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.