Comments from people who work in education and care services

I would also strongly disagree with the recommendation to simplify the National Quality Standard. Our National quality Framework is something to be proud of and should not be tampered with. All early childhood education and care services including preschools, should be obligated to comply with the standards and meet the high expectations we should expect for the children in our care. National ratios should be continued to be increased as there is research evidence to prove that increased interactions with children provides a higher level of quality. By reducing the levels of staffing, you reduce the opportunities for staff to interact with individual children on a daily basis. All degree trained teachers should continue to study the development of children from birth to at least 5 years of age as this is the best way for teachers to gain a full understanding of the development of children. Student teachers should not be allowed to be counted as ratio for teachers. They are simply not teachers as they are yet to be fully trained and it sends a negative signal to those teachers that have been fully trained and may have years of experience and confuses parents. I agree with the recommendation to combine CCB and CCR into one subsidy to be paid to the service. However, of concern is that families who do not meet an activity test of 24 hours of work, study or training per fortnight will not be able to access any subsidised child care (Draft Recommendation 12.4). Currently families who meet the work test can access up to 24 hours per week of subsidised education and care, if this recommendation goes ahead many of these families will effectively be excluded as they will have to pay full fees. I believe that all children benefit from high quality learning experiences and interactions with other children and that the current provisions that allow access for at least 24 hours of education and care for all children should remain. I also believe that universal access to education and care is the best way to support the inclusion of vulnerable children from families experiencing multiple layers of disadvantage.

I believe the eligibility criteria for the Special Early Care and Learning Subsidy is too narrow (Draft Recommendation 12.7). As the recommendation stands, services will need to make a referral to child protection within a week of applying the ‘at risk’ subsidy. Instead of being restricted only to children deemed ‘at risk’ we believe it should include vulnerable children and families facing multiple layers of disadvantage..

There is no provision for additional financial support for families in crisis. The current support for families experiencing temporary financial hardship will no longer be available. Our service is situated in a disadvantaged area and we have many children from vulnerable families currently accessing SCCB. These children need to be able to access our program for many reasons but it is important that we can provide a quality program by qualified staff that understand the needs of the children and families. Of additional concern is the recommendation to base all subsidies on the deemed cost of child care. Our staff wages are up to 70% of our budget because we believe that highly trained staff and higher ratios will have the greatest impact on these children. Our service would be greatly disadvantaged by this recommendation as our income would be reduced greatly and our families are unable to pay high fees. This recommendation would create a system whereby those that can pay high fees would get a better service than those that cannot. A very unfair system for children.

VIC
If not for profit organisations have to start paying payroll tax just about every service on the North West Coast of Tasmania would be forced to close. Most childcare centres are struggling to make a profit they are only small centres with 50 to 100 places. This would make child care in this area Unaffordable - $50k pay roll tax over 50 families! Unaccessable - Due to the number of centres closing due to number 1 would increase wait lists drasctically for the few centres that are still open. We also need to change the CCR to be paid direct to the centres in one payment.	TAS
I'm worried about educators only required to have a cert three to work with children under three and the importance of their development is not deemed important	TAS
In WA we have for a long time had good staff : child ratios (1:4, 1:5, 1:10). These ratios ensure our children are well supported in their education and care consistently throughout the day. I want to see these ratios maintained and do not want to see averaging of ratios occur as discussed in Draft Recommendation 7.5. I have also been a strong supporter of the introduction of increased qualifications for educators. The notion of only requiring a Cert 111 qualified educator for our birth to 3year old children is a step backwards with 0-3 year old children seen needing basic child care and only 3yrs and over aged children requiring education from fully qualified educators!! This idea is not aligned with current world wide research or our National Quality Framework.	WA
It has become quite challenging to access child care services in my community. It's also unaffordable and it is quite rigid in its flexibility. According to the data provided by the assistant minister for education Sussan Ley, More than 268,000 Victorian children were enrolled in formal childcare in September 2013, compared with just 176,350 in September 2007. And these numbers are set to increase in the future. Most families in my community are now accessing local Family Day care services and in home care services, as it becomes near impossible to access mainstream child care services. Inaccessible, unaffordable and inflexible Child Care service is creating havoc to parents (particularly women) who are keen to go back to work and become productive contributors to their community. I think it's wise to encourage non-mainstream childcare services such as Family Day Care services and IHC, as these services have major potential in taking off pressure from main stream child care services. Hence, provide parents with secondary options.	VIC
It is good to get support in this sector as we are a industry rearing our future citizens for a better nation. We need staff training on an ongoing basis and resources to be updated regularly as well. As much as child and educator ratio has gone down but still in order to be able to deliver a high standard of care and education, the industry needs to absorb the costs to be able to function to satisfy all needs. Parents are so busy trying to meet their financial needs that they depend on Educators to meet the educational needs of their children and so pre-schoolers and schoolies alike have to be able to adapt and apply themselves at their education institutes. We as educators need to nurture these children in such a way so they can confront challenges in their life ( which becomes tough ) with ease. For these types of nurturing and educating methods, educators do need training and lots of resources.	NSW
