Comments from people who work in education and care services

Significant changes in a decade relate to the quality of educators, in the early days many educators had a ‘whatever’ approach to working with children, but now they are professional, well qualified and recognize and respect the powerful role they play in shaping young children’s (and families) worlds for the better. I think this change can be credited to working in not-for-profit services only (with evidence based approaches to practice, and an understanding children learn from birth and therefore early childhood is a critical time to establish habits for life) and to the introduction of Australia’s Early Years Curriculum Frameworks and National Quality Standards.

These detailed guidelines have encouraged educators to be thoughtful and have given the sector some of the professional recognition it deserves, which altered identities of those working in the sector; from childcare workers to early childhood educators. With this new title came professional responsibility, accountability and the need to act according to what communities want for children – educators could no longer just do whatever they liked. In my experience these changes have worked to enable higher quality early childhood experiences for young children and their families – that are of great value for children’s learning and development.

The previous federal Government recognized what science says about early childhood and funded the sector to build its professional image and capacity. Not-for-profit groups such as Early Childhood Australia played an important role in empowering educators to build their professional competence – these NGOs should not lose any funding, as they have played a leading role in helping educators achieve better outcomes for children – particularly through resources such as newsletters and social media.

There has been a lot of buzz in the media about childcare being too expensive. Our EC service’s out of pocket cost per day is $50. A child could potentially attend 12 hours for just $50, which is minimal, compared to babysitting, which costs around $23 an hour; it seems like a small price to pay for children to gain so much. Our service has high educator/child ratios, well beyond what is required legally, and we easily survive on this daily income, which families tell us is minimal compared to other services. Difficulty assists when services need to make profit, and as experienced at these services, the children loose out as do educators who receive minimum wage. If the current Government is truly worried about ‘inequity’ - its reason for abandoning the Early Years Quality Fund - it should lead a move away from early childhood being for profit and low pay.

The service I work for is committed to and supports raising the qualifications of educators, high ratios and professional practice that is evidence based and constantly improving. The pay off here for families is enormous, firstly the program fits the child and family, as educators spend time establishing partnerships with families, higher qualifications mean learning experiences go deeper with children - evidence shows this can increase future IQ scores.

My workplace is highly supportive and recognizes the value of my own and colleagues teaching role. We are helped to further our skills and identity professionally and this means better outcomes for children. I think it’s important that Governments recognize and support all educators to become highly qualified. In some areas of the world with exceptional early childhood education, educators must have a degree to work with young children, just like Australian schools– this would be so valuable for children. I know from experience, higher qualified educators take children further in the learning experience, because they have the professional capacity, or knowledge of teaching practice that can only be learnt from wide reading, study and a commitment to becoming a better teacher through learning all there is know.

The last thing I would like to add has to do with conditions and status. I admit that becoming degree qualified and working for a service that ensures fairness, I am paid ok. But compared to teachers working in schools, my pay is uninspiring and certainly not a professional wage that can permit me the quality of life that other professionals have.

Finally the Government is evidently focused on ensuring childcare is affordable so women with children can participate in the work force. To maintain affordability the Government seems intent on keeping the cost of wages low – 85% of service running costs. My problem is, why should one group of people (childcare educators) have to suffer (with less pay) so another group of people can have it all! It seems unfair and biased to decide that the pay and conditions of what has been a traditionally female unskilled workforce should remain low so women in another demographic can participate in economic life and become prosperous. For me there is a glitch in reality, as the evidence indisputably says my profession is essential, yet society doesn’t recognize my value nor does it bestow my colleagues and myself the status and conditions we unmistakably disserve. The problem is ‘values’, will the Government do the right thing and choose to fairly fund the early childhood sector, or will it decide one group is more valuable and deserving of support than another. In my view educators should be fairly remunerated, as this will enable the sector to attach and maintain a highly quality workforce. One that is committed to a high level of professionalism, that will ensure all Australian children have a future they are rightly entitled and one that is good for the nation.

