Comprehensive early childhood care is a key to creating a world characterized by hope and change rather than by deprivation and despair and to building countries that are thriving and free (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2001).
This focus paper was prepared as background for a presentation at A New Way of Thinking? Towards a Vision of Social Inclusion (November 8-9, Ottawa), a conference co-sponsored by the Laidlaw Foundation and the Canadian Council on Social Development. Its basic premise is that early childhood education and care (ECEC) services can be an important means to strengthen social inclusion for children and families and to help create socially inclusive societies. A second premise is that whether, and to what extent, ECEC services contribute to social inclusion depends on how they are designed, supported and delivered. The presentation is based on a paper prepared for the Laidlaw Foundation (Friendly & Lero, in press).
We have adopted a definition of ECEC that is now commonly used in Canada and elsewhere. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, describes the growing consensus in OECD countries that "care" and "education" are inseparable concepts, defining ECEC as
an integrated and coherent approach to policy and provision which is inclusive of all children and all parents regardless of their employment status or socioeconomic status. This approach recognizes that such arrangements may fulfill a wide range of objectives including care, learning and social support (OECD, 2001: 14).
At a practical level, this definition of ECEC includes both child care centres and other "care" services like family day care, and programs whose primary purpose is "early childhood education" like kindergartens and nursery schools. In addition, some elements of family resource programs (which tend to be more focused on supporting parents than on providing "care" or "early childhood education") may be included as well. These programs are all intended to enhance child development and wellbeing and to support parents in a variety of ways, in and out of the paid workforce.
The presentation tells the story of the Elsie Stapleford Children’s Centre where Marla, Adrianna, Jessica, Liyu and Jack come together on a Monday morning with their seven children to illustrate what socially inclusive ECEC looks like "on the ground" – that is, from the perspective of a range of parents in different circumstances and their children in an ordinary community. The description is premised on a definition of a socially inclusive society as one that provides equality of life chances, offers opportunities for development of "capabilities" that can expand possibilities over the life span, provides opportunities for participation and ensures all citizens a basic level of well-being. It also takes account of the fact that the context for ECEC policies and programs has been shaped by key social trends including participation of women in the labour force, gender and social inequality and ethnic diversity as well as a wealth of research that supports the legitimacy of "valuing and supporting universal early childhood education, making it an integral part of the learning system so that all children develop the literacy skills they need to become lifelong learners" (Lowe, 2001: 1)
First, children’s well-being and future prospects can be enhanced by developmental, enriching child-focused environments. The development of talents, skills and capabilities in the early years not only affects well being in childhood but has social, educational, financial and personal impacts as children mature into adulthood. Second, the family and its environment – shaped by class, income, race and neighbourhood - has a significant impact on the developing child. Social exclusion and inclusion are mediated through the family as well as directly experienced by the child and how the family is affected by excluding or including factors has an impact upon its children during childhood and over the life cycle. Third, social inclusion is not merely the converse of exclusion but is used here to connote an assertive approach, not the mere amelioration of deficits. Thus, social inclusion is not only about mitigating vulnerabilities in a deficit or remedial approach to development and life chances but also about "developing talents, skills and capabilities" in a more proactive, hopeful model. One could say that social inclusion is not only about reducing risk but also about ensuring that opportunities are not missed. Finally, children have value as children, not simply as the potential adults they will become later on. This idea is pertinent to whether developmental capabilities are valued primarily because they enhance human capital or because children are valued as citizens who have citizenship rights and are entitled to a fair share of society’s resources.
While ECEC programs are acknowledged to have a multiplicity of objectives, these can be divided into four overall goals that contribute to social inclusion:
While ECEC services have the capacity to play a role – even a central role - in creating a socially inclusive society, they will be able to play an effective role in the social inclusion process only if certain characteristics of public policy and service delivery are present.
A recent comparative policy study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a policy framework for a systematic assessment of the elements of ECEC policy and provision. The study, in which 12 member nations of the OECD participated (note that Canada was not included) is based on the premise that equitable access to high quality ECEC can "strengthen the foundations of lifelong learning for all children and support the broad educational and social needs of families" while "equity concerns have led policymakers to focus on how access to quality early childhood services can mediate some of the negative effects of disadvantage and contribute to social integration" (2001:13). Detailed studies of ECEC policy and provision in the 12 participating countries led to the study’s conclusion that eight interrelated aspects of policy and service provision are the "key elements … that are likely to promote equitable access to quality ECEC" (OECD, 2001: 125). The key elements are:
The OECD study found that
countries that have adopted some or all of these elements of successful policy share a strong public commitment to young children and their families. In different ways, these countries have made efforts to ensure that access is inclusive of all children, and have initiated special efforts for those in need of special support. Quality is high on the agenda as a means to ensure that children not only have equal opportunities to participate in ECEC but also to benefit from these experiences in ways that promote their development and learning (OECD, 2001:135).
The purpose of this presentation is to examine the connections between social inclusion and early childhood education and care. It makes the argument that, under the right circumstances, ECEC makes a significant contribution to children’s development, to supporting family well being, to community cohesion and to equity. If Canada’s ECEC policy and provision in the eight key policy areas identified by the OECD are examined, it is clear that Canada does not provide the mechanisms and supports that would enable ECEC to contribute to social inclusion.
Early childhood education and care services as political, social and economic institutions have an important role to play as agents that support and enhance human social inclusion. They can enhance children’s well being, development and prospects for life-long learning; they can support parents in education, training, employment; they can foster social solidarity and social cohesion; and they can provide equity for diverse groups in society. Policy lessons learned from comparative research show how certain elements of public policy can enable ECEC services to play these roles. These elements – systematic public policy; partnership with the education system; a universal approach to access with particular attention to children in need of special support; substantial public investment; a participatory approach to quality improvement and assurance; appropriate training and working conditions for staff; systematic data collection and a long-term research agenda – can be implemented so as to balance their essential characteristics with cultural and national variations in ideas about children, families and society.
Societies that advance social inclusion are those in which members can enjoy equality, participate in a meaningful way, have opportunities for joining in collective experiences, share social activities and attain fundamental well being. Early childhood education and care contributes to the process of social inclusion by helping to make equality of life chances and a basic level of well-being possible for all children and families. Indeed, some commentators suggest that ECEC is so fundamental to these that it should be a citizenship right. This right would be consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is already enshrined and practiced in a number of European nations.
Whether ECEC is able to contribute – or not - to social inclusion does not occur randomly or by happenstance. The OECD’s policy framework makes clear that if ECEC is to contribute to social inclusion, governments must play a meaningful role. Over the past two decades, many nations with a variety of histories, cultures, fiscal capacities and political arrangements have set in motion the enabling public policy for socially inclusive ECEC programs. For whatever reasons, though, Canada is not among them. Ultimately, if we are to close the inclusion gap, it will require vision, commitment and the political will to turn aspirations into reality.
Friendly, M. and Lero, D.S. Social inclusion through early childhood education and care. (In press). Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.
Lowe, G. S. (2001). Final Report on the National Learning Roundtable on Learning. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Organization for Economic and Co-operative Development. (2001). Starting strong: Early childhood education and care. Paris: Author.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2001). The State of the World’s Children 2001. New York: Author.
Martha Friendly is a Senior Research Associate and Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto and Co-ordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit (CRRU). CRRU is a policy research facility that specializes in early childhood education and care (ECEC). It maintains a circulating resource library, a comprehensive website, publishes a working paper series and other documents, engages in research, and takes an active role in ECEC policy development at the provincial and national levels.
Martha is author of Child Care Policy in Canada: Putting the Pieces Together (Addison-Wesley Canada, 1995), and numerous academic, technical, and popular writings on child care, family and social policy. Recent publications include "Is this as good as it gets? Child care: A test case for assessing the Social Union Framework Agreement," (in press, Canadian Review of Social Policy); Social inclusion through early childhood care and education, (in press, Laidlaw Foundation); "Canary in a coal mine: Child care and Canadian federalism in the 1990s," in Good child care for Canada in the 21st century (2001, Cleveland and Krashinsky (eds.), University of Toronto Press); "Whose interest? Child care as a social policy issue," in Early childhood care and education in Canada (2000, Prochner and Howe (eds.), University of British Columbia Press); "Early childhood education on the Canadian policy landscape," in Landscapes in early childhood education: Cross national perspectives on empowerment (2000, Hayden (ed.), New York: Peter Lang Publishers).
Martha has been actively involved in advocating for progressive social policy for many years, supporting formation of a universal system of early childhood education and care for all children.
[ Conference Page ][ CCSD Home Page ] [ The Laidlaw Foundation ]