Internet posting summary – Sept 27 to Oct 1, 2010

Following is a summary of Internet postings on the topic of Full Day Early Learning in Ontario for the week of September27, 2010 to October 1, 2010.

Source of Internet postings

Press	Publications	Blogs/Opinions	Other
66%	17%	17%	0%

Key Issues raised (see details below):

1. Ottawa Public School board adding additional Full Day Kindergarten classrooms

2. Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare sells Full Day Early Learning best practice document

3. Poll shows respondents in favour of Full Day Early Learning

1. Two additional Full Day Kindergarten classrooms added. · Necessary to cope with higher than expected enrolment. This is the second time additional classrooms have been added this year. Class sizes were between 30-34 students before additional rooms were added. · Extra rooms expected to cost approximately $300 000.

2. The document outlines best practice for Ontario’s early learning program. · Designed to assist principals, teachers and ECE’s in the operations of full day kindergarten and before and after care. · Has sections on role of staff members, program review and implantation, goals etc. (see references for link to page of contents)

3. A Toronto Star-Angus Reid survey posed the question, “Is full day kindergarten the right or the wrong thing to do?” · 66% of Ontarians polled answered it is right. · In the same survey, 29% of decided voters would vote of Dalton McGuinty while 41% of decided voters would vote for Tim Hudak

Misc. · Article discussing the decreasing power of school trustees. The article uses Full Day Early Learning as an example of government determining curriculum at the exclusion of individual boards curriculum decisions

Regulations to Support Full Day Early Learning

On August 18^th, Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education, issued EL10. The memo pertains to the proclamation of outstanding legislative amendments under the Act (Bill 242) that came into effect August 16^th and to further regulatory provisions that have been filed.

This blog entry reflect the technical content of EL10. Notwithstanding this, there are a number of issues raised that may be of significance to those in the field of early learning and care.

Facts	Significance
Proclamation of Section 21 Section 21, which pertains to the reporting between boards and the College of Early Childhood Educators, was exempted from the proclamation of the Full Day Early Learning Statue Law Amendment Act, 2010 in June and has come into force on August 16th. As a result boards must report investigations into professional misconduct by registered early childhood educators, to the College of Early Childhood educators. The same reporting requirement exists between boards and the Ontario College of Teacher's in regards to teacher's conduct. Section 21 also grants authority to the government regarding performance appraisal and induction of early childhood educators. This is pending development of a provincial framework for appraisal and induction. In the interim boards may use their discretion in this matter.	This demonstrates equity between the way in which registered early child educators and certified teachers will be treated with respect to disciplinary procedures. There continues to be considerable discussion about whether the intent of Bill 242 – that registered early childhood educators and certified teachers will have equally important roles within the classroom – will be manifest in reality. This is further evidence of a commitment to equity. It will be interesting to observe the development of a provincially directed performance appraisal processes for registered early childhood educators now joining the education sector. It is hoped that if there is to be a province wide standard for R.E.C.E.s, there will also be province wide standards for teachers.
Delegation of Principals duties As extended care will operate outside of traditional school hours, principals are permitted to delegate the supervision of extended day duties to another person, such as a "registered early childhood educator and persons designated to supervise these positions" (EL10, page 4).	This acknowledges the potential need for an increased early childhood educator presence and/or early childhood managerial staff in the operation of the extended day component of full day early learning. It also suggests that there may be a place for existing centre supervisors.
Early Childhood Educator Letters of Permission Under the Act, the Minister of Education is authorized to issue a letter of permission allowing a board to appoint a person who is not a member of the College of Early Childhood educators to a position designated for an early childhood educator. This can only occur when an early childhood educator has not applied to a posted position. Also, individuals appointed under a letter of permission may not hold that position in excess of four years and, if applying for subsequent letters of permission, an individual must be working towards becoming a member of the College of Early Childhood Educators.	Registered early childhood educators are recognized as having specialized skills and abilities that are integral to the success of the full day early learning program. This section recognizes that in some communities there may be too few R.E.C.E.s available to staff all the positions open. It is important, however, that this option not be used to fill E.C.E. positions with existing board staff who, while they will certainly have other skills and abilities, are not qualified early childhood educators.

Extended day programs in 2010 in the GTA - The actual numbers

Yesterday, the Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development released a report on the economic impact of full day early learning. Written by economist Robert Fairholm of the Centre for Spatial Economics, the report identifies considerable financial benefits to the province. It states that for every $1 that the province invests in full day early learning, there is a $2.42 return. However, the report also states that the full financial return is dependent upon the provision of not just the full day kindergarten component but also the extended day program.

You can find the full report on the Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development website.

There was considerable take-up in the press about the report, including articles in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

Of note in the August 30, 2010 article in the Toronto Star by Laurie Monsebraaten, Social Justice Reporter, was the information about how few schools providing full day early learning in September 2010 will also be operating extended day programs(before- and after-school):

Region	Public & Catholic Boards
	Schools offering full day kindergarten	Schools offering before- and after-school programs
Toronto	99	0
York Region	39	35
Peel Region	11	6
Halton Region	18	6
Durham Region	21	0

It is our understanding that in Peel Region the Board has entered into a contract with third party providers to operate the extended day program in the six schools where it will be available and that the Board is not operating these programs directly.

