ON SOCIAL INCLUSION - laidlawfdn.org · Martha Friendly and Donna S. Lero WORKING PAPER SERIES JUNE...

Martha Friendly and Donna S. Lero

W O R K I N G P A P E R S E R I E S

J U N E 2 0 0 2

PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL INCLUSION

Social InclusionThrough

Early ChildhoodEducation and Care

Martha Friendly is the coordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit,Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto;

Donna S. Lero, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition,University of Guelph, where she is also Research Director of the Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being.


Martha Friendly andDonna S. Lero

Social InclusionThrough Early

Childhood Educationand Care

Copyright © 2002 The Laidlaw Foundation

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of theLaidlaw Foundation.

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Friendly, Martha, 1943 -Social inclusion through early childhood education and care / Martha Friendly, Donna S. Lero.

(Perspectives on social inclusion working paper series)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-9730740-7-8

1. Early childhood education--Government policy. 2. Child care--Government policy. 3. Inclusiveeducation. 4. Children with social disabilities. 5. Social integration.I. Lero, Donna S. II. Laidlaw Foundation III. Title.

LB1139.23.F75 2002 372.21 C2002-903112-5

The Laidlaw Foundation365 Bloor Street East, Suite 2000 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3L4Tel.: (416) 964-3614 Fax: (416) 975-1428

PresidentWalter Ross

Executive DirectorNathan Gilbert

Editing and LayoutIs five Communications

This paper is part of the Laidlaw Foundation’s Working Paper Series, Perspectives on SocialInclusion. The full papers in English and summaries in English and French can be downloaded fromthe Foundation’s web site at www.laidlawfdn.org (under Children’s Agenda programme). Limitedpaper copies are available from [email protected].


iii

Table of Contents

About the Laidlaw Foundation..................................................................v

Foreword..............................................................................................vii

Social Inclusion Through Early Childhood Education and Care.....................1

Introduction..........................................................................................1

Basic Concepts.......................................................................................2

The Context for Early Childhood Education and Care. ...................................3

Goals and Objectives of ECEC....................................................................5

Considering Four Goals for ECEC that Contribute to Social Inclusion...............6

What Are the Conditions that Enable ECEC to Contribute to Social Inclusion?A Policy Framework...............................................................................10

Does ECEC Contribute to Social Inclusion in Canada? If so, how? If not, why not?...................................................................12

Acting on What We’ve Learned: From Aspirations to Reality..........................17

In Conclusion: Towards Socially Inclusive Early Childhood Education..............19

Endnotes.............................................................................................20

References...........................................................................................21


v

About the Laidlaw Foundation

The Laidlaw Foundation is a private, public-interest foundation that uses its human and financialresources in innovative ways to strengthen civic engagement and social cohesion. The Foundationuses its capital to better the environments and fulfill the capacities of children and youth, to enhancethe opportunities for human development and creativity and to sustain healthy communities andecosystems.

The Foundation supports a diverse portfolio of innovative and often unconventional projects in threeprogram areas: in the arts, in the environment and improving the life prospects for children, youthand families.

Working for social inclusion is a theme that underlies much of the Foundation’s activities. The keywords in the Foundation’s mission — human development, sustainable communities and ecosystems— imply that achievement will rely on the enhancement of capacity and capability. Not only is socialinclusion being developed as an emerging funding stream, it is an embedded Laidlaw Foundationvalue, both structurally and programmatically.

Nathan GilbertExecutive Director

For more information about the Laidlaw Foundation please contact us at:

The Laidlaw FoundationTel: 416 964-3614Fax: 416 975-1428Email: [email protected]


vii

Foreword:

The context for social inclus ion

The Laidlaw Foundation’sPerspective on Social Inclusion

Children have risen to the top of gov-ernment agendas at various times overthe past decade, only to fall again

whenever there is an economic downturn, abudget deficit, a federal-provincial relationscrisis or, most recently, a concern over terror-ism and national security. While there havebeen important achievements in public policyin the past 5 to 10 years, there has not been asustained government commitment to childrennor a significant improvement in the well-being of children and families. In fact, inmany areas, children and families have lostground and social exclusion is emerging as amajor issue in Canada. Examples abound andinclude these facts.

• the over-representation of racial minorityfamilies and children among those livingin poverty in large cities, and the denialof access to many services by immigrantand refugee families;

• the 43% increase in the number of chil-dren in poverty in Canada since 1989,the 130% increase in the number of chil-dren in homeless shelters in Toronto, aswell as the persistence of one of the high-est youth incarceration rates amongCommonwealth countries;

• the exclusion of children with disabilitiesfrom public policy frameworks (e.g. theNational Children’s Agenda), from defi-nitions of ‘healthy’ child developmentand, all too often, from community life.

These situations provide the context forthe Laidlaw Foundation’s interest in socialinclusion. The Foundation’s Children’s Agendaprogram first began exploring social inclusionin 2000 as a way to re-focus child and familypolicy by:

• re-framing the debate about poverty, vul-nerability and the well-being of childrenin order to highlight the social dimen-sions of poverty (i.e. the inability to par-ticipate fully in the community)

• linking poverty and economic vulnerabil-ity with other sources of exclusion suchas racism, disability, rejection of differ-ence and historic oppression

• finding common ground among thoseconcerned about the well-being of fami-lies with children to help generate greaterpublic and political will to act.

The Foundation commissioned a series ofworking papers to examine social inclusionfrom a number of perspectives. Although theauthors approach the topic from differentstarting points and emphasize different aspectsof exclusion and inclusion, there are importantcommon threads and conclusions. The work-ing papers draw attention to the new realitiesand new understandings that must be broughtto bear on the development of social policyand the creation of a just and healthy society.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

viii

These are:

• Whether the source of exclusion is pover-ty, racism, fear of differences or lack ofpolitical clout, the consequences are thesame: a lack of recognition and accept-ance; powerlessness and ‘voicelessness’;economic vulnerability; and, diminishedlife experiences and limited life prospects.For society as a whole, the social exclusionof individuals and groups can become amajor threat to social cohesion and eco-nomic prosperity.

• A rights-based approach is inadequate toaddress the personal and systemic exclu-sions experienced by children and adults.People with disabilities are leading the wayin calling for approaches based on socialinclusion and valued recognition to deliverwhat human rights claims alone cannot.

• Diversity and difference, whether on thebasis of race, disability, religion, culture orgender, must be recognized and valued.

The ‘one size fits all approach’ is no longeracceptable and has never been effective inadvancing the well-being of children andfamilies.

• Public policy must be more closely linkedto the lived experiences of children andfamilies, both in terms of the actual pro-grams and in terms of the process forarriving at those policies and programs.This is one of the reasons for the growingfocus on cities and communities, as placeswhere inclusion and exclusion happen.

• Universal programs and policies that serveall children and families generally providea stronger foundation for improving well-being than residual, targeted or segregatedapproaches. The research and anecdotalevidence for this claim is mounting fromthe education, child development andpopulation health sectors.

Understanding social inclus ion

Social exclusion emerged as an importantpolicy concept in Europe in the 1980s inresponse to the growing social divides

that resulted from new labour market condi-tions and the inadequacy of existing social wel-fare provisions to meet the changing needs ofmore diverse populations. Social inclusion isnot, however, just a response to exclusion.

Although many of the working papers usesocial exclusion as the starting point for theirdiscussions, they share with us the view thatsocial inclusion has value on its own as both aprocess and a goal. Social inclusion is aboutmaking sure that all children and adults areable to participate as valued, respected and

contributing members of society. It is, there-fore, a normative (value based) concept - a wayof raising the bar and understanding where wewant to be and how to get there.

Social inclusion reflects a proactive,human development approach to social well-being that calls for more than the removal ofbarriers or risks. It requires investments andaction to bring about the conditions for inclu-sion, as the population health and internation-al human development movements have taughtus.

Recognizing the importance of differenceand diversity has become central to new under-


ix

standings of identity at both a national andcommunity level. Social inclusion goes onestep further: it calls for a validation and recog-nition of diversity as well as a recognition ofthe commonality of lived experiences and theshared aspirations among people, particularlyevident among families with children.

This strongly suggests that social inclu-sion extends beyond bringing the ‘outsiders’in, or notions of the periphery versus the cen-tre. It is about closing physical, social andeconomic distances separating people, ratherthan only about eliminating boundaries orbarriers between us and them.

The cornerstones of social inclus ion

The working papers process revealed thatsocial inclusion is a complex and chal-lenging concept that cannot be reduced

to only one dimension or meaning. The work-ing papers, together with several other initia-tives the Foundation sponsored as part of itsexploration of social inclusion , have helped usto identify five critical dimensions, or corner-stones, of social inclusion:

Valued recognition– Conferring recognitionand respect on individuals and groups. Thisincludes recognizing the differences in chil-dren’s development and, therefore, not equat-ing disability with pathology; supporting com-munity schools that are sensitive to culturaland gender differences; and extending thenotion to recognizing common worth throughuniversal programs such as health care.

Human development – Nurturing the talents,skills, capacities and choices of children andadults to live a life they value and to make acontribution both they and others find worth-while. Examples include: learning and devel-opmental opportunities for all children andadults; community child care and recreationprograms for children that are growth-promot-ing and challenging rather than merelycustodial.

Involvement and engagement – Having theright and the necessary support to make/beinvolved in decisions affecting oneself, familyand community, and to be engaged in commu-nity life. Examples include: youth engagementand control of services for youth; parentalinput into school curriculum or placementdecisions affecting their child; citizen engage-ment in municipal policy decisions; and politi-cal participation.

Proximity – Sharing physical and socialspaces to provide opportunities for interac-tions, if desired, and to reduce social distancesbetween people. This includes shared publicspaces such as parks and libraries; mixedincome neighbourhoods and housing; andintegrated schools and classrooms.

Material well being – Having the materialresources to allow children and their parents toparticipate fully in community life. Thisincludes being safely and securely housed andhaving an adequate income.

Foreword: The Laidlaw Foundation's Perspective

x

Next s teps: Bui lding inclus ive c i t ies and communit ies

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank the following for their contribution and commitment to the working papers serieson social inclusion: the authors, without whom there would be no working papers; Karen Swift,Frank Stark, Nancy Matthews, Jennifer Keck, Daniel Drache and the forty external reviewers ofpapers, all of whom provided critical feedback and expert advice at various stages during the editorialprocess; the members of the Advisory Committee, Children’s Agenda Program, Nathan Gilbert,Executive Director, and the Board of Directors, Laidlaw Foundation for their support, interest andcritical comments; and Larisa Farafontova, Eva-Marie Dolhai, and Richard Wazana, for theirperseverance and skillful assistance at critical stages in the process.

Christa FreilerChildren’s Agenda Program CoordinatorLaidlaw Foundation

Paul ZarnkeChair, Children’s Agenda Advisory Committee Laidlaw Foundation

Over the next three years, the Children’sAgenda program of the LaidlawFoundation will focus on Building

inclusive cities and communities. The impor-tance of cities and communities is becomingincreasingly recognized because the well-beingof children and families is closely tied to wherethey live, the quality of their neighbourhoodsand cities, and the ‘social commons’ where peo-ple interact and share experiences.

The Laidlaw Foundation’s vision of asocially inclusive society is grounded in aninternational movement that aims to advancethe well-being of people by improving thehealth of cities and communities. Realizingthis vision is a long-term project to ensure thatall members of society participate as equallyvalued and respected citizens. It is an agendabased on the premise that for our society to bejust, healthy and secure, it requires the inclu-sion of all.

This series is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Jennifer Keck who died on June 12, 2002

after a long battle with cancer.

Jennifer was a key member of the editorial committee,an insightful and passionate reviewer of the working papers,

and an unwavering advocate forsocial justice and the social inclusion of all people.

Social InclusionThrough Early

Childhood Educationand Care

Introduct ion


1

Social Inclusion Through EarlyChildhood Education and Care“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 paper explores how childhood edu-cation and care services contribute tosocial inclusion in society. Its basic

premise is that “the process of development is anexpansion of human freedom” (Sen, 1999: 1). Itdraws on Amartya Sen's conception that a soci-ety that promotes a high degree of social inclu-sion is one in which members participatemeaningfully and actively, have varied oppor-tunities for joining in collective experiences,enjoy equality, share social experiences, andattain fundamental well-being. In this sense, aninclusive society provides equality of lifechances and offers all citizens a basic level ofwell-being (ibid., 2000). Our definition ofsocial inclusion features an active, transforma-tive process of policy and program develop-ment designed to reduce barriers, promotehuman development, create the kind of com-munity-based infrastructure that directly con-tributes to children’s development and provideopportunities for children and families to par-ticipate meaningfully in their communities andto be valued. We make the case that, underthe right conditions, early childhood educationand care, or ECEC, can be a primary means toenhance this kind of social inclusion.

The paper’s main purpose is to examinethe circumstances under which ECEC servicescontribute to this conception of social inclu-

sion, and when they don’t. The following sec-tion examines the key concepts upon whichthis is based. Then, applying a frameworkdrawn from an international policy study, weconsider the specific policy and program ele-ments that enable ECEC services to contributeto social inclusion. Finally, we examinewhether the current ECEC situation inCanada is constructed and supported in waysthat contribute to social inclusion, whatchanges are needed to enable it to do so, someimplications for practice and future policydirections.

The definition of ECEC employed here isone commonly used in Canada and interna-tionally to describe ECEC broadly and holisti-cally to:

reflect the growing consensus in OECDcountries that “care” and “education” areinseparable concepts … the use of the termECEC supports an integrated and coherentapproach to policy and provision, which isinclusive of all children and all parentsregardless of employment or socioeconomicstatus. This approach recognizes that sucharrangements may fulfill a wide range ofobjectives including care, learning andsocial support (OECD, 2001: 14).

At a practical level, this encompasses

2

Social Inclusion Through Early Childhood Education and Care

childcare centres and other “care” services likefamily daycare as well as kindergartens andnursery/preschools whose primary purpose is“early childhood education”. Some elements offamily resource programs (which tend to bemore focused on supporting parents than on

providing “care” or “early childhood educa-tion”) are included as well. These are allintended to enhance child development andwell-being, and to support parents in a varietyof ways, in and out of the paid workforce.

The approach to social inclusion andearly childhood education and careused in this paper is based on four con-

cepts. The first is that the development of tal-ents, skills and capabilities in the early yearshas an effect not only on childhood well-being,but also on the social, educational, financialand personal domains as children mature intoadulthood. This concept of social inclusion as“the goal and the process of developing the talents,skills and capabilities of children to participate inthe social and economic mainstream of communi-ty life by providing the opportunities and remov-ing the barriers for children” (Freiler, 2000) pro-vides a key rationale for the importance ofinvesting in ECEC. According to Sen’s concep-tion, the capabilities “that adults enjoy aredeeply conditional on their experiences as chil-dren” (1999: 5) and expand the possibilitiesthat people can “lead the kind of lives theyvalue” (1999: 18). Thus, what happens in theearly years has implications “not only for whathappens in childhood but also for future life”(1999: 2). In this paradigm, political, socialand economic institutions have important rolesas agents that support and enhance humandevelopment and thus, freedom. That “thechild is father to the man” is one important rea-son it is imperative that ECEC environmentsare designed to be truly developmental.

Second, the family and its environment –shaped by class, income and culture – have asignificant impact on the developing child.

The family’s experience of exclusion and inclu-sion affects not only its adult members, butalso its children during childhood and over thelife cycle. Children are dependent on theirfamilies for income, care, food, shelter, healthand safety and relationships. Consequently,while children’s well-being and future prospectscan be affected directly by developmental,enriching environments, they are alsoenhanced if their families are sustained eco-nomically and socially through employment,income security and community supports. Inthis way, social exclusion and inclusion aremediated through the family as well as directlyexperienced by the child. This suggests why itis important for children as well as for parentsthat ECEC services are sensitive to parents'employment, training and social needs as wellas supportive of child development and well-being.

A third basic concept is that social inclu-sion is not merely the converse of social exclu-sion but is used to connote an assertiveapproach, not just amelioration of deficits.Thus, social inclusion is not only about miti-gating vulnerabilities in a remedial approach tolife chances, but also about “developing talents,skills and capabilities” (Freiler, 2000) in a moreproactive, hopeful model. In this conception,social inclusion is not only about reducing risk,but also about ensuring that opportunities arenot missed. This has significant implicationsfor whether ECEC services are mostly offered

Basic Concepts


3

to those presumed to be at risk, or are freelyavailable for all children in a universal model.

A final concept relates to the nature ofchildhood. We propose that while developingtalents, skills and capabilities in early child-hood is appropriate and important, childrenare not merely adults-in-training. Thus, chil-dren should be valued as children, not simplyfor what they may become later on. Thisrelates to the extent to which developmentalcapabilities are valued primarily because theycreate human capital for the future labourforce, or because children are valued as citizenswith entitlement to a fair share of society’sresources. The United Nations Convention onthe Rights of the Child fully reinforces thisidea of children as citizens with at least equal,

if not predominant rights. Internationally, thishas become a mainstream theme in discourseabout children:

Many countries are seeking to balance viewsof childhood in the “here-and-now” withviews of childhood as an investment withthe future adult in mind. These diverseviews have important implications for theorganization of policy and provision in dif-ferent countries (OECD, 2001: 38).

The nature and content of ECEC pro-grams - how didactic they are or whether theyare attuned to the whole child - depends inpart on where the balance of these views aboutthe nature of childhood falls.

The Context for Ear ly Chi ldhood Educat ion and Care

Key social, demographic and economictrends in Canada that are consistentwith international trends – together

with knowledge derived from human develop-ment research – have implications for ECECpolicies and programs.

First, the demographic environment inCanada includes a shrinking child population.In the 1990s, child populations in Canada,particularly those under age six, declined, espe-cially in regions that experienced out-migration(Childcare Resource and Research Unit, 2000).Concern about low birth rate has not been aspronounced in Canada (outside of Quebec, atleast) as it has been in Europe; this may berelated to the fact that Canada relies heavily onimmigration as a source of workers. WhileCanada has long been a diverse nation, immi-grants and refugees now form a substantialportion of the population in some cities, withFirst Nations and other Aboriginal people amajority in some regions. Canada’s diverse eth-

nic, racial, cultural and linguistic flavourtogether with its unique approach to multicul-turalism has implications for the form andcontent of ECEC services.

Another trend that forms part of the con-text for ECEC is that in the past two decades,child and family poverty has increased; in1998, 19 per cent of Canadian children werecalculated to live in poverty (Campaign 2000,2000) with the risk of poverty disproportion-ately high for children living in lone-parentfamilies. Poverty is more common among fam-ilies with younger children (both two- and sin-gle-parent families), and is also more likely tobe more severe and of longer duration(National Council of Welfare, 2001).According to recent analyses by StatisticsCanada of child poverty based on after-taxincome, 29 per cent of children under six yearsof age were poor in at least one year between1993 and 1998 (Morisette and Zhang, 2001).Moreover, more than 15 per cent of children

4


under six years of age were poor for three ormore years during that six-year period – andthis does not include children living in theYukon or Northwest Territories or on reserves,a much higher proportion of whom are verypoor. The timing, severity and duration ofearly childhood poverty has been shown tohave long-lasting effects on children’s languageand cognitive development and school per-formance, and be associated with increasedstresses on parents (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,1997), all of which contribute to a trajectory ofcompromised life chances.

Some countries have redistributive poli-cies intended to raise incomes for families withyoung children. In Canada, a new nationalchild benefit (NCB) was introduced in 1998 toprovide financial support to low- income fami-lies with employed parents. Both the NCB andprovincial welfare reforms are prompting (orforcing) more parents with young children intothe labour force, often into low-waged insecurejobs.This policy design requiring parentalemployment has very significant implicationsfor how ECEC services are designed and dis-tributed.

A third cross-national social and econom-ic change in families of primary importance toECEC is the shift from a single-breadwinnerfamily model to one in which the norm andthe expectation is that both fathers and moth-ers will be employed while their children areyoung. Canadian employment patterns amongmothers with young children have changeddramatically over the last quarter century. In1976, the labour force participation rate forwomen with children under age 16 was 39 percent. In 2001, 62 per cent of mothers of chil-dren younger than three years were employed,as were 67 per cent of women whose youngestchild was between three and five years of age(Statistics Canada, 2002); the majority wereemployed full time.

Having two earners in the family hasbeen critically important for maintaining eco-nomic security over the last decade when manyparents experienced unemployment or had toadapt to the increased casualization of thelabour force, and declining or stagnatingincome. In 1997, the earnings of wives in dual-earner families accounted for almost one-thirdof family income. Where family incomesimproved over the last decade, it is largely dueto having two earners working longer hours.Current studies reflect the growing stress par-ents experience due to increased workdemands, longer hours, limited flexibility andconcerns about their children’s well-being(Johnson, Lero & Rooney, 2001).

At the same time, the increased preva-lence of single-parent families with young chil-dren means that these factors are even moresalient for these mothers who are more likelyto be poor, and, if employed, to have low-waged jobs that are more insecure with fewerbenefits. An important additional point that isworth noting is the timing of parental separa-tion and divorce. Not only are more childrenexperiencing life in single-parent families, butthey are doing so at increasingly younger ages(Marcil-Gratton & Le Bourdais, 1999). Thishas implications for the need for high qualityECEC programs for children and parents dur-ing the very years that are most critical forchild development.

Finally, maternity and parental leaves arepart of the context for ECEC services as thesedetermine when parents begin to need alterna-tive care for very young children. Typically, incontrast to 25 years ago, women now have acontinuous attachment to the labour forcethroughout the childbearing years. Almost 90per cent of Canadian women who wereemployed when pregnant returned to workwithin a year after birth, with 60 per cent hav-ing returned within six months after childbirth.Most countries provide paid maternity and


5

parental leaves that vary considerably in theextent and nature of coverage, flexibility andadequacy of income replacement. Canada hasimproved the length of its payment periodtwice in the past 15 years so that payments ofabout a year are now available for eligible par-ents although the length of the leave periodvaries by province. The benefit level, however,is low at 55 per cent of insurable earnings to aceiling of $413 a week, and the eligibility crite-ria (under Employment Insurance) excludemany new mothers and fathers.

In addition to these demographic, socialand economic elements, research on humandevelopment and conceptions about prosperityin modern societies also contribute heavily tothe context for early childhood education andcare. In the past decade or so, there has been aconvergence of ideas about the importance oflearning and skills development in creating

“knowledge economies”. Courchene (2001)argues that universal ECEC must be part of astrategy for human capital that some considerto be critical for modern, competitive coun-tries. While others question whether a tradi-tional economically driven human capitalapproach provides a complete rationale, (forexample, Keating, 2001), human capital ratio-nales form part of the international andCanadian context for ECEC. The importanceof “valuing and supporting universal early child-hood education, making it an integral part of thelearning system so that all children develop the lit-eracy skills they need to become lifelong learners”(Lowe, 2001: 1) is well supported by researchand has gained considerable currency. As theOECD points out, “The early years are increas-ingly viewed as the first step in lifelong learningand a key component of a successful educational,social, and family policy agenda” (OECD, 2001:6).

Goals and Object ives of ECEC

The objectives that provide the rationalefor ECEC have shifted again and againover the years as social needs, cultural

attitudes and political priorities have come andgone. In Canada, since the 1980s, rationalesfor ECEC have included:

fulfilling children’s right to well-being anddevelopment; school readiness and later educational out-comes (“readiness to learn”); women’s equality; mothers’ participation in the workforce; alleviating child and family poverty; balancing work and family responsibilities; supporting “at-risk” children and families;equity for children with disabilities;supporting parents in their parenting role; lifelong learning (for children and mothers);

social integration of newcomers;sustaining social cohesion.

Some of these purposes are focused onchildren (well-being and development; schoolreadiness; lifelong learning; equity for childrenwith disabilities). Others – women’s equalityand labour force participation; balancing workand family; alleviating poverty and unemploy-ment; supporting at-risk families; supportingthe parenting role – are more focused on fami-lies or adults. Others are more associated withthe community or the larger society (alleviatingsocially unacceptable behaviour presumed to beconnected to “at-risk” status; social integration;social cohesion). Some of these purposes areclosely connected to another; for example,healthy child development, school readinessand lifelong learning are closely associated withone another as are mother’s participation in the

6


paid workforce, women’s equality, lifelonglearning and alleviating poverty. While Canadahas taken what can be described as a serialapproach to ECEC, there is now wide agree-

ment that these policies and programs can – ifwell designed – serve a number of objectivessimultaneously.

Consider ing Four Goals for ECEC that Contr ibute to Social Inclus ion

The purposes for ECEC identified aboveembody four overall goals that are asso-ciated with social inclusion. The fol-

lowing section, organized by these four goals,explores the linkages between social inclusionand early childhood education and care inmore detail.

Goal 1: Enhancing children’s well-being, developmentand prospects for lifelong learning

The child developmental dimension of socialinclusion is linked to opportunities for fullrealization of capabilities during childhoodand, in the longer term, to the adult the childwill ultimately become. If social inclusion overthe lifespan is enhanced by full development inearly childhood of talents, skills and capabili-ties, ECEC programs that support this can playa significant role.

Persuasive evidence backs the idea thatsocial determinants have significant implica-tions for lifelong mental and physical health(Keating & Hertzman, 1999). Many factorsaffect whether children develop into healthyadults – innate characteristics, prenatal condi-tions, the physical environment, nutrition,family attributes and interaction, the commu-nity, institutions of learning, civil society andthe socio-economic environment. These factorsaffect one another, combining in complicatedways to produce children in good health whoare confident, content, competent, resilient andsocially responsible or, conversely, contribute tomaturation of children who lack these attrib-

utes. Although ECEC outside the family is oneamong a number of factors that make a differ-ence, it can have a profound effect on childdevelopment – indeed, it can be a determiningfactor.

The idea that high quality ECEC servicesplay an important developmental role in earlychildhood is well supported by research. If anECEC program is high quality, it providesintellectual and social simulation that promotescognitive development and social competencewith effects that can persist into elementaryschool to establish a foundation for later suc-cess. The findings about the benefits of ECECprograms pertain regardless of social class(although poor children may derive more bene-fit) and whether or not the mother is in thepaid workforce (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg,Bryant & Clifford, 2000; Lamb, 1998).

It is important to note that the positiveeffects of ECEC programs only occur if theservices are high quality; poor quality programsmay even have a negative effect. Researchshows that the quality of ECEC services is crit-ical in determining how developmentally effec-tive they are. Indeed, “the positive relationbetween childcare quality and virtually everyfacet of children's development that has been stud-ied is one of the most consistent findings in devel-opmental science” (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2001:313). While acknowledging that cultural varia-tions shape the content and meaning of “quali-ty” (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999), it is gen-erally agreed that “high quality” is shorthand


7

for characteristics of ECEC services that gobeyond basic health and safety requirements tothose that support children’s development andlearning. “High quality” ECEC servicesemploy staff who are educated for their work,have decent working conditions and wages;work with groups of children of a manageablesize; provide challenging but non-didactic, cre-ative, enjoyable activities for children; andensure consistent adult and peer groups in sta-ble social and physical environments. “Highquality” ECEC services are also understood tobe responsive to diverse populations of chil-dren and parents, include children with dis-abilities in a meaningful way and be adequatelysupported by infrastructure like regulation andfunding (Doherty, 1993; EuropeanCommission Network on Childcare, 1996;Penn, 1999). Research shows that ECEC serv-ices that have these characteristics enhancechildren’s development of talents, skills andcapabilities in childhood and that these effectspersist into adulthood.

