the early years study years/the early years study.pdf · table of contents the early years study...

The Early Years StudyThree Years Later

From Early Child Development to Human Development:Enabling Communities

Hon. Margaret Norrie McCain & J. Fraser Mustard

August 2002

The preparation of this report was funded byThe Founders’ Network of the CanadianInstitute for Advanced Research (CIAR).

This report represents the views of the authors.

Printed in Canada, August, 2002Copyright 2002 J. Fraser Mustard

To obtain additional copies:

Educational institutions, governments, andcommunity organizations may reproduce this

report for distribution.

Graphic design and layout by:Melanie Gordon, Twotone Studio

www.twotonestudio.com

The Early Years Study Three Years Later

The Founders’ Network401 Richmond St. West Suite 281Toronto, ON M5V 3A8Phone: 416-593-5999Fax: 416-593-9093Web: www.founders.net

CHAPTERS

Preface i

Executive Summary ii

I Introduction 1

II International Initiatives in Early Child Development 2

III Canadian Early Child Development Communiqué 9

IV The Scientific Evidence 11

V Status of Ontario’s Children 16

VI The Early Years Study (1999) and Government’s Response 29

VII Considerations for the Government of Ontario 35

Appendix 1 44Do Parenting and Family Literacy Centres Make a Difference?Abstract, August 2001

Appendix 2 47Roots of Empathy

References 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS



TABLE OF CONTENTS


FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 US$ Expenditure per Child on Public and Private Institutions 4for Pre-Primary Education, 1998

Figure 2 Public Expenditure for Pre-Primary Education as a Percentage 5of GDP, 1998

Figure 3 Socioeconomic Gradients for Childhood Vulnerability 17Children Aged 0 to 3, 1994



Figure 6 Socioeconomic Gradients for Childhood Vulnerability 20Ontario Children Aged 0 to 3, 1994-1998




Figure 10 Socioeconomic Gradients for Childhood Vulnerability 24Ontario Children Aged 4 to 6, 1994-1998

Figure 11 EDI: Proportion of Children Living in Each Neighbourhood that 25Scored in the Bottom 10% on One or More Scales

Figure 12 Proportion of Grade 4 Students Scoring Below FSA 26Numeracy Expectations 1999-2000

Figure 13 From Early Child Development (ECD) to Human Development 43Table I Summary of Relationship Between Experience-Based Brain 11

Development in Early Life and Outcomes in Later Life in Respect to Health, Learning, and Behaviour

Table II EDI Measurement for Selected Regions in Ontario 27Table III ECD and Parenting Centres Versus Early Years Centres 33Table IV What Can Society and a Government Do? 41


Since the release of the Early Years Study (April1999), we have been asked for our commentsabout the response of the Government ofOntario to the recommendations in the report.

It is now a little more than four years since wecame together with the reference group toprepare the Early Years Study. Since then therehave been a number of new developments inour understanding of the importance of earlychildhood and the effects on health, learningand behaviour in the later stages ofdevelopment.

This report has been prepared by the co-chairs,Hon. Margaret McCain and J. Fraser Mustardwith the help of the reference group. JaneBertrand provided staff support. Doug Willmsprovided analysis of the National LongitudinalSurvey of Children and Youth data.

We have discussed the new knowledge anddevelopments and the failure of the Ontariogovernment to adequately act on therecommendations of the Early Years Study. Thecontents of the report in respect to the newknowledge and the government’s response arethe responsibility of the two co-chairs and JaneBertrand.

This report is dedicated to all the people wemet with in Ontario during the preparation ofthe Early Years Study and subsequently after therelease of that study. Despite the response ofthe government, most have been trying to findways to implement the key recommendationsthat are relevant to their communities.

The theme of this report is “From Early ChildDevelopment to Human Development:Enabling Communities”.

PREFACE

iThe Early Years Study Three Years Later

Hon. Margaret Norrie McCain J. Fraser Mustard

This report is an assessment of the Ontariogovernment’s response to the Early Years Studyrequested by the former Premier of Ontario,Michael Harris.

The report consists of seven sections:

1. Introduction

2. A review of international initiatives in early child development [ECD]

3. The September 11, 2000 communiqué ofthe Government of Canada on early child development

4. The new scientific evidence

5. The status of Ontario’s preschool children

6. The Government of Ontario’s response to the recommendations in the EarlyYears Study

7. Considerations for the Government ofOntario

The main conclusion from this review is that anumber of initiatives in different parts of theworld recognize that ECD (early childdevelopment) is a key step in humandevelopment trajectories that are set in theearly years and tend to carry on througheducation into adult life in respect to health,learning and behaviour. Thus, the theme ofthis document is “From Early ChildDevelopment to Human Development:Enabling Communities”.

The social and economic importance of thistheme is gaining recognition in manyjurisdictions and by groups. Heckman, the2000 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics,has recently stated clearly the fundamentalsocial and economic importance of the earlyyears:

“The best evidence suggests that learning begetslearning. Early investments in learning areeffective. Much of the recent emphasis on lowertuition costs for college students is misplacedwhen the value of early preschool interventions iscarefully examined. In the long run, significantimprovements in the skill levels of Americanworkers, especially workers not attending college,are unlikely without substantial improvementsin the arrangements that foster early learning.We cannot afford to postpone investing inchildren until they become adults, nor can wewait until they reach school age - a time when itmay be too late to intervene. Learning is adynamic process and is most effective when itbegins at a young age and continues throughadulthood. The role of the family is crucial tothe formation of learning skills, and governmentinterventions at an early age that mend theharm done by dysfunctional families have provento be highly effective.

The returns to human capital investments aregreatest for the young for two reasons: (a)younger persons have a longer horizon over whichto recoup the fruits of their investments and (b)skill begets skill. Skill remediation programsfor adults with severe educational disadvantagesare much less efficient compared to earlyintervention programs. So are trainingprograms for more mature displaced workers.The available evidence clearly suggests thatadults past a certain age and below a certain

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii The Early Years Study Three Years Later

skill level obtain poor returns to skillinvestment. A reallocation of funds frominvestment in the old and unskilled to the youngand more trainable for whom a human capitalstrategy is more effective is likely to producemore favorable outcomes in the long run. Atcertain levels of investment, marginal returnsare highest for the young.”52

In this report we set out why Early YearsCentres are not the early child developmentand parenting centres available to all familieswith young children which were recommendedin the Early Years Study. We have analyzed thenumber of vulnerable children in the 0 to 6 agegroup. Of the approximate 900,000 children,more than 200,000 are vulnerable. More than20% are vulnerable when they enter the schoolsystem. We know that with effective ECD andparenting programs, the number of vulnerablechildren in the preschool population can bereduced (see Appendix 1).

We set out a challenge to the Government ofOntario to now act on what was set out in theEarly Years Study and build on the capacity tostart to help put in place early childdevelopment and parenting centres. Theactions our society and government can takeinclude the following:

1. Learn how to better integrate ECD and education (the concept of a human development initiative).

2. Establish a legislative and funding framework to support the building of ECDand parenting centres as part of a broader human development initiative. Do not place ECD, a component of human development, in ministries or municipal

service programs concerned with health care and welfare programs.

3. Build on and involve the community in establishing the network of ECD and parenting centres available for all families with young children (communities have demonstrated some capacity to do this).Encourage and support schools to be part of this and embrace in the schools the principles of human development through programs such as Roots of Empathy (see Appendix 2).

4. Examine how other jurisdictions have overcome the silo structures of the public service and put in place more integration.

5. Establish a network of bases involving postsecondary education institutions (such as HELP in B.C.) to promote and help apply the new knowledge in the districts or regions in which they are located.Provide a coordinated EDI initiative to assess ECD based on the outcome measures, and help communities to developstrategies to improve ECD in their districts.

6. Encourage postsecondary institutions to establish initiatives that include ECD in their health, education and social science programs within a human development context.

7. What should the government organization be?

The equivalent of a Ministry ofHuman Development that includes all the institutional structure from conception to postsecondary

iiiThe Early Years Study Three Years Later

Executive Summary

education that influences human development

8. Themes for a government initiative in ECD could be:

From Early Child Development to Human DevelopmentEnabling Communities

iv The Early Years Study Three Years Later

Executive Summary

Since the release of the Early Years Study inApril 19991 awareness of the importance ofECD (early child development) in relation tohuman development has continued to increasein the developed and developing world. Therecent book from the World Bank2 emphasizesthe importance of tier one of humandevelopment (ECD) for human development.The Dutch economist, Jacques van der Gaag inhis work for the World Bank3 has emphasizedthat early child development sets thefoundation for learning, behaviour and health,and helps build social capital and equality, all ofwhich are crucial for prosperity and reducingpoverty in the developed and developing world.

The theme of this report, looking atdevelopments in Ontario since the release ofthe Early Years Study (April 1999) a little morethan three years ago is, “From Early ChildDevelopment to Human Development:Enabling Communities”.

The Early Years Study, commissioned andendorsed by Premier Harris, has hadconsiderable influence in Canada and otherregions of the world. In looking at what otherprovinces, countries, and institutions are doing,we have some measure of how well theGovernment of Ontario has understood andbeen able to implement the recommendationsof the Early Years Study. Three years after therelease of the report, the Reference Group metto consider progress by the Government ofOntario on the subject that Premier Harrisconsidered important.

We begin with a brief outline of recentinternational developments and the September11, 2000 communiqué4 of the provincialgovernments and the federal Government ofCanada.

I INTRODUCTION

1The Early Years Study Three Years Later

The World Bank has just released a publicationbased on their April 2000 meeting inWashington entitled, From Early ChildDevelopment to Human Development.

In this report, Iglesias (President of the Inter-American Development Bank) and D. Shalala(former Secretary U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services), state,5

“Much has been learned about how to help veryyoung children grow to be smart and healthy.The important step, however, is the next step --to engage families, communities, universities,religious and other organizations, as well asgovernment, to invest in the first and mostlasting hope of the new century, the world’schildren.”

The Ontario Early Years Study was distributedto the participants from different regions ofthe world attending this meeting and isreferenced in the recent World Bankpublication. Minister Marland, MinisterResponsible for Children in Ontario at the timeof the meeting, took part in this meeting.

The OECD has recently issued several reportson human development and the role of earlychild development (The Well-Being of Nations:The Role of Human and Social Capital, 20006, andStarting Strong, 20017). In the Starting Strongreport, they state:8

“As a result of recent demographic, economic,and social developments, childhoods are changingin OECD countries. An increasing proportion

of children are growing up in lone-parenthouseholds, and many hail from linguistically,culturally, and ethnically diverse families. Insome cases, they are living in poverty anddeprivation, at risk of social exclusion.Perhaps the most significant change in modernchildhoods is that children no longer spend thefirst five years of their lives at home with theirmothers. Increasingly, they are living a greaterpart of their early childhood in out-of-homesettings, and often, in multiple settings withmultiple caregivers. If these ECEC (earlychildhood education and care) experiences are ofsufficient quality, they will help strengthenchildren’s dispositions to be lifelong learners andto take an active part in society. Governmentsneed to acknowledge these societal changes andseek to better understand the implications forchildren, families, and society. A morecontextually-sensitive approach will help policyand provision respond in a holistic andintegrated manner to the needs of children andfamilies.”

In these reports, the OECD emphasized thefollowing key points for governments and theirsocieties to consider in building a strong basefor early child development and future highquality human capital.

