Comments from people who work in education and care services

The Australian Government is about to cut Community Support Program funding to thousands of Family Day Care Services across the country. As the criteria becomes more clear it would appear that most “Inner Regional “ services (the classification of our service) will maintain their funding, however there still will exist a stark contrast of responsibilities and challenges for different services within the “Inner Regional” definition. Some services are servicing only regional cities; other services within the same funding bracket are largely rural where significant extra costs are incurred to support quality family day care. Where there exists a large enough population, a variety of care and education options exist for families but in almost every one of the small towns and villages where our service operates we are the only licensed education and care service that can meet the needs of working parents or families with higher needs and we have a waiting list of families. There are still many more towns and villages or country areas where we have no family day care at all.

From January 2014 Inner Regional Family Day Care services were no longer eligible to apply for the Regional Travel Assistance Grant. This grant in no way covered the cost of extra travel to support rural educators and was an administrative burden, but did at least recognise the extra cost to rural services.

To improve accessibility and affordability of childcare and education to our rural communities a redirection of some of the funding removed from the vast majority of family day care services to rural services would go a long way to addressing these issues. It is our belief that where family day care services can demonstrate a significant rural footprint additional support must be available to provide incentives for new educators such as a rural educator start-up grant. In addition a higher level of Community Support Funding be available to help subsidise the additional cost of rural educators.

NSW
As the Director of a centre in a regional town it is virtually impossible to find qualified educators. There aren't any incentives for them to work in the industry when the local supermarket is offering higher rates of pay. Child care isn't a job where you can just walk in and out of, you are taking responsibility for the care and wellbeing of someone else's child so quality costs. Pay rates need to improve to keep the quality educators in this industry. We have high standards at our service and are finding that even though educators arrive with a qualification they aren't any where near the standard they need to be at in order to work in our service. There is a lot of extra in house training that takes place to get them up to scratch and in saying that the training organisations have a lot to answer to. In a small town with a large percentage of low income earners and unemployed we find that these families just aren't able to access our service due to the high cost even with the 100% CCB. Unfortunately these are the families that fly under the radar as vulnerable children and they are the ones we need to be accessing our service to ensure that they are safe. Another concern within the childcare industry is the educator to child ratios. 1 educator to 15 children over the age of 3 isn't quality care. Working in the industry for many years I have noticed the change in the 3 year olds and how dependant they still are. For example out of 30 3 year olds only 60% are fully toilet trained. This sometimes leaves one educator to assist 5 or 6 children with toileting and accidents can occur daily of up to 4 times. How can you even offer the basic of care- supervision, and at the same time expected to be providing an educational program and support for the other 9 children on your own with no assistance. 10 children aged 3 to 4 would be much more manageable. Educators have a lot of pressure on them from the families in regard to the children's program although do not receive enough programming time to complete task and therefore are taking work home each night. Dedicated educators wouldn't be as concerned with doing work out of hours if their wages justified this. Educators working with children in the 4 to 5 age group receive 2 hrs programming a week although a Kinder Teacher in a stand alone service can receive up to 8hrs a week. The same standards are expected from both educators so it would only seem fair to be able to offer them the same amount of time. This is also the same for educators working with the younger age groups, you cannot produce quality without the time to do so. In summary we need to have better trained educators, higher paid educators, to lower the cost of childcare for the unemployed and vulnerable, lower the child/educator ratio for the over 3 year olds and increase the programming time to increase quality.	VIC
If the Commission is looking at 'productivity', then perhaps they should consider the longer-term productivity of children who attend QUALITY early education services. Quality early education only occurs when staff are fully trained, of sufficient quantity, and valued as respected professionals. Families are supported in their parenting roles and children are given the best opportunity to become caring and competent members of our society. Cutting back hard-won improvements to the education and care sector is COUNTER-productive. Productivity is not a short-term issue, and it's not only about monetary value.	VIC
