The brain drain on the economy may be child’s play – Vancouver Sun, Sept 16, 2009.
For those who work with preschool children or those who have studied early childhood development, this article is not totally surprising. The first 5 years of life are a huge factor in the development of a person’s behaviour and abilities.
According to the HELP study, which tracked 140,000 students over a decade, just under 30 per cent of B.C. children entering kindergarten are “developmentally vulnerable” — lacking in those basic skills they need to thrive in school and in the future. The study considers a rate of child vulnerability above 10 per cent as “biologically unnecessary.”
“Economic analyses,” the study states, “reveal this depletion (in human capital) will cause B.C. to forgo 20 per cent GDP growth over the next 60 years.
These are no small numbers. This may be the first time I’ve seen early child development study results accompanied with a GDP number.
In the past, Kershaw said, we have been looking at the value in education all wrong — completely backwards, in fact. It used to be, he said, that governments hoping to stimulate economic activity would throw the bulk of their resources behind secondary and post-secondary education.
But the most effective use of educational funds to stimulate the economy, Kershaw said, would be to invest in the early years, even before kindergarten, when children’s work and study habits are most malleable.
“The early development research,” the report states, “is now so compelling that there is a growing consensus among economists, such as Nobel laureate James Heckman, that the most cost-effective human capital interventions occur among young children.”
If you think about the money we poor into education, you probably think first of school-age children from K – 12. You may then think about post-secondary schools needing funding for their programs. However, we seldom ever think of preschool education as needing education funding. In fact, preschool is something parents have to pay for on their own. So how many families can afford to put their kids into preschool?
The report that Pete McMartin quotes summarizes its recommendations by calling for more time for parents to spend with their children, especially in the early years. It also recommends more day care services. This recommendation reminds me of a few federal elections ago where the federal Liberals were promoting a universal day care program for the nation; whereas, the Conservatives said $1,200 a year for each child would suffice. This recommendation definitely dovetails together with the idea of universal day care. However, what will the quality of this day care be? Will it be educational in content or simply a babysitting type service?
AMONG ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, THE REPORT CALLS FOR:
- Extend parental leave from a year to 18 months, with additional months for fathers.
- Redefine full-time work for parents with children over 18 months “to accommodate shorter annual working hour norms without exacerbating gender inequalities in the labour market.”
- Increase income support for poor families with children.
- Increase affordable daycare services.
In other words, make policies that allow parents to maximize the time they can spend with a child during his or her earliest years, and during a parent’s leave, and provide support when the parents return to the workforce.
The cost of these recommendations? About $3 billion annually, the study estimates. The cost of maintaining the status quo?
More generations of vulnerable children, Kershaw maintains, and an economy to match.