Support for families with young children

Support for voluntary initiatives

Government decision-making process

Empowerment of citizens and proximity ofgovernment to people

II INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES IN EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT

2 The Early Years Study Three Years Later

World Bank

OECD

Figures 1 and 2 summarize a comparison ofspending on ECD (age 3 to compulsoryschool) in OECD countries. Public sectorspending in major developed countries is fromabout .1% of GDP to .8% of GDP. Canadain 1998 was at the low end of the group ofcountries. For countries for which data wereavailable, fees cover from about 11% to morethan 60% of the costs. These data are not aperfect comparison because the diverseinitiatives in many countries involving differentlevels of government and the private sectormake it difficult to create a common base.

UNICEF, in its recent report (December2001),9 has also emphasized the need forintegrating programs for early childdevelopment at the community level. This is achange from many earlier UNICEF initiativeswhen the emphasis was on nutrition, cleanwater and immunization, but not onintegration. They now include stimulation ornurturing as important and the need tointegrate these initiatives at the communitylevel.

In this initiative of the British government,they set out to:

“Improve the health and well being of familiesand children before and from birth so childrenare ready to flourish when they go to school.”

The target is 500 programs by 2004. Theinvestment in the two first years (1999-2000 to2001-2002) was £452 million to be increasedby a further £580 million over the next two

years. Thus, the government expenditure onthis new initiative is quite significant (about£250 million/year or about CAD$600 million).They already spend about 0.4% of their GDP7

on preschool programs (largely the age 3 toschool group). It appears they will beproviding increased support for the 0 to 3 agegroup. One of their key objectives is, “toachieve for children age 0 to 3 in the Sure Startareas, a reduction of five percentage points, thenumber of children with special and languageproblems requiring specialist education by age4.”

In putting the new initiative in place, thegovernment recognized they had to betterintegrate the understanding and initiatives invarious departments. Initially they askedTreasury Board to head this initiative but asunderstanding improved, they had the Ministerof Public Health chair the group with Treasurybacking. They had a number of reviewsinvolving individuals from a number ofministries particularly Education and Health aswell as external consultants.

The key conclusions from the review were:

The earliest years in life are the most important for child development, and that very early development is much more vulnerable to environmental influences than had previously been realized;

Multiple disadvantage for young children was a severe and growing problem, with such disadvantage greatly enhancing the chances of social exclusion later in life;


II International Initiatives in Early Child Development

UNICEF

British Government: Sure Start10



FIGURE 1 - US$ EXPENDITURE PER CHILD ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS FOR PRE-PRIMARYEDUCATION (BASED ON FTE’S, 1998, US$ CONVERTED USING PPP’S)

Source: OECD Education Database 2001



FIGURE 2 - PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR PRE-PRIMARY EDUCATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, 1998(EXCLUDING SUBSIDIES)

Source: OECD Education Database 2001

In preparing this ECD initiative, theyrecognized its effects on health and learning.They therefore set in place the followingorganizational structure.

To ensure that the program continued toreflect the cross-cutting nature of the initiative,it was decided that David Blunkett, theSecretary of State for Education andEmployment should speak for the program inCabinet, but that the Minister for Public Healthshould continue to have day-to-dayresponsibility for the program and to chair thesteering group of departmental Ministers andsenior officials overseeing the development ofthe program. The management group ofjunior officials from various departments aswell as the Prime Minister’s office, the SocialExclusion Unit, local government and thevoluntary sector continues to be chaired byTreasury Board. The Head of the Sure Startunit will be an additional accounting officerwithin the DfEE (Department for Educationand Employment), to make clear that theprogram is not just another “normal” DfEEprogram.

In order to emphasize the crosscutting natureof the program, one particularly interestingdecision involves a minor but fascinatingconstitutional innovation:

The quality of programs for young children and their families varied enormously across localities and districts,with uncoordinated and patchy services being the norm in many areas. Programs were particularly dislocated for the under fours - an age group who tended to get missed out from other government programs;

The provision of a comprehensive community-based program of early intervention and family support which builton existing services could have positive andpersistent effects, not only on child and family development but also help break thecycle of social exclusion and lead to significant long-term gain to the Exchequer.

On the last point the Review established thatwhile there was no single blueprint for the idealset of effective early interventions, they shouldshare the following characteristics:

Two generations: involve parents as well aschildren;Non-stigmatizing: avoid labeling “problemfamilies”;Multifaceted: target a number of factors not just, for example, education or health or “parenting”;Persistent: last long enough to make a real difference;Locally driven: based on consultation and involvement of parents and local communities; andCulturally appropriate and sensitive to the needs of children and parents.



When questions are asked in the House ofCommons about Sure Start, the questions willbe tabled during education question time butthe Minister of Public Health speaking as aHealth Minister will give the answers. This isone of the first public policies to recognizethat ECD affects health, learning andbehaviour.

Thus, the U.K. acknowledges the importanceof ECD in health and learning and has takensteps to modify the government’s structure tosupport this initiative.

The United States has no comprehensive ECDpolicy but public awareness campaigns, strongadvocacy and extensive research have secured aplace for ECD on the public agenda. Recentdevelopments including an increase in politicalcommitment and investment at both thefederal and state levels are increasing theprovision of ECD programs. Several initiativespromote coordination among state and localgovernments, nonprofit organizations,businesses and local communities. Professionalorganizations and many state-wide initiativeshave addressed quality and staffing issues.

Examples of recent developments include thefollowing:

Head Start11,12 is a compensatory preschoolprogram that began in 1965 targeted toameliorate the impact of social and economicdisadvantage. Program activities arecomprehensive and involve preschool children,family members and other caregivers. Federalfunds are allocated to state governments andthen applied to programs. The present federalallocation is now US$6.5 billion and theaverage annual cost per child in the program (0to 6) is US$6600. Approximately one million(about 4% of all preschool children) targetedpreschool children now participate in HeadStart programs.

When first started, it was mainly applied tochildren three years of age or older. During

the last decade, it has been extended to a smallnumber of children in the 0 to 3 age group.Today the program operates in more than 664communities serving approximately 55,000children.

Overall, the findings from the Head Startprograms (mainly observational research) showbenefits for children who participate. Programsthat begin early in life with quality caregivinghave longer term and bigger effects. The mostrecent conclusions are that the earlier the start,the better the gain. Programs that start at threeyears have less effect than those that startearlier.

California Proposition 1013 is the result of avery strong group of citizens in that state thatpromoted the importance of ECD. In the 1998state elections, they set out a proposition tocollect a 50 cent tax on the sale of eachpackage of cigarettes. The income from thetobacco tax is distributed to each of the localcounty commissions to build ECD programsthat incorporate and expand existing programs.The allocation is administered by localcommissions (made up of local communitymembers) within each of the 58 counties. Theannual income is about US$700 to US$800million which represents about US$23/personin California. Eighty percent of this is allocatedto the counties and twenty percent is used forresearch, state-wide infrastructure andadministration costs. This is in addition toother support in California and the federalgovernment initiatives such as the Head Startprogram.

Several points stand out from this brief review.First of all, none of the diverse societies referto the ECD programs as daycare, in part



United States

because daycare, in the minds of many olderadults, gets interpreted as babysitting ratherthan ECD but the centres do providenonparental care. Secondly, there isrecognition that ECD, has a major effect onthe next stages of development and eventually,competence, and coping skills as an adult.



In Canada, a significant development was theannouncement by the First Ministers onSeptember 11, 2000, of afederal/provincial/territorial agreement forECD.4

In the announcement they,

To meet these objectives, the First Ministersagreed on four key areas for action. Theystated, “Governments’ efforts within thisframework will focus on any or all of theseareas. This will build on the priority thatgovernments have placed on early childhooddevelopment and the investments thatgovernments have already made.” (Eachprovince or territory can select specific areasfor implementation.)

1. Promote Healthy Pregnancy, Birth, andInfancy“Prenatal, birth, and infancy experiences have a profound effect on the health and well-being of infants and young children, andcontribute to continuing good health. Thispriority addresses needs related to the prenatal,birth and infancy periods and includes supportsfor pregnant women, new parents, infants andcare providers. Possible examples are prenatalprograms and information, and infant screeningprograms.”

2. Improve Parenting and Family Supports“Parents and families have the primaryresponsibility for the care of their children. Thispriority addresses the needs related to positiveparenting and includes supports for parents andcaregivers. Possible examples are family resourcecentres, parent information and home visiting.”

3. Strengthen Early Childhood Development, Learning and Care“Quality early child development, learning andcare have been shown to promote physical,language and motor skills; and social, emotionaland cognitive development. This priority includessupports that promote healthy development,provide opportunities for interaction and play,help prepare children for school and respond tothe diverse and changing needs of families.Possible examples include preschools, child careand targeted developmental programs for youngchildren.”

4. Strengthen Community Supports“Communities make key contributions to thewell-being of children through formal andinformal networks. This priority includessupports to strengthen community capacity to

III CANADIAN EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT COMMUNIQUE


“affirm their commitment to the well-being of childrenby setting out their vision of early child development asan investment in the future of Canada. Canada’sfuture social vitality and economic prosperity depend onthe opportunities that are provided to children today.”

“The early years of life are critical in the developmentand future well-being of the child, establishing thefoundation for competence and coping skills that willaffect learning, behaviour and health. Children thrivewithin families and communities that can meet theirphysical and developmental needs and can providesecurity, nurturing, respect and love. New evidence hasshown that development from the prenatal period toage six is rapid and dramatic and shapes long-termoutcomes.”

Four Areas for Action

meet the needs of children and families from ahealthy community perspective. Possible examplesinclude supports for community-based planningand service integration.”

They also outlined two key components for thedevelopment of these initiatives in respect tofunding and public accountability.

“First Ministers agree that ensuring effectiveearly childhood development is a long-termcommitment to our children’s future. FirstMinisters agree that investments for earlychildhood development should be incremental,predictable and sustained over the long term.First Ministers are committed to helping allsectors of society support children in their earlyyears and to making incremental investments inthis area.”

Under this agreement, Ontario received $114million in 2001, rising to $187 million in 2003.

Effective January 1, 2001, pregnancy andparental leave benefits increased from six months to one year. The benefits areadministered through the federal EmploymentInsurance program. Pregnancy and parental leave benefits remain tied to employment statusand are available only when parents are in thepaid labour force prior to the birth or adoptionof a child.

The benefits provide about 50% of a parent’sincome (up to a maximum of about$400/week). The eligibility requirements for

Employment Insurance eliminate more than60% of parents with newborn or adoptedchildren.1 The employer can add to theincome. Nevertheless, the introduction ofpregnancy/parental leave benefit for up to aone year period is significant. It establishes abenchmark of a one year leave. Perhaps mostsurprising, is the relatively positive (or at leastnot negative) response from the private sector.

The province of Ontario revised theEmployment Standards Act to be consistentwith the changes in the federal benefits.


III Canadian Early Child Development Communiqué

Funding

Pregnancy / Parental Leaveand Benefits

Since the report was released evidence mountsthat reinforces the conclusions aboutexperience-based brain development in theearly years and the effects on health, learning,and behaviour throughout life. New evidencefrom neurobiology, animal studies,epidemiological and longitudinal studies ofpopulations, intervention studies, andobservational studies reaffirms that experience-based brain development in the early years oflife, including the in utero period, affectslearning, behaviour, and physical and mentalhealth throughout life. This is summarized inTable I. The remarkable consistency in thefindings from these studies strengthens theconclusions.

