Be Careful What you wish for ll

More discussions in an ECE group today around new role of the CECE in advocating for ECE and universal childcare and why do we have to pay to two different organizations to get both regulatory oversight and advocacy.

So my take is that when the CECE was being formed I swear I remember there being talk about amalgamating it with the already existing AECEO infrastructure ... however apparently the government rules for regulatory Colleges doesn’t allow for it under some sort of conflict of interest if memory serves. Regulatory colleges and unions/professional associations are required to be kept separate because those who have to critically review the profession conduct and discipline of its members misconduct should not also be the same ones who are advocating for their rights and better pay/working conditions. 

The Ontario Teachers College  doesn’t actively advocate for teachers either that’s their two unions doing that. Just as ours doesn’t do it it’s the AECEO our professional association or for those ECE who are actually unionized their unions job. 

In regulated professionals were members all work for separate employers they tend to have “professional associations” they join to form a collective voice because a collective union can only be formed by workers under single employer and small business that have less than a dozen employees total well often a union wouldn’t have much collective power like auto industry. In that industry all Ford workers regardless of different plants are employees of Ford Corporation and locally each individual plant OR like teachers in Ontario where they are all employees of the MOE and than locally individual school boards. They bargain collectively at BOTH those levels. 

We may be licensed under the MOE but we are NOT employed by them we are employed by individual companies- we can not all be unionized under the same union as a result. You can attempt to unionize your individual centre and pay a union the dues to try to advocate for you - but they likely won’t be able to have any better luck at changing the status quo at a government level needed to create ACTUAL change under our model of childcare than the AECEO or OCBCC has.

Teachers are also required to engage in mandatory PD - the difference is that because they are all employed by the same employer aka the government and provided employer offered PD that’s tracked and so forth they don’t have to do their own “proof” cause the teachers college trust schools boards to be offering PD and so forth.

CECE doesn’t have that same relationship with our employers unfortunately as centres are all individual operated/owned - so some childcare employers are awesome at supporting PD and others suck donkey balls and offer nothing  - so therefore to ensure that all CECE members are engaging in PD we get the standardized CPL and its 3 components  .... and it should be noted it was the LIBERAL GOVERNMENT that required that of the CECE under the Early Childhood Education Act 2007 the Liberals created as part of their FDK initiative ECE working in school boards needed to be regulated and  it is that Act that oversaw the creation of a College of ECE, brought the CECE into existence in first place and mana dated what the CPL for ECE had to contain. 

Making change in the funding model for licensed childcare at a government level is going to have to take a HUGE paradigm shift in how VOTERS see the role of childcare and value in it being offered by a third party. 

Right now Baby boomers still make up the majority of voters and they not only view childcare as a family responsibility they are long past NEEDING childcare so aren’t gonna vote to spend trillions on it when the services they  do need such as LTC and health care are so poorly funded they don’t want money taken away from those to be diverted to childcare.

There is also the challenge that the stats for those who choose “formal licensed childcare” VS those who choose “informal unregulated childcare” is consistently seeing licensed childcare in a MINORITY role that sits between 20-30% of us across ALL provinces except Quebec which sees 47% of 0-4 in their universal programs and 10% of the 4-12 age group. So only 20-30% of Provincial and Federal voters USE licensed childcare so why are the 70-80% of the others gonna vote for Universal Childcare system that they feel won’t benefit their needs - and this is why every politician whose attempted to run on a universal childcare platform lost cause enough voters aren’t wanting to invest their vote in that area - and highly doubt that unionizing centres under our current funding model is gonna change individual voters minds to get a party in power that could actually pull it off 🤷‍♀️ 

So the question is how do ECE change the minds of the 70-80% to a value childcare model they do not use in order to get them to vote to invest trillions of tax dollars into it?

To which ECE pointed out all the studies that show the benefits when children have access to a attentive/responsive primary caregiver in their early years.

While I  agree that studies show that young children who have access to an attentive/responsive  primary caregiver in low ratio settings during those early years show long term benefits - my concern is would that happen in a universal childcare program with the values our culture has? A culture that, based on historical attempts of our past governments, keeps raising ratios to create new spaces and balance budgets without having it invest more money in childcare that instead we would end up like Spain and have 1 adult trying to care for 9 infants under a year old and the ratios just going UP from there and IMO there’s no way that model produces the same shiny positive results for the children raised in them 😞 

Even in Quebec model here in Canada, with ratios of 1:5 for infants/toddlers under 17 months  higher than our current 1:3 and and their toddler ratio is 1:8 for 18 months and up and as a result the research based on the last 25 years from that model is not producing the positive results for social emotional development and mental health quite contrary to  the Nordic countries have where the focus was on forming a healthy parental/familial attachment between 0-3 and waiting until 3 to introduce universal 3rd party childcare. 

