Ontario Tories would halt full-day kindergarten, cut thousands of jobs


mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#1
Tories would halt full-day kindergarten, cut thousands of jobs

OTTAWA — Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party wants to halt the rollout of full-day kindergarten, increase class sizes, cut 10,000 support staff positions, introduce standardized testing for Grade 8 students to measure their scientific knowledge, and build new schools faster in burgeoning suburbs.

The ambitious plan for the province’s publicly-funded school system is laid out in a new white paper, which was released Thursday in Toronto by party leader Tim Hudak.

The 25-page Paths to Prosperity: Preparing Students for the Challenges of the 21st Century is the party’s boldest statement yet on public education, a file the Tories have largely shied away from since the disastrous 2007 provincial election, which former leader John Tory lost after suggesting he would extend public funding to Ontario’s faith-based schools.

“Education is the lynchpin of progress,” Hudak writes in his introduction to the new plan.

But the idea of saving millions by putting the brakes on full-day kindergarten — a popular initiative that is currently partway through a five-year rollout — already has the Tories on the defensive.

“The problem is we have no money,” PC education critic Lisa MacLeod told the Citizen in an interview.

“We won’t abandon it — those schools with it will continue to have it — but the full rollout won’t occur under our government until the merits of the program are there.”

That’s in stark contrast with the party’s position during the 2011 election campaign, when the party said in its platform that “it would be a mistake to disrupt its implementation” and pledged to make the program fully operational for all four- and five-year-olds by 2014, which is the current plan under the Liberals.

Tories would halt full-day kindergarten, cut thousands of jobs
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2
we are in a mess
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#3
Even though I disagree with the move, it is in line with the principle of conservative politics - which is cut, cut, cut.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+4
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Even though I disagree with the move, it is in line with the principle of conservative politics - which is cut, cut, cut.

If Ontario can't afford it, then they can't afford it.... I don't understand why this concept elicits such a refusal to accept the realities
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+3
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Even though I disagree with the move, it is in line with the principle of conservative politics - which is cut, cut, cut.

I happen to agree with a program of "cut, cut, cut", where what is being cut can't be paid for without borrowing. Having said that, I think, like with the home budget, priorities have to be rearranged, starting with "needs" at the top, "wants" in the middle and "waste" at the bottom. A good start might be "axing" a few bureaucrats!-
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+4
#6
We can't afford it, and it is like free babysitting. There's nothing to argue about. The gravy train isn't running any more. Pay for your own child care. Sucks but yeah, that's reality.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

If Ontario can't afford it, then they can't afford it.... I don't understand why this concept elicits such a refusal to accept the realities

Because there is a seven to one return on early childhood investments?

http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/11/12/breaking-cycle-ontarios-poverty-reduction-strategy-2011-ann

Like I said, newby conservatives only look at cost cutting instead of revenue generation.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Because there is a seven to one return on early childhood investments?

http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/11/12/breaking-cycle-ontarios-poverty-reduction-strategy-2011-ann

Like I said, newby conservatives only look at cost cutting instead of revenue generation.

They get the same in daycare and not at the taxpayers expense.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote:


Full-Day Kindergarten Is a
Sound Educational Investment
Recent research has demonstrated that funds invested in
quality early education programs produce powerful returns

Quote has been trimmed


Quote:


Viewing half-day kindergarten as a vehicle for saving money
is shortsighted. In recent years, a number of researchers have
begun doing economic analyses of early childhood education
programs. Th ey are fi nding that investments in quality early
childhood programs generate returns of 3-to-1 or even higher—
that’s at least $3 for every $1...

Quote has been trimmed


Quote:


Robert Lynch, a researcher who has extensively studied this
issue, points out, “Even economists who are particularly
skeptical about government programs make an exception for
high-quality early childhood development programs.”
By helping to develop students’ academic abilities, and by
improving their social and emotional...

Quote has been trimmed
Quote:







 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Because there is a seven to one return on early childhood investments?

http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/11/12/breaking-cycle-ontarios-poverty-reduction-strategy-2011-ann

Like I said, newby conservatives only look at cost cutting instead of revenue generation.

The 7:1 return figure is based entirely on intangibles and broad-based assumptions, furthermore, the 'return' isn't realized for 10 or 20 years.

That money, could the province actually afford it, would be better spent on projects that got people working and a start to healing their economy on basis of developing organic growth... Put more money in the pockets of folks and the affordability factor goes way up.

FYI here for ya: Gvt isn't the end-all-be-all for dealing with every solitary issue facing individuals.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The 7:1 return figure is based entirely on intangibles and broad-based assumptions, furthermore, the 'return' isn't realized for 10 or 20 years.

That money, could the province actually afford it, would be better spent on projects that got people working and a start to healing their economy on basis of developing organic growth... Put more money in the pockets of folks and the affordability factor goes way up.

FYI here for ya: Gvt isn't the end-all-be-all for dealing with every solitary issue facing individuals.

Short sighted view along with the assumption that I think government should deal with every issue.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Short sighted view along with the assumption that I think government should deal with every issue.


Spare me please... You don't think that there will be massive spin-offs over the long term from developing a strong, internally driven and growing economy?

It's too bad that you skew your perspective so greatly. If you were to apply the very same logic and principles to those activities that you refuse to support, you'd observe that there are better alternatives to achieving the goals that you seek... Instead, your entire focus is on vilifying a political party at the expense of an entire society's long term health
 
petros
#13
Suckers!!!!


This is how Cons fund ESL and make it look like it's not Social spending on immigrants.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#14
Maybe he'll "nationalize" hydro....
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Spare me please... You don't think that there will be massive spin-offs over the long term from developing a strong, internally driven and growing economy?

Of course.

It's those reasons you've stated which show exactly why this is a good investment.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course.

It's those reasons you've stated which show exactly why this is a good investment.


Alright then, next question: Do you believe that it is in the best interests of the province to realize returns earlier, ongoing returns or later ongoing returns (in terms of years)?
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Alright then, next question: Do you believe that it is in the best interests of the province to realize returns earlier, ongoing returns or later ongoing returns (in terms of years)?

Without the extra hours for ESL the kids are screwed and so are the parents that learn from their kids.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Alright then, next question: Do you believe that it is in the best interests of the province to realize returns earlier, ongoing returns or later ongoing returns (in terms of years)?

If those returns are greater and have a longer lasting impact then obviously yes.

You don't know much about business do you?
 
Walter
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Because there is a seven to one return on early childhood investments?

http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/11/12/breaking-cycle-ontarios-poverty-reduction-strategy-2011-ann

Like I said, newby conservatives only look at cost cutting instead of revenue generation.

Such crap. What else could we expect from a study commissioned by Childcare Canada.

A child is always better off staying at home with a parent unless it's a single parent and even then it's usually better.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Such crap. A child is always better off staying at home with a parent unless it's a single parent.

I don't even..
 
Walter
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_kadvoguide.pdf

Another study and this time by a teachers' union; totally unbiased.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't even..

We know and you should.
 
CDNBear
+2
#22
That's to bad.

They should spend money the province doesn't have, so the loony left can rant about their spending practices later.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

You don't know much about business do you?

Unlike you and Childcare Canada that have reams of experience in business.

Thanks for the chuckle MF... I had a great laugh on that one (hell, I might have even peed a little)
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

(hell, I might have even peed a little)

Depends though right?
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#25
The problem is no one can agree with what is need, what is want and what is waste.
No matter who comes forward their view is an opinion not necessarily the facts on
the same page what are people prepared to pay for then go back to need, want and
waste.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

Depends though right?


Good one.

Welcome to Instant Rimshot
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The problem is no one can agree with what is need, what is want and what is waste.
No matter who comes forward their view is an opinion not necessarily the facts on
the same page what are people prepared to pay for then go back to need, want and
waste.

I think we had all agree pretty fast that there is no money and what we need is to take our head out of our behinds and face reality...BROKE, we are broke...and if we keep spending...bankruptcy... not an opinion...just fact.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The problem is no one can agree with what is need, what is want and what is waste.
No matter who comes forward their view is an opinion not necessarily the facts on
the same page what are people prepared to pay for then go back to need, want and
waste.

Not rocket science...............Need= Essential for life
Want= satisfies a desire
Waste= Detrimental to life.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Because there is a seven to one return on early childhood investments?

http://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/11/12/breaking-cycle-ontarios-poverty-reduction-strategy-2011-ann

Like I said, newby conservatives only look at cost cutting instead of revenue generation.

What revenue generation is there in hiring thousands of highly paid babysitters? These are scarce tax dollars being spent for no reason except to create government jobs. Don't want to pay for a baby sitter either don't have kids or work cross shifts.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts