115

.213

.048

.412

.2M

anit

oba

35.3

29.7

35.0

42.5

25.4

29.0

18.3

13.5

35.8

15.5

Sask

atch

ewan

33.7

28.8

37.5

41.7

27.8

26.2

24.6

12.9

38.3

10.1

Albe

rta

33.8

28.6

37.6

41.2

24.9

29.6

19.2

11.6

41.3

13.1

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a28

.330

.341

.434

.525

.536

.014

.010

.651

.910

.9Yu

kon

Terr

itor

y42

.131

.626

.343

.132

.820

.717

.213

.837

.913

.8N

orth

wes

t Te

rrit

orie

s36

.539

.723

.829

.539

.324

.637

.111

.329

.06.

5N

unav

ut50

.026

.523

.525

.038

.927

.851

.45.

725

.75.

7

Age

Grou

ps (

%)

Wor

k Pa

tter

n (%

)H

ighe

st L

evel

of

Educ

atio

n (%

)

Unde

r 30

30 t

o 39

40 o

r ov

erFu

ll ti

me,

full

year

Full

tim

e,pa

rt y

ear

Part

tim

eNo

hig

hsc

hool

gra

dH

igh

scho

olgr

adPo

st s

econ

dary

cert

ific

ate

/di

plom

a

Bach

elor

degr

ee o

rhi

gher

Sour

ce:

Cust

om t

abul

atio

ns f

rom

the

200

1 Ce

nsus

, St

atis

tics

Can

ada.

Cal

cula

tion

s by

con

sult

ants

.

Not

e:W

ork

patt

ern

perc

enta

ges

do n

ot a

dd t

o 10

0%,

as t

he “

Did

not

wor

k” c

ateg

ory

has

been

om

itte

d.

Hig

hest

leve

l of

educ

atio

n pe

rcen

tage

s do

not

add

to

100%

, as

the

“So

me

post

-sec

onda

ry”

cate

gory

has

bee

n om

itte

d.

* N

umbe

rs t

oo s

mal

l to

be r

epor

ted

accu

rate

ly

Tabl

e 2.

4 E

arly

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tors

and

Ass

ista

nts

Who

Wor

k at

Hom

e—Ag

e Gr

oups

, Wor

k Pa

tter

n an

d H

ighe

st L

evel

of

Educ

atio

n

Cana

da18

.538

.742

.948

.127

.520

.621

.321

.338

.47.

1N

ewfo

undl

and

25.8

32.3

41.9

32.3

41.9

22.6

20.0

20.0

30.0

30.0

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

13.3

26.7

53.3

53.3

20.0

33.3

**

**

Nov

a Sc

otia

12.2

30.5

57.3

50.0

18.3

28.0

7.3

17.1

46.3

12.2

New

Bru

nsw

ick

19.2

32.7

46.2

55.8

19.2

25.0

0.0

17.2

62.1

10.3

Queb

ec18

.739

.242

.155

.234

.89.

621

.124

.638

.85.

3On

tari

o16

.037

.446

.649

.724

.322

.022

.721

.436

.27.

6M

anit

oba

21.8

37.9

40.3

46.3

28.1

22.4

26.5

21.3

32.3

7.7

Sask

atch

ewan

23.5

36.1

40.2

49.7

24.6

22.4

22.0

18.1

34.6

7.7

Albe

rta

26.4

43.2

30.2

44.6

26.5

24.3

24.9

18.8

33.7

8.6

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a16

.439

.344

.340

.425

.030

.415

.317

.947

.77.

2Yu

kon

Terr

itor

y*

**

**

**

**

*N

orth

wes

t Te

rrit

orie

s*

**

**

**

**

Nun

avut

**

**

**

**

*

Age

Grou

ps (

%)

Wor

k Pa

tter

n (%

)H

ighe

st L

evel

of

Educ

atio

n (%

)

Unde

r 30

30 t

o 39

40 o

r ov

erFu

ll ti

me,

full

year

Full

tim

e,pa

rt y

ear

Part

tim

eNo

hig

hsc

hool

gra

dH

igh

scho

olgr

adPo

st s

econ

dary

cert

ific

ate

/di

plom

a

Bach

elor

degr

ee o

rhi

gher




Sour

ce:

Cust

om t

abul

atio

ns fr

om t

he 2

001

Cens

us, S

tatis

tics

Cana

da. C

alcu

latio

ns b

y co

nsul

tant

s.

Note

:W

ork

patt

ern

perc

enta

ges

do n

ot a

dd t

o 10

0%, a

s th

e “D

id n

ot w

ork”

cat

egor

y ha

s be

en o

mitt

ed.

Hig

hest

leve

l of e

duca

tion

perc

enta

ges

do n

ot a

dd t

o 10

0%, a

s th

e “S

ome

post

-sec

onda

ry”

cate

gory

has

bee

n om

itted

.

* Nu

mbe

rs t

oo s

mal

l to

be r

epor

ted

accu

rate

ly

Tabl

e 2.

5 E

arly

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tors

and

Ass

ista

nts

Who

Wor

k El

sew

here

—Ag

e Gr

oups

, Wor

k Pa

tter

n an

d Hi

ghes

t Le

vel o

f Ed

ucat

ion

Cana

da38

.425

.835

.839

.725

.530

.99.

27.

761

.513

.4Ne

wfo

undl

and

53.2

24.3

22.0

37.6

31.8

27.7

9.2

0.0

64.6

13.8

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

38.0

30.4

31.6

56.9

30.6

12.5

19.5

17.1

51.2

12.2

Nova

Sco

tia

42.9

27.9

29.3

38.2

24.5

33.0

5.6

5.6

64.6

19.3

New

Bru

nsw

ick

35.9

27.4

36.8

34.1

31.4

27.9

16.3

13.3

44.9

14.3

Queb

ec39

.925

.934

.239

.628

.627

.68.

78.

062

.113

.8On

tari

o40

.326

.732

.943

.421

.931

.16.

47.

265

.912

.7M

anit

oba

41.5

23.2

35.3

40.9

24.4

31.4

14.4

11.2

42.8

18.0

Sask

atch

ewan

38.2

19.8

41.9

35.5

30.3

29.0

25.3

9.4

47.1

8.2

Albe

rta

36.6

24.0

39.3

39.4

24.0

32.6

14.3

8.5

51.3

15.0

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a36

.624

.039

.330

.325

.939

.99.

15.

368

.310

.7Yu

kon

Terr

itor

y46

.032

.020

.042

.034

.020

.0*

**

Nort

hwes

t Te

rrit

orie

s39

.534

.925

.625

.637

.227

.9*

**

Nuna

vut

51.5

27.3

21.2

24.2

42.4

27.3

**

*

Age

Grou

ps (

%)

Wor

k Pa

tter

n (%

)Hi

ghes

t Le

vel o

f Ed

ucat

ion

(%)

Unde

r 30

30 to

39

40 o

r ove

rFu

ll tim

e,fu

ll ye

arFu

ll tim

e,pa

rt y

ear

Part

tim

eNo

hig

hsc

hool

gra

dHi

gh s

choo

lgr

adPo

st s

econ

dary

cert

ifica

te /

dipl

oma

Bach

elor

degr

ee o

rhi

gher



M A I N R E P O R T

25

2.7 Employment and EarningsFor all workers reporting some employment income, theaverage for early childhood educators and assistants in 2000was $16,167, up 39% from a decade earlier (Table 2.6).

While the percentage increase was slightly higher for earlychildhood educators and assistants than for the overallworkforce, workers in this occupation continued to earn lessthan half of the average for workers in all occupations.

Source: 1991 and 2001 Census, Statistics Canada.

Table 2.6 Average Annual Employment Earnings of All Workers, by Occupation, 1990 and 2000

Early childhood educators and assistants $11,639 $16,167 38.9Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers n.a $9,481 n.a.Elementary and secondary teacher assistants $10,565 $16,052 51.9Kindergarten and elementary teachers $32,501 $40,512 24.6All occupations $24,753 $33,470 35.2

1990 2000 Change (%)

Table 2.7 shows that early childhood educators and assistantsfare only slightly better when their incomes are compared tothose of other women. For all women working full time, full

year, early childhood educators and assistants earn about60% of the average and about 57% of the average for thosewith a post-secondary credential.

Source: 2001 Census, Statistics Canada.

All earners,regardless of

education

Those with a college oruniversity qualification

Table 2.7 Annual Income in 2000 for Women Working Full Time, Full Year, by Occupation

Occupation

All occupations 34,892 41,619Early childhood educators and assistants 21,023 23,641Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers 15,862 17,450Teacher assistants 25,309 27,893Elementary and kindergarten teachers 46,732 47,146

Annual Income ($)

Chart 2.22 looks only at those working full time in 2000.Early childhood educators and assistants still earn about halfof the average annual income of all workers. The differenceis even more striking for those with a university degree,where the general working population earns about 2.5times as much as early childhood educators. A degreemakes a significant difference to the income of the generalpopulation, but makes far less of a difference for earlychildhood educators and assistants. However, as Chart 2.23shows, there is much more of an impact of education on

incomes for early childhood educators working in a centrethan for those working at home. Early childhood educatorsand assistants without post-secondary qualifications workingfull time at home earn just under $15,000; those with adegree earned an average of just over $15,000. Centre-basedearly childhood educators and assistants without post-secondary qualifications working full time earned an averageof $16,500; those with a college certificate or diploma earnedan average of $22,500, and those with a degree earned anaverage of $25,800.




Chart 2.22 Annual Employment Income for Those Who Worked Full Time in 2000, by Occupation andEducational Attainment

Source: Custom tabulations from the 2001 Census, Statistics Canada

Chart 2.23 Full-time Employment Income, Early Childhood Educators and Assistants,by Place of Work and Education




M A I N R E P O R T

27

Chart 2.24 shows the average annual full-time earnings forearly childhood educators and assistants in each province andterritory, broken down by whether they work from theirhome or elsewhere. For most provinces and territories, income

was higher for those working outside of their own homes.There was a large range of earnings for early childhoodeducators and assistants, from $12,546 per year in NewBrunswick to $23,071 in Yukon Territory.

Chart 2.24 Full-time Employment Income in 2000 for Early Childhood Educators and Assistants,by Place of Work, by Province and Territory


As Chart 2.25 shows, regardless of the province or territory,the annual full-time earnings for those working as earlychildhood educators and assistants were much lower thanthe earnings for the overall workforce. Depending on the

province or territory, the percentage earned by the averageearly childhood educator and assistant was between 43%and 62% of that earned by the average employed personin the province.

Chart 2.25 Full-time Employment income for All Occupations Versus for Early Childhood Educators andAssistants, by Province and Territory





2.7.1 The 1995 National Graduate Survey Every 5 years, Statistics Canada conducts a survey ofgraduates of Canadian public post-secondary institutions whograduated or completed their programs in that calendar year.The 1995 cohort is the most recent group of graduates forwhich information is available. The initial sample size wasover 29,000. Survey items deal primarily with employment-related issues, such as success in obtaining employment,

whether taking the program helped with employment, typeof employment, satisfaction, and earnings. Follow-up surveyswere conducted in 1997 and 2000. Chart 2.26 shows theearnings of graduates of ECE programs in 1997 and 2000,compared to the earnings in related occupations. Althoughthe full-time earnings of the ECE graduates were higher thanthe other occupations, ECE was the only occupation whereearnings did not increase 3 years later.

Chart 2.26 Mean Full-time Earnings, 1995 ECE Graduates, by Occupation, in 1997 and 2000

Source: Custom tabulations from National Graduate Survey data for class of 1995, Statistics Canada.

Significant at p<01

2.8 The Next Generation: Trends by Age, Education andRecent Immigration from the Student Survey

Key variables from the Student Survey conducted for theLMU were examined for any notable differences relatingto three demographic items—age, education and recentimmigration. Each of these demographic items was codedas a two-category variable for ease of analysis.

• Students were classified by age as those who were under25 versus those who were 25 or older. Age 25 as thedividing line between the categories was chosen becauseit divides the respondents into two approximately equalhalves. Fifty-five percent of the responding students wereunder 25 years old, and 45% were 25 years old or more.

• Students were classified by education as those with acollege certificate, college diploma, some universitycourses or a university degree, versus those with no post-secondary education, or at most some college courses.

• Students were classified by recent immigration as those whoimmigrated to Canada in 1990 or later versus those whowere either born in Canada or immigrated earlier than 1990.

The findings below report on some of those variables forwhich there was a difference of at least 9%, relating toage, education or recent immigration, for one or more ofthe categories of that variable. For variables with manycategories, some smaller differences have also been reported.

Age, education and recent immigration are intercorrelateddemographic variables. These correlations are shown below.Therefore, the results below should be interpreted cautiously,as the effects of any one demographic variable is influencedby the other demographic variables. Joint influences can beproperly explored only by using multivariate modelling.


Table 2.8 Correlations Between the ThreeDemographic Variables

Age EducationAgeEducation .38*Recent Immigration .27* .30*

*Significant at p<01



M A I N R E P O R T

Age TrendsYounger students were under 25 (51% of respondents),older students were over 25 (49% of respondents).

Younger Older

Older students had higher levels of educational attainment.High school diploma 61% 23%College diploma 4% 17%University degree 1% 27%

Younger students had more volunteer experience inrecreation programs, leadership work, and with siblings,while older students had more experience with ownchildren.

Recreation programs 28% 15%Leadership work 22% 14%Siblings 47% 26%Own children 6% 33%

Younger students had more paid experience in recreationprograms, while older students had more experience as unregulated family child care (FCC) providers.

Recreation programs 23% 11%Unregulated FCC provider 5% 13%

Younger Older

For the most important reason for enrolling in ECE, olderstudents focused more on further education andemployment, younger students focused more on an interestin children and a career in Education.

Interest in children 56% 44%Working, want further education 12% 22%Employment choices 2% 15%First step to Education degree 12% 5%

Older students were more likely to feel that finding anECE-related job after graduation would be difficult.

23 % 43 %

Older students expected to earn more upon graduation.Less than $14 per hour 56% 38%$14 per hour or more 43% 62%

Younger students were more likely to expect to be teachingin the education system in 5 years, while older studentsexpected to work in child care centres.

Teaching, education system 22% 11%Working in a child care centre 25% 32%

Older students were more likely to speak a language other thanEnglish or French growing up, to be born outside of Canada,and to be a recent immigrant.

1st language not English/French 12% 38%Born outside of Canada 14% 50%Recent immigrant 11% 33%

Education TrendsLess educated students had no post-secondary credential(56% of respondents); more educated students had acertificate, diploma or degree (44% of respondents).

Less MoreEducated Educated

Less educated students were more likely to prefer to work with school-age children.

20 % 11 %

More educated students were more likely to speak alanguage other than English or French growing up, to beborn outside of Canada, and to be a recent immigrant.

1st language not English/French 16% 37%Born outside of Canada 18% 48%Recent immigrant 11% 36%

Immigration TrendsStudents who were not recent immigrants include thoseborn in Canada or who immigrated before 1990 (80% ofrespondents); recent immigrants includes students whocame to Canada in 1990 or later (20% of respondents).

Immigration StatusNot Recent Recent

Recent immigrant students had higher levels ofeducational attainment.

High school diploma 49% 22%College diploma 8% 14%University degree 5% 40%

Recent immigrant students were older than students bornin Canada or who immigrated earlier than 1990.

Under 25 years old 62% 27%25 to 34 26% 39%35 or older 12% 33%

Recent immigrant students gave a lower proportion of quite well/very well ratings for preparation to work with children with special needs.

70% 62%Recent immigrant students gave a lower proportion of quite well/very well ratings for preparation to work with children with special needs.

24% 61%

Recent immigrant students were more likely to plan to work in a child care centre after finishing the current program.

48% 68%

29




Figure 2.1 A Snapshot of the ECEC Workforce, 2001

*Full-time, Full year

Early Childhood Educators and Assistants(NOC-S E217)

Population : 136,800

Income: Overall average $16,167FT/FY*with post-secondary qualification

$23,641

Worked at Home(Family Child Care Provider)

Population : 43,695Worked Full Time: 33,010

Average Full-time Income: $15,000

Education: Degree 7% Certificate/Diploma 38%

Age: Under 35 38%Over 45 28%

Worked Outside the Home(Centre-based Staff)

Population : 92,480Worked Full Time: 60,275

Average Full-time Income: $22,000





M A I N R E P O R T

31

Figure 2.1 A Shapshot of the ECEC Workforce, 2001 (continued)

* Post Secondary credential

The BroaderECEC Workforce

Elementary and Kindergarten Teachers(NOC-S E132)

Population : 236,600

Income: Overall average: $40,512FT/FY with PSC* : $47,146

Education: Degree : 85% Certificate/Diploma : 14%

Age: Under 35 : 30%Over 45 : 44%

Estimated Number ofKindergarten Teachers: 30,000

Elementary and Secondary School TeacherAssistants (NOC-S G812)

Population : 80,375

Income: Overall average $16,052FT/FY with PSC* $27,893



Estimated Number of Assistants withChildrenUnder 12 years 40,000

Babysitters, Nannies and Parents’ Helpers(NOC-S G814)

Population: 92,730

Income: Overall average $9,481FT/FY with PSC* $17,450

Education: Degree 8%Certificate/Diploma 22%

Work at home population 37,935Age:

Under 35 41%Over 45 31%

Work outside home population 54,795Age

Under 35 53%Over 45 29%

ENDNOTES

1 Cleveland, Colley, Friendly & Lero 2003

2 NOC-S G814 – Babysitters, nannies and parents’ helpers. Described by Statistics Canada as follows:

Babysitters care for children on an ongoing or short-term basis at home or in the children’s homes. They are usually self-employed or may be employed by babysitting agencies. Nannies care for

children in the employee’s residence and provide for their health and physical and social development. Parents’ helpers assist parent with child-care and household duties. Nannies and parents’

helpers are employed by private households, where they may also reside.

3 NOC-S E132 – Elementary School and Kindergarten Teachers. Described by Statistics Canada as follows:

Elementary school and kindergarten teachers teach basic subjects such as reading, writing and arithmetic or specialized subjects such as English or French as a second language at public and private

elementary schools. Elementary school librarians are included in this unit group.

4 NOC-S G812 – Elementary and Secondary School Teacher Assistants. Described by Statistics Canada as follows: This unit group includes workers who assist elementary and secondary school teachers

and counsellors. They are employed in public and private elementary and secondary schools, special schools and treatment centres.

5 Cleveland 1996



3C H A P T E RA N O V E R V I E W O F C H I L D C A R E A N D R E L A T E D P R O G R A M S


This chapter describes the main types of services andprograms that employ members of the ECEC workforce.It provides information on the different forms of provision,supply, cost and funding arrangements, regulatoryrequirements and quality issues.

As mentioned earlier in this report, the focus of the LMUis on the part of the sector that works in regulated childcare. However, some other ECEC programs and servicesare described because: a) they often employ staff with ECEqualifications, and therefore may draw people away fromregulated child care programs; and b) kindergarten programsand the way they are delivered have an impact on the use ofchild care and therefore on staffing arrangements. Inaddition in some provinces and territories, kindergartenprograms are expanding to serve younger children—whomight otherwise have been in full-day child care programs.

This section of the report is not intended to providecomprehensive details on all aspects of program delivery,funding and system issues. The Childcare Resource andResearch Unit at the University of Toronto produces such apublication on a bi-annual basis and is the best source ofdetailed information on the ECEC system in Canada, andthis report does not attempt to replicate it. Rather, thischapter attempts to give a general overview of the complexarray of programs and services, who they serve, therequirements for people who work in them and generaltrends evident since the sector study. It is often tempting toget lost in the multitude of systems issues and challenges thatexist as a result of fragmented policies and service delivery,but every effort has been made to limit the information thatis pertinent to the workforce.

3.1 Type and Supply of Regulated Child CareEach province and territory has a program of regulated childcare. The types of programs that fall under child carelegislation include:• Child care centres in which children usually participate on

a full-time basis, but according to centre policy may attendon a part-time basis. Centres serve a variety of age groups,which may range from birth to 12 years. Most centres areopen to accommodate the needs of parents who workregular, day-time hours Monday to Friday, but some maybe open for extended hours, or on weekends. Programs areoperated by private non-profit and private for-profitorganizations, organizations within the broader publicsector (such as community colleges) and, in Ontario, bymunicipal governments.

• Nursery schools/preschools in most provinces andterritories, which are usually for children 3 to 5 on apart-day, part-week basis. They generally operate 9 to 10months a year. They are usually operated by privatenon-profit and private for-profit organizations and in someprovinces many are established as parent cooperatives.

• Regulated family child care, in a caregiver’s home.Except in Quebec (where children are generally 0 to 5),children may be between 0 and 12 years (in Quebec,some children who are school age, especially those outsidemajor urban areas, may be in family child care). Caregiversare either part of a family child care agency or areindividually licensed, according to provincial/territorialregulation and may care for between five and eightchildren. In four provinces and territories, a caregiver maylook after additional children if a second caregiver is present.

• School-age child care in all provinces and territories,except Alberta and Quebec, which are regulated underchild care legislation. Programs may serve childrenbetween 5 and 12. Some offer before-lunch and after-school care; others operate after school hours only.Most operate full days on school professional developmentdays and holidays, and programs may operate only duringthe school year or during the summer months as well.

• First Nations child care and Aboriginal Head Startprograms in some provinces and territories.

Since the child care sector study, regulations for child careservices in most provinces and territories have remained thesame. However, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec,Saskatchewan and Nunavut, there have been changes in thechild care services that are regulated:• Newfoundland and Labrador’s regulated child care services

now include child care for children under age 2 andfamily child care.

• Quebec amalgamated its former system of child carecentres and family child care agencies into centres de lapetite enfance (CPEs). CPEs are non-profit organizationsthat may care for up to 80 children 0 to 4 in individualcentres, for a total maximum of 240 children, and up to250 children in family child care. The maximum numberof children that a CPE may care for is 350.

• Saskatchewan now regulates group family child care.• Nunavut, a territory since the sector study, has its own

regulations (adopted from the Northwest Territories).

Table 3.1 provides an overview of child care services ineach province and territory, according to those which areregulated and unregulated.

33



C H A P T E R 3 - A N O V E R V I E W O F C H I L D C A R E A N D R E L A T E D P R O G R A M S

Table 3.1 Child Care Services, 2003 Province or Programs That Are Regulated Services That Are Not RegulatedTerritoryNewfoundland and Day care centres, school-age child care Family child care (four children; three if all are under 24 mthsLabrador1 centres, family child care agencies, including caregiver’s children under 7 yrs). Nursery school

individually licensed family child care homes programs for up to six children, who participate in a program for nomore than 9 hrs/week

Prince Edward Early childhood centres, school-age child care Family child care (five preschool children if not more than two areIsland centres, family day care homes, occasional centres younger than 2; three if all are under 24 mths; six in mixed-age

group up to 10 yrs with no more than two younger than 2 yrs;figures include caregiver’s preschool children); on-reserve Headstart

Nova Scotia Child care centres, child development centres, Family child care (six children of mixed age groups includingfamily day homes caregiver’s own preschool children; eight if all children including

caregiver’s own are school age); on-reserve child careNew Brunswick Day care centres, school-age child care Family child care (five children mixed ages 0–12; four children if all

centres, community day care homes are 2–5 yrs; eight children if all are school-age; no more than twoinfants allowed and numbers include caregiver’s own children under 12Note: On-reserve child care centres and nursery schools areapproved/licensed upon request

Quebec2 Centre de la petite enfance (CPE), which Family child care not affiliated with a CPE (six children or fewerdelivers centre-based and family child care for including caregiver’s own); jardins d’enfants (nursery school);children 0–5, Garderie (for-profit day care haltes-garderies (stop-over centres)centre), Milieu scolaire (school-age child care),on-reserve child care

Ontario Day nurseries (child care centres, nursery Family child care (up to five children not including caregiver’s ownschools, before- and after-school programs), children), other types of informal care (e.g. nannies), familyprivate home day care agencies (family child care)3 resource centres

Manitoba Day care centres, nursery schools, school-age Private home day care (four children, no more than two under 2 yrschild care centres, family day homes, group including caregiver’s own children under 12 yrs); First Nationsfamily day care homes, occasional day care centres programs on-reserve

Saskatchewan4 Day care centres, school-age child care Family child care (up to eight children including the caregiver’scentres, family child care children under 13 yrs); Nursery school programs for no more than 9 hrs/wk

Alberta Day care centres, nursery schools, approved Private babysitting (six children, with three under the age of 2,family day homes, licensed drop-in centres including caregiver’s own children under 12 yrs);

Note: On-reserve child care approved at request of band (approvalindicates that the centre complies with provincial licensingrequirements); licenses OOS acc to Social Care Facilities Act;standards set by municipalities (no provincial regulations)

British Columbia Group child care centres, preschools, out-of Family child care (two children, not including caregiver’s own)-school care, family child care, emergencycare, child-minding, ski hill or resort care,on-reserve child care

Nunavut 5 Day care centres, nursery schools, after-school Family child care (four children, including caregiver’s own under 12 yrs)care, family day homes

Northwest Day care centres, nursery schools, after-school Family child care (four children, including caregiver’s own under 12 yrs)Territories care, family day homesYukon Territory Child care centres, school-age child care, Family child care (three children, excluding caregiver’s own

family day homes children under 6 yrs); preschools

Sources:Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002) for all jurisdictional information. LMU key informant interviews and questionnaires, provincial/territorial child care officials – provided

wording changes to information from Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Notes:1 In 1999, Newfoundland and Labrador began regulating child care for children under 2 and family child care (Child Care Services Act and Regulation).2 From 1997 to 2000, the CPE structure was implemented in Quebec: CPE, garderie (day care centre), milieu scolaire (school-age child care) and on-reserve child care are regulated.3 Ontario licenses day nurseries and private-home day care agencies (family child care) both on- and off-reserve.4 In 2000 and 2001, Saskatchewan began regulating group family child care homes (Child Care Act).5 Nunavut became a territory in 1999 and adopted the child care legislation and regulations of the Northwest Territories.



M A I N R E P O R T

3.1.1 Child care spaces and the child populationThe supply of regulated child care has increased since thesector study, with all provinces except Alberta showing someincrease in coverage from 1995 to 2001.

Table 3.2 shows the total number of regulated child carespaces for children 0 to 12 by province or territory in 1995(sector study) and 2001 (comparable figures from EarlyChildhood Education and Care in Canada 2001). To lookat the potential demand for these services, the number of

all children 0 to 12 and the number of children 0 to 12with a mother in the labour force are provided for thesame years by province (this information is not availablefor the territories).

In 2001, there generally were:• fewer children 0 to 12 in all provinces except Ontario;• more mothers in the labour force in Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick and Quebec; and• more regulated child care spaces in all provinces except Alberta.

35

Table 3.2 Number of Children 0 to 12, Children 0 to 12 with a Mother in the Paid Labour Force and RegulatedFull- and Part-Day Child Care Spaces by Province and Territory, 1995 and 2001 Province or Territory Number of Children Children 0 to 12 with a Regulated Child Care

0 to 12 (rounded) Mother in Labour Force (rounded) Spaces for Children 0 to 12 (estimates)1995 2001 1995 2001 1995 2001

Newfoundland andLabrador 98,000 76,700 55,000 49,20 4,202 4,226 1

Prince Edward Island 25,000 22,600 17,000 16,900 3,888 4,270 2

Nova Scotia 156,000 141,800 93,000 97,200 10,645 11,464New Brunswick 126,000 112,200 73,000 76,500 7,952 11,086 3 4

Quebec 1,192,000 1,115,200 724,000 773,100 111,452 234,905 4

Ontario 1,923,000 1,944,400 1,250,000 1,325,400 147,853 191,135 5

Manitoba 198,000 185,900 131,000 128,200 18,846 23,022Saskatchewan 192,000 168,900 134,000 112,600 7,266 7,166 4

Alberta 530,000 521,900 366,000 340,500 51,088 47,693 6

British Columbia 623,000 601,700 407,000 388,900 59,794 72,949Nunavut N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 932Northwest Territories N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,286 1,234Yukon Territory N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,060 1,348 4

Canada7 5,064,000 4,891,300 3,250,000 3,308,700 425,332 611,430

Source: Adapted from Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002), Tables 4, 5 and 9.

Notes:1 At the time of data collection, regulated family child care was operating with pilot project status. Therefore, there are no statistics on the number of spaces in

family child care. 2 Part-day kindergarten spaces have been included in Prince Edward Island’s figures for total regulated spaces.3 The total number of regulated spaces does not represent all spaces. Breakdown is possible only for those spaces funded under the Quality Improvement Funding

Support, which represent 93.5% of spaces in New Brunswick.4 Nursery schools (part time) are not regulated in New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Yukon Territory and are not included in these figures.5 Breakdowns of full- and part-time and family child care are not available by age. Ontario estimates about 55,000 regulated spaces for school-age children.

Number of children in family child care is estimated at 18,000 (LMU key informant interview).6 Provincial regulation is not required in school-age care and is not included in this total.7 Information for the territories is not available for the number of children 0 to 12 and children 0 to 12 with a mother in the labour force; these totals do not

include the territories.



Even though significant increase has been made in thenumber of regulated child care spaces between 1995 and2001, there are only enough regulated spaces for a smallproportion of children. Chart 3.1 displays the number ofestimated regulated spaces in each province as a proportion

of the number of children aged 0 to 12. Overall, in 2001,there were enough child care spaces for 12% of thepopulation 0 to 12. The coverage ranged from a low of4.2% in Saskatchewan to a high of 27% in Yukon.

Chart 3.1 Regulated Child Care Spaces per 100 Children 0 to 12, 1995 and 2001

Source: Adapted from Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002).

While all provinces except Alberta have increased coverageof regulated child care spaces for children 0 to 12 duringthe period 1995 to 2001, most of the increase in growth ofregulated spaces has been in Quebec, due to Quebec’s familypolicy and $5/day child care ($7/day as of January 2004)which produced a major expansion of the regulated childcare system. And since 2001, Quebec has further increased itssupply of regulated child care by an additional 50,000 spaces.

Chart 3.2 shows the impact of Quebec on the growth innumbers of regulated child care spaces across the country.There is a slight but steady increase in regulated spaces when

Quebec is excluded from the tabulation. The increase is moredramatic when Quebec is included in the calculation; Quebeccreated most of the new regulated child care spaces that cameinto being during the past 9 years. Even with the expansion ofregulated child care spaces in Quebec, the coverage remains wellbelow that of most other countries in the developed world.

For example, in Sweden 34% of children 1 to 2, 64% of 3-year-olds and 74% of 5-year-olds are in full-day child care centres,and 11% of children are in family child care homes, especiallyin rural areas. In Italy, about 70% of 3-year-olds attend inscuolematerne, rising to 96% by age 6, when compulsory school begins1.

Chart 3.2 – Impact of Quebec on the Growth of Child Care Spaces

Source: Adapted from Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002).

C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L36



M A I N R E P O R T

37

Tabl

e 3.

3 Di

stri

buti

on o

f Re

gula

ted

Child

Car

e Sp

aces

(es

tim

ates

) 19

95, 2

001

and

2002

/200

3

1995

2001

2002

/200

3119

9520

0120

02/2

0031

1995

2001

2002

/200

3119

9520

0120

02/2

0031

New

foun

dlan

d an

dLa

brad

or3,

705

3,63

24,

4002

497

594

N/A

N/A

N/A3

N/A3

4,20

24,

226

4,40

0Pr

ince

Edw

ard

Isla

nd3,

292

3,69

744,

110

568

519

596

2854

563,

888

4,27

04,

762

Nova

Sco

tia

10,4

7611

,314

512

,194

6N/

AN/

AN/

A16

915

0N/

A10

,645

11,4

6412

,194

New

Bru

nsw

ick

7,83

8 5,

820

5,65

0*

4,61

04,

877

114

150

150

7,95

211

,068

711

,898

Queb

ec52

,911

77,2

7189

,699

40,6

7010

1,65

513

4,63

017

,871

55,9

7975

,355

111,

452

234,

905

299,

684

Onta

rio

128,

955

118,

110

121,

6128

*55

,025

61,8

1118

,898

18,0

009

18,5

5314

7,85

319

1,13

5920

1,97

68

(est

)M

anit

oba

12,5

8014

,130

14,7

673,

255

4,97

15,

889

3,11

13,

921

4,12

118

,846

23,0

2224

,777

Sask

atch

ewan

3,72

74,

106

4,28

692

684

583

7 2,

613

2,21

52,

160

7,26

67,

166

7,28

3Al

bert

a43

,242

41,0

1140

,755

N/A1

0N/

A10

N/A1

07,

826

6,68

26,

665

51,0

8847

,693

47,4

20Br

itis

h Co

lum

bia

31,4

6236

,383

34,3

8113

,360

19,5

3321

,932

14,9

7217

,033

18,6

9159

,794

72,9

4975

,004

Nuna

vut

N/A

832

835

N/A

100

122

N/A

N/A

N/A

932

957

Nort

hwes

t Te

rrit

orie

s1,

182

866

922

*15

212

810

421

624

81,

286

1,23

41,

298

Yuko

n Te

rrit

ory

649

669

599

189

251

8022

242

837

61,

060

1,34

81,

055

Cana

da30

0,01

931

7,84

133

4,21

058

,400

188,

255

230,

902

65,9

2810

4,82

812

6,37

542

5,33

261

1,43

0969

2,70

811

Prov

ince

or

Terr

itor

yCe

ntre

-bas

ed F

ull-

and

Par

t-Da

yCh

ild C

are

for

Pres

choo

l-ag

edCh

ildre

n

Scho

ol-a

ge C

hild

Car

eRe

gula

ted

Fam

ily C

hild

Car

eTo

tal R

egul

ated

Spa

ces

Sour

ces:

For

1995

, Chi

ldca

re R

esou

rce

and

Rese

arch

Uni

t (1

997)

. For

200

1, F

riend

ly, B

each

& T

uria

no (

2002

), T

able

s 9

and

29. I

nfor

mat

ion

for

Onta

rio a

djus

ted

acco

rdin

g to

LM

U in

terv

iew

as

note

d in

foot

note

8.

For

2002

/200

3, L

MU

key

info

rman

t in

terv

iew

s an

d pr

ovin

cial

que

stio

nnai

res,

pro

vinc

ial/

terr

itoria

l chi

ld c

are

offi

cial

s.

Note

s:1

2002

/200

3 nu

mbe

rs a

re n

ot fr

om c

onsi

sten

t tim

e pe

riods

dur

ing

2002

/200

3 an

d ar

e as

follo

ws:

New

foun

dlan

d (2

003)

, Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

(20

03),

Nov

a Sc

otia

(Au

gust

200

3), N

ew B

runs

wic

k

(Jul

y 20

03),

Que

bec

(Mar

ch 2

003)

, Ont

ario

(De

c 20

02),

Man

itoba

(20

02),

Sas

katc

hew

an (

Mar

ch 2

003)

, Alb

erta

(20

02/2

003)

, Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a (2

002)

, Nun

avut

(20

03),

Nor

thw

est

Terr

itorie

s

(Oct

200

3) a

nd Y

ukon

(20

01/2

002)

. 2

This

fig

ure

incl

udes

sch

ool-

age

child

car

e as

bre

akdo

wn

is n

ot a

vaila

ble.

3At

the

tim

e of

dat

a co

llect

ion,

reg

ulat

ed f

amily

chi

ld c

are

was

ope

ratin

g w

ith

pilo

t pr

ojec

t st

atus

; the

refo

re, n

o st

atis

tics

are

avai

labl

e on

the

num

ber

of s

pace

s in

fam

ily c

hild

car

e in

New

foun

dlan

d.

4Pa

rt-d

ay k

inde

rgar

ten

spac

es h

ave

been

incl

uded

in P

rince

Edw

ard

Isla

nd’s

fig

ures

for

cent

re-b

ased

spa

ces

and

for

tota

l reg

ulat

ed s

pace

s in

200

1 an

d 20

02/2

003.

5No

va S

cotia

’s c

entr

e-ba

sed

pres

choo

l spa

ces

incl

udes

sch

ool-

age

child

car

e, a

s br

eakd

own

is n

ot a

vaila

ble

(200

1).

6No

bre

akdo

wn

is a

vaila

ble

for

Nova

Sco

tia’s

200

2/20

03 s

pace

s.

7Th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of

reg

ulat

ed s

pace

s do

es n

ot r

epre

sent

all

spac

es. B

reak

dow

n is

pos

sibl

e on

ly fo

r th

ose

spac

es fu

nded

und

er t

he Q

ualit

y Im

prov

emen

t Fu

ndin

g Su

ppor

t, w

hich

rep

rese

nt 9

3.5%

of s

pace

s in

New

Bru

nsw

ick

8On

tario

200

2/20

03 s

pace

s fo

r ce

ntre

-bas

ed fu

ll- a

nd p

art-

day

child

car

e fo

r pr

esch

ool c

hild

ren

incl

udes

the

lice

nsed

cap

acity

for

all l

icen

sing

cat

egor

ies

(chi

ldre

n un

der

6 w

hich

incl

udes

infa

nts,

todd

lers

, pre

scho

oler

s, ju

nior

and

sen

ior

kind

erga

rten

); O

ntar

io 2

002/

2003

spa

ces

for

regu

late

d fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

repr

esen

t en

rolm

ent.

; Ont

ario

200

2/20

03 t

otal

reg

ulat

ed s

pace

s re

pres

ent

licen

sed

capa

city

for

cent

re-b

ased

car

e an

d to

tal e

nrol

men

t fo

r pr

ivat

e-ho

me

day

care

.




• Several school boards and departments of education arelooking at expansion of services; these pilot projects, newinitiatives and recommendations include:

• full-day kindergarten• ECEC programs provided by school boards but funded

through other ministries, for kindergarten childrenduring the part of the day when they are not attendingan education-funded program

• education-funded ECEC programs for 4-year-olds.While reasons for these initiatives are beyond the scope ofthis study (and probably include a range of motives rangingfrom the availability of federal early childhood developmentfunding and focus on the early years, to declining schoolenrolment and space availability), kindergarten and relatededucation programs have an impact on the child careworkforce for two reasons—because the same children whoattend kindergarten also may attend a regulated child careprogram and because members of the child care workforcemay find employment in schools, both as teachers andspecial needs assistants.

Table 3.4 presents provincial/territorial information aboutkindergarten (the education year before Grade 1):description, eligibility, enrolment, plans and initiatives in2002/2003. Of note:• Kindergarten is compulsory in three provinces: Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia.• Kindergarten is full day in three provinces: Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick and Quebec. Kindergarten may be fullday in Ontario (a decision of district school boards).

• Other jurisdictions offer some full-day kindergarten(Newfoundland, Yukon) and provision of full-daykindergarten is under discussion in these and otherjurisdictions.

3.1.2 Distribution of regulated child care spacesProvincial/territorial officials were asked in the autumn of2003 to provide current information about regulated childcare spaces (centre-based child care for preschool-agechildren, school-age child care and family child care) intheir jurisdictions. This information about regulated childcare spaces is displayed in Table 3.3 along with the regulatedchild care space information for 1995 and 2001 published bythe Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Child Care in theProvinces and Territories, 1995 and Early Childhood Education andCare in Canada 2001.

Due to the variety of information-gathering systems acrossthe country and different reporting times provided for theLMU, caution is advised when comparing jurisdictions andtime periods in Table 3.3, especially with the spaceinformation for 2002/2003. For example, Ontario and BritishColumbia both report over 18,000 spaces in regulated familychild care. Ontario reports the enrolment in family childcare homes (not specifying full or part time) and BritishColumbia reports the licensed capacity of family child carehomes. The space distribution in Table 3.2 suggests that, ofthe total supply in 2002/2003,• 48.4% are full- and part-day spaces for children under

school age;• 33.3% are centre-based school-age care spaces; and• 18.3% are family child care spaces for children 0 to 12.

3.2 Supply of ECEC Under Education Authority There are three main forms of ECEC provision that underoperate under the authority of education ministries anddepartments:• kindergarten for 5-year-olds; • pre-kindergarten for children younger than 5; and• school-age child care in Quebec for children 5 to 12.

3.2.1 Kindergarten for 5-year-oldsKindergarten is the ECEC service provided by departmentsand ministries of education to children the year before theyenter Grade 1. Kindergarten is discussed in the context ofthe child care workforce for these reasons:• Most 5-year-olds in Canada (between 95% and 98%)

attend kindergarten, which is publicly funded at nodirect cost to parents. Kindergarten influences the numberand type of regulated child care arrangements needed for5-year-old children.

9 During a key informant interview with Ontario officials, they advised that the reported number of regulated spaces in 2001 was a partial figure and may not have included

regulated family child care. The estimate of 18,000 regulated family child care spaces has been included in the 2001 Ontario regulated family child care spaces and the

2001 Ontario total regulated spaces. The 2001 total regulated child care spaces in Canada also reflect this information.10 There are no provincial regulations for school-age care in Alberta. Alberta licenses Out of School Care programs according to the Social Care Facilities Act; municipalities

set standards. Alberta reported 14,076 school-age child care spaces in 200311 Total is an estimate only, due to inconsistent time periods of 2002/2003 information.

* Breakdown not available (may be included in centre-based full and part day).



M A I N R E P O R T

39

Tabl

e 3.

4 K

inde

rgar

ten

(Edu

cati

on in

Yea

r Be

fore

Gra

de 1

): D

escr

ipti

on, E

legi

bilit

y, E

nrol

men

t, P

lans

and

Ini

tiat

ives

, 200

2/20

03Pr

ovin

ce/T

erri

tory

Desc

ript

ion

Age

Elig

ibili

ty

Num

ber

ofPl

ans

and

Init

iati

ves

Child

ren

Enro

lled

New

foun

dlan

d an

dPa

rt d

ay, 5

70 in

stru

ctio

nal h

rs/y

r5

yrs

old

befo

re D

ec 3

15,

254

Full

day

avai

labl

e in

sev

en s

choo

ls; i

ssue

of u

nive

rsal

full-

day

Labr

ador

Volu

ntar

yki

nder

gart

en u

nder

rev

iew

(Fu

ll-da

y K

mig

ht g

ive

kids

a s

tron

ger

grou

ndi

ng fo

r sc

hool

; par

ents

wou

ld p

refe

r fu

ll-da

y K)

.Pr

ince

Edw

ard

Isla

ndPa

rt d

ay, m

inim

um 3

hrs

/day

5 yr

s ol

d by

Jan

31

1,60

5Ch

ange

s to

age

elig

ibili

ty: m

ovin

g fr

om 5

yrs

old

by

Dec

31Vo

lunt

ary

(200

3/20

04)

to 5

yrs

old

by

Aug

31 (

2008

/200

9). P

EI w

ill h

ave

olde

st k

inde

rgar

ten

child

ren

in t

he c

ount

ry.

Nova

Sco

tia

Full

day,

min

imum

4 h

rs/d

ay5

yrs

old

befo

re O

ct 1

9,79

5Co

mpu

lsor

yNe

w B

runs

wic

kFu

ll da

y, 8

32.5

inst

ruct

iona

l hrs

/yr

5 yr

s ol

d by

Dec

31

7,82

3Co

mpu

lsor

yQu

ebec

Full

day,

846

inst

ruct

iona

l hrs

/yr

5 yr

s ol

d by

Sep

t 30

79,4

21Vo

lunt

ary

Onta

rio

Can

be p

art

or fu

ll da

y4

yrs

8 m

os b

y Se

pt 1

133,

6861

Best

Sta

rt P

lan

(Ont

ario

Lib

eral

Pla

n fo

r Ed

ucat

ion)

con

side

ring

full

Volu

ntar

y-d

ay ju

nior

and

sen

ior

kind

erga

rten

eve

ntua

lly a

vaila

ble

for

all 4

- an

d5-

year

-old

s, w

ith s

choo

ls e

xpec

ted

to o

ffer

chi

ld c

are

and

pare

ntin

g pr

ogra

ms.

Man

itob

aPa

rt d

ay, 5

22.5

inst

ruct

iona

l hrs

/yr

5 yr

s ol

d by

Dec

31

13,1

68Vo

lunt

ary

Sask

atch

ewan

Part

day

, equ

ival

ent

to 8

0 fu

ll sc

hool

day

sDe

term

ined

by

scho

ol11

,403

2

Volu

ntar

ydi

visi

on (

for

Grad

e 1,

6yr

s ol

d by

Dec

31)

Albe

rta

Part

day

, min

imum

475

inst

ruct

iona

l hrs

/yr

5 yr

s ol

d by

Feb

28

26,1

913

Reco

mm

enda

tion

from

Alb

erta

’s C

omm

issi

on o

n Le

arni

ng (

Repo

rt, O

ct 2

003)

:Vo

lunt

ary

Esta

blis

h fu

ll-da

y ki

nder

gart

en p

rogr

ams.

Rec

omm

enda

tion

is u

nder

rev

iew.

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

aPa

rt d

ay, 2

.4 in

stru

ctio

nal h

rs/d

ay5

yrs

old

by D

ec 3

137

,607

Com

puls

ory

Nuna

vut

Part

tim

e, n

o le

ss t

han

485

inst

ruct

iona

l5

yrs

old

by D

ec 3

166

44Pr

opos

ed n

ew E

duca

tion

Act

will

mak

e ki

nder

gart

en c

ompu

lsor

y.hr

s/yr

and

no

mor

e th

an 6

hrs

/day

Volu

ntar

yNo

rthw

est

Terr

itor

ies

Part

tim

e, m

axim

um o

f 570

and

min

imum

5 yr

s ol

d by

Dec

31

656

Som

e bo

ards

off

erin

g ea

rly c

hild

hood

pro

gram

s fo

r ki

nder

gart

en c

hild

ren

of 4

85 in

stru

ctio

nal h

rs/y

rfo

r ot

her

half

of d

ay b

ut m

ust

com

ply

wit

h Ch

ild D

ay C

are

Act;

not

cov

ered

Volu

ntar

yby

Edu

catio

n Ac

t. W

hy?

Lang

uage

, lite

racy

and

no

char

ge t

o pa

rent

s, s

ince

man

y ar

e di

rect

ly c

onne

cted

to

kind

erga

rten

cla

ss, i

t is

oft

en t

he k

inde

rgar

ten

teac

her

wor

king

in e

arly

lear

ning

set

ting.

Yuko

nPa

rt t

ime,

475

inst

ruct

iona

l hrs

/yr

4 yr

s 8

mos

as

of S

ept

133

4Tw

o sc

hool

s pi

lotin

g fu

ll-da

y ki

nder

gart

en; p

ositi

ve c

omm

unity

res

pons

e;Vo

lunt

ary

prog

ram

s m

aint

aine

d bu

t no

t ex

tend

ed d

ue t

o fu

ndin

g is

sues

and

(la

ck o

f)po

litic

al c

omm

itmen

t.So

urce

s:Fr

iend

ly, B

each

& T

uria

no (

2002

), in

form

atio

n fo

r pr

ogra

m d

escr

iptio

n an

d ag

e el

igib

ility

.

LMU

key

info

rman

t int

ervi

ews

and

prov

inci

al q

uest

ionn

aire

s, p

rovi

ncia

l/te

rrito

rial k

inde

rgar

ten

offic

ials

. Inf

orm

atio

n fo

r num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n en

rolle

d, a

nd p

lans

and

initi

ativ

es.

Note

s:1

Onta

rio’s

enr

olm

ent

figu

re is

for

the

2001

/200

2 sc

hool

yea

r.2

Sask

atch

ewan

’s e

nrol

men

t fi

gure

is fo

r 20

01.

3Al

bert

a’s

enro

lmen

t fi

gure

is fo

r 20

01.

4Nu

navu

t’s e

nrol

men

t fi

gure

is p

rovi

ded

in F

TEs—

full-

time

equi

vale

nts.




3.2.2 Pre-kindergarten (for children under 5 years of age)Ministries and departments of education in somejurisdictions are expanding education programs for youngerchildren (i.e. children who are 4 years old, the year beforekindergarten).• Ontario is the only jurisdiction where almost all school

boards provide junior kindergarten for 4-year-olds; 84% of4-year-olds attend junior kindergarten in Ontario.

• Newfoundland’s education program for 4-year-olds,Kinderstart, is an eight-session orientation program, andincludes parents. Most 4-year-olds attend Kinderstart.

• Other jurisdictions provide some educationalprogramming for 4-year-olds, though these are targeted toat-risk, inner-city or special needs children.

• Quebec has a number of part-day pre-kindergartenprograms, primarily in low-income neighbourhoods,which were established prior to the implementation of thenew family policy. Since 1997, all new programs for 4-year-olds have been developed through the child caresystem.

Table 3.5 describes the pre-kindergarten programs thatcurrently exist, and initiatives under way.



M A I N R E P O R T

41

Tabl

e 3.

5 P

re-K

inde

rgar

ten:

Des

crip

tion

, Enr

olm

ent,

Pla

ns a

nd I

niti

ativ

es, 2

002/

2003

Prov

ince

/Ter

rito

ryDe

scri

ptio

n/El

igib

ility

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

Plan

s an

d In

itia

tive

sEn

rolle

dNe

wfo

undl

and

and

Kind

erst

art

– an

orie

ntat

ion

prog

ram

of e

ight

ses

sion

sBe

twee

n 5,

000

and

5,10

0La

brad

orof

fere

d 1

year

prio

r to

kin

derg

arte

n en

rolm

ent

(pro

vide

dat

the

dis

cret

ion

of t

he s

choo

l boa

rd).

Fun

ded

by L

itera

cyBr

anch

of D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n.Pr

ince

Edw

ard

Isla

ndN/

ANo

va S

coti

a4

Plus

– s

ome

Hal

ifax

scho

ol b

oard

s ha

ve fu

ll-da

y10

to

12 s

ites

in t

otal

Nova

Sco

tia w

ill b

e pi

lotin

g a

new

Rea

dy T

o Le

arn,

vol

unta

ry, f

ree

pres

choo

lpr

e-Gr

ade

Prim

ary

for

inne

r-ci

ty s

choo

ls a

ndw

ith

240

stud

ents

prog

ram

for

4-ye

ar-o

lds

at 2

0 si

tes

in S

epte

mbe

r 20

05. A

n in

itiat

ive

of t

heat

-ris

k po

pula

tions

.Ed

ucat

ion

depa

rtm

ent

wit

h Co

mm

unity

Ser

vice

s an

d H

ealt

h as

par

tner

s, R

eady

to

Lear

n w

ill h

ave

an a

ctiv

ity-b

ased

cur

ricul

um, e

mph

asiz

ing

soci

aliz

atio

n sk

ills,

with

inst

ruct

ors

who

hav

e an

ear

ly c

hild

hood

dev

elop

men

t/ed

ucat

ion

back

grou

nd.

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Unde

r th

e Qu

ality

Lea

rnin

g Ag

enda

, a p

ilot

proj

ect

is b

eing

dev

elop

edjo

intly

wit

h Fa

mily

and

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces,

Dep

artm

ent

of H

ealt

h an

dW

elln

ess

and

the

Depa

rtm

ent

of E

duca

tion

to im

prov

e th

e sc

hool

-rea

dine

ssof

pre

scho

oler

s an

d en

sure

a p

ositi

ve t

rans

ition

to

scho

ol.

Queb

ecPr

emat

erne

lle –

par

t da

y fo

r 4-

year

-ol

dsPr

emat

erne

lleSi

nce

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

new

fam

ily p

olic

y, Q

uebe

c ha

s fr

ozen

the

Pass

e-pa

rtou

t –

at-r

isk

child

ren

and

pare

nts

(24

sess

ion,

6,67

8ex

pans

ion

of p

rogr

ams

for

4-ye

ar-o

lds

thro

ugh

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

.16

wit

h ch

ildre

n on

ly a

nd 8

wit

h pa

rent

s)Pa

sse-

part

out

Prog

ram

s fo

r th

is a

ge g

roup

are

now

all

deve

lope

d th

roug

h th

e 8,

910

CPE

stru

ctur

e.On

tari

oJu

nior

kin

derg

arte

n, p

art

day

(84%

of 4

-yea

r-ol

ds a

tten

d)11

4,66

91(2

001/

2002

)Be

st S

tart

Pla

nco

nsid

erin

g fu

ll-da

y ju

nior

kin

derg

arte

n ev

entu

ally

ava

ilabl

efo

r al

l 4-y

ear-

olds

.M

anit

oba

Win

nipe

g Sc

hool

Div

isio

n an

d Fr

ontie

r Sc

hool

Div

isio

n2,

325

offe

r pr

e-ki

nder

gart

en p

rogr

am (

nurs

ery)

for

4-ye

ar-o

lds.

Sask

atch

ewan

Pre-

kind

erga

rten

may

be

prov

ided

par

t da

y fo

r ch

ildre

n1,

400

In 2

003/

2004

, inc

reas

e to

100

pre

-kin

derg

arte

ns, t

arge

ting

over

1,5

00de

emed

to

be a

t ris

k liv

ing

in t

arge

ted

com

mun

ities

tha

t3-

and

4-y

ear-

olds

). T

hese

pro

gram

s ar

e fo

r ch

ildre

n at

ris

k an

d th

e pr

ogra

ms

mee

t sp

ecif

ic c

riter

ia. S

elec

ted

3- a

nd 4

-yea

r-ol

d ch

ildre

nar

e af

filia

ted

wit

h co

mm

unity

sch

ool.

Man

y m

ore

stud

ents

app

ly t

han

can

bein

the

se c

omm

uniti

es a

re r

efer

red

to t

he p

rogr

am.

acco

mm

odat

ed. O

ver

time,

wou

ld li

ke p

rogr

am in

all

com

mun

ity s

choo

ls.

Albe

rta

Child

ren

wit

h sp

ecia

l nee

ds m

ay a

tten

d Ea

rly C

hild

hood

2-ye

ar-o

lds…

25

02Re

com

men

datio

n fr

om A

lber

ta’s

Com

mis

sion

on

Lear

ning

(Re

port

,Se

rvic

es (

kind

erga

rten

) at

age

2 _

if t

he c

hild

has

a s

ever

e3-

year

-old

s… 1

,329

Oct

2003

): e

stab

lish

new

juni

or k

inde

rgar

ten

prog

ram

s on

a p

hase

d-in

disa

bilit

y or

at a

ge 3

_ if

the

child

has

a m

oder

ate

disa

bilit

y.4-

year

-old

s...1

4,75

7ba

sis.

Rec

omm

enda

tion

is u

nder

rev

iew.

(200

1/20

02)

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

aDi

stric

t spe

cific

initi

ativ

es (

furt

her i

nfor

mat

ion

not a

vaila

ble)

Nuna

vut

Abor

igin

al H

eads

tart

pro

vide

s ea

rly le

arni

ng p

rogr

am fo

r 4-

year

-old

s.In

Arv

iat

(thi

rd la

rges

t to

wn

in N

unav

ut w

ith

85%

pop

ulat

ion

Inui

t), e

very

chi

ldpa

rtic

ipat

es b

efor

e ki

nder

gart

en.

Nort

hwes

t Te

rrit

orie

sSo

me

scho

ol b

oard

s of

fer

early

chi

ldho

od le

arni

ng p

rogr

ams

for

4-ye

ar-o

lds

but

they

mus

t co

mpl

y w

ith

Child

Day

Car

e Ac

t (n

ot E

duca

tion

Act)

. Yu

kon

Nine

rur

al s

choo

ls o

nly

whe

re 4

-yea

r-ol

d ch

ildre

n go

to

44sc

hool

wit

h 5-

year

-old

s; in

sch

ools

wit

h lo

w 5

-yea

r-ol

den

rolm

ent

(min

imum

cla

ss s

ize

is 7

)

Sour

ces:

Frie

ndly

, Bea

ch &

Tur

iano

(20

02),

info

rmat

ion

for

prog

ram

des

crip

tion

LMU

key

info

rman

t int

ervi

ews

and

prov

inci

al q

uest

ionn

aire

s, p

rovi

ncia

l/te

rrito

rial k

inde

rgar

ten

offic

ials

. Inf

orm

atio

n fo

r num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n en

rolle

d, a

nd p

lans

and

initi

ativ

es.




3.2.3 School-age care in QuebecSchool-age care in Quebec serves children from 5 to 12,who attend full-day kindergarten and elementary school.It also provides programs for 4-year-olds for the balanceof the day—an educational program that complements thepre-kindergarten and in which all pre-kindergarten childrenmust participate.2

School-age programs are considered a complementaryservice to the school, not an essential complement to theeducation program, but recreational and optional activitiesare provided by the school or the school board.3 The 1996Education Act provides for governing boards in schools, and itis at their request that a school board establishes a school-agechild care program. If the governing board determines thatthere is a need, the school must establish a program.

Between 1997 and 2003, the number of school-age programsincreased from 800 to 1,725. There are 221,000 students whoattend school-age programs—187,000 on a regular basis.4.

3.3 Other ECEC Services Within Provincial/TerritorialJurisdiction

Some provinces and territories have developed ECECprograms that offer a range of family and parenting supports.They are not part of a formal system, but operate underestablished criteria, and usually are monitored and/orevaluated in some way. Many of these programs provide jobopportunities for members of the child care workforce,particularly those with ECE qualifications. There are noaccurate overall estimates of the participation rate, butfollowing are a few examples of these programs:• Family Resource Centres

• Family resource centres operate in several provinces.They offer a variety of supports for parents andcaregivers, which may include toy-lending libraries,child care registries, parent support groups, workshopseries for caregivers, drop-in care, and outreachservices.

• Early Years Centres, OntarioEvery provincial riding has an Early Years Centre, whichoffers the following services for all parents and caregiversof children 0 to 6.

• early learning and literacy programs for parents andchildren

• programs to help parents and caregivers in all aspectsof early child development

• programs on pregnancy and parenting • links to other Early Years programs in the community • outreach activities so all parents can get involved with

their local Ontario Early Years Centre

• Healthy Child Manitoba provides services, primarily tohigh-risk children and includes:

• Baby First – a home visiting and universal screeningprogram

• expanded in-home services for children withdisabilities

• Early Start – a home visiting program for familieswith children with special needs, and who are enrolledin licensed child care facilities

• KidsFirst, Saskatchewan• Joint initiative of Community Resources and

Employment, Health and Learning; delivered incooperation with partners such as school andhealth districts, First Nation, Métis and communityorganizations. The initiative includes ECE, childcare and parenting support, home visiting andprenatal outreach.

• Community Solutions, Saskatchewan• Community Solutions provides enhancement to child

care (and other organizations) through pilot projectfunding that enables agencies and organizations to“broaden their scope” and try new things. Rural childcare and child care in low-income housing have bothparticipated in projects that have expanded servicesfor families. Projects must have an attachment to aregulated child care service.

• Child Care Resource and Referral Programs, British Columbia• There is a network of Child Care Resource and

Referral Programs across the province. They provideinformation, support and training to child care providerswith emphasis on family child care. For parents, theyprovide referrals to local family child care providersand other child care services.

3.3.1 Unregulated arrangementsUnregulated arrangements are largely private arrangementsbetween parents and relatives or a caregiver. Care is either inthe child’s own home, or in the home of a caregiver notunder government regulation. As well, some programs areused for recreational or developmental purposes that are notregulated in certain provinces and territories. In someprovinces and territories, early childhood educators choose tooperate unregulated family child care homes, and some ofthe unregulated in-home arrangements and centre-basedprograms employ early childhood educators. Unregulatedarrangements include:• Unregulated family child care by relatives. It usually falls

outside of government regulation or funding.



M A I N R E P O R T

43

Table 3.6 Early Childhood Programs Under Federal JurisdictionName ofProgram

First Nationsand Inuit ChildCare (FNICC)

Aboriginal HeadStart – On Reserve

Aboriginal HeadStart, Urban andNorthernCommunities

Child Day CareProgram – Alberta

Child Day CareProgram - Ontario

FN Child andFamily ServicesHead Start – NewBrunswickFirst Nationskindergarten andpre-kindergarten

Department

Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada

Health Canada

Health Canada

Indian and NorthernAffairs Canada




Description

Program subsidizes creation and ongoing operation ofchild care spaces in First Nations and Inuitcommunities. Purpose is to enable parents toparticipate in training and the labour market.Usually full day.Early intervention program for First Nations childrenon reserve, preparing young Aboriginal children forschool; no cost to parents. Part-day program.Early intervention strategy for First Nations, Inuit andMétis children and families living in urban centres andlarge northern communities. Programs typicallyprovide half-day preschool experiences that prepareyoung Aboriginal children for their school year bymeeting their spiritual, emotional, intellectual andphysical needs; no cost to parents. Part-day program.Program funds some First Nations child care spaces onreserve; services to provide early childhooddevelopment and learning programming comparableto what is offered to people living off reserve (underprovincial jurisdiction).Program supports on-reserve child care services;services to provide early childhood development andlearning programming comparable to what is offeredto people living off reserve (under provincialjurisdiction).Program offers centre- or home-based care forchildren and services to families. Part-day program.

Kindergarten for children living on reserve. Where nokindergarten program exists, children may enrol inoff-reserve schools, with the federal governmentreimbursing the school.

AgeEligibility

0–12 yrs

3–5 yrs

3–5 yrs

0–12 yrs

0–12 yrs

3–5 yrs

Number of Childrenand/or Sites

7,000 children

389 sites7,000

3,536 children

114 centres812 spaces

17 First Nations communities

3,018 children

57 programsN/A

13,409 childrenin 387

on-reserveschools*

• Unregulated family child care by others in the provider’sown home. Each province and territory has established amaximum number of children that may be cared forbefore a caregiver must be regulated. They range from twochildren in British Columbia to eight children inSaskatchewan.