On behalf of myself and my colleagues we reject the changes put forward by the productivity commission. We are currently ranked 22nd out of 23 countries in relation to our childcare/early education system. the proposed changes are only to the detriment of the future adult citizens of this country. It has been shown in long term research that all children benefit from access to fully qualified early childhood teachers and a quality educational programme. We need to ensure that the NQF and the EYLF remain in place and uphold quality standards, we need to ensure that all children in Australia have access to affordable quality education and care services fully funded by the government. We need to continue to employ early childhood teachers, and to ensure that early childhood teachers are treated as equals to their counterparts in schools. Funding needs to be returned to the Family Day Care schemes, this is outrageously wrong, to try and dismantle 40 years of caring for our youngest. What are they thinking, wake up and come into the 21st century, shame on you, we look like a nation of backward idiots !!!	NSW
OSHC should be separate to Early childhood as Primary Years are very different developmental stages, there should be better system in place where Centres/organisations can register objections about assessments in regards to the NQF. The Assessment process is too long and feedback is inconsistent	QLD
Please don't reduce CCB for parents who choose to stay at home to be with their children. They are already struggling to do what they think is right, so why do they have less right to be at an early childhood education centre to learn and socialise with other children. I also don't agree with nannies being able to claim CCB unless it is a much smaller amount then long day care centres do, as long day care centres do so much, and at great expense, to provide the service they do.	QLD
Qualified educators deserve to be paid accordingly, they have studied and attained their qualification. Working assiduously with children requires proficiency, perseverance and tenacity. Educators that possess these qualities should be rewarded considerably. The cost of childcare fees is then passed onto the families, in which many struggle to meet their financial obligations. A system where the educators are paid in accordance with their qualifications impulses childcare services to increase their fees to meet their wage requirements. Would it be fair to ask that a system be implemented such as the health system, where families can be bulk billed their childcare fees and an annual levy such as the Medicare levy apply to those using childcare. Many families are also unaware that the childcare rebate can be paid directly to the childcare centre, perhaps if it became mandatory that the childcare rebate be paid directly to the centre, this may assist families in paying their fees and the childcare providers in meeting all the compulsory annual fees and wage requirements.	QLD
Quality is important for the development and safety of children in child care. Without recognition and appropriate pay there will continue to be a shortage of staff working in the child care sector.	TAS
Specialist services for children with a diagnosed disability would limit the choice for families. There would be a tendency for all children with additional needs to attend a few designated services in an area - a far cry from an inclusive environment. Is this the social message we want? Lowering qualifications for children 0 - 36 months. This does not fit with early intervention - educators are often the first to have discussions with families about some questions about a child's development and these conversations take skill and knowledge - lowering the Qualification to Cert 3 does not support the capacity of educators with this. Where are children undergoing diagnosis in this report? Many children are not diagnosed until over 5? How are educators going to support these children to be included without Inclusion Support Facilitators who can build capacity, challenge current practice to improve environments and provide coaching and mentoring?	QLD
Spending any less than 1% of GDP on early childhood education is internationally embarrassing. While workforce participation is significant, these recommendations need to put children, and their life outcomes, at the centre. In particular, winding back the qualification requirements for our youngest children would be blatantly ignoring the wealth of research on brain development.	VIC
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this draft report. I would like to say that I would like to echo the response provided by the QIN, having contributed to this on behalf of this service as well as being a QIN Rep. While clearly lot of research and consultation has gone into the preparation of this report I am still unclear as to the Reports expectations of the role of the ISA and their ISFs. 'There is a clear and demonstrated need for the support of ISA in assisting services to build their capacity to be more inclusive, so how will does the commission see this in action? There is need for the attention on administration as the part of the ISF role to reduced to allow for the focus of their work on the capacity building of educators. The development of a national consistency of the skills of an ISF, the opportunity to network to share knowledge as well as standardised 'qualification' for this role required attention and focus. There appears to be a focus within the report to provide parents with increased opportunities to return to work, it would seem this the direction has this occur at the cost of Child Care educators and children. Restricting the need for qualification for the care and education of those under three, runs the risk of harm to our children - without training what basic skills will educators come with? What is their capacity to observe, identify and meet the emergent developmental needs of children? And where is the voice of these small people when their greatest advocates are at work? Is it the responsibility of the commission to provide return to work options for parents or something that is the attention of the employer? Under threes in child care need care and education as much as children over this age range and reducing the skills and knowledge of the people we entrust their care to is not reflective we place on our children. Within the recommendations there are negative outcomes for children with a disability, children for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds, Refugee Children, children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, children with mental illness and children undergoing diagnosis. There are some terms that do not place our children with additional needs in a positive light within this report and may run the risk of turning back the clock on all children's inclusion in our community if left unaddressed. All children are equal and their additional needs add a richness and complexity to the human experience that should never we compartmentalised, boxed together or segregated as a means of ensuring fiscal efficiencies. We have, in the Early Years ,invaluable opportunities to address the inequalities, tensions and miss understanding in our world buy removing the barriers and allowing all children to flourish, as individuals who are a vital member of their community. Thank you once again for this opportunity to respond to your work and I look forward to the positive outcomes for our children and those that work towards their care and education.	QLD
The most importnat thing is Quality early childhood education for ALL children. We all know from life experience that if you want Quality you have to pay for it. While I understand that Early education costs are getting quite high for normal families to manage the answer is not to 'water down' the Qualifications and amount of those providing it and as such lower the quality but rather to somehow supplement the associated costs so we have this Quality care avaliable to all. Investing in Early education is shown to be a good investment and to recoup savings later in said children's lives. I'm ashamed to be living in one of the worlds 'wealthy' countires and yet to have one of the lowest investments in early edcuation. We need to start putting children first and doing what is best for not only them but their famiiles and our country. All children deserve a Quality education from Qualified educators!	SA
The National Quality Standards finally saw all early childhood education and care services operating under the same guidelines and expectations. Their was significant improvements to child/educator ratios, as well as a huge rise in the level of training and qualifications required. So why would the government want to change something that was a step in the right direction for our children! We want Australian children to have an optimum start in their education, and research shows that the earlier this starts, the better. If the government makes changes to the CCB and the 24 hour rate for non working/studying families, the impact on many children,families and services will be huge! These families will not be able to afford early education in long day care, and will miss out. This will effect all children, but particularly children from disadvantaged families. And how will services continue to operate if they can not run at capacity. This would effect our Centre as we do cater for non working families to fill our vacancies not filled by working families. The government needs to think long term and not just in monetary terms. Don't undo a good system!!	NSW
The recommendations are creating an artificial divide between care and education, when they are inextricably linked. Research shows children under 3 benefit greatly when educated by tertiary trained responsive educators and teachers who have an understanding of child development and learning theories. This is not included in any 6 month childcare worker course. As a centre director I am particularly concerned about the recommendations that under 3's have only CCW's and that these groups are not included in the count when working out ratios required for trained teachers. Theoretically my service under this regime could be staffed by 1 trained teacher and 14 CCW's, and still be required to participate in the highly valued NQF system. Really? How am I to teach in the preschool room, program and provide education for the toddlers and infants, mentor the marginallly trained child care workers, liaise with community and establish a sense of belonging in the community for children, assist parents with parenting matters, complete the administration required and model for all carers. What are the children to make of this divided loyalty. For with 20 preschoolers and 36 0-3's I would be the only teacher in the service, and the only one with more than 6 months training. Children don't magically commence learning aged 3, important neural pathways are being layed down from birth. We are educating our infants and toddlers to be creative, thinking, problem solving learners with a capacity to learn for themselves rather than be simple rote learners. That is what the NQF calls for - across all age groups. I don't see a distinction in requirements noted that we should just 'care' for those under 3 in the National Document (NQF) we have been given. That is for good reason. You note there are no longitudinal studies supporting under 3's education. Research and information on infant brain development is relatively recent and there are many studies to support the findings. Longitudinal studies are under way now to support what we already see evidentially in our work. I support the employment of university trained educators and diploma staff in under 3's education for this reason. It is outrageous to think you can discount these children in working out teacher/staff ratios.	NSW
We battle to pay wages as our centre numbers are down. It's fine to have quality education and trained educators but raising costs further will only punish the families in our care.	NSW
We need to keep the 15hrs of funded preschool for every child. Research has shown how beneficial this is for children and our community as a whole. Children deserve teachers and educators with qualifications please keep the qualifications for under threes as a minimum of diploma trained our children deserve this right. Do not water down ratios.	VIC
When a child leaves care issue a separation certificate stating same and must be presented at the new centre before attendance to eradicate serial childcare hoppers, leaving unpaid accounts yet claiming and being paid Child care rebate. Kindergarten funding needs to be reviewed. Should a child attend more than one kindergarten the funding should be pro rata, not all or nothing. This current situation benefits larger organisations with more clout than smaller businesses just trying to do the right thing in regards to reporting.	VIC
Why do society and in particular politicians still perceive that childcare is simply glorified baby sitting. I can assure that it is not, I went to University for 4 years, most of my fellow students are working in the school system under better working and financial conditions than I am getting. I am extremely concerned that the 0-2 age is deemed not worthy of having a qualified worker in the room. At times really hard conversations are to be had and these need to come form an experienced and qualified worker. The industry is in crisis and some of the recommendations are only going to heighten it. who are the winners then.	VIC