Cuts to early childhood education could have one of the big impacts to our economy as thousands of parents weigh up whether they can afford to have have both parents working.
I’ve been told by Dunedin ECE centres that parents of children under three will be hard hit by the Government’s Budget and face an increase of $42.50 per child per week.
I was approached by ECE providers a few weeks ago concerned about the imminent budget cuts. Today Labour will hold a community meeting to discuss the cuts attended by Dunedin’s Labour MPs and our Early Childhood Education spokesperson Sue Moroney.
The Budget cuts will hit working families who rely on quality childcare. The impact will be enormous throughout the economy as parents weigh up whether they can afford to have their children in childcare.
These fee increases will more than eat up any tax cut received by parents. On top of that they will face increases in GST, ACC and increased inflation.
In Dunedin, there are more than 8000 children enrolled in ECE services. Parents with children aged three and four will also be hit as fees go up across the board and centres are forced to employ lesser qualified staff to remain viable.
We have estimated that when inflation and a rise in early childhood education (ECE) fees are taken into account, the average family, with 2 children will be at least $55 a week worse off.
And that’s just one issue. Currently ECE centres are encouraged to have 100 per cent registered teachers, but from early next year, the funding rate for registered teachers will be lowered and will be given only for up to 80 per cent of a provider’s registered teachers.
The result is there will be little incentive for providers to have more than 80 per cent registered teachers.
Just before the Budget was announced, both Anne Tolley and John Key attended the NEiTA teaching excellence awards in Parliament.
Both Sue Moroney and I attended that ceremony alongside St Clair ECE teacher Karen Brown (from my electorate) who won an excellence award.
It’s ironic that the PM and Minister of Education attended a ceremony that celebrated excellence in teaching, an hour before they announced cuts which would compromise excellent teaching.
Public meeting: 10am Mornington Presbyterian Church
This was the first thing I noticed, don’t know if we will attend kindy, and I heard $25/week.
What I don’t get is the focus on 80% registration or the attitude that ECE is not education or a step up to school. The blind eyes don’t seem to think kindy is any more than playgroup, for socialization and building immunity through catching flus. They also must be ignoring the community notices, health notices, social services, social contact and teaching of the parents. There is also a role in spotting child abuse (or behavior/health problems) although I would not want to over blow this as an embarrassed parent may not attend.
I guess the Nats were looking for budget cuts that no one would notice, and the papers have picked it up, but not the effect that a whole sector are worse off under the budget. Guess they think its a small proportion.
Any comments on the editorial in today’s NZH?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=1064708
Read the editorial in this morning’s NZ Herald. The cuts make more sense than you think. Costs were just escalating at an enormous pace.
Sorry Graham do u have the direct link to the NZ Herald editorial. Can’t find it
Correction:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10647048
Clare can you please direct me to research that shows children benefit more from those centres that have 100% qualified teachers vs those that only have 80% qualified.
Can you please also direct me to research that shows ECE in centres is better for a child in terms of overall development (especially in preparation for school) than homebased care (Kidstart, Porse etc) where the caregiver is usually a mother who has completed a basic course.
And I would love to know where the research is that shows either of these are more beneficial for a child preparing for school than a child who stays home with a loving parent & merely reads stories, plays, has play-dates, goes to story time at the library and so on.
There is an increasing amount of research that shows childcare is not beneficial for children under the age of 3 and in fact, may cause some harm where the child is not in a situation where the are receiving one-on-one care.
In terms of those children aged 3 & up research indicates they are at an age where they benefit from social interaction but this does not necessarily have to mean childcare, playcentre or kindergarten.
correction – meant to say where under 3s are NOT receiving one-on-one care (e.g. in a large childcare centre rather than a homebased care or with their parent).
@ rebecca we all know that most parents and mums would rather stay at home. Sadly thats not an optin for most, its a case of loose teh house, dont eat etc etc.
Its a very hard choice to make, I guess national are making it an easier choice
..in a large childcare centre rather than a homebased care or with their parent)
In a large centre they would be assigned a primary care giver. Each primary care giver would have maybe 3-4 children in their care.
Our kids went to Playcentre where there was a highly trained Supervisor and each of the many parent helpers did a course on child learning/managing. A marvellous place. No trained teachers.
My fear with the direction of ECE has been towards treating little kids like little school-children. Teach them Maths- reading earlier and earlier. Bad move!
Yet I am convinced that those vital early years determine the success of later years.
Lifetime memory peaks at about 3 years. Downhill from there!
80% of life learning is done in the first 5 years. Rest of time is just refining early learning. Questions remain?
As in line with Te Whaariki. P. 22 Te Whaariki an adult who is consistently responsible for and available to each infant.
Same on the toddlers page. p 23.
Te Whaariki was printed in 1996 so either those studies were done overseas, or it was before 1996.
Ianmac – that is where my thoughts are.
Question is: what is necessary for children to learn in their first 5 years of life?
My answer would be to ensure: attachment, confidence, empathy, basic social skills, ability to recognise their own name & the early stages of learning about personal space, basic social etiquette etc.
All these things can be taught by people other than just fully qualified teachers.
Of course I am not suggesting that every child should be at home with their parent as modern society means that is near impossible for most parents and well, where some families are concerned, the child would be far better off well away from their parents as much as possible.
These cuts will predominantly affect Kindergartens who would appear to hold themselves up as the benchmark for ECE learning. I am not convinced that is necessary to have all staff fully qualified or that Kindergartens are the b all and end all.
So schools must have teachers that are all qualified right? But ECE centers, which lead to school, don’t need fully qualified staff! Seems incongruous to me. Especially when schools are noting that many 5 year olds come to school ill prepared for learning and that at age 6 these very same kids are to be tested against the National Standard and their teacher/school judged by their progress.
Lack of, or poor ECE, will by dint of the cost, be less likely to be taken up by lower socio economic groups – which schools will have less children meeting the one year at school National Standard – lets all guess together!
Rebecca said:
Strange that you don’t feel that training and qualifications assist in people doing their jobs better. Nevertheless, are you saying that National decided on cuts on the basis of scientific research, or a lack of that research?
If there is a true absence of research available in this area, why is it they went ahead with cuts right now in an information vacuum and not without funding research first?
OK you are pretending to be a scientist now, let me ask you this question: that research showed harm COMPARED TO WHAT?
Harm compared to being looked after in a family home by a full time stay at home parent, say?
Are you implying that National should support that parental decision now because of the research that you have found?
Don’t quote research unless that research shows some direct relevance to the NZ situation. Otherwise it is simply incorrect and out of context.
Fabregas 4: what do you mean by “many 5 year olds come to school ill prepared for learning”?
Not being able to count, complete the alphabet know the difference between a letter and a number or how to hold a pencil despite often years of pre-school education?
Is this actually necessary? Is it a new problem or is it that our expectations of our littlies has changed where we are taking away the joy & magic of childhood so quickly and instead expecting them to be mini adults?
And who is the “many” – boys or girls? Boys fine motor control takes longer to develop that girls’, so boys are even less likely to be able to hold a pencil correctly by the time they start school.
The same report that came out in March last year actually placed more emphasis on the fact that many children do not know how to eat properly or wash their hands – hardly indicative of the need for fully qualified teachers as good parent or caregiver with a little common sense would suffice!
New Zealand Educational Institute president Frances Nelson said last year that new entrants’ readiness varied across the country and that children who had not had early childhood education tended to be less prepared.
“Unfortunately, it’s increasingly in [poorer] low-decile areas where access to preschool education is not so easy to come by….there are too many young parents lacking basic parenting skills not reading to their children, not talking to them, teaching them basic hygiene.”
To me this is indicative of the wider social issues we have seen increase in the last 10 years especially, rather than evidence that ECE is a necessary step in a young child’s preschool development.
All a child needs to learn before they start skill is:
*Social skills where they are comfortable and able to interact effectively with their peers,
*Self-care skills – such as being able to dress & toilet themselves, take care of their belongings etc and being used to eating out of a lunch box
*Pre-literacy skills – this does not include expecting your child to read and write but more with being able to recognise their own name (and perhaps form some of the letters) and book handling skills such as knowing the front of the book from the back and being able to turn pages and being able to listen to a story and talk about it afterwards.
None of these things require a Bachelor of Education. They merely required a conscientious, kind and caring parent or caregiver.
Loota – do your own homework and look up the research for yourself! There is plenty out there that quantifies the statements you have weakly attempted to critique.
Fair comment Fabregas 4 but how to achieve the worthy goals is the question.
The kids who on entry are un-ready are ones who can’t socialise, have insufficient language, and no concept of how to respond to challenges. How is this need for socialisation to be achieved? Just maybe it could be in the hands of that friendly person who can empathise and guide. He/she is not necessarily a qualified teacher. My Mum at home was a pretty good Mentor!
And Rebecca @ 12:02and 1:07 agreed with your ideas -well said! Though neither of us are suggesting that there is no place for qualified teachers!
I have a fear that in some decile 10 areas parents will demand that their kids learn to read etc before going to school and skip childhood altogether. It does happens poor kids.
Agreed Ianmac
Rebecca – seriously you are the one saying that there is an absence of research to do with ECEs, now you are telling me there is lots and to go find it for myself?!
So, which one is it?
Since you have already looked this all up, I’d appreciate it if you could post a couple of the references you used. I have access to journals on line and would be happy to go through them.
Yes I suspect those same wee ones walk around with crests embroidered on their fancy blazors.
While Paul Henry on Breakfast can be a tad iffy at times, he gave the best example of what modern society is like for our littlies by telling of how he was in a dairy getting his paper and heard a Mum say to their preschooler, who was standing at the counter eyeing up all the lollies, “hurry up and make your choice would you”.
He said this was a classic example of how we are so quick to take away the magic of childhood because of time pressures etc.
I agree.
But yes, of course there is always room for qualified ECE teachers, I just don’t think we need any more than 80%!
Rebecca said:
Not all children have extensive access to such a person.
Thankfully a Diploma of Teaching is sufficient, you have never required a full B.Ed. to meet ECE qual requirements as far as I know.
Loota – I never said there wasn’t research, I was asking Clare to direct me to the research that backs up her post.
I am saying there is plenty of research that says to the contrary.
This is stuff I have read over many years – most of which I have found at the library, books, papers lended to me by friends etc.
Being a mother of a preschooler and having friends who are teachers I take the issue very seriously.
I would suggest to reply to my post @ 1.37pm – I think in all good conscience you should be hard pressed to argue against it.
Loota – actually a Diploma of Teacher or Recognition of Prior Learning is suffice too…..the former I think still involves a 3 year course.
Mind you that’s the same Paul Henry who said on Friday morning – I think everyone agrees it was a pretty good budget… Paul prolly doesnt believe in too much sugar or preservatives
Just looked up Dip of Teaching ECE and it seems to be pretty extensive and pretty expensive! Wow! Hope those just completing have jobs to go to.
Ianmac – I would hope they do as the waiting list for childcare is usually up to a year!
Tracey – in many ways Paul Henry was stating fact as according to the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, 40% rated the Budget as good or excellent, 22% as poor or very poor with 38% as either neutral or not sure.
Mind you, the real test will be in the polls conducted after 1 October…
John Zey said today that about $3 would be added to the weekly cost after the 1 July ETS start. Since he would of course understate that cost for political reasons, perhaps $6 greater cost before you get to October.
$3 increase:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10647148
Oops? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10647148
Hmmmmm sucks to be a family who started out the year with only $20-30 in spare disposable income per week. Between this and GST, expected inflationary pressures, ECE changes etc. that’s all gone now.
Fortunately the senior execs at Telecom are still in the black even after all these minor changes, by a grand or more a week each.
An interesting part of Q and A on Sunday was the attempt of the deputy PM to not answer the question about the expected cut in childcare places. In the end he said he had no “personal” knowledge of any cuts in places – the follow-up that should have been was, did you reduce the amount of funding without knowing what impact it would have – not even a forecast made and supplied to the government before the decision was made?
Loota – they are probably not in the black as like anything, the more you have the more you want and the more you borrow.
I just don’t see what good it does to constantly compare ourselves to people who are the exception rather than the rule in terms of intelligence, education, skill & salary.
How on earth does the cut to ECE funding for qualified teachers automatically translate to an increase in fees?
Unqualified people – such as nannies etc are paid less.
Childcare centres will always look to increase fees – has no one else noticed how with each WFF Childcare Subsidy increase the childcare centres raise their fees meaning that the poor parent is actually no better off?
In terms of Kindys well if they start charging fees so what – most of the parents are not working parents and $20 a term (which is what ours used to charge) is hardly going to break the bank.
The changes might also mean that many parents no longer have to wait for their child to be 3 1/2 years old for afternoon Kindy (6 hours) or 4 1/2 years old for morning Kindy (20 hours) – 6 months of 20 hours ECE at Kindy hardly equates to the quality preschool education that people seem to think our children need.
Manybe it’s not easy to sack qualified staff. Not if they were hired some months ago …
“everyone” is not 40%… so nope not fact just more P Henry carolling from the jewel encrutsed balcony.
pre-school years are so important, developmentally, some say crucial… do we really want good intentions guiding these development minds and bodies or people who understand how to aid that development.
In my personal experience Tracey I would argue it depends on the individual family circumstance rather than one vs the other.
However, one thing that often gets left out of this debate is those children who come from rubbish backgrounds and have no escape – no alternative but their dysfunctional family life.
I would much rather resources went into these communities than funding the sometimes snobby preschool education.
Preschool years are crucial and the success of those years depends I believe on the relationship the child has with their parent more than what they learn from Te Whaariki.
I don’t think (based on my own experience & what I have read) it really matters where a child is in their preschool years – if their parent, caregiver, nanny, ECE teacher via Play-centre, Kohanga Reo, Kindergarten, childcare centre or preschool can provide the social, pre-literacy & self-care skills I gave above then it is job well done.
Therefore I just don’t see the justification for continuing to keep ECE funding at 100% fully qualified teachers.
The blind obsession with having only “professional” teachers deliver ECE erodes the role of parents and other ECE providers.
The past increases in State-funding for ECE have usually been transferred straight through to private or “professional” providers. As Rebecca rightly said: “Childcare centres will always look to increase fees – has no one else noticed how with each WFF Childcare Subsidy increase the childcare centres raise their fees meaning that the poor parent is actually no better off?” The solution is not to keep throwing more and more tax money at ECE providers but to restructure the system to empower parents. In that regard the ECE funding changes are a step in the right direction.
Finally – well said jfk!
Loota, I am feeling generous, so thought I might pass on one of the articles I came across a couple of years ago.
It is written by Sarah-Eve Farquhar and I think, is very comprehensive & sums up ECE well.
YOu will note that she is at great pains to emphasize that “Children attending full-time ECE/childcare as compared to part-time (around 12.5 hours per week or 2.5 hour sessions) do not have significantly better developmental outcomes. In other words it is the experience of attending a group early childhood programme that matters, and more time in the programme does not equal greater benefits for children”.
And
“The evidence also points to ECE/childcare having both developmental risks and benefits. There can be cognitive gains (at least in the short-term and dependent upon the effectiveness of the primary school children go on to) but there can also be negative outcomes for children’s health, mothers’ sensitivity in interaction with their children, problem behaviours and aggression in children.”
http://www.childforum.com/publicationsn_details.asp?REF_NO=30
If National were/are interested in changing the “20 hours free” policy why not simply say so.
If they believed the 100% qualified teacher standard was too expensive, or not necessary, why not say so and declare their position in their manifesto?
Their manifesto committments soon become very half-hearted ones, once in office.
No GST rise, a budget nuetral tax change … – sometimes downright deceptive.
Thanks for that info Rebecca. Preschoolers and infants do find it incredibly physiologically stressful to be separated from their parents and in strange surroundings. Just part of the costs our society is willing to bear in order to keep both parents at work.
Loota, maybe we should be looking for solutions which allow parents more flexibility to make a real choice between caring for their own children versus contracting out to other ECE providers? Many policy proposals have been advanced over the years: Universal Dividend – payable to all citizens; Income Splitting for tax purposes – to signal that we actually do value parents that stay at home to raise their kids. Maybe we could look to France and examine having a 4-day working week? I predict, however, that none of these will find their home within Labour or National’s policy programme. Both parties appear wedded to getting all adults out into the work force to worship at the altar of GDP or public sector growth (or to pay union fees).
Last time I looked EC teachers were paid only a little more than teacher’s aides, is this still the case?
jfk – couldnt agree more with valuing parents who stay at home to parent. Marilyn Waring, when at the OECD wrote a great, innovative, forward thinking paper on this very thing. Under her model unpaid work was included in GDP. Not that anyone here took a blind bit of notice, then or now.
We all choose our lifestyles to one extent or another. There are two job families who choose it rather than need it. Part of that is about passing on their own expectations, for the accumulation of stuff, tot heir children and sometimes it’s about wanting the fulfillment and contact that comes from a job, having colleagues, a challenge etc. However parents can always choose their path before they have children, that is the ultimate parental responsibility. To understand that you have the flexibility, even if it means having to compromise some of the other goals you have in life.
In this, too, money isnt everything.
Ah, I’m not very familiar with those initiatives, jfk. The thing is that this country does need to seriously lift its GDP (actually, its GNP, IMHO) and putting in masses of labour hours is a substitute for not having an advanced high value added economy where our citizens own the methods and profits of production.
One parent can afford to stay at home if household incomes were higher and the country richer.
By not being in this situation we pay for it dearly as a society, basically at the expense of children.
jfk, you do recall National voted against parental leave provisions? It seems in that regard Labour does value the staying at home, value-added work of parenting more than National?
jfk – great ideas but yes, sadly, neither are likely to get the thumbs up from the powers that be….encouraging both parents to work was one of the main arguments against WFF.
Tracey @ 5,43 – well said.
Re National voting against parental leave provisions – not sure if that translates into Labour valuing the at-home parent more. Neither seems to truly value the role hence the emphasis on working and ECE.
Loota re “One parent can afford to stay at home if household incomes were higher and the country richer”
Not true. If you take the role of being a parent seriously you should be planning when to have your children and then save accordingly.
Most people we know have planned to have children, saved hard, had one parent up to 2 years at home who has then resumed part-time work gradually.
They are not rich and nor are they on high incomes.
They have found however, because of the high housing & living costs in general it was a case of either saving hard & hoping for career advancements to the point where one parent could be at home for all 5 preschool years (at the risk of not starting a family until their late 30s or older), or not saving for quite so long, having kids younger knowing that the primary caregiver would have to resume part-time work after a couple of years.
This is the reality faced by most middle to high income families. A reality that neither party has fully recognised.
Hmmmm…I think for a lot of people their first pregnancy is what they call a “surprise”. Good that your friends lead such well structured and forward planned lives though. I’m afraid any <20 year old in this country who gets pregnant is in for a bit of a shock then as they will not have had the means or ability to save up over several years like your more experienced/professional/mature working friends.
Sue Moroney's talk in Dunedin tonight was great (and thanks for your intro and input too Clare). I understand a whole lot of the ECE issues better now, including the fact that the entire sector is now in shock after moving from the pre-election promises from National that ECE was considered an important area of spending to now urgently re-evaluating the cut backs and corner cutting which will be required across the board due to this Budget.
Actually, now that I look at it maybe the ECE sector misunderstood what National meant when it first communicated to them that ECE was considered an "important area of spending".