• An adult hired by the parents to care for the child in thechild’s own home (a nanny or sitter). The caregiver maylive in the family home, such as those in the Live-InCaregiver Program, who are sponsored from othercountries to work in private homes in Canada, or maylive elsewhere. Parents are usually considered the employerof the caregiver, and in most provinces and territories mustconform to the relevant labour standards legislation.

• Some nursery schools and preschools are not regulated.Those in Saskatchewan, Quebec and Yukon are notregulated; those in New Brunswick are licensed only oncomplaint or request. In Newfoundland and Labrador,nursery schools are not regulated when operating with nomore than six children for less than 9 hours per week.

• Recreation programs and summer camp programs.• Childminding, for example, when parents are engaged

in a parenting or a training program and on-site childcare is provided.

3.4 ECEC Programs Under Federal JurisdictionWhile ECEC is a provincial/territorial responsibility, someprograms fall under federal aegis. These programs are usuallylimited to populations for which the federal government hasresponsibility. These include primarily Aboriginal familiesand children, but also include military families and newimmigrants and refugees.

In the 2001 federal budget, $320 million was allocated toexpand and improve ECEC programs and services forAboriginal children.

Table 3.6 provides an overview of the ECEC programs underthe aegis of the federal government.




3.5 Public Spending on Regulated Child CareThe cost to parents for regulated and unregulated child careremains high. In child care centres, staffing costs usuallyaccount for over 75% of the budget. The ability of parentsto pay fees has a direct relationship to the wages paid to staff,whether parents are paying the full fee, or the differencebetween the full fee and the government subsidy rate.In Toronto or Vancouver, fees for a parent with one infantin a child care centre can be as high as $1,200 a month.In Toronto, a subsidized parent may have most of the costscovered through the centre’s purchase of service agreementwith the municipality. In Vancouver, the same parent wouldhave to pay over $400 a month—the difference between thefee and the maximum government subsidy of $585 a month.Parents in Quebec pay $7 a day for full-day care in fundedprograms; less if they fall below a certain income level.

As noted in the 1998 sector study, the cost to parentsand the funding by government varies considerably acrossprovinces and territories. There is a wide range of eligibilitycriteria for different types of service, level of financialassistance available, and fees for children and families.Funding from government varies in level and type.Most of the funding is in the form of fee subsidies toeligible low-income families. In addition, there may bevarious kinds of operating grants, available to someprograms on an application basis.

Since the data for the original sector study were collected,some changes have been made to the fees and subsidiesin many of the provinces and territories. Table 3.7 displaysthe average monthly fees and maximum subsidies for a3-year-old child in centre-based and family child care,the income range for subsidy for a one-parent, one-childfamily, and the total number of children receiving subsidy,in 1995 and 2001 by jurisdiction.

Table 3.7 Average Fees and Subsidies in Regulated Child Care, 1995 and 2001, by Province and TerritoryProvince orTerritory

Newfoundland andLabrador Prince EdwardIslandNova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

CentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamily

Average Parent Fee perMonth(for a 3-year-old) ($)

Maximum SubsidyAvailable(for a 3-year-old) ($)1

Income Range for Subsidy2

(One parent, one 3–year-old child) ($)

Total Number of ChildrenReceiving Subsidy (0–12)

1995380N/A375N/A400N/A373352444374

2001N/AN/A412N/A488N/A418N/A

$5/day$5/day

1995No set max

N/A17/day

N/A16.85/day

N/A15/day

N/A18.57/day

N/A

200121.25/day21.25/day

19/day19/day

14.95/day14.95/day16.50/day16.50/day

N/A3N/A3

19959,960

18,240 10,00022,20016,81224,54015,00023,10012,00035,800

200114,160 20,280 13,44025,44016,81224,54015,00023,100

N/A3

1995 2001

748

382

2,200

1,363

41,520

1,015

1,072

2,655

2,545

N/A3

Source: Human Resources Development Canada, Health Canada, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

For kindergarten, HRDC/Health Canada/INAC 2002 * figure is for 2001.

Childminding;LanguageInstruction forNewcomers toCanada (LINC)Military FamilyResource Centres

CommunityAction Programfor Children

Citizenship andImmigrationCanada

Department ofNationalDefence

Health Canada

Childminding programs are informal unlicensedarrangements for the care and supervision of childrenwhile their parents are attending LINC classes; no feesto parents.

MFRCs offer core children services programs (respite,parent and tot, emergency child care, playgroups,which are considered essential in every community).Child care is not a core program; larger bases havechild care centres, sometimes in joint sponsorshipwith a community organization. A recent consultationprocess (the Way Ahead, Department of MilitaryFamily Services) identified day care as one of thepriority services brought forward to DND forconsideration. CAPC serves children and their families who live inconditions of risk. Funds community coalitions toprovide information, education, social support, earlychildhood learning and care, and training.

Usually 0–6

Varies byprogram type

0–6

3,200 children

190 programs(170 in Ontario)

36 MFRCsacross Canada

and the US

66,468 children



M A I N R E P O R T

45

Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Nunavut

NorthwestTerritoriesYukon

CentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamilyCentreFamily

460–7534

N/A320274358340375N/A440N/A--------530536500475

N/AN/A376328384377

522.849

N/A494

26.74/dayN/AN/A

60013N/A514514

No set maxN/A

4,092/yr4,092/yr

235N/A300N/A368354--------

No set maxN/A450450

N/A5N/A

4,264/yr4,264/yr

235 235380300 368 354

N/A12N/A

N/A14N/A450450

Needs testused6

13,78724,36919,66831,92018,71025,76518,984 27,816

----

Needs testused

17,77228,572

Needs testused6

13,78724,36919,66831,92020,52031,68018,98427,816N/A12

N/A14

20,42431,104

73,4007

8,200

3,683

13,159

28,92010

----

35010

680

N/A8

10,964

3,684

10,490

18,50011

N/A

N/A

790

Sources:Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1997) in Beach, Bertrand & Cleveland (1998) Table 9.

Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002), Tables 16 and 17.

Notes:1 Maximum subsidy available is per month unless otherwise noted.2 The first figure in the income range is the turning point (income level up to which full subsidy is available). The second figure in the income range is the

break-even point (partial subsidy available up to this income level, at which income subsidy ceases). In all provinces and territories except Saskatchewan,

income is net income. In Saskatchewan, income is gross income.3 Quebec provides publicly funded services rather than providing subsidies to selected families.4 Ontario’s figures are from 1993; 1995 not available. Range comes from sample of urban and rural locations and different size communities.5 In Ontario, eligibility for subsidy is determined by provincially determined needs tests with income only one of a number of items considered. Each municipality can

determine the rates within a range, a situation that creates considerable variation across the province. There are no province-wide maximum income levels for full

or partial fee subsidies.6 Ontario uses a needs test to establish eligibility and does not have province-wide data.6 This estimate of the number of subsidies in Ontario is from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Improving Ontario’s Child Care System:

Ontario Child Care Review (August 1996).8 An estimate for the number of children receiving subsidies was not available in Ontario.9 Alberta’s fee is an average fee for centre-based care.10 In British Columbia and Northwest Territories, numbers of children include those receiving subsidies for unregulated care.11 British Columbia subsidizes children in both regulated and unregulated child care. This figure is calculated using an estimate number of subsidies in

regulated child care. 12 In Nunavut, eligibility varies with clients’ actual housing, utility and child care costs, plus social assistance rates of food and clothing. A needs assessment is applied

so there is no set break-even point. There is no territory-wide maximum subsidy. Maximums are set for type of care.13 Northwest Territories’ fee is infant and preschool average. 14 In Northwest Territories, eligibility for subsidy varies according to number of family members, actual shelter cost, community of residence and eligibility for enhanced

benefits. These needs are based on Income Assistance Program schedules. A needs assessment is applied so there is no set break-even point. There is no territory-wide

maximum subsidy. Maximums are set for type of care.

3.5.1 Recent changes to fees and subsidies Some jurisdictions further updated the 2001 fee and subsidyinformation in LMU key informant interviews andprovincial/territorial child care questionnaires, which isprovided below.

Average Parent Fee per Month• In Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and

Alberta, the average parent fee per month for a 3-year-oldincreased from 2001.

• Updated monthly fee for a 3-year-old: Newfoundlandand Labrador: $441 (2003); Saskatchewan: centre-based care $399 (2002) and family child care$401 (2002); Alberta: average monthly fee forchildren over 19 months: $531 (2003)


Income Eligibility for Subsidy• In British Columbia, the income eligibility for subsidy was

lowered. As of September 2003, the income range for aone-adult, one-child family was $16,764 (turning point –the income level up to which full subsidy is available) to$23,124 (break-even point – partial subsidy is available upto this level, at which point subsidy ceases).

Total Number of Children Receiving Subsidy• In Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and

Manitoba, the total number of children 0 to 12 receivingsubsidy increased from 2001.

• The updated numbers of children 0 to 12 receivingsubsidy are: Newfoundland and Labrador: 1,125 (2003);New Brunswick: 2,586 (2002); Manitoba 11,455 (2003).

• In Saskatchewan and Alberta, the number of childrenin receipt of subsidy decreased.

• The updated numbers of children 0 to 12 receivingsubsidy are: Saskatchewan: 3,290 (2002); Albertareported a decrease in numbers, but did not providespecific numbers.

• In Ontario (2003), 120,261 children received subsidy. Thisfigure includes each unique child who received subsidyduring the year and includes children in receipt of Ontarioworks subsidy (which may be used in regulated andunregulated settings). Other jurisdictions report theaverage number of children receiving subsidy per month.

Only British Columbia has lowered the income eligibilitylevel for subsidy. As a result, families which were previouslyeligible are no longer eligible, or they are able to access onlya partial subsidy instead of a full subsidy. In 2002/2003,British Columbia decreased the expenditure on child caresubsidy for children 0 to 12 by almost $24 million.5

Parent fees and funds from various levels of governmentmake up the revenues of regulated child care services.The wages and benefits of those who work in child careare directly related to the amount of fees that parents areable to pay and the amount of funding governments provideto centres and providers.

If parent fees become too high, parents will not be able orwant to pay for regulated child care. Fee subsidies do notalways cover the full fee, so parents pay the differencebetween their approved subsidy rate and the full fee. It is inthe interest of centre enrolment to keep fees at a reasonablelevel, but this does not help to provide the workforce withprofessional wages and benefits unless centres receive fundingfrom sources.

Three jurisdictions, Prince Edward Island, Quebec andManitoba, have developed programs and initiatives that dealwith this fee and wage dilemma.

• In Prince Edward Island, publicly funded kindergartenprograms for 5-year-olds operate within most child carecentres. There is no charge to parents for the kindergartenprogram which operates no less than 3 hours a day.Centres receive a per child per month grant from theDepartment of Education for the kindergarten program.In 2001, the Department of Education increased fundingto programs; the increase was to be used in part for staffsalaries. Parents pay fees (or receive a fee subsidy) for therest of the day if their child remains in care.

• In 1997, Quebec introduced family policy that began aprogram of ECEC, including child care available at a feeof $5 a day (raised to $7 a day in January 2004) for allages in regulated centre-based and family child careprograms. Provincial government funds are providedthrough a variety of mechanisms for all overhead andoperating costs. Direct government funding is alsoprovided for staff wages, which according to a 4-year planthat began in 2000, has increased 35% to 40% by 2003.

• In Manitoba, the Child Day Care Regulatory ReviewCommittee proposed a funding model for child carecentres, the Unit Funding Model, that was adopted in2000/2001 and designed to help centres generate enoughrevenue to pay salaries to early childhood educators onthe Manitoba Child Care Association’s (MCCA) ProvincialSalary Scale.

Unit funding considers that budget revenue is made upof two parts (parent fees and provincial operating grants)and about 80% of a centre’s budget is directed to staffsalaries. A unit of care is the combination of revenuethrough fees and operating grants which employs onestaff (i.e. an “infant unit” [four infants to one earlychildhood educator]; “preschool unit” [eight preschoolersto one early childhood educator] and “school-age unit”[15 school-agers to one early childhood educator]).In other words, parent fees and operating grants for eachunit generate enough revenue to employ one staff on theMCCA wage scale. Parent fees are frozen now as part ofManitoba’s Five Year Plan for Child Care. In the first year(2002/2003) and second year (2003/2004) operatinggrants were increased, as the five-year plan commits toincreasing the wages and incomes of service providersby 10% over the course of the Plan.





M A I N R E P O R T

47

3.5.2 Government expenditures on regulated child careTable 3.8 shows provincial/territorial spending on regulatedchild care: total spending, spending on direct subsidies tofamilies and the percentage of total spending on subsidies in1995, 2001 and 2002/2003.

Figures for 2002/03 come from questionnaires sent to andkey informant interviews conducted with provincial/territorialchild care officials as part of the LMU. Except where noted,2002/2003 funding allocations include funding through theEarly Childhood Development Agreement.

Officials in some jurisdictions were able to provide childcare budget information for the 2003/2004 year. For theprovinces and territories which were able to provide thisinformation, the 2003/2004 allocation for child care

increased from 2002/2003 by:• $6 million in Manitoba• $6 million in Saskatchewan • $0.7 million in Northwest Territories

Even though the overall budget for child care has decreasedin recent years in Alberta, $6 million was committed inearly childhood development funds for the Alberta ChildCare Accreditation Program.

Generally, the spending on direct subsidies continues toincrease over time in most jurisdictions. In Alberta andSaskatchewan, spending on subsidies has decreased; theseprovinces also reported a decrease in the number of childrenreceiving subsidy. Spending on direct subsidies decreased inOntario and British Columbia.

Table 3.8 Provincial/Territorial Allocations for Regulated Child Care, 1995, 2001 and 2002/2003Province orTerritory

Newfoundland andLabrador Prince EdwardIslandNova ScotiaNew BrunswickQuebecOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaNunavutNorthwestTerritoriesYukonTotal

1995

2.98

1.6811.843.20

203.69541.8045.2012.7167.6291.38-----

1.714.15

987.96

Total Spending on Child Care($M)

2001

7.75

4.231

12.8911.82

1,092.432

451.5062.8816.3357.50

164.561.86

1.604.44

1,889.79

2002/2003

10.33

5.364

21.975

13.226

1,778.56480.187

67.908

17.109

48.3910

145.1312

1.7713

1.605.3315

2,596.81

Spending on FeeSubsidies for Families($M)

% of Spending on Subsidy

1995

2.98

1.1810.863.20

86.77370.0526.448.81

36.5151.4811

-----

.642.71

601.63

2001

6.19

3.198.566.50N/A16

299.8032.269.85

49.8060.5011

.5314

.8214

2.83480.83

2002/2003

N/A

3.259.406.30N/A16

281.147

34.20 9.45

41.39 52.0011

.38

.823.29

441.24

1995

100.0

70.091.7

100.042.668.358.569.354.056.3

-----

37.265.365

2001

80

756655

N/A665160873728

51646017

2002/2003

N/A

604348

N/A585055863621

51615317

Sources:Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002), for 1995 and 2001.

2002/2003 LMU key informant interviews and provincial/territorial child care questionnaires.

Notes:1 Prince Edward Island’s kindergarten programs operate within child care centres under child care legislation. For the purpose of this comparison table, kindergarten

funding has been separated from spending on regulated child care (1995 and 2001).2 Quebec’s figure includes expenditure on school-age care from the Ministry of Education.3 Newfoundland and Labrador’s allocation for 2002/2003 includes $4.3M (National Child Benefit) and $2.7M (Early Childhood Development Initiative – ECDI).4 Prince Edward Island’s allocation for 2002/2003 includes $.85M (ECDI). $3.15M in kindergarten funding is not included in 2002/2003 figure. 5 Nova Scotia’s allocation for 2002/2003 includes $8.41M (ECDI).6 New Brunswick’s allocation is for 2003/2004 and includes $6.92M (ECDI). 7 These figures are Actuals for 2002/2003. In addition, Ontario spent $34.13M on Ontario Works child care funding that may be paid directly to the parent or to the

service provider for use in regulated or unregulated child care.8 In Manitoba, ECDI funds are used to support Manitoba’s Five-Year Plan.




As Table 3.9 shows, between 1995 and 2001 there has been aper capita increase in most provinces (information was notavailable for the territories), with Ontario and Alberta beingthe notable exceptions. The table does not reflect the recentdecrease in funding in British Columbia that has taken placesince 2001. All figures are actual dollars.

Chart 3.3 shows the relative per capita spending on regulatedchild care across provinces.

9 In Saskatchewan, the 2003/2004 total child care allocation is $23.44M; it is not known if ECDI funds are included in the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 allocations.10 These Alberta figures are actuals for 2002/2003. 11 In British Columbia, fee subsidies are provided for regulated and unregulated child care. These figures have been estimated using 55% in 1995 and 50% in 2001 and

2002/2003. In addition, responsibility for the special needs supplement (additional fee subsidy for children with special needs) was moved from the Ministry of

Children and Families to the Ministry of Community, Aboriginals and Women in 2003 and became part of the subsidy budget without a transfer of funds from the

previous ministry. 2001 estimates of the special needs supplement is $2.7M.12 In British Columbia, the total spending on child care is for 2003/2004: the subsidy figure for unregulated care is not included, nor is the funding for Child Care

Resource and Referral programs, consistent with source tables. $37M for supported child care (from Ministry of Child and Families) has been added to total spending. 13 Nunavut’s allocation does not include an amount for fee subsidy.14 In Nunavut and Northwest Territories, the fee subsidy budget includes spending on both regulated and unregulated child care.15 Yukon’s allocation is for 2003/2004 and does not appear to include ECDI funds. 16 Quebec provides publicly funded services rather than subsidies to selected families.17 Quebec’s total spending has not been included in the calculation of the total percent of spending on subsidy in 2001 and 2002/2003, as Quebec provides a publicly

funded service, not subsidies to selected families.

Source: Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002). (Table 34a).

Notes:1 The 2001 figure for Prince Edward Island includes kindergarten, which is under

child care legislation. As a result, the 2001 figure is not comparable to the

figures in the previous years.2 Figures for British Columbia for fee subsidies are estimated because British

Columbia allows subsidies to be used in both regulated and unregulated care.

These figures have been adjusted accordingly.3 The 1995 figures for Northwest Territories and Yukon are based on estimated

numbers of children age 0 to12 and therefore are not directly comparable to the

figures given for the other jurisdictions.

Table 3.9 Provincial Allocation for Regulated ChildCare for Each Child Aged 0 to 12, 1995 and 2001 Province or Territory

Newfoundland and LabradorPrince Edward Island1

Nova ScotiaNew BrunswickQuebecOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish Columbia2

Northwest Territories3

Nunavut Yukon Territory CANADA

1995($)306776251712822286612815882

N/A519197

2001($)1011879110598023233897110274N/AN/AN/A386

Source: Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002).

3.6 Public Spending on Other Forms of ECECApart from regulated child care, almost all other forms ofECEC in which government plays a role are publicly fundedand provided at little or no cost to the user. These includekindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs, parentingprograms, parent-child drop-in programs, programs offeredthrough Aboriginal Head Start and the Community ActionProgram for Children, the federal Childminding program,and numerous targeted programs funded through the EarlyChildhood Development Agreement.

Chart 3.3 Provincial Spending on Regulated ChildCare per Capita by Province, 2001



M A I N R E P O R T

3.6.1 Spending on kindergartenKindergarten is financed through block grants to schoolboards from provincial/territorial governments. The amountof total spending for kindergarten programs is not availableas spending is reported in aggregate forms across grade

levels. From interviews with provincial/territorial officials,Doherty, Friendly and Beach estimate an approximate totalexpenditure on kindergarten of $1.5 billion in 2001.6 Someprovinces and territories are able to provide information onper pupil costs and those amounts are shown in Table 3.10.

49

Sources: Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002). Doherty, Friendly & Beach (in press), based on interviews with provincial/territorial government officials.

Note: Amounts given are estimates, not actuals.

Table 3.10 Estimated Expenditures on Kindergarten, 2001Province or TerritoryNewfoundland and LabradorPrince Edward IslandNova ScotiaNew BrunswickQuebec

Ontario

ManitobaSaskatchewan

AlbertaBritish ColumbiaNorthwest TerritoriesNunavutYukon

Available InformationInformation not available $150–$200 per month per pupil, depending on the location of the program. Estimated total for 2001 = $3.2MInformation not availableInformation not availableAverage spending per pupil in maternelle (age 5) = $1,694/yr Average spending per pupil in pré-maternelle (age 4) = $1,879/yr Average spending per 4-year-old in passé-partout = $900/yrAverage spending per 4-year-old = $6,645/yr (full-time equivalent)Average spending per 5-year-old = $6,673/yr (full-time equivalent)Average spending per pupil = $3,500/yr Average spending per pupil in rural areas = $2,189/yrAverage spending per pupil in Regina/Saskatoon = $2,069/yrAverage spending per pupil = $2,184/yrAverage spending per pupil for full-time equivalent = $4,200/yrAverage spending per pupil = $4,570/yrInformation not availableInformation not available

3.6.2 Spending on ECEC programs under federaljurisdiction

Table 3.11 summarizes the federal spending on the mainforms of ECEC provision. The federal government alsoprovides indirect support for ECEC to parents, through

programs such as the Child Care Expense Deduction andMaternity and Parental Benefits. These forms of supportand the impact they have on the child care workforce arediscussed in Chapter Four.

Table 3.11 Estimated Allocations for Federal ECECPrograms, 2002/2003Program

First Nations and Inuit Child Care (FNICC)Aboriginal Head Start – On ReserveAboriginal Head Start, Urban and Northern CommunitiesChild Day Care Program – AlbertaChild Day Care Program OntarioFirst Nation Child and Family Services Head Start – New BrunswickOn-reserve kindergartenChildminding;Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC)Military Family Resource CentresCommunity Action Program for Children

Spending2002/2003

$50M1

$34.7M2

$22.5M3

$2.7M$14.2M$1.4M

$13.4MN/A*

$4M$59.5M

Sources: Human Resources Development Canada, Health Canada & Indian and

Northern Affairs Canada (2003). * Costs for child care cannot be separated from

the total program budget of $91.794 million, which includes adult language

training, child care and transportation.

Notes:1 Includes spending for children under 12, but most expenditures are for children

under 6. Funding for FNICC was increased by $9 million in 2002/2003 under the

federal strategy on ECD for First Nations and Other Aboriginal Children.2 Due to the late announcement (October 2002), full annual funding of $46.5

million could not be allocated in 2002/2003.3 Due to the late announcement (October 2002), full annual funding of $35

million could not be allocated in fiscal year 2002/2003.




3.7 Quality in Regulated Child CareRecent research findings continue to confirm that the qualityof children’s early environments influences their developmentaltrajectories. Increased awareness about the importance of theearly years in general has placed the question of the quality ofchild care programs under a bright spotlight7. While parentalsensitivity and family characteristics have a larger impact onchild development, it is clear that child care experiencesinfluence developmental outcomes and immediate andlong-term coping skills and competencies.8

Child care staff and caregivers’ daily interactions shapethe quality of child care experiences for young children.Those with post-secondary education, particularly if theircredentials are related to ECE, are more likely to providehigh quality child care environments. The quality of thework environment (including wages, benefits, workingconditions and the organization of the work) contributesto the child care staff and caregiver performance andprogram quality in child care settings.

There are many perspectives on, and concepts and definitionsof quality, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of thisstudy. However, the quality of child care programs in Canadais often mediocre and recent findings from Canadian studiesare not encouraging.9 Reports of quality child care indicatethat some regulated child care centres and family child carehomes support optimal early child development, but manyothers offer mediocre, custodial services that meet onlychildren’s basic physical needs.

• The You Bet I Care! study of quality in child care centresused standardized measures of quality, such as theCaregiver Interaction Scale (CIS) and Infant-ToddlerEnvironment Rating Scale (ITERS) or Early ChildhoodEnvironment Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R), toassess 122 infant and toddler rooms and 227 preschoolrooms in 234 centres across six provinces and oneterritory.10 The findings revealed that the majority ofcentres provide physically safe environments with caringadults. Only 44.3% of preschool rooms and 28.7% oftoddler and infant rooms offer activities and adultinteractions that enhance early learning.

• The You Bet I Care! study of quality in regulated familychild care collected data from 231 regulated family childcaregivers across six provinces and one territory using CISand the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS). Similarto child care centre staff, family child caregivers typicallyprovided physically safe environments with caring staff butonly 36.8% provided stimulating activities.11 The qualitytended to be lower for infants under 18 months.

There was considerable discussion in the child care sectorstudy on the factors affecting quality—such as funding,regulation and auspice. Clearly, these remain critical

influences. There have been a number of changes to theregulatory requirements for staffing and staff training.This section looks at these changes to regulation andinitiatives undertaken that are designed to improve quality.

Several jurisdictions in Canada report the implementation ofinitiatives that are specifically designed to improve the qualityof child care programs.12 Many initiatives have introducedobservation and assessment tools to program staff andprovided in-service training and supports. Quality may beencouraged through professional standards of practice forindividual caregivers and for child care settings.

3.7.1 Training requirements in regulated child careSince the child care sector study, changes in trainingrequirements have taken place in both regulated centre-basedand family child care programs in some jurisdictions.

Regulated centre-based child careAll provinces and Yukon now have staff trainingrequirements for centre-based regulated child care. Since thesector study, these jurisdictions have introduced or increasedcentre-based training requirements and/or changed ratiosand group size:• Newfoundland and Labrador (introduced training and

certification requirements; changes to group size)• Nova Scotia (changes to ratio and group size)• New Brunswick (introduced training requirements)• Quebec (increased training requirements)• Manitoba (increased training requirements)• Saskatchewan (increased training requirements)• Yukon (introduced training requirements)

Appendix 2-A provides details of the staffing requirementsfor regulated child care centres, including staff child ratios,group size and staff training requirements.

Regulated family child careSix provinces and Yukon now have caregiver trainingrequirements for regulated family child care. Since the sectorstudy, these jurisdictions have introduced or increasedcaregiver training requirements:• Newfoundland and Labrador (introduced training

requirements)• Quebec (increased hours of required training; introduced

provider supervision by CPE) • Manitoba (introduced training requirements)• Saskatchewan (increased hours of required training;

introduced professional development requirement)

Appendix 2-B provides details of current caregiver trainingrequirements for regulated family child care, includingcaregiver:child ratios and caregiver training requirements.



M A I N R E P O R T

3.7.2 Government-supported initiatives toimprove quality

In some jurisdictions, there have been projects and initiativesto address quality issues in both centre-based and familychild care. As well, some jurisdictions have expanded therole of the person who licenses child care programs. Personsin the licensing role in these jurisdictions include consultingand assisting with quality as part of their responsibilities.They may have some early childhood training.

The ECERS-R (preschool rooms), ITERS (infant/toddlerrooms) and FDCRs (family child care) scales are the main toolsused to assess and monitor child care environments in order toimprove the quality of care available to young children.

Keeping the Door OpenInterestingly enough, one of the first projects addressingquality evolved from preliminary You Bet I Care! findingsthat stated that approximately 40% of centres nationally wereunable to accept at least one child with a disability.13 Theproject Keeping the Door Open: Enhancing and Maintaining theCapacity of Centres to Include Children with Special Needs soughtto improve overall quality in child care centres to create abetter environment for all children, including children withdisabilities. This project was sponsored by the New BrunswickAssociation for Community Living and funded by Child CareVisions, Human Resources Development Canada). A briefdescription of the project is provided in Box 3.1.14

Keeping the Door Open involved 12 child care centres inthree provinces—three in each of Prince Edward Island andNew Brunswick and six in Saskatchewan. After the Keepingthe Door Open project ended, governments and communitypartners in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick developed further projects and programs toaddress quality in child care environments.

“Opening the Door” to Quality Child Care and Development isthe New Brunswick quality project evolving from Keepingthe Door Open. This project began in April 2002 and iscontinuing in 2003 with phase two. Up to this point,approximately 64 centres have voluntarily participated with adirector from each centre and no less than two lead stafffrom each centre being involved.

The project involves an on-site consultation model in whichconsultants/facilitators work with lead centre staff to effect qualitychanges in the centre environment, both for children and staff.Also, through ongoing professional development, support andresources provided through “Opening the Door,” staff areincreasing their capacity to include all children. “Opening theDoor” provides training to all staff in participating centres in theECERS-R and other evaluation tools that assist staff in developingbest practices. Each phase is funded by Family and CommunityServices, New Brunswick government, and is coordinated by theNew Brunswick Association for Community Living.

Partnerships for InclusionPartnerships for Inclusion is a joint quality project of theEarly Intervention Association of Nova Scotia and SpeciaLink:The National Centre for Child Care Inclusion, funded by aprovincial grant (part of Nova Scotia’s Early ChildhoodDevelopment Initiative). The project’s premise is that qualitychild care programs provide environments that are responsiveto the developmental needs of all children, including childrenwith disabilities. Facilitators work with child care centre staffto evaluate (using ECERS-R) and improve their centre’senvironment and daily program. On-site consultation,workshops and resources provide information and supportto staff. This project was offered in 22 licensed full-day childcare centres throughout Nova Scotia in 2002/2003.

MIKEMIKE (Measuring and Improving Kids Environments) isthe program addressing quality in Prince Edward Island.Initially a 2-year pilot project to support inclusion, MIKEnow provides program support and training to licensed earlychildhood programs, increasing the level of quality byincreasing the capacity of staff to provide higher qualityservices for all children in their programs. Consultants workwith child care centre staff to learn to use ECERS-R anddevelop goals and objectives for their centres. MIKE involvesfull-day centre-based programs and school-age centres on avoluntary basis; family child care programs will be includedin the future. The Early Childhood Development

51

Sources : New Brunswick Association for Community Living (2001).

Box 3.1Keeping the Door Open: An On-Site Consultation ModelAdapted from Palsha and Wesley (1998).

Sites and Educators Request Assistance or Are Identified as Havinga Need for Assistance.

Keeping the Door Open project used an on-site consultation model toenhance and maintain the capacity of child care centres to include allchildren. Consultants and staff worked together through a 10-step processto build capacity and develop strategies to support meeting the needsof all children in the child care centre: Capacity Building:

1. Establish Relationships2. Provide Training for ECERS-R Scale3. Jointly Assess Needs4. Collaborative Action Plan

On-Site Consultation5. On-Site Consultation6. Evaluate Changes7. Sustainability Period8. Evaluation After Sustainability9. Written Report10. Identification of Future Needs

While the project used on-site consultation, with visiting consultants,a subsequently published Keeping the Door Open: Guide presents theentire program for use by centres using a visiting consultant and thoseusing an “in-centre” model.


3.7.3 Quality and the role of person who licenseschild care programs

The role and qualifications of the person who licenses childcare programs has changed and expanded since the lastsector study. In many jurisdictions, the licensing officialcarries out a variety of tasks, including enforcing regulationsand assisting programs to meet and exceed the regulations,as well as assisting with the placement of children withspecial needs.

The licensing official is an important consideration, both asa support to quality and as a career path opportunity formembers of the child care workforce. Table 3.12 summarizesinformation about the qualifications and role of the officialin each province and territory who is responsible forlicensing child care programs.• Some jurisdictions require that the licensing officials have

an ECE credential (New Brunswick, Northwest Territoriesand Yukon). In Newfoundland and Labrador, child careconsultants require Level IV (a degree in ECE, or a degreein another discipline, plus a diploma in ECE)qualifications.

• Other jurisdictions do not require a credential, but inpractice hire people with an ECE credential (e.g. inManitoba, day care centre coordinators are ECE IIIs whohave been in a supervisory director position for at least 5years), or related training (e.g. in Nova Scotia, earlychildhood development officers have either ECE or ChildStudy degrees from Mount Saint Vincent, or both, andexperience in early childhood settings).

The provincial/territorial directors of early learning and caredeveloped a research project, undertaken by Child CareConnections-Nova Scotia and funded through Child CareVisions, to examine good licensing practices. The report ofPhase One of the Best Practices Framework for Licensing ChildCare in Canada project was published in 2000.16 Phase Two isfocusing on the licensing professional: job description,identification of knowledge required and competencies, areasof training needed and resources available.



Association of Prince Edward Island receives funds from theprovincial government (part of its Early ChildhoodDevelopment Initiative) to administer MIKE and the budgetcovers staff salaries for two consultants. Data are collected todemonstrate the impact of this program.

Alberta Child Care Accreditation ProgramThe Alberta Child Care Initiative, introduced in December2002, aims to strengthen standards and best practices in childcare settings through three programs, The Child Care RespiteProgram, the Nutrition Program and the Alberta Child CareAccreditation Program.

The Child Care Accreditation Program is based on thefindings that higher quality child care leads to betteroutcomes for children and families. This program is movingthrough three phases: pre-accreditation, pilot and review ofthe accreditation process, and full implementation of theChild Care Accreditation Program by April 2004.

The pre-accreditation phase, introduced in January 2003,is based on a child care program’s compliance with criticallicensing standards and supports qualified staff recruitmentand retention. Child care centres and family day homeagencies are eligible for funds that support staff and providersand acknowledge meeting or exceeding standards (centres)and support training (family child care). The CanadianChild Care Federation with the Alberta Child CareNetwork are developing the actual accreditation programto be completed by April 2004 when actual accreditationwill be in place. Further details of the pre-accreditationphase are found in Box 3.2.15

Sources : Alberta Children’s Services (2004).

Box 3.2Alberta Child Care Accreditation Program – Phase One,Pre-accreditationPre-accreditation funds are attached to meeting or exceedingprovincial standards (of those which meet or exceed standards, 100%of family day home agencies and more than 90% of day care centreshave applied to participate in this voluntary program which requiresaudited reporting).

Day care centres are able to receive two types of funding:• staff support funding: monthly funding for staff based on

certification level• quality funding: based on the licensed capacity and whether the

centre generally or consistently is in compliance with licensingrequirements.

Family day homes are able to receive two types of funding:• provider support funding: paid monthly for providers who are in

the process or have completed mandatory training as identifiedin the Provincial Safety Standards document Training forDirect Care Providers

• training grant funding: agencies are paid an annual amount perprovider to develop training to meet training requirements underAlberta Safety Standards



M A I N R E P O R T

53

Sour

ces:

Frie

ndly

, Bea

ch &

Tur

iano

(20

02).

LMU

key

info

rman

t in

terv

iew

s an

d pr

ovin

cial

que

stio

nnai

res.

New

foun

dlan

d an

dLa

brad

orPr

ince

Edw

ard

Isla

ndNo

va S

coti

a

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Queb

ec

Onta

rio

Man

itob

a

Sask

atch

ewan

Albe

rta

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

aNu

navu

tNo

rthw

est

Terr

itor

ies

Yuko

n Te

rrit

ory

Child

car

e se

rvic

esco

nsul

tant

Lice

nsin

g of

fice

rs

Early

chi

ldho

odde

velo

pmen

t of

fice

rsRe

gion

al c

oord

inat

ors

MFE

(M

inis

tère

de

la F

amill

eet

l’En

fanc

e) in

spec

tors

Prog

ram

Adv

isor

sDa

y ca

re c

entr

e co

ordi

nato

rs

Child

car

e co

nsul

tant

Child

car

e sp

ecia

list

Med

ical

hea

lth

offi

cer

Early

chi

ldho

od o

ffic

er

Early

chi

ldho

od o

ffic

er o

rco

nsul

tant

Child

car

e in

spec

tor

Requ

ires

Leve

l 4 c

ertif

icat

ion

(2-y

r di

plom

a pl

us);

30 h

rs o

f pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t in

3 y

rs

No E

CE t

rain

ing

requ

ired;

pro

vide

d w

ith

oppo

rtun

ities

for

ongo

ing

trai

ning

Re

quire

s EC

E cr

eden

tial,

early

chi

ldho

od, s

peci

aled

ucat

ion

or e

quiv

alen

t to

B.E

d le

vel

No E

CE t

rain

ing

requ

ired

No E

CE t

rain

ing

requ

ired

No E

CE t

rain

ing

requ

ired;

in p

ract

ice

hire

s EC

EII

Is w

ho h

ave

been

in s

uper

viso

ry d

irect

orpo

sitio

n fo

r at

leas

t 5

yrs

No E

CE t

rain

ing

requ

ired;

pre

fere

nce

ECba

ckgr

ound

and

exp

erie

nce

in c

entr

es. F

ocus

on

skill

s vs

. tra

inin

g du

e to

rur

al a

nd n

orth

Job

desc

riptio

n as

ks fo

r EC

tra

inin

gEC

E tr

aini

ng n

ot r

equi

red

Reco

mm

ende

d ba

ckgr

ound

in E

CEEC

E di

plom

a pl

us 6

yrs

’ exp

erie

nce,

2 o

f whi

chm

ust

be fr

ont

line,

req

uire

dBa

ckgr

ound

in E

CE r

equi

red

Prog

ram

ass

essm

ent

and

wor

ksho

ps fo

r lic

ense

es a

nd s

taff

, sup

port

and

mon

itorin

g w

ith

som

e lic

ensi

ng a

nd s

ubsi

dy r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s (d

epen

ding

on

regi

on)

Mov

e be

yond

enf

orce

men

t to

impr

ove

qual

ity w

ith

MIK

E pr

ogra

m.

Lice

nsin

g, c

onsu

lting

, sup

port

ed c

hild

car

e an

d su

bsid

y pr

ogra

m

Prim

ary

resp

onsi

bilit

y is

to

brin

g ce

ntre

s up

to

licen

sing

req

uire

men

ts, p

rovi

de t

echn

ical

assi

stan

ce, l

ooki

ng a

t fu

nctio

n in

enh

ance

men

t ca

paci

ty; n

ot s

tric

tly in

spec

tors

Reso

urce

, con

sulti

ng a

nd li

cens

ing

role

; ass

ist

prog

ram

s w

ith

qual

ity a

nd c

ompl

ying

wit

hre

gula

tions

; mai

ntai

n a

case

load

of c

hild

ren

wit

h di

sabi

litie

s an

d w

ork

wit

h ce

ntre

s to

dete

rmin

e su

ppor

t ch

ild/r

en n

eed;

att

end

conf

eren

ces

and

acce

ss t

o EC

ERS-

R tr

aini

ng w

hich

is o

ffer

ed a

s a

reso

urce

to

cent

res

Lice

nsin

g ro

le a

nd c

onsu

ltan

t on

qua

lity

(e.g

. ECE

RS-R

tra

inin

g)M

ain

lens

: “he

alth

and

saf

ety”

; som

e re

gion

s m

ay h

ave

a fa

cilit

ativ

e ro

le

Prog

ram

sup

port

Cons

ulta

tive

role

, use

ECE

RS-R

; mov

e be

yond

lice

nsin

g to

qua

lity

Tabl

e 3.

12 T

rain

ing

and

Role

of

Regu

lato

ry O

ffic

ials

, by

Prov

ince

and

Ter

rito

ryPr

ovin

ce o

r Te

rrit

ory

Posi

tion

Tit

leTr

aini

ng R

equi

red

Role




3.7.4 Child Care and Early Learning Perspectives onQuality: the Example of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) is a part-dayprogram targeted to 3- and 4-year-olds who are consideredto be at risk for developmental delays. The program isadministered and funded through the provincialDepartment of Learning in partnership with local schooldivisions. A recent report on a longitudinal study of the

Regina Public School Division Pre-kindergartens reportedthat the Pre-K programs were of higher quality than childcare programs in the province, based on assessments usingthe ECER-S. This comparison is a sensitive issue to earlychildhood educators working in the child care sector. Ananalysis of the factors that may contribute to quality—orlack thereof—provides some insight into the reasons forthis inequity. (See Box 3.3.)

Box 3.3 – A Comparison of Pre-kindergarten and Child Care in SaskatchewanPre-kindergarten (PreK)PreK is typically offered as a part-day session (less than 3 hrs), with twodifferent groups of children in each half of the day. PreK operatesMonday to Thursday during the regular school year, with no classes onFridays to allow teachers to work with parents and participate inprofessional development activities. Guidelines for PreK (Government ofSaskatchewan, 1997, Better Beginnings, Better Futures) suggest amaximum class size of 16 children with one teacher and one assistant.Typically, PreK is located within a school and teachers have access to allof the services and supports provided by the school system, includingjanitorial services, administrative support, and assessments and servicesfor children identified as requiring special supports. Teachers are part ofthe school team and participate in professional development andcommunity activities.

In almost all school divisions, PreK teachers must meet the sameeducation and certification requirements as other teachers, includinghaving a 4-year bachelor’s degree in education. Many school divisions,including Regina Public, offer specialized early childhood professionaldevelopment activities specific to PreK and kindergarten teachers.Teachers are members of the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation whichprovides them with the same rights, benefits and salaries as otherteachers in the province. Annual salaries range from $32,000 to$66,000. Benefits include paid sick time, health and dental, disabilityand group life insurance, pension, and top up to maternity EI benefitsto 95% of salary.

The Pre-K program is completely funded through public tax dollars;there are no user fees for parents.

Child CareChild care programs operate full days, often in excess of 10 hours perday. Early childhood educators are sometimes required to work splitshifts to accommodate the length of the day. Centres are open everyworking day of the year and are busiest during school holidays whenschool-age children attend full days. Ratios are 1:10 for preschoolgroups and 1:15 for school-age children. In addition to planning andpreparing the program and environment, early childhood educators arealso required to assist with meal preparations, lay out cots for naptime,sweep and mop floors, and clean toilets. During naptime—the onlydown time in the day—some staff take lunch breaks while those leftsupervising napping children are expected to do double duty using thetime for program planning and administrative tasks. Staff meetings,professional development activities and required courses such as FirstAid and CPR are usually scheduled in the evenings or on weekends,requiring early childhood educators to spend additional time away fromtheir own families and personal lives.Provincial child care regulations require that child care staff working formore than 65 hours per month be at least 16 yrs of age and havesuccessfully completed a 120-hour introductory course in ECE. As ofJanuary 2005, 30% of staff are required to have a 1-year certificate inECE. Directors are required to have a 2-year diploma. Additionaleducation or professional development activities are often at theexpense of the individual with minimal financial support availablethrough a provincial tuition subsidy or non-profit boards. The averagewage of a Saskatchewan child care worker is $10.74 per hour Benefits,such as paid sick time, health and dental, pension, disability and grouplife, vary from centre to centre, but are generally considered poor,particularly compared to teachers’ benefits.Child care is partially funded through public tax dollars; however,parents are required to pay user fees, with approximately 50% offamilies using child care which are ineligible for any subsidy.

Analyses of the factors that contribute to quality early childhoodprograms highlight the systemic inequities between the childcare system and the PreK system. Despite these conditions,many child care programs overcome systemic barriers to

provide good experiences for young children. There arelessons to be learned from the PreK study that could positivelyaffect the child care system to ensure the investment of publicdollars, resulting in high quality early learning and care.



M A I N R E P O R T

55

Figu

re 3

.1 O

verv

iew

of C

hild

Car

e an

d Re

late

d EC

EC S

ervi

ces

Kin

derg

arte

nfo

r 5-

yr-o

lds

Pre-

K fo

r3-

and

4-yr

-old

s

ECEC

und

erE

duca

tion

Aut

hori

tyPr

ovin

ces

and

Terr

itori

es

Scho

ol-a

ge c

are

in Q

uebe

cA

ges

5–12

Cen

tre-

bas

edch

ild c

are

Age

s 0–

6

Reg

ula

ted C

hild

Car

ePro

vince

s an

dTe

rritor

ies

Fam

ily c

hild

car

eA

ges

0–12

Scho

ol-a

ge c

are

Age

s 5–

12O

ther

EC

EC

ser

vice

sw

ithin

p/t

juri

sdic

tion

(e.g

.Fa

mily

Res

ourc

e C

entr

es,

Ear

ly Y

ears

Cen

tres

,Chi

ld C

are

Res

ourc

es a

nd R

efer

ral,

Ear

lyIn

terv

entio

n pr

ogra

ms)

Unre

gula

ted a

rran

gem

ents

(e.g

.car

e in

/out

-of-

hom

e by

non-

pare

nt,n

urse

ry s

choo

ls in

som

e ju

risd

ictio

ns,c

hild

min

ding

,re

crea

tion

prog

ram

s,su

mm

er c

amps

)

ECEC

Und

er F

eder

al A

egis

On-

rese

rve

kind

erga

rten

Chi

ldm

indi

ng,

LIN

C p

rogr

ams

Mili

tary

Fam

ilyR

esou

rce

Cen

tres

Abo

rigi

nal

Hea

d St

art

on-

and

off-

rese

rve

Firs

tN

atio

nsan

d In

uit

Chi

ld C

are

Chi

ld D

ayC

are

Prog

ram

ON

,AB,

Chi

ld a

ndFa

mily

Ser

vice

sH

ead

Star

t N

B




ENDNOTES

1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001

2 Tougas 2002

3 Ibid

4 B. Guy, personal communication, October 3, 2003

5 British Columbia 2003

6 Doherty, Friendly & Beach in press

7 Beach & Bertrand 2000; McCain & Mustard 1999; NICHD 2000

8 Brooks-Gunn 2003; Cleveland & Krashinsky 1998; Doherty 2000; NICHD 2000; Smart Start Evaluation Team 2003

9 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, Tougas & LaGrange 2000; Doherty, Lero, Tougas, LaGrange & Goelman 2001; Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 2000

10 Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 2000

11 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, Tougas & LaGrange 2000

12 Aboriginal Head Start 2000; Atlantic Evaluation and Research Consultants 2003; Campaign 2000 2003; Child Care Human Resources RoundTable 2001; Department of Community Services

& Department of Health 2002; Doherty 2000; Doherty 2001a; Doherty, Lero, Tougas, LaGrange & Goelman 2001; Ferguson, Flanagan-Rochon, Hautmann, Lutes, Masson & Mauch 2000; Friendly,

Beach & Turiano 2002; Gouvernement du Québec 2000; Hewes & Brown 2002; Jomphe & Lessard 1998a; Jomphe & Lessard 1998b; New Brunswick Association for Community Living 2001;

St. Albin & Maxwell 2003

13 Doherty, Lero, Goleman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000

14 New Brunswick Association for Community Living 2001

15 L. Rogers, personal communication, July 30, 2003

16 Ferguson, Flanagan-Rochon, Hautmann, Lutes, Masson & Mauch 2000

17 Friendly, Beach and Turiano, 2002


4C H A P T E RI D E N T I F Y I N G A N D A D D R E S S I N G T H E D E M A N D F O R C H I L D C A R E


The 1998 child care sector study identified a number ofelements affecting the demand for child care and the demandfor the child care workforce. The elements affecting demandfor child care fell into two main categories: the public policyenvironment and the demographic environment. The demandfor the child care workforce is obviously driven by thedemand for child care, but also by provincial/territorialregulations that stipulate child:staff ratios and requiredproportion of staff with specific qualifications, turnover ratesand other job opportunities in the broader ECEC sector.Precise calculations based only on factors that are quantifiablewill not capture the dynamics involved, but further discussionof each element should assist policy makers, educators and thesector in planning for the future.

In the LMU, we are focusing on the key changes thathave occurred since the sector study that are specific toissues of demand.

4.1 Major Public Policy Changes and InitiativesThe current public policy landscape in Canada has changedsince the 1998 child care sector study. The importance of theearly years is on the public radar screen and is influencingpublic policy and funding decisions. Increasingly, reports andpublications conclude that the recognition of child care as animportant component of any strategy to address early childdevelopment is essential. Public policy is one of the keydrivers of demand for child care. The level and types ofpublic funding, eligibility for access to programs, andplanning for service development all play a major role inaffecting parent “choice”—what programs are available thatthey can afford, are convenient, that meet the developmentneeds of their child, and that operate at hours suitable totheir employment if they are working.

In most Western European countries, the majority ofpreschool children attend publicly funded and publiclydelivered ECEC programs for at least 2 years before entryinto formal schooling. Governments and public opinionrecognize the need for public investment in ECEC.1 Thereis considerable attention to the transition between earlychildhood programs and the school system and the need forpedagogical consistency.3 The purpose of these ECECprograms is twofold: to support optimal child developmentand to support parents’ participation in the workforce. Goalsand targets are established for provision and for quality.

In Canada, every province and territory provideskindergarten for 5-year-olds that is widely available for allchildren. There are no direct user fees, access is not tied toparental labour force participation nor are there othereligibility restrictions. However, since the primary purpose ofkindergarten is child development and preparation for formalschooling, little consideration is given to the labour force

needs of parents in the design of the program. Other formsof ECEC provision are generally developed in an ad hocmanner, with the main responsibility falling to parentgroups, voluntary organizations and small businesses to planfor, to develop, to fund and to operate programs. With a fewnotable exceptions—the governments of Quebec (and to alimited extent, Manitoba) and the City of Toronto—there isno overall plan for child care.

The approach to funding child care primarily as a support tolabour force participation with eligibility criteria that changeregularly, and separate initiatives to support early childhooddevelopment, have resulted in increased fragmentation withinregulated child care and increased instability for its workforce.

There have been a number of key policy changes andinitiatives in the last few years with the potential to have asignificant impact on the development of child care and onthe demand for early childhood educators. ECEC programsare broadening beyond the scope of regulated child care.Some school boards are showing an interest in extendingtheir programs for younger children; there has been aproliferation of new “early years” programs, usually aimed atboth parents and children, and there has been muchdiscussion about the need for better integration of child care,education and parenting supports. The demand for skilled,qualified early childhood educators is growing, but acoordinated effort of service planning and service integrationwill be essential to develop a sustainable system of ECEC inwhich child care has a clearly defined role.

The following is a description of four key policy changes andinfluences that are affecting the development of and demandfor service and for the ECEC workforce:• the increase in maternity and parental benefits;• the Early Childhood Development Agreement and the

Multi-Lateral Agreement on Early Learning and Child Care;• how Quebec addressed the demand for child care; and• the OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood

Education and Care.

4.1.1 Increased maternity and parental leavesand benefits

In 2000, the federal government more than tripled theamount of time an eligible mother or father could receiveparental benefits. Bill C-32 amended the EmploymentInsurance Act, increasing the maximum length of parental andadoption benefits for eligible parents from 10 to 35 weeks.Parental benefits are available to both biological and adoptiveparents and can be shared by the parents, and now only oneparent must serve the 2-week waiting period when parentsshare parental benefits. For biological parents, the combinedmaternity and parental benefits are now paid for 1 year.Federal benefits provide eligible employees with salary

57



C H A P T E R 4 - I D E N T I F Y I N G A N D A D D R E S S I N G T H E D E M A N D F O R C H I L D C A R E

replacement of 55% of earnings up to a maximum of$413/week. All provinces and territories have revised theiremployment standards legislation to reflect this extendedbenefit period, though there is some variation acrossjurisdictions in the details of the leave provision.

There has been a dramatic increase in both the number ofclaimants and the duration of the benefit. Early results ontake-up suggest that eligible parents are taking a significantlylonger period at home following the birth or adoption of achild; however, in 2001 61% of women received benefits,compared with 54% in 2000 and 52% in 1995.4 The impactof the new parental leave provisions are only beginning tobe felt, but will likely include:• a reduced demand for care for very young infants;• an increased demand for family resource centres and other

parenting programs; and• an increased need for replacement staff in child care centres

when child care staff are taking longer parental leaves.

Source: Marshall (2003).

Box 4.1Some Changes Since the Amendment to the EmploymentInsurance Legislation• There was an increase in length of leave, from an average of 5 to 6

months to between 9 and 12 months.• Women with partners claiming parental benefits were 4.6 times more

likely to return to work within 8 months than those whose partnersdid not claim benefits.

• There has been a five-fold increase in the number of men receivingparental benefits.

• Mothers who returned to work within 4 months had median annualearnings of just under $16,000.

• Among self-employed women, the median time off work was 1 month,both in 2000 and 2001.

In 1995, approximately 52% of mothers with newborns receivedmaternity benefits (194,000 claims; 370,000 births).In 2001, 61% of mothers with newborns received maternity benefits.Of those who did not receive benefits:• 23% were not in the paid labour force;• 12% were ineligible or did not apply; and• 5% were self-employed.

Source: 2001/2002 EI administrative data.

Table 4.1 Average Length of Maternity, Parental and Adoption Benefits, 2001/2002Maternity Benefits 2001/2002 Parental Benefits 2001/2002

Number ofBirths

327,187

Number of MaternityClaims

193,020

Average Length ofBenefit (Weeks)

14.6

Biological: Average Length ofBenefit (Weeks)

Adoptive: Average Length ofBenefit (Weeks)

Women23.5

Men14.5

Women29.0

Men 19.0

Table 4.1 shows the average length of benefits taken formaternity, parental and adoption leave in 2001/2002.Table 4.2 shows the increase in spending, benefit levels

and number of claimants between the time of the sectorstudy and the first year of the enhanced program.



M A I N R E P O R T

59

Source: Beach, Bertrand & Cleveland (1998); EI administrative data 2001/2002.

Table 4.2 Spending on Maternity and Parental Benefits and Number of Claimants, 1995 and 2001/2002Spending $ (millions) Average Weekly Benefit ($) Number of ClaimantsBenefit Type

Maternity Parental

Adoption

2001/2002842.9

1,279.8Women: 1,176.9Men: 102.9

21.5Women: 18.18Men: 2.97

1995274.97279.38

348.05

2001/2002294

Women: 299Men: 362

Women: 346Men: 377

1995778440

6

1995194,000

Women: 173,000Men: 7,000

Women: 1,300Men: 200

2001/2002193,020

Women: 185,550Men: 23,120

Women: 2,130Men: 470

Chart 4.1 shows the increase in the number of bothmothers and fathers claiming parental benefits in

the first year of the expanded program.

Chart 4.1 Number of New Parental Benefit Claims by Men and Women, by Fiscal Year

Source: Human Resources Development Canada (2003).




Chart 4.3 Average Length of Adoption Claim in Weeks for Men and Women, by Fiscal Year


1 The Government of Quebec supported the general principles of the ECD Agreement but it does not participate in federal/provincial/territorial agreements.

4.1.2 The Early Childhood Development Agreement and theMulti-Lateral Agreement on Early Learning and ChildCare5.

In September 2000, Canada’s First Ministers1 announced anagreement on early childhood development services, as partof the National Children’s Agenda. The Early ChildhoodDevelopment (ECD) Agreement focuses on children 0 to 6and has the following objectives:• to promote early childhood development so that, to their

fullest potential, children will be physically and

emotionally healthy, safe and secure, ready to learn, andsocially engaged and responsible; and

• to help children reach their potential and to help familiessupport their children within strong communities.

First Ministers agreed on four key areas of action:• healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy; • parenting and family supports; • early childhood development, learning and care; and • community supports.

Charts 4.2 and 4.3 show the dramatic increase in thelength of benefit period and the overall spending after

the first year of the increased benefit period.

Chart 4.2 Average Length of Parental Benefit Claim in Weeks for Men and Women, by Fiscal Year




M A I N R E P O R T

First Ministers indicated that investments for early childhooddevelopment should be “incremental, predictable and sustainedover the long term.” The Government of Canada committed$2.2 billion over five years to provincial/territorialgovernments through the Canada Health and Social Transfer(CHST), to support early childhood development programsand services undertaken by provincial/territorial governments.In 2001/2002, approximately $18.4 million of the $300 millionallocated to early childhood development was spent onregulated child care, or just over 6% of the total. The rangeof spending on child care across provinces and territorieswas from 0% to over 60%. Some provinces and territoriessaw considerable growth and enhancements to regulated childcare, and in others development of and expansion to a rangeof family support and education programs, often to theexclusion of child care. As a result of the ECD Agreementthere have been many new job opportunities for qualifiedearly childhood educators, but many of those opportunitiesare in programs other than child care. Since the “other”programs are generally publicly funded and are not relianton user fees, they have often been able to pay better wagesand provide better working conditions than child care centres.The result has contributed to the shortage of qualified earlychildhood educators to work in regulated child care.

In March 2003, building on the ECD Agreement, theFederal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible forSocial Services agreed to a framework to improve accessto affordable, quality, provincially and territorially regulatedearly learning and child care programs and services.

The objective of the Multilateral Framework Agreementon Early Learning and Child Care is to further promoteearly childhood development, and support the participationof parents in employment or training by improving accessto affordable, quality early learning and child care programsand services. In the first 2 years of the agreement,$100 million will be transferred through the CHST to theprovinces and territories for regulated early learning andchild care programs for children under 6, primarily fordirect care and early learning for children in settings suchas child care centres, family child care homes, preschoolsand nursery schools. By year 5, $350 million will betransferred to the provinces and territories1.

The Multilateral Framework Agreement is seen bysome as the first step toward a national child care program.It is therefore particularly important that the child care sectoraddress both the current problem of attracting and retainingqualified staff, and to plan for the future increase in childcare services and the related labour market needs2.

4.1.3 How Quebec addressed the demand for child care In 1996, after years of pressure from unions, child careassociations, advocacy groups and parents, the Governmentof Quebec, with the Parti Québécois in power, decided tofocus attention and resources on ECEC in order to supportfamilies and children, reduce poverty, support women’sequality and labour market attachment.

Quebec took a multifaceted approach to the developmentand expansion of regulated child care—the only real exampleof a concerted effort to develop a system with goals, targetlevels of service and a time frame for achieving the goals.The development of this system has been observed withmuch interest across the rest of Canada—by policy makers,by child care advocates and by the sector itself, and there aremany lessons to be learned from this ongoing development.

Because ECEC was a major component of a global strategyfor social and economic development, Quebec chose toaddress important issues related to child care. Among thesewere issues related to quality, affordability, accessibility,inclusion, human resources and financing.

A systematic and comprehensive plan was developed andimplemented. This plan revolved around several keyelements:• creating a new ministry: Ministère de la Famille et de

l’Enfance (MFE), responsible for family policy and childcare programs for preschool children;

• making child care a key component of a three-prongedfamily policy; and

• restructuring the child care infrastructure through the:• amalgamation of centre-based care (non-profit centres)

and family child care services into early childhoodmulti-service agencies (CPEs) and gradual introductionof a $5/day program for all children 0 to 4

• significant expansion of preschool child care services• introduction of full-day kindergarten for 5-year-olds

61

1 The 2004 federal budget increased funding by $75 million annually for both 2004/2005 and 2005/2006.2 In the 2004 federal election campaign, the Liberal Party included in its platform a 5-year, $5-billion “Foundations” program to accelerate the establishment of a

Canada-wide early learning and child care system.




• significant expansion of school-age child care programsat $5/day through the school system

• public funding of approximately 80% of the cost, withparent fees covering approximately 20%

Increasing the requirements for and access to training.• increasing the required proportion of trained staff to

two thirds of staff with a certificate (Attestation) plus3 years’ experience or a 3-year diploma (DEC).It appears that after a major campaign from 1999 to2002, led by the MFE, the colleges and EmploiQuébec, there is a sufficient number of trained staffto cover the needs of the CPEs at the provincial level;however, in some regions or sub-regions, there is alack of qualified educators

• additional training requirements for centre-based staffand family child care providers. For FDC providers,45 hours of training and first aid, and 6 hours ofprofessional development a year

• introduction of university-level certificates in areassuch as early childhood development andprogramming, management, pedagogical training(conseillère pédagogique) and school-age child care

• provision of an ECE program through Emploi Québecfor people who did not have the training requirementsat a certificate level (880 hours of CEGEP level)

• in school-age programs, the unions were successful atthe bargaining table in 1999 in getting the employer torecognize the educational dimension of the coordinatorand staff roles. Coordinators are now required to havea college diploma in ECE or an equivalentqualification; however, no specialized training isrequired of staff, other than high school completionand a first aid course.

• regional child care organizations have established an“educator replacement-referral service” whereby CPEswhich need educators call in for staff. There is a closerelationship with the colleges which train new graduates.

• Recognition through quality and improved wages andworking conditions

• introduction of an educational framework both incentre-based care and family child care. Centred onlearning through play and holistic development of thechild, it is quite close to the framework used inkindergarten.

• a major campaign undertaken from 1999 to 2002promoting child care as a career

• significant wage increases (average 40% over 4 years)in 1999. A 3-year contract was negotiated at theprovincial level with the confédération des syndicatesnationaux . The salary and experience grid is applicableto all centres, whether unionized or not.

• in 2003, the introduction of a pension plan • in 2003, the extension of the contract for 1 year with

a 2% overall wage increase

• establishment of a pay equity committee; the analysesof its findings are still in process.

• increased family child care provider’s remuneration in1999, as well as in 2003

The expansion and diversification of child care serviceshave increased job opportunities in the sector. Between 1995and 2003, Quebec increased the number of child carespaces as follows:• 36,788 centre-based preschool spaces, creating

approximately 5,255 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions• 93,960 school-age spaces, creating approximately

6,265 positions• 57,490 family child care spaces, increasing the number

of regulated family child care providers byapproximately 11,500

The role of the unions• In 1999 central bargaining was introduced. As a result of

central bargaining, an employer’s association was developedto represent the CPEs at the bargaining table, along withthe unions representing employees and government.Central bargaining played an important role in addressingrecruitment and retention concerns—wages, benefits andworking conditions were significantly improved; theseimprovements applied to all CPEs, whether or not theywere unionized.

• Wage scales were negotiated in 1999 for all positionswithin a CPE, including those of the managerial staff.

• The unions have played an important role in recognizingthe importance of school-age child care by definingwithin the collective agreement the position ofcoordinators and staff and by pushing for a minimumlevel of training.

• Up until 1999, the wages of staff in school-age programswere superior to those of early childhood educators incentre-based care despite lower educational requirements.The school-age program employees were all unionized.With the 1999 negotiations in the CPEs, the disparityhas disappeared and now wages are close to equivalent,although the educational requirements are still lower inschool-age programs.

Turnover• It would appear that with the implementation of the salary

grid, taking into account training and years of experience,there was considerable turnover in the first year of thereform. A number of staff who were no longer satisfiedwith their work environment moved to other centres toimprove their overall conditions, even if they stayed intheir same position (i.e. continued working as a cook or asa teacher), because they would not be financiallypenalized. The situation appears to have since stabilized.



