I provide strictly before and after school care...meaning the children in my care are here for a very limited time. Children's ages range from 4-10years. Is this new Bill 10 allowing any modifications for before and after school care since children are not here for a long duration of time? I also have 2 children of my own aged 4 (in JK) and 2.
No, I don't believe they are allowing for modifications. They never have before....5 kids adds up to 5 kids, regardless of how long they're there. There can never be more than 5 - not including your own under the DNA or including your own under the CMA. It's all very confusing.
So...from my understanding....you r own kids don't count until Jan 1. However, your 2 year old will count all the time. Your 4 year old will NOT count while enrolled in school. But, I believe this may be one of the things being brought up in the Regulatory meetings. This is all a bit muddied, but will be clarified by the end of the process. There was a lot of concern about PA days, holidays and summer break and what to do with your FDK child at those times. Your own children count in your numbers (depending on age and FDK enrollment) until 6 years of age. Also, they have raised the age of children in care to 13yrs, so now those 10 year olds who didn't count before, will count with Bill 10.
If you have to terminate any clients please write to Karen at khsw@outlook.com. She is collecting information for the Ombudsman as he is keeping track of the damage caused by Bill 10.
So, assuming you have 5 children in care, you should probably expect to have to let one go by January. Possibly 2, depending on what happens with the rules surrounding your own children in FDK.
Cfred is exactly right. There isn't any provision in the Bill for only providing care for a shortened time frame each day. Daycare is daycare, and whether it's for a full day or only B/A school, the same rules apply. The old rules (Day Nurseries Act) allowed you to care for 5 kids under 10, plus your own, so your own kids and any dckids over age 10 didn't count. Now, your own kids under age 6 will count in that total of 5, and your dckids will take up a spot until they are 13, not 10.
As stated above, your older child in FDK won't always count, but the regulations surrounding when exactly they will/will not count in your total of 5 haven't been written yet. The Bill simply says they won't count "during the school calendar" as long as you have no more than ONE under age 2 in care (which from the sounds of it, wouldn't be an issue for you). What we don't know is if the definition of "school calendar" includes snow days, sick days, PA days, xmas break, spring break, etc. Most people assume your own kids in FDK will count during the summer, but none of that has been specified. Hopefully the regulations will be written soon (and perhaps even in our favour!).
Your 2-year-old will, however, take up a spot, so at the very least, you'll only have 4 daycare spots available, and the availability of one of those will be determined by the regulations surrounding when your 4-year-old will count.
Any children in care before Dec. 4, 2014 (the day the Bill received Royal Assent) are grandfathered in until Jan. 1, 2016, when we all must be compliant. Your own kids also won't count until then. Since you don't have to worry about having too many under 2's in care, you should be able to run as-is until Jan. 2016, when you'll have to give up one, maybe 2 dckids, and any extra kids over 10 that you have as well.
I am so confused! If nothing is really set in stone yet, why are daycare providers terminating or getting ready to terminate? From what I have gathered on these boards, it seems as though Bill 10 might have a chance to be revised, yet the bill passed? Does anyone know anything concrete yet? I am starting back up again in July and I want to make sure I am following all the rules!
My understanding is that It has passed all stages expect the last stage. its suppose to pass the last stage this fall 2015. Yes the bill rules can still change in this this last stage. But the rules are 99% passed. Chances they'll change in this last stage is unlikely. Once it passes the last stage it will be 100% final. So it's only 99% final so far.
With it already passed everything expect one stage caregivers are preparing their daycares as if its passed. As in following the rules if filling spots in jan 2016 and giving parents heads up if they got to leave in jan 2016.
Can you explain these meanings?Quote:
Originally Posted by cfred
Suzie - those are the acronyms for the following:
DNA - Day Nurseries Act - this is the current legislation we've been following for daycare until...
CMA - Bill 10 - Childcare Modernization Act - this is the new legislation
PA day - a day that the kids have off school, but teachers still attend for workshops, professional development, etc
FDK - Full Day Kindergarten
Innisfildaycare - yep, confusing is right! The basic rules are there, but they're being hashed out in their entirety right now. Regulatory Committee has begun and CICPO (Coalition of Independent Childcare Providers) along with CCPRN (Child Care Providers Resource Network) both have been invited to attend. The first meeting was Wednesday. Kim LeGallais (co-founder CICPO) said that while there were certainly disagreements, it was a very positive and productive day. We're hoping there's a little wiggle room as these new rules get finalized. I was speaking with the head of one of the biggest Montessori's in the area (this woman heads up NINE campuses, so has some clout). She was utterly impressed that we got a seat. It's a big, big deal! Apparently, CICPO and CCPRN have some clout! Despite everything else, we're definitely being heard. Even with this bill being in place, it's still not over. We will keep going.