As has been discussed in previous blog entries, there are a multitude of reasons why the take-up for the extended day program has been minimal. There is every reason to anticipate that some of the inevitable glitches of implementing a program of such magnitude will be resolved as the roll-out of full day early learning proceeds. Come September 2011, there may be a significant increase in the number of schools where the extended day program is available. However, this outcome is, for now, uncertain.

In the interim, this delay in schools providing the extended day program provides the licensed child care sector with opportunities to explore how the child care sector could work collaboratively with the education sector to offer truly seamless, integrated programs for children and their families.

Subsidy Arrangements for Extended Day Care

Over the summer months a number of important announcements were made that move the introduction of full day kindergarten forward. Perhaps most significantly, the regulations regarding subsidy for the extended day (before and after school) programs have been determined and released.

This blog entry reviews the subsidy arrangements for extended day care. Please see 2010 EL 9 for further detail.

There are several key components:

1. The subsidy system for the extended day program will be managed by local Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSMs). This means that school boards located within the City of Toronto will enter into a contract with the City of Toronto Children's Services Division.
   
2. Children currently receiving subsidy in the licensed child care system will be able to transfer their subsidy to the extended day program. Families with children in both licensed child care and the extended day program can be subsidized in both systems.
   
3. The fee subsidies for the extended day program will be 100% provincially funded unlike much of the existing subsidy system where costs are shared 80/20 between the province and municipalities. (It is interesting to note that this is the same funding model as was set for the Best Start program which is also 100% provincially funded.)
   
4. To maximize the subsidy funding available, school boards are asked to set before school/after school and combined before and after school rates.
   
5. Extended day programs are governed under the Education act so CMSMs are not expected to set additional quality standards or to monitor these programs in the way the licensed home and group child care programs are currently monitored in most municipalities.
   
6. The per diem rate will be established on a school board by school board basis, not on a program by program basis as is the case for the licensed child care sector.
   
7. Existing CMSM waiting list policies will apply to the extended day programs in those situations where the demand for subsidy exceeds the available funding. EL9 explicitly states: "A limited number of subsidies are available for eligible families." (2010 EL9, Page 1)
   
8. Existing income testing requirements will apply to eligibility for the extended day programs.
   
9. It is our understanding that in the City of Toronto, Children's Services Consultants are meeting to review existing kindergarten per diem rates with those programs where kindergarten age children will be attending full day kindergarten. We understand that kindergarten rates will be recalculated to a maximum of the existing preschool rates. This does not apply to many programs this year as one of the criteria in determining where the full day kindergarten program would be offered includes avoiding schools with existing child care programs either on site or close by.
   

It is important to note that there has been very little take-up of the extended day program by parents across the province. Recent conversations with government officials suggest that fewer than five percent of schools where full day kindergarten is being introduced will offer the extended day component. This is certainly true in the city of Toronto.

It is difficult to determine if the lack of demand for the extended day program is a consequence of delays in the release of the regulations, the projected cost of the before and after school program or the fact that parents who may have required extended day care are happy with the arrangements they already have in place.

In all likelihood, it is a combination of all three. As explored in earlier blog entries, the extended day program is to be offered on a cost recovery basis. The average per diem rate has now been projected at between $25 and$35 dollars which is historically high for before and after school care in the Toronto area.

In September 2010, 35,000 four and five year old children will begin full day kindergarten. This is approximately 15% of the all four and five year olds in the province. It appears that the vast majority of these children will continue to be cared for by a parent or relative, by an informal, unlicensed provider or in the licensed child care sector. It remains to be seen as the program rolls out over the next several years, how much progress will be made towards a seamless, truly integrated early learning and care model.

Moving forward – the impact of implementing full day early learning

Now that Bill 242, Full Day Early Learning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010 has been proclaimed and the regulations supporting the legislation have been introduced, the impact on the licensed child care system is becoming more evident.

SCHOOL BASED EXTENDED DAY CARE

In what is perhaps the biggest surprise, it would appear that few of the schools offering full day early learning in September 2010 will be providing before and after school care. Furthermore, those few schools that will be providing the extended day program will be doing so only on the 188 "instructional days". In other words, no programs on Professional Development days, school holidays and during the summer break. While there are a number of reasons that the demand for the extended day component has been considerably lower than anticipated, the fact that care will not be provided year round is no doubt one of the most significant. For the majority of working parents, finding care for the approximately 72 additional days a year, will be a challenge.

The projected cost was also a barrier for families. Following the release of the regulations (See the Blog Entry for June 13, 2010) school boards were more accurately able to determine the cost of delivering the extended day component. In many boards the costs were projected at or above $30.00/day.

The Toronto District School Board has indicated that it will be offering the extended day program at only a "handful" of sites in September 2010. It is important to note that the TDSB is not alone. In the Region of Peel, the Peel Board has contracted with three 3^rd party providers to offer the extended day component. In Durham Region, an existing 3^rd party provider will be offering the extended day component of full day early learning. In London, the Board will also be working with 3^rd party providers.

The Regulations state that 3^rd party providers who are providing the extended day component include program content that is similar to the content that school boards would have provided. In other words, the program must be built on the newly released full day early learning curriculum. This provides an important opportunity for the licensed child care sector to demonstrate that the existence of two distinct operators does not preclude the provision of an integrated early learning and care program for children and their families.