M A I N R E P O R T

• There was also turnover due to the massive expansionand numerous job openings. For instance, an educatorwho felt she would not be able to access a higher leveljob within her CPE because of colleagues with moreseniority moved to a new CPE where she could becomesupervisor-coordinator or even directrice générale.

• According to a ministry report published in June 2003 onturnover rates of family child care providers, 700 providerssubmitted a request to disaffiliate from their CPE in2001/2002. The year before, the number was 818.This is a relatively low rate of 5.8%.

Other initiatives• There are pilot projects under way in 20 CPEs, where

affiliated family child care providers do not have toinclude their school-age children in their ratio.

• A study on human resources needs in Quebec’s childcare system is due to be published in spring 2004.

• The government no longer requires small- and medium-size (under $1 million annual payroll) businesses (CPEs inthis instance are considered to be businesses) to invest 1%of payroll in training. This will certainly have an impacton the provision of in-service training in child care.

4.1.4 The OECD Thematic Review of Early ChildhoodEducation and Care

In 1998, the Education Committee of the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD)launched a Thematic Review of Early Childhood Educationand Care (ECEC). The OECD provided the followingrationale for undertaking the review:6:

The provision of care and education for young children is anecessary condition for ensuring the equal access of women tothe labour market. In addition, early development is seen as thefoundation for lifelong learning. When sustained by effective fiscal,social and employment measures in support of parents andcommunities, early childhood programming can help to provide afair start in life for all children and contribute to social integration

Twelve countries participated in this review, and followedthe same process: the preparation of a Background Reportwithin a common framework across countries; visits by aninternational review team; and the preparation of the“Country Note,” the results of the findings from theinternational review team. Following the 12 reviews, acomparative analysis of major policy developments andissues, identification of innovative approaches, and policyoptions and lessons was undertaken and presented in thereport of the Thematic Review, Starting Strong7.

A second Thematic Review was begun in 2002 with Canadaas one of the eight participating countries. Four provincesagreed to host the international team, which visited programsand met with officials and the ECEC community inSeptember 2003. The Background Report and Country Noteare expected to be released in the fall of 2004.

While the results of this review have not resulted in anypolicy changes to date, the review has served an importantfunction in raising a number of issues about the currentdelivery of ECEC.

Canada can now be compared with and learn from the provisionof ECEC in other OECD countries, as well as consider theprovision of ECEC services within a broader framework.

The policy developments and policy lessons in Starting Strongare being considered and drawn on by governments and thechild care community. For example, the Child Care Advocacy

Association of Canada recently prepared a discussion paperthat applies the policy lessons to the Canadian context, makesrecommendations and presents options to advance child care.

Seven cross-national policy trends were identified in Starting Strong:1. Expanding provision toward universal access2.Raising the quality of provision3. Promoting coherence and coordination of policy

and services4. Exploring strategies to ensure adequate investment in

the system5. Improving staff training and working conditions6. Developing appropriate pedagogical frameworks for

young children 7. Engaging parents, families and communities

As well, eight policy lessons were identified. They are notedbelow, with further description contained in Appendix 6.

1. A systemic and integrated approach to policy developmentand implementation

2. A strong and equal partnership with the education system 3. A universal approach to access, with particular attention to

children in need of special support 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 provision7. Systematic attention to monitoring and data collection8. A stable framework and long-term agenda for research

and evaluation

Canada’s participation in this current Thematic Review ishelping change the way child care and ECEC is viewed, orat least it is widening the discussion about the purpose ofchild care and other ECEC programs and services; the kindsof supports that are needed to create a sustainable system;delivery options for integrated or split systems of child care;and the implications for training, educating andcompensating the workforce.

63




4.2 The Demographic EnvironmentTrends in birth rates, patterns of immigration and labourforce participation all play a role in determining who willneed and be likely to use regulated child care, contributingto the demand for the child care workforce.

4.2.1 The populationCanada’s population is aging. The median age of Canadiansis one of the highest among OECD countries. In 2001, themedian age increased by 4% to 37.6 years over the previous10 years and is projected to increase another 3% in the next10 years. The fertility rate has dropped to 1.5 children perwoman from over three about 40 years ago.8 As describedin Chapter Two, not only is the general workforce aging,but the increase in the age of the child care workforce isalso growing at a faster rate than most other occupations.

This will have an impact, not just on recruiting workers toreplace those who are retiring, but for changes to the workenvironment necessary to make accommodations for theimpact of physical demands of the job on older workers

As a result of the declining fertility rate, there has been asteady decrease in the child population, especially of veryyoung children. However, Statistics Canada projections showthat after 2006 the population of children 0 to 4 will beginto increase. The population of children 5 to 9 is expected todecrease considerably until 2011 and then steadily increase forthe following 15 years. This would suggest that the greaterdemand for child care over the next 10 years will be amongthe preschool population. (This does not suggest, however,that the supply of child care comes close to meeting thedemand of any age group, but only to suggest where thegreatest pressure is likely to occur.)

Chart 4.4 Projected Child Population, 2001 to 2025, by Age Groups

Source: Statistics Canada CANSIM table 052-0001.

The overall population has increased since the child caresector study by 4%, and most of this growth has occurredin large urban areas. The main exception to the trend inpopulation growth is among the Aboriginal population—a 22.2% increase since 1995. One third of the Aboriginalpopulation is under 15, compared to 19% of the overallCanadian population.9

Another exception to the population trends is among newCanadians. Between 1991 and 1996, the immigrantpopulation increased by more than three times that of theCanadian-born population. Close to two thirds of thechildren who came to Canada between 1997 and 1999spoke neither English nor French. In kindergarten classes insome of the largest urban areas, more than half the childrenare from recently immigrated families10.

There will be an increased demand for early childhoodeducators that reflect the changing face of the Canadianpopulation and to address the many issues specific to thehealth, cultural and educational needs of the growingimmigrant and Aboriginal communities. ECEC programscontribute to the social inclusion of all children11.

4.2.2 The labour force participation rate of mothersCanada continues to have a high labour force participationrate of mothers with young children. In 2002, over 62%of all mothers with a child under 3 and over 68% of allmothers whose youngest child was between 3 and 5participated in the labour force.



M A I N R E P O R T

Table 4.3 shows the increase in the labour force participationrate of mothers since 1995 and shows the variation inparticipation rates of lone-parent mothers and those withpartners. The largest increase in participation rate is among

lone-parent mothers with a child under the age of 3.This is at least in part attributable to changes in welfarepolicy in some provinces, requiring mothers of youngchildren to seek employment or engage in training.

65

Source: Statistics Canada (2003).

Women with Children (%)

Youngest ChildUnder 3

YoungestChild 3–5

YoungestChild 6–15

Table 4.3 Labour Force Participation of Mothers by Age of Youngest Child, 1995 and 2001All Women 15 years or Older (%)

199556.229.159.8

200262.446.764.1

199560.741.964.4

200268.459.569.9

199570

61.171.7

200276.974.277.5

All mothersLone-parent mothersWomen with partners

2002

56.4

1995

52.3

As Table 4.4 shows, there has been little change since 1995 inthe percentage of women working part time and those whoare self-employed.

For women 25 to 44, the main reason given for part-timeemployment was caring for children (33.6%). For women15 to 25, the main reason was going to school (72.3%),and for women 45 or over the main reason was personalpreference (54.4%).

4.2.3 Number of Children Using Child CareAs was the case for the first child care sector study, theonly available recent Canadian data source for the numberof children using various child care arrangements is theNational Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY).

Source: Statistics Canada (2003).

Table 4.4 Part-time and Self-Employment of WomenPart-time Employment (%)

200227.7

199528.6

Self-Employment (%)200211.4

199511.7

In the child care sector study, results from the first cycle(1994/1995) of the NLSCY were reported. For this update,the most recent available results come from the fourthcycle (2000/2001).

It must be kept in mind that the items and response ruleswere not completely consistent across the NLSCY cycles,and therefore direct comparisons are somewhat dangerousor inappropriate. For instance, with regards to self-carearrangements, the choices for that item were yes/no in cycle 1,and always/sometimes/no in cycle 4. Also, it cannot beguaranteed that the results for the two time periods werederived in exactly the same way. Given these caveats, theresults show that, both for children 0 to 5 years old andchildren 6 to 11 years old, there was a trend toward greateruse of regulated child care relative to the use of unregulatedcare arrangements. For example, for children 0 to 5, thenumber of children in regulated forms of care increasedby 115,700, while the number in unregulated forms of care(including relative care) decreased by 110,500. Table 4.5 showsthe changes in child population and child care arrangementsbetween 1994/1995 and 2000/2001.

Source: Statistics Canada (2001), NLSCY Cycle 1 for 1994/1995 child care arrangements and NLSCY Cycle 4 Remote Data Analysis for 2000/2001 child care arrangements.

Table 4.5 Number of Children in Various Child Care Arrangements, 1994/1995 and 2000/2001

1994/19952,400,000200,200

188,00079,800

303,000127,600

2000/20012,076,255176,300

274,500109,000

225,000119,000

% Change-13.5-11.9

46.036.6

-25.7-6.7

1994/19952,450,000122,400

108,10028,900

211,20086,300

2000/20012,438,920186,300

309,90050,600

263,400142,000

% Change-0.552.2

186.775.1

24.764.5

Children 0 to 5 Children 6 to 11

Child populationRelative CareRegulated Care•Child care centre•Family child careUnregulated Care•Family child care•Child’s own home


4.3 The Demand for Different Types of ECECOne can assume that the demand for infant care, and toa large extent school-age care, is largely tied to parental labourforce participation, rather than for child development reasons.Demand for ECEC for 2- to 5-year-olds includes labour forceparticipation, but there are also separate reasons for demandunrelated to labour force participation. If the primary focusand purpose of the program is “education,” regardless of theage of the child, the demand appears to be greater.

In all provinces and territories, over 95% of 5-year-oldsattend kindergarten, whether it is provided full or part day,whether enrolment is voluntary or compulsory, whether ornot the child is also attending a child care centre, havingnumerous transitions during the day, and even if the parentsees no significant reduction in child care fees. The same holdstrue in Ontario, where almost all children attend 4-year-oldkindergarten (JK) in school boards where it is offered.Some school boards in other provinces are in the early stagesof developing or at least considering providing ECEC andkindergarten in a variety of ways.

In numerous focus groups conducted for this update,child care staff working in centres who offered both full-daychild care and part-day nursery school programs mentionedthat increasing numbers of parents whose children wereattending full-day child care wanted their children to alsoattend the nursery school component, even if they had topay an additional amount. The fact that staff may work inboth parts of the centre, have the same qualifications, andeven do similar activities made little difference to theperception that nursery school was more “educational”than child care.

Table 4.7 provides results from a 2003 parent surveyconducted in British Columbia, showing that developmentaland social reasons dominate for preschool care, but are arelatively minor consideration for school-age children,for whom convenience of location and hours were moreimportant. Only about 1% of parents indicated that theywere using preschools because other choices were notavailable, compared to 11% and close to 10% for those usingchild care centres and out-of-school programs, respectively.



Table 4.6 shows the mean number of hours per week ofchild care for Canadian children with non-parentalarrangements, both overall and by type of individualarrangement. For those age 0 to 5 years, the average timein non-parental care was around 30 hours per week,of which 27 hours were in the main child care arrangement.Children 6 or older used non-parental care for about

13 hours per week, of which 11 hours were in the mainarrangement. Average weekly usage was highest for daycare centres and family child care (27 to 30 hours per weekfor children 0 to 5), compared to 19 to 22 hours per weekfor relative care, care in the child’s home by a non-relative,and nursery schools.

Source: NLSCY Cycle 4 Remote Data Analysis.

Table 4.6 Mean Number of Hours per Week in Care, by Type of Arrangement, by Age Group of ChildUnder 2

30.527.3

29.321.420.819.811.130.4

------

2 to 530.127.2

26.519.322.120.48.530.212.319.0

--

6 to 1113.311.1

11.110.413.312.87.4

14.610.6

--4.8

Type of ArrangementTotal for All ArrangementsTotal for Main Care Arrangement

Non-relative, someone else’s homeRelative, someone else’s homeNon-relative, child’s homeRelative, child’s homeOlder siblingDay care centreBefore-/after-school programNursery schoolChild in own care



M A I N R E P O R T

67

There are many reasons why parents “choose” differentforms of care and education for their children, but many ofthose choices are limited by availability, cost, convenience oflocation, suitability of hours, cultural appropriateness, quality,eligibility of access, and any particular additional supportsparticular children require. At the moment, in most of thecountry, programs that parents want and need for theirchildren are there more by chance than by design.

As described earlier in this chapter, concerted andcoordinated efforts on the part of governments such asQuebec can make an enormous difference to the typeof choice parents have and the demand for child care.

In 2001, a demand study was conducted to assess theactual impact of the new program on patterns of use ofchild care.12 The results of the study showed that overhalf of children under 5 who are in a child care arrangementwhile their parents are working or studying had access toa $5/day space.• Almost two thirds (64.8%) of families with children under

5 were attending child care on a regular basis.

• 58.7% of children under 5 are cared for on a regular basisdue to their parents working or studying.

• 55.6% of children under 5 attending child care on a regularbasis due to parents working or studying have access to a$5/day space.

• More than two thirds of families not using child care ona regular basis say they would be interested in using the$5/day program.

• 65.2% of families using child care on a regular basis saidthey would be willing to change settings to access a$5/day space.

Charts 4.5 and 4.6 show the contrast between Quebec andAlberta in changes to spending and to the supply ofregulated child care since 1995. Clearly, the public policydecisions play a major role in the development of servicesand meeting the demands for the workforce. Quebec madea policy decision to focus support for children and familiesthrough the regulated child care system on a province-widebasis; Alberta has chosen a structure of regional Child andFamily Service Authorities, with whom priority setting andfunding allocations rest.

Source: British Columbia, Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services (2003).

Note: Column percentages add to more than 100% as respondents could make up to three responses.

Table 4.7 Reasons for Choosing Various Child Care Arrangements (% of Children of the Appropriate AgeGroups, in Non-Parental Arrangements)

Preschool(Nursery School)

45.139.614.113.412.2

7.95.84.84.52.31.38.9

Child Care Centre for3- to 5-Year-Olds

17.416.914.325.58.9

17.021.42.72.11.7

11.211.9

Out-of-SchoolCentre

7.6--

15.749.712.815.230.82.21.11.59.6

18.0

Early childhood development reasonsSocial developmentThe setting is what I wantConvenient locationLike the child care providerQualifications or training of providerConvenient hoursLanguage or cultural reasonsTo take a respite or breakSetting is inclusiveOther choices not availableOther




Chart 4.6 Alberta: Actual Child Care Spending and Number of Regulated Spaces for Children 0 to 6, 1995 to 2003

Source: Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002), information for 1995 & 2001.

LMU key informant interview and provincial/territorial survey for 2003.

4.4 The Demand for Early Childhood Educatorsand a Child Care Workforce

A number of provincial job futures, work futures andemployment ministry websites contain information aboutearly childhood educators and assistants and future jobprospects. Generally, this information looks at demand forearly childhood educators and assistants in relation to generalemployment/unemployment (workforce participation),age of population and government policy and regulation.

The highest concentrations (per 10,000 people) of earlychildhood educators and assistants are found in Quebec andManitoba, while the lowest concentrations are inNewfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick13.

Of the jurisdictions with recent information, employmentpotential for early childhood educators and assistants isclearly linked to the policy directions for ECE in individualprovinces. Prospects are good for certified early childhoodeducators in Prince Edward Island, average/growing in NovaScotia and Yukon, a high opportunity occupation inWinnipeg (Manitoba) and among the occupations in highestdemand in Quebec.

Table 4.8 gives some examples from this supply, demand andoutlook information in selected provinces and territories.

Chart 4.5 Quebec : Actual Child Care Spending and Number of Regulated Spaces for Children 0 to 12, 1995 to 2003

Source: Friendly, Beach & Turiano (2002), for information from 1995 and 2001.

LMU key informant interview and provincial/territorial survey information from 2003.



M A I N R E P O R T

69

Tabl

e 4.

8 Pr

ovin

cial

/Ter

rito

rial

Sup

ply,

Dem

and

and

Outl

ook

Info

rmat

ion,

Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Edu

cato

rs a

nd A

ssis

tant

sPr

ovin

ce o

r Te

rrit

ory

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

Nova

Sco

tia

Queb

ec

Man

itob

a

Date

of

Info

rmat

ion

Janu

ary

2004

Empl

oym

ent

Outlo

ok b

ased

onan

ann

ual e

mpl

oym

ent

fore

cast

don

e by

HRD

C-No

vaSc

otia

and

on

data

gat

here

dfr

om E

mpl

oym

ent

Insu

ranc

ebe

nefi

ciar

ies

in t

he p

rovi

nce.

Sum

mer

200

3

Augu

st 2

003

Curr

ent

Dem

and

and

Supp

lyTh

ere

are

ofte

n jo

b op

enin

gs a

dver

tised

for

cert

ifie

dw

orke

rs. S

ome

empl

oyer

s, e

spec

ially

tho

se in

rur

alar

eas,

exp

erie

nce

diff

icul

ty in

fin

ding

cer

tifie

d ea

rlych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

. Abo

ut 4

0% o

f the

wor

kers

in t

his

occu

patio

n ar

e se

lf-em

ploy

ed, a

nd t

here

may

be

som

eop

port

unity

for

furt

her

deve

lopm

ents

in t

his

area

.Th

ere

will

als

o be

som

e op

port

unity

for

empl

oym

ent

asw

orke

rs c

hang

e jo

bs o

r le

ave

the

wor

kfor

ce.

Com

petit

ion

for

any

job

open

ings

cou

ld c

ome

from

the

82.4

ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs a

nd a

ssis

tant

s w

ho a

reun

empl

oyed

in N

ova

Scot

ia, o

n av

erag

e, e

very

yea

r.Ne

w g

radu

ates

from

wit

hin

the

prov

ince

as

wel

l as

from

othe

r pa

rts

of C

anad

a co

uld

also

app

ly fo

r an

y jo

bs.

Reas

ons

for

labo

ur d

eman

d:Dé

velo

ppem

ent

du r

ésea

u de

s ga

rder

ies

La r

égle

men

tatio

n ex

ige

que

deux

édu

catr

ices

ou

éduc

ateu

rs s

ur t

rois

soi

ent

dipl

ômés

Amon

g th

e oc

cupa

tions

cur

rent

ly in

hig

hest

dem

and

inQu

ebec

(Oc

cupa

tion

for w

hich

the

curr

ent l

abou

r dem

and

is d

eem

ed s

uffic

ient

to a

llow

qual

ified

per

sons

look

ing

for

empl

oym

ent t

o en

ter t

his

occu

patio

n an

d to

be

reas

onab

lylik

ely

to fi

nd a

n op

port

unity

in a

giv

en re

gion

).M

anito

ba A

dvan

ced

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng li

sts

early

child

hood

edu

cato

r/pr

esch

ool t

each

er a

s a

high

-de

man

d oc

cupa

tion

(for

Lev

el I

I an

d II

I ce

rtif

ied

early

child

hood

edu

cato

rs)

acro

ss M

anito

ba.

Outl

ook/

Empl

oym

ent

Pote

ntia

lIn

the

sho

rt t

erm

, the

re w

ill b

e em

ploy

men

t op

port

uniti

es in

the

loca

lla

bour

mar

ket

for

skill

ed c

lient

s in

thi

s oc

cupa

tion

and

the

shor

t-te

rmou

tlook

(3–

6 m

onth

s) fo

r em

ploy

men

t is

goo

d.

The

long

-ter

m e

mpl

oym

ent

outlo

ok fo

r th

is o

ccup

atio

n is

goo

d fo

r ce

rtif

ied

early

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

. The

num

ber

of li

cens

ed d

ay c

ares

, kin

derg

arte

nsan

d be

fore

- an

d af

ter-

scho

ol p

rogr

ams

has

incr

ease

d in

rec

ent

year

s.

Good

em

ploy

men

t po

tent

ial.

The

chan

ces

of f

indi

ng e

mpl

oym

ent

can

gene

rally

be

judg

ed b

y lo

okin

g at

supp

ly a

nd d

eman

d. H

owev

er, i

t is

pos

sibl

e th

ose

unem

ploy

ed w

orke

rs in

this

occ

upat

ion

do n

ot p

osse

ss t

he r

equi

red

skill

s or

tha

t th

ey w

ill c

hoos

e to

wor

k in

ano

ther

occ

upat

ion

wit

h si

mila

r sk

ill le

vels

. Wor

king

con

ditio

ns a

reus

ually

a b

ig f

acto

r in

the

se t

ypes

of d

ecis

ions

.

Empl

oym

ent o

f ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs a

nd a

ssis

tant

s is

exp

ecte

d to

incr

ease

at a

n ab

out a

vera

ge r

ate

from

199

8 th

roug

h 20

08.

Estim

ated

cha

nge

in e

mpl

oym

ent b

etwe

en 2

002

and

2007

: Dem

and

is g

rowi

ngGi

ven

antic

ipat

ed la

bor

dem

and

and

the

unem

ploy

men

t si

tuat

ion

at t

hest

art

of t

he p

erio

d, jo

b m

arke

t en

try

pote

ntia

l will

be

good

200

3 to

200

7

Over

all,

the

posi

tive

effe

cts

of a

n in

crea

sed

part

icip

atio

n ra

te fo

r w

omen

and

$5/d

ay s

houl

d of

fset

the

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

s of

a lo

w b

irth

rat

e. A

s a

resu

lt, t

he n

umbe

r of

ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs a

nd a

ssis

tant

s is

fore

cast

to

incr

ease

rap

idly

ove

r th

e fo

reca

st p

erio

d (2

002–

2006

) an

d th

en t

o st

abili

zean

d fi

nally

to

decr

ease

. M

anito

ba J

ob F

utur

es –

doe

s no

t lis

t ea

rly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs

Sour

ce: P

rince

Edw

ard

Isla

nd H

RDC

(NOC

421

4): h

ttp:

//w

ww.

pe.h

rdc-

drhc

.gc.

ca/c

omm

on/o

ccup

/em

p-po

t.sh

tml;

http

://w

ww.

pe.h

rdc-

drhc

.gc.

ca/c

omm

on/o

ccup

/em

p-po

t.sh

tml

Nova

Sco

tia: H

RDC

(NOC

421

4): h

ttp:

//w

ww.

ns.h

rdc-

drhc

.gc.

ca/e

nglis

h/lm

i/oc

csum

s/Oc

csum

.asp

?whi

ch=4

214#

NSFa

cts,

Depa

rtm

ent

of E

duca

tion

Skill

s an

d Le

arni

ng B

ranc

h: h

ttp:

//ca

reer

optio

ns.e

dnet

.ns.

ca/M

ainp

age.

asp?

txtI

d=13

4&fi

eldN

ame=

Queb

ec: J

ob F

utur

es Q

uebe

c (N

OC 6

470)

: htt

p://

ww

w.qc

.hrd

c-dr

hc.g

c.ca

/asp

/em

ploi

/em

ploi

AG.a

sp?p

age=

liste

prof

essi

onsA

G.as

p&, E

mpl

oi Q

uebe

c (N

OC 4

214)

:

http

://i

mt.e

mpl

oiqu

ebec

.net

/mtg

/int

er/n

onca

che/

cont

enu/

asp/

mtg

122_

desc

rpro

fess

ion_

01.a

sp?a

prof

=421

4&la

ng=A

NGL&

Port

e=1&

creg

n=QC

&PT1

=0&t

ype=

cle&

mot

pro=

Early

+chi

ldho

od+e

duca

tors

&PT2

=17&

pro=

4214

&cm

preg

n=QC

&PT3

=9

Man

itoba

: Adv

ance

d Ed

ucat

ion

and

Trai

ning

(NO

C 42

14):

htt

p://

ww

w.ed

u.go

v.m

b.ca

/aet

/lm

i/hd

o/hd

o_lis

t.ht

ml;

Man

itoba

Job

Fut

ures

– d

oes

not

list

early

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

:

http

://w

ww.

mb.

jobf

utur

es.o

rg/h

ome.

cfm

?lan

g=en

&si

te=g

raph

ic




Sour

ce: S

aska

tche

wan

Job

Fut

ures

(NO

C 42

12):

htt

p://

sask

jobf

utur

es.c

a/pr

ofile

s/pr

ofile

.cfm

?noc

=421

4&in

dex=

1&la

ng=e

&si

te=g

raph

ic#

Tren

ds%

20an

d%20

Outlo

oks

http

://w

ww.

sask

netw

ork.

gov.

sk.c

a/ht

ml/

Hom

e/lm

i/ot

herlm

i.htm

Briti

sh C

olum

bia:

Wor

k Fu

ture

s BC

(NO

C 64

70):

htt

p://

ww

w.w

orkf

utur

es.b

c.ca

/En/

def/

occs

/647

0_e1

.htm

l#em

p_pr

osp

Yuko

n: Y

ukon

Wor

k Fu

ture

s (N

OC 6

470)

: htt

p://

wor

kfut

ures

.yk.

ca/f

ram

es/f

1/64

70EY

_1.h

tml

Tabl

e 4.

8 Pr

ovin

cial

/Ter

rito

rial

Sup

ply,

Dem

and

and

Outl

ook

Info

rmat

ion,

Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Edu

cato

rs a

nd A

ssis

tant

s (c

onti

nued

)Pr

ovin

ce o

r Te

rrit

ory

Sask

atch

ewan

Briti

sh C

olum

bia

Yuko

n

Date

of

Info

rmat

ion

1996

sta

tistic

s, fo

cusi

ng o

npe

riod

to 2

002

Curr

ent

Dem

and

and

Supp

lyM

any

of t

he f

acto

rs t

hat

dete

rmin

e em

ploy

men

t in

thi

sfi

eld

are

unde

r co

nsta

nt r

evie

w in

Sas

katc

hew

an b

oth

by g

over

nmen

ts a

nd b

y bo

ards

of e

duca

tion.

Any

futu

rech

ange

s to

legi

slat

ion

rega

rdin

g le

vels

of s

uppo

rt fo

rch

ild c

are

and

educ

atio

nal r

equi

rem

ents

for

kind

erga

rten

and

pre

-kin

derg

arte

n te

ache

rs w

ill im

pact

the

num

ber

of e

arly

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

and

ass

ista

nts

empl

oyed

in S

aska

tche

wan

.Th

is is

a v

ery

larg

e oc

cupa

tiona

l gro

up, w

ith

anes

timat

ed 1

4,14

0 w

orke

rs e

mpl

oyed

in B

ritis

h Co

lum

bia

in 1

998,

up

65%

from

8,5

50 in

199

0. S

elf-

empl

oym

ent

for

this

gro

up (

29%

) is

alm

ost

doub

le t

he p

rovi

ncia

lav

erag

e of

15%

for

all o

ccup

atio

ns. A

bout

60%

of t

hese

wor

kers

are

em

ploy

ed o

n a

full-

time

basi

s, a

nd 4

0%w

ork

part

tim

e. H

owev

er, a

rel

ativ

ely

high

pro

port

ion

ofth

ese

wor

kers

(31

%)

are

empl

oyed

par

t tim

e fo

r pa

rt o

fth

e ye

ar, a

nd o

vera

ll 62

% w

ork

for

only

par

t of

the

year

. By

com

paris

on, 1

8% o

f the

ent

ire w

orkf

orce

inth

e pr

ovin

ce is

em

ploy

ed p

art

time

for

part

of t

he y

ear,

and

45%

wor

k fo

r on

ly p

art

of t

he y

ear.

The

unem

ploy

men

t ra

te fo

r th

is g

roup

is lo

wer

tha

n th

eav

erag

e fo

r al

l occ

upat

ions

.

Abou

t 89

% o

f the

wor

kers

are

em

ploy

ed in

hea

lth

and

soci

al s

ervi

ces,

mai

nly

child

day

car

e an

d nu

rser

y sc

hool

serv

ices

.Th

e po

pula

tion

of Y

ukon

is r

elat

ivel

y yo

ung,

whi

ch h

as a

sign

ific

ant

impa

ct o

n pr

ospe

cts

for

thos

e w

ho w

ish

toen

ter

the

fiel

d of

ECE

: the

re a

re p

ropo

rtio

nally

mor

ew

omen

of c

hild

-bea

ring

age

in t

he t

errit

ory

than

else

whe

re.

In 1

996,

an

estim

ated

77%

of Y

ukon

wom

enpa

rtic

ipat

ed in

the

wor

kfor

ce, a

fig

ure

far

abov

e th

e65

% fo

r w

omen

who

par

ticip

ate

in t

he w

orkf

orce

in t

heco

untr

y as

a w

hole

.

Outl

ook/

Empl

oym

ent

Pote

ntia

lAn

abo

ve a

vera

ge r

ate

of jo

b op

enin

gs is

exp

ecte

d fo

r ea

rly c

hild

hood

educ

ator

s be

twee

n 19

99 a

nd 2

004.

Thi

s ra

te s

houl

d re

sult

in a

hig

h nu

mbe

rof

new

jobs

dur

ing

this

per

iod.

It

shou

ld a

lso

be n

oted

tha

t th

is is

a la

rge

occu

patio

n in

the

pro

vinc

e, a

nd a

hig

h nu

mbe

r of

rep

lace

men

t po

sitio

nssh

ould

bec

ome

avai

labl

e in

the

nex

t fe

w y

ears

due

to

retir

emen

t or

oth

ertu

rnov

er in

the

pro

vinc

ial l

abou

r fo

rce.

Empl

oym

ent

is p

roje

cted

to

grow

at

an a

nnua

l rat

e of

1.1

%, s

low

er t

han

the

aver

age

for

all o

ccup

atio

ns. A

ccor

ding

to

this

pro

ject

ion,

4,8

20 p

ositi

ons

will

bec

ome

avai

labl

e fr

om 1

998

to 2

008.

Abo

ut t

wo

third

s of

the

seop

enin

gs w

ill c

ome

from

the

nee

d to

rep

lace

wor

kers

who

ret

ire. T

here

mai

nder

will

com

e fr

om g

row

th in

the

num

ber

of n

ew jo

bs. A

hig

h ra

te o

fw

orke

r tu

rnov

er w

ill c

reat

e m

any

addi

tiona

l ope

ning

s. T

his

is d

ue t

o lo

wsa

larie

s an

d be

nefi

ts, l

ack

of s

ocia

l rec

ogni

tion

and

prom

otio

nop

port

uniti

es, a

nd t

he c

ompl

ex n

atur

e of

thi

s de

man

ding

occ

upat

ion.

Shif

ting

dem

ogra

phic

s w

ill a

lso

have

an

impa

ct o

n th

e em

ploy

men

t gr

owth

of t

his

occu

patio

nal g

roup

. Cur

rent

ly, p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

in B

ritis

h Co

lum

bia

is d

riven

mai

nly

by im

mig

ratio

n an

d, t

o a

smal

ler

exte

nt, b

y bi

rths

. The

birt

h ra

te is

dec

linin

g, a

nd t

his

mea

ns a

dec

line

in t

he n

umbe

r of

par

ents

wit

h yo

ung

child

ren.

Thi

s w

ill h

elp

to f

latt

en t

he d

eman

d fo

r th

e se

rvic

es o

fch

ild c

are

care

give

rs.

Empl

oym

ent

of e

arly

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

and

ass

ista

nts

is e

xpec

ted

toin

crea

se a

t an

abo

ut a

vera

ge r

ate

from

199

8 th

roug

h 20

08. A

lread

y a

larg

eoc

cupa

tiona

l gro

up, t

his

sect

or c

ould

bec

ome

one

of t

he Y

ukon

Ter

ritor

y’s

larg

er s

ourc

es o

f em

ploy

men

t ov

er t

he c

omin

g de

cade

.



M A I N R E P O R T

71

Growth in the demand for and supply of different formsof child care is directly related to affordability, quality andperception of the impact of the care arrangement for thechild. The role of government in responding to the needfor child care or facilitating its development and deliveryhas not been defined.

In regulated child care, the number of spaces, the regulatedchild:staff ratios and the number of staff requiring trainingdictate the needed supply of qualified staff and caregivers.In some provinces and territories, supply of child care isgrowing; in others there have been centre closures and earlychildhood educators are either leaving the child care field orfinding jobs in other types of ECEC services.

A study of the child care workforce in Manitoba found thatmore centres are unable to meet regulations for trained staff,while the number of early childhood educator graduatesdeclined.14 Thirty-nine percent of reporting centres had anexemption to the licensing requirement because they wereunable to recruit qualified staff. Programs such as Head Startthat do not require a licence have increased their demandsfor ECE staff, and advanced practitioners are recruited aschild care instructors and child care coordinators (wholicense child care centres and family child care homes).

Approximately 5,000 students graduate from ECE programsevery year, yet only about half of them choose to or end upworking in child care.15 You Bet I Care! estimated a 21.7%turnover among child care staff working in full-time centresfor children 0 to 6 in 1998. However, a staggering 13.3% werefired for poor performance, suggesting needed improvements inleadership, hiring and management practices. In fact, accordingto the directors surveyed, only 6% of staff who left voluntarilyand accepted another job took a job unrelated to ECEC.

4.4.1 The impact of centre closures on demandChanges to and/or variations across programs in the levelpublic funding contribute to the instability of child carecentres. Statistics are not readily available on how manychild care centres close in a year, but recent analysis from onesurvey conducted in British Columbia suggests that thenumber may be considerable.16 In the spring of 1997, alllicensed facilities (centre and family) were sent questionnairesabout their operations. In 2001, the survey was repeated.The facility licence number was used to categorize all thoseresponding to the 1997 survey as either: a) still open, orb) closed. Results indicated that 27.6% of the centres and47.4% of the licensed family providers who responded to the1997 survey had closed. Regression analyses were conductedto predict which variables made a difference for survival.

For centres, the significant predictors were:• wage supplement: Centres that did not receive it were

more likely to close.• percentage of staff who are registered early childhood

educators: Centres with lower percentages of trained earlychildhood educators were more likely to close.

• auspice: Commercial centres were more likely to close.• enrolment of subsidized children: Centres with subsidized

children were more likely to stay open.

For licensed family providers, the significant predictors were:• age of the caregivers: Facilities with younger caregivers

were more likely to close.• home ownership: Facilities were more likely to close if the

home was rented.• use of volunteers: Facilities using volunteers or students

were more likely to stay open.• vacancies: Facilities were more likely to close if the home

was not operating at capacity.• enrolment of caregiver’s own children: Facilities were

more likely to close if the caregiver’s own children were inthe program.

• caregiver support: Facilities were more likely to stay openif the caregiver identified any other sources of support.

Provincial/territorial governments have introducednumerous policy, regulatory and service delivery changes,including allocation of new federal contributions to regulatedchild care in nine jurisdictions;17 the proliferation of newearly child development initiatives that are intended tosupport parenting and child development but not providechild care;18 the introduction and expansion of preschoolprograms and parenting centres offered by the educationsystem;19 tightening of child care fee subsidy eligibilitycriteria in some jurisdictions;20 increased regulatoryrequirements for child care centres and family child careprograms, including overall increase in staff qualificationrequirements; and increased numbers of initiatives to addressquality concerns.21

The regulated child care sector is struggling to be a centralstakeholder in other types of ECEC initiatives. Qualifiedchild care staff and caregivers, particularly those who haveECE credentials, are finding increased career opportunitiesin ECEC programs that operate apart from regulated childcare. The child care workforce is becoming better educatedbut compensation continues to lose ground and the work isdemanding.22 There are gaps in skills and a need for morequalified staff, but post-secondary education and professionaldevelopment opportunities are often difficult to access.23

In spite of public attention to early child development, thework in child care remains undervalued. Until some ofthese larger public policy issues are resolved, it is impossibleto quantify the demand for the future child care and otherECEC workforce.




Figu

re 4

.1 F

acto

rs A

ffec

ting

Dem

and

Supp

ly o

f re

gula

ted

child

car

e

Dem

and

for

“rel

ated

”EC

ECw

orkf

orce

Dem

and for

the

child

car

ew

orkf

orce

Dem

ogra

phic

s•

Chi

ld p

opul

atio

n•

Mot

hers

wor

king

•Fa

mily

inc

ome

Public

Polic

y•

Purp

ose

of p

rogr

am•

Acc

ess

•Fu

ndin

gA

ging

popu

latio

n

Dec

linin

gfe

rtili

ty

rate

Gro

wth

of

youn

gA

bori

gina

lpo

pula

tion

Incr

ease

in

imm

igra

ntpo

pula

tion

Fede

ral

ECD

Initi

ativ

e

Exp

ande

dm

ater

nity

/par

enta

lle

ave

Impo

rtan

ce o

fth

e ea

rly y

ears

Pare

ntal

Pre

fere

nces

•O

ptio

ns•

Cos

t•

Suita

bilit

y

Rel

ativ

e ca

reU

nreg

ulat

ed c

are

“Edu

catio

n”op

tions

Supp

orts

to a

t-ho

me

pare

nts

(fam

ily r

esou

rce

cent

res,

in-h

ome

prog

ram

s)



M A I N R E P O R T

73

ENDNOTES

1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001; Taguchi 2003

2 Espey & Good Company, March 2003; Moss & Cameron 2002; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001

3 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001; Taguchi 2003

4 Marshall 2003

5 Government of Canada 2003

6 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001

7 Ibid

8 R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. 2003

9 Doherty, Friendly & Beach, in press

10 Canadian Council on Social Development 2002, in Doherty, Friendly & Beach, in press; Denton, Feaver & Specer 1999

11 Doherty 2001b; Friendly & Lero 2002

12 Institut de la statistique du Québec 2001

13 http://www.jobfutures.ca/noc/6470p1.shtml, page modified March 2003

14 Mayer 2001

15 Custom tabulations from the National Graduate Survey, LMU student survey

16 Kershaw, Forer & Goelman 2004

17 Campaign 2000 2003; Friendly, Beach & Turiano 2002

18 Aboriginal Head Start 2000; Beach & Bertrand 2000; Doherty 2001a; McCain & Mustard 1999; Mustard & McCain 2002; Premier’s Council on Healthy Child Development 2003

19 Alberta Commission on Learning 2003; Beach & Bertrand 2000; Krentz, McNaughton & Warkentin 2002; Larose, Terrisse, Bédard & Karsenti 2001

20 Friendly, Beach & Turiano 2002, LMU key informant interviews with provincial/territorial officials

21 Campaign 2000 2003; Department of Community Services & Department of Health 2002; Friendly, Beach & Turiano 2002

22 Cleveland & Hyatt 2002; Cleveland & Krashinsky 2001; Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000; Friendly, Beach & Turiano 2002; Goelman 2001; Hunter & Forer 2002;

Pelletier & Corter 2002; Rothman & Kass 1999

23 Beach 1999; Beach & Bertrand 1999; Cleveland & Krashinsky 2001; Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000; Invest in Kids Foundation 2000; Jomphe & Lessard 1998a;

Lyon & Canning 2000; Mayer 2001; Morris 2002



5C H A P T E RP R E P A R I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G T H E C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C E


This chapter describes the range of institutions andorganizations that prepare and sustain the knowledgeof the child care workforce, as well as organizations andinstitutions that conduct research relevant to the childcare sector. It includes:

• an overview of the current ECE programs offered by thepost-secondary education system;

• a summary of federal-provincial/territorial labour marketdevelopment agreements;

• a description of child care organizations and resource groupsthat support the workforce and the child care sector;

• a review of trade unions’ involvement in the child careworkforce; and

• a description of early child development researchand resources.

As noted in Chapter Three, the requirements for workingwith young children vary considerably among provinces andterritories and across types of ECEC programs. Requirementsfor caregivers in regulated family child care are minimal inall provinces and territories. Most jurisdictions require somenumber of centre-based child care staff to have formalpost-secondary early childhood qualifications, mostcommonly an ECE certificate or diploma from a communitycollege. ECEC programs offered within the education system,such as kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs, requirea minimum of a 4-year undergraduate degree plus universityteacher education and certification. Requirements for thoseworking in family support, related early child developmentand early intervention programs are not clearly prescribed.In most provinces and territories, ongoing professionaldevelopment is not required but often accessed by the childcare workforce, and is offered by post-secondary educationinstitutions and sector organizations.

Members of the child care workforce may be represented bytrade unions and/or affiliated with professional credentiallingbodies. The growth and development of ECEC practice issupported by early childhood resource organizations andresearch initiatives and networks. Trade unions and sectororganizations work together to promote the ECEC sectorand the child care workforce.

5.1 Post-Secondary Education InstitutionsApproximately 135 post-secondary education institutionsdeliver ECEC certificate, diploma, degree and relatedprograms through publicly funded community colleges,Collèges d’enseignement general et professionnel(CEGEPs), universities and private institutions. Universitiesare responsible for teacher preparation programs for schoolteachers, including those working in kindergarten programs.Colleges provide most of the programs that offerECEC certificate and diploma qualifications required inregulated child care.

Post-secondary ECE programs, particularly those offered incommunity colleges, are organized to meet the diverse needsof the child care workforce. They continue to provide:• initial training and education that prepare individuals to

work in regulated child care and other ECEC settings;• opportunities for ongoing development and learning; and• training and education for experienced staff and caregivers

who are working in the sector but who do not haveeducational credentials.

There are a few ECEC degree programs offered inuniversities and the number of college-university articulationagreements and college degree programs is increasing.Colleges and universities also offer a range of related creditand non-credit programs and courses that support thechild care workforce.

The organization and delivery of post-secondary educationprograms is within provincial/territorial jurisdiction.Each jurisdiction establishes its own post-secondary system,including the roles and responsibilities of governmentsand institutions, in determining program content anddelivery requirements. Table 5.1 provides an overview ofpost-secondary education that is offered in eachprovince and territory.

75



C H A P T E R 5 - P R E P A R I N G A N D S U P P O R T I N G T H E C H I L D C A R E W O R K F O R C E

Table 5.1 Profile of Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Programs in the Provinces and TerritoriesJurisdiction

Newfoundland andLabradorDepartment ofEducation

Prince Edward IslandDepartment ofEducation

Nova ScotiaDepartment ofEducation and Culture

New BrunswickDepartment ofEducation, Trainingand EmploymentDevelopmentQuebecMinistère del’Éducation

OntarioMinistry of Training,Colleges and Universities

ManitobaMinistry of AdvancedEducation, Trainingand TechnologySaskatchewanDepartment of Post-Secondary Educationand Skills Training

AlbertaAlberta Learning

Colleges and UniversitiesCollege of the North Atlantic with 18campuses—governed by a single board. Memorial University. Newfoundland andLabrador Council on Higher Educationcoordinates PSE planning. Its Articulation,Transfer and Admission Committee promotesaccessibility and student mobility.Holland College with 11 training centres.Board of Governors including representativesappointed and those approved by Lieutenant-Governor of PEI and others selected by boarditself. University of Prince Edward Island.2 community colleges. Nova ScotiaCommunity College has 13 English-languagecampuses—Board of Governors. Collège del’Acadie offers French-language programming(learning centre in PEI). Private institutionsinclude St. Joseph’s. 11 universities andother degree-granting institutions.Community college system with 11 campuses(5 French, 6 English)—directly operated byprovincial government. 4 universities,3 specialized institutes.

48 CEGEPS—directly operated by provincialgovernment. 9 universities, including theUniversité du Quèbec, a province-widesystem of 11 constituents, and 3 English-language universities.25 Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology—Crown agencies governed by boards ofgovernors as non-share corporations.17 universities/degree-granting institutions.4 community colleges (3 English, 1 French).

4 universities and 4 private religiousinstitutions that grant degrees. PSE isresponsibility of Council of Post-SecondaryEducation—advises provincial government.Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science andTechnology (SIAST) in 4 locations; 9 regionalcolleges that broker SIAST and universityprograms to local communities. 2 universitiesand federated and affiliated colleges.16 community colleges—governing councils.4 universities, specialized learning centre,2 technical institutes, 7 private degree-granting colleges. Alberta Council onAdmissions and Transfers reports to Ministerand advises on transfer of course creditsamong provincial institutions.

Structure and OperationNewfoundland and Labrador Council on Higher Education coordinates PSEplanning. Its Articulation, Transfer and Admission Committee promotesaccessibility and student mobility. Province-wide learning outcomesestablished for each PSE program. Department of Education has monitoringand evaluation role.

Department of Education sets broad policy and approves programs.

Competency Based Education is cornerstone of all college programs.

Minister of Education approves full-time college programs. Collegesdetermine PSE program curriculum, often in consultation with ProgramAdvisory Committees.

Department of Education has overall responsibility for college programs. NewBrunswick community colleges and Ministry of Education develop curriculumin consultation with Program Advisory Committee.

Provincial standards for core occupational competencies. Ministère del’Éducation provides general support, including college coordination, studies,booklets, information kits and training.Provincial standards for core occupational competencies. Each program ofstudy is submitted to Ministry for approval.Program standards apply to all similar programs offered by colleges acrossthe province, including vocational and generic education learning outcomesand general education courses. Collectively, these outcomes outline the skillsand knowledge that a student must reliably demonstrate in order tograduate. Individual colleges offering the program determine the specificstructure, delivery methods and other curriculum matters to assist studentsto achieve the outcomes articulated in the standards in consultation withProgram Advisory Committees.Council on Post-Secondary Education funds PSE institutions, approves newprograms and establishes PSE policy framework.

SIAST works with Program Advisory Committees to establish program curriculum.

Regional colleges broker SIAST and university programs to local communities.

Minster of Learning approves all PSE college programs. Basic learning curriculadeveloped by province. PSE curricula determined by individual institution.

Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfers reports to Minister and adviseson transfer of course credits among provincial institutions.

Colleges and universities governed by Councils.



M A I N R E P O R T

Since the 1998 release of the child care sector study, manypost-secondary institutions have increased entry pointsand delivery options, and expanded opportunities to transfercredits and qualifications from one institution to another.In addition to delivering certificate and diploma programsin ECE, colleges deliver programs and workshops specificallygeared toward family child care, child care managementand administration, family resource programs andschool-age child care.

5.1.1 ECE certificates and diplomasECE college-level diplomas and certificates continue tobe the most common credential offered to the sector bypost-secondary education institutions. They includefoundation training and education, which prepare

individuals to work with young children in a variety ofECEC settings, particularly in child care centres, preschoolsor nursery schools.

Post-secondary certificate and diploma programs areorganized by provinces and territories to accommodatetheir respective staff qualification requirements for regulatedchild care centres. The LMU did not conduct a survey ofpost-secondary ECE programs to update the informationcollected for the 1998 child care sector study. However,information gathered from the literature review, relatedwebsites and key informant interviews provide an updateon the number of institutions offering ECE diplomas andcertificates and changes to curriculum content.

77

Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002); Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (2003).

British ColumbiaMinistry of AdvancedEducation, Trainingand Technology

NunavutDepartment ofEducation

Northwest TerritoriesDepartment ofEducation, Culture andEmployment

Yukon TerritoryDepartment ofEducation

11 community colleges—each institution is aCrown agency with a board of governors. 5university colleges, 6 universities, 3 provincialinstitutes, 2 Aboriginal institutes, and theOpen Learning Agency.Nunavut Arctic College, 3 campuses andnetwork of 24 community learning centres.NWT Public Colleges Act of 1995 establishedthe Nunavut Arctic College Board to administerand manage programs. Board of Governorsconsists of six regular members (two fromeach region) appointed by Department ofEducation, a staff representative and astudent representative. Aurora College, 3 campuses and network of 31community learning centres.Board of Governors established by the NWTPublic Colleges Act of 1995 is responsible forday-to-day administration and is appointed byDepartment of Education, Culture andEmployment.Yukon College, 14 community campuses.Board of Governors responsible formanagement and administration of Collegeand is appointed by Commissioner of ExecutiveCouncil in Department of Education.

Public colleges develop curriculum based on guidelines articulated under theprovincially initiated process that involves peer review, consultation withprofessional bodies, industry associations and Ministry staff.

Board of Governors, established by NWT Public Colleges Act of 1995, toevolve alongside the new territory and provide the training and educationalopportunities needed by the people of Nunavut.Board of Governors makes recommendations to Department of Education onannual budgets, administrative policies, program and course priorities,student admission requirements and the long-term development of theCollege through 5-Year Corporate Plans. Board of Governors recommends to Department of Education, Culture andEmployment on programs, financial allocation and administrative policies. Aurora College Program Advisory Committees advise on curriculum content.

Board of Directors establishes program priorities, allocates funds and setsadministrative policy.




The diverse structure of ECE certificate and diploma programsreflects institutional program directions, requirements of theprovincial/territorial post-secondary education system, child careregulatory requirements and local child care context. There is noCanada-wide college curriculum. Field placements may or maynot include experiences in family resource programs, infantprograms, school-age programs or school-based kindergartenprograms. The total number of field placement hours varies from500 to 1,000. The inclusion of curriculum related to parenting,children with special needs and family child care settings variesboth across institutions located within the sameprovincial/territorial jurisdiction.

However, in spite of diverse packaging, the essential core contentappears to remain remarkably similar. Focus group discussionswith ECE faculty and ECE students indicate that childdevelopment, health and safety, early childhood pedagogy andchild-centred curriculum remain the core components.Supervised field placements continue to represent a significantproportion (from 25%–50%) of the program hours.

Overall, the number of ECE diploma and certificate programsappears to remain stable. Reports from British Columbiaindicate the closure of post-certificate and diploma programsand at least one basic certificate program. The capacity ofprograms has expanded in Quebec to meet the demand formore qualified staff and the introduction of an accelerated programallows child care staff with experience to fast-track attainmentof ECE qualifications.

5.1.2 ECE students and graduatesThe LMU conducted a student survey in spring 2003 thatillustrates the diversity among students attending CanadianECE post-secondary college programs. Students in their last yearof ECE programs at 10 Canadian colleges were asked to participatein a survey during class time to capture the perspectives of thoseabout to enter the field. Altogether, 527 students completedsurveys. The items covered were prior education, prior volunteerand paid experience with children, the decision to enrol in theirprogram, satisfaction with their program, practicum placements,work prospects, short-term and long-term plans for work andfurther education, and some demographic information.

The ECE programs were chosen to reflect geographic diversity.Six provinces were represented: Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario,Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. The colleges were alsochosen to reflect different delivery models. College of the NorthAtlantic and Red Deer College offer their ECE programs bydistance education, while Université du Québec à Montréal andVancouver Community College offer ECE through continuingeducation. Cégep Jonquière has two modes of delivery(continuing education and a regular daytime program), whilethe other six colleges have only a regular daytime ECE program.The programs also differ in length, ranging from 1-year programsat Red Deer College and University College of the Fraser Valley,to 3-year programs at the two CEGEPs.

Source: Association of Canadian Community Colleges (2003).

LMU key informant interviews.

Table 5.2 Number of Institutions Offering ECE Certificates and DiplomasECE Certificate ECE DiplomaProvince or Territory

Newfoundland and LabradorPrince Edward IslandNova ScotiaNew BrunswickQuebecOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaNunavutNorthwest TerritoriesYukon

19980

22

208118

16N/A

22

20031

22

20411

1014112

1998412

152541

1013

N/A00

2003312

132541

128000



M A I N R E P O R T

The student populations at the colleges were diverse in anumber of ways. Some examples are given below.

• 100% of the students at Cégep Jonquière and 97% of thoseat College of the North Atlantic were born in Canada,compared to 28% of the students at VancouverCommunity College and 45% of the students at Universitédu Québec à Montréal.

• Colleges had varying proportions of students under 25: • High: Cégep Sainte-Foy (82%) and Grant McEwan

College (66%)• Low: Vancouver Community College (20%) and

Red Deer College (30%)• Colleges had varying proportions of students 35 years

or older:• High: Vancouver Community College (43%) and

College of the North Atlantic (36%)• Low: Cégep Sainte-Foy (0%) and University College

of the Fraser Valley (9%)• There was a considerable range of linguistic diversity

among students. For example, 100% of students at CégepJonquière had French as a first language; 99% of studentsat the College of the North Atlantic had English as a firstlanguage, and at both Vancouver Community College andGeorge Brown College 41% of students had neitherEnglish nor French as a first language.

5.1.3 Prior learning assessment and recognitionPrior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) is aprocess that is used to identify, verify and recognizeknowledge and skills acquired through paid and volunteerwork and life experiences, including travel, care of familyand independent study.2 It is based on the premise thatwhat a person knows and can do is more important thanwhere, when or how a person acquired the learning.Recognition of learning may include educational credit,occupational certification, employment and access toadvanced training/education programs.

PLAR assesses applicants’ knowledge and skills inrelation to specific requirements and expectations.Assessment methodologies include standardized tests,demonstration/challenge testing, portfolios and assessmentof external courses (offered outside of recognizededucational/training institutions). Successful elements ofquality PLAR processes include the following elements.3

• Recognition is given for learning (identified knowledgeand skills), not time spent in an activity or environment.

• Assessments are conducted in relation to specificoutcomes.

• Assessments take into account depth, breadth and levelof knowledge and skills, and appropriate balance of theoryand practice that are required for recognition.

• Assessments are conducted by trained individuals.• Assessment methods and tools must be high quality,

flexible and bias-free.

The use of PLAR in ECE college programs is not extensivebut appears to be greater than that found in other programs.A recent survey of PLAR practices and uptake among full-time ECE students indicates that a relatively small numberof full-time learners attempt to gain PLAR course credits.4Responses from 20 institutions report that a total of 52 full-time students have applied for PLAR credits and 48 weresuccessful. Use of PLAR is greater in continuing educationECE programs that typically include students who areworking in the field while pursuing their studies. The surveyreport indicates that ECE programs typically account for aproportionately larger share of applications for PLAR than isfound in other programs.

An overview of PLAR policies and practices in post-secondaryeducation institutions is summarized in Table 5.3.

79




Table 5.3 Overview of Prior Learning Assessment and RecognitionPLAR Policies PLAR Infrastructure

NewfoundlandProvince-wide college PLAR policy. Student fee $50/course for assessment.Additional 4-yr grant for PLAR in ECCE to support PLAR portfolio course.Established provincial learning outcomes used to assess students’ progressin ECCE program and for PLAR. Prince Edward IslandNo provincial PLAR. Nova Scotia No provincial PLAR policy.New BrunswickNo provincial PLAR policy.

QuebecProvince-wide requirements for PLAR in vocational education that are basedon learning objectives defined in the core occupational standards. Theevaluation and recognition of prior learning is responsibility of the colleges. OntarioProvince-wide college PLAR policy in effect. Credits for prior learning are grades where possible. Otherwise, the gradeassigned on a transcript will appear as CR (credit for prior learning).Provincial government provides $30/student for PLAR. At college level,cost for assessment is approx. $95 compared to average $185/course incontinuing education programs.ManitobaPLAR policy framework to expand PLAR facilitation and advisory services,establish learning outcomes-based curricula, develop all staff, increaserecruitment of non-traditional students, create strategic implementationplans, policies and procedures.

SaskatchewanNo formal PLAR policy but provincial PLAR strategy in development.PLAR policy implemented for all SIAST programs. AlbertaAlberta Council on Admissions and Transfers develops policies, guidelines andprocedures to facilitate transfer agreements. Most individual PSE institutionshave policy statements on the recognition of prior learning and are workingon implementation. The Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training Boardprovides opportunities to assess prior learning for certification. British ColumbiaProvince-wide PLA initiative began in 1993. Institutions receive small($20,000) PLA implementation grants that allow them to implementindependent processes.PLA Enhancement Grants supports projects that assist public post-secondary institutions to work in collaboration to improve efficientdelivery of PLA services.ECE Articulation Committee reviews PLAR and other credit transfer andprogram content issues. Northwest TerritoriesNo territorial policy. Aurora College has established PLAR policy.

Skills Development Secretariat, Department of Education was responsiblefor structure of PLAR policy and implementation. Now responsibility ofindividual institutions.

Holland College is designing PLAR implementation plan.

PLA Centre provides PLAR training, resources and network for practitionerswho are assessing prior learning.Specific PLAR policies established by individual PSE institutions.Department of Education works in cooperation with PSE institutions topromote PLAR within the province.Ministère de l’Éducation provides general support, including collegecoordination, studies, booklets, information kits and training.

Implementation is the responsibility of individual post-secondary institution.

PLA Centre is developing PLAR system in partnership with educationalproviders, employers, labour and sector representatives.Resources to Red River College to develop PLAR practitioner training. MPLAN (Manitoba Prior Learning Assessment Network) members fromacross labour, government, business and education work closely withCAPLA (Canadian Association of Prior Learning Assessment) to expandPLAR practices.

Saskatchewan Labour Force Development Board brings together business,labour, education and government to develop and support PLARimplementation. Individual PSE institutions

Centre for Curriculum Transfer and Technology provides essentialcoordination, institutional and professional development, and networkingopportunities for PLA practitioners. BC PLA Institutional Coordinators Working Group fosters the developmentof flexible assessment principles and procedures within coordinator’sinstitutions. BC Council on Admissions and Transfers recognizes and supportsArticulation Committees.

Source: Adapted from Bertrand (2003).



M A I N R E P O R T

5.1.4 Distance educationDistance education “describes a program in which students areoff-campus during their studies. More specifically, it is the delivery ofinstruction where the faculty and students are separated by distance,the distance being bridged through the use of various instructionalmedia.”5 A review of post-secondary ECE web-based

course calendars for distance education delivery finds thatits use is increasing across Canada.6 It is possible to completepost-secondary ECE programs at the certificate, diplomaand post-diploma level. Table 5.4 provides some examplesof distance education delivery of college ECE programs.

81

Table 5.4 Examples of Distance Education in Post-Secondary ECE ProgramsInstitution and Distance Education Programs OfferedAssiniboine College, Brandon, Manitoba

ECCE diplomaECCE Management post-diploma certificateCambrian CollegeSudbury, Ontario

ECCE diplomaCégep de Saint-JérômeSt-Jérôme, Quebec

Three ECCE courses: Health, Professional Development andCreativity started Sept/2002.Previous ECCE course in programming discontinued.College of the North AtlanticSt. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador

ECCE diplomaStudents can exit part way through with equivalency to 1-yrcertificate.Grant MacEwan CollegeEdmonton, Alberta

ECD courses: Child. Dev. 1, Family-centred Practice,Administration

Humber CollegeEtobicoke, Ontario

ECCE Certificate – 13 courses. Can transfer into second yearon site.Keyano CollegeFort McMurray, Alberta

ECCE – First four foundational courses. If successful, cantransfer to Grand Prairie and complete diploma throughself-study distance modules.Lethbridge CollegeLethbridge, Alberta

ECCE diploma and certificate programs, including fieldplacements.

MethodsVideos, print-based course manual, supplemental reading package, cassettes, some havetextbooks, email, directed to different websites.Clustered learning sites meet for classes once a week.Faculty contact time: 6 hrs for a 3-credit course (40 hrs), 12 hrs for 6-credit course (80hrs). Telephone contact initiated by both. Teleconferencing through Contact NorthPrint-based course manualsTextbooksTelephone, email supportOn-line, web-basedPrint-based manual with video and reading resources,textbooksTelephone contact with faculty

Print-based modules with selected readings, videosTeleconferencingEmail, faxWebCT for first-year coursesTelephone contact with facultyOn-site field placement and summer seminar requiredWeb-based delivery, seminar model, play simulationsInteractive discussions with links to resource people for particular topicsPrint-based administration course now converted to WebCT and part of an applieddegree in Human Services.Some on-site seminarsTeleconferencesPrint-based modules carefully designed and colour coded, with videos, supplementalreadings, few texts.Telephone contact with faculty.

Audio- and video-conferencing through Alberta North—links several colleges in the NorthPrint-based manual, textbook, supplement with videosTelephone contact with facultyIntroductory video by studentCD-ROMWebCT for some coursesPrint-based manuals, selected readings, textbooks included, video, cassette tapes,email, SmartboardTelephone support and email with faculty




5.1.5 Accreditation ECE post-secondary programs that receive public fundingmust comply with provincial/territorial requirements.This may include meeting specific enrolment targets orquality indicators. Most college programs havecommunity/employer advisory committees that providefeedback to program delivery. In Manitoba, approved

post-secondary ECE programs are required to submit detailsof their courses, teaching materials and staff to the ChildCare Education Program Approval Committee (CCEPAC)of the Department of Education and Training.Representatives from the colleges, universities, the childcare association and the Child Day Care Branch sit onthis committee and must approve all courses offered.

Northern Lights CollegeFort St. John, British Columbia

ECCE certificate and diploma, infant, toddler and special needsand also teacher assistant program. Core subjects in both.

Teleconference – dedicated courses in Guiding Behaviour, and Caring courses,Interpersonal Communications, Foundations, seminars for practicum. Also printmaterials, complete course text, resource readings, connection with the instructor, setperiod of time, due dates for assignments. No exams in program. Work on a one-to-onebasis. On-line for 6 yrs. WebCT used for several courses. Written courses enhancedthrough on-line to increase student interaction. One course (Professionalism) workshopsin communities and then they come together.Toll-free telephone lines.

Source: Adapted from Morris (2003).

Red Deer CollegeRed Deer, Alberta

ECCE diploma

Red River CollegeWinnipeg, Manitoba

ECCE – 2-yr diploma. 2 post-diploma certificates: ECEAboriginal Studies and Special Needs Child Care. Post-diploma results in Level III certification. Business diploma,health services management.Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science andTechnology (SIAST)Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

ECCE diploma and certificate level programs

University of GuelphGuelph, Ontario

Certificate in Child Care Administration (non-credit)Framework courseCourse in Administration of Programs for Children and Youth Couple and family relations. Three Child Developmentcourses. None of the ECCE methods. Distance credits gotoward a BSc with a major in Child Studies.Yukon CollegeWhitehorse, Yukon

ECCE first-year certificate. Starting to develop diplomacourses, so far, two courses and in process of hiring facultyto develop two more. Agreement with Lethbridge andAurora Colleges for credit transfer.

