With Our Best Future in Mind

1. With Our Best Future in Mind A child and family system for Ontario: Prenatal to 12 years Every opportunity for every child 1 Background: During the 2007 election the Liberals promised: Full day preschool for 4 & 5s, an expansion of child care and cost savings for parents Charles Pascal was appointed in Nov. 07. to advise the Premier on the best way of implementing full day learning, including appropriate staffing and funding levels, AND, how to build on the province�s Best Start initiative. � school�s first location, HR & program development. His report, With Our Best Future in Mind, was released June 15, 2009. Background: During the 2007 election the Liberals promised: Full day preschool for 4 & 5s, an expansion of child care and cost savings for parents Charles Pascal was appointed in Nov. 07. to advise the Premier on the best way of implementing full day learning, including appropriate staffing and funding levels, AND, how to build on the province�s Best Start initiative. � school�s first location, HR & program development. His report, With Our Best Future in Mind, was released June 15, 2009.

2. Thought provoking statements �Catching people and organizations doing the right things well� �The report is not a friend of the status quo� �Requires transformational leadership� �Take people to where the future is� 2 Dr Pascal is a master at making statements that provoke thought, here are a few that you may have heard recently. They bear repeating here as we review the recommendations Dr Pascal is a master at making statements that provoke thought, here are a few that you may have heard recently. They bear repeating here as we review the recommendations

3. www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 3 There are real fears about what lies ahead for ELCC. I find what exists far more scary. Regardless of your contribution to ELCC, as a manager, staff or parent this is a hard sector to manoeuvre in. Several provincial departments claim responsibility for children�s programming but in few cases is there a lead ministry or even coordination between ministries. This schism is replicated in the community. Parents confront the consequences. �Most communities could name a long list of childhood programs but overlapping mandates, disjointed service hours and eligibility barriers left many parents unaware of what services were available or what they offered.� (Margaret McCain, 2007). Full day learning provided an opportunity to turn service chaos into a child and family service system. There are real fears about what lies ahead for ELCC. I find what exists far more scary. Regardless of your contribution to ELCC, as a manager, staff or parent this is a hard sector to manoeuvre in. Several provincial departments claim responsibility for children�s programming but in few cases is there a lead ministry or even coordination between ministries. This schism is replicated in the community. Parents confront the consequences. �Most communities could name a long list of childhood programs but overlapping mandates, disjointed service hours and eligibility barriers left many parents unaware of what services were available or what they offered.� (Margaret McCain, 2007). Full day learning provided an opportunity to turn service chaos into a child and family service system.

4. Progress to date Early Years Division established Sept. 2010, 597 schools (35,000 children) all 4,400 schools by 2015 (240,000 children) Full-Day Early Learning � Kindergarten Program released. Training begins. MCYS developing provincial framework as first step in the development of Child and Family Centres. www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 4 Report released June 15, 2009. Report released June 15, 2009.

5. Progress to date Confirmation of the municipal role for planning and governance -- pending RFPs for research and evaluation Responsibility for child care has moved to EYD Unions begin to seriously organize ECEs Some school boards model full 0-12 vision www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 5 Report released June 15, 2009. Note I added �seriously� to last bullet since there has always been some organizing of ECEs. Report released June 15, 2009. Note I added �seriously� to last bullet since there has always been some organizing of ECEs.

6. Full-Day Early Learning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010 passes Schools must provide full day learning for 4/5s, including fee-based extended day Teaching team of registered ECEs and certified teacher to cover the entire day Transition Schools may lease to space child care for holiday and summer programming for 4/5s Schools may lease space to child care for 6-12 year olds Regulations Time limited circumstances for third party delivery www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 6

7. Funding Operating for ELP - $200M in 2010, $300M in 2011, topping at $1.5B by 2015 $51M annualized by 2015 � ($5.7M 2010) for 0-3 yr programs to offset costs of delivering child care Capital over 5 years - $245M toward school additions and renovations. $12M to retrofit non-profit child care 7 7

