Final Version May 5 07

43
fundamental to children’s development federal and provincial governments are finally
responding (Friendly & Beach, 2005). There was promise of a national child care
program prior to the federal election of a minority Conservative government in 2006
which put an end to an initiative that had nine provinces sign bilateral agreements-inprinciple
with the previous Liberal government on early learning and care (CRRU, 2006).
A recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(2006) ranked Canada last out of twenty OECD countries, including the United States
when it comes to public spending on child care.
Terminology issues.
Past and present contexts indicate that there is a funding link between the
occupation and the devaluing term of babysitter. “The tendency” in Canadian child care
“has been to concentrate on protection and bodily care” (Bennett, 2000, p. 10). The term
resonates with more meaning for early childhood educators here than elsewhere in the
world. Lack of government support connects to the predominate view of early childhood
educators and the corresponding terms used to describe them.
In Canada, a national proportionate study conducted in 2002 found that child care
has passed hurdles in public perception with 66% seeing it as a development service for
children. Conversely, 17% saw it as babysitting (CCCF/CCAAC, 2003). While public
perception appears to be improving, early childhood educators, continue to struggle with
their public and self-image. According to Tougas (2004) “there is always a deep feeling
of impotence, frustration, dissatisfaction and fatigue that offsets the educator’s pleasure
and passion for their work with children” (p. 8).