Further studies in the biological fields ofneuroscience, epidemiology, and longitudinalstudies have shown the relationship betweenwhat has been called the stress pathway andbehaviour, physical and mental health, anxiety,substance abuse, and other mental andbehaviour characteristics in later life.2,14,15,16,17

A key conclusion from the new knowledge isthat the regulatory control of thehypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal gland (HPA)pathway and linkage to other pathways in thebrain (e.g. serotonin and the frontal brain) isinfluenced by events during the prenatal periodand in the early years of life and can set a

IV THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE


Coping With Challenges

TABLE I - SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPERIENCE-BASED BRAIN DEVELOPMENTIN EARLY LIFE AND OUTCOMES IN LATER LIFE IN RESPECT TO

HEALTH, LEARNING AND BEHAVIOUR

A. HealthPhysical Coronary heart disease, blood pressure

Type II diabetes, immune pathways (host defense), obesity

Mental Depression, suicide

B. Learning Level of LiteracyLevel of NumeracyLevel of Academic AchievementLevel of IQ

C. Behaviour Anti-socialViolenceSubstance AbuseAlcohol AbuseSmoking

CATEGORY OUTCOMES LATER IN LIFE

control in respect to the stress response for lifethat can be good or bad depending on one’scircumstances. Because of the effect of thispathway on the hippocampus and on thefrontal brain, it influences memory, behaviourand cognition. It also has a major effect on theimmune system and the body’s overall defensepathways.18,19 The response and control of theHPA pathway to the life course has obviouseffects on body systems. McEwen refers tothis system’s response to stress as the allostaticload.19 Stress can be caused by external factorsor by internal factors such as disease.

Adults subject to physical or sexual abuse, orneglect during the early sensitive period ofbrain development show escalation ofhormones such as cortisol and ACTH inresponse to stress and a slow return to restinglevels in contrast to adults with little or noabuse in childhood.20 It is likely that becauseof these hormones and their effect and thecortico-releasing hormone and other pathwaysin the brain, some subjects who experienceearly childhood neglect or abuse show anincreased risk in adult life for mental healthproblems such as depression, antisocialbehaviour including violence, drug and alcoholabuse and learning difficulties.21,22,23 It isestimated that 10% or more of the populationhave experienced significant, repeated physicalor sexual abuse or neglect in the early years.24

Secure attachment buffers the cortisol responseto events in young children.25 When childrenparticipate in childcare settings, the cortisol risethroughout the day is higher than it is forchildren who are cared for by parents at home.For the majority in good quality settings, thedifference is minimal and is likely to supportchildren’s successful development in dealing

with social and cognitive challenges. However,Megan Gunnar and her colleagues26,27 havereported disturbing findings that indicatechildren who are angry and aggressive andplaced in poor quality settings exhibit a muchsharper rise in their cortisol levels.

The evidence concerning the development ofsensing pathways, language, and cognitionshow a similar pattern of sensitivity in relationto the early years.28,29,30,31,32 The brain is mostplastic in the early years and for the sensingpathways such as vision, touch, smell, andhearing, this is most dynamic during the firstyears of life. For language, which begins early,the development of the sensing pathways isobviously important. The acquisition oflanguage skills is influenced by the sensoryinput to the brain.

Differences in language development can bedetected in the first years of life and by 24months, differences in vocabulary words canbe detected among children from differentsocial classes.29,30,31 This development isstrongly related to communicative wordsspoken to the child during the early period oflife. This period of development has asignificant effect on later languagedevelopment and literacy and for males, isrelated to anti-social behaviour as teenagers.33

It also appears to be related to IQ, which isinfluenced by the effects of the caregivingenvironment on experience-based braindevelopment in the early years, particularly thefirst year.34


IV The Scientific Evidence

Early Language Development

Individual and population longitudinal,intervention and observational studies continueto report findings that are consistent with thebiological studies and studies reviewed for theEarly Years Study and the World Bankreport.2,12,35,36 The quality of care (parentaland nonparental) has the strongest influenceon early development. Early childhoodprograms are most effective when they supportparents’ active participation in their children’searly learning and development as well asprovide regular, consistent opportunities forguided interactions and play with otherchildren.

Early Head StartThe Early Head Start initiative in the UnitedStates is intended to enhance children’s earlydevelopment and health, strengthen family andcommunity partnerships and support staffworking with low income families withpregnant women, infants or toddlers.11,12 TheEarly Head Start targeted program began in1995 and operates in 664 communities, serving55,000 children. Seventeen of the programsparticipated in a randomized controlled trialevaluation. Program approaches includedcentre-based care, home-based care and mixedoptions. Overall, the investigators foundsignificant differences on a number of themeasures. Early Head Start children scoredsignificantly higher than control children oncognitive measures, language development andseveral aspects of social emotionaldevelopment. Early Head Start parents wereobserved to be more emotionally supportiveand provide greater support language andlearning than control group parents.

Three specific findings from this study supportthe conclusions of the Early Years Study:

Impacts on children by age three years were associated with improved parenting when children were two years old.Enhanced parenting capacity supports children’s development.

Programs that are both adult- and child-focused are more likely to improve child development outcomes than programs thatfocus primarily on parents or on children.The investigators recommend that the Early Head Start centre-based activities should increase attention to supporting parents and drawing them into daily interactions with the programs.

The strongest impacts were achieved with children whose families enrolled earlier.Programs that enroll children of families asearly as possible (preferably before birth) have a more significant effect on ECD outcomes.

NICHD (National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development) StudyThe National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development (NICHD) Study ofEarly Child Care is a comprehensivelongitudinal study, initiated by NICHD in 1989,to consider questions about the relationshipbetween early childhood experiences and childand youth developmental outcomes.35 Thestudy included 1,364 families from variedethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, livingin 10 locations in U.S. sites. Families wereselected using a conditional random samplingmethod at the time of their children’s birth.Parents selected the type and timing of child



Supportive Early Environments

care for their own children (not a randomplacement) - and child care placements includecare by other family members (not mother), in-home, family child care, and centre-based care.The research team observed settings at regularintervals (6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months) toassess characteristics of child care - includingage of entry into care, quantity of care, qualityof care, provider’s education and training,group size, safety and health issues.

By age three, over 90% of the children hadexperienced regular nonparental care and over50% were regularly spending over 30hours/week in care. Two of the centralconclusions35,36 to date confirm theconclusions of the Early Years Study:

Family factors including parenting involvement were more consistent predictors of children’s outcomes than any aspect of nonparental care. Parenting is a key element in shaping early experiences and early brain development.

The quality of the nonparental care experiences does make a difference for outcomes. Settings that ensure basic health and safety measures, positive adult-child interactions and regular opportunities for guided play with other children predicted better language and social-emotional outcomes for children.

The NICHD findings echo those found byMegan Gunnar and her colleagues, as discussedearlier. Poor quality nonparental care settingscombined with maternal insensitivity hadnegative effects for children’s outcomes,particularly social-emotional measures that

reflect their ability to deal with stress andchallenges.

British Cohort Longitudinal StudiesFurther investigation of the British 1958 and197037,38 cohort studies and other studies showadditional confirmation of the conclusions ofthe Early Years Study in relation to the earlyyears of development and the trajectory ofdevelopment in the school system. Childdevelopment measures in the 1970 cohort at 22and 42 months had a significant correlationwith later academic achievement. Studies fromthe 1970 British birth cohort longitudinal studyfound that preschool programs and parentingpractices were important predictors of themobility of children from all social classes outof disadvantage in the school system. Theseobservations from the 1970 British longitudinalstudy are compatible with the AmericanAbecedarian study showing clearly the effect ofimprovement in the early years on betteroutcomes in school and adult life.39

Jefferis, Power and Hertzman40 found, in theiranalysis of the 1958 cohort data, a clearrelationship between birth weight and socialclass and cognitive development as measured atages 7, 11 and 16. The largest effect was theeffect of social class at birth (presumably theearly years period) not the school period. Thisevidence is compatible with the influence ofbirth weight and ECD on cognitivedevelopment (in this case, mathematics) ofchildren in the school system. The trajectoryset in the preschool period is difficult tochange when the children enter the schoolsystem.

Feinstein,38 an economist, in his analysis of theBritish longitudinal cohort studies concluded,



“although this result is far from novel, thepaper has shown that these early differencesare not greatly off-set by the schooling systemin the U.K. These early differences are shownto influence ultimate schooling outcomes, butthe paper has also shown that when childrenenter school, the weakening position ofchildren in less educated or lower SES familiesis, at least, halted”. This suggests that schoolinginstitutions are capable of influencingdevelopmental trajectories.

Canadian National Longitudinal Surveyof Children and YouthIn examining the Canadian NationalLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth(NLSCY) in respect to factors influencingchildren in all socioeconomic classes, readingto the child and social support are important.41

When these are of good quality, thesocioeconomic gradient is reduced. Thisillustrates the importance of ECD andparenting centres for all families with youngchildren.

Understanding the effect of experience-basedbrain development in the early years onsubsequent human development in learning,behaviour, and health means that ECD andparenting programs should be placed in apublic policy structure that embraces all sectorsthat relate to human development includingeducation and health.



The National Longitudinal Survey of Childrenand Youth (NLSCY) is a long-term surveydesigned to track child development and well-being from birth to early adulthood. It collectsinformation about how a child’s family,friends, activities, school and communityaffects their learning, behaviour and health.The survey is done in partnership by StatisticsCanada and Human Resources DevelopmentCanada. The first cycle of the survey wasconducted in 1994 - 95 with a representativesample of almost 23,000 children, fromnewborns to age 11. Data are collected everytwo years; new children (newborns to twoyears) are added to the sample, and the agespan moves upward for each cycle.

Measures of expression of brain development(verbal skills, literacy, behaviour etc.) indeveloped countries in the early years plottedagainst the SES (social economic status) of thefamilies are a gradient. Doug Willms hascombined measures of ECD from the NLSCY(National Longitudinal Survey of Children andYouth) into a “vulnerability index”.41 Thisshows that vulnerable children live in familiesin all socioeconomic sectors, not just in lowincome families (poverty). As stated in theEarly Years Study, this information has majorpolicy ramifications that point to the need forECD and parenting programs available for allfamilies with young children, not just thosewho have identified special needs or areconsidered at-risk by the usual criteria.

The Willms’ vulnerability index is intended toidentify children whose chances of optimumhuman development (health, learning, andbehaviour) are reduced even with a concertedand prolonged effort on their behalf whenthey enter the school system and in later in life.Children were classified as being vulnerable inthe cognitive domain if they had a low scoreon a standardized test of motor and socialdevelopment at ages 0 to 3, a low score on atest of receptive vocabulary at ages 4 to 5, or alow score on a standardized mathematics testat ages 6 to 11. Children were consideredvulnerable in the behavioural domain if theywere rated by their parents as having a difficulttemperament at ages 0 or 1, or were classifiedas having any one of six behaviour disorders(i.e. anxiety, emotional disorder, hyperactivity,inattention, physical aggression, or indirectaggression) at ages 4 to 11. We examined thevulnerability measures for children 0 to 6 yearsin Ontario based on the 1994, 1996, and 1998NLSCY data.

Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 show vulnerablechildren in the 0 to 3 age group in threeconsecutive cycles of the NLSCY data forOntario. The estimates of vulnerability for thisage group are based on parent report measures.In 1994, 24% were rated as vulnerable and in1998, the figure was about 22%, a decline of2%. An interesting observation from the 1998data is that the percentage of vulnerablechildren by these criteria is almost the same inall socioeconomic groups - the gradient is quiteflat. Vulnerability for the 0 to 3 group declinedin the rest of Canada by about 7% between1994 and 1998. The declines for low SESchildren in Ontario were similar to those forthe rest of Canada. However, in Ontario thepercentage of vulnerable children in highersocioeconomic families increased. In 1998there were about 505,000 children in the 0 to 3age group in Ontario. Based on this analysis,over 110,000 of these children were vulnerablefor the next stages in development.

Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10 show that thevulnerability gradient for children in the 4 to 6age group against socioeconomic status hasbecome steeper in Ontario between 1994 and1998 with an overall decline of 5%. In the restof Canada vulnerability for the 4 to 6 agegroup declined by nearly 8% during thisperiod. Between 1996 and 1998 the prevalenceof vulnerability among low socioeconomicstatus children increased, while it declined inthe rest of Canada. In 1998, there wereapproximately 102,000 vulnerable children inthe 4 to 6 age group in Ontario.

The assessment for this age group includesdirect child outcome measures in addition toparent report measures. The increased slope ofvulnerability could be related to the

V STATUS OF ONTARIO’S CHILDREN


introduction of the direct child measures but isalso influenced by the consequences ofexperience-based brain development during thefirst three years.

From this analysis, approximately 212,000children, of 900,000 in the 0 to 6 age groupin Ontario are at risk of not reaching theirfull potential when they enter the schoolsystem and are on a life course trajectorythat could lead to learning, behaviour, andhealth problems in later life. The majorityof these children live in two-parent, middleincome families.


V Status of Ontario’s Children

How to Read Figures 3 to 10The horizontal line represents the socioeconomicstatus (SES) of families. On the far left side arechildren whose families are in the lowest SES groupand on the far right side are children whose familiesare in the top SES group. The children whose familiesare between -1 SES (low-middle SES group) to thosewhose families are +1 SES (high-middle SES group)make up about two-thirds of the population.

The vertical line represents the percentage of childrenwith a poor outcome.

The line represents the statistical relationship betweenfamily SES and the numbers of children who arehaving problems.

Note that this analysis and all subsequent analysesare controlled for immigrant status. Thus the Y axisshould really read “Prevalence of measure, adjustedfor immigrant status”.

FIGURE 3 - SOCIOECONOMIC GRADIENTS FOR CHILDHOOD VULNERABILITY, CHILDREN AGED 0 TO 3National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 1994

A small proportion of vulnerable children havespecific identified disabilities that are tied totheir genetic inheritance. Others have identifiedcongenital disabilities that are related to theirprenatal or earliest environment perhapscombined with particular geneticpredispositions. For example, approximatelyone in every 500 children is estimated to beautistic.43 This means approximately 1,800preschool children in Ontario. There willalways be a small proportion of children withidentified specific special needs who willrequire specific interventions but the vastmajority of the vulnerabilities we see in

Ontario’s children can be reduced throughenvironments that promote optimal ECD.Helping these vulnerable children throughspecialized interventions later on in the schoolsystem is difficult and expensive. It isimportant that children who do have specificspecial needs not only benefit from specializedinterventions early in life but should, whereverpossible, also be when appropriate included inan ECD parenting program. In other words,good ECD and parenting programs help allfamilies.




Many vulnerable children will carry forward adevelopmental drag that will for many affecttheir mental and physical health, copingabilities and competence throughout life.Special education and other remedial programsappear to be limited in what they can do tohelp many of the vulnerable children once theyenter the school system.37,38

Based on Doug Willms’ recent analyses,41,42 weknow something of the environmental factorsthat affect the vulnerability scores. Familiesproviding poor parenting and caregiving havemore vulnerable children. [This occurs in all

social classes.] One of the strikingobservations is that regardless ofsocioeconomic class, if children are read to,they are less likely to have poor cognitivedevelopment or major behavioural problems.Also, if there is strong social support, there isgood cognitive development and no increasedbehavioural problems. This is a strong reasonwhy societies need to put in place community-based quality ECD and parenting initiatives forall families with young children.

The total number of vulnerable children inOntario is a large number. It will not be




possible to substantially improve thequality of the overall population withoutdramatically reducing this number.

The greatest numbers of vulnerable childrenlive in two-parent, middle-income families;targeting developmental resources to childrenwho are living in poverty, although valuable,will have a relatively small impact on the overallpopulation. Estimates suggest that if we couldeliminate the negative impact of poverty, wewould only reduce the numbers of childrenwho are vulnerable by 10%1 or about 22,000 inthe 0 to 6 age group. Children in single parent

families, if the child is read to and supported(good ECD programs involving the parents),do well. Interventions to address the needs ofchildren with diagnosed, specific disabilities canimprove the quality of life for these childrenbut these targeted programs will not have animpact on the large number of vulnerablechildren.

In part as a result of the September 11, 2000report, a national EDI (early development



FIGURE 6 - SOCIOECONOMIC GRADIENTS FOR CHILDHOOD VULNERABILITY,ONTARIO CHILDREN AGED 0 TO 3

National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 1994-1998

Community-Based Outcome Measures:Early Development Instrument (EDI)44

instrument) has been applied to childrenentering schools in a number of communitiesacross Canada. This measure is used to assess,on a population basis, ECD outcomes in acommunity. The EDI consists of fivemeasures:

This measure has been extensively applied tochildren entering the school system in Ontarioand British Columbia as well as in other partsof Canada. In Ontario, the EDI has now beenused in over 75 communities.45

In Vancouver, the percentage of children in thebottom 10% of one or more of the measuresin the EDI assessment is a gradient whenplotted against the socioeconomiccircumstances in the districts from which thesechildren came (6% to 11% of the children inthe most affluent districts, to 30% to 38% inthe poorest districts [Figure 11]).




1. Physical health and well-being2. Social competence3. Emotional maturity4. Language and cognition5. Communication and general knowledge

This is similar to the gradient in the receptivelanguage measure at ages 4 to 5, found in therecent report, Early Child Development in BritishColumbia: Enabling Communities,46 which rangedfrom 5% to 35%. It is similar to the gradientfor the measurements of verbal skills forchildren aged 4 and 5, reported in the OntarioEarly Years Study. In the Vancouver assessment,the schools in districts with the largerproportion of children with a low EDI scoreperformed less well in terms of reading andmathematics in the Grade 4 tests than theschools with children entering with a higherscore on the EDI measure (Figure 12). In the

more affluent districts, less than 11% of thestudents did not meet the Grade 4 numeracyexpectations, while in the poorest districts,more than 50% did not meet the expectedresult. These observations are consistent withthe conclusion from the longitudinal studiesdiscussed earlier that the quality of ECDinfluences school performance.

The B.C. data is the first Canadian evidencethat school performance is related to thequality of ECD before the children enter theschool system. In Vancouver the data aremade available to the communities to decide




how they would like to mobilize resources toimprove ECD.

Table II shows the percentage of childrenwith low performance on the EDI assessmentfor three Ontario regions. The districts arecensus tract districts for these regions. Thisshows that there is a gradient by district in theEDI assessment and that the range is from alow of 5.6% in a district of York to over 43%in a district of Nipissing/Parry Sound. This issimilar to the data for Vancouver in terms ofthe range of children’s performance by district.Preliminary assessment for Ontario indicates

that schools in districts with poor EDIperformance for children entering the schoolsin the district have poor Grade 3 test results.

The recent report of the Grade 10 schoolliteracy test in Ontario47 is interesting in viewof early experience-based brain development,language acquisition, and literacy capacity inlater life. Children with poor verbal skills atage 4 and 5 tend not to do well in the schoolsystem. This largely comes from the findingsof longitudinal studies in Sweden, the UnitedKingdom and the United States. The data forthe Early Years Study showed that about 22% of




Ontario’s children in this age group performedat the lower end of the testing scale for verbalskills. If the school system can only marginallyhelp the majority of these children, one wouldexpect poor literacy performance of around25% of the children in Grade 10. In fact, therecent literacy test showed that about 32%performed poorly. These data also arecongruent with the Statistics Canada OECDdata for youth literacy in Canada.48 About40% of this population functioned at level 1and 2 of the literacy test scaling (lowperformance). The critical question is how

much of this represents a trajectory in learningbecause of poor brain development in the earlyyears (verbal skills and language development)for which it is difficult for school programs tochange outcomes.

The school system runs special programs forchildren with problems in reading and writing.It is difficult to get hard evidence about thescale of the problem in the school system andthe effectiveness of the special educationprograms for these children. Anecdotalevidence suggests that it is a sizeable problem



FIGURE 10 - SOCIOECONOMIC GRADIENTS FOR CHILDHOOD VULNERABILITY,ONTARIO CHILDREN AGED 4 TO 6

National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 1994-1998



FIGURE 11 - EDI: PROPORTION OF CHILDREN LIVING IN EACH NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT SCORED IN THE BOTTOM 10% ON ONE OR MORE SCALES

The University of British Columbia Community Asset Mapping Project

Sour

ce: E

arly

Dev

elop

men

t Ins

trum

ent

Col

lect

ion,

Feb

ruar

y, 2

000



FIGURE 12 - PROPORTION OF GRADE 4 STUDENTS SCORING BELOW FSA* NUMERACY EXPECTATIONS,1999-2000

The University of British Columbia Community Asset Mapping Project

Sour

ce: M

inis

try o

f Edu

catio

n

1 5.6 900 10.5 1010 10.7 6402 5.9 725 11.4 700 14.3 1603 18.7 435 15.0 440 17.3 4354 24.0 535 22.5 460 21.7 4205 30.0 610 24.4 705 22.2 1306 33.6 445 29.4 345 25.0 3007 35.2 505 33.3 635 33.3 1658 40.0 285 42.9 595 43.2 215

and that the effectiveness of special educationis limited due to a variety of factors. In ourmeetings with primary school principals andteachers, they continually emphasized thatchildren with poor verbal and literacy skills atschool entry tended not to do well in theschool system and it was difficult to improveoutcomes. A rough estimate of the cost forspecial education programs for vulnerablechildren and children with special needs inOntario is about $1.2 billion per year.Investment in quality ECD and parentingprograms could reduce the number ofvulnerable children entering the school systemand reduce the need for special educationprograms for the vulnerable children.

The B.C. initiative demonstrates that the EDImeasure can show the burden of children in a

district not meeting a development standardfrom a population perspective. It also showsthe difficulty schools in the different regions ofa community have in meeting the standards forschool test results. This is compatible with theU.S. readiness-to-learn data and schoolperformance.49

One of the challenges is the application of theEDI assessment in communities and theestablishment of an institutional structure towork with them to improve the performanceof ECD in districts where children are notperforming at the desirable level. TheUniversity of British Columbia, incollaboration with other postsecondary



TABLE II - EDI MEASUREMENT FOR SELECTEDREGIONS IN ONTARIO

REGIONCENSUSTRACT

DISTRICT YORK GREY BRUCE NIPISSING/PARRY SOUNDEDI* # Children EDI* # Children EDI* # Children

British Columbia Human EarlyLearning Partnership (HELP)

*percent scoring low on one or more of the EDI assessments

institutions, has initiated the Healthy EarlyLearning Partnership (HELP).46 The B.C.government has given support to thisinnovative initiative. The mission of HELP isto create, promote and apply new knowledgethrough leading interdisciplinary research tohelp children thrive. It will play a key role inapplying the EDI assessment by district inBritish Columbia. The themes of this initiativeare:

Create new knowledge: By stimulating andsupporting a network of interdisciplinaryresearch into the fundamental aspects of childcognitive, language, social and emotionaldevelopment, HELP will allow us tounderstand more fully the factors thatencourage optimal readiness-to-learn.

Apply new knowledge: Working closely withcommunities, non-profit organizations,professional networks, and governments,HELP will apply this new knowledge tomobilize and coordinate approaches andinterventions in ECD. The application of thisknowledge along with the EDI outcomes willenable communities to assess how well theirinitiatives are doing in reducing the number ofvulnerable children.