Print-based modules, introductory and mid-term seminar, weekly communicationbetween instructor/students and student dialogue. Three face-to-face seminars eachterm. Web-based research led to setting up tasks using Internet as resource. Step tocomputer-assisted courses beneficial. WebCT delivery for all courses, beganexperimenting with on-line tasks and communication tools. Experimented with video-conferencing, did not work very well, not accessible enough. Full-time studentsincreasingly welcomed into distance courses.E-journals for practicum.Teleconference every second week for 2 hrs with instructor. College rents a bridge. Onopposite weeks, they have a one-on-one tutorial. Email access to course information.Competency-based system, COMPACS are print-based modules that have clear directions,practical assignments and contain all the resources students need, including textbooks.Plans to launch two courses on WebCT.

Televised through Saskatchewan TV network. Mainly print-based modules, videos. Taketelevised modules, and edit for use with print materials. On-line courses but not at thisdivision. Very high numbers, therefore can only use own videos. Recommendsupplemental videos and readings. About five programs totally offered by distance,some are cored including ECCE. Extra resources in reading packages with selectedreadings. If materials are used in daytime program, some if not more are supplied. Emailand telephone contact.WebCT for Child Development courses.Print-based manuals with selected readings and videos for Child Care Administrationcourse.Textbooks.

Computer-assisted with audio graphics. Teleconference with students.Video conferences with tutors and instructor.Print-based modules.Videos made in-house—students can see instructors. Courses are read onto audio tapesto help those needing supports with reading.



M A I N R E P O R T

The child care sector is considering a proposal to introducean accreditation process for post-secondary ECE programs.“Accreditation is a process by which a professional training program ofan institution demonstrates to an authorized external agency ofprofessional peers that its program of study, and the environment inwhich it is provided, are able to produce graduates who have thecompetencies required to provide quality services to the profession.”7

5.1.6 University ECEC programsA survey of undergraduate and graduate programs related toECEC, conducted for the Association of Canadian CommunityColleges and the Canadian Child Care Federation in 1998,found 17 undergraduate degree programs and 9 graduateprograms.8 The survey found that it was unlikely that manyof the graduates from these programs seek employment in thechild care sector; most pursue employment in the educationsystem or in early intervention programs.

Key informants and recent college website informationindicate that colleges are entering agreements withuniversities to offer a combined ECE diploma andB.A. degree. In Ontario, community colleges are now ableto offer a limited number of degree programs.

Quebec has introduced university-level certificates in areassuch as early childhood development and programming,management and school-age care. Also offered are coursesspecific to the newly created positions within the CPEstructure of “conseillère pédagogique.”

Kindergarten teachers must meet teacher qualificationrequirements. Universities offer consecutive and concurrentteachers education programs. Consecutive programs areusually a 1-year program, taken after completion of a 4-yearundergraduate degree. Concurrent programs are 4- or 5-yearundergraduate degree programs that include specific teachereducation courses and practicum. The curriculum for teachereducation is determined by individual universities inaccordance with provincial/territorial and professionalrequirements. Teacher education programs typically havean elementary or primary stream, but there are no additionalrequirements for kindergarten teachers.

5.2 Labour Market Development Agreements Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) arepartnerships between the federal and provincial/territorialgovernments to increase access to training forhigh-demand occupations.

83

Box 5.1What Are Labour Market Development Agreements?In the late 1990s, the federal government withdrew from direct labour market training and sought partnerships with the provinces and territories inthe area of labour market development. The federal government sought to improve labour market program objectives, such as improving service toclients, ensuring better coordination of federal/provincial programs to reduce duplication, and meeting the needs of regional and local labour marketsby developing LMDAs with each jurisdiction. LMDAs have been developed and signed with all provinces and territories with the exception of Ontario.

Through the LMDAs, the federal government joins the provinces and territories in designing, implementing and evaluating Employment Benefitsand Support Measures (EBSMs). The LMDAs are either co-managed or transfer agreements and are indeterminate, not subject to renewal.

Unemployed individuals may access EBSMs, whether funded through HRSDC in co-managed provinces and territories or under similar supportmeasures through a province or territory with a transfer LMDA.

The Employment Benefits delivered under the LMDAs help unemployed EI insured individuals gain work experience, improve job skills or start newbusinesses, and also encourage employers to provide opportunities for work experience through four programs:

• Skills Development Program, which provides financial assistance to help eligible individuals pay for the cost of skills training and relatedexpenses, while they are enrolled in an approved training program.

• Self-Employment Program, which provides eligible individuals with financial support and assistance in business planning while they get theirbusinesses started.

• Job Creation Partnerships, which provides eligible individuals with opportunities to gain work experience on projects developed in conjunctionwith industry, other levels of government or community groups.

• Targeted Wage Subsidies, which helps eligible individuals who are having difficulty accessing employment due to employment barriers. Employersreceive a temporary wage subsidy as an incentive to hire individuals they would not normally hire.

The Support Measures delivered under the LMDAs provide funding to organizations, businesses and communities that provide employment assistanceservices to unemployed individuals. The funding is also used to address human resource, labour market and labour force issues. There are threesupport measures programs:

• Employment Assistance Services program which helps unemployed individuals prepare for, obtain and maintain employment by providing themwith services such as counselling, job search techniques, job placement and labour market information.

• Labour Market Partnerships which provides funding to assist employers, employee and/or employer associations and communities to improve theircapacity to deal with human resource requirements and to implement labour force adjustments.

• Research and Innovation helps support research activities that identify improved methods of helping Canadians prepare for and keep employment,as well as be productive participants in the labour force.

Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2003).




In every jurisdiction, there are individuals participating inpost-secondary ECE programs with support from the SkillsDevelopment Program. This program may have a slightlydifferent name in jurisdictions where the LMDA is a transferagreement, but the eligibility criteria are the same.To qualify, individuals must:• be EI eligible;• have an active EI claim; and• have Reachback status (active claim in last 3 years or

maternity/paternity claim in last 5 years).

In some jurisdictions, a provincial/territorial program willalso provide training support to individuals who are notEI eligible, for example:• Manitoba – a “handful” of people have been supported

through Employment and Training Services (a provincialprogram)

• Alberta – Skill Development Grant• Nunavut – FANS (Financial Assistance for Nunavut students);

of the 74 students in ECEC programs throughout BaffinRegion communities, only 6 are able to access the LMDAfunding; the rest are funded through FANS Department ofEducation.

There are a number of specific ECE projects thatinvolve LMDAs:• the Accelerated ECE Program, Holland College (see Box 7.1)• the Training Coordination Project, New Brunswick

(see Box 7.2)• the Family Centre of Winnipeg recently offered a training

project for people receiving Income Assistance or EIbenefits to obtain the child care skills and business skillsnecessary to pursue a career as an early childhoodeducator. The graduates were able to become licensed andopen their own family child care homes while othersfound employment in licensed child care centres(as child care assistants). The Family Centre coordinatedthe project, providing mentoring support and access tocounselling as needed, and furnished and equipped thetraining centre. The Family Centre sub-contracted thetraining portion to Red River College. “Graduates” fromthe program received some credits from Red RiverCollege toward an ECE diploma.

Table 5.5 displays information about ECE post-secondaryprograms and LMDAs in the provinces and territories.



M A I N R E P O R T

85

Tabl

e 5.

5 E

arly

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tion

Tra

inin

g an

d La

bour

Mar

ket

Dev

elop

men

t Ag

reem

ents

Prov

ince

or

Terr

itor

yN

ewfo

undl

and

and

Labr

ador

Prin

ce E

dwar

d Is

land

Nov

a Sc

otia

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Queb

ec

Onta

rio

Man

itob

a

Rela

ted

Acti

viti

es in

ECE

Tra

inin

g

Acce

lera

ted

prog

ram

at

Hol

land

Col

lege

(see

Box

7.1

) EC

DA t

ook

lead

on

this

initi

ativ

e; H

RDC

role

was

fund

ing;

trai

ning

was

nec

essa

ry b

y in

dust

ry.

In t

he la

st 2

yrs

, un

trai

ned

peop

lew

orki

ng in

thi

s oc

cupa

tion

wer

eas

sist

ed w

ith

trai

ning

cos

ts w

ith

ajo

int

agre

emen

t w

ith

othe

r pr

ovin

cial

depa

rtm

ents

. Tr

aini

ng a

ndEm

ploy

men

t De

velo

pmen

t pr

ovid

edab

out

$350

,000

to

assi

st w

ith

curr

icul

um d

evel

opm

ent

and

deliv

ery

of t

his

trai

ning

.Th

ere

is a

cer

tifi

cate

-lev

el“A

ttes

tati

on”

ECE

prog

ram

thr

ough

Empl

oi Q

uébe

c fo

r pe

ople

re-

ente

ring

the

labo

ur f

orce

.

Fam

ily C

entr

e of

Win

nipe

g, C

hild

Car

eAs

sist

ant/

Fam

ily C

hild

Car

e Tr

aini

ngPr

ojec

t (a

ssis

tanc

e to

indi

vidu

als

toob

tain

chi

ld c

are

and

busi

ness

ski

llsto

ope

n fa

mily

chi

ld c

are)

M

CCA

– H

uman

Res

ourc

e Pl

anni

ngIn

itia

tive

(hi

red

proj

ect

coor

dina

tor

to id

enti

fy c

ompo

nent

s of

labo

urm

arke

t st

rate

gy).

Type

of

LMDA

Co-m

anag

e

Co-m

anag

e

Co-m

anag

e

Tran

sfer

Tran

sfer

Non

eTr

ansf

er

Indi

vidu

als

in E

CE T

rain

ing

(Ski

lls D

evel

opm

ent

Prog

ram

s)•

30 in

divi

dual

s pr

esen

tly

in E

CE t

rain

ing.

•W

hile

dem

and

exis

ts f

or e

arly

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

, th

e ch

alle

nge

is lo

w p

ost-

trai

ning

wag

es.

•N

ewfo

undl

and

and

Labr

ador

sup

port

s lo

nger

ter

m t

rain

ing

than

oth

er ju

risd

icti

ons

(i.e

. m

axim

um d

urat

ion

3 yr

s).

•In

divi

dual

s co

ntin

ue t

o ge

t EI

ben

efit

s un

til t

hey

are

exha

uste

d; w

ill c

over

80%

tui

tion

, ch

ild c

are,

tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

book

s, li

ving

exp

ense

s.•

Cont

ract

wit

h cl

ient

(co

ntri

buti

on a

gree

men

t).

•16

stu

dent

s in

Hol

land

Col

lege

acc

eler

ated

pro

gram

.•

Othe

r in

divi

dual

s ta

king

ECE

wit

h sk

ills

deve

lopm

ent

supp

ort

(ind

ivid

uals

rec

eive

EI

from

Sep

t to

May

[re

gula

r an

dPa

rt I

I liv

ing

allo

wan

ce]

and

re-q

ualif

y fo

r se

cond

yea

r by

wor

king

in s

umm

er w

ith

seco

nd y

ear

star

ting

inSe

ptem

ber;

sup

port

may

incl

ude

80%

tui

tion

, ch

ild c

are

and

trav

el).

•Si

nce

1996

, 77

clie

nts

succ

essf

ully

com

plet

ed c

ours

e in

ECE

.•

Pres

entl

y 36

stu

dent

s re

port

ed e

nrol

led;

due

to

relia

bilit

y is

sues

wit

h re

port

s, N

OC e

nrol

men

t nu

mbe

rs a

repr

edic

ted

as h

ighe

r.

•10

to

12 in

divi

dual

s ta

king

ECE

tra

inin

g an

nual

ly t

hrou

gh T

rain

ing

and

Skill

s De

velo

pmen

t Pr

ogra

m (

clie

nts

rece

ive

50%

of

tuit

ion

cost

s to

max

imum

of

$7,0

00 in

add

itio

n to

fin

anci

al a

ssis

tanc

e to

cov

er c

osts

rel

ated

to

trai

ning

.In

divi

dual

s m

aint

ain

thei

r EI

ben

efit

s an

d m

ay r

ecei

ve li

ving

allo

wan

ce if

EI

runs

out

whi

le in

tra

inin

g.•

Depa

rtm

ent

of T

rain

ing

and

Empl

oym

ent

Deve

lopm

ent

(TED

) Tr

aini

ng a

nd S

kills

Pro

gram

(TS

P) f

unde

d th

roug

hCa

nada

–NB

LMDA

.

N/A

N/A

•M

anit

oba

Adva

nced

Edu

cati

on a

nd T

rain

ing,

Em

ploy

men

t an

d Tr

aini

ng S

ervi

ces

(ETS

) ha

s su

ppor

ted

an a

vera

ge o

f50

indi

vidu

als

per

year

in E

CE t

rain

ing,

pri

mar

ily t

hrou

gh L

MDA

Ski

lls D

evel

opm

ent

Prog

ram

but

als

o th

roug

hot

her

ETS

prog

ram

s.•

Crit

eria

incl

ude

unem

ploy

ed,

job

thre

aten

ed,

on E

I or

EI

elig

ible

; pr

ovin

cial

pro

gram

cri

teri

a in

clud

e in

rec

eipt

of

IA o

r lo

wer

inco

me

wit

h de

pend

ent

child

ren.

•ET

S do

es e

ncou

rage

par

tici

pant

s to

tra

in f

or o

ccup

atio

ns t

hat

are

in h

igh

dem

and;

in M

anit

oba

ECE

is id

enti

fied

as

a hi

gh-d

eman

d oc

cupa

tion

.•

Part

icip

ants

are

elig

ible

for

fin

anci

al s

uppo

rt t

o a

max

imum

of

$15,

000

(LM

DA)

and

$7,5

00 (

prov

inci

al).

Gen

eral

ly,

prog

ram

s ru

n no

long

er t

han

52 w

ks,

how

ever

, su

ppor

t fo

r 2-

yr p

rogr

ams

may

be

avai

labl

e fo

r th

ose

trai

ning

in a

high

-dem

and

occu

pati

on.

Sour

ce: T

reas

ury

Boar

d of

Can

ada

(200

3).

LMU

key

info

rman

t in

terv

iew

s w

ith

HRD

C pe

rson

nel i

n pr

ovin

ces

and

terr

itor

ies,

pro

vinc

ial/

terr

itor

ial o

ffic

ials

in m

inis

trie

s of

em

ploy

men

t an

d tr

aini

ng.

Not

all

juri

sdic

tion

s w

ere

avai

labl

e to

pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

for

this

tab

le.

Sask

atch

ewan

Albe

rta

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

aN

unav

ut

Nor

thw

est

Terr

itor

ies

Yuko

n

Also

con

trac

t-ba

sed

prog

ram

min

g –

“Ski

lls f

or w

ork”

and

”Tr

aini

ng o

n th

ejo

b”

Rigi

d cr

iter

ia –

few

peo

ple

have

enou

gh E

I ho

urs

(or

none

at

all)

inno

rthe

rn c

omm

unit

ies

as t

here

are

insu

ffic

ient

jobs

in t

he c

omm

unit

yye

ar-r

ound

to

colle

ct E

I ho

urs.

Tran

sfer

Tran

sfer

Co-m

anag

eTr

ansf

er

Tran

sfer

Co-m

anag

e

N/A

•So

me

ECE

stud

ents

wit

h sk

ills

deve

lopm

ent

supp

ort

taki

ng 1

-yr

cert

ific

ate

prog

ram

(w

ould

sen

d in

divi

dual

s to

loan

s fo

r se

cond

yea

r).

•Tw

o st

ream

s of

tra

inin

g su

ppor

t (b

oth

wit

h In

divi

dual

Em

ploy

men

t/In

vest

men

t Pl

ans)

:1.

EI r

oute

for

tho

se e

ligib

le;

mos

t ex

pedi

ent

rout

e to

em

ploy

men

t, m

ay p

rovi

de s

ome

acad

emic

upg

radi

ng p

rior

to 1

2-m

th c

ours

e; p

ays

high

er b

udge

t fo

r liv

ing

2.Sk

ill D

evel

opm

ent

Gran

t (f

or t

hose

not

EI

elig

ible

): f

ocus

on

Engl

ish

as a

Sec

ond

Lang

uage

, up

grad

ing

N/A

•Si

x in

divi

dual

s ta

king

ECE

C fu

ndin

g by

Bui

ldin

g Es

sent

ial S

kills

fun

ded

thou

gh L

MDA

.•

ECEC

is a

hig

h-de

man

d oc

cupa

tion

, re

quir

ing

at le

ast

Grad

e 10

.•

LMDA

will

pro

vide

fin

anci

al s

uppo

rt u

p to

52

wks

; FA

NS

will

pay

as

long

as

the

cour

se is

in s

essi

on.

•U

ntra

ined

indi

vidu

als

are

able

to

acce

ss u

pgra

ding

cou

rses

thr

ough

Com

mun

ity

Lear

ning

Cen

tres

; in

com

e su

ppor

tw

ill a

ssis

t w

ith

shor

t-te

rm c

ours

es.

N/A

N/A




5.3 Child Care OrganizationsThe child care workforce is supported by membership-basedchild care organizations that seek to keep members informedabout issues related to ECEC and provide professionaldevelopment opportunities. Many also have a publiceducation and advocacy role and may administer provincialcertification of ECE staff.

It is estimated that fewer than 15,000 individuals who arecurrently part of the child care workforce have any affiliationwith a child care organization. A survey front-line staffworking in full-time regulated child care centre for children0 to 6 years reported that two thirds of all staff did notbelong to any sector organization while the majority ofdirectors did belong to at least one organization.9

Appendix 4 provides a detailed overview of the mainnational and provincial/territorial child care organizations.

5.3.1 Pan-Canadian child care organizationsThe Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC)is a pan-Canadian, membership-based organization, formedin 1982. The CCAAC’s membership includes individuals,families, child care programs, provincial/territorial and pan-Canadian organizations. In addition to a Board of Directorsrepresenting provinces and territories, the CCAAC’s Councilof Advocates was established to widen the support andadvice to CCAAC on child care policy and advocacystrategies and campaigns. Council members bring diversevoices together from labour, the anti-poverty movement,parents, the disability movement, the immigrant and visibleminority community, the rural community, the women’scommunity and others. CCAAC’s pan-Canadian reach takeson a larger scope when the reach of its memberorganizations is considered. More than 178,000 people alsohave access to CCAAC’s services and publications, includingmore than 30,000 parents.

The CCAAC maintains a wide communication network,website, Bulletin and series of policy papers and briefs.The association works for child care as part of progressivefamily policies; the right of all children to access a childcare system supported by public funds; a child care systemthat is comprehensive, inclusive, accessible, affordable, highquality and non-profit; and a range of child care servicesfor children 0 to 12 years.

The Canadian Child Care Federation (CCCF) was establishedin 1989. It is a pan-Canadian non-profit organizationcomprising provincial/territorial affiliate organizations, as wellas individual members and agencies working in partnershipwith ECE and child care organizations, training institutionsand individuals working with children and their families.It has a Member Council that consists of representatives from19 provincial/territorial affiliates from 11 jurisdictions plus

representatives from Aboriginal and rural communities.Interaction is a bilingual journal published bimonthly by theCCCF. It includes articles on current research and publicpolicy in ECEC and related fields. It also profiles individualsand organizations from across the country and provides acomprehensive listing of upcoming events. Interaction has thewidest reach and readership within the child care workforceof any publication.

The CCCF produces numerous publications, resourcesheets and tool kits to support practice. It is also involvedin numerous national and international research projects toinform the development of resources and programs tosupport quality child care services.

5.3.2 Provincial/territorial child care organizationsThere is at least one organization in every province andterritory (except for Northwest Territories and Nunavut) thatsupports front-line staff in the child care workforce. Some ofthe organizations and activities are targeted to those staff whoare early childhood educators.

The organizations have developed and grown to meet theneeds of individuals working with young children andfamilies and most do not have government-defined mandates.Membership is typically voluntary. They carry out activitiesrelated to professional development and often advocate forpublic investment in a child care system and better pay,benefits and recognition for their members. Most sustainthemselves on membership fees and project funding.

In Quebec, the two major child care organizations,Fédération des centres de la petite enfance du Québec andConcertaction were amalgamated into the Association québécoisedes centres de la petite enfance (AQCPE). The AQCPErepresents the employer at the provincial negotiating table.The organization receives funding for training, informationand promotional activities.

Regional child care organizations are also funded to providetraining and information. Some of these have set up a “teacherreplacement-referral service” whereby CPEs which needteachers and teacher assistants call in for staff. They have aclose relationship with the colleges which train new graduates.

5.3.3 Child care resources and research servicesIn Canada, in addition to the sector organizations, there arefour organizations that engage in policy research, knowledgeexchange and resource dissemination to the ECEC sectorand related groups. Collectively, they bridge the worlds ofacademic and applied research and those who make thepolicies and do the work at the frontlines. The productionand distribution of information and publications in Canadais notoriously difficult given the country’s overall sparsepopulation and geographic size. The collective efforts of



M A I N R E P O R T

these organizations join the efforts of the national andprovincial/territorial organizations in transferringup-to-date information and evidence to decision makers,influencers and practitioners.

• The Childcare Resource and Research Unit at theUniversity of Toronto is a policy and research-orientedfacility which focuses on ECEC and policy analysis;consults on child care policy and research; publishes papersand other resources; maintains a comprehensive resourcecollection and computerized catalogue; and providesonline resources and research through its website(www.childcarecanada.org).

• SpeciaLink is a national child care network whichpromotes the inclusion of children with special needs inchild care and other ECEC programs.

• Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre is an umbrellaorganization which provides resources, information andreferral services to support the child care sector. It offersa range of training activities and resources on diversityand anti-bias, as well as administration and financialmanagement.

• Child Care Connections Nova Scotia links child careprofessionals to resources and information, promotesand supports the workforce and operates a resource-centre library.

5.4 Trade UnionsThe labour movement in Canada has three areas ofinvolvement with the child care workforce that date backto the 1970s:

• advocacy for public policy for universal child care; • organizing the child care workforce and bargaining for

better compensation and working conditions; and • bargaining for improved family and child care benefits

and services for their members.

5.4.1 Unionization of child care staffTrade unions represent a minority of the child careworkforce in Canada.• The You Bet I Care! survey of child care centre staff in 1998

reported only 13.4 % of staff employed in child care centreswith children 0 to 6 years were unionized.10 In 2003/2004,there were 6,500 members in CPEs in Quebec organizedwith the CSN, bringing the union density1 rate in Quebecto approximately 30%—considerably higher than in otherprovinces and territories.

• A 1997 survey of school-age child care staff found that theunionization rate across Canada ranged from 96% inQuebec to 22% in British Columbia, 21% in Nova Scotia,17% in Saskatchewan, 11% in Ontario, 10% in Manitobaand 7% in Alberta.11

• A 2000 survey of unions representing unionized childcare staff, which was updated where possible for the LMU,reported approximately 35,500 unionized child careworkers.12 Figures are summarized in Table 5.6.

• The rapid expansion of out-of-school child care programsin Quebec has increased the workforce and membershipin the Confédération des syndicates nationaux (CSN), theCentrale des syndicates du Québec (CSQ) and theCanadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) byapproximately 10,000 members in the last 3 years.

87

1 1,000 people are family providers who have been recognized as workers (500 at CSN and 500 at CSQ). The government is appealing this decision. The total is thus

potentially 25,000 unionized workers in Quebec plus 1,000 whose status is being debated in court. In this report, union density is defined as the percentage of

workers in the sector that fall within a certified bargaining unit.

Source: Canadian Union of Public Employees (2000).

Updated CUPE figures for Quebec provided by CUPE for 2003.

All other Quebec figures updated by the CSN for 2003/2004.

Updated NUPGE figures provided by MGEU for spring of 2004.

Table 5.6 Unionized Child Care Staff, by Union1 and Region

CAWCUPEFSSS/CSNFEESP/CSNFPSS/CSQFIPEQ/CSQFISAHSANUPGEPSACSEIUUFCWUNITETOTALS

NL

30

30

NS21119

15

155

QC

2,7006,5008,1004,500500

2,700

25,000

ON7

2,949

500

3801515

3,866

MB

85

650

735

SK

116

20

20

156

AB

10

10

BC

148

4001,000

1,548

YK

10

10

Canada28

6,1576,5008,1004,500

5002,700

4002,1700

25400

1515

31,510




• The Manitoba Government Employees Union (MGGEU)has recently organized 67 regulated child care centres,representing about 640 new members, and has another 30centres pending. It is now preparing to negotiate the firstcontract.

Some of the unions that represent the child careworkforce include: • CUPE. In Quebec, CUPE is a member of the Quebec

Federation of Labour.• Fédération de la Santé et Services Sociaux (FSSS/CSN),

and the Fédération des employées et employés de servicespublics (FEESP/CSN), two federations which aremembers of the CSN

• Fédération du personnel de soutien scolaire (FPSS/CSQ),and the Fédération des intervenantes en petite enfance duQuébec (FIPEQ/CSQ), members of the CSQ

• Fédération indépendante des syndicates autonomes (FISA)• B.C. Government and Services Employees Union

(BCGEU),Saskatchewan Government and General EmployeesUnion (SGEU), Ontario Public Service Employees Union(OPSEU), and Manitoba General Employees Union(MGEU) are all components of the National Union ofPublic and General Employees (NUPGE)

• Service Employees International Union (SEIU)• Health Sciences Association (HSA)• Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC)• Canadian Auto Workers (CAW)• Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees

(UNITE)• United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)

5.4.2 Making the case for publicly funded, highquality child care

The trade union movement in Canada has a 30-year historyin supporting public policies that help ensure the provisionof high quality child care. Unions have always linked highquality child care to improved wages, benefits and workingconditions for child care staff. Many unions (both those thatrepresent child care staff and those that do not) have policiesstating that child care should be publicly funded, universallyaccessible, of high quality and regulated. They are involvedin child care advocacy activities and organizations, locally,regionally and nationally. Often, unions which representchild care workers have child care committees that movechild care issues forward internally and externally. In othercases, unions work on the issue through their equality orwomen’s committees13.

5.4.3 Collective bargaining for innovative child careFew collective agreements in Canada contain provisions for childcare facilities or family support, and those with provisions areconcentrated in the public sector, universities and the automotiveindustry. Following is a summary of the results of the efforts oftwo unions to bargain and to advocate for child care.

Canadian Auto Workers• In 1987, the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) negotiated a

child care fund from the Big Three auto makers—Ford ofCanada, Daimler-Chrysler Canada and General Motors ofCanada. Extended bargaining won capital funds thathelped support child care centres in Windsor, Oshawa andPort Elgin, Ontario.

• To meet the needs of other members, the Big Threecontract negotiated in 1999 included a child care subsidyof $10/day per child to a maximum of $2,000/year, paiddirectly to a licensed non-profit child care provider. Thecontract also included $450,000 to assist existing child carecentres to better serve the needs of employees coveredunder the agreements, including expanding operatinghours for shift-working parents.

• Child care workers at CAW-sponsored centres receiveabove-average industry wages and benefits.

• The CAW has joined forces with CEOs of General Motorsof Canada and Daimler-Chrysler to jointly urge the federalgovernment, working with the provinces, to provide anational child care program.

• The CAW’s child care provisions dovetail with the union’ssocial agenda for a national child care program.

Canadian Union of Postal Workers• In 1981, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)

bargained for paid maternity leave for its members. Aftergoing on strike over the issue, CUPW won a top-up tofederal maternity benefits of 93% of wages for 17 weeks.Following on the CUPW precedent, many other unionsfollowed suit.

• CUPW put child care on the bargaining table withCanada Post in the 1980s. CUPW was successful inachieving a child care fund to help postal worker parentsbalance work and family. The fund helps members whohave the most trouble finding or affording high qualitychild care. The fund is used for projects to provide childcare and related services to CUPW families, provide childcare information programs, and undertake needsassessments and child care research.

• Canada Post contributes to the child care fund every threemonths; the union develops the programs and administersthe fund.

• CUPW believes that quality child care should be a rightof all children. As part of the union’s overall commitmentto universal social programs, it is working alongsideadvocacy groups to press for a government-funded,universally accessible, high quality child care system.The union has also developed a 1-week in-residenceeducational program on child care for postal workers.

5.5 Early Child Development Research and ResourcesThe influence of the population health framework (whichidentified early development as a key determinant of lifelonghealth and well-being) is evident in recent studies andreports.14 A proliferation of resources, research and initiatives



M A I N R E P O R T

about early child development has sprung up that is basedon the premise that those who work with young childrenand their families need to understand the impact of earlyexperiences on developmental trajectories. The expandingknowledge base about the science and practice of early childdevelopment supports the preparation and ongoingprofessional development of the child care workforce.

5.5.1 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth(NLSCY) is a data source that supports longitudinalresearch, following an initial cohort of 22,000 of childrenages 0 to 11 years in 1994/1995 to age 25. Data are collectedevery 2 years and additional children are included to replacethe younger age cohorts as the longitudinal groups age.

The overall purpose of the NLSCY is to develop a nationaldatabase on the characteristics and life experiences ofCanadian children as they grow from infancy to adulthood.The NLSCY provides for the first time a single source ofdata for the study of child development in context, includingthe diverse paths of healthy child development.

One of the distinguishing features of the NLSCY is that itcontains data on:• the age, sex and marital status of all members of the

household;• income and employment of the children’s parent or

guardian; and• how these factors are related to each other.

The NLSCY is the first national study to collect data froma large representative sample of parents (usually mothers)on their perceptions of their children’s behaviour over time.Another distinguishing feature of this study is its “nesteddesign.” The sampling of each identified household includesall children who were newborn to age 11, up to fourchildren (in families with five or more children, fourchildren were randomly selected). Most studies of children’sbehaviour problems, except for twin studies, have targetedone child per family. However, the NLSCY, because of itsnested design, enables researchers to study whether certainoutcomes—such as aggressive behaviour—“run in families.”

The NLSCY does ask questions related to ECEC activities andother community factors. However, the specific data related tochild care provision is limited by the lack of informationabout quality, and some difficulties with the design of the childcare-specific questions.

Understanding the Early Years is a national research initiativerelated to the NLSCY. It is based on the belief that communitieswill use community-specific research to make the case to allocateresources to provide opportunities for young children. Data arecollected in the community about what resources are available,children’s readiness to learn at school entry, and child, family and

community context using the NLSCY. Thirteen communitiesin Canada are involved in this initiative, and in some of thecommunities child care organizations are included in thecommunity infrastructure that guides and monitorsUnderstanding the Early Years.

5.5.2 Centre for Excellence in Early Child DevelopmentThe Centre of Excellence for Early Child Developmentoperates under the administrative leadership of theUniversity of Montreal, in partnership with the:• Canadian Child Care Federation in Ottawa, Ontario; • Canadian Institute of Child Health in Ottawa, Ontario; • IWK Grace Health Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia; • University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British

Columbia; • Conseil de la Nation Atikamekw in Wemotaci, Quebec; • Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario; • l’Hôpital St-Justine in Montreal, Quebec; • Institut de la santé publique du Québec in Québec,

Quebec; • Canadian Paediatric Society in Ottawa, Ontario; and• Centre de Psycho-Éducation du Québec in Montreal,

Quebec.

Other organizations that contribute to the work of this centreinclude the Fondation Jules et Paul-Émile Léger, theAssociation for Infant Mental Health, the Montreal Hospitalfor Sick Children, the Federation of Saskatchewan IndianNations and the Vancouver Board of Trade. Many of theconsortium’s 54 partners contribute financial and in-kindresources over the 5-year lifespan of the Centre, whichsupplement the funding provided by Health Canada.

Canadian and international child development expertscontribute to a consolidated knowledge database thatsummarizes and interprets current research and its application.It is expected that at the end of 5 years a complete packageof materials, organized as an electronic and print encyclopedia,will have been created following children from conceptionto age 5. To date, the encyclopedia includes a review andinterpretation of recent research that studies child care qualityand child development outcomes. Materials are disseminatedbroadly to service providers, including the child careworkforce, and parents. The Centre is hosting a nationalconference, Quality Child Care, in June 2005.

5.5.3 Canadian Language and Literacy Research NetworkThe Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network(CLLRNet) is a National Centre of Excellence established tocreate an integrated network of researchers, practitioners andgovernment policy makers in early childhood literacy andlearning in Canada. The Network intends to improvelanguage and literacy skills in Canadian children, enablingthem to contribute more effectively to the social andeconomic life in their communities.

89




One of the Network’s areas of research is studying andimproving child care staff access to language and literacytraining that is evidence-based. The goal is to accelerate thepace of implementing new ideas and enhance languagedevelopment for children in child care settings. TheNetwork is working in partnership with the Hanen Centre(national organization providing early language interventionprograms and learning resources for caregivers andprofessionals) to develop workshops and materials that willenhance language facilitation in child care centres.

5.5.4 University research centresCanadian universities, often with support of federal andprovincial government research funds, are supporting anumber of research centres and initiatives that will generatenew knowledge about early child development and children’senvironments, including child care centres. Some examples are: • The Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the

University of Toronto is a policy and research-orientedfacility which focuses on ECEC and policy analysis;consults on child care policy and research; publishes papersand other resources; maintains a comprehensive resourcecollection and computerized catalogue; and providesonline resources and research through its website(www.childcarecanada.org).

• The Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) is anetwork of faculty, researchers and graduate studentsfrom British Columbia universities who are working withcommunities to create, promote and apply new knowledgethrough interdisciplinary research. HELP is conducting theEarly Child Development Mapping Project that includesmeasurements of child development, socio-economiccharacteristics, and community assets including child carespaces and other ECEC programs. The Consortium forHealth, Intervention, Learning and Development(CHILD) is a team of academic researchers andcommunity professionals from across British Columbiathat formed in 2003 to conduct 5 years of early childdevelopment research in a range of community settings.

One of the 10 research studies will investigate the effectsof policy changes to child care subsidies, funding, trainingprograms, delivery of child care programs and servicesfor children with extra support needs. The University ofBritish Columbia is the administrative centre forHELP and CHILD.

• The Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMasterUniversity studies solutions to enhance the emotional,social and cognitive development of children. One of itsprojects, the school-readiness project, is particularlyrelevant to the child care workforce. The main objectiveof the project is the development, field testing andongoing monitoring of an acceptable, and psychometricallysound measuring instrument (the Early DevelopmentInstrument), which assesses the readiness to learn in theschool environment of children at the kindergarten level.The instrument is designed to provide information ongroups of children in order to report on populations ofchildren in different communities and predict howchildren will do in elementary school. It collects data onchildren’s experiences, including child care participation,before kindergarten.

• The Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being at theUniversity of Guelph in the College of Social and AppliedHuman Sciences conducts interdisciplinary research,responding to dramatic changes to families occurring overthe last decades. It builds on the expertise of universityfaculty and staff from many disciplines who work inmatters relevant to individual and family well-being, theinterface between work and family, and contextual factorsthat affect workplace productivity and communitysupports. Recent projects that are particularly relevant tochild care provision are an evaluation of new parentalleave and benefits, the national survey of child care centrestaff, the study of child care quality and the evaluation ofongoing support to parents of children with disabilities.

ENDNOTES

1 Ogston 20032 Van Kleef 19983 Ibid4 Bertrand 20035 Morris 2003, p. 1146 Association of Canadian Community Colleges 20037 Ogston 1999, p. 138 Bertrand 19999 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200010 Ibid11 Jacobs, Mill & Jennings 200212 Canadian Union of Public Employees 200013 Kass & Costigliola 200314 Canadian Population Health Initiative 2004; McCain & Mustard 1999


6C H A P T E RT H E W O R K E N V I R O N M E N T C H A L L E N G E


There have been some limited gains in compensation and workingconditions for the child care workforce, but most of the workenvironments challenges identified in the child care sector studyremain. Conditions vary within and across various child caresettings but there continue to be common and persistent problems:• low compensation (wages and benefits for child care staff

and earnings of family child care providers);• difficult working conditions;• limited career opportunities;• health and safety concerns; and• uncertainty about the employment status of family child

care providers in agency-based models.

6.1 CompensationLow remuneration is a central, now infamous characteristicof the child care workforce and is associated with higherstaff turnover rates and poorer quality child care.1

The information in Chapter Two illustrates the differences incompensation for the child care workforce and kindergartenteachers, with child care staff earning less than half as muchas kindergarten teachers. Even child care staff who havesimilar educational credentials to kindergarten teacherscontinue to earn substantially less.

Unlike teachers who earn comparable wages across provincesor local school authorities, according to their education andexperience, outside Quebec (and to a lesser degree Manitoba,which limits parent fees in funded centres and family childcare homes), compensation in child care is closely linked tothe ability of parents to pay high fees for child care. There isusually considerable variation within individual provincesand territories, and there is often variation according to thesocio-economic level of neighbourhoods. Unionization andgovernment wage grants have had a positive impact on childcare compensation levels, but wages in some parts of thecountry remain below the poverty level.

6.1.1 There is wide variation in compensation levelsRemuneration levels and benefits vary by program, type ofcare and jurisdiction. Overall, family child caregivers earnless than staff working in centre-based programs.Remuneration levels are usually decided by boards ofdirectors or owners of individual centres or family child careagencies, or through negotiation between individual parentsand family child caregivers who are not affiliated with anagency. Compensation levels may or may not vary witheducation and experience. Government policies and relatedgrants have an impact on compensation levels but overallremuneration and benefit levels are usually determined bythe fees that parents pay and/or government parent feesubsidy levels. This is not the case in Quebec, where

government funds CPEs to provide salaries at rates accordingto the collective agreement. In 2002, Manitoba introduced a5-year plan that commits to an increase in remuneration bythe end of the period.

In comparison, kindergarten teachers receive salaries andbenefits that are established between provincial/territorialteachers’ associations and provincial/territorial governmentsin 10 jurisdictions and the local school authority in threeprovinces.2 Salary levels increase with additional educationand experience.

Salaries and benefits in related ECEC programs (apart fromregulated child care and kindergarten) are usually establishedby a particular program’s funding guidelines. Most familysupport and child development programs outside ofregulated child care, such as parenting programs, earlyintervention programs and family resource centres, receivecore government funding and are accessed by parents for noor minimum fees. The funding usually includes a dedicatedamount for salaries and benefits.

Family child care providers who are individually licensedare self-employed and their income is determined byhow many children they may care for, the subsidy ratesestablished for low-income eligible parents, and the feesthat parents can pay. The income of family child careproviders who are affiliated with an agency are generallydetermined, not only by how many children they carefor but also by a rate per child established by the agency.The exception is Newfoundland and Labrador whereagency-based providers set their own rates.

The employment status of family child care providersworking with an agency has been debated in the courts onseveral occasions. At this time, caregivers affiliated with anagency are treated as if they were self-employed for purposesof administration of federal and provincial/territorialemployment and income tax legislation. Therefore, as withindividually licensed caregivers, family child care providersare not eligible for maternity and parental leave benefits,EI, health benefits and employee protections under labourlegislation such as paid vacation days

6.1.2 Unionized settings offer better pay and benefitsOverall, child care staff working in unionized settings earnhigher pay and have better benefits than staff in othersettings—on average 8.3% higher. A higher proportion ofunionized centres provide staff with benefits such as disabilityinsurance, extended health care, life insurance, employeetop-up of EI maternity leave benefits and pensions.3

91



C H A P T E R 6 - T H E W O R K E N V I R O N M E N T C H A L L E N G E

In Quebec, remuneration levels are set through collectivebargaining that involves the provincial government, two majorprovincial unions and a group of employer representatives.Through this bargaining process, established in 1999, wageshave increased by close to 40% over the last 4 years.

Unionized staff in British Columbia achieved success inbargaining for improved wages, as part of a larger campaignwithin the broader other social services sector. However,these gains were recently lost as a result of policy changesby the current government.

6.1.3 Dedicated government funding can be directedto increasing pay and benefits

Since the child care sector study, six jurisdictions haveintroduced a wage support or supplement for the child careworkforce in regulated settings. Three jurisdictions haveincreased funding for operating grants, with the intent ofaddressing wage issues but with no requirement that fundsbe spent on wages. One jurisdiction has eliminated a wagesupport program and introduced an operating fund based onenrolment with no requirement that funds be directed towages.

Table 6.1 describes these changes in wage supplements andsupports since the child care sector study. While these wagesupports differ in amount, funding source, requirements andadministration, all (with the exception of British Columbia)are attempting to address the compensation issues of thechild care sector in regulated settings.

The following jurisdictions have introduced or increasedwage supports:• Newfoundland (introduced Educational Supplement)• Nova Scotia (introduced Child Care Stabilization Grant)• New Brunswick (introduced Quality Improvement

Funding Support)• Quebec (agreed to a 4-year wage increase) • Manitoba (introduced Five Year Plan)• Saskatchewan (increased Early Childhood Services Grant)• Alberta (introduced Child Care Accreditation)• Northwest Territories (increased contribution rates)• Yukon (increased contribution rates)

British Columbia eliminated wage supplement programsand introduced a Child Care Operating Funding (CCOF)Program in April 2003. The new program was extended tofamily child care providers, but the overall allocation wasreduced by $14 million. The operating grant is based onenrolment with daily rates for group child care programs.There is no requirement that operating funds be used tosupplement staff wages. In fact, because the grant is based onenrolment and has been partnered with a decrease in subsidyfunding through a change in subsidy eligibility criteria,the move to an operating grant has produced much distressin the sector. Some previously subsidized families could nolonger afford regulated child care and if these families werenot replaced by full-fee-paying families, centres experiencedlowered enrolments, resulting in lower operating grantswhich has led to staff layoffs, wage reductions, programreductions and/or closures.



M A I N R E P O R T

93

Tabl

e 6.

1 Pr

ovin

cial

/Ter

rito

rial

Wag

e Su

pple

men

t In

itia

tive

s In

trod

uced

Sin

ce 1

998

Prov

ince

or

Terr

itor

y

New

foun

dlan

d an

dLa

brad

or

Nova

Sco

tia

New

Bru

nsw

ick

Queb

ec

Man

itob

a

Sask

atch

ewan

Albe

rta

Nort

hwes

t Te

rrit

orie

s

Yuko

n

Fund

ing

Sour

ce

ECDI

ECDI

ECDI

Prov

inci

al fu

nds

Prov

inci

al fu

nds

(ECD

I fu

ndin

g flo

ws

into

gen

eral

rev

enue

and

then

gov

ernm

ent

vote

s ne

w fu

nds

for

child

car

e an

d ot

her

prog

ram

s)

ECDI

ELC

ECDI

Terr

itoria

l fun

ds

One-

time

cris

is fu

nd

Wag

e Su

pple

men

t/Su

ppor

tIn

itia

tive

sEd

ucat

iona

l Sup

plem

ent

Intr

oduc

ed 2

001/

2002

Child

Car

e St

abili

zatio

n Gr

ant

Intr

oduc

ed 2

001/

2002

Qual

ity I

mpr

ovem

ent

Fund

ing

Supp

ort

Intr

oduc

ed 2

001/

2002

Agre

ed t

o 4-

year

wag

ein

crea

se 1

999–

2003

Five

Yea

r Pl

an

Intr

oduc

ed A

pril

2002

Early

Chi

ldho

od S

ervi

ces

Gran

t–e

nhan

ced

Incr

ease

in 2

003/

2004

Pr

e-Ac

cred

itat

ion

Prog

ram

Phas

e I,

200

3/20

04

Incr

ease

in o

pera

ting

cont

ribut

ion

gran

ts

April

200

2In

crea

se in

con

trib

utio

n ra

tes

Incr

ease

in A

pril

2003

Desc

ript

ion

Gran

t pai

d qu

arte

rly d

irect

ly t

o ea

rly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs w

ho w

ork

in c

hild

car

e ce

ntre

s. B

y ye

ar 3

(20

02/2

003)

, sta

ffwi

th a

leve

l-one

cer

tific

atio

n (1

-yr c

ertif

icat

e) w

ill re

ceiv

e $2

,080

/yr a

nd s

taff

with

a le

vel-t

wo c

ertif

icat

ion

(2-y

r dip

lom

a)wi

ll re

ceiv

e $4

,160

/yr.

Staf

f at E

ntry

Lev

el (

no e

duca

tiona

l qua

lific

atio

ns)

do n

ot re

ceiv

e an

Edu

catio

n Su

pple

men

t.Gr

ant

paid

to

cent

re: 8

0% t

o be

use

d to

war

d in

crea

sing

wag

es; 2

0% t

owar

d w

ages

or

bene

fits

/pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t. G

rant

form

ula

incl

udes

ECE

sta

ff, t

rain

ed (

$4,0

00/y

r), u

ntra

ined

($1

,000

/yr)

, num

ber

of s

taff

req

uire

dfo

r ra

tios

and

FTE

posi

tions

. Gr

ant

paid

to

appr

oved

chi

ld d

ay c

are

faci

litie

s to

impr

ove

wor

king

con

ditio

ns o

f sta

ff w

orki

ng d

irect

ly w

ith

child

ren,

assi

st w

ith

equi

pmen

t an

d m

ater

ials

, pro

vide

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t. G

rant

mus

t be

use

d in

the

follo

win

g w

ay (

year

3 of

QIF

S): 7

3% s

taff

wag

es, 1

8% p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent,

9%

on

mat

eria

ls a

nd e

quip

men

t (o

r w

ages

and

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t). F

undi

ng c

an b

e us

ed fo

r ho

urly

wag

e in

crea

ses

or b

onus

es. T

he a

vera

ge w

age

and

bonu

sin

crea

se a

fter

Pha

se 1

was

$.7

5/ho

ur. T

he a

vera

ge g

ross

ann

ual b

onus

am

ount

s w

ere

$639

.71

for

teac

hers

and

$92

2.03

for

teac

her/

dire

ctor

. Fu

nds

prov

ided

to

rais

e sa

larie

s in

CPE

s by

40%

ove

r th

e 4-

yr p

erio

d an

d ga

rder

ies

(wag

es a

re lo

wer

tha

n in

CPE

s) a

ndto

incr

ease

pay

men

ts t

o fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

s.In

crea

sed

oper

atin

g gr

ants

tha

t dire

ctly

impa

ct w

ages

: gra

nts

are

calc

ulat

ed o

n “u

nit f

undi

ng”

mod

el w

hich

gen

erat

esen

ough

reve

nue

to e

nabl

e sa

larie

s to

be

paid

at t

he M

CCA

Phas

e II

I Sal

ary

Scal

es. W

hile

the

re a

re n

o sp

ecifi

catio

ns a

s to

how

oper

atin

g fu

ndin

g is

use

d, p

rogr

ams

mus

t sub

mit

budg

ets,

ope

ratin

g st

atem

ents

and

aud

its a

nnua

lly. M

ajor

ity o

fpr

ogra

ms

(79%

–80%

) sp

end

fund

s on

sal

arie

s an

d ad

here

to

MCC

A gu

idel

ines

, with

diff

erin

g m

etho

ds (

som

e ce

ntre

s ha

veev

eryo

ne o

n sa

lary

sca

le, s

ome

use

addi

tiona

l fun

ds fo

r bon

uses

, oth

ers

use

a “c

ombi

natio

n of

bot

h” a

ppro

ach)

. The

Fiv

eYe

ar P

lan

com

mits

to

incr

easi

ng t

he w

ages

and

inco

mes

of s

ervi

ce p

rovi

ders

by

10%

dur

ing

the

cour

se o

f the

pla

n.

As o

f Jul

y 20

03/2

004,

the

per

chi

ld a

nnua

l gra

nt (

form

ula

for

unit

fund

ing

built

on

MCC

A re

com

men

datio

ns):

Inf

ants

:$6

,760

; Pre

scho

ol: $

2,13

2; S

choo

l Age

: $60

6.

Incr

ease

d Ea

rly C

hild

hood

Ser

vice

s (E

CS)

Gran

ts to

ass

ist a

nd s

uppo

rt C

hild

Car

e Bo

ards

with

ope

ratin

g co

sts,

incl

udin

gw

ages

and

ben

efits

. Not

requ

ired

to in

crea

se s

alar

ies.

Gra

nt b

ased

on

each

requ

ired

staf

f pos

ition

. Wai

t lis

t for

ECS

gra

ntfu

ndin

g el

imin

ated

. Mon

thly

gra

nt p

er re

quire

d st

aff (

base

d on

est

ablis

hed

staf

f:chi

ld ra

tios)

incr

ease

d fro

m $

750

to $

775.

Staf

f Sup

port

Fun

ding

: mon

thly

fund

ing

for s

taff

bas

ed o

n ce

rtifi

catio

n le

vel (

Leve

l 3: $

1,20

0/yr

, Lev

el 2

: $80

0/yr

, Lev

el1:

600

/yr.

Cent

res

appl

y fo

r fun

ds a

nd re

port

with

aud

ited

stat

emen

ts. P

rovi

der S

uppo

rt F

undi

ng: m

onth

ly fu

nds

($50

/mth

) fo

r pro

vide

rs w

ho a

re in

pro

cess

or h

ave

com

plet

ed m

anda

tory

trai

ning

as

iden

tifie

d in

the

Pro

vinc

ial S

afet

ySt

anda

rds

docu

men

t Tra

inin

g fo

r Dire

ct C

are

Prov

ider

s.Op

erat

ing

cont

ribut

ion

rate

s we

re in

crea

sed

by 6

0%, p

rovi

ding

an

oppo

rtun

ity fo

r lic

ense

d pr

ogra

ms

to in

crea

se w

ages

and/

or im

prov

e wo

rkin

g co

nditi

ons.

Use

of i

ncre

ase

is a

t the

dis

cret

ion

of e

ach

prog

ram

. Ope

ratin

g ra

tes

rang

e fro

m $

8 to

$15.

20 p

er m

th p

er s

pace

(fo

r a p

resc

hool

er)

depe

ndin

g on

loca

tion.

Dire

ct o

pera

ting

gran

ts b

ased

on

form

ula

that

incl

udes

trai

ning

reco

gniti

on (

base

d on

trai

ning

leve

ls).

In A

pril

2003

,in

crea

se t

o Di

rect

Ope

ratin

g gr

ants

bas

ed o

n nu

mbe

r of s

et u

p sp

aces

. An

addi

tiona

l inc

reas

e w

as d

irect

ed s

peci

fical

ly t

ow

ages

of t

rain

ed c

hild

car

e wo

rker

s. T

his

is a

gra

nt w

ith n

o re

port

ing

oblig

atio

n at

tach

ed.

Sour

ce: L

MU

key

info

rman

t in

terv

iew

s w

ith

prov

inci

al/t

errit

oria

l chi

ld c

are

offi

cial

s an

d ch

ild c

are

ques

tionn

aire

s; a

dditi

onal

mat

eria

ls p

rovi

ded

by p

rovi

ncia

l/te

rrito

rial o

ffic

ials

incl

ude:

Gov

ernm

ent

of P

rince

Edw

ard

Isla

nd

(200

0); G

over

nmen

t of

New

Bru

nsw

ick

(200

3); G

over

nmen

t of

Man

itoba

(20

03);

Gov

ernm

ent

of S

aska

tche

wan

(20

03);

Gov

ernm

ent

of B

ritis

h Co

lum

bia

(200

3).


Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Ontario continuewith previous funding programs for wage supplement:• Prince Edward Island’s Direct Funding Program was

introduced for all licensed child care facilities in 1987 andextended to eligible licensed day care homes in 1991/1992.The program provides financial support to enhance andmaintain quality. A Maintenance grant ($.91/day/space),based on licensed capacity, requires that a specific amountof each grant be spent on improving staff salariesaccording to what the centre is presently paying staff(between 50% and 80%). Flat rate grants are also availableto family child care homes, kindergarten programs andschool-age child care centres (in kindergartens and school-age child care centres, 40% is to be spent to increase staffsalaries/benefits). Operating funding has been frozen since1993 and approximately half of centres and family childcare homes do not receive funding. Public funding forchild care has resulted in increased wages for child carestaff working in the community kindergarten programs.4

• As well as introducing the Child Care Stabilization Grant,Nova Scotia continues with the Salary EnhancementGrant, which provides $3.25/day/space for non-profitprograms with allocated subsidized spaces which wereoperating between 1990 and 2000 (no new centresfunded after 2000).

• Ontario introduced the Direct Operating Grant to bothprofit and non-profit centres in 1987 and WageEnhancement Grants to non-profit centres in 1991.The grants continue today, creating disparities betweennon-profit centres that have opened since 1991 andbetween commercial centres that have opened since 1987.

• Nunavut, a territory established since the sector study,has an operating fund available to non-profit, licensedcentres and family child care homes ranging from $1.93 to$15.67/occupied space/day depending on the age of thechild and the location of the program. Funds need notbe dedicated to salaries.

6.1.4 The impact of wage and operating grants onwages is mixed

In Newfoundland, the provincial government’s wage grantis an educational supplement for full-time child care staffthat is tied to certification (and education) levels. The highestlevel of the Educational Supplement is $4,160 in year3 (2004/2005) for certified full-time child care staff with aminimum of a 2-year ECE diploma. A formative evaluation ofthe educational supplement was completed in January 2003.5

Unlike other provinces, the Educational Supplement is paiddirectly to individuals, not centres, and is thus receivedseparately from wages paid by the centres. It is unclearwhether the supplement should be subject to EI and theCanada Pension Plan. About 70% of the child care staff who

are receiving the supplement reported that it encouragesthem to stay in the field but only a small proportion ofsurvey respondents feel that it will have a significant impacton staff turnover. The reported turnover remains at about28% and 80% of centres reported that they continue to havedifficulty recruiting staff for vacant positions.

• A review of New Brunswick’s Quality ImprovementFunding Support (QIFS) program was conducted at theend of the second year of the program. The QIFS Resultsdocument was not available at the time of writing thisreport; however, preliminary results suggest that staffturnover was 30% at the end of year 1 and 18.3% at theend of year 2.6

• Other jurisdictions plan on gathering information aboutthe impacts these wage programs may have onremuneration and retention. Nova Scotia will gatherinformation with the ECD Services Information TechnicalSystem. Alberta will be collecting wage and retentioninformation through the Accreditation Program. Today,only Manitoba regularly collects consistent wageinformation from budgets of funded non-profit centres.

• The First Nations and Inuit Child Care program identifiedhigh turnover due to wages and allocated additional funds($500/space) that could be used to increase wages. Localdecision makers decide how to use the additional funds.Key informants reported that the funds have had little realimpact on either salaries or turnover.

• In Quebec, the effect of salary grid and fundingmechanisms has created some difficulties for programsthat have been in existence for some time. A CPE mayreceive three envelopes: operations, education and capitalfunding. The education envelope includes the expensesrelated to wages and benefits and is based on the salarygrid as it applies to the current staff of the CPE. In orderfor CPEs (formerly non-profit child care centres) that havebeen in place for many years to improve wages andworking conditions of their employees, who may be olderand at the top of the salary grids, they have to use fundsfrom the operational envelope. They end up with lessleeway and flexibility than newer CPEs.

Key informants and focus group discussions suggest thatsome boards may pressure their more experienced directors(closer to retirement and with many years of service) toleave in order to free up some needed funding for theCPE operation.

The changes in wage grants between 1998 and 2003highlight the changeability according to governmental policypriorities and directions. Wage and operating grants are oftenviewed as separate revenue and distributed to staff as aseparate payment that is not part of their regular pay.





M A I N R E P O R T

95

In fact, a Newfoundland front-line early childhood educatorparticipating in a focus group for this study did not considerthe wage grant to be part of her salary, although it provides upto a $2/hour (almost 30%) increase to minimum wage levels.

A recent US study reviewed the evaluations of sevenprograms designed to improve compensation to the childcare workforce.7 Each initiative included compensationpayments that were tied to increased education and/orprofessional development. The report notes that the resultsare preliminary and more consistent monitoring is neededto assess the long-term impact of public compensationinitiatives. However, the study did find that, at least in theshort term, increased compensation tied to minimumeducation requirements and professional development didreduce turnover and improve job satisfaction. Wage grantsfor increased education and training seem to be an effectivestrategy for raising overall educational and skill levels of thechild care workforce.

Another US study that considered the child care workforcein four Midwest states arrived at the same conclusions.8

It recommended that wage grants should be linked toeducational level.

6.1.5 Pay equityPay equity is given for work that is of equal value, usuallyused in female-dominated jobs.• In Ontario, the Pay Equity Act requires employers in the

public sector to file pay equity plans in the workplace(effective January 1, 1990) and to make the necessary payequity adjustments. Proxy pay equity allows child care staffin community-based not-for-profit programs to usemunicipal programs as comparators. Not-for-profit childcare programs that receive public funds through directoperating grants or purchase-of-service agreements areconsidered part of the public sector.

For child care programs with no male job classes—a jobclassification which is predominantly male—the plan iscompleted using the salary levels in nearby municipal childcare centres for the comparison. For child care programswith male job classes, the Pay Equity Act requires evaluatingall female job classes and their possible male comparator jobclasses. This may apply to child care programs that are partof larger organizations, such as child care programs directlyoperated by a municipality or in a community centre.Once the comparisons have been completed and the payequity salary adjustment is determined, the plan is posted.

The Pay Equity Act requires programs to make annualpayroll adjustments at a rate of 1% of the previous year’stotal payroll until the rates of pay established by the payequity process are reached. Adjustments up to 1998 werefunded by the provincial government (see Chapter Eight).Beyond 1998, funding is the responsibility of the boards of

directors of not-for-profit child care programs. Pay equityadjustments are a legal requirement, but boards of directorsand child care programs were typically unable to paywithout pay equity grants. A successful court challenge ofthe Ontario government’s decision resulted in $414 millionin proxy pay equity payments for public sector employees.9The settlement applies to Ontario non-profit community-based programs that receive public funding through feesubsidies and/or wage grants. The pay equity settlementwill translate into monies available to child care centres tomeet pay equity obligations. The Charter challenge wasled by five unions and illustrates the potential strength ofcombined unionization and advocacy.

• The collective agreement between the CSN (which hasthe largest child care membership in Quebec) and theQuebec government signed in March 2003 included a payequity clause. The unionized centres walked out on twooccasions in the fall of 2003 around the issue of pay equityto press the government to enact the pay equity clauses intheir contract and to respect its own law.

6.1.6 Wage information on centre-based child care staffSeveral provinces and territories have conducted wagesurveys of the child care workforce in regulated settingssince the last sector study. Wage information is collected in avariety of ways:• Some provincial/territorial departments or ministries

responsible for child care collect wage data from child carecentres through funding applications or annual reports.

• The province or territory may initiate a special survey ofchild care wages to advise policy planning and programdevelopment. For example

• in Prince Edward Island, the Early ChildhoodDevelopment Association, in partnership with theChild Care Facility Board, conducted a comprehensivesurvey of wages and working conditions of staff in itsECE sector, and developed a strategic plan to helpachieve a sustainable quality ECE system.10

• Nova Scotia conducted a wage survey in May 2001.• Saskatchewan conducted two surveys in 2002. The

first survey collected wage information of child carecentre staff in licensed child care centres. The secondsurvey collected enrolment and fee information fromlicensed child care centres and family child carehomes.11

• British Columbia surveyed licensed centre-based childcare and licensed family child care homes in 2001,collecting information about spaces, enrolment, fees,subsidies and staffing.12

• In the Northwest Territories, all licensed child carecentres were surveyed about wages and workingconditions in the spring of 2002.13.

• At times, the provincial/territorial ministry responsible forhuman resources, employment or training surveys wages ofall employees in a jurisdiction. National occupation codes




Table 6.2 Average Hourly Wages of Trained Staff in Regulated Centre-based Child Care, 1998,Updates with Minimum Wage

Province or TerritoryNewfoundland andLabrador

Prince Edward Island

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Minimum Wage 1

6.00 (Nov 2002)

6.50 (Jan 2004)

6.25 (Oct 2003)

6.20 (Jan 2004)

7.30 (Feb 2003)

7.15 (Feb 2004)

6.75 (April 2003)

6.65 (Nov 2002)

1998 (You Bet I Care!) 2

Assistant teacher 6.37Teacher 6.76Teacher director 7.89Admin director 12.07Assistant teacher 8.18Teacher 7.54Teacher director 11.84Admin director 14.37Assistant teacher 7.04Teacher 8.51Teacher director 10.21Admin director 14.58Assistant Teacher 6.34Teacher 7.12Teacher director 9.26Admin director 10.06Assistant teacher 8.12Teacher 11.04Teacher director 14.05Admin director 17.41Assistant teacher 10.60Teacher 13.48Teacher director 17.48Admin director 22.00Assistant teacher 8.37Teacher 9.49Teacher director 13.83Admin director 17.34

Assistant teacher 8.45Teacher 10.74Teacher director 11.74Admin director 14.58

LMU 3

Not provided

Uncertified 7.01Certified ECE 8.00Certified ECE (k) 10.00Special needs 9.00Teacher 7.87Special needs staff 9.22A/Director 10.31Director 13.32Teacher 7.16Teacher – Director 9.96

Untrained 11.15Trained 13.77Ed consultant 15.47Admin 16.52–26.68 4

Ontario does not track wage information.

Preschool Winnipeg (outside Winnipeg)5

Child care ass’t 9.28 (8.99)Child care staff 13.83 (13.02)Supervisor 16.26 (15.42)Director 21.54 (17.71)Child care worker 7.83ECE I 9.94ECE II 10.58ECE III 11.14Supervisor 11.98Director 15.65

are used to report wage information. The 2001 AlbertaWage and Salary Survey is an example of a province-widesurvey conducted for the Department of HumanResources and Employment, Economic Development andLearning with Human Resources Development Canada.14

However, as training requirements, certification levels,methods of data collection, type of work surveyed(full time, part time), classification of responsibilities, yearsof experience, regional analysis (to name a few variables)

differ across jurisdictions, it is not possible to provideaccurate comparative wage information. You Bet I Care! datafrom 1998 remain the only national comparable wage data.

