Recent Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada (2012) Nina Howe and Larry Prochner, editors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is ongoing debate on the quality of early childhood and care (ECEC) in Western countries, including Canada.The biggest drawback of Canadian ECEC is that it has no national policy framework for program delivery.Alan Pence, in a postscript to this book, refers to a European Commission (2009) report, according to which, to promote social cohesion, it is important to provide equal opportunities for all families to receive high-quality ECEC services.When families receive these services, they gain opportunities to work while balancing their family lives.Most European countries have tried to achieve these services but Canada is a little behind.Nina Howe and Larry Prochner's edited anthology hopes to help improve the quality of early childhood experiences of Canadian children and families.This book consists of essays on various issues that provide a strong argument for change in the field of ECEC in Canada.The book is divided into three parts and each part is set under a different theme.Each chapter ends with a commentary from an expert in the field.Collectively, the essays in each theme cover the past, present, and future of early childhood education in Canada.According to the editors' introduction, the idea of organizing this book came from a small workshop called New Directions in Early Childhood Education, held at Concordia University in Montreal, Québec, Canada, March 12-13, 2010.Part 1, Historical and Contemporary Issues, discusses not only the current history (since 1950), social policies, and economics of childcare, but includes issues related to Canadian provincial regulations and policies.Part 1 is the most relevant for those interested in learning about current and historical views on ECEC.The first chapter, by Prochner and Lynne Robertson, addresses key developments in ECEC during the Second World War.The era of the Second World War and the following 15 years was a time of cutbacks because many people (especially women) decided to stay at home with their young children.Prochner and Robertson use seven dimensions to examine this period: ethos, teaching, learning, settings, curriculum, assessment, and diversity.Through the use of these dimensions, they analyze advances in the field of ECEC in the 1960s; these advances have brought about important changes in the practices of ECEC.They focus particularly on the idea of childcare support after World War II when it was suggested that children be enrolled in preschools as a plan for decreasing the rate of poverty.The current Head Start program is an ongoing example of this strategy.Prochner and Robertson also identify three current and apparent themes in ECEC as a result of these advances: the integration of services both for children and their families, new ideas for curricula
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".