Promote new knowledge: Understanding thepowerful interplay between early childhoodexperiences and subsequent health, well-beingand competence has important implications forpolicy in Canada. Armed with scientificevidence, HELP will assist the government inits ECD strategy to improve the circumstancesin which children grow up, live and learn. Indoing so, HELP will effect change and reducesignificant gaps in existing patterns of B.C.children’s development, so that all childrenhave the ability to reach their full potential.

This initiative, involving individuals from anumber of disciplines in four postsecondaryinstitutions, will have the capacity to improveunderstanding among professional groups incommunities and to apply the EDI outcomemeasures in the districts and help communitiesput in place strategies to improve ECD

Ontario could consider creating a similarinfrastructure among a number of itspostsecondary institutions to work withcommunities in their regions. The CanadianCentre for Studies of Children at Risk atMcMaster University (the base for the EDIassessment), as is the case with UBC, could bethe hub for such an initiative.



Former Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris,called for the Early Years Study, endorsed it andbrought it to the attention of his colleaguesacross the country which contributed to theagreement on ECD released by theprovincial/territorial First Ministers and thePrime Minister on September 11, 2000.4 Thefederal government put up new dollars to helpprovinces and territories implement the idea ofECD programs and outcome measures for thewhole country. That announcement setobjectives including the possibility ofincremental funding if provinces met the goalsset out in the September 11 communiqué. Ifthe provinces do not fulfill the objectives theyagreed to in principle on September 11, 2000,it may be difficult for them to get support forincremental funding, particularly beyond thefive year term of the agreement.

Since the release of the Early Years Study, manyof us have had meetings with communitiesacross the province. Some of the followingcomments come from this experience as wellas the government reports.

The Government of Ontario initially, throughMargaret Marland, Minister Responsible forChildren, set up a staff and secretariat to takesteps to implement the report. One of the keyrecommendations of the report called for thedevelopment of ECD and parenting centres incommunities. They would be based on thecapacity of communities to develop programsavailable for all families with young children,sensitive to ethnicity, language, religion, andother social, cultural factors and based, in part,on existing programs in the community. Thereport suggested the communities shouldbecome organized to involve all sectors. Privatesector involvement was important particularly

because many businesses now employ largenumbers of mothers (as well as fathers) in allsocial classes with young children, aged 0 to 6years.

A series of initiatives followed.

In September 1999, the Children’s Secretariat established demonstration projects in five communities to test how well all sectors of communities could get together to build on existing programs to establish ECD and parenting centres as set out in the report. Activities included implementation of the Early Development Instrument (EDI), community resource mapping and start up of small initiatives that were able to bring together both private and public sector support. Over thecourse of the next 18 months each of the project sites made progress in building community capacity for ECD.50

In April 2000, Minister Marland establishedan Early Years Task Group to provide advice to the government on how to set upa provincial framework to support a province-wide Early Years Program based on ECD and parenting centres. The group prepared an interim report in January 2001 (not made public) that recommended increased public education, an integrated database development, changes in education regulation and funding in relation to on-site ECD programs, the needto address transportation and nonparental care issues and increased professional development opportunities for ECD staff.The Task Force was disbanded in the spring of 2001 when the Children’s

VI THE EARLY YEARS STUDY (1999) AND GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE


Secretariat was moved into the Ministry ofCommunity and Social Services.

The provincial government announced an Early Years Challenge Fund that would match contributions raised in the community from business, the public and foundations to build community ECD capacity. In September 2000, Minister Marland announced the establishment oflocal Early Years Steering Committees and community coordinators in each ofOntario’s 37 public health units (the community coordinators were funded through the public health units). Initially communities were responsible for the selection of steering committee members and coordinators. In early 2001, the government made a major change and transferred the Children’s Secretariat to the Ministry of Community and Social Servicesunder Minister Baird.

Then the process changed and communities were asked to make recommendations while the government made the appointments for the community steering committees through Orders in Council. By late spring 2001, most of the steering committees and coordinators were in place. By March 31, 2002 each committee had made recommendations on allocations of the community Early Years Challenge Fund to the provincial government and prepared detailed Early Years Plans for their communities. In spiteof a confusing, frequently changing process, the community proposals for the Challenge Fund and the final plans demonstrated robust community ability to

start building capacity for ECD and parenting centres.

The Early Years Challenge Fund however,has not been used as a matching grant incentive for communities to establish ECD and parenting centres. Many of the proposals that embraced the ECD and parenting centre concept (including provision of nonparental care) and involved the private sector were not supported. The provincial government removed the requirement for matching funds from the private sector although private contributions were already lined up in many communities. This activity has frustrated and angered a number ofcommunities.

In May 2001, after the disbandment of the Children’s Secretariat and the shift of the Early Years Secretariat to the Ministry ofCommunity and Social Services, Minister Baird announced that Early Years Centres would be established in each provincial riding. The purpose of the centres is to provide information to parents and to link them with children’s services. The Centres would be developed under the guidance ofa provincially-appointed local champion and with input from the community. A total of $30 million of the federal Early Child Development Initiative dollars were allocated to establish the Centres.

The government has stated these centres will implement the recommendations ofthe Early Years Study. But, the truth is that the Early Years Centres are not the ECD and parenting centres set out in the report.They appear to be largely advisory centres


VI The Early Years Study (1999) and Government’s Response

in relation to community initiatives that could help parents have access to treatmentservices as well as providing advice to parents. It appears that the Early Years Centres will be operated by selected agencies. Many of the agencies selected to date are part of the standard children’s treatment sector - such as children mental health centres and community health centres. Very few are connected to the education system in Ontario and most are not part of core ECD program components that already exist in communities. The plan for the Early Years Centres does not easily fit into a concept ofECD to human development. They run the risk of being largely influenced by the service programs of the Ministries ofCommunity, Family, and Children’s Servicesand Health (targeted at-risk families), and not the broader objectives that relate to theeffects of ECD on learning, behaviour, andhealth for the population. The guidelines for the Early Years Centres exclude nonparental care, ignoring the recommendations of the Early Years Study,developments in the rest of the world, and repeated feedback from communities across the province about the importance of quality nonparental care.

The need for expanded quality nonparentalcare surfaces in all reports generated in the community and was identified as a need in the Early Years Task Group interim report.It is not possible to implement ECD programs in the 21st century without also providing nonparental care. In Ontario the majority of preschool children (more than 70 %) live in two working-parent families or in lone working parent families. In view

of the socioeconomic changes in today’s societies, referred to at the beginning ofthis report, it is not possible to develop effective child development and parenting programs that do not also include nonparental care including respite care.

At the present time the scale and scope ofthe Early Years Centres is unclear. It seemslikely that many will be influenced by the scope of activities that are part of the lead agency’s mandate. The relationship between the Early Years Centre senior staffand the goals of the lead agency is unclear and could, in some situations, seriously constrain what the Early Years Centre can do. This initiative will have difficulty fittinginto the framework of “early child development to human development”.

The provincial government has now bundled together the Early Years Centres ($30 million), Early Years Challenge Fund ($15.4 million), and the remaining $69 million for 2001 - 2002 allocation from the federal government agreement on ECD,into the provincial Early Years Plan. This Plan includes allocations of about 30 individual projects and services that are mostly existing services provided by the Ministry of Health and Ministry ofCommunity, Family, and Children’s Servicesfor children at-risk and those with very special needs.

Some of the programs are for children with very special needs (e.g. autism,developmental disabilities, sensing defects).Many of these important programs belong in the Ministry of Health as part of our health care system. The scattered activities



and streaming of new financial resources into targeted services and existing programs fragments and does not build community capacity for ECD and parenting programs or equality ofopportunity for the children of all families.The documents that describe the government’s Early Years Plan make nomention of ECD and the crucial relationship to education and do not embrace the concept of “from early child development to human development.” (Fortunately, some communities, e.g. Niagara Region, North Bay, and Grey Bruce, have involved local school boards in early years initiatives.)

The strategies put forward by the Ministry ofCommunity, Family and Children’s Services donot clearly fit the goal of “early childdevelopment to human development”. It is afragmented, bureaucratically-controlled strategythat will fail to reduce the problems associatedwith poor ECD (health, learning andbehaviour) in Ontario.

The policy statements that have emerged fromthe Ministry of Community, Family andChildren’s Services emphasize targeted and at-risk programs rather than initiatives that areaimed at all young children and their families.This limits the capacity for the government’searly years initiatives to enhance the capabilitiesof all children entering the school system.

The central recommendation of the Early YearsStudy called for community-based ECD andparenting centres available for all young

children and their families within five years(2004). The study proposed that existingprograms (for example, nursery schools, familyresource programs, child care centres,kindergarten, parenting centres, Healthy Babies,Healthy Children and playgroups) were corecomponents that could be incorporated intointegrated community-based ECD andparenting centres. The report stronglyrecommended that these centres could bebased as much as possible in schools. Anumber of schools have early years programs(including child care centres, nursery schools,family resource programs, parenting centresand family literacy activities) besideskindergarten that are a base for growth ofECD and parenting centres. The report alsorecommended that the Ministry of Education’sfunding formula for school boards should notjeopardize these programs and thedevelopment of ECD and parenting programsin association with the school.

The Early Years Centres put in place by theprovincial government do not adequatelyembrace the concepts set out in the report.They are more centrally accountable to thegovernment public service than theircommunities. In the letter to the communitycoordinators in February of this year, theyemphasize the need for more central control.This does not readily enable communities tobuild ECD and parenting centres and runs therisk of bureaucratic programming which we, inour report, said should be avoided. Thegovernment should examine how othersocieties are putting their ECD initiatives indepartments other than social welfare andspecial needs services.



Early Child Development and ParentingPrograms and Early Years Centres

In the guidelines for the Early Years Centres,they describe their role with core services andother services.51 There is no reference to ECDand parenting centres as set out in the report.The emphasis appears to be on “services” thatcould relate to children at-risk and with specialneeds.

The Early Years Centres seem to have a focuson targeted and so called at-risk families. Thistends to exclude the middle class where thelargest number of vulnerable children in the 0to 6 age group are located (more than 160,000children). This group has needs and initiativesthat exclude them and weakens thecommitment of society to invest in ECD.

The concepts set out in the Early YearsCentres report could make it difficult toinvolve a high level of private sector andvolunteer participation. This is an importantbase for communities that need to involveprivate sector support and interest to build

social capital. There is no attention paid to atax credit strategy to enhance private sectorsupport.

In the list of activities and institutions that thecentres should be engaged with in thecommunities, there is only passing reference toschools and education. This implies that theconcepts in the report have been largely drivenby a public service whose interests and rolesare driven by “repair” shop functions forchildren with special needs or children who areconsidered by the ministries’ criteria to be at-risk initiatives.

In Table III, we summarize the differencesbetween what was recommended in the EarlyYears Study for ECD and parenting centres andthe Early Years Centres and their relationshipto education. The Early Years Centres do noteasily fit the integrated concept of “from earlychild development to human development”.



TABLE III - ECD AND PARENTING CENTRES VERSUS EARLY YEARS CENTRES

ECD AND PARENTING CENTRES EARLY YEARS CENTRES

Integrate existing core program components - HBHC, nonparental care, family resource programs, kindergarten, parentingLink to network of early intervention programsIntegrate with school systemCommunity-basedUniversal focusPrograms

Early years information resourceEarly intervention services coreNo nonparental careLoss of established ECD programcomponentsNot linked to schoolsMost not linked to core programsTendency to focus on at-risk children & targeted servicesServices

Despite the provincial government’s inability toeffectively implement the keyrecommendations of the Early Years Study, anumber of communities have struggled toadopt the government’s response and moveforward their early years agendas that areconsistent with the Early Years Study.(Background information for this report can befound in a special set of appendices on theFounders’ Network website,www.founders.net.)