I'm a little confused as well by this bill 10. I was told that daycare centres are going to be offering more spots therefore the teacher to child ratio will be higher. Isn't the whole "purpose" of bill 10 to make kids safer as they say"? How will this work with in the centres? They can have more kids per adult but home daycare moms have to include their own kids? That makes no sense to me! How is it fair for a centre to have so many more kids per a adult then a home daycare provider?
Yep Emma H, that's the Liberals' big plan - to increase the ratios in centers and decrease ours, because the gov't gets a cut of the profits made from centers. They've made home providers out to be "unsafe" and "unregulated," even though during debates we were consistently ASKING to be regulated through an independent registry, a suggestion that was ignored. This Bill was pushed through as fast as possible and became law literally a DAY before the Auditor General's report came out about deaths and accidents in centers, making it clear that they are actually LESS safe, overall, than we are. It is a big, big mess.
While the regulatory process will certainly help to clarify some points in the Bill (namely, the FDK exception that is making people so confused), I doubt very highly that it will actually change much in our favour. This Bill is already law. If it wasn't for the year's grandfathering period, we would all be subject to these laws already. The Liberals have a majority gov't, which means they can essentially push through whatever they want and don't have to have another party agree with them. This Bill IS law, and will STAY law, and, unfortunately, it's not good for any of us.
The reason people are turning away kids is because only children that were in care BEFORE Dec. 4, 2014 (the day the Bill received Royal Assent) are grandfathered in. New children taken into care after that date must conform to the new ratios by the Proclamation date, which is where the Bill is essentially read into law, including all the regulations making it complete. That date is "supposed" to be early fall. If a provider has 2 one-year-olds right now, for example, and is asked to take on another one, right now, technically, they can, but if all three will still be under 2 in early fall, they are looking at having to term one then. Therefore, many won't be taking on that child.
The reasons Crazy Eight has stated - that is why we've been fighting so hard. Regardless of this bill, even though it is officially law, I still maintain that things can change. Liberals won't be in power forever. Given the mess Wynne and her cronies have already made, I suspect they'll be gone with the next provincial election. Lisa MacLeod had said that if she won leadership of PC party and subsequently won Premiere of Ont in next election, she would have the bill repealed. Sadly, she left the race, but we're still working with PCs. Another aspect to consider is public awareness. There are still so, so many people who don't know about bill 10 or understand it. I'm working on starting a new public awareness campaign with the Montessori sector, but it's in its infancy. The more people who know, the more people will get angry and maybe do something. This issue isn't just going to vanish.
This bill is not about safety at all. It's an absolute farce. They need to look like they're doing their job, putting us 'unregulated daycares' in our place and try to come up with more spaces for the parents who will be screaming for infant spots. With the new ratios in place in centres, you can expect to see more unfortunate incidents in the future.
This is exactly why I was confused! They imply its for safety when clearly that makes no sense. I don't get why they don't just say it like it is because I find extremely offensive that they think we are stupid enough to believe that. I thought maybe I wasnt understanding but I think I got it now and this is all to get more money out of tax payers.
80% of people choose home daycares for a reason vs. a daycare centre. If people couldn't afford daycare center rates before I'm not too sure why they think they would now. Some people love the home aspect and the low ratios and their kids not getting sick all the time. If they eliminate home daycare spots to open up more daycare centre spots who already have a higher ratio to begin with, how will that help at all? Also in the news when a child tragically dies and gets hurt its all over the media toddler dies at ILLEGAL daycare! What in the hell is an illegal daycare anyway?! BUT when a something happens in a licensed daycare centre the media never ever says "infant injured at licensed daycare" the licensed part is usually taken out and never really talked about. If you google daycare deaths those are majority at daycare centres! Ugh so annoying!!
If they were so concerned about a child's safety why don't they reduce daycare centre costs and reduce more money through subsidy! Daycare centres aren't any better then home daycares. I have worked/did co op while in school and after seeing what parents get in return for what they pay for, I made it my goal to open up a good home daycare to help parents and to educate their children and make time for everyone.
It just makes me so sad because I know my rates are pretty low 35 per day and if I increased it to $40 per day many families would have to leave. I had a part-time family who came 3 days a week and our Christmas party fell under a day where they didn't come. They couldn't afford one extra day and I felt so bad I let them come anyway. Many families out there really struggle with money and forcing people to go to daycare centres isn't going to help if they don't have the money for it!