While considering these developmentalaspects of ECEC associated with social inclu-sion, it should be noted that the child develop-ment literature is often inclined to treat “devel-opment” as normative. That is, healthy devel-opment is usually conceptualized and meas-ured using developmental milestones – physi-cal, motor, intellectual and social – linked toage. The Roeher Institute points out that “allchildren have a unique developmental and learn-ing path” and that an inclusive approach tochildren with disabilities requires alternativeways of approaching developmental outcomesand learning (2001). (Inclusion in ECEC forchildren with disabilities is considered in alater section).

Finally, it should be observed that whilethe ECEC research literature cited here is notexplicitly about human capital, it tends to bemore focused on the child’s value in the future

– value added by enhanced language, cogni-tive, social and emotional development – thanon children’s well-being at the present time. Acomplementary idea is that ECEC services canhelp create a good quality of life for children“here-and-now”. This treats childhood as animportant phase of life, not merely as a waystation to adulthood, and the child as activeand competent. This also presumes that ECECprograms are part of children’s culture – aninstitution for meeting children’s own interests,respecting “children’s need to be children on theirown premises and based on their own interests”(Norwegian Ministry of Children and FamilyAffairs, 1998:42). As a Danish study describedthis:

For the children, day care became animportant extension of the exclusive privatesphere that they shared with their mothers(and, in some cases, siblings), exposing themto a wider playful social world, expandingthe circle of nurturing adults and enablingthe children to form an independent peersocial network (Polakow, Halskov andJorgensen, 2001: 156).

Goal 2: Supporting parents in education, training,employment and child-rearing

ECEC services can support families by helpingreduce social exclusion linked to poverty,unemployment and marginal employment, dis-empowerment and social isolation. This appliesboth to the family as a unit and to women (agroup with specific needs that may or may notbe the same as those of the family unit). Theseeffects advance the interests of the family andits members and also can be mediated throughthe family to the child.

Canadian women are in the paid labourforce for two reasons: first, financial pressureson families – especially those who are poor,

8


working class, and lone parents – and, second,modern perceptions that paid employment isan appropriate role for women. Whatever themotivation, dependable care for children isessential if mothers who would have beenexpected to provide it a generation ago are toparticipate in the labour force, training or edu-cation. Without access to reliable ECEC,women may be compelled to remain out of thepaid labour force, work at poorly paid part-time employment, or not take advancement;some are forced into dependence on publicassistance and poverty. Thus, ECEC servicesare fundamental if mothers are employed andare essential for reducing family poverty by per-mitting parents – in dual- or single-parent fam-ilies – to be educated, participate in training, orbe employed. Indeed, without alternative child-care, poor families may never be able to escapepoverty. In this way, poor accessibility to ade-quate childcare contributes to gender exclusionfrom the labour force and to marginalizationfor women across classes.

ECEC as a support to parental employ-ment is connected to social inclusion for chil-dren as well as parents as social exclusion andinclusion are mediated through the family aswell as directly experienced by the child.Children in poor families may experience theeffects of social exclusion in childhood by notbeing financially able to participate in schooland neighbourhood activities, being ill-housed,ill-clothed and even hungry while the intellec-tual, social and financial effects of poverty maypersist over the lifespan. The timing, severityand duration of early childhood poverty hasbeen shown to have long-lasting effects on chil-dren’s language and cognitive development andschool performance, and be associated withboth increased stresses on parents and poorerneighborhoods as the environment in whichyoung children live (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,1997), all of which contribute to trajectories ofcompromised life chances and reduced human

and social capital. Thus, children’s possibilitiesare enhanced if their families are sustained eco-nomically and socially. While paid work maynot necessarily mean that family income pro-vides an adequate living standard, withoutincome from employment, families and theirchildren lack even the possibility of escapingpoverty.

Goal 3: Fostering social solidarity and social cohesion

In addition to enhancing children’s well-beingand supporting families, ECEC programs ascommunity institutions have the capacity tofoster neighbourhood, community and inter-personal co-operation and social solidarity:

Early childhood institutions...are forumslocated in civil society. They make impor-tant contributions to other projects of social,cultural and political significance.…Further, early childhood institutions canplay an important part as the primarymeans for constituting civil society...and forfostering the visibility, inclusion and activeparticipation of the young child and itsfamily in civil society (Dahlberg, Moss &Pence, 1999: 7).

Community-based ECEC services can bea focal point for parents, childcare providers,health and social service professionals and com-munity volunteers, exemplifying and helpingbuild social cohesion at the community level.Inclusive ECEC services can enhance social sol-idarity in the long-term through their impacton children as future adults since early child-hood is a critical period not only for languagelearning but for the early stages of understand-ing concepts of difference and diversity, andestablishing the basis for tolerance and accept-ance of difference.

Community-based ECEC programs can


9

also be community institutions that facilitateparents’ participation in common activitiesrelated to the well-being of their children,strengthening solidarity within a geographiccommunity and across class, ethnic and racialboundaries. Parents who are new to a neigh-bourhood or are new immigrants or refugeescan develop friendships, expand their socialnetworks, access services and supports andcontribute to their communities by participat-ing in community-based early childhood pro-grams that are holistic and welcoming in theirapproach and well connected to other commu-nity supports and services.

Based on the 1996 census, StatisticsCanada has reported that 17 per cent of thepopulation have a mother tongue other thanFrench or English (1997). ECEC services pro-vide opportunities to include and unite fami-lies from diverse origins through participationin common environments related to their chil-dren, demonstrating to adults and childrenalike that co-operation among social classesand ethnic groups is possible and valued. Thus,social integration across cultural, racial and lin-guistic communities in an environment thatboth informs about and values diversity can bean important contribution of ECEC programs.Canadian research shows that “while muchneeds to be done”, ECE (training) programs “arebeginning to make the required changes”(Bernhard, Lefebvre, Chud & Lange, 1995:77).

In these ways, high quality, inclusiveECEC services that include parents, coordinatecommunity resources and validate culturaldiversity have the capacity to promote equityamong classes, levels of ability, racial and eth-nic groups, and generations, and to enhancesocial cohesion.

Goal 4: Providing equity for diverse groups in society

The definition of an inclusive societygiven at the beginning of this paper is key tothis final goal for ECEC services – that of pro-viding equity. If an inclusive society is one thatprovides “equality of life chances” as in Sen’s def-inition, all of ECEC’s goals and objectives canbe seen as linked to the goal of equity eitherthrough development of capabilities or accessto society’s resources as have been discussed inprevious sections. For two groups, however –women and children with disabilities – accessto ECEC services is a particularly importantequity and social justice issue.

The word “inclusion” has a specificmeaning when it is used to refer to an environ-ment in which children with disabilities, spe-cial learning needs and chronic health prob-lems are welcomed into and are enabled to par-ticipate in programs alongside typically devel-oping peers (Odom, Peck, Hanson, Beckman,Kaiser, Lieber, Brown, Horn & Schwartz,1996). The history of inclusive practice inECEC (Irwin, 1992; Irwin & Lero 2001) indi-cates both that progress has been made toensure that all children have the opportunity toparticipate in ECEC programs, and that thereis still a need to ensure that such opportunitiesare real, not merely rhetorical.

Ensuring the rights of children with dis-abilities and their parents is a matter of socialjustice. Over the last several decades, manycountries have progressed from neglect andinstitutionalization to the development of sepa-rate schools and facilities, more recently adopt-ing approaches that ensure that all individualshave the right to full participation in theircommunity and in society – in schools, work-places, and public settings, including ECECprograms. For young children and their par-ents, the opportunity to participate in andbenefit from appropriate supports is critical forchildren’s development, for supporting parents

10


and for normalizing their lives.

Research demonstrates that with appro-priate training and specialized support, inclu-sion in ECEC programs can benefit childrenwith disabilities especially when teachers pro-mote social integration (Jenkins, Odom &Speltz, 1989). Effective inclusion of childrenwith disabilities is now regarded as a character-istic of high quality programs and is becomingwell accepted as a goal and standard of practice.Research conducted in Canada indicates thatmost ECEC directors and teaching staff believethat most children with disabilities can, andshould, be accommodated (Irwin & Lero,2000).

That “childcare is the ramp that providesequal access to the workforce for mothers”(Abella, 1984: 178) is not a new idea and wasdiscussed in a different context in an earliersection. However, framing this as an equityissue goes beyond the pragmatic considerationof whether mothers of young children have

access to childcare so they can be in the work-force. The argument that universal childcare isrequired to support women’s equality as a basiccitizenship right is associated with the idea thatsocial rights constitute a key element of citizen-ship, and that a woman’s position in the familyis important in determining her relationship tothe public sphere. While from a practical pointof view, the burden of household and caringwork has huge implications for women’s eco-nomic and social status, this in turn is, as well,a matter of citizenship rights. Additionally,whether or not women are in the paid labourforce, opportunities for personal development,participation in the community, developmentof skills and access to a range of formal andinformal supports and services are fundamentalto social inclusion and full citizenship. Thus,ECEC must be a cornerstone of any considera-tion of women’s equality. Simply put, withoutfull access to ECEC services, equality forwomen cannot be a reality.