I am just NOT an advocate that a universal childcare for infants and toddlers is gonna result in positive outcomes for the children  - I would love to see a Nordic approach where the value of a parent/family  being the best option in the first 3 years and support a longer properly funded parental leave and expand more EarlyON programming to support all parents to be that BEST option while also offering early learning programming for the littles while parents are there providing the care would be much more manageable fiscally over the model of the Quebec one that our country would mostly copy. Quebec universal childcare is still NOT universal after quarter of a century and still sees educators low paid and in tiers of low pay with home based  providers despite being unionized being paid much lower and facing higher ratios than their centre counterparts.

I just feel ECE need to look long and hard at countries that provide universal care for infants and toddlers and what those programs ratios look like and look historically at how our government and the voting tax payer has reacted to childcare sector and ask if possible being paid a bit more will be worth it if that comes at the huge likelihood of the risk that you will also be asked to care for 2-3x the amount of children you currently do in order to fund it and is that outcome going to make our job better, more rewarding and easier? 

We need to look long and deep at institutional childcare and the whys behind the challenges we face in licensed childcare and to be mindful/careful what the true cost and risks might be in advocating for universal childcare 😞 

Look at how flawed our public education system is do we really trust our government to do better adding the 0-4 age group to that model? 

So sure teachers get paid better than we do, get prep time and benefits and a pension but they also face so many challenges with increasing class sizes, decreasing support for children of differing needs, as a result they are being asked to do so much more than just teach but to be therapists, nurses, family counsellors and so forth while also balancing all the teaching requirements that the job is so stressful many end up on sick leave due to mental stress AND if we look even closer at teachers work conditions and pay MANY new teachers to the field are not paid much more than ECE are working in FDK, they can work for a DECADE or longer before they are able to move out of “SUPPLY/LTO contract” teaching into having any actual job security of a full time permanent position and it can than take a decade or so more to move up to the top tier in teaching salaries that are always quoted for teachers. 

Call me skeptical but I just don’t have faith in our leaders or with our cultures value system  that a ‘universal childcare’ would be any sort of positive utopian thing when they cannot properly manage the social services we already provide - health care and public education are a mess and we cannot properly fund the current model of childcare without constantly seeing ratios being pushed up and threats that our operating grants will shrink or WEG might not be renewed 😞

 I find it very hard to trust any promises they might make to get elected will look anything like the reality of what it would become! FDK a prime example - promised Ontarian’s a “stemless day of education and care with a ratio of 1:10” and we got anything but that - it’s not seamless, it’s not low ratio and it still came with a budget to taxpayers that ended up being triple what they said it needed and it drove the cost of before and after school as well as childcare in general up - so now taxpayers are paying more TWICE - once via taxes for the 9-3 portion of the program and than again with before and after school care now costing as much as a full day of preschool use to preFDK 😞 

I prefer to advocate for CHOICE in childcare - fund parents directly let them choose it they want to use that money to remain home with their littles or outsource to another model so they can work! 

I think there’s no easy solution but some I would advice for more wholeheartedly are:

Since we already have a UCCB which they seemed to be voter supported because it provided “choice” for everyone - so if they built on that as a start and than passed Employment laws to extend how long a persons position could be saved - the UCCB approach would also allow for parents better flexibly to to “share” parental leave so each could work part time and use the UCCB (if properly increased) to augment the other household financial coverage needed. 

We also already have FDK publicly funded so we could look at growing that to serve children 3-6.

Therefore if families were financially supported to have a parent/family member home for the first 3 years or they could choose to use that to fund a 3rd party option and work if they wanted and than amended publicly funded FDK to cover 3-6. Formal school starts at six. 