Another thing is the providers who will continue to run their daycares illegally and will benefit now more then ever because they know people who can't afford it or people who have no time to wait on a waiting list will have no where else to go. So if the are trying to eliminated deaths like Eva Ravikovich they won't it's only going to get worse.
Why is the blame always put on the daycare providers and never the parents??? The parents are just as much to blame....like in the case of Eva Ravikovich that provider had 40 kids in her care and 17 dogs ....REALLY??!!!!! Vaughn is a smaller town so don't tell me no one knew this women had 40 kids and how do you not hear 17 dogs lol...I heard that provider had a pick up and drop off service....that is still no excuse...parents have a responsibility as well and its time they are held liable and not just the provider....that day care also had so many complaints that the government failed to investigate!
What i want to know is how this will affect summer programs run by the city. Eg, soccer camp. Do they now have to go by he same age restrictions?
They DID know, Emma. They perhaps didn't know exactly how many kids, but there were 4 complaints lodged with the ministry against that particular business. The ministry went once, told them what needed fixing....and never returned for follow up. This is 100% an oversight issue. I'm not sure if you've been following this whole thing. But, the AG report shows that the licensed sector had a much, much higher incident rate than the unregulated sector. 29,000 serious injuries, fires, cases of abuse, neglect and 6 deaths. What constitutes a serious injury is outlined in the AG report. Liz Sandals stated in a meeting that these serious occurrences were 'scraped knees and elbows' and 'burnt toast setting off the smoke alarm'. By reading the AG report, we know that this is a flat out lie. Concussions, broken bones, cuts.....not bandaid material. One could argue, perhaps with validity, that not as many incidents are reported in the unlicensed sector. Fair enough...but you can't hide an infant/child death. They have SIX!!! Unregulated had six as well. But....we have 78% of the market....they have 22%. Let that comparison sink in a bit......Liz chalked all the licensed deaths up to SIDS. Ok....who's to say they ALL weren't SIDS??? The coroner's office doesn't release that information. Aside from that, only 1 death on the unregulated side occurred with a provider following the current rules (DNA)...and was ruled accidental. The simple fact is that our business have been proven to be safer than licensed. The issue is not with legislation, it's with the Ministry and their severe lack of oversight. They HAD to push this bill through quickly, BEFORE the AG report came out because it pointed the blame squarely at them.
We did suggest offering us independent licensing because that way, we could take subsidy cases and actually eliminate the subsidy wait list. Nope. They want us in with Agencies. The agencies are the policy writers....they formed the bill. There isn't one thing about this whole schmozzle that's legitimate or even honest. And now, to rub salt in the wounds, they've begun a public awareness campaign. It doesn't come right out and SAY that we're the root of all these problems, but everything out there certainly insinuates it clearly. It's absolutely disgusting.
They better be the same darn ratios. If their idea of keeping kids safe means smaller ratios then it would absolutely make no sense if they didn't cap summer camps as well. I think it's too bad because I don't necessarily agree that they should be capped, but like I said it wouldn't make much sense and I would be livid if certain programs were "exempt" from the newer tighter ratios. It's basically saying that certain programs can be exempt from SAFETY since that was the whole point of this stupid campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by 33 Daiseys
The reason I ask is that i just signed my kids ages 5 and 8 up for martial arts. Looked into summer camp for the oldest to find out that so far, there are 26 kids in his age range so 6 - 10, with one adult, and one teen. At his place they have four different groups according to age, and for children ages 3 - 6 the have one adult instructor one teen and can have up to 20 kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fun&care
When I mentioned Bill 10, they had no idea what I was talking about. The ymca has similar group sizes for their summer camps. How is this for children's safety?
As far as I know, summer camps are still exempt because they only run for a short time frame. I believe if it is less than 10 weeks, then they do not fall under Bill 10, which is for "continuous care." It's ridiculous - they are still allowed to cram a gazillion kids into a camp with one instructor, and we can't have more than 5, including our own.