Thus far, this paper has discussed howECEC can contribute to social inclu-sion. But while ECEC services have the

capacity to play a role – even a central role – increating a socially inclusive society, they will beable to do this in a fully effective way only ifcertain characteristics of public policy and serv-ice delivery are present. The empirical researchthat has been cited in the previous sections ofthis paper provides ample evidence for howECEC is linked to a range of aspects of socialinclusion. A recent comparative policy studyprovides an opportunity for a comprehensive,systematic assessment of these links.

Conducted by the Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) between 1998 and 2001, theThematic Review of Early ChildhoodEducation and Care provides an evidence-basedframework for examining the enabling condi-tions for socially inclusive ECEC and theirimplications for public policy. The study, inwhich 12 member nations of the OECD par-ticipated , begins with the observation thatearly childhood education and care has experi-enced a surge of policy attention in OECDcountries over the past decade. Detailed studiesof ECEC policy and provision in the 12 par-ticipating countries led to the study’s conclu-sion that eight interrelated aspects of policy

What are the Condit ions that Enable ECEC to Contr ibute to SocialInclus ion? A Pol icy Framework


11

and program are the “key elements … that arelikely to promote equitable access to qualityECEC” (OECD, 2001: 125). The researchfound that provision of quality, equitably acces-sible ECEC services is more likely if the follow-ing eight elements, or “policy lessons” are pres-ent. These form a useful framework for exam-ining the conditions under which ECEC con-tributes to social inclusion.

Policy lesson 1 A systematic and integrated approach to policydevelopment and implementation. The ThematicReview emphasized the importance of a clearvision of children as a social group to underpinECEC policy. A systematic and integratedapproach requires a coordinated policy frame-work and a lead ministry that works in co-operation with other departments and sectors.

Policy lesson 2 A strong and equal partnership with the educa-tion system suggests that the nation supports alifelong learning approach from birth toencourage smooth transitions for children andrecognize ECEC as a foundation of the educa-tion process.

Policy lesson 3A universal approach to access, with particularattention to children in need of special support islinked to equitable access so all children canhave the equal and fair opportunities providedby high quality ECEC regardless of familyincome, parental employment status, specialeducational needs or ethnic/language back-ground.

Policy lesson 4Substantial public investment in services and theinfrastructure. The Thematic Review found thatwhile a combination of sources may fundECEC, substantial government investment isrequired to support a sustainable system ofquality, accessible services.

Policy lesson 5A participatory approach to quality improvement

and assurance begins with the premise that allforms of ECEC should be regulated and moni-tored. Defining, ensuring and monitoring qual-ity should be a participatory and democraticprocess. Pedagogical frameworks focusing onchildren’s holistic development and strategiesfor ongoing quality improvement are key partsof this element.

Policy lesson 6Appropriate training and working conditions forstaff in all forms of provision is a foundation forquality ECEC services, which depend onstrong staffing and fair working conditions.Strategies for recruiting and retaining a quali-fied, diverse, mixed-gender workforce and forensuring that a career in ECEC is satisfying,respected and financially viable are essential.

Policy lesson 7Systematic attention to monitoring and data col-lection with coherent procedures for collectingand analyzing data on the status of young chil-dren, ECEC provision, and the early childhoodworkforce are required.

Policy lesson 8A stable framework and long-term agenda

for research and evaluation requires sustainedinvestment to support research on key policygoals and is a necessary part of a process ofcontinuous improvement.

In summary, the Thematic Review foundthat

countries that have adopted some or all ofthese elements of successful policy share a strong public commitment to young childrenand their families. In different ways, these countries have made efforts to ensure that

12


Does ECEC Contr ibute to Social Inclus ion in Canada?If so, how? I f not, why not?

This paper has examined how, and underwhat circumstances ECEC contributesto social inclusion. It makes the case

that, under the right circumstances, ECEC isan important vehicle for bringing about socialinclusion for children, families and communi-ties. The following eight questions, derivedfrom the preceding “policy lessons” offer a sys-tematic way of examining Canada’s approachesto ECEC policy and service provision to assesstheir contribution to social inclusion.

1. Is a systematic and integrated approach to policydevelopment and implementation utilized?

It has been well documented that Canada doesnot have a systematic, integrated approach toECEC in either policy or service delivery(Friendly, 1995; Beach & Bertrand, 2000).There are childcare centres, kindergartens,nursery schools, preschools, parenting pro-grams and an array of funding arrangements.But Canadian ECEC has developed so inco-herently that although each province and terri-tory has a tangle of programs, only a smallminority of children and families has servicesthat provide the reliable "care" parents need, orthe early childhood education programs thatbenefit development and a sense of communi-ty. Rather than a coherent policy approach, amix of piecemeal solutions has arisen to

address narrowly defined issues serially.

This absence of a systematic approach isdirectly linked to poor accessibility. FewCanadian children under the age of five have achance to participate in high quality ECECprograms that benefit their development andonly a minority of parents can rely on the“care” that they need to train or work. Fromthe perspective of child development, fragmen-tation of services engenders inconsistency, soare a poor fit with knowledge about the kindsof environments that enhance child develop-ment. In a more societal sense, families andchildren have to fit into narrow eligibility cate-gories, segregated into class, income, racial andlifestyle “silos” to qualify for different ECECprograms. This weakens solidarity and under-mines the potential that ECEC services have toserve as focal points for building communitysolidarity and social cohesion. Overall,Canada’s fragmented approach to ECEC policydevelopment and implementation is a majorbarrier to the potential these programs have toplay a role in building equity or communityand developing skills, talents and capabilitiesfor children and families.

2. Is there a strong and equal partnership with theeducation system?

Although, “care” and “early childhood educa-

access is inclusive of all children, and haveinitiated special efforts for those in need ofspecial support. Quality is high on the agen-da as a means to ensure that children notonly have equal opportunities to participate

in ECEC but also to benefit from theseexperiences in ways that promote theirdevelopment and learning (OECD, 2001:135).


13

tion” are inevitably tied together, CanadianECEC does not blend these two functions.Generally, kindergarten (public education) isregarded as a foundation for lifelong learningand treated as a public good while “care” serv-ices remain a poor cousin. Responsibility for“care” is primarily private rather than public;care services are targeted rather than universal;of uneven quality so that whether they are“educational” is questionable; in short supply,and are heavily dependent on user fees anddonations rather than publicly funded. WhileQuebec has taken a positive step with intro-duction of full-day public kindergarten for allfive-year-old children and acknowledged theeducational value of universal, publicly fundedcare for children from birth to age 4, ECECpartnerships between social service authoritiesand education systems (for example, locatingchildcare centres in schools) have been erodedin other provinces. Overall, the partnershipbetween childcare and the education system inCanada is limited, not “strong and equal”.

3. Is there a universal approach to access, with par-ticular attention to children in need of special sup-port?

This is essential for ensuring that all childrenhave opportunities to attend quality ECECregardless of family income, parental employ-ment status, special educational needs or eth-nic/language background. While there are uni-versal approaches to ECEC in public kinder-garten for five-year-old children and inQuebec, generally, Canadian practice and thispolicy lesson diverge considerably.

To be universally accessible, ECEC servic-es must be available, affordable and appropri-ate, requiring an adequate supply of serviceswhile costs to parents must be affordable(either free, very low cost, or geared to

income). In addition, services must fit theneeds and characteristics of the family and thechild; that is, they must be age and culturallyappropriate and responsive to parents’ workschedules. And they must go beyond beingmerely available to families and children withspecial needs to “pay particular attention to chil-dren in need of special support” (OECD,2001:126) .

Overall, most Canadian ECEC servicesserve only small proportions of preschool-agechildren (Childcare Resource and ResearchUnit, 2000). In addition to short supply, thecurrent financing system for regulated childcareestablishes financial barriers to access; partici-pation in regulated childcare is primarily sup-ported by parent user fees that are barriers toaccess for poor families. While systems of feesubsidies are in place in all regions, modest andmiddle-income families are not eligible forthem and underfunding means that subsidiesare not available even to families who qualify(Friendly, 2001). This restricts both parents’access to employment and children’s access todevelopmental opportunities, and ultimatelycontributes to the social exclusion linked tothese barriers. Research with parents of chil-dren with disabilities underscores this: withoutaccess to ECEC, after-school and summer pro-grams and respite care, parents and their dis-abled children are excluded from many activi-ties and opportunities (Irwin & Lero, 1997).

Further, targeting in one way or anotheris a barrier to equity in almost all of Canada’sECEC services (except kindergarten) (Doherty,2001). This results in segregation of families byclass and circumstances and is a key factor thatmitigates against ECEC’s contribution to socialinclusion. Reversion to emphasis on targetingin ECEC seems to be associated with renewalof distinction between deserving and undeserv-ing recipients of social goods that has becomeprevalent in Canada in the 1990s (Mahon &Phillips, 2002). The stigmatizing effects of tar-

14


geting may, as Klasen describes, have the effectof furthering social exclusion (1997). Whilemeans-tested subsidies may permit participa-tion in childcare services, having to undergo ahumiliating testing process can contribute to alow-income parent’s sense of exclusion and lowself-esteem. At the same time, identifying serv-ices as intended for low-income or “at-risk”children and families not only problematizes oreven pathologizes the recipients, but can havethe effect of making the services undesirable tomodest- and middle-income families.

