INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Him along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been Rimed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Mkirdfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 7908136

DICKSON, WILLIAM RUSHHORTH INVOLVEMENT BY DECREE: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATION BY LEGISLATIVE MANDATE. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, PH.D., 1978

University Micrdfilms International 300 n. ztEB ro ad , ann arb o r, mi 4b io g

© Copyright by William Rushworth Dickson 1978 INVOLVEMENT BY DECREE: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

IN EDUCATION BY LEGISLATIVE MANDATE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By .

William Rushworth Dickson, B.A., B.Ed., M.Ed.

*****

The Ohio State University

1978

Reading Committee: Approved by:

Luvern L. Cunningham

Richard C. Snyder

Russell J. Spillman Department of Educational Admini stration ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express gratitude to his advisor,

Dr. Vern Cunningham, for his continuing interest, encouragement and

advice, and to Dr. Russ Spillman and Dr. Dick Snyder for their

assistance and support. These men have been friends as well as mentors.

Appreciation is also expressed to all persons interviewed

in the study. In every case, time was taken from heavy workloads and

generously given to the writer. Thanks are extended to the staff in

the Alberta Department of Education, the Calgary and Edmonton Public

Libraries and the Libraries of the University of Alberta and the

University of Calgary. To Linda Spivak, thanks are extended for the

typing of the manuscript.

This study was made possible through an Alumni Research Grant

from The Ohio State University, the 1978 Flesher Fellowship as esta­ blished by Drs. William R. and Marie A. Flesher, and a doctoral

fellowship from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada, to all of whom the writer is very grateful.

Finally, to his wife, Karen, and to his children, Sandy,

Gordon, and Jim, who shared fully in the dissertation experience, the writer expresses his love and gratitude. VITA

August 8, 1940 ...... Born - Calgary, Alberta, Canada

1961 ...... B .A., The University of Alberta

1963-1976...... Teacher, Assistant Principal, Assistant to the Chief Superintendent, Calgary Board of Education

1964 ...... B.Ed., The University of Calgary

1970 ...... M.Ed., The University of British Columbia

1976-1978...... Administrative Associate, Office of the Vice President for Personnel Services, The Ohio State University

1978 ...... Acting Associate Superintendent, Continuing Education, Calgary Board of Education

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Educational Administration

Studies in Policymaking. Professors Luvern L. Cunningham and Raphael 0. Nystrand

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF F I G U R E S ...... X

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Background ...... 1 Statement of Purpose ...... 5 Significance of the Study ...... 8 Limitations of the Study ...... 9 Chapter Organization ...... 9

II. RELATED LITERATURE ...... 10

Theoretical Framework ...... 10 Introduction ...... 10 The Lasswell Social Process Model ...... 13 V a l u e s ...... 14 Components of the Social Process ...... 16 The Lasswell Decision Process Model .... 19 The Lasswell G r i d ...... 21 Studies of Policy Development ...... 24 Educational Governance and Citizen Involvement. 31 Governance of Early Childhood Education .... 41

III. METHODOLOGY ...... 52

Introduction ...... 52 Methodology and Theoretical Framework . . . . . 52 Case Study Research...... 53 Data Collection...... 55 Interviews with Key Participants ...... 55 Primary Documents ...... 60 Data Analysis...... 60 Limitations of the M e t h o d ...... 62 iv Page IV. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE ...... 64

Introduction ...... 64 The Alberta Context...... 64 The Development of ECS Policy in Alberta . . . 73 Introduction ...... 73 The M i d - S i x t i e s ...... 76 The Late Sixties...... 84 The Early S e v e n t i e s ...... 91 The Eve of ECS, 1972-1973 ...... 108 Alberta's Early Childhood Services, 1973-1974 135

V. ECS POLICYMAKING IN A LASSWELLIAN FRAMEWORK . . . 151

Introduction: Participants in the Social Process ...... 151 The Provincial Government ...... 152 Perspectives ...... 153 Situations...... 154 Base V a l u e s ...... 155 Strategies...... 157 O u t c o m e ...... 158 E f f e c t s ...... 158 The Department of Education...... 159 Perspectives ...... 159 Situations...... 160 Base Values ...... 161 Strategies...... 162 O u t c o m e ...... 162 E f f e c t s ...... 162 Other Government D e p a r t m e n t s...... 163 Perspectives ...... 163 Situations...... 164 Base Values ...... 165 Strategies...... 166 O u t c o m e ...... 166 E f f e c t s ...... 166 The Minister's Advisory Committees ...... 167 Perspectives ...... 167 Situations...... 168 Base V a l u e s ...... 169 Strategies ...... 169 O u t c o m e ...... 170 E f f e c t s ...... 170 The Commission on Educational Planning .... 170 Perspectives ...... 171 Situations...... 172 Base V a l u e s ...... 172 v Page Strategies...... 173 O u t c o m e ...... 173 Effects ...... 174 The U n i v e r s i t i e s ...... 174 Perspectives ...... 175 Situations...... 175 Base V a l u e s ...... 176 Strategies...... 176 O u t c o m e ...... 177 E f f e c t s ...... 178 The Alberta Teachers' Association ...... 178 Perspectives...... 178 Situations ...... 179 Base V a l u e s ...... 180 Strategies...... 181 O u t c o m e ...... 181 E f f e c t s ...... 181 The Alberta School Trustees' Association . . . 182 Perspectives ...... 182 Situations...... 183 Base V a l u e s ...... 184 Strategies...... 185 O u t c o m e ...... 185 E f f e c t s ...... 186 Other Provincial Organizations ...... 186 Perspectives ...... 186 Situations...... 187 Base V a l u e s ...... 188 Strategies...... 189 O u t c o m e ...... 189 E f f e c t s ...... 190 Local Organizations...... 190 Perspectives ...... 191 Situations...... 191 Base V a l u e s ...... 192 Strategies...... 192 O u t c o m e ...... 193 E f f e c t s ...... 193 Local School B o a r d s ...... 194 Perspectives ...... 194 Situations ...... 194 Base Values ...... 195 Strategies...... 196 O u t c o m e ...... 196 E f f e c t s ...... 196 The Early Childhood Services Policy Decision Process ...... 197 vi

* Page

Intelligence ...... 197 P r o m o t i o n ...... 200 Prescription ...... 201 Invocation and Application ...... 202 Termination ...... 204 A p p r a i s a l ...... 204

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 206

The S t u d y ...... 206 Conclusions ...... 208 Answers to Research Questions ...... 208 Social Process Participants: Individuals, Groups, Value Shapers, Value Sharers ...... 211 Perspectives: Value Demands, Expectations, Identities, Myths ...... 213 Situations: Spatial, Temporal, Organized, Unorganized, Values, Crisis, Intercrisis ...... 214 Base Values: Positive Assets, Negative Assets ...... 216 Strategies: Coercive, Persuasive ...... 217 Outcome: Value Indulgences, Value D e p r i v a t i o n s ...... 219 Effects: Values, Institutions ...... 220 Implications ...... 221 For P o l i c y m a k e r s ...... 221 For Further Research ...... 222

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 224

APPENDICES

A. Persons Interviewed ...... 240

B. Alberta ECS Policy Statement ...... 244

C. California ECE Policy Statement ...... 300

D. Sample Letter Requesting Interview ...... 313

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. The Lasswell Social Process Model ...... 17

2 . The Lasswell G r i d ...... 23

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Mandatory Involvement Model, E C E ...... 45

2. Alberta Department of Education...... 71

ix CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

This study is an examination of the policymaking which resulted in Alberta's Early Childhood Services (ECS) program, approved by the provincial Government and implemented in 1973. More specifi­ cally, it is a study of the policymaking which contributed to the mandatory citizen involvement component of that program of preschool education and complementary early childhood social services.

Local control, in the sense of locally-constituted systems of governance, is a hallmark of public education in most of Canada and the United States. In both countries, it has been a major factor in the development of educational programs and delivery systems (Campbell,

Cunningham, Nystrand, and Usdan, 1975; OECD, 1976; Stamp and Wilson,

1970; Tyack, 1974). Meranto has illustrated the use of local control as an article of faith in times of educational crises (Meranto, 1970).

However, in recent years the concept of local control of public education has apparently been bypassed by provincial, or state, or federal governments enacting legislation which mandates citizen involvement in local school systems: citizen involvement other than that of elected boards of education (Berke and Kirst, 1972); CEA,

1975; Meranto, 1967; Safran, 1974). How and why such legislation is

1 2

developed are questions of major concern to clients, practitioners, and students of public education and public policymaking. These are the questions which caused the investigator to initiate this study.

Involvement by decree is something of a paradox. Traditional democratic theory calls for grassroots involvement of citizens, electing their representatives to a local policymaking body like a board of education. The elected board then makes policies which are consistent with the needs and wishes of its citizen constituents.

Theoretically, the provincial or state or federal government is supportive of local control and local policymaking because it brings the policymaking closer to those who are directly affected by the policies (Dye and Zeigler, 1972). In a situation of involvement by decree, however, the provincial (or state or federal) government makes policy which bypasses the local policymaking board and mandates grassroots involvement: involvement similar to that proposed in democratic theory, but controlled and monitored by the provincial

Government.

Citizen involvement as the term is used in this study includes the participation of parents, representatives of service agencies other than school systems, and other citizens in planning, delivery of service, and evaluation activities which constitute Early Childhood

Services in Alberta communities. Mandate is defined for operational purposes as an order with penalty for noncompliance. In Alberta's

ECS program, the penalty is withholding of provincial funding.

Section 7, the Department of Education Act, 1973, and Operational 3

Plans for Early Childhood Services/ are the Government policy state­ ment on Early Childhood Services and have the authority of law with respect to the operation of ECS in Alberta (see Appendix B). This type of mandated citizen involvement is similar to the citizen involve­ ment component of federal Government policy in the United States for

Headstart programs, and for Title I programs under the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (Berke and Kirst, 1972; Gordon, 1970;

Meranto, 1967). It is increasingly a feature of state education policy, one example of which is California's Early Childhood Education policy (see Appendix C). Elsewhere in Canada, Quebec has recently mandated regional and school-level citizen advisory councils (CEA,

1975). The OECD's (Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development) external examination team regarded citizen involvement at the local and school building level as one of the most critical issues in Canada's public education systems (OECD, 1976, pp.65-74).

In Alberta, the control of local schools by elected school boards has been carefully prescribed by the School Act, the Regulations of the Minister of Education and the Department of Education.

However, the reins were loosened in the sixties, and local control would seem to have made major gains with the 1970 rewriting of the

School Act which extended local board appointment of superintendents province-wide (Chalmers, 1967; Government of the Province of Alberta,

1974, Section 65; Mowat, 1970; Stringham, 1974). From this stand­ point, the Alberta Government's enactment of the Department of Edu­ cation Act and approval of Operational Plans for Early Childhood 4

Services in 1973 would appear to have interrupted the delegation of

power to local boards. Through this action, the Government provided

for provincially-funded Early Childhood Services, but did so with

mandated citizen involvement which bypassed locally-elected school

boards. ECS programs could be initiated as part of existing school

systems, or by citizens outside school systems. In both cases, local

(building-level) ECS advisory committees (consisting of a majority

of parent representatives, and representatives of community agencies),

and parent and community involvement in the delivery of services were

prerequisites for Government approval of each ECS program. Government

funding, of course, depended on such approval (Government of the

Province of Alberta, March 1973). Parent and community involvement

was deliberately not left as a local board responsibility, despite

previously legislated authority for local boards with respect to

involvement (Government of the Province of Alberta, 1974; Sections 12,

(2), (b); 65, (4), (h); 65, (5); 92, (1), (b); 138, (a); 155).

The Government's decision to establish a program of Early

Childhood Services was not made lightly or spontaneously. It followed

several years of public pressure and debate with respect to early

childhood education, and the public announcement of Early Childhood

Services came soon after submission of the report of the Commission on

Educational Planning. The "Worth Commission" (as the Commission was

popularly known after its Commissioner, Walter H. Worth) was estab­

lished by the Alberta Government in 1969. Its charge was a study of

Alberta society to determine and examine social and economic trends 5

and the needs of individuals. Based on its findings, the Commission was to "establish bases for the priority judgments of Government with respect to the course of public education in Alberta for the next decade", and "recommend on the appropriate permanent structures and processes for the administration and co-ordination of the total educational organization and for long-range educational planning"

(Worth, 1972, p.304).

Over a three-year period, the Commission on Educational Plan­ ning conducted extensive research studies in conjunction with Alberta's

Human Resources Research Council; it invited and received submissions and held a variety of public meetings, hearings, conferences and seminars; and it established three task forces which conducted in-depth analysis in the areas of N-12 (nursery to grade twelve), post-secondary, and life-long education. While its focus was Alberta's society and public education in relation to that society, the Commission's search for information for the generation of recommendations was international.

The Commission Report which was published and presented in 1972 contained ten top priority proposals for Government action. The first of these was, "provision of universal opportunity and selective experience in early education" (Worth, 1972, p.300). Alberta's

Legislative Assembly soon indicated agreement with the priority ranking for early childhood education, with passage of Early Childhood Services legislation. This legislation was made a part of the Department of

Education Act rather than a section of the Alberta School Act which includes most legislation pertaining to public education in the 6

Province's elementary and secondary schools.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the policymaking

which resulted in Alberta's ECS program and particularly its mandated

citizen involvement component. There were two major objectives to

be achieved in the study. One objective was the analysis and inter­

pretation of policymaking processes involved in the development of

ECS, using Harold Lasswell's Social Process Model, Decision Process

Model, and the Lasswell Grid. Together, these were used as a

theoretical framework for the design of the study and the analysis of

data collected in the course of the study; this theoretical framework

is explained in Chapter II. The other objective was the identification

of factors and the interactions thereof, which contributed to the

Government decision to use a legislative mandate for citizen involve­

ment as a means of achieving the parental and other community in­

volvement considered desirable in the ECS program. Both objectives

were pursued through an exploratory case study guided by the Lasswellian

framework which provided for the study of individuals and groups and

their interacting relationships in the social context of policymaking.

Data were collected through interviews with key participants and from

primary documents.

Initial research questions were as follows, although others were

generated as the study progressed: 7

1. How did the Worth Commission contribute to ECS policy and particularly to the mandatory citizen involvement component of the policy?

2. What were the contributions of major educational interest groups— the Alberta Teachers* Association, the Alberta School Trustees' Association, the Alberta Federation of Home and School Associations, the Alberta Labor Council, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce— to the ECS policy and particularly to the mandatory citizen involvement component of the policy?

3. What were the contributions of Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Department of Education, educational experts from Alberta's universities, school district personnel (i.e., trustees, administrators, teachers not acting as official spokespersons for their provincial associations) to the ECS policy and particularly to the mandatory citizen involvement component of the policy?

4. What were the contributions of social service interests related to education and child care/child development, to the ECS policy and particularly to the mandatory citizen involvement of the policy?

5. Who orchestrated the contributions referred to in questions 1 through 4, and how was this done?

6. What were Alberta's legislative precedents for mandated citizen involvement?

7. To what extent did the policymakers rely on legislation and/or practice elsewhere in Canada and other countries relative to ECS?

8. What was the rationale (s) for mandating citizen involve­ ment (as stated in government policy), and how did this relate to the rationale(s) perceived by the architects of the policy?

9. What were the political relationships and the configurations of power and influence among the participants which were main­ tained , changed and/or developed during the policymaking process?

10. Did individuals and/or groups express dissatisfaction with existing citizen involvement in public education in the formative states of the ECS policy, and if so, what was the nature of that dissatisfaction? 8

Significance of the Study

The reasons for a provincial government mandating citizen involvement at the local level and bypassing established local governance structures to do so are important to clients; practitioners and students of public education. The same is true for the processes involved in developing the necessary legislation. For education's clients (the citizens), findings of this study suggest ways in which policymaking processes may be influenced.

For the practitioner— teacher, administrator, board member or provincial government staff member— the study serves the same function as for the client. Moreover, the study provides the practitioner with an appreciation of how makers of provincial government policy view the missions of public education and the effectiveness of current structures and services in meeting identified needs. For students of public education and policymaking, the findings of this study provide a foundation, and hopefully a provocation, for further research. Other studies have been done of government policymaking which included a mandatory citizen involvement component, as indicated in Chapter II. However, those studies have not made the mandatory involvement component their major concern.

Limitations of the Study

This study is an exploratory case study of policymaking for

ECS in Alberta. While references are made to similarities and 9

differences in California's Early Childhood Education program, no

attempt is made at comparative case studies. Findings cannot be

generalized beyond the unit of study without further research, except

to other cases of policy development with components similar to those

described in Chapter V. Methodological limitations are dealt with in

Chapter III.

Chapter Organization

Chapter I is an introduction to the study, consisting of the

• background, and the purpose of the study together with comments on

its significance and limitations. In Chapter II, literature

pertinent to the study is reviewed. The theoretical framework is

explained and selected studies of policy development are noted.

Educational governance is discussed with respect to citizen involvement

and early childhood education.

The methodology employed in the study is described in Chapter

III in terms of its relationship to the theoretical framework, the

nature of case study research, data collection and analysis, and

study limitations. Chapter IV is an historical narrative of the

development of Alberta's Early Childhood Services policy. In

Chapter V that policy development is interpreted and analyzed using

the Lasswellian framework. Chapter VI contains conclusions, and the

implications of those conclusions for policymakers and for further

research. CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

Theoretical Framework

Introduction

The subject matter is the development of public policy relative to early childhood services in Alberta. Bauer distinguishes policies from routine and tactical decisions and actions in terms of policies' more extensive ramifications, longer time perspective, and issue-related factors requiring more information and study (Bauer,

1968). Public policymaking, as governmental decision and action, is becoming the focus of political science (Dye, 1978, p.5). However, the configuration of disciplines which focus upon public policy­ making is the policy sciences.

Dror's explanation of policy sciences is the study and application of decision-making processes involving individuals, groups and organizations, and using public policymaking perspectives

(Dror, 1971, p.51). Dror's mentor, the major spokesman for policy sciences over the past twenty-seven years,is Harold Lasswell. The latter's concise working definition is that, "the policy sciences are concerned with knowledge o£ and in the decision processes of the j public and civic order" (Lasswell, 1971, p.l). Elsewhere, Lasswell indicates the distinguishing characteristics of the policy sciences; 10 11

contextuality which requires a comprehensive cognitive map of the social processes in which the particular policymaking takes place; a problem orientation which includes the five intellectual tasks of goal clarification, trend description, analysis of conditioning factors, projection of future developments, and the invention, evaluation and selection of alternative strategies for gsal achievement; and a distinctive synthesis of technique which favors a multi-method approach to research and application and which interrelates principles of content and principles of procedure (Lasswell, 1970).

The domain of policy sciences is almost infinite, crossing the content boundaries of most "established" disciplines and professions.

The social context of a particular instance of public policymaking, such as the development of ECS in Alberta, reflects the same inclu­ siveness and adds to it the temporal dimension of past-present-future.

This aggregative nature of public policymaking makes a theoretical framework or model necessary for the meaningful observation and interpretation of policymaking activity (Dror, 1968, pp.199-200).

A theoretical framework for policymaking should provide a simplified perspective which distinguishes major features of structure and process. Dye assesses the usefulness of public policy models or frameworks in terms of their effectiveness in serving the following purposes; ordering and simplifying political activity for greater clarity of analysis; identification of the significant aspects of public policy; providing congruence with reality; and assistance in directing research, and in suggesting cause-effect hypotheses 12

(Dye, 1978, pp.39-40). Institutionalism, group theory, elite theory,

rationalism, incrementalism, game theory and systems models have been used for analysis of policy development, but each of these models has limitations (Dye, 1978, pp.20-39). The institutional model neglects factors outside official government bodies. Group theory tends to oversimplify political activity by viewing it all as

successive struggles and balances among competing groups. Elite theory focuses on the values and decisions of small governing elites, and rationalism presumes an all-knowing efficiency which tends to disregard the human element in policymaking. Game theory provides a model for competitive decision-making by purely rational beings, and incrementalism downplays rationality in favor of a pragmatic, additive approach to policymaking with little room for creativity.

The systems model as developed by Easton provides a clear "macro­ view" of policy development in a social context, but the "micro­ views" of the interactions within the system and between the system and its environment are no't given adequate attention (Easton, 1965).

Peterson advocates the use of different models for different types of policy development situations. He proposes four models

(pluralist bargaining,.ideological bargaining, rational unitary, and organizational unitary), each of which provides a perspective which he finds more useful than the others to explain particular political phenomena. The two bargaining models are useful for considering the multitude of forces in policymaking, and the two unitary models are useful for viewing constraints on alternative courses of action 13

(Peterson, 1976).

Dror's optimal model of public policymaking is a very compre­ hensive framework which is capable of incorporating most of the benefits, and overcoming the limitations of Peterson's and the preceding models (Dror, 1968, pp.154-213). However, the Dror model is specifically designed for improved ("optimal") policymaking.

This future orientation limits its usefulness in the retrospective analysis required for a study of Alberta's ECS policy development.

The Lasswell Social Process Model

The Social Process Model developed by Lasswell is useful for retrospective analysis. It is not an optimal model for comparison with actual past and contemporary policymaking, but rather an encom­ passing framework which places actual policymaking in a social context of change. Lasswell*s model does not preclude use of any of the preceding models to explain policymaking phenomena; it does provide a contextual framework within which such explanations may be under­ stood. Explicit awareness of the spatial and temporal context within which human beings, groups, and governments interact is the theme underlying the Social Process Model (Lasswell, 1971, pp.14-15).

Every social process consists of the interaction of participants in and with a resource environment. Lasswell notes that participation is selective, involving choice by participants and alternative interactions within the process. He explains selectivity in terms of,

"the maximization postulate, which holds that living forms are 14

predisposed to complete acts in ways that are perceived to leave the actor better off than if he had completed them differently"

(Lasswell, 1971, p.16).

Values

The student of policymaking must first identify culminating outcomes (i.e., very desirable or undesirable outcomes of action, in terms of social values) in order to differentiate various interactions within the social process. Interaction is defined as, "any sequence of events among participants in a social process whose relationship to value outcomes can be conveniently characterized" (Lasswell and

Holmberg, 1969, p.368). Lasswell has developed eight value categories which classify virtually all values or preferred outcomes; they characterize the complete repertoire of the human motivational system

(Smith, 1969, p.79). The eight values are power, enlightenment, wealth, well-being, skill, affection, respect and rectitude.

Each value has particular patterns of practice which are used in the production (shaping) and consumption (sharing) of that value's characteristic outcomes. These patterns of practice are the institutions of society, formalized in familiar organizations and structures. Power institutions include governments, political parties, unions, and the lobbying of interest groups; power outcomes include legislative and administrative decisions or votes. Enlightenment institutions such as universities, research institutes and the press shape and share knowledge. Commerce, industry and banking are 15

examples of wealth institutions, and market transactions are their outcomes. Institutions of well-being include hospitals, social service agencies, police and fire departments, with vitality outcomes of health, sustenance and safety. Skill institutions, of which elementary and secondary schools, apprenticeships and professional associations are examples, have as performance outcomes, skill development and the setting and application of standards of skill performance. Families and patriotic organizations are institutions of affection with cordiality outcomes of love and loyalty. Respect institutions, like elite private clubs, confer prestige as an outcome.

Churches and courts of law are institutions of rectitude which have as rightness value outcomes, the establishment and maintenance of standards of social responsibility (Lasswell, 1958 and 1971;

Slonaker and Burgess, 1975). It should be noted that these value outcomes are not always "happy endings"; in each case, the outcome for the participant may be either a value deprivation resulting in a worsened position in the social process, or a value indulgence giving the participant an improved position in the social process. Lasswell distinguishes between a value outcome pursued for investment, as an end in itself, and a value outcome pursued for consumption, as a base for shaping and sharing other value outcomes; he refers to the former as a base value, and the latter as a scope value. Then he uses this distinction and the indulgence-deprivation distinction to argue that the basic economic formula, "gross assets - liabilities = net assets", is applicable to the calculation of value change for all 16

eight values (Lasswell/ 1971, pp.3, 20-21).

Components of the Social Process

Value changes, as indicated, take place in the social process model which Lasswell summarizes as follows:

Participants «•* seeking to maximize values (gratifying outcomes) **■ utilize institutions >** affecting resources. (Lasswell, 1971, p.18)

(The two-way arrows indicate interaction.) Table 1 on the following page elaborates the components of the social process.- Participants

are all the people interacting as individuals or groups in the social

context of the policy which is being analyzed. In each of the eight value areas, the participants function in varying degrees as value

shapers and sharers. For some, the shaping and/or sharing function

is officially assigned (e.g., a legislative committee gathering

information to support passage of a bill in the legislative assembly).

For others, the function is performed unofficially (e.g., a demo­

grapher whose data are acquired by that committee for passage of the bill).

Perspectives are the events in the social process as seen by

the participants. Value demands can be made on the self or others by

individual and group participants. Demand perspectives can be

classified in terms of the eight value categories. Expectations are

the day-to-day relationships assumed and projected by participants between past, present, and future events. Identity perspectives are the individual and group self referrents and other referrents. TABLE 1

THE LASSWELL SOCIAL PROCESS MODEL*

participants seeking to maximize values 4 ■■ i» utilize institutions 4 affecting resources

PARTICIPANTS PERSPECTIVES SITUATIONS BASE VALUES STRATEGIES OUTCOMES EFFECTS Individuals Value Demands Spatial Positive Assets Coercive Value Values indulgences accumulation Groups Expectations Temporal Negative Assets Persuasive deprivations enjoyment (power (polarity: (decision distribution Value Shapers Identities Organized enlightenment multi- knowledge official wealth pluri- transaction Institutions nonofficial Myths Unorganized well-being tri- vitality structure doctrines skill bi- performance function Value Sharers formulas Values affection uni-) cordiality innovation official mirandas inclusive respect prestige diffusion nonofficial exclusive recti tude) rightness) restriction

C risis

Intercrisis

•Contents and format are based on Harold D. Lasswell. Politics: Who Gets What. When. How (Mew York: The World Publishing Company-reprint ed. 1958) and A Preview of Policy Sciences (New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company. Inc., 1971). 18

Examples of self referrents are "me", and "we educators1'; examples of other referrents are "she", and "those social workers". Lasswell uses the term, myth to cover patterns of individual and group per­ spective which constitute distinctive belief systems. Within the myths which distinguish different participants are doctrines

(philosophy), formulas (norms of behavior) and mirandas (popular expressions of the belief system).

Situations are the spatial and temporal contexts of inter­ actions. They vary in degree of organization, in the extent to which different values are present, and in the level of crisis.

Base values in the model refer to positive and negative assets of participants: positive and negative in terms of value indulgence and deprivation for the eight values. Base values indicate what the participant has to work with, to manage, in order to maximize value outcomes in the social process. Strategies are the ways of managing those base values. Coercive and persuasive are two broad categories of strategies, and the variations in polarity are indicative of the variety of value combinations.

Culminating outcomes have been dealt with in terms of value indulgences and deprivations. The outcomes of decision, knowledge, transaction, vitality, performance, cordiality, prestige, and rightness correspond to the base values of power, enlightenment, wealth, well-being, skill, affection, respect, and rectitude, in the same order. Under effects, the model classifies changes in value allocation (accumulation, enjoyment, distribution), and in institutions 19

or patterns of practice (structure, function, innovation, diffusion

and restriction) which result from the social process and provide

a changed context for subsequent social processes (Lasswell, 1958,

p.203; 1971, pp.24-26).

The Lasswell Decision Process Model

In analyzing the policy development process as a type of

social process the base value and the institution of major concern

are power and government; the .outcome is decision. The social process

model may be paraphrased as a political process model:

We think of politics in terms of participants (with identifications, demands, expectations; with control over base values) interacting in arenas (situations in which decision outcomes are expected) employing strategies to maximize value indulgences over deprivations by influencing decision outcomes and hence effects. (Lasswell, 1958, p.208)

Decision outcomes are divided by Lasswell into seven outcomes or

decision phases: intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation,

application, termination, and appraisal. Taken sequentially

(although there is some overlapping), the seven decision phases

constitute a Decision Process Model which may be used for the

analysis of policymaking within the social process.. Lasswell's

Decision Process Model provides for a proactive interpretation of policymaking; for what Jantsch refers to as a "rational creative" view as opposed to a deterministic view of policymaking (Jantsch,

1970). 20

The intelligence phase of the decision process consists of

the gathering and dissemination of information pertinent to the

policy area, for use by the participants in the decision process.

Criteria which may be applied in a retrospective assessment of the

intelligence phase of a decision process (like that of Early Childhood

Services in Alberta) are dependability of sources and data,

comprehensiveness of the information, selectivity as to relevance

and significance of information, and creativity and openness in the

search and dissemination of information. Promotion is the mobili­

zation of support for the policy decision. Criteria for the .

assessment of promotional activities are rationality of argument,

integrativeness relative to different parties and factions, and

comprehensiveness relative to all community interests.

The prescription phase consists of the statement and the

legislating of the policy in the decision process; its assessment criteria are stability of expectation (relating to the enforceability), rationality or equity, and comprehensiveness in terms of anticipation of possible contingencies. Invocation is the planning and organi­

zation for implementation of the prescription or legislation; it may

include tentative application of the prescription to concrete events.

This phase may be assessed in terms of its timeliness relative to prescription and application timing, dependability or the congruity of what is authorized in the prescription and what occurs in practice, rationality or equity related to circumstance, and nonprovocativeness 21

in terms of potential overzealousness in the planning of, or

tentative application of, sanctions required by the prescription.

Application is the full implementation of the prescribed

legislation or policy decision. Criteria for assessment of the application phase are rationality and realism in the processes of communication and provision of human and material resources in application, and uniformity or consistency of application. Man-made prescriptions are not perfect; at some point every prescription will be cancelled, for modification or replacement. The termination phase provides for the cancellation of prescriptions, with criteria of timeliness in handling obsolete prescriptions, dependability and comprehensiveness of the argument(s) supporting termination, balance between expediting and inhibiting change, and ameliorativeness in terms of minimizing the destructive consequences of change. The final phase in the decision process is appraisal which provides for the monitoring and evaluation of the policy. This phase should be assessed using the criteria of dependability and rationality (relating to validity), comprehensiveness and selectivity relative to policy impact, independence of appraisers, and continuity in terms of built-in provision for on-going appraisal (Lasswell, 1971, pp.28-29,

86-93).

The Lasswell Grid

The Social Process Model provides the contextuality which

Lasswell requires for analysis in the policy sciences, and the 22

Decision Process Model adds definition to the context. For the problem orientation required for such analysis, as indicated earlier,

Lasswell uses five intellectual tasks: goal clarification, trend description, analysis of conditioning factors, projection of future developments, and the invention, evaluation and selection of alter­ native strategies for goal achievement. These five tasks can be used in combination with the eight values to form the Lasswell Grid shown in Table 2. The grid can be used as a framework to view past policy development from the problem orientations of all eight value sectors of the social process (Dunphy, 1977, pp.14-20). For each of the value sectors, the analyst can ask the following questions relative to the policy development and the time period being studied:

a. goal clarification - What future states were to be realized through the social process?

b. trend description - To what extent had prior and contemporary events approximated the preferred future states? What were the discrepancies?

c. analysis of conditions - What factors may have conditioned the direction and magnitude of the trends described?

d. projection of future developments - If the existing policies were to be continued, what would have been the probable future states resulting from those policies, and the discrepancies between those and the preferred future states?

e. invention, evaluation and selection of alternative strategies for goal achievement - What intermediate objectives and related strategies might have been used to achieve the preferred future states? (Slonaker and Burgess, 1975, p.16). TABLE 2 23 THE LASSWELL GRID*

INTELLECTUAL TASKS VALUES Conditioning Alternative Goal Trend Factors Projections Strategies

Power

Enlightenment

Wealth •

Well-Being

Skill

• Affection

Respect

Rectitude

'This grid format is used by Hubert Dunphy in "Policy Sciences for Everyman," New York, 1977. (Mimeographed). 24

Studies of Policy Development

In Chapter V , Alberta's ECS policy development is interpreted through the seven major components of the Social Process Model.

The Lasswell Grid is used to clarify participants' values and goals, and the Decision Process Model's seven phases are used to explain the ECS policy decision process. This section consists of a review of selected studies of policy development conducted by others: studies which add to our understanding of policymaking processes and the contexts and variables of those processes.

Bailey and Mosher analyze the forces and processes which culminated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of

1965 (Bailey and Mosher, 1968). They examine the contributions of, and interactions among congressional committees and individual members of Congress, the White House, the administration of the

United States Office of Education (USOE), experts outside government, and major interest groups such as the National Education Association and the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The authors perform a useful identification and analysis of the broad array of variables which contribute to educational legislation.

Kearney's study, on the other hand, focuses mainly on one source of policymaking input to ESEA 1965: President Johnson's Task

Force on Education (Kearney, 1967). Kearney's case study metho­ dology involves interviews with key participants and analysis of documents, and is similar to the methodology described in the next 25

chapter. His findings are consistent with the picture presented by

Bailey and Mosher. He concludes that many events occurred almost

simultaneously and worked together to produce ESEA 1965: the

President's Task Force, a USOE Task Force, the 1963 Dedham Conference

recommendations for federal aid, the Morse-Dent bill in Congress, and leadership by key individuals such as President Johnson and

Commissioner Keppel. Kearney notes that the most significant contribution of the L.B. Johnson Task Force may have been as a

legitimating agent for ideas already in existence. The untainted, objective image of a blue ribbon task force is seen as useful in building political support, and its usefulness underscores the importance of the perspectives of people outside the task force.

The perspectives of task force members are shown as complementing those of the "outsiders" to perpetuate the myth that ESEA was created by the "secret" presidential task force (Kearney, 1967, pp.282-283).

Different perspectives of the relative roles of federal, state, and local governments influenced ESEA Title I policymaking subsequent to the original ESEA legislation. Wirt and Kirst use Easton's systems model to study intergovernmental interaction in the application of Title I. They conclude that changes to Title I guidelines by the

United States Office of Education were not sufficient to make state and local education agencies react uniformly and in the manner intended by those who wrote the guidelines. Perspectives as to the proper delivery of educational services are seen to have guided reactions of 26

state or local agencies to the federal guidelines, with funding

requirements being met in some way that minimized compromising of

those perspectives (Wirt and Kirst, 1975). The recent National

Institute of Education (NIE) study of Title I administration in

eight states concludes that the federal government has been more

effective in having state and local education agencies address

dollar allocation responsibilities than responsibilities in program

development. While their conclusions are optimistic relative to

the intergovernmental model of Title I legislation, the researchers

find problems in state and local agency understanding of regulation

requirements, and rigidity in program responses (Goettel et al, 1977).

In Lasswellian terms, the NIE study findings illustrate the

importance of the prescription and invocation phases of the Decision

Process Model.

Rigidity in program response on the part of existing agencies was expected by the architects of the Economic Opportunity

Act (EOA) of 1964. Donovan's study of EOA policy development and implementation problems relates this expectation to the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity, an attempt to bypass the existing bureaucracy (Donovan, 1973). The attempted bypass is regarded as consistent with the policymaker's goal of "maximum feasible partici­ pation" of affected citizens, to give power to those not in "the establishment". Donovan emphasizes the key policymaking role of

President Johnson, but also notes that the situation was propitious for passage of the EOA legislation. He describes a coalescing of 27

forces: "Politics, social upheaval, and professionalized reform

were all moving toward a common point of decision" (Donovan, 1973,

p.25). Strategy is described here as including task forces which

involved experts inside and outside of government, as well as the

use of pilot projects in the development and successful promotion of

the legislation.

Matia Finn uses Lasswell's models to analyze the unsuccessful

promotion of federal legislation in the area of nutrition education.

She concludes that there has been an apparent imbalance among policy­ making participants, in that the participants promoting nutrition

education legislation have been individuals, while those opposing

such legislation have been representatives of large organizations.

Large organizations, particularly those in the wealth sector of the

social process, tend to be influential in legislative policymaking

(Finn, 1977).

Campbell and Layton study Chicago's application policymaking problems in school desegregation which followed passage of the Civil

Rights Act in 1964. Although they do not utilize Lasswell's concepts,

their conclusion that policy formation constitutes the resolution of values is consistent with the Social Process Model. Their study

illustrates the success of local forces in a federal control-local control confrontation, in a situation where key actors in the local government structure are perceived by federal power holders as essential power shapers in the federal election process (Campbell and Layton, 1969, pp.68-73). Peterson studies subsequent 28

developments in Chicago school desegregation, and analyzes the

highly complex social and intergovernmental context using three of

his models. He interprets the failure of Superintendent Redmond's

desegregation plan (using an ideological bargaining model)as a

victory for key participants who were committed to the neighborhood

school concept. Using an organizational model, the plan's failure

is due to the miscalculations of a bureaucratic school system

committed to traditional values and strategies, but operating in a novel and controversial situation. Viewed through a rational decision-making framework, the Chicago School Board is seen as

committed to racial stabilization, and its emasculation of the

Superintendent's plan is related to the Board's perception that it was not achievable (Peterson, 1976, pp.143-185).

Also in the Chicago context, Peterson looks at policymaking relative to decentralization of the school system. He distinguishes between administrative decentralization which involves administrative

job function and responsibility, and political decentralization which aims at more links between bureaucratic structures and citizens.

A further distinction is made within political decentralization, between formal representation (the creation and filling of citizen positions) and substantive representation (in which the citizen incumbents have some influence over policy). Peterson finds that the most effective political decentralization occurs when district residents elect their own representatives. Decentralization policy is seen to have been shaped by conflict between the board and its 29

staff. Peterson shows that the decentralization of a particular district was made possible through the joint forces of a strong community organization with exceptional leadership, availability of categorical federal funds and the "prestige, legitimacy and resources of the University of Chicago" (Peterson, 1976, pp.217-243).

When the Government of Alberta initiated the rewriting of

The School Act in 1969, the intent was decentralization of authority, toward more local autonomy for school districts. Bryant Stringham who chaired the administrative committee which coordinated the rewriting of the Act examines the rewriting process. He uses

Lasswell's Social Process Model along with other models to interpret the process, and finds that all major participant groups viewed the local autonomy issue as a means whereby greater power could be accumulated and exercised at the local level for their own benefit.

Stringham's primary finding, after comparing the actual process with several different models is that any similarities between particular theoretical frameworks and what actually occurred was unintentional and probably accidental. He concludes that the incremental model of policymaking was intuitively, rather than deliberately followed in the rewriting of the Act (Stringham, 1974).

Forgione studies and compares policymaking in three states in the initiation and implementation of early childhood education programs. While there are differences in process and content among the three states, he observes some general tendencies which occurred in varying degree in all three. Political savvy in terms of 30

legislative processes is seen as a key to successful promotion with

lobbying and timing critical, and with policymakers having to stay

in tune with the values of their state's political context. Early

childhood education reform is shown to have occurred through

evolution rather than revolution. Porgione notes that governments

tended to use special commissions or task forces to launch such

reform, with success in passing the reform partly dependent on

uncommitted funds available to underwrite program initiation. In

each of the three states, one elected official's determination and

leadership is found to have been a key factor in legislation and

implementation. Major stakeholder groups, concludes Porgione,

either maintained a low profile or were not actively involved. The

most successful legislative strategy employed is described as

consolidating early childhood education with broader reform measures,

with research being used to support previously developed policy

decisions (Forgione, 1977).

Policy development for the Early Childhood Services program

in Alberta has already been the subject of a case study. Jean Seguin,

in a thorough historical study, uses Easton's systems model and

Jantsch's rational creative action model for the analysis of participant interaction. He concludes that the development of ECS policy was a clear attempt at the utilization of a systems approach

(rather than an incremental approach) in public policy formation.

Seguin also notes the leadership role of professionals in education

in the policymaking process, and the use of interest group lobbying 31

as a promotion strategy (Seguin, 1977).

Educational Governance and Citizen Involvement

Traditional democratic theory regarding educational governance provides for local control by means of citizens' election of representatives who will promote and support those citizens' prefer­ ences through the formulation of appropriate policies, and who will

then direct their professional staff to implement the policies.

Evidence suggests that this picture of governance is an ideal, rather than a realistic reflection of current practice in public education.

Berke and Kirst, and Meranto document the extent’of federal government control of local education resulting from categorical funding of federally-initiated education programs. The conclusion reached in both studies is that, "He who pays the piper calls the tune". Local school systems must satisfy federal program requirements in order to qualify for federal funds. If this does not constitute local policy­ making by the federal government, then at least it is the federal government setting boundaries within which local policymaking is constrained (Berke and Kirst, 1972; Meranto, 1967).

State governments which historically have tended to leave most educational policymaking to local jurisdictions have in the

1960's and 1970's begun to take a more active interest in education.

Campbell and Mazzoni note that politicians have recognized education as a political issue at the state level, and are setting state policies which further mold the content of local policymaking 32

(Campbell and Mazzoni, 1976). State government action has been

taken in response to federal government action as well as to local

events and has included both financial and program legislation which

varies from permissive to mandatory in terms of impact on local

district policymaking (Bailey and Mosher, 1968; Cunningham et al.,

1978; Berke and Kirst, 1972; Safran, 1974).

Although in most local school districts, the elected school

board is the legally constituted governing body, and the super­

intendent is hired by, and responsible to the board for administration,

there is disagreement in research literature as to the relative

influence of citizens, board members and superintendents in local policymaking. Iannaccone and Lutz argue that school board policy­ making accommodates or is responsive to the educational needs and aspirations of the community, and that the superintendent operates in a manner consistent with those needs and aspirations. They support

their argument with studies indicating that shifts in a community's socio-economic status are related to changes in educational policies and programs. As the community changes, the gap widens between community needs and aspirations on one hand, and school system policies on the other; elections become more competitive, followed by changes in board membership and superintendent (Iannaccone and

Lutz, 1970).

In an attempted verification of the Iannaccone and Lutz model,

Eblen finds that the model might be sound for a district experiencing an upward shift in socio-economic status (SES) but that is is 33

questionnable for districts with declining SES fEblen( 1976). Boyd

examines David Minar's explanation of level of electoral conflict

as related to possession of management resources' (higher SES districts

have more management resources and therefore experience lower

electoral conflict; lower SES districts, the reverse); he concludes

that district political culture is more significant than management

resources, in explaining variance in levels of electoral conflict

and degree of superintendent autonomy (Boyd, 1974). Elsewhere,

Boyd maintains that the superintendent operates within a "zone of

tolerance" vis ji vis the board, and that conflict results when he

crosses the boundaries of that zone. With respect to relative

influence of citizens, board, and superintendent, Boyd concludes that

citizens and boards exert more influence in critical decisions

involving outside factors and/or changes in value allocation, and in

smaller more homogeneous communities. The corollary is that super­

intendents exert more influence in policymaking involving routine internal matters, and in larger, heterogenous communities (Boyd, 1976).

Zeigler and his colleagues, on the basis of rather extensive survey and longitudinal studies conclude that the traditional demo­ cratic model of local policymaking is a myth in public education.

Their overall conclusion (given some variation in interest group involvement, level of tension, and board conflict in rural and urban districts) is that superintendents are the dominant actors in local policymaking, and that their decisions are only occasionally made in the context of citizen participation. Where citizens are actively 34

involved through interest groups, there is a positive relationship between level of interest group activity, and size of district, and extent of public discontent; interest groups directly linked to the governing structure (teacher associations, etc.) tend to be most active. Greater tension and board opposition to superintendents, yet lower probability of board victory over the superintendent in metropolitan districts is explained by Zeigler in terms of the greater complexities of the urban environment. The complex environment is related to deference to professional expertise which characterizes the technological model, as opposed to the traditional democratic model. Superintendents' agenda control and high success rate in board approval of their policy recommendations tend to support the validity of the technological model (Zeigler, Jennings, and Peak,

1974; Zeigler, Tucker, and Wilson, 1976).

The technological model with its expert professional leading the elected "apolitical" board in policymaking, and directing the system was promoted by the Reform Movement in American politics. As historians note, that movement interacted with the growth of pro­ fessionalism in education and school system bureaucratization, especi­ ally in cities, to restrict opportunities for effective citizen involvement (Callahan, 1962; Chalmers, 1967; Tyack, 1974). The rhetoric of reform, professionalism and bureaucratization is seen as having been supportive of local democratic control and educational service responsive to citizens' needs, but the three movements combined to isolate and "protect" the schools and school systems from 35

their publics (Meranto, 1970). As a result of such "protection",

the dysfunctional bureaucracy behind the doors of 110 Livingstone

Street, New York City is uncomfortably representative of today's

large urban school systems (Rogers, 1968).

In the 1960's, citizens faced with problems of school finance, educational inequalities and lack of accountability were no longer satisfied with rhetoric. Confrontation and conflict occurred between citizens and the school systems. The result in New York City was

state-ordered decentralization which provided subsystems with boards and superintendents within the central system, but which, Gittel and others contend, resulted in only minimal citizen involvement (Gittel et al, 1973). O'Shea distinguishes between administrative and political decentralization and summarizes the former co-optation process as it developed in the Los Angeles Unified School System to maintain control in a situation of growing minority dissatisfaction

(O'Shea, 1974). The conclusion of Marie Stinson's study of Detroit's political decentralization is that for board members and superin­ tendents involved, "despite the fact that high rankings of importance were given to goals which provided for citizen participation in educational decision-making, low rankings were given to activities which would have involved parents, teachers or students in decision-

-making activities" (Stinson, 1977, p.206). Decentralization can easily become part of the lipservice paid to local democratic control and responsiveness. Indeed, "rhetoric rather than practice" is a frequent observation in studies of various mechanisms and 36

manifestations of citizen involvement in education (Cunningham and

Nystrand, 1969; Davies, 1973; NCCE, 1975; Stanwick, 1975).

Davies has compiled an extensive annotated bibliography for

Citizen Participation in Education. He describes participation in education as, "a proxy for a wide range of ideas, programs, issues, and mechanisms that touch nearly every aspect of educational policy and politics" (Davies, 1973, p.ix). The bibliography and Davies' comments reflect the concern and controversy of the sixties and early seventies relative to new citizen roles in the governance and control of public education.

Cunningham and Nystrand argue that the local democratic control theory is unrealistic for large urban school districts, because of the theory's assumption that citizens as individuals and groups influence board decisions by making their views known to board members.

Factors which hinder such a representative process include the large and heterogenous urban population, lack of board control over administrative bureaucracies and teacher organizations, and the fact that teaching and administrative staff are not necessarily district residents. .The authors survey citizen participation mechanisms in terms of level (system, building, etc.), sponsorship, membership and purpose, and note the problem of representativeness and the need for citizen members to continually demonstrate representativeness to both school officials and constituents. They conclude with recommendations for new and stronger participation mechanisms and linkages, including third party groups (Cunningham and Nystrand, 1969). 37

Cunningham explains third parties in terms of the over­ whelming burdens of responsibility carried by governing bodies and administration: government is turning to the people for help.

He compares the problem-solving commitment of Detroit's (third party)

Education Task Force to the "royal commission" type of task force whose responsibility terminated with the presentation of recom­ mendations. The fact that so many commission reports were shelved is related to the false assumption that the recipient bodies were capable of implementing recommendations for massive change. Third party task forces, however, can facilitate change. Among the

Detroit Education Task Force functions, Cunningham notes those of problem identification, definition, and solution; convener of citizens for particular purposes; forum for the review of issues and problems; proxy for disparate community interests; linkage between school system and the value sectors of Detroit society; legitimizer of school system goals and policy; and leadership to overcome the inertia and nonresponsiveness characteristic of large bureaucracies

(Cunningham, 1974).

In Public Testimony on Public Schools, the National Committee for Citizens in Education (NCCE) reports public concern regarding,

"problems in the responsiveness and control of local policy" (NCCE,

1975, p.11). Citizen participation is described in terms of three categories: involvement, in which citizens are interested and concerned; participation, in which there is a mechanism for action 38

(like a citizens' advisory council); and control, where citizens

have a real voice, a say in policymaking. The major policymaking

concerns presented to the NCCE hearings are reported as inadequate

and inflexible programs and policies, bureaucracy blocking access

to closed-door decision-making processes (blocked particularly

for the poor and minorities), and school policy unresponsive to

citizen groups seeking change. However, there is evidence that three

kinds of groups can change educational policy. First, an ongoing

group like an advisory council can influence policy if the admini­

strator concerned supports its input. Second, a group charged with

solving a specific, solvable, and well-defined problem can succeed

if it stays with that problem. Third, a group like the NAACP with

a strong base apart from education can influence educational policymaking when it turns its attention to school issues which affect group purposes (NCCE, 1975, p.61).

In its national survey, the Institute for Responsive

Education reports increasing numbers of citizens involved in different forms of educational decision-making, but is not sure this involve­ ment is making any inroads on professional domination of policymaking.

Citizen groups surveyed are policy groups (with a direct decision­ making role) and advisory groups (making recommendations to decision-

-makers) at different levels of decision-making, and non-profit groups with no formal relationship to school systems. The Institute finds that most respondents believed that increased citizen involvement would improve educational policymaking; and strong support is 39

uncovered for a predicted increase in involvement (Stanwick, 1975).

The same study reports that mandated citizen involvement is not uncommon. Safran's recent survey provides evidence that state government legislation mandating parent and community involvement is becoming more frequent. Of the forty-six states which returned useable responses, fourteen report a total of twenty-three laws requiring or recommending parent involvement in school activities or affairs. Safran categorizes over half of these laws as requiring', parent involvement in planning, evaluating or advising, less than a third as requiring involvement in implementation, and four laws as related to parent involvement in administrative appeals and parent consent matters. Based on the survey findings, California is the only state in which a single piece of legislation includes require­ ments for involvement in the program planning, evaluation and advising phases, and in the program implementation phases (Safran, 1974).

The same comprehensive approach was used by the Alberta government in its 1973 ECS legislation.

In Florida comprehensive legislation resulting from the

Governor's Citizens' Committee on Education recommendations in 1973, has mandated decentralization including school-level advisory committees in conjunction with school-based management, and a comple­ mentary school finance program. In an assessment of the Florida program, an external consulting team reports the committees increasing in number but with continuing problems experienced in membership, representativeness, and effectiveness. The team concludes that the 40

committees' worst problems are lack of significant power and authority, isolation, and lack of information. Control of membership by school system officials and communication problems among committees and constituents and schools are found to be common concerns. Committee participation in principal and staff selection processes is recommended by the consulting team, along with a statewide committee to monitor, and provide information, support staff and funding support to school committees (Cunningham et al, 1978).

Florida's committee problems are not unlike those reported in the eight state study of the administration of ESEA, Title I.

District and school-level parent advisory committees are mandatory under Title I. However, study findings indicate that most states have restricted parent involvement activities to meeting what they perceive to be the minimum federal requirements; generally, lack of state commitment is matched by a correspondingly low level of local concern regarding parent involvement. Parental participation and influence in decision-making is reported to follow three general patterns: considerable activity and influence of parent councils, related to strong school administration commitment for such involve­ ment (often pre-dating ESEA); variation at the building level, where system commitment stops at the district level; and minimal activity and influence where administrators have tried unsuccessfully, or have not tried, or have blocked development of parent involvement 41

mechanisms. A related conclusion in the ESEA study is that state education departments rely too heavily on superficial indicators of parent involvement (Goettel eit al, 1977).

Expectations of bureaucratic resistance to mandated citizen involvement have contributed to the creation of new offices, structures and agencies to circumvent "establishment roadblocks" and facilitate involvement. This occurred to some extent with ESEA implementation, and (as noted earlier) it was a deliberate strategy with the development of the Office of Economic Opportunity for administration of the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act (Bailey and

Mosher, 1968; Donovan, 1973). The same strategy has been utilized in the field too in Headstart and other programs under that Act

(Frost, 1968). Separate agencies and/or delivery systems can facilitate greater citizen involvement, but they can also increase conflicts related to turf control, complicate budget and grant systems, and create decision-making problems among agencies (Gans and Horton, 1975; Nystrand, 1967).

Governance of Early Childhood Education

Early Childhood Education (ECE) may include all educational programs and services related to children from infancy through the first three years of elementary school, as in long-term legislative perspectives in California and Alberta. However, it is the provision of educational and other human services to children five and under 42

five years of age which has been the subject of considerable legislative attention in the last two decades, and which is the focus of this section.

In the 1960's, different social forces in the United States contributed to the promotion of legislation providing for early childhood education. Those forces included public recognition of the problems of poverty, inequality of educational opportunities, discrimination against minorities, and inequality of employment opportunities for women. Federal legislation which established

Headstart and other ECE programs was intended to prevent and correct such problems. Emphasis was therefore given to parent involvement, to facilitate enrichment of the home environment for the child, and to the co-ordinated delivery of educational and other human services such as health care and social assistance. Proponents of ECE programs supported their case with research evidence, particularly the studies and conclusions presented by Bloom in Stability and Change in

Human Characteristics. Bloom on the basis of several studies, concluded that greater attention should be directed to the child's environment in the early years of childhood. He considered the early environment to be of crucial importance in view of the rapid growth of intelligence, language development, motor skills, social and emotional adjustment and aesthetic development during the first seven or eight years of life; and in view of the sequential nature of human development, and the difficulty of "unlearning" errors 43

(Bloom, 1964).

Bloom's research rationale was complemented by the thrust of

the Plowden Report in Britain, and by American authorities such as

Gordon for comprehensive ECE programs with parent and community

involvement (Gordon, 1970; Plowden, 1967). Opponents to ECE programs

for children five and under marshalled their own research base relating

primarily to cognitive development. Their conclusion was that the

traditional academic curriculum is inappropriate for most children

under six or seven years of age, and they emphasized the importance

of a nurturing mother-child relationship. The latter was consistent

with Bloom's position; the concern regarding a cognitive orientation

and traditional curriculum reflected a fear that ECE could become

grade one pushed down one or two years. This has been considered a

danger where the established public education system has been given

responsibility for early childhood education (Moore and Moore, 1972).

Relative to the governance of ECE programs, Grotberg in

1972 proposed two criteria for assessing institutional responsibilities: concern for the whole child and parent involvement. She used the criteria in assessing six existing institutional models: the school model, in which the state department of education was responsible for the program and parents were involved only in a public relations function; the co-ordinated child development model which emphasized regional and local co-ordination of child care agencies; advocacy models emphasizing promotion and protection rather than provision of services; the kibbutz model which took major child rearing 44

responsibilities from the home; the business model using private

industry to operate ECE programs; and the mandatory involvement model,

like the 1964 Headstart model which required parents on policy boards and advisory councils, and expected parents to provide volunteer services. Grotberg concluded that only the mandatory

involvement model satisfied both criteria of concern for the whole

child and parent involvement, and noted that in programs such as

Headstart the model had been limited to children from low income

families (Grotberg, 1972). Figure 1 on the following page indicates the interaction intended in the mandatory involvement model, and shows how Grotberg's two criteria may be satisfied by that model for provision of ECE services

Also evident in Figure 1 is the need for co-ordination in the provision of comprehensive services. Unfortunately, co-ordination has not been very effective in ECE program delivery or in policy-

-making for ECE. The Robinsons described the lack of co-ordination in the sixties as, "near chaos, with narrowly conceived programs administered by public and private agencies at the federal, state, and local level, often in ignorance of and sometimes even in compe­ tition with one another" (Robinson and Robinson, 1972, p.297).

Steiner's evaluation of the situation in the 1970's was equally critical:

Child development policy is unco-ordinated. Public involvement in the field is a federal-agency-by- federal-agency, congressional-committee-by-congressional -committee, state-by-state, or city-by-city assortment 45

Program Agency Board Shared responsibility C itizen s' and Staff A dvisory Policymaking and Evaluation Council

a

Teacher

Classroom Other Service Professionals or Home Center parents

Agency board may be board of education, community action agency, city com­ mission, child development agency, etc. Citizens' Advisory Council may be in a single school, or total system, or may be total system with school represent­ atives. Classroom or center may be public school, high school, nursery school, day care center, and so on.

Agency and CAC share responsibilities for the program, and for the provision of such comprehensive services as health, guidance, social services, nutrition, dental care, and the like.

•Model and explanation adapted from Ira J. Gordon, "Toward a Home-School Partnership Program,"in Building Effective Home-School Relationships, ed. by Ira J. Gordon and Wm. F. Breivogel (Boston. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.. 1976), p. 16.

Figure 1

MANDATORY INVOLVEMENT MODEL, ECE* 46

of unrelated decisions that are as likely to be contradictory as complementary (Steiner, 1976, foreword).

By 1970, federal government support was provided through various programs to 1.3 million preschoolers, most of whom were disadvantaged:

340,000 of these were in Title I ESEA programs, and 480,000 were in summer or full-year Headstart programs (NSPRA, 1970). Steiner reviewed the misleading indications that child development policy­

making would receive increased attention in Nixon's presidency, after the Headstart and ESEA impetus under President Johnson. An

Office of Child Development (OCD) was established in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and Headstart was shifted to that office from the Office of Economic Opportunity; state welfare agencies were encouraged to request federal funds for daycare beyond that provided in Aid to Dependent Children; 4-C (Community Co-ordinated

Child Care) pilot projects were established; and comprehensive child care and preschool legislation was prepared in both the House and the

Senate. Then the Westinghouse Study of Headstart became available; the study results suggested that there wasn't much difference between children who had been in Headstart programs and their peers who had not, in terms of intellectual, personal and social development.

However, Steiner concluded that the loss of favour for child develop­ ment legislation which culminated in Nixon's veto of the Brademas-

-Mondale Bill was the result of fiscal concern and shifts in executive priorities rather than disappointment with research results 47

(Steiner/ 1976).

The impetus for ECE legislation had not been lost. Instead,

Forgione indicated that the main scene of ECE legislative activity had shifted, from the national level in the sixties to the states where ECE became a major social policy issue in the early 1970's.

Forgione found that only three states did not have any ECE policy­ making activity in terms of bills and/or promulgations of government during the period, 1970-1973. Whereas Arkansas was the only state with an Office of Child Development in 1970, fourteen states had

OCD's or their equivalent by 1973, and four others were considering such action (Forgione, 1977). The OCD function is co-ordination of programs and services offered by different agencies and departments, and under the auspices of different federal and state legislation.

Structural arrangements have varied among the state governments.

In 1972, for example, Utah's OCD was to be responsible for application of State Board of Education policy, with help from an advisory group consisting of agency, institutional, organizational and parent groups (a policy co-ordinating steering committee of directors of state and non-state agencies was also being considered).

In West Virginia, the State Department of Education was responsible for ECE, but a comprehensive child development program was the goal of an interagency council of state agency directors chaired by the

Governor; the council assigned functional responsibilities and made legislative recommendations. Florida and Idaho in 1972 each had an 48

OCD in the Governor's office, somewhat removed from the education and other agency bureaucracies and with the influence of that office to assist in co-ordination of services (Education Commission of the

States, 1973).

The Education Commission of the States has emphasized the need for co-ordination of overlapping federal and state programs (over

300 federal programs administered by eighteen agencies in 1971). In terms of co-ordinating structures at the state level, the Commission's position is as follow:

Whatever agency is assigned or created to assume general responsibility for the administration of state early childhood programs, it should have at least the following functions:

a. To supervise all state and federal funds for early childhood programs; b. To analyze, make recommendations about and coordinate all state and federally funded programs for the development of early childhood personnel; c. To develop a master plan for early childhood programs, staff and funding across the state; d. To analyze and develop recommendations for state certification efforts related to early childhood personnel. e. To develop a system of early diagnosis of children's needs and of parental training and involvement in their children's education; f. To make recommendations regarding state standards for private, particularly franchised, early childhood programs. g. To serve as an advocate and promoter of programs to meet the needs of all young children in the state and to stimulate the development of postsecondary and inservice training programs for early childhood personnel. (Education Commission of the States 1971, p.6). 49

It should be noted that the Commission's position satisfies both of

Grotberg's criteria: concern for the whole child and parent involve­ ment. California's policies governing early childhood education are consistent with the Commission's position and illustrate .the use of mandated parent and other citizen involvement to implement a compre­ hensive early childhood education program. (California's Policies for Early Childhood Education are reproduced in Appendix C to this study.)

Early childhood education was also the focus of some provincial Government policymaking in Canada in the early seventies.

The Canadian Education Association surveyed the ten provinces regarding provisions for ECE, primarily kindergartens, in 1972.

In Newfoundland, the Government was extending kindergarten grants to children in small multi-graded schools, subject to program approval by the Minister of Education. Provincial policy was permissive, leaving the establishment of kindergarten programs to the discretion of school boards. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia had no legislation for the establishment of kindergartens in 1972, although the Minister of Education in Prince Edward Island had the authority to establish kindergartens as part of the public school system, and five-year-olds in Nova Scotia were eligible for "primary grade"

(the first year of elementary school) with full grant support. A

Minister's Study Committee on Kindergartens in New Brunswick was considering the operation of private kindergarten programs, kindergarten teacher training, and the feasibility of establishing 50

publicly funded kindergartens. Optional, provincially-supported

public kindergartens, or classes maternelles were widespread in

Quebec, and a ministerial regulation in 1971 provided detailed

requirements for program operation.

In Ontario, legislation revised in 1970 provided for school

board establishment of kindergartens and "junior kindergartens" (for

four-year-olds), with provincial grants comparable to those for

elementary grades. Early childhood education was being examined in

Manitoba in 1972 through a study jointly financed by the Departments of Education and Health and Social Development. Existing legislation provided for optional board-established kindergartens, with provincial

funding comparable to that for the elementary grades. The

Saskatchewan Government was paying grants for kindergarten programs

(for four and five-year-olds) which were "recognized" by the Minister, but was not prepared to meet the cost of new kindergarten programs.

However, a Department of Education Kindergarten Committee in 1972 recommended widespread establishment of publicly-supported kinder­ gartens in Saskatchewan; the recommendations called for local decision­ making and increased provincial grants. British Columbia's school boards in 1972 could establish kindergartens and claim provincial grants for fifty percent of essential operating expenses (Royan,

1972). The development of early childhood legislation in Alberta in the early 1970's is the subject of this study.

In the following chapter, the methods used to gather data pertinent to the development of Alberta's ECS policy and to organize 51

the data are reviewed. Then the policy development is presented historically in Chapter V, and interpreted through a Lasswellian framework in Chapter VI. CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter is an explanation of the methodology used to study the development of ECS policy and its mandatory citizen involvement component in Alberta. The symbiotic relationship of the methodology and the theoretical framework is discussed, and case study research is presented as a suitable methodology for the

Lasswellian framework. Data collection is reviewed in terms of interview procedures and access to primary documents. Then pro­ cedures used to verify and analyze the data are described. The chapter concludes with a comment on the limitations of the methodo­ logy employed in the study.

Methodology and Theoretical Framework

Methodology is dependent on research objectives. The methodology described in this chapter was selected as the most practicable means of identifying the major interests, forces and processes which contributed to Alberta's ECS policy in 1973, and particularly the mandatory citizen involvement component of that policy, in a manner that would facilitate analysis and interpretation of policymaking interaction via the Lasswell framework. Lasswell states 52 53

that the policy scientist is not bound to a particular methodology,

but that there is a distinctive synthesis of technique. This synthesis

brings together techniques which emphasize the substantive (the

factual data, or what occurred), and techniques which emphasize process and sequence (Lasswell, 1970). The exploratory case study method used in this research provided for examination of the sub­

stantive components of interactive processes within a social context.

The study was inductive and exploratory to allow for the discovery of. variables and relationships between variables that were not hypothesized when the study was initiated. However, the research was guided by the framework and components of the Social

Process Model, the Decision Process Model and the Lasswell Grid, and by the research questions stated in Chapter I. Interviews were designed and documents were selected in accordance with the assumptions of this framework, and data were analyzed and interpreted in terms of its components.

Case Study Research

Case study research provides the basis for an historical narrative followed by a Lasswellian interpretation and reconstruction of events. Good defined case study as follows:

The essential procedure of the case-study method is to take account of all pertinent aspects of one thing or situation, employing as the unit for study an individual, an institution, a community, or any group considered as a unit. The case consists of the data relating to some phase of the life history of the unit or relating to the entire life process, 54

whether the unit is an individual, a family, a social group, an institution, or a community. The complex situation and combination of factors involved in the given behavior are examined to determine the existing status.and to identify the causal factors operating. (Good and Scates, 1954, p.726).

In this study, "the unit" was policy development, the processes and factors contributing to the development of Alberta's Early Child­ hood Services policy as approved by the provincial Government in

1973. The investigator conducted an intensive investigation of the development of this policy collecting contemporary and historical data, to locate and explain the variables which contributed to the character and purpose of that legislation. Van Dalen's guidelines for case study research were followed:

The investigator observes events both within and outside the educational setting in their full actuality. He notes events in terms of their location in space and time, the physical surroundings and objects present, the actions and interactions of the people and institutions involved. He pays particular attention to the interdependence of these relationships and does not overlook the nonverbal actions, unspoken understandings, and covert or informal networks of relations. (Van Dalen, 1973, p.209).

Results from a single case study cannot be generalized too

\ freely, but a single case study can provide extremely useful insights into developmental processes (Harp and Richer, 1969; Russett, 1970;

Van Dalen, 1973). A major advantage of the case study method of research is that it retains and probes the patternings and sequences and configurations of variables, relationships that could be lost in research which treats variables in isolation (Kirst and Mosher, 1969). 55

Russett notes four uses of case studies in the accumulation of knowledge: (1) they stimulate the production of hypotheses regarding possible regularities; (2) they can be used to test inferences in different contexts; (3) where a correlation or pattern is established, they can be used to pursue and/or to probe causal relationships and to eliminate spurious relationships; and (4) they can be used to refine and/or to qualify hypotheses (Russett, 1970). In this study the major contribution of case study methodology was the generation of insights and hypotheses regarding causal relationships.

Data Collection

Interviews with key participants, and analysis of primary documents were utilized in this study. The two data sources are complementary and mutually enriching. According to Madge, docu­ ments "supplement observation and participation in retrospect, by broadening the base of experience", and "the interview gives the initiator a far better opportunity to gauge the truthfulness or other qualities of his informant or candidate than when he has to reply on documentary sources (alone)" (Madge, 1965, pp.119, 155).

Interviews with Key Participants

Interviewees were selected on the basis of the nature of their contribution to Alberta's ECS policy; the nature of contribution was categorized in terms of Lasswell's base values, and his Decision

Process phases as explained in Chapter II. People were identified 56

as key participants in the policymaking process (in terms of Lasswell's

Social Process Model) through initial analysis of documents and

reference by colleagues, and/or through subsequent documentary and

interview analysis. Identification of key participants was an

important objective of data collection. Cross-checking through documents and interviews was used to verify the importance or

leverage of each participant in terms of issue relevance (particularly

influence with respect to the mandatory involvement component of ECS),

subphase resources (positive and negative assets in the Social Process

Model), and personal efficiency (Gergen, 1968a).

The interviews were semi-structured, focused interviews in that core questions were developed from preliminary analysis, and these questions were posed by the investigator if the answer had not already been volunteered by the respondent during the course of the interview (Merton and Kendall, 1955). However, the investigator minimized direction to the respondent to encourage what Merton and

Kendall refer to as "retrospective introspection". Participants being interviewed were encouraged to review their own interpretations, viewpoints and attitudes: their own perspectives with respect to

ECS policymaking (Merton and Kendall, 1955, pp.480-483). While consistent with Dexter's criteria for elite interviewing, this practice also facilitated analysis in terms of the Social Process Model

(Dexter, 1970).

Twenty-five major face-to-face interviews were conducted by the investigator in participants' offices and homes. These 57

interviews varied in length from thirty minutes to three hours, but most lasted approximately ninety minutes. They were all taped, and the tapes were subsequently transcribed. In each interview, the investigator explained the nature of the study and the methodology, and told the respondent the names of the other people he had interviewed and planned to interview. Core questions answered by each participant in these interviews were as follows (each question's relationship to the components of the Lasswellian framework is indicated following the question):

1. Would you please summarize the development of ECS policy in Alberta in terms of what you saw as the major forces and processes? (Perspectives, Situations, Base Values, Strategies, Decision Process)

2. Who were the key figures in the development of Alberta's ECS concepts and the legislation of those concepts? (Participants)

3. How did you see your role and contribution to the development of Alberta's ECS policy? (Participants, Perspectives, Strategies, Decision Process)

4. How did you come to be in that role, to make that contribution? (Participants, Situations, Strategies)

5. Did you see yourself contributing as an individual or as a representative of the (interest group)? (Perspectives, Strategies)

6. How would you assess the contribution and influence of the (interest group) to provincial ECS policy? (Participants, Strategies, Decision Process)

7. How would you assess the contribution and influence of other individuals (such as....), and of other groups (such as....) to the ECS policy? (Participants, Strategies, Decision Process) 58

8. Where did the ideas come from for the type of Early Childhood Services that were created? (Intelligence)

9. Was there a model(s) to follow; if so, what was it, and to what extent was it followed? (Intelligence, Prescription, Invocation, Application)

10. Why, where, and how was the decision made to require grass roots, building/classroom level citizen involvement from the provincial government to the program operator, bypassing the locally- elected board? (Base Values, Strategies, Prescription)

11. Was there a concern (where, when and who) that the existing public school systems would thwart the goals of ECS if they were given the goals and the money and the responsibility? (Perspectives)

12. How was the intent of ECS developers translated into prescriptions/mandates/requirements/ legislation, and department regulations? (Strategies, Intelligence, Promotion, Prescription)

13. How did you perceive your role and contribution to the parent and community involvement component of Alberta's ECS legislation? (Participants, Perspectives, Strategies, Decision Process)

14. How did you come to be in that role, to make that contribution? (Participants, Situations, Strategies)

15. Did you see yourself making that contribution as an individual or as a respresentative of the (interest group)? (Perspectives, Strategies)

16. How would you assess the contribution and influence of the (interest group) to the parent and com­ munity involvement component to ECS? (Participants, Strategies, Decision Process)

17. How would you assess the contributions and influence of other individuals (such as....) and of other groups to the parent and community involvement component of ECS? (Participants, Strategies, Decision Process) 59

18. Was there a parent and community involvement model to follow, and if so, what was it and to what extent was it followed? (Intelligence, Prescription, Invocation, Application)

19. What did you see as the rationale for including parent and community involvement as a component of ECS? (Perspectives, Situations, Base Values, Intelligence)

20. What did you see as the government/official rationale for the parent and community involvement component of ECS as presented to ECS operators (or potential operators)? (Perspectives, Situations, Base Values, Intelligence, Prescription)

21. What problems have there been in parent involvement, in the development, legislation, and implementation phases? (Situations, Strategies, Promotion, Prescription, Invocation, Application, Appraisal)

22. What problems have there been in agency co-operation, in the development, legislation and implementation phases? (Situations, Strategies, Promotion, Prescription, Invocation, Application, Appraisal)

23. How does the present ECS operation in Alberta relate to and compare with your intent and that of the (interest group)? (Base Values, Appraisal)

24. How does the present parent and community involvement component of ECS relate to and compare with your intent and that of the interest group? (Base Values, Appraisal)

Supplementary interviews were conducted in person and by telephone. The purpose of the supplementary interviews was to gather specific data which would answer questions identified in the analysis of major interviews and primary documents. In addition, some data were collected through correspondence. Interviews and correspondence are listed in the Appendix A. Appendix D is a sample letter requesting a major interview. 60

Primary Documents

The term "primary documents" as used here refers to written

source material relative to events in the development of ECS policy

authored at the time the development occurred by a witness(es) to

those events. This usage is consistent with Gottschalk's Primer of

Historical Method (Gottschalk, 1969, pp.53-57). Primary documents

used in this study included minutes of meetings, conference proceedings,

reports, position papers, briefs, newspaper accounts, and private

correspondence. They included Intelligence for the ECS policy

statement as well as records of the Social Process and the Decision

Process. Documents were identified through preliminary reading and

through interviews and reading of other documents during the course

of the study. They were obtained from the files of participants who

were interviewed, from Department of Education files, and from

library collections at the University of Alberta, the University of

Calgary, and the Calgary and Edmonton public libraries. Primary

documents relating to California's Early Childhood Education policy

development were provided by the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Data Analysis

In analyzing the data from each interview and document, the

investigator attempted to answer Gottschalk's questions of authenticity and credibility (Gottschalk, 1969, pp.118-171). The authenticity 61

question is whether or not the source is what it claims (or is claimed) to be; this question was answered during data collection and in subsequent data review by verification from other data

sources. Credibility has to do with the comprehensiveness, emphases,

intent and accuracy of the data. The committee member who wrote

the "committee report" could have deliberately or unconsciously

slanted the report to reflect his/her viewpoint (Van Dalen, 1973, p.167). Both the authenticity and the credibility of data sources were verified through a continuing cross-checking procedure which compared interview data with documentary materials and other interview data, and documentary data with interview data and other documents.

The historical sequence of events was cross-checked and also compared with Seguin's chronology which had been validated by a subcommittee appointed by the Alberta Government's ECS Evaluation Steering

Committee (Seguin, 1977).

Relative to the Intelligence, Promotion, and Prescription phases of the Decision Process Model, reports and position papers were compared to locate the origin and initial use of ECS concepts and components. Consistency, reiteration, and confirmation of concepts were sought in comparison of reports with each other, and with interview data. The latter also served to verify document origin, authorship, and sequence. Minutes and other records of action were used to establish and corroborate chronological positions of

Participants and the sequence of events, and as the basis for fiirther interview questions particularly in the areas of Base Values and 62

Strategies.

Cross-checking of interview data and documentary data,

is what Janowitz refers to as descriptive content analysis, an element

in the broader configurative analysis required in a Lasswellian

approach (Janowitz, 1969). In this study, the descriptive content

analysis was followed by contextual analysis using the Social Process

Model, the Decision Process Model and the Lasswell Grid. All verified data were charted as model and grid components and the

components were related to each other in a Lasswellian reconstruction of ECS policymaking in Alberta.

Limitations of the Method

This study has the limitations of all case studies based on a single unit of study. Alberta is not representative of all provinces of Canada and caution must be exercised in generalizing results across the Canada-United States border. Gathering data from documents was subject to the limitations of historical research:

in particular, limitations in availability of, and access to docu­ ments, and bias on the part of document authors (Gottschalk, 1969).

Gathering data from interviews who were key participants in the policymaking processes being studied was subject to human frailties such as imperfect memories and retrospective bias (Gergen, 1968b,

Kerlinger, 1973).

Time, geographical distance, and a limited research budget, imposed further constraints on the study. The writer was attending 63

The Ohio State University for most of the research and writing period. While persons interviewed were extremely co-operative and helpful, the concentration of most interviews and much of the document collection within the writer’s sixteen-day March 1978 visit to Alberta limited the number of participants who could be interviewed. In addition, legislative and administrative workloads prevented some potential interviewees from meeting with the writer in March 1978, or upon his return to Alberta in the fall of 1978. CHAPTER IV

HISTORICAL NARRATIVE

Introduction

In this chapter, the development of Alberta's ECS policy is reviewed in terms of the chronological progression of events and activities which led to the legislation and execution of that policy.

While interpretation of the policymaking processes using the Lasswell framework is left to Chapter V, the first section of the present chapter is a summary of the policymaking context. The contextual summary is considered necessary for an understanding of the historical narrative which follows it.

The Alberta Context

Alberta is Canada's westernmost prairie province. Her topography varies from level plains in the east to foothills and then mountains on the western boundary. The climate ranges from semi-arid portions in the southeast to northern areas with a very short growing season. Historically, Alberta's economy was agricultural— primarily grain farming and cattle ranching, although coal mining was important in the first decades of the twentieth century and has recently become important again. The petroleum industry, beginning with discovery of the Turner Valley oilfield in 1914 brought wealth

64 65

to the Province, and with the 1947 Leduc and subsequent discoveries the petroleum industry became the single most important force in the economy. Oil and natural gas revenues have given the provincial government an enviable financial position (Easterbrook and Aitken,

1958, pp. 548-552; Williams, 1978).

The native and Metis people of Alberta were pushed aside by

European immigrants, starting late in the last century. Those first immigrants were predominantly White Anglo Saxon Protestants, and despite the southern and eastern European settlers who came in later years, the "WASP" label may still be applied to the governing elite in Alberta (Newman, 1975; Porter, 1965; Presthus, 1974). The

Province's substantial population growth and urbanization which began after World War II has not stopped, although the end of the "baby boom" has begun to affect school enrollments in the seventies. Most of the population is in the southern half of the Province, and about seventy percent of the people live in cities. (Worth 1972, p.8).

The British North America Act of 1867, the basis of Canada's written constitution, placed education under the control of the provincial government. However, that Act specifically protected the rights and privileges of people with respect to denominational schools, and particularly Protestant or Roman Catholic minorities with a system of separate schools at the time of provincial union with

Canadian Confederation. Therefore, in Alberta the rights and privileges of separate school systems for Roman Catholic and Protestant

(in practice, non-Catholic) minorities have been protected, and they 66

have been further provided for under Alberta's School Act (Sections 2,

50-64, and 129).

The Roman Catholic/Protestant distinction reflects the French

Catholic/British Protestant history and composition of Canada prior to Confederation. Porter argues that the same distinction characterizes the current structure of social class and power elites in Canada. He concludes that there are British-origin and French- origin elites in ideological, economic, bureaucratic and political sectors, and that these sector elites are linked by kinship, friendship,- formal bodies (such as boards of directors), and coalitions born of conflict and mutual advantage (Porter, 1965). In a more recent study,

Presthus examines Canadian governmental policymaking in terms of

Elites in the Policy Process. He describes the policymaking process as "elite accommodation": the development and implementation of government policy through the interaction of a composite political elite of legislators, senior bureaucrats, and directors of interest groups. Presthus argues that there are factors in Canada (more so than in the United States), sympathetic to a viable system of interest group politics: a positive view of government and government subsidi­ zation, a corporatist philosophy which recognizes the legitimacy of interest groups, and the quasi-participative nature of the political culture in which decision-making is deferred to the "elite accom­ modation" process, facilitated by the weakness of back-benchers in the elected legislative bodies (Presthus, 1974). 67

In educational policymaking in Canada, external examiners for

the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

noted that legislators and senior bureaucrats do not "accommodate" major educational policy interest groups as much as they should,

although these groups (particularly teacher groups) are seen to play

a significant role at local, provincial, and federal levels of policy­ making. The OECD examiners' major criticism of the educational policymaking process in Canada was, "The failure to establish

structures and procedures whereby all the parties concerned with

education can be actively brought into discussion of issues, on a regular, systematic and recognized basis, aiming at building up a

sense of genuine participation by the interests involved in policy-

formulation, implementation and evaluation" (OECD, 1976, p.144).

Educational policymakers were further criticized for a lack of local involvement in decision-making, and for the discrepancy between provincial lip-service to decentralization, and provincial practice moving in the opposite direction. The Examiners considered lack of co-ordination of education and other social services critical in the issue of local involvement (OECD, 1976).

Williams argues that the tendency for provincial centrali­ zation in education has been facilitated in the seventies by financial constraints (though he notes that this is less true for

Alberta because of oil revenues), decreasing citizen support for education related to qualitative concerns, and by the fact that large interest groups (like the Alberta Teachers' Association) tend to 68

center their efforts at the provincial level, rather than at the

local board level. Meanwhile, however, Williams notes a new type

of local politics developing in the late sixties and early seventies,

particularly in urban centers where school boards operate under

"government by ad hocracy". Such government is characterized by

extensive participation in decision-making by local interest groups

who are encouraged by a "new breed" of school board trustees. The

new breed questions the legitimacy of administrators making compre­

hensive policy recommendations for board approval (Williams, 1978).

Change in trustee orientation is also noted in the Canadian Education

Association's review of education in Canada, 1960 to 1975. The

Association relates demands of parents and other publics for

increased participation in decision-making, to mechanisms for

involvement such as task forces, public hearings and advisory councils.

"Consultative committees" were mandated for every school and school board by the Quebec Government in 1972 (Canadian Education Association,

1975).

Alberta's Commission on Educational Planning emphasized citizen involvement both in the data collection processes, and in the final recommendations for government action. Moreover the Commission report, A Choice of Futures, noted the same pressures for citizen involvement in Alberta communities that have been noted elsewhere in school districts across Canada (Worth 1972, pp.126-127). However, at the time the Worth Commission was established, the Government was attempting to decentralize (rather than to centralize) educational 69

decision-making. Local appointment of superintendents was extended

to local jurisdictions province-wide in 1969-1970. The Deputy

Minister of Education summarized the objectives in the rewriting of

The School Act in the same period as follows:

1. To eliminate through consolidation, transfers of responsibility, and withdrawals, many of the sections in The School Act that had been developed in response to specific issues over a period of years.

2. To rewrite legislation with a view to improving its clarity by removing wordy legalistic sections.

3. To transfer many items of decision-making from the rigidity of legislative enactment to the flexibility of local administration.

4. To enhance the role of local school authorities through more independence in decision-making.

5. To commit a greater number of decisions affecting local school operation to the negotiating process between school boards and their staff (Byrne 1970, p. 26).

In A Choice of Futures, Worth "strongly suggested" a further shift

in power from the provincial level to the school board and local

school levels, along with an emphasis on citizen involvement at all

levels, and a corresponding reduction in "overinvolvement" by professionals; he also called for increased interaction and co-ordin­

ation of public educational services with recreation, health,

economic improvement, and self-development programs and services

(Bumbarger, Friesen, Holdaway, and Miklos, 1972).

In 1971, part way through the deliberations of the Worth

Commission, Alberta's Progressive Conservative Party defeated the ruling Social Credit Party at the polls. The Social Credit Party

(a more rurally-oriented party than the Conservatives) had come to power in the midst of the Depression, and had stayed in power continuously since 1935. Social Credit governments undoubtedly benefited from the economic growth of the Province; they also contributed a good deal to the long-term composition of Alberta's political forces and to her structure of government. Another major political force which gained strength in the Depression was the

Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA). The power of this educators' union has become the envy of teacher associations on both sides of the Canada-United States border, and the provocation for other provincial interest groups such as the Alberta School Trustees'

Association (ASTA) (Chalmers, 1967; Kratzmann, 1965).

Along with the ATA and the ASTA, the historical context of Alberta's policymaking for elementary and secondary education has included the dual public and separate school systems, The School

Act, the Department of Education, and the Minister of Education (who is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) appointed to the Cabinet and the Education portfolio by the elected leader of his (her) party, the Premier of Alberta). Reporting to the Minister is the Deputy Minister of Education (a professional educator), who administers the Department of Education and the Regulations of the

Minister. The organization structure of the Department as it was when Alberta's Early Childhood Services program was implemented is shown in Figure 2 on the following page. 71

MINISTER Hon. L. D. Hyndman

Administrative Assistant Executive Assistant

DEPUTY MINISTER Dr. E. K. Hawkesworth Research Assistant

Director of Alberta Educational ^Communications Authority

Director of Finance, Statistics ASSOCIATE DEPUTY MINISTER Dr. J . S. Hrabi & Legislation

Director of Director of School Buildings Curriculum Director of Director of Planning and Research Special Educational Services Director of Director of Operational Research Field Services 8< Development

Director of Director of Communications Early Childhood Services Director of Director of Personnel Educational Opportunities Fund Manager Registrar School Book Branch

‘Taken from Government of Alberta, Alberta Department of Education 1973 Annual, • Review Government of Alberta, 1973, p.5. i

Figure 2*

ALBERTA. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 72

Local school systems in Alberta operate in school districts,

school divisions or counties. School districts (public and separate)

are the basic units for school system operations in cities, towns

and villages. Each district has a board of trustees, generally from

three to nine members elected to parallel three-year terms.

Consolidated and rural high school districts have been formed from

smaller districts for operational purposes; the smaller districts are

represented by trustees in these larger districts. School divisions

are aggregations of many (seventy to eighty) rural, town and/or

village school districts; each division has an elected board of

trustees with powers similar to those of an independent district board. Since the 1950's, there have been county school systems in

Alberta which operate like district systems except that a school

committee takes the place of the elected board of school trustees.

The school committee consists of three elected county council members, a representative from each town and village council and rural school district, and representatives from any other school

jurisdictions (Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1965, pp.40-42;

Government of Alberta, 1974). 73

The Development of ECS Policy in Alberta

Introduction

We cannot isolate a single point in time as a starting

point for the history of Alberta's Early Childhood Services. How­

ever, there was a substantial flurry of activity related to kinder­

garten in the mid-1960's, most of which was supportive of some form

of publicly-supported eariy childhood education. Prom the mid­

sixties, a progression of contributing events and activities may be

traced to the ECS policy enunciated by the Progressive Conservative

Government in March, 1973.

Prior to the mid-sixties, kindergarten operations were centered primarily in the two major cities, Calgary and Edmonton. In

Calgary, the Public School Board provided kindergartens where there were enough interested parents and where classroom space was avail­ able across the city. These kindergarten classes were claimed by the public school system for provincial grants from 1941 to 1954; and despite the fact that there was no provision for kindergarten grants in the School Act or in the Minister's Regulations, the provincial

Government paid the grants as claimed for this thirteen-year period.

During this period, the number of kindergarten classes grew steadily, from two in 1941 to twenty-three in 1952 (Warren, 1952). When it came to the attention of senior officials in the provincial Depart­ ment of Education, that there were grants being paid without the sanction of legislation or regulation, the grants for Calgary's public school kindergartens were terminated (Bredo interview, 1978). 74

For the next ten years there were no school system kinder­ gartens, but the Calgary Public School Board, on request from any community association operating a non-profit kindergarten, provided guidance and assistance in the operation of the kindergarten program.

Community kindergartens meeting Board-established standards relative to facility, admittance of pupils, and teacher qualifications, were eligible for assistance from the Board's Supervisor of Primary

Education. They were also able to use the Board's Purchasing Office, which reduced their costs for supplies and equipment (Mowers, 1954).

Meanwhile, Edmonton had a variety of community-sponsored, church-sponsored, and private or commercial kindergartens which grew rather unevenly in the two decades between World War II and the mid-sixties. The quality of programs in those kindergartens was rather uneven too; while some were regarded as good examples of what early childhood education should be, others were seen as little more than babysitting enterprises (Affleck interview, 1978). None of the

Edmonton kindergartens received Department of Education funding during this period; nor did kindergartens elsewhere in Alberta, except for Calgary in the forties and early fifties.

Groups such as the University Women's Club, and the Alberta

Federation of Home and School Associations were lobbying for government support of kindergartens, and they made their concerns known to Alberta's Royal Commission on Education in 1958-1959. The

Royal Commission Report in 1959 recommended "serious study" of the kindergarten issue: 75

While it is recognized that problems would be encountered in the introduction of kindergartens throughout the Province, their absence is a serious omission of educational effort. The Commission recommends serious study to devise ways of incorporating kindergartens as an integral part of public schools (Cameron, 1959, p.257).

The problems which the authors of the Commission Report knew would be encountered in a wholesale introduction of kindergartens were those of dollars, space and teachers. Costs of education were increasing rapidly, school construction was hard pressed to keep pace with the expanding elementary school enrollment, and the teacher shortage was acute (Cameron, 1959).

Lobbying, the Commission Report, and the pressure from increasing numbers of kindergartens, day cares, play schools and nursery schools resulted in some monitoring and regulatory activity by the provincial Government. The Department of Public Welfare in

1961 established provincial regulations for kindergartens and day nurseries, after taking the licensing responsibilities for such operations from the municipalities. Then in 1962, the Government took kindergarten responsibilities from the Department of Public

Welfare and gave them to the Department of Education, which established a Kindergarten Committee under Dr. R. E. Rees, the

Department's Director of Special Services (Church interview, 1978).

The Committee published a Kindergarten Manual the next year. Its contents included very little with respect to parents, or parent and other community involvement; the authors provided examples of different activities, suggested teaching techniques, and gave advice 76

with respect to teacher roles and child development (Department of

Education, 1963). Alberta's Social Credit Government showed no

intention of funding kindergartens in 1963. They were apparently content to limit their functions to licensing, regulating and advising private and community-sponsored kindergartens through the

Department of Education (Affleck interview, 1978; Church interview,

1978).

The Mid-Sixties

On November 2, 1964, Walter Worth, Chairman of Elementary

Education at the University of Alberta, spoke to the urban section of the annual convention of the Alberta School Trustees' Association.

His topic was "The Critical Years" and the text emphasized the importance of early childhood education, and the lack of recognition and support given to early childhood education in Alberta. He made reference to Bloom's Stability and Change in Human Characteristics published the same year, and summarized Bloom's and others' evidence in six propositions:

1. The most rapid growth in stable characteristics occurs in the early years;

2. Variations in environment have greatest effect on a characteristic during its most rapid period of growth;

3. Early learnings are difficult to alter or replace;

4. Human development is essentially a sequential process; 77

5. Environment is the major determiner of school achievement;

6. Future school achievement can be predicted with increasing accuracy. (Worth, 1965, p.4)

Worth had a receptive audience. Primary and particularly preschool

education were major concerns among the urban trustees' constituents, who included growing numbers of working mothers and immigrants from other countries and provinces which had public kindergartens (Affleck interview, 1978; Leadbeater interview, 1978).

As a result of his presentation, Worth was commissioned by the ASTA to conduct a study of early childhood education over the next two years (Green interview, 1978; Griffiths interview, 1978; Worth, 1965;

Worth, 1966).

In 1965, Project Headstart was implemented in the disadvantaged areas of large cities in the United States. That same year, with similar rationale and purpose, the Calgary Public School Board initi- a preschool or kindergarten program in a disadvantaged area of the city. In the absence of provincial grants, the costs were borne by supplementary requisition, that revenue generated by local taxpayers apart from provincial funding under the School Foundation Program

Fund (Leadbeater interview, 1978). Worth presented a progress report on his early childhood education study to the annual ASTA convention,

November 30, 1965. He reviewed the research analysis and examination of other programs completed that year, and stated two tentative conclusions; 78

1. Preschool experience can help to compensate for the inadequate preparation for school provided by some lower-class or disadvantaged home environments.

2. Middle-class children who attend nursery school or kindergarten as a group tend to show somewhat greater achievement in the elementary school, but this achievement may be the result of factors other than the earlier experience itself, such as family attitudes and expectations. (Worth, 1965, p.5)

Again, Worth was critical of the province's lack of support; he noted

that, "Alberta is the only province west of the maritimes which makes

legal provisions for kindergartens but yet does not provide grants

for their support". (Worth, 1965, p.4)

Worth's final report, Before Six, was published and presented

to the ASTA a year later. It consisted of a review of early

childhood education research findings, an analytical description of programs in Canada and the United States, an examination of the

Alberta context relative to early childhood education, and conclusions and recommendations for action. Among the major trends evolving in

early childhood education, Worth noted, "Increased involvement of parents in activities designed to better acquaint them with purposes and programs," and, "Employment of para-professional personnel to assist teachers with the preparation of materials, supervision, and other non-teaching tasks". (Worth, 1966, p.47) Included in his summary of future needs were, "Organization of parent education classes," and, "availability of specialized consultative personnel like social workers and psychologists". (Worth, 1966, p.48) 79

The conclusions of the study were as follows:

1. Readiness for schooling can be developed at an earlier age than previously supposed.

2. All children can profit from early schooling.

3. Early childhood education (for children below the age of six) is intended as a complement not an alternative to family life.

4. Early childhood education should be an integral part of schooling (i.e. not the responsibility of other social service areas).

5. Early childhood education has certain unique objectives and characteristics.

6. Opportunities for schooling before age six at public expense in Alberta are vastly inferior to those provided elsewhere.

7. There is widespread support for early childhood education in Alberta.

8. Equalized and improved educational opportunities are required for many young children in Alberta.

9. The teacher's role is crucial in early schooling.

10. Parent education is an important adjunct of early childhood education. (Worth, 1966, pp.65-68.)

In elaborating his third conclusion, the author emphasized the concept of a partnership of home and school. The seventh conclusion was supported with the current pre-grade one (kindergartens, nurseries and play schools) enrollment of almost 11,000 children. Comments explaining the tenth conclusion noted that without parent education, many children who most needed early childhood education would be unlikely to attend. 80

Worth put forward thirteen recommendations, "for upgrading the quality of early childhood education in Alberta":

1. That school services be extended downward to include five-year-olds on a voluntary basis as an integral part of the educational system in Alberta.

2. That the provincial government provide financial support for kindergartens on a similar basis as that provided for elementary and secondary education.

3. That the Department of Education and large urban school districts extend their leadership-service function in the field of early childhood education.

4. That jurisdiction over nursery schools be trans­ ferred from the Department of Welfare to the Department of Education.

5. That initially the minimum qualifications for a teaching certificate in early childhood education be the same as those for elementary and secondary education, but that eventually all teachers at this level be required to have a four-year Bachelor of Education degree or its equivalent.

6. That preservice and inservice programs of teacher education for the preparation of nursery school and kindergarten personnel be expanded.

7. That graduate programs to prepare leadership personnel in early childhood education be developed at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary.

8. That training courses for teacher-aides and other para-professional personnel to be employed at the early childhood level be instituted in district or community colleges, institutes of technology and art, and/or vocational high schools.

9. That a special recruitment program be launched, and an appropriate bursary system developed, to secure suitable persons to prepare for careers 81

in early childhood education.

10. That provision be made for research to be conducted at both the provincial and local levels in various aspects of early childhood education in order to facilitate the development of optimum educational programs.

11. That careful attention be given to the articulation of programs in early childhood education with those offered in subsequent years.

12. That a special study be made of ways and means of hastening the introduction of kindergartens in rural areas.

13. That a plan be developed for the inclusion within the next decade of nursery schools as an integral part of the regular system of schooling in Alberta. (Worth, 1966, pp.69-70)

Apart from training for aides and para-professionals, there was little evidence in these recommendations of a thrust for parent and/or community involvement in early childhood education. There was, however, a territorial concern, and insistence that the Department of

Education and school systems be the institutions for delivery of early childhood education programs.

Legislation passed earlier in 1966 by the provincial govern­ ment caused further concern for educators who were worried about

"interference" in early childhood education by other government departments and other professions (Finlay interview, 1978; Thain interview, 1978). The Preventive Social Services Act became effective, July 1, 1966. It provided for eighty percent provincial, twenty percent municipal cost-sharing in preventive social service 82

projects (including some preschool projects) with a mandatory community involvement component (The province was eligible for reimbursement of half the total project costs through the Canada

Assistance Plan, implemented the same year). Projects for Pre­ ventive Social Service (PSS) funding had to be initiated by a community-based group, and approval for funding was contingent on a project design which involved the client community in program decision-making for services geared to the prevention of social problems.(Government of the Province of Alberta, 1966). The architects of PSS were influenced somewhat by the United States'

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the PSS preschool projects were influenced by the Headstart component of that Act (Finlay interview, 1978).

PSS preschool project funding was under the aegis of the

Department of Welfare, rather than the Department of Education.

However, with the co-operation of the City of Calgary and the

City's Department of Social Services, the Calgary Public School

Board was later able to get PSS funding for three additional school board kindergartens in disadvantaged areas which opened in

September, 1966 (Calgary Herald, February 14, 1967; Leadbeater interview, 1978; Royan, 1972, p.3). The Separate Board (Roman

Catholic) in Calgary initiated a pilot project in the fall of 1966, a pre-primary program for fifty children in an elementary school.

The purpose of the project was, "to determine whether or not pre­ school children could handle a curriculum of reading, arithmetic, 83

science, spelling and language" (Albertan, May 31, 1967).

Also in the fall of 1966, the Early Childhood Education

Council of the Alberta Teachers' Association held its inaugural

conference in Red Deer. Bernard Spodek of the University of Illinois

delivered the keynote address to the conference, and strongly

advocated a kindergarten program within the existing provincial

framework of public education (Calgary Herald, November 21, 1966).

The charter members of the ATA's specialist ECE Council were

mostly educators who had been promoting the cause of public kinder­

gartens for some time. Among the people responsible for the

establishment of the Council were Muriel Affleck and Walter Worth

of the University of Alberta, Ethel King from the University of

Calgary, and Art Kratzmann who was the executive officer for the

ASTA (Leadbeater interview, 1978; Thain interview, 1978).

The ECE Council of the ATA may have been an influential

group, but they did not speak for the ATA as a whole. There was a

variety of opinion within the Association as to the educational

and dollar priority of early childhood education relative to other

programs (Affleck interview, 1978). Nevertheless, the ATA's

policy statement enunciated by the Annual Representatives' Assembly

in April, 1967, was generally supportive of kindergarten under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Education, and within the estab­

lished system of schooling (Calgary Herald, March 30, 1967). Such

association-wide support was not evident in the ASTA. Throughout the

» sixties and the early seventies, ASTA resolutions dealing with early 84

childhood education met a mixed reaction which swung year by year,

from narrow support to narrow defeat (Griffiths, interview, 1978).

There was an urban-rural split in the ASTA; the urban trustees were

generally in favor of kindergartens, while the majority of rural

trustees considered kindergartens impracticable in rural areas due

to transportation problems. Also there were philosophical differ­

ences of opinion within the ASTA related to early childhood education;

some trustees felt that children under six years of age belonged at

home; some were loathe- to see education dollars being spent to

introduce kindergartens at the expense of other elementary and/or

secondary programs (Green interview, 1978; Griffiths interview, 1978;

Gunderson interview, 1978; Maertz interview, 1978).

The Late Sixties

In the spring of 1967, the Social Credit Party retained control of the provincial Government. The election marked thirty-

two consecutive years of Social Credit Government for Alberta, but

there were changes in the party leadership on the horizon. Early childhood education was not a plank in the Social Credit platform, and when the party held its convention in the fall, a resolution

for public kindergartens was defeated (Albertan, November 24, 1967).

The Social Credit had a great deal of strength in the rural areas, and on the issue of kindergartens the party and Government members were divided by the same urban-rural, and philosophical differences

(particularly priorities of expenditure) that split the ASTA 85

on kindergartens (Byrne interview, 1978; Church interview, 1978).

Early childhood education with the concept of home-school- community partnership was given international impetus in 1967 with the publication of the Plowden Report in Britain (Plowden, 1967).

A more local indication of support was given by the Elementary School

Program Commission of the Calgary Public School Board which recommended in its 1967 report that a kindergarten "readiness” program be included 'in the elementary school and that the school admission age be lowered to five years to accommodate such a program

(Callbeck, 1967, vol. I, p.63). The Board was not unanimously in favor of kindergarten. Trustees Gunderson and Higgins were strongly, opposed. Chief Superintendent Robert Warren suggested that a local plebiscite be held on the issue, but the Board declined and voted to establish five more classes in disadvantaged areas at local expense (no PSS funds were awarded) (Calgary Herald, May 31 and

August 16, 1967).

In Edmonton, the Separate (Roman Catholic) School Board in

1967 decided to make kindergartens using elementary classrooms the responsibility of the building principals; parents still paid fees for children in these kindergartens (Edmonton Journal, May 9, 1967).

The Edmonton Public School Board requested its administration to prepare a plan for kindergarten implementation; experimental pre­ school projects were recommended in the report which was received by the Board in November, 1967 (Edmonton Public School Board, 1967).

This was also the year that the ATA adopted its official policy on 86

early childhood education, which supported provincial funding and

Department of Education control, including appointment of a Director of Kindergartens (Calgary Herald, March 30, 1967). The Alberta

Federation of Home and School Associations (AFHSA), under the leader­ ship of President Mary Green adopted a resolution seeking provincial grants to local boards for kindergarten programs (AFHSA, 1967, p.2 )

In another arena, that of the ASTA annual convention, Mary Green was less successful. After a lively debate with Harald Gunderson, she saw the Association defeat a resolution seeking regular provincial funding for children enrolled in a preschool readiness program

(Green interview, 1978; Gunderson interview, 1978).

E.C. Manning retired as leader of the Social Credit Party and

Premier of the Province of Alberta in 1968. The subsequent leader­ ship race was won by Harry Strom who took office as Premier with a cadre of proactive young men who had visions of a new era for

Alberta (Byrne interview, 1971). One of Strom's commitments was to provide for an in-depth study of education, and he named Bob Clark as Minister of Education in December, 1968. Clark was very close to

Strom and had a good deal of influence in the Cabinet (Byrne interview, 1978; Church interview, 1978). However, there was still the division in the Government relative to kindergarten, and the forces in favor of kindergarten support had little likelihood of success in the face of the first deficit budget that the provincial

Government had faced in many years (Church interview, 1978).

Financial concern was evident in Government reaction to criticism in 87

the Legislature by the young Progressive Conservative education critic, Lou Hyndman, and other opposition members of the

Legislative Assembly (Calgary Herald, April 11, 1968). Meanwhile, in the absence of provincial funding, the Edmonton Public School

Board went ahead and established the two experimental preschool projects as recommended in the implementation plan report the year before (Edmonton Journal, April 26, 1968). The Lethbridge Separate

(Catholic) School Board initiated a Headstart program and a kinder­ garten program for the handicapped with PSS funding (Royan, 1972, p.26).

Clark's first year as Minister of Education was a busy one for him and the Department. Most of the rewriting of the School Act was done in 1969 (Stringham, 1974, pp.80-100). In June 1969, consistent with Strom's earlier commitment for an in-depth study, the Government launched the Commission on Educational Planning (CEP), and recruited

Walter Worth (then Vice President for Planning at the University of

Alberta) as the Commissioner. The terms of reference of the

Commission clearly provided for a study of all levels of education and education's relationships to Alberta society, considering individuals, groups and communities from the very young to the very old (Worth,

1972, p.304). In terms of experience, Worth was a good choice as

Commissioner of such a wide-ranging study. His career had included teaching in elementary and secondary schools, school and school system administration, and university teaching and administration.

The breadth of successful experience was the reason for the choice

(Byrne interview, 1978; Clark interview, 1978; Worth interview, 1978). 88

However, Worth's most recent major professional interest had been the area of early childhood education, and discussion during the process of recruiting him for the position of Commissioner indicated that Clark and the Cabinet were not unaware of the positive political potential of early childhood education (Worth interview,

1978).

Meanwhile, in March 1969, Clark received a report on the

"Cost of Support for Kindergarten Classes" from Chief Administrative

Officer, Al Bredo? the report was a factual summary of current kindergarten enrollment, potential kindergarten enrollment and estimated costs of a phased-in program related to Alberta's

School Foundation Program Funding (Bredo, 1969; Bredo interview, 1978).

In response to the Minister's request, Jack Church, the Department's

Director of Special Services and Chairman of the Kindergarten

Committee, prepared a "Position Paper on Early Childhood Education" and circulated it to the Minister, Deputy Minister and senior

(Director-level) staff in the Department. Church's paper favored the introduction of public preschool education. He suggested that the

Department avoid use of the term 'kindergarten' because of its frivolous connotation, and argued that early childhood education should be voluntary and "an integral part of the school system" (Church, 1969).

In dealing with financial priorities, he recommended, "a brake on too costly and rapid expansion", by phasing in handicapped children followed by those for whom facilities were available, and by use of a "realistic base of public financial support (Church, 1969, p.6). 89

Church's attention to financial exigencies reflected the serious cost concerns of his Social Credit Government (Church interview, 1978).

Also, the Church position paper reflected awareness and concern with respect to other Government departments' involvement in early childhood education. The position taken by Church was that the Department of Education should be clearly in charge, but that to take into consideration existing services, agencies and facilities, the Department should establish a co-ordinating council on early childhood education. Church proposed a council with representatives from the Departments of Education, Social Services, and Youth, and from the ASTA and the ATA (Church, 1969, p.8).

Territorial concern was also apparent in a government directive which went to PSS preschool operators in the fall of 1969 indicating that their preschools were being moved from the jurisdiction of the

Department of Social Services to that of the Department of Education.

When a PSS preschool delegation from Pahler, Alberta, had a hearing with Ray Speaker, the Minister of Social Services, and presented their case for retaining their community organization under PSS,

Speaker and Clark reconsidered, and jurisdiction was returned to the

Department of Social Services for the time being (Finlay interview,

1978). Clark held two portfolios at this time. He was also Minister of Youth, and in that position he had initiated the Alberta Service

Corps, a community development corps somewhat similar in operation to the United States Peace Corps and the Company of Young Canadians. In some communities, the Alberta Service Corps were involved in preschool 90

education projects, and Clark (previously a teacher himself) wasn't entirely sympathetic to the "turf control" stance taken by some of his Department of Education-officials (Clark interview, 1978; Byrne interview, 1971).

It was in 1969 that Myer Horowitz became Chairman of Elementary

Education at the University of Alberta and began to champion the cause of early childhood education. In 1969 and the subsequent two years,

Horowitz became an active leader on the executive of several key organizations and groups (some of which he helped establish) dedicated to the establishment of public early childhood education in

Alberta (Affleck interview, 1978; Church interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Worth interview, 1978). Meanwhile, under his

Chairmanship at the University of Alberta, expertise in early child­ hood education was fostered by teachers such as Muriel Affleck,

Lorene Everett, Sheila Gracey, and Bev Cutler (providing Canadian,

British and American flavors, respectively). Some students such as

Sheila Campbell, Pat Shanahan, and Joyce Thain who did their graduate studies under these teachers became active promoters of Government action with respect to early childhood education (Affleck interview,

1978; Campbell interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Shanahan interview, 1978).

Outsidethe Department of Education and the University of

Alberta, pressure continued for Government support of early childhood education. In June, 1969, Alberta's Junior Chamber of Commerce presented a brief to the Minister, calling for kindergarten education 91

as part of the public school system, and noting that, "all provinces

except Prince Edward Island and Alberta support(ed) some pre­ primary education" (Albertan, June 4, 1969). Also in 1969, the

Edmonton branch of the World Organization for Early Childhood

Education (OMEP), led by Myer Horowitz and Sheila Campbell, sub­ mitted its brief to the Commission on Educational Planning. The brief.was entitled, "Education for the Eighties"; it regarded

education as a lifelong process and a function of the community, promoted Government legislation for early childhood education, proposed a new Government ministry in the province (somewhat

similar to HEW in the U.S.A., but with a focus on young children), and advocated community education and greater family involvement

in early education (McKay, 1977).

The Early Seventies

In January, 1970, the ASTA established an Education Council which became the major body within the Association for the deliber­ ation and promotion of early childhood education (Griffiths interview, 1978). The next month, Joyce Thain of CEP's N-12 Education

Task Force which had been established in the fall of 1969, surveyed the ATA membership and found strong support for universal, optional kindergarten as part of the established school system (Thain interview, 1978). March 1970 saw Jack Church restructuring the

Department's Kindergarten Committee as an Early Childhood Education

Committee. A major concern inherited from the previous committee was, 92

"the production of a curriculum guide for early childhood education

embracing the years three to eight" (Church, 1970). At the 'new'

Committee's first meeting, Mrs. Joyce Krysowaty (who operated a private pre-school in Edmonton) agreed to be editor of such a

guide which would be entitled "Alberta Guide for Early Childhood

Education". Chairman Jack Church at the same meeting described the

Minister's inner-city preschool experiment in which requests for proposals(RFP's) were directed to interested public school and private interests in Edmonton and Calgary for a two-year, $50,000.00 (for each city) inner-city early childhood education project for disad­ vantaged children (ECE Committee, April 21, 1970).

At the June, 1970, ASTA Short Course in Banff, Alberta, Myer

Horowitz was a keynote speaker on the subject of early childhood education. After his presentation, a heated debate took place during a panel session between Harald Gunderson (ASTA Vice President) and

Myer Horowitz (Calgary Herald, June 13, 1970). Also in June, the

"CELDIC Report", One Million Children was published. This was the report of the National Commission on Emotional and Learning

Disabilities in Children which influenced educational change across

Canada, including Alberta (Worth, 1972, pp.310, 315). The authors of the CELDIC Report stressed the need for earlier and improved diagnoses of handicaps in young children. They recommended: "that educational authorities make nursery and kindergarten programs available to all children who are likely to benefit from these pre­ school experiences and that in the development of these services 93

priority be given to children who are physically, educationally

or socially handicapped" (CELDIC, 1970, p.143). Parent involvement

and strengthening of the family were called for as well as the

development of a network of social services designed to meet the needs

of the young, and particularly the handicapped child (CELDIC, 1970).

Minister of Education Robert Clark in July, 1970, announced,

the selection of the Edmonton Public School Board proposal,‘and the

Inglewood Community Association and Educorps Limited proposal for

inner-city pilot preschool projects in Edmonton and Calgary,

respectively. The Calgary Public School Board and their Chief

Superintendent, Robert Warren, were critical of the Minister's

selection. Warren noted that the Inglewood-Educorps proposal was

to serve forty children for $50,000, whereas his Board's proposal was to serve two hundred children for the same money. The Board

Chairman wrote to the Minister to seek clarification regarding this aspect and other aspects of the selection decision (Burden, July 17,

1970). When Clark replied to that letter, he noted that cost effectiveness was only one criterion employed in the selection; the reasons given for the selection of the Inglewood-Educorps proposal rather than the Calgary Public School Board proposal were that the government wanted to evaluate a private as well as a public preschool project, and the strong community and parent component of the Ingle­ wood-Educorps proposal. He quoted the document by M & M Research

Associates on which the RFP approach to the pilot projects was based, with respect to community involvement; 94

One of the most disturbing problems facing all tech­ nically advanced nations is the loss of personal identity and community which increasing numbers of individual citizens experience as their environment becomes more mechanized, more organized, more com­ plicated and mass oriented. The frustration and despair of "alienation"-being in society, yet not feeling oneself to be a significant part of that society - lies at the roots of many of the social problems plaguing industrialized societies today. A contemporary study of the problem of alienation suggests the following: Individuals receive a sense of personal identity and a sense of community through personal involve­ ment in certain groups. To give identity and community to their members, these groups: (a) must be relatively small (b) must perform meaningful functions.

At one stage of our social development, the family, the church, and the neighbourhood community all constituted groups possessing these characteristics. In recent years, the functions once performed by these smaller groups have increasingly been taken over by large institutions. (Clark, July 22, 1970, p.2; Manning and Manning, 1970, p.32).

Proposals from private groups in Edmonton were weak; there, the competition was really between the Edmonton Public School Board and the Edmonton Separate School Board proposals (Clark, July 22,

1970, p.3). Both Clark's letter, and the Evaluation Committee's report emphasized the parent-community involvement component of the Inglewood-Educorps proposal (Barr et ad, July 6, 1970; Clark,

July 22, 1970). Clark's reply did not impress the Board in Calgary which had recently decided to open another five disadvantaged-area kindergartens at local expense (Royan, 1972, p.3).

Also in the summer of 1970, the new School Act became law.

The new Act included no mention of kindergartens, a departure from the previous School Act. However, the Department of Education Act 95

which became law the same year did provide for the Minister to make

regulations, "concerning the definition, administration, operation,

management, control and licensing of all kindergarten education programs

in Alberta" (Section 7, clause c). In their September. 1970, brief

to the Minister of Education, the Alberta Teachers' Association

called for School Foundation Program Funding for children currently

enrolled in public kindergartens, and noted that introduction of

province-wide kindergartens would provide positions for the increasing

supply of teachers (Seguin, 1977, pp.100-101). At the ASTA convention

in November, trustees narrowly (227 to 216) approved a resolution

calling for government funding of preschool education beyond the

nursery school level. The resolution included the proviso that

preschool programs would meet the needs of the jurisdiction

concerned, leaving the ultimate decision for implementation in the

hands of the local school trustees (Albertan, November 4, 1970).

December 3-5, 1970, the Commission on Educational Planning

and Alberta's Human Resources Research Council (HRRC) held the

"Congress on the Future: Education". This was one of CEP's citizen

involvement activities, a brainstorming session in which participants

considered alternate futures and projected and discussed implications

of those futures (HRRC, 1970). At the Congress, the three hundred

participants were polled on different education issues, and a strong

majority agreed that "Alberta should establish a province-wide

program of preschool education" (Calgary Herald, December 5, 1970).

At the end of December, Clark announced approval of the first 96

Innovative Projects proposals submitted by school boards under the

Innovative Project program established earlier in the year. The

purpose of the program was to stimulate new ways of delivering

educational services; established programs were not eligible for

funding (Department of Education, September, 1970). However,

early childhood education projects were eligible, and parent

and community involvement were encouraged. One of the projects

approved in December 1970, was an inter-agency early childhood

development program in the High Prairie School Division, which

subsequently provided valuable experience in inter-agency co-operation

(Hastings interview, 1978; Finlay interview, 1978).

In January 1971, Jack Church replied to concern expressed

by the ATA's Early Childhood Education Council that the provincial

ECE Committee had not met since April 1970. He informed members

w • that monies had not been available to produce the type of curriculum

guide which the Committee had decided on the previous year, and went

on to say that, "As admirable as the production of such a publication

undoubtedly is it must be remembered that the Provincial Government

does not assume the same responsibility in the field of preschool

education as it does in producing guides in curriculum areas for

Grades I to XII" (Church, January 25, 1971). Church also indicated

that because of limited resources he had been forced to go back to

a twenty-five to one pupil-teacher ratio, from the twenty to one ratio

requested for the preschool regulations by the Committee at the April meeting. He indicated that if members had agenda items "of critical 97

importance", and, "If these (were) compelling enough to justify

the expense of calling this Committee together (he) would be quite

happy to do so" (Church, January 25, 1971). Church's apparent lack

of enthusiasm was related to the Minister's feeling that the ECE

Committee was pushing a little too hard (Church interview, 1978).

Meanwhile, several Alberta school systems were receiving some PSS

support for early childhood projects, from the Department of

Health and Social Development (previously, Social Services).

In January 1971, such projects were operating in Edmonton,

Medicine Hat, Fort McMurray, Smoky River, Crowsnest Pass, Athabasca,

and St. Paul (one each); Lethbridge and Leduc (two each); High

Prairie (four); Grande Prairie (five); and Lac La Biche (six)

(Horowitz, 1971, pp.3-4)

Sheila Campbell, as representative of the ATA's Early

Childhood Education Council, responded to Church's letter by

soliciting the support of other provincial Committee members to

request an ECE Committee meeting, "in the immediate future".

She listed several agenda items including reviving the curriculum

guide, reaffirming the lower ratio and, "Provisions for co-operation

between the Departments of Education, Health and Social Development

to effect necessary changes in and provide assistance to programs

for young children (Campbell, February 11, 1971). Not all kinder­

garten operators shared the provincial Committee's opinion with

respect to pupil-teacher ratio. When Church spoke to the Calgary

Kindergarten Teachers’ Association Convention in February, he found 98

teachers and operators concerned about the idea of a lower ratio because of its implications for tuition fees (Albertan, February 20,

1971; Calgary Herald, February 20, 1971). At the convention, the

Happy Hours Kindergarten presented a brief to Church which summarized the fee situation (including community subsidization where parents could not afford fees), and the community services used in Calgary's community kindergartens. Those who wrote the brief noted the

Public School Board's maximum ratio of thirty to one and questioned the value of expensive pilot projects for a total of 160 Alberta children, relative to community kindergarten operations which could have served 800 children for the same $100,000 from the Province

(Happy Hours Kindergarten, February 19, 1971).

Church told the teachers and operators at the Calgary convention that the interim report of the N-12 Education Task

Force of CEP would include some interesting recommendations on early childhood education (Albertan, February 20, 1971; Calgary

Herald, February 20, 1971). The Interim Proposals of the N-12

Education Task Force were made public, February 22, 1971. With respect to citizen involvement in education, the Task Force stated that, "While we see school boards as an essential mechanism for citizen control of education, we also see the need for much more extensive participation of parents at all levels" (N-12 Education

Task Force, February 1, 1971, p.9). School councils of parents, teachers, and students were recommended to deal with matters relating / to curriculum, teaching and learning; and increased parent involvement 99

in the education of pre-grade 1 children was stressed in the document. The Task Force deplored the growth of "second-rate kindergartens", and saw ECE as the first of four chronological phases in the public school system (Phase A, children, ages 3-5;

Phase B, children, ages 6-10; Phase C, children, ages 11-13; and Phase D, children, ages 14-16) (N-12 Education Task Force,

February 1, 1971, pp.15-17, 22). Interim Proposal No. 2 dealt specifically with ECE:

that for the period up to 1980 public institutions be established in Alberta to which parents may, at their discretion, bring their children when they reach ages 3, 4, or 5. The emphasis in these institutions should be on providing children with a variety of experiences in an environment in which children are able to move at their own rate. It is presumed that these children will move continually toward Phase B of the educational system. Maturity would be a major criterion upon which to base movement from Phase A to Phase B (N-12 Education Task Force, February 1, 1971, p.18).

In the spring of 1971, there was speculation in Alberta about a summer or fall provincial election. The editors of Challenge, the journal of the Council on School Administration of the ATA, interviewed the educational spokesmen for the four major parties active in Alberta politics: Robert Clark (Minister of Education and Social Credit Spokesman), Danny Daniels (Liberal Spokesman),

Hart Horn (New Democrat spokesman), and Lou Hyndman (Conservative spokesman and opposition critic on education in the provincial legislature). The four spokesmen were asked, "In what order would you place priority for financial support in the next two to three 100

years: elementary (including early childhood education)/ secondary

education, post-secondary non-degree institutions and universities?"

Clark's response was the grade 1-12 system including something of

a funded project nature in early childhood education for disadvantaged

and handicapped children. He noted that the addition of one year to

the school system for such children would be of little value without

the involvement of their mothers (Clark, 1971, pp.40-41). Daniels

considered kindergartens a priority that shouldn't be left to

innovative school boards or restricted to the very advantaged and

the very disadvantaged (Daniels, 1971, p.25). Horn's first priority was "pre-elementary education" which he described as educational

day-care centers (Horn, 1971, p.39). Hyndman's first priority was,

"a renewed and special emphasis on pre-school education". He related

costs of later social problems to the preceding lack of pre-school

education for those concerned who were disadvantaged and really behind when they started school (Hyndman, 1971, p.38).

In response to other questions, all four party spokesmen favored more local control of public education, and increased community involvement in education. Clark went on to describe the current level of involvement, noting that his cabinet met with about forty different groups every year, most of whom had some ideas regarding education (Clark, 1971, p.22). Hyndman elaborated his concerns regarding local control by indicating that he did not want to see too much authority given to central offices of school systems; he valued the healthy quality of competing interest groups in 101

education (Hyndman, 1971, pp.20, 50).

In March, 1971, the Minister's Advisory Committee to the

Alberta Educational Communications Authority met with Clark in

Calgary and discussed a confidential proposal for educational

television programming and distribution, entitled "Project ACCESS

(Alberta's Childhood and Continuing Education Staging System)".

The preschool phase was the first phase of the proposal, and the

immediate concern of the Advisory Committee. A daily one-hour

TV program was proposed, "which would complement (and in some cases, correct) the Sesame Street programs, which would be shown concur­ rently" (Alberta Educational Communications Authority, 1971).

Walter Worth was supported by the other members of the Committee when he called for support for a continuing preschool series rather than for a short-term proposal. Clark didn't commit himself regarding the Governments plans or otherwise for introduction of "physical kindergartens" (Minister's Advisory Committee to the Alberta

Educational Communications Authority,. March 2, 1971).

Also in the spring of 1971, Eldon Bliss, Curriculum

Supervisor for the Edmonton Public School Board, initiated meetings with Myer Horowitz and Gene Torgunrud, Director of Elementary

Curriculum for the Department of Education to develop "a working model of early childhood education". The result was the "Co-operative

Early Childhood Education Project", an inter-agency project involving the Department of Education (Innovative Project funding), both

Edmonton school boards, the Department of Health and Social Development, 102

and the University of Alberta. Home and community involvement in

the child’s growth and development up to eight years of age was

a main objective of the project which began in the fall of 1971

(Bliss, February 19, 1971; Horowitz, 1971, p.4; Krysowaty, 1972, p.6; Torgunrud, February 23, 1971).

During March and April, members of CEP's N-12 Education

Task Force heard, read, and reviewed concerns and reactions of

several individuals and groups to the Interim Proposals of the Task

Force. The Task Force deliberated for three days, and delivered a

"Supplement to the Proposals of the N-12 Task Force" to Commissioner

Worth, May 1, 1971. In this Supplement, the Task Force indicated that their Phase A (ages 3 to 5) of the education system should be operated by school boards, and clarified their position on school councils: the principal to be executive officer; the council of students, parents and teachers to have some decision-making power regarding school budget and advisory functions regarding program, conduct and staffing. ECE was presented as the first of the Task

Force's "very highest priorities", and ECE implementation respon­ sibilities were clarified as follows: provincial government- changes in grants; school boards - program authorization and pro­ vision of staff and facilities; school councils and staffs - program development; and university faculties of education - pre­ paration of staff (N-12 Education Task Force, May 1, 1971, pp.4,

6-7, 17, 19) 103

A meeting of the provincial ECE Committee was held May 5, 1971.

This was the Committee's first meeting since April, 1970. Chairman

Jack Church reiterated the points regarding austerity and its effects on the curriculum guide and the pupil-teacher ratio, and indicated that the status of the Committee itself was uncertain as to its advisory relationship to the Minister. An ad hoc committee was established to develop terms of reference for the Committee, and a curriculum guide and standards of preschool institutions were discussed (ECE Committee, May 5, 1971). Subsequently, the ECE

Committee was disbanded at the request of the Minister? that action brought a swift and critical response from the ATA, and a reconsti­ tuted committee was established. The new committee was to have its first meeting in the fall, but the provincial election intervened

(Campbell interview, 1978? Church interview, 1978? Keeler interview, 1978).

Two inter-agency ECE projects with strong parental and community involvement components were initiated with Innovative

Project funding in the summer of 1971. The Red Deer Public School

Board co-ordinated "A Summer Preschool Experience for Beginners

Who Have Demonstrated a Lack of Readiness for School" (Horowitz,

1971, p.4). "Growing Up Together" was a project co-ordinated by the Edmonton Separate School Board in which professionals in social work, recreation, and education worked together with parents and children (Krysowaty, 1972, pp.5-6). During the summer, the ASTA, 104

through Alberta's Human Resources Research Council, commissioned

Myer Horowitz to prepare a report, "on the feasibility of conducting a pilot project, in one or more areas of the province, in which all of the agencies whose work involves providing services to (preschool) children would operate as a co-ordinated unit" (Horowitz, 1971 p.i).

During the August 1971 OMEP meetings in Bonn, West Germany, Horowitz found considerable support for an integrated agency approach to early childhood education (Horowitz, 1971, pp.1-2). Muriel Affleck and Pearl Turner completed the ATA's Early Childhood Education

Council "Position Paper on Early Childhood Education" in the summer of 1971. They defined early childhood as ages three to eight for most children, reviewed the current Alberta situation, referred to

Bloom's and others' research and summarized research implications to support a twelve-point philosophical position strongly supportive of widespread provisions for early childhood education. Little attention was given to parental and community involvement, although two statements from the Position Paper could be regarded as sup­ portive of these components: "The education of young children must be accepted as a joint responsibility of the home, the school and the society"; and, "Integrated learning in its fullest sense is the ideal for young children" (Affleck and Turner, 1971, pp.l, 12).

The August 1971 provincial election was the major event of the summer. Alberta's Progressive Conservatives under Peter Lougheed ended thirty-six years of Social Credit Government in the province. 105

In their campaign, the Progressive Conservatives had promised to

be a "Now Government", responsive and closer to the people of

Alberta ("We listen1" was a key slogan). Support for preschool

education was a part of their platform, and education was confirmed

as a high government priority when Premier Lougheed appointed

Lou Hyndman (regarded as the "number two man" in the Cabinet) as

Minister of Education (Clark interview, 1978; Church interview, 1978;

Horowitz interview, 1978: Torgunrud interview, 1978). In his

analysis of The Canadian Establishment, Newman later described

Hyndman as the "social conscience" of Lougheed1s Cabinet (Newman,

1975, p.249).

While the Progressive Conservative Government was moving

into office, early childhood education Innovative Projects were

beginning operations in High Prairie and Grande Prairie. The High

Prairie project, "Early Childhood Development Through Use of

Environmental Control Centers" was partly funded by PSS, and was

designed for involvement of parents and community services to prepare .disadvantaged children for formal schooling by "offsetting personal learning deficits" (Krysowaty, 1972, p.5). Grande Prairie's

"School-Community Project for the Early Recognition and Remediation of Learning Disabilities" involved parents as volunteer tutors, and a variety of community agencies in the development and application of an integrated service model for attacking learning disabilities in a group of grade I students (Krysowaty, 1972, p.6). The

Edmonton Separate School Board expanded its kindergarten program to 106

twenty-two classes in September, 1971 (Edmonton Journal, September 4,

1971).

There were changes in the Department of Education's admini­

stration with the new Government. Consistent with interim

recommendations from CEP, two education departments were established:

the Department of Education with Hyndman as Minister, and Earl

Hawkesworth as Deputy Minister; and the Department of Advanced

Education with Jim Foster as Minister, and R. E. Rees as Deputy.

Also at this time, Irv Hastings was appointed Associate Director

of Curriculum (Canadian Education Association, October 1971,

November 1971). Hyndman wasted little time in initiating ECE

discussion with Foster, and with Neil Crawford, Minister of Health

and Social Development, and Horst Schmidt, Minister of Culture,

Youth and Recreation (Hyndman interview, 1978). He also met formally

and informally with individuals and groups interested in ECE.

Along with Crawford, in October, he was invited and went to the

inaugural conference of the Alberta Association for Young Children

(AAYC), an organization spearheaded by Sheila Campbell and Myer

Horowitz with a membership overlapping that of OMEP, but including

laypeople as well as child care professionals (Campbell interview,

1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Thain interview, 1978). At the

conference, the AAYC made a strong plea to the two Ministers for a

new "Ministry of Children" responsible for childhood services

including those for early childhood (Campbell interview, 1978;

Hyndman interview, 1978). 107

The ATA Executive Council had approved the ECE Council's

Position Paper in September. Subsequently, the Council met and

President Horowitz emphasized the need for education to work with

other services in providing effective early childhood education.

Then the Council had an informal lunch meeting with the Minister,

and Hyndman impressed members with his frank and knowledgeable com­

ments and well-worn, underlined and annotated copy of the Position

Paper (Affleck interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978).

Meanwhile, Premier Lougheed had been checking on the progress of

the Commission on Educational Planning. In mid-October, the Premier

invited Walter Worth to a meeting with himself, the Provincial

Treasurer, Gordon Miniely, and Ministers Foster and Hyndman. After a "comfortable" discussion on the progress and direction of CEP,

Lougheed asked Worth to continue what he had been doing and with the same timeline (Worth interview, 1978).

Horowitz presented "An Integrated Approach to Early Child­ hood Education (A Feasibility Study)" at the ASTA's annual convention in November 1971. He had not had sufficient time for a real feasi­ bility study, so the report consisted of a brief review of literature dealing with Headstart programs in the U.S.A., and a summary of

Alberta preschool programs with particular attention of those under the auspices of the Department of Health and Social Development.

Horowitz reached the following conclusion: 108

Much more progress needs to be made. By design the the activities of the health/ social service, recreational, cultural and educational units should be co-ordinated. In some areas an attempt should be made to integrate these services in an imaginative way by creating a new unit (Horowitz, 1971, p.4).

Rather than presenting a particular model for integrated early

childhood services, he argued that, "ASTA should be at the forefront

in encouraging the Provincial Government to accept as a goal uni­

versal preschool education, but it should be willing to support

enthusiastically a variety of models - only one of which is the

kindergarten class sponsored by the school district" (Horowitz,

1971, p.5).

Finally, by the end of 1971, a new thirteen-member Minister's

Advisory Committee on Early Childhood Education had been constituted

with input from the Minister (Church, November 16, December 3, 1971).

Jack Church notified all members that a meeting of the Committee

would be held in Edmonton, January 21, 1972 (Church, December 21, 1971).

The Eve of ECS, 1972-1973

Pat Shanahan, Consultant in Primary Education in the Department

of Education's Athabasca Regional Office, and member of the new

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE, put together some of her

"thoughts on alternative approaches toward implementing preschool programs in Alberta". Prior to the January 21 Committee meeting,

she forwarded copies of her paper which included four alternative

ECE implementation models and tentative terms of reference for the 109

Committee to Jack Church (Committee Chairman), Myer Horowitz and

Gene Torgunrud (Committee Members), C. D. Ledgerwood (Shanahan's superior, Co-ordinator of the Athabasca Regional Office) and

Irv Hastings (Associate Director of Curriculum). Intra-Depart- mental correspondence indicated that Hastings was interested in

ECE at that time (Torgunrud, December 23, December 29, 1971).

Shanahan's four implementation models provided the following alternatives: continuation of private kindergartens with Depart­ ment of Education regulation; co-operative community kindergartens with community Advisory committees and assistance from local school systems and the Departments of Education, and Culture, Youth, and

Recreation; universal community kindergartens "contracted out" to local school systems with community advisory committees, provincial- local funding, and assistance from the Departments of Education and

Health and Social Development; and universal school system kinder­ gartens without advisory committees, but with provincial-local funding and assistance from the same government departments

(Shanahan, 1972). Her suggested terms of reference for the new

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE were as follows:

1. To examine alternative means to implementing pre-school programs in Alberta.

2. To identify objectives for the program selected.

3. To identify alternative means of financing the program.

4. To identify means by which other government agencies may become involved. 110

5. To identify means by which a pre-school program may be integrated with the Total educational scheme.

6. To identify means by which communities may become involved in the educational process.

7. To determine the parameters of Early Childhood Education.

8. To consider an appropriate admissions policy.

9. To identify changes in legislation which may be required. (Shanahan, 1972, p.12)

At the January 21 meeting of the Advisory Committee, the first

order of business, following the Chairman's historical review of

the Committee's development, was a discussion regarding Committee

membership. The current membership was thirteen: one representative

from each of the Alberta Federation of Home and School Associations

(AFHSA), the ASTA, the ATA, the ATA's Council on ECE, the University

of Alberta, and the University of Calgary; four teachers from rural

(one), small urban (one), and large urban (two) communities; and three

Department of Education members. There was some discussion on the

advantages of including representation from the private sector and

from other social service agencies, but members decided to keep the

group at a "manageable size". When the Committee looked at the

question of Committee terms of reference, Myer Horowitz and

Ethel King (University of Calgary) expressed concern over the membership's lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding programs

currently offered by a variety of agencies. Gene Torgunrud stated

the need for Committee articulation with other agencies and for an ill

understanding of other agency positions regarding ECE. The Committee

appointed an ad hoc committee of Pat Shanahan (Chairperson),

Jack Fotheringham (ATA) and Ethel King to gather all available data

on preschool education in Alberta and present the data to the next

Advisory Committee meeting, March 28, 1972 (Minister's Advisory

Committee on ECE, January 21, 1972).

Early in 1972, the Alberta Government announced the

termination of the Alberta Human Resources Research Council (HRRC)

and the Innovative Projects Program, both creatures of the

previous Social Credit Government (CEA, February 1972; CEA, May-

June, 1972). Currently-approved Innovative Projects (including

already-mentioned ECE projects) were supported for the duration

of their project schedules, and HRRC was given a fifteen-month

phase-out period. Shortly after the phase-out announcement,

Lorne Downey, Director of HRRC published Alberta, 1971: A Social

Audit in which he identified early childhood as the "weakest

point" in Alberta's education system. He noted further that, "the

evidence suggests that in this area, Alberta's record is one of

the poorest in Canada" (Downey, 1972, p.20).

The Athabasca Regional Office of the Department of

Education sponsored a two-day invitational seminar in March 1972,

on early childhood education. Superintendents of school systems

within the Athabasca Region were each invited to come to the

seminar and to bring some interested teachers and administrators with them. Pat Shanahan organized the seminar. Presentations were 112

geared to the Athabascan context, and included teacher education,

ECE programs, integration of health, social, and educational services and community involvement and development. Speakers included

Lou Hyndman, Myer Horowitz, Lorene Everett (University of Alberta),

Mel Finlay (Department of Health and Social Development), Jack Church, and Gene Torgunrud (Finlay interview, 1978; Shanahan, December 16,

1971; Shanahan interview, 1978). Also in March, the Edmonton Public

School Board received a report from its administration, recommending a strong kindergarten program which would incorporate a greater

emphasis on parent involvement (Bliss, 1972). Funding was still the

crucial factor for school boards. The provincial Government

announced that Alberta school boards would get nineteen million

dollars more in 1972 than in 1971, and promised a new finance plan in 1973 to reduce the burden on local property, but nothing was

said in the announcement with respect to ECE funding (CEA, March, 1972).

On March 28, 1972, the Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE held its second meeting. A preliminary draft of the ad hoc committee report on current preschool operations was distributed. In addition to statistics related to population, service and enrollment, the draft included a copy of the Horowitz "feasibility study" presented to the ASTA the preceding November. Most of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the Horowitz paper. In discussion, the variety of agencies and services was emphasized along with the coincident need for an integrated approach to ECE. It was suggested that the

Government was making ECE policy by its budget allocations (or lack 113

thereof) to different departments, and the importance of an active

Department of Education role was noted. Parent involvement was

recognized as an important factor regardless of the approach used

for ECE. Finally, the Committee established a small working

committee of Harry Kleparchuk (Edmonton teacher/principal),

Luce Granger (Wetaskiwin teacher), Pat Shanahan, and Cleve Rea

(ASTA) to frame specific recommendations to the larger Committee for action on preschool education in the 1972-73 school year. There was some feeling that the Horowitz paper might serve as a basis for

the working committee's report, and the latter was scheduled for presentation to the Committee and possible discussion with the Minister in May (Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE, March 28, 1972).

Lou Hyndman announced a "freeze" on school building' construction in May 1972, based on a survey which indicated that the province had approximately 800 vacant classrooms (CEA, May-June 1972).

As the "freeze"policy developed, the onus was on school districts to show a satisfactory level of classroom occupancy before the pro­ vincial School Buildings Board would consider proposals for further school construction. Empty classrooms had some implications for those who were anticipating Government action in the provision of

ECE programs. The report of Kleparchuk's working committee was circulated to Advisory Committee members prior to the May 11

Committee meeting so that Committee members could prepare for an in-depth discussion of the report (Church, May 1972). Recommendations of the working committee were as follows: 114

A. For Immediate Action; It is recommended that:

1. The Government encourage community agencies to submit proposals for projects which, by design, would establish a system in which the activities of the health, social services, cultural and educational units may be coordinated.

2. The Government establish several pilot projects in early childhood development.

N.B. It is necessary to act quickly so that policy makers may have the benefit of information gained by a number of pilot projects before they make policy decisions about Early Childhood pro­ grams for Alberta.

3. There be provision for an educational component in early childhood programs funded by other government departments, (i.e. Day Care Programs).

4. That guidelines be developed for early childhood i) programs ii) personnel iii) facilities iv) dissemination of this information

5. The Government appoint a Co-ordinator of Early Childhood Programs.

6. An advisory committee to the Co-ordinator of Early Childhood Programs be appointed.

B. For the Next 2 or 3 Years: It is recommended that:

1. The Government not endorse at this time uni­ versal kindergartens for the province; but instead accept a flexible system which provides for the testing of a variety of models as the most desirable approach to early childhood development.

2. The Government establish a provincial Office of Early Childhood Development to provide continuing coordination of the development and administration of programs and services. 115

3. An advisory committee to the Office of Early Childhood Development be appointed. Member­ ship of the advisory committee should be representative of all groups involved in early childhood programs.

4. The Government establish Early Childhood Assessment Centers which would examine children from birth to age eight to assess their physical, social and educational develop­ ment and place them in appropriate programs. Programs could be for: a) Home based youngsters b) Educationally disadvantaged c) Functionally disadvantaged d) Emotionally disturbed.

C. Other Programs to be Considered;

1. Home Training Programs The Government should consider programs for three, four and five year old children which provide training for them and their parents in their homes. a) programs should be developed to provide training for parents to work with their own children i) how to use games or toys to help their own children ii) Adult evening courses on child development iii) movies in hospitals for new parents iv) specialized assistance to parents of of children with special needs b) provision of parent oriented television program guides which would build on existing television programs i) Sesame Street ii) Friendly Giant iii) Mr. DressUp c) special television programs for children which would emphasize Alberta d) children and their mothers could view televised programs in "block party" situ­ ations, i.e. five or six families assembling in one home e) either c) or d) could be made more effective 116

by home visiting aides trained in early childhood development (graduates of Grant McEwan Community College's Early Childhood Development Program) f) video tapes could be made available for use in areas where reception is poor, or non­ existent, or for replay at a time more convenient to children and their parents

2. Combined Group Education, Television and Home Visiting Programs A combined approach which provides a classroom situation in addition to a home visit program and uses television as an instructional aid. e.g. The program could consist of a daily 30 minutes T.V. lesson with the child in the home; regular home visits by resource personnel who would work with parents and children; group instruction provided once a week in a classroom, or in a mobile classroom in rural areas, or in community buildings.

3. Group Programs Programs designed to provide different "kinds" of group experiences for young children by providing teachers and a variety of facilities for groups of children. a) Day Care Centers b) Nursery Schools c) Kindergartens d) Play Schools (Kleparchuk et al, (revised), 1972, pp.1-3)

The May 11 meeting of the Minister's Advisory Committee was devoted to a detailed study and review of the working committee report.

It was noted that the Department of Education did not have enough

supervisory staff to provide for the needs of all the rural areas

interested in kindergartens. Calgary and Edmonton programs were considered successful because of their close supervision, but it was felt that the province needed a broader concept with more models than 117

the systems currently operating. Some private agency preschool programs were considered viable, given the direction of educators, and it was felt that they should have provincial funding. The need was considered critical for a Co-ordinator for Preschool

Education, accountable to the Minister of Education, with an

Advisory Committee, and with responsibility for co-ordinating and integrating ECE programs and funding of the Departments of

Education, Health and Social Development, and Culture, Youth and

Recreation. Following discussion, the Advisory Committee approved in principle the revised report, and directed Chairman Church to indicate to the Minister that a delegation of the Committee was prepared to meet with him to elaborate the Committee's position and discuss the Recommendations for Government Action in detail

(Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE, May 11, 1972).

Appended to the Kleparchuk working committee report were statistics and program descriptions for current preschool operations, largely compiled by Pat Shanahan. Enrollment of three-to five- year olds in Alberta were categorized under day nurseries, nursery schools, play schools, institutions, private kindergartens, public kindergartens, and kindergartens for native children. Approximately twenty-five percent (22,600 children of a possible 91,500) of

Alberta's children ages three to five were enrolled in some early childhood program (Kleparchuk et al, (revised), 1972, Appendix A;

Shanahan interview, 1978). 118

In June, Lou Hyndman spoke to an ASTA meeting in Calgary and asked trustees to indicate their priorities, including ECE.

The ASTA executive sent a questionnaire to all school boards to determine trustees' priorities. After a low response rate,

ASTA President Harald Gunderson, announced in August that strong support for universal kindergartens was not apparent from the survey. Shortly after the ASTA survey results were published, the Edmonton Separate School Board reiterated its support of a universal kindergarten program (Gunderson interview, 1978; Seguin,

1977, pp.142-143).

Meanwhile, in mid-June, the report of the Commission on

Educational Planning, A Choice of Futures, was released and marketed to the people of Alberta. The first of Worth's ten top priorities for Government action was, "provision of universal opportunity and selective experience in early education" (Worth, 1972, p.300).

Early education and other priorities were proposed in the context of a person-centered future society for Alberta (characterized by substantial citizen involvement in education), as opposed to a second-phase industrial future society (characterized by a more plutocratic, hierarchical structure) (Worth, 1972, pp.26-33).

Worth described three functions of early education before the age of six; "stimulation", "identification", and "sociali­ zation". Stimulation was explained as the provision of opportunities geared to the particular child, "for learning a variety of attitudes, skills and behaviours which will promote aesthetic, emotional, 119

intellectual and physical development" (Worth, 1972, p.51).

The identification function was elaborated in terms of a child's

"development of an appropriate self-image which helps him discern who he is", and the socialization function, in terms of, "helping children to learn to live with others", with a heavy emphasis on family and community involvement. In describing socialization,

Worth noted that, "Here, as with the performance of other functions, early education, the home and the community must be complementary to and not substitutes for each other" (Worth, 1972, p.51). He noted the strong and urgent public support for ECE as follows:

While several Canadian provinces have high partici­ pation rates in preschool programs, Alberta remains the only one without established plans for publicly -supported endeavors at this level. Yet overwhelming support for such an undertaking was found by the Commission during its hearings. Time and time again, this issue was the subject of agreement between private citizens and professional educators alike. In fact, no other single topic was as often discussed with such a high degree of accord. It is time for us to act upon so clear a mandate, (worth, 1972, p.65)

Rather than importing traditions, Worth.proposed four points of emphasis related to the needs of A.lberta's preschoolers: universal opportunity, selective experience, day-care, and televised learning. Universal opportunity for one year of guided education for five-year-olds prior to entering basic education was to be a parental option. For exceptional children (handicapped, and/or disadvantaged) requiring particular attention and opportunity, early diagnoses and a selective experience of specialized education opportunities were to be available.for such children at three 120

or four years of age. A greater educational component for day-care was proposed, and a televised ECE package called "Early Ed" designed for the stimulation function, was explained as a complement to

"place-bound preschool programs" and programs like Sesame Street

(Worth, 1972, pp.65-68).

An Early Education Division was proposed in the CEP report as one of two divisions of the Department of Education (Worth, 1972, pp.134-135). For program delivery, variable ECE sponsorship was proposed, to include provincial funding for existing sponsorship by a variety of agencies: school systems, other public bodies, community organizations, and private agencies. "Variable sponsorship", stated Worth, "has great potential for introducing a richness of diversity that will create a choice of learning environments for the parents of young children", and "will tend to free early education from the constraints of present structures and the influence of primary programs" (Worth, 1972, p.68). Worth foresaw a variety of alternative ECE programs, from some stressing skill development, to others with a "multi-disciplinary, total services approach, evidencing concern for medical-dental care, nutrition, social services, psychological services, parent education and the involvement of community volunteers" (Worth, 1972, p.68). Total provincial ECE expenditures for 1975 were estimated at approximately twenty-one million dollars, or about three percent of the total expenditures on education (Worth, 1972, 277). 121

Citizen response to A Choice of Futures, was solicited.

People were asked to forward their responses to the Cabinet

Committee on Education which consisted of Ministers Hyndman, Poster, and Hohol (Minister of Manpower and Labor) before October 15, 1972

(Worth, 1972). Meanwhile, Hyndman issued a press release indicating that legislation on early childhood education would be considered during the fall session of the Alberta Legislature (Royan, 1972, p.28).

During the summer, Horowitz assumed his new duties as Dean of the

Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta (CEA, December, 1978).

Also during the summer, HRRC published one of its last reports,

An Early Childhood Education Project in Calgary and Edmonton which summarized the HRRC evaluation of the city preschool pilot projects in Calgary and Edmonton. Based on their evaluation, the authors recommended that future projects explore the integration of human services in the community for identification of children who urgently require services. The authors concluded that the Alberta government must demonstrate a total commitment to early childhood services, with a policy of alternative programs and the differentiated funding caused by alternative programs (MacKay, 1977, p.13;

Watts, Pacy, McBride, 1972). A government commitment to some form of ECE was reflected in the Department of Education's Directors'

Council review of tentative job descriptions for a Director of

Early Childhood Education (Church, August 29, 1972; Church,

August 30, 1972). 122

In the fall of 1972, Walter Worth was appointed as Deputy

Minister of Advanced Education (CEA, September, 1972). Irv Hastings was appointed as Director of Early Childhood Services in the Depart­ ment of Education. Hastings' appointment was not made public until the Government announced its Early Childhood Services the following

March (Hastings interview, 1978; Torgunrud interview, 1978).

In the interim, Hastings retained his position as Associate Director of Curriculum, as well as the job of drafting a Government policy regarding the operation of early childhood services (Hastings interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978). As a follow-up to the

HRRC pilot project evaluation report, the Government requested

L. W. Downey Research Associates Limited to prepare a policy paper on early childhood development. Government documents and reports were made available to Downey, including the "Recommendations for

Government Action" of the Minister's Advisory Committee. In addition, a committee of Nick Chamchuk (Director of Information

Services, Department of Education), Eldon Bliss, Irv Hastings,

Myer Horowitz, Jim Hrabi (Associate Deputy Minister of Education),

Ernie Ingram (University of Alberta) and Bernie Keeler (Executive

Secretary of the ATA) reviewed and reacted to Downey's first draft of the paper (Downey, November 14, 1972; Horowitz interview, 1978).

In October 1972, Bernice Youck of Edmonton, organized a meeting of her Parent Co-operative Kindergarten Association (PCKA) to lobby directly with Edmonton's eighteen MLA's (all were

Conservatives). Nine MLA's, including the Minister of Manpower and 123

Labor, Bert Hohol, and the Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation,

Horst Schmidt, attended the meeting. Lou Hyndman was unable to attend, but he sent a representative, Jack Church, as did the Minister of Health and Social Development. The purpose of the meeting was to strengthen the Association's position as put forth in their CEP response to the Cabinet Committee on Education, that there should not be variable sponsorship of ECE programs. The Association favored universal kindergartens operated by school boards (Campbell interview, 1978; Youck interview, 1978).

In Calgary, the Public School Board received a report from its Elementary Division on ECE alternatives. The Board had requested the report earlier in the year to include feasibility and costing of four possible Board-sponsored alternatives: a lower grade I admittance age, a double entry system (grade I entry in September and February), universal kindergarten classes, and individual early entry based on readiness testing. Cost estimates indicated that a lower admittance age would be the most expensive, followed by universal kindergarten classes, and double entry (provincial grants for February beginners were open to question), and there was further study required on readiness testing (Royan, 1972, p.55a). Subse­ quently, at about the same time that the Province announced its

ECS Program, the Board decided on double entry (Calgary Public

School Board, March 27, 1973).

Downey completed his policy paper, Opportunities for Infants,

November 14, 1972. Therein, he propounded six principles of early 124

childhood development: comprehensiveness, implying enrichment-

oriented rather than training-oriented programs; timing, noting that

the earlier the exposure, the more likely the impact; stimulating en­

vironment ; adult involvement for which he noted that, "Though a con­

tinuing, emotionally attached, parent-like figure is essential for

the process of child development, it cannot be assumed that all par­

ents are properly equipped to play this role - without training and

/or leadership"; diagnosis; and the child as a person, with attendant

social rights and privileges (Downey, 1972, pp.12-13). Six situational

guidelines were outlined to tie policy considerations to the Alberta

context. It was argued that the case for Government involvement was

strong and immediate; that early childhood development was "far too

important to be left to chance", and its burden, "far too heavy to be

left to parents and communities" (Downey, November 1972, p.14).

Regarding locus of Government involvement, Downey indicated the need

for Government-wide interdepartmental commitment with a co-ordinating mechanism for operation of programs. For reconciling competing

demands, the author advocated an exploratory strategy of ECE imple­ mentation, although good programs were recognized in his fourth and

fifth guidelines, building upon what exists, and maintaining commit­ ment. Downey's sixth guideline was, preparing for rational planning,

advising the Government to develop, and act upon, a complete infor­ mation base for future planning (Downey, 1972, pp.14-16). After

reviewing CEP recommendations and those of the Minister's

Advisory Committee on ECE, Downey recommended 125

priority ordering of programs for government action: first/ selective fair start services; second, selective personal rehabilitative services; third, selective environmental equalizing services; and fourth, general enrichment services. He concluded with a timeline for Government action, providing for the introduction of some programs in 1973 (Downey, 1972).

Lou Hyndman tabled the Downey paper in the Legislature,

November 20. He indicated that the Government was not going to rush into costly ECE decisions and that the earliest date for a fully-stated Government position would be the spring Legislature sitting (Calgary Herald, November 21, 1972). The Minister spent.

Friday afternoon and Saturday morning that week, meeting with the

Advisory Committee on ECE. He indicated to the Committee that the

Government was interested in a long-term program for increased services and greater co-ordination of existing services. "The

Minister stressed that programs devised would co-operatively cut across traditional lines of municipal and provincial government at all levels. As well, the already developed programs in the public and private sectors should not be abolished" (Minister's Advisory

Committee on ECE, November 24-25, 1972, p.2). September 1, 1973, was given as the earliest date for program implementation. Co­ ordination of branches, departments and agencies was discussed at length. After review of Downey's Opportunities for Infants, a subcommittee of Irv Hastings (representing Gene Torgunrud) and Pat

Shanahan was established to draft an initial policy statement for 126

consideration by the Committee and the Minister. "It was suggested that some program of action could be sketched out so that a specific public announcement could be made in February or March of 1973 with some subsequent plan outlined to clarify the moves to be made and so allay fears of private kindergartens and dampen the unrealistic expectations of over-eager kindergarten supporters" (Minister's

Advisory Committee on ECE, November 24-25, 1972, p.6).

The following motions were carried by the Committee:

1. that for the present an individual be appointed at a senior level within the Department of Education to co-ordinate early childhood acti­ vities and to give leadership to this field.

2. that early childhood education specialists be appointed to relevant branches of the Department of Education.

3. that in addition to this Advisory Committee to the Minister of Education on Early Childhood that an advisory committee to the Committee of Ministers (Education; Health and Social Development; Culture, Youth and Recreation) be formed with membership of lay people and professionals associated with each of these departments, including at least one member of this Advisory Committee. (Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE, November 24-25, 1972, p.7)

November 27, 1972, the same day that California's Senate Bill 1302 for ECE was passed, Harald Gunderson had the first of a two-day article printed in the Albertan and the Edmonton Journal (Albertan,

1972, 27-28; Seguin, 1977, p.161). Gunderson warned local taxpayers against the dangers posed by the "massive lobby" for universal kindergarten, dangers relative to child development as well as high financial cost. He cited research evidence supporting later rather 127

than earlier schooling and concluded with advice to Albertans:

My advice is that we look before we leap. Let the province make more money available for special educational projects and those more important elementary grades. But let local school boards decide where that money would be most judiciously spent. Failing that, let's put the matter to a plebiscite. Let those who pay the taxes be the judge. (Albertan, November 28, 1972)

Also in November, C. D. Ledgerwood submitted a university course paper to Professor Naomi Hersom of the University of Alberta. The paper was entitled, "A Proposal Regarding the Systematic Imple­ mentation of Early Childhood Services in the Province of Alberta".

A copy of the paper subsequently found its way to Irv Hasting's files and was considered to some extent in the development of the Govern­ ment 's ECS policy (Hastings interview, 1978; Shanahan interview, 1978).'

Ledgerwood used systems theory. He elaborated eight requirements of ECS as an adaptive system: dynamic interaction among its human elements and with other systems (service agencies); intra-and inter­ system feedback; a high degree of diversity (through use of a variety of private, community and government agencies); ability to cope with complexity; avoidance of redundancy (overlapping of services and/or stifling of client initiative); compromise, between decentralization and centralization; compromise between planned development and un­ balanced growth; and adaptability while the system gains stability

(Ledgerwood, 1972, pp.4-8). He noted that an adaptive system would tend toward a state of decentralization which in the ECS system would imply a"decision-making role for parents, both individually and 128

in community", and "that a multiplicity of agencies (would) assume some responsibility for the development of young children"

(Ledgerwood, 1972, pp.6-7). Ledgerwood proposed an "Inter-depart- mental Directorate of ECS" with an ECS Director responsible to an

ECS Cabinet Committee of the Ministers of Health and Social

Development; Education; Culture, Youth and Recreation; and Inter­ governmental Affairs. At the local level, an ECS Board was proposed, of three elected members and two members appointed, one by the local school board, and one by the local board of health

(Ledgerwood, 1972, pp.16-17).

In November and December of 1972, Hastings visited some

ECE programs in Ontario and Manitoba. Also during these months, and on into February of the next year, he met frequently with the

Deputy Minister and the Minister to review and discuss progress on the policy statement, Operational Plans for ECS. Hastings followed a practice of developing alternative positions in each section of the draft statement; the meetings with Hawkesworth and Hyndman were then largely devoted to an elimination of alternatives and a definition of focus (Hastings interview, 1978). A few other meetings were arranged by Hastings in December and January to allow review and comment on policy drafts by Mel Finlay (Assistant Director of PSS in the Department of Health and Social Development), Burn

Evans (Director of Youth Services in the Department of Culture,

Youth and Recreation), Jim Hrabi, Gene Torgunrud, and Pat Shanahan of the Department of Education, and the Deputy Ministers of Advanced 129

Education (Walter Worth)/ culture/ Youth and Recreation/ and Health and Social Development (Finlay interview, 1978; Hastings interview,

1978; Shanahan interview, 1978; Torgunrud interview, 1978; Worth interview, 1978).

Early in January 1973, Hyndman sent Hawkesworth a memorandum seeking reaction from his Deputy, the Directors, and Irv Hastings to

"tentative basic parameters of the new Early Childhood Program".

Hyndman had compiled the outline on the basis of briefs, Departmental recommendations and discussion over the preceding year. The outline consisted of Goals of the Program, emphasizing quality life, self- respect, stimulation, and creativity; What the Program Does Not Do which included babysitting, grade I down a year, operation solely by school boards, compulsory enrollment, high degree of centralization or structure, and imitation of program(s) elsewhere; and Characteristics of the Program, a fourteen-point list including comprehensiveness through co-ordination, program and delivery system diversity, initial and continuing stress on community involvement, diagnosis and assess­ ment of handicaps, phase-in starting date of fall 1976, and utilization of vacant or usable facilities in schools and elsewhere. Requirements for Co-ordination of Programs at different levels and among different sectors were summarized, Possible Names for New Program were suggested (none of which was "ECS"), and Timing of Announcement of

Program was tied to the announcement and debate of the Government1s

1973-1974 budget in early March (Hyndman, January 2, 1973; Hyndman,

January 4, 1973). In addition, the Minister sought advice from 130

Hawkesworth and his senior staff regarding the funding of private

kindergartens, requirements for ECE project submissions, an

interdepartmental project assessment committee, and, "Ways in which the Department could spark or assist groups or communities without a voice (in initiation of a program) - should school boards be designated to fill in gaps after volunteer groups have made their

submissions?" (Hyndman, January 4, 1973). Finally, Hyndman asked

Hawkesworth to arrange an Advisory Committee meeting for January 18

in Calgary.

The Parent Co-operative Kindergarten Association of Edmonton met in January, and faced serious financial problems. Several of the twenty-three member kindergartens were short of money, and three were facing closure because of insufficient funds. Appeals to the

Minister of Education met with little response. However, Horst

Schmidt, Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation, helped arrange financial assistance for the three kindergartens. Subsequently, when PCKA efforts to get federal government funding through appli­ cation for a Local Initiatives Project were unsuccessful, Schmidt assisted Bernice Youck in getting provincial funds through :±he

Priority Employment Program (Department of Labor and Manpower) for kindergarten aides for eleven of the programs (Youck interview, 1978).

At the Advisory Committee meeting with the Minister,

January 18, the only agenda item was Hasting's confidential paper,

"Possible Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services". Possible conflict between local needs and centralized goals, and between local 131

involvement and centralized leadership caused considerable discussion.

Concern was expressed about how to reach parents, and how needs assessments were to be conducted and evaluated. Members were more favorable to the concept of an ECS Directorate within the Department of Education than to a multi-department Directorate. The Committee agreed to meet in late February to discuss a revised paper (Minister's

Advisory Committee on ECE, January 18, 1972).

Rural delegates at the provincial Progressive Conservative

Party's annual convention in January defeated a resolution for universal kindergarten, but there was agreement that some form of ECE should be provided for the disadvantaged and the handicapped

(Calgary Herald, January 22, 1973). At about the same time, ASTA

President Harald Gunderson emerged from a meeting with the provincial

Cabinet to announce that the kindergarten debate was a red herring, that whatever the Government had in mind, it wasn't universal kinder­ gartens (Albertan, January 24, 1973; Gunderson interview, 1978).

ASTA's Education Council had received Joyce Krysowaty's report,

Integration of Early Childhood Services earlier in the month.

Krysowaty reviewed several inter-agency or co-operative early childhood education projects in Alberta with Innovative Project, and other project funding. Based on the experiences in these projects, the writer developed "an integrated service model within the context of early childhood education". She focused on integration at the service delivery level, and built a model around the concept of a

"core multidisciplinary team attached to a preschool module". 132

Krysowaty summarized her model as follows:

The model for the integration of services for young children has been developed in response to a felt need to better enable certain children to profit from educational experience through (1) the pro­ motion of optimal conditions for growth and develop­ ment in their early years and (2) the early removal, where possible, of aversive conditions.

Central to the model are the following features:

1. It provides for a team problem solving approach which involves members from several disciplines coming together and working together within a well-defined operational structure to diagnose, treat, and follow-up cases.

2. The director of the multidisciplinary team synthesizes and records case data from input sources for the use of the members of the multi­ disciplinary team.

3. A central record storage system is provided for in the model.

4. The parent is considered to have a significant and indispensable input as a member of the multidis­ ciplinary team.

5. A competent coordinating and directing body enables the operation of the multidisciplinary team.

6. Capable and well qualified personnel are basic to the effective-functioning of the service unit.

The model is intended to be a basic plan from which • specific plans can be formulated and piloted. Consid­ erable flexibility has been built into the plan in order to provide for specific variations as might be dictated by the human and financial resources of an area.

In closing, it would seem that the operation of the model, in addition to fulfilling the purposes of which it was designed, could conceivably result in two fringe benefits: (1) further professional develop­ ment of the people involved and (2) greater community integration. (Krysowaty, 1972, p.16) 133

Horowtiz spoke to the Calgary Kindergarten Teachers'

Association convention and urged teachers to take an interdiscipli­ nary approach. He portrayed teachers as the leaders in early child­ hood education but told his audience that they, "should work closely with nurses, pediatricians, nutritionists, social workers and rep­ resentatives from the Government's culture and recreation departments"

(Calgary Herald, February 16, 1973). Later, the Calgary Public

School Board passed a motion initiating a kindergarten program available to all five-year-olds whose parents wished to have them enrolled. The Board indicated that the Minister would be asked for provincial grants but that the program would be implemented with or without provincial support, the implementation strategy being geared to Board budget limitations (Calgary Public School Board,

February 27, 1973).

The sixth and final meeting of the Minister's Advisory

Committee on ECE was held February 27, 1973 in Edmonton. Stan

Maertz, Associate Executive Director of the ASTA attended the meeting to lead discussion of the Krysowaty paper. In discussion, the emphasis on parent involvement was reviewed, and, "The general similarity between the Krysowaty and the Hastings paper was noted, particularly at the local level" (Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE,

February 27, 1973, p.2). Hastings presented his revised and confi­ dential document, "Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services:

February 1973", which indicated that the Department of Education with other departments would begin selective support of school districts and 134

non-profit private institutions in the 1973-1974 school year. In

discussion of the centralization/decentralization issue, it was

noted that, "There are locally determined needs and provincially

determined needs, as well. Early Childhood Services must be pre­ pared to operate in a manner centrally that is in harmony with local co-ordination so that the two reinforce each other" (Minister's

Advisory Committee on ECE, February 27, 1973, p.3). Who would make what kind of decisions at which level in the hierarchy was the basis of considerable discussion. The composition of the Early Childhood

Services Co-ordinating Council was reviewed in the context of the revised ECS Directorate model, and the following motion was carried:

that representation on the Early Childhood Services Co-ordinating Council consist of the following: Department of Education Associate Deputy Minister as Chairman Director of Early Childhood Services Director of Special Educational Services Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation Director (or Assistant Director) of Youth Services Department of Advanced Education Deputy Minister of Program Services Department of Health and Social Development Four directors of branches A representative from each group: Alberta Teachers Association Alberta School Trustees Association A University Faculty of Education Organization Mondiale Pour 1'Education Alberta Federation of Home and School Associations Two members at large appointed by the Minister (Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE, February 27, 1973, p.4)

Other items discussed in the revised policy statement were the importance of parental involvement at the local level, the school . board's role in ECS approval, problems of "labelling"children, and the roles of ECS support staff. 135

Jack Fotheringham, the ATA staff member on the Minister's

Advisory Committee, wrote to the Committee Chairman protesting the

manner in which the January and February meetings had been handled.

He was particularly concerned that there had been no advance time

and insufficient meeting time to study and comment on the two major

papers which had been on the two agendas. On that basis, he cautioned

against a conclusion that the Committee had agreed with the

specifics of the Operational Plans policy statement. He noted that

he could not assume such a responsibility for himself or the ATA

and concluded that, in his opinion, "the Advisory Committee itself

(had) not really had an opportunity to effectively advise the

Minister on this crucial matter of operationalizing early childhood

education programs in Alberta". Fotheringham asked that his reserva­

tions and concerns be conveyed to the Minister and other proper

officials (Fotheringham, March 2, 1973). The chairman's reply to

Fotheringham was written after the Government's ECS program had been

announced; the reply noted the confidential nature of the drafts of

government policy statements, and apologized for the time constraints

and technical problems which were responsible for Fotheringham's

concerns (McKie, March 13, 1973).

Alberta's Early Childhood Services, 1973-1974

The same day that Fotheringham wrote his concerns about the

Advisory Committee procedure, provincial Treasurer, Gordon Miniely

announced a provincial budget which included approximately five 136

million dollars for initial stages of a comprehensive program of

Early Childhood Services (Calgary Herald, March 2, 1973). Hyndman

followed up the introduction of the provincial budget with a news

conference in Edmonton at which he unveiled the Government's ECS plans and spoke to the printed policy statement, Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services. The Minister described ECS as, "a program for the educational, social, physical, recreational and psychological development of children from birth to eight years”

(Calgary Herald, March 12, 1973). He announced Hastings' ap­ pointment as Director of the ECS branch of the Department of

Education and emphasized the close co-ordination to be effected with the Departments of Culture, Youth and Recreation; Health and

Social Development; and Advanced Education. The Operational Plans were quoted as to program philosophy (see Appendix El pp.253-254). and the priority needs rationale for limiting the 1973-1974 program to A. Needs-Handicapped Children, aged 4.5 - 5.5 years; B. Needs-

Disadvantaged Children, aged 4.5 - 5.5 years; and C. Needs-Kindergarten

Children, aged 4.5 - 5.5 years in programs approved by the Minister prior to January 1973 (see Appendix B, pp. 272-275) (Calgary Herald

March 12, 1973).

At the news conference, the Minister made it clear that support would not be limited to school board-sponsored programs, that any non-profit operations were eligible, subject to Government priorities and approval by the provincial ECS Proposal Review Committee (see

Appendix B, pp. 262-263. Emphasis was given to the decision-making 137

role intended for the Local ECS Advisory Committee (LAC), and its

initiation by parents. Reference was made to parent education

programs, and Hyndman stressed the importance of parent co-operation

and involvement in the programs for the handicapped and disadvantaged

preschoolers. The ECS grant structure was summarized (see Appendix

B, pp.284-287),and the Minister noted that 1973-74 program pro­

posals would be received for review as of April 15, 1973 (Calgary

Herald, March 12, 1973).

Copies of the Government's ECS policy statement, Operational

Plans for Early Childhood Services, were made available to the press

at the March 12 news conference, and later were mailed to school

boards and made available through regional Department of Education

offices to community kindergarten operators (Calgary Public School

Board, April 1973, pp.1-2). That policy statement, included here as

Appendix B, had as a rationale for supporting alternative delivery

systems in addition to school systems, parental choice, maximum use

of family and community resources, and the stimulation of creativity

and flexibility in program delivery (see Appendix b » pp.253-254).

Parent involvement in the planning, development and operation of the local ECS program was made explicit in all sections of the policy dealing with local co-ordination, program planning, submission of proposals, and delivery of services. Whichever of the three alternatives local structures was used by a program operator (school board-operated, school board-contract with operator, or private (non­ school board operated), the Local Advisory Committee of community 138

agency representatives and a majority of parent representatives would be a key decision-making body. Government policy only en­ couraged program operators with school board involvement (the first two alternatives) to submit LAC recommendations along with their applications and program proposals. For private operators, LAC recommendations were a prescribed requirement of proposal submissions

(see Appendix B, p. 272). In practice, school board operators subsequently found that the provincial ECS Proposal Review Committee gave LAC recommendations a heavy enough weighting that the recom­ mendations soon became a standard part of most submissions (Clulee interview, 1978; Green interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978;

Leadbeater interview, 1978).

ECS program proposal or application forms were made avail­ able along with the Operational Plans in late March and early April.

The initial proposal form was known as, "the green monster", from its color and because of a considerable amount of health and social data requested on the form - data not previously collected, and not easily obtained by existing preschool program operators. Pat Shanahan had designed the form in accordance with Hastings' direction and the intent of Government policy. It was evidence for existing program operators that ECS was more than a downward extension of grade I, and that integration of related social services' and 'parent involvement' were to be more than rhetoric (Early Childhood Services,

1973; Clulee interview, 1978; Leadbeater interview, 1978; Shanahan interview, 1978). The program submission-approval process began in 139

mid-April.

Early in May 1973, the AAYC forwarded a brief to the Minister of Education, seeking change in the membership of the ECS Co-ordinating

Council. The brief included the argument that the Government's announced intentions to involve citizens and other social services in ECS was ill-served by a policymaking council in which education was over-represented. Other professional groups and interest groups whose focus was some aspect of early childhood development other than education were identified as examples of bodies whose representation would give the ECS Co-ordinating Council a more comprehensive outlook.

The AAYC sought a meeting with Hyndman (Calgary Herald, May 5, 1973).

In June, the Edmonton Social Planning Council's Task Force on ECS submitted a brief to the Minister. The Task Force, like the AAYC, recommended greater parent, minority, and other service representation through a change of stakeholder groups' representation on the

Co-ordinating Council from that described in the Operational Plans.

Other recommendations included, "equality in funding between parent/ community programs and school board programs", and, "consultation with parents who have been involved in operating a preschool program, in regards to policymaking and directions for guidelines"

(Edmonton Social Planning Council Task Force on ECS, June 1973, p.7).

The Minister's Advisory Committee on Early Childhood Education was dissolved in June,* the chairman noted that the Committee had wrought significant change and that any remaining functions would be performed by the committee structure outlined in the Operational 140

Plans (Church, June 5, 1973). In July, the Department of Education

printed its Annual Review for the year ended June 30, 1973. Deputy

Minister Hawkesworth's introductory statement made reference to the

establishment of ECS and also noted the related move to a new School

Foundation Program Fund with formula grants projected for a three-

year period (Government of Alberta, 1973, p.6). Also in July, the

Department advertised across the province for nominations for the

two "at-large representatives" on the ECS Co-ordinating Council

(Albertan, July 26, 1973). During the summer, Hastings met with

A1 Bredo, Director of Finance, Statistics and Legislation to develop

ECS grant regulations and budget forms which were subsequently

forwarded to co-ordinators of approved programs (Bredo interview,

1978; Hastings interview, 1978). Grants for 1973-74 were based on

450 logged hours of children service time and parent time per year

(Government of Alberta, June 1974, p.l).

At the inaugural meeting of the Early Childhood Services

Co-ordinating Council, August 29, 1973, the AAYC was represented

instead of OMEP. The latter had deferred to the AAYC which had many

of the same members and was more parent-based (Campbell interview,

1978). To begin the meeting, Hastings presented a progress report

which indicated the emphasis that ECS staff had given to clarification

and consultation to school boards, community groups and individuals.

He indicated that of 288 applications for 12,925 children, 175 had

been approved for 6,962 children (Hastings, August 29, 1973). The

Minister and Deputy Minister of Education were present at the first 141

meeting of the Council. Hyndman spoke briefly as representative of all four departments. He was encouraged by the progress since March and optimistic about the future. It was noted that there were 153 nominations for the two members - at-large positions, and the

Minister promised to select the two members for the next meeting of the Council. His selection criteria reflected the intent of comprehensive representation on the Council: outside of government, outside of Education, demonstrated community involvement, comple­ mentary to present Council membership.

Following Hyndman's comments, the functions of the

Co-ordinating Council were reviewed (see Appendix B, pp.252-254).

The "green monster" was discussed, and Hastings noted that the application was currently being reviewed and modified. Local inte­ gration of services was discussed: "It was pointed out that there was a great deal of variation at the local level in terms of co-ordin­ ation of services, with some communities being relatively advanced in this area and with others manifesting a need for assistance, primar­ ily in terms of formulating their proposals" (ECS Co-ordinating Coun­ cil, August 29, 1973, p.2). Parental involvement in ECS was a sensitive issue at the meeting. The minutes covered discussion of the issue as follows:

The subject of parental involvement caused consid­ erable debate. This area appears to a complex one with many sensitivites involved. The need to survey the existing research and to research the projects that ECS is undertaking was indicated. Parental involvement could certainly take many forms and would 142

require sensitive approaches on the part of the people co-operating with parents through the local advisory committees.

The Director of Early Childhood Services suggested three areas of possible parental involvement. Parents may involve themselves in service functions, such as helping with field trips and preparation of materials. Secondly, at the local advisory level, parents could have a voice in the decision-making process. A third area would involve co-operating with teachers and others to enrich the child's learning experience at home as well as in the group centre. Stress was placed on looking at ways of involving the total family and strengthening the family unit. The importance of meeting the needs of the total community was indicated. Questions were raised concerning budgetary allocations for parental involvement. Some members urged the acknowledgement of the use of professionals and lay persons in the parental component. Concern was expressed about finding adequate numbers of qualified resource people in Alberta. Questions were also asked concerning the possibility of enhancing or making parenthood more effective. Some members noted the need for parents to be involved in civil or social action.

Mel Finlay's motion to remove "the discriminating level of grant systems" between school system ECS and private ECS operations was carried, with Bernie Keeler of the ATA, and Sue Wearmouth of the ASTA noting their opposition. Two motions for minority representation on the Council were lost, and a Hastings motion, for a grant category for children with learning disabilities ($575 per child for 1973-74) to be recommended to the four Deputy Ministers was carried (ECS Co-ordinating Council, August 29, 1973; ECS

Co-ordinating Council Transcript, August 29, 1973). 143

In September, the first ECS programs were underway. That month at the ATA Early Childhood Education Council's annual confer­ ence, Hastings voiced concern over the possibility of ECS becoming too heavily education-oriented. He stressed parent involvement and argued the need to consider alternatives to the established concept of a certificated teacher with her class of preschoolers (Calgary

Herald, October 1, 1973). In October, the Minister of Education appointed Bernice Youck as a parent-at-large on the ECS Co-ordinating

Council. The Council held its second meeting, October 25. Hastings reported that of 350 applications, some 170 had been approved.

There was some discussion regarding time taken and problems encountered by the ECS Proposal Review Committee in assessing applications from school boards. The minutes of the meeting did not reflect the current concerns regarding delays and approval problems felt by school boards submitting ECS applications (Clulee, October 4, 1973;

Clulee interview, 1978; ECS Co-ordinating Council, October 25, 1973;

Leadbeater interview, 1978). Hawkesworth attended part of the

Council meeting and expressed his optimism regarding the interde­ partmental communication and co-operation initiated by ECS. When the ASTA representative, Sue Wearmouth asked if there was a goal of a specific number of ECS centres to be approved, Hawkesworth replied that the goal was, "to make sure that there is no money left in ECS by the end of the financial year" (ECS Co-ordinating Council,

October 25, 1973, p.3). Most of the meeting was devoted to the issues of program development and a central registry for handicapped 144

children. When Mel Finlay asked why there were still two grant levels for kindergarten children ($280 for school board programs and $200 for private programs), Chairman Jim Hrabi's answer was that, "this judgement lay in the decision of the elected representatives" (ECS Co-ordinating Council, October 25, 1973, p.8).

School boards were not alone in their frustration with the

ECS application-approval process, as indicated by a large public meeting of parents and community groups in Calgary. The meeting was called by the Federation of Calgary Communities, which had been approached by several communities who were having problems.

As a result of the meeting, the Federation initiated continuing meetings involving provincial ECS staff with communities having

ECS program approval problems. In addition, the Federation pro­ posed the formation of a Calgary community parents council to give

ECS policy direction to local ECS program co-ordinators, and to the province from the Calgary area (Albertan, November 8, 1973; Feder­ ation of Calgary Communities, November, 1973). A Calgary ECS

Co-ordinating Council had developed in the summer at the initiative of the Calgary Public School Board. In its early stages it was primarily an inter-agency council, but in the fall, parent and community association representation was encouraged, and in December the Calgary Council sent a brief to the provincial Council with policy concerns and recommendations (Clulee interview, 1978). At the

November 29 meeting of the ECS Co-ordinating Council, Hastings re­ ported 11,730 children in approved programs and almost 3,000 more in 145

programs pending approval. The Council set January 31, 1974 as the deadline for receiving 1973-74 ECS grant applications. Reports on

1974-75 ECS plans and commitments were received as requested from the Departments of Education, and Culture, Youth and Recreation.

The Council voted on program recommendations in the Education report, including a vote in favor of making all children aged 4.5 to 5.5 years eligible for ECS as of September 1974; and voted on budget recommendations in the Culture, Youth and Recreation report. The

Departments of Advanced Education, and Health and Social Development were censured for not submitting the requested reports, and the

Council's concern that such failure to communicate might jeopardize the co-ordinated development of ECS was recorded in the minutes.

Prior to the January 31, 1974 deadline for grant applications, the Department of Culture, Youth and.Recreation held workshops across the province on parental involvement in ECS programs (Albertan,

December 1, 1973). Hastings faced some involved parents in an open meeting of ECS operators in Calgary in January. There was heated discussion regarding the relationship of grant dollars to hours of parent involvement. Hastings indicated that the ECS branch would be as flexible as the provincial auditor would allow (Calgary Herald,

January 24, 1974). At the fourth meeting of the ECS Co-ordinating

Council, January 31, 1974, it was agreed that ECS grant applications received after the January 31 deadline would be eligible for pro­ rated funding from the date of receipt to August 31, 1974. The

Council discussed a brief from the Calgary Early Childhood Services 146

Co-ordinating Council which presented several concerns including

poor communication, lack of inter-agency co-ordination provincially

and locally, contradictions between policy and practice regarding

degree of parent involvement, delay between approval and funding, and

inequities in kindergarten funding. These were matters that had

been discussed previously by the provincial Council and there was

general support for the brief's recommendations to alleviate their

concerns (ECS Co-ordinating Council, January 31, 1974).

At the 1974 convention of the Calgary Kindergarten Teachers'

Association, Hastings promoted the importance of family and parents

as keys to the success of ECS programs (Albertan, February 15, 1974).

Meanwhile, Bernie Keeler was taking a strong ATA position against

the low use of certified teachers in ECS programs; he argued for a pupil-teacher ratio of 22:1 as opposed to Hastings' reference to a pupil-adult ratio of 22:1 (Albertan, February 16, 1974). In March,

Hyndman spoke to a kindergarten conference in Edmonton. He announced

an increase of more than 100 percent in the Government's ECS budget,

larger and equalized community and school board kindergarten grants, and simplified application forms (Edmonton Journal, March 16, 1974).

At the fifth meeting of the provincial Co-ordinating Council, proposed revisions to the application form were discussed, and members approved a new schedule of per student grants effective September 1,

1974. The Council also agreed to request a policy change making

LAC's mandatory rather than recommended for school board ECS programs

(ECS Co-ordinating Council, March 22, 1974). 147

At its Annual Representative Assembly, the ATA adopted policy endorsing parent involvement in early childhood education but also calling for all publicly-funded ECE to be brought under school board jurisdiction with a pupil-teacher ratio of 20:1. Hyndman's reaction to the policy of school board jurisdiction was critical.

He was quoted as saying that if all ECS were placed under school board jurisdiction, "all the traditional restrictive patterns of the

Grade 1 to 12 system would be dropped on the preschool programs and that's what we want to avoid" (Calgary Herald, April 17, 1974).

The ECS Co-ordinating Council met again on May 17, 1974.

Composition of ECS program development committees was discussed; it was agreed that such committees should consist of ECS provincial staff, ECS parents, local ECS staff, and faculty from ECS teacher and teacher aide education programs. Regarding LAC membership,

Council members recommended that some members be parents of the previous year's students and the future year's students to provide continuity (ECS Co-ordinating Council, May 17, 1974). In June, the

ATA executive met with the Cabinet Committee on Education and pre­ sented the resolutions from the Annual Representative Assembly, arguing again for school board jurisdiction over all ECS programs and a pupil-teacher ratio of 20:1 (Calgary Herald, June 12, 1974). Later the same month, the Government published "Early Childhood Services:

A Progress Report to 25th June 1974". The report included the following summary of application and enrollment statistics: 148

June 24/74 1. No. of applications received 503 No. of applications received for 73-74 420 No. of applications received for 74-75 83 2. Number of children for which grants were requested at: a. Handicapped rates 380 b. Disadvantaged rates 5,375 c. Normal rates 10,255 TOTAL 16,010 3. Number of children for which grants were approved at: a. Handicapped rates 364 b. Disadvantaged rates 5,375 c. Normal rates 10,244 TOTAL 15,983 4. Number of urban centres approved 267 5. Number of rural centres approved 158 6. Number of school district centres approved 271 Number of non-school district centres approved 154 7. Number of children in schooldistrict centres approved 9,402 Number of children in non-school district centres approved 6,581 TOTAL 15,983

An ad hoc subcommittee of the ECS Co-ordinating Council completed its report on Council membership in August, 1974. The subcommittee recommended the following: Chairman, Associate Deputy

Minister of Education; Secretary, Co-ordinator of Program Development,

ECS; one member from each of the Departments of Education, Advanced

Education, Culture, Youth and Recreation, and Health and Social

Development; one member from each of the ATA, the ASTA, the AFHSA, and the AAYC; two members from institutions of advanced education; and seven members from the public at large - four parents of ECS children and three others (Berghofer, Derksen, Youck, Hastings and 149

Jarman, August 21, 1974). When the ECS Co-ordinating Council met

in September, motions were carried relative to the position of

Secretary, the two representatives of institutions of advanced edu­

cation, and Ministerial appointment of non-government members; other

recommendations were referred back to the subcommittee for further

consideration. Some concern was expressed regarding the deletion

of the parent hour-counting requirement in the revised ECS grant

procedures. Also, concern was expressed over the lack of Government

action on the recommendation that LAC's be mandatory for school board

programs; a subcommittee was established to investigate and make

recommendations relative to parental involvement. Interdepartmental

responsibilities were discussed and a policy statement outlining

each of the four department's responsibilities was revised and

approved (ECS Co-ordinating Council, September 6, 1974).

At the December 6, 1974 meeting of the Council, grant revisions

for 1975 were discussed. A manual entitled "Early Childhood Services:

Grants and Conditions for Approval of Programs" had been prepared for

the use of new and current ECS operators (Government of Alberta,

December 1974). Progress of Culture, Youth and Recreation staff in parent programs was reviewed, and the Council decided to seek

representation from the Department of Agriculture on the Parent Pro­

gram Committee. The subcommittee recommendations on parent and departmental representation on the Co-ordinating Council were

shelved (ECS Co-ordinating Council, December 6, 1974). 150

By the end of 1974, Alberta's Early Childhood Services were fairly well established. Routine application and renewal procedures had been developed, and workable grant and budgeting procedures had been designed (Bredo interview, 1978; Clulee interview, 1978;

Frost interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978). Ongoing policy­ making was taking place at the provincial level through the

Co-ordinating Council and the decisions of the Ministers and

Departments of Education, Advanced Education, Health and Social

Development, and Culture, Youth and Recreation, with Education pre­ eminent. Interdepartmental relationships and parental involvement had continued to be issues of major concern at the provincial level and the local level. CHAPTER V

ECS POLICYMAKING IN A LASSWELLIAN FRAMEWORK

Introduction: Participants in the Social Process

In Chapter V, the policy development summarized in the preceding chapter is interpreted and analyzed by means of a

Lasswellian framework. The framework is based on Lasswell's Social

Process Model and related concepts as explained in Chapter II:

"Participants -*■ seeking to maximize values utilize institutions

affecting resources" (Lasswell, 1971, p.18). Key participants in ECS policy development are followed through the Social Process

Model. These people made major contributions to ECS policy development; they are grouped in eleven sectors of participation, although some participants contributed through more than one sector, and participants contributed as individuals as well as representing particular groups. The eleven sectors of participation are as follows:

1. The Provincial Government

2. The Department of Education

3. Other Government Departments

4. The Minister's Advisory Committees

5. The Commission on Educational Planning

6. The Universities

151 152

7. The Alberta Teachers' Association

8. The Alberta School Trustees' Association

9. Other Provincial Organizations

10. Local Organizations

11. Local School Boards

Participants' contributions to the Social Process of ECS policy development, and particularly the mandated citizen involvement policy component, are explained for each sector. The explanation re­ lates to the perspectives of the groups and individuals concerned, the situations or contexts of social interaction, and the base values of participants. In elaborating the value position of participants, use is made of some components of the Lasswell Grid. Strategies utilized by participants are reviewed relative to the Social Process outcome which is the ECS policy decision of the government. Process effects are then related to participants. Finally, the outcome phase of the Social

Process of ECS policy development is interpreted via Lasswell's Decision

Process Model.

The Provincial Government

The Provincial Government sector of participation in ECS policy development included all MLA's, but the Cabinet was the locus of the policy decision-making and the Minister of Education was the key to

ECS policy decisions. Although Premiers Strom and Lougheed, and other

Cabinet members such as Ray Speaker and Neil Crawford made some con­ tributions to ECS policy, the two most influential figures were 153

Robert Clark, Social Credit Minister of Education, 1968-1971, and

Lou Hyndman, Progressive Conservative Minister of Education, 1971-1975.

These two Ministers through election and through the responsibilities

of their portfolio were official value sharers and value shapers for the

Government. Clark was close to his Premier and respected in a Social

Credit Cabinet not committed to early childhood education. Hyndman was

considered top man under Premier Lougheed in a Cabinet committed to

early childhood education.

Perspectives

Early childhood education was a problem for Clark. He was

aware of its political potential and declared himself in favour of ECE

of some kind, but the rural-urban split and financial concern in the

Social Credit Party on this issue made a more specific commitment

difficult. Clark's belief in local autonomy for school boards, and in

citizen involvement and community development were reflected in the

rewriting of the School Act, and in his position relative to the Alberta

Service Corps and PSS projects, respectively. He was somewhat concerned

over the rigidity of Alberta's public education system and distrustful

of bureaucracy (Byrne, 1971, interview, 1978; Church interview, 1978;

Clark, 1971, interview, 1978; Worth interview, 1978).

Hyndman favoured early childhood education in some form and was

concerned about the rigidity of the public school system. He was a good

listener who sought a variety of perspectives and incorporated those that he found worthwhile; his position changed over a five-year period 154

from support for kindergarten as a downward extension of grade one, to

support for an ECS model designed to avoid some of that downward

extension. Hyndman's orientation was urban and progressive. He had

ideals about parental responsibility for child development, and he

perceived and was prepared to guard against the tendency of parents to

shunt that responsibility to the school and other agencies. As one of

the top two or three members of the Cabinet, his governmental purview

extended beyond education. The Progressive Conservative Government had

been elected on a platform which included commitments for early child­

hood education, and for a "Now Government" that would be closer to the

people. Party doctrine favored private enterprise. Hyndman's perception

was that the necessary citizen involvement in ECS would not occur if the

responsibility was delegated to the school systems; he therefore favored

mandated involvement (Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman, 1971, interview,

1978; Newman, 1975, p.249).

Situations

Clark was a rising figure in a government that was coming to

the end of its era. The Social Credit Government was concerned about

increasing education budgets, had just undergone a major leadership

change, and was not sensitive to the urbanization of the provincial population, all of which contributed to a cautious posture regarding the province-wide introduction of public early childhood education. As

Minister of Education , Clark was responsible for implementing Premier

Strom's "in-depth study of education", and therefore established the 155

Commission on Educational Planning. Moreover, he was responsible for

a provincial system of education in need of many changes, such as new

concepts of governance, provisions for colleges, program innovation,

and different funding procedures. This was the context in which Clark

faced increasing pressure from individuals and groups lobbying for provincial support for early childhood education (Byrne interview, 1971;

Clark interview, 1978; Worth interview, 1978).

Hyndman faced the same pressures for early childhood education, but he was a leader among new leaders who shared his commitment for

ECE and whose election gave them a mandate for action. Prior to

legislative action, he needed to bring together and reconcile the variety of forces and perspectives in favor of ECE. He inherited the

Commission on Educational Planning, and implementation of the latter's recommendation for two departments of education (Advanced Education, and

Education) gave him an N-12 focus (Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978; Worth interview, 1978).

Base Values

For both Clark and Hyndman and for both governments, the base values of greatest concern relative to ECS policy development were power, well-being, skill, affection, and respect. In the problem perspective of the Lasswell Grid, the power goal was control of edu­ cational decision-making. Clark favored local autonomy for school boards, and community involvement. Hyndman regarded parent and other citizen decision-making involvement as crucial for the success of ECS. 156

Decentralization and community development were trends in Alberta as

well as elsewhere in the late sixties and early seventies, but these

trends were modified in education by the conditioning factors of

established provincial and local school system bureaucracies. One

strategy for bypassing the bureaucracies was citizen involvement by

legislative mandate in a voluntary ECS program. For the skill goal

of some form of provincially-supported ECE, proponents pointed else­

where in Canada and to the United Kingdom and the United States where

pre-grade one programs were established elements of public education

systems. This trend had to be considered relative to factors such as

provincial budget constraints, the end of the elementary school enroll­

ment boom, and the variety of perspectives as to what should constitute

public early childhood education services in Alberta. The chosen

strategy provided for a variety of services. Well-being, affection, and

respect goals were related to the provision of health services, family

development and involvement, and equality of opportunity and access to

education and related social services. Hyndman regarded ECS in part as

a preventive measure relative to future welfare costs. Recognition of

inadequacies, inequities and other social problems was the major trend

relative to these goals, a recognition which included awareness of the need for action. Cost factors and a confusion of services and agencies were among the factors which helped shape an integration of services

strategy for ECS (Clark interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978;

Worth, 1972). 157

Strategies

Clark's strategy relative to policy in early childhood

education could be described as cautious progress on a broken front.

He maintained the CEP study and supported and initiated different pilot projects in preschool education (PSS Projects, Innovative

Projects, and his Inner City School Preschool Projects) mainly of a compensatory nature for disadvantaged youngsters. His administration did some costing for him, and when pressures for universal preschool programs were mounting, he would quote a cost estimate of $20 million for a province-wide preschool system (Church interview, 1978; Clark interview, 1978; Finlay interview, 1978; Griffiths interview, 1978).

Hyndman's strategy involved studies to determine facts and provide a rationale (CEP and Downey were useful to him) and listening to everyone with ECE concerns, in formal and informal settings. He was masterful at reconciling and orchestrating a variety of contributing elements: those of CEP, his Advisory Committee, Hastings, and the

Cabinet Committees on Education and Social Planning, to name a few. The strategy of Alberta's ECS policy was excellent politically, and Hyndman was the major architect of that strategy. The ECS model mandated involvement for those who wanted it; it was voluntary, for those who did not; it clearly involved parents as opposed to government inter­ ference in the family; it was supportive of private enterprise; and it provided for centralized control to ensure adherence to Government policy (Green interview, 1978; Gunderson interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978; 158

Worth interview, 1978).

Outcome

The outcome of concern was the decision outcome of the Alberta

Government ECS policy (the statement of which is found in Appendix B).

In the final section of this chapter, the Decision Process of ECS policy is examined.

Effects

For the provincial Government, ECS meant greater educational

responsibilities and a larger educational budget. It also meant a dir­

ect link between local citizen groups and the provincial Government

(via the ECS branch of the Department of Education), in addition to

indirect linkage through citizens' elected representatives on local

school boards. Control of ECS was clearly in the hands of the pro­

vincial Government. Changes were brought about through ECS policy in

the types of educational and related social services provided to

Albertans, and in the patterns or institutions of service and program

delivery (Clark interview, 1978; Clulee interview, 1978; Finlay

interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978). 158

Worth interview, 1978).

Outcome

The outcome of concern was the decision outcome of the Alberta

Government ECS policy (the statement of which is found in Appendix B) . .

In the final section of this chapter, the Decision Process of ECS

policy is examined.

Effects

For the provincial Government, ECS meant greater educational

responsibilities and a larger educational budget. It also meant a dir­

ect link between local citizen groups and the provincial Government

(via the ECS branch of the Department of Education), in addition to

indirect linkage through citizens' elected representatives on local

school boards. Control of ECS was clearly in the hands of the pro­ vincial Government. Changes were brought about through ECS policy in

the types of educational and related social services provided to

Albertans, and in the patterns or institutions of service and program

delivery (Clark interview, 1978; Clulee interview, 1978; Finlay

interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978). 159

The Department of Education

Within the Department of Education, there were several participants who made important contributions to ECS policy.

Jack Church had long-term involvement in early childhood education from his regulatory role in the early sixties through to the ECS policy decision processes of the seventies. Pat Shananhan and Doug

Ledgerwood developed models and implementation strategies which influenced the policy outcome. Deputy Minister Earle Hawkesworth and his Associate Deputy, Jim Hrabi helped refine the ECS policy statement and moreover provided Department leadership encouraging

ECS development and implementation. Gene Torgunrud contributed pro­ gram advice in the development of the policy statement, and people like Dave Jeffares and A1 Bredo helped to make the statement opera­ tional. The most important Department of Education figure was

Irv Hastings, "chief architect" of the Operational Plans for Early

Childhood Services and Director of ECS.

Perspectives

Hastings moved from an elementary consulting position in the

Department to head the Innovative Projects program where he added an appreciation for community involvement and inter-agency co-operation to his elementary orientation. His sister, Joyce Krysowaty, operated a private pre-school program in Edmonton which may have contributed to his interest in early childhood education, and when Hastings became 160

an Associate Director of Curriculum, Gene Torgunrud fed that interest and reinforced Hastings' belief in community involvement. The

Department's historical perspective emphasized turf control, reflecting the belief that the professional staff were the experts to whom ECE should be entrusted. However, Hawkesworth and Hrabi were open to change and supportive of inter-departmental co-operation, and

University of Alberta graduate programs served to broaden and freshen staff perspectives relative to early childhood education (Hastings interview, 1978; Hrabi interview, 1978; Torgunrud interview, 1978).'

Situations

The Department was faced with preschool programs supported by PSS funding when it had no funding of its own and only regulatory functions related to kindergartens. By 1972, 22,600 of 91,500 eligible children were in preschool programs of some kind, almost none of which were developed and/or funded by the Department. With the change in Government, came a commitment to ECE. Inter-agency co-operation and funding of private kindergarten operations were givens.

Department officials had to devise suitable ECE strategies to incor­ porate these givens in a provincial education system which they had helped shift toward greater local autonomy, with local appointment of superintendents and regional offices of the Department. Directorates were not plentiful in the Department; Director of ECS was an attractive position to Hastings whose elementary experience and recent Ph.D. did not qualify him as an expert in ECE but did make him a logical in-house 161

contender for the job (Hastings interview, 1978; Hrabi interview, 1978;

Hyndman interview, 1978; Kleparchuk (revised) 1972, Appendix A).

Base Values

Against the Department’s power goal of control over ECS were

the factors of preschool programs operating under the auspices of other departments, Hawkesworth’s vested interest (as the change agent) in local autonomy, and Ministerial and others' suspicion of

the educational bureaucracy. Supporting that goal was the factor of

the available Departmental structure for the funding, delivery and administration of ECS, and the trend of growth and diversification of educational programs and services under the Department. The strategy was to incorporate ECS as a separate branch with room to develop within the Department, but with a co-ordinating council mechanism for inter-departmental co-operation.

Department participants' skill goals were similar to those of the provincial Government and were affected by the same trends and factors. Goals related to base values of well-being, affection and respect were shared by those contributing to ECS policy; commitment to such goals varied with the participants' perspective as to the proper mix and balance of social services in ECS (Church interview,

1978; Hrabi interview, 1978; Torgunrud interview, 1978). 162

Strategies

Strategy in the Department's development of ECS policy

included use of expertise outside as well as inside the Department.

Outside expertise came from such sources as the Minister's Advisory

Committee, CEP, and Lorne Downey. Inside expertise was contributed by Pat Shanahan, Doug Ledgerwood and others. Hastings' policy drafts were reviewed and refined by Hawkesworth, Hrabi, Church and others in

the Department and other departments. Mandated citizen involvement was conceived partly to offset the control of private kindergarten

operators. Funding was controlled by the Department, but other ECS

service departments were represented on the ECS Co-ordinating

Council, chaired by Jim Hrabi (Hastings interview, 1978; Hrabi inter­ view, 1978; Ledgerwood, 1972; Shanahan, 1972; interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation).

Effects

For the Department of Education, ECS policy brought extended power and responsibilities and a restructuring of the Department.

There were changes in inter-departmental relationships at the provin­ cial, regional and local levels. ECS was deliberately different from the rest of the educational system and required different patterns of 163

service. Departmental staff were required to work more closely with private kindergartens and community groups than they had previously

(Clulee interview, 1978; Shanahan interview, 1978).

Other Government Departments

The Departments of Advanced Education, Culture, Youth and

Recreation, and Health and Social Development were the three other

departments involved in the development of ECS policy. Walter Worth

as Deputy Minister of Advanced Education kept his finger on the policy development that CEP had helped to initiate. Burn Evans, Director of Youth Services for the Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation, helped Hastings review his policy drafts. Mel Finlay, Assistant

PSS Director in the Department of Health and Social Development, worked with Hastings in the inter-agency High Prairie project, helped him review policy drafts, and promoted a community development

PSS-oriented preschool model.

Perspectives

Finlay's social worker perspective combined crisis prevention and community and family development. He was opposed to, and somewhat

frustrated by the closed system approach of some professional edu­ cators because he felt that PSS had developed a preschool model which educators could learn from. Both the Department of Health and

Social Development and the Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation were less constrained in program development and operations by 164

legislation and regulation than the Department of Education and were

therefore somewhat more open to new perspectives. The two Departments

saw their services overshadowed by Education. Playschool operations,

provision of playgrounds, and community development activities were

combined in a confused perspective relative to ECS for the Department

of Culture, Youth and Recreation; its role in ECS was still confused

a year and a half after the program was implemented. Worth's

perspective relative to ECS was stated in the Commission Report

(Finlay interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978; Worth, 1972).'

Situations

The Departments of Health and Social Development and Culture,

Youth and Recreation were operating preschool programs with provincial

funding. PSS preschool programs mandated citizen involvement and recovered fifty percent of provincial costs from the federal Govern­ ment. Health and social problems had been enumerated and brought to the attention of the public by the CELDIC Report and the CEP

Report. There was a multiplicity of agencies and a confusion of services and responsibilities. When the Progressive Conservative

Government took office, inter-agency, inter-departmental co-operation was part of their program (Finlay interview, 1978; Green interview,

1978; Hastings interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978). 165

Base Values

For the two non-education departments, power was important

in terms of maintaining control over programs and services. In both

cases, the Alberta trend was increasing quantity and breadth of

services, but this was affected by the factors of size and growth of

the Department of Education, and Government direction to co-ordinate

services. Strategies included maintaining a presence and persuading

educators to develop a different perspective. Finlay was somewhat

successful with the latter. The Department of Advanced Education was

busy establishing itself as a department. Well-being, skill, af­

fection, and respect goals were the basis of operation for the

Departments of Health and Social Development and Culture, Youth and

Recreation. Early diagnosis and treatment, recreation and parent

education programs, supportive and preventive family services were

strategies which would complement the education components of ECS

relative to the demographic trends and factors noted previously. For

Advanced Education, enlightenment and skill goals relative to know­

ledge of child development and learning theory, and teacher and paraprofessional education programs were important, with the latter

gaining impetus from the initiation of ECS. The major conditioning

factor was the lack of teachers trained in early childhood education

(Finlay interview, 1978; Green interview, 1978; Griffiths interview,-

1978; Horowitz interview, 1978). 166

Strategies

There was some inter-professional confrontation and jockeying for position provincially and locally relative to ECS/ but the

Co-ordinating Council and the requirements of the Operational Plans worked against dissension. Health and Social Development, and

Culture, Youth and Recreation professionals in the field used ECS programs to facilitate identification of clients and provision of programs and services. Advanced Education used community colleges for the preparation of ECS paraprofessionals (Campbell interview, 1978;

Shanahan interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation).

Effects

Required inter-departmental co-operation in the development and delivery of ECS changed operating procedures for the other departments at the provincial and local levels. There was a shift in orientation to the early child, and a decrease in isolation from each other and from the Department of Education without apparent loss in control over services (Clulee interview, 1978; Finlay interview,

1978). 167

The Minister's Advisory Committees

The original Kindergarten Committee was not really a

Minister's Advisory Committee. It included three school superinten­

dents, two 'central office' Department of Education representatives,

a university representative, a school board primary supervisor, and

a private kindergarten teacher. There was some pressure from the ECE

Committee in 1970 - 1971 for advisory status, but that Committee was

disbanded in 1971. At its termination, the Committee consisted of

two Department representatives, two ATA representatives, two school

superintendents, two private kindergarten operators, two kindergarten

supervisors (one school board and one private), one university repre­

sentative, and a school board administrator. The 1972 - 1973

Committee which was officially an Advisory Committee to the Minister

had three Department members, two ATA representatives, four kinder­

garten-primary school representatives, two university representatives,

an ASTA representative and an AFHSA representative. Some members of

these Committees exerted more influence than others, but contributions

to ECS policy development from this sector were committee contribu­

tions rather than individual or individual constituency contributions.

Perspectives

Members of the first Committee saw themselves as guardians of

kindergarten standards. Jack Church saw the Committee as a regulatory body, and members like Pearl Turner and Muriel Affleck perceived a

need for guidance and leadership to improve the level of educational 168

service being offered in some kindergarten operations. Some of the second Committee membership (e.g. Sheila Campbell and Joyce Krysowaty) believed in a philosophy of early childhood education which was less like schooling than the traditional kindergarten. There was a per­ ceived need for a revised ECE curriculum guide to incorporate this

ECE philosophy. Prom its first meeting, the third Committee saw its function as development and guidance of Government ECS policy. This perspective was strengthened in face-to-face meetings with the Mini­ ster. Institutional and group identities of the members of all three

Committees constituted a composite representation of Alberta's educational establishment. In the last Committee consideration was given to extending the representation to other service areas but such action was not taken (Affleck interview, 1978; Campbell interview,

1978; Church interview, 1978; ECE Committee, 1970, 1971; Minister's

Advisory Committee on ECE, 1972, 1973).

Situations

The context of interaction for the Kindergarten Committee was a situation in which the Government was not prepared to fund preschool programs as part of the educational system. Increased pressure for early childhood education from the public and the educational sector, a cautious Cabinet, and preschool funding from other Government departments were components of the situation faced by the second Committee. The Minister's Advisory Committee enjoyed a supportive climate, in which the Government's commitment to ECE 169

provided the foundation for policy design (Church interview, 1978;

Horowitz interview, 1978).

Base Values

Enlightenment and skill were the base values of most concern

to the Committees, particularly to the last Committee. Skill goals

changed from maintaining educational standards with the first

Committee, to development of a new concept of ECE with the Advisory

Committee. The enlightenment goal was to provide knowledge to the

Minister for policy decision-making. Child development and learning

theory was moving away from early childhood schooling in the early

seventies to a more balanced emphasis on social, emotional, physical and intellectual development with a close relationship between ECE

center and the home. This trend had to be considered relative to the established schooling structure for delivery of educational

services in Alberta. The strategy was to create a separate ECS entity which could use the established structure (Horowitz inter­ view, 1978; Hrabi interview, 1978; Torgunrud interview, 1978).

Strategies

All three Committees facilitated the raising of concerns from the groups and institutions represented by the membership. This served a cathartic function as well as a communication function. The

Minister's Advisory Committee used smaller working committees to study issues and prepare recommendations for the larger Committee. 170

Harry Kleparchuk was appointed Chairman of a subcommittee to frame recommendations for Government action. Subsequently, Irv Hastings and Pat Shanahan were charged with developing an initial Government policy statement. Periodically (more frequently as the public announcement of ECS drew closer), Lou Hyndman would meet with his

Advisory Committee to review policy concepts (Affleck interview,

1978; ECE Committee, 1970, 1971; Minister's Advisory Committee on

ECE, 1972, 1973).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation).

Effects

Announcement of the Government's policy on Early Childhood

Services spelled the end of the Minister's Advisory Committee. It was succeeded by the inter-departmental Co-ordinating Council with policy refining and implementation functions as indicated in the last section of this chapter.

The Commission on Educational Planning

CEP involved thousands of people, but the key contributors to ECS policy through the Commission were the members of the N-12

Education Task Force, L o m e Downey (more in his research and reports related to CEP than in his position on the Commission Board), and the 171

Commissioner himself, Walter Worth.

Perspectives

The eleven members of the Task Force contributed individual

perspectives in addition to representing a variety of educational

interests: the ASTA, the University of Alberta, the ATA, school

system administration, school administration and teaching, and the

Department of Education. Early childhood education was only one

component of their study. Downey saw ECE as an obvious need, and

its absence as a weakness in the Alberta education system. His

reports were eclectic in perspective, incorporating viewpoints

such as those of Horowitz on co-ordination of services, but alsq

reflecting Downey's strong belief in rational planning in education.

Worth's perspective was comprehensive, influenced by his career

experience, but his most recent academic interest upon appointment

as Commissioner was in early childhood education. A Choice of

Futures reflected Worth's belief in a future person-centered society with participatory democracy, and his concern over the perceived threat of a future second-phase industrial society. In accepting the appointment as Commissioner, he clarified his expectation that CEP was not to be another commission study to gather dust in a library. The focus was clearly on the future, and the Commission was deliberately an education planning commission. Worth's perspective on ECE changed from extended schooling in the mid-sixties, to ECE as stimulation, identification, and socialization with close inter-agency, community> 172

and family relationships (Downey, 1972, November 14, 1972; N-12

Education Task Force, February 1, 1971; Worth, 1972, interview, 1978).

Situations

There was. more overwhelming support for ECE expressed to

the Commission than for any other facet of education in Alberta. The

province was lagging relative to the rest of Canada and other western

nations; and while research evidence from Headstart and other programs

did not support earlier schooling, it lent some encouragement to

child-centered early childhood programs geared to social, emotional,

physical and intellectual development. Community and family involve­

ment in education, and decentralization of educational decision-

-making were current movements affecting the deliberations of the

N-12 Education Task Force. The change of Government did not hurt

CEP; in fact it supported the projected trend of provincial support

for early childhood education (Horowitz interview, 1978; Worth

interview, 1978).

Base Values

Basic to CEP was the enlightenment goal of sharing and shaping knowledge including that relative to ECE to facilitate Government planning and policymaking. The terms of reference for the Commission on Educational Planning, noted in Chapter I, set the conditions and strategies for achievement of this goal. With respect to a provincial

ECE program as a skill goal, professional educators' opinion and 173

public demand were both encouraging trends, limited mainly by other

education priorities, provincial finances, and willingness of the

Government to initiate a program. In the listing of priorities for

Government action in the final CEP Report, Early Childhood Education

came first. Base values, and related goals, of power, well-being,

affection and respect were central to Worth's treatment of the

projected person-centered society for Alberta (Worth, 1972, interview,

1978).

Strategies

Worth's use of citizen involvement strategies in the operation of

the Commission added weight to his recommendations for citizen

involvement in ECE and other programs in education. To maintain an

ECE identity, he proposed an Early Education Division as one of two

divisions of the Department of Education. Variable ECE sponsorship was recommended to support a variety of public and private ECE opera­

tions and thus encourage diversity rather than similarity to existing

school operations.

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation). 174

Effects

While the work of the Commission terminated with Worth's

submission of the final report, the Government's policy statement

on ECS the following year incorporated many contributions from

A Choice of Futures, and thereby tended to vindicate the work of

the Commission on Educational Planning in the area of early childhood

education.

The Universities

From the fifties through to the seventies, Muriel Affleck of the University of Alberta and Ethel King of the University of

Calgary promoted the study and expansion of early childhood education within the framework of elementary education. Walter Worth added

strength to the study of ECE in the mid sixties. In the late sixties at the University of Alberta, Myer Horowitz as Chairman of Elementary

Education and then Dean of Education championed the cause and study of ECE. Horowitz was the key figure, but with teachers like Muriel

Affleck and Lorene Everett, and Sheila Gracey from the U.K. and

Bev Cutler from the U.S.A., students like Sheila Campbell,

Pat Shanahan and Joyce Thain became promoters of ECE in Alberta and contributed to the development of ECS policy. Ethel King remained the main ECE force at the University of Calgary and carried some of that university's interests and concerns to the Minister's

Advisory Committee. 175

Perspectives

Horowitz extended the perspective of university educators

from an exclusively education perspective, to incorporate health and

other social services in a comprehensive child-centered model of

early childhood development. In his Department, international and

provincial viewpoints combined to make what he later referred to as

"exciting chemistry". His own outlook combined belief in the need

for provincial support of early childhood education with a critical

awareness of political exigencies and strategy to promote Government

action (Affleck interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Shanahan

interview, 1978).

Situations

Prior to the mid-sixties, there was relatively little public

activity promoting ECE in Alberta, and the priority position of ECE within the university community was correspondingly low. By the middle and late sixties, there was considerable public pressure for provincial kindergartens. In Worth's terms, early childhood education was, "an idea whose time had come". The cautious Social Credit

Government posture described earlier, and the division in ASTA ranks on the issue of ECE hindered promotion in those sectors by Horowitz and other university spokesmen. However, the local and provincial groups clamoring for Government-supported kindergartens were ready for leadership (Affleck interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; 176

Worth interview, 1978; Youck interview, 1978).

Base Values

Enlightenment and skill were the two major base values for the university sector. The enlightenment goal was to acquire and disseminate knowledge relative to early childhood development and learning theory and methodology. Teacher preparation for early childhood education programs was the skill goal. With a provincial

ECE program would come a shortage of ECE-trained teachers. Affecting both goals was an international accumulation of ECE studies and research reports. Not all of the studies were consistent but the net difference tended to support child-centered ECE as described in the Worth Commission, rather than a downward extension of schooling.

Within the constraining factors of university revenue, and internal program and budget priority limitations, increased staff and attention were allocated to ECE university programs. Dissemination of knowledge, and promotion of ECE was furthered by students and by Horowitz, Affleck, Everett and others providing leadership to ECE interest groups (Affleck interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978;

Worth interview, 1978).

Strategies

The development of ECS policy was furthered by a multiple-

-membership strategy. Myer Horowitz initiated the strategy when he accepted the position of Chairman of Elementary Education and 177

deliberately set out to create bridges between the University and other ECE sectors. By March 1973, Horowitz had been a member and held executive leadership positions in the ATA Specialist Council on ECE, the AAYC and OMEP. This was in addition to his positions on the N-12 Education Task Force, and the Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. Multi-memberships enabled him to apply influence on the policy development process from several angles. Two of Horowitz's protdgds, Sheila Campbell and Pat Shanahan, followed a multiple-

-membership pattern as well; in fact Campbell was the chief architect of AAYC which functioned as a provincial lobby for lay people in favor of Government-supported ECE. In addition to multiple-

-memberships, Horowitz was successful in initiating informal meetings with Lou Hyndman, at which he exercised some influence regarding the design of the ECS model. At one such meeting, rationales and precedents for mandated involvement were discussed

(Campbell interview, 1978; Horowitz interview, 1978; Hyndman interview, 1978; Shanahan interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation.) 178

Effects

The effects of Alberta's ECS policy on the university sector was an enhanced priority for early childhood education within the

Faculty of Education, and some modification to teacher preparation programs in early childhood education. University contributions to

ECS policy continued after the initiation of the Early Childhood

Services Program through representation on the ECS Co-ordinating

Council and its committees (Affleck interview, 1978; Frost interview, 1978).

The Alberta Teachers' Association

Among provincial ATA staff members, Executive Secretary

Bernie Keeler, and Jack Fotheringham, the professional staff officer whose duties included support for the ECE Specialist Council, influenced the ATA's contribution to ECS policy development. ATA membership influence was channelled through the Specialist Council which included people such as Affleck, Campbell, Everett, Horowitz,

King, Krysowaty, Shanahan, Turner and Worth.

Perspectives

The perspective of the ATA Specialist Council on ECE was elaborated in the Council's "Position Paper on Early Childhood

Education", prepared by Muriel Affleck and Pearl Turner in 1971. It incorporated a strong belief in the value of ECE and the need for 179

Government support, with the expectation that ECE would best be provided through the established educational system. The official

ATA staff position was in favor of extending school systems to in­ clude ECE programs, under certificated teachers, who would be members of the professional Association (Clulee interview, 1978; Keeler interview, 1978).

Situations

Non-educators and non-certificated teachers were operating preschool and kindergarten programs, programs that the ATA considered the responsibility of the professional educator. Some programs were being taught by professional, British-trained ECE teachers without

Alberta certification. Expanding elementary school enrollments began to taper off in the early seventies, with byproducts of empty class­ rooms and potential oversupply of certificated teachers. Clark and Hyndman were both strong ministers, able to influence their premiers, and Hyndman was a Cabinet leader in a Government committed to ECE. Both ministers had some distrust of the educational establish­ ment, including the ATA, relative to involving the community in the determining of needs and planning and execution of programs (Byrne interview, 1978; Clark interview, 1978; Griffiths interview, 1978;

Hyndman interview, 1978; Keeler interview, 1978). 180

Base Values

Power goals of protection of early childhood education's turf for professional teachers, and control over ECE through incorporation as a component of the established school systems were central to the ATA staff position. There was a tendency toward parent and other citizen criticism of professional control of education in the late sixties and early seventies, but the ATA had established itself as one of the strongest bodies in the province. Power goal strategy was to argue for school system ECE on committees and through resolutions and briefs to the Government. Related to the power goals in terms of • . trends, conditioning factors, and strategies was the respect goal of enhanced prestige and respect for the professional teacher. Skill was an important base value for the ATA in terms of the ideal ECE program for the Specialist Council (which wasn't unlike the goal of ECS, but clearly controlled by the teacher), and also for the Association as a whole relative to the teacher training

-certification issue. Legislative requirements ensured certificated teachers and ATA membership in public and separate school systems in Alberta, but preschool programs were operating outside that framework. Advocacy of extended preparation programs for ECE teachers was a means of pushing for certification (Clulee interview,

1978; Keeler interview, 1978; Thain interview, 1978). 181

Strategies

Keeler maintained the Association position relative to ECE as a member of the CEP Board and as Co-ordinator of the N-12

Education Task Force. Fotheringham represented ATA views on the

Minister's Advisory Committee, in addition to representation on that Committee from the Association's ECE Specialist Council.

Annual briefs to Government based on the ATA's Annual Representative's

Assembly reiterated the Association's support for ECE as a part of the system. Specialist Council members held conferences and infor­ mal meetings with the Minister of Education to promote their posi­ tion (Horowitz interview, 1978; Keeler interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation).

Effects

The ATA was not entirely successful in that school systems were not made the sole sponsors of ECS. Although educator was still the major profession in the operation and administration of ECS,

Association members became involved in co-ordination activities with health, social service, and recreation professionals. The ATA position did prevail on the certification issue (Keeler interview,

1978). 182

The Alberta School Trustees Association

Art Kratzmann as Executive Director of ASTA and later

Stan Maertz as Assistant Executive Director and Education Officer

Cleve Rea were the staff members most involved in the development of

ECS policy. Kratzmann prodded Worth to become a spokesman for early

childhood education in the mid-sixties. He subsequently followed

Worth for a short period as Chairman of Elementary Education at the

University of Alberta where he also promoted ECE. Maertz

worked with the ASTA Education Council and was a member of the N-12

Education Task Force. Rea served as ASTA representative on the

Minister's Advisory Committee. Among ASTA's membership, the most

concerned and influential contributors to ECS policy development were Mary Green, Audrey Griffiths, and Harald Gunderson. All

three held executive posts in ASTA in the late sixties and early

seventies. Green was also an AFHSA president in this period and was a member of the N-12 Education Task Force. Gunderson was the major provincial spokesman for those opposed to universal

kindergarten.

Perspectives

The ASTA had a divided outlook on early childhood education.

Those who believed in ECE were the majority of urban trustees whose 183

constituents were pressuring them for kindergartens. Those

opposed were predominantly rural and felt that kindergartens were

impracticable in rural areas because of the transportation problem.

Some trustees were philosophically opposed to putting children in t a school situation away from their home at such an early age. Much

of the discussion for and against ECE at annual ASTA conventions

centered around program and financial priorities in the 1-12 or K-12

system. There was some support among trustees for provincial support

of preschool programs outside the framework of school systems to

meet constituent demands without major additions to the education

tax bill. Green and Griffiths had local experience with a multi­ plicity of service agencies, and favored integration, or at least

co-ordination of services for children. Gunderson, after initial

support of the kindergarten concept, had become convinced that the priority of strengthening the elementary school program outweighed

that of adding a kindergarten year to the program. Although Green and Griffiths had some understanding and appreciation of less traditional, British-oriented models of ECE, the ASTA as a whole tended to regard the issue of early childhood education as a question of universal kindergarten, for or against (Green interview,

1978; Griffiths interview, 1978; Gunderson interview, 1978; Maertz interview, 1978).

Situations

When the growth in elementary education began to level off in the early seventies, vacant classrooms became available. Hyndman1s 184

building freeze was the Government's way of ensuring that all existing

facilities were fully utilized before authorizing additional buildings. As indicated, the potential teacher surplus was also related to the enrollment factor. Meanwhile, education costs were escalating with increasing salary settlements for teachers, and trustees had to defend larger property taxes to their constituents. Some of those constituents, paricularly in urban districts,were pushing for funded early childhood education programs. Urbanization and an increase in working mothers and single parent families contributed to public pressure for some form of ECE (Maertz interview, 1978).

Base Values

Power goals related to control of an ECE program and therefore an extended (K-12 or N-12) jurisdiction were partly offset by wealth

-related factors of Government funding and local property tax limitations. Provincial funding was a necessary strategy for school district introduction and expansion of ECE programs. Skill was an important base value in the trustees' consideration of educational program priorities. The goal was an optimal elementary and secondary education for all students; the trend was an increasing variety and number of programs in the curriculum; a conditioning factor in addition to financial limitations was the increasing diversity of needs (or increasing awareness of the diversity), for educational programs and services across the province and within individual districts. Affection was the base value of concern in the philosophical 185

dispute within ASTA as to the respective roles of the family and the school in early childhood education (Green interview, 1978;

Griffiths interview, 1978; Gunderson interview, 1978; Maertz inter­ view, 1978).

Strategies

The ASTA had not resolved its position relative to ECE when the Government announced its Early Childhood Services policy.

Association involvement in policy development was maintained through rep­ resentation on CEP's N-12 Education Task Force and on the Minister's

Advisory Committee. In addition, like the ATA, ASTA presented annual briefs to the Government, based on resolutions passed at their

November conventions; the briefs swung between support for, and opposi­ tion to Government support of ECE. The Association commissioned outside studies by Worth, Horowitz, and Krysowaty to provide a knowledge base for ECE policymaking. Gunderson used the press to help generate opposition to the introduction of universal kinder­ gartens (Gunderson interview, 1978; Maertz interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation). 186

Effects

Alberta's ECS model incorporated the co-ordination of services recommended in the papers commissioned by the ASTA. The model and policy were far removed from the universal kindergarten opposed by Gunderson. ECS sponsorship was left to the discretion of local school boards, but the Association maintained its involvement in policy at the provincial level through representation on the ECS

Co-ordinating Council.

Other Provincial Organizations

Some of the participants already noted were active in other provincial organizations which contributed to ECS policy development.

Those organizations were the Alberta Federation of Home and School

Associations (AFHSA), the Alberta Human Resources Research Council

(AHRRC), 1 1Organization Mondiale Pour 1'Education (OMEP), and the

Alberta Association for Young Children (AAYC). Other organizations were relatively inactive in ECS policy development. The Chamber of

Commerce (and the Junior Chamber), the Alberta Labor Council, the

League of Women, and the Alberta Catholic School Trustees Associa­ tion showed their concern in briefs to CEP and elsewhere, but did not become more actively involved in the policymaking process.

Perspectives

AFHSA favored the introduction of early childhood education under school-board jurisdiction. The Federation had a "school system 187

establishment" orientation which placed a high value on education and

saw the public school system as the appropriate delivery mechanism

for ECE. Indeed, through tradition and financial support, the member

associations and the provincial organization had become part of the

establishment. As the research organization for CEP and for the

Government, AHRRC maintained an objective position relative to ECE,

emphasizing the need to gather all pertinent data prior to policy and

program planning. The purpose of OMEP was to bring together the

different perspectives of professionals involved in early childhood

development; the Edmonton branch operated with a provincial per­

spective favoring Government-level and local-level support and

co-ordination of services for children. AAYC's membership overlapped

that of OMEP, because OMEP leaders like Campbell, Finlay, and

Horowitz acted on a perceived need for a provincial lobby which would

include lay persons. The result was AAYC which had OMEP's per­

spective, strengthened by client support (Campbell interview, 1978;

Finlay interview, 1978; Garbutt interview, 1978; Green interview,

1978; Horowitz interview, 1978).

Situations

The Home and School Association movement in Alberta peaked

in the mid-sixties, after which AFHSA gradually began to decline in political influence. AFHSA representation continued on Government

committees in the absence of any other body which attempted to

represent the parents of school children. AAYC supplemented that 188

representation, but parental representation relative to early

childhood education was minimal at the provincial level in comparison

with teacher and university representation. OMEP faced a situation

in Alberta where virtually all services for early childhood were

offered in isolation from each other, sometimes with similar services

being provided by more than one agency in the same client area.

Families were frustrated by the confusion of separate services. AHRRC

in 1972, became a casualty of the change in Government, but Lorne

Downey as head of the Council was retained by the Minister of Education

to develop a policy paper (Opportunities for Infants) for the Govern­

ment to use as a basis for ECE policy decisions (Campbell interview,

1978; Finlay interview, 1978; Garbutt interview, 1978).

Base Values

In terms of power or control of ECE decision-making, the

AFHSA goal was Department of Education and school district juris­ diction, while OMEP and AAYC sought a separate ministry for child

services and shared service-community control at the local level.

The trend was toward co-ordination of services and away from early childhood schooling, conditioned by the size, strength and perva­

siveness of the provincial education system. Skill goals of early childhood education were sought by AFHSA; OMEP and AAYC added well­ being, affection, and respect values in their objective of a com­ posite program of early childhood services. The base value of AHRRC was enlightenment; the goal was knowledge for Government policymaking 189

in the area of early childhood services. Strategies included representation on Government committees, briefs to Government, and lobbying of Government members by AFHSA, OMEP, and AAYC, and research and position papers by AHRRC (Finlay interview, 1978;

Horowitz interview, 1978).

Strategies

AFHSA presented annual briefs to the Government in the same fashion as the ATA and ASTA, and to CEP as well. The Federation was represented on the Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. OMEP submitted an influential brief, "Education for the Eighties", to the Worth Commission and OMEP members made direct representation to

Government members. AAYC was formed as a lobbying group in 1971 and promoted a ministry for young children with the Ministers of

Education, and Health and Social Development at the Association's inaugural conference. The Research Council used other Alberta research studies and complemented these with additional data. Downey used University of Alberta, and Department of Education staff and other educators to review initial drafts of his "Opportunities for

Infants" prior to finalization of the paper (Horowitz interview, 1978;

Worth interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation). 190

Effects

AHRRC was terminated in 1972 at the direction of the Pro­ gressive Conservative Government, but the same Government then acted to fill the ECE gap criticized in the Council's Social Audit, and did so with an ECS policy which incorporated much of the approach recommended in Downey's Opportunities for Infants. AFHSA was represented on the ECS Co-ordinating Council established with the introduction of Alberta's Early Childhood Services. OMEP was also to have a seat on that Council, but decided with AAYC that the latter should be represented instead because of its officially province- wide status and lay person representation (Campbell interview, 1978).

Local Organizations

Several local organizations, apart from local branches of the provincial bodies already noted, had impact on the development of Alberta's ECS policy. They included associations for children with handicaps (for learning disabled, hearing impaired, visually impaired, etc.); kindergarten groups like Bernice Youck's Parents'

Co-operative Kindergarten Association of Edmonton (PCKA), and Calgary's

Community Kindergarten, and Kindergarten Teachers' Associations; the Edmonton Social Planning Council; and the Federation of Calgary

Communities. 191

Perspectives

The names and locations of these organizations suggest geographic and functional limitations to their perspectives. All believed in a strong element of local autonomy in ECE. Associations for handicapped children believed that the Government's first priority in ECE should be the extra funding for handicapped.

Kindergarten associations as the name would suggest believed in the traditional kindergarten allied with the school system, as opposed to the emerging philosophy of ECE as something distinct from school and schooling. Calgary's Federation of Communities and Edmonton's

Social Planning Council in the early months of ECS perceived a lack of parental and other citizen involvement and communication despite the emphasis on involvement in the Government's policy statement.

(Calgary Herald, February 20, 1971; February 16, 1973; Edmonton

Social Planning Council Task Force on ECE, June, 1973; Federation of

Calgary Communities, November 1973; Hyndman interview, 1978; Youck interview, 1978).

Situations

Local organizations found members of the new Progressive

Government Cabinet much more accessible than their predecessors. The

Government was trying to meet its commitment of listening to the people. Groups in Edmonton had the advantage of geographical proximity to the Legislative Assembly and Government offices, but Cabinet 192

members and Government MLA's made periodic visits to Calgary

which they advertised as opportunities for citizens of southern

Alberta to discuss concerns with their Government.

Base Values

Community involvement in ECE program planning and decision-

-making was a common power goal for these organizations which were

a part of a trend noted in the CEP Report and encouraged by the

Progressive Conservative Government. Again, the conditioning factor was the educational system, geared for the delivery of educational

services, and not generally open to such community involvement.

Worth's strategy of "variable sponsorship" was one means of achieving

involvement of different communities in a Government-supported ECE program. Well-being and respect were major base values for the handicapped children's groups. The related goals of special services and programs to give such children an opportunity for equality with other children met public sympathy and support, but also competition from the pressures (from kindergarten associations and elsewhere) for regular ECE programs. Program variety with differential funding was a means of meeting goals for handicapped and disadvantaged and

"regular" youngsters. (Hastings interview, 1978; Worth, 1972).

Strategies

Lobbying members of Government and direct representation to

Government bodies were the strategies used by local organizations to 193

influence the ECS policymaking process. Hyndman was very receptive to direct contact from local groups with paricular objectives relative to early childhood programs. Bernice Youck attracted two Cabinet

Ministers, seven MLA's, and senior representatives from two other

Ministers to a PCKA meeting to promote kindergartens in October, 1972.

(Hyndman interview, 1978; Youck interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation).

Effects

Variable sponsorship was a feature of Alberta's ECS program, and local community-based organizations were encouraged to submit

ECS applications for program approval and funding. Programs for handicapped and disadvantaged children were given priority and addi­ tional funding. Bernice Youck was selected as a parent-at-large representative on the ECS Co-ordinating Council. Department of

Education ECS staff and local school board ECS staff were encouraged by Hastings' office to work with and through local organizations in the planning and provision of Early Childhood Services (Clulee interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978). 194

Local School Boards

Local school boards contributed to ECS policy development collectively through the ASTA, but also individually through their development of local ECE programs and their pressure for Government funding of those programs. Before the Government announced ECS, there were several school jurisdictions operating such programs with local and sometimes PSS funding and/or Innovative Project funding. Horowitz noted twenty-six PSS preschool programs in twelve school jurisdictions in 1971. The Calgary Public School Board had thirty-six kindergarten classes operating when ECS was announced in

March 1973 (Horowitz, 1971; Royan, 1972).

Perspectives

The boards operating their own or shared ECE programs believed in early childhood education as a high priority relative to other regularly-funded programs. They saw themselves as meeting the needs and expectations of constituents through the provision of pre-school programs, some of which in the cities and in some rural districts were established to provide special assistance to the disadvantaged.

Situations

Financial constraints limited board action in program initiation, as indicated earlier, and boards initiating ECE programs did not have strong support from the ASTA. PSS and/or Innovative 195

Project funding was available on a limited term basis, subject to

project conditions. Expertise was available in some cases. Janet

Johnstone and Beulah Leadbeater (Calgary Public School Board), and

Eldon Bliss and Kay Chernowski (Edmonton Public School Board), pro­

vided an ECE program foundation that was subsequently incorporated

in the ECS programs within their school systems. Classrooms, as

indicated became available as the elementary school enrollment

growth began to taper off in the early seventies (Affleck interview,

1978; Hastings interview, 1978; Leadbeater interview, 1978).

Base Values

For school boards already operating programs, there was a power value concern that a Government-funded ECE program might limit board control over program decisions related to the needs of the

community and/or the school system. However, the boards' major goal was skill related: the development, maintenance and improvement of

early childhood education programs; and Government funding was

necessary for the realization of this goal. There had been a movement

under the Social Credit Government to more autonomy for local school boards, but the Progressive Conservatives had formed a new Govern­ ment that wanted to make changes in the educational system. With the new Government came a commitment of support for some kind of ECE program. The boards' strategy was to pressure the Government for

'funding of existing ECS programs as individual boards and through the

ASTA, to pursue all potential sources of funding, and to operate 196

programs on a broken front, where they were needed the most.

Strategies

Preventive Social Services funding for preschool programs in disadvantaged areas was used by many school boards. PSS funding required community involvement and inter-agency co-ordination which later assisted boards* implementation of ECS. Effective programs, like High Prairie’s, influenced Hastings and other ECS program architects in their development of policy. Where PSS funding was not available, boards would approve programs, "subject to provincial funding", and write to the Minister seeking funds, or they would approve and initiate programs piecemeal, with provisions for ex­ pansion pending Government support. (Clulee interview, 1978; Finlay interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978; Maertz interview, 1978).

Outcome

(The same ECS policy decision outcome was the outcome of concern for all sectors of participation).

Effects

ECS funding met the needs of local school board programs, but the Early Childhood Services program was implemented by different boards in different ways. In Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, the community co-ordinating mechanisms established for PSS programs were used to implement ECS, and the school boards remained on the 197

sidelines, with their communities operating their own city-wide

programs. The Calgary Public School Board, with a history of

support to community kindergartens, implemented ECS programs mainly

where there were no community programs, and a mixture of community

and board programs resulted. Other boards encouraged existing

community programs to come under board auspices (where funding was

better initially) and the ECS programs became school district

programs (Hastings interview, 1978).

The Early Childhood Services Policy Decision Process

Lasswell's Decision Process Model provides useful stages for

an interpretation of the decision outcome of Alberta's ECS policy­ making process. The stages as explained in Chapter II are Intelli­

gence, Promotion, Prescription, Invocation, Application, Termination

and Appraisal.

Intelligence

Worth's ASTA booklet, Before Six was an early contribution

to the decision-making base for Alberta's ECS policy. The author made use of Bloom's summary of early childhood research and added analyses of ECE programs elsewhere in Canada, and in Headstart- related programs and their forerunners in the United States; the data supported recommendations for ECE as "an integral part of schooling" with "parent education (as) an important adjunct of ECE"

(Worth 1966, pp.65-68). ECE recommendations in Worth's, 198

A Choice of Futures, (which were developed from "subdocuments" such

as OMEP's "Education for the Eighties", and the N-12 Education Task

Force Proposals) were not oriented to schooling. The CEP recom­ mendations included the concepts of a distinct ECE unit within the

Department of Education, parent and community involvement, and uni­ versal and selective ECE opportunity through variable sponsorship

(Worth ,1972, pp.26-33, 65-68, 134-135). The futuring approach of

the Commission was consistent with Lasswell's Intelligence phase

criteria of openness and creativity.

Opportunities for Infants was a Government-requested sequel

to the CEP Report; the report provided additional data on existing preschool operations in the province, supported CEP's ECE recom­ mendations (serving as a dependability check for the Government), and recommended the ECE phase - in priorities subsequently incorporated in the ECS program (Downey, November 14, 1972). It was also a sequel to the AHRRC evaluation of Calgary and Edmonton's pilot preschools, which included recommendations for integration of services and differentiated funding for different programs (Watt, Pacey, and

McBride, 1972). Meanwhile, Horowitz had completed his brief feasi­ bility report for the ASTA, emphasizing inter-agency co-ordination and recommending a variety of ECE models (Horowitz, 1971). The

Horowitz ASTA paper had some influence on the drafting of the ECS policy statement, but the subsequent Krysowaty paper on Integration of Early Childhood Services was made available to the Advisiory

Committee and Hastings too late to contribute substantially to the 199

Operational Plans document (Hastings interview, 1978). Krysowaty's recommendations were consistent with the concepts of local integration of services in the Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services, so they presumably served to corroborate the latter.

From the Advisory Committee and Department of Education staff came other documents which influenced the writing of ECS policy.

Church's 1969 position paper gave early consideration to an inter-

-departmental co-ordinating council. Bredo's costing reports helped to set boundaries for the introduction of Early Childhood Services.

Shanahan's "Alternative Approaches" paper included essentially the same mix of private, community, and school board ECE programs as that in Alberta's ECS. Kleparchuk's working committee report outlined long-term guidelines for Government action which could be regarded as a framework for the Government's ECS policy implementation, and the Ledgerwood paper was very similar to the Operational Plans document in areas such as diversity within ECS and reconciling the forces of integration and decentralization. (Appendix B, p.248 •

Ledgerwood, 1972, pp.5-7).

Irv Hastings who did the writing of the ECS policy state­ ment, Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services, was influenced by visits of himself and others to ECE programs. Hastings visited and worked with PSS preschool programs where he saw mandatory citizen involvement in practice. He visited ECE programs in Manitoba and

Ontario in 1972. Hyndman had visited programs in eastern Canada,

New York, and England in the late sixties, and Hawkesworth had also 200

visited English ECE programs. However, the Minister clearly wanted

ECS to be a program unique to Alberta. (Green interview, 1978;

Hastings interview, 1978; Hyndman, 1978). Successive drafts of the

ECS policy statement were reviewed and revised with the Minister of

Education and selected staff in the Departments of Education,

Advanced Education, Health and Social Development, and Culture, Youth and Recreation (Hastings interview, 1978).

Promotion

Most of the mobilization of support for the ECS policy decision was achieved prior to the announcement.of Government policy.

Worth and then Horowitz played spokesman and popularizer roles in the promotion of early childhood education. Conferences and conven­ tions like those of the ASTA, the ATA's Specialist Council,

Shanahan's Athabasca conference, and Calgary Kindergarten Teachers'

Association Conventions were occasions for inviting speakers who would promote the cause of ECE. Organization lobbying like that of the ATA, OMEP, and the PCKA of Edmonton served a similar promotional purpose. With a lower profile, the word-of-mouth promotion and example-setting by the ATA'.s Early Childhood Education Council members did the same thing. The Progressive Conservative election platform confirmed and enhanced the promotion of ECE policy. Demographic data on program needs and evidence of ECE program success elsewhere provided a rational base to arguments designed to bring together different ECE interests. (Horowitz interview, 1978; Worth interview,

1978.) 201

Prescription

The document, Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services

(Appendix B) was approved as the Government policy statement for ECS

in the 1973 spring session of the Legislature. A few weeks earlier,

California's State Board of Education had approved its ECE policy

statement, Policies for Early Childhood Education (Appendix C).

There were some interesting differences and similarities in the two

documents. Alberta's statement was much lengthier than California's,

with an explanation of ECS philosophy, and more detail and specific

prescriptions in matters such as early diagnosis, student numbers,

pupil-teacher ratios, facility requirements, program strategies, and

proposal formats. Where the California focus was on a restructuring

of school district K-3 programs, the Alberta focus for school district,

community and private operator programs was philosophically inclu­

sive of all children from birth to age eight, but restricted

in specific plans to children from four years, six months to five

years, six months of age. Alberta's co-ordinating structures were

described at the provincial and community levels with mandatory parent and inter-agency involvement at the community level; the

California statement described school district and school level

co-ordinating bodies, both with parent majorities like Alberta's

community bodies, but with inter-agency involvement specified only at

the district level. Both policies stressed parent involvement and 202

both required detailed local needs assessments as the first step in program planning. In both cases, there was differential funding specified to provide for exceptional children, and the programs were to be phased in over a period of years rather than implemented all at once.

Invocation and Application

There was no clear boundary line between Lasswell's

Invocation and Application phases in the first year and a half of

Alberta's Early Childhood Services. The timing of the Government announcement coincided with the provincial budget announcement and also provided lead time for the first programs which got underway in

September 1973. Kindergartens previously approved by the Minister

(by January 1973) and programs for handicapped and disadvantaged were eligible, subject to application approval, to start operating in

September. The "green monster" application form was developed, grant regulations were developed, and Irv Hastings, Mel Finlay and others made "promotional tours", doing workshops in communities to expound the principles and explain the processes of ECS. Hastings used

Moore and Moore's "Early Schooling for All?" to argue against a schooling orientation for ECS programs (Moore and Moore, 1972). When the Calgary Public School Board balked at the application and needs assessment planning requirements, the Deputy Minister met with the

Board's administration and made it very clear that there would be no exception to ECS policy requirements (Clulee interview, 1978; Hastings 203

interview, 1978; Leadbeater interview, 1978). The Calgary Public

system found that the Local Advisory Committees which were "encouraged"

for board-operated programs in the policy were both expected and ne­

cessary in practice; the system went on to initiate a city-wide co­

ordinating council operators, agencies and parents as well (Clulee

interview, 1978; Leadbeater interview, 1978).

In the first year of ECS operation, parent and program

operator frustrations with the "green monster" resulted in a revised,

simpler application form. Similar frustration with the counting of

parent hours of involvement in order to get funding led to a

reduction in hour requirements from 450 hours of child and parent

involvement per year, to 400 hours of child involvement. By the end

of 1974, the provincial ECS Co-ordinating Council held eight meetings

in which they monitored the introduction of ECS and took action to

resolve problems. Issues dealt with by the Council included the

application process (and application form), parent involvement

strategies, inter-departmental roles and role co-ordination in ECS,

the grant difference between school board and community kindergartens,

and policy change to make LAC's mandatory for school board programs.

Over ASTA and ATA representatives' opposition, kindergarten grants were made equal for community and board operators by the end of 1974, but the Government did not act on the Council's recommendation to make LAC's mandatory for school boards. Nevertheless in practice,

it was very difficult for board program applications to get provincial

approval without the equivalent of a Local Advisory Committee(s), 204

(Clulee interview, 1978; Hastings interview, 1978; Shanahan interview,

1978).

Termination

As indicated some components of ECS policy were modified during 1973-1974, but the policy remained in force for the operation of Alberta's ECS programs.

Appraisal

Appraisal of ECS policy outcomeis was an ongoing function of the provincial Co-ordinating Council. Program and procedural changes resulted from this appraisal as noted in the foregoing section on Invocation and Application. After 1974, Alberta univer­ sities contributed to the Appraisal phase through graduate research, and the ECS Co-ordinating Council had the Government commission the

Canadian Institute for Research to conduct an independent evaluation of Early Childhood Services. The latter evaluation had not yet been made public by the Alberta Government by the fall of 1978. Of the graduate studies, those which focused on citizen involvement- pro­ vided evidence that parents were not involved to the extent intended in ECS policy and wished to be involved, but not in administrative or bookkeeping duties, and not by government mandate (Vogel, 1975); that perceptions of desired and actual involvement of parents in ECS programs differed according to the perceiver's role as parent, teacher, or administrator (Stretch, 1975); and that most ECS citizen 205

involvement was from the middle and upper classes, whose members

tended to favor instructional rather than support.- involvement in

ECS programs (Miller, 1975).

It would be necessary to extend the time period of the

study beyond 1974 and beyond the present to complete the Appraisal

and to properly "fill in all the blanks" of the Lasswell framework.

The framework enhanced the data collection by directing the writer

to interview questions and documents which he might have otherwise neglected. All components of the social context of ECS policy had to be considered. The scope of the inquiry was stretched to encompass a variety of Perspectives, Situations, and Value positions which were

interconnected through the interplay of Strategies with different

levels of effectiveness relative to the Decision Process Outcome.

However, the dynamic quality of the Lasswell framework, the interaction within and among components and phases, has not been evident in the component presentation of data in this Chapter. In that respect, the framework was not as useful to the writer in the presentation of

findings as it was in the design of the study and the interpretation of data.

In the next and final chapter, the nature of the study is reviewed, and conclusions are drawn from the data presented in

Chapter IV's historical narrative and in this Chapter's Lasswellian . framework. Some implications of the conclusions are then proposed for policymakers and for further research. CHAPTER VI

/

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The Study

The study was an examination of the development of Alberta's

Early Childhood Services policy as approved and implemented by the provincial Government in 1973, and enunciated in the Department of

Education Act and Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services. In particular, the study focused on the policymaking which contributed to the mandatory citizen involvement component of ECS: involvement

(tied to funding) of parents, service agency representatives and other citizens in the planning, delivery and evaluation of programs and services at the local level.

Two major objectives were achieved through the study: the analysis and interpretation of ECS policymaking processes using a theoretical framework of Harold Lasswell's Social Process Model, his

Decision Process Model, and the Lasswell Grid; and the identification of factors and interactions which contributed to the Alberta

Government's decision to decree citizen involvement by legislative mandate. The objectives were pursued through an exploratory case study with data gathered from interviews with key participants and from primary documents. Data collection was guided by the Lasswell framework. There was considerable consistency and agreement among

206 207

interviewees as to who made major policy contributions and what those

contributions were. The interviews with key participants provided

a wealth of information regarding the context of policymaking, the

process of policymaking, and retrospective analyses of the impact

of policymaking processes on themselves and others. Primary docu­

ments filled gaps in the data base, corroborated interview data

and/or led to other questions, other interviews and other documents.

Research questions in the study were directed to the iden­

tification of major participants, forces and processes in the deve­

lopment of ECS policy and particularly the mandated involvement

policy component. Questions were asked regarding the roles and

contributions of individuals and groups, the sources of ECS concepts

and of the mandated involvement and other decisions, and how these

concepts and decisions were translated into policy. Rationales for

the mandated involvement component were sought along with percep­

tions as to how ECS in practice compared with the intentions of policymakers. Findings were reported in an historical narrative

in Chapter IV and through the Lasswell framework in Chapter V.

The remainder of Chapter VI consists of the conclusions drawn from

the findings, and implications of the conclusions for policymakers

and for further research. 208

Conclusions

In this section, answers are given to the research questions stated in Chapter I, and then conclusions are presented in terms of the seven components of Lasswell's Social Process Model.

Answers to Research Questions

Specific attention in the research questions was given to the Worth Commission on Educational Planning and its contribution t o ’Alberta's ECS policy and the mandatory citizen involvement com­ ponent. The Commission contributed indications of strong citizen support for Government-supported early childhood education. In

A Choice of Futures, Commissioner Walter Worth brought together educational theory and research findings with citizen requests and reactions, and generated an image of a future society which included early childhood education.

Other participants addressed by the research questions were educational interest groups, social service interests, elected and other provincial Government officials, and university and school district personnel. The Alberta Teachers' Association was pre­ dominant among educational interest groups in contributing to ECS policy development. ATA contributions were made through the

Specialist Council's promotion of ECS concepts among the professional community, and through representation on Government committees and annual resolutions to Cabinet. Although ASTA ranks were divided in terms of urban/rural constituencies and educational priorities, 209 the Trustees' Association contributed to the substantive components of ECS policy (particularly provision of integrated social services), through ASTA-commissioned reports by Worth, Horowitz, and Krysowaty.

Social service interests were responsible for preschool and mandated involvement precedents in Alberta's Preventive Social

Services projects. OMEP and AAYC were both lobbying groups repre­ sentative of social service as well as other interests, and their influence on Government members contributed to the multi-service

(as opposed to purely educational) orientation of ECS policy. The

Progressive Conservative Minister of Education, and Department of

Education officials were most responsible for the prescription, invocation and application phases of the ECS policy decision process.

Minister of Education Lou Hyndman made the decision to mandate citizen involvement.

Educational expertise and leadership was provided by Walter

Worth, Myer Horowitz and other university personnel, particularly in the intelligence and promotion phases of the ECS policy decision process. Worth's reports to the ASTA in the mid sixties and his

Commission Report were important contributions to the intelligence phase, and Horowitz was outstanding in the promotion of ECS policy development. Local school districts gave policymakers the ex­ periences of locally-initiated preschool programs, and exerted pressure on the Minister and Cabinet through the ASTA and individually for provincial support of local programs. 210

One research question was directed to orchestration of the several contributions to ECS policy development. Horowitz and others, through coincident membership in different interest groups and committees, guided different sectors toward a common goal.

Hyndman was the conductor whose orchestration determined the nature and extent of participants' contributions and the timing of the ECS policy decision process. In relation to the research questions regarding precedent and rationale for the contents of the ECS policy statement, Hyndman emphasized the uniqueness of ECS, but provincial and international precedents and experience (PSS preschool programs, and Headstart, respectively) helped to shape the program to fit the

Alberta context. The policy statement rationale for mandated citizen involvement included the need for parent involvement in early childhood development, multi-services for the whole child, program diversity, choices for parents, and creativity and flexibility in the generation of effective program models. The official rationale was largely consistent with the intentions of ECS policy­ makers. In addition, however, the dissatisfaction with existing citizen involvement in school systems referred to in the research questions was found at the ministerial level, and this dissatisfaction was part of the unofficial rationale for involvement by decree.

ECS policy was developed in a context of social and political change. Relative to the research question of political relationships, Alberta was becoming more urban in population dis­ tribution and in outlook. Urbanization was a factor in the election 211 of a Progressive Conservative Government cognizant of urban needs which included preschool services, after thirty-six years of a

Social Credit Government which' by comparison was more rural in its orientation.

Social Process Participants: Individuals, Groups, Value Shapers, Value Sharers

The individuals and groups who made the most outstanding contribution to ECS policy development represented the base value areas of power, enlightenment and skill and the related institutions of government, universities, and education-based organizations.

Participants contributed both as individuals and as group repre­ sentatives. Direct individual contact with elected Government members following the Progressive Conservative election victory reinforced the interest group resolutions and briefs to the Govern­ ment in favor of provincial support for early childhood education.

Education-based interest groups were more dominant in interest group influence on ECS policy development than might have been anticipated for a policy area concerned with non-educational as well as educational services. Indeed, other interest groups which did impact on the policy development were led by professional educators. It was evident, however, that a suspect 'establishment' image can hinder a strong lobbying group's effective influence on government policy development. Such an image somewhat limited the

Alberta Teachers' Association's lobbying effectiveness at the Minis­ terial level with respect to ECS. 212

In the study it was shown that university leaders can exert strong influences on government policy decisions through citizen commission management, direct representation to government, and interest group leadership. Walter Worth as Chairman of Elementary

Education at the University of Alberta focused school trustees' attention on ECE in the mid sixties and included that focus in his

Commission on Educational Planning. Myer Horowitz as Chairman of the same University department made face-to-face representation

.to the Minister of Education, in favour of early childhood services; and with other University colleagues he effectively promoted the concept of ECS through leadership positions in several interest groups.

Moreover, the influence that a single individual can exert on the nature and direction of government policy was illustrated, relative to timing and position, a supportive context and the use of suitable strategies. At different points in the development of

ECS policy, Myer Horowtiz of the University of Alberta, Irv Hastings of the Department of Education, and Minister of Education, Lou

Hyndman, each held almost "life or death" decision-making power over ECS policy components.

Forgione in his comparative study of early childhood education policymaking in three states noted the importance of sponsorship and leadership of a key elected official to the successful development and implementation of policy (Forgione, 1977). In this study the same phenomenon was illustrated; the key official was the Progressive

Conservative Minister of Education, Lou Hyndman. Alberta's 213 provincial Department of Education was seen as a pervasive force in all stages of policy development, not just in the implementation and monitoring of the policy statement. The Department's ongoing contribution to policy development was facilitated by the structure of Government at the provincial level. Advice to the Minister was provided by the Deputy Minister and his Directors' Council, and the Director of ECS was charged with drafting the ECS policy state­ ment as well as implementing it.

The Minister of Education, Lou Hyndman, was found to be the participant most responsible for the decision to mandate citizen involvement in ECS. He initiated the decision and carried it through the Cabinet.

Perspectives: Value Demands, Expectations, Identities, Myths

The perspective of the government in power relative to constituency support, and to the constituency's position on a policy is seen as a critical influence on the posture which that government adopts on the same policy. This relationship was illustrated in the study in the rural-to-urban shift in perspective which accom­ panied the change in provincial governments, and in the rural/urban split in the Alberta School Trustees' Association. Differences in perspective can also contribute to turf control as an issue in the development of policy in which two or more professional groups have a vested interest. In ECS policy development, educators, social 214 workers and the medical professions were involved, and attention of policy architects had to be directed to jurisdictional concerns.

Perspectives most important to the successful development of ECS policy were the prior commitment to preschool education on the part of the Minister of Education, the Progressive Conservative

Government's election commitment, and the subsequent Cabinet commitment to some form of early childhood education. The suspicion of the educational establishment anticipated in the research questions was verified at the Ministerial level.

This suspicion was a contributing factor to the decision for mandated involvement in ECS; the Minister did not believe that the desirable amount of involvement would occur if ECS were left to the provincial school systems. Mandated citizen involvement implies a paternalistic perspective on the part of the government concerned.

Paternalism was evident in the Minister's concern that parents might abdicate their responsibilities to public agencies unless parental involvement was a requirement for approval and funding.

Situations: Spatial, Temporal, Organized, Unorganized, Values, Crisis, Intercrisis

Urbanization and a growing proportion of working mothers in the Alberta's population were seen as contributing factors in the development and promotion of ECS policy. The existence of private and community kindergartens, and preschool programs for disadvantaged children, funded locally and/or by the Department of Health and 215

Social Development constituted additional pressure on the Government

for a provincial policy in the area of early childhood education.

The writer discovered a coalescing or coming together of forces

supportive of ECS policy development; the phenomenon was similar to

■' the coalescing of forces in the development of different legislative

policies in the United States (e.g., Donovan, 1973; Kearney, 1967;

Forgione, 1977). ECS was, "an idea whose time had come."

Elected members of government may be particularly receptive

to requests, recommendations, and demands from the public immediately

after their election to power and defeat of the previous government.

In the policymaking studied here, the newly-elected Progressive

Conservative Government was extremely accessible after the 1971

election, and in that "honeymoon period", several promoters of ECS

policy made direct representation to the Minister of Education

and other Government members.

Considerable literature in the area of early childhood

education was available for use in policy development. Albertan

precedent and experience and international precedent and experience

gave policymakers the bases for rationale and program. The Worth

Commission Report incorporated considerable literature and research

data relative to early childhood education, and further information

was generated in Government and interest group reports subsequent

to the Commission.

Precedent in mandated citizen involvement was available in

Alberta's Preventive Social Services Act and in American programs 216 such as Headstart. Emphasis on a unique provincial ECS policy, designed to meet Alberta's needs was evident in documents which contributed to the ECS policy statement, but ECS concepts and operating mechanism were not completely untried.

Base Values: Positive Assets, Negative Assets

ECS policymakers interacted from several value positions and sought several value goals. The interplay of skill (education) interests with those of well-being, affection and respect (other child social services) gave the final policy an emphasis on com­ prehensive early childhood services rather than on kindergarten education alone. There were dynamic relationships among power goals of citizen involvement, provincial control and local autonomy, and the skill goals, well-being goals, affection goals, and respect goals of ECS program components. It was evident that policies are neither pursued nor achieved in isolation from each other, and that one policy statement is designed to "serve several masters", and to satisfy several purposes.

The mandatory citizen involvement component of Alberta's

ECS policy was designed to achieve the Government's power goals of local citizen involvement in program decision-making and provincial control over program requirements. It was also designed to achieve 217 the affection goal of stronger family relationships through parent involvement and education in the program of educational and other social services.

Strategies; Coercive, Persuasive

Public pressure on a newly-elected government through direct representation to government members, interest group lobbying, and use of the press helps to precipitate government policy action.

The effect of such pressure was evident in the speed with which the

Progressive Conservative Government acted with respect to ECS.

Also evident was the effectiveness of a "multiple-membership" strategy for spokesmen or promoters of policy action. "Multiple- membership" is a strategy in which an individual deliberately achieves and uses leadership positions in different sectors of interest, to develop bridges or linkages among sectors and to apply simultaneous pressure on government officials from different sectors in the promotion of policy decisions. Myer Horowitz in particular made good use of this strategy to bring pressures to bear on the

Government from several different directions as an executive and/or spokesman for different interest groups.

It was evident that the strategies of a key decision-maker, like the Minister of Education, determine in large part the nature of other contributions to policy development; the key decision-maker decides how the reports, submissions and recommendations will be used. 218

Decisions made by the Minister of Education, with support from

Cabinet and his Department officials caused the Worth Commission

Report to function as an indicator of the Alberta public’s position relative to early childhood education. The Minister’s decisions caused Downey's Opportunities for Infants to serve as a status report and rationale for Government policy action in the area of ECS; and the Minister's strategy was to have the

Advisory Committee on Early Childhood Education as a sounding board and screening body for the policy statement prepared by his

Department staff member who would be responsible for ECS.

The strategy which provided for a voluntary program of provincially-supported Early Childhood Services, with mandatory citizen involvement, open to school district and non-school district operators, maximized political support for the Government's ECS policy in a manner consistent with Lasswell's maximization postulate.

It reflected the base values of the participants, reduced their value deprivations, and increased their value indulgences. The program satisfied those who were pressuring the Government for such a program; the voluntary aspect appeased those who were opposed; mandated parent and other citizen involvement forestalled criticism of too much government interference; and operation both within and outside the established school systems responded to the concerns of the educational establishment's supporters and its detractors. 219

Outcome; Value Indulgences, Value Deprivations

The outcome of concern in the study was the ECS policy decision process. Underlined terms are phases in Lasswell's

Decision Process Model.

It was evident that informed Government policy decisions, based on accepted theory and related research were considered by the policymakers to be an important component of provincial policy­ making in Alberta. The Government's policy statement, Operational

Plans for Early Childhood Services, was developed from a foundation of documents generated earlier as Intelligence in the policy develop­ ment process. Data were generated throughout the process to inform and educate (Intelligence), or to promote or oppose particular con­ cepts in ECS (Promotion). It was useful for the Government to have the same person write the policy statement (Prescription) who would be responsible as Director of ECS for the introduction (Invocation) and implementation (Application) of the policy. This practice facilitated consistency of program operation and policy intent.

However, early problems were encountered in application procedures

(the "green monster" application form) and in program administration

(counting of parent involvement hours for grant purposes) due to misconceptions regarding local needs and practices. The likelihood of governments avoiding such policy implementation problems would seem to be remote without the prior involvement of those to be 220 affected by the policy at the local level. Nevertheless, it was found that Alberta's provincial ECS structure was sensitive to these problems (Appraisal) and flexible enough to discontinue

(Termination) unworkable practices.

The mandatory involvement component of the policy decision was based on consideration of educational theory (the importance of parental involvement in early learning) and decision-making power

(provincial control but with citizen involvement in program decision­ making) . Evidently, the issue of local autonomy was not considered in isolation from issues of program purpose. The findings of this study would suggest that government policy decisions are not made on the basis of principles of governance, like local autonomy, isolated from substantive program considerations or from other principles like citizen involvement in program decision-making.

A multitude of interacting principles and program considerations are reflected in policymaking.

Effects; Values, Institutions

The effects of Alberta's ECS policy were not a major concern in the study. However, the findings do indicate that institutional change can be effected at provincial and local levels by legislation which changes decision-making and communication patterns and pro­ cedures. It is also indicated that power values (decision-making power) can be allocated to citizens at the local level without 221 reduction in provincial government power, which suggests that power allocation is not a "zero sum game". There is not an answer in the study as to whether the provincial mandate has resulted in meaningful or token citizen involvement in ECS program decision­ making .

Implications

For Policymakers

For those who are committed to the development of a policy, it is implicit in this study that individual and group participants should be identified early in the policy development process, and that their perspectives relative to policy issues should be deter­ mined. Participants should be considered in their immediate context or situation and in the broader context of all participants with respect to their base values and their goals relative to value outcomes (value indulgences and/or value deprivations). The policymaker requires substantive knowledge of policy areas, and knowledge of policymaking processes and strategies. In addition, it is important to identify key elected officials whose strategies and decisions will shape the contributions of other policymaking participants.

Policymaking participants contribute in different ways. The natures of differentiated contributions are determined by the positions and situations of participants and by their particular expertise and 222 skills. In this study, Worth as a University Department Chairman and as Commissioner of Educational Planning contributed primarily to the intelligence and promotion phases of the ECS policy decision process. Horowitz as Chairman of the same Department was a promoter of the policy decision and also assisted in the prescription phase.

Hyndman's orchestration was reflected in the prescription phase of the process, and Hastings was charged with responsibilities of prescription, invocation, and application.

Those who wish to influence the development of policy may find the "honeymoon period" immediately after a new government's victory to be a propitious time for contacting and influencing elected members of government. For those with leadership abilities, a strategy of multiple membership may be an effective means of bringing simultaneous pressure on government officials from different interest sectors for the achievement of common goals of policy.

For Further Research

Lasswell's Social Process Model and the Lasswell Grid and

Decision Process Model constitute an effective theoretical frame­ work for the interpretation of policy development. The framework is particularly useful for study design and analysis of data. It is less useful for the presentation of findings because examination of each framework component in turn neglects the dynamic quality of Lasswell's theories. Further application of the framework in 223 parallel studies of policy development would be worthwhile to answer questions regarding similarity of participants' perspectives, value positions and strategies in other contexts. It would be interesting to learn whether "multiple membership" is an effective strategy in other policy development contexts, and whether univer­ sity leaders exert comparable influence on policy development in policy areas other than early childhood education and/or in places other than Alberta. Given the findings of this study and those of

Forgione's study on early childhood education policy development, it would be useful to examine closely the contributions of elected leaders in ECE policy development elsewhere.

Further use of the Lasswell framework would be fruitful for an extension of the present study to examine longer-term outcomes and effects of Alberta's Early Childhood Services policy. The im­ pact of citizen involvement by decree in Alberta and elsewhere deserves additional study. Whether government mandate results in meaningful or token citizen involvement in decision-making is a question that requires further research wherever such mandates have occurred. Additional research is also necessary to determine the effect of such mandates on the nature of programs and services provided, on the relationship between the mandating government and other levels of government (such as school boards), and on the sub­ sequent political activities of those citizens whose involvement was mandated. BIBLIOGRAPHY

AFHSA (Alberta Federation of Home and School Associations) "Brief Submitted by the AFHSA to the Executive Council of the Province of Alberta, Including Certain Statements of Policy Together with Resolutions Adopted at the 1967 Convention". Edmonton, Alberta: AFHSA, 1967.

Affleck, M. and Turner, P. "Early Childhood Education: Position Paper of the Early Childhood Education Council of the Alberta Teachers' Association". Edmonton, Alberta, July 1971.

AHRRC (Alberta Human Resources Research Council) "Congress on the Future: Education". Papers presented at Congress on the Future: Education, Edmonton, Alberta: December 3-5, 1970.

Alberta Department of Education Kindergarten Manual. Edmonton, Alberta: Department of Education, September, 1963.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. May 31, 1967.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. November 24, 1967.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. June 4, 1969.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. November 4, 1970.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. February 20, 1971.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. November 27-28, 1972.

Albertan. Newspaper Advertisement. July 26, 1973.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. November 8, 1973.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. December 1, 1973.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. January 24, 1973.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. February 15, 1974.

Albertan. Newspaper Article. February 16, 1974.

Bailey, S.K. and Mosher, E.K. ESEA: ■ The Office of Administers a Law. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1968. 224 225

Barr, J.J., Church, E.J.M., Horowitz, M., Barry, J. and Hrabi, J.S.T. "Report of the Preschool Education Project Evaluation Committee" July 6, 1970.

Bauer, R.A. "The Study of Policy Formation: An Introduction". In Bauer, R.A. and Gergen, K.J. (ed's) The Study of Policy Formation pp.1-26. New York: The Free Press, 1968.

Berghofer, D., Derksen, E., Youck, B., Hastings, H.I., and Jarman, R.F. "Representation on Provincial Early Childhood Services Co-ordinating Council" Report to ECS Co-ordinating Council, August 21, 1974.

Berke, J. and Kirst, M.W. Federal Aid to Education: Who Benefits? Who Governs? Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1972.

Bliss, E.H. "Letter to M. Horowitz and E.A. Torgunrud", February • 19, 1971.

Bliss, E.H. "Report on Early Childhood Education", Report to the Edmonton Public School Board, March 1, 1972.

Bloom, B.S. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1964.

Boyd, W.L. "The School Superintendent: Educational Statesman or Political Strategist". In Administrator1s Notebook, Vol. XXII, No. 9, 1974.

Boyd, W.L. "The Public, the Professionals and Educational Policy Making: Who Governs". In Teacher's College Record, 77, May, 1976, pp.539-577.

Bredo, A. "Cost of Support for Kindergarten Classes". Report to the Minister of Education, March 24, 1969.

Bumbarger, C.S., Friesen, D., Holdaway, E.A. and Miklos, E., "A Choice of Futures: Some Implications for Educational Admini­ strators". In The Canadian Administrator XII, No. 1, October 1972.

Burden, G.M. "Letter to Minister of Education", July 17, 1970.

Byrne, T.C. "Politics and Planning". In Education Canada Vol. 10, No. 4, December 1970, pp.25-29.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. November 21, 1966.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. February 14, 1967. 226

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. March 30, 1967.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. May 31, 1967.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. August 16, 1967.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. April 11, 1968.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. June 13, 1970.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. December 5, 1970.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. February 20, 1971.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. November 21, 1972.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. January 22, 1973.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. February 16, 1973.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. March 2, 1973.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. March 12, 1973.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. May 5, 1973.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. October 1, 1973.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. January 24, 1974.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. April 17, 1974.

Calgary Herald. Newspaper Article. June 12, 1974.

Calgary Public School Board "Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting February 27, 1973.

Calgary Public School Board "Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting", March 27, 1973.

Calgary Public School Board "Identification, Assessment, and Pro­ gramming for Preschool Handicapped Children". Report to the Calgary Public School Board, April 1973.

California State Department of Education. Early Childhood Education: Report of the Task Force on Early Childhood Education. Sacramento, California: California State Department of Education, 1972. 227

Callahan, R.E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Callbeck, E.G. (ed.) Direction for Education: Report of the Elementary School Program Commission of the Public School Board, Calgary, 1965-1967. Vol. I . Calgary, Alberta: Calgary School Board, 1967.

Cameron, D . Report of the Royal Commission on Education in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: The Queen's Printer, 1959.

Campbell, R.F., Cunningham, L.L., Nystrand, R.O., and Usdan, M.D. The Organization and Control of American Schools. Third ed. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1975.

Campbell, R.F. and Layton, D.H. Policy Making for American Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago, 1969.

Campbell, R.F. and Mazzoni, T.L.Jr. State Policy Making for the Public Schools. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1976.

Campbell, S.D. "Letter to Members of the Early Childhood Education Committee", February 11, 1969.

CEA (Canadian Education Association) Education in Transition: A Capsule Review 1960 to 1975. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Education Association, 1975.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. October, 1971.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. November, 1971.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. February, 1972.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. March, 1972.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. May-June, 1972.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. September, 1972.

CEA Newsletter. Newsletter Article. December, 1972.

CELDIC (Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children) One Million Children. Toronto, Ontario: Leonard Crainford for CELDIC, 1970. 228

Chalmers, J.W. Schools of the Foothills Province: The Story of Public Education in Alberta. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1967.

Church, E.J.M. "Position Paper on Early Childhood Education". Department of Education Paper, September, 1969.

Church, E.J.M. "Department of Education Memorandum to E.A. Torgunrud", March 2, 1970.

Church, E.J.M. "Memorandum to All Members of the Early Childhood Education Committee", January 25, 1971.

Church, E.J.M. "Memorandum to E.K. Hawkesworth and J.S.T. Hrabi" November 16, 1971.

Church, E.J.M. "Memorandum to E.K. Hawkesworth", December 3, 1971.

Church, E.J.M. "Memorandum to Members of the Advisory Committee on Early Childhood Education", December 21, 1971.

Church, E.J.M. "Memorandum to Members of the Advisory Committee on ECE", May 1972.

Church, E.J.M. "Draft Job Description of Director of Early Childhood Education", August 29, 1972.

Church, E.J.M. "Memorandum to Directors' Council, Department of Education", August 30, 1972.

Church, E.J.M., "Letter to Members of Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE", June 5, 1973.

Clark, R.C. "Letter to G.M. Burden, Chairman, Calgary School Board", July 22, 1970.

Clark, R.C. "Campaign '71: Interview with R. Bryce and G. McIntosh". In Challenge in Educational Administration. Vol. X, No. 3, 1971, pp.5-56.

Clulee, J . "The Development of Early Childhood Services under the Jurisdiction of the Calgary School Board". Report to the Educational Planning Committee, Calgary School Board, October 4, 1973.

Cunningham, L.L. "Third Parties as Problem Solvers: A Case Report". Paper presented to the David W. Minar Memorial Conference, Problems in the Politics and Governance of the Learning Com­ munity. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University, November 1, 1974. 229

Cunningham, L.L. and Nystrand, R.O. Citizen Participation in School Affairs; A Report to the Urban Coalition. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Coalition, 1969.

Cunningham, L.L. et al. Improving Education in Florida; A Reassessment: A Summary of the Consultant's Report Prepared for the Select Joint Committee on Public Schools of the Florida Legislature, February 1978.

Daniels, D. "Campaign '71: The Liberal View". In Challenge in Educational Administration. Vol. X, No. 4, 1971, pp.19-27.

Davies, D. Citizen Participation in Education: Annotated Bibliography. New Haven, Connecticut: Center for the Study of Education, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, 1973.

Department of Education "Memorandum to School Superintendents and Secretary Treasurers", September 29, 1970.

Dexter, L.A. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970.

• Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The Organization and Administration of Public Schools in Canada. Third ed. Ottawa, Ontario: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1966.

Donovan, J.C. The Politics of Poverty. Second ed. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1973.

Downey, L.W. Alberta, 1971: A Social Audit. Edmonton, Alberta: AHRRC, 1972.

Downey, L.W. Opportunities for Infants. Edmonton, Alberta: L.W. Downey Research Associates Limited, November 14, 1972.

Dror, Y. Public Policymaking Re-iexamined. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1968.

Dror, Y. Design for Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., 1971.

Dunphy, H. "Policy Sciences for Everyman". Mimeographed paper. New York: Hubert Dunphy, 1977.

Dye, T.R. Understanding Public Policy. Third ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1978. 230

Dye, T.R. and Zeigler, L.H. The Irony of Democracy; An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Second ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. 1972.

Early Childhood Services "Proposal to ECS Program Review Committee". Application form to operate ECS program, Edmonton, Alberta: Department of Education, 1973.

Easterbrook, W.T. and Aitken, H.G.J. Canadian Economic History. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1958.

Easton, D. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1965.

Eblen, D.R. "Local School District Politics: A Reassessment of the Iannaccone and Lutz Model". In Administrator1s Notebook, Vol. XXIV, No. 9, 1976.

ECE Committee "Minutes of Meeting", April 21, 1970.

ECE Committee "Minutes of Meeting", May 5, 1971.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", August 29, 1973.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", October 25, 1973.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", November 29, 1973.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", January 31, 1974.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", March 22, 1974.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", May 17, 1974.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", September 6, 1974.

ECS Co-ordinating Council "Minutes of Meeting", December 6, 1974.

ECS Co-ordinating Council Transcript "Meeting of ECS Co-ordinating Council, August 29, 1973". Transcript of tape. August 29, 1973.

Education Commission of the States. Early Childhood Development: Alternatives for Program Implementation in the States. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1971.

Education Commission of the States. Early Childhood Programs in the States: Report of a December 1972 Conference. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1973. 231

Edmonton Journal. Newspaper Article. May 9, 1967.

Edmonton Journal. Newspaper Article. April 26, 1968.

Edmonton Journal. Newspaper Article. September 4, 1971.

Edmonton Journal. Newspaper Article. March 16, 1974.

Edmonton Public School Board. "A Plan for Introducing Preschool Education into the Edmonton Public Schools". November 14, 1967.

Edmonton Social Planning Council Task Force on ECS. "Brief to the Minister of Education", June, 1973.

Federation of Calgary Communities. "Community Early Childhood Services Council". Discussion paper, Calgary, Alberta, November, 1973.

Finn, Matia "The Politics of Nutrition Education". Unpublished Ph.D. disertation, The Ohio State University, 1977.

Forgione, P.D. Jr. "The Politics of Early Childhood Education Legislation: Three Comparative Case Studies". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1977.

Fotheringham, J.A. "Letter to K.T. McKie", March 2, 1973.

Frost, J.L. et al "The Promise of Headstart". In Frost, J.L. (ed.) Early Childhood Education Rediscovered: Readings, pp.277-317. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.

Gans, S.P. and Horton, G.T. Integration of Human Services: The State and Municipal Levels. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975.

Gergen, K.J. "Assessing the Leverage Points in the Process of Policy Formation". In Bauer, R.A. and Gergen, K.J. (ed's) The Study of Policy Formation pp. 181-203. New York: The Free Press, 1968a.

Gergen, K.J. "Methodology in the Study of Policy Formulation". In Bauer, R.A. and Gergen, K.J. (ed's) The Study of Policy Formulation pp.205-237. New York: The Free Press, 1968b.

Gittell, M., Berube, M.R., Boulton, H., Demas, F., Flavin, D., Rosentraub, M., Spier, A. and Tatge, D. School Boards and School Policy: An Evaluation of Decentralization in New York City. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1973. 232

Goettel, R.J., Kaplan, B.A. and Orland, M.E., with assistance of Forgione, P.D. Jr., and Huff, S.D. A Study of the Administration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title I in Eight States. Report to National Institute of Education and DHEW 400-76-0057, Vol. 5 Washington, D.C.: Syracuse Research Corporation, 1977.

Good, C.V. and Scates, D.E. Methods of Research; Educational, Psychological, Sociological. New Yorks Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1954.

Gordon, I.J. Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1970.

Gordon, I.J. and Breivogel, W.F. (ed's.) Building Effective Home- School Relationships. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976.

Gottschalk, L. Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method. Second ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.

Government of the Province of Alberta. The Preventive Social Services Act. Edmonton, Alberta: The Queen's Printer, 1966.

Government of the Province of Alberta. Alberta Department of Education 1973 Annual Review. Government of Alberta, 1973.

Government of the Province of Alberta.' Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services. Edmonton, Alberta: Government of Alberta, March, 1973.

Government of the Province of Alberta. Early Childhood Services: A Progress Report to 25th June 1974. Alberta Education, June, 1974.

Government of the Province of Alberta. The School Act, being Chapter 329 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 1970 with amendments up to and including June 6, 1974. Edmonton, Alberta: The Queen's Printer, 1974.

Government of the Province of Alberta. Early Childhood Services: Grants and Conditions for Approval of Programs. Edmonton, Alberta, December, 1974.

Grotberg, E.H. "Institutional Responsibilities for ECE". In Gordon, I.J. (ed) Early Childhood Education. The Seventy-First Yearbook of the National Society for the. Study of Education, Part II, pp.317-338. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972. 233

Happy Hours Kindergarten. "Brief to the Department of Education on Licensing and Operating Kindergartens", February 19, 1971.

Harp, J. and Richer, S. "Sociology of Education". In Review of Educational Research. Vol. 39, No. 5, December, 1969, pp.671-694.

Hastings, H.I. "Director's Report to Early Childhood Services Co-ordinating Council", August 29, 1973.

Horn, H. "Campaign '71: Interview with R. Bryce and G. McIntosh". In Challenge in Educational Administration. Vol. X, No. 3, 1971, pp.8-53.

Horowitz, M. "An Integrated Approach to Early Childhood Education- A Feasibility Study", Report to AHRRC for the ASTA, Edmonton, Alberta, 1971.

Hyndman, L.D. "Campaign '71: Interview with R. Bryce and G. McIntosh" In Challenge in Educational Administration. Vox. X, No. 3, 1971, pp.6-50.

Hyndman, L.D. "Memorandum to Priorities Committee" January 2, 1973.

Hyndman, L.D. "Memorandum to E.K. Hawkesworth" January 4, 1973.

Iannaccone, L. and Lutz, F.W. Politics, Power and Policy: The Governing of Local School Districts. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1970.

Janowitz, M. "Content Analysis and Symbolic Environment". In Rogow, A.A. (ed.) Politics, Personality and Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D. Lasswell. pp.155-170. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Jantsch, E. "From Forecasting and Planning to Policy Sciences". In Policy Sciences I, 1970, pp.31-47.

Kearney, C.P. "The 1964 Presidential Task Force on Education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1967.

Keriinger, F.N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Second ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

Kirst, M.W. and Mosher, E.K. "Politics of Education". In Review of Educational Research. Vol. 39, No. 5, December, 1969, pp.623-640. 234

Kleparchuk, H., Granger, L., Rea, C., and Shanahan, P.A. "Early Childhood Education: Recommendations for Government Action”. (Revised) Paper prepared for the Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE, May 1972.

Kratzmann, A. "The Alberta Teachers' Association and Collective Bargaining". In Theory Into Practice. Vol. IV, No. 2 April, 1965, pp.75-78.

Krysowaty, J.B. Integration of Early Childhood Services. Edmonton, Alberta: ASTA, November 1972.

Lasswell, H.D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Reprint ed. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1958.

Lasswell, H.D. "The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences". In Policy Sciences I, 1970, pp.3-14.

Lasswell, H.D. A Preview of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., 1971.

Lasswell, H.D. and Holmberg, A.R. "Toward a General Theory of Directed Value Accumulation and Institutional Development". In Bribant, R. (ed.) Political and Administrative Development. pp.354-399. Durham, N. Carolina: Duke University Press, 1969.

Ledgerwood, C.D. "A Proposal Regarding the Systematic Implementation of Early Childhood Services in the Province of Alberta". Unpublished graduate paper, The University of Alberta, November, 1972.

Madge, J. The Tools of Social Science. U.S.A. ed. New York: Anchor Books, 1965.

Manning, E.C. and Manning, P. Requests for Proposals and Social Contracts: A Strategy for Organizing Resources to Achieve Social Goals. Edmonton, Alberta: M. a M. Research Ltd., 1970.

McKie, K.T. "Letter to J.A. Fotheringham", March 13, 1973.

Meranto, P.J. The Politics of Federal Aid to Education in 1965: A Study in Political Innovation. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1967.

Meranto, P.J. School Politics in the Metropolis. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1970.

Merton, R.K. and Kendall, P.L. "The Focused Interview". In Lazarsfeld, P.K. and Rosenberg, M. (ed's.) The Language of Social Research, pp.476-489 New York: The Free Press, 1955. 235

Miller, E.M. "A Study of Parent Volunteers and Non-Volunteers in Early Childhood Services". Unpublished M.A. dissertation, The University of Calgary, 1975.

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. "Minutes of Meeting", January 21, 1972.

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. "Minutes of Meeting", March 28, 1972.

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. "Minutes of Meeting", May 11, 1972.

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. "Minutes of Meeting", November 24-25, 1972.

Minister's Advisory'Committee on ECE. "Minutes of Meeting", January 18, 1973.

Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. "Minutes of Meeting", February 27, 1973.

Minister's Advisory Committee to AECA (The Alberta Educational Communications Authority) "Minutes of Meeting", March 2, 1971.

Moore, R.S. and Moore D.R. "Early Schooling for All?" Entered in the Record by Hon. Tom Railsback of Illinois, House of Representatives. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session, Vol. 118, No. 167. Washington, D.C.: Monday, October 16, 1972.

Mowat, G.L. "Changing Relations Between Departments and School Boards". In Education Canada Vol. 10, No. 4, December 1970, pp.57-59.

Mowers, N. "Report of the Subcommittee on Kindergartens" Report to the Calgary School Board, March 2, 1954.

N-12 Education Task Force CEP Interim Proposals. Edmonton, Alberta: Commission on Educational Planning, February 1, 1971.

N-12 Education Task Force "Supplement to the Proposals of the N-12 Task Force to the Commission on Educational Planning", May 1, 1971.

NCCE (National Committee for Citizens in Education) Public Testimony on Public Schools. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1975. 236

Newman/ P.C. The Canadian Establishment. Vol. I Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1975.

NSPRA (National School Public Relations Association) Preschool Breakthrough: What Works in Early Childhood Education. Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Associ­ ation, 1970.

Nystrand, R.O. "Community Action Programs and School Decision Making". In Admini strator's Notebook. Vol. XV, No. 8, April 1967.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) OECD External Examiners' Report on Educational Policy in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Association for Adult Education, 1976.

OMEP (1*Organization Mondiale Pour 1'Education, the Edmonton Branch of the Canadian Committee on Early Childhood) "Education for the Eighties" A Brief to the Commission on Educational Planning. Edmonton, Alberta, 1969.

O'Shea, D. "Theoretical Perspectives on School District Decentrali­ zation". Paper presented to AERA, Chicago, April 15-19, 1974.

Peterson, P.E. School Politics Chicago Style. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Plowden, L. Children and Their Primary Schools: A Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England). London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967.

Porter, J . The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: The University of Toronto Press, 1965.

Presthus, R. Elites in the Policy Process. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company of Canada, Limited, 1974.

Robinson, N.M. and Robinson, H.B. "A Cross-Cultural View of Early Education". In Gordon, I.J. (ed.) Early Childhood Education. The Seventy-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, pp.291-315. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972.

Rogers, D. 110 Livingston Street: Politics and Bureaucracy in the New York City Schools. New York: Random House, 1968.

Royan, D.W. "Early Childhood Education". Elementary Division Report to the Calgary School Board, October 24, 1972. 237

Russett, B.M. "International Behaviour Research: Case Studies and Cumulation". In Haas, M. and Kariel, H.S. (ed's.) Approaches to the Study of Political Science, pp.425-443. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler Publishing Company, 1970.

Safran, D. State Education Agencies and Parent Involvement. Berkeley, California: Center for the Study of Parent Involvement, Humanics Press, 1974.

S^guin, J.J. "Public Policy Planning in Education: A Case Study of Policy Formation for the Early Childhood Services Program in Alberta". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Alberta, 1977.

Shanahan, P.A. "Letter to E.A. Torgunrud", December 16, 1971.

Shanahan, P.A. "Alternative Approaches Toward Implementing Preschool Programs in Alberta". Paper distributed to Department of Education and Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE personnel, January 1972.

Slonaker, L.L. and Burgess P.M. "The Decision Seminar: A Strategy for Problem Solving". Mershon Center Briefing Paper No.7502-01. Columbus, Ohio: Mershon Center for Leadership and Public Policy, February 1975.

Smith, B.L. "The Mystifying Intellectual History of Harold D. Lasswell". In Rogow, A.A. (ed.) Politics, Personality, and Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D. Lasswell. pp.41-105. Chicago: University of Chicago.Press, 1969.

Stamp, R.M. and Wilson, J.D. (ed's.) Canadian Education: A History Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall of Canada, 1970.

Stanwick, M .E. Patterns of Participation: Report of a National Survey of Citizen Participation in Educational Decision-Making. Boston, Massachusetts: Institute for Responsive Education, 1975.

Steiner, G.Y. with assistance of Milius, P.H. The Children's Cause. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1976.

Stinson, M.B. "The Relationship Between the Activities of the Regional Superintendent and the Achievement of School Decentralization Goals". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1977.

Stretch, H.A. "Perceptions of Parents, Teachers and Administrators to Parent Involvement in Early Childhood Programs". Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, The University of Alberta, 1975. 238

Stringham, B.L. "The School Act, 1970: A Case Study of Public Policymaking in Education". Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Alberta, 1974.

Torgunrud, E.A. "Letter to E.H. Bliss", February 23, 1971.

Torgunrud, E.A. "Memorandum to E.J.M'. Church", December 23, 1971.

Torgunrud, E.A. "Memorandum to P.A. Shanahan", December 29, 1971.

Tyack, D.B. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Van Dalen, D.B. Understanding Educational Research: An Introduction. Third ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.

Vogel, D.P. "Parent Involvement in Early Childhood Services 'Kindergarten' Programs". Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, The University of Alberta, 1975.

Warren, R. "Report on Kindergarten Classes". Report of the Superintendent to the Calgary School Board, February 7, 1952.

Watts, H.N., Pacey, R.J. and McBride, E. An Early Childhood Education Project in Edmonton and Calgary. Edmonton, Alberta: AHRRC, 1972.

Williams, T.R. "Canadian Educational Administration: Issues, Questions, Actors and Arenas". Paper presented at the Fourth International Intervisitation Program in Educational Admini­ stration. Montreal, Quebec, May 6, 1978.

Wirt, F.M. and Kirst, M.W. Political and Social Foundations of Education. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1975.

Worth, W.H. "Early Childhood Education - A Report". In The Alberta School Trustee, pp.4-5. December 15, 1965.

Worth, W.H. with the assistance of Fagan, W.T. and King, E.M. Before Six: A Report on the Alberta Early Childhood Education Study. Edmonton, Alberta: The Alberta School Trustees' Association, November 1966.

Worth, W.H. A Future of Choices - A Choice of Futures: Report of the Commission on Educational Planning. Government of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: The Queen's Printer, 1972. Zeigler, L.H. and Jennings, M.K. Governing American Schools: Political Interaction in Local School Districts. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1974.

Zeigler, L.H., Tucker, H. and Wilson, L.A. "Communication and Decision-Making in American Public Education: A Longitudinal and Comparative Study". Mimeographed draft. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1976. PLEASE NOTE:

Appendices contain small print. Filmed as received in the best possible way.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS INTERNATIONAL APPENDIX A

Persons Interviewed

Names and Positions of Influence Dates of Interviews

Dr. Muriel Affleck - Professor in the March 14, 1978 Faculty of Education, University (interview taped and of Alberta; Member, Department transcribed) of Education Kindergarten Com­ mittee; Executive, ATA's Council on ECE.

Mr. A1 Bredo - Director of Finance, March 13, 1978 Statistics and Legislation, (interview taped and Department of Education. transcribed)

Dr. Tim Byrne - Deputy Minister of March 9, 1978 Education. (interview taped and transcribed)

Mrs. Sheila Campbell - Executive, ATA's March 13, 1978 Council on ECE, AAYC, OMEP; Member, (interview taped and Department of Education ECE transcribed) Committee.

Dr. Jack Church - Director of Special March 6, 1978 Education Services, Department of (interview taped and Education; Chairman, Kindergarten transcribed) Committee, ECE Committee, Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE.

Hon. Robert Clark - Social Credit March 9, 1978 Minister of Education. (interview taped and transcribed)

240 241

Mr. John Clulee - Co-ordinator of a. March 15, 1978 Early Childhood Services, (interview taped and Calgary Public School Board; transcribed) Member, ATA's Council on ECE. b. September 17, 1978.

Mr. Mel Finlay - Assistant Director of March 9, 1978 Preventive Social Services, (interview taped and Department of Health and Social transcribed) Development; Member, AAYC, ECS Co-ordinating Council.

Dr. Barry Frost - Professor in the a. March 16, 1978 Faculty of Education, University (interview taped and of Calgary, Member, ECS Co-ordinating transcribed) Council. b. March 17, 1978

Mrs. Betty Garbutt - President, AFHSA September 19, 1978

Mrs. Mary Green - President, AFHSA; March 15, 1978 Executive, ASTA; Member, N-12 (interview taped and Education Task Force. transcribed)

Dr. Audrey Griffiths - President, ASTA; March 8, 1978 Member, ECS Co-ordinating Council. (interview taped and transcribed)

Mr. Harald Gunderson - President, ASTA. March 15, 1978 (interview taped and transcribed)

Dr. Irv Hastings - Director of Early March 10, 1978 'Childhood Services, Department (interview taped and of Education. transcribed)

Dr. Myer Horowitz - Chairman of Ele­ March 7, 1978 mentary Education, Dean of Education, (interview taped and University of Alberta; Executive, transcribed) ATA's Council on ECE, AAYC, OMEP; Member N-12 Education Task Force, Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE. 242

Dr. Jim Hrabi - Associate Deputy October 2, 1978 Minister of Education; Chairman, ECS Co-ordinating Council.

Hon. Lou Hyndman - Progressive Con­ March 9, 1978 servative Minister of Education. (interview taped and transcribed)

Dr. Bernie Keeler - Executive Secretary, March 6, 1978 ATA; Co-ordinator, N-12 Education (interview taped and Task Force? Member, CEP Board. transcribed)

Mrs. Beulah Leadbeater - Supervisor of a. March 15, 1978 Early Childhood Services, Calgary (interview taped and Board of Education? Member, ATA's transcribed) Council on ECE. b. August 16, 1978

Mr. Stan Maertz - Assistant Executive March 6, 1978 Director, ASTA; Member, N-12 (interview taped and Education Task Force. transcribed)

Mr. Larry Mutual - Elementary School March 7, 1978 Principal? Member, N-12 Education (interview taped and Task Force. transcribed)

Mr. David Parker - ECS Consultant, March 16, 1978 Department of Education. (interview taped and transcribed)

Mrs. Lee Phipps - Senior High School March 8, 1978 Principal; Member, N-12 Education (interview taped and Task Force. transcribed)

Mrs. Pat Shanahan - ECS Consultant, March 17, 1978 Department of Education? Member, (interview taped and ATA's Council on ECE, Minister's transcribed) Advisory Committee on ECE, OMEP. 243

Mrs. Joyce Thain - Elementary School March 13, 1978 Assistant Principal; Member, (interview taped and ATA's Council on ECE, N-12 Education transcribed) Task Force.

Dr. Gene Torgunrud - Director of March 7, 1978 Curriculum, Department of Education; (interview taped and Member, N-12 Education Task Force, transcribed) Minister's Advisory Committee on ECE.

Dr. Walter Worth - Chairman of Elementary March 14, 1978 Education, Vice President for (interview taped and Planning, University of Alberta; transcribed) Commissioner, CEP.

Mrs. Bernice Youck - President, PCKA. September 13, 1978

Other Communications

Mr. John Church (Administrator, Centralized Services Section, Elementary Education Division, California Department of Education) - Letter and materials to W. R. Dickson, April 27, 1978.

Mr. John Clulee (Co-ordinator of Early Childhood Services, Calgary Public School Board) - Letter and materials to W. R. Dickson, December 21, 1977.

Dr. Irv Hastings (Director of Early Childhood Services, Department of Education) - Letter and materials to W. R. Dickson, February 16, 1978.

Dr. Ethel King (Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary) - Letter to W. R. Dickson, March 7, 1978.

Dr. Jean Seguin (Assistant Professor, Universite du*Quebec a Trois- Rivieres) - Phone conversation with W. R. Dickson, June 13, 1978. PLEASE NOTE:

Dissertation contains small and in d istin ct p rin t. Filmed as received.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. APPENDIX B

Alberta ECS Policy Statement

BCERTT R C M THE DEPARTMENT 07 EDUCATION ACT THE OOVEUKENT OF ALBERTA, 1973

7. (1) The MlnliUr may mike regulations

(h) prohibiting any person from offering or providing an early childhood service program unless he U licensed to do so under the regulations, (I) governing the establishment, administration, opera* tion, management and control of early childhood service programs, (j) concerning the issue of licences to persons offering or providing early childhood aervlce programs and the suspension and cancellation of licences so issued, (k) concerning the certification and special require* ments of teachers and the cancellation and suspen- alon of certificates of teachers who are involved in early childhood service programs, (1) for the apportionment and distribution of all moneys appropriated by the Legislature for the purpose of making grants towards early childhood service programs, (m) concerning the qualifications of persons who may act as instructional assistants and aides in institu* tions offering early childhood service programs, and (n) defining the expression "early childhood service programs*’ for the purposes of the regulations, • and The Regtdaiiout Aet applies to any regulation made under this section. (2) The Minister may delegate any of his powers under this section to any person in the Department or body established under section 6. [HS.A. 1970, e. 96, a 7; 1072, e .S l.a .2 ; 1973, e.23, a 2]

244 245

Operational Plans for Early Childhood Services

/dlbcrfa GOVERNMENT Of ALBERTA OPERATIONAL PLANS

FOR

EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

Tho Government of Alberta

March, 1973 247

I

OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOO SERVICES

FiwUiirJ

The Government oF Alberta intends to give Increasing attention to the problem of meeting the special needs of young children, ages 0 to approximately

8 years. This paper attempts to develop a coordinated approach to this problem by considering Instructional materials, human and physical resources, In-service education of staff, parent-community Involvement, responsibilities for decision­ making and organization in terms of a comprehensive plan. Early Childhood

Services (ECS) will be established as a separate branch of the Department of

Education, whose influence and services will be the result of the coordinated activities of the Departments of Health £ Social Development; Culture, Youth £

Recreation; Advanced Education and Education. The following beliefs are basic to the plan:

1. Early Childhood Education is an important part, but only one part of a comprehensive system of Early Childhood Services (ECS).

2. Provincial and local organizations through which ECS are provided must encourage and maximize the involvement of parents and the community. ECS must include the provision of such educational, nutritional, social and health services that will help young chiIdren.

3. Services offered by ECS need not develop simultaneously. Priorities must be set for phasing-ln programs. For example, activities that meet the needs of handicapped children will take precedence over those activities involved in establishing univer­ sal early childhood programs. Initially, program development and support will be directed toward children from birth to less than 5 years 6 months and their parents. This will have strong implications for present primary school programs. 248

Every effort should be mode to ovoid unnecessary "labelling" of children and parents in ECS programs.

S- Early Childhood Services should not be viewed as an extension downward of the present primary program.

6. Early Childhood Services should be provided to the child and his family on an optional basis. No child under compulsory school age will be required to attend.

I 249

H i

t a b u : o f c o n t e n t s

PACE

Foreword i

Introduction 1

Definition of Term o 2

A Philosophy of Early Childhood Services S

General Policy Statement on Early Childhood Services 4 Coals of Early Childhood Services 4 Support for Approved Public and Private ECS Programs S Summary 6

A Comprehensive Planning Perspective to Early Childhood Services 6 Hueia Principles for Early Childhood Services 6

A Framework for Pluming Early Childhood Services B

An Ucyuninul i'inul Structure for Early i.'hiIdhood Services 10 Provincial Structure 10 Local Structure - Coordinated Structure 14 Summary 17

Decision-Making 18 Introduction of ECS - a Local Responsibility 18 Proposal Fecomended by Local ECS Advisory Committee 20 Standards and Regulations 20 Attendance Optional 21 Summary 22

Using and Improving Human Resources 22 Needs, Priorities, Basie for Phaeing-In ECS Programs 22 Phase 1 24 Phase 2 - Day-Care 20 Certificated Teacher with Early Childhood Major 27 Training Instructional Assistants 28 In-Service Education 28 Summary ;:y 250

iv

PAGE

Instructional Programs ami Support Services 30 Progcum ;!liiit.i'ithut 3D I'l'nijismi iln h ln /in it . ,1/ Consul hil.iiu: and Suprrrisory Si'rvhvit 3K Instructional flranln ami Support Tam 34 eligibility Criteria and Grantu fur "Handicapped" Children 34 Per Pupil Grant for "Disadvantaged" Children 3b Par Pupil Grant for "Normal" Children in "Kindergartens" 35 Per Pupil Grant for Private Schools, Agencies and Individuals 36 Transportation Grants for "Handicapped" Children and for Some Chilcb'cn in Hural School Districts 36 Hanovution and Capital Costs 3? Utcal Coordinator 3? Minimum Staff/Child Katios and Staffimj Units 36 "llanliaappad" Children Hagistry 40 Atlmiuaitm to Approved Program fur "Handicapped"Children 41 Develop Media Package to Assist bocal Planners 41 CPS Curriculum Guide and Hesuurce Hamlhuuk 4H Proposal FotmaL ami Approval 43 Swmary 44

General Swmary of Policy Statements 46

Expected Time bine for Activities Connected with Introduction of Optional ECS Program in Alberta 49

CIIAHTS

Coordinated Inter-Departmental Early Childhood Cervices 13

Coordinated Structure Alternative HI lb Alternative HZ Jb Alternative H3 III

Needs Categories of Children and Their Families Z3 251

OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

Introduction

This paper Is intended to be an operational policy statement by the

Government of Alberta with respect to Early Childhood Services. The paper

states the Government's philosophy, policies and priorities on the many aspects of implementing a phased-in publicly supported program of Early Childhood Services.

Each policy statement is followed by a brief explanation which outlines the reason

for supporting the particular position.

The Worth Commission Report, the Minister's Advisory Committee on Early

Childhood Education, and a policy paper entitled, Ovvortuniliuu Cor Infante, by

L. W. Downey Research Associates Ltd. have provided the major basis for fh* state­ ment of Government policies contained in this paper.

The past decaui' .... r.aduced a new body of educational, psychological and medical research that has documented the crucial importance of the first eight years of life. At no other period is the child so susceptible and responsive to positive environmental influences which can enhance and expand his developement.

Environmental influences, however, if sterile or inappropriate, may well have negative effects on a child's intelligence, motivation and ability to learn, concept of himself, relationship with others, and on later health and education achievements. A suitable environment during the first few year's of a child's life can provide nourishment for feelings of self-worth and sense of self-respect, motivation, initiative, ability to learn and to achieve. 252

- 2-

Eventually, children, ages 0 * 8 years, should have access to ECS based on particular individual and group needs, talents and interests. There should be opportunities for the young children and their parents to develop their abilities and to maximize their potential. At the present time, formal group activities for children younger than four years, six months are not planned.

However, various programs to assist parents of children younger than four years, six months are desirable and will be supported.

Providing comprehensive health, social and educational services to young children and their parents will not be an easy task. The coordinating, meshing and sharing of all available human and physical resources at every level can result in more effective programs for young children and their families.

In summary, Early Childhood Service programs should have the following immediate major thrusts:

1. Strengthening the role of the family as a first and fundamental influence on child development;

2. The early detection of health, mental and educational handicaps;

3. The provision of remedial and preventative health and education programs on a priority basis to children and parents of children who need special services.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purposes of this paper, board, Minioter, and private school shall be defined as per the Department of Education Act.

The terms, district, parent, public school district, school buildiny, separate school district and trustee shall be defined as per the School Act. 253

-3-

Other terms used in this paper shall mean:

Operator - a public or separate school board or a non-profit making private institution, agency or individual that is providing an approved ECS program.

Early Childhood Services (ECSJ - health, educational and social services or activities on behalf of children between 0 to approximately 8 years of age and their parents.

teacher - a person holding a valid Alberta Teaching Certificate with at least three years of training and a major in Early Childhood Educalion.

A PHILOSOPHY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

The main purpose of Early Childhood Services (ECS) is to strengthen the sense of dignity and self-worth within the young child and his family. During the early years, and In harmony with the child's developmental patterns and sequence, many opportunities should be provided for the child to develop qualities such as self-reliance and initiative, awareness of self and others, ability to give and follow directions, powers to judge and control impulses, ability to cope with failure and stimulation of aesthetic awareness. Since the elements of thinking and the components of language formation can influence a child's self-concept, their development should be considered as important. Helping the child to gain increased competency in the use of senses and refinement of motor skills leads to a greater awareness of the capabilities of the body and the limitations imposed by the environment. Each child's world of experience, people and things, should be extended in breadth and depth, to span all areas of needs and interests.

Much evidence indicates that the home and communily in which a child grows is a major influence in personal development. Demographic factors (housing, income, ethnic groups), cognitive1 I ac i I i t .it ing factors (materials, toys, language si rm I in n) , anti (•motional fartors (parent s' own emotional set in it'/ am) sel I • esteem) an- Ihtee part iiglat factors ol the home env i I niimcnl which must la1 i onsidereil. 254

-ii-

To meet the child's health, educational, social, emotional and physical needs requires a comprehensive and pervasive approach that goes beyond providing just a school experience. Because the activities intended to develop one aspect of the child's total personality alTect all other parts, these activities must be integrated into a meaningful whole. Rather than segmenting services to young children, we must concern ourselves will* the rclaicdness ol all learning endeavors and services that will nurture both the young child and the l.imily. In order to create a total learning environment, parent and community resources, in addition to the school, must lie fully mobiliicd and utilised.

GENERAL POLICY STATCHrNt ON CARIY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

/D/i/f.'Y M f f J C W ; Coals of Early Childhood Services

Early Childhood Services has as its major long range goal to strengthen the sense of dignity and self-worth within the child and his family. More specifically, this means increased emphasis upon:

(a) Heeting physical, nutritional, and dental needs of children.

(b) Strengthening emotional and social develo|Nnenl by encouraging self-confidence, spontaneity, curiosity and self-discipline.

(c) Stimulating mental processes and skills, with particular attention to conceptual and verbal aspects.

(d) Establishing and reinforcing patterns and expectations of success to promote self-confidence.

(e) Increasing the child's rapacity to relate positively to family and community, while ai the same time, strengthening the family's capacity to contribute to the child's development.

(I) Fostering in the child and his family, a responsible alii lode toward society, while stimulating constructive opportunities for people to work together on a personal and community basis toward the solution of their problems, 255

-5-

REASOtt:

The above policy statement evolves directly from the philosophy that

has been stated for Early Childhood Services — to strengthen the sense of

dignity anil stalf-uorlh uithiti the rihild and the ehild's family.

ROIdCY XTA THMv.HT: Support for Approved Public and Private ECS Programs

Beginning the school year 1973*74, the Department of Education, in

conjunction with other Departments of Government will support on a selective

basis, public and separate school districts and non-profit-making private

institutions, agencies or individuals that offer approved Early Childhood Programs,

liMXilN:

The Government has a responsibility in the field of Early Childhood

Services to provide an educational experience in conjunction with health and

social services. Appropriate financial support and mechanisms for providing

leadership and coordination then become necessary. Private institutions and

agencies along with the public and separate school systems can provide alter­

native delivery systems for ECS. This will give parents of children the oppor­

tunity to make choices in terms of their personal values and beliefs and the

special needs of the child. Government support of both the public and private

sectors can help to develop the potential for creativity and flexibility. The

result may well be more effective program node Is suitable to the Alberta scene.

Selective programs targeted to the needs of the physically, mentally and socially disadvantaged children must be a first consideration.

Common sense and research evidence suggest;

1, that early prevent ion r.ither than later remedial treatment is desirable;

2. that programs for children with special handicaps deserve attention first. 256

-6-

SUMMARX:

ECS must provide for alternative organizations and support for compre- hcnsive educational, health and social services to young children and their parents. Selective programs to meet the needs of the physically, mentally and socially handicapped children will be a first priority.

A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE TO EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES (ECS)

Dasic Rrinoijdeo for Early Childhood .'i:rt>ion:

ECS must be a comprehensive and responsive system that is in direct contact with other systems locally and provincially. As such, its organizational structure should be based on the following principles:

1. EC;'- mutt I fif/ittiih' tin: I'ottili I it.'tut tti'i'i'iiiiriry fu r -thawjr,

A system of Early Childhood Services should eventually include children from birth to approximately 8 years (or to the end of Grade 2); their parents and families; teachers; administrators and para- professional educators; school nurses; medical-dental personnel; nutritionists; recreation leaders; social workers; psychologists; and other community workers and resource people. Thuse people, indi­ vidually and collectively, should be involved in continually examining their contribution to ECS. ECS should be organized so educational, social, and health needs of young children and their parents become a central concern.

2. ECS must facilitate ftvdhtok.

If the ECS system is to provide a coordinating and communicating function, each patt of the system must know the effect it is havinq on young children. Interaction within ECS, between departments of Government and other agencies should tesult in the continuous relnfmce­ ment and/or modification of goals, policies and programs. A desirable organization should have an inherent, on-going, self-renewing dimension that results in minimal bureaucratic, rigid and "locked-in" procedures. 257

- 7-

3. ECS must support a high degree of diversity

Within a broad provincial guideline, diversity should show itself at the local level in the goals, policies, and programs of ECS. Such diversity is facilitated if services are provided by a variety of private, community, and governmental agencies. Services should be offered In a variety of locations including the home, school(s), churches, and other institutional and community settings. Parents should have the option of using the services of ECS or rearing their children in any manner that is not reprehensible to our society.

h. ECS must seek to avoid over-lapping of ucrvieac.

Diversity and complexity must not become excuses for the over-lapping of service. Persons working in ECS must consciously seek to minimize any over-lapping of services and to refrain from stifling children's and parents' initiative by duing too much for tnem. The organization of ECS should loti I it.itc cooperation, meshing, sharing and effective and effi­ cient use nl appropriate human and physical resources at both the provin­ cial and local levels.

5. ECS must eomjtromioe tin; foraac of integration and decentralisation.

In the case of the ECS, decentralization implies a decision-making role for parents, both Individually and in the community. This decision­ making role might carry with it at least partial control of finances. Decentralization also implies that a multiplicity of agencies may assume some responsibility for the development of young children. Carried to extremes, decentralization could cause disintegration of the system. Hence, there is the need for a judicial balance of integrative and decentralizing forces.

C. Ei'S mini I /umii/i/i1 f. flitttn. ./ til Inti ii/./m .i f i e ttneiieii gettutllt.

All aie.is ul ICS nrtul nut devel op .11 I hi* s.line pate. Iuili.il.iiiies will hr si* 11 -correcl iug in lh.il advances in our pi'ugium area will stimulate advances in other program areas. The concept of uneven growth implies that the various sub-programs in ECS should be allowed to develop at different rates. Although it is probably desirable to develop health services first, health services for young children could be developed either before or after educational services. 258

-8-

However, the principle of unbalanced growth does not imply the adoptionof alaisscz-faire philosophy. There is a need to maintain a general overview so that ECS programs are based upon identified needs. General monitoring of Early Childhood Services, is primarily the responsibility of the Provincial Government. The Government has the responsibility for establishing the initial conditions of the ECS and for carrying out at least enough planning to ensure that all essential services develop as needed.

A FHAHEWOHK Fan FUNHlHt} F.AUl.i CHILDHOOD HEHVICHD

Once a philosophical position has been established, then a nccds-assess- mcnt becomes an essential part of planning. Often, early childhood prni|i,ims on

this continent hjvc been introduced 01 cmiicd out without sufficient alle.nt inn

to needs-assessinent. Needs-assessment constitutes an integral part ol the plan­

ning strategy of any planning process, whether the planning is being done provin­ cial ly o r locally.

Prior to discussing needs-assessment, it is important that there be ag reement as to what is a "need". A rather simple definition of a need is:

"the difference between what ia the denirable otaie or condition and what in the /irc.-icnt utate or condition."

This assessment must be made at both the provincial and local levels. It serves as the basis for setting objectives, developing programs and program evaluation.

To conduct a needs-assessment, one must examine the various parts of

the system or organisation, its environment or context, and the present and future potential of both.

Needs-assessment, to be a useful step in planned change, should be viewed from a mull I-level systems perspective and purposefully lied In to other aspects ol the ciii-i|iiiiii| decision-making (planning, budgeting, evaluation), A neods-assess- ment framework for ECS based upon four "levels" of needs follows. PLEASE NOTE: This page not included in material received from the Graduate School. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS 260

- 1 0 -

The decision to implement ECS cannot be made without examining the

Inter-relationships of the four levels of needs to each other. Questions prompted by examining these inter-relationships may well point to additional needs upon which the success of Early Childhood Services depends.

SUMMARY

A comprehensive approach must be taken to planning ECS programs.

Planning must involve determining needs in four broad categories: organization, decision-making, in-service education of staff, and using human and physical resources.

Alt ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

/ 'no viNcrA i, smicriiin:

Early Childhood Services (ECS) is viewed as a joint responsibility of

.the Provincial Departments of Culture; Youth C Recreation; Health £ Social

Development; Education and Advanced Education, who have a direct concern with providing services to young children ( 0 * 8 yrs.) and their parents. Each department will remain independent, but agrees to coordinate its efforts with other departments to provide a more total complement of required services to young children and their parents.

The chart on page 13 indicates the organizational structure at the provincial level. Operationally, the coordinated approach will work as follows:

I. The Cabinet Committee on Education will advise the government on major policy decisions. The Minister of Education will report ECS matters to this committee. 261

-11

The Deputy Ministers of the Departments of Education; Advanced Education; Health D Social Development; Culture, Youth and Recreation, with the Deputy Minister of Education as the leader and initiator, will develop general policy and provide mission level coordination to ECS. Where an operator's license is revoked or where an application to operate an ECS program is not approved, the operator or applicant shall have the right of appeal to the Minister of Education

Th» Coordinating Council wilt develop specific guidelines and policies Early Childhood Services. The Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Education will act as chairman of the Council and provide over-all administrative coordination of ECS programs. The ECS Coordinating Council will consist of directors and/or supervisors from Departments of Advanced Educa­ tion ( I rep.); Education (2 reps.); Culture, Youth C Recreation (I rep.); Health & Social Development (k reps.). These members will represent and maintain a close, functional relationship with education, health and social concerns. In addition to the departmental representatives, each of the five stakeholder groups (See Chart, Page 13) will be asked to appoint one member to the Coordinating Council. The Minister of Education will appoint two other members at large. Interest groups who have special concerns with young children may, at any time, submit briefs to appropriate ministers, deputy ministers or to the Associate Deputy Minister of Education. The Coordinating Council may establish at any time, committees that are required to carry out a specifically designated funct ion or task.

The individual supervisors or directors will maintain their proper line relationship to their respective departments and, hence, to their respective Ministers.

The Coordinating Council will meet on a regular basis with uii established structure and a formal agenda. 262

-12*

6. The Coordinating Council will provide a lateral communication mechanism for spotting and resolving over-lapping jurisdictions, disproportionate budgetary allocations, redundancies and gaps in programming, and an interdisciplinary view of child development problems as they pertain to mutually common target populations.

7. Formally structured recommendations will go forward to each Deputy Minister that has members of his staff on.the Council. The Deputy Minister will then take whatever action deemed necessary or appropriate. Thu Coordinating Council should be able to provide each Minister with a clearer view of problems within any department and joint puihlems whir.lt might be shared with any other of the three departments.

8. The Director of the ECS Branch will be directly responsible to (lie Associate Deputy Minister of Education. Me will provide general supervision and coordination of the wurk o( all personnel within the ECS Branch including the activities o( the Branch's Early Childhood Field Consultants. .The locus for educational program development Involving children will be under the general direction of the Department of Education. Parent-Community Develop­ ment programs will be under the Departments of Culture, Youth £ Recreation and Health 0 Social Development. There will, however, be inter-departmental membership on each program committee regardless of where the locus for development of a particular program lies.

9. The Pro|>osal Review Cummiilee will receive proposals from school ‘boards, private institutions, agencies, ami individuals. Thu adequacy and suitability of proposals will be assessed in terms of the guidelines and procedures established by the ECS Coordinating Council. Each proposal will be assessed from an education, health and social services perspective. The Proposal Review Committee will consist of (I) Director ol ECS Branch (Chairman); (2) Coordinator of Program Approval, (ECS Branch); (3) Two representatives ftom the Department of Health C Social Development; (A) Director or Assistant Director of Youth Services, Department of Culture, Youth t Recreal ion. COORDINATED INTERfcDEPARTMENTAL EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES

PROVINCIAL

ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION ADVISORY FUNCTION

Cabinet Conwlttee on Education

Hlnlttart oft Education nlnltter of Education Health 4 Social Development Culture, Youth 4 Recreation Advanced Education "7F" vy Deputy Hlnltter* oft Education Deputy Hlnltivr Health 4 Social Development of Education Culture, Youth 4 Recreation Advanced Education

*• < Dlvltlon ofl InUfuttlon \V « ----- Early Childhood Servlcet I Coordinating Council Attoclate' Oeputy f I") 1. A n o c . Deputy rtlnltter of Education Hlnltter oV Education (Chairman) 2. Stakeholder Group* Alberta Teacher*' A*toc, Alta. School Truttee't Anoc. Olrector of: Unlvertlty Faculty of Education Early Childhood Servlcet Iranch OHEP • Ojg^ Hondltle Pour I1 Educa> Alberta Federation of Home c School Coordinator ! Coordinator Two member* appointed by H, of Ed. Program Dev, Program Approval £ ______J. Departmenti oft Educetiont Director of ECS Iranch and Director of Spec. Ed. Serv. Ir. Culture, Youth 4 Recreation: Director or Act. Director of Youth PropotaI Review Committee Service!. Humbert I Health 4 Social Development: R Director! of tranche*. 1, Director of ECS (Chairman) 2. Coordinator, Program Appr. Advanced Education: Attlttent ), 2 rapt fromHeatth 4 Social Deputy Hinltter of Program Servlcet Development R. I rep, from Culture, Youth 4 Recreation.

Hentel Health Unlit • head* of Health Unit • Hedlcal Officer, Nurte, Dental REGIONAL Early Childhood Dlttrlct Youth Officer. OR LOCAL Development Contuliantv Repretentatlvet Special Service* * PSS Cnniultam, local PSS Director* Volunteer Con>ultan|t 264

-ik-

hm.'Ai, tnvuenm:

inhlCY UTATKMHUT: Coordinated Structure

At the local level, Early Childhood Services will be a responsibility

of the school board or local licensed private institution, anency or individual.

A local ECS Advisory Committee should be established to assist in the planning

and operation of each program. Local existing organizations may be used or

added to. For example, Local Preventive Social Service Advisory Committees

with perhaps an added representation of parents or other community groups might

well serve the function of a Local ECS Advisory Committee. A Committee should

include:

(1) representative parents of children who are registered in the program. Parents should const! lute the majority of the coiimi llec;

(2) local public individuals who art: service people * the School Principal and/or Superintendent, members of the ECS staff, the District Home Economist, the Medical Officer of Health, the Public Health Nurse, the Early Childhood Development Consultant, the Preventive Social Services Director, district youth repre­ sentatives and membership from other community agencies; such as Y.M.C.A., Church and service clubs.

A locally coordinated approach makes possible to parents and communities a choice of three alternative forms of organization.

Alternative til - shows the local school staff employed by the school board providing the ECS services. The Coordinator is employed by the school board.

Alternative IIX - shows a licensed private operator providing the coor­ dination and services to children and parents under a contract arrangement to the school board. The school board has final responsibility for the over-all adminis­ tration and supervision of the program. 265

- 15 -

Altemative US - shows a I i censed, private, non-prof 11 operator providing both the over-all coordination and service. A Local ECS Advisory Committee must be formed. The Local Advisory Committee must approve the ECS program and provide satisfactory evaluation.

ALTERNATIVE HI

School District I Superintendent of Schools or Designate I ECS Project Coordinator (Employee of School Board)

Local ECS Advisory Committee Local ECS Program Community Operates Under: Agencies Jurisdiction of school board + < ...... > Staff Employed Major!ty of Parent by School Board. Representatives

AND/OR

ALTEHNATIVK Hit

School District I Superintendent of Schools or Designate

ECS Project Coordinator (Employee of licensed private operator)

Local ECS Advisory Committee Licensed Private Institution

Communi ty V / Agency or Individual under Agencies 1 I contract to school board + provides ECS program. Majority of Parent Representatives Staff employed by contractor 266

- 16 -

AND/OR M.mmrivi-: its,

Licensed Private Operator ECS Project Coordinator (Employed by private operator)

Local ECS Advisory Committee Licensed Private Institution, Agency or Individual provides Community Agencies ECS Program. <-...... -> + Staff employed by private o p e r a t o r . Majority of Parent Representaiives

The above charts indicate three possible alternative organizational structures that may be used at the local level for providing ECS programs. Opera­ tionally, these coordinated approaches will work as follows:

1. The Local ECS Advisory Committee should participate in the planning, development, and operation of the local program. In the case of Alternative A3, it must have its recommendation(s) accompany any submission to the Provincial ECS Proposal Review Committee. More favourable consideration will be given to those proposals that indicate a strong involvement on the part of parents and community groups.

2. The Local ECS Advisory Committee might give active local support to the program through such activities as: recruiting and providing volunteer aides, work bees, sponsoring parent-child development programs, and development of local toy and book lending centres. 267

-17-

3. Each public or separate school board or licensed operator that proposes to operate an ECS project must appoint a Project Coordin­ ator with suitable qualifications in Early Childhood. The Coordinator's main purpose and responsibility will be to coordinate planning, implementation, and evaluation of the program(s) and provide a contact for parents and consultants locally or regionally and the Provincial ECS Director.

4. Representatives of government departments stationed locally or regionally will maintain their proper line relationship to their respective departments and hence, ultimately to their Hinisters but will give joint assistance to Local ECS Advisory Committees to help them In planning and operationalizing of community based ECS programs.

5. The Local ECS Advisory Committee is encouraged to meet on a regular basis with an established structure and formal agenda.

6. Provincial grants for Alternatives #1 and 12 will be paid directly to the school board under whose jurisdiction ECS programs are being provided. Grants for Alternative #3 will be paid to the licensed agency or institution offering the service. Alternative #3 will be considered to be a private school. No grant will be paid to profit making private schools.

REASON:

Locally, the delivery of Early Childhood Services should take many forms.

It should involve many institutions and individuals. This will permit maximum use of family and community resources and provide for the development of more flexible and imaginative programs to meet parent preferences.

SUMMARY;

The organizational structures at the provincial and local levels are built upon the principle that education, health and social services to children and their parents should be coordinated. With this principle in mind the following new structures wi11 be established. 268

- 18*

1. A Coordinating Council whose membership includes representatives from various stakeholder groups and members at large, and the departments nl government which have a direct iniuein with young clrlldien nr programs lor young iliildien. tire (originating (.num. 11 will rcconmend guidelines and policies that arc consistent with the over-all general policies of the Government.

2. The Department of Education will provide the initiating and leader­ ship role in coordinating and administering Early Childhood Services.

3. The Proposal Review Committee made up of representatives from the Departments of Education, Culture, Youth C Recreation, and Health C Social Development will assess and recommend appropriate action with regard to all proposals received from school boards and private operators.

It. A Local Advisory Committee made up of a majority of parents along with community agencies and service people will provide for direct contact and involvement with the community.

DECISION-MAKING

I'lil.wy UTATh'MHNT: Introduction of ECS - a Local Responsibility

In) :>honl., Ilttma, CotmuniUj Involvement

The involvement and cooperation of parents and community agencies in the decision-making process which affects vital areas of their own and their children's lives is strongly endorsed. A Local ECS Advisory Committee made up of a majority of parents of children served by the program in addition to representation from local community agencies is highly recommended. Preference will be given to those proposals which have the written support of a Local ECS Advisory Committee. 269

-19-

The exact composition of local advisory committees will vary from community to community depending upon the specific needs of children and the availability of community agencies and consultive services. The committee should be representative of the various sectors of the community in which ECS is to be provided. The Local Advisory Committee to a private operator must be established before the program is re com­ mended for approval to the Proposal Review Committee. Ideally, the genesis of the idea for starting a local ECS will come from the parents of the children who will be involved in the program.

(b) Local communities with the assistance of consultative services from local departments of government and local professional groups should become involved in setting up their own programs, recommending the language of instruction, securing adequate sponsorship, applying through their school boards or through a sponsoring agency to the Proposal Review Committee for program approval and grants to assist in operating the program locally. It is felt that the needs of children, the characteristics of the locale and the particular attitudes and wishes of the staff and parents will dictate a variety of programs, advisory structures or committees and ways in which people in different communities can work together.

The area of parent involvement and adult education emerges as extremely important when considering the quality of the services to be provided. Parent/Adult

Education is a complex field from which several identifiable elements are emerging:

1. In order that services meet the needs of families, parents should be involved early in planning for the service.

2. Programs are more effective when parents and the local community participate in the actual planning and operation of all phases of the ECS program. Parent involvement and cooperation is particularly essential in programs for disadvantaged children. 270

*20*

3. ECS Programs should be tailored and suited to the needs of individuals and communities and to sociocultural, as well as to geographic differences. ECS programs should consider, where appropriate, the employment patterns of married women.

4. A variety of programs will be necessary in order to meet diverse local needs. No one standard program can meet all needs. Alternate methods of delivery of ECS will allow for maximum use of family and community resources and more flexible programs for greater sensitivity to individual needs.

I'OIJCY STATEMENT: Proposal Recommended by Local ECS Advisory Committee

All proposals to be submitted to the Provincial ECS Review Committee

should have the formal approval of the Local ECS Advisory Committee and the Board of Trustees (if a school district proposal). If Alternative It or HZ is followed,

the written recommendation of the Local ECS Advisory Committee should accompany

the proposal when it is submitted to the Program Review Committee. If Alternative

A3 is followed, the written recommendation of the Local ECS Advisory Committee must accompany the proposal when it is submitted to the Program Review Committee.

The Minister of Education must approve the proposal before any educational grants are paid. h e a w n :

Programs, to he effective, must have a strong commitment on the part of

the parents of the children and the local community Involved.

1‘HU C Y STATEMENT: Standards and Regulations

Under the direction of the Provincial ECS Coordinating Council, an Ad Hoc

Committee will be struck to develop approval standards and regulations for ECS

Programs operated by school districts and licensing standards and regulations for privately operated ECS Programs. The Ad Hoc Committee will: 271

-21-

1. Review health (nutrition, sanitation, medical), fire, safety, and financial standards embodied in present regulations of the Preventive Social Services Act, the Public Health Act and the School Act; review the standards and licensing procedures out­ side Alberta.

2. Review staff-child and program standards presently embodied in the regulations of the Preventive Social Service Act., the Public Health Act and the School Act; and to review the available literature on staff-child and program considerations.

3. Develop a common set of comprehensive regulations which can be approved by the four departments of Government involved in ECS. The regulations will provide a basis for approving or licensing a variety of local Early Childhood Programs in Alberta. The standards developed in the regulations will relate to such areas as: buildings and accomodations; equipment and furnishing; main­ tenance; health, safety and fire; staff preparation and requirements; nature of program for children and parents, and financial records of conditions if a private operator.

UEASON:

Programs which do not meet the specific needs of pupils, do not have the

commitment of parents and do not meet adequate program standards are usually quite

ineffective and should not receive approval and financial support.

IVLICY STATEMENT: Attendance Optional

The attendance of any child at an approved Early Childhood Services program

is optional unless the child has attained the age of six years at the school opening date. (Section 133, The School Act, 1973).

HEASON:

The principle of parental prerogative at this stage of the child's life

should be upheld. 272

-22-

SUMMHY:

ECS envisages a strong involvement of parents and community agencies

in the decision-making and general operation of programs at the local level.

This is based upon the premise that active involvement of parents and community agencies is necessary to providing effective programs. The recommendation of the Local ECS Advisory Committee should accompany any proposal that is submitted for provincial approval. In the case of a private operator, the recommendation of the Local ECS Advisory Committee must accompany the proposal.

Certain basic standards of service will be guaranteed throuyh the licensing and approval procedures established by the ECS Coordinating Council.

Attendance of any child at an approved Early Childhood Service program is o p t i o n a l .

USING AND IMPROVING HUMAN RESOURCES

POLICY STATEMENT: Needs Priorities, Basis for Phasing-ln ECS Programs.

Three main factors will determine the extension of services to young children: the degree and nature of need, the financial resources available, and the potential for Improving the child and the family's dignity and self-worth.

These priorities strongly suggest a gradual rather than a sudden expansion of Early

Childhood Services to Initially include children who are mentally, physically, emotionally or socially hand Icanoed.

Uhlle these children need special understanding and adjustments to their particular needs and characteristics, they are like all other children. Fundamen­ tally, they have the same potentialities, the same curiosity, the same basic human problems to face in Iife....except that the circumstances of life into which they were born has given them extra ones no children should really have. For the purposes of identifying various global categories of needs, which are not mutually exclusive, five broad categories are indicated in the diagram on the following page. 273

- 23 -

NEEDS CATEGORIES OF CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES

Needs "Day-Care" ChiIdren Provide Educational Consultative Assist. September I, I971*

"A" Needs B" Needs 'Handicapped" Disadvantaged" ChiIdren A years, 6 months Aged 4 years, 6 months but less than 5 but less than 5 years, years, 6 months 6 months Begin Support: Sept. I, Begin Support: Sept. I, 1973

"E" Needs u r n Needs Kindergarten" ALL OTHERS Approved by: Hinister of Education prior to January I, 1973 Begin Support; September I, 1973

s 274

*2*1“

PlIAM I.

Beginning September I, 1973 and at any other subsequent time, a school board or licensed private operator may start an ECS program approved by the

Hinister of Education for:

1. "Handicapped" Children ("A" Needs)

(a) A "handicapped" child is eligible to register in an ECS program if his age as of September I, 1973 is k years, six months but less than 9 years, six months.

(b) Characteristics: Children who have, because of environ* mental or hereditary factors, physical, sensory or emotional handicaps which limit their normal growth and development. Children with problems of this nature constitute 10$ * 15$ of any age group.

(c) I'nynvn: Remedial and/or adaptive in nature and selec* live in scope.

2. "Hinudsnntayud" Children ("II" Nnudu)

(a) Children who meet the following criteria: (I) Culturally different and/or educationally disadvantaged (school achievement, atten­ dance, drop-out rate, is below acceptable level). (II) All children who reside within an area of the Province designated for particular attention and opportunity. Certain school districts and particular "inner city" areas of larger urban districts will be designated for special attention. (iii) Any child from a "disadvantaged" area is eligible to enter an approved program if his age as of September I, 1973 is k years, 6 months but less than 5 years, 6 months. (b) i.'haraatcriatics: At least 15$ of the children have environ­ ments that limit them from having a fair start because of such conditions as poverty, severe isolation, protein-calorle malnutrition, single parent care, paucity of language stimu­ lation, detrimental and/or limited home experiences, and deviant cultural differences and ethnic patterns. 275

- 25 -

(c) Program: Hay be compensatory, preventative and enriching in nature, but selective in scope.

3. "Kindergartens" Approved Prior to January I, 10'/Z ("C" Needs)

A school district and private institution, agency or Individual operating a "kindergarten" program approved by the Minister of Education prior to January I, 1973, is eligible to apply for ECS program approval or licensing and educational grants based upon the needs of children if it provides services to "kinder­ garten" children, 4 years, 6 months but less than 5 years, 6 months.

UKA SON:

While suitable Early Childhood Services would benefit all children, for

some It is of critical Importance. Therefore, publicly supported tarly Childhood

Services should be made available, first to pre-school children with handicaps, such as hard-of-hearing and deaf, partially sighted and blind, aberrant behavior, autistic, psychotic, severe speech handicapped, orthopedically handicapped, neurologically impaired, mentally retarded, and the perceptually handicapped,

including aphasia and dyslexia. The second priority should be to give special attention to children from certain geographical areas of the province who do not have the equal opportunities. Because of environmental Influences they are deprived of the opportunity of competing on equal terms with other children. These disad­ vantaged children may Include those from families and communities where the nutri­ tional and physiological needs are not being adequately met. In terms of their intellectual, social and self-esteem development, these children do not get a fair start.

Because of the nature of the developmental characteristics of children from birth to 8 years, it is particularly important that the child be provided with a rich environment which is stimulating, sequential and uninterrupted. For this reason, careful consideration should be given to providing ECS programs for children which eventually will extend from age 0 to approximately 8 years or to the end of

Grade Two. 1VI.IHY M ' A n m m ' : Day Care ("D" Needs)

I'liAM ::

Beginning September 197^-75, the Department of Education shall provide

consultative services through its field consultants to Day-Care Centres so as to

help strengthen the educational component of Day-Care Programs.

"Ikvj-Carr" Children

(a) Children Involved; All children who are in day-care centres.

(b) (.'liui'in'l.uriid.it'ii; Children of simile parents or homes where both parents work.

(c) Croijnm; Preventive and enriching in nature and selective in scope in terms of ability of parents to pay. Initially, the effectiveness of day-care centre programs should be improved by providing consultative and advisory assistance to strengthen the educational component.

IlKAMtN:

From infancy to school entrance age, the growing number of families where employment deprives the child of regular care, day-care services must provide a substitute. In the decade from I960 to 1970, the female labour force in Canada

increased by two-thirds. In 1970, married women made up 56.7 per cent of the

female labour force. This compares with k5 per cent in i9 6 0 . Quality care for all children of vorking married mothers and working single mothers (unwed, widowed, divorced) is a concern of all levels of government - federal, provincial and munic

The provision of consultative services by the Department of Education should help to improve the general effectiveness of day-care programs. 277

*? 7*

POLICY CTATb'ML'NT: Certificated Teacher with Early Childhood Hajor.

Each ECS operator will be required to have at least one teacher on staff

who holds a valid Alberta Teaching Certificate with three years of training and a

major in Early Childhood Education. The number of certificated teachers required

will depend upon the nature of the children's needs and the number of children

serviced (see pp. 38 to 39). During the school years, 1973*74, 197**“75» 1975*76,

only, where the services of a certificated teacher cannot be obtained, application

may be made to the Minister for a Letter of Authority. Letters of Authority will

be issued only to those teachers who indicate specific plans to qualify for an

Alberta Teaching Certificate with a major in Early Childhood Education with the

three year period. No Letter of Authority will be issued during the school year

1974*75 unless the teacher has made suitable progress toward meeting required

certification and professional requirements. Persons who are not able to meet

the requirements or qualify for a Letter of Authority may be classed as inatruotianal

uuaiotantu.

Teachers planning to work with "handicapped" or "disadvantaged" children

and their families should include Special Education courses (from Educational

Psychology) in their programs.

HCA COU:

A major determinant In the quality of the ECS program Is the teacher, his

personality and the extent of his preparation. Regardless of how effective other

services may be, the teacher will ultimately have considerable Influence on the sucess of the ECS program locally. For this reason, it is imperative that only properly qualified persons be employed as teachers. Regardless of how appropriate the per­ sonality of the teacher might be for working with children,all ECS teachers can benefit from specialized professional studies, Because of the unique nature of ECS programs, all teachers who teach young children should have training dlrectly related ‘ to early childhood education. 278

-28*

IVI.ICY :ri'ATimtir: Training Instructional Assistants

fhn Uepar Itni-nl of Advanced Cduc.it ion -.huuld supply futilities, places

iimiI .r.s Isl.uici' Itit li.iinimt in*, I rm I i c.n.i 1 ass is taut s In wo rk .mil complement t lit*

services of qualified teachers. The Department of Education, in cooperation with

the related stakeholder groups, will develop standards for the preparation and use

of instructional assistants in school systems. College courses, while initially

sub-professional in nature, should be such that Individuals who become keenly

interested in young children will be encouraged to exjtend this basic preparation

to university degree programs. Consideration should be given to establishing a

common core of experiences for all instructional assistants. Colleges should not

lie in competition with universities to provide qualified Early Childhood personnel.

Inst me t Iona I assistants must be prepared to meet a number ol diverse needs: to

assist with the instruction of non-English speakiny children; culturally different

and disadvantaged children, and mentally, emotionally and physically handicapped

chiIdren.

NEASON:

Early Childhood Services requires a variety of human resources including

different kinds of instructional assistants and aides in addition to qualified

teachers In order to meet the various needs of young children and their parents.

1‘iilJf'Y .’“lATEHENT: In-Service Education.

In-service education of the teacher, instructional assistants, volunteer

and paid aides must be an integral part of any Early Childhood Program.

All teachers will be expected to engage each year In some form of in-

.service such as:

(a) Attending organized in-service sessions sponsored by the school district or private institution or agency; (b) Attending a credit course related to ECS at a university;

(c) Attending a non-credit course offered by a university or college;

(d) Teaching a course to other teachers either for credit or non-credit;

(e) Attending in-service activities conducted by various pro­ vincial and local staffs of government departments.

Approval of any local program will depend upon there being a plan for in-service training that includes instructional assistants, paid and.volunteer aides. imuou:

Many teachers are using methods that are not well suited to the early childhood setting. Numerous opportunities must be provided for the teacher and other support staff to up-date their practice, as it relates to such things as services available from central government and community agencies and findings from research and current practice.

UUMMAItY:

Beginning September I, 1973, ECS programs for children, four years, six months but less than five years, six months and their parents will be phased-ln as follows:

1. Program for mentally and physically handicapped children;

2. Program for children and their parents in geographic areas of the province where, because of circumstances, they do not have a fair chance; a 3. "Kindergartens" approved by the Minister prior to January I, 1973, who can meet ECS guidelines; 280

- 30-

Beginning September I, 1971*• the Department of Education shall provide

consultative services to Day-Care Centres.

Each ECS operator will be required to have at least one teacher on staff who holds an Alberta Teaching Certificate with three years of training and a major

in Early Childhood Education.

Instructional assistants and teacher aides may be used.

All ECS staff must participate in some form of planned In-service training.

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT SERVICES

I'1)1,ICY H'tATKMCNT: Program Strategies

Within the Provincial guidelines, a number of basic approaches to the development and delivery of local programs should be encouraged.

Basic over-all program strategies could involve a number of approaches

that would extend ECS to both urban and rural children alike. These might include:

1. Education for parents of children 0 - 51 years of age. Specific programs might include: information packages to parents, discussion groups, T. V. programs, home visitor programs, toy lending libraries, video tape programs, community clinics, participation in teacher-aide program, recreation and agriculture extension courses, preventive social services parent-child development programs, pre-natal and post natal clinics, child care and home economics courses for high school girls, work experience for high school girls in day nurseries and ECS p r o g r a m s....

2. Reaching the child in his home. Specific programs might include: instructional packages for mothers to use, home visitor programs, mobile vans, travelling teacher with volunteer aides, T. V. programs, toy lending libraries.... 281

■ 31 *

3. Reaching the child in his home combined with group experience. Specific programs might include: an instructional package for mothers plus part time group attendance with teacher and aides; T. V. plus some kind of group experience, T. V. programs for children plus correspondence courses for mother; Home Visitor program * toy demonstrator plus small group experiences using travelling teacher and small van ....

k. Croup experience for young children. Specific programs might include: use of local community facilities (halls, churches, recreation centres...) with travelling teacher and student aides, teacher and beginning teacher(s) on practicum....

SEASON;

No one basic approach, in itself, is likely to be adequate in meeting

the specific needs of c h ild re n and their parent's in rural and urban communities

of Alberta. Any one or more of a number of programs for children and parents

might be selected because of its applicability to a particular set of needs.

V O L i a STATEMENT: P rog ram Gu I de 11 ne s .

Within the operational policy statements made in this paper, specific guidelines which relate to education, health and social services will be prepared

for use by local teachers, project coordinators, instructional assistants, advisory committees and others. These guidelines will need to be both comprehensive and

specific.

SEASON:

Program guidelines are required in order to provide direction and assist­ ance to local ECS Advisory Committees, school boards, teachers, instructional assistants and others concerned with developing program proposals and providing effective locally based programs for young children. 282

- 32 -

IVI.ICY IvrAttMUNT: Consultative and Supervisory Services

The Department of Educ.tl inn will provide timsullaut*. and supervisory

personnel with a variety ol backgrounds ol preparation to assist teachers,

instructional assistants, coordinators and administrators of schools, school

boards and private institutions, agencies or individuals to develop, implement,

and evaluate the education component of Early Childhood Programs. The Depart* ments of Health I Social Development and Culture, Youth 6 Recreation will provide

consultative assistance in the planning and implementing of local programs to complement the educational component so as to help provide a comprehensive and

integrated delivery of services based upon community needs. In many communities,

it may be necessary for supervisory and consultative staff from all levels of government to help sensitize parents and communltles to the seriousness of certain children's needs.

Many local school boards and private operators will require consultative assistance in determining local needs, developing goals and objectives, planning programs, equipping rooms, arranging pupil transportation, and obtaining and main­ taining parental involvement. Staff members of the ECS Branch who are responsible for giving local assistance may be located in Regional Offices of Education or in

Unit offices of the Department of Health £ Social Development.

Immediately following a government decision to support the introduction of an educational component into ECS, the ECS Director will carry two major leader­ ship and coordinating responsibilities:

1. Develop in-service education plans in order to use and improve human resources in the community and region.

2. Develop actual provincial program guidelines; gear up field consultants to provide administrative assistance, develop specific plans for approving educational programs for ECS, develop specific job descriptions for Early Childhood Develop­ ment Consultants and hire the same. 283

33-

The two major responsibilities will involve:

(a) Using and Improving Human Resources (Providing In-Service) (i) External Participants - Parent-Child-Community Development (Health I Social Development; Culture Yo uth i Recreation would take major responsibility for this aspect). (il) Internal- I. Teacher-Child-Parent Involvement (Major responsibility of Education for In-Service). 2. Teacher and Support Staff Training (Major responsibility of Education and Advanced Education).

(b) Instructional Program and Support Services (Providing Resources) (i) Instructional Program Development 1. External program component(s) (Major respon­ sibility of Health 6 Social Development and Culture, Youth G Recreation for developing program for parents and other community participants). 2. Internal program component(s) (Major respon­ sibility of ECS to develop program for students, teachers, instructional assistants, school admin­ istrators, and teacher aides). (ii) At (minis tin live Assinlantw - Helping districts and community groups to organize. (ii) Facilities - renovating facilities, transportation, equipment, program approval and assessing programs and making recommendations to the Minister. Shared responsibility of Departments of Health t Social Development, Culture, Youth C Recreation and Education.

REASON:

Local groups may require the assistance of specialized consultants to help

them identify needs, establish goals, develop program strategies, marshall resources, and plan for evaluating the degree of effectiveness to which programs achieve stated objectives. 284

- 34 -

lHhli'Y i'lTATKMIMT: Instruct ional Grants and Support Term.

There 'ih.il I In' paid In .111 itpi>r.iliir ul .in a p pro ve d It*. pr.i.p.iMi .1 <11.ml l

c .i l Ii teglstercd pupil. This grant will include $12.00 per *_It< Iil Ini inslruclinii.il

supplies and equipment. The grant wilt be based on a half-year which is defined as 90 full-time equivalent school days (approx. 540 hours). Approved ECS programs which operate less than 9 0 full-time equivalent days will be eligible for a pro­

rated fraction of the grants. The number of hours per day, the number of days per week, or the particular months of the year the child attends shall be at the dis­ cretion of the local authority.

ItKAHtlN: ’

A formal group experience balanced by a healthy home environment is con­ sidered desirable. Local needs and conditions should determine the program schedule.

IOIJCY .'fl'ATKMKNT:Eligibility Criteria and Grants for "Handicapped" Children (age 4 years, six months but less than 9 years, 6 months).

For each "handicapped" child identified according to the Provincial ECS

Criteria and registered with the Provincial ECS Registry, the school district or private operator will be eligible for a per pupil grant providing the pupil Is attending an approved program. The amount of the per pupil grunt will depend upon the specific category of the child's handicap.

Grants for mentally, emotionally and physically handicapped children shall be paid on the following schedule;

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION PER PUPIL GRANT (l.used on 9 0 full-limi' equivalent days attendance per school ______year______

■ I. Mentally Retarded $559 2. Blind and Visually Impaired $335 • 3- Hearing Handicapped $ 6 9 5 4. Physically Handicapped $615 5. Emotionally Disturbed $ 6 9 5 285

-35-

MlAStm:

Larger grants are necessary for me'ntally and physically handicapped children than for "normal" children because of the specialized and individualized nature of the program components. A per pupil grant is provided in order to ensure greater flexibility in developing programs for both school and non-school approaches to assisting these children and their families.

I'UI.K'Y .TI'A’IWKNT: Per Pupil Grant for "Disadvantaged" Children.

An operational educational grant equivalent to 65% of the full-time per child grant for elementary school pupils ( 65%x$556 “ $ 365) will be paid to a public or a separate school d istric t which offers an approved Early Childhood program to "disadvantaged" young children.

HKASON:

The grant paid is higher because of the additional program components required to meet the special needs of these chiIdren and their parents.

IVUCY VTATtMKNT: Per Pupil Grant for "Normal" Children In "Kindergartens" approved by January I, 1973 (age A years, 6 months but less than 5 years, 6 months).

An education grant of $280 per child (50% of $558) wilt be paid to a public or a separate school d istric t which, during the school year

1972-73 (approved by January I, 1973), offered an approved program for "normal" children providing the program meets ECS program guidelines. "Kindergartens" - which, in 1972-73 serviced "handicapped" or "disadvantaged" children and which are able to meet ECS standards will be eligible for per pupil grants according to the rates stated above for these children.-

HtlAuON:

The grant for "normal" children registered for an Early Childhood Services

Program should be equivalent to one-half of the full-time equivalent grant of a regular elementary school pupil. 286

-36-

I’OhlCY ETATEMENT: Per Pupil Grant to Private Schools, Agencies and Individuals.

The grant payable to any private school which is licensed and whose program(s)

has been rcconmcndcd by the Program Review Comiiitlce and approved by the Minister ol

tducatlon will be eligible for grants equal to the amount received by separate and

public school districts for "handicapped" children and $200 per child for all other

chiIdren.

REASON:

Grants paid to private schools, agencies and Individuals for "handicapped"

children should be equal to those paid public or separate schools providing these

schools meet the ECS guidelines.

IHII.IEY El’ATEMENT: Transportation Grants for "Handicapped" Children and for Some Children in Rural School Districts.

Children should be bused only when absolutely necessary.

School districts and private organizations and agencies approved by the

Hinister are eligible to claim grants for the transportation of severe mental or

physically handicapped children that require transportation. The grant shall be

paid as per the regulations Part B, Transportation and Maintenance of Pupils,

School Foundation Program Fund Regulations, 1973*

In rural areas only, school districts and private organizations and agencies approved by the Hinister may claim grants for the transportation of children that

require transportation to an approved ECS program. The regulations related to

receiving the grants are those included in Part B. Transportation ami Maintenance of Pupils, School Foundation Program Fund Regulations, 1973.

REASON: •

Hany local programs that do not require busing children can be developed.

Any operator intending to offer an ECS program should explore the alternatives care­

fully prior to making any decision to bus children. However, some rural children may

not have an opportunity to attend ECS Programs unless transportation is provided. 287

-37-

IVl.ICY irTATKMHHT: Renovation and Capital Costs.

Where suitable facilities fur an approved ECS program(s) do not exist in

a community, grants may be made available from the Department of Education for the

necessary renovation or alteration of school and/or community buildings. All such

plans for renovations and/or alterations must be approved by the School Buildings

B o a r d .

Capital grants for alterations and/or renovations may be paid on the

b a s i s o f $2 0 per registered pupil to a maximum of $ 1 ,0 0 0 f o r e a c h

facility or actual cost, whichever is the lesser. The School Buildings Board will process all applications whether public or private according to a set of guldelines.

The stress is on usage of existing space in the school or in the community.

That is, no proposals for additions and/or new buildings will be entertained at

t h i s t i m e . imVOH;

The utilization of existing facilities in the different communities across the province are matters for local administration and planning. Hany vacant class­ rooms now exist in the province which can be used for ECS programs. In addition, inany local communities have facilities which are or can be made quite suitable for group ECS experiences. However, in some cases It may be necessary to renovate certain school and community buildings in order to meet the needs of ECS programs.

I V U C Y STATEMENT: local Coordinator

Each local ECS program must have a coordinator with acceptable qualifica­ tions In Early Childhood, either at the teacher or instructional assistant level.

The Coordinator is responsible for the over-all development of the program, Its implementation, supervising the activities of the centre(s) under his jurisdiction, providing reports as requested and working with the Local ECS Advisory Committee. 288

-3 8 -

HKASON:

Since the success of a program will depend largely on the effectiveness of local leadership and coordination, the selection of a suitable person is an

Important consideration.

I’OitCY STATHML'NT: Hinimum Staff/Child Ratios and Staffing Units

for each group of 35 children or fraction thereof, there must be a certificated teacher, holding an Alberta Teaching Certificate with a major In

Early Childhood Education. In addition to the certificated teacher, other specialized instructional assistants and aides, working under the direction and supervision of the qualified teacher may be required in order to provide a full complement of social, health and educational services.

School districts or private institutions, agencies or individuals apply­ ing for a license to operate an ECS program must meet minimum staff/child ratios when providing group experiences for children. These staff requirements are in addition to any assistance that might be provided by provincial or local commun­ ity resource persons on an intermittent basis. Provision of Early Childhood

Services in any group setting shall have over-all staff/child arrangements for

"handicapped, "disadvantaged" and all other "normal" children as follows:

Accm'AHiE AHKANcmKtrrr,

1. "Handicapped" Children: A certificated teacher is required regardless of the size of the group of children. The number and kind of instructional assistants, paid and volunteer aides will depend upon the particular nature of the children's handicaps. Generally speaking, the staff/child ratio will be much lower than for "normal"chiIdren in ECS classes,

2. "Disadvantaged" and "normal" Children: The basic staffing units for "disadvantaged" and "normal" group experiences for children are as follows: 289

-39-

Onc Inst ruci ionat Unit (III) fur "dis.idvantaqed" * IB children. This means the equivalent of one teacher for every 18 children.

One Instructional Unit (IU) for "normal" * 22 children. This means the equivalent of one teacher for every 22 children.

STAFFING UNIT £ EQUIVALENT

One certificated teacher for every instructional unit (lU)'or fraction

thereof if there are 18 "disadvantaged" 1

oi 22 "normal" children or fraction t h e r e o f

’. If over 18 children in a "disadvantaged"

c l a s s o r 22 children in a "normal" class require one certificated teacher for

e v e r y 35 children registering and

fraction thereof. Equivalent Fraation (a) Instructional Assistants (College prepared: Child Development Assoc, or equivalent.) .5 (b) Paid Aide .3 (c) Volunteer Aide .25 i.g. A centre with 3** children operating in a "disadvantaged" area

requires 3 V I 8 ■ 1.9 lU's and might be staffed as follows:

(a) I full-time teacher, I full-time instructional assistant, I full-time paid aide,

(b) IJ full-time teacher, I full-time paid aide, 1/3 time volunteer a i d e .

A centre with 5s* children operating a program for "normal" children

would required 5**/22 ■ 2.1(5 lU's and might be staffed as follows:

(a) 2 full-time teachers, 1 full-time instructional assistant I full-time volunteer aide. 290

- 4 0 -

Three main principles serve as a basis for establishing the above staff/ child ratios:

1. Qualified teachers must provide over-alt coordination and trouble shooting for the educational services and specifically for (a) diagnosis (b) prescription (c) treatment (d) evaluation as they relate to children in programs.

2. Instructional assistants and/or volunteers may be used as a means of increasing the over-all effectiveness of the total services offered to children and their parents. For example, instructional assistants and volunteer aides who are bilingual are necessary in order that initial communication may be in the child's native tongue. A trained physiotherapist, at least on a part-time basis may be necessary to a program for handicapped children.

3. The local operator should have some flexibility in decision-making within the established framework to meet the particular needs of c h i I d r e n .

HKAMN:

Since the staff of a program is a most important single factor affecting

the quality of the program, It is essential that standards of quality and quantity be given careful attention. By defining teacher roles clearly, by defining

instructional assistant roles and by grouping children appropriately, teachers can be freed to spend more time on the professional aspects of teaching-interaction, diagnosis, goal setting, program planning and evaluation.

POUCy STATEMENT: "Handicapped" Children Registry

The Departments of Health and Social Development and Education will estab­

lish a Central Provincial Registry for "handicapped" children. Each operator will be expected to provide a copy of the data from the medical, educational and psychological assessment on each child to the Central Provincial Registry. 291

-<4t-

HEAXoN:

Information contained in the registry will serve two main functions:

1. It will be available to Education; Health t Social Development; Culture, Youth C Recreation consultants and local staff for use In program planning and in the evaluation of the effective- ness of the operating program.

2. It will provide a basis for operators to claim grants.

POLICY STATEMENT: Admission to Approved Program for "Handicapped" Children.

Prior to a child being admitted to a program for "handicapped" children, the child must have a general medical, educational and psychological assessment.

The data from such an assessment must be recorded in a form provided by the

Central Provincial Registry for "Handicapped" Children.

Further, more specific, in-depth assessment and diagnosis may be required at various Intervals after the child is registered In the program.

Once a "handicapped" child is duly registered in an approved program, school boards and private operators may claim grants (up to a maximum of $ 7 5 .) for the child's pre-admission assessment expenses. Any subsequent assessment expenses shall be the responsibility of the school district, private organization operating the program, or the parents.

HEASOll:

Effective and appropriate programs can be developed and implemented only if appropriate and reliable data are available on each child.

1'ilLlCY STATEMENT: Develop Media Package to Assist Local Planners.

To provide assistance, a basic package of information will be developed which will contain blueprints for equipment, lists of materials available at little or no cost, audio-visual materials that suggest and demonstrate ways of using such materials and plans for developing and using space. 292

*42*

A long range plan should envisage developing and compiling prototypes of suitable

equipment and materials for display and demonstration purposes.

Ut'.AAHi:

Parents and local agencies, involved as members of a Local ECS Advisory

Committee, need to have access to information on various possible program

activities as well as information on the suitability of different kinds of support materials and facilities. At the present time, operators and staffs of existing

programs are requesting information on things such as facilities and equipment,

patterns of community involvement, and how to develop locally based programs. This

demand will increase considerably when public support is given to ECS programs.

Community involvement in providing facilities and equipment can prove to be a good

starting point for parent involvement. Therefore it is Important that communities

have access to this basic Information.

IvjI.tt.'Y nTATEMKHT: ECS Curriculum Guide and Resource Handbook.

With guidelines from the Provincial ECS Coordinating Council, the ECS

Branch will establish an ECS Curriculum Commlttee(s) whose functions will include

the development of an ECS Curriculum Guide and a Resource Handbook for use by local

ECS staff and Local Advisory Committees.

IMA: Mi:

While the availability of a teacher and other professional and support staff Is basic to any good ECS program, valuable Ideas contained in a Curriculum

Guide can lend support to the philosophy and objectives of ECS programs. The

Resource Handbook will provide numerous practical suggestions for personnel

involved with ECS programs. The Resource Book will provide assistance to local

Early Childhood Services groups about such things as radio and television programs broadcasted for children as well as their parents, facililies and equipment, ideas for community involvement, community resource inventory and in*service education only to mention a few. 293

-1,3-

I1'11.1r.'t .771I'r.UiUil‘: Proposal Format and Approval.

Operators who wish 10 have their programs approved for grant purposes must submit a proposal. This proposal, in the case of a private operator, must

be accompanied by the Local Advisory Committee's recommendation(s). Approval of the proposal is one condition necessary if the private operator wishes to obtain a license. The proposal formal, supplied by the Program Review Committee wilt reflect a systems approach to planning that will include:

1. N a m e o f O p e r a t o r .

2. Project Title.

3. Background and rationale for proposal project.

if. Brief statement of objectives in specific and observable terms.

5. Project design - how the proposed total program with Its sub­ programs is to be carried forward; children involved; staff to be used; and in-service programs.

6 . Plans for evaluation of programs on a continuous basis as part of program development.

7. Detailed Project Budget - local salaries, wages, supplies and equipment, internal evaluation, submission of an audited financial statement is necessary if a private operator.

HMUM:

During the initial phases of the implementation of Early Childhood

Services, it is especially important that careful and systematic attention be given to planning and programming In terms of provincial policies and guidelines.

It is anticipated that consultants from the Departments of Health 6 Social Develop­ ment; Education; Culture, Youth C Recreation along with local resource people in communities will be available to assist in planning proposals and implementing programs. Local school districts or private operators may require specialized assistance in planning for evaluating their proqrams in terms of their Stated object ives. 294

By planning for periodic monitorinq of outcomes in terms of Stated

objectives, continuous program improvement can result. The evaluation should

provide information relevant to modifying and improving the program so that all

aspects of the entire program are responsive to new and changing conditions.

Indicators of achievement based upon the framework for Early Childhood Services

(pp. 0-I0)can serve to improve both evaluative and instructional purposes.

This conception helps to make evaluation an integral part of the educational

process itself.

HUHMAHY

I'rutjram Utwtagirw

A number of approaches to developing and delivering ECS programs in

Alberta should be explored in order that both urban and rural children may receive

this service (see page 30). While bringing children together in formal group

settings may be one approach, It is essential that other approaches be used

depending upon the specific needs of children in the community.

I’rogr*vn duidelitwa

While over-all provincial guidelines will be established within the

framework of this paper, considerable local discretion will be given to communities

in order that they will be able to meet their local needs.

domultatiue Seroioea

The Department of Education, Health ( Social Development, and Culture,

. Youth D Recreation will make their consultative staffs available to local school

boards and private operators to assist In the planning, implementing and evalua­

ting ECS programs. 295

-»)$*

Length of Term

Grants will be paid on the basis of 90 full-time equivalent operating

d a y s .

lil'ilHl.lt

T h e amount of grant to be paid an operator of an approved program will

be related to the particular needs of children. Grants for mentally and physically

handicapped children will be greater than those for "disadvantaged" or "normal"

children. Private schools shall receive the same grants for "handicapped" children

as public schools. Private schools shall receive grants equivalent to approximately

two/thirds of the regular elementary school grant divided by two (half-time attendance).

Transportation grants, where it is essential that children be bused, will be the

same as those per Part B Transportation and Maintenance of Pupile, School Foundation

Program Fund Regulations, 1973.

Renovation ('onto

Where suitable facilities for an approved ECS program(s) do not exist in

a community, capital grants for alterations and/or renovations on the basis of $20

per registered pupil to a maximum of $ 1 ,0 0 0 or actual costs may be approved.

Local Coordinator

Each local ECS program must have a coordinator with acceptable qualifica­

tions in Early Childhood Services.

Staff/Child Ratios

School districts and private operators will be required to maintain certain standards with respect to staff/child ratios.

Handicapped Registry

The Provincial Departments of Health c Social Development and Education will set up a Central Registry for handicapped children. 296

-1.6 -

Program Assistance

ECS wilt develop media packages, curriculum guides, and resource hand­ books to assist local communities plan programs.

Proposal

Operators who wish to have their programs approved for grant purposes must.submit a proposal to the ECS Proposal Review Committee

CENERAL SUMMARY OF POLICY STATEMENTS

The following statements represent a summary of the policies contained in this paper:

1. Early Childhood Services has as its major long range goal to strengthen thesenseof dignity and self-worth within the child and the family by attempting to meet their health, social and education needs.

2. Beginning the school year 1973*74, the Government will support on a selective basis, public and separate school districts and non-profit making institutions, agencies or individuals that offer approved ECS programs.

3. Provincial and local organizational structures through which ECS are provided must:

(a) have a coordinated, comprehensive delivery system

(b) attempt to maximize the Involvement of parents and local communities.

(c) use existing physical and human resources to the great­ est possible extent.

4. Provincial standards for the operation of ECS will be estab­ lished, but within this framework much local discretion and initiative may be exercised.

5. Presently operating "kindergartens" will be expected to meet the guide)ines established for ECS if they are to receive g r a n t s . 297

6. "Handicapped" and "disadvantaged" children will be a first priority for new programs.

7. A teacher holding an Alberta Teaching Certificate with at least three years of training and a major in Early Child* hood Education, wilt be required for every 35 children. In addition instructional assistants, paid and volunteer aides may be used.

8. The staff of any ECS program will be expected to engage in some form of in-service education each year.

9. Early Childhood Services programs, through necessity will have to be varied In order to meet the needs of urban and rural communities in Alberta.

10. The Department of Education will provide Early Childhood Consultants to assist local operators to plan, implement and evaluate their programs. Consultants and other resource personnel from Health £ Social Development and Culture, Youth £ Recreation will also be available.

11. Grants for ECS programs shall be based upon a half full­ time equivalent school year. (90 days or approximately 540 hours)

Grants paid for children in approved public or separate school programs shall be as follows:

CATEGORY PER PUPIL GRANT BASED UPON 90 DAY FULL-TIME ATTENDANCE

1. Handicapped

(a) Mentally Retarded $555 (b) Blind £ Visually Impaired $335 (c) Hearing Handicapped $695 (d) Physically Handicapped $615 (e) Emotionally Disturbed $695

2. Disadvantaged $365

3. Al 1 other children $280 298

-1,8-

Grants paid to private operators who provide approved programs shall be:

(a) Handicapped - same as for public and separate school district. (b) Dieadvantaged - and all other children * $200

12. In Instances where transportation of rural and handicapped children is absolutely required, grants shall be paid as per Part B, Transportation and Maintenance of Pupils, School Foundation Program Fund, Regulations, 1973*

13* Renovation of school and community buildings where required wilt be

supported up to a maximum of $ 1 ,0 0 0 p e r u n i t .

H . Each local program must have a coordinator.

15. Over-all staff/child ratios will be required in order to provide acceptable standards of operation.

16. The Departments of Health l Social Development and Education will cooperate In establishing a Central Registry for "Handicapped" C h i I d r e n .

17* The ECS Branch will develop various materials that will assist Local Advisory Committees and operators to plan their programs.

18. Operators who wish to be approved or licensed will be required to submit their proposal to the. ECS Program Review Committee. In the case of a private operator, the recommendation of the Local Advisory Committee must accompany the proposal. 299

* * 9 * EXPECTED TIME LINE FOR ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH INTRODUCTION OF OPTIONAL ECS PROGRAM ' IN ALBERTA

START FINISH

1. Appoint Director of Early Childhood Services M arch 10, 1973

2. Establish plans for appointing members to the Inter-Departmental Coordinating Council. Feb. 25, 1973

3. Formal approval of Inter-Departmental Coordin­ ating Counci I M arch 10, 1973

A. Coordinating Council within the framework of this paper will establish initial policies and guidelines for the operation of ECS. M arch 15. 1 9 7 3 A p r il I, 1973

5. The ECS Coordinating Council should strike an Ad Hoc Commit tees(s) (a) To review health, fire and safety standards (b) To review program standards presently embodied in the acts and regulations of Departments of Government involved in ECS. M arch 15, 19 7 3 May I, 19 73

6 . Work to begin on a Central Registry for "Handicapped" children to serve departments of Health and Social Development and Education. F e b . 20, 1973

7. Recruit two Central Office Coordinators of ECS. M arch 10, 19 7 3

8. Recruit consultative staff M arch 10, 1 9 73 J u n e 30, 1973 9. Develop guidelines for qualifications and use of paraprofesslonal staff and determine appro­ priate child-adult ratios. F e b . I, 1973 A p r i l 15. 1973

10. Develop media package to assist local ECS planners. M arch 10, 1973 11. Establish EC5 Curriculum Connittee - Curriculum guide and Resource handbook. Committee: Inter­ departmental Representatives, Stakeholder groups, and parents. May 15, 1973 M arch 15, I97A

12. D e v e l o p E C S A p p l i c a t i o n F o r m J a n . 15, 1973 M arch 15, 1973 13. Local consultative and advisory work. Formation of Local Advisory Committees in preparation for gearing up to operationalize Phase I programs for Sept. 1973. M arch 20, 1973 U. Planning for up-dating professional and para- professional staff. May 15, 1973 15. Assess proposals received from local school districts and/or private operators. A p r il 15, 1973 APPENDIX C

California ECE Policy Statement

Policies for Early Childhood Education

Prepaid! under the direction ol II. G l e n n Davis Program Manager liarly Childhood (education Appinved by the STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION January. I')7.t

Thli puhlicalion wat edited and prepared lor photiMiftict pruduclHin by the Bureau of Publicalroni, California Stale Dcparlmcnt uf Education, and publidicd by the Department, 721 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California 93814, Printed by I he Office of Stale Printing and dUtnbulcd under the pioriaiont of the Library Diaribution Act 1973

California Slata Dapartmant of Education • Wilton Bilai • Superintendent ol Public Inttruction • Sacramento, 1973

300 1

301

Contents to* F o r e w o r d ...... iil Development of the Eariy Childhood Education Master Plan ...... 1 District Level P l a n n i n g ...... I Individual School Level Pl a n n i n g ...... 1 Optional Waiver of Education Co de Provisions ...... 2 Joint Planning for Eariy Childhood E d u c a t i o n ...... 2 Master Plan Co m p o n e n t s ...... 3 Needs AsseBment ...... 3 Program Goals and Objectives ...... 4 Plan for a Systematic Phase-in of District Schools ...... 4 Comprehensive Restructuring...... 4 Co o r d i n a t i o n of District R e s o u r c e s ...... 6 Approval, Funding, and Fiscal M a n a g e m e n t ...... 8 Criteria for Approval ...... 8 F u n d i n g ...... 8 Priorities for A l l o w a n c e s ...... '> Program Evaluation ...... II 302

Development of the Early Childhood Education Master Plan

District Level PUnning S c h o o l districts w i t h 9 0 1 units o P average daily Authority: Education Code Section 6445.4. a t te n da nce (a.d.a.) or less m a y request a n e x e m p ­ A master plan for early childhood education tion Prom the advisory committee requirements. shall Include a comprehensive statement set­ S u c h e x e m p t i o n s m u s t b e justified o n u n i q u e ting forth the district's educational program circumstances, s u c h as geographic isolation, w h i c h for eariy childhood education on a school-by- w o u l d prevent the district P r o m establishing a n d school basis. operating an early childhood education program. Based o n the justification statements set Forth Policy. T h e local go ver ni ng b o a r d shall provide b y the district a n d t he r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o P the for the establishment o f a district advisory c o m ­ Department of Education, the State Board oP mittee with advisory responsibDities to the local Education m a y grant the requested exemption. governing board. T h e c o m m i t t e e shall i n d u d e broad representation of the local community, Individual School Level Planning including parents oP primary age children and economic and ethnic groups represented in the Authority: Education Code Section 6445.4. district population, as well as teachers, administra­ ... N o plan shall be approved by the State tors, aides, support personnel, co mmu ni ty service Board of Education unless it determines that agenries, and the business community. Parents not the plan was developed with the active coop­ e m p l o y e d b y the district m u s t c o m p o s e a simple eration of parents, community, and teachers majority o P the advisory committee, selected by an In all stages of planning, approval, and imple­ equitable representative process. mentation of the plan. IP an advisory committee or coundl which Policy: In addition to the district advisory substantially meets the requirements stated above c o m m i t t e e , there shall also h e a local advisory is already Functioning (such as For ESIiA Title I or committee For each school participating in the preschool), this existing advisory b o d y m a y serve early childhood education program. This commit­ For early childhood education. tee shall i n d u d e br o a d representation of the parent T h e district advisory c o m m i t t e e shall b e re spo n­ population served by the sdiool, including socio­ sible For a m i n i m u m o P Po ur specific tasks. T h e s e economic and ethnic groups represented in the are to advise the district go ver ni ng bo a r d regarding: school attendance area, as well as representation (1) establishment oP a time line For development oP F r o m . teachers, aides, support personnel, adminis­ the district m a s t e r plan; (2) districtwide ne e d s trators, a n d the c o m m u n i t y . Parents not e m p l o y e d assessment o n a school-by-school basis; (3) estab­ by the local school must compose a simple li shm en t o P district p r o g r a m goals a n d objectives; majority oP the advisory committee, selected hy an and (4) recommendations as to which schools to equitable representative process. Parents of pri­ indude in each phase. mary age children must be represented on the IP a district ha s co m p l e t e d a districtwide process c o m m i t t e e . within the past three s c h oo l years o r has initiated, IP there is a n existing local school co m m i t t e e , it os oP January 1, 1973, a process to accomplish (2) m a y b e utilised, p r ovi de d the c o m m i t t e e s u bst an­ and (3) above, an ad hoc committee oP parents and tially meets the requirements staled above. staPP representing all schools and/or regions ol The loud school advisory committer is respon­ schools within the district sliull In ' rstuhlixhrd In sible lor advising the principal a n d stall'in drvrlo|>- iidvhr the district govrruing h o m d u-guoling ( I) ing a drlalled uuislei plan loi the individual school establishment ol'n time line lor devclopim-iil ol the an d .submit ting (he plan to the governing hoiiiri lor district m a s t e r plan; a n d (2) r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s as its consideration For inclusion in the district muster to wh i c h schools to include in each pliase. plan. T h e ad hoc committee must substantially meet The local school advisory committee is also the re qui r e m e n t s oP the district advisory co m m i t t e e . responsible to assure that technical evaluation

I 303

advice has been sought during the program plan­ Policy: The governing board may request a ning process to determine whether the evaluation waiver of any section of the Education Code process a n d i n st r um ent will ad equ at ely reflect the necessary to establish and operate the program. achievement of the program objectives. T h e application must explain and justify the need E a c h district ap ply in g for eariy ch i l d h o o d e d u c a ­ for any waiver, pointing out h o w not granting the tion funds under Education Code Section 6445 waiver would impede progress toward achieving the shall include assurance st atements f r o m the district goals of the program. Criteria for approval of such governing board and the superintendent that each requests will b e b a s e d o n the extent to w h i c h the school plan was developed with the appropriate w a ive r w o u l d pe rmi t the district to operate a m o r e involvement of parents, community, teachers, and flexible, diverse, an d creative pr i m a r y pr o g r a m . administrators. A n y violation of Education Co de Section 6445 discovered through an evaluation or audit process Joint Planning for Eariy Childhood Education shall b e considered gr o u n d s for denial of ex p a n s i o n Authority: Education Code Section 6445.3. of funds for the next planned phase of imple- The governing boards of any school districts * m e n t a t i o n within said district. maintaining any such class or grade may, with the approval of the Department of Education, Optional Waiver of Education Co d e Provisions develop and submit for approval a joint Authority: Education Code Section 6445.20. master plan for early childhood education. The governing board of the school district, in Policy: If districts seek to de v e l o p joint plans, its application for approval of a master plan, t h e y shall obtain prior approval f r o m the S u p e r ­ m a y request waiver of the provisions of any intendent of Public Instruction and the State section or sections of this code If such waiver Board of Education. is necessary to establish and operate an early County superintendents of schools are encour­ childhood education program. The need for a g e d to w o r k w i t h small districts in a cooperative waiver shall be explained and justified In the efTort to provide joint planning and management application. The Superintendent of Public of a mu ter plan for early childhood education. Instruction, with approval of the State Board T w o o r m o r e districts or counties m a y f o r m a of Education, m a y grant, in whole, or in part, c o n s o r t i u m for this purpose. any such request when, In the opinion of the In the case of such joint planning, the overall Superintendent of Public Instruction, failure advisory committee should be representative of to grant such request would hinder the ea c h district involved, o n a c o u n l y w i d c o r inter- implementation and maintenance of the dis­ c o u n t y basis. T h e r e sh ouk l h e at least o n e parent trict's program. representative f r o m ea c h district.

: 304

Master Plan Components

Authority. Education Code Section h445.4. Policy: The first step in conducting a needs ... The Stale Hoard of Education shall estab­ assessment is to establish a clear record o r existing lish standards and criteria to he used in the conditions. A survey of the local school population evaluation of /ilans submitted by school dis­ must be conducted to include, but not be limited tricts. Such standards and criteria for review to, consideration of the following: and approval of /dans by the Stale Board of • Survey of child population, kindergarten Education shall include, but need not be through grade three (K-3). including numbers limited to provision for- of pupils and families represented; ethnicity: (a) Assessment of educational needs. native language, with particular emphasis (b) A program of restructuring of kinder­ upon the needs of bilingual-hicultural chil­ garten through third gmde. dren; family economic level; mobility: excep­ tional characteristics; b a c k g r o u n d o f experi­ (d) Defined and measurable program ence; previous school performance of pupils; objectives. and degree of pupils’ educational need, as (e) A local program designed to system- ev i de nc ed b y state ac h i e v e m e n t tests atieuiiv phase into the program all the • Degree to which present programs umphasi/.e sellouts of the district in no more than an individualized, diagnostic appmaclt for five years. e a c h child Iff Coordination of all district resources • Existing program of stall' development and with the objectives of the local plan. training (gl Program of evaluation of pupils' health • Present amount of parent and community needs. involvement in programs and evaluation (h! Emphasis on an individualized diagnos­ • He alt h a n d social service provided to pupils tic approach to instruction. • Existence or availability o f parent edueation (il Direct parental involvement in the • Survey o f all categorical resourees available to classroom program and program meet the educational needs of the K-.1 evaluation. population If) Programs for comprehensive parent • Survey of child population being served from education. infancy to kindergurten from categorical (k) Stuff development and insenice funds; i.e., Migrant D a y Care/Preschool, Slate training. Preschool, H e a d Start, Children's Centers, lix tended D a y Care (ml Evaluation of the program by the • Survey and analysis of all available district governing board of the school district resources to b e utilized, including, hut not with the assistance of the administra­ limited to, finance, personnel, and public and tors, teachers, and parents. private agencies serving preschool, child care- preschool, and K-3 children Police District m a s t e r pliins m u s t m e e t the • hxlcnt of any other existing physical, liuan- standards a m ! criteria listed in liduoilinn C o d e dal, anil h u m a n resources available for utiliza­ Seetiim M4S.4 ami described in Hie paragraphs tion in the early childhood education piogiam w l m |i lulluw. 'I'lie M'cnnil step in i i m d i i e l m g a n adci|iialc ne e d s assessment is to establish a cleat slalcincnl ol Newts Assessment desired conditions through goal slalemenls. The Authorin'. See Education Code Section m/./.S -Hal difference between what exists and what is staled anil (gl as desirable in a goals statement becomes the

A 305

objective for improving existing conditions. In schools oj the dislin I in no mote than selecting a method or needs assessment, goal five years. setting, a n d a n evaluation design, the district m u s t Policy: Districts will designate w h i c h school o r include direct involvement of parents, teachcts, schools will be included in pbusc one, I *>7.3-74. and the community. w h i c h in phase two, I‘174-75. an d s o o n until all of Program Coals and Objectives the schools serving K - 3 children in the district are included in the early childhood education program Authority. Education Code Section 6445.4. by the school year 1978-70. .. . The State Hoard of Education shall estab­ Districts will d e v e l o p criteria lor the systematic lish standards and criteria to he used in the inclusion o f their schools. Half of the schools to be evaluation of /ilans submitted hy school dis­ included in a n y o n e year mu s t b e f r o m the schools tricts. Such standards and criteria for review serving pupils of greatest educational need as and approval of plans hy the State Board of denned in the last paragraph muter the heading Education shall Include, hut need not he “ l-'unding." limited to provision for: Comprehensive Restructuring (d) Defined and measurable program Authority: Education Code Section ft445. objectives. For the purposes of this chapter, “early Policy for District Program Goals and Objec­ childhood education programs” are dvjincdas tives: A n y schoo l district su bmi tt ing a n early all educational programs.. . under a bind childhood education proposal must provide evi­ xchool-b)'-sclinol tiimprehensive muster plan d e n c e that th e district h as established goals a n d approved hy the Stale Hoard of Education objectives which arc relevant and applicable to the which is designed to assure early childhood education program. IaI A comprehensive restructuring oj pri­ Policy for Local Sehotd Program Goals and mary education in Culiliimia kinder­ Objectives: Program objectives must include clear garten through third grade to more reference to pupil performance in reading, lan­ fully meet the uniipie needs, talents, guage, and mathematics; stafT development; parent interests, and abilities of each child. education; and parent participation in (1) program Education Code Section 6445.1 . assur­ planning; (2) program implementation; and (3) ance that each child will have an individual­ program evaluation and modification. ised program to permit the development of In order to assure a balance of learning opportu his inn simian potential nilies lor p r i m a r y childrvu, p r o g r a m ohjeclives Policy Iciclt early childhood education pin|»osul most also include desired outcomes in olhei must show h o w its plan of school or classroom curricular areas. P r o g r a m objectives shall b e staled organization to individualize instruction will facil­ in language that is concrete, unainbiguuus, and itate m e e t i n g (lie objective that every child's needs, capable of measurement or observation. talents, interests, a n d abilities will b e a c c o m m o ­ dated. The plan allows lor the development of rian fur a Sy s t e m a t i c Phase-in of District Sc hoo ls alternatives of organization to enable loud schools Authority: Edutvtiun Code Section 6445.1. to meet the needs and requirements of the children ,.. The system will be based on the develo/i- a n d parents they serve. ment of local xchool-by-school master plans for early childhood education developed and Indivkluali/tsl, Diagnostic Instruction submitted hy total school districts which shall Authority: Ediuvlitin Code Section 6445.4. include a phase-in program bused on an increase in the number of schools in the.stale (Ill Emphasis on an individiiulircd iliagiios participating each year until mi n i m u m /un til ticapproai li lo insirm no n i/mtlon is in hieved l-diicallini I "oile Section 6-14'• I J h e Education i‘odeSection 64 4 y-l oli/ccllvcs ol iliis plan will include assmame that ivill child will have an Indivldiiuliied (e) A total program designed to systemati­ program to permit the development of his cally phase into the program all the m a x i m u m potential and that all pupils who

4 •306

have completed the third grade of the state's enabled to mo v e through the instructional program educational system will hare achieved a level at a rate that m a t c h e s his ability. T h e instructional of competence in the basic skills of reading, p r o g r a m m u s t b e flexible e n o u g h to m e e t needs language, and mathematics sufficient to con­ associated w i t h social, cultural, language, a n d other tinued sun ess in their educational experiences. differences. Assignment to a group must be based Education Code Section 6445. ... "early on specific diagnosed instructional needs rather childhood education programs".. . under a than general characteristics such as age or local school-hy-school comprehensive master intelligence. plan approved by the State Board of Educa­ tion which is designed to assure: Staff Development and I ruerv ice Training (dl The pupils itarticipaiing wilt develop an Authority: Eduiation Code Section f>44S,4. increased lompetcncy in the skills necessarv to the sucirss/ul achieve­ (k) Staff development and inserviee ment in later si hunt suhprts suih as training reading, language, and mathematics Policy: T h e staff development or inserviee train* Police Programs must locus on an instructional ing program must emphasize training or retraining endeavor which aims In give all children, hy the K*3 instructional staff to operate effectively with end of the third grade, sufTicicnl c o m m a n d or the the restructured K*3 program. The school plan basic skills in reading language, and mathematics shall rcllcct a n a w a r e n e s s o f the necessity for stall' so they can succeed in their future schooling and in to understand and meet adequately the needs of all life. Tlie basic instructional components, therefore, children, especially those of a racial and/or ethnic arc readiness for an d instruction in (1) reading an d background which is different from that of the language development; and (2) mathematics. stuff. Inserviee training must be offered to all Instructional c o m p o n e n t s shall also include other classified a n d certificated staff m e m b e r s , udminls* subject areas such as social studies, science, health, trative a n d su p p o r t personnel, parents, a n d physical education, music, and art as a means of volunteers. desirable language development in order to provide a comprehensive learning environment for primary Parent Participation children and to ensure balance in the curriculum. Authority Education Code Section fi445.4. The emphasis upon readiness experiences and subsequent leaching ol language, reading, and (il Direct parental involvement in the mathematics does not preclude offering a desirable classroom program and pnigrain total cu rri cu lum appropriate to the age a n d m a l m evaluation. rity of the children to be served b y lliis program.

B y utilizing aides, volunteers, a n d parents to (ml Evaluation of the program by the assist in the classroom under the direction of the governing board of the school district

teacher, the district shall achieve a staffing pattern with the assistance of the administra­ in which the adult/pupil ratio is approximately on e tors, teachers, and parents. adult to each ten children. When the early childhood education program Education Code Section 6445.01. As used includes children whose first language is not in this chapter, "parent participation" means English, there should be staff me mbe rs w h o speak the parents taking an active part in the initial the langu age of those pupils. In su c h cases, districts planning of isirlv childhood ixlucation pro­ shall seek to employ bilingual teachers and/or grams and the implementation, evaluation, bilingual aides to meet the needs of mm*Unglish* and inodHiialion of the programs sp eak in g children a n d to incorporate bilingual, Parent particliiaiiun shall he included in a mullietdlur.il, a m i Imglish coui)NuieulN into Ibr milliner which ' instructional process. IaI Involves imrenls m llte Inrmal a l u m T h e instructional p r o g r a m shall b e ba sed o n lion of their children tllrecllv in the continuous assessment of pupils’ needs and classroom and through the division- strengths an d prescription chosen from a variety of making process of the California public curriculum possibilities. Each pupil must be school system.

5 307

(b) Maximizes the opportunity for teach• Policy: Provision shall b e m a d e lit m e e t all crs and parents to cooperatively Health screening re<|oircmcu!s established by low develop the learning process and its and the California Administrative ('ode, Title 5, subject matter This opportunity shall regulations. Arrangements for the provision of be a continuous permanent process. these health services will hi* m a d e with parents an d (c) Recognizes that the continuity be­ from other resources. Particular attention will Ite tween the early childhood education given to those problems that have s|tccial relevance program and the ho m e h essential. to school performance. Th e plan must include a survey of resources ami facilities available lor Education Code Section 6445. .. . "early assessing such health needs an d treatment facilities. childhood education programs" ... designed T h e school plan for referral m u s t s h o w h o w all to assure: available c o m m u n i t y resources will b e used lor the delivery of these services. (e) The cooperation and participation of Ex cep ti on: Parents w h o a d h e r e to a religious parents to the educational program to faith practicing health b y prayer o r other spiritual the end that the total communitv is m e a n s m a y b e e x e m p t e d f r o m this reipiircmeul if involved in the development of the they provide a signed statement which indicates program their ac cep ta nce o f full responsibility for the Policy: Parents shall b e included In the assess* child's health. mcht or needs, in setting program goals and objectives, and in ongoing instructional and eval- Coor d in ati on o f District R e s o u r c e s uational activities. Authority: Education ('title Section 6-141.4. E a c h school plan shall include a m i n i m u m o f one specific objective directly related to parent If) Coordination of till district resources involvement in each of the following areas: fl) with the objectives oj the local plan. planning; (2) implementation and ongoing pro­ Edln alion Code 6-141 . "early ihlhl g r a m ; un d (3) evaluation an d modification. hood e d m a t n m programs" designed to assure Parent Education Authority Education ('odeSection 64 4 1 4 le) M a x i m u m use is made oj existing state mnl jedend Junds m the unplementa IjI Programs for eomiuehcnsive patent lion ol coordinated earlv childhood edmatnm. a i m alion programs 1‘olicv I list riels will oiler o r arrange a patent Eduialiiiii t'ude 6441.14 In lompiiling education program designed to increase the effec­ allowances authorized pursuant to Section tiveness of parents and to enable parents to 644.1.13, the Superintendent of Public b e c o m e a n integral part o f the education o f their Instruction shall reduce such allowances liv children. Resources m a y include adult education, the amount per pupil apportioned pursuant to c o m m u n i t y colleges, state colleges an d universities, Article .1 (commencing with Section .17S't) of and the University of California, including exten­ Division 6, sion courses. Police: A district’s plan m u s t indicate all o f its ' Districts must establish effective channels of existing programs and funding sources for children communication to inform and encourage parents under school age; i.e., stale preschool nr parent a n d other eligible adults o f the parent education Itarticipnliun preschool u n d e r adult education, offerings and benefits, including multilingual c o m ­ child care, and so forth, and show h o w these munication when needed to reach the nnu-higlish programs are cnnidiualcd ami articulated with the speaking. restructured K-,1 I'uilhci, the plan will indicate all • .ili'gniliul aid limits ullll/ril ! m I In- dlslllil's K I Ilrsllli N m t * ■ hlldli'li aud show b o w tin a have Imiii uuolpn Aulhortlv l.iluiationt odeS n Una i

6 308

age-span population and allocated to accomplish The school district m a y exercise one of the some of the same purposes as the early childhood following options: e d uc a ti on legislation, e a c h school a p ply in g for • Apply for both Miller-Unruh and earls- child­ program approval under early childhood education h o o d ed uca ti on funds, w i t h the eariv child­ legislation shall n o t e x c e e d the m a x i m u m alloca­ hood education funds constituting the bal­ tion available under early childhood education ance of the allocation allowable to the school legislation (Sena te Bill 1 3 0 2 or Se n a t e Bill 90). under Education Code sections 6445.12 and 6445.13. This option must meet the require­ E a c h district m u s t identify the schools to be ments of all applicable Education Code phased in annually. O f those schools identified to sections. be in phase one to which Miller-Unmh reading • A p p l y for Miller-Unruh reading specialist specialist fu n d s w e r e a p p r o v e d for fiscal year program funds and comply with all appro­ 1972-73, the allocation of said funds applicable to priate Education Co d e sections. that school in the district shall b e considered as • Apply for early childhood education program part of the available allocation for early childhood funds and comply with all appropriate Educa­ education in that school. tion C o d e sections.

7 309

Approval, Funding, and Fiscal Management

Criteria for Ap p r o v a l the Superintendent nfhthlic Instruction shall allow school districts with approved master District plans w h i c h m e e t the following criteria plans for the education of children pursuant will be considered for funding. Plans must: to such plans; • Indicate that parents and the co mmu ni ty have been actively involved in developing the plan (b) One hundred thirty dollars (SI.til) per submitted and assure their continued involve* pupil In average dally attendance in ment in the subsequent implementation, eval­ each kindergarten class. uation, and modification (c) One hundred thirty dollars I SI.Ill) per • Utilize a n d m a x i m i z e existing categorical aid pupil In average daily attendance in funds available to serve K-3 children and grades I to J, inclusive. children in d a y can:, preschool, a n d ex t e n d e d day care and have carefully developed plans Education Code Section 044S. I J. In addi­ for articulation both for the children covered tion to the allowances provided Jor in Section an d for their parents 044S. If!, the Superintendent of fuhlic • Provide for mobilizing a n d utilizing all avail­ Instruction shall provide grants for pupils able school and community resources to determined hy him to have demonstrated assure the delivery of the necessary health, educational need, in accordance with Section social w o r k , a n d nutrition services 0445.0 as follows; • Indicate a creative, carefully designed approach to strengthening or restructuring the (hi Sixty-five dollars (So5) per pupil in existing K-3 program based o n a careful needs averuge duilv attendance m each kin­ assessment dergarten i law. • Contain u specific evaluation plan lor teachers, (cl Slvlv-live dollars (Ui5) per pupil in parents, a m i pupils Imseil o n the local goals aveiage dalle attendant e in guides I to develo|H'd t. On luslvc • Itcllrel an awnieness ol the nrtcssllv lot stall I din am at ( o d e Set lion o ■! 7 ’• hi. In t tan to adequately understand and meet the needs puling allowances aiillinil:cil pursuant to of all children, especially thnetc of a racial Section 0445.15, the Superintendent of I’uh and/or ethnic background which is different lie Instruction shall reduce such allowances hv fr o m that of the staff the amount per pupil apportioned pursuant to In addition to the above, consideration will be Article 5 (commencing with Section 57X0) of given to applications f r o m districts as follows: Division 0. • A n y district o f 10 , 0 0 0 or m o r e a.d.a. applying Education Code Section 0445,17. Allow- for approximately 12 percent of its K-3 ant es shall not he granted under this chapter population to a district unless the fiscal effort of the • A one-school district ap ply in g for all o f its district with respect to early childhood educa­ K-3-population if the group numbers 500 or tion for any fiscal vear of participation under f e w e r i • this chapter was not less than the fiscal effort • A f o u n s c h o o l district ap ply in g fur 2 5 percent for that purpose (or the list al vear preceding o f its K- 3 population the illslilt i 's paillt Ipulliai mulct Ihls chaplet I dm allmi little Set lion 044 > IX \llow I'uinliug nin es shall mil he granted to a dlslth I unless Authority Education Code Sec I Ion U445 the fiscal effort of that tl 1st to t with respet I to From the funds appropriate

N 310

participation under this chapter Is no less than Education Code Section 6445.6. ... the the fiscal effort of the district per elementary Department of Education shall give highest child not participating In the early childhood priority to (I) those districts which have the education program. The Department of largest number of pupils determined to have Education shall annually review individual educational need, and (21 those districts with district expenditures to assure the compar­ the lowest measure of assessed valuation per ability of local support based on rules and pupil and making the most significant pro­ regulations adopted by the State Board of perty lax effort. Education which take Into account growth in Policy: A t least one-half o f the fu n d s pr ovided district enrollment and increases in district in the initial phase and each succeeding phase costs. within a n y school district shall b e us ed for schools Policy: District expen ditures Tor the early child­ wi th the largest n u m b e r of children w h o ha v e great hood education program must be comparable to educational need. the expenditures of the regular program for kinder- W h e n determining priority for funding among garlcn t h rou gh third gr ade in the district not districts, the t w o priority items should not receive participating in the early childhood education a rating of more than 10 points each on a rating program, and fiscal reporting must give evidence scale o f 1 0 0 points. Therefore, all districts are that the program is comparable in costs and eligible an d are urged to apply. expenditures to other early childhood education The plans mast include data on the district's expen ditures within the district. current assessed valuation per average daily atten­ Authority: Education Code Section ft445.6. dance and its current average property tax rate. In apportioning allowances In accordance Available information will be reviewed as to such with Section 6445.5 for early childhood matters as current assessed valuation per average education, the Department of Education shall daily attendance or property tax for residences and give highest priority to (I) those districts nonresidentia! property. which have the largest number of pupils Authority Education Code Section 6445.S determined to have educational need, and (21 The State Hoard of Education rnav further those districts with the lowest measure of provide thut, upon its determination that a assessed vuluatiun per pupil and making the district has not met the oli/eetives of its most significant property lax effort. approved plan., allowances shall not he Vie Slate Hoard of Edutviion shall adopt increased in accordance with the phase-in regulations setting forth criteria for the deter­ schedule of the district's approved plan. The mination of vduculionul need which shall he board shall provide for an annual review of bused on low levels of pupil achievement and the success of each local district in meeting such factors as low levels of familv income the objectives of its approved plan for eariv childhood education. The board shall adopt Policy: "Greatest educational n e e d " shall be rules and regulations governing the termina­ defined as including those pupils in the lowest tion of allowances to districts which are ouartilc in reading and mathematics according unsuccessful in meeting the objectives of their to state achievement tests, or those w h o qualify approved plan. under the terms of Senate Bill 90, Section 6 4 9 9 . 2 3 2 o f the E d u c a t i o n C o d e , relative to Policy: Districts will qualify for e x p a n s i o n o f "potential impact of bilingual-bicultural pupils," programs in the seeund year only if they have "index of family poverty," and "index of pupil achieved the objectives established by the muster transiency," as stated therein. plan and approved hy the State Board of Educa­ tion for the initial phase. Priorities for Al l o w a n c e s Authorin' Education C o d e Section Authorin' I'.ducallon Code Section 6445 I I 1,4-IS I Ida) Each district receiving allnwiinces In addition to the allowances provided lor In pursuant In Scellotl 6445 I.1, or Section Section 6-145.12, the Superintendent ol Pub­ 6445. ft, or both, or Implementing a master lic Instruction sliull provide grants for pupils plan for eariv childhood education ujijiruveil determined he him to have demonstrated hv the State Hoard of Education pursuant to edutvlionul need, Section 6445.4 shall submit to the Dejiurt-

9 311

ment of Education a report of its eariy assign a weight of 20 fiercent for factor (II, childhood education program. Such a report 70 percent for factor (21. 10 percent for shall be submit led In a form and manner and factor (3). For the second year of ikirheipa- at such times, but not less than annually, as tion by the school, the factors shall be prescribed by the State Board of Education. assigned a weight of III percent for factor (II. 50 percent for factor (21, 40 percent tor Education Code Section 6445.16. The factor (31. For the third and eaeli subsequent Department of Education shall continuously year of participation, only factors (.'land I D monitor and review to assure that all funds shall be considered and shall receive equal appropriated to school districts under this weighting chapter are expended for the purposes Intended. Policy: T h e district m u s t report at least annually to the State Department of liducaliun. Th e district Policy: Programs must give assurance that maxi­ report must include factors related to: (I) fiscal m u m use is being m a d e of existing state and federal funds in coordinating and implementing the expenditures; (2) quality, degree, and success of planned program. All funds must be expended for program implementation; and (3) quantitative esti­ the purposes intended. m a t e s o f pupil progress for eaeli participating Evidence of sound fiscal management includes school. T h e proposed plan must include provision accountability for coordination of funds and dis­ for collecting and reporting the required data, tribution of expenditures. school b y school. T h e S u per in ten den t o f I'uhlic Instruction shall Authority: Education C o d e Section provide forms for the collection of such data. 6445.1(Ha). Each district receiving allowances pursuant to Section 6445.12 or Section Authority: Edutviion Code Section 6445.21. 6445.15, or both, or implementing a master A school district in its application for plan for early childhood education approved approval of a master plan for eariy childhood by the State Board of Education pursuant to education m a y Include ho w children's center Section 6445.4, shall submit to the Depart• services, as provided for In Section 16603. are ment of Education a report of Its early to be coordinated with the program. childhood education program. Such report Education Code Section 16602.5. A shall be submitted in a form and manner and school district in Its application for approval at such times, but not less than annually, us of a master plan for early childlioial educa­ prescribed by the State Board id Education. tion pursuant to Chapter 6 I (commencing The .report shall include, hut uni he Imuied wllil Set lion h-bCil of Division o shall Im hole to, Jaclorx relating to children's centers’ services as provided ha in (II fiscal espendttures this chapter (2) Degree a n d success of program Policy. Although funding for children under implementation. kindergarten a g e is no t included, districts are (.11 Quantitative estimate of pupil progress. e x p e c t e d to include a n y existing p r o g r a m s in their (bI The Department of Edutviion shall planning, as well os plans for initiating su ch derive a composite score for each school programs as parent education, parent participation which shall be obtained from tvcli of the preschool under adult education, and/or Children's three factors listed in paragraphs (I), (21, and (‘enter programs. The existing or (lie planned (31. of subdivision (a). In determining such programs for founyear-ohls should he a part of the score, the Department of Edutation shall, for districts' coordinated a n d articulated plan for early the first vear of ivirticipation hv the school. childhood education.

10 312

Program Evaluation

Authority, Edutalion Code Section 6445.4. Evaluation must be a continuous process, yield­ .. . The Stale Board of Education shall estab­ ing information about both the product of the lish standards and criteria to be used In the p r o g r a m as well as in for ma tio n w h i c h c a n b e us ed evaluation of fdans submitted by schotd periodically to update or modify the program. districts T h e evaluation designed and the instruments to be used must he approved at the time of the (ml Evaluation o] the iiroyram In the project application. T h e standardized instruments ttovernuiK board of the sthool distrul should permit the state to collect information of a with the assistance of the udmimstni- c o m m o n nature. The measuring instruments, holh tors, teachers, and/mrenls standardized a n d locally de veloped, shall rcllccl Policy latch district shall, in cooperation with the slated objectives of the program. the local advisory committee, establish a compre­ Such areas of measurement include: hensive evaluation system consonant with and • Reading and mathematics readiness skills for yielding information which is appropriate for the kindergarten children determination of pupil progress as stated in the • Competence in primary reading, language, and statutes. A s a part o f this systematic p r o g r a m mathematics review, data shall b e collected w h i c h shall give • General cognitive skills indication as to the degree of program implementa­ • Affective development tion a n d fiscal expenditure. • Psychomotor development Th e data collected under the direction of the • Pupil health local gover ning b o a r d shall b e reported, at least • Staff development annually, to the Superintendent of Public Instruc­ • Parent participation tion in a form and ma n n e r to be prescribed. • Parent education T h e r e is In h e built into the evaluation process a • Program fiscal management iiieehaiiisni l>y which reports can he m a d e to the gnvi-ming bo.tol ol the dlsllli I 01 to ollici agi-mirs, S u m m a r y rc|M>rls o f the evaluation s h oul d be |«ifi'lil pinup'., a m i othei miueined palltev at a |iri-senled to parents in language m o s t appropriate lime other H u m o n a n an i m a l lepoitmi'. basis. lor Iheir understanding.

II 77-70 IR'pnntl 03-1055 300 5-75 5 M APPENDIX D

Sample Letter Requesting Interview

The Ohio State Umsersity AcsaemfC Pacully ol Educational Admim,trail on 29 Well Woootutl A.enut CoiumOus Ohio 0310 Pnone 6U <227300

February 7, 197B

Dr. Bernie T. Keeler Executive Secretary Alberta Teacher*' Aeeoclatlon 11010-143 Street. Barnett Houto Edmonton, Alberta Dear Dr. Keeler: 1 an on leave from the Calgary Board of Education, completing ny doctorate In educational admlnlatratlon at The Ohio State University. In my dissertation research, I will be studying the developmental processes which culnlnated In Alberta's legislative action for Early Childhood Services. To give some understanding of these processes, I would Ilka tn Interview you and other hey Individuals Including Dr. V.H. Worth and other m'mbers cl your K-12 Commission Talk Tore*. Would you please meet with me for an hour or two to discuss this. Your knowledge and viewpoints on the development of E.C.S. would be extremely helpful to me In my research. Certainly you would make any decisions regarding anonymity and attribution, t will be In Edmonton from March 6 to March 14, Could we have lunch together at 12:00 noon, Harch 6? 1 would appreciate at least one hour of your time, and the interview may last as long at two hours. If this time and/nr date Is Inconvenient, pirate let me know of any time after noon, Harch 10, any time March 11, March 12, or March 14, or any evening, March 6-Hareh 13 that would be more convenient for you. 1 do hope that you will be able to meet with me. Please let me know If the suggested time and date are convenient. Hy mailing address Is 2269-Woodttock (toad, Columbus, Ohio 43221. 1 look forward to hearing from you and to meeting with you in the near future. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yours truly

V.U *R» MmLamst D ic k so n '

College ol Eouceiion

313