Table 6.2 presents provincial/territorial wage information:current minimum wages, the 1998 You Bet I Care! wageinformation, as well as the most current wage information,whether it is from a wage survey or report from a provincialofficial as part of the LMU key informant interview andprovincial questionnaire.



M A I N R E P O R T

97

Alberta

British Columbia

Nunavut

Northwest Territories

Yukon

5.90 (Oct 1999)

8.00 (Nov 2001)

8.50 (March 2003)

6.00 (Nov 2002)

6.50 (Jan 2004)

Assistant teacher 7.90Teacher 8.36Teacher director 9.90Admin director 12.73Assistant teacher 10.55Teacher 12.07Teacher director 14.41Admin director 18.73

Assistant teacher 12.07Teacher 13.40Teacher director 19.32Assistant teacher 9.97Teacher 11.71Teacher director n/aAdmin director n/a

Alberta does not collect wageinformation.

Assistant 11.68Child care teacher 13.28Supervisor 14.61

Untrained 13.00ECE certificate 15.00ECE diploma 18.00Director/supervisor 20.00No change from You Bet I Care!

Assistant teachers 10.36Teachers 3.31Admin directors 19.60

Notes:1 Government of Canada (2004)2 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, Tougas & LaGrange (2000) 3 LMU key informant interviews with provincial/territorial child care officials and child care questionnaire; sources for each jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island: Atlantic

Evaluation Group Inc. 2002; New Brunswick: Average gross hourly wage at the end of year 1 of QIFS 01-02; Quebec: government official for year 2001/2002; Manitoba:

government official for year 2002/2003; Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Child Day Care Wages and Fees (2002); British Columbia: Provincial child care survey 2001;

Nunavut: Territorial official (2000); Yukon: Territorial official (March 2003)4 Officials in Quebec provided average annual wage information that has been converted to an hourly wage for purposes of comparison. The hourly was calculated based

on a 35-hr work week. According to information provided by the CSN, educators in CPEs with a DEC earn from $13.86 to $18.36 in a 10-step wage scale; those without

a DEC earn from $12.24 to $18.36 in a 14-step scale.5 Child care staff, supervisors and directors in Manitoba who are trained ECE II or ECE IIIs

6.2 Working ConditionsThe hours of work and level of responsibility for the careand safety of small children create heavy workloads thatcan be, and often are, overwhelming. The profiles illustratethe working lives of several individuals in the child careworkforce and highlight the day-to-day demands of longhours with small children in home and group settings.Opportunities for preparation time or time to communicatewith other team members are infrequent for the child careworkforce compared to those found in school and other earlychildhood program settings. Demands to provide programsthat are developmental or promote early learning seem toadd to the workload. Children and families who areaccessing regulated child care programs often face increasedchallenges and uncertainties. Many child care programs faceinstability due to funding cuts, changes in parents’employment status and changes in public policies.

6.2.1 The hours of work are long and child care work isphysically and emotionally demanding

Child care staff in full-time programs typically work a 40- to45-hour week. Outside of lunch and breaks (often only anhour daily), child care staff are working directly withchildren, responsible for their physical safety and well-being.

The juxtaposition of the nature of the work in a child carecentre setting versus a pre-kindergarten is illustrated inChapter Three of this report.

A surprising number of front-line staff in the focus groupsindicated that they received no breaks, unless all the childrenwere sleeping, and that they could not leave the centre if theydid have a break.

Family child care providers, who generally work alone forup to 10 hours a day, have no breaks at all during the day, ortime away from the children. Scheduling appointments forthemselves or their own children, attending parent-teachermeetings at school, attending child care-related meetings orparticipating in training during the day all prove verydifficult. Some individually licensed caregivers hiresubstitutes so that they can be away from their programduring the day, but paying substitutes reduces the caregiver’sincome and makes it costly to be away for any reason.

The Canadian study of quality in child care centres reportedthat higher quality centres provide more access to spaces thatmeet staff needs (e.g. a staff room, space for resources andbooks, learning material preparation space).




6.2.2 Custodial care often overtakes early learning andchild development focus

Child care staff and caregivers in regulated family child carehave chosen to work with young children. ECE collegeprograms prepare them to take a developmental perspectiveand actively encourage children’s emerging abilities. But theyoften find themselves in work environments that do notpermit them to pursue developmentally appropriateeducational plans or activities. Instead, they must focus onsupervising groups of children to ensure their safety andtaking care of immediate needs for food, toileting and sleep.The notion of embedding the curriculum into routines islost in the need to ensure that diapers are changed before alunch break, or crowd control ensures no one is hurt at theend of the day with only the late shift staff and a largegroup of children. Child care staff sometimes report that asignificant proportion of their day is spent on maintenanceor cleaning tasks, compared to the amount of time they areable to spend with children, apart from leading themthrough daily care routines. The problem seems to becompounded in some jurisdictions by the requirements thatare intended to ensure minimum standards.

One quarter of centre-based child care staff reported thatthe nature of the work (e.g. cleaning and maintenance,lack of adult contact, insufficient planning time andcollection of parent fees) was a negative aspect of their job.15

The same message was repeated in front-line staff focusgroups across Canada. This contrasts with the reasonsthat staff reported entering the field in the first place—the enjoyment of supporting early development andcontributing to early learning.

6.2.3 The child care workforce faces increasing demandsand expectations

The child care workforce faces increasing expectationswithout increased supports or resources to meet thoseexpectations. Participants in focus groups highlighted theincreasing demands they face. For example:• There is a higher demand for part-time care and more

flexible enrolment. This results in staff working with morefamilies and children due to children “sharing” spaces, andincreased difficulties in providing quality care when there isno consistent group of children attending on a daily basis.

• Participants indicated that there was greater pressure onthem to address broader family and social issues—whichthey were not equipped to deal with—such as familyviolence, concerns related to family poverty, child welfareconcerns and family counselling.

• More centres have made efforts to offer a more inclusiveenvironment for children with special needs, but additionalfunding to provide the necessary supports is oftendependent on an identified diagnosis. Many of thechildren requiring additional supports have behaviouralproblems—usually associated with ADD or ADHD—forwhich funding is often not available.

• There is increased emphasis on “school readiness,” whichis often interpreted as ensuring that children have formalnumeracy and literacy skills before they enterkindergarten.

• Some focus group participants indicated that parents havearrived armed with information packages from their localschools containing lists of skills that their children areexpected to master before coming to kindergarten.

There are often competing interests at play for the child careworkforce: meeting the developmental needs of the children,meeting the labour force needs and related expectations ofparents, and meeting their own needs for reasonable workingconditions. Several participants indicated that their futureplans included working in nursery school/preschoolprograms, or in the school system where the focus of theprogram was more on the development of the child andwould make better use of their skills and education.

6.2.4 The child care workforce faces instabilityChild care centres and regulated family child care oftenoffer unstable work environments.• Low enrolments (that can be related to several possible

factors, including changes in parents’ employment, changesin child care fee subsidy eligibility criteria, even a changein a commuter train schedule) can result in layoffs in childcare centres or termination of contracts in family childcare settings.

• As noted in the previous section in this chapter,government-supported wage grants can be, and have been,rescinded or reduced with a corresponding reduction instaff wages and caregiver payments.

• Many centres are located in schools or other communityspaces. Few have lease agreements that protect the centrefrom eviction if the school or community group requiresthe space for other purposes.

• Stand-alone small child care centres typically exist withthin margins and little credit at the bank. Payroll isdependent on payments from individual parents andgovernment.

6.3 Career TrajectoriesThe child care sector continues to accommodate multiplecareer and education pathways. Individuals typically enter thechild care workforce through one of four routes:• pre-service college ECE diploma or certificate program or

university ECE-related degree program followed byemployment in a regulated child care setting;

• employment in a regulated child care setting;• self-employment as a regulated family child caregiver; or• non-ECE-related university degree or college certificate or

diploma followed by employment in regulated child careor self-employment as a regulated family child caregiver.



M A I N R E P O R T

99

Child care staff and family child caregivers who do not haveECE credentials often pursue them on a part-time basisthrough continuing education and/or distance educationpost-secondary programs.

6.3.1 The child care workforce sees limited opportunitiesfor advancement within the child care sector

The career ladder for the child care workforce within childcare programs is limited and contributes to high turnovereither to related ECEC settings or out of the field altogether.Opportunities for advancement within the sector have notkept pace with the workforce’s increased educationalattainment. Mobility within the child care sector is perceivedto be minimal. In 1998, only 28% of assistants, 23% ofteachers (early childhood educators) and 30% of supervisors(i.e. head early childhood educators) thought that they hada chance of being promoted within their own centre andabout 75% of all teaching staff indicated that they wouldhave to leave the field to earn more money or achieve ahigh-status position.16 In fact, 42% of child care directorsacross Canada had advanced in their current centre from amore junior position. Two thirds of child care directorsindicated that they would have to leave the child care fieldto earn more money or achieve a higher status position.17

Advancement opportunities are opening up for child carestaff who have ECE credentials in related ECEC settings.The skills and knowledge of early childhood educators arevalued in many of these settings, such as teaching assistants

in kindergarten classes, child development staff in CAPCprograms and family resource centres, and earlyinterventionists and resource teachers in early interventionprograms. Also, early childhood educators are sometimessought after to fill positions in sectors that are alsoexperiencing recruitment difficulties and staffing shortages,such as speech and language therapy18.

6.3.2 Who goes and who staysCompared to other sectors, the staff turnover in child care ishigh. Overall, staff turnover in full-time child care centres in1998 was reported to be around 21%19 across Canada, downfrom 26% in 1991.20 The turnover rates for assistant teachers,teachers and supervisors were 28.2%, 21.9% and 15.5%,respectively. The Canada-wide averages mask considerablevariation across jurisdictions (from 15% in Prince EdwardIsland to 45% in Alberta)

Overall, turnover rates increase as average educationalattainment levels decrease. (See Table 6.3.) But there areexceptions that may be related to provincial/territorial policies.For example, both educational attainment levels and staffturnover rates in Manitoba are lower than in other parts ofCanada. Government funding arrangements do not recognizestaffing models with more than the minimum number ofstaff with college ECE diplomas and post-diplomas.Therefore, there is little incentive to increase overalleducational levels beyond the minimum requirements.

Source: Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas (2000).

Table 6.3 Front-line Child Care Staff Turnover Rates and ECE Post-Secondary Credential (minimum 1 year),by Jurisdiction, 1998Jurisdiction

British ColumbiaAlbertaSaskatchewanManitobaOntarioQuebecNew BrunswickNova ScotiaPrince Edward IslandNewfoundland CANADA

Staff with an Early Childhood EducationCredential (%)

91.164.859.467.289.082.457.184.284.080.981.8

Turnover Rate (%)

23.744.832.217.317.717.426.122.315.023.721.7

The information in Table 6.3 provides an overview ofturnover rates for front-line staff with a minimum 1-yearECE credential, but it is limited to the sample of child carecentres offering full-day programs to children 0 to 6 yearsthat were in operation in 1998. It does not offer anyinformation about job layoffs related to centre closures,which are another source of staff turnover. For example,comparative analyses from 1997 and 2001 data from surveys

of child care facilities in British Columbia found that 27.6%of the centres, and 47.4% of the licensed family providerswho responded to the 1997 survey, had closed.21

Some turnover is inevitable and it should be noted thatabout 3% of staff leave for maternity and parental leaves.Another 1% is laid off due to low enrolment and 2.5% wereterminated for poor performance. Approximately 6% leave to




pursue other job opportunities—about 2.8% to other childcare centres, 1.5% to related jobs and 1.5% to unrelated jobs.22

In Quebec, there was considerable turnover in the earlyperiod of child care reform with the implementation of thenew salary grid. Staff who were no longer satisfied withtheir work environment moved to other centres to improvetheir overall conditions, even if they stayed in their sameposition (i.e. continued working as a cook or a teacher)since their salary would not be affected. There was alsoturnover due to the massive expansion and numerous jobopenings. For instance, a staff member who felt she wouldnot be able to access a higher level job within her CPE,because there were colleagues with more seniority, movedto a new CPE where she could become supervisor-coordinator or even a directrice générale.

The information illustrates that turnover—whether toanother child care centre, a related ECEC program or outof the field entirely—in child care centres is high andpresents challenges to the quality of children’s dailyexperiences. These findings are echoed in reports fromthe field and front-line staff.

Perhaps most troublesome are reports from focus groupsand key informants that many of the child care centrestaff who are now leaving their positions for related andunrelated employment are often those with highereducational levels and presumably more extensive skills.A Canadian study about child care compensation reportsthat the rate of turnover is relatively high compared toother sectors and that more highly educated staff are morelikely to leave the sector.23

The emerging Canadian findings are consistent with thosefrom a California study that tracked staff in 75 higher qualitychild care centres between 1994 and 2000. It concludes “ourinvestigation points to alarming [staffing] instability in a relativelyhigh-quality segment of the child care industry, during a period ofincreased demand and investment in services.”24

6.3.3 Staff working in full-time child care centres reportthe highest job dissatisfaction

The job dissatisfaction reported in the You Bet I Care!survey of child care staff25 was reinforced by focus groupdiscussions with front-line staff from across Canada.Sources of frustration include low pay that never seems toimprove. The lack of benefits, including pensions,compounds the issue, particularly for older members ofthe workforce or for those who would like to make along-term commitment to the field.

But other reasons were also articulated, sometimes evenmore problematic than the compensation issues. Manyexpressed dissatisfaction with working conditions and thework environment that include long hours, not enoughopportunity to practise ECE, and increasing custodialresponsibilities in some parts of the country. Staff andfamily caregivers feel a lack of recognition from otherprofessionals, especially teachers, and from early childhoodeducators who have moved into other ECEC positions.Child care staff expressed their aspirations to work in centresthat were able to promote and support a more pedagogicalapproach and provide more access to professionaldevelopment and further education.

6.3.4 Over one third of child care centre staff and morethan half of child care directors are dissatisfiedwith their career choice

The proportion of child care front-line staff who wouldnot choose child care as a career again almost doubledbetween 1991 and 1998—from 18.2% to 35.1%.26 Child carestaff with higher education and job levels are more likely tobe dissatisfied. Of all front-line child care centre staff withan ECE-related B.A. or higher degree, 46% said they wouldnot choose a child career again compared to 23% for staffwhose highest education level was a high school diploma.Thirty-three percent of assistant teachers would not choosea child care career again compared to 41.2% of supervisors.

Satisfaction with their career choice has dropped sharplyamong child care directors since 1991. About 70% weresatisfied with their choice in 1991 compared to less than50% in 1998.

But given the well-known list of challenges—low pay, hardwork, lack of recognition—it is heartening to know that themajority would make the same choices.

6.4 Occupational Health and SafetyHealthy and safe conditions for child care staff are importantelements for their health and well-being. Policies andprocedures to protect the children’s health and safety mayhelp but there are additional conditions to consider. Thereare significant issues related to child care staff health andsafety in their work environments. Program staff areparticularly vulnerable to musculoskeletal disorders,infectious diseases and stress.

Health and safety challenges are reduced by good workingconditions that minimize the risks. When illness or injuryhappens, sick leave and extended health care benefits canmake a big difference.



M A I N R E P O R T

6.4.1 Child care work is physically demanding Babies and children are often carried and lifted. Furnishingsand equipment get moved throughout the day’s activities.Backs, knees and other joints can suffer.

The organization of the physical environment can reducemusculoskeletal disorders: • Provide adult-sized furniture in the children’s activity

areas.• Ensure that staff have assistance before moving or lifting

equipment.• Offer information about correct bending and lifting from

the knees to avoid back injury.

The aging of the child care workforce (illustrated in Chart2.14 in Chapter Two) increases the issues involved in ensuringhealthy working conditions. The physical demands of childcare become more problematic for an older workforce.

6.4.2 Getting sick is an occupational hazard inchild care settings

Young children get colds, with runny noses and crustyeyes. They get gastrointestinal viruses and may vomit orhave diarrhea. Chicken pox is a common childhood disease.Staff risk becoming sick, as they are exposed to these andother germs through constant physical contact with children.Personal health care and preventive measures, as well asexcellent hygiene practices in child care settings help toreduce the likelihood of illness. But, compared to mostwork environments, there is increased exposure to infectiousdiseases in work with young children.

Provincial/territorial regulations require child care staff tohave a health examination and current immunization asrecommended by the local medical officer of health.Immunization requirements usually cover rubella,measles, tetanus, diphtheria and poliomyelitis.

6.4.3 StressHigh levels of stress are reported among child care centrestaff27 and among teachers in the education system.28 Reportsof stress are associated with increased expectations to workwith children with special needs (particularly behaviourchallenges) and increasing numbers of children whose firstlanguage is neither English nor French without adequateresources and support29.

6.5 Employment Status in Family Child CareCaregivers in regulated family child care have a complicatedemployment relationship that makes it difficult to determinewho their employer is or if they are self-employed contractors.The majority are licensed and are self-employed withcontractual arrangements with parents. Others are supervisedthrough licensed child care organizations and are consideredindependent contractors.

101

Box 6.1Ontario Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committeesand RepresentativesThe Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) is designed around theprinciple that employers and employees must work together to ensurea healthy and safe workplace environment.

The OHSA requires that workplaces with more than 20 employees mustestablish joint health and safety committees and workplaces with morethan 5 employees (and no joint health and safety committees) mustestablish a health and safety representative.

In a community-based not-for-profit child care setting, a joint healthand safety committee will include child care staff, child care directorand board members. The committee members work together to promotea safe and healthy work environment and identify potential problems.At least half of the members of the committee must be non-management staff who are selected by the staff. If the child caresetting is unionized, the employee members are selected by the union.The management of the centre (board of directors and managementstaff such as the supervisor) select the employer members.

In smaller, non-unionized child care settings, a health and safetyrepresentative is selected by the child care staff. In a unionizedsetting, the union representing staff selects the health andsafety representative.

Box 6.2The Status of Caregivers in Regulated Child Care in QuebecIn spring 2003, the Quebec Labour Tribunal awarded family childcaregivers the right to unionize. The Quebec government passedlegislation in fall 2003 that sidesteps the decision. The legislationretroactively declares all caregivers to be self-employed. The new lawallows the government to enter an agreement with providers’ associationson the provision and financing of family child care, as well as setting upand maintaining programs and services for caregivers. The agreement willbind all Centres de la Petite Enfance (CPS) and all caregivers in Quebec.The union, CSN and CSQ are mounting a court challenge to the law andtake the case to the International Labour Organization.

Source: Adapted from Child Care Human Resource Sector Council Bulletin (2004).




ENDNOTES

1 Cost, Quality & Outcomes Study Team 1995; Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000; Doherty, Lero, Goelman, Tougas & LaGrange 2000; Goelman, Doherty,

Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 2000; Whitebook & Sakai 20032 Canadian Teachers Federation 20043 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000 in Kass & Costigliola 20034 McQuaid, Chaulk & Smith 20025 Atlantic Evaluation and Research Consultants 20036 D. Lutes, personal communication, July 30, 20037 Institute for Women’s Policy Research 20038 Hegland, Peterson, Jeon & Oesterreich 20039 Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care 200310 McQuaid, Chaulk & Smith 200211 Saskatchewan Community Resources and Employment 2002 12 Hunter & Forer 200213 Northwest Territories Education, Culture and Employment 2003 14 R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. 2002 15 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200016 Ibid17 IIbid18 Doherty 200219 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200020 Canadian Child Care Federation & Canadian Child Care Advocacy Association 199221 Kershaw, Forer & Goelman 200422 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200023 Cleveland & Hyatt 200224 Whitebook, Sakai, Gerber & Howes 200125 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200026 Ibid27 Ibid28 Canadian Teachers Federation 200429 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 2000


7C H A P T E RT H E S K I L L S C H A L L E N G E


The evidence is clear. A skilled and competent child careworkforce is a critical factor in providing high quality childcare that benefits children’s early development and learning.The challenge for the child care sector is to increase the skilllevel of the child care workforce, and to increase the qualityof early learning and care that children experience. Qualityenvironments for children will improve the quality of thework environment and job satisfaction for the child careworkforce. Quality child care environments will increase therecognition and the value of the child care workforce and,in turn, will enhance recruitment and increase retention.

7.1 The Quality Problem Chapter Three summarizes what we now know aboutthe quality of regulated child care programs in Canada.Overall, regulated child care is safe and caring. However,it does not provide the kind of early learning environmentsthat support optimal early child development or ensurethat all children—particularly children who are vulnerableor living in high-risk circumstances—thrive.

The quality problem is a central challenge for the childcare workforce. Staff interactions and relationships withchildren matter and seem to influence child developmentoutcomes. The capacity of child care staff and family childcaregivers increases with educational levels, particularlyeducation that is related to child development and ECEpractices. Skilled practitioners want to work in environmentsthat provide and promote optimal early learning and careexperiences for children.

7.1.1 People are the key factor in quality childcare experiences for children

Repeated studies arrive at the same conclusion. Competent childcare staff and caregivers are related to better outcomes for children.1The quality of a child care program is largely determinedby the characteristics of the interactions between individualchildren and the child care staff or caregiver, the knowledgeand skill base that child care staff or caregivers have, and theenvironment that is created by child care staff or caregivers.2

7.1.2 More education is betterIncreased post-secondary education related to earlychildhood development, education and care is related toincreased quality child care and better child outcomes.Research studies report consistent and significant associationsbetween higher staff education levels, quality programs andoutcomes for children.• The longitudinal NICHD Early Child Care Research

Network study considered the effects of child care staff orhome-based caregiver education on child care quality andthe effects of child care quality on child outcomes.Researchers found that educational attainment predictedstaff or caregiver behaviour, which in turn predicted

children’s social and cognitive development. Staff andcaregivers with higher levels of ECE-related educationwere more likely to provide quality care and learningenvironments.3

• The You Bet I Care! study of quality in child care centresreported that higher quality centres were associated withchild care staff who had post-secondary ECE credentials.4The related study of regulated family child care reportedthat increased quality environments were associated withhigher levels of caregiver education.

• A Canadian study of school-age child care also reportedthat higher quality was associated with higher levels ofdirector and staff education.5

• Ongoing professional development and upgrading isnecessary to stay current with the latest development inchild development knowledge and to implement newpedagogy or curriculum that may be introduced at aprovincial level, such as the jouer c’est magique curriculumin Quebec.

Recent US studies conclude that at least some of the staffin centre-based programs should have university degreesthat include early child development and education studies,in order to increase the quality of preschool programs and,in turn, improve child outcomes before entry to Grade 1.6

The recent Canadian study of child care centre qualityconcludes that quality improvements are likely inregulated child care settings if all staff have post-secondaryECE qualifications.7

7.1.3 Quality begets quality Quality child care settings for children contribute to positiveworking environments that attract and keep skilled staff.Quality programs allow child care staff to build the kindsof programs and relationships associated with positive earlychild development.

Skilled and educated individual staff are less likely to beable to apply their knowledge and abilities and behave in asensitive and responsive manner in a poor quality program.A recent longitudinal study of a sample of Californiancentres reported that individual staff seem to be responsiveto the training levels of their colleagues.8 Focus groupdiscussions with ECE students close to graduation revealedthat the quality of a program can be a determining factordeciding where to work, particularly if compensationlevels are similar.

Several focus group discussions pointed to poor qualityprograms that provided little opportunity for reflectivepractice and application of early childhood pedagogy as astrong disincentive in attracting the skilled staff necessary fora quality program.

103



C H A P T E R 7 - T H E S K I L L S C H A L L E N G E

7.1.4 The quantity and quality of applicants to ECEprograms may be down in some jurisdictions

Key informants in some parts of Canada indicated that thenumber of applicants to ECE college programs was down,while others suggested that the skills and abilities of thosecoming into the programs have decreased. The perceptionof child care as something to do when an individual doesnot know what else to do, or does not have the intellectualcapacity to pursue other options, fuels this concern.

In some regions, applications are increasing or decreasingto ECE programs, often due to other pressures. For instance,the “double cohort” in Ontario (resulting from theelimination of Grade 13 in the secondary education system)has precipitated an influx of applicants over the past coupleof years. In other parts of the country, a reduction infunding support from HRSDC through the LMDAs isthought to be limiting interest.

7.2 Child Care Staff Educational AttainmentIncreased educational attainment, particularly in areas relatedto child development and early childhood education pedagogy,is a well-established strategy to improve the quality ofchild care settings.

7.2.1 The child care workforce’s educational attainmentlevel is increasingIn 2001, census data indicated that 60% of early childhoodeducators and assistants had completed a post-secondarycertificate, diploma or degree, compared to 54% in 1991.The census figures include early childhood educators andassistants working in a variety of regulated and unregulatedchild care and early childhood settings, including family childcare. It is not known what proportion of the post-secondarycredentials are ECE credentials. It seems reasonable to assumethat child care staff working in regulated settings will be morelikely to have a post-secondary education qualification inECE. (See Table 2.12 Changes in Distribution of EducationalAttainment, 1991 to 2001, by Occupation.)

Studies that focus on specific staff groups within the childcare workforce report data that support this assumption. In1991, a survey of child care centre staff found that 58% hadcompleted post-secondary ECE programs and 7% had adegree. The more recent 1998 survey reported that 70.8% ofchild care centre staff had a 2-year post-secondary ECEcredential or more and 18% had degrees. More than 80% hada 1-year or more ECE credential. (The overall percentage ofstaff with post-secondary education is higher in the studythan in the 2001 Census data and is expected, given that therespondents are working in regulated child care centreswhich require specific qualifications for a proportion of thestaff members. The authors of the study point out that theeducational attainment levels reported in the staffquestionnaire are higher than staff educational attainment

levels reported by child care directors on the centrequestionnaire, which may reflect a tendency for a higherproportion of the front-line staff with higher levels ofeducational attainment to respond to the staff questionnaire.)

7.2.2 The rate of increase of educational attainment forthe child care workforce lags behind the rate ofincrease across all occupations

A 1984 survey of child care staff in regulated centres foundthat just under 50% had completed ECE post-secondaryprograms and 11% had completed a university degree, whichwas significantly higher than the overall working population(at 35%). The survey found that “compared to the averageCanadian worker, child care workers in licensed centres arewell educated.”10 The more recent figures suggest that thegap is closing.

The census figures from the past two decades suggest thatthe overall increase in the educational attainment of thechild care workforce has not kept pace with the overallincreases found across all occupations, in spite of increasedawareness of the importance of ECE qualifications and insome jurisdictions, increased qualification requirements.The proportion of the Canadian workforce with post-secondary education levels has increased from about 42%in 1991 to 52% in 2001. The proportion of early childhoodeducators and assistants with post-secondary credentialsincreased from approximately 53% in 1991 to 60% in 2001.Over the same period, the proportion of teachingassistants with a post-secondary credential has increasedfrom 42% to 60%.

7.2.3 Qualification requirements vary across ECEC settings Chapter Three presents qualification requirements forchild care staff and kindergarten teachers in each provinceand territory. Overall, kindergarten and pre-kindergarten(or junior kindergarten – JK) teachers working with theschool system are required to have university degrees plusteacher education and certification. Some staff in regulatedchild care settings are required to have ECE diplomas orcertificates. Caregivers in regulated family child care andstaff working in ECEC programs offered outside ofregulated child care and the school system have no specificqualification requirements.

In the US in 2003, all states required a B.A. for kindergartenteachers and 22 states required a B.A. for teachers in state-financed pre-kindergarten programs.11 In 17 states, auniversity degree with courses or certification in ECE inkindergarten was required. Nine of the same states andeight others required the same for pre-kindergarten.Only one state (Rhode Island) required a B.A. with ECEspecialization for child care.



M A I N R E P O R T

7.3 The Skill Gaps Post-secondary ECE programs include both theoreticaland practical knowledge to prepare the child care workforce.The 1998 child care sector study reported concerns aboutcollege ECE programs’ focus on preschool centre-basedprograms and a relative lack of attention to infants/toddlersand school-age children.

As well, the ECE programs seemed to be weak on preparinggraduates to work with families, children with disabilities,cultural-linguistic diversity and Aboriginal children. Otherstudies highlight the need to pay more attention to theknowledge and skills required to work with newcomerchildren and their families,12 and with children with specialneeds.13

The research findings and conclusions are consistent withinformation from student surveys completed for the LMU.Students in ten ECE programs located across Canadareported that they felt well-prepared to work with ‘typicalchildren’ but indicated that they felt less prepared to workwith children with special needs, professionals in othereducational and social service settings, parents, and otheradults in their work environment. Chart 7.1 shows that over70 % of students felt very well prepared to work with typicalchildren, but fewer than 20 percent felt very well prepared towork with children with special needs.

Older students reported feeling less prepared than theiryounger peers. Chart 7.2 shows that in most categories, theolder the students, the less prepared they felt.

The findings from the focus group discussions withmanagers of child care centres, preschool and nurseryschools, special needs specialists and policy leaders suggestan increase in the entry skills that recent ECE graduatesbring to the workplace. Overall, focus group discussions andkey informant interviews suggest that since 1998 ECE collegeprograms have adapted curriculum content and increasedthe capacity of ECE graduates to work in different typesof ECEC settings, and with infants and toddlers. There wasagreement that ECE graduates are not adequately preparedto work with children with special needs or culturally andlinguistically diverse populations.

7.3.1 ECE graduates are often not prepared to work withchildren with identified special needsSuccessful inclusion of children with special needs dependson the overall quality of the child care centre.

In-house capacity seemed to be the best predictor of quality inclusion.Inclusion happens in the centre that has a well-supported staff team with itsown capacity to continue to keep including children with disabilities, built ontraining and information—a virtuous circle that is mostly about experienceand building capacity. Outside consultation and resources can help but thequality of the centre for all children is the key element.

Sharon Hope Irwin, SpeciaLink, Key Informant Interview

Only two jurisdictions have any specific trainingrequirements for the staff working with children with specialneeds. British Columbia requires a post-Basic ECE certificatein special needs and Ontario requires resource teachers tohave a diploma in ECE plus a post-diploma program relatedto children with special needs.

105

Chart 7.1 How Well Students Felt Prepared toWork with Various Groups

Source : Student survey conducted for the LMU.

Chart 7.2 Percentage of Students Who Felt QuiteWell, or Very Well Prepared to Work with VariousGroups, by Age





As noted in the Prince Edward Island study “For Our Educators”:14Many Early Childhood Centres are finding it increasingly difficultto provide for the program needs of children with special needs; thisis in part because of their inability to recruit and/or retain qualifiedand experienced staff. As the overall quality of the staffing capacityin centres goes down (i.e. more and more people without trainingbeing employed) the total amount of dollars being requested/spenton children with special needs or other behavioural issues appearsto be going up.

Staff in Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) programs require moretraining in working with children with special needs, andaddressing those needs within the cultural contexts of theirprograms. In 2001, 84% of the AHS sites had at least onechild with a special need.15 Focus group participants fromAHS programs expressed a desire to better accommodatechildren with special needs.

There is agreement among ECE students, child caredirectors and provincial/territorial directors that the childcare workforce needs more preparatory training and ongoingprofessional development.

7.3.2 More knowledge about cultural and linguisticdiversity is needed

Key informant interviews with representatives from federalECEC programs (including First Nations and Inuit ChildCare, AHS, Urban and Northern Communities,Childminding and Military Family Resource Centres)suggested that post-secondary ECE programs need to bemore culturally appropriate and sensitive. There wasagreement that while the overall content that is typical incollege ECE programs was generally appropriate preparationto work with children and families in programs such asAHS, a more direct focus on cultural and linguistic diversitywas necessary to better support the more than 30 Inuit andFirst Nations languages spoken in AHS programs.

7.3.3 Initiatives to increase supply of trainedearly childhood educators

The key informant interviews and focus groups with collegefaculty and front-line staff identified numerous collegeinitiatives and community–college partnerships that areworking to increase the quantity and quality of the childcare workforce. Recent reviews of community professionaldevelopment initiatives identified college involvement acrossthe country.16 Boxes 7.1and 7.2 describe two such initiatives.

Box 7.1Accelerated Early Childhood Education and Care Program, Holland College, Prince Edward IslandWhen the research project, “For Our Educators:” A Study of the Early Childhood Education Sector revealed a high turnover of experienced/trained staff,the Early Childhood Development Association (ECDA) of Prince Edward Island decided that something needed to be done for those staff who werecontinuing to work in child care, but did not have training. After all, at some point these staff would need certification to remain employed.

The ECDA spearheaded a partnership among Holland College, HRDC (now HRSDC) and the Department of Education to develop the Accelerated EarlyChildhood Education and Care Program.

This program, for child care staff with a minimum of 3 years’ experience in a licensed centre and currently employed, will result in an Early ChildhoodDiploma after the staff/students complete a three-part program comprising 11 weeks in the classroom, 11 weeks of on-the-job training at their placeof employment and a final 11 weeks back in the classroom. There are 16 students in the program, which began at the end of October 2003 and willfinish in July 2004.

Before being accepted into this program, students had to meet the academic criteria of Holland College and undergo an intensive screening processfor prerequisites and commitment. Employers had to provide a letter of support for the students.

With HRSDC involvement, these students receive EI benefits during the time they spend in the classroom and their regular salaries during the11 weeks of on-the-job training. This is a special initiative for HRSDC, which has the authority to authorize an individual to leave employment totake training under certain circumstances (e.g. if the worker is going to need certification by the industry to remain employed). All students in thisprogram are able to establish an EI claim as they have all worked the requisite time. As another exception, HRSDC covers the cost of books forstudents in this program.

The ECDA is planning to do a three-phase evaluation of this program (at the end of each segment). Initial anecdotal feedback from students suggeststhat they are finding this program demanding; students say they would not have been able to do it without their years of experience in child careand report that they are learning the theory behind what they have been practising.

Source: LMU key informant interviews; McQuaid, Chaulk & Smith (2002).



M A I N R E P O R T

• In Saskatchewan, the 2001 amendment to the Child CareRegulations introduced a three-tiered system for staff inchild care centres and increased hours of required trainingfor family child care providers. It includes a $70 per classtuition reimbursement for those upgrading ECE traininglevels, including family child care providers.

• In Alberta, the Child Care Accreditation Programincludes a pre-accreditation phase introduced in January2003. As part of this program, family child care agenciesreceive $200 per provider to develop training to meet theProvincial Safety Standards training requirement(meeting key learning outcomes in areas of childdevelopment, behaviour management, family dynamics,individual needs, serious incidents, culturally sensitivestrategies, children with disabilities, community resources,working with parents and adoption issues).

7.4 Leadership and Management Issues International and Canadian research findings and policyreports point to the child care centre manager, supervisoror director as the gatekeeper of quality.17 The education,training, knowledge and abilities of a centre’smanager/director influence the quality of the centre.

107

Box 7.2Training Coordination Project, New Brunswick • Early Childhood Care and Education New Brunswick/Soins et Éducation à la Petite Enfance du Nouveau-Brunswick (ECCE-NB)• Department of Training and Employment Development (TED)• Department of Family and Community Services (FCS)

The Training Coordination Project was developed to assist child care centres to meet the New Brunswick training requirements for child care staff.The director or one in four staff is required to have 1 year of ECE training or its equivalent by April 1, 2006; centres licensed after April 1, 2003must meet the training requirement immediately.

The Department of Family and Community Services conducted a Training Needs Assessment: a survey of the child care sector which examined whattraining the sector had, what training was needed and what was the best method to deliver training. With the information from the survey,the Training Coordination Project was developed to assist the child care sector to meet the training requirements through a distance ECE program,PLAR process and cost-shared tuition. ECCE-NB, TED and FCS are partners in this project.

ECCE-NB, with a coordinator, acts as a gateway to this project, coordinating access to training and PLAR. ECCE-NB helped identify interested staffcurrently employed within the sector at centres that do not meet the training requirement. In September 2003, between 80 and 100 of these staffbegan as students in the distance ECE program. Initially, many staff and students were interested in PLAR, but it is not clear how many willcomplete the process.

TED financed the development of the distance ECE program, transforming the current 1-year program offered by New Brunswick Community College(Saint John, English and Campbellton, French). TED provided funds to develop PLAR.

FCS shares tuition costs with students in this program: the department pays 80% and students are responsible for 20%.

It is expected that students will take 3 years to complete the distance ECE program (equivalent to 1-year ECE training). While anyone is able to access thisdistance ECE program, only people who are currently employed in a centre that does not meet the training regulation will be eligible for the cost-shared tuition.

Source: LMU key informant interviews.

Several provinces have introduced initiatives to address theshortage of trained early childhood educators, especially wherethe supply of trained staff is insufficient for centres to meetlegislated training requirements. Both the introduction oftraining requirements and the increase in training requirementsin some provinces contribute to the problem. Training initiativesto increase access to and facilitate additional training of earlychildhood educators include the following:

• Newfoundland and Labrador introduced trainingrequirements for both regulated centre-based and familychild care. Training initiatives include distance education,PLAR, challenge for credit and subsidizing 50% ofrequired courses to meet the regulation until 2005.

• Nova Scotia enhanced training with a bursary programfor full- and part-time students, additional support totraining institutions, development of online coursesand use of PLAR.

• Manitoba instituted a training requirement for family childcare providers licensed after January 2003. Providers mustcomplete an approved 40-hour course in family child careor ECE within their first year of being licensed. A traininggrant of up to $250 per provider is available uponsuccessful completion of the course. This grant is alsoavailable to child care assistants working in centres.


The LMU found two areas of concern repeatedly emergedin discussions with the child care sector: a lack ofpedagogical leadership and a lack of human resourcemanagement skills.

7.4.1 Directors define pedagogy in child care centresPedagogy in ECEC settings is the deliberate cultivation ofearly learning and development.18 It includes: • curriculum or content of programs, including the content

that is intentionally designed to promote learningprocesses, skills and specific information;

• methodology or the strategies used to implement thecurriculum, including the planned interactions of people,use of physical space and materials used; and

• techniques for socializing children in the suite of cognitive,social and emotional skills necessary to get along with others.

Pedagogical leadership refers to the establishment andreinforcement of a climate and culture that expects staffmembers to provide an environment that deliberately teachesyoung children. It implies the ongoing supervision of aprocess of planning, implementing and reviewing whatchildren do and how they are doing.

Focus groups pointed to quality gaps that are related toa lack of pedagogical leadership and the ability of child caremanagers/directors to successfully support and nurture recentECE graduates who are entering the sector. The survey of childcare directors in child care centres reported that only 2% oftheir time was spent in activity planning and preparationcompared to 3% doing maintenance tasks. About 10% wasspent on staff supervision (presumably some of which is spenton pedagogical issues) while 18% is spent on administrative tasks.

Key informants who are in leadership roles in monitoringand reviewing quality in child care settings pointed out thatthe increased demands on child care directors for recordkeeping and documentation related to safety and healthrequirements and financial accountability were diminishingtheir ability to provide pedagogical leadership.

7.4.2 Managing people betterA central theme that emerged throughout the LMU studyis the weak “culture” of human resource management thatexists within the sector. In part, the issue is one of priorityand preoccupation. The majority of child care directorsand managers are early childhood educators in smallsettings who have a background in child development andearly childhood pedagogy. The demands of balancing tightbudgets and meeting program regulatory requirementsoccupy their time and attention, leaving little attentionpaid to human resource issues. Staff supervision andperformance reviews, succession planning and clearpolicies to guide practices in areas such as conflict resolution,probation periods, team communication and employmenttermination are often missing.

The provision of centre-based child care is labour intensiveand relies on the working relationships of a small group ofpeople. Unlike school settings, which operate with ahierarchy of roles and responsibilities that is generallyunderstood, child care environments are less predictable.Without an in-house skill base in human resourcemanagement, it is difficult to provide the human resourceinfrastructure necessary to sustain an early childhood team.

7.5 Barriers to Pre-Service and In-ServiceEducation and Professional Development

The child care workforce continues to identify barriers toaccessing post-secondary ECE programs and professionaldevelopment opportunities. Focus groups with front-linestaff pointed to time and cost factors. Key informantspointed to ineffective vehicles to distribute information andresources. Both groups suggested that a lack of recognition ofinformal, non-traditional learning and the inability totransfer credits and credentials across institutions andjurisdictions were barriers.

7.5.1 Availability and affordability The cost of post-secondary education to obtain either anECE credential or a university degree and the distance fromsuch a program are barriers to access for many potentialstudents. A recent report on recruitment and retention issuesin Canada concluded that the high cost of post-secondaryECE programs in relation to low remuneration levels is asignificant disincentive to either remain in, or enter, thechild care sector.20 The same report pointed to the lack ofavailable programs in more remote regions of the country.

An environment scan of issues related to post-secondaryECE programs (as well as other factors related to child carerecruitment issues) found concerns about cost andgeographic location in every province and territory.21

Between 1991 and 1998, child care staff reported that theproportion of staff who had taken part in professionaldevelopment activities over the past 12 months decreasedfrom 87% to 76%.22 The most common reasons given werecost and inability to obtain release time (again related to cost).

7.5.2 Dissemination and distribution of professionaldevelopment materials

Sector organizations, post-secondary institutions and earlychild development research and resources are producing aplethora of materials (e.g. print, electronic, video) aimed atindividuals working with young children and families, aswell as a related set of materials targeted to parents ofyoung children. However, it is unclear how much isreaching the child care workforce.





M A I N R E P O R T

Even post-secondary ECE programs are not always aware ofor making use of materials produced in Canada that may bemore culturally appropriate than texts and visual materialsfrom the United States.

7.5.3 Many staff have acquired knowledge, skills andabilities through experience and informal learning

Individuals working in family child care or representativesfrom child care centres who did not have post-secondaryECE qualifications identified in focus groups that they wantrecognition for what they do know and have learned outsideof formal academic settings. A recent US review of researchabout staff qualifications, which recommends a 4-year degreerequirement for some of the staff, recognizes that staff mayhave acquired the necessary knowledge and skills and shouldbe granted an equivalency status.23 Newcomers to Canadamay have related credentials acquired in other countries thatare not recognized or perhaps understood in Canada.

PLAR has the potential to accommodate both the needs ofindividuals working in child care with experience but norecognized academic credentials, and the needs of the childcare sector to improve the overall skills of the workforce.PLAR works particularly well in combination with distanceeducation programs and with learners who are currentlyworking in early childhood settings and/or have otherrelated experiences.

However, the actual use of PLAR in ECE post-secondaryeducation programs is minimal.24 While PLAR in post-secondary ECE programs is proportionally higher than inmost other post-secondary programs, the overall number ofPLAR learners is small and does not make a significantimpact on the sector’s human resource challenges (i.e.recruitment and retention). It is unlikely to change withoutsignificant investment in PLAR infrastructure within post-secondary education institutions. When PLAR is financiallyviable for institutions and necessary supports for effectivepractice and implementation are in place, it is possible toactively promote PLAR to learners before and at registration.This is evident at colleges in Manitoba and Newfoundlandwhere such measures are in place. Without this type ofinfrastructure, it is unlikely that PLAR will be able tocontribute to child care human resource strategies.

Regulatory authorities in other sectors demonstrate thepotential of PLAR as an important tool to recognize existingskills and knowledge and address labour market needs in anefficient manner. The Competency Based Assessment/PriorLearning Assessment Program in Manitoba is one exampleof PLAR application within the child care sector that istaking place outside of post-secondary education.

7.6 The Skill Drain from Child CareMany students who participated in focus groups for theLMU indicated that the reasons they would not choose towork in child care are largely due to the low quality of theprograms they experienced during their placements and thelack of job stability. They indicated concern over the sensethat affecting positive change within the centre was toodaunting a task for staff and there was often little supportfrom centre directors to make significant improvements.

7.6.1 Child care staff do find other employmentWe heard repeatedly that members of the child careworkforce are leaving jobs in group child care and familychild care to work in the school system as teaching assistants.During key informant interviews, jurisdictional officialsconcurred with these anecdotal reports:• While there is a specific training program for teaching

assistants in Newfoundland and Labrador, early childhoodeducators do get some of these jobs, which are consideredhighly desirable due to hours and time off in summer.

• Among the available jobs within the early childhood fieldin Prince Edward Island, the teaching assistant job inschools is also most desirable. Often, early childhoodprofessionals, who are providing support to a child withspecial needs in a preschool setting, follow the child toGrade 1 or 2 as her or his special ed teaching assistant—aposition that offers good wages, summers off and a shorterworkday than in a child care centre.

• Officials in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Yukon andNorthwest Territories all report that early childhoodeducators move to jobs in education where the hourlywages may not necessarily be higher, but benefits, suchas a pension plan and paid holidays, are more available.

109

Box 7.3Competency-based Assessment The Manitoba government offers two types of competency-based trainingfor the child care sector. One is called the Competency Based AssessmentProgram (CBA), and the other is called the Competency BasedAssessment/Prior Learning Assessment Program (CBA/PLA). Competency-based training enables child care assistants already working in child carecentres to obtain an ECCE credential level while they continue to work.

Applicants who have at least 1 year of full-time experience in a licensedchild care facility are eligible. CBA is for individuals who do not have apost-secondary diploma or degree. CBA/PLA is for individuals who have apost-secondary diploma or degree not recognized for classification as aqualified early childhood educator. Both provide eligible individuals withthe opportunity to demonstrate their skills, knowledge and judgmentaccording to required standards. The CBA/PLA program is approximately6 to 9 months and CBA about 18 to 24 months.

Source: LMU key informant interviews; Bertrand (2003).




• Post-secondary education programs prepare individualsto work in regulated child care centres but the NationalGraduate Survey found that only a minority remain inchild care or related settings 5 years after graduation.Chart 7.3 shows that 2 years after graduation 55% areworking as early childhood educators and assistants and

less than 43% after 5 years. It should be noted that theNational Graduate Survey follows only graduates whohave completed a full-time program and entered directlyfrom high school. The retention rates of early childhoodeducators who have acquired their qualifications on apart-time basis or who returned to school after a periodin the workforce is not known.

As noted in Chapter Six, the actual percentage of child carestaff (in 1998) who left their jobs to take a position in anECEC program outside of regulated child care was relativelylow. According to the turnover figures in You Bet I Care! forstaff working in full-time child care centres, the reportedincidence was about 2% or approximately 817 of the 38,000estimated to work in full-time child care centres. Theeducational qualifications of those leaving are not known.More analysis on turnover from the You Bet I Care! data isbeing undertaken for the Child Care Human ResourcesSector Council, the results of which will inform the labourmarket strategy.

7.6.2 Many ECE graduates avoid employment in regulatedchild care in the first place

As discussed in the previous section, post-secondaryeducation programs prepare individuals to work in regulatedchild care centres but only about 40% remain in child careor related settings 5 years after graduation.

In fact, while early childhood educators may move to jobsin education in some jurisdictions, information about earlychildhood educators from the National Graduate Surveydoes not substantiate this as a serious trend. Chart 7.3 showsoccupational categories for employed 1995 ECE graduates in1997 and 2000. There was only a small percentage increasein the 1995 ECE graduates who were working as teacher’sassistants from 1997 to 2000. This survey also suggests thatthe actual percentage of recent ECE graduates who work inthe school system is low. Since teaching assistants as a groupare considerably older than early childhood educators andassistants, it is possible that graduates who returned to schoolafter a period of work, or those graduated more than 5 yearsago, are moving into these positions.

Many – in some regions most – ECE graduates do not everseek employment in regulated child care. The data collectedfrom the LMU ECE Student Survey and the analysis of theNational Graduate Survey suggest that ECE graduates often

Chart 7.3 Occupational Categories of Employed 1995 ECE Graduates, 1997 and 2000

Source : Custom tabulations from National Graduate Survey data for class of 1995, Statistics Canada.



M A I N R E P O R T

111

Chart 7.4 Immediate Work Plans, by College


Chart 7.5 Work Plan 5 Years from Now, by College


view employment in regulated child care as transitory orthey avoid it altogether. Results of the student surveyconducted for the LMU (Charts 7.4) show that fewer than40% of students from five colleges plan on working in childcare after graduating, and in only one college do more than70% of students intend on working in regulated child care.

The 5-year work plans of students were similar in fourof the programs and in two of the programs there was aconsiderable drop in the percentage that expected to beworking in regulated child care. In three of the colleges,more students expressed intent to be working in child carein five years, suggesting that they may be planning oncontinuing their studies first. Chart 7.5 shows the range ofresponses by individual college.




Increasing the number of new graduates who choose to workin child care and stay there are key to the type of qualityprogram in which they want to work. Efforts will be needed toenhance the skills and leadership qualities of supervisors anddirectors to recruit new graduates and work collectively on

quality improvements. Following this cohort of students as theymove into the workforce could provide useful information ontheir employment choices, job satisfaction and job stability aspart of a long-term labour market strategy.

ENDNOTES

1 Arnett 1989; Burton, Young, Bellm, Whitebook & Broach 2002; Burchinal, Howes & Kontos 2002; Cost, Quality & Outcomes Study Team 19952 NICHD Early Childcare Research Network 2000; National Research Council 2001 3 NICHD Early Childcare Research Network 20024 Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 20005 Jacobs, Mill & Jennings 20026 Barnett 2003; Blau 1999; Burton, Young, Bellm, Whitebook & Broach 2002; Howes, Galinsky, Shinn, Gulcar, Clements, Sibley, Abbott-Shim & McCarthy 1998; Whitebook

2003; Zill, Resnick, Kim, Hubbell McKey, Clark, Pai-Samant, Connell, Vaden-Kieran, O’Brien & D’Elio 20017 Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 20008 Whitebook & Sakai 20039 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200010 Cooke, London, Edwards & Rose-Lizee 1986, p.11111 Whitebook 200312 Bernard, Lefebvre, Chud & Lange 199513 Irwin, Lero & Brophy 200014 McQuaid, Chaulk & Smith 2002, p. 3515 Aboriginal Head Start 200216 Beach 1999; St. Albin & Maxwell 200317 Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas 2000; National Research Council 200118 National Research Council 200119 Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200020 Miller & Ferguson 200321 Ibid22 Doherty Lero, Goelman, LaGrange & Tougas 200023 Barnett 200324 Bertrand 2003


8C H A P T E RT H E R E C O G N I T I O N C H A L L E N G E


The child care workforce identifies the lack of recognitionfor the work that they do to be as much of a problem asthe low wages they receive. In fact, the low compensationand a lack of recognition are interconnected challenges.The child care workforce is 98% female and is engaged inwhat has been historically unpaid women’s work that isundervalued. Increased recognition is essential to mobilizesupport for increased investments necessary for higher wages.Better compensation increases respect and recognition.

The public perception of the child care workforce remainsmixed. On the one hand, there is increased awarenessthat early development sets a foundation for later learning,health and well-being. The chronic challenges of the childcare workforce are acknowledged. The link between betteroutcomes for children and a child care workforce withspecialized knowledge and abilities is understood.But recognition in the form of better pay and workingconditions has not materialized. Many still hold the viewthat children are better off with their mothers and thatchild care is a private responsibility. Debate about publicand private roles and responsibilities for young children,particularly before entry into the school system, continues.

The child care workforce’s own struggle for an identity ispart of the recognition challenge. Quality child care istypically defined as a support for healthy child development,parents’ labour market participation, women’s equality, andearly intervention for children at risk. However, discussioncontinues about the primary purpose of child care(alternative care to support labour market attachment ordevelopment/early education) and what to call child carecentre staff and family child care providers.

8.1 At the Intersection of Professionalization,Unionization and Advocacy

“Both things need to happen: professionalism (what the workerbrings to the workplace) and unionization (what the workplacebrings to the worker.)”Key informant interview: Elaine Ferguson, Child CareConnections Nova Scotia.

In 1998, the child care sector study proposed threeinterconnected strategies to address the recognitionchallenge: professionalization, unionization and advocacy.Over the past 5 years, the sector has continued to pursuecampaigns, projects and initiatives that promote a profession,increase the proportion of the workforce represented by atrade union and widen the circle of public support for thesector and its workforce. However, most individuals in thechild care workforce are still not members of a child careorganization or union.

The child care sector wants to move forward toward amore stable workforce with more qualifications and bettercompensation and working conditions. Over the past 6 years,much has been achieved, such as the formation of the ChildCare Human Resources Sector Council. Collaborative activitiesamong pan-Canadian child care organizations have increased.Movement forward will continue to rely on the combinedstrategies of professionalization, unionization and advocacy.

A review of relatively higher quality of employment inother occupations involving care and education reinforcethe message. The conditions associated with good qualityemployment are:• extensive professionalization of the work, based on a

coherent discipline (pedagogy) with strong historical rootsand cultural identity;

• extensive unionization, with trade unions having multipleroles—economic, professional, training and political; and

• extensive advocacy to support public funding directedtoward services and their workforces and public policy toensure universal access to services.1

8.2 ProfessionalizationProfessionalization describes the kind of activities and actionsthat a child care staff member or family caregiver or thechild care workforce as a whole uses to achieve the goal ofa profession. A profession is work that involves specializedknowledge and skills that are based on a systematic body ofprinciples. Work in ECEC may not meet all of therequirements or criteria of a formal profession but stepstoward the goal contribute to the public recognition of andrespect for the workforce.

Child care organizations at the national, provincial/territorialand local levels support the workforce and advocate for itsrecognition. These groups carry out a range of professionaleducation, and development and advocacy activities thatcontribute to the professionalization of the workforce.

Child care organizations report about 15,000 members,while there are about 300,000 individuals in the broaderECEC workforce. The membership numbers (reported inChapter Five) include those who are in the child careworkforce and others who are working in related ECECsettings, post-secondary ECE programs, and governmentconsultants and policy analysts, as well as those who areworking directly in regulated child care settings.

The majority of child care staff and family care providers donot belong to organizations. Membership is not required towork in the child care sector and membership fees can be abarrier, particularly when wages are low. However, the reachof organizations to provide information and networking

113



C H A P T E R 8 - T H E R E C O G N I T I O N C H A L L E N G E

opportunities to the child care workforce far exceeds themembership. Child care organizations provide easilyaccessible information and resources that are available to bothmembers and non-members.

8.2.1 CertificationCertification is “a system for recognizing an individual’s level ofeducation, experience, and/or competence to practice an occupationwith the confidence of the occupation and the public.”2 It is onecomponent of professionalization that recognizes andendorses educational qualification and performance levels,monitors standards of practice and promotes quality ofECEC and the child care workforce.

Some provincial/territorial governments require certificationof child care centre staff. The systems of certification aretypically based on the number of years of post-secondaryECE completed. The level of certification may determinewhether an individual is permitted to have primaryresponsibility for a group of children or to work as anassistant. Two jurisdictions require a specified number ofhours of professional development to remain certified(British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador). In BritishColumbia, child care centre staff must have a licence topractise which requires, in addition to an ECE certificate,verification of 500 hours of supervised work experience in alicensed child care facility. Table 8.1 provides an overview ofthe certification requirements by province and territory andwhere certification is mandatory or voluntary.

Table 8.1 Child Care Workforce CertificationProvince or Territory

Newfoundland and Labrador


Nova Scotia

New BrunswickQuebecOntario

Manitoba

SaskatchewanAlberta

British Columbia

YukonNorthwest TerritoriesNunavut

Responsibility for CertificationProvincial government has statutoryauthority for ECE certification.Government sets policy, standards andrequirements. Issuance of certificatesis outsourced to Association of EarlyChildhood Educators Newfoundlandand LabradorProvincial government has statutoryauthority for ECE certification.

ECE certification from theCertification Council of EarlyChildhood Educators of Nova Scotia.No certification No certificationCertification through Association ofEarly Childhood Educators OntarioProvincial government has statutoryauthority for classification(certification) of ECE. Governmentissues certificates and appoints aboard to advise on policy.No certificationProvincial government has statutoryauthority for certification of ECE,although issuance of certificates willbe outsourced to non-governmentagency.Provincial government has statutoryauthority for certification of ECE.Government sets standards andissues and re-issues licences topractise (certification).No certificationNo certificationNo certification

Levels and RequirementsEntry Level: 45–50 hrs’ orientationLevel 1: 1-yr certificate in ECELevel 2: 2-yr diploma in ECELevel 3: 2-yr diploma in ECE + post-diploma certificate/ specializationLevel 4: ECE degree or equivalentRenewal: 30 hrs of PD every 3 yrsLevel 1: 45–50 hrs’ orientationLevel 2: ECE diploma or equivalent

Child care assistant: training in progressECE II: ECE diploma ECE III: Degree or post-diploma plus ECEdiplomaNo renewal requirements

Level 1: 45–50 hrs’ orientationLevel 2: 1-yr ECE certificateLevel 3: 2-yr ECE diploma

Basic Level: 1-yr ECE certificate plus500 hrs of supervised workexperience Post Basic Level(Infant – Toddler and Special Needs):2-yr ECE diploma or 1 year ECEcertificate plus post-certificate –1 yr plus 500 hrs of supervised workexperience. Renewal: workexperience and 12 hrs PD every 5 yrs

ParticipationAll child care staff in regulatedcentres, and providers and homevisitors in regulated family child carerequired to participate.

All staff in regulated settingsrequired to participate.

Voluntary participation

Voluntary participation

All child care staff in regulatedcentres required to participate.

All staff in regulated child carerequired to participate.

All early childhood educators inregulated child care centres requiredto participate

Source: Adapted from McDonnell, Piazetski & Raptis-Benner (2003).



M A I N R E P O R T

8.2.2 A new occupational standard for thechild care workforce

Occupational standards describe what a person in a particularoccupation must know and be able to do to be considered competent atthe occupation. Occupational standards usually have three components:• the skills and abilities to perform the job in a competent fashion;• the core knowledge required to perform the job in a competent

fashion; and • the standards of ethical practice expected of practitioners in that occupation.3

The occupational standards are consistent with learningexpectations, outcomes and competencies found in post-secondary ECE certificate and diploma programs. They havethe potential to serve as a foundation for the development andevaluation of pre-service ECE curricula, accreditation of ECEpost-secondary programs, a national system of certification forindividuals, and for the assessment and recognition of informallearning and of credentials from other countries.4

In 2002 and 2003, the Canadian Child Care Federation(CCCF) and the Association of Canadian CommunityColleges (ACCC) with funding support from HRDC hostedan extensive consultation process across Canada to reviewand revise proposed occupational standards. The standards areintended for adults who provide remunerated care and education ona regular basis for children who are not part of their immediate family5

and who are responsible for a group of children in a familychild care home, a child care centre, the child’s own homeor in a family resource program that offers programs andactivities that include young children.

In November 2003, the Occupational Standards wereendorsed at the national symposium described in Box 8.1and were put forward for ratification by the CCCFmembership at its annual meeting in June 2004. Next stepsinclude plans to increase awareness across the sector and toseek endorsement from provincial/territorial child careorganizations, post-secondary institutions with ECEprograms, and provincial/territorial governments.

8.2.3 The resources of voluntary organizations arestretched and they face new challenges

The majority of professional organizations and advocacygroups are voluntary organizations and carry out theirmandates by relying heavily on the efforts of volunteers.Government funding may be available for specific projectsbut are now seldom available for core operational costs.Membership fees are typically minimal and, in many cases,do not even cover the material costs of memberships ifmailings and newsletters are involved. The lack of financialresources necessary to maintain organizational infrastructurelimits the ability of organizations to effectively promoteprofessionalism or play an active advocacy role.

The challenge faced by most sector organizations is summedup in the conclusions of review of the ECE workforcecompleted for the Early Child Development Associationof Prince Edward Island.6

“While the Association’s [ECDA] traditional role as a leader andadvocate for accessible and affordable quality early childhood educationfor parents continues to be an important focus, the issues facing the fieldhave become more diverse and complex. The needs and demands beingplaced on the volunteer resources of the Association are fast outpacingits capacity to respond…. The Early Child Development Associationis currently led, operated and managed by its volunteer members. Whilethere are people hired to manage/deliver certain project initiatives(Understanding Early Years, Early Childhood Environmental RatingScale), there is no paid staff to manage and coordinate the Associationitself. The Association Executive and members of its various workingcommittees are rapidly reaching the ‘burn out’ point.”

115

Box 8.1Nine Occupational Standards for Child Care Practitioners1. Protect and promote the psychological and physical safety, health and

well-being of each child.2. Develop and maintain a warm, caring and responsive relationship with

each child and with the group of children.3. Plan and provide daily experiences that support and promote each child’s

physical, emotional, social, communication, cognitive, ethical andcreative development.

4. Use observations to assess children’s skills, abilities, interests and needs.5. Recognize signs and symptoms of emotional or developmental delays or

challenges and take appropriate action.6. Establish and maintain an open, cooperative relationship with each

child’s family.7. Establish and maintain supportive, collaborative relationships with others

working in the child care setting. 8. Establish and maintain collaborative relationships with other community

service providers working with the child.9. Reflect on one’s own knowledge, attitudes and skills and take

appropriate action.Source: Doherty (2003).




8.2.4 Can professionalism accommodate a diversity ofexperiences and educational backgrounds?

Increased professionalism is linked to increased qualifications.Currently, the regulated child care workforce includes childcare centre and family child caregivers who have ECEqualifications and those who have no formal training.The workforce will need to accommodate the existingmembers who do not have recognized qualifications duringa transition period if increased qualifications are phased in.PLAR and realistic access to post-secondary ECE programswill need to expand. Recognition of foreign credentials andessential skill training for newcomers will increase theirparticipation in a skilled child care workforce. Increasedqualification levels also mean increasing the number ofindividuals who now have 1- and 2-year credentials topursue ECE-related degrees.