8. www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 8 The Report�s goal is a comprehensive child and family service system for children 0-12 and their families; centred in community schools and Child and Family Centres, and linked to community and social services. These linked components provide families with seamless options for full- and extended-day and year-round education, care, health, culture, arts, recreation , family engagement and special interventions. Under the plan: Elementary schools serve children 3.8 to 12 years and their families as the full-time neighbourhood centres Child and Family Centres (CFCs) offer programming to families from the prenatal period to children�s enrolment in community schools. CFCS are located in, or linked to. schools to provide smooth transitions for children.The Report�s goal is a comprehensive child and family service system for children 0-12 and their families; centred in community schools and Child and Family Centres, and linked to community and social services. These linked components provide families with seamless options for full- and extended-day and year-round education, care, health, culture, arts, recreation , family engagement and special interventions. Under the plan: Elementary schools serve children 3.8 to 12 years and their families as the full-time neighbourhood centres Child and Family Centres (CFCs) offer programming to families from the prenatal period to children�s enrolment in community schools. CFCS are located in, or linked to. schools to provide smooth transitions for children.

9. 9 9 The Ministry of Education is responsible for legislation, funding and policy development for the child and family system from birth on. An early years division within the MEdu has the lead for the policy, pedagogy/curriculum, funding and accountability for services for children from prenatal to Grade 3. Within this mandate: CMSMs/DSSABs are responsible for leading regional service planning in cooperation with (4) school boards and community agencies; and are the systems managers for full day/full year Child and Family Centres for children prenatal-3.8 years. School boards provide educational programs as well as extended day/year programming for children 3.8 years to 12. Municipalities will continue to operate the subsidy system for families with children 0- 12 years. To support the province�s Poverty Reduction Strategy subsidies are not attached to parents� labour force participation, opening up more opportunities for children with a parent at home or on social assistance. The Ministry of Education is responsible for legislation, funding and policy development for the child and family system from birth on. An early years division within the MEdu has the lead for the policy, pedagogy/curriculum, funding and accountability for services for children from prenatal to Grade 3. Within this mandate: CMSMs/DSSABs are responsible for leading regional service planning in cooperation with (4) school boards and community agencies; and are the systems managers for full day/full year Child and Family Centres for children prenatal-3.8 years. School boards provide educational programs as well as extended day/year programming for children 3.8 years to 12. Municipalities will continue to operate the subsidy system for families with children 0- 12 years. To support the province�s Poverty Reduction Strategy subsidies are not attached to parents� labour force participation, opening up more opportunities for children with a parent at home or on social assistance.

10. 10 10

11. 11

12. Child and Family Centres Defined www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 12

13. Management of Child and Family Centres 13 CMSMs/DSSABS are the systems manager for a network of community Child and Family Centres. Under their planning and management Child and Family Centres would provide the governance structure and merge the staffing and functions of the Ontario Early Years Centres, child care centres, family child care agencies, school board-operated parenting programs, family resource and information programs and community prenatal and home visiting programs. Child and Family Centres could be operated by municipalities, school boards, post secondary institutions or community agencies. All operating funding (approximately $300-million) currently spent on children�s services (0-12 yrs) would remain with or be transferred to municipalities to develop Child and Family Centres. Child and Family Centres provide: Full service delivery agents for children under four and their families (group care, family care, child and family programming, pre-post natal, nutrition, identification and intervention, �parenting information and resources, nutrition) Governance: �Single employer. �Operators may include municipalities, school boards, PS institutions, community agencies Neighbourhood based: �mirroring the catchment for a neighbourhood of schools (Public and separate) to allow for population based assessments. �(the neighbourhood would be designated based on the�way EDI identifies neighbourhood not necessarily the way school boards organize their schools [which could be geographically enormous]. �CFCs to serve as the natural 'feeders' into the �schools in the�neighbourhood�to ease transitions for children and families.) �� �May be a single site or multiple sites. � Locations, hours of operation, service range would be guided by community input, EDI and other accountability measures.� A platform to deliver specialized services.��(public health, speech and language, special needs resourcing) Responsible for linking families to neighbourhood/social/settlement/employment services.� Responsible for community coordination/outreach.� Service levels, quality and outcomes assessed through a common accountability framework. �i.e. measure both inputs and outputs�� CFCs may be staffed by Registered ECEs, speech and language specialists, OTs, parenting and community outreach staff, public health, etc. CMSMs/DSSABs. will manage special needs resourcing, developing plans for children that continue with them into school. CMSMs/DSSABs. systems managers will set fees for non-parental care, as with now there will not be fees charged for most child and family, special needs or intervention programming. Privately-run services or non-profit agencies that do not wish to merge with the Child and Family Centres could continue to operate under current agreements with local authorities. However all expansion of children�s programs would take place under the Child and Family Centre model. �CMSMs/DSSABS are the systems manager for a network of community Child and Family Centres. Under their planning and management Child and Family Centres would provide the governance structure and merge the staffing and functions of the Ontario Early Years Centres, child care centres, family child care agencies, school board-operated parenting programs, family resource and information programs and community prenatal and home visiting programs. Child and Family Centres could be operated by municipalities, school boards, post secondary institutions or community agencies. All operating funding (approximately $300-million) currently spent on children�s services (0-12 yrs) would remain with or be transferred to municipalities to develop Child and Family Centres. Child and Family Centres provide: Full service delivery agents for children under four and their families (group care, family care, child and family programming, pre-post natal, nutrition, identification and intervention, �parenting information and resources, nutrition) Governance: �Single employer. �Operators may include municipalities, school boards, PS institutions, community agencies Neighbourhood based: �mirroring the catchment for a neighbourhood of schools (Public and separate) to allow for population based assessments. �(the neighbourhood would be designated based on the�way EDI identifies neighbourhood not necessarily the way school boards organize their schools [which could be geographically enormous]. �CFCs to serve as the natural 'feeders' into the �schools in the�neighbourhood�to ease transitions for children and families.) �� �May be a single site or multiple sites. � Locations, hours of operation, service range would be guided by community input, EDI and other accountability measures.� A platform to deliver specialized services.��(public health, speech and language, special needs resourcing) Responsible for linking families to neighbourhood/social/settlement/employment services.� Responsible for community coordination/outreach.� Service levels, quality and outcomes assessed through a common accountability framework. �i.e. measure both inputs and outputs�� CFCs may be staffed by Registered ECEs, speech and language specialists, OTs, parenting and community outreach staff, public health, etc. CMSMs/DSSABs. will manage special needs resourcing, developing plans for children that continue with them into school. CMSMs/DSSABs. systems managers will set fees for non-parental care, as with now there will not be fees charged for most child and family, special needs or intervention programming. Privately-run services or non-profit agencies that do not wish to merge with the Child and Family Centres could continue to operate under current agreements with local authorities. However all expansion of children�s programs would take place under the Child and Family Centre model. �

14. Principles of CFCs 14 14

15. 15 15

16. 16 16

17. 17 17

18. Operating Assumptions 18 18

19. Operating assumptions con�t 19 5% of programs close in ON every year � there is a difference between program closure and service integration5% of programs close in ON every year � there is a difference between program closure and service integration

20. Operating assumptions con�t www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 20

21. 21 Neighbourhoods as defined by EDI. Perhaps one CFC per EDI neighbourhood?Neighbourhoods as defined by EDI. Perhaps one CFC per EDI neighbourhood?

22. Changing roles Municipality � systems managers responsible for planning, resourcing, infrastructure Leaders � as system managers, pedagogical leaders, HR development, community outreach, etc. ECEs � team builders, quality monitoring, opportunity to expand and utilize skills 22 Municipal leadership and planning � Toronto�s example Pedagogical leadership What does that mean? Ensuring a quality, effective, nurturing environment that promotes children�s development and learning � where children experience success � providing coaching & modelling to support ECE effectiveness and positive interactions. Ensuring program evaluative processes. Supervisors continued, other roles: HR development � models and coaches Community outreach and development, creating the linkages and required integration between services Program evaluation Ability to focus on specialized skills versus time consuming program management issues ECEs Confirmed understanding of all resources available in a community for parents, enhanced parent interaction role Ask yourself, What principles are important to you as CFCs are developed? What is your role in ensuring the success markers are realized? � Municipal leadership and planning � Toronto�s example Pedagogical leadership What does that mean? Ensuring a quality, effective, nurturing environment that promotes children�s development and learning � where children experience success � providing coaching & modelling to support ECE effectiveness and positive interactions. Ensuring program evaluative processes. Supervisors continued, other roles: HR development � models and coaches Community outreach and development, creating the linkages and required integration between services Program evaluation Ability to focus on specialized skills versus time consuming program management issues ECEs Confirmed understanding of all resources available in a community for parents, enhanced parent interaction role Ask yourself, What principles are important to you as CFCs are developed? What is your role in ensuring the success markers are realized? �

23. Changing roles continued Parents - less stress, more meaningful engagement Community - builds social cohesion Community boards - from direct deliverers to expert advisors 23 Parents: Accessibility and understanding of resources, consistency of resources between communities, minimum service levels, accountable Community: CFC mandated to engage, ensures programming and services match community need based on EDI and other data � linkages are fostered and maintained Community Boards: maintain neighbourhood linkages and priorities through advisory capacity, reduces need for parent volunteers in multiple small organizations being stressed with governance responsibilities Parents: Accessibility and understanding of resources, consistency of resources between communities, minimum service levels, accountable Community: CFC mandated to engage, ensures programming and services match community need based on EDI and other data � linkages are fostered and maintained Community Boards: maintain neighbourhood linkages and priorities through advisory capacity, reduces need for parent volunteers in multiple small organizations being stressed with governance responsibilities

24. Preparing for success Community agreement on principles Map services (OEYC, FRP, parenting, CAP-C, schools, PFLC and parenting programs) Identify partners who are the natural CFCs in your community Develop early leader sites to inform planning 24 Supervisors: pedagogical leadership Your role in ensuring the success markers are realized � Messages: Expectations of quality Never ending need for leaders Think about specialized services and skills Supervisors: pedagogical leadership Your role in ensuring the success markers are realized � Messages: Expectations of quality Never ending need for leaders Think about specialized services and skills

25. Next steps Start acting like CFCs & Community Schools Develop a career path. Where do you want to be in 2015? Speak up! 25

26. Where to find information www.edu.gov.on.ca/earlylearning www.oise.utoronto.ca/atkinson www.toronto.ca/firstduty To download With Our Best Future in Mind: www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/ONT06_018876 ���http://cal2.edu.gov.on.ca/� ��http://bmemos.edu.gov.on.ca/ www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 26

27. When we stop opposing reality, action becomes simple, fluid, kind and fearless. Loving what is Byron Katie 27

28. The Benefits: Lessons from Quebec�s childhood system $1.5 billion supports 361,533 spaces (by 2012) including 160,000 school-age spaces (5-12 yrs) Quebec�s EC system has influenced: Child poverty has steadily declined over 50% since 1997 School test scores have gone from among the lowest to the highest in Canada Maternal workforce participation went from the lowest in Canada to the highest. The fertility rate has surpassed the Canadian average The tax income from working mothers now pays for 40% of the child care program* www.ontario.ca/earlylearning 28 Ontario�s report was influenced by Quebec�s experiences. Quebec�s investment in early childhood learning and care has supported its major initiatives aimed at reducing child poverty, supporting workforce attachment and enhancing school achievement. In the 10 years since the ELCC program (1998) was initiated test scores went up, while child poverty went down*. Quebec�s program is often dismissed as too expensive; a position refuted by economists. A 2005 study* calculated an 8 % increase in the labour force participation of married and common-law mothers with young children due to the child care reforms. An expanded workforce leads to higher family incomes and more tax revenues for government. The authors estimate that, in a single year, the increase in government revenues was sufficient to cover 40% of the cost of the entire child care program. In effect Quebec is only spending 60 cent dollars for its child care. The net costs is no more than the $1-billion Ontario pays for 229,875 spaces CC with less results; an indication that like health care � public spending on a system is more cost-effective. * Quebec�s 2004 Poverty Reduction Strategy has also been a factor. It focuses on income transfers *Baker, M., Gruber, J., Milligan, K. (2005). Universal childcare, maternal labor supply and family wellbeing. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Ontario�s report was influenced by Quebec�s experiences. Quebec�s investment in early childhood learning and care has supported its major initiatives aimed at reducing child poverty, supporting workforce attachment and enhancing school achievement. In the 10 years since the ELCC program (1998) was initiated test scores went up, while child poverty went down*. Quebec�s program is often dismissed as too expensive; a position refuted by economists. A 2005 study* calculated an 8 % increase in the labour force participation of married and common-law mothers with young children due to the child care reforms. An expanded workforce leads to higher family incomes and more tax revenues for government. The authors estimate that, in a single year, the increase in government revenues was sufficient to cover 40% of the cost of the entire child care program. In effect Quebec is only spending 60 cent dollars for its child care. The net costs is no more than the $1-billion Ontario pays for 229,875 spaces CC with less results; an indication that like health care � public spending on a system is more cost-effective. * Quebec�s 2004 Poverty Reduction Strategy has also been a factor. It focuses on income transfers *Baker, M., Gruber, J., Milligan, K. (2005). Universal childcare, maternal labor supply and family wellbeing. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.