A Diversity of Experience
Young children in Canada are one of the most diverse groups in the world, and as such, they have experienced a whole array of both problems and expectations. Sixty percent of immigrants under the age of eighteen speak neither of Canada’s two official languages (English and French), compounding a growing problem of too much language diversity (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2005). Already, only 59 percent of Canadians claim English as their first language, and 23 percent claim French; 18 percent speak other languages. Such diversity creates a highly educational environment for Canadian children, but presents problems to governments and school boards around the country. High numbers of non-English/French speaking children require an increase in funding for second-language program; the funds come from general education allocations, so the money cannot be spent elsewhere. On a slightly different note, Canadian children come from every socio-economic background. However, startlingly, a large number of Canadian children live below the poverty level, and the monetary situation of families with children is a growing problem. In 1999, nearly a fifth of families with children under five years old lived below Canada’s Low-Income Cut-Off (Social Union 2005). The rise came in response to economic recession in the 1990’s, but, even after the turn of the century, the number of children in poverty has continued to rise (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2001). The fact that Canada is a welfare state makes this fact more startling, as the government has the power to end child poverty. Interestingly, Canadian children are also likely to experience more emotional and mental problems than children in other countries; thus, they are less likely to do well in school (Strohschein 2005). Canadian culture and social structure have caused children to experience both good and bad, based on diversity and family structure.
Although the traditional family structure in Canada has changed dramatically over the past few decades, it remains an important part of children’s lives. In 1950, Canadian children enjoyed a traditional family life with two parents. Since then, divorce rates and poverty have risen, and the traditional construction of nuclear families has given way to a variety of family types (Social Union 2005). Especially in recent years, more families are headed by a single parent or a couple joined in common law. Couples are also having fewer children, causing school enrollment to decline. Typically, both parents have jobs, and when compared to the major countries of Europe, Canada has the highest percentage of mothers employed outside the home; however, studies from the University of Alberta in Calgary reveal that the more time mothers spend outside the home, the more they are compelled to spend “quality time” with their children (Gauthier 2004). Divorce in Canada is an increasing problem, and half of all Canadian divorces involve children. Another important part of family structure in Canada, however, is that many parents report to have positive interaction with their children; parents as a group tend to spend more time with their children than parents in countries such as the United States. Families in Canada have undergone both good and bad changes, but they remain an integral part of the country’s culture.
Aboriginal families fare far worse than children of other ethnicities throughout Canada. Aboriginal education lags behind that of other Canadian groups in part because of First Nation communities’ remote geographic locations, but there are other contributing factors. One such factor is evident in family statistics gathered between 1991 and 2001, which show a more than 20% increase in the number of grandparents raising grandchildren (Fuller-Thomson 2005). This suggests Canada’s lack of regard for families in which grandparents are the primary caregivers. Compounding this problem, one-third of aboriginal skipped generation families are below the poverty line; many caregivers are also school dropouts and have little opportunity to increase their income. The grandparents typically work or have other responsibilities, so they have less time to spend with and care for their grandchildren. The area of most concern is the quality of education in native communities, since improved education provides greater future opportunity. Although First Nation education exclusively falls under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Federal Government, the quality of the educational systems are the worst in the nation. According to the Department of Ministers of Education, it will take nearly 20 years to bring aboriginal children up to the educational level of other Canadians (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2001). Although Aboriginal families are Canada’s most impoverished group, improvements are slowly being made, and the Canadian government is implementing social policies and welfare programs to benefit education for children and employment for adults.
Government ministries are a driving force behind recent referendums to improve education in order to ensure Canadian economic and social success in the future. Federal policies came to focus on children following the end of the women’s and labors movements in the mid-1980’s (Jenson 2004), but the Canadian education system saw the most dramatic improvements after the establishment of a more liberal administration in 1993. Their goal, based on the societal belief in the overall importance of education, was to create a comprehensive, accessible system to educate the children of Canada. Government officials stressed success in school to ensure future economic stability for the country by maintaining a skilled, diverse workforce. Children are highly valued because society views them as the future leaders and workers of the country.
Despite the passage of federal policies, Canada’s Constitution Act of 1867 gives power over public education to the provinces, thus the quality of education varies dramatically from region to region. According to the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), scores for Canadian children were among the highest in the world in the domains of reading, science, problem solving, and mathematics. These findings, however, are not uniform across the country. In fact, results differ dramatically from province to province, hinting at sharp contrasts among the quality of education systems in various regions. Many quality differences result from the social structure, wealth, geography, history, and special needs of the respective province (Council of Ministers for Education, Canada 2005). In addition, cultural differences affect the quality of life afforded to children. Historically, Quebec has boasted the best child policies in Canada, resulting from its focus on the family and traditional values. Other provinces sport childhood programs that range from acceptable to mediocre to bad.
A series of national budgets cuts, as well as restructuring of the Canadian education system, have led to numerous education problems, but most in regard to care for young children. The 1990’s saw Canada take steps toward creating a balanced budget, and, as a result, the federal government drastically reduced grants to public education; funding was only partially restored by the beginning to the 2000’s. As well as reduced education funding, the government made an effort to reorganize and restructure the ministries, accountability structure, and administrative structures at every level of education (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2001). The aftermath of such cuts and uncertainty, coupled with influence from Europe, prompted more and more families to push for a uniform childcare system. Parents and families recognized that a child’s early years are the most important parts of his or her development (Cleveland 2004). In September 2000, the Canadian Ministers of Education signed the Early Childhood Development Agreement to ensure the proper development and well being of the country’s children. Beginning in 2001, the government would provide a total of $2.2 billion over a period of five years to help provincial governments improve and expand early childhood programs (Lefebvre 2004). Many provinces still have trouble providing proper care. For example, Quebec, although it boasts some of the early childhood best education in Canada, does not have a perfect system. Childcare in Quebec is very cheap because it is subsidized by the government. As a result, demand is high, and such high demand has overwhelmed the system, so many families cannot find places for their children in institutions receiving federal subsidies. In-kind childcare subsidies are not matched for families who opt not to enroll their child in any type of daycare. Another drawback to cheap childcare is that since so many families enroll their children, the children spend less time with their parents and more time in an institution. So little parental time can be unhealthy for developing children. Higher income families tend to benefit most from subsidized childcare because they typically work regular hours. And just as in America, children from lower socio-economic classes are placed in childcare facilities with poorer quality services. The people of Quebec invest a lot of time and money in their children. All systems have their good and their bad, as Quebec’s childcare system does, but many people are interested in improving and perfecting such a system to benefit their children and the future of their society. It is quite evident that the social structure in Quebec stresses children as important parts of society and society’s future. Other provinces still lag behind Quebec in creating adequate early childcare programs.
Besides diverse education systems, a wide range of social policies toward children also exist throughout the Canadian provinces. One such set of policies is Canada’s child and youth employment policies; however, those of British Columbia are of particular interest. Recently, child labor laws in Canada’s westernmost province have been the subject of controversy, especially after a 2001 law allowed employees to pay child workers a dramatically lower minimum wage than adult workers; such an act was blatant discrimination against children. Other policies violate the International Labor Organization’s Convention on Minimum Age by allowing children as young as 12 to acquire jobs (Irwin et. al. 2005). After further review, child sociologists found that some policies were in conflict with Canada’s Employment Standards Act of 2001, including children working in environments without supervision and parents failing to provide proper consent for their children to work. British Columbia has the least child-friendly employment program in Canada. To provide a comparison, child employment is more closely regulated in the United States than anywhere in Canada. Social policies regarding child employment exist in all the Canadian provinces, and they provide another hint at how adult society treats young people.
Years of political and demographic change mean the future quality of children’s social well being is uncertain. The Canadian government has continued to push for improvement in education. More efforts are being made to rectify the cuts of the 1990’s, and provincial administrations are working to perfect early childcare programs. However, other problems plague children in Canada. Political change is constant, and some administrations are less likely to fund education and social programs for children than others. Another major problem is population and demographic change. As the children of the baby boom generation have exited schools, enrollment has declined, and in other areas, immigration has fostered increased enrollment (Foot 2001). These dramatic changes in population distribution and demographics exacerbate a number of problems the Canadian government is already facing in regard to children’s well being: funding for education, early childcare, child social programs, and family welfare. In the midst of uncertainty, Canadians maintain their belief in the fundamental values of benefiting children with a good education system and raising them in a peaceful, nurturing environment, but in a time of immense change, the government cannot solve every problem.
Canadian diversity and social structure has created a culture that values children immensely. However, it is obvious that no system is without its share of problems. After immense changes during the latter half of the 20th century, children in Canada have much to look forward to if the national government continues to benefit them by passing child-friendly policies. Increasingly, the government is using European models to improve children’s education and social experiences. In the wake of declining educational and social standards in the 1990’s, Canadians have come to realize the importance of children and the ultimate benefit of their future contributions to a strong culture and society.
Bibliography
Cleveland, Gordon. 2004. “Family Policy and Preschool Child Care.” Policy Options/Options Politiques 25:42-5.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2001. “The Development of Education in Canada.” 101pp. Retrieved April 5, 2006. (http://www.cmec.ca/index.en.html).
Council of Ministers for Education, Canada. 2005. “Education in Canada.” 24pp. Retrieved April 5, 2006. (http://www.cmec.ca/index.en.html.).
Foot, David. 2001. “Canadian Education: Demographic Change and Future Challenges.” Education Canada. Spring 2001: 24-27.
Fuller-Thomson, Esme. 2005. “Canadian First Nations Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: A Portrait in Resilience.” International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 60, 4: 331-342.
Gauthier, Anne H., Timothy Smeeding, and Frank Furstenberg. 2004. “Are Parents Investing Less Time in Children? Trends in Selected Industrialized Countries.” Population and Development Review, 30, 4: 647-671.
Irwin, John, Stephen McBride and Tanya Strubin. 2005. “Child and Youth Employment Standards: The Experience of Young Workers Under British Columbia’s New Policy Regime.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, September 2005. 40 pp.
Jenson, Jane. 2004. “Changing the Paradigm: Family Responsibility Or Investing in Children.” Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie 29:169-92.
Lefebvre, Piere. 2004. “Quebec’s innovative early childhood education and care policy and its weaknesses.” Policy Options/Options Politiques, 25, 3:52-57.
Social Union. 2005. “A Portrait of Canadian Families.” Retrieved April 1, 2006.
(http://www.socialunion.ca/ecd/2002/b-3.htm).
Strohschein, Lisa. 2005. “Parental Divorce and Child Mental Health Trajectories.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67: 1286-1300.
