Early childhood education looks set to become a requirement (compulsory) for around 31,500 3 and 4 year old New Zealand children. 

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett released a cabinet paper today, detailing a new range of obligations for parents who are on state benefits. One of the obligations is for those children to attend a licensed ECE service from the age of 3-years-old.

The paper reveals that all working-age beneficiaries with preschool aged children will be required to take 'all reasonable steps' to have their child attend a licensed ECE service for a minimum of 15 hours a week until they start school.

Other obligations on parents include ensuring that children are attending school from age 5 or 6 years, are enrolled in primary health care with a Primary Health Organisation, Integrated Family Health Centre, or General Practitioner and complete the specified checks under the Well Child health programme.

While the cabinet paper says the social obligations will apply to all parents, only those identified as having potentially vulnerable children will be tested for compliance. Non-compliance could result in financial sanctions.

Compliance checks will be based on self-reporting and checks with Work and Income. The Minister is seeking also to enhance the level of information collected on beneficiaries by establishing an Information Sharing Agreement between agencies and other organisations such as ECE service operators through the Privacy Act.

The rationale behind the move appears to favour centre-based care such as all-day kindergartens and childcare services/early learning centres. Early childhood parenting programmes such as PAFT and HIPPY have been excluded, as the purpose of the policy is to help move parents into paid work rather than improve parenting and children's learning in the home.

There is recognition in the Cabinet paper that the cost of using a licensed ECE service and the availability of places along with the requirement of 15 hours will limit parents’ choice of ECE options. It is not clear what will happen if there are no licensed ECE options available that suit the individual needs of the child or that the parent can afford and access.

"The all reasonable steps criteria will enable the flexibility for social sector agency staff to work with these parents to make suitable arrangements. This flexibility recognises that there is a range of valid and valuable steps towards participation in ECE, provided that the enrolment is sustained and ongoing", says Mrs Bennett.

This flexibility includes a graduated sanction system where parents would receive reminders of their obligations before losing any benefits.

The cost of using ECE will be a significant problem for parents, particularly if they are required by their ECE service to enrol in and pay for more hours than 15 hours a week and because the 20 Hours ECE funding does not cover additional charges made by ECE services. The Childcare Subsidy administered by Work and Income cannot presently be used to cover ECE service additional charges for the first 20 hours. Nor is there any assistance available to cover transport costs.

The obligation on parents to leave their child at a licensed ECE service for a minimum of 15 hours a week or face penalties could make it difficult for early childhood teachers not to accept children when they are sick and unwell.

The introduction of compulsory ECE for children aged from 3 years heralds a major change in social and educational policy in New Zealand. It is being brought in via the Ministry of Social Development instead of through the Ministry of Education, and without widespread consultation and public debate.

Until now, parental access of childcare and support with early education has been a parental choice. This policy change signals movement toward the educational institutionalisation of children from a younger age. Compulsory ECE is being brought in, for the children of beneficiary parents, opening the door to a possibility of extending the age for compulsory education downward to 3 for all NZ children.

Other Articles and Perspectives

Parenting and Parental Engagement in ECE, click here

What Other Countries are Doing, click here

Newspaper Editorial "Obligations or Engineering?" published in the Otago Daily Times, click here

Comments 

 

+2 # Elizabeth Lupton 2012-09-12 10:48

Is this the governments way of boosting declining numbers in Free Kindergartens?? Seems to be the ideal way to keep many afloat! It troubles me greatly that this is not about individual children or parents.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

+2 # Hayley 2012-09-12 12:16

Quoting Elizabeth Lupton:

Is this the governments way of boosting declining numbers in Free Kindergartens?? Seems to be the ideal way to keep many afloat! It troubles me greatly that this is not about individual children or parents.

Lots of kindies (3 year old sessions), Playcentres and Kohanga's offer LESS than 15 hours. This will not boost numbers, it will hurt them. Single parents will NOT be complying if they choose these options.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

+3 # Sue Hurst 2012-09-12 14:15

Being at home with a parent may be of equal(if not, better) value than being in an institution. There is little evidence to suggest that enforced early childhood education is going to work...Where is the support for parenting? I think that it is more beneficiary bashing.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

+1 # Tracey 2012-09-12 16:09

This is such a two sided debate. As an educator i see the major learning and social benefits of children. It is now common place to see preschool aged children unable to hold conversations, hold items correctly, eat at a table, and most importantly some do not know how to PLAY!! On the other hand, i am a parent who believes in giving my children the support and backup they need to enter the world from home. Be it learning colours and letters at 4 to assisting with spelling and essays at 14. I would not like to be told my preschool aged child HAD to attend a eductional program.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

0 # Wendy Goodwin 2012-09-12 21:03

I think this will give children and parents a break. I have seen what a few hours can do away from parents and by having children in a service. A two-sided debate and by proposing that children attend a service they can learn how to play and develop independence. Being at home can be best for a child too. I guess that is why it is only proposing fifteen hours a week?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

0 # Ellie 2012-09-15 19:23

What about the children (not mine thankfully), that really struggle at centres and do not want to be there? And the families who WANT to educate their children from home, and have the skills and experience to do so?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

+1 # fiona 2012-09-13 11:05

We need to remember we have 1000's of children who fall through the gap in so many ways. Education and medical obligations can be the only way we know these children even exist. As an ECE owner I know that our centre will cope fine with this change as we already offer 20 hours truely free (no short handed attempt to buck the system) and give parents complete choice as to days and hours anytime between 7am and 6pm. We are not talking about families who can and do take time to educate their children in other ways, the push has to be in picking up the many childen who enter school unable to learn because they haven't been taught how to learn. Our centre is in a low decile area with many beneficiaries and once you remove the fear of 'big brother' we are able to change a family's future by engaging agencies in a multi approach to positive outcomes. If I was involved with corporate childcare with bigger profits and overheads I might not be able to meet these expectations of care though.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

0 # Ellie 2012-09-15 19:21

Quoting fiona:

We are not talking about families who can and do take time to educate their children in other ways...

Unfortunately the Min. of Social Development is wanting to make this decision compulsory for ALL families receiving the benefit - and that includes mine which infuriates me. This is the problem with a "one size fits all" policy. I am on a benefit because I want to spend time with my children while they are young and childcare has not always been an affordable option. Educating my children is important to me.

Quoting fiona:

If I was involved with corporate childcare with bigger profits and overheads I might not be able to meet these expectations of care though.

Spare a thought for those families like my own who have twins or higher order multiples! Putting these children into daycare is expensive, and most of our families cannot afford this option.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

+2 # Ellie 2012-09-15 19:15

I am so infuriated with this scheme. I am a solo mother of twins who are 3.5 and currently attend Kindy three days a week for 2.5 hours a day (that is all the local AKA Kindy provide for three year olds). I am a primary trained, experienced teacher who has completed the majority of my experience in the junior school. Being told that my children MUST attend ECE is a kick in the teeth. While I can understand the benefit in this scheme for some, it is also tarnishing others with a brush that simply does not fit. Are they planning to increase the benefit to help pay for these imposed hours? Until recently I have HAD to stay home because putting two under twos into care would have used up my entire benefit twice over, each week. My children thrive in my care, they enjoy it, they are learning and it is entirely catered to their best interests. This is insane!

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

0 # Tracey 2012-09-18 08:56

It should be the parents choice whether their children are in care or not. Most parents provide quality care and learning for their children in their own homes, including the amount of social interaction that their child needs. For the few that cannot provide this care or that need to put their children in childcare, that is fine. Each child has different needs, and parents are the best judge of those needs.
I don't think the government is thinking of children with this proposal.And why is the government continually taking away our rights to choose? We are supposed to be living in a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

0 # Le Malelega a le To’elau ECE Centre 2012-09-19 19:48

Theres a saying that goes "you can punish people into compliance but you can't punish people into commitment". Unfortunately this is a 'one size fits all' policy that has been imposed on beneficiaries targeted at meeting the govts better public service goals which is focused mainly on increasing participation! But at the expense and cost of who? This is the hegemony of politics. The assumption govt is making is that all beneficiary children don't get any learning? Yes it will benefit centres etc but are licensed ECE services ready for the onslaught? Are you ready to accommodate the paper trail that will follow this policy - believe me its a nightmare dealing with subsidies now - it takes 6 to 8 wks for processing? Are you ready for the desperate parents knocking on your service so their benefit doesnt get cut? Are you ready for the self reporting, signing, follow up calls etc

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

+1 # Sue 2012-09-20 10:11

I too question whose needs the government is aiming to meet with this policy? Quality childcare is an awesome option for children in many ways but what has happened to the value we used to place on mothering? And why target beficiaries?

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

 

0 # Margaret 2012-10-01 12:01

I agree with Sue. The government is clearly aiming this policy at getting women into the paid workplace. Its about the economic growth driven education policy. The unpaid work of mother's is being further devalued and its time for the early childhood sector to fight back.Women 'choosing' to stay at home and care for their children are being treated as 2nd class citizens (if that). Of course men too can stay at home and care for young children (as some do) but they are not the target group here if we are being honest - that is parents, teachers & politicians. This is a significant change in the way society is structured and it being heralded in under the guise of targeting the welfare of children at risk. The question remains: Are we caring for children's wellbeing by educational institutionalis ation of young children? How is poverty addressed here? That poor family is still poor.

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

 

Refresh comments list

Add comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required, but will not display)

Refresh

Send

Cancel