Early Childcare Education In Canada

The matter being addressed is the possible implementation of an Early Childhood Education and Care Program in Canada. brought to light the dissatisfaction with our lack of a universal system as well as the reservations concerning a new approach. Michael Krashinsky in "Canada needs an Early Childhood Education and Care Program" argues that it is in Canada's best interest while Beverley Smith in "Equal Benefit to Children: What It Really Means" argues the contrary. Both enable us to analyze the issue with sufficient information defending and arguing each aspect. When faced with such a decision one must consider the facts and how they pertain to his or her morals and values. It is clear that an Early Childhood Education and Care Program benefits the Canadian government at the expense of what is morally correct and thus should not be imposed.

In "Canada needs an Early Childhood Education and Care Program" the author begins by stating that such a program will ultimately strengthen Canada both economically and socially. His first argument is that the number of mothers with children working in the labor force has significantly risen in the last 30 years and is likely to continue doing so. Therefore persuading women to stop working for pay would require significant cash incentives that would be far more expensive than any childcare program put in place. The children of these working mothers require supervision that is of a better quality than many of the arrangements that are currently in place. The high quality ECEC program would allow for many parents to give their children the care that they would otherwise be financially unable to provide. The upbringing of Canadian children will ultimately benefit society as a whole because it will allow for a generation of productive, content, and involves citizens. They will in turn pay higher taxes and consume fewer social services as will their parents who are entering the workforce. Also these children will be stimulated early on which will result in them being adequately prepared for higher levels of education.

Finally Krashinsky argues that many women who leave the work force to care for their children are then at a disadvantage when re-entering the workforce due to need for training and lack of acquired skills. A good ECEC program will allow women the opportunity to combine paid work and family life. This will encourage more women to enter the labor force and ultimately pay higher taxes that will allow for the government to finance the ECEC program. Krashinsky concludes his article by addressing critics that suggest ECEC is discriminatory against families who choose to raise their own children and critics who question Canada's ability to afford such a program. In response, he states that any public program chooses to benefit those who use it over those who do not and lists public healthcare and employment insurance as examples. Lastly, the author explains that money spent on young children, who are the future generation of our country, is money well spent and that it would ultimately be a wise investment.

Beverley Smith in "Equal Benefit to Children: What It Really Means" begins by stating that her argument is not against the governments assistance to families with young children but rather that it should be given equally to all children and not solely those in daycare. She first addresses the belief that there is a need for childcare centers by explaining that there are many alternatives being ignored such as relatives inside and outside the home and parents working from home. Options such as part-time employment are preferred by most parents whose desire is to spend as much time as possible with their children, however The ECEC program does not allow for this diversity in care. Daycare is not the preferred option and so why settle for what is in our child's "second-best interest".

Each child has his or her own individual needs that a one-size fits all program is unlikely to meet. Also, a smaller adult-baby ratio allows for a better learning environment and so it is unrealistic for daycares to claim that they are equal if not better than one on one parent-child education. Although daycare is monitored and inspected to ensure that it is maintaining its standard of care, the consequences of any neglect or abuse is much stronger for parents.

The author argues that there is no democracy in the ECEC program as it is solely funding daycare and making all other options unaffordable thus denying women their right as a Canadian citizen to equal benefit. An alternative to this program would be a tax credit initiative of around $4,000 per child for all families with young children. This would allow families the option of using the money to fund daycare or aid in forfeiting one's salary. Smith concludes her article by reminding us that there is not a shortage of care but rather two kinds: one done for love and one done for money. The best care is in the home and thus the establishment of a program that discourages what is best should not be accepted.

I have chosen to side with Beverley Smith as I am in agreement with all of her arguments against the implementation of an ECEC program. It is important to consider the direction in which Canada's society is heading as money and material goods are becoming more and more of a desire and necessity. Thirty years ago families were substantially larger than those we see today and still women were able to stay home and care for their children. It is possible for us to be financially stable and raise our children if we are willing to give up the three car garage and the trips down south twice a year. The ECEC program is only encouraging this lifestyle and encouraging