scrapping all-day kindergarten:

[Guest Peeves]

Really? Or could it simply be that Ontarians just do not want a conservative in power at this time, not because of the charisma or personality of their leader, but because they don't want that political value. You are saying so yourself, if Hudak had to "cave in on every conservative value at the first sign of opposition".

Because democracy is about giving the people what they WANT, instead of enforcing an agenda. That's the way it should be. If conservatives don't have the base, their values don't sell and they don't get the vote.

I pretty much side with the Argus theory. Dalton should have been readily upset by a novice politician that just kept his mouth shut except for mentioning the Liberal fiascoes like moving plants around or "EHealth scandal a $1B waste: auditor."

Hudak and Tory before him shot their mouths off too much about "our" plans, when all they needed to do was point out the Liberal gaffes and millions in stupid waste.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Manny]

I pretty much side with the Argus theory. Dalton should have been readily upset by a novice politician that just kept his mouth shut except for mentioning the Liberal fiascoes like moving plants around or "EHealth scandal a $1B waste: auditor."

Hudak and Tory before him shot their mouths off too much about "our" plans, when all they needed to do was point out the Liberal gaffes and millions in stupid waste.

Negative campaigning is not enough. Ontarians are smarter than that. But if you suggest that Conservatives should not reveal their own plans and use negative campaigning itself to win, fair enough. It speaks to what I said. Your strategy would be, "don't tell them what we're going to do", because those values simply do not resonate with the voters.

[Guest Peeves]

Negative campaigning is not enough. Ontarians are smarter than that. But if you suggest that Conservatives should not reveal their own plans and use negative campaigning itself to win, fair enough. It speaks to what I said. Your strategy would be, "don't tell them what we're going to do", because those values simply do not resonate with the voters.

You minimize my point. That being, the Liberals waste should have been the major campaign issue. That was a winning strategy.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

You minimize my point. That being, the Liberals waste should have been the major campaign issue. That was a winning strategy.

Hudak auditioned for the opposition leader. He got the position.

All he did was talk about Liberal this and Liberal that. You don't win by saying the other guy sucks repeatedly.

You win by following a simple train of thought.

1. This is where we are at.

2. This is what we need to fix

3. This it how we are going to do it.

I heard a lot about what needed to be fixed and no concrete proposals on how to fix it.

He also linked himself to Rob Ford and Harper. While we elected them, he should have made his own brand of conservative. Market it to make it look like we were putting our eggs in a different basket.

Edited February 11, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Argus]

Really? Or could it simply be that Ontarians just do not want a conservative in power at this time, not because of the charisma or personality of their leader, but because they don't want that political value. You are saying so yourself, if Hudak had to "cave in on every conservative value at the first sign of opposition".

Because democracy is about giving the people what they WANT, instead of enforcing an agenda. That's the way it should be. If conservatives don't have the base, their values don't sell and they don't get the vote.

Mike Harris, who I did not admire, btw, and who made Stephen Harper seem charismatic by comparison, rang up two whopping majorities. There are people out there in Ontario who will vote for a 'conservative' leader who has a plan and the determination to carry it out. Those who have followed Harris have had neither. That is why they've enjoyed no electoral success. Hudak is timid, wavering, and has no principals he's willing to stick up for. He deserved to lose, and he did. He still deserves to lose. There is not a thing about the man or his party that attracts me to vote for him, and I've voted for the federal conservatives since they were the Reform Party.

And I LOATH Dalton McGuinty.

[capricorn]

Full day classes for 4 year olds with trained $$$$$$$ teachers doing the baby sitting chores.

Four years old is so very young to get them started.

Looking at it from the child's perspective, it's one additional year in a structured learning environment that they have to complete. Whichever way you look at it, that basically adds one year to the educational system the child must wade through. My concern with integrating the children so early into the formalized education system is that many of them could eventually become wary thereby increasing the drop out rate. At which point they want to take a break and want to get jobs, any jobs, to gain independence. That's one downside that I think needs consideration.

[Guest Manny]

Mike Harris, who I did not admire, btw, and who made Stephen Harper seem charismatic by comparison, rang up two whopping majorities.

Well in the end I think people disliked Harris, and that is his legacy. Things like extensive cuts to education, health and taxes. While the money was being cut for schools, I and most other Ontarians got a check from the government for a measly 200 dollars. That angered me, it made no sense at all. That wasn't the "common sense revolution" we were looking for! Then there's Walkerton, and Ipperwash.

Harris was like a mini Mulroney, in a way. In conservative politics Muloney was "Me", and Harris was "Mini-Me". Fact is, Harris woulda never made it at all if the public was not so utterly pissed off at Bob Rae and the NDP, and tired of Liberals. That's what gave him his chance.