The increased understanding and awareness ofthe importance of early childhood andexperience-based brain development in earlychildhood for human development in achanging socioeconomic world is leading moreand more individuals to recognize theimportance of this period of humandevelopment in determining the quality ofhuman capital. Heckman, the Nobel Prizewinner in Economics in 2000, outlined theimportance of investment in the early years inhis recent paper, “Policies to Foster HumanCapital”.52

“The best evidence suggests that learningbegets learning. Early investments in learningare effective. Much of the recent emphasis onlower tuition costs for college students ismisplaced when the value of early preschoolinterventions is carefully examined. In the longrun, significant improvements in the skill levelsof American workers, especially workers notattending college, are unlikely withoutsubstantial improvements in the arrangementsthat foster early learning. We cannot afford topostpone investing in children until they becomeadults, nor can we wait until they reach schoolage - a time when it may be too late to intervene.Learning is a dynamic process and is mosteffective when it begins at a young age andcontinues through adulthood. The role of thefamily is crucial to the formation of learningskills, and government interventions at an earlyage that mend the harm done by dysfunctionalfamilies have proven to be highly effective.

The returns to human capital investments aregreatest for the young for two reasons: (a)younger persons have a longer horizon over whichto recoup the fruits of their investments and (b)skill begets skill. Skill remediation programs

for adults with severe educational disadvantagesare much less efficient compared to earlyintervention programs. So are trainingprograms for more mature displaced workers.The available evidence clearly suggests thatadults past a certain age and below a certainskill level obtain poor returns to skillinvestment. A reallocation of funds frominvestment in the old and unskilled to the youngand more trainable for whom a human capitalstrategy is more effective is likely to producemore favorable outcomes in the long run. Atcertain levels of investment, marginal returnsare highest for the young.”

The recommendations set out in the Early YearsStudy were designed to increase Ontario’sinvestment for ECD and parenting linked toeducation (from ECD to human development)and for there to be a Minister with a strongmandate. Some of these recommendations are:

VII CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO


To ensure there is a strong voice around theCabinet table for early child developmentissues, and to ensure there is a provincialMinister with the responsibility for leading thedevelopment of the early child developmentand parenting program across Ontario, weurge the Premier to give the MinisterResponsible for Children a strong mandate.

Recommendation 2

Recommendation 3

Given that some form of local authority willbe required to administer the integrated earlychild development and parenting program incommunities, and given that there should beparticipation by all levels of government andthe private sector, the Minister Responsible

RECOMMENDATION 4

The time has come, given our newunderstanding of the importance ofexperience-based brain development in theearly years for ECD and parenting programs inthe preschool period to be integrated witheducation which can be considered secondstage in human development. For theGovernment of Ontario to facilitate thislinkage, it should think about how to link orintegrate its initiatives that relate to ECD andthe next stages of human development(education and postsecondary education andadult re-training programs - see Heckman’spaper).52


VII Considerations for the Government of Ontario

for Children should, with the advice andassistance of the Task Groups, explore therelative merit of upper-tier municipalgovernments, school boards, or other localarrangements as possible lead local bodies.This would be done with a view to identifyingthe lead organization in every community inOntario for the purpose of local coordination,purchase of service, and partnershipdevelopment.

Given the need to bridge the barriers betweenthe early years and the public school system,and given the importance of school sites as apublic resource in communities with easyaccess for many families and as a good site forearly child development and parenting centres,we urge government, school boards, andcommunities to:

Keep school sites available that are a potential location for early child development and parenting centres.Establish policies and support to make school facilities available to communities so that parents and children everywhere can use the facilities the taxpayers have already paid for to ensure early child development and parenting centres can operate in the evenings and on weekends,as well as daytime.Establish incentives to encourage location of early child development and parenting centres on school sites as one of the potential community locations for these programs.

Given that kindergarten is the only universalprogram offered to all Ontario children up toage six today, and given its significance as partof our proposed early child development andparenting program, we urge the governmentand school boards to:

Continue funding and support for existing(full-day and part-day) kindergarten programs and develop strategies with communities to make kindergarten part ofthe early child development and parenting centre framework as soon as possible.Ensure that the Early Learning Grants for alternatives to Junior Kindergarten are used only for programs for children underage six, rather than throughout the primary school grades.Work with the community bodies responsible for developing and implementing ECD and parenting centres to incorporate the present kindergarten programs into ECD and parenting centres.

Recommendation 4

Recommendation 5

The linkage of ECD with education is not anew idea. In 1994, the Royal Commission onLearning recommended:53

“ We recommend that Early ChildhoodEducation (ECE) be provided by all schoolboards to all children from 3 to 5 years of agewhose parents/guardians choose to enroll them.ECE would gradually replace existing juniorand senior kindergarten programs, and become apart of the public education system.”

We note that a very similar recommendation wasmade by George Radwanski in his report to theOntario Ministry of Education in 198754:“That all school boards in Ontario be requiredto provide universally available early childhoodeducation in public and separate schools forchildren from the age of three.”

Radwanski concluded that such educationshould be universal rather than targeted atdisadvantaged children for a number ofreasons, and suggested as well,

“The need for deliberately provided earlylearning experiences and intellectual stimulationoutside the home may no longer be limited tochildren from the most obviously disadvantagedhouseholds ... numerous children of non-needyand relatively well-educated parents are spendingmuch of their time in sub-optimal carearrangements that do not provide the fullestopportunities for early development.”

The same idea was proposed by BetteStephenson while she was the Minister ofEducation in Ontario twenty years ago.

Whether the ECD and parenting programsshould be under the jurisdiction of school

boards will be strongly debated. But to allowintegration of ECD and education programs,however achieved, is an important objective.

We concur with these conclusions but, in viewof our new understanding of experience-basedbrain development in the very early years,emphasize that the ECD and parenting centres,should also be available for pregnant mothersand the 0 to 3 age group.

The complex socioeconomic changes that aretaking place in Ontario affect all families andyoung children. Society is increasinglyknowledge based. The time has arrived to actand to make investment in ECD and parentinga high priority linked to the next stages ofhuman development to help ensure, asHeckman and others argue, high quality humancapital in the future.

Establishing a government ministry thatcombines ECD and education would be alogical step. This would fit into ourrecommendation for the use of availablecommunity sites such as schools for ECD andparenting centres integrated with educationprograms.

There are already components of ECD andparenting centres such as parenting centres,family resource centres and centres fornonparental care located in a number ofschools. Such school based ECD and parentingcentres, as has been demonstrated in parts ofthe province1, can be connected with satelliteECD and parenting programs located inchurches, community centres and/or familyhomes for rural or spread out residentialcommunities.



An interesting example that has been operatingfor more than 20 years is Toronto's Parentingand Family Literacy Centres. The TorontoDistrict School Board (formerly known as theToronto Board of Education) was the firstschool board in Canada to recognize theimportance of supportive early environmentsand their relationship to academic success. In1981, Parenting and Family Literacy Centreswere established in inner city schools, with thegoal of reducing school drop out and failurerates and promoting smooth transitions tokindergarten (see Appendix 1). A rich play-based early child development program thatinvolves the parents is the centrepiece of theprogram. Parents learn by doing and areoffered practical assistance, information, andresources to cope with the stresses of living inpoverty, isolation, or family violence.Hallmarks of the program's success include:Canada's largest and oldest school-based familyECD program, culturally sensitive parentingcapacity building, a demystification of theschool system for families, and parentalparticipation in school governance - all ofwhich converge to break intergenerationalcycles of poor ECD and poor parenting. Anunexpected benefit of this approach, whichintegrates ECD and education, is an increase inunderstanding and trust between thecommunity and the school. There is a longstanding relationship between parentalengagement in ECD and education andchildren's long term development. Thisconcept has now been picked up by otherjurisdictions.

We must face up to the cost of improvingECD initiatives, given our need to take steps toimprove the quality of human capital in today’sknowledge-based society. We did not set out

the potential cost of a provincial network ofECD and parenting centres against expecteduse in the first few years of implementation.Part of the reason for this was our view thatthe centres should be supported by all sectorsof the community and thus it would bedifficult to estimate the costs to governmentbefore communities had sufficient experiencein establishing ECD and parenting centres.The expenditures on ECD in developedcountries range from about 0.1% of GDP tomore than 0.7% to 0.8% of GDP. Canada,based on the OECD data (1998) is about 0.2%of GDP. It is recognized today that for every$1 invested in ECD, the minimum return tosociety is $3. 55

We have now prepared a rough estimate ofcosts for implementing a provincial network ofECD and parenting centres in Ontario basedon the OECD documents and the Early YearsStudy.1 Our financial projections andassumptions are consistent with those of thefederal government56 and an extensive cost-benefit analysis study by Cleveland andKrashinsky.57

The provincial government now spendsapproximately $1.5 billion on what we considerare key components of ECD and parentingcentres, recommended in the Early Years Study.About $800 million of this sum is the cost ofkindergarten programs which werecommended should be part of the ECD andparenting centre concept. There areapproximately 900,000 children aged 0 to 6years in Ontario. The estimated annual cost perchild for ECD and parenting centres (0 to 6)would be around $7,000 (includes cost ofnonparental care). This would mean a total costof about $6.3 billion for all families with young



children. However, these initiatives must not becompulsory so in the initial stages not allfamilies would wish to take part.

The recent OECD report on ECD in Westerncountries provides a base on which to makesome estimates of costs based on participationand funding sources. Based on this experience,about 20% to 30% of working parents withchildren in the 0 to 3 age group will, at thisstage of socioeconomic change in developedsocieties, make use of ECD and parentingcentres that include nonparental care options(this is influenced by parental leave policies).This could mean for Ontario about 90,000children in the 0 to 3 age group. In the 3 to 6age group (including kindergarten), the use ofECD and parenting centres that providenonparental care (full or part time) could reachabout 80% or 360,000 children. Althoughthese programs must not be compulsory, oncecentres are established there would likely beabout 450,000 children in the 0 to 6 age grouptaking part in ECD and parenting centresrecommended in the report. It is also likelythat utilization will climb over time. Theestimated average cost/child based on U.S. andOECD data in these centres would be aboutCAD$7,000/child/year (including privatesector investment and voluntary contributionsand contributions in kind).

Thus, the total cost to build an initial networkof ECD and parenting centres, primarily basedin schools and community centres, available forall families with young children, providing fullor part time nonparental care, would be about$3.15 billion. It could take at least three to fiveyears to reach this level of participation. Theprovincial government presently spends about$1.5 billion/year (this includes kindergarten

and the federal government contribution) thatsupports programs that could fit into theactivities of ECD and parenting centres. Thus,to build on the existing base to establish anetwork of ECD and parenting centres incommunities would require an incrementalincrease from all sources over the next fewyears of an additional $1.65 billion per year bythe end of five years.

The OECD data shows that for the 3 to 6 agegroup between 11% to 60% of the costs arecovered by fees. If one assumes that about30% of the total cost ($3.15 billion) could berecovered by fees, this would provide about$945 million. This would leave a shortfall ofabout $700 million. With the right incentivesand tax credits for the involvement of theprivate sector in communities, a further $300million to $400 million might be provided(about 5% of the base tax for corporations inOntario). This would leave a shortfall of about$350 million. This may seem like a large sumof money for a government focused on cuttingtaxes, but for governments that are vitallyinterested in the quality of human capital andthe future of their society, it is a small sum ofmoney for a wealthy society such as Ontario.For example, the government reimbursementof $200 to all Ontario taxpayers in 2000 wouldhave more than covered the government’s costfor this investment for one year. Part or all ofthe provincial government’s additionalcontribution could be covered by the federalgovernment if it takes steps to incrementallyincrease federal support for ECD asannounced on September 11, 2000. TheSeptember 11, 2000 proposal shows thatOntario will receive about $187 million in thethird year from this initiative.4



We already have evidence from the Parentingand Family Literacy Centres in many Torontoschools of how to improve ECD (seeAppendix 1). This initiative, which started in1981, contains some of the componentsrecommended for ECD and parenting centres,and improves outcomes for the 0 to 6 agegroup.58 Given this and evidence from otherjurisdictions, it is irresponsible for Ontariosociety and government to not act andimplement what we now know is an importantinitiative to give all young children equality ofopportunity for future development andimprove the quality of human capital.

The activities taken since our report wasreleased in April 1999, have demonstrated thatour communities can mobilize and take stepsto establish networks of ECD and parentingcentres in their communities. Some havealready established linkages with the schoolsystem that could become important. Theprovince now has the opportunity to build onthis and establish an initiative that embracesthe concept of “from early child developmentto human development” that creates anintegrated relationship between ECD (the 0 to6 age group) and education.

One of the key issues is how to develop ashared framework with the various units ingovernment whose work affects some aspectsof ECD and parenting in the province. The British government, in setting up Sure Start, setout to build a common framework ofunderstanding in its public service.Recognizing that ECD affects health andlearning, they set the initiative up so that theMinister of Health and Education had joint

responsibility. They did not put theresponsibility to the Ministry involved withcommunity and social services. They may havetaken the first step to establishing a Ministry ofHuman Development involving ECD andEducation. In the light of our increasingunderstanding about experience-based braindevelopment, this could be an importantevolution to ensure a well-educated population.

The second barrier to understanding is in partwithin many of the faculties of education. Forthe disciplined structure of universities tomove, it will take some time. It is interestingthat some of the leadership in family medicine,pediatrics, and child psychiatry are taking stepsto put the implication of ECD and physicaland mental health into their curriculums.

In some areas, community colleges anduniversity education faculties are beginning tocollaborate on programs for preparing teachersin ECD.

When we did the Early Years Study, we foundmany school boards and their administrativestaff lacked interest in the importance of ECD(there were of course exceptions). Today, wefind a much better understanding betweenECD initiatives in communities and theirboards of education and communitygovernment.

Finally, there are community groups who areresistant or disinterested. However, within theprivate sector, there is increasing interest in thesubject, particularly among businesses thatemploy women with children in the 0 to 6 agegroup.59,60



Overcoming the Barriers

This change in interests and understandingwould suggest that what is now needed ispolitical will and leadership.

If the government appreciates the importanceof the concept, “from early child development

to human development”, it will take thenecessary steps to enable communities toestablish programs for ECD linked toeducation available for all families with youngchildren. In Table IV, we set out the keypoints that a government should consider.

First of all, ECD is a basic step in humandevelopment for all young children. The



An Integrated Program for ECD as aBase for Human Development

1. Learn how to better integrate ECD and education, (the concept of a human development initiative).

2. Establish a legislative and funding framework to support the building of ECD and parenting centres as part of a broader human development initiative. Do not place ECD, a component of human development, in ministries or municipal service programs concerned with health care and welfare programs.

3. Build on and involve the community in establishing the network of ECD and parenting centres available for all families with young children (communities have demonstrated some capacity to do this). Encourage and support schools to be part of this and embrace in the schools the principles of human development through programs such as Roots of Empathy.

4. Examine how other jurisdictions have overcome the silo structures of the public service and put in place more integration.

5. Establish a network of bases involving postsecondary education institutions (such asHELP in B.C.) to promote and help apply the new knowledge in the districts or regions in which they are located to provide a coordinated EDI initiative to assess ECD based on theoutcome measures, and help communities to develop strategies to improve ECD in their districts.

6. Encourage postsecondary institutions to establish initiatives that include ECD in their health, education and social science programs within a human development context.

7. What should the government organization be?The equivalent of a Ministry of Human Development that includes all the institutional structure from conception to postsecondary education that influences human development

8. Themes for a government initiative in ECD could be:From Early Child Development to Human DevelopmentEnabling Communities

TABLE IV - WHAT CAN SOCIETY AND A GOVERNMENT DO?

government’s role should not be placed in aministry primarily concerned with welfare,special treatment programs and so-called“children at risk”. It should be in a ministryconcerned with the first stage of humandevelopment. In an ideal world, one could linkECD and education into a ministry of humandevelopment. Experience-based braindevelopment does not create the divisionbetween ECD and education society hascreated that can affect human development.To achieve the integration will take time.However, steps can be taken now to implementa process that will need to evolve over theyears.

There are already developments in Ontarioregions that are a base to create integrationbetween ECD and parenting and education.The tens of thousands of children and parentswho have benefited from the Parenting andFamily Literacy Centres of the TorontoDistrict School Board over the past 21 yearsprovide the strongest foundation for theprinciples of this integration. Otherdevelopments engage groups involved withECD initiatives, municipal government andschool boards. The First Duty project inToronto neighbourhoods involving theToronto District School Board, City ofToronto, Atkinson Charitable Foundation,numerous children’s organizations, andcommunities is one example.61 They havealready taken steps to reduce the barriers to integration between ECD and education.Other regions such as Grey Bruce and NiagaraRegion have groups looking at this integration.The provincial government should take stepsto implement the recommendations set out inthe recent Coffey McCain report.59

The Ontario Government has, through itsmatching grant support, funded an Ontarioinitiative, Roots of Empathy, in its schoolsystem, that is recognized as important acrossCanada and in other countries (Japan, Australia,United Kingdom and the U.S.). This initiativeteaches human development through theuniversal access point of the education system.Roots of Empathy is a classroom-basedparenting program which brings a communityparent and infant into the classroom so thatthe rising generation learns, in an experientialway, key factors influencing humandevelopment (Appendix 2). Roots ofEmpathy integrates the education system withcommunity agencies and organizations (theyprovide instructors for Roots of Empathytraining) and parents and infants, the very heartof the community. Curriculum ServicesCanada has recently approved andrecommended the Roots of EmpathyCurriculum and Training Manual, “Roots ofEmpathy is recommended as a valid programfor use with students in kindergarten to Grade8 to promote understanding of humandevelopment, diversity, and the uniqueness ofindividuals.”62 It is to the credit of the OntarioGovernment that they have supported thishighly innovative approach to ECDand human development.

As outlined in the introduction, the significanceof ECD for human development is nowincreasingly recognized in the developed anddeveloping world. The importance of this forsociety is well stated by the Dutch economist,Jacques van der Gaag, in the recent WorldBank report:63

“Well-executed and well-targeted ECDprograms are initiators of human development.





They stimulate improvements in education, health,social capital, and equality that have bothimmediate and long-term benefits for the childrenparticipating in the programs. Investments inECD programs are in many ways investments inthe future of a nation.”

The importance of ECD for society iscaptured in Figure 13 taken from his recentWorld Bank paper.

Ontario has the opportunity to provideleadership in enabling communities to put inplace ECD programs to improve humandevelopment for the future. This investment iskey for the future of our next generationcommunities and society.

FIGURE 13 - FROM EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT (ECD) TO HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX 1DO PARENTING AND FAMILY LITERACY CENTRES MAKE A DIFFERENCE? - ABSTRACT, AUGUST 2001


Parenting and Family Literacy Centres werefirst set up by Mary Gordon, in 1981, in fiveinner city schools in Toronto. By 2001 thenumber of in-school Parenting Centres grew to41 spreading throughout the inner citydowntown schools with a high proportion ofthe students coming from different languageand cultural backgrounds within economicallydisadvantaged neighbourhoods.

One of the key mandates of these Centres isto increase the school readiness level of youngchildren in these inner city neighbourhoods,where there has been a continuous concernwith high rates of academic failure and schooldropout. Recent data has shown that themajority of these children enteringkindergarten were rated by their teachers to benot well prepared for formal schooling, or as nothaving developed the expected level of earlyliteracy and numeracy skills for theirkindergarten programs. To raise thesechildren’s school readiness level, Parenting andFamily Literacy Centres were set up withinthese schools to provide for both thepreschoolers and their parents or caregivers a

“Readiness to Learn” program which wouldfoster positive parent/child interaction andoptimal development of the child.

In 1999-2000, with the funding support of theAtkinson Foundation, both quantitative andqualitative data have been collected to ascertainthe effectiveness of these in-school ParentingCentres. The first-year (1999-2000) data wasgathered from four different sources: teacherassessment, Early Development Instrument,parent surveys, and teacher interviews. Whilefurther research that improves upon researchcontrols needs to be done, this preliminaryresearch is extremely promising and shows thatin-school Parenting Centres do make adifference for young students in inner cityschools, especially those with a high proportionof ESL population. Hard data gathered fromover 200 Kindergarten students indicate thatyoung children who had attended the ParentingCentre with their parents or caregivers in theseschools were much more prepared forschooling than their peers in the sameneighbourhood who had not attended theprogram. As illustrated in the chart below,


Appendix 1 - Do Parenting and Family Literacy Centres Make a Difference?

about half of the Kindergarten children fromthe latter group had been rated by theirteachers to have a low readiness or receptivitylevel for learning, and a low level of earlyliteracy and numeracy skills; on the other hand,for those who had attended the program, theirchances of being rated as having low readinesslevels were significantly smaller - around 10%.

To confirm the above findings, the EarlyDevelopment Instrument (EDI)1 assessment(administered in the North and South Areas ofthe Toronto public schools in Year 2000) wasused as an independent source of data. Similarto the teachers’ assessment mentioned above,the EDI measure also shows that 4-year-oldchildren from the inner city schools sampled in

this study had a much greater chance than theoverall population to have low school readinesslevel - especially in the areas of socialcompetence, language development, andcommunications skills and general knowledge.(See chart below.) However, for children inthose schools who had attended ParentingCentres with their parents or caregivers (blackbars), their chances of receiving low EDIreadiness scores were significantly smaller thantheir peers who had no exposure to theprogram, and were comparable to the generalpopulation. In other words, the schoolreadiness level of Parenting Centres children inthese inner city schools was much higher thantheir peers in the neighbourhood, and wassimilar to that of the children across the city.

*The low EDI readiness scores in here were based on the lowest 30th percentile scores derived from the results ofall JK students in the North and South Areas of Toronto public schools.

1This instrument, which was developed by The Canadian Centre for Studies of Children at Risk (McMaster University) as part of the Readiness toLearn Project funded by the federal HRDC, has been used as a community measure to gage Kindergarten students’ school readiness level at thegroup level. The instrument has been implemented in several school boards across Canada.

Teachers’ comments and observations werealso consistent with the hard evidencedescribed above. For instance, according tothe teachers’ interviews, some of the mostobvious differences demonstrated by theseyoung children were in the areas of languagedevelopment, socialization, school adjustment,listening skills, as well as their ability to adjustto routines, follow instructions, playpurposefully, and learn from and interact withadults.

Aside from the children themselves, parentsalso benefited in terms of acquiring valuableparenting skills, establishing a supportive socialnetwork, and building rapport and links withtheir child’s school. Finally, Kindergartenteachers also find their in-school ParentingCentres workers a great support to their work,particularly in helping them detect andunderstand the needs of their students, as wellas in connecting them with the parents of theirstudents.


Appendix 1 - Do Parenting and Family Literacy Centres Make a Difference?