The professionalization of the child care workforce has thepotential to exclude employment opportunities for womenwith few educational qualifications, or who have recentlyimmigrated to Canada and face linguistic and credentialrecognition barriers in seeking employment in other sectors.Discussions about the introduction of an occupationalstandard for the workforce have raised these issues.Keeping the workforce open to everyone, regardless ofqualification level, can negate efforts to gain greaterrecognition and compensation. Therefore, it is inevitablethat some individuals will be excluded. However, many ofthese individuals have considerable experience workingwith young children. Accessible and affordable trainingprograms that accommodate adult learners, along withrecognition and assessment of informal learning and foreigncredentials, can greatly reduce their numbers and ensure amore diverse workforce.

8.3 UnionizationCurrently, less than 20% of Canada’s child care workforceworking in regulated child care settings is unionized. Therates of unionization did not change significantly throughthe 1990s. The unionization of the child care workforce nowappears to be increasing and there are now about 35,500members of the child care workforce who are unionized(see Chapter Five).

Unionization addresses the issues of a lack of recognition,low pay and poor working conditions. With a unioncontract, child care employees can have a greater voice indefining their working conditions, clarifying their rightsand responsibilities (as well as those of the employer),and resolving problems or grievances. Unionization canalso directly support increased opportunities for professionaldevelopment, and working conditions that support improvedquality child care and education.

8.3.1 Increasing union density is difficultUnions that are organizing staff in regulated child carecentres encounter a number of obstacles. Many staff in smallunits that are operated by an individual owner or volunteerparent/community board of directors are often concerned thatjoining a union may change the relationships with the centre’smanagement. The relationship is often collegial and managersmay exert pressure on staff to discourage unionization.When approving a budget, parents who serve on boards ofdirectors experience the difficulties in weighing the impactof raising staff wages on their own fees. As well, unions areaware of the difficulties of achieving gains for memberswhose wage gains are reliant on users’ ability to pay.

However, interest in unionization is growing and somerecent gains have been made.• In July 2002, the Manitoba Government Employees

Union (MGEU) hired a full-time organizer with an ECEbackground as part of an organizing drive of child carecentres in Manitoba. As of the spring of 2004, the MGEUhad signed up 67 centres, with several more pending.Critical to the success of the unionizing drive has beenhaving an organizer who understands child care and thefunding and policy challenges that centres face.

The MGEU is servicing child care centres as fullmembers even though they are not paying dues until afirst contract is in place. It hopes to build on an earliersuccess with personal care homes, which also used tohave individual boards. Most are now unionized and havecomprehensive packages.

The MGEU has divided Manitoba into eight areas: fourin Winnipeg and four rural areas. Elections have been heldand the bargaining committees have met. The MGEU isnow pursuing a strategy to work with the Manitoba ChildCare Association and the provincial government toestablish and fund an employers’ association.

• The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BritishColumbia and the BC Government and ServiceEmployees’ Union held a joint strategy session in the fallof 2003. In part, the purpose of the session was to explorejoint strategies for organizing, bargaining and advocating.As a result of the event, the Board of Directors of theCoalition of Child Care Advocates formally adopted apolicy of promoting unionization as part of a strategy forachieving the goal of a publicly funded, not-for-profit,high quality, accessible, affordable child care system.8

• The CUPE national child care working group hasidentified the need to rethink how to represent child careworkers. At its 2003 convention, it adopted a strategicdirection and has subsequently written a child care plan.CUPE suggests that bargaining can be more effective if



M A I N R E P O R T

employers come to a common bargaining table. It suggeststhat it may be desirable but not feasible to have one unionfor child care nationally, or even provincially, as manysmaller communities are one-union towns. Those unionsare in the best position to provide resources and supportto all organized workers in that community. A project isunder way in Ontario to do outreach to all CUPE-organized centres (with the exception of municipal centres)with a goal of forming a CUPE bargaining council.

8.3.2 Bargaining with governments, not parents In addition to increasing union density, the MGEU hasindicated that the best way to make significant and ongoingimprovements to the salaries, benefits and workingconditions of early childhood educators is for a union tonegotiate with the key funder—that is, the provincialgovernment—around a common table on behalf of all itsmembers. If the union is successful in its strategy to set upan employers’ council, all parties would be represented ata central bargaining table.

In 1998, in the early days of child care reform in Quebec,the average salary of a child care staff member was$10.98/hour, though the wages across regions in CPEs variedconsiderably. In April 1999, after 6 months of action andinformation, the CSN organized a strike. The objective ofthis strike was to demand that the government intervene toaddress compensation and benefits.

Central bargaining was introduced with the government,the unions (the CSN and the CSQ representing the workerswhether unionized or not) and the main child careorganizations (representing the CPEs) coming to thebargaining table. Wages, pay equity and a retirement planwere all discussed at that table. Wages, benefits and workingconditions were significantly improved; these improvementsapplied to all CPEs, whether or not they were unionized.The Ministry of Families and Children established aworking group on pension plans and one on pay equity.9

A salary grid was negotiated for all positions within a CPE,including some of the managerial staff—the conseillèrespédagogiques. A 4-year plan to raise wages by approximately40% was implemented, and it applied to all CPEs, whetherthey were unionized or not.

The unions have also played an important role inrecognizing the importance of school-age child care bydefining within the collective agreement the position ofcoordinators and educators, and by pushing for a minimumlevel of training.

Up until 1999, the wages of teachers in the school-ageprograms were superior to those of early childhood educatorsin centre-based care, despite lower educational requirements.

The school-age program employees were all unionized. Withthe 1999 negotiations in the CPEs the disparity has narrowedand wages are now similar, although the educationalrequirements are still lower in school-age programs.

8.3.3 Efforts to organize family child care providersThe CSQ was the first union to organize family child careproviders in Quebec. The first of five Alliances des intervenantes enmilieu familial—regional bodies—was created in September 1997.

The CSQ represents 915 family child care providers in 90CPEs and the CSN represents 600 family child careproviders in 26 CPEs. In 2002, the CSQ and the CSN filedfor union certification with the Quebec labour board, onbehalf of 1,500 family child care providers from 116 CPEs.The decision was made in their favour; the CPEs (under thegovernment’s auspices) appealed and lost. The newly electedLiberal government introduced legislation (Bill 8) inNovember 2003, whereby the self-employed status of familychild care providers is enshrined in a law, indicating theymay not be unionized. The unions are appealing the decisionbased on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as wellas international covenants ensuring the right of workers tounionize. As a result, there were demonstrations involvingfamily child care providers through the fall of 2003.

Outside of Quebec, family child care providers in onlyone agency in Ontario are organized into a trade union(with OPSEU).

8.4 AdvocacyPublic policy advocacy for the child care sector and the childcare workforce is based on the view that children andfamilies should have access to quality programs and thatchild care staff and family child caregivers should berecognized as critical components of these programs.

8.4.1 Broadening the circle of supportThe success of advocacy can be measured by the publicprofile and awareness of an issue. The advocacy efforts ofchild care organizations, along with coalitions of women’sorganizations, trade unions and social service groups,continue to keep child care on the public agenda.

The circle of support advocating for increased publicspending has broadened to corporate and other supportoutside the sphere of the traditional child care advocates.For example, Charlie Coffey, Executive Vice-President ofGovernment and Community Affairs of the Royal Bank ofCanada and the Honourable Margaret Norrie McCain,former lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, state:

No early years strategy can be successful without child care. It isessential for the provincial government to recognize and fund qualitychild care services as the core of an integrated strategy for child

117




development and parenting supports, and further that the federalgovernment promote and fund child care as a central component of itsearly years initiatives.10

Advocacy efforts continue to focus on increased investmentin the child care sector and benefits for the child careworkforce. The allocation of some of the federal fundingconnected to the Early Childhood Development Agreementfunding and particularly the Multi-Lateral FrameworkAgreement to regulated child care point to their successes.

8.4.2 Developing a shared vision and directionThe CCAAC recently prepared a discussion paper thatapplies the lessons of the OECD study of ECEC in 12countries by assessing the status of child care in Canadaunder each policy lesson. The paper is a basis for a pan-Canada consultation to develop a common vision androadmap with stakeholders and with other social policygroups, academics, the labour movement and educationsector.

In 2002, the CCAAC established Parent Voices to work withparents to make the case for quality, affordable and accessiblechild care. Through Parent Voices, parents are comingtogether to advocate for the child care services they need intheir communities. Parent Voices has established linkageswith child care groups and parents in six regions: BritishColumbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, NewBrunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Momentumkeeps building, and opportunities are expanding to workwith parents in other provinces and territories. ThroughParent Voices, the CCAAC is now reaching more than30,000 parents across Canada.

8.4.3 Public attitude and perceptions aboutchild care are a mixed bag

The sector is attentive to changes in public attitudes to childcare and other early child development issues.12 The public’sperception of the importance of early years or early childdevelopment is growing. The flood of popular electronic andprint media publicizing recent and less recent findings fromthe neurosciences and high-profile communicationscampaigns seem to have raised the profile of the subject andimparted a few key messages.

The CCAAC and the CCCF conducted a study to identifybest practices in social engagement campaigns and to explorepublic awareness of, attitudes to, and preferences for child carein Canada. The study included a literature review, focusgroups and representative polling.13 The polling resultsindicated a high level of support for public investments inearly learning. The majority of Canadians value theknowledge and abilities needed to provide quality ECECprograms and support increased remuneration for child care

workers.14 But outside of Quebec, the public is notdemanding the provision of child care programs as a highpriority.15 Child care in Canada is perceived primarily as aservice that benefits parents.16 There is overall agreement thatchild care should be of high quality and support positivechild development. But many view parents to be theprimary beneficiaries of child care and see it as theirresponsibility to make child care arrangements. Support forpublic resources for child care programs is increasing, butthat support is slow in translating into support for publicresponsibility for the provision of child care.

The polling results point to a wide range of views about thepurpose and value of child care. It is disheartening anddemoralizing for the child care sector, particularly theleadership, to acknowledge that, for many, the public identityof child care remains as a service that “looks after childrenwhile their parents are not there.” Early childhoodeducation, nursery schools and kindergarten are widelyviewed as programs that promote early learning anddevelopment, prepare children for success in school andenrich their experiences. Advocacy efforts to link educationand child care in the mind of the public and in theeducation sector will need to continue.

8.5 Strategic Directions at the IntersectionProfessional organizations, trade unions and advocacy groupsare joining together to support collaborative efforts andactivities to improve the working environment for the childcare workforce and to enlarge both their membership baseand their reach within the sector and with the generalpublic. Increasing professionalism, unionization and advocacyare making progress, albeit uneven progress, to expand theregulated child care sector across Canada. The workforce inregulated child care is growing, although increases incompensation are uneven.

At the same time, the child care sector is often competingwith other ECEC programs for both government financialallocations and for qualified ECE staff. To further expand thechild care sector and improve the compensation, skills andrecognition for the child care workforce, strategies will needto focus beyond expanding membership in professionalorganizations, trade unions and advocacy groups.

The Child Care Human Resources Sector Council hasestablished a workplan that embraces the premise proposedin the first sector study. Professionalism, unionization andadvocacy are interlinked strategies that will need to worktogether to address the work environment, skills andrecognition challenges. The next step is to addressfundamental issues about the purpose of child care and thenature of the sector and the occupation, and then to considerbeneficial alignments with related sectors.



M A I N R E P O R T

8.5.1 What is the purpose of child care?Is the purpose of child care primarily to support children’searly development and learning or is it to support labourmarket participation?

Early childhood education and care is a sector that straddlesboth worlds and the regulated child care sector is clearly partof ECEC; indeed, we heard from many in the sector whoconsider regulated child care to be the core program forECEC. They promote the view that quality early educationis not possible without caring and quality caring is notpossible without early education. But there is a “disjoint”between how governments view and fund child care andhow it is perceived by many in the workforce, particularlythose with ECE qualifications.

Post-secondary ECE programs’ primary objective is to prepareindividuals to support the optimal growth and developmentof all children, regardless of setting. Responsiveness tochildren and understanding of developmental trajectories iscentral. Child care centres are important sites to apply theprinciples of ECE. Graduates enter the workforce with theprimary intent of practising ECE (and earning a living).

Regulated child care, particularly subsidized regulated childcare, is viewed by provincial/territorial governments primarilyas a support to parental labour force attachment. Governmentpolicies and regulations continue to tie the provision of childcare fee subsidies and operating grants to parental labour forceparticipation or preparation. Outside Quebec, the primary roleof regulated child care from the provincial/territorialgovernment’s perspective is to care for children while parentsare working or studying. Other types of ECEC programs andservices are supported by governments because they promoteoptimal development and early learning.

8.5.2 Naming the sector and naming the occupationThere is a lively debate in Canada about what the sector andthe occupation should be called or named. Behind the nameof the occupation debate is a debate about the structure ofchild care and other ECEC programs; currently, there is asplit system. Kindergarten and a growing number of pre-kindergarten and parenting programs happen within theschool system and are mostly staffed by qualified teachers.Early childhood educators may be hired for assistant,preschool or parenting positions and these positions aregenerally valued and sought after. Regulated child careprograms and a range of other child development programs(including child–parent activities offered within family

resource programs) are offered through social services.These programs hire a combination of trained (usually ECE)and untrained staff.

The focus groups conducted for the LMU found that childcare staff, family child care providers and others working inrelated ECEC settings expressed a range of views about thepurpose of child care versus the purpose of related programsand what the occupation should be called. There wasconsensus among staff that parents considered programscalled child care were less educational for children comparedto programs called preschool, nursery school or pre-kindergarten, even when staff had identical qualifications.Overall, the term “early childhood educator” was mentionedmore often as the preferred term for those who have ECEqualifications and are working in regulated child care centresor other types of ECEC settings. Early childhood educatorwas perceived to be a term similar to “teacher” or ”nurse”that identifies a specific professional who can work indifferent types of settings.

An interesting discussion took place in November 2003 at thenational symposium in Ottawa on Training for the Deliveryof Quality Early Childhood Development and Care Servicesin Canada. The symposium, part of a 2-year study by thesame name, was sponsored by the CCCF and the ACCC.The 61 participants included representatives of federal andprovincial/territorial child care organizations, the Child CareHuman Resources Sector Council, centre-based programs,family child care programs, community college ECEprograms, organized labour, and federal and provincialgovernments. The discussion focused on what is theappropriate name for people working directly with youngchildren in a variety of child care settings—possible namesincluded early childhood educator, child care educator, childcare worker, and child care and development specialist. Thegroup did not reach consensus on a name but thedeliberations clearly engaged participants and there was clearagreement that a single name (representing a shared identity)was a complex, but necessary step in finding commonground in gaining greater recognition for the occupation.

As the child care community matures, discussion about thename of the sector and the occupation will continue toevolve alongside professionalism, unionization and advocacy.

119




8.5.3 Strategic alliances and alignmentsThe child care workforce often identifies itself as part of the“caring” and “educating” occupations. In this regard, it isimportant to consider alignments with the education as wellas the social service sector.

Defining care work is complex. Its borders are neither clearnor settled and many occupations include elements of care.An occupation can be described in one country or disciplineas “care work” and as part of early education or earlypedagogy in another country or context.17 The key objectiveof social care is social inclusion. Many of its users arevulnerable and socially excluded in their communities andsocieties.18 A variety of children’s services are already part ofthe social care sector and the inclusion of services thatprovide early learning and care outside of the formal schoolsystem would contribute to coherency and integrated,inclusive services for families. Boxes 8.1 and 8.2 describeapproaches taken by two sector bodies representing the childcare workforce in forming strategic alliances with other careand education sectors.

In a number of other jurisdictions, the child care workforcehas formed alliances with the education sector, recognizingthat education is increasing its participation in the deliveryof pre-kindergarten programs.

Box 8.2Sector Skills Council for Social Care, Children and Young PeopleThe recent policy document in the United Kingdom, Every Child Matters:Next Steps announces the creation of a Sector Skills Council for SocialCare, Children and Young People that will bring together those workingin social care with other occupational groups that work with children andyoung people.19 The aim is to:• develop a more coherent and stable children’s workforce through a set

of common, core occupational standards;• build a modular framework to enhance the skills, effectiveness and

coherence of the children’s workforce;• foster high quality leadership; and• make working with children and young people a more rewarding and

attractive career.The intention is to include ECEC services in England and in other UKcountries, and strengthen the link between adult care and child careworkforce development.

The social care sector in England includes occupations that include paid“front-line” workers who are employed to care for other than familymembers and work in one of four groups of services:20

• care for children and youth with disabilities;• child and youth residential and foster care; and• care for adults with disabilities, including elderly people.

It is expected to expand to include early years, SureStart, child care,education welfare services, and child and family services connectedto the courts.

Box 8.3Child Care Workforce/American Federation of TeachersEducational Foundation The Child Care Employee Project (CCEP) was founded in 1978 in Berkeley,California. As a grass-roots organization of child care staff in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, CCEP took on the role of networking with other smallgrass-roots groups around the country, and the work of developingresources for others to use in its research, policy and organizing workbegan in earnest. In the late 1980s, CCEP conducted its first landmarkresearch project—the National Child Care Staffing Study. This study wasthe first of its kind to document the status of child care workersnationwide and established a clear link between the quality of care thatchildren receive and the compensation and stability of their child careteachers. As child care workforce issues received more national attention,CCEP moved its headquarters to Washington, DC in 1994, becoming acentral figure in the public policy debate surrounding child care issues.From 1994 to 1997, CCEP became known as the National Center for theEarly Childhood Workforce, and eventually changed its name to theCenter for the Child Care Workforce (CCW).

CCW advocated for public policy to restructure the early care and educationdelivery system to better address the issues of workforce recruitment andcompensation, researched and documented the status, and influencedorganizing strategies that emphasized a unified voice for early care andeducation teachers and providers.

In 2002, CCW merged with the American Federation of TeachersEducational Foundation (AFTEF), the non-profit arm of the AmericanFederation of Teachers (AFT). The merger was the culmination of workthat began as a result of a decision to discontinue as an independent,free-standing organization. As an AFTEF project, CCW/AFTEF hopes touse this unprecedented opportunity to broaden the scope of CCW’s workand expand the capacity to create a unified voice for the early care andeducation workforce.

CCW/AFTEF and the AFT are now together to jointly champion highquality early care and education for young children that ensure goodjobs for early care and education practitioners. As part of AFT, the CCWwill be part of the larger efforts of AFT and the Educational Foundationto advance early childhood education and child care as vital parts ofthe nation’s education system.



M A I N R E P O R T

121

ENDNOTES

1 Adapted from Moss & Cameron 20022 Ogston 1999, p. 83 Doherty 2003, p. 24 Canadian Child Care Federation & Association of Canadian Community Colleges 20035 Doherty 2003, p. 26 McQuaid, Chaulk & Smith 2002, p. 537 Canadian Child Care Federation & Association of Canadian Community Colleges 20038 Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia & BC Government and Service Employees’ Union 20049 Tougas 200210 Coffey & McCain 2002, p. 14.11 Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada 200312 Alberta’s Commission on Learning 2003; Battle & Torjman 2002; Beach & Bertrand 2000; Government of Canada 2000, 2002; Mustard & McCain 2002;

Premier’s Council on Healthy Child Development 200313 Espey & Good Company 200314 Ibid15 Espey & Good Company, 2003; Michalski 199916 Ibid17 Moss & Cameron 200218 Topss UK Partnership 200319 UK Ministry of Children, Young People and Families 200420 Topss UK Partnership 2003

The notion of alliances presents some complex challengesfor the child care workforce. Aligning the child careworkforce with education or with an integrated networkof care services could strengthen its presence and status.Discussions with those in the child care sector for the workof the LMU raised a number of concerns about subsumingchild care within education, pointing to basic differences inphilosophical and pedagogical approaches to ECEC.There are concerns that the “caring” aspects would disappear.

As the child care sector evolves and matures, professionalism,unionization and advocacy will play a central role in leadingthe workforce toward better compensation and recognition.If strategic directions are consistent with each other andmutually supportive, and if complementary alliances andalignments are pursued, the workforce will benefit and moreforward with a stronger identity.



9C H A P T E R T H E P A T H F O R P R O G R E S S , C O N C L U S I O N S A N DR E C O M M E N D A T I O N S


The main purpose of the LMU is to provide a forward-looking analysis of child care human resource issues.This analysis will support the sector as a whole and theChild Care Human Resources Sector Council to develop aplan to increase the number of skilled and qualified peoplewho enter and remain in the child care workforce.

9.1 Overarching Labour Market IssuesFive major issues have an impact on the sector’s ability toensure a supply of qualified early childhood educators tomeet present and future staffing needs in the regulatedchild care sector. The issues are complex and interconnected.

• Quality: Scarce funding of child care programs, anduncoordinated policies and standards in many jurisdictionscause uneven quality of care. These factors work againstthe sector’s ability to recruit and retain qualified staff.The quality of child care programs depends on a trained,skilled and stable workforce, including effective andcapable supervisory staff. In many parts of Canada, there isa shortage of trained early childhood educators. In someinstances, ECE graduate students are choosing not to workin regulated child care because of concerns about quality.

• Job security, stability and satisfaction: Current levelsand methods of child care funding in most of Canadacause job instability, and contribute to low wages andbenefits. Long working hours and increasing demandsplay a role in job dissatisfaction. There is high staffturnover in the sector and a perception that child care isa limited career path.

• Attitudes and awareness: There is increasing awarenessof the importance of early childhood development.However, this has not translated into supportive publicpolicy for child care. Moreover, there is little recognitionfor the knowledge and skills required to work effectivelyin the sector and a lack of respect for the value of thework.

• The relationship between early childhooddevelopment, early education and child care:Child care is a critical component of comprehensive earlychildhood development programs. However, the centralrole of child care is not often reflected in public policy orfunding decisions. For example, almost all of the EarlyChildhood Development Agreement funding went toinitiatives other than regulated child care. Many of thesenew initiatives are core funded and do not rely on parentfees. Therefore, they are able to offer better pay andbenefits, and draw ECE-credentialled staff away fromregulated child care.

• Inclusion: Currently, all children do not have equalaccess to child care. Inclusion requires access to serviceswith appropriate supports. This underscores the need forsufficient numbers of trained staff to ensure participationof children with disabilities or other specific needs,children from low-income families, and children andfamilies who are newcomers to Canada or live in distinctcultural communities.

These issues provide an important context for the staffingcrisis facing the child care sector. Increasing the numbersof qualified staff and caregivers is essential to improve andsustain high quality programs in regulated child care, aswell as to expand the number of programs.

In addition to dealing with these five issues, the regulatedchild care sector must address labour market concernsarising from its aging workforce. Many sectors face futureworkforce shortages as the overall workforce grows older.Steps must be taken to ensure child care becomes a viableprofession in order for the sector to compete with morefinancially secure occupations in the broader educationand social service sector.

9.2 The Public Policy Challenge

Haphazard public policy, underfunding, fragmentation ofservices and the lack of regularly collected pan-Canadiandata have plagued the child care sector for decades. Evenwith considerable evidence-based research and advocacyefforts, little progress has been made toward a more coherentpublic policy framework in Canada, apart from Quebec’sfamily policy. More recent interest in the importance of earlychildhood development presents opportunities to advancechild care policy, but also ushers in a host of new challengesstemming from a lack of recognition of child care’sfundamental role in the early years.

Four key policy areas must be addressed to provide aninfrastructure that enables meaningful progress on child carehuman resource issues:

1. A general policy framework that clearly recognizes thecentral role of child care to early childhood developmentstrategies. A regulated child care system is the mostpractical way to deliver widespread, publicly supportedearly childhood development and learning. Regulated childcare has two priorities. The first is to ensure the well-beingof children through programs that support cognitive,social, emotional and physical development. The second isto support labour force participation of parents.

123



C H A P T E R 9 - T H E P A T H F O R P R O G R E S S , C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

2.Coherent public policies across the sector to effectivelymanage the demand for child care and early childhoodeducators. The demand for qualified early childhoodeducators is in large part dictated by the public policydirections of each province or territory. Policies areinconsistent across jurisdictions when it comes to funding,eligibility for service, access, regulation, monitoring andimproving quality of care. Most governments do nothave defined goals for child care or target levels of service.This situation makes it difficult to predict the demand fora qualified workforce.

3. Sufficient funding of the sector. Quality child care requiressignificant investments of public dollars to maintain stableprograms, make them affordable to parents, and to providereasonable wages, benefits and working conditions forstaff and caregivers.

4. Labour market information to guide decision making:There is no regularly collected pan-Canadian child careinformation, nor is there a clear distinction betweenthose who work in different settings and varying positionswithin the child care sector. It is impossible to delineatethose who work in child care centres, or in family childcare and/or with differing age groups.

Progress can be made when governments take a multifacetedapproach to the public policy challenge. As noted in thestudy, Quebec leads the way in growth of supply and fundingfor regulated child care. This expansion has come aboutwithin a framework of broad family policy. The frameworkfocuses on setting growth targets, a significant increase inpublic funding, creation of an infrastructure, improved wagesand benefits, a government-sponsored recruitment campaign,efforts in quality improvement and increased flexibility indelivery of training.

9.3 RecommendationsBased on the data collection, analysis and conclusions of theLMU, the following recommendations identify a frameworkto address human resource challenges in the regulated childcare sector:

1. Promote increased pay and benefits.2.Develop a recruitment strategy.3. Develop a retention strategy.4. Enhance management and leadership practices and

supports.5. Increase attachment to professional, labour and advocacy

organizations.6.Develop partnerships with the education and research

community, government departments and related sectors.7. Reframe the “child care” versus “early child development”

dialogue.8.Develop a research agenda.

The recommendations are designed to support, sustainand strengthen the child care workforce and will serve asthe basis for the development of a labour market strategyfor the sector.

9.3.1 Promote increased pay and benefitsThe pay and benefits of child care staff and providersvary widely across Canada. They remain very low inmany jurisdictions compared to other occupational groups,particularly those with similar educational requirements.Those who work in the child care sector areoverwhelmingly women. With an average annualemployment income of $16,167, they earn less than half thenational average of $33,470. Their work is undervalued andthey in effect subsidize the service they provide throughtheir low pay. For the most part, child care staff have few ifany monetary benefits such as pensions or short- and long-term disability plans. Family child care providers areoverwhelmingly self-employed and are therefore not eligiblefor any employment-related benefits.

In centre-based care, improved and common wage andbenefit scales would reduce job turnover caused by staffwho leave for a job that pays more. In Quebec, for example,turnover rates have dropped due to improved child carestaff wages and common compensation scales.

Clearly, fair wages and benefits would have a positive andpowerful impact on recruitment and retention in the sector.Compensation must reflect the value of the work in orderto recruit and retain qualified early childhood educators andattract capable applicants into post-secondary ECE programs.Any increases to wages and benefits must come from publicinvestment, not through increases to parent fees.

9.3.2 Develop a recruitment strategyAt a time when the child care workforce is aging, few youngpeople are entering ECE programs and many new graduatesare choosing not to work in regulated child care. The sectorneeds to recruit and include both young people and mature,experienced professionals. A recruitment strategy must bedesigned to attract:• high school graduates and experienced members of the

workforce who lack ECE credentials into post-secondaryECE programs;

• those with post-secondary qualifications related to ECE;• ECE graduates who are working in other sectors;• under-represented groups including Aboriginal peoples;• those with foreign credentials; and• a diverse workforce that reflects the community.



M A I N R E P O R T

9.3.3 Develop a retention strategyThe high turnover rate in child care creates instability andnegatively affects the quality of child care. While wages area major reason for high turnover rates, working conditionsin child care centres also play a significant role. The job isdemanding, the workload is heavy and staff experience lowjob satisfaction. Many child care centres are financiallyunstable and therefore there is little infrastructure for theoperation of high quality programs and little job security.The value of the work is not recognized.

A retention strategy must address:• work environment;• work organization and job satisfaction;• formal training opportunities;• access to ongoing professional development and in-service

training; and• portability and transferability of credentials.

9.3.4 Enhance management and leadership practicesand supports

Positive management and leadership practices contribute toattracting skilled staff; an increased sense of teamwork; bettermorale; a sense of equity among staff; professionaldevelopment opportunities; and well-planned, qualityprograms. Clear child care management and leadership rolescan also offer opportunities for career development withinthe child care workforce.

Efforts to strengthen child care management must includeoutreach to recent immigrants and newcomers and reflectthe cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the population.As well, it is necessary to enhance and support themanagement capacity of family child care providers, whoprimarily work alone and have a significant managementcomponent as part of their duties.

9.3.5 Increase attachment to professional, labour andadvocacy organizations

Professionalization, unionization and advocacy are keystrategies that can work together to improve wages, benefitsand working conditions, and support a skilled workforce.Increasing membership in these organizations is a priority.As well, it is important to strengthen child careorganizations and provide the necessary stability to ensurethat they are an effective part of the child care infrastructure.

Professionalization: A majority of those who work in childcare do not belong to a child care organization and thereforehave little access to supports such as collegial networking,topical and timely sector information and professionaldevelopment opportunities. Child care staff working in smallcentres are often isolated and interact with a limited numberof colleagues, and family child care providers usually workalone. Professional affiliation is a critical support to

individuals and the workforce. Unlike many established andgrowing professions, professional affiliation in the sector isvoluntary rather than mandatory in all jurisdictions.

Unionization: Unionization has played a critical role inimproving wages, benefits, training opportunities andworking conditions. This is especially the case where thereis a high union density in the workforce. In Quebec,where a relatively high percentage of the child careworkforce is unionized, wages have increased for all of thesector’s workers, whether or not they belong to unions.Unions are important vehicles for promoting the value ofthe child care workforce to their members, many of whomare parents with young children. Unions have also played asignificant role in advancing public policy and pressuringgovernments to increase funding to the sector.

Advocacy: Advocacy efforts of child care organizations havecontributed to keeping child care on the public agenda andraising awareness. These efforts have also highlighted theneed for increased public funding and developing a coherentchild care system in Canada. Advocacy organizationscontinue to promote the message to policymakers and thepublic that all children and families should have access toquality child care and that the workforce is key to thedelivery of quality child care.

9.3.6 Develop partnerships with the education andresearch community, government departmentsand related sectors

It is important to build the necessary support to establishprogressive public policy, expand public investment, increaserecognition and contribute to recruitment and retention.Developing partnerships with provincial/territorial directorsof child care, ministries of education, community colleges,the research community and other related stakeholders andorganizations will increase the sector council’s ability toadvance human resource issues in child care.

9.3.7 Reframe the “child care” versus “early childdevelopment” dialogue

The regulated child care sector often struggles to be a centralstakeholder in the development of related ECEC initiatives.Qualified staff and caregivers, particularly those with ECEcredentials, are finding increased career opportunities inECEC programs that operate apart from regulated childcare. Many in the sector believe child care should be thecore program for ECEC, yet most governments primarilyfund child care as a support for parental labour forceparticipation. There is currently no common understandingof the relationship between care and early education, orshared language that reflects the dual purpose of child care.Both would help to build public awareness and support forthe potential of child care to meet the developmental needsof children and accommodate parental working hours.

125



C H A P T E R 9 - T H E P A T H F O R P R O G R E S S , C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

The workforce and its leadership need to reach agreementabout the purpose of the sector and the core identity of theworkforce. The Child Care Human Resources Sector Councilis well positioned to lead this discussion, with its membershipof representatives of unions, professional organizations, advocacygroups and other stakeholders. Developing a common positionon the main purpose of child care and its connection to relatedECEC programs, as well as redefining and promoting theworkforce, will help in two areas. The first is building supportto expand public investment. The second is helping to define,coordinate and advance complementary professionalization,unionization and advocacy activities.

9.3.8 Develop a research agendaThe LMU clearly demonstrates the gap in ongoing datacollection on the workforce. Research is needed to monitorcompensation, working conditions and turnover, and tobuild evidence for policymakers on key human resource issuesin the sector. A research agenda would enable the sector toassess progress on recruitment and retention and the relatedimpacts on quality of care.

A clearinghouse research distribution system is necessary toensure that policymakers and the child care sector haveaccess to new information and knowledge. As well, consistent,well-organized data collection and research on the child careworkforce need to be linked with other research that affectsthe sector, such as information about families, the labour forceand early childhood development.

ConclusionTogether, these eight recommendations point the way aheadfor the child care sector. The recommendations are relevantand responsive to both long-standing and emerging humanresource challenges. They provide a path for progress.

These recommendations will serve as a foundation fordeveloping a child care labour market strategy. By definition,a labour market strategy sets out a concrete plan to addressand advance human resource issues in a sector.

The Child Care Human Resources Sector Council iswell positioned to develop such a strategy for the sector.The council provides a sectoral structure for moving forwardon human resource issues through collaborative actions withits national partners. The organization’s mandate is to developa confident, skilled and respected workforce valued for itscontribution to ECEC.

The labour market strategy will shape the council’s focusand activities for the next 5 years. The strategy will defineways to improve recruitment, retention and recognition ofthe workforce. The goal is clear: to promote high qualitychild care by ensuring Canada’s child care workforce is thebest it can be.



APPENDIX 1M E M B E R S O F T H E C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L

Executive Committee

Joanne MorrisSector Council Chair (Director at Large)Faculty, Early Childhood EducationCollege of the North AtlanticNewfoundland and Labrador

Gyda ChudSector Council Vice-Chair (Director at Large)Director – Continuing StudiesVancouver Community CollegeBritish Columbia

Raymonde LeblancSector Council Secretary-Treasurer Representative: Confédération des syndicats nationaux Conseillère SyndicaleConfédération des syndicats nationaux Québec

Christine MacleanRepresentative: Child Care Advocacy Association of CanadaPast ChairChild Care Advocacy Association of CanadaNewfoundland and Labrador

Sandra GriffinRepresentative: Canadian Child Care FederationExecutive DirectorCanadian Child Care FederationOntario

Jamie KassRepresentative: Canadian Union of Public EmployeesChild Care Coordinator CUPWOntario

Council Members

Karen ChandlerRepresentative: Canadian Child Care FederationProfessor George Brown CollegeOntario

Sheila DavidsonRepresentative: Child Care Advocacy Association of CanadaChild and Youth AdvocateCity of VancouverBritish Columbia

Mary Goss-ProwseRepresentative: Canadian Child Care FederationRegistrar of CertificationAssociation of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundlandand LabradorNewfoundland and Labrador

Marta JuorioRepresentative: Child Care Advocacy Association of CanadaDirector of Child CareYWCA Child Development CentreSaskatchewan

Marcia LopezRepresentative: Canadian Union of Public EmployeesHome Child Care CoordinatorToronto Home Child Care OfficeFamily Day Care ServicesOntario

Dixie MitchellDirector at LargeChild Care ConsultantNew Brunswick



A P P E N D I X 1 - M E M B R E S O F T H E C H I L D C A R E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S S E C T O R C O U N C I L

Noreen MurphyDirector at LargeExecutive DirectorChurchill Park Family Care SocietyAlberta

Gay PaganRepresentative: National Union of Public and GeneralEmployeesChild Care Worker OrganizerManitoba Government and General Employees’ UnionManitoba

Jasbir RandhawaDirector at LargeCo-ChairYukon Child Care AssociationYukon

Kathy ReidProvincial/Territorial Director (Director at Large)Director – Child Day Care ProgramManitoba Department of Family Services and HousingManitoba

Josée RoyRepresentative: Confédération des syndicats nationauxAdjointe à l’exécutifConfédération des syndicats nationaux Québec

Trista ThompsonRepresentative: National Union of Public and GeneralEmployeesB.C. Government and Service Employees’ UnionBritish Columbia

Labour Market Update Working Group

Sheila Davidson (chair)Gyda ChudRaymonde LeblancDeborah Mayer (member of the formerHuman Resources Round Table)Noreen Murphy


M I S E À J O U R D E S D O N N É E S D U M A R C H É D U T R A V A I L 129

APPENDIX 2-AS T A F F I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R R E G U L A T E D C H I L D C A R E C E N T R E S , 2 0 0 3

APPENDIX 2-A: STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED CHILD CARE CENTRES, 2003Province or Territory



Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Age Groups, Staff: Child Ratioand Group Size

0–24 mths 1:3 625–36 mths 1:5 1037–69 mths 1:8 1657–84 mths 1:12 24

and attending school85–144 mths 1:15 300–24 mths 1:3 625–36 mths 1:5 not specified37–60 mths 1:8 not specified61–72 mths 1:12 not specified0–17 mths 1:4 1018–35mths 1:6 1836–60 mths 1:8 2418–60 mths 1:12 24 (half day)

5–12 yrs 1:15 250–23 mths 1:3 924–36 mths 1:5 1037–48 mths 1:7 1449–60 mths 1:10 206–72 mths 1: 12 240–18 mths 1:5

18 mths–3 yrs 1:84–5 yrs 1:106–12 yrs 1:20

Maximum facility size: 80 spaces0–18 mths 3:10 1019–24 mths 1:5 1525–60 mths 1:8 1661–72 mths 1:12 24

6–10 yrs 1:15 30Separate age groups:12 wks–1 yr 1: 3 6

1–2 yrs 1: 4 82–3 yrs 1: 6 123–4 yrs 1: 8 164–5 yrs 1: 9 185–6 yrs 1: 10 205–12 yrs 1: 15 30

Mixed age groups: 12 wks–2 yrs 1: 4 8

2–6 yrs 1: 8 166–12 yrs 1: 15 30

Nursery school:12 weeks–2 yrs 1: 4 8

2–6 yrs 1: 10 20

Staff Training Requirements

Each group of children must have at least one staff person with a minimum of1 yr of ECE and at least 1 yr of experience. All other staff must have completeda 30–60-hr orientation course. Operator (director, supervisor) must have 2 yrs’ECE training and 2 yrs’ experience. Operator and lead staff must have trainingin age group they are working with. Five levels of certification specified at endof regulation (Child Care Services Reg, 1999)Centre supervisors and at least one full-time staff member must have aminimum of 1 yr of ECE training or a university child study degree.

The centre director and 2/3 of staff must have completed a training programin ECE or have 2 yrs’ experience, one 60-hr course in human growth anddevelopment and 25 hrs of workshops on early childhood curriculum.

The director OR one in four staff is required to have 1 yr of ECE training or itsequivalent (implementation deadline extended to April 1, 2006). There are notraining requirements for other staff. As of April 1, 2003, extended for thosecurrently licensed/approved as a facility; if submitting licence application afterApril 1, 2003, then must meet training requirement immediately.2/3 of staff in CPE centres must have a college diploma or university degree in ECE.

1/3 of staff in garderies must have a college diploma or university degree in ECE.

Supervisors and at least one person with each group of children must have anECE diploma or its equivalent. Supervisors must also have 2 yrs’ experience.

2/3 of a full-time centre’s staff for children aged 12 wks to 6 yrs must beclassified as ECE II or III.1/2 of staff employed in school-age centres and nursery schools must beclassified as ECE II or III.

ECE III – 2-yr diploma and advanced certificate or approved 4-yr degree(Family studies, Development Studies, Child study stream)ECE II – approved 2-yr diploma or completion of Child Day Care Competency-Based Assessment Program.



A N N E X E 2 - A - S T A F F I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R R E G U L A T E D C H I L D C A R E C E N T R E S , 2 0 0 3

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

Nunavut


Yukon Territory

Infants 1: 3 6Toddlers 1: 5 10Preschoo 1: 10 20

(30 mths to 6 yrs)School age 1: 15 30

(6–12 yrs)

Child care centres 0–12 mths 1: 3 613–18 mths 1: 4 819–35 mths 1: 6 12

3–5 yrs 1: 8 165–6 yrs 1: 10 20

Drop-in centres0–12 mths 1: 5 1013–18 mths 1: 5 1019–35 mths 1: 8 16

3–5 yrs 1: 12 245–6 yrs 1: 15 30

Nursery school:3–5 yrs 1: 120–3 yrs 1: 4 12

30 mths toschool age 1: 8 25Preschool 1:15 20

School age 10–1 20–25Special needs 1: 4 12–16

0–12 mths 1:3 613–24 mths 1:4 825–35 mths 1:6 12

3 yrs 1:8 164 yrs 1:9 18

5–11 yrs 1:10 200–12 mths 1:3 613–24 mths 1:4 825–35 mths 1:6 12

3 yrs 1:8 164 yrs 1:9 18

5–11 yrs 1:10 200–17 mths 1:4 8

18–24 mths 1:6 123–6 yrs 1:8 166–12 yrs 1:12 24

Centre directors hired after July 2001 must meet or exceed qualification forECE III (2-yr diploma/ equivalent). Directors appointed to director positionprior to July 2001 must meet or exceed qualification of ECE II (1-yrcertificate/equivalent) but must upgrade to 2-yr diploma if acceptingemployment with another centre. Effect Jan 2002, all staff employed for atleast 65 hrs per mth must meet the qualification of an ECE I (120-hr child careorientation course/equivalent) By Jan 2005, 30% of staff must have a 1-yrcertificate/equivalent in child care and by Jan 2007 a further 20% of staffmust have a 2-yr diploma or equivalent.Centre directors required to have Level III certification (completion of 2-yrdiploma or equivalent). One in four staff in each centre is required to haveLevel II certification (1-yr ECE certificate or equivalent). All other staffrequired to have Level I certification (completion of orientation course orequivalent course work of at least 50 hrs related to ECE).

Under age 36 mths: each group must have one infant/toddler educator (10-mth ECE training plus 500 hrs of supervised work experience and specialinfant/toddler training).Age 30–72 mths: each group must have one person with 10-mth ECE trainingplus 500 hrs of supervised work experience.

No early childhood training requirements.

No early childhood training requirements.

20% of the staff in a centre must have 2 or more yrs of ECE training or itsequivalent and an additional 30% must have 1 yr of ECE training. Other staffmust have completed at least a 60-hr child care orientation.

Source: Friendly, Beach, & Turiano 2002. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2001.

LMU key informant interviews and provincial questionnaires, provincial/territorial child care officials. Any updated information about ratios, group size, staffing

requirements (e.g. Nova Scotia [ratio, group size], New Brunswick [implementation dates for training requirements]).


M I S E À J O U R D E S D O N N É E S D U M A R C H É D U T R A V A I L 131

APPENDIX 2-BS T A F F I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R R E G U L A T E D F A M I L Y C H I L D C A R E , 2 0 0 3

APPENDIX 2-B: STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED FAMILY CHILD CARE, 2003Province or Territory



Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Caregiver:Child RatioUp to six children, including theprovider’s own children not attendingschool on a full-time basis. Not morethan three children may be under age36 mths; of these no more than twomay be under age 24 mths. Up to seven children, including theprovider’s own children under age 12,with a maximum of three childrenunder age 2. Up to six children of mixed ages,including the provider’s ownpreschool children, or up to eightschool-aged children including theprovider’s own school-age children. Up to six children in a mixed-agegroup: no more than three infants orfive children between 2 and 5 yrs. Upto nine children 6 yrs or over.Maximums include the provider’s ownchildren under 12 yrs. Up to six children including theprovider’s own children; no morethan two children may be under 18mths. If another adult assists theprovider, nine children are permittedwith no more than four childrenunder 18 mths.Up to five children (from 0–12 yrs),including the provider’s childrenunder age 6. No more than twochildren may be under age 2 and nomore than three may be under age 3.Up to eight children under age 12,including the provider’s own childrenunder age 12. No more than fivechildren may be under age 6, ofwhom no more than three may beunder age 2. If there is a providerand an assistant: up to 12 childrenunder age 12, including theprovider’s own children under age 12.No more than three children may beunder age 2.

Caregiver Training RequirementsOrientation course of 30–60 hrs, depending on the age group the provider isresponsible for. A minimum of 30 hrs of professional development every 3 yrs.

A 30-hr training course.

No early childhood training or experience is required.


Providers are supervised by a CPE and must complete a 45-hr course.


An approved 40-hr course within the first yr of providing child care for newproviders licensed after January 2003.



A N N E X E 2 - B - S T A F F I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R R E G U L A T E D F A M I L Y C H I L D C A R E , 2 0 0 3

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia


Nunavut

Yukon Territory

Up to eight children, including theprovider’s own children under age13; of the eight, only five may beyounger than age 6 and of these five,only two may be younger than age30 mths. If there is a provider andan assistant: up to 12 childrenincluding the provider’s ownchildren under age 13. Of the 12children, only 10 may be youngerthan age 6 and of these five may beinfants and toddlers with not morethan three infants.Up to six children under age 11,including the provider’s own childrenunder age 11, with a maximum ofthree children under age 3 and nomore than two children under age 2.Up to seven children under age 12,including the provider’s own childrenunder age 12. Of the seven children, nomore than five may be preschoolers, nomore than three under age 3 and nomore than one under age 1.Maximum of eight children under age12, including the provider’s ownchildren under age 12. No more thansix children may be age 5 or younger,no more than three children may beyounger than age 3, and no more thantwo children may be under age 2.Maximum of eight children under age12, including the provider’s ownchildren under age 12. No more thansix children may be age 5 or younger,no more than three children may beyounger than age 3, and no more thantwo children may be under age 2.Up to eight children, including theprovider’s own children under age 6.Where infants are present, the licenceis for six rather than eight. If there isa provider and an assistant, fouradditional children may be cared for.

Providers working on their own must complete a 40-hr introductory ECEcourse within the first year of being licensed. The charge provider in asituation of two providers must complete a 120-hr ECE course within thefirst year of being licensed.All providers are required to engage in 6 hrs of professional development yearly.

No early childhood training is required.

A course on the care of young children (length not stipulated) orrelevant work experience.



Completion of a 60-hr ECE course within the first year of being licensed.

Source: Friendly, Beach & Turiano 2002. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2001.

LMU key informant interviews and provincial questionnaires, provincial/territorial child care officials. Any updated information about caregiver training (e.g. Manitoba,

40-hr course for new providers licensed after January 2003).



APPENDIX 3:L I S T O F K E Y I N F O R M A N T S A N D G O V E R N M E N T O F F I C I A L S C O N S U L T E D

Morna Ballentyne: Canadian Union of Public EmployeesWinnie Banfield: Department of Education, NunavutMichael Bates: Ministry of Community and Social Services, OntarioWendy Bayard: Western Canada Child Care Association, British ColumbiaNathalie Bigras: Département des sciences de l’éducation, Université du Québec à MontréalBrad Bell: Department of Health and Social Services, YukonMaryann Bird: Child Care Advocacy Association of CanadaAnn Blackwood: Department of Education, Nova ScotiaDiane Blenkiron: Military Family Resource Centre, OttawaDeborah Bryck: Department of Community Resources and Employment, SaskatchewanJacinta Campbell: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Prince Edward IslandGilles Cantin: Cégep de St-Jérôme, QuébecGyda Chud: Vancouver Community College, British ColumbiaBill Coleman: Ministry of Education, OntarioSonya Corrigan: Early Childhood Development Association, Prince Edward IslandNathalie Damours: Association des éducatrices en milieu familial du QuébecCheryl DeGras: Ontario Coalition for Better Child CareLarry Depoe: Association du personnel cadre des centres de la petite enfance du QuébecGillian Doherty: Child care consultant, OntarioLisa Faingold: BC Aboriginal Child Care SocietyElaine Ferguson: Child Care Connections Nova ScotiaKathleen Flanagan Rochon: Children’s Secretariat, Health and Social Services, Prince Edward Island Joanne Fournier: Association des enseignantes et enseignants en technique d’éducation à l’enfanceMartha Friendly: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of TorontoRoseanne Glass: Saskatchewan LearningHillel Goelman: Consortium for Health, Intervention, Learning and Development University of BritishColumbia Mary Goss Prowse: Association of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and LabradorCarol Gott: Rural Voices, ManitobaSandra Griffin: Canadian Child Care FederationBrigitte Guy: Association des services de garde en milieu scolaire du Québec Wayne Hamilton: Department of Education, Nova ScotiaClyde Hertzman: Human Early Learning Partnerships, University of British ColumbiaSharon Hope Irwin: SpeciaLink Susan Hoo: Childminding, Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada, Citizenship and ImmigrationCanadaDoug House: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Newfoundland and LabradorMargaret Joyce: Department of Education, NunavutJamie Kass: Canadian Labour CongressJoan Kunderman: Red River College, ManitobaSandra Larsen: Department of Advanced Education and Training, ManitobaRaymonde LeBlanc: La confédération des syndicats nationaux, QuebecDianne Liscumb: Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre, British ColumbiaHelga Loechel: Ministry of Children and Youth Services, OntarioAnne Longston: Department of Education, Citizenship and Youth, ManitobaDiane Lutes: Department of Family and Community Services, New BrunswickVirginia McConnell: Department of Community Services, Nova ScotiaCathy McCormack: Children’s Secretariat, Health and Social Services, Prince Edward Island Kathryn McNaughton: University College of the Cariboo, British ColumbiaJeanette McCrie: Department of Education, YukonCéline Michaud: Ministère de l’Éducation, QuebecShuvinai Mike: Career Development, NunavutGillian Moir: Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Northwest Territories



A P P E N D I X 3 - L I S T O F K E Y I N F O R M A N T S A N D G O V E R N M E N T O F F I C I A L S C O N S U L T E D

Barbara Moran: Children’s Policy, Social Development CanadaJoane Morris: College of the North Atlantic, Newfoundland and LabradorGay Pagan: Manitoba General Employees UnionRon Paulhus: First Nations and Inuit Child Care, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Janette Pelletier: Institute of Child Study, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of TorontoPam Petton: Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Northwest Territories Michèle Poirier: Regroupement des centres de la petite enfance de la MontérégieKathy Reid: Manitoba Family Services and HousingRex Roberts: Department of Education, Newfoundland and LabradorLynne Robertson: Aboriginal Childhood and Youth, Health Canada Lorna Rogers: Alberta Children’s ServicesDave Schneider: Human Resources and Employment, AlbertaCarolyn Simpson: Department of Education, Prince Edward IslandHelen Sinclair: Department of Health and Community Services, Newfoundland and LabradorCorie Smith: Association of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and LabradorBruce Stonell: Alberta LearningJane Thurgood-Sagal: Saskatchewan LearningSylvie Tonnelier: Centrale des syndicats du Québec Elisabeth Wagner: Ministry of Children and Family Development, British ColumbiaPat Wege: Manitoba Child Care AssociationDarlene Whitehouse-Sheehan: Department of Education, New BrunswickJane Wilson: Rural Voices, Manitoba



APPENDIX 4:E C E C O R G A N I Z A T I O N S A N D A S S O C I A T I O N S

APPE

NDIX

4: E

CEC

ORGA

NIZA

TION

S AN

D AS

SOCI

ATIO

NS

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

The

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s,re

spon

sibl

e fo

r go

vern

ance

of t

he a

ssoc

iatio

n is

ele

cted

on a

reg

ion-

by-r

egio

n ba

sis

from

the

mem

bers

hip

in e

ach

prov

ince

and

ter

ritor

y. T

hebo

ard

cons

ists

of e

xecu

tive

mem

bers

and

geo

grap

hica

lre

pres

enta

tives

.

The

Coun

cil o

f Chi

ld C

are

Advo

cate

s co

mpr

isin

g th

eas

soci

atio

n’s

boar

d an

dse

ctor

al r

epre

sent

ativ

es fr

omth

e its

par

tner

s in

the

soc

ial

just

ice

mov

emen

t ad

vise

s th

eas

soci

atio

n on

adv

ocac

ypo

licie

s, s

trat

egie

s an

dca

mpa

igns

. It

has

an o

ffic

ein

Ott

awa.

Pan-

Cana

dian

mem

bers

hip

incl

udes

a b

road

bas

e of

indi

vidu

als,

fam

ilies

, chi

ldca

re p

rogr

ams,

and

reg

iona

lan

d pa

n-Ca

nadi

an s

ecto

ral

grou

ps a

nd o

rgan

izat

ions

.

Annu

al fe

es: $

5 (s

tude

nt);

$15

(ind

ivid

ual)

; $50

(gro

up/o

rgan

izat

ion)

.

The

asso

ciat

ion

wor

ks fo

r th

erig

ht o

f all

child

ren

to a

cces

spu

blic

ly fu

nded

chi

ld c

are;

ach

ild c

are

fram

ewor

k w

hich

will

res

ult

in a

chi

ld c

are

syst

em t

hat

isco

mpr

ehen

sive

, acc

essi

ble,

affo

rdab

le, h

igh

qual

ity a

ndno

n-pr

ofit;

a r

ange

of c

hild

care

ser

vice

s fo

r ch

ildre

n 12

or u

nder

, inc

ludi

ng fu

ll- a

ndpa

rt-t

ime

care

, gro

up,

fam

ily, s

choo

l-ag

e, p

resc

hool

(nur

sery

sch

ool)

and

in-

hom

e ca

re, r

ural

car

e, c

are

for

child

ren

wit

h ex

tra

supp

ort

need

s an

d cu

ltura

llyse

nsiti

ve c

are;

car

e th

atco

mpl

emen

ts o

ther

pol

icie

san

d se

rvic

es fo

r fa

mili

es,

incl

udin

g th

ose

wit

h a

pare

ntat

hom

e; a

nd im

prov

edpa

rent

al r

ight

s an

d be

nefi

ts.

The

key

activ

ities

incl

ude

publ

ic e

duca

tion,

pol

itica

lac

tion,

adv

ocac

y ac

tiviti

esan

d ad

voca

cy p

roje

cts.

W

orks

col

labo

rativ

ely

wit

hot

her

pan-

Cana

dian

orga

niza

tions

to

rais

e th

epu

blic

pro

file

of c

hild

car

e as

a po

litic

al is

sue

and

topr

omot

e br

oad

supp

ort

for

our

visi

on o

f a p

ublic

lyfu

nded

chi

ld c

are

syst

em.

Initi

ates

cam

paig

nssu

ppor

ting

a pa

n-Ca

nadi

anch

ild c

are

syst

em a

ndad

voca

tes

spec

ific

sol

utio

nsto

chi

ld c

are

issu

es a

ndpr

oble

ms

thro

ugh

brie

fs,

subm

issi

ons

to fe

dera

lgo

vern

men

t an

d lo

bbyi

ng o

fal

l maj

or fe

dera

l par

ties.

Spon

sors

sev

eral

pro

ject

s,in

clud

ing

Pare

nt V

oice

s(b

ringi

ng p

aren

ts t

oget

her

to m

ake

the

case

for

qual

ity,

affo

rdab

le a

nd a

cces

sibl

ech

ild c

are)

; Mak

ing

the

Link

s(s

tren

gthe

ning

link

s w

ith

like-

min

ded

and

com

mitt

edor

gani

zatio

ns).

Prim

ary

hum

an r

esou

rces

activ

ity is

the

co-

spon

sors

hip

of t

he H

R Ro

undt

able

and

the

cont

ribut

ion

of s

taff

and

boar

d/vo

lunt

eer

part

icip

atio

n;ke

y ad

voca

cy w

ork

in t

hear

ea o

f pub

lic p

olic

yem

phas

izes

the

impo

rtan

ceof

a p

olic

y fr

amew

ork

toen

sure

a p

ublic

ly fu

nded

child

car

e sy

stem

whi

chin

clud

es a

dequ

ate

wag

es a

ndw

orki

ng c

ondi

tions

; su

stai

ns a

web

site

whi

chfo

cuse

s on

a r

ange

of c

hild

care

issu

es, w

hich

dire

ctly

or

indi

rect

ly im

pact

hum

anre

sour

ces

and

labo

urre

latio

ns (

LR);

pr

epar

es a

nd d

istr

ibut

es a

Bulle

tin (

3 x

year

) fe

atur

ing

a va

riety

of a

rtic

les

and

resp

onse

s to

new

initi

ativ

esan

d go

vern

men

t po

licy,

whi

ch d

irect

ly o

r in

dire

ctly

impa

ct H

R an

d LR

; pr

esen

ts b

riefs

and

resp

onse

s to

gov

ernm

ent

initi

ativ

es, a

ll of

whi

chim

pact

on

HR

and

LR.

Child

Car

e Ad

voca

cy A

ssoc

iati

on o

fCa

nada

/L’A

ssoc

iati

on c

anad

ienn

e po

ur la

prom

otio

n de

s se

rvic

es d

e ga

rde

à l’e

nfan

ce

http

://w

ww.

child

care

advo

cacy

.ca/

Pan-

Cana

dian

chi

ld c

are

advo

cacy

orga

niza

tion

who

se m

embe

rshi

p is

bas

ed o

nbr

oad

repr

esen

tatio

n of

the

chi

ld c

are

advo

cacy

mov

emen

t fr

om c

oast

to

coas

t to

coas

t.

Invo

lves

indi

vidu

als

and

orga

niza

tions

com

mitt

ed t

o w

orki

ng t

oget

her

to a

dvan

ceth

e ad

voca

cy a

gend

a (e

.g. c

hild

car

epr

ovid

ers/

orga

niza

tions

and

chi

ld c

are

wor

kers

; pro

vinc

ial/

terr

itoria

l chi

ld c

are

orga

niza

tions

; fam

ilies

/par

ents

and

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs; a

nd s

ocia

l jus

tice

and

equi

ty-s

eeki

ng o

rgan

izat

ions

—w

ith

repr

esen

tatio

n fr

om t

he a

nti-

pove

rty,

labo

ur,

disa

bilit

y, w

omen

’s, i

mm

igra

nt v

isib

lem

inor

ity c

omm

uniti

es a

nd m

ovem

ents

).

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts



A P P E N D I X 4 - E C E O R G A N I Z A T I O N S A N D A S S O C I A T I O N S

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

Affi

liate

str

uctu

re w

ith

prov

inci

al/t

errit

oria

l ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tion

and

child

car

e or

gani

zatio

ns;

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s w

ith

aM

embe

r Co

unci

l (co

mpr

isin

gre

pres

enta

tives

from

the

prov

inci

al/t

errit

oria

lor

gani

zatio

ns a

nd a

repr

esen

tativ

e fo

r no

n-af

filia

ted

indi

vidu

alm

embe

rs).

Early

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tion

and

child

car

e pr

actit

ione

rsw

orki

ng in

a fu

ll-ra

nge

ofse

ttin

gs, i

nclu

ding

pres

choo

l/nu

rser

y sc

hool

,ce

ntre

-bas

ed c

hild

car

e, a

ndfa

mily

chi

ld c

are,

etc

., as

wel

l as

ECE

inst

ruct

ors

inpo

st-s

econ

dary

pro

gram

s,EC

E st

uden

ts, r

esea

rche

rsan

d po

licy

mak

ers

wit

h an

inte

rest

in E

CCE.

Tota

l mem

bers

: 9,0

00.

Annu

al fe

es r

ange

from

$25

(stu

dent

), $

30 (

indi

vidu

al),

$45

(chi

ld c

are

cent

re),

$85

(org

aniz

atio

ns).

Subs

crip

tion

to o

ur m

agaz

ine

Inte

ract

ion:

$40

/1 y

r, $7

5/2

yrs,

$10

0/3

ys. M

embe

rs o

fou

r af

filia

te o

rgan

izat

ions

have

a s

ubsi

dize

dm

embe

rshi

p fe

e.

The

CCCF

is c

omm

itted

to

achi

evin

g ex

celle

nce

in e

arly

child

hood

dev

elop

men

tse

rvic

es in

Can

ada

inpa

rtne

rshi

p w

ith

fam

ilies

,po

licy

mak

ers

and

child

car

eco

mm

uniti

es.

Quar

terly

bili

ngua

l mag

azin

eIn

tera

ctio

n,re

sour

ce s

heet

s,pu

blic

atio

ns, t

ool k

its, t

osu

ppor

t pr

actic

e.

Rese

arch

pro

ject

s (n

atio

nal

and

inte

rnat

iona

l) t

o in

form

deve

lopm

ent

of r

esou

rces

and

prog

ram

s in

sup

port

of

qual

ity c

hild

car

e se

rvic

es.

Co-h

oste

dpr

ovin

cial

/ter

ritor

ial a

ndna

tiona

l con

fere

nces

.

Proj

ects

: Tr

aini

ng fo

r th

e De

liver

y of

Qual

ity E

arly

Chi

ldho

odDe

velo

pmen

t Le

arni

ng a

ndCa

re S

ervi

ces

in C

anad

a:Ac

cess

ibili

ty, P

orta

bilit

y an

dCa

reer

Adv

ance

men

t;Un

ders

tand

ing

and

Prom

otin

g Qu

ality

Out

door

Play

; Eth

ics

proj

ect;

Occu

patio

nal S

tand

ards

;Ce

ntre

of E

xcel

lenc

e fo

r Ea

rlyCh

ildho

od D

evel

opm

ent;

Child

ren’

s H

ealt

h Af

filia

te o

fth

e Ca

nadi

an H

ealt

hNe

twor

k; P

olic

y Kn

owle

dge

and

Resp

onse

Net

wor

k(P

KRN)

; Inn

ovat

ive

Child

Care

Pra

ctic

es-A

rgen

tina;

info

rmat

ion

serv

ices

;pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent

wor

ksho

ps;

sem

inar

s an

d tr

aini

ngin

stitu

tes,

incl

udin

g “v

irtu

al”

deliv

ery

Web

-bas

ed in

form

atio

n si

tes

(inc

ludi

ng C

hild

and

Fam

ilyCa

nada

, Ear

ly L

earn

ing

Cana

da, W

ork

Fam

ily T

ips,

Hea

lthy

Spa

ces,

CCC

F si

tew

ith

a fo

cus

on p

ract

ice)

.

Cana

dian

Chi

ld C

are

Fede

rati

on/F

édér

atio

nca

nadi

enne

des

ser

vice

s de

gar

de à

l’enf

ance

(CC

CF/F

CSGE

)ht

tp:/

/ww

w.cc

cf-f

csge

.ca/

Pan-

Cana

dian

non

-pro

fit

orga

niza

tion

com

pris

ing

prov

inci

al/t

errit

oria

l aff

iliat

eor

gani

zatio

ns a

s w

ell a

s in

divi

dual

mem

bers

and

agen

cies

wor

king

in p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith

early

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tion

and

child

car

eor

gani

zatio

ns, t

rain

ing

inst

itutio

ns a

ndin

divi

dual

s w

orki

ng w

ith

child

ren

and

thei

rfa

mili

es

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts



M A I N R E P O R T

137

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

The

orga

niza

tion

does

not

have

a h

ead

offi

ce o

ther

than

the

add

ress

of t

hepr

esid

ent

for

mai

lings

. Loc

alch

apte

rs r

epre

sent

eac

hpr

ovin

ce a

nd t

errit

ory.

The

resp

onsi

bilit

y of

the

prov

inci

al c

hapt

ers

is t

om

aint

ain

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

natio

nal a

nd t

hem

embe

rshi

p. M

embe

rs a

reel

ecte

d fo

r a

2-yr

ter

m.

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

s w

ith

10el

ecte

d m

embe

rs, 2

from

each

of f

ive

regi

ons.

Mem

bers

hip

incl

udes

inst

itutio

nal a

nd n

on-

inst

itutio

nal m

embe

rs.

Annu

al fe

es r

ange

from

$25

(stu

dent

) to

$85

(ass

ocia

tion/

inst

itutio

n).

CAYC

is s

uppo

rted

by

mem

bers

hip

fees

.

Com

mun

ity-b

ased

fam

ily-

serv

ing

orga

niza

tions

,in

clud

ing

fam

ily r

esou

rce

prog

ram

s, c

hild

car

epr

ogra

ms,

mul

ti-se

rvic

eag

enci

es a

nd o

ther

s.

Annu

al m

embe

rshi

p ap

prox

.$6

00. A

nnua

l mem

bers

hip

fee

is $

100

plus

GST

($1

07)

(ind

ivid

ual,

prog

ram

or

orga

niza

tion)

.

To p

rovi

de a

voi

ce o

n cr

itica

lis

sues

rel

ated

to

the

qual

ityof

life

of a

ll yo

ung

child

ren

and

fam

ilies

.

To p

rovi

de le

ader

ship

to

adva

nce

soci

al p

olic

y,re

sear

ch, r

esou

rce

deve

lopm

ent

and

trai

ning

for

thos

e w

ho e

nhan

ce t

heca

paci

ty o

f fam

ilies

to

rais

eth

eir

child

ren.

To p

rovi

de o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

conf

eren

ce in

com

mun

ities

acro

ss t

he c

ount

ry. I

tpu

blis

hes

Cana

dian

Chi

ldre

n,a

bian

nual

ref

erre

d jo

urna

l.

Pres

enta

tion

of r

esea

rch

find

ings

in p

ract

ical

publ

icat

ions

; qua

rter

lyne

wsl

ette

r; b

ienn

ial n

atio

nal

conf

eren

ce; r

egio

nal

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tev

ents

; on-

line

natio

nal

dire

ctor

y of

pro

gram

s; p

olic

yde

velo

pmen

t; p

artic

ipat

ion

in n

atio

nal c

oalit

ions

;co

ordi

natio

n of

Nob

ody’

sPe

rfec

t pa

rent

ing

prog

ram

.

Proj

ects

are

con

fere

nces

and

com

mun

ity w

orks

hops

, as

wel

l as

publ

icat

ions

of t

hejo

urna

l.

Gene

ral l

iabi

lity

and

heal

thpr

otec

tion

plan

s fo

rm

embe

rs; p

rom

otio

n of

trai

ning

opp

ortu

nitie

s.

Cana

dian

Ass

ocia

tion

for Y

oung

Chi

ldre

n (C

AYC)

http

://w

ww.

cayc

.ca/

Mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y as

soci

atio

n of

par

ents

,te

ache

rs, c

areg

iver

s, a

dmin

istr

ator

s, s

tude

nts

Cana

dian

Ass

ocia

tion

of

Fam

ily R

esou

rce

Prog

ram

s/L’A

ssoc

iati

on c

anad

ienn

e de

spr

ogra

mm

es d

e re

ssou

rces

pou

r la

fam

ille

(FRP

Can

ada)

http

://w

ww.

frp.

ca/

Bilin

gual

not

-for

-pro

fit

asso

ciat

ion

of f

amily

reso

urce

pro

gram

s an

d re

late

d se

rvic

es

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

Com

mitt

ees

exis

t at

bot

hre

gion

al a

nd p

rovi

ncia

lle

vels

. Ea

ch c

omm

ittee

had

a Bo

ard

Dire

ctor

, who

sits

as

the

chai

r of

the

com

mitt

ee o

ras

a li

aiso

n. T

here

are

12

boar

d m

embe

rs,

incl

udin

gth

e ex

ecut

ive

and

appo

inte

dre

gion

al p

ositi

ons.

The

re a

real

so t

wo

non-

votin

gpo

sitio

ns t

hat

are

open

to

ECE

stud

ents

and

the

Fam

ilyH

ome

Child

Car

e As

soci

atio

n.

Four

cha

pter

s ac

ross

the

prov

ince

wit

h ch

airp

erso

nan

d se

cret

ary/

trea

sure

r w

hom

ake

up p

art

of t

hepr

ovin

cial

boa

rd; p

rovi

ncia

lpr

esid

ent

elec

ted

at A

GM.

Mem

bers

incl

ude

indi

vidu

als

trai

ned

or e

xper

ienc

ed in

ECE,

ECE

stu

dent

s an

das

soci

atio

ns a

ndor

gani

zatio

ns s

uppo

rtin

gAE

CENL

’s o

bjec

tives

.

Annu

al fe

es: s

tude

nts

$20,

indi

vidu

als

$35

and

orga

niza

tions

$65

.

Mem

bers

hip

in t

he E

CDA

cons

ists

of p

eopl

e in

volv

edor

inte

rest

ed in

ear

lych

ildho

od d

evel

opm

ent

inPr

ince

Edw

ard

Isla

nd,

incl

udin

g ow

ners

and

oper

ator

s of

lice

nsed

ear

lych

ildho

od f

acili

ties,

prof

essi

onal

s w

orki

ng in

rela

ted

fiel

ds, t

each

ers

and

pare

nts.

Annu

al fe

es fo

r st

uden

t $1

0,in

divi

dual

$35

.

To p

rom

ote

a se

nse

of p

ride

in a

nd c

omm

itmen

t to

the

prof

essi

on o

f ECE

.

To p

rom

ote

phys

ical

,em

otio

nal,

soci

al a

ndco

gniti

ve d

evel

opm

ent

ofyo

ung

child

ren.

Annu

al p

rovi

ncia

lco

nfer

ence

, qua

rter

lyne

wsl

ette

r, m

ini w

orks

hops

,pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent

days

, cel

ebra

ting

Early

Child

hood

Edu

cato

rs W

eek

and

Natio

nal C

hild

Day

.

Conf

eren

ces,

qua

rter

lyne

wsl

ette

r, ne

twor

king

,co

mm

unity

invo

lvem

ent.

Wor

king

tow

ard

cert

ific

atio

nan

d re

gist

ry s

yste

m.

Invo

lved

wit

h a

num

ber

ofin

itiat

ives

, suc

h as

Pla

y Fa

irKi

ds, M

easu

ring

and

Impr

ovin

g Ki

nds’

Envi

ronm

ents

(M

IKE)

and

Unde

rsta

ndin

g th

e Ea

rlyYe

ars

(UEY

).

Asso

ciat

ion

of E

arly

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tors

of

New

foun

dlan

d an

d La

brad

or (

AECE

NL)

http

://c

fc-e

fc.c

a/ae

cenf

ld/i

ndex

.htm

lA

not-

for-

prof

it or

gani

zatio

n th

at is

a v

oice

for

early

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

of

New

foun

dlan

d an

d La

brad

or a

nd a

n ad

voca

tefo

r qu

ality

chi

ld c

are

in o

ur p

rovi

nce

and

acro

ss C

anad

a

Early

Chi

ldho

od D

evel

opm

ent

Asso

ciat

ion

(ECD

A) o

f P.

E.I.

http

://w

ww.

ecda

.pe.

caPr

omot

es t

he a

dher

ence

to

prof

essi

onal

guid

elin

es o

f ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs a

ndin

crea

ses

thei

r sk

ills

thro

ugh

info

rmat

ion

shar

ing,

wor

ksho

ps, c

onfe

renc

es a

nd o

ther

educ

atio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties

The

ECDA

is a

ffili

ated

wit

h th

e CC

CF.

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts



M A I N R E P O R T

139

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

CCEC

ENS

is a

pro

vinc

ial

orga

niza

tion

run

by a

nex

ecut

ive

com

mitt

ee e

lect

edev

ery

2 ye

ars.

CCE

CENS

is a

naf

filia

te m

embe

r of

the

CCC

F.

Cand

idat

es fo

r ce

rtif

icat

ion

mus

t be

ear

ly c

hild

hood

educ

ator

s w

ho w

ork

dire

ctly

wit

h ch

ildre

n. T

here

are

appr

oxim

atel

y 43

cer

tifie

dea

rly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rs in

Nova

Sco

tia.

The

Child

Car

e Ad

min

istr

ator

Cert

ific

atio

n Pi

lot

Proj

ect

has

been

com

plet

ed a

nd t

here

isno

w o

ne c

ertif

ied

adm

inis

trat

or. C

ertif

ied

early

child

hood

edu

cato

rs p

ay a

year

ly fe

e of

$35

plu

s an

acco

unt

of p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

com

plet

e w

ith

docu

men

tatio

n. Y

early

fees

and

acco

unta

bilit

y fo

rad

min

istr

ator

s ha

s no

t be

ende

term

ined

.

Com

mitt

ed t

o th

ede

velo

pmen

t of

a h

igh

qual

ity, p

rofe

ssio

nal,

cert

ifie

d bo

dy o

f ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

Our

goal

s ar

e:*t

o im

prov

e th

e qu

ality

of

care

for

the

child

ren

of N

ova

Scot

ia*t

o pr

ovid

e a

path

way

to

grea

ter

prof

essi

onal

deve

lopm

ent

*to

prov

ide

a co

nsis

tent

and

pref

erre

d st

anda

rd fo

r ea

rlych

ildho

od p

rofe

ssio

nals

*to

dem

onst

rate

apr

ofes

sion

al g

roup

of

educ

ator

s w

ho a

reac

coun

tabl

e to

bot

hth

emse

lves

and

soc

iety

.

*To

form

trip

lets

who

app

lyfo

r th

e pr

oces

s *T

o pr

ovid

e ad

min

istr

ator

sw

ith

supp

ort

to c

ompl

ete

the

proc

ess

*To

part

ner

wit

h ot

her

prov

inci

al o

rgan

izat

ions

(i.e

.Chi

ld C

are

Conn

ectio

nsNS

, Nov

a Sc

otia

Chi

ld C

are

Asso

ciat

ion)

*Pro

vide

wor

ksho

ps o

n ch

ild-

rela

ted

issu

es*H

as a

rep

rese

ntat

ive

on t

heM

embe

r Co

unci

l of t

heCa

nadi

an C

hild

Car

eFe

dera

tion.

CCEC

ENS

prov

ides

a s

prin

gco

nfer

ence

and

an

AGM

inNo

vem

ber

wit

h w

orks

hops

onto

pics

dic

tate

d by

sugg

estio

ns fr

om m

embe

rs.

Cert

ific

atio

n Co

unci

l of

Early

Chi

ldho

odEd

ucat

ors

of N

ova

Scot

ia (

CCEC

ENS)

http

://w

ww.

cfc-

efc.

ca/c

cece

ns/

A no

n-pr

ofit,

vol

unte

er o

rgan

izat

ion

com

mitt

ed t

o th

e de

velo

pmen

t of

a h

igh

qual

ity, p

rofe

ssio

nal,

cert

ifie

d bo

dy o

f ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

Polic

y go

vern

ance

mod

el;

boar

d is

rep

rese

ntat

ive

ofow

ners

hip—

the

prov

inci

alor

gani

zatio

ns (

Cert

ific

atio

nCo

unci

l, NS

Chi

ld C

are

Asso

ciat

ion,

) EC

CE t

rain

ing,

adm

inis

trat

ors.

Cons

titue

ncy

of o

ver

3000

(do

not

have

mem

bers

; no

mem

bers

hip

fees

).

Serv

ices

are

pro

vide

d by

requ

est.

Inc

ome

for

core

serv

ices

is g

ener

ated

1/3

by

own

initi

ativ

es; 1

/3pr

ovin

cial

gra

nt a

nd 1

/3 c

ost

reco

very

and

adm

inis

trat

ion

fees

from

pro

ject

s. P

roje

ctin

com

e =

proj

ect

expe

nses

.

Our o

wn in

itiat

ives

incl

ude

conf

eren

ce re

gist

ratio

ns,

trad

e sh

ow re

venu

e,co

rpor

ate

spon

sors

hip,

sal

e of

prom

otio

nal p

rodu

cts,

raf

fles,

and

cons

ulta

tion

serv

ices

.

To c

onne

ct c

hild

car

epr

actit

ione

rs, o

rgan

izat

ions

and

inte

rest

ed o

ther

s w

ith

info

rmat

ion,

res

ourc

es,

supp

ort

and

prom

otio

n of

qual

ity c

hild

car

e.

Curr

ently

in t

he p

roce

ss o

fde

velo

ping

an

ends

pol

icy

whi

ch w

ill f

ind

the

orga

niza

tion

mor

e in

volv

edin

util

izin

g ou

r in

fras

truc

ture

to c

arry

out

the

wor

k of

the

orga

niza

tions

as

wel

l as

com

mun

ity-b

ased

deve

lopm

ent

activ

ities

of

Conn

ectio

ns. T

his

will

mea

njo

int

usag

e of

new

slet

ter,

conf

eren

ces,

etc

., so

tha

tre

sour

ces

are

max

imiz

ed fo

rth

e se

ctor

.

Com

mun

ity-b

ased

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

for

the

child

car

e se

ctor

; pro

mot

ion

of a

nd p

ublic

edu

catio

n on

the

valu

e of

chi

ld c

are

and

thos

e w

ho p

rovi

de c

hild

car

e;in

form

atio

n di

strib

utio

n;co

nsen

sus

build

ing;

com

mun

ity a

ctiv

ism

;pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent;

need

s as

sess

men

t.

Com

mun

ity-b

ased

deve

lopm

ent

proj

ects

:*C

hild

Car

e Su

bstit

ute

Yout

hIn

tern

ship

Pro

ject

*Chi

ld C

are

Adm

inis

trat

orCr

eden

tialin

g *A

ttra

ctin

g an

d Ke

epin

gQu

alif

ied

Early

Chi

ldho

odCa

re S

taff

*Par

tner

s in

Pra

ctic

e –

anim

atin

g m

ento

ring

*A b

est

prac

tices

app

roac

hto

lice

nsin

g ch

ild c

are

faci

litie

s in

Can

ada

in a

fram

ewor

k th

at s

uppo

rts

good

out

com

es fo

r ch

ildre

n.

*Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Cen

tre

Adm

inis

trat

or C

ertif

icat

ion

proc

ess

*Dev

elop

men

t of

Nov

a Sc

otia

Child

Car

e As

soci

atio

n

Child

Car

e Co

nnec

tion

s No

va S

coti

aht

tp:/

/pag

es.is

tar.c

a/~

cccn

s/in

dex.

htm

lCo

mm

unity

-bas

ed d

evel

opm

ent

for

child

car

ese

ctor

; inf

orm

atio

n, p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

and

reso

urce

s; p

rom

otio

n of

chi

ld c

are

and

thos

e w

ho p

rovi

de it

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts



M A I N R E P O R T

141

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

s, c

urre

ntly

four

peo

ple.

NSC

CA w

illco

mm

unic

ate

topr

ofes

sion

als

thro

ugho

utNo

va S

cotia

thr

ough

new

slet

ters

and

web

site

Func

tions

wit

h a

prov

inci

albo

ard

of d

irect

ors

cons

istin

gof

14

mem

bers

(2

mem

bers

from

eac

h of

the

7 p

rovi

ncia

lre

gion

s). A

t ea

ch r

egio

nal

leve

l, th

ere

is a

boa

rd o

fdi

rect

ors

for

the

regi

onal

bran

ch.

Two

mem

ber

cate

gorie

s –

non-

votin

g (i

nclu

des

stud

ents

, mem

bers

wit

hout

ECE

cred

entia

l) a

nd v

otin

gm

embe

rs (

wit

h EC

Ecr

eden

tial:

dipl

oma,

cert

ific

ate

or P

LAR)

.

Fift

y m

embe

rs a

nd g

row

ing!

Annu

al fe

e $2

5 fo

r ea

chm

embe

r.

Anyo

ne w

ith

an in

tere

st in

qual

ity c

hild

car

e m

aybe

com

e a

mem

ber.

Mem

bers

hip

is a

ppro

xim

atel

y50

0.

Curr

ently

, the

mem

bers

hip

fee

is $

25/y

r.

To s

uppo

rt c

hild

car

epr

actit

ione

rs a

nd m

ake

child

care

in N

ova

Scot

ia t

he b

est

it ca

n be

. NSC

CA is

ded

icat

edto

incr

easi

ng t

he r

ecog

nitio

nof

chi

ld c

are

prac

titio

ners

,en

surin

g et

hica

l pra

ctic

e,su

ppor

ting

mem

bers

inap

plyi

ng e

thic

s an

des

tabl

ishi

ng, m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g st

anda

rds

ofpr

actic

e am

ong

mem

bers

hip.

ECCE

NB/S

EPEN

B is

com

mitt

ed t

o pr

omot

ing,

deve

lopi

ng a

nd m

aint

aini

nghi

gh q

ualit

y EC

EC in

New

Brun

swic

k.

New

org

aniz

atio

n es

tabl

ishe

din

May

200

3.Pr

imar

y ac

tivity

to

date

has

been

gro

win

g m

embe

rshi

p.

As a

new

org

aniza

tion,

ECCE

NB/S

EPEN

B is

only

begi

nnin

g to

com

e to

term

swi

th p

lann

ing

its a

ctiv

ities

.Pr

esen

t act

iviti

es in

clude

am

onth

ly/q

uart

erly

new

slette

rfo

r mem

bers

; “Sp

read

the

Wor

d, N

ot th

e Ge

rm”

proj

ect;

over

seei

ng th

e co

ordi

natio

n of

form

al E

CE tr

aini

ng fo

r cen

tres

which

do

not m

eet t

hepr

ovin

cial s

taff

trai

ning

stan

dard

; hos

ting

an a

nnua

lco

nfer

ence

for e

arly

chi

ldho

oded

ucat

ors a

nd is

wor

king

inco

njun

ctio

n wi

th a

noth

er g

roup

to p

rovi

de a

wor

ksho

p on

lead

ersh

ip tr

aini

ng. H

asre

pres

enta

tion

on th

e Pr

ovin

cial

Wag

e Ga

p Ro

und

Tabl

e.

Ralli

es, p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

arou

ndst

anda

rds

of p

ract

ice

and

code

of e

thic

s.

ECCE

NB/S

EPEN

B is

invo

lved

in a

hos

t of

PD

activ

ities

.

Nova

Sco

tia

Child

Car

e As

soci

atio

n (N

SCCA

)ht

tp:/

/hom

e.is

tar.c

a/~

cccn

s/NS

CCA/

hom

e.ht

ml

Non-

prof

it or

gani

zatio

n th

at r

ecog

nize

s ch

ildca

re p

ract

ition

ers

as t

he m

ain

ingr

edie

nt in

qual

ity c

hild

car

e; N

SCCA

is c

omm

itted

to

impr

oved

sta

ndar

ds a

nd g

uide

lines

for

the

prof

essi

on.

Early

Chi

ldho

od C

are

and

Educ

atio

n Ne

wBr

unsw

ick/S

oin

et É

duca

tion

à la

Pet

ite E

nfan

cedu

Nou

veau

-Bru

nswi

ck (

ECCE

NB/S

EPEN

B)A

prof

essi

onal

org

aniz

atio

n re

pres

entin

gch

ild c

are

wor

kers

and

tho

se w

ho h

ave

anin

tere

st in

qua

lity

child

car

e

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Affil

iate

str

uctu

re w

ithre

gion

al re

pres

enta

tion;

mem

bers

hip:

regi

onal

chi

ldca

re a

ssoc

iatio

ns re

pres

entin

gin

divi

dual

non

-pro

fit e

arly

child

hood

age

ncie

s (C

PE)

with

both

cen

tre-

base

d an

d fa

mily

child

car

e. E

lect

ed b

oard

of

dire

ctor

s –

regi

onal

repr

esen

tatio

n. N

atio

nal

offic

e in

Qué

bec.

Elec

ted

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s –

regi

onal

rep

rese

ntat

ion

Mem

bers

hip

fees

:Re

gion

al o

rgan

izat

ions

:$3

,000

ann

ually

+ $

3 pe

rlic

ense

d sp

ace

in e

ach

CPE

mem

ber

of t

he r

egio

nal

orga

niza

tion

Mem

bers

hip:

reg

ulat

edfa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

s.

Activ

e m

embe

rs: $

60 +

$40

for

prof

essi

onal

liab

ility

insu

ranc

eAf

filia

te m

embe

rs: $

10Su

bscr

iptio

n to

bul

letin

Envo

lée:

$50

.

The

orga

niza

tion

has

apo

litic

al r

ole

and

spea

ks o

nbe

half

of t

he C

PEs.

It

deliv

ers

serv

ices

to

its m

embe

rs a

ndto

the

CPE

s. I

t al

so s

tand

sfo

r th

e em

ploy

er o

n is

sues

of

natio

nal j

uris

dict

ion

or if

so

man

date

d by

its

mem

bers

.

Impr

ove

care

give

r w

orki

ngco

nditi

ons.

Supp

ort

and

impr

ove

trai

ning

.

Prom

ote

qual

ity.

Reco

gniti

on o

f car

egiv

erw

ork.

Fost

er p

artn

ersh

ips.

Annu

al c

onfe

renc

e in

the

fall.

AGM

in O

ctob

er; c

onfe

renc

efo

r de

lega

tes

in M

ay.

Prod

uces

brie

fs o

n a

num

ber

of is

sues

per

tain

ing

to H

R;re

gula

r tr

aini

ng a

ndpr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent

tool

s.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tw

orks

hops

; reg

iona

l and

loca

l mee

tings

for

mem

bers

to s

hare

info

rmat

ion;

acc

ess

to g

over

nmen

t in

form

atio

nan

d Bi

lls im

pact

ing

on H

Ris

sues

for

care

give

rs.

Asso

ciat

ion

québ

écoi

se d

es c

entr

es d

e la

peti

te e

nfan

ceht

tp:/

/ww

w.aq

cpe.

com

/No

n-pr

ofit

corp

orat

ion

Rece

nt a

mal

gam

atio

n (M

arch

17,

200

3) o

fCo

ncer

tact

ion

inte

r-ré

gion

ale

des

cent

res

dela

pet

ite e

nfan

ce d

u Qu

ébec

and

of t

heFé

déra

tion

des

cent

res

de la

pet

ite e

nfan

ce d

uQu

ébec

Asso

ciat

ion

des

éduc

atri

ces

en m

ilieu

fam

ilial

du

Québ

echt

tp:/

/ww

w.ae

mfq

.com

/No

n-pr

ofit

corp

orat

ion



M A I N R E P O R T

143

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Mem

bers

hip:

sch

ool-

age

prog

ram

s an

d af

filia

tem

embe

rs s

uch

as t

each

ers,

scho

ol b

oard

s, o

rgan

izat

ions

and

stud

ents

.Pr

ogra

ms:

$4.

50 p

er c

hild

enro

lled

on a

reg

ular

bas

is –

max

$50

0.Fe

e sc

ale

for

affi

liate

mem

bers

from

$30

to

$130

.

Mem

bers

hip:

indi

vidu

als

and

com

mun

ity-b

ased

dro

p-in

cent

res.

Som

e 60

com

mun

itym

embe

rs a

cros

s Qu

ebec

.Fe

e: $

50.

Advo

cate

on

beha

lf of

scho

ol-a

ge p

rogr

ams:

fund

ing,

reg

ulat

ion,

tra

inin

g,et

c.

Prom

ote

qual

ity a

nd a

cces

sto

sch

ool-

age

prog

ram

s.

Dem

andi

ng re

cogn

ition

for a

ndfu

ndin

g of

Que

bec’s

com

mun

ity-

base

d dr

op-in

cen

tres (

outs

ide

of th

e CP

E st

ruct

ure)

.

Prom

ote

qual

ity ch

ild ca

rese

rvice

s to

child

ren

and

fam

ilies

.

Supp

ort

deve

lopm

ent

ofdr

op-i

n ce

ntre

s.

AGM

and

con

fere

nce

inOc

tobe

r ev

ery

year

.Re

gion

al a

nd n

atio

nal

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tw

orks

hops

; sup

port

to

staf

fw

orki

ng w

ith

child

ren

wit

hsp

ecia

l nee

ds.

Trai

ning

;jo

b op

port

uniti

es s

ectio

n.

Asso

ciat

ion

des

serv

ices

de

gard

e en

mili

eusc

olai

re d

u Qu

ébec

http

://w

ww.fa

milis

.org

/rio

pfq/

mem

bres

/asg

msq

.htm

lNo

n-pr

ofit

corp

orat

ion

Asso

ciat

ion

des

halt

es-g

arde

ries

com

mun

auta

ires

du

Québ

echt

tp:/

/ww

w.ah

gcq.

org/

Non-

prof

it co

rpor

atio

n




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Mem

bers

hip:

cen

tre-

base

dch

ild c

are

wor

kers

and

regu

late

d fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

s.

Mem

bers

hip:

for-

prof

it da

yca

re c

entr

es.

Fee:

$40

0 pe

r ce

ntre

+ $

5pe

r sp

ace

(min

us)

$200

.

Mem

bers

hip:

chi

ld c

are

prog

ram

dire

ctor

s an

dsu

perv

isor

s.

Mem

bers

hip:

chi

ld c

are

educ

ator

s.

Barg

aini

ng.

Polit

ical

and

soc

ial

com

mitm

ent.

Hea

lth a

nd w

omen

’s e

qual

ity.

Prom

ote

qual

ity c

hild

car

e,pa

rent

al c

hoic

e, s

tatu

s of

priv

ate

day

care

cen

tres

with

in t

he s

yste

m in

Que

bec,

the

soci

al ro

le o

f the

priv

ate

sect

or, m

ore

equi

ty o

f fun

ding

betw

een

both

sec

tors

.

Repr

esen

t and

lobb

y on

beh

alf

of p

rivat

e da

y ca

re c

entr

es.

Prov

ide

trai

ning

and

sup

port

to m

embe

rs.

Repr

esen

tatio

n;ad

voca

cy;

trai

ning

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t.

Annu

al g

ener

al m

eetin

g in

the

fall.

Conf

eren

ce in

Apr

il.

Repo

rts

on H

R is

sues

;ba

rgai

ning

; wor

ksho

ps.

Trai

ning

ses

sion

s;pe

nsio

n pl

an;

bank

of s

ubst

itute

s;jo

b op

port

uniti

es;

bulle

tin.

Asso

ciat

ion

des

halt

es-g

arde

ries

com

mun

auta

ires

du

Québ

echt

tp:/

/ww

w.ah

gcq.

org/

Labo

ur fe

dera

tion

wit

h th

eCS

N (C

onfé

déra

tion

des

synd

icat

es n

atio

naux

)

Asso

ciat

ion

des

gard

erie

s pr

ivée

s du

Que

bec

http

://w

ww.

agpq

.ca/

coor

donn

ees.

htm

Non-

prof

it co

rpor

atio

n

Asso

ciat

ion

du p

erso

nnel

cad

re d

es c

entr

esde

la p

etit

e en

fanc

e du

Qué

bec

Non-

prof

it co

rpor

atio

n

Rése

au d

es c

onse

illèr

es e

t co

nsei

llers

en

éduc

atio

n de

la p

rim

e en

fanc

e



M A I N R E P O R T

145

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Loca

l bra

nche

s, p

rovi

ncia

lbo

ard

of d

irect

ors.

Mem

bers

hip:

chi

ld c

are

educ

ator

s.

Mem

bers

hip

cate

gorie

sin

clud

e st

uden

t, a

ssoc

iate

,pr

ofes

sion

al, c

ertif

ied,

retir

ed.

Appr

ox. 2

.500

mem

bers

.

Annu

al fe

e ra

nges

from

$35

to $

135

for

indi

vidu

als

and

$150

to

$300

for

corp

orat

em

embe

rs.

Mem

bers

hip:

Cen

tre

base

dch

ild c

are

wor

kers

and

regu

late

d fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

s

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t.

To b

e th

e le

ader

inpr

omot

ing

the

prof

essi

onal

deve

lopm

ent

and

reco

gniti

onof

ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rsin

Ont

ario

.

Barg

aini

ng

Polit

ical

and

soc

ial

com

mitm

ent

Hea

lth

and

wom

en’s

equ

ality

Publ

icat

ions

, con

fere

nces

,pu

blic

aw

aren

ess

cam

paig

ns,

equi

vale

ncy,

cer

tific

atio

n,re

sear

ch, s

ome

advo

cacy

.

Annu

al g

ener

al m

eetin

g in

the

Fall

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t.

Repo

rts

on H

R is

sues

Barg

aini

ng

Wor

ksho

ps

Asso

ciat

ion

de d

ével

oppe

men

tpr

ofes

sion

nel

prés

cola

ire

du Q

uébe

cNo

n-pr

ofit

corp

orat

ion

Asso

ciat

ion

des

éduc

atri

ces

des

cent

res

dela

pet

ite

enfa

nce

Non-

prof

it co

rpor

atio

n

Asso

ciat

ion

of E

arly

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tors

,On

tari

oht

tp:/

/ww

w.cf

c-ef

c.ca

/aec

eo/

The

prof

essi

onal

ass

ocia

tion

of e

arly

child

hood

edu

cato

rs in

Ont

ario

Fédé

rati

on d

e la

San

té e

t de

s Se

rvic

esso

ciau

x de

la C

SNht

tp:/

/ww

w.fs

ss.q

c.ca

/fra

ncai

s/in

dex.

htm

lLa

bour

fede

ratio

n w

ith

the

CSN

(Con

fédé

ratio

n de

s sy

ndic

ates

nat

iona

ux)




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

n

Cons

ists

of s

ome

20 m

embe

rsre

pres

entin

g a

cros

s ro

ad o

for

gani

zatio

ns (F

eder

atio

ns,

asso

ciat

ions

, uni

ons)

conc

erne

d wi

th th

e iss

ue o

fch

ild c

are

and

the

deve

lopm

ent

of E

CCE

serv

ices

in Q

uebe

c

. on

invi

tatio

n

Mem

bers

hip:

Chi

ld c

are

work

ers

cent

re b

ased

.

Mem

bers

hip:

regu

late

d fa

mily

child

car

e pr

ovid

ers

(CPE

affil

iate

d)

Fost

er s

harin

g an

dco

llabo

ratio

n be

twee

npa

rtne

rs a

nd s

take

hold

ers

conc

erne

d w

ith

the

futu

redi

rect

ion

of Q

uebe

c’s

child

care

and

fam

ily p

olic

ies

Impr

ove

well-

bein

g an

dwo

rkin

g co

nditi

ons

of it

sm

embr

es

Prom

ote

right

s an

d so

cial

and

prof

essio

nal r

ecog

nitio

n

Supp

ort t

o m

embe

rs in

barg

aini

ng, o

rgan

izin

g an

dtr

aini

ng

Prom

ote

the

right

s an

din

tere

sts

of it

s m

embe

rs

Info

rmat

ion

and

trai

ning

Barg

aini

ng

Disc

ussio

n fo

rum

s

4 tim

es a

yea

r

Regi

onal

gen

eral

ann

ual

mee

tings

A re

flect

ion

and

visi

on o

fch

ild c

are

deve

lopm

ent

inQu

ebec

Sem

inar

s an

d wo

rksh

ops

Publ

icat

ions

on

HR is

sues

Wor

ksho

psIn

form

atio

n on

HR

issue

sNe

gotia

tions

Com

ité

d’or

ient

atio

n su

r le

s ce

ntre

s de

lape

tite

enf

ance

http

://w

ww.

mes

sf.g

ouv.

qc.c

a/Go

vern

men

t ad

viso

ry c

omm

ittee

Fédé

rati

on d

es in

terv

enan

tes

en p

etit

een

fanc

e du

Qué

bec

http

://w

ww.

csq.

qc.n

et/f

ede/

fipe

q.ht

mUn

ion

Affi

liate

d w

ith

the

CSQ

(Cen

tral

e de

ssy

ndic

ats

du Q

uébe

c)

Allia

nce

des

inte

rven

ante

s en

mili

eu f

amili

alht

tp:/

/adi

m.c

sq.q

c.ne

t/Un

ion

Affi

liate

d w

ith

the

CSQ

(Cen

tral

e de

s sy

ndic

ats

du Q

uébe

c)

Stru

ctur

eM

embe

rs a

ndM

embe

rshi

p Fe

esM

anda

teKe

y Ac

tivi

ties

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Acti

viti

es/P

roje

cts



M A I N R E P O R T

147

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Regi

onal

rep

s on

boa

rd o

fdi

rect

ors,

rep

rese

ntat

ion

from

mem

ber

grou

ps a

ndin

divi

dual

s

Stud

ents

, chi

ld c

are

wor

kers

,in

divi

dual

s, c

hild

car

ece

ntre

s, r

esou

rce

prog

ram

s,an

d or

gani

zatio

ns in

clud

ing

unio

ns, c

hild

wel

fare

, soc

ial

polic

y, a

nti-

pove

rty,

stud

ents

’ and

wom

en’s

orga

niza

tions

.

Curr

ent

mem

bers

hip

list

stan

ds a

t 52

1. G

roup

s an

dor

gani

zatio

ns a

re c

ount

ed a

son

e m

embe

r.

Annu

al fe

es r

ange

from

$16.

50 fo

r st

uden

ts t

o $2

50fo

r a

child

car

e pr

ogra

m w

ith

100

child

ren

to $

1,00

0 fo

ror

gani

zatio

ns w

ith

over

5,00

0 m

embe

rs.

To a

dvoc

ate

for

the

deve

lopm

ent

of u

nive

rsal

lyac

cess

ible

, hig

h qu

ality

, non

-pr

ofit

regu

late

d ch

ild c

are

serv

ices

in t

he p

rovi

nce

ofOn

tario

.

Key

activ

ities

are

:m

onito

ring

prov

inci

al c

hild

care

pol

icy

and

legi

slat

ion

and

lobb

ying

for

impr

ovem

ents

; dev

elop

ing

polic

y al

tern

ativ

es fo

rgo

vern

men

t co

nsid

erat

ion

toim

prov

e th

e qu

ality

,ac

cess

ibili

ty a

ndm

anag

emen

t of

chi

ld c

are

serv

ices

; dev

elop

ing

book

s,m

anua

ls, f

act

shee

ts a

ndne

ws

bulle

tins

on c

hild

car

epo

licy

and

oper

atio

ns fo

r us

eby

chi

ld c

are

prog

ram

s, e

arly

child

hood

edu

catio

n tr

aini

ngpr

ogra

ms,

par

ents

and

the

gene

ral p

ublic

; con

duct

ing

publ

ic in

form

atio

nca

mpa

igns

thr

ough

writ

ten

mat

eria

l, vi

deos

, pub

licse

rvic

e an

noun

cem

ents

,pu

blic

spe

akin

g an

d by

wor

king

wit

h th

e m

edia

;co

nduc

ting

and

com

mis

sion

ing

rese

arch

;pr

ovid

ing

a va

riety

of

serv

ices

to

assi

st c

omm

unity

-ba

sed

child

car

e pr

ogra

ms;

deve

lopi

ng C

hild

Car

e Ac

tion

Netw

orks

to

advo

cate

for

child

car

e ac

ross

Ont

ario

.

Trai

ning

wor

ksho

ps in

advo

cacy

, pub

lic s

peak

ing,

med

ia r

elat

ions

, wom

en a

ndpo

litic

s. O

CBCC

als

o ho

lds

trai

ning

wor

ksho

ps in

conj

unct

ion

wit

h th

e Ch

ildCa

re M

anag

emen

t Gu

ide

for

supe

rvis

ors,

adm

inis

trat

ors

and

boar

d m

embe

rs.

Onta

rio

Coal

itio

n fo

r Be

tter

Chi

ld C

are

(OCB

CC)

http

://w

ww.

child

care

onta

rio.o

rg/

Coal

ition

of o

rgan

izat

ions

and

indi

vidu

als




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

MCC

A is

a n

on-p

rofi

t,re

gist

ered

cha

rity,

gov

erne

dby

a v

olun

teer

boa

rd o

fdi

rect

ors

elec

ted

by t

hem

embe

rs.

We

have

sev

enre

gion

al b

ranc

hes,

eac

h w

ith

its o

wn

regi

onal

boa

rd,

whi

ch r

epor

t di

rect

ly t

o th

epr

ovin

cial

boa

rd.

MCC

Aem

ploy

s se

ven

full-

time

staf

f, an

d le

ases

4,0

00 s

q.ft

. of o

ffic

e sp

ace

inno

rthw

est

Win

nipe

g.

Mem

bers

hip

incl

udes

ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

, chi

ldca

re a

ssis

tant

s, f

amily

chi

ldca

re p

rovi

ders

,ad

min

istr

ator

s, p

aren

t bo

ard

mem

bers

, aca

dem

ics,

stud

ents

and

oth

er a

dvoc

ates

for

child

ren.

As o

f Apr

il 30

, 200

3, M

CCA

has

2,93

8 m

embe

rs.

MCC

A is

ent

irely

mem

bers

hip

fund

ed.

Annu

al fe

es r

ange

from

$19

2fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al m

embe

rsw

ho a

re e

arly

chi

ldho

oded

ucat

ors,

$96

ann

ually

for

child

car

e as

sist

ants

, $12

4fo

r fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

s, $

100

for

asso

ciat

es, $

40 fo

r fu

ll-tim

est

uden

ts.

To a

dvoc

ate

for

a qu

ality

syst

em o

f chi

ld c

are,

to

adva

nce

ECE

as a

pro

fess

ion

and

to p

rovi

de s

ervi

ces

toou

r m

embe

rs.

Grou

p be

nefi

ts p

lan

for

cent

re a

nd f

amily

chi

ld c

are

mem

bers

; cen

tre

liabi

lity

insu

ranc

e pl

an;

dire

ctor

s an

d of

fice

rslia

bilit

y in

sura

nce

plan

;fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

liabi

lity

insu

ranc

e pl

an;

reso

urce

libr

ary;

annu

al p

rovi

ncia

l con

fere

nce;

annu

al d

irect

ors

conf

eren

ce;

code

of e

thic

s tr

aini

ngpr

ogra

m;

fall

and

win

ter

wor

ksho

ps;

quar

terly

pub

licat

ion:

Chi

ldCa

re B

ridge

s;an

nual

aw

ards

for

mem

bers

; W

eek

of t

heEa

rly C

hild

hood

Edu

cato

rev

ents

; res

ourc

ede

velo

pmen

t an

d sa

les;

curr

ent

web

site

and

emai

lings

to

keep

mem

bers

up-t

o-da

te a

nd in

form

ed;

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tth

roug

h a

wid

e va

riety

of

form

al a

nd in

form

alne

twor

king

and

pee

r-to

-pee

rco

nnec

tion

oppo

rtun

ities

;af

filia

te m

embe

r of

the

Cana

dian

Chi

ld C

are

Fede

ratio

n; r

epre

sent

atio

non

man

y re

late

d co

mm

ittee

san

d st

akeh

olde

r gr

oups

at

the

regi

onal

and

loca

l lev

el.

Cons

tant

wor

k to

adv

ance

child

car

e as

a s

ervi

ce a

nd a

sa

prof

essi

on.

Build

ing

the

Care

er C

orrid

or:

Man

itoba

’s E

arly

Chi

ldho

odLa

bour

Mar

ket

Stra

tegy

Proj

ect

Repo

rt. P

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

wor

ksho

ps.

Man

y of

the

se a

re a

lread

ylis

ted

here

, but

som

e ot

hers

are

liste

d un

der

reso

urce

s on

our

web

site

:. H

uman

Reso

urce

Man

agem

ent

Guid

efo

r Ea

rly C

hild

hood

Prog

ram

s; L

et B

abie

s Be

Babi

es V

ideo

Ser

ies;

Our

Child

ren

Our

Way

s Vi

deo

Serie

s; C

risis

Res

pons

eM

anua

l for

Chi

ld C

are

Faci

litie

s; F

amily

Chi

ld C

are

Cale

ndar

.

Man

itob

a Ch

ild C

are

Asso

ciat

ion

(MCC

A)ht

tp:/

/ww

w.m

ccah

ouse

.org

/M

CCA

is a

n in

clus

ive

orga

niza

tion.

Mem

bers

incl

ude

indi

vidu

als

or g

roup

s w

ho p

rovi

de o

rar

e em

ploy

ed in

chi

ld c

are,

or

thos

e w

ith

anin

tere

st in

chi

ld c

are

as a

ser

vice

or

as a

prof

essi

on.



M A I N R E P O R T

149

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

SECA

is a

pro

vinc

ial

orga

niza

tion

head

ed b

y a

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s. T

hecu

rren

t bo

ard

is fr

om a

cros

sth

e pr

ovin

ce a

nd t

he e

arly

child

hood

edu

catio

n fi

eld

(e.g

. chi

ld c

are

cent

res,

day

hom

e pr

ovid

ers,

SIA

ST E

CEin

stru

ctor

s).

Child

car

e or

gani

zatio

ns s

end

two

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f the

iror

gani

zatio

n to

the

tab

le; a

nel

ectio

n is

hel

d fo

r th

epo

sitio

ns o

f cha

ir, v

ice

chai

r,tr

easu

rer

and

secr

etar

y to

form

an

exec

utiv

e.Re

pres

enta

tion

is s

ough

tfr

om a

ll ch

ild c

are

orga

niza

tions

but

onl

y tw

om

embe

rs o

f tha

tor

gani

zatio

n vo

te a

t th

eta

ble.

The

re a

re n

on-v

otin

gre

pres

enta

tives

of

stak

ehol

ders

suc

h as

gove

rnm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es.

Mem

bers

hip

incl

udes

indi

vidu

als,

org

aniz

atio

ns,

early

chi

ldho

od e

duca

tors

,ch

ild c

are

cent

res,

day

hom

epr

ovid

ers,

par

ents

, stu

dent

san

d pr

ofes

sion

als

from

oth

erfi

elds

.

Annu

al fe

es: s

tude

nt $

35,

asso

ciat

e $3

7,in

divi

dual

s/da

y ho

me

prov

ider

s $7

2, c

hild

car

ece

ntre

s/or

gani

zatio

n $8

2.

Mem

bers

incl

ude:

Ear

lyCh

ildho

od P

rofe

ssio

nal

Asso

ciat

ion

of A

lber

ta, A

lber

taFa

mily

Chi

ld C

are

Asso

ciat

ion,

Day

Care

Soc

iety

of A

lber

ta,

CCCF

and

CCC

AA re

ps, a

ndm

any

regi

onal

ass

ocia

tions

.Th

e EC

D co

llege

s’ co

ordi

nato

rs,

Albe

rta

Heal

th a

nd W

elln

ess,

Albe

rta

Lear

ning

and

Alb

erta

Child

ren’

s Se

rvic

es a

lso h

ave

repr

esen

tatio

n.

Affil

iate

Mem

bers

hips

and

Asso

ciat

e M

embe

rshi

ps h

ave

aye

arly

fee

as d

eter

min

ed a

t the

mos

t rec

ent A

GM. T

his

is ye

t to

be d

ecid

ed b

ut w

ill b

e le

ssth

an $

100

per y

ear a

ccor

ding

to re

cent

disc

ussio

ns.

Dedi

cate

d to

qua

lity

child

care

and

edu

catio

n fo

r yo

ung

child

ren

by d

evel

opin

gin

form

atio

n fo

r pa

rent

s,pr

ovid

ing

prof

essi

onal

deve

lopm

ent

for

care

give

rsan

d ra

isin

g pu

blic

aw

aren

ess.

To p

rovi

de a

foru

m fo

r th

esh

arin

g of

info

rmat

ion

betw

een

the

child

car

eco

mm

unity

and

all

leve

ls o

fgo

vern

men

t.

To p

rovi

de a

foru

m fo

r th

eco

mm

unic

atio

n an

dco

nsul

tatio

n of

the

chi

ld c

are

com

mun

ity.

To a

dvoc

ate

for

qual

ity c

hild

care

on

beha

lf of

the

child

ren

and

fam

ilies

of

Albe

rta.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t;ed

ucat

iona

l wor

ksho

ps;

cons

ulta

tions

wit

hfe

dera

l/pr

ovin

cial

leve

l;co

nfer

ence

s, r

etre

ats,

new

slet

ters

, res

ourc

e lib

rary

,w

ebsi

te, c

hild

car

e.

Still

in d

evel

opm

ent.

Eve

nth

ough

the

net

wor

k ha

sex

iste

d in

form

ally

sin

ce19

86, o

ur A

lber

ta C

hild

Car

eNe

twor

k as

a fo

rmal

orga

niza

tion

is s

till n

ew a

ndaw

aitin

g fi

nal r

ecog

nitio

nun

der

Soci

etie

s Ac

t.Th

ene

twor

k w

ill b

e pl

anni

ngse

vera

l act

iviti

es o

ver

the

next

few

yea

rs b

ut c

urre

ntly

is fu

lly e

ngag

ed a

s pa

rtne

rsin

the

Chi

ld C

are

Accr

edit

atio

n pr

ojec

t.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tan

d ed

ucat

ion

oppo

rtun

ities

.

Still

in d

evel

opm

ent.

Loo

king

tow

ard

publ

ic a

war

enes

sca

mpa

igns

, wor

king

tow

ard

solu

tions

aro

und

issu

es in

scho

ol-a

ge c

are

fund

ing

inAl

bert

a, N

atio

nal C

hild

Day

cele

brat

ions

, etc

. Cur

rent

maj

or fo

cus

is a

s a

part

ner

wit

h CC

CF, E

CPAA

, AFC

AA in

the

deve

lopm

ent

of t

heAl

bert

a Ch

ild C

are

Accr

edit

atio

n m

odel

und

er a

cont

ract

wit

h Al

bert

aCh

ildre

n Se

rvic

es.

Sask

atch

ewan

Ear

ly Ch

ildho

od A

ssoc

iatio

n (S

ECA)

http

://w

ww

3.sk

.sym

patic

o.ca

/sas

kcar

e/Th

e as

soci

atio

n fo

r ea

rly c

hild

hood

edu

cato

rsin

Sas

katc

hew

an a

nd t

hose

inte

rest

ed in

the

wel

l-be

ing

of c

hild

ren

Albe

rta

Child

Car

e Ne

twor

k As

soci

atio

nTh

is o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

coa

litio

n of

sev

eral

reco

gniz

ed c

hild

car

e or

gani

zatio

ns w

ithi

nAl

bert

a. A

s w

ell,

ther

e is

rep

rese

ntat

ion

from

vario

us s

take

hold

ers

wit

hin

gove

rnm

ent

who

have

a v

este

d in

tere

st in

chi

ld c

are

issu

es.




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

s;qu

arte

rly m

embe

rshi

pm

eetin

gs.

The

ECPA

A fu

nctio

ns w

ith

abo

ard

of d

irect

ors

whi

ch is

resp

onsi

ble

for

the

day-

to-

day

oper

atio

ns a

nd t

hefo

llow

ing

port

folio

s:m

embe

rshi

p se

rvic

es(m

embe

rshi

p, c

ertif

icat

ion)

,pr

omot

ion,

con

fere

nces

and

awar

ds, a

dvoc

acy

and

liais

onw

ith

othe

r gr

oups

, and

ad

hoc

com

mitt

ees

as n

eede

d.Th

e di

rect

ors

are

elec

ted

atth

e AG

M a

nd s

erve

are

new

able

2-y

r te

rm.

The

boar

d h

as a

reg

iona

lfo

cus.

The

ECP

AA is

an

affi

liate

mem

ber

of t

he C

CCF

wit

h a

repr

esen

tativ

e on

the

mem

ber

coun

cil.

It is

als

o a

mem

ber

orga

niza

tion

of t

heAl

bert

a Ch

ild C

are

Netw

ork.

Mem

bers

hip

open

to a

nypr

ofes

siona

l inv

olve

d in

oper

atin

g a

fam

ily d

ay h

ome

prog

ram

in A

lber

ta, o

r chi

ldca

re c

entr

e.

$100

per

age

ncy a

nd o

r mem

ber.

Mem

bers

are

prim

arily

ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

who

wor

kin

a v

arie

ty o

f set

tings

. Som

ear

e fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

s.Th

is o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

prof

essi

onal

org

aniz

atio

n so

while

mem

bers

may

be

pare

nts,

thei

r foc

us is

on

the

prof

essi

onal

asp

ect o

f the

irliv

es. S

ome

mem

bers

are

asso

ciat

e m

embe

rs s

o m

ayre

pres

ent a

genc

ies

or c

entr

e-ba

sed

prog

ram

s. S

ome

mem

bers

may

be

inst

ruct

ors

inco

llege

-bas

ed E

CD p

rogr

ams.

Rece

nt m

embe

rshi

p co

unt

sits

at

abou

t 18

0.An

nual

mem

bers

hip

varie

sw

ith

clas

sifi

catio

n (c

ertif

ied

mem

ber

at le

vel I

, II

or I

II,

asso

ciat

e or

stu

dent

mem

ber)

from

$15

for

stud

ent,

$20

for

cert

ifie

dm

embe

r I

and

II, a

nd $

30 fo

ras

soci

ate

mem

ber,

cert

ifie

dm

embe

r Le

vel I

II.

To a

dvoc

ate

for

acce

ssib

le,

qual

ity, i

nclu

sive

chi

ld c

are

whi

ch s

uppo

rts

the

need

s of

child

, fam

ily a

nd c

omm

unity

;m

aint

ain

and

impr

ove

the

qual

ity o

f chi

ld c

are

for

all

child

ren

in A

lber

ta.

To b

ring

toge

ther

ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

and

othe

r in

divi

dual

s or

gro

ups

who

are

inte

rest

ed in

upgr

adin

g th

e ea

rlych

ildho

od p

rofe

ssio

n an

dpr

omot

ing

qual

ity c

hild

ren’

sse

rvic

es in

Alb

erta

. To

adv

ocat

e on

beh

alf o

fch

ildre

n an

d fa

mili

es fo

rqu

ality

chi

ld c

are

and

prof

essi

onal

sta

ff.

To a

dvoc

ate

on b

ehal

f of

trai

ned

staf

f and

to

lobb

y fo

rsu

ppor

ts t

o pr

ofes

sion

alis

min

the

pro

vinc

e of

Alb

erta

.

Advo

cacy

; lob

byin

g.

A ne

wsl

ette

r is

pub

lishe

dth

ree

to fo

ur t

imes

per

yea

r.

The

AGM

is h

eld

in t

he f

all

alon

g w

ith

a 1-

day

sym

posi

um u

sual

ly fo

cuse

don

key

not

e sp

eake

rs. T

heAw

ards

lunc

heon

is h

eld

atth

e sa

me

time,

wit

hCh

ildre

n’s

Serv

ice

Awar

d,Ex

cept

iona

l Car

egiv

er(E

duca

tor)

and

Exc

eptio

nal

Men

tor

Awar

ds p

rese

nted

.

Maj

or fo

cus

for

the

past

seve

ral y

ears

has

bee

nad

voca

cy. R

allie

s ha

ve b

een

held

. Mem

bers

par

ticip

ated

in s

ever

al c

ampa

igns

tha

tha

ve fo

cuse

d on

ret

entio

nan

d re

crui

tmen

t is

sues

in t

hech

ild c

are

cris

is in

Alb

erta

.

STEP

AH

EAD

– ce

rtif

icat

ion

prog

ram

for

fam

ily d

ay h

ome

prov

ider

s in

reco

gniti

on o

f the

ir ro

le a

sca

regi

vers

.

Loca

l gro

ups

(i.e

. Edm

onto

nCh

apte

r) h

osts

mon

thly

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tse

ries

focu

sed

on h

ands

-on

lear

ning

at

very

low

cos

ts($

5 no

n-m

embe

r, $3

mem

ber)

.

Mem

bers

in o

ther

reg

ions

take

par

t in

loca

l act

iviti

esan

d pr

ofes

sion

alde

velo

pmen

t se

ssio

ns.

Deve

lope

d an

d di

strib

uted

to

ever

y ch

ild c

are

cent

re in

Albe

rta

(May

200

3) a

broc

hure

tha

t su

ppor

ts t

hele

ader

ship

act

iviti

es t

hat

am

embe

r of

the

boa

rdat

tend

ed a

t th

e CC

CF,

entit

led

Keep

ing

the

Prom

ises

.

Albe

rta

Fam

ily C

hild

Car

e As

soci

atio

nht

tp:/

/cfc

-efc

.ca/

aafd

hs/

Prof

essi

onal

ass

ocia

tion

of e

arly

chi

ldho

oded

ucat

ors

who

ope

rate

fam

ily d

ay h

ome

agen

cies

Early

Chi

ldho

od P

rofe

ssio

nal A

ssoc

iati

on o

fAl

bert

a (E

CPAA

) ht

tp:/

/ww

w.cf

c-ef

c.ca

/ecp

aa/

The

prof

essi

onal

ass

ocia

tion

for

early

child

hood

edu

cato

rs in

Alb

erta

. Mem

bers

wor

kin

a d

iver

se r

ange

of e

arly

chi

ldho

oded

ucat

ion

and

care

pro

gram

s, s

uch

as c

hild

care

, pre

scho

ol p

rogr

ams

like

nurs

ery

scho

ols,

hosp

ital

life

pro

gram

s, a

ssis

tant

s to

kind

erga

rten

pro

gram

s an

d su

ppor

ting

child

ren

wit

h sp

ecia

l nee

ds.



M A I N R E P O R T

151

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

The

ACCS

ope

rate

s on

epr

ovin

cial

off

ice

in N

orth

Vanc

ouve

r, Br

itish

Col

umbi

a.It

is d

irect

ed b

y an

ele

cted

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s th

atre

pres

ents

Abo

rigin

alin

tere

sts

in E

CE. M

embe

rs a

reel

igib

le t

o ru

n fo

r el

ectio

n at

the

annu

al A

GM.

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

s w

ith

two

repr

esen

tativ

es fr

om e

ach

ofsi

x re

gion

s pl

us f

ive

addi

tiona

l boa

rd m

embe

rsel

ecte

d by

all

mem

bers

,se

rvin

g as

the

exe

cutiv

e.

Mem

bers

hip

incl

udes

care

give

rs o

f Abo

rigin

alch

ildre

n, e

arly

chi

ldho

oded

ucat

ors

or in

stru

ctor

s, E

CEst

uden

ts, E

lder

s, c

hild

car

ere

sear

cher

s, a

dmin

istr

ator

san

d H

ead

Star

t st

aff.

Annu

al m

embe

rshi

p fe

es a

re:

$10

(ind

ivid

ual)

, $20

(cen

tre)

, $20

0(a

ssoc

iate

/res

earc

her)

.

Orga

niza

tions

del

iver

ing

licen

sed

child

car

e.Re

pres

enta

tives

mus

t be

desi

gnat

ed b

y th

eor

gani

zatio

n.

Annu

al m

embe

rshi

p fe

esba

sed

on n

umbe

r of

FTE

s in

staf

fed

orga

niza

tion

rang

ing

from

$20

to

$150

; ass

ocia

tem

embe

rshi

p al

so a

vaila

ble.

To s

uppo

rt B

C Fi

rst

Natio

nco

mm

uniti

es in

the

cre

atio

nan

d de

velo

pmen

t of

qua

lity,

com

mun

ity-b

ased

Abo

rigin

alch

ild c

are

serv

ices

.

To s

uppo

rt a

nd g

ive

voic

e to

empl

oyer

s in

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a’s

licen

sed

child

care

sec

tor,

by a

ctin

g as

aco

ndui

t of

info

rmat

ion,

iden

tifie

r of

issu

es a

nd a

nag

ent

of c

hang

e.

Publ

icat

ion

of p

rint

reso

urce

sre

gard

ing

Abor

igin

alpe

rspe

ctiv

es o

n ea

rly c

hild

deve

lopm

ent;

lend

ing

libra

ryan

d to

y-le

ndin

g bo

xes;

advi

sory

and

sup

port

serv

ices

for

new

and

exi

stin

gAb

orig

inal

ECD

pro

gram

s;an

nual

con

fere

nce;

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

ttr

aini

ng; h

ost

agen

cy fo

rEa

gle’

s Ne

st A

borig

inal

Hea

dSt

art

Pres

choo

l and

the

Offi

ce o

f the

Pro

vinc

ial

Advi

sor

for

Abor

igin

al I

nfan

tDe

velo

pmen

t pr

ogra

ms.

Publ

icat

ions

, fac

t sh

eets

,w

orks

hops

rel

ated

to

empl

oyer

issu

es, n

etw

orki

ngad

voca

cy.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tw

orks

hops

re:

cul

tura

lcu

rric

ulum

, pro

gram

man

agem

ent,

pro

gram

eval

uatio

n, w

ritin

g fu

ndin

gpr

opos

als,

com

mun

itypa

rtic

ipat

ion,

tra

ditio

nal

pare

ntin

g.

Wor

ksho

ps a

nd p

ublic

atio

nssp

ecif

ic t

o le

ader

ship

and

adm

inis

trat

ion

man

agem

ent.

B.C.

Abo

rigi

nal C

hild

Car

e So

ciet

y (A

CCS)

http

://w

ww.

acc-

soci

ety.

bc.c

a/A

prov

inci

al n

on-p

rofi

t ch

arit

able

orga

niza

tion

dire

cted

by

a vo

lunt

eer

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s an

d su

ppor

ted

by fo

ur c

ore

staf

f.M

embe

rs o

f the

org

aniz

atio

n pa

rtic

ipat

e in

the

annu

al A

GM a

nd b

oard

ele

ctio

ns.

The

ACCS

exi

sts

to:

*hel

p Ab

orig

inal

com

mun

ities

dev

elop

hig

hqu

ality

, int

egra

ted,

com

mun

ity c

hild

car

ese

rvic

es t

hat

are

base

d in

the

chi

ldre

n’s

cultu

re, l

angu

age

and

hist

ory

and

will

prom

ote

heal

thy

grow

th a

nd d

evel

opm

ent

amon

g ou

r ch

ildre

n*b

uild

an

Abor

igin

al c

hild

car

e ne

twor

k by

unde

rtak

ing

rese

arch

, dev

elop

men

t, a

dvoc

acy

and

supp

ortin

g co

mm

uniti

es t

o de

velo

p th

eir

own

reso

urce

sB.

C. A

ssoc

iati

on o

f Ch

ild C

are

Serv

ices

http

://m

embe

rs.a

ttca

nada

.ca/

~bc

accs

/An

ass

ocia

tion

of e

mpl

oyer

s de

liver

ing

prof

essi

onal

ly s

taff

ed, l

icen

sed

child

car

ese

rvic

es a

nd c

hild

car

e re

sour

ce a

nd r

efer

ral

prog

ram

s.




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

sm

embe

rshi

p: p

aren

ts, c

hild

care

pro

vide

rs, c

omm

unity

or

gani

zatio

ns, u

nion

s.

Mem

bers

hip:

par

ents

, chi

ldca

re p

rovi

ders

, com

mun

ityor

gani

zatio

ns, u

nion

s.

Annu

al fe

es r

ange

from

$5

(stu

dent

) to

$50

(la

rge

orga

niza

tion)

.

To p

rom

ote

and

supp

ort

qual

ity c

omm

unity

-bas

edch

ild c

are

serv

ices

tha

tbe

nefi

t ch

ildre

n, f

amili

esan

d th

e pu

blic

and

in t

hebe

st in

tere

sts

of s

ocie

ty.

Mon

itorin

g of

gov

ernm

ent

polic

y at

the

loca

l, pr

ovin

cial

and

fede

ral l

evel

s

Orga

nizi

ng “

polit

ical

cam

paig

ns”

in o

rder

to

influ

ence

pol

icy

deci

sion

s

Part

icip

atin

g at

oth

erad

voca

cy “

tabl

es”

to p

rom

ote

publ

icly

fund

ed c

hild

car

e

Shar

ing

info

rmat

ion

prov

idin

g le

ader

ship

inad

voca

cy a

ctiv

ities

.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t is

offe

red

thro

ugh

stud

ent

foru

ms

and

com

mun

itym

eetin

gs a

bout

adv

ocac

y.

We

rece

ive

num

erou

sre

ques

ts t

o le

ad c

omm

unity

wor

ksho

ps a

bout

the

cur

rent

situ

atio

n in

chi

ld c

are,

chan

ges

to g

over

nmen

tpo

licy

and

how

to

invo

lve

peop

le in

pol

itica

lac

tion/

activ

ism

.

Coal

itio

n of

Chi

ld C

are

Advo

cate

s of

Bri

tish

Colu

mbi

a (C

CCAB

C)ht

tp:/

/ww

w.cc

cabc

.bc.

ca/a

bout

/joi

n.ht

ml

A co

aliti

on o

f org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd in

divi

dual

s



M A I N R E P O R T

153

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

s, lo

cal a

ndpr

ovin

cial

rep

rese

ntat

ion

onth

e bo

ard.

Reg

iona

l bra

nche

sac

ross

the

pro

vinc

e w

hich

are

run

by t

heir

own

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s.

Mem

bers

hip

cons

ists o

f ear

lych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

, fam

ilych

ildca

re p

rovi

ders

, ins

truct

ors,

dire

ctor

s of c

hild

car

e fa

ciliti

es,

child

car

e re

sour

ce a

ndre

ferr

alpr

ovid

ers.