The cost of childcare has risen in NSW due to the change in ratio from 1:5 to 1:4. Educators in the Family Day Care sector have been financially disadvantaged in the reduction of ratio numbers. This 20% cut to their income has been reflected in higher child care fees. Even at the new fee amounts it is impossible to recover financially from the loss of income. The Government did not take this fully into account when making the ratio change. The Government has caused the fees to increase due to change in their policy in NSW. If the ratio change in NSW was reversed to the previous 1:5 ratio then FDC Educators could lower their fees again and make childcare more affordable for families in NSW.

My submission reflects on the fact that I've worked in the child care industry for many years. A large amount of this time includes working as a centre director and trainer & assessor. During this time I have seen a rapid decline in the positive aspects of working in this industry. I put it to you that is highly due to the consistent government interference. This includes: The government insisting that we employ registered teachers. This has in turn had a massive negative impact on the childcare industry as a whole. It is near impossible for centre's to employ teachers that are capable and possess the skills necessary to work in the childcare industry. Working in the childcare industry requires a great deal of empathy and understanding of the children in the ages groups of birth - six years. I have discovered through my experiences of hiring teachers and also by networking with other childcare centre's in the community, is that simply teachers do not possess these skills. Teachers do not treat childcare workers with mutual respect. During their initial interviews for employment in childcare, they state that they understand they are equal and not above childcare workers, however this is proven repeatedly throughout their employment that they are condescending and lack the basic skills of mutual respect and teamwork. This in turn effects the entire team of staff, and results in turmoil and constant grievance reports. Did the government stop to think, of how existing childcare educators (who were already doing an exceptional job of educating children) felt, when suddenly employers were forced to hire teachers? Brilliant childcare educators had to be moved from their classrooms to make way for Teachers. Teachers who can't even teach childcare. Offering teachers the Bridging Program to complete the Diploma is nothing short of disastrous. I have had a teacher here that failed the Certificate III of Children's Services. WHY WEREN'T CURRENT CHILDCARE EDUCATORS GIVEN A 12 MONTH BRIDGING PROGRAM TO COMPLETE THE BACHERLOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD???? That would have made much more sense and my childcare educators and also myself would have embraced the opportunity. I am positive childcare educators across the broader spectrum would also do the same. This would resolve the issue and constant problem of hiring, up skilling and retaining teachers. Teachers have no hesitation in threatening childcare directors they will leave if their demands aren't met so the centre will loose their Kindergarten funding. This is nothing short of blackmail!!! This would resolve the issue and constant problem of hiring, up skilling and retaining teachers. Why is the government being allowed to be BIAS and to DISCRIMINATE against existing childcare educators? Why haven’t we been provided with the same bridging programs as teachers? It leaves childcare educators with no option but to believe the government does not respect existing childcare workers and the skills and experience they provide to the childcare industry. It leaves you to contemplate as to whether the government is attempting to take over the rights and freedom of existing childcare educators and push us all out of the childcare industry, to make room for government choices, such as teachers. Why has the government interfered with current childcare Tafe qualifications? Certificate 111 of Children's Services and the Diploma of Children's Services course contents have been downsized to the extent that when a newly qualified childcare worker enters the workforce, they most certainly do not possess even the basic knowledge of working in the childcare industry requirements. While I respect that life experience plays a large role in the childcare industry, surely ensuring that Tafe course contents are adequate is important to the health and safety of children?? The standard of childcare workers has dropped immensely in the past several years. I believe this is due to government interference. Existing childcare workers, that are highly qualified are leave the industry in droves. This is highly due to the government constantly interfering and changing the industry to suit themselves. EXISTING CHILDCARE WORKERS SOULD BE GIVEN CONSULTATION AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE IN PREFERENCE OF FOR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSED CHANGES, BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT MAKES A DECISION. ISN’T AUSTRALIA SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY?? The government does not bother to speak with existing qualified childcare workers to see what currently works and what doesn’t, before implementing changes that significantly and negatively impact on the industry. Yet again, in time, we, the childcare workers will be left to clean up the governments mess and the mistakes the government has made. In the meantime children, their families and the workers of the childcare industry will continue to be treated with disregard and discriminated against by the government. In the meantime, as a highly qualified, experienced childcare director and trainer and assessor, I am left to contemplate as to whether it is worthwhile that I will continue to work in the childcare industry, or whether it is now time to leave this type of employment and peruse other employment options. I assure you that the only reason I work in the childcare industry is because I believe in the value of making a positive difference to the lives and learning of the children in my care. However, each day as the government continues to interfere and be bias and discriminates against my industry, it makes me contemplate my future as a childcare worker.