We already have EarlyON programs build on those to support families who choose to remain home the first 3 years - adapt current childcare programs to house EarlyON programs instead perhaps with “relief childcare” for short periods while parents attend workshops/support groups/mental break but still on site if needed to help them manage at home better and do a way better job to promote attendance at them to get relief, resources and other things needed to ensure all children have an amazing first 3 years of life with short from trained RECE working in them. Amazed how many new parents have no clue those resources even exist 😞 

Another option is to look closer at the UBI concept where it’s just one income replacement programs that covers ALL the ways that someone might need to be out of the workforce temporarily or permanently we already have - stream lining to a UBI would greatly cut way down on the overall expense to taxpayers of funding multiple different organizations with redundant management and fancy buildings and so forth  and funnel that savings into increasing the support of those programs to actually BE an income replacement instead if a bandaid - so combine EI for job loss, maternity leave/parental leaves, short term sick leaves, Permanent Disability leave, Ontario Works, CPP and all those payment support systems into ONE organization that funds any persons who need to access it for the same “UBI” amount and support programs in place that they return to work as soon as possible based on each scenario they went on it. 

There are countries around the world that are getting it right - we need to look you those 💕 Our current childcare system is not a financially  sustainable option as it is and trying to put even more money into a broken system that’s got way too much infrastructure overhead that takes away from resources on the front line is just not the answer!  

My two cents today! 

Margaret 

Live, Laugh, Love

Be Totallyawake4-life

 https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/long-term-study-of-universal-preschool-in-quebec-yields-sobering-outcomes/2018/12

Be careful what you wish for...

 Lots of big feelings going on in early childhood educator groups right now! Lots of talk about unions and walk outs and advocating for the poor treatment ECE face in the field! 

With the current model of childcare I just want to share that ECE need to be careful what they wish for!

The College of ECE is also a prime example of the advise “be careful what you wish for”! 

ECE had fought for decades to get one cause the field thought that is what we were missing on the path to being valued and respected like Teachers - Teachers have one so should we they argued. It will raise the bar and prevent unprofessional ECE from just moving centre to centre spreading their negativity and poor behaviour! We will finally be seen as professional. Yet the reality is that majority of public has no clue we even have a College more than a decade in and when it comes to regulating the industry if you look at the disciplinary records you have to basically REPEATEDLY abuse children to have your ability to practice completely removed - too many brought up for having slapped, dragged and sat on children to manage their behaviours and they get a tap on wrist of a suspension, a fine and behaviour and guidance training and back to the front line they go  because there are so FEW of us left they want to keep trying to raise the bar with people who shouldn’t really be working in the field at all but when other RECE keep seeing these people returned to the front line they just stop reporting because they don’t see the point cause it’s stressful to report a colleague and the drama that’s created in ones program 😞 Plus in my view many centres management still do their best to sweep problem staff under the rug because they don’t want to publicly be on record for having  hired people that turned out to do crap like that under their nose so they still quietly let those types go and move on to be someone else’s problem. So now we are all paying $160 for a College we feel failed in providing what we thought it would. 

Be careful what you wish for  is the same feeling I get in my gut when I see so many ECE advocating to get a Union in their centre or thinking they can just unionize the entire industry despite that not being how unions work - they can only unionize those under one employer so each individual centre would be a tiny little union of their 5-15 RECE depending on licensing capacity  - so they need to truly be careful what you wish for cause union dues are gonna be way more than the College fees they hate paying and the reality is that a union cannot get blood from a stone! 

Look at how poorly EA and ECE working in a unionized school board setting are treated - they are unionized and still paid barely a living wage, still not getting adequate prep time and most are constantly keep on contract vs getting full time permanent cause it saves boards money - been over 10 years of negotiations for RECE there and not much progress despite the huge dues they have to pay 😉

Fact is we are not poorly paid because we are like the auto industry where some CEO is off making millions off us and share holders need their piece of the pie too and while we do similar work the reality is we are not like teachers working in the public school system  where they have the collective pockets of tax payers to cover the rising cost of teachers wages and other perks they’ve fought decades for   .... the stone cold fact is that childcare is funded primarily on the backs of the families we serve and THAT is why we are low paid because families with young children are already stretched so thin with rising costs of living including that of childcare that a household income of $80,000 is now the cut off for being able to access fee subsidy towards childcare! More than double it was in the past decades cause I remember when it was $30,000 that was the cut off to access it. 

