Canadas Policies on Early Childhood Education and Care

Canadas Policies on Early Childhood Education and Care Alex Miles Paper Title: National early childhood education and care as a policy debate in Canada Despite over 40 years elapsing since publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women (RCSW), which called for a national childcare program as a necessary step towards gender equality, Canada still has no national program for early childhood education and care (ECEC). Despite taking on a larger, yet still modest, role of financing and shaping ECEC between 1966 and 1995 under the now-defunct Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), the federal government has now all but completely withdrawn, leaving the provinces and territories to manage ECEC nearly autonomously. As more and more women – the predominant childrearers in modern Canadian culture – enter the workforce without a corresponding decrease in the rates of fathers in the workforce, the Canadian provinces and territories are feeling great strains in an attempt to meet the ECEC needs of their populations. With the exception of Manitoba and Quebec, Canadian women in major cities spend between a quarter and a third (23 to 34%) of their income on full-time ECEC (Macdonald Friendly, 2014). In fact, those crippled by ECEC costs are the lucky ones: Outside of Quebec, eighty percent of Canadians see the lack of spaces as a serious problem (Environics Research Group Limited, 2008) with a shortage of available spaces nationwide (Anderssen, 2014). Some single mothers and two-parent families are able and comfortable to rely on relatives, friends, or unlicensed ECEC, but those in need of licensed daycare are often out of luck. After thirteen years of being in power and promises for a national program, the Liberal Party of Canada managed only to negotiate individual agreements with the various Canadian provinces in 2005. Harper’s Conservatives quickly replaced the Liberals and their promises in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, opting instead to pay families $1,200 per year for each child under the age of six. More recently, the Conservatives have proposed further financial tax reduction strategies for families, while the National Democratic Party (NDP) under Thomas Mulcair has unveiled plans for a national ECEC program. As Canadians and the politicians gear up for the 2015 federal election, one of the burning questions will be which is better for the Canadian economy, Harper’s subsidies or Mulcair’s national program? Thus far, the Conservatives have managed to control early childhood education and care their way, but an increasing number of voters are dissatisfied and looking for an actual national program that meets the needs Canadians coast to coast. This paper will navigate the tumultuous waters of Canadian early childhood education and care policy by identifying how the issue got on the agenda and progressed through the 5-stage policy model (Howlett, Ramesh, Perl, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles Policy Subsystems, 2009), identifying and mapping the policy subsystem (Pross, 1986), identifying and discussing the positions of the Conservatives, the NDP, and ECEC pressure groups, and – finally – identifying who won the debate. The second-wave women’s movement in Canada included as a central pillar improved access to childcare, for which calls had been made since World War II (Collier, 2012). The 1970 RCSW reported stated on page xii that, â€Å"the care of children is a responsibility to be shared by the mother, the father and society. Unless this shared responsibility is acknowledged and assumed, women cannot be accorded true equality† (Canada, 1970). Feminist activists of the time succeed in bringing the issue of ECEC onto the formal government agenda through growing grassroots support, aligning with other likeminded groups, and use of campaigns, lobbying, legal challenges, and public education. This process constituted Outside Mobilisation (Howlett, Ramesh, Perl, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles Policy Subsystems, 2009), which ultimately succeed in the government implementing the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) in 1966. The CAP was a cost sharing agreement between the federal government and the provinces and territories aimed at improving the lives of low-income earners, with a portion of the federal funds assigned to childcare services (Rauhala, et al., 2012). While limited in scope and effect, it did spark the development of ECEC in Canada. Many still campaigned for a national approach and the federal government did attempt this several times though was never had the clout to succeed: Trudeau’s Task Force on Child Care in 1984; Mulroney’s Special Committee on Child Care in 1986; Chrà ©tien’s Red Book in 1993. The revival of the women’s movement in the 1990s