As reported in an earlier blog entry, the Regulations include a two year window after which it is expected that school boards will provide the extended day component directly. At this point, it is increasingly difficult to see how this requirement will be met.

From the perspective of the licensed child care sector, it would certainly appear that there will be more time than anticipated to plan for the full implementation of full day early learning. Part of this planning may also include evaluating the impact of junior and senior kindergarten children essentially becoming "baby" school age children with respect to hours of care.

As we have said before, information is power. Upcoming entries will address the latest information about how the subsidy system will work following the roll out of full day early learning and the plans for Best Start Child and Family Centres.

EXTENDED DAY PROGRAM REGULATIONS RELEASED

Bill 242, Full Day Early Learning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010 was proclaimed into law on June 3, 2010. The legislative basis for the introduction of the full day early learning program is now in place.

The regulations designed to support the introduction of both full day kindergarten and the extended day component of the full day early learning program were filed on June 7^th and are now available publicly at http://tinyurl.com/32zuvrl. On June 8, 2010 Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education, released his latest memo, EL7, to Directors of Education across the province. You can find a copy of this memo at http://tinyurl.com/34356d2.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE LICENSED CHILD CARE SECTOR?

The release of the regulations allows the licensed child care sector to more clearly determine the rules under which the extended day programs will be operated. Ratios and parent fees are now public and parents will be better able to make decisions about how to best meet their child care needs.

There are five significant components to the Regulations which will be of interest to the licensed child care sector.

1. The regulations clarify the expectations as to when a school is required to operate the extended day program have. There is an extensive discussion related to viability and the expectation that these programs will not be operated unless they are viable:
   
   1. Boards are not obligated to operate the extended day program if fewer than 10 children are expected to be enrolled in either the morning or the afternoon component of the program.. However, boards may increase the numbers of children by providing up to 25% of the spaces for children in grades one and two.
      
   2. The ability to increase enrollment by offering spaces to children in grades one and two only exists in those schools where a third party provider is not currently providing before and after school programs.
      
   3. There appears to be an understanding that in those circumstances where there are fewer than 10 children enrolled, the program will not be viable even with only one staff and where fewer than 20 children are enrolled (or expected to be enrolled) then the program will not be viable with two staff.
      
   4. Boards are expected to determine viability looking at the before- school and the after-school components separately. That is to say that a school may provide one and not the other.
      
   5. Boards have the option of partnering with another school or with a coterminous board (i.e. a different board of education but in the same region) as a strategy to achieve the numbers necessary for viability.
      
      
2. The model for the calculation of parent fees for the extended day program has been determined:
   
   1. Project operating costs – there is an expectation that the programs will be operated on a cost-recovery basis. This includes:
      
      1. Salaries of ECEs who will run the extended day program and non-ECEs if they are hired as assistants
         
      2. School operations costs ($.60/hour/child) which includes utilities and custodial costs (EL7: page 8)
         
      3. Program costs
         
      4. Snacks if provided
         
      5. Administration and fee collection costs
         
         1. Boards may enter into an administrative services contract with a third party prior to July 1, 2010. The third party would then be responsible for the administration of the extended day program
            
         2. Staff costs for board employees may be included in this calculation provided that the staff person spends at least 75% of his or her time administering the extended day program.
            
   2. It should be noted that, in calculating fees, boards are allowed a vacancy allowance of up to 10 percent which is more than three times that currently permitted by the City of Toronto for licensed centres with a purchase of service agreement.
      
   3. The boards have been told that they must calculate the fees based on operating five hours per day (before school and after school).
      
   4. It appears that parents will be charged at an hourly rate equal to 1/5 of the daily rate.
      
   5. Should a board chose to operate on non- instructional days (i.e. PD days, holidays etc) then the fees will be increased to reflect the additional hours of care provided.
      
      
3. The adult to child ratio has been established for the extended day component.
   
   1. Extended day programs are to attempt to adhere to the ratio for the full day early learning program which is 1 staff to 13 children.
      
   2. The maximum ratio is 1 staff to 15 children or 2 staff to 30 children.
      
   3. It does not appear that there will be a maximum group size. If the group is larger than 30 children then an additional staff person must be hired.
      
   4. It is interesting to note that the maximum ratios reflect existing DNA school age ratios. They are considerable higher than the existing DNA junior kindergarten ratio of 1 to 10 and somewhat higher than the existing DNA senior kindergarten ratio of 1 to 12.
      
      
4. The rules under which school boards may enter into agreements with third party providers for the provision of the extended day component of the full day early learning initiative have been clarified:
   
   1. Where boards have an existing WRITTEN agreement with a third party provider, the board itself is not required to provide the extended day component of the full day early learning program.
      
   2. This holds true for a transitional period only of up to two years maximum.
      
   3. It is interesting to note that the definition of a third party provider is a "child care operator who is licensed or authorized under the Day Nurseries Act".
      
      This would suggest that recreation programs currently providing services in schools will not qualify as third party providers.
      
   4. In circumstances where a third party provider will be the operator of the extended day program, the provider is expected to provide a program with similar content as "required for extended day programs under the Education Act". (EL7, Page 6)
      

 

MOVING FORWARD

As the full day early learning initiative rolls out over the next five years, the impact on the licensed child care sector will be significant. The ability to effectively manage this period of change is greatly enhanced when the rules for all parties involved are in the public domain.