Go ahead and form a union at your centre but go into with your eyes open that until there is a HUGE change in the way that childcare is funded you could be spending hundreds in dues annually for no real gain OR you can find that your program administration decides that it’s just not a feasible option to remain open and find yourself closed .... look at how many unionized childcare positions have been lost over the past 30 years! When I was an ECE student EVERY college and university campus that offered early childhood studies had their own on site lab schools with unionized well paid educators as part of their staff - how many are left in Ontario? So many regions also had their own childcare programs they ran with unionized staff - how many are left in Ontario? When local regional governments decide that they cannot continue to run a region funded childcare program that had unionized staff so pays fair equitable wages and benefits  because it’s constantly in the red and having to take money from other places cause they can’t raise fees to clients any higher than they have without parents just saying “might as well stay home and provide care myself” than how are small individual childcares or even the chains that unionize going to be able to magically do better 😞 

Do they still require ECE students to design and build and formulate a realistic operating budget for opening a childcare in College - cause when you do that you quickly see there is no PROFIT in childcare programs - your revenue is capped by licensed capacity and the wages you can pay by the overhead required to provide the program including paying whomever “oversees” it be it a non profit director or an owner and wage that makes taking on that kind of responsibility and risk viable for them! Non profits do have an advantage to typically pay better because being a charitable organization they can often get reduction in rent, phone and other utilities as the service providers can claim that reduction as a charitable donation. But reality is that despite the demand for childcare very few people are willing to donate the time, energy and resources to open new childcare spaces because the fact is it’s TOO HARD and most people don’t want to “volunteer” the time it would take to fundraising and sit on committees for the non profit sector and for the private sector you can invest the same money in opening a Tim Hortons chain and it provides an actual return in investment and profit - which is why there is a Tim Hortons on every corner and not a childcare centre 😞 

Early years matter but is there just possibly a better system we could be advocating for?

Margaret 

Live, Laugh, Love

Be Totallyawake4-life

Passionately Advocating for CHOICE in Childcare

Update on Bill 66/CCEYA, 2014 Proposed Amendments:

The Child Care Providers Resource Network (CCPRN) has applied to speak in front of the committee and fingers crossed that they are approved as they are an amazing voice for supporting Independent Childcare providers in Ontario the reality is that many independent home childcare providers will not be able to apply to the Standing Committee to present directly in person because we either cannot afford to take time off work or we are not comfortable leaving all our clients without childcare for a day to go and advocate for our own viability or the distance to travel to be there in person is not feasible I wanted to share that your voice still matters!!! BE HEARD! 

You can send in a written submission detailing the points on why you support the proposed changes to the CCEYA as it affects independent home childcare viability to comm-generalgov@ola.org and you can CC the Minister of Education minister.edu@ontario.ca

All written submissions go to the Standing Committee and become part of the Committee exhibit and will form part of the permanent public record of the Committee. 

Deadline for application to present is tomorrow, the deadline for a written submission is March 18th.

Please let the Ford government know what you advocate for in childcare. Otherwise each side of the debate on this will assume your silence, one way or another, supports what they are advocating for which is vastly different!

Below if you care to read is my stance on the key components of the Bill 66 as it affects childcare and my letter to the Standing Committee.

To whom it may concern;

I am writing today as an Early Childhood Educator who has called the early years my home for 30 years now. I am writing because I cannot attend the Standing Committee hearings in person but want my voice to be heard on the matters being raised in Bill 66. 
I have worked in both licensed and independent 'unlicensed' sector of the industry over the course of my career so have an in depth knowledge of both and their pros and cons for but working environment for staff as well as learning environments for children. I left the licensed centre industry in 2007 shortly after I completed a year long course on inspirations out of Reggio Italy and how they view children and how they learn. I made this choice because the more I reflected on what I now knew about brain development, about the needs of children in the early years and how I believed children learn best I came to realize that a small HOME setting could offer children what a large centre will never able to due to the constraints of that setting. I also left because I came to realize that a small home setting could also address some of my own work life balance, health and stress to my body challenges I was facing working in a large institutional setting. As a result I have spent the last decade passionately supporting the choice of home childcare as a viable long term solution to the access of affordable childcare challenges faced in Ontario. Home childcare is a hugely untapped resource and finding a way for the government to better 'independent' childcare providers are KEY to tapping that resource!  

For me the suggested changes in #Bill66 for childcare are a first step but IMO more should be done to restore viability, clarity and fairness in the home childcare industry.
So up until 2014 LEGAL independent home childcare providers provided childcare to 5 children ALL of whom they could have chosen to be under 2 if they wanted. It was up to them and their clients to determine their skill and comfort level and most providers naturally balanced a mixed age group for their own sanity and those who could rock the multiple young infants did so because they could rock the multiple infants safely! PLUS their own were included in this number so they are accustom to having more than 5 children in care of mixed age up to 10 years of age. The majority have done this SAFELY while offering quality program and choice to families in their community. We need to remember that while horrible incidents all 'deaths and serious injuries' reported in auditor general report on childcare occurred in ILLEGAL childcare programs – they were not following the rules and a license would not have changed that because there are LOTS of licensed childcare programs reported in that same auditor general’s report that were operating 'outside the laws' and on probationary licenses as a result yet still gave parents the 'illusion' of all is well cause they were licensed!

The 2 under 2 and 3 under 3 restrictions of licensed home childcare were WHY many independent providers resisted licensing before this change came into effect in 2014 because they felt that they were HYPERCRITICAL! Mothers for centuries have SAFELY raised multiple children of young ages without the government stepping in. The reality is to imply that it is 'unsafe' to care for more than 2 children under 2 in a home setting is an insult to every parent of 'multiples! It is also hypocritical because the ratios in large 'centres' are much higher and the safe number of children one adult should care for should be consistent across ALL models to help reduce the argument for one model to operate 'illegal' because they see the other operate that way and be considered 'legal'.

IMO this proposed change to 3 under 2 is more in line with licensed 'centre' care ratios where one adult can care for FIVE children, and in my experience having worked in licensed childcare, all of whom may be under the age of two ranging from 16 months to 24 months in age. Than on top of that higher ratio for up to six hours a day in a centre one adult can care for up to EIGHT children ALL of who might be under 2 depending on the enrollment in that room! If that is deemed 'safe quality care' in a centre than surely allowing for one adult to have 5 children and of those allowing for 3 of them be under 2 years of age is more consistent in how centres operate?

Plus, unlike when the original Day Nursery Act was created and maternity leave was only 6 weeks of age so perhaps it made more sense with its 'restrictions' on how many under 2 children one adult should ideally care for because they would be under 2 for a very long time, we now have Maternity leave in Ontario that is between 12 – 18 months. It is 2019 now and many children entering care are well over a year old so the likelihood of a provider having two children who are non-walkers for any length of time is VERY minimal and in my experience with proper fire drill and emergency practices even if ALL your children are non-walkers you can safely manage evacuation of children in a timely manner be it in a home setting or a centre setting. The key is to be proactive and PRACTICE that something sadly many do not think to do but that is where education is needed not necessarily a 'license' because IMO even FAMILY households that do not operate a business of childcare should be practicing this monthly!

For me the Ford governments proposed changes do not go far enough in the way a providers 'own children' are counted with the change to their own childcare 4 and up not counting ... personally I think when it comes to offering childcare for a fee to others ALL children under 13 should count in a childcare provider ratio regardless if the provider gave birth or not. HOWEVER I think they need to adjust the total ratio of how many children one provider can care for to include up to 3 school age children so 8 children in total a mix of your own or daycare clients or all daycare clients should not matter. As this change could definitely help to clarify what is 'legal' vs 'illegal' in the community when choosing childcare because currently one provider can care for 10 children 'legally' if 5 are their own children and another provider with 10 children even if they are all the same ages is considered 'illegal' because their children are all grown and out of the house now. Suddenly that provider is seen as only capable of caring for 5 children despite the demand in her community for more care. In my opinion this inequity and hypocritical approach actually encourages both provider and parents to choose to operate 'illegally' in communities where childcare is in high demand and ‘need’ is great because they can rationalize that the 'rules' are illogical and hypocritical and therefore can justify breaking them. Amending this rule would not only provide clarity on legal vs illegal but it would open up potential 'school age' programming in communities across Ontario where it too is in great demand AND it could encourage seasoned home childcare providers to REMAIN in the industry once their own children reach 13 because they could begin to make a more viable long term income in order to save for retirement and so forth with the additional income school age spaces would offer verses closing up shop because they can now make more money working in retail or service industry than they can as a home childcare provider because they cannot use the ‘balance’ that they are saving on childcare for their own childcare against the income they make in this profession.

As for increased oversight of industry – I agree it is needed. I personally wish that the government would require a 'public registry' at a SMALL fee for ALL home childcare providers where they had to self-declare that they had read the rules, agree to abide and followed the rules and IF there are PROVEN public complaints than that person is REMOVED from active registry and a WARNING placed to the public. Similar to the College of ECE does currently but for ‘home childcare sector’ as this would help ensure SOME oversight and accountability, it would ensure that providers KNOW the rules so cannot deny they didn’t know and parents could also search registry for providers and ensure they've not had issues. This should be able to be done with MINIMAL cost to either providers or government in comparison to the currently option of an 'agency' model as the ONLY choice for oversight.

As for who should ‘fund’ oversight of the childcare industry I think BOTH the business provider AND the government should share the burden fairly – however it should not be done via a forced agency model as currently done. - IMO if done properly ensuring safe, healthy environments could be done via a registry at a fraction of a cost and providers can source professional development and support through already government funded Early ON programs. Sadly the current agency model is like forcing people to have a 'business coach'. We do not all need a 'coach' as the majority of us can operate independently and offer quality programming just fine!

As for the 'health and safety' standards being ensured again IMO the basic ‘health and safety’ expectations of society for ANYONE caring for young children, family member or for a fee to others, should be the SAME for ALL regardless if it’s a family member caring for the child, if it’s a neighbor, a home childcare provider or a LICENSED centre. So in regards to the question 6-8 on this survey from the HCCAO YES I agree that ALL people caring for children should not be known child abusers or pedophiles those people should not have unsupervised access to any children even their own, they should have first aid and CPR, they should regularly inspect their home for health and safety, they should have working fire alarms and carbon monoxide detectors, they should have proper home and care insurance for their model of care, they should ensure that their equipment for children is up to date and not expired, they should ensure any pets in the home are properly vaccinated, they should keep medications safely out of reach of children …. ALL of them including PARENTS should be held to these standards of health and safety for children in their care and you do not need a LICENSE to do that! What you need is better public education of what ‘health and safety’ is and to VALUE that these are indeed things you SHOULD be doing regardless of who is looking over your shoulder. – IME if you DON’T value them licensed or not you will NOT do them when people are not watching and in that end licensing provides a 'false sense of security' to parents who assume that if licensed a program is ALWAYS complaint and as the auditor generals report showed for licensed care this is NOT the case there are lots of non-complaint programs out there who do not value certain rules therefore do not follow them, including adult to child ratios, even when caught not following them. YET they continue to be allowed to be licensed but with a 'probationary' note that most parents using childcare do not even know to LOOK FOR :(

I was with an agency when I first opened my program – I became independent shortly after because I wanted to keep all my resources on the front line to invest back in my own program not someone else’s business, my clients still get the SAME great program but its more affordable because all the resources are kept on the front line and the reality is the supports that an agency provided that I actually need can be sourced at a fraction of a cost elsewhere via Early On programs and other professional development agencies where I can choose what is needed vs an agency choosing what they think we 'need'!

Do not get me wrong the agency model serves a purpose for providers who NEED the help with finding clients, development of contracts and policy handbooks, who do not want to be responsible to bill and receive fees and just want to 'work and be paid' but work out of their home. However for those of us who can manage our business end of things we do not NEED all the extra stuff agencies offer and the expense it comes with to cover their own overhead is just to great an investment for services not needed. In other business model terms it is like some people want to open a 'Tim Hortons' franchise' because all the work is done for them and as a result they are willing to pay the high fee for that franchise support while others are passionate about baking and happy to be an independent donut shop. They too would be VERY resistant if the government came along and tried to tell them that some independent donut shops are shoddy and putting public at risk (because there are a few) and therefore to ensure that they catch those shoddy donut shops moving forward you must ALL convert and belong to a Tim Horton's Franchise if you want to sell donuts in Ontario! Fact is that even in the franchise model 'some locations' are shoddy – a license is not the answer it is changing what people VALUE as quality childcare and ensuring that both the service providers and the pubic demand that value in their service ;)

We need to protect CHOICE in childcare and to do that we need to support INDEPENDENT home childcare in a financially viable manner that ensures quality childcare to the public!

I sincerely hope that the current Ford government can find solutions that will both improve and support the needs of Ontario families in regards to choice in childcare while ensuring quality early learning for children!

Thank you for your time and consideration
Margaret Wake
RECE, AECEO.C
 

You only get one childhood. Let’s make sure it is full of magic, nature and discovery!