Private versus Public

Prior to commencing this paper, Politics, pedagogy and policy, I must admit that I was very indifferent to politics and had not really questioned the messages that policy and legislation give to society about what is valued and what is not. Our class discussions and research for this assignment has certainly opened my eyes and made me realise the importance of having a voice and actively advocating for social justice and the rights of our under 5’s.

My final post will discuss whether the provision of early childhood education should be for public good or private good and consider the pedagogical implications for teachers, children and families participating in early childhood services.

When services such as education are seen as a public good provision, one assumes that the service will be “adequate, sustained and beyond party politics” (Keesing-Styles & Hedges, 2007, p. 176). However the increasing demand for childcare coupled with recent government initiatives to increase participation has made childcare a profitable business opportunity, thus attracting private and corporate investment in the early childhood sector (Keesing-Styles & Hedges, 2007). This has resulted in a more market driven approach to early childhood services with profitability as the bottom line.

The previous Labour government led by Helen Clark believed that building a stronger economy and delivering more social justice required a commitment to education, skills training and building the workforce. Hence the government undertook to invest considerably in education and industry training to assist with increasing the economic potential of New Zealanders. The early childhood sector benefited from the introduction of funding initiatives aimed at increasing participation in e.c.e services, employment of fully qualified teachers and support for teacher training. [Clark, 2002].

However, according to National’s Education Minister, Anne Tolley this resulted in a budget blowout while Labour was in power. Tolley says that recent funding cuts to early childhood education are about bringing spending under control, reprioritising and targeting funding where it will be beneficial to children that need it the most (Hartevelt, 2011).

As Keesing-Styles and Hedges (2007, 176) states “In terms of the larger picture, the effect has been to change the focus of New Zealand education from a concern for equity, social justice and a good education for everybody, to a focus on choice, efficiency, quality, accountability, and a free market approach in all areas”.

Evidence supports a strong link between efficient early childhood care and education and economic success due to labour force participation (Kesting & Fargher, 2008). It is also proven that quality childcare has positive outcomes on children’s health, well-being and physical, emotional and cognitive development (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). This is especially significant in lower socio-economic areas as these are the children that quality early childhood education offers the most benefits to (Ministry of Education, 2002). This is viewing early childhood education as an investment in the future therefore a public good perspective.

Yet current policies and legislation seem to indicate the governments disinterest in providing early childhood services and emphasise a market based approach to early childhood education rather than for public good (Kesting & Fargher, 2008). Further consequences of a ‘business model’ approach to early childhood education are likely to be:
• an increase in impersonal, institution-like e.c.e settings
• management decisions being made by people who have no formal knowledge of child development
• commodification and marketing of children and childcare
• lower level wages and conditions for employees
• in-house professional development
• cost cutting that compromises quality
• significant costs to parents
• unqualified staff
(Keesing-Styles & Hedges, 2007).

May (2007, cited in Kesting & Fargher, 2008) believes that private ownership is not a good economic investment as it curbs the quality and affordability of early childhood services offered to the community. Hence the need to have checks and balances in place that protect the interests of the public. According to the experience of the OECD (2006, cited in Kesting & Fargher, 2008) “a public supply investment model, managed by public authorities, brings more uniform quality and superior coverage of childhood populations than parent subsidy models”.

Is the growth of privately owned early childhood services compromising the care and education of New Zealand’s preschoolers? Personally I do not think so but I do believe that there needs to be a trade off between state investment and private investment. I envisage this as a partnership with the government establishing policies, setting standards and providing funding to meet the needs of young children and their families, and private investors providing a setting that offers affordable, equitable, quality care and education to all children under five.

References
Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four perspectives on child care
Quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (2), 87-92.
Clark, H. (2002). Higher quality of life for all. Presidents & Prime Ministers,
11(1), 12-15. Retrieved from Proquest database.
Hartevelt. J. (2011). Further early childhood education cuts possible.
Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://wwwecetogether.org.nz/
profiles/blog/feed?xn auth=no
Keesing-Styles, L., & Hedges, H. (Eds.). (2007). Theorising early childhood
practice. Emerging dialogues. Castle Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press.
Kesting, S., & Fargher, S. (2008). The effect of early childhood education
and care (ECE) costs on the labour force participation of parents in
New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 33(3),
16-33. Retrieved from Proquest database.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Strategic plan for early childhood education: Pathways to the future: Ngā Huarahi Arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Quality - Quantity

Quality vs quantity
“Great teachers, empathise with kids, respect them, and believe that each
one, has something special that can be built upon”
Ann Lieberman

The quality of childcare is a topic that has been widely researched over the years. The focus seems to have shifted from the effects of childcare on children to question what constitutes quality in early childhood education and how quality impacts on children’s development (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa, 2002). Although childcare is not believed to be fundamentally detrimental for young children, ECE must be of consistent, high quality to be beneficial for children’s learning and development (Feeney, Moravcik, Nolte & Christensen, 2010; Office of the Children’s Commission [OCC], 2010; New Zealand Childcare Association,[NZCA], 2010).

Discussion about childcare quality usually focuses on variables such as adult/child ratios, group sizes, physical environment, qualified staff, learning programmes and parental involvement (Ceglowski & Bacigalupa; Hartevelt, 2011). However, research evidence indicates that qualified teachers are a key component in the provision of a quality early childhood learning environment (NZEI, 2010). Yet centres employing 80 – 100% qualified teachers appear to have been disadvantaged with the removal of the top funding band. Also of concern are the cuts to professional development, support for teachers in training and newly registered teachers. I find this ironic given that all evidence points to the importance of providing high quality ECE in teacher-led services, with high teacher to child ratios, staffed with qualified teachers.

The recent legislation and funding cuts in the early childhood sector seem to disregard the importance of the early years in a child’s life. Why should parents be expected to accept that only 80% of childcare staff be qualified? The aspirations of Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 9) are that children “grow up as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society”. This document recognizes the complexities of early childhood care and education, and identifies the importance of family and society for young children in the early childhood environment. Surely this requires teachers that know what they are doing so that they support young children’s learning and development. Teachers who, have completed a rigorous training programme and have knowledge of the theories underpinning early childhood education (Keesing-Styles & Hedges, 2007).

It should be the right of all New Zealand parents and children to have access to 100% qualified teachers regardless of economic status or locality. I have to agree with Darrell Latham’s statement in The Press (November, 2010) that “early childhood educators lay the foundations for the future and prepare children for school, therefore funding cuts will disadvantage the sector and compromise education”.

I have attached a link to the Brainwave website as this contains a lot of relevant research that supports the importance of providing quality care and education for our young people. The Brainwave Trust (2010) believes that “the first three years of life last forever” and reiterate that children need quality care for optimum brain development. Brainwave is a charitable trust that has been set up to make sure that scientific research on brain development becomes widely known and is used in the interest of developing the full potential of New Zealand children.

Another concern is the move by the government to drop the requirement of centres with more than 50 children to have more than one license which could lead to dramatic increases in the size of early education services. Given the recent funding cuts, centres are likely to take advantage of this and push up their participation numbers to gain more revenue. The implications of this for children and teachers will mean yet more compromise to the quality of care and education due to unmanageable numbers (NZEI, 2011). Large, impersonal institution-like settings are not likely to develop a child’s sense of belonging as this requires small group sizes and a warm, caring environment where children and their families are well known to teachers.

References:
Brainwave Trust. (2010). The first three years of life last forever. [Brochure]. Retrieved February 29, 2011, from http://brainwave.org.nz/brainwave-resources/publications/
Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four perspectives on child care
Quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (2), 87-92.
Feeney, S., Moravcik, E., Nolte, S., & Christensen, D. (2010). Who am I in
the lives of children? An introduction to early childhood education
(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Latham, D. (2010, November 30). Priorities must be questioned. The Press.
Retrieved from Proquest database.
Keesing-Styles, L., & Hedges, H. (Eds.). (2007). Theorising early childhood
practice. Emerging dialogues. Castle Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press.
Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Matauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Strategic plan for early childhood education: Pathways to the future: Ngā Huarahi Arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
New Zealand Childcare Association. (2010). Fees up, quality down according to new ECE survey. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://www.nzca.ac.nz
New Zealand Educational Institute. (2010). Key messages and facts. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.nzei.org.nz
New Zealand Educational Institute. (2011). Moves towards supermarket
style early childhood education. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from
http://www.ecetogether.org.nz/profiles/blog/feed?xn auth=no
Office of the Children’s Commission. (2011) Inquiry Into Under 2’s in childcare. Retrieved March 23, 2011, from http://www.childforum.com/news/300-childrens-commission-inquiry-infants.html

ECE - a priority or an option

The 10 year strategic plan for early childhood education, Ngā Huarahi Arataki-Pathways to the future, states “the government’s vision is for all New Zealand children to have the opportunity to participate in quality early childhood education, no matter their circumstances” (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 1).

Given the recent reductions in government funding to early education services, I question the priorities of the current government and wonder whether it has lost direction and is now taking backward steps away from this vision. February 1st brought in the new funding rates implemented from the 2010 budget. These new rates have seen funding drop for two thirds of New Zealand’s early childhood services. The funding cuts have meant that those managing early childhood services have had to make some difficult decisions about how to manage shortfalls without compromising the quality of care and education offered to families (New Zealand Childcare Association [NZCA, 2011).

In a lot of cases, financial pressure has forced centres to raise their fees, increase group sizes and radically reduce spending on resources and professional development. [Stover, 2010; New Zealand Educational Institute [NZEI], 2010]. The reality is that these factors all impact on the provision of affordable, accessible and quality early childhood education for children and their families (Te One, 2010; NZEI, 2010).

A recent survey of 199 centres, conducted by NZ Childcare Association found that funding shortfalls have led to 75% of centres planning to increase fees, and subsequently over 1000 pre-school age children leaving e.c.e services. Participants in the survey predicted that more families will either reduce hours or not use e.c.e services at all (cited in Stover, 2010). The NZCA survey states that “services are looking at fee increases of between $10 and $50 per week”. For parents with children in full-time childcare this is a significant amount to come up with. According to NZEI (2010) the early childhood services in lower socio-economic areas are among the centres that are affected the most.
Therefore what are the implications for families who are already working hard to make ends meet, who do not have the income to manage these increases? It is likely that these parents will struggle to afford to keep their children in childcare and will either remove them altogether or move them to somewhere of lesser quality (Latham, November, 2010).

The early childhood curriculum is based on equitable opportunities for all and Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 17) states “early childhood education services are committed to ensuring that learning opportunities are not restricted by locality or economic constraints”. An article in The Press (Latham, November, 2010) highlights the fact that National campaigned with promises of early childhood education that valued families, higher standards in education and equal opportunity for all and states that the measures they have made so far seem to contradict this.

It seems to me that that current government legislation and policies do not match with the envisaged educational outcomes of the early childhood sector or National’s campaign promises. Furthermore, the right of our preschool children to equitable, accessible, quality early childhood education seems jeopardised and is becoming determined by what parents can afford to pay.

References
Latham, D. (2010, November 30). Priorities must be questioned. The Press.
Retrieved from Proquest database
Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Matauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Strategic plan for early childhood education: Pathways to the future: Ngā Huarahi Arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
New Zealand Childcare Association. (2010). Fees up, quality down according to new ECE survey. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://www.nzca.ac.nz
New Zealand Educational Institute. (2010). Key messages and facts. Retrieved
March 21, 2011, from http://www.nzei.org.nz
Stover, S. (2010). Managing the squeeze? Early Education, 48, 18-20.
Te One, S. (2010). New pathways to an uncertain future. Retrieved March, 20, 2011, from,http://www.acya.org.nz/site_resources/library/Documents/Reports_to_UN/CYA_2010/Early_Childhood_Education.pdf