I am an ect and in my six years of experience working in the early childhood sector I have been appalled at the lengths owners go to so they can cut corners and thwart the system. I have left many centres for this reason. Some examples are completely under resourcing do that educators must bring in even their own paper if they want the children to paint, and flour if they choose to make play dough. Understaffing so that if the director "realises a staff shortage they won't even start looking for a replacement until nine o'clock. In the same centre, food was brought in that had to be prepared but nobody was added to the paucity if staff to cover preparation. Instead, assistants were meant to leave the rooms and sort, cook and deliver food. Under feeding is a problem in some centres. Although food was provided in one centre, the budget to cover the food for 150 children for the week was $100. The children lived on bread and rice. It has been my experience that many owners only look to the bottom dollar. They would like grand dividends for little outlay and exploiting young children is their means of fare. Staff are not treated properly in some centres. Staff are expected to take on many many hours of unpaid work to keep the centre floating. Fir example over a 2 month period I documented 90 hours of extra work I had done, unpaid, to prepare transition statements. I wasn't even given a thank you, let alone any recompense. When, under the current system, owners so blatantly my street staff and children, why is there any thought that relaxing conditions will make owners be more giving. Ratios are there for a reason. Ratios cover the amount of children with appropriate staffing AT ALL TIMES. Averaging out ratios across the centre or across the week will mean children are not adequately supervised. If you have a room with low numbers for most if the week so have I worker, when 22 children come through the door, 1 worker will be totally inadequate. Personally I do think that more flexible hours would be an important change to bring in. In areas where parents work shift eirk( eg near hospitals. Or in mining towns) extended hours that cover the shift would be a great asset. However in so saying, it would be important to limit the hours a chd can be in care on any particular day. All ready there are far too many children left in centres from open to close for the entire week. I also think shift penalties should be paid for night or weekend shifts. Childcare workers are already underpaid. Childcare work is complex. I feel this should be reflected in higher requirements of study rather than lower requirements. I felt it was dismal when the advanced diploma was no longer a requirement for directors, but to remove the requirement if diplomas as well means that chikdcare centres would be run to much lower standards. I believe your current ideas of relaxing standards for qualifications and for staff child ratios would lead many many children at the mercy of money hungry merchants and would be to the overall detriment of our society.	QLD
we need to focus on families and how best we can support them including reducing costs but also better wages for staff	NSW
Hi, I have been working at a highly qualified centre for 6 years. I believe in high quality care and education for all children. We are not just baby sisters or child minders, We are educators just like teachers. The most important lives are that of a 0-5 year old. They learn the most through these years and at this age we are able to notice behavioural and developmental issues. At my centre based at PMH for Children we write observations on the childrens interests and goals, we have portfolios which provide input from parents and this all forms our program. If all centres were highly qualified and had an Kindy Teacher to guide them and develop them their would be no problem. If somehow the government could provide all staff with information regarding EYLF and Professional Development rather than us having to pay for it, it should be standard! There is no excuse and I get an above award rate as I work at a good centre. Licensing need to step in and start resolving issues rather than just warning centres. Ratios should be standard for all centres and their shouldn't be large groups or overcrowded play areas with a range of children. Children are not given quality time if you are supervising a large group of children. The Government need to act now for the future. The paid parental scheme probably won't work,I understand for parents that have great incomes but what about single parents or mothers who work in low paying jobs like Childcare they may not have this option. I am currently getting paid well but travel around 2 hrs each day to work at a quality centre who pays me well. I think all centres should have either a Kindy Teacher or 2 Qualifieds in each room!	WA
/have you asked a child's view about their views the proposed changes ? I assume many people would think children under 5 would not be able to express an opinion. Because they are not given the opportunity in most cases. But they do really have a voice. They are not invisible ! They do have rights. One of their basic rights is access to high quality education and care. (Reference United Nations on Children's Rights, ratified by Australia in 2010).	NSW
Lowering the number of qualified educators to the number of children puts at huge risk- meaningful authentic one on one interactions and the flexibility to assist a childs curiosity and encourage discovery. Not to mention the obvious fact that the safety of children is increasingly difficult to maintain as the number of children increase. Not only does this lead to more accidents and mishaps it creates a sense of instability and distress in children when they sense their environment is not safe or their caregivers are not providing their much needed safety net. Lowering staff numbers would be thoughtless and irresponsible.	TAS
I am very concerned about the "deemed" cost of care, as per the suggestions for the streamlined subsidy of the CCR & CCR. This must be contextualised to the location and demographics of the service. There is a risk of this "deemed" cost not covering the actual, practical cost of childcare, resulting in families paying more than they currently do. This would defeat the purpose of the PCI, by NOT providing accessible and affordable early education and care. Redirecting funding from the PPL into the sector would increase workforce participation as working families would have access to more affordable education and care. Services would also be able to increase places and expand services as they would feel confident in the long term investment in Early Childhood Education and Care and be more willing and secure in expanding. This would result in achieving more accessible early education and care	tas
As an Early childhood team we have discussed many of the issues raised in the Draft these are just some of the points we all agreed on : Yes there does need to be flexibility in formal childcare for families who are shift workers. This does need to be supported by Government funding and policies and Educators paid as other shift workers in the workplace. However , lowering the qualifications of Educators for the < 36 mths is viewed as a huge set back in quality and defies the research in early education and care. We do support changes to reduce bureaucracy in the National Quality Framework but we are cautious as we have so little detail of changes. Whilst we acknowledge parents need financial support with formal childcare the real issue of Educators wage and working conditions has been ignored . The Team believed this to be the real reason why people are rapidly leaving this profession . Many of the staff have two jobs to get any quality of life or to support their families. We believe that if Governments truly believe that Early Childhood is vitally important to the growth and development of our nations children then this should be reflected in their policies and not viewed purely as a by product / service to their economic policies. We also need Policies with vision for the future !	QLD
I have worked in the Early Childhood industry for almost 14 years. I have worked in the one Centre this entire time as I love where I work so much. My concern is that there is such a push for Early Childhood Teachers to be employed in services but does it really change the programs and quality if the Service is already operating with quality? A high quality Services does not need Early Childhood Teachers just as a teacher working in a low quality Centre does not necessary make any different to the quality. The quality of the Centre comes from the top – the owners, the managers and the directors. I have my advanced diploma and 14 years’ experience as a team leader and would be devastated if someone had to be employed to run my room just because they have university qualifications (who then makes the decision who leaves that room as they are not needed anymore?) Each of the Team Leaders at my Service are Diploma trained and have beautiful educational programs for the children and don’t think it is fair that for a Centre with 60 places we should have to have 3 Early Childhood teachers - seriously what will they do differently than myself who has run the room for 14 years and other Team Leaders that have been running a room for 5 years. I would also like to know how a Service is meant to afford to pay 3 university qualified teachers and keep fees low for families??? I have read a lot of different posts on various forums that discuss about employing early childhood teachers and what people have had to offer to be able to hire these teachers - things like higher pay, school holidays off work, etc. In long day care we are open all year round without the numerous holidays that schools have – this is the demand of parents working all year and having children that are not yet at school. At the end of the day an early childhood teacher would not be doing anything different to Diploma trained Team Leaders. A lot of other comments have been about how these early childhood teachers still need to be trained (as most going into early childhood have no experience), they are lazy and don’t believe they should have to do a lot of routine tasks (because of their training / university degree). Families are always complaining about the increasing cost of child care. Having to employ early childhood teachers is a big part of this as you have to pay more wages as well as the increasing running cost of the Service. More wages, increased costs = more money families are paying out and for what??? I have spoken with several services who employ university qualified staff, only to be told that the programs have not changed nor has the quality / standard of care. My boss has been trying for a long time to find an early childhood teacher to no avail - hardly any responses and not people who have the experience or the qualities that we are looking for. The Centre is not going to hire just anyone because they have a university degree. I would love to know what an early childhood teacher would do differently to a diploma qualified educator who is passionate about working in the early childhood field and wants to make this a career – not just a stop before getting a job in a primary school.	NSW
Do not exempt Preschool services from assessment under the National Quality Standard. For too many years these service types have flown under the radar. How can preschools be deemed to be providing adequate care, safety and education if they are not assessed? All service types should be working towards the same level of quality and monitored accordingly. The child care rebate should be paid directly to the child care service. Far too often families leave a service in debit yet pocket this subsidy. This should be considered fraudulent. The proposed new form of assistance (ECLS) will no doubt result in unaffordable child care for many families and the impact of this will be detrimental to the wider community. Families will be forced to terminate their child’s enrolment or abstain from accessing quality early childhood care and education. Families will seek alternate care arrangements such as from unregistered, unregulated backyard home care operators of dubious experience and qualifications. Early education centres, particularly those located in regional and rural towns will not be financially viable as a result of a drop in occupancy levels. Most will be forced to close. For many regional and rural communities it will result in closure of their only child care service. Closure of these services will affect ALL families. Entire communities will bear the impact of this change.	NSW
ECEC services are education services - just as important as any primary, secondary or higher ed service. - they are not 'child care' service, they are education services and I am horrified that Dr Wendy Craik used the term 'child care', it truly reflects the commission's and the governments views on this industry and profession. We are not preparing children for school. We are teaching them now! We are teaching children the skills they need in their life now and life long skills. Learning starts at birth not 6 years of age when they go to 'big school'. We know from lots of research that the most important learning years in a persons life is the first 3 years of life. There is no difference between long day care and preschool services except the opening hours. Grandparents are not qualified educators - they are a fantastic alternative to caring for a child when the parents are at work - but they are not educators. Recognizing 'nannies' as educators is a good idea IF they are qualified and required to abide by the NFQ, NFS, Regs, EYLF and undergo assessment and rating. Other wise its not regulated and its not fair. This year the fees of my service went us $5 and the award made changes to cut $3 from educators.....THIS is why people are leaving the industry and why families are finding it difficult. Children highly educated, from birth right through to university, are a massive benefit to society. It is unfair to expect and request ECEC services to have 'extended' hours. We are education services and I don't know of any other type of education service, such as primary school, secondary school or even OOSH services, that are open past the 6 pm mark. Children need to be home with their families! Instead of making this industry become more flexible to families that work 'shift' hours how about asking the workforce to be more flexible with working parents! The only way to improve this industry is to pump money wisely into it. Educators in ECEC services get paid shit all Extend hours funding for children with exceptional needs should be considered Higher qualified staff = higher quality education It would be a safety risk to decrease the number of highly qualified staff. These are the lives of peoples babies and children! Would you like someone poorly qualified to be responsible for your baby for 7 hours a day?! Extending the hours / providing out of hours care for preschool aged children - before jumping the gun on this recommendation considerations of appropriately qualified staff, ratios, curriculum and physical environments need to be considered. I am horrified that the funding for TAFE has been cut to make it similar to private providers of early childhood qualifications - TAFE is one of the highest quality providers of qualifications in the ECEC industry! - this will case the cost of acquiring a qualification very high. Educators aren't paid high enough to warrant spending thousands of dollars on a qualification (see point 16) Points 16 and 17 above, will result in people choosing other professions and not entering the ECEC industry - surprise, surprise, this will result in less educators = shortage of ECEC services! There is a LOT of paperwork now required in industry by the educators on the floor - the solution to this issue is actually NOT to reduce the amount of paperwork but to allow staff to manage it successfully, most services provide 2 hours per week per room for the educators to 'program'. This is not enough time. Half -t to - one hour a day per educator in ever room would be much more effective in managing paperwork, staff stress and quality of planning curriculum. In the commission draft Figure 11.4 showed that early childhood teachers were paid significantly less than primary school teachers? WHY is this? With a Bachelor of Early childhood Education from an approved university, you are qualified to work in primary schools up to children aged 8 years. So if someone is qualified to work in both primary and early childhood services WHY are they paid so much less?