37 replies to this topic

[dre]

IMO, full-day kindergarten basically comes down to the state raising your kids so they can get more parents in the workforce to increase tax revenue. Parents also like it because in the last few decades they've become more focused on their careers & wanting to buy crap they don't need (nor afford) and less focused on actually raising their kids.

I think it's BS on both ends.

How about if we have 13 grades instead of 12, and just call kindergarten Grade 1?

[Evening Star]

To add to that, anyone who things that ECE's are "baby-sitting" has no idea was an ECE does.

I have to say though, that with all-day kindergarten, there will be more daycare-like activities (play, naps) and less traditional kindergarten learning done by these teachers because kids that age can't keep the attention and energy up all day that goes into half-day kindergarten.

This makes sense to me. I haven't followed the issue closely. Has anyone advocated/defended full-day kindergarten on educational grounds?

[ron Young]

speaking only from experience. all 3 of my kids went to half day kindergarten. If the only reason to have full day kindergaten is for daycare then I say no way scrap it....However if it can be proven to be beneficial to the education of our kids then I say keep it. Seems a pretty simple question to answer. No matter what the costs of education is,,, Ignorance is always more expensive.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Four year olds are not in kindergarten. They call it 'junior' kindergarten because they don't want to call it 'senior day care'.

The report which recommended 'junior kindergarten' recommended the use of early childhood educators -- ie daycare workers. The McGuinty government elected to use far more expensive teachers as a payback to the teachers unions which support them with donations, work, and advertising every election.

I'd rather have more ECE's watching the class than a teacher/ece combo.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

speaking only from experience. all 3 of my kids went to half day kindergarten. If the only reason to have full day kindergaten is for daycare then I say no way scrap it....However if it can be proven to be beneficial to the education of our kids then I say keep it. Seems a pretty simple question to answer. No matter what the costs of education is,,, Ignorance is always more expensive.

It's beneficial for children whose parents don't parent.

My sister tells me that it's obvious after the first week which children have been RAISED by the parents and which children have not. Starting at a younger age benefits the kids whose parents aren't taking their parental responsibility serious, or parents who can not afford (shift work, two jobs) to take a meaningful amount of time off weekly to spend with them.

[Peeves]

Anyone who thinks kindergarten teachers are "baby sitting" has no idea what a kindergarten teacher does.

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.

[Evening Star]

We're talking about all-day junior (4-yr-old) kindergarten?? I didn't realize that.

[Peeves]

We're talking about all-day junior (4-yr-old) kindergarten?? I didn't realize that.

Sorry my bad. thought it was a high profile issue when obviously I should have added detail.


"as Ontario tries to erase a $16-billion deficit." HOO HA!


http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120210/120210_ontario_kindergarten/20120210/?hub=CP24Home


Brief summary, more in article.

n a lengthy report set to be released next week, Don Drummond will propose axing the full-day program for four year olds, the Toronto Sun reported Friday.

For months, Drummond has been studying the province's finances to identify potential cuts as Ontario tries to erase a $16-billion deficit.

One of those proposed cuts will be the all-day kindergarten program championed by Premier Dalton McGuinty, according to the report, which quotes an unidentified source.

Neither Drummond, McGuinty nor anyone from his government has commented on the newspaper report. Drummond's review, which contains dozens and dozens of cost-saving recommendations, is scheduled to be released Wednesday.

Nothing is set in stone, however. The province will examine the recommendations and then decide what to cut and what to keep.

About 800 schools already have all-day kindergarten, which the government has been phasing in since the 2010-11 school year. The government spent $200 million to implement the program and is spending another $300 million this school year, according to the report.

Previously, Ontario's government estimated about 120,000 children, almost half of the province's four and five year olds, would be in school full time by the fall of 2012.

Prior to last fall's provincial election, the Liberals promised to extend all-day kindergarten to all elementary schools by September 2014 at a total cost of $1.5 billion.

Ontario is up to the wazoo in debt under the Liberals.

[Manny]

The Ontario Tories have doomed Ontario by electing a series of incompetent clowns as leaders, leaving us with McGuinty into perpetuity.
The weak-kneed, totally forgettable Ernie Eves, the hapless opportunistic John Tory, and then Hudak, who pretended to be a conservative then caved in on every conservative value at the first sign of opposition.

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.

[Manny]

Now as for the OP, you underestimate the importance of kindergarten, which is necessary to introduce the child to the outside, real world. They learn how to get along in groups, how to follow the rules of the organization, authority figures other than parents, obligations, timeliness. Many things. It's not just a daycare!

Now, you might debate whether they need professional teachers to do that, or not because of the pay scales. But it still requires people with special training. As the school year progresses, the level of education gets more challenging just as with any other grade, but geared to the specific level and capabilities of children at this age. Of course it doesn't require professors, but it should not be seen as a trivial task that just about anyone can do. So if you wanted to "dumb it down" you wouldn't get very far. In the end, you wouldn't save much money. And it's a drop in the bucket compared to how much money gets wasted every day in the public sector.

No sir. I am tired of paying ever higher taxes and people like yourself keep coming in and saying, we need to cut this or that in terms of quality, because it's too good. I keep paying more, and getting less and less. Nickel and dime the system to death, by a thousand cuts. Meanwhile we ignore the elephant in the room, what the CEO's and their administration are making in the board rooms and offices, while the front end is in crisis. This is not the way to go.

[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 by Peeves, 11 February 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[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.

[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 by MiddleClassCentrist, 11 February 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[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.