[QUOTE=cfred;73586]They DID know, Emma. They perhaps didn't know exactly how many kids, but there were 4 complaints lodged with the ministry against that particular business. The ministry went once, told them what needed fixing....and never returned for follow up. This is 100% an oversight issue. I'm not sure if you've been following this whole thing. But, the AG report shows that the licensed sector had a much, much higher incident rate than the unregulated sector. 29,000 serious injuries, fires, cases of abuse, neglect and 6 deaths. What constitutes a serious injury is outlined in the AG report. Liz Sandals stated in a meeting that these serious occurrences were 'scraped knees and elbows' and 'burnt toast setting off the smoke alarm'. By reading the AG report, we know that this is a flat out lie. Concussions, broken bones, cuts.....not bandaid material. One could argue, perhaps with validity, that not as many incidents are reported in the unlicensed sector. Fair enough...but you can't hide an infant/child death. They have SIX!!! Unregulated had six as well. But....we have 78% of the market....they have 22%. Let that comparison sink in a bit......Liz chalked all the licensed deaths up to SIDS. Ok....who's to say they ALL weren't SIDS??? The coroner's office doesn't release that information. Aside from that, only 1 death on the unregulated side occurred with a provider following the current rules (DNA)...and was ruled accidental. The simple fact is that our business have been proven to be safer than licensed. The issue is not with legislation, it's with the Ministry and their severe lack of oversight. They HAD to push this bill through quickly, BEFORE the AG report came out because it pointed the blame squarely at them.
We did suggest offering us independent licensing because that way, we could take subsidy cases and actually eliminate the subsidy wait list. Nope. They want us in with Agencies. The agencies are the policy writers....they formed the bill. There isn't one thing about this whole schmozzle that's legitimate or even honest. And now, to rub salt in the wounds, they've begun a public awareness campaign. It doesn't come right out and SAY that we're the root of all these problems, but everything out there certainly insinuates it clearly. It's absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE
That's even more upsetting and confusing! I'm only 24 and to be honest I just started paying attention to politics and voting. How could they not follow up!!?? Once again the blame was put on the provider, not the parents or even the government. I am not defending the provider, she was in the wrong and what she did was disgusting but those parents and the government need to take responsibility for what they did wrong instead of bashing all home daycare providers. That poor child was failed by more people then the daycare provider!
29, 000 serious injuries :mellow::mad:
How can they even make up excuses for that! What do you think will happen when these families can't find a spot at a home daycare or can't afford daycare centre prices?
29,000 serious occurrences including serious injuries, abuse, neglect, lost children and deaths. In a meeting between 2 CICPO Team Leads and Liz Sandals, Liz stated that the injuries were mainly scraped knees and elbows, the fires were things like the smoke alarm going off because of burnt toast and the deaths were SIDS. This is, of course, not to mention that many, many daycare centres were running on long expired licenses and had not even been inspected on time. The Ministry has been so back logged that even THAT part of their due diligence wasn't even being met. It's disgraceful.
They can't really offer up any valid excuses for what's in the AG report. What they CAN do and have been doing, with significant success, is to redirect the blame....to us. The new public awareness campaign continues to point to us. The HCCA, in a recent article, brings up the AG report and that in answer to it, they are calling on all home daycares to become regulated. If that doesn't suggest that the AG report was about us, then I must be overly sensitive.
I met with a town council member who is also a prominent member of our community and ran for PC MPP in the last election. She is going to bring this up to her Riding Association and see what they can help me do to start up a grass roots public awareness campaign to directly rebut what the Ministry and HCCA are putting out there. In addition, it will be a good opportunity to make providers and families aware of what's really going on and allow them a chance to have input into the regulations as their posted for public input throughout the regulatory process. I'm hopeful, that if I can get legs under this thing, that it will go from constituency to constituency via local events similar to the meet and greet I held for part of Lisa MacLeod's campaign tour. If this is something you or anyone else would be interested in participating in, let me know and I'll keep you posted on progress.
You're not the only one who never followed politics. I've never really been bothered with it...till now. Now it's pretty much all I think about.....until I go on vacation in 2 weeks and leave it behind. Who am I kidding? I'll still be thinking about it.....lol....
Another thing to consider.......the next Federal Election is in the fall. If PCs don't win then there's a solid chance that UCC will come into play (Universal Child Care). If that happens, and we're all still unlicensed, your options are pretty clear: Close your doors (who can compete with $15/day) or join an agency (and learn to love making less than minimum wage). If you're not active, you might want to get active. If this goes to a federal level, we'll have much bigger problems than we do now.
Wait what doing to be 15 dollars per day?
The proposed UCC (Universal Child Care) that the Federal NDP is going for includes subsidized daycare across the country, only charging parents $15/day. Because we are unlicensed, we wouldn't be a part of that - just like right now, agency providers can take subsidized clients and we can't. If $15/day care is offered across the country, and ICP's are charging anywhere from $30-$60, based on their location, who in their right mind would choose an ICP? That is the problem looming. The Liberals, both federally and provincially, are jumping on the UCC bandwagon in order to gain NDP support and get the Conservatives out.