Other than that, Ontario is Liberal my friends. Liberal, Liberal, Liberal! (Manny washes mouth with alcohol)

Edited February 12, 2012 by Manny

[BubberMiley]

My concern with integrating the children so early into the formalized education system is that many of them could eventually become wary thereby increasing the drop out rate. At which point they want to take a break and want to get jobs, any jobs, to gain independence. That's one downside that I think needs consideration.

Attendance isn't compulsory until Grade 1.

[Guest American Woman]

I perhaps have ot made my (our) collective taxpayers..point.

These are not 5 year olds going to school in this issue. Ontario has just had an educational policy change. PRE- kindergarden!

Full day classes for 4 year olds with trained $$$$$$$ teachers doing the baby sitting chores.

Now that's simply paying teachers wages for all day day care.

While pre-kindergarten is a different issue than kindergarten, I would argue that the level of instruction is still just as important. I think that all-day is a long time for little ones, but it seems as if you are more concerned with the fact that teachers are being paid to teach them rather than putting them in the care of low-paid babysitters.

I've never understood that mindset myself. Children are our future, yet so many people expect to pay less for their care than they pay a mechanic to take care of their vehicle.

The first five years of a child's life are critical to their development, with the first three years being the most crucial. link

If 4 year olds are going to be in a school setting all day, then it's of utmost importance that they have qualified teachers.

[Guest Peeves]

While pre-kindergarten is a different issue than kindergarten, I would argue that the level of instruction is still just as important. I think that all-day is a long time for little ones, but it seems as if you are more concerned with the fact that teachers are being paid to teach them rather than putting them in the care of low-paid babysitters.

I've never understood that mindset myself. Children are our future, yet so many people expect to pay less for their care than they pay a mechanic to take care of their vehicle.

The first five years of a child's life are critical to their development, with the first three years being the most crucial. link

If 4 year olds are going to be in a school setting all day, then it's of utmost importance that they have qualified teachers.

"Qualified teachers" ? Qualified how? They have no training in teachers academies for babysitting and nurturing! Most teachers consider children necessary to holding a job. Period.

I'm concerned with another billion dollar unaffordable, unnecessary program being added to curry votes when we have billions in deficit and are taxed now to the wazoo.

That the program might be , possibly, perhaps, of some development to some child is far outweighed by the load it puts on the taxpayer with no way to prove any benefit beyond that to parents that want a baby sitter and teachers that want more range, and Liberals largesse for more votes.

I would argue that the level of instruction is that time in a child's life where parenting is paramount and that a 4 year old attending all day 'schooling' is counter productive to nurturing.

In reality it's simply another scheme for votes and Dalton has curried the teachers favor since he first ran. Children used as pawns and parents as a ploy.

I thank you for the link. Good points. I always stress the importance of child development and believe it starts in the home.

From your link. The stress seems to be on family, nurturing, and the child's rights. In our Liberal governments case, the child is being used as a ploy to the governments ends and to hell with the child's rights to a nurturing home for 5 years before dumping them in the care of a teacher that in so many cases is simply acting as baby sitter,,,,a poor replacement for a mother.

I still remember sitting with my mother pre school and learning. That nurturing won't be replaced by a teacher who has little time for other than the pressing needs of a bevy of 4 year olds.

Your link:

Children learn more quickly during their early years than at any other time in life. They need love and nurturing to develop a sense of trust and security that turns into confidence as they grow.

Babies and young children grow, learn and develop rapidly when they receive love and affection, attention, encouragement and mental stimulation, as well as nutritious meals and good health care.

Understanding the stages of child development helps parents know what to expect and how to best support the child as she or he grows and develops.

In many settings, early childhood programmes support parents and their children from infancy through age 8, which includes the important transition from home to school.

All children have the right to be raised in a family and to have access to quality health care, good nutrition, education, play and protection from harm, abuse and discrimination. Children have the right to grow up in an environment in which they are enabled to reach their full potential in life.

It is the duty of parents, other caregivers and family members, communities, civil society and governments to ensure that these rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Peeves

[Argus]

While pre-kindergarten is a different issue than kindergarten, I would argue that the level of instruction is still just as important. I think that all-day is a long time for little ones, but it seems as if you are more concerned with the fact that teachers are being paid to teach them rather than putting them in the care of low-paid babysitters.

Personally, I'm concerned at the costs. I don't feel especially qualified to asses the usefulness of all day jk on a societal level. But I fail to understand why you need a degree and then a couple of years in a teaching college to read stories to 4 year olds and help them colour. I don't see their added education, and thus their added costs, as being worth anything. ETE's might even be better trained to deal with very young children than teacher college graduates.

[Guest Peeves]

Personally, I'm concerned at the costs. I don't feel especially qualified to asses the usefulness of all day jk on a societal level. But I fail to understand why you need a degree and then a couple of years in a teaching college to read stories to 4 year olds and help them colour. I don't see their added education, and thus their added costs, as being worth anything. ETE's might even be better trained to deal with very young children than teacher college graduates.

Obviously I agree. That's common sense and a rational conclusion. Teachers are the target of the Liberals to get their vote. It doesn't make sense to take a kid out of their home for a

educator is an academic and not a parent. They are not educated to handle preschool children.

Further,

I doubt there has been much if any specialized training Education of the early childhood teacher;

Preschool teachers are encouraged to hold credentials in Early Childhood Education in the form of a Child Development Accreditation (CDA) or formal college education in Early Childhood or a related subject.

The term "preschool" refers to instruction in non-public arenas such as licensed preschools, childcare centers, family day care centers, home day care centers, center-based programs, federal programs like Head Start, and full or part-day private child centers or day care centers sponsored by religious bodies. The term "pre-kindergarten" refers to those lead teachers who offer instruction in a program for four-year olds funded as part of the state public school system.

Preschool teachers must be able to work well and interact with young children, sometimes as young as 2 years 9 months. Preschool children have a short attention span and their worries are usually fairly simple. Most preschoolers are loving, affectionate, and playful, and like to play games, be read to, or play with toys.

Early childhood teachers exhibit many different levels of educational preparation depending on their role, what type of setting in which they teach, and in which state that they teach within.

Generally early childhood teachers in the United States receive training in three ways: (1) earning an undergraduate or graduate degree in early childhood education or child development, (2) earning an associate degree in early childhood education, early child care and development, or child development, (3) developing and demonstrating competency through a competency-based assessment system such as the National Child Development Associate (CDA) program.

Most early childhood teachers in public school pre-K-Grade 3 classrooms possess state certification through an undergraduate or graduate degree from a college or university program approved by the state for training teachers. Teacher Assistants in these classrooms receive are required to obtain an associate degree (in any area, not just early childhood related areas) with some course credit in child development or early childhood education at the very least.

On the other hand, most non-public institutions offering child care and education vary in the type of education required of their teachers. Larger more commercially known, chain child care centers, for example, either align their teacher qualifications with the public school's model or offer even more intense qualifications (i.e. experience working with certain types of children, experience working with diverse types of children, specific training in Montessori or High/Scope curricula, graduate/advanced degrees). At the opposite pole of the spectrum, many day care centers focused mainly on providing supervision for working parents and less on providing a credible education program for their development employ teachers with little or no formal early childhood training. An associate's degree in a related field, CDA training, or a history with working with children of a certain age often suffices as adequate qualifications. However, many states continue to tighten and raise their standards for quality and education among early childhood programs in order to recommendations for full, state-approved licensure.

[Guest Peeves]

Attendance isn't compulsory until Grade 1.

I suggest this is nothing but an all day DAY CARE PROGRAM that taxpayers are getting foisted on them under another name.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/

You will notice there is a teacher likely with NO early childhood training and an early childhood educators (ECEs)in the classroom. Now I suggest the teacher is redundant and the ECEs is the one and only one qualified. So, which is the baby sitter?

Who is working in the classroom?

Teacher and Early Childhood Educator team throughout the day

Teachers and early childhood educators (ECEs) are working together to help young students learn during the regular school day. These educators have complementary skills that create a learning environment to support the unique needs of each child. With two qualified professionals in the classroom for the full school day, there is more time for individual and small group instruction.

At schools that offer the integrated before- and after-school program, two ECEs work in the full-day kindergarten classroom. For example, one may run the before-school program and work in the classroom with the teacher during the morning and the second may arrive around lunchtime and work with the teacher in the afternoon and run the after-school program.

At schools that don’t offer the before- and after-school program, a single ECE works alongside the teacher during the regular school day (for example, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.).

Watch as an ECE and teacher team get ready for the first day of school.

Mobile | Read transcript

Complementary skills

Teachers and ECEs work together to implement the program and maintain a safe and healthy learning environment.

Early childhood educators have knowledge of early childhood development, observation and assessment. They bring a focus on age-appropriate program planning that promotes each child’s physical, cognitive, language, emotional, social and creative development and well-being.

Teachers have a knowledge of the broader elementary curriculum, assessment, evaluation and reporting, and child development. They are responsible for student learning, effective instruction and evaluation and formal reporting to parents, based on the teacher-ECE team’s assessments of children’s progress.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Peeves