tran sitionfor families, about families...in “raising the learning bar,” j. douglas willms looks...

ttransition

Autumn 2003 For Families, About Families

Lessons Learned from Canada’sSurveys of Children & Youth

Lessons Learned from Canada’sSurveys of Children & Youth

How much do we know about Canadian kids today? Quite a lot, as a matter of fact,and we’re learning more all the time. Canada is actively engaged in studying childrenof all ages through a number of ambitious, ongoing surveys—notably the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY), Understanding the Early Years(UEY), and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

The articles in this issue of Transition draw from the findings of these and otherstudies to give a clear picture of the factors that make a difference in children’s lives.In “Neighbourhoods Matter for Child Development,” Clyde Hertzman and DafnaKohen show how neighbourhood characteristics influence preschoolers’ behaviouraland language development. Besides drawing on NLSCY research, the authors alsodiscuss what they’ve learned from a study of kindergarten children in Vancouver.

The next article, “How Are the Kids?,” focuses on a research initiative calledUnderstanding the Early Years. Through UEY, 12 Canadian communities are assessingthe health, well-being, and school-readiness of their local young children, andmapping how close the children live to various child and family resources. We havereports from project coordinators Sarah Henry Gallant of Prince Edward Island andLinda Nosbush of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

In “Raising the Learning Bar,” J. Douglas Willms looks at the academic achievementsof 15-year-olds in Canada compared to other countries participating in PISA, aninternational survey of students’ abilities in reading, math, and science. Dr. Willmsdraws attention to the “large differences between Canadian youth from advantagedand less advantaged backgrounds,” and he offers five strategies aimed at helping allyoung Canadians reach their potential.

—Donna McCloskey, Editor

2 • TRANSITION AUTUMN 2003 The Vanier Institute of the Family

ContentsNeighbourhoods Matter for ChildDevelopment by Clyde Hertzman and Dafna Kohen..3

How Are the Kids? CommunitiesFind Answers ThroughUnderstanding the Early Years ............6

Raising Canada’s Learning Barby J. Douglas Willms ..........................11

NetworksOctober 1-4: Conference: “Moving BeyondBullies and Victims: Positive, PracticalStrategies to Ensure a Climate of EmotionalSafety in Our Families, Schools, Communities,and Workplaces,” Fredericton, NB. Funded byCanada’s National Crime Prevention Strategy.Info: Ellen McSorley, College of ExtendedLearning, University of New Brunswick, 6Duffie Drive, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, NBE3B 5A3, ph 506-458-7619, fax 506-453-3572,e-mail [email protected], Web siteextend.unb.ca/conference/bullying.

October 1-4: 18th Annual National Conference:“Reaching New Heights, Meeting NewChallenges,” Banff, Alberta. Host and info:Family Mediation Canada, 528 Victoria StreetNorth, Kitchener, ON N2H 5G1, ph (toll free) 1-888-362-2004, fax 519-585-3121, [email protected], Web site www.fmc.ca/banff.htm.

October 2-4: National Conference: “Trans-forming Community Together,” Vancouver, BC.Convened by: Canadian Association forCommunity Living, and BC Association forCommunity Living. Info: Canadian Associationfor Community Living, Kinsmen Building, YorkUniversity, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J1P3, ph 416-661-9611, fax 416-661-5701, TDD416-661-2023, e-mail [email protected], Web sitewww.cacl.ca.

October 2-4: 14th National Conference onLearning Disabilities: “Light the Spirit Within,”Calgary, AB. Convened by: LearningDisabilities Association of Canada, andLearning Disabilities Association of Alberta.Info: Harvey Finnestad, Conference Co-Chair,ph 780-448-0360, fax 780-438-0665, [email protected], Web site www.telusplanet.net/public/ldaa.

October 4: Performances to raise money forhospices: “Voices for Hospices 2003,” in theUnited Kingdom and 40 other countries. Website www.voicesforhospices.org.

October 6-12: National Family Week©: “Familyand Work: Seeking a Healthy Balance.” Info:Web site www.familyservicecanada.org.

October 23-25: Family Service Canada’s 2003National Conference: “Investing in Canada’sSocial Capital: Family by Family,” Ottawa. Hostand info: Family Service Canada, 404—383Parkdale Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4R4, ph613-722-9006 or 1-800-668-7808, fax 613-722-8610, e-mail [email protected],Web site www.familyservicecanada.org.

October 26-29: 10th Canadian Conference onInternational Health: “The Right to Health:Influencing the Global Agenda,” Ottawa. Host:Canadian Society for International Health. Info:CCIH Conference Secretariat, c/o AllianceGroup, 302—376 Churchill Avenue N., Ottawa,ON K1Z 5C3, ph 877-722-4140, ext. 222, fax613-722-8901, e-mail [email protected], Website www.csih.org.

November 16-18: 15th Canadian BiennialSymposium on Employee & Family AssistancePrograms in the Workplace: “Input 2003,” Ottawa.Info: Neala Puran, Humber College, Corporate &Continuing Education, 205 Humber CollegeBlvd., Toronto, ON M9W 5L7, ph 416-675-6622ext. 4020, e-mail [email protected], Website www.humberc.on.ca/~input.

Networks lists events in support of families,especially major events of interest to many readersacross Canada. For a free listing, please give theEditor ample notice, and state in what language(s)your event will be conducted. Provide writteninformation in English and French, if available.

AUTUMN 2003Vol. 33, No. 3

Carol MatusickyPresident

Verna BruceExecutive Committee Chair

Alan MirabelliExecutive Director of

Administration

Donna McCloskeyEditor

Lucie LegaultDistribution Clerk

Transition is published quarterly by the Vanier Instituteof the Family (VIF) for distribution to its members. Tobecome a member, or to find out more about VIF, pleaseSEE PAGE 16 FOR CONTACT INFORMATION.

To report a change of address, send your old Transitionaddress label, with your new address, to the VanierInstitute of the Family. See page 16 for contact information.

Editorial contributions and comments are welcome.Material for publication is subject to editing. Contact:

Donna McCloskey, Editor, TransitionTelephone: 613-792-1539 Fax: 613-792-1265

E-mail: [email protected]

The contents of Transition may be reprinted or used onradio or television without permission. However, a creditis requested. If in print, please send a copy to VIF.

Transition was founded in 1970.ISSN0049-4429

Publications Mail Registration #0484652Charitable Reg. #10816 8337 RR0001

tra

nsi

tio

n

Web Sites of InterestNLSCY:www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/nlscy-elnej

UEY:www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb/nlscy-elnej/uey.shtml

PISA:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:www.pisa.oecd.orgPISA Canada: www.pisa.gc.ca

The Vanier Institute of the Family TRANSITION AUTUMN 2003 • 3

Neighbourhoods Matter for Child Development

by Clyde Hertzman and Dafna Kohen

Experiences in early childhood influence a person’shealth, well-being, and coping skills for their entire life.We now know that a developing child is influenced by

many factors, some even before birth. The prenatalenvironment is critical to healthy development, as is theenvironment where the child lives, grows up, and interacts.Also essential are sensitive, nurturing care, and develop-mentally appropriate stimulation.

The quality of support, nurturing, and stimulation depend onthe quality of children’s day-to-day experiences where theylive and learn. And the quality of these experiences is, in turn,strongly influenced by socio-economic, neighbourhood, andfamily circumstances—in other words, the broader context inwhich children develop. Yet it is only recently that researchershave turned their attention to this context.

Thanks to longitudinal studies such as Canada’s NationalLongitudinal Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY), we knowthat inequalities in child development emerge in a systematicfashion over the first five years of life, following contoursestablished by family income; parental education; parentingstyle; neighbourhood safety, cohesion, and socio-economicmix; and access to good child care and family programs.

Why Do Neighbourhoods Matter?Why should neighbourhoods, in particular, make a differencewhen it comes to child development? The answer comes fromthe ecological approach, which emphasizes the importance ofviewing lives in context and studying, all together, the multiple

contexts that shape child development—including families,schools, peers, and neighbourhoods.

The ecological approach has given rise to several complementarytheories as to how neighbourhoods might affect childdevelopment. First, parenting behaviours may be transmittedfrom family to family within a neighbourhood. The influence ofneighbourhood characteristics may operate informally throughthe day-to-day contact of parents, leading to similar parentingstyles, domestic arrangements, and parental decisions aboutparticipation in preschool programs or child care arrangements.

Second, a neighbourhood with a variety of good resources—such as libraries, playgrounds, preschools, enrichmentprograms, and child care—promotes child well-being byproviding stimulating, enriching activities. These facilities maybe of higher quality in affluent or cohesive neighbourhoodswhere parents may be better at obtaining resources for theirchildren.

Third, the structural characteristics of a neighbourhood, such asits residents’ income and stability, may be important becausethese characteristics can support or hinder social organization.For instance, in poor, residentially unstable neighbourhoods,social organization is often low, leading to the proliferation ofproblem behaviours like public drinking and drug use,destruction of property, and other crimes. In suchneighbourhoods, children’s emotional and behaviouraldevelopment may be threatened by living in the midst ofphysical and social disorder, and by being exposed tocommunity crime.

Ala

n M

irab

elli

HELP divided the city of Vancouver into 23 social-planningneighbourhoods in order to understand the patterns ofchildren’s school readiness; socio-economic characteristics;neighbourhood safety; early health risks, detection, andintervention; childcare, literacy, and parenting programs; andschool performance. What did we learn?

Children’s development varies greatly from one neighbourhoodto another in Vancouver. As one goes from the most affluent tothe least affluent neighbourhood, the proportion of children whoare vulnerable on one or more dimensions of development(language/cognitive, social, emotional, physical, or commun-ication skills) rises from 6% to 38%.

Some children live in neighbourhoods with no poor families,while other children live in neighbourhoods where as many as81% of the residents are poor.

Similarly, some children live in neighbourhoods where only 14%of the adult population have less than a high school level ofeducation; other children live in neighbourhoods where half theadults fit into this category.

Every year, all over Vancouver, a large percentage of householdsmove. By age nine, only 15% of children born in Vancouver stilllive in their neighbourhood of birth.

Families with young children (age 0-5) are concentrated in areasof the city closest to commercial districts and transportationzones, rather than in neighbourhoods with parks and greenspaces designed for child-rearing. This unfortunate situation islargely due to problems with housing affordability, zoning, andvacancy rates. Also, most of Vancouver’s non-market housingfor families (where rents are determined by the residents’ abilityto pay) has been built in existing low socio-economic areas—increasing the level of segregation. These are theneighbourhoods with the highest developmental risk forchildren.

However, Vancouver is also a showpiece for urban forms thatsupport early child development. In two neighbourhoods wheremiddle-class and non-market housing have been carefully mixedtogether, developmental outcomes are better for all children.

Although Vancouver has a rich variety of child care centres andchild development programs, funding levels are low, programsunstable, accessibility variable, capacities and populationcoverage often impossible to determine, and the mix ofprograms is ad hoc. For instance, there is a tenfold difference inthe rates of child care accessibility from one neighbourhood toanother across Vancouver (from .09 slots per child to .89 slots perchild). Ironically, the least-served neighbourhoods are found inthe working-class areas of the east side, where child centres andprograms would likely have the greatest developmental benefits.

Neighbourhood factors in Vancouver don’t just influence earlychild development; they also influence school performance. Theeffect seems to be particularly marked for “highly competentchildren”; that is, children who are ahead in their development


What Does the NLSCY Tell Us?Canada’s National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youthhas allowed us to examine the influence on child development ofseveral neighbourhood socio-economic characteristics such asemployment and single parenthood, physical and socialdisorder, and neighbourhood cohesion.

Our studies began by focussing on developmental markers suchas preschoolers’ language and behavioural development.Because we used statistical techniques to separate familyinfluences on child development from neighbourhood effects,the results we describe below are about neighbourhoodcharacteristics, not the characteristics of the families themselves.

Children’s verbal-ability scores rise with the proportion ofaffluent families in the neighbourhood. The scores fall as theproportion of poor families or households led by a single motherincreases, and as neighbourhood cohesion decreases.Neighbourhood disorder adversely influences children’slanguage development. Not surprisingly then, a high level ofneighbourhood cohesion indirectly improves children’slanguage development through its positive effects on parentalemotional distress, social support, and health.

Behaviour problems are more frequent among children living inneighbourhoods with fewer affluent residents, high unemploy-ment rates, and low cohesion. The influence of neighbourhoodon behavioural development is not explained by mothers’ levelsof emotional distress, perceived social support, or poor physicalhealth. Neighbourhood physical disorder does not appear toplay a role, but neighbourhood cohesion is an important factorover and above maternal emotional distress, social support, andpoor health. The neighbourhood effects are also not explained byfamily socio-economic factors such as household income or size,parents’ education, or whether or not the families are led bysingle mothers.

Finally, our analyses show that children from both lessadvantaged families and more advantaged families benefit fromliving in advantaged neighbourhoods. These findings suggestthat neighbourhood advantage acts as a protective factor forchildren at both high and low socio-economic risk.

The results of studies of young children in Canada and in theUnited States are quite consistent, overall. This consistency isremarkable since the two countries differ in terms ofneighbourhood poverty and the segregation of affluent, middle-income, and poor children.

How Does All This Play Out in RealCommunities?In the winter of 2000, all kindergarten children in Vancouverwere assessed for their verbal, social, emotional, and physicaldevelopment. The project was organized by the Human EarlyLearning Partnership (HELP), an interdisciplinary researchnetwork based at the University of British Columbia andinvolving researchers from four BC universities.

services, and environmental factors that influence children’sdevelopment involve federal, provincial, and municipalgovernments, as well as philanthropies, businesses,neighbourhoods, and families. Some factors—such as how thehousing market affects where children grow up—are rarelythought about in this context. For instance, the role thateconomically mixed neighbourhoods could play in supportingchild development seldom enters into zoning decisions.

Our research in Vancouver supports NLSCY findings showingthat determinants of child development exist at all levels ofsociety: the family, the neighbourhood, the community and theeconomy. Clearly then, Canadians need to design a strategy thatis not only inter-sectoral but also multi-level, and that has stronglocal leadership. Ensuring quality care arrangements, increasingneighbourhood safety and cohesion, and protecting neigh-bourhoods from becoming ghettoized—all require leadership atthe municipal and neighbourhood levels.

Policies aimed at improving the neighbourhood conditions offamilies with young children in low socio-economic neigh-bourhoods need not harm the most affluent neighbourhoods orthe people who live in them. All children benefit from access toenvironments that are nurturing, stimulating, supportive,caring, and safe. At present, access to these positive places variesdirectly with socio-economic status. Providing moreopportunities for low-income families to be able to live inaffluent neighbourhoods ought to improve their children’soutcomes without having a negative impact on affluent children.

Community efforts could focus first on building communitycohesion. In a neighbourhood that’s weak, disorganized, andcharacterized by high rates of mobility, programs for childrenand families are unlikely to yield maximum benefits. Byimplementing initiatives that get community membersinvolved—some fairly low-budget, such as block parents andneighbourhood watch—the community can build a sense ofbelonging and pride. Stable, socially cohesive communities aremore likely to develop an effective voice in neighbourhoodaffairs and decisions, leading to increased member participationand empowerment.

Economic security, affordable housing, and safety are importantto the healthy development of Canada’s children, as are high-quality, well-coordinated, integrated services. Community re-sources such as housing, educational services, health care, childcare, after-school programs, and cultural and leisure activitiescan act as vital supports for children, youth, and their families.

Dr. Clyde Hertzman is Director of the Human Early LearningPartnership (HELP), a Professor in UBC’s Department of Health Care& Epidemiology, Associate Director of the Centre for Health Servicesand Policy Research, and a Canada Research Chair in PopulationHealth and Human Development.

Dafna Kohen is an Assistant Professor in UBC’s Department of HealthCare & Epidemiology and a Research Scientist with Statistics Canada’sHealth Analysis and Measurement Group.

For more information about the Human Early Learning Partnership(HELP), visit www.earlylearning.ubc.ca.


when they begin school. At kindergarten age, in contrast tovulnerable children, there seem to be similar proportions ofhighly competent children in all Vancouver neighbourhoods,regardless of the characteristics of the neighbourhood. But byGrade 4 this is no longer the case. In less-affluent neigh-bourhoods, high levels of competence in kindergarten are oftennot reflected on standardized Grade 4 tests to nearly the extentthat they are in more-affluent neighbourhoods. Why has thispattern emerged?

One possibility is that highly competent children in high-vulnerability neighbourhoods are being held back by theacademic pace that tends to characterize classrooms with largeproportions of vulnerable children, regardless of the quality ofinstruction. A second possibility is that better teachers may beattracted to higher socio-economic schools and that they arebetter prepared to meet the special needs of highly competentchildren. It’s also possible that the effort needed to maintain anadequate pace of learning in the high-vulnerability classroomsleads to teacher burn-out that, in turn, leads either to transferrequests by highly motivated teachers, or to a willingness on thepart of less-motivated teachers to stay in the high-vulnerabilityschools and just “go through the motions.”

Finally, since high-vulnerability neighbourhoods in Vancouvertend to be unusually multi-cultural in character, schools in theseareas must manage unusually complex community relations. Ifthey fail to do so effectively, they may damage parent-teacherrelations, reduce classroom morale, and slow the pace oflearning in the classroom.

From Research to PolicyChild development unfolds in an ecological context and isinfluenced by child, family, and community factors. From apolicy perspective this means that improving child developmentis not simply a matter of fulfilling service mandates to targetedclient populations, but of improving the environments wherechildren grow up, live, and learn. The challenge is one ofadopting an environmental perspective when agencies havetraditionally understood their role to be limited to providingone-on-one client services.

For example, our work supports recommendations for policiesthat encourage socio-economically diverse neighbourhoods andthat increase community cohesion, trust, and a sense ofbelonging. These are environmental strategies that complementtraditional service-provision strategies.

Creating the conditions for healthy child development calls for aprofound degree of inter-sectoral collaboration. The programs,

Jean

Bou

lay


How Are the Kids?Communities Find Answers

throughUnderstanding the Early Years

Understanding the Early Years is a five-year research initiativeinvolving children, teachers, parents, community agencies,and the government of Canada. Twelve UEY sites in

communities from coast to coast are providing much-neededanswers to questions about how local children are doing comparedto others in Canada, and how best to respond to their needs.

Understanding the Early Years has three components:

• the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, whichlooks at their health and well-being;

• the Early Development Instrument, a teacher questionnaire thatassesses how ready children are to learn as they enter school; and

• the Community Mapping Study that maps out local child andfamily resources.

Below, two coordinators working on the UEY project—LindaNosbush of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and Sarah Henry Gallant ofPrince Edward Island—talk about what they’ve learned so far fromthis remarkable initiative since its launch in the winter of 1999-2000.

Jean Boulay


Understanding the Early Years—in Prince Albert

by Linda Nosbush

How are our children doing?—that’s perhaps the mostcompelling question a nation can ask. Canadians now have accessto more information than ever before about how well our childrenare doing, thanks to surveys like the National LongitudinalSurvey of Children and Youth. And yet, individual communitiesmay distance themselves from national and even provincialscores because they wonder how representative these data are ofthe children in their community. Once a community distancesitself from the data, it’s all too easy to feel removed from theresponsibility to take whatever action those results demand.

If, however, questions about children’s development areanswered at the neighbourhood and community levels and thenseen in their regional and national context, the data are not onlymore relevant, they also demand local action. With this rationalein mind, Prince Albert launched its Understanding the Early Yearsinitiative three and a half years ago, and our community hasbeen on an exciting journey ever since.

No one would argue with the fact that children’s early years arefundamentally important to their health, well-being andcompetence. But what exactly enables them to grow andprosper? UEY was designed to explore this question by:

• building knowledge about the early years, particularly theinterlocking influences of families, communities, andneighbourhoods;

• monitoring children’s progress; and

• catalyzing community action by honouring the livedexperience and wisdom that a community brings to theresearch data.

It’s a tall order for a five-year study, but it becomes doable bymoving forward in phases: baseline development, knowledgeexchange, and comparative analysis.

How does it feel to experience UEY in a community, and whathave we learned to date? I asked members of our communityand this is how they responded.

Understanding the Early Years shows the community where it isdoing well, and also where it is facing challenges—but in a waythat focuses on its strengths. UEY has increased Prince Albert’sawareness of the complex nature of child development anddemonstrated that solutions lie within our community. Usingnot only UEY research but also new research from acrossCanada, we have been able to identify our assets, barriers toaccess, support systems, and gaps in services. We and ourpartners (government agencies, citizens’ groups and others)

Prince Albert’s Children & Families: A Few Findings

• The children of Prince Albert are healthy and show strongsigns of positive development and readiness for learning.

• About 35% of Prince Albert’s families have low incomes,“compared to 25% in Saskatchewan, and 22% in Canadaoverall. Some 34% of families are of Aboriginal origin, andabout 28% of families are headed by a single parent.”

• One surprise is that “many children in low-income areasare faring quite well.”

• Children in Prince Albert scored slightly above the NLSCYnational average on positive behaviour, but below thenational average on vocabulary and cognitive devel-opment.

• As for school readiness as measured by the EarlyDevelopment Instrument, Prince Albert children hadabove-average scores in two domains: “social knowledgeand competence,” and “communication skills and generalknowledge.” They scored below average for “physicalhealth and well-being, emotional health and maturity, andlanguage and cognitive development.” Children in ruralareas scored consistently higher than those in urban areas.

• Prince Albert scored high on community indicators of its“levels of social support, social capital, and safety of itsneighbourhoods, despite relatively low levels of socio-economic status.”

• “The parents in this community had lower scores onparenting skills” and also on engagement in learningactivities at home. “Given this, and the relatively highprevalence of children with behavioural problems, manyparents would benefit from parenting courses and othersupport measures.” Strategies to help them become moreengaged would probably improve children’s outcomes.

—adapted from Understanding the Early Years: EarlyChildhood Development in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan by J.Douglas Willms (April 2002, KSI Research International Inc. andHRDC)

Ann

e M

ason


have begun to work together more closely. We realize that weneed one another to meet the challenges, and, through UEY, weare developing a common language and a process for comingtogether to build a better future for children.

The comprehensive nature of the data provided by UEY hasenabled our community to link a number of key variables. Forexample, we now recognize that low levels of parental educationare related to low engagement of parents with their children inlearning-related activities and that this, in turn, affects children’slanguage and cognitive skills, and their readiness for school.UEY has helped Prince Albert to prioritize its actions because wecan see the profound impact that certain variables such asparenting have on children’s well-being. As such, it has becomea driving force that causes us to think more deeply about issuesand not be quite so prone to judge. Instead, we try to understandwhy things are the way they are.

UEY has also provided timely data for several provincialinitiatives, such as SchoolPLUS (Saskatchewan’s strategy for usingschools not only to educate children but also to deliver a widerange of services to them) and KidsFirst (the province’s EarlyChildhood Development initiative).

Through Understanding the Early Years, we’ve learned how ourchildren are faring in each of Prince Albert’s thirty schoolneighbourhoods compared to other children in the region andthe nation.

As we examined our local data, we became aware of thechanging nature of our community. For example, in the lastthirty years, the Aboriginal population in this region has grownby 252%, whereas the rest of the population has only grown by2%. Our mapping study shows that some areas have largenumbers of young children and some have relatively few. Thesefacts have caused us and many in the community to rethink howto respond to problems and direct resources more strategically.

People in Prince Albert are developing an understanding of thereasons why developmental outcomes follow the patterns theydo; this is particularly evident in the community’s recent abilityto focus on the primary determinants of health. For example,there is a renewed interest in housing, early education, and foodsecurity (access to adequate food). Last winter Prince Albertbecame the third community in Canada to develop a FoodCharter supporting everyone’s right to safe, nutritious food.Community groups worked together to develop the Charter, andour civic government has endorsed it.

This new capacity has enabled us to talk about socio-economicgradients and to realize that our children’s readiness-to-learnresults show a steep gradient. That is, there are huge differencesbetween neighbourhoods in terms of their capacity to helpchildren become ready to learn by the time they start school.Socio-economically, these results were predictable. With theSocial Index developed by UEY to indicate the challenges facedby neighbourhoods, we now have data that allows us to betterunderstand what is happening. As a result, we can movetowards developing response systems that not only meet theneeds of young children and their families but also deal with theunderlying issues.

UEY results have enabled our community to look at itself bothretrospectively and prospectively:

When we examine the readiness-to-learn data, we get a multi-dimensional sense of our children’s first five years in terms oftheir health, well-being, and competence. This kind ofretrospective analysis allows our community and especially ourservice sector to carefully examine what needs to be reinforcedand what may need to be changed to improve subsequentgroups’ developmental outcomes.

In other words, we’ve discovered areas for celebration as well asareas of challenge. Meeting these challenges means, first of all,understanding the reasons behind the results. To do this, peoplemust not only understand their communities but also whataffects child development. What has emerged in our communityis a powerful understanding of our interconnectedness: we alllive, love, learn, and develop as human beings in the shelter ofeach other. Although the UEY study focuses most specifically onyoung children (prenatal to age six), this type of analysis causesus to look at the whole community context.

On the other hand, when prospective analysis is done, thecommunity recognizes that these children are still growing anddeveloping in our midst. If we are to optimize their potential, wemust both respond to their present needs and anticipate theirfuture needs.


By using both retrospective and prospective analysis, people inPrince Albert have been able to recognize that we must take jointaction to respond to the challenges facing our community.Leaving it up to one agency or level of government just won’twork—all levels must be involved. And, because an effectiveresponse must be finely tuned to local needs, local involvementis especially important.

Understanding the Early Years is a powerful tool for ourcommunity because it has enabled us to learn about our childrenand ourselves in an environment that celebrates learning andcapacity building. We have the evidence we need to make gooddecisions and to build a stronger, brighter future for all childrenso that when they ask, Will I be ready for life and for school? wecan answer with a resounding Yes!

Linda Nosbush is project coordinator for Understanding the EarlyYears in Prince Albert.

Understanding the Early Years—in PEI

by Sarah Henry Gallant

Understanding the Early Years (UEY) provides accurate, detailed,and timely research information to help communities makeinformed decisions about the best policies and programs forfamilies and young children. Funded by Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada, UEY in Prince Edward Island issponsored by the Early Childhood Development Association ofPEI, a provincial non-profit organization.

The Understanding the Early Years initiative is taking place atselected sites across Canada at a time when researchers areproving the importance of environmental factors on braindevelopment in children. But the interplay between acommunity and its children’s development is so complex that itis difficult to study and support. A strength of the UEY initiativeis that it builds on extensive data collected by the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, extending ourcapacity to understand community factors that influencechildren’s outcomes.

Because the province of Prince Edward Island is committed to astrategy for healthy child development, UEY staff have been ableto work collaboratively with communities and the governmentto share information about the early development of Islandchildren, to support communities to focus on the early years, andultimately to improve children’s outcomes.

The PEI site is unique in that it is the only province-wide UEYsite. We are therefore in a position to use research evidence tosupport both the provincial capacity for enhancing earlydevelopment and smaller community-based initiatives.

What Do We Know about Island Children?In 2000, there were about 11,080 children aged six or youngerliving on Prince Edward Island. By examining all Prince EdwardIsland communities and assessing the school readiness of everykindergarten-age child, we have made some discoveries abouthow our communities and families interact and about how theseinteractions can either enhance or stunt children’s development.

Compared to the rest of Canada, most of PEI has below-averagesocio-economic ratings. Normally that means greater risks forchildren, but, surprisingly, UEY results show that:

• our communities have a high capacity to support healthychild development; and

• most of our children are successfully meeting theirdevelopmental challenges.

Prince Edward Island can be proud of its high scores oncommunity indicators of social support, social capital, and thequality and safety of its neighborhoods. However, there isalways room for improvement. PEI children could benefit from

Ready to Learn?

One way that Understanding the Early Years collectsinformation about local children is with the EarlyDevelopment Instrument, a questionnaire that allkindergarten teachers in UEY communities complete forchildren in their classes. Developed by Doctors Dan Offordand Magdalena Janus of McMaster University, thequestionnaire measures how ready children are to beginlearning at school.

When we hear the term “readiness to learn,” what oftencomes to mind is a child’s ability to learn to read, write and domath. These things are important, but “readiness to learn”means much more. The Early Development Instrumentmeasures a child’s:

• physical health andwell-being;

• emotional health andmaturity;

• ability to get alongwith others and learnnew skills;

• language developmentand thinking skills;and

• ability to communicatewith others and un-derstand the worldaround them.

—adapted from the Web siteof HRDC

Anne M

ason


including those in less urban areas, have access to resources thatsupport early development.

Champions for ChildrenAs part of our effort to help communities learn from the UEYinformation, we’ve developed regional community profiles thatpresent the research information in a condensed, community-specific format. Across the Island, volunteers who work with orfor children have agreed to “champion” the UEY work in theircommunities.

UEY Champions are equipped with the regional profiles and aredoing a wonderful job of showing people how theircommunities can better support children in the first years of life.We look forward to continuing to support UEY Champions withresources and professional development, as they are the key tosupporting communities. With this bottom-up approach, we willmake a difference to the lives of PEI’s children and families foryears to come.

_________________

Through Understanding the Early Years, we have made immenseprogress in supporting those who care for children and families,and in encouraging a broader understanding of how ourcommunities affect early development. UEY information is beingused by early childhood educators and other community leadersto help plan schools, early childhood centres, and communities,as well as policies and programs for the whole province. Manyearly childhood centres have asked us to present UEY findings totheir staff and board members. We have also shared informationat conferences, and with community organizations, schoolboards and associations, and government committees.

Prince Edward Island’s Understanding the Early Years will becompleted by 2005. In our last year we will again gather dataabout children and the communities in which they live to gaugehow well we have supported community learning. While thefunding will eventually end, we believe that UEY has en-couraged communities to focus on the important early years ofdevelopment, and stimulated a wide variety of groups to colla-borate for the good of our province’s children and families.

Sarah Henry Gallant was project coordinator for PEI’sUnderstanding the Early Years site from December 1999 to July2003. She is now a researcher with the Province of PEI, in theDepartment of Health and Social Services.

For more information on UEY in PEI, contact:UEY Project CoordinatorEarly Childhood Development Association of PEI40 Enman Crescent, Room 228PO Box 23055Charlottetown, PEI C1E 1Z6Telephone: 902-368-1866Fax: 902-569-7900ECDA Web site: www.ecda.pe.ca

For more information about UEY across Canada, see HRDC’s Web site:www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb/nlscy-elnej/uey.shtml.

improved family functioning and parental engagement, and alsobetter access to educational and cultural resources.

With a questionnaire called the Early Development Instrument,we ask kindergarten teachers questions about how ready theirstudents are to begin learning at school. The questionnaire hasbeen completed three times on PEI, and we will do it again in2004. With four years of data, we will have excellent informationabout how well parents and communities are supportingchildren’s development from birth to age five.

A Community Mapping Study completed in 2000 gatheredinformation about the physical and socio-economiccharacteristics of young children’s neighborhoods, and theprograms and services available to them and their families.Although this component of the UEY research program showsthat Charlottetown and Summerside offer many programs andservices, the province needs to work to ensure that all children,

PEI’s Children & Families: A Few Findings

• Young children in PEI scored above the NLSCY nationalaverages for vocabulary and cognitive development, andabove average for school readiness as measured by theEarly Development Instrument.

• Close to 10% of PEI children “scored poorly foraggression/conduct disorder,” and almost as many “hadlow scores for positive behaviour.”

• “Despite relatively low levels of socio-economic status,Prince Edward Island had high scores on communityindicators describing its levels of social support, socialcapital, and the quality and safety of its neighbourhoods.”

• About 20% of families have low incomes, and almost 21%are led by single parents.

• “Few residents move within or out of the province.”Staying put may help PEI families “take advantage ofstrong community and social resources,” which“undoubtedly contributes to PEI’s success in achievinghigh levels of children’s outcomes.”

• Parents in PEI have “relatively strong parenting skills,” yettheir children would benefit from improved familyfunctioning and “greater parental engagement inchildren’s learning activities, which was the province’sweakest area. The community could also strive to improvechildren’s access to educational and cultural resources.”

—adapted from Understanding the Early Years: EarlyChildhood Development in Prince Edward Island by J.Douglas Willms (KSI Research International Inc. and HRDC,November 2001)


Raising Canada’s Learning Bar

Last spring nearly 30,000 15-year-old Canadian studentsparticipated in the Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA), a survey of their skills in three literacy

domains: reading, mathematics, and science. The Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) isconducting the survey every three years to assess young adults’ability to use their knowledge and skills to meet the challengesfacing them as they approach the end of compulsory schooling.

We won’t know the 2003 results for at least a year, but Canadianstudents overall fared exceptionally well in 2000, when the firstPISA survey was conducted. In that year the focus was mainly onreading performance, in which Canada ranked second among 32participating countries. Ten years ago, Canada was usually in themiddle of the pack in international assessments such as PISA,with scores similar to that of the United States. In readingperformance we are now one of a group of eight top-scoringcountries, along with Australia, Finland, Japan, Korea, Ireland,New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

PISA assesses students in several ways, including a series ofwritten tasks that measure reading, mathematical, and scientificliteracy, as well as a questionnaire that asks about their familybackground, their experiences at school, and their attitudestowards learning. The survey was developed by a team ofinternational experts, with input from teachers and employersabout the kinds of skills students need when they enter thelabour market or pursue further education.

This year’s PISA focused on mathematics, and in 2006 it willemphasize science. Math and science skills are especiallyimportant in a knowledge-based economy. The demand foryouth who are highly skilled in these domains continues toincrease. Moreover, there is broad agreement among researchersand the policy community that the skills measured in PISA arecritical to employment and to sustained growth in the neweconomy, and that they are precursors to the long-term healthand well-being of our youth.

How can we help every child in Canada learn what they need to know toprepare for the future? J. Douglas Willms, Director of the Canadian ResearchInstitute for Social Policy at the University of New Brunswick, talks abouthow Canadian teens compare academically to teens in other countries and toeach other. The huge gap between Canada’s best and worst students shows theneed for a level playing field. Dr. Willms suggests ways to narrow the gap andraise the learning bar for all.

Skjo

ld P

hoto

grap

hs


The architects of Canada’s Innovation Strategy—a federalgovernment project to build a skilled workforce and aninnovative economy—have named a number of “milestones” toaim for in the future. Two of these are for Canada to become oneof the world’s top three countries in math, science, and readingachievement; and for all students who graduate from highschool to achieve a level of literacy sufficient to participate in theknowledge-based economy.

However, as of 2000, Japan and Korea continue to lead the worldin mathematical and scientific literacy, with third place occupiedby New Zealand for math and by Finland for science. Canadaranks sixth in math and fifth in science. Moreover, the learningbar is not level: there are large differences between Canadianyouth from advantaged and less advantaged backgrounds, andwe have many students graduating from high school with verylow levels of skills in math and science.

To reach the Innovation Strategy milestones, Canada must raiseliteracy levels, especially for those from lower socio-economicbackgrounds. A key question for families, educators, employers,and policy-makers is, How can we raise and level the learningbar?

The Learning Bar The term “learning bar” is used here as a metaphor for whatsocial scientists refer to as a socio-economic gradient. Ineducation, a socio-economic gradient depicts the relationshipbetween student performance and the socio-economic status ofthe student’s family. PISA uses a composite measure of students’economic, social, and cultural background derived from theirdescriptions of their parents’ education and occupation, and thematerial and cultural possessions in their home. The measure isscaled to have an average of zero for all OECD students.Students with a score below –1 on this scale fall in the bottomsixth of OECD students for socio-economic status, while thosewith a score above 1 are in the top sixth.

The chart below shows the socio-economic gradient for Canada(black line) and for all OECD countries combined (grey line). Thesmall black dots are students’ scores on the PISA reading testplotted against their family’s socio-economic status, for arepresentative sample of 2,000 Canadian students.

Canadian students scored above those in other OECD countries,on average. Also, Canada’s gradient is more gradual, indicatingless inequality associated with students’ socio-economic status.However, not all Canadian youth are achieving their potential,and overall we fall well short of the goals set by our InnovationStrategy.

Canada’s results show a wide range of reading scores at all levelsof socio-economic status. What is particularly worrisome is thatmany students scored at Level II or lower. (Reading achievementis divided into five levels, with Level V being a very high levelof literacy. Students who perform below Level I may have someliteracy skills but find it very difficult to use reading as a tool toadvance their knowledge in other areas.) The threshold between

Levels II and III is important because students at Level III aremuch more likely to go on to a post-secondary school than thoseat Level II.

More detailed analyses of the PISA data for Canada show largegaps in reading, math, and science achievement associated withsocio-economic status, gender, and ethnicity. There are also largevariations among the ten provinces: after account is taken ofstudents’ family backgrounds, Quebec and the four Westernprovinces have the highest scores, while Ontario and the Atlanticprovinces have the lowest scores.

Five Strategies for Raising and Leveling the BarRaising Canada’s learning bar cannot be achieved simplythrough education reforms such as changing the curriculum,reducing class size, or putting more computers in the classroom.We need a more comprehensive approach that involves families,teachers, community leaders, employers, and the broad policycommunity.

PISA is not simply an assessment of what youth learn in highschool, or even during their entire school career. It is anindication of the skill development and learning that occur bothin and out of school, right from birth until age 15. Clearly then, acountry’s results on PISA depend on the quality of care andstimulation given to children during infancy and the pre-schoolyears, and on children’s opportunities to learn—in school, athome, and in the community—during the elementary- andsecondary-school years.

-2 -1 0 1 2

Socio-economic Status

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Rea

ding

Sco

re

0

I

II

III

V

IV

Level

Canada

OECD

Level of R

eading Literacy

The Relationship of Socio-Economic Status and Reading Scores

PISA 2000


A comprehensive approach to raising Canada’s learning barmight include these five strategies:

1) Safeguard Infants’ Healthy Development

The brain development of infants from conception to age one ismuch more rapid and extensive than neuroscientists believed tenyears ago. Recent research has also shown that braindevelopment is heavily influenced by an infant’s environment.

A newborn has billions of neurons, which, during the course ofdevelopment, form connections called synapses in response toenvironmental stimuli. While this is happening, many of theneurons not being used are pruned away. This process ofsynapse formation and neuron pruning is often referred to as the“sculpting” or “wiring” of the brain. Moreover, there are criticalperiods, especially during the first three years, when particularareas of the brain are sculpted. Scientists now believe that infantsreceive signals from their environment that alter and become“embedded” in certain physiological and neurobiologicalsystems, thereby affecting later cognitive development,behaviour, and health.

These recent findings are substantiated by the work of socialscientists who have shown that population interventions such ashome visitation programs, combined with parent training andsupport, have long-lasting effects on a wide range of children’soutcomes. Taken together, such findings provide a powerfulargument that care and stimulation during the early years arecritical to establishing a foundation for learning, positivebehaviour, and health over the life cycle. If we are to raise andlevel the learning bar, perhaps the most important strategy is toensure that families have the support they need to provide thebest possible care for their children.

2) Strengthen Early Childhood Education

The number of children being cared for outside the home invarious types of care arrangements has increased steadily for thepast 25 years. Research on the quality of early child careemphasizes the importance of low child-to-adult ratios, highlyeducated staff with specialized training, and good facilities andequipment to provide stimulating activities. It is thesedimensions of quality that distinguish “day-cares,” with acustodial function, from early childhood development centres,which emphasize growth in children’s development.

Studies in several countries demonstrate that the quality of careoffered in early childhood development centres affects children’slinguistic, cognitive, and social competence. The Canadianresearch suggests these effects may be particularly strong forchildren from low-income families.

Despite this strong evidence, we do not seem to be much closerto achieving universal early childhood education in Canada thanwe were ten years ago. It is very difficult to estimate what effectuniversal provision would have on the long-run educationalresults, or the health, of Canadian children and youth. However,we do know that environments that expose children to a qualityand quantity of language and the opportunity to play and

engage in stimulating activities, have strong, measurable effectson children’s cognitive and language development. And we alsoknow that skills in these domains are highly predictive of futureacademic success.

3) Improve Schools and Communities

With the PISA data, it is possible to estimate the range instudents’ scores from the worst- to the best-performing schools.In Canada this range is more than 100 points—roughlyequivalent to one-and-a-half years of schooling for 15-year-oldstudents.

The Canadian PISA results suggest that the most importantdeterminants of a school’s success have to do with the social anddisciplinary climate of the classroom, teacher-student relations,and the extent to which the school emphasizes academicachievement. School resources and the staff-to-student ratio arealso important but less so. In a successful school, teachers aremore likely to be specialists in their subject area, and theprincipal usually has greater autonomy in running the school.We also know from other research that student performance ishigher in schools that practice heterogeneous grouping and teamteaching, and in schools with a high level of parent involvement.

Some school reformers argue that to raise and level the bar weneed to “restructure” schools to be more supportive andresponsive to student needs, and to have a stronger orientationtowards achieving success for all children. The models forreform are consistent with the messages from PISA: theyemphasize prevention over remediation, a highly contextualizedcurriculum with strong components in reading and language,parent participation, and greater control for teachers andprincipals in managing school affairs.

Anne M

ason


An important strategy for raising and levelling the bar is toavoid segregating youth into low and high socio-economic-status schools or programs. However, this is only the first step.We need strong leadership in schools and communities topromote social inclusion. This agenda would concentrate notonly on reducing segregation associated with gender, ethnicity,disability, and economic disadvantage, but also on recognizingand valuing student diversity, safeguarding students’ rights toparticipate in mainstream activities, and providing access to thepsychic rewards of schooling.

Parents and community leaders can promote social inclusion byencouraging inclusive structures and practices that meet theneeds of diverse students. Doing so requires creating a differentframework of understanding and values among parents ofstudents in high-status classes and schools, and among theprincipals and teachers who work in those settings.

5) Create a Family-enabling Society

The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth(NLSCY) is a large, ongoing survey following children frombirth to adulthood. Conducted by Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada in cooperation with Statistics Canada, theNLSCY has contributed to our understanding of how to raiseand level the bar. The primary message of this research is that thequality of children’s environments within their families, theirschools, and their local communities, has a very strong effect oncognitive and behavioral development, and on the prevalence ofchildhood vulnerability.

Research based on the NLSCY calls for us to shift our thinkingfrom seeing childhood vulnerability as a problem that stemssimply from poverty and single parenting to seeing it as aproblem arising from the environments in which children areraised. The important factors are parenting skills, thecohesiveness of the family unit, the mental health of the parents,and the extent to which parents engage with their children.These factors affect, and are affected by, the neighbourhood, theschool and the wider community.

——————––––––––––

The social policy mandate to raise and level the learning barrequires more than simply offering parenting programs,increasing early childhood education, or improving schools. Weneed to renew social policy so that families and communitiesreceive the support they need to raise their children well.

J. Douglas Willms, Ph.D., is Director of the Canadian ResearchInstitute for Social Policy at the University of New Brunswick, and heserves on the expert advisory groups for the OECD Programme forInternational Student Assessment and for Canada’s NationalLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Dr. Willms edited the bookVulnerable Children (University of Alberta Press, 2002), in whichleading scholars present NLSCY findings.

For more information about the Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA), visit the Web site of the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (www.pisa.oecd.org) or thePISA Canada site (www.pisa.gc.ca).

4) Reduce Segregation and the Effects of Poverty

One of the core findings of PISA is that there is a “contextualeffect” on student performance associated with the averagesocio-economic status of the school, over and above the effectsassociated with students’ individual family socio-economicstatus. This was evident in every participating country. Forexample, if a child of average socio-economic status attends aschool with an above-average socio-economic status, the childwill likely perform better than if he or she attends a school witha below-average socio-economic status.

Schools with a higher average socio-economic status tend tohave several advantages associated with their context. In mostcountries they are more likely to have good resources—morecomputers or better-trained teachers, for example. They are alsomore likely to have an atmosphere that is conducive to learning,with fewer disciplinary problems, higher expectations foracademic success, and greater parent support. Then too, positivepeer effects happen when bright and motivated students worktogether. For these reasons, when students are segregated intodifferent classes or tracks within a school, or into differentschools within a community, students from advantaged back-grounds tend to do better, while those from disadvantagedbackgrounds tend to do worse.

In Canada, as in many countries, children from differing familybackgrounds are segregated to some extent due to residentialsegregation, especially within large cities. The PISA data revealthat there are over 200 Canadian schools with a concentration ofchildren from disadvantaged backgrounds. Although it isdifficult to reduce school segregation stemming from residentialsegregation, this can be accomplished to a degree by setting thegeographical boundaries of school catchment areas with a viewto achieving a heterogeneous mix of students within each school.

Some school districts have an “open enrollment” policy thatallows parents to choose a school outside their designatedcatchment area. This might seem likely to decrease socio-economic segregation, but, ironically, it can actually contribute toit. Well-to-do families are much more likely than other familiesto enroll their children in school choice programs such as French-immersion, magnet schools, and charter schools.

Skjo

ld P

hoto

grap

hs


P artnership M atters

”Family and Work: Seeking a Healthy Balance”—that’s thetheme of this year’s National Family Week© to be held October6-12. Most of us know what it’s like to feel conflicted about work.We work to provide for our families, but work takes us awayfrom our families. The organizers of National Family Week©—14 organizations led by Family Service Canada—want to focusthe nation’s attention on the importance of helping familiesreconcile the need to work and the need to spend time together.

Visitors to the Family Service Canada Web site(www.familyservicecanada.org) can download a free “kit folder”of articles and information about resources, activities, and linkson balancing work and family. To have a kit folder mailed to you,along with added items like stickers and magnets, send an e-mailrequest to [email protected].

Society’s “third pillar”—the nonprofit/voluntary sector—showssigns of cracking under the strain of the short-term, project-based funding now favoured by governments and many otherfunders, according to a new study released by the CanadianCouncil on Social Development (CCSD).

“Organizations are being forced to scramble more than everto find financial support because their funding is increasinglyunstable,” says CCSD’s Katherine Scott, author of FundingMatters: The Impact of Canada’s New Funding Regime onNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Organizations. “And thatdisproportionate focus on fundraising—in a highly competitivearena—diverts them from their primary mission, which is tohelp meet the needs and enrich the lives of Canadians.”

To read the full report, visit the CCSD Web site atwww.ccsd.ca.

Another CCSD release says the 2001 Census figures on incometell us two very important stories. “The first is that Canadiansociety is becoming increasingly polarized. The richest 10% ofour population has seen its income grow by a whopping 14%while the bottom 10% has seen only a slight increase of less than1%. Moreover, the income of many working families has ac-tually declined.”

In a Web page called “Census Analysis,” the CCSD goes onto say, “The second story is that we have been unable, as anation, to tackle poverty in any meaningful way. The economicboom of the last part of the decade has clearly not benefited mostCanadians, and it has failed to put any real dent in Canadianchild poverty rates.”

Especially interesting are CCSD’s comparisons of incomes incities across Canada in 2001:

• “Family incomes were most unequal in Toronto andVancouver.”

• “Family incomes were most equally distributed in QuebecCity, Oshawa, Sherbrooke, and Victoria.”

• In Montreal, the median income of families was $53,385; inOttawa, it was $69,518; in Toronto, $63,700; and inVancouver, $57,926. The national median was $55,016.

“Census Analysis” is available at www.ccsd.ca/pr/2003/censusincome.htm.

A new report looks at two practices that can make it easier foremployees to harmonize their work and family responsibilities:part-time work and “family-friendly” work arrangements suchas flextime, telework, child care, and services to help care for theelderly. Entitled Part-time Work and Family-Friendly Practices,the report from Statistics Canada and Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada is based on data from the 1999 Workplaceand Employee Survey.

According to the report, most companies do not promote theintegration of work and family through formal workplacepractices. Although about a third of Canadian employees reporthaving flextime schedules, access to other family-friendly workarrangements is extremely low.

Such access seems to be a function of the type of workperformed and company characteristics such as size andindustry, not the personal needs or family characteristics ofemployees. Access is generally highest among well-educatedemployees in managerial or professional jobs. Flextime andtelework were most available to employees in small workplaces.

For the full report, see either www.statcan.ca or www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/arb.

At the University of Guelph, Professors Joan Norris, ScottMaitland, and Joseph Tindale are pursuing a research interest inintergenerational support among members of stepfamilies withadult children.

There are now two Masters theses in progress: ShannonGolletz is collecting data from adult children about the kinds andamounts of intergenerational support they have given andreceived, and Tara Dwyer is exploring similar questions with asample of grandparents in stepfamilies. The long-term goal forthe study is to pursue these questions using a larger sample andwith three generations represented within each family.

To find out more, contact Professor Joseph Tindale, Professorand Chair of the Department of Family Relations and AppliedNutrition, at [email protected].

Marshmallow Math is a new book that shows parents how toteach basic number concepts to young children. Subtitled EarlyMath for Toddlers, Preschoolers, and Primary School Children, thebook aims to fill a gap between simple toddler counting booksand math exercise books. Instead of relying on traditional paper-based exercises, author Trevor Schindeler offers fun activitiesusing counting objects and other learning aids to make abstractconcepts more concrete. Marshmallow Math can be ordered fromamazon.ca (for $18.12) or at www.trafford.com (for $19.95).

The Voluntary Sector Evaluation Research Project is a three-year initiative to “improve the capacity of voluntaryorganizations to evaluate their work and communicate theireffectiveness to their funders, stakeholders, and the public.” Ajoint initiative involving many partners—including theCanadian Centre for Philanthropy, Carleton University, andVolunteer Canada—VSERP has a Web site (www.vserp.ca) withpublications, links, and other resources related to evaluation.


Explore FamilyIssues in Depth

Explore Contemporary FamilyTrends—a series of papers byleading Canadian experts in

family studies.

Recent papers on our Web site:

“Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex-Parent Families”

“The Current State of CanadianFamily Finances”

“Divorce: Facts, Causes andConsequences”

“Aboriginal Family Trends”“Portraits of Fathers”

www.vifamily.ca

The Vanier Institute of the FamilyTelephone: 613-228-8500

Fax: 613-228-800794 Centrepointe Drive

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2G 6B1Web site: www.vifamily.ca

Transition Editor: Donna McCloskeyTelephone: 613-792-1539; Fax: 613-792-1265

[email protected]

VIF Staff

Lisa Boulay, Coordinator of Administration & Development, ext. 18, [email protected].

Jennifer Brownrigg, Secretary/Receptionist,ext. 10, [email protected].

Nathalie Burlone, Family Researcher,ext. 20, [email protected].

Lisa Dudley, Webmaster/AdministrativeSupport, ext. 17, [email protected].

Robert Glossop, Executive Director of Programs & Research, ext. 14,[email protected].

Lucie Legault, Accounts Receivable,Membership, Publications & Mailing Clerk,ext. 11, [email protected].

Anne Mason, Project Coordinator & ProgramResearcher, ext. 13, [email protected].

Alan Mirabelli, Executive Director ofAdministration, ext. 12, [email protected].

Paula Theetge, Accounting & AdministrativeAssistant, ext. 15, [email protected].

Stay Informed on Family MattersMembership in the Vanier Institute of the Family

brings you Transition four times a year.

I want to join VIF (or renew my annual membership) as an:❏ Individual (voting) member: $30❏ Organizational (voting) member: $65❏ Associate (non-voting) member: $20❏ I would like membership in VIF but payment would be a financial burden.

I want to contribute to VIF’s work on behalf of Canada’s families. Enclosed is my tax-creditable donation of:

❏ $30 ❏ $50 ❏ $100 ❏ $250 ❏ $500 ❏ $ __________ other

Total of membership fee + donation = $ __________❏ cheque enclosed or❏ VISA card # __________________________ Expiry date: _________________

Name on credit card: __________________________________________________

Name for membership: _________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________

Town: __________________________________ Province/Territory:____________

Postal Code: ________________ E-mail: __________________________________

Signature: _______________________________ Phone: ______________________

Please mail or fax to the Vanier Institute of the Family.

Donors Support VIF’s Work

The Vanier Institute of the Familygratefully acknowledges all those

who support our work of promotingthe well-being of Canada’s families.

Donations: May to July 2003

Individual Donors

Lindsay DavisAllan MacKay

J. Elizabeth Rossinger

Corporate Donor

Procter & Gamble Inc.

The Vision of the Vanier Institute

of the Family is to make families

as important to the life of

Canadian society as they are to

the lives of individual

Canadians.

tran sitionfor families, about families...in “raising the learning bar,” j. douglas willms looks...

Documents