and the election of the Liberals in 1993 brought childcare back onto the public agenda. Chrà ©tien axed the CAP in favour of the Canada Health and Social Transfer, which decreased federal power in matters that were under provincial jurisdiction, such as social services. It also made the provinces less accountable in spending public funds. Having made strides forwards, hopes for a national strategy were quickly dashed as provincial programs disintegrated (Rauhala, et al., 2012). The Liberals developed the National Children’s Agenda in 1997. Two years later, they were successful in getting the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to agree to the Social Union Agreement. The agreement allowed the various jurisdictions to work together through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council on Social Policy Renewal to support the delivery of social programs and services (Cool, 2007). Thanks to the council, there have b een numerous policies for young children, including the National Child Benefit (1998), the Early Childhood Development Initiative (2000), the Multilateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care (2003), the Bilateral Agreements with provinces (2005), as well as the 2006 Universal Childcare Benefit (UCCB). In the mid-2000s, a number of international reports were published, highlighting Canada’s stark underfunding and underdevelopment of ECEC. In 2004, the first major comparison of early childhood education and care across affluent countries noted that national and provincial policy was in its â€Å"initial† stages, that care and education were still treated separately, and that coverage was low compared to other wealthy countries (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2004). The report’s exposure of shortfalls in services for young children prompted the federal government back towards a national strategy (Rauhala, et al., 2012). In response to the OECD report, the Liberals announced in the 2004 Speech from the Throne that they would work with the provinces and territories to put in place a national ECEC program (Privy Council Office, 2004). In 2005, the Liberals signed individual, bilateral agreements with all provinces and territories that would provide federal funds for provincial childcare initiatives. Childcare advocates thought a national program was â€Å"closer than it had ever been before† (Friendly Prentice, 2009). Frustratingly, all this work was immediately undone when Harper was voted into office. Harper’s 2006 UCCB offered families a monthly rebate of $100 per child under the age of six but, importantly, no national childcare program. In the same year, the second installment of the 2004 OECD report found that Canada spent just 0.25% of its GDP on ECEC programs for children 0-6, placing it at the bottom of the table (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006). There was little political will for change under the ruling Conservatives, and so there has been only stagnation on this issue over recent years. This was confirmed by a 2008 report that put Canada tied for last place on the Report Card, a table indicating whether economically advanced countries are meeting certain minimum standards for early childhood education and care (Adamson, 2008). Recently, the public has been becoming increasingly discontent with the Conservatives’ method of addressing ECEC. As costs of childcare has skyrocketed in all jurisdictions except the one that has strong funding and legislation (Quebec), the issue has come to the forefront of public discourse and is shaping to be a defining feature of the 2015 federal election. Indeed, one of the first proposed the policies the NDP released in its campaign was its solution to the ECEC question (Anderssen, 2014). In the 5-stage policy model, policy formulation marks the second stage. To follow the theory, the ECEC debate can be analysed from two perspectives. Firstly, new actors (namely, Thomas Mulcair) have increased the speed of change on an entirely recycled idea. Hence, the speed and mode of policy change is defined as rapid normal. Secondly, while there has been an entrance of new actors, the idea is not new. Therefore, policy instrument types determine the type of policy change. The third step in the policy cycle is decision making. Looking at the issue of national ECEC, there are few actors involved and all are contained within one setting. Simultaneously, the issue is clearly defined with plenty of information and time to act on and with. Therefore, this type of decision making would be classified as rational (Howlett, Ramesh, Perl, Public Policy Decision-Making, 2009). A historical analysis of the policy instruments – the policy cycle’s fourth stage – deployed over the life of the ECEC debate shows that, for the vast majority of the time, the various governments have used affirmative expenditures to promote the use of childcare and education. At present, the Harper government utilises monthly cash transfer in order to offset the cost of ECEC. It also offers tax breaks, a form of tax expenditure. Governments have left regulation up to the provinces, who license the various childcare centres within their own jurisdiction (Pal, 2010). The fifth and final stage of the policy cycle involves policy evaluation, which can be conducted either formally (e.g. by bureaucrats and politicians) or informally. The Harper government’s UCCB has been analysed by formal institutions to a small extent, but it has predominantly been critically evaluated by NGOs, in the form of interest groups, and the broader public. Recent polls have shown that lack of affordable ECEC is a serious problem to three-quarters (77%) of Canadians (Environics Research Group Limited, 2008). Academics have been evaluating the UCCB on performance and financial spectra. The consensus is that the Conservatives’ approach is not meeting the broader economic goals and fails to provide Canadians with the services they need (Friendly Prentice, 2009). Furthermore, academics argue that there is no value for money, with poor documentation of spending (Friendly M. , 2014). In conclusion, thus far the Harper government has been winning the policy debate on ECEC. They have been able to pass their desired bills, which are a far cry from what other parties are advocating for, and hardly even register on international measures of performance (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006). However, recent newspaper and other mass media suggest that the issue may finally be important enough to Canadians that parties’ stances on this issue will greatly shape the next federal election. Whoever wins that vote will have their policy preferences met. Bibliography Adamson, P. (2008). The Child Care Transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in economically advanced countries. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Anderssen, E. (2014, October 17). The NDP child care plan gives parents hope, but the details are fuzzy. Retrieved from The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/the-ndp-child-care-plan-gives-parents-hope-but-the-details-are-fuzzy/article21143936/ Canada. (1970). Royal Commission of the Status of Women. Ottawa: Information Canada. Collier, C. (2012). Feminist and Gender-Neutral Frames in Contemporary Child-Care and Anti-Violence Policy Debates in Canada. Politics Gender(3), 283-303. doi:10.1017/S1743923X12000323 Cool, J. (2007). Child Care in Canada: The Federal Role. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. Davis, C., Hoffer, K. (2012). Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sciences(45), 221-241. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9156-8 Environics Research Group Limited. (2008). Attitudes Toward Child Care. Ottawa: Environics Research Group Limited. Friendly, M. (2014, October 17). The daycare debate: A look at the politics of affordable child care. (A. Chowdhry, Interviewer) Friendly, M., Prentice, S. (2009). About Canada: Childcare. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Perl, A. (2009). Public Policy Decision-Making. In M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, A. Perl, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles Policy Subsystems (3rd ed., pp. 139-159). Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles Policy Subsystems (3rd ed.). Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Macdonald, D., Friendly, M. (2014). The Parent Trap: Child Care Fees in Canadas Big Cities. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care: Canada country note. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). Starting strong 2. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Pal, L. (2010). Chapter 4: Policy Instruments And Design. In L. Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times (4th ed., pp. 129-173). Toronto: Nelson Education. Privy Council Office. (2004, October 5). Speech from the Throne to Open the First Session of the 38th Parliament of Canada. Retrieved from Privy Council Office: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=engpage=informationsub=publicationsdoc=aarchives/sft-ddt/2004_2-eng.htm Pross, P. (1986). Group politics and public policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Rauhala, A., Albanese, P., Ferns, C., Law, D., Haniff, A., Macdonald, L. (2012). What Says What: Election Coverage and Sourcing of Child Care in Four Canadian Dailies. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(1), 95-105. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9481-0 1

Tangled and Repunzel

One would believe that a movie based on a storybook would have the same plot. In comparing and contrasting the movie Tangled to the short story â€Å"Rapunzel†, one can find many differences and very few similarities. Tangled was developed by Disney and has grossed 590 million dollars in the first year; however, â€Å"Rapunzel† is only a folk tale handed down through the years until it was finally written down in the 1800s. This is only the beginning of the differences. Looking closely at the plots, one can definitely see there is a difference in the two. In the following paragraph, the expositions of the movie Tangled and the short story â€Å"Rapunzel† will be compared and contrasted. In Tangled the parents were rich and lived in a kingdom. On the other hand, in â€Å"Rapunzel†, the parents were very poor and lived in a small house. In Tangled, Mother Gothel kidnapped Rapunzel for her magic gift, and kept her locked up in a tower and wouldn't let her leave. Every year on Rapunzel’s birthday, her parents, the king and queen, would light lanterns in the sky. They were hoping that one day, their lost princess would once again return. In â€Å"Rapunzel†, her parents practically traded her to Mother Gothel for stealing from her magic garden. Also in Tangled, Rapunzel’s hair is magic. Her hair glows and can turn a very old lady, to the youngest, and prettiest woman. In â€Å"Rapunzel†, her hair isn't magic or anything like that, it’s just very, very long. Now, we will be discussing the rising actions of the two stories. We will basically be stating their differences and similarities. In the movie Tangled, the guy that took her on her amazing journey was a poor thief. He was being chased, when he saw a mysterious tower. He then climbed that tower and that’s how he met Rapunzel. In contrast, in the short story â€Å"Rapunzel†, he was a prince who heard her singing. He went searching for her, because her beautiful singing softened his heart. In Tangled, Mother Gothel is evil and selfish. She could care less about Rapunzel, basically all she cared about was staying young forever. On the other hand, in â€Å"Rapunzel†, she was actually trying to help Rapunzel by getting her away from her unstable family. As you can see, the rising actions of these two stories are very different. Next, we are going to be comparing and contrasting the climax of these two stories. In Tangled, in the beginning of the climax, Rapunzel realizes that she is the lost princess. Rapunzel is furious with Mother Gothel, and she states that she will never ever let Mother Gothel use her hair again. Mother Gothel is determined to never let Rapunzel leave the tower, even if Rapunzel can’t stand her. Flynn Rider, the thief that Rapunzel met, was about to get hung for his crimes. He actually escapes, with the help of friends he met on his journey with Rapunzel. He gets to the tower, and climbs up it. He gets up there, and he then sees that Rapunzel is all chained up. Mother Gothel then stabs him, attempting to kill him. Rapunzel then promises to Mother Gothel, that if she lets her heal him, she will stay with her forever. When Rapunzel is just about to heal Flynn, he cuts all of her hair off. Rapunzel’s magic then fades, making Mother Gothel turn old and crusty. Mother Gothel falls out the window to her death at the end of the Climax. In the short story â€Å"Rapunzel†, Mother Gothel sees that Rapunzel has deceived her. Mother Gothel then cuts all of Rapunzel’s hair off, leaving her hair on the ground. Mother Gothel tricks the prince, leading him up the tower. When he finally goes in, Mother Gothel reveals that he will never see Rapunzel again. At the end of the climax, the prince is left heartbroken in tears. Now, the falling actions of the two stories will be compared and contrasted. In Tangled, Rapunzel returns to her family. The kingdom rejoices, because they now know that their lost princess has returned. In â€Å"Rapunzel†, the prince kind of lost himself. He wandered around the forest, and ate nothing but roots and berries, and only weeped over the loss of Rapunzel. He roamed around in misery for years, and then he finally came to the desert, where Rapunzel and her two twins she had given birth to, lived in wretchedness. He heard a voice, it sounded familiar to him. He went towards it, and when Rapunzel saw him she fell on his neck and cried. This ends the falling actions of the two stories. Next, the resolutions of the two stories will be compared and contrasted. In Tangled, Rapunzel and Flynn end up living happily ever after in the kingdom. In â€Å"Rapunzel†, the prince led Rapunzel to his kingdom where he was joyfully received, and they lived for a long time afterwards, happy and contented. There’s not much to the resolutions to these two stories. As you can see, the resolutions are a little similar, but mainly different. To end this essay, the movie Tangled and the short story â€Å"Rapunzel†, have two totally different plots. There were lots of differences and very, very few similarities. They both have some of the same characters, but totally different stories behind them.