Mem

bers

hip

cate

gorie

s:Fu

ll m

embe

r – e

arly

chi

ldho

oded

ucat

or’s

licen

ce to

pra

ctis

efro

m th

e Pr

ovin

cial

Com

mun

ityCa

re F

acili

ties

Bran

ch.

Stud

ent m

embe

r – in

the

proc

ess

of b

ecom

ing

prof

essi

onal

ly q

ualif

ied

orco

mpl

etin

g 50

0 hr

s’ w

ork

expe

rienc

e. A

sig

natu

re o

fin

stru

ctor

is re

quire

d.

Asso

ciat

e m

embe

r – h

olds

apo

st-s

econ

dary

cer

tific

atio

n(c

ertif

icat

e di

plom

a or

deg

ree)

ina

rela

ted

field

or h

as b

een

afu

ll m

embe

r of E

CEBC

and

isno

wre

tired

from

the

field

Mem

bers

of E

CEBC

hol

d a

mem

bers

hip

with

the

CCC

F.

Only

full

mem

bers

hav

evo

ting

right

s.

Full

mem

ber,

stud

ent m

embe

ran

d as

soci

ate

mem

ber a

nnua

lfe

es r

ange

from

$10

0 fo

rst

uden

ts t

o $1

56 fo

r ful

lm

embe

rs.

To s

uppo

rt o

ur m

embe

rsth

roug

h ad

voca

cy a

ndse

rvic

es w

hich

pro

mot

epr

ofes

sion

alis

m. E

CEBC

isco

mm

itted

to

qual

ity E

CEC

for

the

child

ren

and

fam

ilies

of t

his

prov

ince

. We

part

icip

ate

in d

evel

opin

g EC

Etr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams.

Hol

ds a

n an

nual

con

fere

nce

prov

idin

g pr

ofes

sion

alde

velo

pmen

t to

mem

bers

.

Publ

ishe

s fo

ur jo

urna

ls a

yea

r.

Has

pub

licat

ions

for

sale

(e.g

. Cod

e of

Eth

ics,

Sel

f-As

sess

men

t w

orkb

ook

and

man

y m

ore)

.

Repr

esen

ts m

embe

rs a

t th

efo

llow

ing

tabl

es:

Advo

cacy

Foru

m, F

irst

Call,

CCCF

eder

atio

n, A

rtic

ulat

ion

(and

oth

ers)

.

Loca

l pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t w

orks

hops

and

regi

onal

con

fere

nces

thr

ough

the

bran

ches

.

Offe

rs s

uppo

rt s

ervi

ces

and

advi

ce t

o m

embe

rs a

roun

dis

sues

in t

he f

ield

.

Reso

urce

to

othe

rs in

the

child

car

e co

mm

unity

.

Early

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tors

of

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a (E

CEBC

)ht

tp:/

/cfc

-efc

.ca/

eceb

c/Th

e pr

ofes

sion

al a

ssoc

iatio

n fo

r ea

rlych

ildho

od e

duca

tors

in B

ritis

h Co

lum

bia,

supp

orte

d an

d di

rect

ed b

y m

embe

rs




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Regi

onal

rep

rese

ntat

ion

onth

e bo

ard

of d

irect

ors.

Boar

d of

dire

ctor

s co

mpr

isin

gin

divi

dual

s fr

om t

heco

mm

unity

who

hav

eex

pert

ise

and

expe

rienc

e in

ECEC

or

unde

rsta

nd t

heim

port

ance

of E

CEC

tohe

alth

y ch

ildre

n, h

ealt

hyfa

mili

es a

nd h

ealt

hyco

mm

uniti

es.

Scho

ol-a

ge c

hild

car

epr

ofes

sion

als

and

child

car

ece

ntre

s.

Annu

al fe

es fo

r in

divi

dual

and

cent

res

wit

hin

and

outs

ide

the

Low

er M

ainl

and

rang

e fr

om $

10 t

o $2

5(c

orpo

rate

rat

e av

aila

ble)

.

Soci

ety

mem

bers

hip

is o

pen

to a

nyon

e in

the

gen

eral

publ

ic w

ho a

gree

s w

ith

the

prin

cipl

es, b

elie

fs, v

isio

n an

dm

issi

on o

f the

org

aniz

atio

n.

No fe

e, fu

nded

by

mun

icip

al,

prov

inci

al a

nd fe

dera

lde

part

men

t an

d pr

ivat

edo

nors

. Due

to

fund

ing

cuts

,a

subs

crib

er p

olic

y an

d fe

ew

ill c

ome

into

eff

ect

in t

he20

03/2

004

year

.

To im

prov

e th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

qual

ity, a

ffor

dabl

e sc

hool

-ag

e ch

ild c

are.

By p

rovi

ding

pro

gram

s an

dse

rvic

es t

o pr

ofes

sion

als

inth

e fi

eld.

To c

ontr

ibut

e to

hea

lthy

com

mun

ities

by

supp

ortin

gfa

mili

es, p

rom

otin

g eq

ualit

yfo

r ch

ildre

n an

dst

reng

then

ing

and

enha

ncin

gqu

ality

chi

ld c

are.

Incr

ease

pub

lic a

war

enes

sth

roug

h lo

bbyi

ng, a

dvoc

acy,

netw

orki

ng t

hrou

gh c

offe

em

eetin

gs, c

onfe

renc

e,w

orks

hops

, new

slet

ter.

Info

rmat

ion,

refe

rral

s,tr

aini

ng a

nd re

sour

ces

rela

ted

to c

hild

dev

elop

men

tan

d ch

ild c

are

for

fam

ilies

and

for

serv

ice

prov

ider

sin

ECEC

fie

ld (

i.e. l

ibra

ry,

wor

ksho

ps, c

ours

es,

tele

phon

e co

nsul

tatio

nan

dre

ferr

al s

ervi

ces,

prin

tre

sour

ces

in s

ever

alla

ngua

ges,

sev

eral

publ

icat

ions

/new

slet

ters

,et

c.).

Wor

ksho

ps a

nd a

con

fere

nce.

Prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

tw

orks

hops

, con

sult

atio

nse

rvic

es, r

esou

rces

and

refe

rral

s fo

r al

l chi

ld a

ndfa

mily

ser

vice

pro

vide

rs.

Cons

ulta

tion

serv

ices

,tr

aini

ng a

nd r

esou

rces

rela

ted

to a

dmin

istr

atio

nan

dm

anag

emen

t of

non

-pr

ofit

orga

niza

tions

for

adm

inis

trat

ors/

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s of

non

-pro

fit

child

care

pro

gram

s.

Scho

ol A

ge C

hild

Car

e As

soci

atio

n of

BC

http

://w

ww.w

stco

ast.o

rg/a

ffilia

tes/

sacc

a/in

dex.

htm

lAs

soci

atio

n of

out

-of-

scho

ol c

are

prof

essi

onal

san

d st

uden

ts w

orki

ng o

r st

udyi

ng in

the

scho

ol-a

ge f

ield

Wes

tcoa

st C

hild

Car

e Re

sour

ce C

entr

eht

tp:/

/ww

w.w

stco

ast.

org/

Info

rmat

ion,

res

ourc

e an

d re

ferr

al a

genc

yse

rvin

g th

e ch

ild c

are,

ECD

com

mun

ity a

nd t

hepu

blic

at

larg

e in

Brit

ish

Colu

mbi

a



M A I N R E P O R T

155

Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Exec

utiv

e co

unci

l and

boa

rdof

dire

ctor

s (e

lect

ed a

ndap

poin

ted

posi

tions

).

Seve

n m

embe

rs g

roup

sth

roug

hout

the

pro

vinc

e,ea

ch h

avin

g its

ow

nex

ecut

ive

and

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s w

ith

elec

ted

and

appo

inte

d po

sitio

ns. E

ach

grou

p as

wel

l as

the

WCF

CCA

oper

ates

wit

h a

cons

titut

ion

and

byla

ws.

The

WCF

CCA

has

just

appr

oved

a p

olic

ies

and

proc

edur

e m

anua

l to

guid

eth

e op

erat

ion

of t

heor

gani

zatio

n.

Fam

ily c

hild

car

e pr

ovid

ers,

child

car

e re

sour

ce a

ndre

ferr

al o

ffic

es.

Pres

ently

306

mem

bers

acro

ss t

he p

rovi

nce.

Annu

al m

embe

rshi

p fe

e is

$30

wit

h $1

0 go

ing

tow

ard

mem

bers

hip

in t

he C

CCF

for

affi

liate

mem

bers

hip.

Each

mem

ber

grou

p al

so h

asm

embe

rshi

p fe

es r

angi

ngfr

om $

20 t

o $3

0.

To p

rom

ote,

sup

port

and

advo

cate

for

qual

ity,

incl

usiv

e fa

mily

chi

ld c

are.

Hol

ds a

nnua

l con

fere

nce;

publ

ishe

s fo

ur n

ewsl

ette

rspe

r ye

ar a

s w

ell a

s ad

voca

cym

ater

ials

as

requ

ired

thro

ugho

ut t

he y

ear;

diss

emin

ates

info

rmat

ion

from

the

CCC

F; p

rovi

des

info

rmat

ion

as r

eque

sted

to

gove

rnm

ent,

and

sen

dspa

rtic

ipan

ts t

o m

any

tabl

es(e

.g. R

egul

atio

n Re

view

);bo

ard

mem

bers

par

ticip

ate

intr

aini

ng a

ctiv

ities

of t

heCC

CR (

e.g.

Lea

ders

hip

Inst

itute

s); p

rese

nts

at t

heCh

ild C

are

Advo

cacy

For

um.

Upda

ting

GOOD

BEG

INNI

NGS

faci

litat

or’s

pro

gram

and

curr

icul

um g

uide

;co

llabo

rate

s w

ith

ECEB

C re

:co

nfer

ence

;w

orki

ng w

ith

Wes

tcoa

stRe

sour

ce C

entr

e on

a f

amily

child

car

e tr

aini

ng h

ub;

hold

s an

ann

ual c

eleb

ratio

nto

rec

ogni

ze t

he a

ctiv

ities

of

child

car

e pr

ovid

ers;

ha

s re

pres

enta

tion

at

the

CCCF

; eac

h m

embe

r gr

oup

hold

s tr

aini

ng w

orks

hops

(e.g

. ins

uran

ce, p

rogr

ampl

anni

ng, l

icen

sing

) an

dpa

rtic

ipat

es in

act

iviti

es in

thei

r ow

n co

mm

uniti

es.

Wes

tern

Can

ada

Fam

ily C

hild

Car

eAs

soci

atio

n (W

CFCC

A)ht

tp:/

/ww

w.cf

c-ef

c.ca

/wcf

cca/

The

prof

essi

onal

org

aniz

atio

n fo

r fa

mily

chi

ldca

re p

rovi

ders

in B

ritis

h Co

lum

bia.




Orga

niza

tion

/De

scri

ptio

nSt

ruct

ure

Mem

bers

and

Mem

bers

hip

Fees

Man

date

Key

Acti

viti

esHu

man

Res

ourc

esAc

tivi

ties

/Pro

ject

s

Exec

utiv

e co

unci

l and

boa

rdof

dire

ctor

s (e

lect

ed a

ndap

poin

ted

posi

tions

).

Seve

n m

embe

rs g

roup

sth

roug

hout

the

pro

vinc

e,ea

ch h

avin

g its

ow

nex

ecut

ive

and

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s w

ith

elec

ted

and

appo

inte

d po

sitio

ns. E

ach

grou

p as

wel

l as

the

WCF

CCA

oper

ates

wit

h a

cons

titut

ion

and

byla

ws.

The

WCF

CCA

has

just

appr

oved

a p

olic

ies

and

proc

edur

e m

anua

l to

guid

eth

e op

erat

ion

of t

heor

gani

zatio

n.

Fam

ily c

hild

car

e pr

ovid

ers,

child

car

e re

sour

ce a

ndre

ferr

al o

ffic

es.

Pres

ently

306

mem

bers

acro

ss t

he p

rovi

nce.

Annu

al m

embe

rshi

p fe

e is

$30

wit

h $1

0 go

ing

tow

ard

mem

bers

hip

in t

he C

CCF

for

affi

liate

mem

bers

hip.

Each

mem

ber

grou

p al

so h

asm

embe

rshi

p fe

es r

angi

ngfr

om $

20 t

o $3

0.

To p

rom

ote,

sup

port

and

advo

cate

for

qual

ity,

incl

usiv

e fa

mily

chi

ld c

are.

Hol

ds a

nnua

l con

fere

nce;

publ

ishe

s fo

ur n

ewsl

ette

rspe

r ye

ar a

s w

ell a

s ad

voca

cym

ater

ials

as

requ

ired

thro

ugho

ut t

he y

ear;

diss

emin

ates

info

rmat

ion

from

the

CCC

F; p

rovi

des

info

rmat

ion

as r

eque

sted

to

gove

rnm

ent,

and

sen

dspa

rtic

ipan

ts t

o m

any

tabl

es(e

.g. R

egul

atio

n Re

view

);bo

ard

mem

bers

par

ticip

ate

intr

aini

ng a

ctiv

ities

of t

heCC

CR (

e.g.

Lea

ders

hip

Inst

itute

s); p

rese

nts

at t

heCh

ild C

are

Advo

cacy

For

um.

Upda

ting

GOOD

BEG

INNI

NGS

faci

litat

or’s

pro

gram

and

curr

icul

um g

uide

;co

llabo

rate

s w

ith

ECEB

C re

:co

nfer

ence

;w

orki

ng w

ith

Wes

tcoa

stRe

sour

ce C

entr

e on

a f

amily

child

car

e tr

aini

ng h

ub;

hold

s an

ann

ual c

eleb

ratio

nto

rec

ogni

ze t

he a

ctiv

ities

of

child

car

e pr

ovid

ers;

ha

s re

pres

enta

tion

at

the

CCCF

; eac

h m

embe

r gr

oup

hold

s tr

aini

ng w

orks

hops

(e.g

. ins

uran

ce, p

rogr

ampl

anni

ng, l

icen

sing

) an

dpa

rtic

ipat

es in

act

iviti

es in

thei

r ow

n co

mm

uniti

es.

Wes

tern

Can

ada

Fam

ily C

hild

Car

eAs

soci

atio

n (W

CFCC

A)ht

tp:/

/ww

w.cf

c-ef

c.ca

/wcf

cca/

The

prof

essi

onal

org

aniz

atio

n fo

r fa

mily

chi

ldca

re p

rovi

ders

in B

ritis

h Co

lum

bia.



APPENDIX 5:E A R L Y C H I L D H O O D E D U C A T O R S T U D E N T Q U E S T I O N N A I R ET

his

ques

tionn

aire

is

part

of

a La

bour

Mar

ket

Upd

ate

proj

ect

bein

g un

dert

aken

for

the

Chi

ld C

are

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Rou

nd T

able

(C

CH

RR

T)

and

is b

eing

fun

ded

by H

uman

Res

ourc

es D

evel

opm

ent

Can

ada

Sect

oral

Par

tner

ship

s.T

he C

CH

RR

Tis

a 1

5-m

embe

r,fo

rmal

ized

mec

hani

smth

roug

h w

hich

chi

ld c

are

orga

niza

tions

,lab

our

orga

niza

tions

and

con

stitu

ents

of

the

child

car

e w

orkf

orce

add

ress

hum

an r

esou

rces

iss

ues

thro

ugh

sect

oral

per

spec

tives

and

ana

lyse

s.T

he C

CH

RR

Tal

so e

stab

lishe

s re

fere

nce

or w

orki

ng g

roup

s to

dra

w o

n ex

pert

ise f

rom

wom

en’s,

teac

hing

,ac

adem

ic,a

dvoc

acy,

hum

an r

esou

rces

or

othe

r or

gani

zatio

ns a

s ap

prop

riat

e.

Your

par

ticip

atio

n in

thi

s su

rvey

is

extr

emel

y va

luab

le.W

e ar

e co

nduc

ting

a su

rvey

of

ECE

stu

dent

s in

sel

ecte

d co

llege

s ac

ross

the

cou

ntry

toga

ther

inf

orm

atio

n on

who

is

invo

lved

in

ECE

tra

inin

g,w

hat

attr

acte

d th

em to

the

fie

ld,a

nd w

hat

thei

r fu

ture

pla

ns a

re.T

he i

nfor

mat

ion

you

prov

ide

will

ass

ist

the

CC

HR

RT

to u

nder

stan

d th

e hu

man

res

ourc

es i

ssue

s in

the

ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

catio

n an

d ca

re s

ecto

r,pa

rtic

ular

ly i

ssue

sre

late

d to

rec

ruitm

ent

and

rete

ntio

n.

Your

par

ticip

atio

n in

thi

s su

rvey

is

entir

ely

volu

ntar

y.W

e as

k yo

u at

the

end

of

the

surv

ey to

con

sider

pro

vidi

ng y

our

nam

e,ad

dres

s an

d e-

mai

lad

dres

s so

tha

t yo

u ca

n be

con

tact

ed i

n on

e ye

ar to

tak

e pa

rt i

n a

follo

w-u

p st

udy

of c

aree

r pa

ttern

s.T

his

is a

lso e

ntir

ely

volu

ntar

y.

It s

houl

d ta

ke y

ou a

bout

15

min

utes

to c

ompl

ete

the

surv

ey.T

he i

ndiv

idua

l que

stio

nnai

res

will

be

mad

e av

aila

ble

only

to t

he p

roje

ct r

esea

rche

rsan

d yo

ur r

espo

nses

rem

ain

conf

iden

tial.

Col

lege

fac

ulty

will

not

be

mad

e aw

are

of a

ny o

f yo

ur r

espo

nses

.All

of t

he r

espo

nses

will

onl

y be

repo

rted

as

grou

p da

ta.



A P P E N D I X 5 - E A R L Y C H I L D H O O D E D U C A T O R S T U D E N T Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

Early

Chi

ldho

od E

duca

tor S

tude

nt Q

uest

ionn

aire

Inst

ruct

ions:

In t

his

ques

tionn

aire

,ple

ase

mar

k al

l app

ropr

iate

circ

les

by f

illin

g th

em i

n,or

by

mar

king

with

a

�or

a�

.Whe

re t

here

are

line

s,w

rite

in

the

info

rmat

ion

as a

ppro

pria

te.

VYou

r Pro

gram

1.W

hat

is t

he n

ame

of y

our

colle

ge?

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

2.A

re y

ou t

akin

g th

is E

CE

pro

gram

thr

ough

:

�di

stan

ce e

duca

tion?

�co

ntin

uing

edu

catio

n?�

m a

reg

ular

day

time

prog

ram

?

3.A

re y

ou e

nrol

led

in a

:

�on

e-ye

ar c

ertif

icat

e pr

ogra

m?

�tw

o-ye

ar d

iplo

ma

prog

ram

?�

thre

e-ye

ar C

GE

P pr

ogra

m?

�O

ther

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

4.A

re y

ou t

akin

g yo

ur p

rogr

am:

�fu

ll tim

e?�

part

tim

e?�

Oth

er (

plea

se s

peci

fy )

(__

____

____

____

__)

Prio

r Edu

cati

on

5.W

hat

is t

he H

IGH

EST

leve

l of

educ

atio

n yo

u ac

hiev

ed b

efor

e en

rolli

ng i

n th

is E

CE

pro

gram

?

�So

me

high

sch

ool

�H

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma/

GE

D�

Som

e co

mm

unit

y co

llege

cou

rses

�C

omm

unit

y co

llege

cer

tific

ate(

prog

ram

: __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__)

�C

omm

unit

y co

llege

dip

lom

a (p

rogr

am:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

)�

Som

e un

iver

sity

cour

ses

�U

nive

rsit

y de

gree

(p

rogr

am:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

)

6.B

efor

e en

rolli

ng i

n th

is E

CE

pro

gram

,hav

e yo

u ta

ken

othe

r EC

E o

r re

late

d co

urse

s?(c

heck

all

that

app

ly)

�N

o EC

E o

r re

late

d co

urse

s �

Skip

to 1

0�

ECE

col

lege

cre

dit

cour

ses

�N

on-c

redi

t EC

E c

ours

es (

wor

ksho

ps,s

emin

ars)

�U

nive

rsit

y co

urse

s in

edu

catio

n�

Uni

vers

ity

cour

ses

in h

uman

ser

vice

s (e

.g.c

hild

and

you

th c

are)

�Fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

trai

ning

�O

ther

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)(_

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___)



M A I N R E P O R T

159

Prio

r Pai

d Ex

perie

nce

wit

h Ch

ildre

nan

d Cu

rren

t W

ork

11.

Bef

ore

enro

lling

in

your

cur

rent

EC

E p

rogr

am,d

id y

ou h

ave

any

paid

exp

erie

nce

wor

king

with

chi

ldre

n?(c

heck

all

that

app

ly)

�N

o pa

id e

xper

ienc

e w

orki

ng w

ith c

hild

ren

�In

a c

hild

car

e ce

ntre

�In

an

afte

r-sc

hool

pro

gram

�In

a n

urse

ry s

choo

l/pr

esch

ool p

rogr

am�

Car

ing

for

child

ren

in m

y ho

me

as a

n un

regu

late

d fa

mily

child

car

e pr

ovid

er�

Car

ing

for

child

ren

in m

y ho

me

as a

reg

ulat

ed f

amily

child

car

e pr

ovid

er�

In a

fam

ily r

esou

rce

prog

ram

�A

s a

nann

y�

In a

rec

reat

ion

prog

ram

/cam

p co

unse

llor

�In

an

early

int

erve

ntio

n pr

ogra

m (

e.g.

prog

ram

s fo

rch

ildre

n w

ith s

peci

al n

eeds

or

child

ren

at r

isk)

�O

ther

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

12.A

re y

ou c

urre

ntly

wor

king

whi

le a

ttend

ing

scho

ol?

�N

o

�Ye

s13

.In

whi

ch o

f th

e fo

llow

ing

type

s of

wor

k

�A

n ea

rly c

hild

hood

edu

catio

n-re

late

d fie

ld�

Wor

k no

t re

late

d to

ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

catio

n

Tran

sfer

of E

CE C

redi

ts

7.D

id y

ou t

ake

thos

e EC

E o

r re

late

d co

urse

s ou

tsid

e of

you

rcu

rren

t pr

ovin

ce?

�N

o�

Skip

to 1

0

�Ye

s8.

Whe

re?

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

9.D

id y

our

curr

ent

ECE

pro

gram

giv

e yo

ucr

edit

for

thos

e ea

rlier

cou

rses

?

�N

one

�

Som

e �

All

Prio

r Vol

unte

er E

xper

ienc

e w

ith

Child

ren

10.

Bef

ore

enro

lling

in

your

cur

rent

EC

E p

rogr

am,d

id y

ou h

ave

any

unpa

id o

r vo

lunt

eer

expe

rien

ce w

orki

ng w

ith c

hild

ren?

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

�N

o un

paid

or

volu

ntee

r ex

peri

ence

wor

king

with

chi

ldre

n�

In a

chi

ld c

are

cent

re�

In a

n af

ter-

scho

ol p

rogr

am�

In a

nur

sery

sch

ool/

pres

choo

l pro

gram

�In

a f

amily

res

ourc

e pr

ogra

m�

With

a f

amily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

�In

a r

ecre

atio

n pr

ogra

m/c

amp

coun

sello

r�

In a

n ea

rly i

nter

vent

ion

prog

ram

(e.

g.pr

ogra

ms

for

child

ren

with

spe

cial

nee

ds o

r ch

ildre

n at

risk

)�

In le

ader

ship

wor

k w

ith c

hild

ren

(e.g

.coa

chin

g,B

row

nies

,Cub

s)�

Car

ing

for

siblin

gs�

Car

ing

for

own

child

ren

�O

ther

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_




The

Deci

sion

to E

nrol

in a

n EC

E Pr

ogra

m

14.

How

did

you

lear

n ab

out

this

EC

E p

rogr

am?

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

�M

y hi

gh s

choo

l gui

danc

e co

unse

llor

�R

elat

ives

,fri

ends

,or

peop

le I

’ve

met

�Fr

om a

noth

er s

tude

nt i

n an

EC

E p

rogr

am�

From

a p

rint

adv

ertis

emen

t (n

ewsp

aper

,bro

chur

e)�

From

a r

adio

or

tele

visio

n ad

vert

isem

ent

�Fr

om t

he c

olle

ge w

ebsit

e�

At

my

wor

kpla

ce�

Oth

er (

plea

se s

peci

fy)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

15.

Why

did

you

dec

ide

to e

nrol

in

an E

CE

pro

gram

?(c

heck

all

that

app

ly)

�I

have

alw

ays

been

int

eres

ted

in w

orki

ng w

ith c

hild

ren.

�R

ecom

men

datio

n fr

om m

y hi

gh s

choo

l gui

danc

e co

unse

llor.

�R

ecom

men

datio

n fr

om o

ther

peo

ple.

�I

was

alre

ady

wor

king

in

child

car

e an

d w

ante

d fu

rthe

r ed

ucat

ion.

�I

was

wor

king

in

othe

r ch

ild-r

elat

ed w

ork

and

wan

ted

furt

her

educ

atio

n.�

I th

ough

t it

wou

ld i

mpr

ove

my

empl

oym

ent

choi

ces.

�I

thou

ght

it w

ould

be

a go

od f

irst

ste

p to

war

d a

teac

hing

deg

ree.

�M

y em

ploy

er r

equi

red

it.�

As

prep

arat

ion

for

bein

g a

pare

nt.

�I

was

not

acc

epte

d in

my

firs

t ch

oice

of

prog

ram

.�

Not

sur

e.

16.

From

the

item

s yo

u ch

ecke

d ab

ove,

whi

ch w

as t

he m

ost

impo

rtan

tin

mak

ing

your

dec

ision

to e

nrol

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

The

Deci

sion

to E

nrol

in a

n EC

E Pr

ogra

m (

cont

.)

17.W

as E

CE

you

r fi

rst

choi

ce o

f pr

ogra

m?

�N

o �

18.W

hat

was

you

r fi

rst

choi

ce o

f pr

ogra

m?

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

�Ye

s19

.Why

did

you

not

enr

ol i

n yo

ur f

irst

cho

ice?

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

�I

did

not

mee

t th

e el

igib

ility

req

uire

men

ts�

I w

as n

ot a

ccep

ted

into

the

pro

gram

,or

was

wai

t-lis

ted.

�T

he p

rogr

am w

as to

o ex

pens

ive.

�T

he c

ours

e of

stu

dy w

as to

o lo

ng.

�M

y fir

st ch

oice

was

not

ava

ilabl

e.�

Oth

er (

plea

se s

peci

fy)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

20.D

id y

ou a

pply

to a

ny o

ther

pro

gram

s

�N

o �

Yes

�21

.Whi

ch p

rogr

am (

s)?

univ

ersit

y:__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

colle

ge:_

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

�



M A I N R E P O R T

161

Sati

sfac

tion

wit

h Yo

ur C

urre

nt E

CE P

rogr

am

21.F

or e

ach

of t

he fo

llow

ing

aspe

cts

of y

our

ECE

pro

gram

,ple

ase

choo

se t

he a

ppro

pria

te r

atin

g

Poor

Fair

Goo

dE

xcel

lent

A.

The

rel

evan

ce o

f th

e co

urse

con

tent

��

��

B.T

he a

mou

nt o

f w

ork

requ

ired

��

��

C.

The

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

wor

k on

new

ski

lls�

��

�

D.

The

opp

ortu

nitie

s to

get

hel

p be

twee

n cl

asse

s�

��

�

E.T

he f

airn

ess

of t

he e

valu

atio

ns�

��

�

F.Pr

actic

um p

lace

men

ts�

��

�

G.

The

ove

rall

wor

th o

f th

e pr

ogra

m�

��

�

22.H

ow w

ell d

o yo

u fe

el y

our

ECE

tra

inin

g ha

s pr

epar

ed y

ou fo

r w

ork

with

the

follo

win

g gr

oups

?

Poor

lyN

ot S

oQ

uiet

Don

’tW

ell

Wel

lK

now

A.

With

typ

ical

chi

ldre

n�

��

�

B.W

ith c

hild

ren

with

spe

cial

nee

ds�

��

�

C.

With

Par

ents

��

��

D.

With

oth

er a

dults

in

your

wor

k en

viro

nmen

t�

��

�

E.In

par

tner

ship

with

oth

er s

ocia

l ser

vice

and

educ

atio

nal p

rofe

ssio

nals

��

��

Les

stag

es p

ratiq

ues

��

��

23.E

xiste

-t-i

l des

asp

ects

sur

lesq

uels

vous

aur

iez

aim

é re

cevo

ir p

lus

de fo

rmat

ion

afin

de

vous

sent

ir p

lus

outil

lée

à tr

avai

ller

en s

ervi

ces

éduc

atifs

et

de g

arde

à l’

enfa

nce?

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Prac

ticu

m P

lace

men

ts

24.W

here

hav

e yo

u do

ne p

ract

icum

pla

cem

ents

durin

g th

is EC

E p

rogr

am?

(che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

)

�I

have

don

e no

pra

ctic

ums.

�A

child

car

e ce

ntre

�A

fam

ily c

hild

car

e ho

me

�A

fam

ily r

esou

rce

prog

ram

�A

clas

sroo

m i

n a

scho

ol�

An

early

int

erve

ntio

n pr

ogra

m�

Oth

er E

CE

-rel

ated

pro

gram

or

orga

niza

tion

(ple

ase

spec

ify)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

�O

ther

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Find

ing

Wor

k in

ECE

25.H

ow e

asy

or d

iffic

ult

do y

ou t

hink

it w

illbe

for

you

to f

ind

a jo

b in

the

EC

E o

rEC

E-r

elat

ed f

ield

afte

r gr

adua

ting

�Ve

ry d

iffic

ult

�So

mew

hat

diff

icul

t�

Som

ewha

t ea

sy�

Very

eas

y�

Doe

sn’t

appl

y to

me.




Plan

s fo

r Fur

ther

Edu

cati

on a

nd W

ork

Afte

r Gra

duat

ing

26.W

hat

are

your

pla

ns fo

r fu

rthe

r po

st-s

econ

dary

stu

dies

afte

rth

is p

rogr

am i

s fi

nish

ed?

(cho

ose

one

of t

he fo

llow

ing)

�I

do n

ot p

lan

to c

ontin

ue m

y st

udie

s at

thi

s tim

e�

Enr

ol i

n an

othe

r pr

ogra

m i

n EC

E�

Enr

ol i

n a

prog

ram

in

educ

atio

n�

Enr

ol i

n a

prog

ram

in

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

27.W

hat

are

your

pre

ferr

ed p

lans

for

wor

k af

ter

this

pro

gram

is

fini

shed

?(c

hoos

e on

e of

the

follo

win

g)

�I

do n

ot p

lan

to w

ork

�W

ork

in a

chi

ld c

are

cent

re�

Prov

ide

fam

ily c

hild

car

e as

an

unre

gula

ted

care

give

r�

Prov

ide

fam

ily c

hild

car

e as

a r

egul

ated

car

egiv

er�

Wor

k in

a f

amily

chi

ld c

are

agen

cy/r

esou

rce

and

refe

rral

pro

gram

�W

ork

as a

cla

ssro

om a

ssis

tant

in

the

scho

ol s

yste

m�

Wor

k in

a f

amily

res

ourc

e pr

ogra

m�

Wor

k sp

ecif

ical

ly w

ith c

hild

ren

with

spe

cial

nee

ds�

Wor

k in

a r

elat

ed E

CE

pro

gram

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__�

Oth

er (

plea

se s

peci

fy)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

If y

ou a

re N

OT p

lann

ing

on w

orki

ng w

ith

child

ren,

plea

se s

kip

to q

uest

ion

30.

28.I

f yo

u ha

d yo

ur c

hoic

e,w

hat

age

grou

p w

ould

you

pre

fer

to w

ork

with

?(c

hoos

e on

e on

ly)

�In

fant

s�

Todd

lers

�Pr

esch

ool a

ge c

hild

ren

�Sc

hool

-age

chi

ldre

n�

Mix

ed a

ge g

roup

ings

�Sp

ecif

ical

ly w

ith c

hild

ren

with

spe

cial

nee

ds�

I ha

ve n

o pr

efer

ence

29.H

ow m

uch

do y

ou e

xpec

t to

ear

n w

hen

you

grad

uate

?

�Le

ss t

han

$8.0

0/ho

ur�

$8.0

0 to

$9.9

9/ho

ur�

$10.

00 to

$11

.99/

hour

�$1

2.00

to $

13.9

9/ho

ur�

$14.0

0 to

$15

.99/

hour

�$1

6.00

/hou

r or

ove

r�

Not

pla

nnin

g on

wor

king

with

chi

ldre

n ri

ght

away

�N

ot s

ure

Peer

ing

into

the

Futu

re

30.W

hat

do y

ou h

ope

to b

e do

ing

five

year

s fr

om n

ow?

(cho

ose

one

of t

he fo

llow

ing)

�W

orki

ng d

irec

tly w

ith c

hild

ren

in a

chi

ld c

are

cent

re�

Teac

hing

in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

�W

orki

ng a

s a

supe

rviso

r in

a c

hild

car

e ce

ntre

�W

orki

ng i

n a

field

unr

elat

ed to

ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

catio

n�

Wor

king

in

a nu

rser

y sc

hool

/pre

scho

ol c

entr

e�

Stay

ing

at h

ome

with

my

child

ren

�W

orki

ng a

s an

unr

egul

ated

fam

ily c

hild

car

e pr

ovid

er�

Stud

ying

at

a po

st-s

econ

dary

ins

titut

ion

�W

orki

ng a

s a

regu

late

d fa

mily

chi

ld c

are

prov

ider

�O

ther

(pl

ease

spe

cify

)�

Wor

king

in

a fa

mily

res

ourc

e pr

ogra

m/r

esou

rce

and

refe

rral

age

ncy

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

�W

orki

ng a

s a

clas

sroo

m a

ssis

tant

in

the

scho

ol s

yste

m



M A I N R E P O R T

163

Som

e Fi

nal Q

uest

ions

Abo

ut Y

ou

31.A

re y

ou:

�Fe

mal

e�

Mal

e

32.W

hat

age

cate

gory

do

you

fit i

n?

�U

nder

20

�20

to 2

4�

25 to

29

�30

to 3

4�

35 to

39

�40

or

over

33.W

hen

you

wer

e gr

owin

g up

,wha

t la

ngua

ge w

as m

ost

com

mon

ly s

poke

n in

you

r ho

me

�E

nglis

h�

Fren

ch�

Oth

er (

plea

se s

peci

fy)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

34.W

ere

you

born

in

Can

ada?

�N

o�35

.In

whi

ch c

ount

ry w

ere

you

born

?�

Yes

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

36.W

hat

year

did

you

com

e to

Can

ada

to li

ve?

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

37.W

hat

is t

he m

ain

way

you

hav

e fi

nanc

ed y

our

educ

atio

n?(c

hoos

e on

e of

the

follo

win

g)

�M

y pa

rent

s�

My

pare

nts

and

I to

geth

er�

My

spou

se�

I ha

ve u

sed

my

savi

ngs

and

wag

es�

Stud

ent

loan

s�

My

empl

oyer

�M

y em

ploy

er a

nd I

toge

ther

�G

rant

s an

d bu

rsar

ies

�G

over

nmen

t sp

onso

rshi

p�

Oth

er (

plea

se s

peci

fy)

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Do

you

have

any

oth

er c

omm

ents

you

wish

to a

dd?

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

THAN

K YO

U VE

RY M

UCH

FOR

COM

PLET

ING

THE

QUES

TION

NAIR

EPl

ease

put

the

com

plet

ed q

uest

ionn

aire

in

the

encl

osed

sel

f-ad

dres

sed

stam

ped

enve

lope

and

mai

l.


THAN

K YO

U

Nam

e:__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Add

ress

:__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Em

ail:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

The

Lab

our

Mar

ket

Upd

ate

will

hel

p ou

r se

ctor

dev

elop

a b

ette

r un

ders

tand

ing

of k

ey c

halle

nges

like

rec

ruitm

ent,

rete

ntio

n an

d re

cogn

ition

,and

way

s to

add

ress

thes

e pr

oble

ms.

It w

ill a

lso h

elp

deve

lop

a lo

ng-t

erm

labo

ur m

arke

t st

rate

gy fo

r th

e ea

rly c

hild

hood

sec

tor.

Ear

ly c

hild

hood

edu

catio

n gr

adua

tes

are

criti

cal t

oth

efu

ture

of

child

car

e an

d ot

her

early

chi

ld d

evel

opm

ent

prog

ram

s.It

wou

ld h

elp

the

Rou

nd T

able

to b

e ab

le to

fin

d ou

t w

hat

kind

s of

jobs

you

hav

e af

ter

you

grad

uate

,and

any

ins

ight

s yo

u m

ay h

ave

on y

our

empl

oym

ent.

If y

ou w

ould

be

will

ing

to h

ave

the

Rou

nd T

able

con

tact

you

for

a br

ief

follo

w-u

p su

rvey

in

abou

ton

e ye

ar to

hel

p tr

ack

the

care

er p

atte

rns

of E

CE

gra

duat

es,p

leas

e co

mpl

ete

the

info

rmat

ion

requ

este

d be

low

.Par

ticip

atio

n is

com

plet

ely

volu

ntar

y.Yo

urna

me

and

addr

ess

will

be

kept

con

fiden

tial t

o th

e R

ound

Tab

le r

esea

rche

rs a

nd w

ill b

e us

ed o

nly

to c

onta

ct y

ou fo

r a

follo

w-u

p su

rvey

in

2004

.



APPENDIX 6:POLICY LESSONS FROM OECD STARTING STRONG: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE

Policy lesson 1. A systematic and integrated approach topolicy development and implementation. The ThematicReview emphasized the importance of a clear vision ofchildren as a social group to underpin ECEC policy. Asystematic and integrated approach requires a coordinatedpolicy framework and a lead ministry that works incooperation with other departments and sectors.

Policy lesson 2. A strong and equal partnership with theeducation system suggests that the nation support alifelong learning approach from birth to encourage smoothtransitions for children and recognize ECEC as afoundation of the education process.

Policy lesson 3. A universal approach to access, withparticular attention to children in need of specialsupport is linked to equitable access so all children canhave the equal and fair opportunities provided by highquality ECEC regardless of family income, parentalemployment status, special educational needs orethnic/language background.

Policy lesson 4. Substantial public investment in servicesand the infrastructure. The Thematic Review found thatwhile a combination of sources may fund ECEC,substantial government investment is required to support asustainable system of quality, accessible services.

Policy lesson 5. A participatory approach to qualityimprovement and assurance begins with the premise thatall forms of ECEC should be regulated and monitored.Defining, ensuring and monitoring quality should be aparticipatory and democratic process. Pedagogicalframeworks focusing on children’s holistic developmentand strategies for ongoing quality improvement are keyparts of this element.

Policy lesson 6. Appropriate training and workingconditions for staff in all forms of provision is afoundation for quality ECEC services, which depend onstrong staffing and fair working conditions. Strategies forrecruiting and retaining a qualified, diverse, mixed-genderworkforce and for ensuring that a career in ECEC issatisfying, respected and financially viable are essential.

Policy lesson 7. Systematic attention to monitoring anddata collection with coherent procedures for collectingand analyzing data on the status of young children, ECECprovision, and the early childhood workforce are required.

Policy lesson 8. A stable framework and long-termagenda for research and evaluation requires sustainedinvestment to support research on key policy goals and is anecessary part of a process of continuous improvement.

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Summary Report, Thematic Review of

Early Childhood Education and Care.




REFERENCES:

Aboriginal Head Start (2000). Aboriginal Head Start Initiative:Children Making a Community Whole – A Review of AboriginalHead Start in Urban and Northern Communities (Final Report).Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, Division of Childhood andAdolescence. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/cmacw_e.html

Aboriginal Head Start (2002). Aboriginal Head Start in Urban andNorthern Communities: Program and Participants 2001. Ottawa,ON: Health Canada, Division of Childhood and Adolescence.Retrieved December, 2003, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/ahs_program2001_e.html

Alberta’s Commission on Learning (2003). Every child learns. Everychild succeeds (Report and Recommendations). Edmonton: AlbertaMinistry of Learning. February, 2004.

Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers: Does trainingmatter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 10:541-552.

Barnett, W.S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Studentachievement linked to teacher qualifications. Preschool PolicyMatters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, NationalInstitute for Early Education Research.

Battle, K., & Torjman, S. (2002). Architecture for national childcare. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Report on theAboriginal Leadership Forum on Early Childhood Development,March 10-11, 2003. Vancouver: Author.

Beach, J. (1999). Community colleges and the delivery ofprofessional development to the early childhood care and educationsector. Research Connections Canada: Supporting Children andFamilies, 3, 169-202.

Beach, J., & Bertrand, J. (1999). Mobility of early childhood careand education credits and credentials in Canada. ResearchConnections Canada: Supporting Children and Families, 2, 101-140.

Beach, J. & Bertrand, J. (2000). More than the sum of the parts: Anearly childhood development system for Canada. Toronto, ON:University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies,Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Bertrand, J. (2001). Working with young children. In G. Cleveland& M. Krashinsky (Eds.), Our Children’s Future: Child Care Policyin Canada (pp. 372-389). Toronto, ON: University of TorontoPress.

Bertrand, J. (2003a). Report on prior learning assessment andrecognition in the early childhood sector. Research ConnectionsCanada: Supporting Children and Families, 10, 149-182.

Bertrand, J. (2003b). Starting small . . . thinking big: The early yearsof Toronto First Duty. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education, Atkinson Centre for Societyand Child Development.

Boisvert, D. (2001). Literature review of training and family daycare. Research Connections Canada: Supporting Children andFamilies, 6, 63-80.

Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we canexpect from early intervention programs. Social Policy Report,17(1), 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14.

D., Burton, A., Whitebook, M., Broatch, L. & Young, M. P. (2002).Inside the pre-K classroom: A study of staffing and stability in state-funded prekindergarten programs. Washington, DC: Center for theChild Care Workforce

Campbell, M. & Lagos, M. (2004). Integrated and qualified:Workforce development for effective delivery of services to vulnerablechildren and young people, and those who care for them. Leeds:TOPSS England (Training Organisation for the Personal SocialSciences).

Campaign 2000 (2003). Diversity or disparity? Early childhoodeducation and care in Canada (Community Indicators Project, 2ndReport, November 2003). Toronto, ON: Family ServiceAssociation of Toronto.

Canadian Child Care Federation & Association of CanadianCommunity Colleges (2003). Training for the delivery of qualityearly childhood development learning and care services in Canada:Accessibility, portability and career advancement. National symposiumpresented in Ottawa, November 6-8, 2003.

Canadian Policy Research Networks (2003). Child Care PolicyConference (Final Report). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (2003). Seeing andsolving the child care crisis: Options for progress. Ottawa, ON:Author.

Child Care Human Resources Round Table (2001). In just30 years . . . The labour movement and the development of child careservices in Québec. Ottawa, ON: Child Care Advocacy Association ofCanada.

Childcare Resource and Research Unit (2002). Early childhoodeducation and care in Canada 2001. Toronto, ON: University ofToronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, ChildcareResource and Research Unit.



R E F E R E N C E S

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2002). National LINC(Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada) childmindingrequirements. Ottawa, ON: Author.

City of Toronto (2004). Toronto Report Card on Children (Vol. 5,Update 2003). Toronto, ON: City of Toronto, Children’s ServicesDivision, Children and Youth Advocate.

Clark-Stewart, A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M. &McCartney, K. (2002). Do regulatable features of child-care homesaffect children’s development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,17 52-86.

Cleveland, G. & Hyatt, D. (2002). Child care workers’ wages:New evidence on returns to education, experience, job tenureand auspice. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 575-597.

Cleveland, G. & Krashinsky, M. (1998). The benefits and costs ofgood child care: The economic rationale for public investment in youngchildren. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, Centre for Urbanand Community Studies, Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Cleveland, G. & Krashinsky, M. (Eds.). (2001). Our children’s future:Child care policy in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia & theBritish Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union(2004). Child care and labour. Working together for publicly fundedchild care strategy session. Vancouver, BC: Author.

Copeland, R., Wichmann, C., Lagace-Seguin, D., Rachlis, L. &McVey, M. (1999). The ‘degree’ of instructor education and childoutcomes in junior kindergarten: A comparison of certificatedteachers and early childhood educators. Journal of Researchin Childhood Education, 14, 78-90.

Department of Community Services (2001). Our children . . .Today’s investment, tomorrow’s promise: Building an early childhooddevelopment system for Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia ECD 2001-02workplan). Halifax: Province of Nova Scotia.

Doherty, G. (1998). Zero to six: The basis for school readiness(R-97-8E). Ottawa, ON: Human Resources Development Canada.

Doherty, G. (2000a). Accreditation as a strategy for promotingquality in child care settings. Research Connections Canada:Supporting Children and Families, 4, 15-24.

Doherty, G. (2000b). Credentialing as a strategy for promotingquality in child care settings. Research Connections Canada:Supporting Children and Families, 4, 5-14.

Doherty, G. (2000c). Issues in Canadian child care: What does theresearch tell us? Research Connections Canada: Supporting Childrenand Families, 5, 5-107.

Doherty, G. (2000d) Mentoring as a Strategy for promotingquality in child care settings. Research Connections Canada:Supporting Children and Families, 4, 25-34.

Doherty, G. (2001a). Regulations as a strategy for promotingquality in child care settings. Research Connections Canada:Supporting Children and Families, 6, 37-62.

Doherty, G. (2001b). Targeting early childhood care and education:Myths and realities (Occasional Paper No. 15). Toronto, ON:University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies, Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Doherty, G. (2002). Workplace and workforce causes in therecruitment and retention of qualified child care staff. In E. E.Ferguson (Ed.), Reflecting on attracting and keeping qualified staffin child care (p. 1). Halifax, NS: Child Care Connection-NS.

Doherty, G. (2003a). Enhancing the capacity of the field to providequality early development learning and care services. ResearchConnections Canada: Supporting Children and Families, 10, 5-12.

Doherty, G. (2003b). Occupational standards for child carepractitioners. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Child Care Federation.

Doherty, G. & Forer, B. (2002). Unionization and quality in earlychildhood programs. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Union of PublicEmployees.

Doherty, G., Friendly, M. & Forer, B. (2002). Child care by defaultor design? An exploration of differences between non-profit and for-profit Canadian child care centres using the You Bet I Care! data sets(Occasional Paper No. 18). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto,Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Childcare Resourceand Research Unit.

Doherty, G., Lero, D. S., Goelman, H., LaGrange, A. & Tougas, J.(2000). You Bet I Care! A Canada-wide study on wages, workingconditions, and practices in child care centres. Guelph, ON:University of Guelph, Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being.

Doherty, G., Lero, D., Goelman, H., Tougas, J. & LaGrange, A.(2000). You Bet I Care! Caring and learning environments: Qualityin regulated family child care across Canada. Guelph, ON:University of Guelph, Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being.

Doherty, G., Lero, D., Tougas, J., LaGrange, A. & Goelman, H.(2001). You Bet I Care! Policies and practices in Canadian familychild care agencies. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph, Centre forFamilies, Work and Well-Being.

Espey & Good Company (2003). Perceptions of Quality Child Care(Final Report). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Child Care Federationand Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.



M A I N R E P O R T

Ferguson, E. (2002). Babysitters or professionals? The role of socialattitudes in the recruitment and retention of child care workers.In E. E. Ferguson (Ed.), Reflecting on attracting and keepingqualified staff in child care (p. 3). Halifax, NS: Child CareConnection-NS.

Ferguson, E. E., & Miller, C. (2000). Attracting and keepingqualified early childhood care centre staff. In E. E. Ferguson (Ed.),Reflecting on attracting and keeping qualified staff in child care (p. 6).Halifax, NS: Child Care Connection-NS.

Ferguson, E. E., Flanagan-Rochon, K., Hautmann, L., Lutes, D.,Masson, A. & Mauch, S. (2000). Toward a best practices frameworkfor licensing child care facilities in Canada. Halifax, NS: Child CareConnection–NS.

Forer, B. & Hunter, T. (2001). Provincial Child Care Survey (FinalReport). Victoria, BC: Ministry of Community, Aboriginaland Women’s Services, Child Care Policy Branch.

Friendly, M. (2000). Child care and Canadian federalism in the1990s: Canary in a coal mine. (Occasional Paper No. 11). Toronto,ON: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies, Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Friendly, M. & Lero, D. (2002). Social inclusion through earlychildhood education and care. Toronto, ON: Laidlaw Foundation.

Goelman, H. (2001). Training, quality and the lived experienceof child care. In G. Cleveland & M. Krashinsky (Eds.), Ourchildren’s future: Child care policy in Canada, (pp. 372-389).Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Goelman, H., Doherty, G., Lero, D., LaGrange, A. & Tougas, J.(2000). You Bet I Care! Caring and learning environments:Quality in child care centres across Canada. Guelph, ON:University of Guelph, Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being.

Goss Gilroy, Inc. (1998) Providing home child care for a living:The unregulated sector – A survey of in-child’s home providers.Ottawa, ON: Canadian Child Care Federation.

Gouvernement du Québec, Direction du développement et de laqualité, Ministère de la famille et de l'enfance. (2000). Lesexigences de formation des éducatrices et des éducateurs à l'enfanceselon les règlements sur les centres de la petite enfance et sur lesgarderies. Quebec : Author.

Government of Canada (2000). First Ministers’ meeting communiquéon early child development (News Release, September 11, 2000).Ottawa, ON: Author.

Government of Canada (2002). Early childhood developmentactivities and expenditures: Government of Canada Report 2001-2002. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Government of Canada (2003). Multilateral Framework on earlylearning and child care. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Government of Canada & The Conference Board of Canada(2002). National Summit on Innovation and Learning (Summary).Ottawa, ON: Author.

Griffin, S. (2002). To be or not to be: Professionalism in earlychildhood care and education. In E. E. Ferguson (Ed.), Reflectingon attracting and keeping qualified staff in child care (p. 2). Halifax,NS: Child Care Connection-NS.

Groupe de travail sur les conditions salariales du personnel desservices de garde (1999). Rapport de consultation sommaire.Présenté au Ministère de la Famille et de l'Enfance. Quebec: Author.

Haddad, L. (2002). An integrated approach to early childhoodeducation and care: A preliminary study (Occasional Paper No. 16).Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban andCommunity Studies, Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Harms, T. & Clifford, R.M. (1989). Family Day Care Rating Scale.New York: Teachers College Press.

Harm, T. & Clifford, R. M. (1990). Infant/Toddler EnvironmentRating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harms, T., Clifford, R.M. & Cryer, D. (1998). Early ChildhoodEnvironmental Rating Scale. Revised ed. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Helburn, S.W., Editor (1995). Cost, Quality and Outcomes in ChildCare Centers: Technical Report. Denver, CO: Department ofEconomics, Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy,University of Colorado at Denver.

Hewes, J. & Brown, S. (2002a). National Research Project: Full DayHead Start: Early Intervention in Centre-based Child Care.Edmonton, AB: Grant McEwan College.

Hewes, J. & Brown, S. (2002b). Stories of best practice. Edmonton,AB. Grant McEwan College.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2002). Building a strongerchild care workforce: A review of studies of the effectiveness of publiccompensation initiatives. Washington, DC: Author.

Invest In Kids Foundation (2000). Needs assessment: Training forOntario professionals who work with young children. Toronto, ON:Author.

169



R E F E R E N C E S

Irwin, S. & Lero, D. (2001). In the absence of policy: Movingtoward inclusion of children with special needs in Canada’s childcare centres. In S. Prentice (Ed.), Changing child care: Five decadesof child care advocacy and policy in Canada. (pp. 153-169). Halifax,NS: Fernwood.

Irwin, S., Lero, D. & Brophy, K. (2000). A matter of urgency:Including children with special needs in child care in Canada. CapeBreton, NS: SpeciaLink.

Jacobs, E., Mill, D. & Jennings, M. (2002). Quality assurance andschool age care (Final Report for the National School-Age CareResearch Project, 1997-1999). Montréal, QC: Concordia University.

Jacobs, E., Mill, D., Jennings, M. & Fiorentino, L. (2002). Licensing,monitoring, and enforcement procedures in the Canadian school-agecontext (Final Report for the National School-Age Care ResearchProject, 1999-2002). Montréal, QC: Concordia University.

Johnson, K., Lero, D. & Rooney, J. (2001). Work-life compendium2001: 150 Canadian statistics on work, family and well-being.Ottawa, ON: University of Guelph, Centre For Families, Workand Well-Being.

Johnson, L. & Mathien, J. (1998). Early childhood educationservices for kindergarten age children in four Canadian provinces:Scope, nature and future models. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute ofSocial Policy.

Jomphe, A. & Lessard, C. (1998a). Rapport d’évaluation duprogramme “ducatrice-éducateur en services à l’enfance autochtones.”Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation.

Jomphe, A. & Lessard, C. (1998b). Responsable de la gestion deservices à l’enfance et à la famille autochtones. Québec: Ministèrede l’Éducation.

Kass, J. & Costigliola, B. (2003). The union advantage in child care:How unionization can help recruitment and retention. Halifax, NS:Child Care Connection-NS.

Krentz, C., McNaughton, K. & Warkentin, B. (2002). Summaryand Recommendations of the First Two Years of a Six-YearLongitudinal Study Examining the Effectiveness of thePrekindergarten Program in the Regina Public School Division #4(Interim Report). Regina, SK: Regina Public School Division #4.

Kuhn, M. (1999). Professionalism and quality. Research ConnectionsCanada: Supporting Children and Families, 2, 65-90.

Kyle, I. (1999). Towards a framework for integrating early childhooddevelopment and family support programs in Toronto. Toronto, ON:City of Toronto.

Kyle, I. (2001). Ontario home child care: Provider’s reports oftraining and educational experiences. Research ConnectionsCanada: Supporting Children and Families, 6, 81-110.

Larose, F., Terrisse, B., Bédard, J. & Karsenti, T. (2001). Preschooleducation training: Skills for adapting to a changing society. Paperpresented at the May 2001 Pan-Canadian Education ResearchAgenda Symposium: Teacher and Educator Training, CurrentTrends and Future Directions, Québec City, QC.

Lohans, A. (2002). Working toward a transdisciplinaryundergraduate program in Child Studies, University of Regina:A review of the literature. Prairie Forum: The Journal of theCanadian Plains Research Center, 27, 1-23.

Lyon, M. & Canning, P. (2000). The social policy context of daycare in four Canadian provinces. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Landscapesin early childhood education (pp. 187-203). New York: Peter Lang.

Marshall, K. (2003). Benefiting from extended parental leave.Perspectives on Labour and Income, 4(3), 5-11.

Mayer, D. (2001). Building the Career Corridor: Manitoba’s EarlyChildhood Labour Market Strategy Project Report. Winnipeg:Manitoba Child Care Association.

McCain, M. & Mustard, F. (1999). Reversing the Real Brain Drain:Early Years Study Final Report. Toronto: Government of Ontario,Children’s Secretariat.

McDonnell, L., Piazetski, D. & Raptis-Benner, A. (2003). Bridgingthe distance: A national certification process for early childhoodeducators. Research Connections Canada: Supporting Children andFamilies, 10, 227-289.

McQuaid, S., Chaulk, P. & Smith, N. (2002). For our educators:A study of the early childhood education sector. Charlottetown: EarlyChildhood Development Association of PEI.

Michalski, J. (1999). Values and preferences for the “best policy mix”for Canadian children (CPRN Discussion Paper No. F 05). Ottawa,ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Mill, D., Jacobs, E. & Jennings, M. (2002) A comparison ofinnovative and control group programs in school-age care acrossCanada (Final Report for the National School-Age Care ResearchProject, 1999–2002). Montréal, QC: Concordia University.

Miller, C. (2002). Recruitment and retention of early childhoodeducators and caregivers: The policy factor. In E. E. Ferguson (Ed.),Reflecting on attracting and keeping qualified staff in child care (p. 4).Halifax, NS: Child Care Connection-NS.



M A I N R E P O R T

Miller, C. & Ferguson, E.E. (2003). Attracting and keeping qualifiedstaff in Canadian child care. Halifax, NS: Child Care Connection-NS.

Morrice, M. (1999). Prior learning assessment and recognition:One early childhood education program’s history. ResearchConnections Canada: Supporting Children and Families, 3, 31-48.

Morris, J. (Ed.). (1999). Innovative program delivery methods forearly childhood care and education training in Canada. ResearchConnections Canada: Supporting Children and Families, 3, 5-134.

Morris, J. (2002). Education and training as factors that affectrecruitment and retention of staff in early childhood careprograms. In E. E. Ferguson (Ed.), Reflecting on attracting andkeeping qualified staff in child care (p. 5). Halifax, NS: Child CareConnection-NS.

Morris, J. (2003). Ensuring quality of distance education in thedelivery of programs for early childhood care and education.Research Connections Canada: Supporting Children and Families,10,111-148.

Moss, P. & Cameron, C. (2002). WP6—Care Work and the CareWorkforce: Report on Stage One and State of the Art Review.London: University of London, Institute of Education, ThomasCoram Research Unit.

Mustard, F. & McCain, M. (2002). The early years study: Threeyears later. Toronto, ON: The Founders’ Network of the CanadianInstitute for Advanced Research.

National Children’s Alliance (2003). Recommendations for Canada’sNational Plan of Action for Children. Ottawa, ON: Author.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development(NICHD) (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive andlanguage development (Report of the Early Child Care ResearchNetwork). Child Development, 71, 960-980.

National Research Council (2000). Eager to learn: Educating ourpreschoolers (Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy of theCommission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education).Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

New Brunswick Association for Community Living (2001).Keeping the Door Open: Enhancing and Maintaining the Capacityof Centres to Include Children with Special Needs (Guide/Report).Fredericton: Author.

Ogston, D. (2003). Accrediting Postsecondary Programs. Ottawa, ON:Canadian Child Care Federation & Association of CanadianCommunity Colleges

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2001). Starting Strong: Education and Care. Paris: Author.

Pelletier, J. & Corter, C. (2002). Competing worldviews on earlychildhood care, education, and development in the Canadiancontext. In L. Chan & E. Mellor (Eds.), International developmentin early childhood services (pp. 29-52). New York: Peter Lang.

Penn, H. (1999). How should we care for babies and toddlers? Ananalysis of practice in out-of-home care for children under three(Occasional Paper No. 10). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto,Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Childcare Resourceand Research Unit.

Pérusse, D. (2003). New maternity and parental benefits.Perspectives on Labour and Income, 4(3), 12-15.

Premier’s Council on Healthy Child Development (2003). Annualreport on children 2001-2002. Charlottetown: Government ofPrince Edward Island, Health and Social Services.

Prentice, S. (Ed.). (2001). Changing child care: Five decades of childcare advocacy and policy in Canada. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Prochner, L. & Howe, N. (Eds.). (2000). Early childhood care andeducation in Canada. Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaPress.

Reeves, K. (2002). 2002 status report on Canadian family resourceprograms. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Family ResourcePrograms

Roeher Institute (2003). Inclusivity in child care policy environmentsin Canada: Much work to be done. Toronto, ON: Author.

Rolfe, H., Metcalf, H., Anderson, T. & Meadows, P. (2003).Recruitment and retention of childcare, early years and play workers:Research study. London: National Institute of Economic and SocialResearch.

Rothman, L. & Kass, J. (1999) Still struggling for better child care:Women, the labour movement and child care in Canada. In D.Broad & W. Antony (Eds), Citizens or consumers? Social policyin a market society (pp. 259-277). Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Smart Start Evaluation Team (2003). Smart Start and preschool childcare quality in NC: Change over time and relation to children’sreadiness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, FrankPorter Graham Child Development Institute.

Société québécoise de développement de la main-d’oeuvre (1997).Diagnostic sectoriel de main-d’oeuvre des garderies à but lucratif duQuébec. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.

St. Aubin, C. (2003). Community development for professionaldevelopment. Research Connections Canada: Supporting Childrenand Families, 10, 183-226

171



R E F E R E N C E S

Stuart, B. (2002). Credentialing and accreditation in home child care:A review of the literature. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph,The Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being.

Taguchi, H. L. & Munkammar, I. (2003). Consolidatinggovernmental early childhood education and care services under theMinistry of Education and Science: A Swedish case study (EarlyChildhood and Family Policy Series No. 6). Paris: UNESCO.

Taylor, A., Dunster, L. & Pollard, J. (1999). And this helps me how?Family child care providers discuss training. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 14, 285-312.

Topss UK Partnership (2003). Skills for Care: A Proposal forEstablishing the Sector Skills Council for the Social Care Workforce.Author.

Tougas, J. (2002). Reforming Québec’s early childhood care andeducation: The first five years (Occasional Paper No. 17). Toronto,ON: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies, Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Whitebook, M. (2003). Early education quality: Higher teacherqualifications for better learning environments – A review of theliterature. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, Institute ofIndustrial Relations, Center for the Study of Child CareEmployment. Retrieved February 15, 2004, fromhttp://www.iir.berkeley.edu/cscce/pdf/teacher.pdf

Whitebook, M. & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover:an examination of job and occupational instability among childcare center staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 273-293.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C. & Phillips, D. A. (1998). Worthy Work,Unliveable Wages: The National Child Care Staffing Study,1988-1997. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Whitebook., M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E. & Howes, C. (2001).Then and now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994-2000(Tech. Rep). Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.


Documents

Working for Change: Canada’s Child Care Workforce · CHAPTER 2 : A PROFILE OF THE WORKFORCE 9 2.1 Defining the Workforce 9 2.2 Data Sources 9 2.3 Characteristics of the ECEC Workforce