With the release of the regulations, licensed centres and home child care agencies will not only be able to plan for the future more effectively, they will also be better able to provide informed, accurate information to their parents when asked.

Information is power. Knowing the rules under which the boards of education will be operating increases the ability for a licensed child care centre or home child care agency to adjust its operating model to meet the needs of its community while remaining financially viable.

Index of April and May 2010 Posts

April 8
Bill 242 – Next Steps

April 26
Bill 242 – Third reading

May 24
EL6 – Legislative Changes Under Bill 242

May 31
Transferring the responsibility for Child Care from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to the Ministry of Education – What might this mean for the licensed child care sector?

Transferring the responsibility for Child Care from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to the Ministry of Education – What might this mean for the licensed child care sector?

The process of transferring responsibility for licensed child care from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to the Ministry of Education has begun. At this early juncture it is not immediately apparent the impact that this move will have on the licensed early learning and care system.

The first stage of the transfer involved the staff responsible for child care policy and program moving to the Early Learning Division in the Ministry of Education. We understand that responsibility for contract management will be moving in the fall of 2010. It is not yet clear when responsibility for licensing of early learning and care programs will be transferred.

Creating a coordinated, comprehensive system of early learning and care programs and services for children and their families is a huge endeavour. It is reasonable to presume that the move forward will be at least somewhat simplified by this transfer of responsibility.

However, the transfer also raises a number of questions. The chart below outlines a few of the issues that may be of concern for the licensed child care system and the families to whom they provide early learning and care programs and services:

Issues	Implications for Licensed Child Care
Expectations and standards – a range of regulations for different programs providing early learning and care for four- and five-year old children. It will be a full five years before all four- and five-year old children have access to full day early learning. It is our understanding that there has not been a significant uptake by parents for the extended day program. It is also our understanding that the majority of boards of education will be offering the extended day program only on instructional days, and then only in a limited number of sites. Consequently many four- and five-year old children will continue to attend both school and licensed child care programs.	The coming together of the two sectors in one ministry creates both challenges and opportunities for licensed child care. There may be changes in regulations that will have quality and cost implications for child care centres. Programs providing licensed child care under the Day Nurseries Act and its Regulations operate with different requirements than classrooms operated under the Education Act and the newly proclaimed Bill 242, which serves to amend the Education Act. Some of the significant differences include: Physical plant requirements Staff qualifications Adult/Child ratios Different expectations with respect to curriculum and program delivery Fee for service childcare versus fully funded kindergarten One of the most significant current differences between the education sector and the licensed child care sector relates to adult/child ratios. Balancing the "care" needs together with the "early learning" needs of children is critical. Ratios that recognize the importance of both, particularly over the duration of what may be a 10 or 11 hour day for a child will be critical. An average (which means that it may be higher) ratio of 2:26 may make it difficult to meet the care needs of the younger children and the expectations of their parents. The move of licensed child care to the Ministry of Education will create greater opportunities to mesh these differences, building on the strengths to be found in both sectors. This should serve to create consistency for the children, for their parents, and for the staff who work with them.
The need to secure and protect subsidy funding for the licensed child care sector.	The existing subsidy system is under considerable pressure. As has been discussed in previous blog entries, the system is under funded and has been for many years. Existing waiting lists for subsidy top 15,000 in the City of Toronto alone and per diem rates are anticipated to increase by close to 30% with the introduction of the full day early learning program. EL6 (see May 24th entry) suggests that the parents of four- and five-year old children currently receiving child care subsidy will take this funding with them when they move to the school based full day early learning program. Without sufficient additional funding to both replace these spaces with younger children and to recognize the increased cost of delivery, the licensed child care sector may find itself in serious difficulty with rapidly increasing vacancies. The province wide stabilization fund of $51 million dollars will be phased in gradually over the next five years and appears not to be sufficient to stabilize a current fragile system facing extreme financial pressures. At the same time, boards of education across the province are indicating that the funds allocated by the Province for the full day early learning program are insufficient to cover all the costs attached to implementing this new initiative. It is important that in the transition to one Ministry, subsidy funding for the licensed child care sector be protected.
Coordination between licensed child care and other parent support programs and services: Dr. Charles Pascal will assume a new role as an advisor to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. His role is to advise the Minister on how to move forward with an integrated system of family supports for young children and their families. Integrating family support programs is an important component of Dr. Pascal's original report With Our Best Future in Mind: Implementing Early Learning in Ontario. Dr. Pascal's appointment suggests a commitment on the part of the province to more fully implement the original recommendations.	It is understandable that preliminary work to develop potential models for integrated Child and Family Centres be undertaken within the confines of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services as this is where the funding and policy direction for the majority of these programs currently resides. It will be important to determine how this component of a comprehensive system of early learning and care will be integrated with the licensed child care sector, particularly now that they no longer reside in the same ministries.

As the answers to some of these questions become available, we will provide ongoing updates.

EL6 – Legislative Changes Under Bill 242

On May 5, 2010 Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education issued another memo , EL6, to Directors of Education http://cal2.edu.gov.on.ca/may2010/2010EL6_Bill242.pdf to explain some of the implications of recently passed Bill 242, "The Full Day Early Learning Statute LawAmendment Act, 2010" http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2269.While the memo does not have the force of regulations or guidelines, it again provides an interesting perspective on where we might be headed. We urge you to read the original. Points we think may be of particular interest to the community based childcare community are as follows:

Ministry of Education Comments	Interpretation and Possible Implications
Regulations are expected soon for: Determining extended day fees Determining viability of extended day programs Transition rules for third-party provision of childcare for the extended day periods When an ECE will not be required in a JK or K class	These regulations will likely shape the way childcare in the extended day during instructional days will be offered by Boards over the next few years. We will let you know when the regulations are finalized and made public.
Section 259 of the Education Act confirms that school boards can contract with third-party operators to provide before and after care to six to 12 year olds during both instructional and non-instructional days.	This will allow childcare providers to continue to provide care to this age group provided the boards of education do not want to offer it themselves.
Section 259 of the Education Act confirms that school boards can contract with third-party operators to provide before and after care to four- and five-year olds outside of regular instructional school days. For a brief transition period boards will be permitted to contract with third party operators to provide before and after care to four- and five-year olds during instructional days.	This will allow childcare providers to continue to provide care to this age group provided the boards of education do not want to offer it themselves. It is not clear how a third party would provide this type of care and remain financially viable and maintain continuity of staff.
The time period allowed for transitioning out third-party care in schools for four- and five-year olds will be specified in the not-yet-released regulations.	Knowing the time period will be critical in making decisions for those centres affected by phase one of the ELP designation.
Bill 242 specifies that extended day programs will be led by RECEs. As importantly, principals may delegate the operation of the extended day program to other board approved persons.	This would appear to give boards author-ization to allow Principals to hire staff in existing centres to provide care in board facilities as they do now. Same staff, same facilities, different employer. This would presumably be ideal for the children.
Different boards are allowed to jointly operate extended day programs.	We do not understand how this allowance fits with the philosophy of providing an integrated and seamless day. Care provided by third party providers in the same school as the children attend for JK and K would presumably offer a more integrated and seamless experience than switching buildings up to twice a day.
Fee setting regulations have not yet been established.	This is cutting timing very close for boards of education wanting to plan for the financial aspects of providing full day early learning in instructional days.
Boards can contract with municipalities and others to administer subsidy programs.	There is no indication that subsidy funding will increase. It is unclear how boards will deal with situations where parents eligible for subsidy and needing care are on wait lists because of quota limits. Children in the same JK or K class may not have equal access to extended care in instructional days.
The Ontario government has announced stabilization funding to ease the impact of ELP introductions (estimated at $786,000 for the entire City of Toronto in 2010) and capital funding to help retrofit existing centres to serve younger children ($184,800 is Toronto's 2010 share).	Both stabilization and capital funding allocated appear woefully inadequate for the 949 centres serving 53,414 families in the City of Toronto (statistics from the Office of the Mayor, May 6, 2010)
Effective April 27, 2010 responsibility for childcare was transferred to the Ministry of Education from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.	We will comment on this is a future posting.

Bill 242 – Third Reading

Third reading of Bill 242 is now underway. It would appear that it is taking longer than expected to get the legislation through. The debate continues this afternoon and it is anticipated that the legislation will be passed this week.

It is interesting to note that the recommended amendments to the legislation following the public hearings by the opposition parties were not incorporated into the legislation in a substantial way. However:

• The proposed legislation permits Boards of Education to work in partnership with community based agencies to deliver the extended day component (before and after school, PD days, holidays and summer) for children 6 to 12
  
• School Boards will be permitted to enter into partnerships with community agencies to provide programs for 4 and 5 year old children for PD days, school holidays and the summer months but not for the extended day period. (before and after school)
  

The Minister of Education, Leona Dombrowsky, in introducing the Bill for third reading, made it clear that following passage of the legislation, supporting regulations will be drafted that will allow school boards to enter into partnerships with community agencies currently providing before and after school care on a transitional basis. Until the regulations are drafted, the length of the transition period will not be known.

The commitment to a transitional period before requiring that school boards assume full and exclusive responsibility for the extended day component for 4 and 5 year old children, may provide existing service providers with additional time to prepare for this transition.

It is also interesting to note that at the City of Toronto Child Care Advisory Committee Meeting held on April 21, 2010, a representative of the Toronto District School Board indicated that not all the sites that would be delivering the full day early learning program will offer the extended day program as of September 2010.

School boards will face the same challenge as the licensed child care sector – how to deliver accessible, reasonably priced, high quality programs (the extended day programs are offered on a fee for service basis) where the number of children attending has a direct and significant impact on costs.

It seems reasonable to assume that there will be at least some parents in these schools who will need before- and after-school care. It would appear that there will continue to be a role for the local licensed child care centres in these communities. How long this will continue will depend upon the duration of the transition period discussed above.

The opposition parties proposed that lunch be included as a part of the full day early learning program. However, this proposed amendment was not supported and is not included in the final Bill now before the legislature. This is another factor that may have an influence on the decisions that parents make about enrolling their children in the full day early learning program itself.

For those parents whose children are now in full day licensed child care, preparing lunch on a daily basis will be inconvenient. For some parents, it will not be only inconvenient but will present a financial burden that may create real challenges for their families.

Some parents are expressing concern that their young children will not have enough time to actually eat their lunches or that there will not be sufficient supervision during the lunch period. This is a particular concern for the parents of children who are not even four when they begin school in September.

It is important to recognize that thousands of children bring their lunches to school every day. It is reasonable to assume that schools have systems in place to provide food for those children who forget their lunch.

However, there is no question that for some parents – for financial or other reasons – the need to bring a lunch from home will have an impact on their decision making about enrolling their child in the full day early learning program if they are currently in licensed child care. Some child care programs may find that their parents decide to keep their child in the licensed child care setting

Coming up – The draft full day early learning curriculum has been released. What are the implications for the licensed child care sector?

Bill 242 – Next Steps

The public hearings on Bill 242 – An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in relation to early childhood educators, junior kindergarten and kindergarten, extended day programs and certain other matters – are now over. There appeared to be fairly strong support for the introduction of full day early learning. There was less unanimity on the issue of who should provide the extended day component of the soon to be implemented program. Some speakers were supportive of the proposed model, where boards of education will deliver the entire program. However, many groups urged the Committee to amend the proposed legislation to allow for partnerships between community based not- for -profit agencies and boards of education to deliver before and after school programs as well as programs for PD days, school holidays and over the summer break.

On April 1, 2010, an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator made the case for a collaborative model in those communities where these types of partnerships currently exist and are working well.

On Monday, April 12, 2010, a committee of Parliament will review Bill 242 on a clause by clause basis. At the same time, committee members, who represent each of the three parties in the Ontario Legislature, will consider a number of amendments to the proposed Act. These include an amendment that school boards be allowed to enter into partnerships to deliver the extended day component of full day early learning. In other words, existing community partnerships between the not-for-profit child care sector and schools would continue.

Stayed tuned for further details as they become available.

Index of March 2010 Posts

March 29
Class size calculations under ELP

March 23
Financial implications of permanent layoffs –Employment Law Basics

March 21
Planning for 2011-12 (Year 2) of the Early Learning Program

March 14
Bill 242 – What does it say?

March 11
Bill 242 – An opportunity to make your views known

Class size calculations under ELP

Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education, has issued a memorandum, 2010: EL4 dated March 5, 2010, to board Directors of Education providing school Boards with information about calculating class size under the Early Learning Program (ELP).

While the meaning of much in the memorandum is not entirely clear to us, it does raise some interesting questions for which answers are not immediately apparent. Please keep in mind that ELP is for children of junior and senior kindergarten age – 3.8 to 5. Specifically (in order in which the points are raised in the memo):

1. The class size regulation changes have "an automatic sunset provision that comes into force on September 1, 2012". What will happen after that?
   

2. Boards should "conform closely to an average full-day JK/K class size of 26". This is vague and raises the possibility that some classes will have more than 26 children. The class size is not capped at 26 so presumably a board could have classes with in excess of 13 children to each adult and still maintain the average. Is it possible that going above the average of 26:2 would help schools manage the Phase One implementation deficits we understand they are expecting to experience?
   

3. There does not appear to be a provision for replacement of staff temporarily absent in the school-day portion. For example, what will happen during prep time for certified teachers and registered early childhood educators? Is it possible that a class size could conceivably be 26:1 for periods in the day? Consider that the existing Day Nurseries Act regulated adult child ratio for junior kindergarten children is 1 to 10 with a maximum group size of 20.

4. The memorandum states "These class size calculations apply to the ELP's school-day portion; the intent is not to apply to the extended day." Under proposed Bill 242, children in the extended day childcare program are considered pupils under the Education Act and therefore not governed by adult to child ratios specified in the Day Nurseries Act. It is not yet clear what adult to child ratios will apply to children enrolled in the before and after school portion of the ELP.

Financial implications of permanent layoffs –Employment Law Basics

The introduction of full day kindergarten combined with boards of education providing before-and after-school care could result in centres having to close down playrooms for four- and five-year olds. As employment costs are by far the most significant cost component of any childcare program great care must be taken when making changes to staff.

We often get questions on the financial implications of laying off staff. We have also observed that mistakes made in this area can be very costly. Getting professional advice is almost always a must before initiating any staff reductions for cause or otherwise.

In unionized centres, the extent of the employer's obligations to provide notice and/or severance pay and who may be selected for the layoff will likely be governed by a collective agreement, which may or may not be limited to the notice requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Depending on the agreement, there may also be a positive obligation to advise and consult with the union in relation to a permanent lay off of some staff or closure of the centre.

In non-unionized centres, the requirement to provide notice of termination and/or severance pay may be governed by an enforceable employment agreement (if the employee has one) or by the common law. As part of those requirements, the centre will have to meet the minimum statutory requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. It is important to establish a process early on and very clearly document considerations that will lead to a proposed change in the duties, a temporary lay-off, or a termination.   If the process is followed and bona fide considerations well documented, the employer will be better able to address an allegation of constructive dismissal or an allegation that it has failed to honour its obligations under the Human Rights Code.

The specific obligations will always depend on individual circumstances of the centre's and the employee(s) in question.

While a centre may be able to provide working notice to affective staff, doing so may also have practical implications on the day-to-day operations of the centre and these will need to be considered beforehand.

The Ministry of Labour's web-site provides information on minimum statutory obligations under the Employment Standards Act at the following link: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/

Please keep in mind that compliance with the minimum legislated requirements in either a union or non-union workplace may not satisfy broader contractual obligations that may come into play when there is a permanent layoff (termination of employment).