The Virtuous Character of Desdemona

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is virtue. Such is the case of the virtue of the character Desdemona, from the play The Tragedy of Othello, by William Shakespeare. Desdemona was shown as a low moral, virtue less female in the essay The Character of Desdemona by John Quincy Adams. Contrary to this, the modern reader can see that Shakespeare actually showed her to be a virtuous and loving person, whose own innocence lead to her demise. Is Desdemona a virtuous character? Is there anyone who can be so self-sacrificing? Shakespeare is careful to give her a few minor flaws- her treatment of Brabantio, her stubborn persistence about Cassio, her lie about the handkerchief- to make her realistic. But the overall character of Desdemona is of high stature, it is her very innocence that makes her a victim of circumstance. As a young Venetian woman, Desdemona has lived a sheltered life in her father's home. This sheltering gave her an innate passion for all the things that she was denied. She was denied all things that a modern day women would be allowed to do, including the right to fall in love with someone free of social status, age or race. She then falls in love, probably for the first time, with a man several years older than herself, from a faraway land, and of a different race. She is captivated by the man's stories and wishes she were a man so that she might also have an exciting life, the very life she was denied because of her being a women. Knowing that her father would disapprove of her marriage to such a man, she elopes with Othello. Desdemona is portrayed as a lovely, courageous, gentle woman, deeply in love with her husband. However, she is not a perfect character but her morals, and her virtues are still there. In the play Desdemona says to her father Brabantio, â€Å"(I,iii;180) My noble father, I do perceive here a divided duty: To you I am bound for life and education; My life and education both do learn me How to respect you; you are the lord of duty†. No matter what the circumstances may be, she never stopped respecting her father. Though still she had to follow her heart. Her lover Othello says of her, â€Å"She gave me for my pains a world of sighs† (I,iii;168) However one person in time may see an event or character, another person in another time can perceive the same to be of completely different meanings. John Quincy Adams says that Desdemona lacks virtues and all she does is cause her father grief to his dying bed. He says that â€Å"the passion of Desdemona for Othello is unnatural, solely and exclusively because of his color. † Which if looked at by today†s standards would hold of no significance what the persons skin color is. Second he says that her elopement to him, and secret marriage with him, indicate a personal character not only very deficient in delicacy, but totally regardless of filial duty, of female modesty, and of ingenuous shame. Third he states, â€Å"her deficiency in delicacy is discernible in her conduct and discourse throughout the play. † Altogether he thinks that she has done nothing but wrong when she ran away for her love, and that she has low morals and no virtues because she has wronged her father. In contrast to what John Quincy Adams said of the character of Desdemona, proof from the play itself states otherwise. â€Å"If virtue no delighted beauty lack, Your son-in-law is far more fair than black†, John Quincy Adams uses that quote to illustrate how the skin color love affair had shown Desdemona to be of low morals, and that she had committed an unnatural thing. When as seen by today†s standards it is perfectly all right for two people of different races, ages, sexes, nationality and religions to be in love and to wed. Another quote from the play used by John Q. Adams is, â€Å"With the Moor, say'st thou? –Who would be a father? † that quote helps to illustrate how the father was hurt by the actions of his daughter. When in fact Desdemona meant no harm to her father, she simply wanted to do what†s right as is said by Iago, â€Å"She that was ever fair and never proud, Had tongue at will and yet was never loud†¦ (II,i;158). Also shown to us by Desdemona herself is how she felt towards her father all along, again proving wrong the portrayal of her by John Q. Adams, â€Å"(I,iii;180) My noble father, I do perceive here a divided duty: To you I am bound for life and education; My life and education both do learn me How to respect you; you are the lord of duty†. Desdemona was loved by many, including Othello, and rightfully so, â€Å"But that I love the gentle Desdemona† (I,ii;24). Even John Q. Adams is quoted saying himself in his essay, â€Å"Desdemona, †¦ is amiable and lovely,† towards the top of his last paragraph. Even he in the end admitted to the fact that Desdemona's character is amiable, lovely, virtuous, and still retains its morals. Many people from separate time periods can look at Desdemona in different ways. The modern reader will apply the modern aspects of life to the story and look at it from that perspective, while someone like John Quincy Adams looks at it from the vision of the time period he lived in.

Site of the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony