2. Provision, Policy, and Politics in Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada

Friendly, Martha; Prentice, Susan

doi:10.3138/9781442662032-004

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For employment purposes, the Government of Alberta (2016) considers nannies domestic employees; while employment standards specify a minimum wage and employee entitlements, there are no standards, oversight, or monitoring specific to the provision of child care. Home-based group care, called day homes in Alberta, is categorized as either regulated or unregulated, depending on its licensing status (Friendly et al, 2018).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, mothers’ labor force participation is not matched by a corresponding level of regulated child care spaces. In 2014, there was a regulated child care space for just over one in five children aged 0 to 5 years in the majority of Canadian provinces (Friendly et al, 2018). Within this context, nearly two thirds of employed parents with preschool children in Canada are dependent on unregulated child care (Beaujot, Du, & Ravanera, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the funding that is provided for child care, the vast majority has been invested in the demand-side through offering parental subsidies, particularly to low-income families, while limited funding has gone into the supply-side of providing child care (Mahon, 2005). Consequently, over 80% of the operating costs associated with child care are covered by parent-paid fees (Friendly et al, 2018; Friendly & Prentice, 2009). In Alberta, child care subsidies are available for low-to-middle income families (Government of Alberta, 2017b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Who Cares? Motivations for Unregulated Child Care Use

Breitkreuz

Colen

2018

Journal of Family Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the motivations for unregulated child care use within Canada. Using focus group data from 109 mothers, we analyze unregulated child care use within a policy context in which regulated child care is only available for 20% of preschool children. The key drivers for unregulated care were framed by participants as benefits: trust in a known caregiver with similar values, offered in a home-like environment. Importantly, one driver that was not seen as beneficial was the lack of affordable and accessible, regulated child care. Sometimes used as a last resort amid regulated child care shortages, unregulated care became the driver of how mothers organized their time. Within the constraints of a limited regulatory child care environment, we argue that Mathieu’s (2016) concept of demotherization is beyond the grasp of the majority of Canadian mothers.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Who Cares? Motivations for Unregulated Child Care Use

Breitkreuz

Colen

2018

Journal of Family Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extended family members can also be involved in providing childcare. In Alberta, the involvement of relatives in childcare is even supported through the Kin Child Care program (KCC) that offers subsidies for eligible parents 40 who use a non-custodial relative to care for their child (Friendly et al, 2013). Extended family members are often willing and available to look after dependent children.…”

Section: A New Concept: the 'Demotherization' Of Care Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Programs like childcare are determined by the provinces and show substantial variation. As an example, within the ROC, Ontario is the only province that offers kindergarten for all four year olds (Friendly et al, 2013). 99 During the 2004 federal election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to build a national universal childcare program, that they called the Foundations program.…”

Section: Family-relevant Policies In Canada and Quebec Since 1995mentioning

confidence: 99%

Labour Markets, Family-Relevant Policies and Reproductive Behaviours: Quebec's Fertility Regimes Between 1960 and 2010

Mathieu¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the gender equity theory to study fertility trends in Quebec between 1960 and 2010, this dissertation shows that fertility outcomes are more contingent upon policies that support a gender-egalitarian division of care work, than fertility policies aimed at increasing the number of births. Changes in reproductive trends are examined using an 'institutional approach' to fertility. Accordingly, fertility outcomes are theorised as resulting from the articulation between the economic context, the sequence of key transitions in family life and the extent to which social policy allows care work to be 'demotherized'. The dissertation introduces the concept of the 'demotherization' of care work, to convey the extent to which mothers can download their care-giving responsibilities to the state, grandparents and their partner. In the 1960s, fertility is shown to have decreased in Quebec, despite the fact that women were faced with new opportunities in public institutions. Following the Quiet Revolution, the federal and the provincial governments offered a limited set of family-relevant policies that supported 'gendered familialism', with low levels of defamilialization and demotherization. Declining fertility was the result of the lower importance of the family as a pillar institution and of women's difficulty to combine earning and caring tasks. The introduction of Quebec's first family policy in 1988 which contained a baby bonus, had a positive effect on fertility, though not because of this new measure, but because of a favorable economic context. Quebec's provincial government continued to support the motherization of care work, while simultaneously offering allowances that favoured economic defamilialization. Finally, Quebec's second family policy, introduced in 1997 (yet fully implemented in 2006), challenged the traditional gendered division of care-giving responsibilities, through the provision of universal and targeted measures that allowed care work to be demotherized. In Quebec's fertility regime moved from 'implicit familialism' to a hybrid version of 'institutional' and 'de-gendered' arrangements of care work. In that context, women were able to maintain good activity rates, along with relatively high fertility. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing a dissertation is truly a collaborative effort in many respects. Many people helped me to translate my doctoral ambitions into realizations. First, I am very indebted to my supervisor, Wallace Clement, whose support and guidance have made the completion of this thesis possible. I am especially grateful to Wally for his patience, his encouragement and his feedback throughout the writing process. Writing a dissertation in one's second language is a challenging endeavour and Wally proved to be an enthusiastic guide in my journey. I am also grateful to my other two committee members, Rianne Mahon whose work and career path have been a great inspiration and Janet Siltanen for her constructive criticisms and for pushing me in new directions. Thank you to you both for your val...

show abstract

‘For the Little Ones, the Best’: Australian Early Childhood Service and Policy Histories

Hunkin¹

2019

The Quality Agenda in Early Childhood Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2. Provision, Policy, and Politics in Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Who Cares? Motivations for Unregulated Child Care Use

Who Cares? Motivations for Unregulated Child Care Use

Labour Markets, Family-Relevant Policies and Reproductive Behaviours: Quebec's Fertility Regimes Between 1960 and 2010

‘For the Little Ones, the Best’: Australian Early Childhood Service and Policy Histories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About