Generally, ECEC in Canada is not mov-ing towards “a universal approach to access, withparticular attention to children in need of specialsupport.” (OECD, 2001:126). Instead, it isbest described as a situation of scarcity, eligibil-ity based on narrow categories, children inneed of special support being left unserved anda renewed trend towards targeting.

4. Is there substantial public investment in ECEC serv-ices and infrastructure?

As described earlier, there are multiple ECECpolicy, programs and funding routes. Even reg-ulated childcare has multiple funding routes –fee subsidies, operating and wage grants, taxmeasures and vouchers. Overall though, regu-lated childcare is primarily a user pay program.

Cross-Canada data show that 49 per centof an average full-day childcare centre’s revenuecame from parent fees in 1998 (Goelman,Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas, 2000)although provinces spent more than $1 billiondollars on regulated childcare, an averageexpenditure of $206 per child 0-12 (ChildcareResource and Research Unit, 2000). (Figuresfor total spending on kindergarten are notavailable).

In addition, the federal government allo-

cated $300 million (in 2001, rising to $500million in 2004) to the provinces for four cate-gories of children’s services, one of which is“early learning and care”. An estimate based onan economic analysis by Cleveland &Krashinsky (1998), calculates universal ECECfor Canadian children aged 1–6 years to cost$7.4 billion net (Friendly & Rothman, 2000).As a point of comparison, the European Unionproposes national spending on ECEC of 1 percent of GDP (European Commission Networkon Child Care, 1996). (Canada’s GDP wassomewhat more than $1 trillion in 2000).Canadian and American research shows thatfinancing is directly linked to accessibility andquality (Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1990;Goelman et al., 2000). The OECD ThematicReview suggests that while funds from parentfees and other sources can make a contributionto ECEC, ensuring equity by providing accessto high quality ECEC requires secure, substan-tial and coherent government funding to serv-ices and to infrastructure.

5. Is there a participatory approach to qualityimprovement and assurance?

As described, research documents the charac-teristics of ECEC services that determinewhether they are likely to meet not only basichealth and safety requirements, but also pro-vide environments that ensure developmentand learning. Two structural elements havebeen shown to be key in determining the likeli-hood that high quality will occur in an ECECprogram. The first of these – financing – wasdiscussed in the previous section. The second –regulation – has been shown to be linked toquality through the form and content of pro-grams, especially staffing (Gallagher, Rooney,& Campbell, 1999).

In Canada, many studies and reports have


15

identified concerns about quality in regulatedchildcare services (e.g., Lyon & Canning,1997; Doherty & Stuart, 1997). A Canada-wide study of quality in centre-based childcarefound that:

fewer than half of the preschool rooms(44.3% and slightly more than a quarterof the infant/toddler rooms (28.7%)) areproviding activities and materials thatencourage children’s development. Instead,the majority of the centres in Canada areproviding care that is of minimal ormediocre quality. The children’s physicaland emotional health and safety are pro-tected but few opportunities for learningare provided (Goelman et al., 2000: ix). (Acompanion study on regulated family day-care had similar findings (Doherty et al.,2000b).

Analysis of the YBIC! centre-based dataconfirms what other research has shown – sig-nificant provincial differences suggest thatstrength of regulation is one of several key fac-tors that influence the quality of the services(Doherty & Friendly, 2002).

At the same time, many Canadian pre-school age children are in unregulated ECECenvironments that provide “care” while moth-ers work. Care provided by unregulated familychild care providers and by individuals whoprovide care in the child's own home functionoutside of any system of quality assurance alto-gether, other than parental monitoring. Whileresearch on the precise details of these arrange-ments is sparse, enough is known to suggestthat the majority of preschool-age childrenwhose mothers work outside the home spend agood deal of time in environments that areunlikely to be developmental environments.

The OECD study suggests that whileensuring minimum standards through regula-tion is fundamental, it is also important to

involve parents and professionals in a partici-patory and democratic way. The findings fromthe Thematic Review also advise that equalaccess to quality means that regulation needsto apply to all ECEC settings, and that gov-ernments at national, regional and local levelsplay key roles in assuring quality.

To date, there has been only limited dis-cussion in Canada about the complex piecesthat make up this policy lesson. Even in regu-lated childcare, there is little discussion aboutsystematic strategies for ongoing improve-ments in quality. The kind of approach toquality that the Thematic Review links to thehigh quality, equitable ECEC services thatcontribute to social inclusion is not yet a reali-ty in Canada.

6. Are there appropriate training and working con-ditions for staff?

As human relationships and interaction makeup the substance of a child’s ECEC experi-ences, caregivers or teachers are the essence ofECEC programs. Research shows that ade-quate training and fair working conditions –wages and benefits, working environments,turnover, training and morale – are all stronglyand directly associated with the quality of achild’s experience, to child development and,ultimately, to social inclusion (Goelman et al.,2000; Whitebook et al., 1990).

There are few points about ECEC aboutwhich there is better agreement than the inad-equacy of the working conditions and trainingin regulated childcare (Environics ResearchGroup, 1998). A national study of the “child-care workforce” concluded that Canadian soci-ety places little value on the work and skills ofthe women who care for young children. Itfound that Canadian caregivers receive littlepublic support, few resources, and unaccept-

16


ably low wages. Education in the field is poor-ly coordinated and there are many gaps intraining (Beach, Bertrand & Cleveland, 1998).

The OECD’s observation that while“most staff working with 3-5 year olds in publiclyfunded settings are trained at a high level… thoseworking with children under age three in thewelfare sector tend to have lower levels of train-ing, compensation and poorer working conditionsthan education staff ” (OECD, 2001: 132) insome ways describes Canada’s situation. WhereCanada diverges, however, is linked to theabsence of publicly funded ECEC services evenfor 3-5 year olds. Wages and working condi-tions for staff caring for over-threes in Canada(other than public kindergarten) are more likethose described in services for younger agegroups elsewhere. Poor working conditions,public recognition and training for staff inECEC programs have a direct link to whetherthese programs are high quality enough to bedevelopmental and thus present an impedi-ment to ECEC’s contribution to social inclu-sion.

7. Is there systematic attention to monitoring anddata collection?

The absence of consistent data on CanadianECEC has been frequently noted (Beach et al.,1998). An analysis of Canadian ECEC dataneeds concludes that Canada essentially has noreliable, consistent, comparable data on variousaspects of ECEC that can inform policy orimprovements to service provision, or assesschanges and effects on children and familiesover time (Friendly, Cleveland, Colley, Lero &Shillington, in preparation). The ThematicReview concluded that systematic attention todata collection requires “coherent procedures forcollecting and analyzing data on the status ofyoung children, ECEC provision, and the early

childhood workforce” (OECD, 2001: 126).

8. Is there a stable framework and long-term agendafor research and evaluation?

The OECD observes that “sustained investmentto support research on key policy goals is requiredas part of a process of continuous improvement”(2001: 134). As we pointed out earlier, Canadadoes not have clear policy goals for ECEC.Over the years, there has been research andevaluation of ECEC programs, humanresources, best practices and policy, mostlythrough a series of federal research programs.While these have yielded valuable information,there has not been the “stable framework andlong-term agenda” that this policy lesson sug-gests is a crucial component of a process ofongoing improvement. The systematic moni-toring and data collection discussed in the pre-vious section is linked to this research agenda;basic data to provide public accountabilityshould be a complement to a research andevaluation agenda that can help provideanswers to more complex questions. ACanadian long-term and stable research agendautilizing a variety of disciplines, methodologiesand paradigms is essential as a tool to “informeffective policy-making and raise the overall qual-ity of ECEC” (OECD, 2001: 134, 135).


17

Act ing on What We’ve Learned: F rom Aspirat ions to Real i ty

This paper’s purpose has been to exam-ine the connections between socialinclusion and early childhood educa-

tion and care. We have argued that ECEC canmake a significant contribution to social inclu-sion by supporting children’s development,family well-being, community cohesion andequity. The paper describes how the goals andobjectives of ECEC relate to development andhuman freedom; it explores how, and underwhat circumstances, ECEC services contributeto social inclusion – and when they don’t. Itconcludes that in eight key policy areas,Canada does not provide the mechanisms thatwould enable ECEC to contribute fully tosocial inclusion. A key question that remains tobe asked is whether ECEC services could con-tribute more to social inclusion than they nowdo. That is – notwithstanding the presentECEC policy and funding – are there implica-tions for practice in areas that could beimproved to strengthen social inclusion? Atleast four areas for further discussion stand out.

Quality

We have pointed out that the quality of ECECprograms is key to whether they are effective in“developing talents, skills and capabilities” anddiscussed the known elements that contributeto quality. These include staff training, goodwages and working conditions and an infra-structure that assures ongoing quality. We havealso noted research that shows that Canadianchildcare is more likely to be mediocre thanhigh quality. As the OECD study points out,high quality ECEC requires substantial financ-ing, good regulation and well- trained and paidstaff. These structural elements clearly requirecommitment at the policy level. However, even

in the absence of commitment to structuralchanges, there is considerable knowledge withimplications for practice at both policy andservice levels applicable to improved qualityand, therefore, strengthening human develop-ment and social inclusion.

A key element that has been missing asan integral part of Canadian ECEC is system-atic planning for quality improvement. Whenquality improvements have been undertaken,they have tended to be time-limited pilot orresearch projects funded by the federal govern-ment (for example, professional developmentopportunities) or isolated provincial initiatives(for example, wage enhancement or increasedtraining requirements). The OECD studydescribes systematic approaches to ongoingquality improvement as including considera-tion of pedagogy, analysis of monitoring sys-tems, qualitative and quantitative approachesto program evaluation, service support andinfrastructure, and in-service training and pro-fessional development. While ultimately, assur-ing the high quality ECEC required to trulysupport social inclusion requires both structur-al changes at senior policy levels and a coher-ent systematic approach to quality enhance-ment, useful lessons about a systematicapproach to improving quality can be drawnfrom this comparative work.

Disability

A second area to consider is inclusion of chil-dren with special needs. As we noted earlier,this is an important equity issue and therefore,fundamental to social inclusion. There are sev-eral facets to this issue, with implications forpolicy and practice. At the most fundamentallevel is the difficulty of physically including

18


and accommodating children with disabilitiesin an under-resourced and undeveloped sys-tem. While there is no legislative requirementor proactive mandate that would assure thatECEC programs include children with specialneeds, many centres do so. Barriers to inclusionidentified by a national sample of centre direc-tors include: insufficient funds to provide forthe required additional staffing, the need tomake structural modifications to the centre,the need for additional staff training, the centrealready had the maximum number of childrenwith disabilities that it could take or waslicensed for, insufficient funds for necessaryequipment and limited access to therapists andexternal resource consultants who could sup-port centre efforts (Doherty et al, 2000a; seealso Irwin, Lero & Brophy, 2000).

Research shows that generally, centres thatinclude children with special needs effectivelytend to have a proactive director who providesleadership, at least one designated staff personwith special expertise in this area, assistancefrom professionals and positive experienceswith parents. These enable positive experienceswith inclusion, helped staff develop additionalskills and reinforce their willingness to acceptchildren with more challenging needs – an“encouraging” rather than discouraging cycle(Irwin & Lero, 2001).

Recent observations by Tougas (2002)suggest that expansion of ECEC systems withlimited funding support for inclusion may notbe sufficient to meet these goals. A more com-prehensive approach, including training andongoing consultations and support seems nec-essary. Moreover, within centres, training, atti-tudes and resources must be used to ensurethat children with disabilities are not partici-pating separately within the program, but inways that enhance their development, theirparticipation with others and their acceptance.Current research and best practice examples

could be used to enhance capacity regionallyand nationally, but will require additional sup-port to be sustainable.

Policy and service coherence: A systematic integrat-ed approach

The Thematic Review provides evidence aboutthe importance of coherence of policy andservice delivery. Systematic integration requiresproactive steps at the community and programlevel, in planning, and in funding and policydevelopment. While truly integrated planningwould include recognizing and strengtheningthe links between related services and ensuringthat service gaps are filled, even without sys-temic structural change there is considerableroom in ECEC practices and current policy toknit together a more integrated approach toECEC.

A good example of these possibilities is inthe area of ECEC for Aboriginal communitieswhose members have historically been particu-larly underserved by appropriate services. Asnew services for Aboriginal ECEC have beenadded in the 1990s, they have tended toremain separate entities at both policy andservice delivery levels. Currently, there are fourseparate federal Aboriginal ECEC programs:First Nations and Inuit Childcare; childcareunder the Department of Indian Affairs andNorthern Development (DIAND); on-reserveAboriginal Head Start and off-reserveAboriginal Head Start. (In addition, someprovinces are involved in Aboriginal childcareon reserve; in some cases, this has been negoti-ated with the federal government and in oth-ers, with First Nations. As well, off-reserve FirstNations people may participate in non-Aboriginal ECEC programs on the same termsas other Canadians). As Aboriginal communi-ties are under federal jurisdiction, the three


19

federal ECEC programs that provide on-reserve services provide a good opportunity tointegrate policy and services to allow FirstNations’ communities to smooth children’sand families’ participation in ECEC.

A lesson about the importance of an inte-grated approach that can be learned from theU.S. experience with Head Start should not belost in the current context. Highly targetedhalf-day ECEC programs were originallydeveloped in the 1960s for very low-incomechildren whose mothers were not in the labourforce. These, however, did not meet the labourforce needs of those same families when thewelfare reforms of the 1990s required parentalemployment when children were very young.As the U.S. experience shows, retrofitting pro-grams designed for separate purposes ratherthan taking a more holistic approach initiallycan be challenging at best.

Diversity

Finally, as we described earlier, the fact thatCanada is a very diverse country has specialimplications for the best practice of inclusiveearly childhood education and care. A studyconducted in Canada’s three largest citiesexamined how childcare centres and ECECtraining institutions work with families andchildren from a wide range of backgrounds(Bernhard et al., 1995). Overall, preparationfor work in these ECEC settings was less thanoptimal, and mutual understanding betweenparents and early childhood educators was notstrong. The researchers reported that “we areinclined to believe that there continue to be prob-lems of systemic racism, irrespective of the goodwill of centre staff ” (1995: xi). This study andother information suggest that if ECEC pro-grams are to make a strong contribution tosocial inclusion, there is considerable room forchange in current training and centre prac-tices.

Early childhood education and care serv-ices as political, social and economicinstitutions have an important role to

play as agents that support and enhance socialinclusion, human development and, thus, free-dom. They can enhance children’s well-being,development and prospects for life-long learn-ing; support parents in education, training,employment; foster social solidarity and socialcohesion; and provide equity for diversegroups in society. Comparative research showshow certain elements of public policy canenable ECEC services to play these roles. Italso shows that these elements can be imple-mented to balance their essential characteristicswith cultural and national variations in ideas

about children, families and society.

Societies that advance social inclusion arethose in which members enjoy equality, partic-ipate in a meaningful way, have opportunitiesfor joining in collective experiences, sharesocial activities and attain fundamental well-being. Early childhood education and carecontributes to the process of social inclusionby helping to make equality of life chances anda basic level of well-being possible for all chil-dren and families. Indeed, some commentatorssuggest that ECEC is so fundamental to thesethat it should be a citizenship right (Covell &Howe, 2001; Courchene, 2001; Ignatieff,2000; United Nations Children’s Fund, 2001).This right would be consistent with the

In Conclus ion: Towards Social ly Inclus ive Ear ly Chi ldhood Educat ion

20


Convention on the Rights of the Child and isenshrined and practised in a number ofEuropean nations.

If ECEC is able to contribute to socialinclusion, it is not randomly or by happen-stance. The OECD’s policy framework makesclear that while there are ways in which currentpractice can be improved, if ECEC is to makea significant contribution to social inclusion,governments must play a meaningful role. TheUnited Nations Children’s Fund has called onworld government leaders to “make children –the youngest most especially – the priority at all

policy tables…and to ensure [that this has] thenecessary financial and political support” (2001).Over the past two decades, nations with a vari-ety of histories, cultures, fiscal capacities andpolitical arrangements have set in motion theenabling public policy for socially inclusiveECEC programs. These examples show us thatclosing the inclusion gap requires vision, com-mitment and the political will to turn aspira-tions into reality through transformativeprocesses of policy and program development.

Endnotes1 Based in Paris, the OECD was founded in 1961 to contribute to economic expansion, growth

and employment and a rising standard of living and to the expansion of world trade. Its membercountries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, theNetherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States.

2 Australia, Belgium (Flemish and French communities), Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy,the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

3 A Background Report and a Country Note was prepared on each participating country. These areavailable from the OECD or online at www.oecd.org/els/education/eced.


21

ReferencesAbella, R. S. (1994). Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report. Ottawa: Government ofCanada. Royal Commission on Equality in Employment.

Beach, J. & J. Bertrand. (2000). More than the sum of the parts: An early childhood development systemfor Canada. Occasional paper no. 12. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University ofToronto.

Beach, J., J. Bertrand, and G. Cleveland. (1998). Our childcare workforce: From recognition to remu-neration -- more than a labour of love. Main report. Childcare Human Resources Steering Committee:Ottawa.

Bernhard, J. K., M. L. Levebvre, G. Chud, and R. Lange. (1995). Paths to equity: Cultural, linguisticand racial diversity in Canadian early childhood education. Toronto: York Lanes Press.

Brooks-Gunn, J., and G. J. Duncan. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The future of children.Vol. 7, 2. Los Altos, CA: David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

Burchinal, M., E. Peisner-Feinberg, D. Bryant, and R. Clifford. (2000). Children’s social and cogni-tive development and childcare quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, genderor ethnicity. Applied developmental science 4 (3): 149-65.

Campaign 2000. (2000). Child poverty in Canada: Report card 2000. Toronto.

Childcare Resource and Research Unit. (2000). Early childhood care and education in Canada:Provinces and territories 1998. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University ofToronto.

Cleveland, G., and M. Krashinsky. (1998). The benefits and cost of good childcare: The economicrationale for public investment in young children. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Courchene, T. (2001). A state of minds: Toward a human capital future for Canadians. Montreal:Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Covell, K., and R. Brian Howe. (2001). The challenge of children’s rights for Canadians. Waterloo:Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Dahlberg, G., P. Moss, and A. Pence. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care:Postmodern perspectives. London: Falmer Press.

Doherty, G. (1993). Quality childcare: Contextual factors. Ottawa: Canadian Childcare Federation.

———. (2001). Targeting early childhood education and care: Myths and realities. Occasional paper#15. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies,University of Toronto.

Doherty, G. and M. Friendly. (2002). Making the best use of the You bet I Care! data sets: Final reporton a research forum. Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.

22


Doherty, G., D. Lero, H. Goelman, A. LaGrange, and J. Tougas. (2000a). You bet I care! A Canada-widestudy on wages, working conditions and practices in childcare centers. Guelph: Centre for Families, Workand Well-Being, University of Guelph.

Doherty, G., Lero, D., Goelman, H., Tougas, J. & LaGrange, A. (2000b). You bet I care! Quality inregulated family child care across Canada. Guelph, Ontario: Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being, University of Guelph.

Doherty, G., and B. Stuart. (1997). The association between childcare quality, ratio and staff train-ing: a Canada-wide study. Canadian journal of research in early childhood education 6 (2): 127-38.Montreal: Concordia University.

Environics Research Group. (1998). Childcare issues and the childcare workforce: A survey of Canadianpublic opinion. Toronto.

European Commission Network on Childcare. (1996). Quality targets in services for young children.Proposals for a ten year action plan. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, University of London.

Freiler, C. (2000). Social inclusion as a focus of wellbeing for children and families. Draft paper pre-pared for the Laidlaw Foundation. Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.

Friendly, M. (1995). Putting the pieces together: Childcare policy in Canada. Don Mills, ON:Addison Wesley Ltd.

Friendly, M. (2001). Canary in a coal mine: Childcare and Canadian federalism in the 1990s. InChildcare in Canada in the 21st century: Preparing the policy map, edited by Gordon Cleveland, andMichael Krashinsky. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Friendly, M., G. Cleveland, S. Colley, D. Lero, and R. Shillington. (In preparation). Early childhoodeducation and care. An agenda for national data. (Final report). Toronto: Childcare Resource andResearch Unit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

Friendly, M., and L. Rothman. (2000). Early childhood development services: How much will they cost?BRIEFing NOTE. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre for Urban andCommunity Studies, University of Toronto.

Gallagher, J. , R. Rooney, and S. Campbell. (1999). Child care licensing regulations and child carequality in four states. Early childhood research quarterly, 14(3):313-333.

Goelman, H., G. Doherty, D.S. Lero, A. LaGrange and J. Tougas, J. (2000). You Bet I Care! Caringand Learning Environments: Quality in Child Care Centres Across Canada. University of Guelph,Ontario: Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being.

Ignatieff, M. (2000). The rights revolution. New York: Anansi Press.

Irwin, S. H., (1992). Integration of children with disabilities into daycare and after school programs.Ottawa: Disabled Persons Unit, Health Canada.

Irwin, S., and D. Lero. (1997). In our way: Childcare barriers to full workforce participation experiencedby parents of children with special needs – and potential remedies. Sydney, NS: Breton Books.


23

———. (2001). In the absence of policy: Moving towards inclusion of children with special needs inCanada’s childcare centres. In Changing childcare: Five decades of childcare advocacy & policy inCanada, edited by S. Prentice, 153-69. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Irwin, S., D. Lero, and K. Brophy. (2000). A matter of urgency: Including children with special needs inchildcare in Canada. Sydney, NS: Breton Books.

Jenkins, J. R., S. L. Odom, and M. L. Speltz. (1989). Effects of social integration on preschool chil-dren with handicaps. Exceptional Children 55:420-28.

Johnson, K., D. S. Lero, and J. Rooney. (2001). Work-Life Compendium 2001: 150 CanadianStatistics on Work, Family and Well-Being. University of Guelph, Ontario: Centre for Families, Workand Well-Being and HRDC, Women’s Bureau.

Keating, D. (2001). Health and human capital. Paper presented at Canada in international perspec-tive: The human capital paradigm, 27-29 August, at Queen’s University International Institute onSocial Policy, Kingston, ON.

Keating, D., and C. Hertzman. (1999). Developmental health and the wealth of nations. New York:The Guilford Press.

Klasen, Stephan (1998). Social Exclusion and Children in OECD Countries: Some Conceptual Issues.Paper presented at OECD Experts Seminar, January 22-23, 1998, Centre for Educational Researchand Innovation http://www.oecd.org/els/edu.ceri.conf220299.htm

Lamb, M. (1998). Non-parental childcare: Context, quality, correlates and consequences. Handbookof Child Psychology 4: 73-133.

Lowe, G. S. (2001). Final Report on the National Learning Roundtable on Learning. Ottawa:Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Lyon, M., and P. M. Canning. (1997). Auspice, location, provincial legislation and funding of daycare in Atlantic Canada: relationships with centre quality and implications for policy. Canadian jour-nal of research in early childhood education 6 (2): 139-55.

Mahon, R. and S. Phillips. (2002). Dual-earner families caught in a liberal welfare regime: The poli-tics of child care policy in Canada. In S. Michel & R. Mahon (Eds.), Child care policy at the cross-roads: Gender and welfare state restructuring (pp.191-218). New York, NY: Routledge.

Marcil-Gratton, N., and C. Le Bourdais (1999). Custody, access and child support: Findings from theNational Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Ottawa: Department of Justice.

Morissette, R. and X. Zhang (2001). Experiencing low income for several years. Perspectives onlabour and income. Statistics Canada, Cat. No. 75-001XIE, Vol 2, No. 3 , 25-35

National Council of Welfare. (2001). Child poverty profile 1998. Ottawa: Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada.

Norwegian Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. (1998). Thematic review of early childhood edu-cation and care policy: Background report from Norway. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-opera-

24


tion and Development.

Odom, S.L., C. A. Peck, M. Hanson, P. J. Beckman, A. P. Kaiser, J. Lieber, W. H. Brown, E. M.Horn, and I. S. Schwartz. (1996). Inclusion at the preschool level: An ecological systems analysis.SRCD Social Policy Report 1, (2-3): 18-30.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Starting strong: Early childhoodeducation and care. Summary report, Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care.Paris.

Penn, H. (1999). How should we care for babies and toddlers? An analysis of practice in out-of-home care for children under three. Occasional paper #10. Toronto: Childcare Resource andResearch Unit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

Polakow, V., T. Halskov and J. Per Schultz, (2001). Diminished rights: Danish lone mother families ininternational context. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press.

Roeher Institute. (2001). Developing an inclusive approach to monitoring child development and learn-ing outcomes. Toronto.

Sen, A. (1999). Investing in early childhood: Its role in development. Speech to the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, Washington.

Sen, A. (2000). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

Shonkoff, J., and D. Phillips. (2001). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhooddevelopment. Washington: National Academy Press.

Statistics Canada. (1997). 1996 census: Mother tongue, home language and knowledge of languages.The Daily, Dec. 2, 1997. Catalogue 11-001E

Statistics Canada. (2002). Women in Canada: Work chapter updates. Catalogue No. 89F0133XIE.Ottawa. Available at www.statcan.ca

Tougas, J. (2002). Quebec’s early childhood care and education: The first five years. Occasional Paper#17. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (1999). The State of the World’s Children 1999. New York.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2001). The State of the World’s Children 2001. New York.

Whitebook, M., C. Howes, and D. Phillips. (1990). Who cares? Childcare teachers and the quality ofcare in America. Final Report of the National Staffing Study. Oakland, CA: Childcare EmployeeProject.

PUBLISHED IN 2002

Clyde Hertzman — Leave No Child Behind! Social Exclusion and ChildDevelopment

Dow Marmur — Ethical Reflections on Social Inclusion

Andrew Jackson and Does Work Include Children? The Effects of the LabourKatherine Scott — Market on Family Income, Time, and Stress

Michael Bach — Social Inclusion as Solidarity: Re-thinking the ChildRights Agenda

Martha Friendly and Social inclusion for Canadian Children throughDonna Lero — Early Childhood Education and Care

Terry Wotherspoon — The Dynamics of Social Inclusion: Public Educationand Aboriginal People in Canada

Peter Donnelly andJay Coakley — Promoting Social Inclusion Through Recreation

Meg Luxton — Feminist Perspectives on Social Inclusion andChildren’s Well-Being

Andrew Mitchell and Richard Shillington — Poverty, Inequality, and Social Inclusion

Catherine Frazee — Thumbs Up! Inclusion, Rights and Equality asExperienced by Youth with Disabilities

Anver Saloojee — Social Inclusion, Citizenship and Diversity

Ratna Omidvar and Ted Richmond — Towards the Social Inclusion of New Canadians

PERSPECTIVES ONSOCIAL INCLUSION W O R K I N G

P A P E RS E R I E S

The full papers (in English only) and the summaries in French and English can be downloaded from

the Laidlaw Foundation’s web site at www.laidlawfdn.org under Children’s Agenda.

Limited paper copies are available from [email protected]

ON SOCIAL INCLUSION - laidlawfdn.org · Martha Friendly and Donna S. Lero WORKING PAPER SERIES JUNE...

Documents

Transcript of ON SOCIAL INCLUSION - laidlawfdn.org · Martha Friendly and Donna S. Lero WORKING PAPER SERIES JUNE...