We contacted Ian Werker, a lawyer with much experience in the field of labour law in childcare in Toronto, to answer some frequently asked questions on the subject of permanent layoffs in a daycare environment. http://www.lawchambers.com/Lawyers/Ian_Werker.htm.

The following comments pertain only to non-share capital companies incorporated under the Ontario Corporations act.

Who is liable for providing notice and/or compensation in lieu of notice (including statutory amounts)?

The centre is liable for the payment of wages. It is also liable to provide notice required under the contract of employment (or collective agreement if one exists). Where there is no specific agreement in place, the amount of notice required will be determined by the common law.

Where the employer has not given working notice of termination, it will generally be liable to provide compensation in lieu.

Even if an employer has given some amount of working notice, it must at least pay out any remaining amounts required under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. Again, depending on the specific contractual arrangements, satisfying the statutory requirements will probably not meet the employer's broader common law obligations to provide notice or pay in lieu of notice.

When must you pay termination pay under the ESA?

Generally speaking payments on termination must be made under the ESA on or before the regular payroll date following the employee's last day of work. However, employers and employees will often enter into mutually agreeable arrangements where payments to the employee shall be made by way of a "salary continuance".

What are the guidelines for how much termination pay must be paid or time in lieu of notice given?

In a non-union environment, or in cases where the entitlement is not governed by an enforceable written agreement, our courts look at the individual circumstances of the employee(s) involved, based on relevant factors – such as the person's age, duration of service, and position. Where a termination involves a number of employees at once, employers should get legal advice so that they can establish an approach that is internally consistent and within the range of what a court is likely to determine as reasonable. Readers should be aware that, as far as courts are concerned, there is no "general rule" that an employee should receive a "month of notice/severance for each year of service". In some cases the ratio is more. In others it will be less.

Are directors and officers personally liable for statutory termination pay, statutory severance pay or pay in lieu of notice?

No. But, they may be liable for unpaid vacation pay or wages earned.

There are a few critical messages to keep in mind in this area.

First, the rules governing severance, termination pay and notice in lieu of pay are complex and depend on the specifics of your centre's situation.

Second, if your centre plans to lay off a number of long standing employees as a result of having to close a playroom, it should do so only after careful planning and professional advice so that the centre is best-placed to meet its legal obligations and reduce the risk of surprise claims that could put the centre's future financial viability into question.

Planning for 2011-12 (Year 2) of the Early Learning Program

Jim Grieve, Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education, has issued a memorandum, 2010: EL3 dated March 4, 2010, to board Directors of Education providing school Boards with information about planning for year 2 of the Early Learning Program (ELP). http://tinyurl.com/y8fmu34

Why this may be important to you:

The memo provides some information about Ministry direction to boards of education in year two of ELP. The information may help childcare centres in Ontario to plan for the future. Points of interest are:

Ministry of Education comments	Interpretation and possible implications
Boards must submit planning templates to the Ministry no later than April 16, 2010 and will announce approval of year 2 sites no later than May 21, 2010.	This appears to be a tight deadline, especially if boards of education are going to hold any form of public consultation on site selection (see next point).
Boards are directed to do their planning in consultation with, among others, local Best Start Networks and municipalities.	Consultation is mandatory but timelines are very tight. If you plan to participate in the planning process, you should consider finding out how to get involved now.
Boards are directed to "…take into consideration the impact on existing child care and early years programs, including those operating on school premises."	No direction beyond taking into consideration is given.
Boards are directed to provide to the Ministry, possible sites covering at least double the year 2 allocated spaces.	The Ministry will have significant "flexibility" (power) in approving sites.
"Boards should consider limiting plans for program expansion to the number of additional students allocated for 2011-12."	Boards may not be receiving sufficient funding to meet actual costs of delivery, for example if demand is greater than forecast or costs such as salaries are greater than provided for in the funding formula.
"…boards would have a duty to offer extended day programs to four- and five-year olds in the ELP in during the school year. [Boards can] permit older children to participate in the extended day, to support viability."	The Ministry appears to be acknowledging that it may be financially beneficial (read: necessary?) for boards to offer extended day programs for children six and up. This may have implications for those centres planning to continue to offer school-age care in schools participating in the ELP.
"...school boards would also have the power to provide extended services, for a reasonable fee, at other times of the year for four- and five-year olds under the guidance of early childhood educators…Where you have capacity and parent demand, the government is calling upon boards to use this power. [Boards] are called upon to provide extended services at other times of the year for children six to twelve years old."	This is the clearest message we have had to date directing boards to provide childcare to children from four to twelve years of age for the full 261 days a year. Consider taking this directive into account when forecasting future enrolment in your centre for children from four to twelve years of age.
"[Ministry approved] Selected schools must have all JK/K classes comply with the new ELP model as this is a whole school approach…" Recommended schools should only be those a board "anticipates will remain open for the next five years." Schools must have available appropriate classroom space.	All JK/K classes in a selected school must convert to the ELP and schools must have sufficient space. This would seem to reduce the likelihood of having a non-board childcare centre for four- and five-year olds in a school selected for ELP. Boards can only offer schools for ELP selection if they are viable for the medium to long terms.