The plan is ludicrous, because there simply isn't enough money to support the program. I personally think Mulcair's (the leader of the NDP) head is in the clouds. This is what was implemented in Quebec a few years ago, where everybody was offered care at $7/day. The province now can't afford it, and they are moving to a sliding scale, which is already available in Ontario to people who go through Agency providers. However, if they get into power and implement the program anyways, it will be a few years before they have to make changes in order to financially sustain it...and by then all ICP's will have been either forced out of business or into Agencies. We'll still be screwed.
So then bu right all of the afer school programs are now illegal too. stupid stupid. I swear i gave myself an ulcer.
hence why i am burning my butt to be in a financial position that if things go this way, then i can close my doors.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfred
Yep. My boyfriend's moving in with me. I'd love to say it's for more romantic reasons than Bill 10, but it's not. We need to consolidate with this on the horizon. We love each other, but still....I hate that this stupid bill is the actual catalyst. But...we're still working and fighting. We will welcome anyone aboard who wants to help out. There's still lots to be done and we're not quitting. A big part of the fight, for me anyway, is the outright dishonesty. Our reputations have all been brought under fire by this government and it's high time to see that rectified.
That makes me furious, but honestly I'm not surprised. It's not like the government is ever logical about anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEight
Oh my god I didn't know this! I honestly started sweating after I read your post Lol.... If they do decided to do that in the future does that mean taxes will be going up even more??!!! Is it just me but I noticed the other day after grocery shopping all the prices went up for organic food and non organic :mad:!!! Has anyone else noticed this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEight
Just a quick question... do you know what the subsidy amount is proposed to be? You are right, in Que. parents paid $5/day from 1997 till 2004 then $7/ day until Oct 2014(now its $7.30) but in 2010, before we all unionized, we were all getting $19/ day/ child subsidy. (so that's $26/child/day) (Plus $10/day for 18m and younger) Certainly it was not enough, (that's why we unionized) but if the NDP is proposing a $15/day cost for the parents, what will the subsidy be for the daycare provider? If you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyEight
I don't think it's been discussed that deeply, or at least not with the public. I was planning on doing some research on the topic though, so if I find anything I will post. Being as the election won't even happen until the Spring, it is probably little more than a bargaining chip used to sway voters... you've got to admit, "affordable, accessible childcare at only $15 a day across Canada" sounds pretty good to parents who don't realize what it means or what it will entail.
If this ever happens looks like I will be moving to the US lol not like I get much being here free health care my @ss
ummm....this is some really scary stuff. My plan is to quit my job this summer and re-open my daycare. Not sure if that is a good idea anymore!!
But who's going to pay the wages of daycare employees is parents are paying 15 dollars a day. It makes no sense. There will be so many centres closing up because who's going to be able to stay open. I don't think it will go anywhere.
$15 a day is paid by parents and the government will cover the rest which is why you would need to be with an agency to participate in the program.
I honestly don't think this will be happening. If it ever does if we were to get licensed do daycare providers have to pay a fee to get licensed?
A home provider cannot BE licensed. You can either work independently or join a licensed agency and technically be working for them. Agencies take a LARGE cut of your income, and they set your rates, essentially putting a cap on what you can make, which is usually far less than you can make working privately. One of the ideas put forward by the Conservatives and CICPO during the limited debates on Bill 10 was the creation of an independent registry or licensing through the gov't, instead of an agency. The Liberals refused to listen. All agencies are also not the same. Some providers may luck out and find that their local agency is a wonderful source of resources and guidance, if they choose to go that route. Personally, the local agencies in my area have been caught cutting corners numerous times and are generally regarded as terrible. One of the 2 agencies here only has ONE provider left with them, everyone else has left.
Wow that is ridiculous!! I cant believe they expect a provider to pay money to be licensed with an agency when we can do it for free on our own free of charge lol they let you have 6 kids but that sixth one will go for licensing cost....useless
Yep...useless sums it up.
Interestingly, HCCA (Home Child Care Association - aka - agencies) were the policy writers. In other words, those folks who stand to make the most from this whole thing financially are the ones who, essentially, wrote the bill. There was zero consultation with ICPs or their families. ZERO! What was supposed to be 2 days of debate in Queen's Park as they went over the bill clause by clause, was shut down in 1 hour.
Now, I'm guessing, that you're understanding how and why CICPO started up and why we've been trying so hard to get people to jump on board and stand up for our profession.