The Alberta Teachers’ Association

On January 10, Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk released a 10-point plan to address what he sees as the most challenging issues facing education today. One item on his to-do list called for a review of the learning benefits of full-day kindergarten.

The review is redundant. In 2003, the Alberta Commission on Learning (ACOL) released a report that made two recommendations for junior and full-day kindergarten, neither of which has been implemented.

The ACOL report presented an eloquent case for the benefits of ­expanded kindergarten programs. The report quoted the late Dr. Fraser Mustard who, in an article to the World Bank, wrote: “The increasing evidence that the early period of child development affects cognition, learning, and behavior in the later stages of life … is creating a broader consensus about the fundamental importance of the early years of ­development.”

The ACOL report also cited a Michigan study on the Perry ­Preschool program for at-risk children. That study shows that high-quality, ­active learning preschool programs created adults who had higher levels of earnings, higher levels of home ownership, greater levels of school completion, lower levels of receiving social services and significantly fewer criminal arrests (particularly for drug-related offences). Although the cost of the Perry program was $12,000 (US) per child, it produced a benefit in earnings to the individual and savings for society to the tune of $108,000 (US).

The ACOL report cited studies from Edmonton, Calgary and Northern Lights School Division espousing the value of junior-­kindergarten and full-day kindergarten. A comprehensive review of research presented by the Calgary Board of Education stated: “All ­studies indicated a positive relation between participation in full-day kindergarten and subsequent school performance. Higher achievement in academic ­development as well as greater growth in social and behavioural development is consistently reported.”

Despite overwhelming evidence, the Alberta government placed the recommendations under review, where they remained for two and a half years after the report’s release and after 87 of the 95 recommendations were accepted.

In her five-year retrospective on the commission, chair Patricia ­Mackenzie noted: “Government did not support either of these recommendations, but stakeholder groups are united in their concerns for ­further development and funding for early childhood programs.”

Premier Alison Redford made full-day kindergarten a plank in her education platform during her bid for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, which likely explains why the issue is included in ­Lukaszuk’s 10-point plan. Unfortunately, the language used in the ­minister’s plan is noncommittal. It states: “Reviewing the learning benefits of full-day kindergarten and identifying operational issues will help us better understand the implications of a possible future programming change.”

Between October 2003 and April 2006, the government reviewed these issues and has had the opportunity to review them in the five years since. The learning benefits are absolutely clear, and operational issues, such as finding more space to accommodate more students, should be part of an action plan not part of a review. 

I taught junior high and high school and though I didn’t see the direct effect of the work of my colleagues teaching kindergarten, I did see what happened when at-risk students did not get their needs met in the early years. Missed learning opportunities compounded year after year for these children until they reached a point where they believed that they were incapable of learning.

We cannot afford to allow more students to enter our school systems without the benefits of these invaluable early learning opportunities. The time for review is past.