Bill 242 – What Does It Say?

Bill 242 is an Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in relation to early childhood educators, junior kindergarten and kindergarten, extended day programs and certain other matters. The Bill has the capacity to have a significant impact on the licensed child care sector in Ontario. In our last posting – March 11, 2010 – we shared information about the Standing Committee Hearings on the legislation. This post will provide more information about some of the key components of the proposed legislation. There is much more in Bill 242 which you can find at:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b242.pdf

Positive Components of the Act:

Section Reference	What it Says	Interpretation and Possible Implications
General	Universal access for 6 hours a day for 4 and 5 year old children	When fully implemented, all 4 and 5 year old children will be able to participate in developmentally appropriate early learning programs for up to 6 hours each day.
2. (3) and many other sections	… "the Act is amended by striking out "teacher" and substituting "teacher, designated early childhood educator"	Throughout Bill 242, there are specific references to teachers and early childhood educators working in partnership. This represents legislated recognition of the significance of the role of early childhood educators in the implementation of full day early learning programs for children 3.8 to 5.
260.2	"A principal may delegate any of his or her duties under this Act that relate to the operation of extended day program to a vice principal or another person approved by the board."	Given the existing workload of principals, this opens the possibility that a management structure will be created to support the extended day component of full day early learning.
260.4	"The Minister, and, if authorized by the Minister, a board, may enter into agreements with any person or entity respecting the provision of financial assistance to persons who are charged fees under section 260.1."	Recognizes that for many families, the ability to access the extended day program is dependent on receiving financial assistance. This is an important access and equity issue.
264.1 (2)	Specifically sets out that teachers and early childhood educators will cooperate in: planning, observing, assessing, maintaining healthy environments, communicating with families, performing duties as assigned by the Principal.	Legislates an equal role for early childhood educators and teachers.

 

 

 

 

Concerning Components of the Act:

Section Reference	What it Says	Interpretation and Possible Implications
General	The preamble of the Act talks to the importance of "strong local partnerships" in the eventual success of the full day early learning program.	Unfortunately, the Act itself rules out the possibility of "strong local partnerships" in the delivery of the extended day component of the early learning program.
259. (1)	… every board shall operate extended day programs in every elementary school of the board, on every school day, other than professional activity days, outside the time when junior and kindergarten are operated in the school, for pupils of the board who are enrolled in junior kindergarten or kindergarten."	The extended day (before and after school) component of this initiative MUST be delivered directly by boards of education and may not be provided in collaboration with an existing community partner. This means that by the time this program is fully implemented there will be very few 4 and 5 year old children in the licensed child care sector. While some families may chose to keep their children in licensed child care, experience suggests that the vast majority will not.
259. (2)	… "a board may also operate…for any pupils of the board to whom the board decides to provide the program."	Boards may also provide extended day programs for children who are older than kindergarten age.
259. (4)	School boards are permitted to operate extended day programs for the pupils of other school boards.	The argument against providing the extended day programs in partnership with community based organizations is based on the intent to provide a fully integrated program in which children experience fewer transitions and fewer staff changes. It is difficult to understand how this clause supports this important philosophical direction as moving between schools up to three times a day is a lot of transitioning for kindergarten age children. It is also difficult to understand why collaboration with a community based agency operating in the same school is considered more disruptive than having children move between schools for the extended day component. This clause diminishes the strength of the rationale for direct delivery of the extended day program by boards.
260.1 (1)	Fees will be charged to parents of pupils enrolled in extended day programs on a cost recovery basis.	This changes the definition of pupils in the public school system. Currently, pupils do not pay to attend school.
260.3 (2)	Pupils do not have the right to attend the extended day fee-for-service component of the program.	The legislation does not make it clear under what circumstances a board might decide NOT to provide the extended day component. It is understood to be in those situations where the demand is not sufficient. Is it also possible that it might be in those circumstances where the demand is such that there are too many children for one group (the size of which is not yet clear) but not enough for a second?
260.4	"The Minister, and, if authorized by the Minister, a board, may enter into agreements with any person or entity respecting the provision of financial assistance to persons who are charged fees under section 260.1."	While this is an important access issue, where will the funding come from? If the existing subsidy for children 4 and 5 is removed from the licensed child care sector, at the same time that many communities are also losing spaces due to the end of Best Start funding, both group and home child care programs may struggle to fill their vacant spaces.
260.5 (1) (2) (a – m)	Give the Minister authority to issue "policies and guidelines respecting all aspects of the operation of extended day programs and require boards to comply with them…" This section includes such things as how subsidy will be calculated, the group sizes for the program, authorizing boards to enroll children in the extended day programs for the summer period.	This section allows the Minister to create policies and guidelines as the program is rolled out over the next 5 years. This is understandable given that this is a new program and there will be lots to learn, as it is unveiled. At the same time, this section creates continued confusion for parents and the licensed child care sector as it means there will continue to be many unknowns until and unless specific policies are announced.
General	Lack of clarity about the delivery of services on PD days, school holidays and during the summer.   The same is true about whether or not boards will provide extended day programs for children 6 and up.	This may create challenges for parents who require early learning and care program for their children on a year round basis. The lack of certainty also makes it difficult for the licensed child care sector to plan effectively.

 

We will continue to provide additional information about Bill 242 as it becomes available.