Roots of Empathy (ROE) is a not-for-profitorganization dedicated to building caring,peaceful, and civil societies through thedevelopment of empathy in children andadults. The main activity of the organization isthe delivery of a parenting education programfor elementary school students, based onmonthly visits to the classroom by a parent andinfant from the school neighbourhood. MaryGordon is the Founder/President of theprogram, which has its head office in Toronto.In the fall of 2002, 10,000 children, in sevenprovinces of Canada, will participate in ROEprograms. More than 5000 of these childrenwill be in Ontario. With a pilot already inJapan, ROE is poised for internationalimplementation.

A trained and certified ROE Instructorcoaches students to observe, over the schoolyear, how their baby forms an attachment tohis or her parent. The infant’s development ischronicled and children learn to recognize theirbaby’s cues and unique temperament, whilecelebrating developmental milestones. TheInstructor conducts additional sessions beforeand after each family visit for a total of 27sessions over the course of a year. Thecurriculum has four levels for four differentage groups from prekindergarten to Grade 8.

The short term goals of ROE are to foster thedevelopment of empathy and emotionalliteracy. As children learn to take theperspective of others, they are less likely tohurt through bullying, exclusion, aggression,and violence. Increases in empathy areassociated with pro-social behaviour andreduced aggression. Principles of democracythrive in the ROE classroom as children learnhow to challenge cruelty and injustice. The

long term goals of the program are to improveparenting and human development in the nextgeneration, thereby breaking cycles ofintergenerational violence, poverty, and poorparenting.

The experiential nature of the program and itsproblem solving approach results in learningwhich is likely to be long term and behaviourchanging. ROE uses the universal access pointof public education to deliver public healthmessages that can prevent infant injury andabuse, advance optimal early childhooddevelopment, and reduce violence/aggression.Topics covered include: breast feeding, thehazards of alcohol and smoking in pregnancy,Shaken Baby Syndrome, and S.I.D.S. Messagesof social inclusion, and activities that areconsensus building contribute to a culture ofcaring that changes the tone of the classroom.Children are prepared for responsible andresponsive parenting as they increase theirknowledge about human development.

ROE is a transformational program as it ischanging children’s perceptions, attitudes, andbehaviour in the present and impacting on thefuture. Its strategy of changing the worldclassroom by classroom presupposes that theclassroom is a microcosm of society.

For more information contact:Roots of Empathy401 Richmond St. West, Suite 205Toronto, ONM5V 3A8CANADAPhone: 416-944-3001Fax: 416-944-9295email: [email protected]: www.rootsofempathy.org

APPENDIX 2ROOTS OF EMPATHY


1. McCain, M. and J. Fraser Mustard. 1999. EarlyYears Study, Toronto: Publications Ontario.

2. Young, M.E. 2002. From Early ChildDevelopment to Human Development,Washington: World Bank

3. van der Gaag, J. 2002. From ChildDevelopment to Human Development. In: M.E.Young (ed).From Early Child Development toHuman Development. Washington: World Bank.pp. 63-78.

4. Government of Canada. New FederalInvestments to Accompany the Agreements onHealth Renewal and Early ChildhoodDevelopment, September 11, 2000 Announcement.

5. Iglesias, E.V. and D.E. Shalala. 2002.Narrowing the Gap for Poor Children. In: M.E.Young (ed). From Early Child Development toHuman Development. Washington: World Bank. p.373.

6. OECD. 2000. The Well-being of Nations: therole of human and social capital. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-Operation andDevelopment.

7. OECD. 2001. Starting Strong: EarlyChildhood Education and Care. Paris: Organisationfor Economic Co-Operation and Development.

8. OECD. 2001. p. 125.

9. UNICEF. December 2001. The State of theWorld’s Children 2001.

10. Sure Start. www.surestart.gov.uk

11. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 2001. EarlyHead Start Research and Evaluation Project:Building their future. Washington: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services.

12. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 2002.Making a difference in the lives of infants andtoddlers and their families: the impacts of early

Head Start. Washington: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services.

13. Proposition 10 Commission. 2000. Los AngelesCounty Children and Families First - Proposition10 Commission 2001-2004 Strategic Plan.

14. Francis, D.D., et. al, 1999. Maternal care, geneexpression, and the development of individualdifferences in stress reactivity, In: SocioeconomicStatus and Health in Industrial Nations, Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences 896:66-84.

15. McEwen, B. and T. Seeman. 1999. Protectiveand damaging effects of mediators of stress,elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasisand allostatic load, In: Socioeconomic Status andHealth in Industrial Nations, Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences 896:30-47.

16. Suomi, S.J. 2000. A biobehavioral perspectiveon developmental psychopathology. In: A.J.Sameroff, M. Lewis and S.M. Miller, eds, Handbookof Developmental Psychopathology. New York:Kluwer Academic.

17. Bennett, Allyson J. 1999. Serotonin transportergene variation and early deleterious rearingenvironment affect CNS serotonin functioning,aggression, and alcohol consumption in Rhesusmonkeys. [under review for Nature Genetics].

18. Sternberg, Esther M. and Philip W. Gold. 1997.The mind-body interaction in disease. ScientificAmerican, Special Issue.

19. McEwen, B. 1998. Protective and damagingeffects of stress mediators. New England Journalof Medicine, Vol 338, No. 3: 171-179.

20. Kaufman, J. and D.S. Charney. 1999.Neurobiological correlates of child abuse.Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1235-6.

21. Teicher, Martin H. 2002. Scars that won’t heal:the neurobiology of child abuse. ScientificAmerican, March 2002.

REFERENCES


22. Felitti, Vincent J. et. al. 1998. Relationship ofchildhood abuse and household dysfunction tomany of the leading causes of death in adults: theadverse childhood experiences (ACE) study.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, v. 14,#4, 245-258.

23. Nestler, Eric J. 2001. Total recall - the memoryof addiction. Science, v.292, pp. 2266-7.

24. MacMillan, H.L. et al. 1997. Prevalence ofchild physical and sexual abuse in the community:Results from the Ontario Health Supplement. TheJournal of the American Medical Association,278:131-135.

25. Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M.R., Mangelsdorf, S.,Parritz, R., and Buss, K. 1996. Behavioral inhibitionand stress reactivity: Moderating role of attachmentsecurity. Child Development, 67 (2), pp. 508-522.

26. Gunnar, Megan. 2001. Early experience andstress regulation in human development.Presentation at Millennium Dialogue on EarlyChild Development: WebForum 2001, Nov 8, 2001.Toronto: OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation) at University of Toronto.

27. Dettling, A., Gunnar, M.R., and Donzella, B.1999. Cortisol levels of young children in full-daychildcare centers: Relations with age and temperament. Psychoneuroendocrinology 24(5),505-518.

28. Shonkoff, J.P. and D.A. Phillips. 2000. FromNeurons to Neighborhoods: the science of earlychildhood development. Washington: NationalAcademy Press.

29. Gopnik, Alison. 1999 The Scientist in the Crib:minds, brains and how children learn. New York:William Morrow and Company.

30. Restak, Richard. 2001. The secret of the brain.Washington: Joseph Henry Press.

31. Hart, Betty and Todd Risley. 1995. Meaningfuldifferences in the everyday experience of youngAmerican children. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

32. Huttenlocher, P.R. 1994. Synaptogenesis inhuman cerebral cortex, In: G. Dawson and K.W.Fischer, eds, Human behaviour and the developingbrain. New York: Guilford Press

33. Stattin, H. 1993. Early language and intelligencedevelopment and their relationship to futurecriminal behavior. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 102 (3):369-78.

34. Wickelgren, Ingrid. 1999. Nurture helps moldable minds. Science, v. 283, #5409, pp. 1832-4.

35. National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment (NICHD) Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. 2000. The relation of child care tocognitive and language development. ChildDevelopment, 71, 960-980.

36. Brooks-Gunn, J. et al. 2002. Maternalemployment and child cognitive outcomes in thefirst three years of life: The NICHD Study ofEarly Child Care. Child Development, volume 73,Number 4, 1052-1072.

37. Egerton, M. and J. Bynner. 2001. Gaining BasicSkills in the Early Years: The Dynamics ofDevelopment from Birth to 10. Centre forLongitudinal Studies. Institute of Education.University College London.

38. Feinstein, L. 1999. Pre-school educationalinequality? British children in the 1970 cohort.Centre for Economic Performance and UniversityCollege London.

39. Ramey, C. et al. 2000, Persistent effects of earlychildhood education on high-risk children and theirmothers, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 4,No. 1, 2-14.

40. Jefferis, B., Power, C. and Hertzman, C. 2002.Birth weight, childhood socioeconomicenvironment, and cognitive development in the1958 British birth cohort study. British MedicalJournal, 325, 305.


References

53. Ontario Royal Commission on Learning. 1994.For the love of learning: report of the RoyalCommission on Learning. Toronto. p. 85.

54. Radwanski, G. 1987. Ontario Study of theRelevance of Education, and the Issue ofDropouts. Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Education.

55. van der Gaag, J. 1997. Early ChildhoodDevelopment: An Economic Perspective. In: M.E.Young (ed.). Early Child Development: Investing inour Children’s Future. Washington: Elsevier.

56. Health Canada. 1999. The Early ChildDevelopment System and its Components. Ottawa:Government of Canada. (seewww.johngodfrey.on.ca)

57. Cleveland, G. and M. Krashinsky. 1998. Thebenefits and costs of good child care: the economicrationale for public investment in young children.Toronto: Childcare Resource & Research Unit.

58. Mustard, F. and F. Picherack. 2002. p. 60-62.

59. Duxbury, L. and C. Higgins. 2001. Work-lifebalance in the New Millennium: Where Are We?Where Do We Need to Go? CPRN DiscussionPaper No. W/12. Ottawa.

60. Coffey, Charles and Hon. Margaret McCain.2002. Commission on Early Learning and ChildCare for the City of Toronto.www.torontochildren.com

61. First Duty. www.children.metrotor.on.ca.

62. Curriculum Services Canada.www.curriculum.org/csc/resources/roots.htm.

63. van der Gaag, J. 2002. From ChildDevelopment to Human Development. In: M.E.Young (ed.). From Early Child Development toHuman Development. p. 74.

41. Willms, J.D. (in press). Research findingsbearing on Canadian social policy. Vulnerablechildren: Findings from Canada’s NationalLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth.Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.

42. Willms, J.D. (1994, 1996, 1998) Analysis ofNLSCY data.

43. McCracken, J.T. et al. 2002. Risperidone inchildren with autism and serious behavioralproblems, New England Journal of Medicine 347,pp. 314-321.

44. Janus, M. and D. Offord. 2000. Readiness toLearn at School. Isuma (Canadian Journal of PolicyResearch), Vol. 1, No. 2. p. 71.

45. Janus, M. and D. Offord. Personalcommunication.

46. Mustard, F. and F. Picherack. 2002. Early ChildDevelopment in British Columbia: EnablingCommunities. Toronto: The Founders’ Network ofthe Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

47. Education Quality and Accountability Office.2002. www.eqao.com

48. OECD/Statistics Canada. 2000. Literacy in theInformation Age: Final Report of the InternationalAdult Literacy Survey.

49. Fuchs, Victor and Diane M. Reklis. 1994.Mathematical achievement in eighth grade:interstate and racial differences. Stanford, CA:NBER Working Paper No. 4784.

50. Centre for Research and Education in HumanServices. 2001. Evaluation of the Ontario EarlyYears Demonstration Projects. www.crehs.on.ca.

51. Ministry of Community, Family and Children’sServices. 2002. Planning the Ontario Early YearsCentres: Guidelines for Communities. Toronto:Government of Ontario.

52. Heckman, James. 2000. Policies to FosterHuman Capital. University of Chicago, Irving B.Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies.p. 39.


References

the early years study years/the early years study.pdf · table of contents the early years study...

Documents