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.