We need more support for families to care for their preschool children at home or within ‘normal’ working hours - children need to have a home, not be raised in an early childhood service - if more flexibility means children sleeping at a service overnight, then you are sacrificing the child's wellbeing and development for family convenience. Govts need to support family friendly workplaces. Please don't burden services with more administration, documentation, ‘quality’ planning to justify our existence - staff are leaving, burnt out, by the extra demands of the new system.

I believe that to improve the quality of care and the benefits of outcomes to children and families... * that ratios and qualifications be introduced in NSW for the OOSH sector * that more funding including 100% CCB (not the current 85%) be given to families for OSHC care to help with the cost of care and for centres providing quality care * that parents be encouraged to make choices about the best OSHC care for their children and family (not just default to the nearest OSHC centre) like parents do for the early childhood care * more OSHC services both on school sites and off school sites to give parents options * funding to assist with transport to OSHC eg bus passes being able to be used for children to get to and from care and school * transition to schools programs and transition to OSHC programs be implemented so consistency of care across all services to provide continuity of care to the children and families * the implementation of the NQF has improved the quality of care particularly in OSHC in NSW and sees centres implementing innovative ideas to provide the best service * the NQF has ensured that ALL education and Care services are seen as equally important in the care, education and development of children and in supporting families in the care of their children * that support to services for the inclusion of children with additional needs be increased as this benefits both the child and families with the disability but also other families and children in being more understanding and accepting of people with differences * ease of red tape to change elements of service (eg operating hours to reflect individual needs of the community, application to increase numbers etc

There is an immense amount of research supporting the Early Years being fundamental in an individual's development. Considering this the role of Early Childhood Educators is critical to model and educate the future of our young Australians. Making changes to the reforms outlined in the National Quality Framework in relation to ratios and qualifications will only lead to a decrease in the level of quality which Australia has been striving to achieve. The reality of this will only see further issues arise while also seeing yet another Government's failure as more money is literally poured down the drain, having been wasted on failed promises. I fear that the message being communicated with families in relation to opening childcare facilities for longer hours or even over nights stays will result in the abuse of these services as well as having a further ill effect on the level of professionalism within the field. Developing our professional image is something we have been working towards achieving. Also in regards to opening service for longer hours will see a decrease in quality of care and education provided, seeing these services become a 'baby sitting service' rather than a quality educational setting. The field of Early Childhood Care and Education is important. Investing in, respecting and further developing Early Childhood Education in Australia is critical for all Australian to move forward, creating a better nation and in turn contributing to a better world.

As the owner of a nanny agency and as a professional nanny who has worked in all areas of child care for over sixteen years, I see the need for families to have a choice of child care that best suits the families needs not every child is suited to a child care centre environment. And unfortunately the standards of child care centers in Australia are not the greatest with most child care centers like a production line not a place to nurture and education the leaders of the future, the staff do the very best they can but with very low pay rates and education it is not environment that promotes high standers (would you Tony Abbott work for less then $25 a hour as a experienced, qualified child care worker???) For families who would like the option to have a nanny because they feel it would best suit their needs because of work commitments or who would simply like to have their children in a home environment with an experienced nanny because to them they feel the most comfortable with having the option of a nanny but then find out that there is a very small rebate to have a nanny compered to having their children in a child care centre and are forced to put their children into a child care centre because they are not able to afford to have a nanny. Lets look after our working families in Australia and give them a choice. It is hard enough to be a working parent with out the added pressures of having your children in an environment you know as a parent your child is not happy in. Tony Abbott be the first prime minister of Australia to value our young children, families and the educators of early childhood

Families in our community lead vastly different lives and have many different experiences. For example, there are families whose members work part time or perform shift work, who study, who need respite and support because of medical or mental-health based issues, who require care only during school hours, or who need care because they are new to the community. As a service that has offered both occasional and long day care, we have seen the way in which different services are able to meet needs of the community. We believe that there is a great need for flexible approaches to early childhood service operations that consistently offer parents quality care and education, but are also designed with reference to the best interests of the children, families and the community – in both the short term and the long term. We are concerned by advocates of the Swedish system who suggest Australian child care should also be available 24 hours, 7 days a week without acknowledging the profound social impact that this type of care has had on families and children due to the length of time that children are spending apart from their families in the early years. We are concerned about the effectiveness of a quality assurance system that depends heavily upon the quality of written submissions and an assessment during an announced, planned visit and which is open to the possibility that centres are able to mobilise resources to achieve an outcome that is not truly reflective of their day to day operations. We are also concerned about the stress that the system places on staff and centres to achieve a favourable rating under this system and question whether the benefits of awarding particular ratings are of value to families and outweigh their cost to the industry in terms of staff retention and turnover. In our opinion, rather than focus on detailed aspects of quality to rate centres in isolated visits – potentially years apart - a more accurate assessment of quality would be provided through regular spot-checks that target adherence to the regulations.

Current EYLF program was mooted to reduce the paperwork which was required earlier but it appears to have increased that instead. Especially small Child Care Centres do not have the luxury of having a lot of staff who could be solely doing the paperwork. One has to choose between providing proper learning and care for children or doing paperwork to satisfy regulatory requirements and as a result children suffer. The requirement to have Early Child Hood Teachers is laughable in child care centres for pre-schoolers who are learning through fun and not according to a syllabus, which is done at the primary/public schools. Due to stringent qualification/ documentation requirements carers are leaving in droves from Family Day Care Schemes and even child care centres. One has to realise that not all children attend daycare but are raised at homes by their parents/grandparents. What about their care and education? Are you imposing these requirements on such parents as well? Also some children attend day care for 1-2 days a week unlike in primary schools which is the great leveller where all children can be taught similarly. By advancing such learning to day care we are creating a 2-tier system in primary schools at entry level, which is unfair/stressful to young children. This will lead to loss of self esteem as they will find some children who have learned more and will think they are inferior. We believe policy makes are divorced from reality and creating these requirements albeit with good intentions which are actually detrimental to children.

A big problem we face is the influx of workers from other countries who cannot speak or write English at all well. It doesn't seem to matter how bad the standard - they still manage to obtain Certificate 3 and Diplomas. Many many Childcare Centre owners exploit vulnerable educators by refusing them morning and afternoon tea breaks even though it is in the regulations that workers are entitled to them and in fact need them as working with children is demanding. Our wages are a joke but for the fact it long ago ceased to be funny. And why is it that schools employ proper cleaners but childcare centres get the cleaning done any old which way - in many cases educators have to sweep and mop around sleeping children during rest time.

I work in family day care & care for children of working parents & business owners. I have built my service up based on the fact that they can change their booked hours to accommodate their needs at any time. With the changing of the ratios this year I have been forced to turn away parents as I cannot accommodate them forcing 1 parent to have to wait till 2015 before getting care for her child & the grandmother having to quit work to look after the child in the meantime as she only wishes to use my service. ‘If’ the ratios remained the same I would have been able to help this parent plus 2 others with care. I also have lost over $12600 pa in wages as a result of the change but refused to put my fees up to compensate as being in a low socio economic area even the working parents are struggling to pay fees. The government needs to stop subsidising the non working parent & give more to the working ones. I have cared for children of non working parents & they fail to show up for care weeks at a time, they don't care they are not paying for it or if they were it might only be less than $2.00 a day & even then you were lucky if you got that. I now have a policy of caring for children of working families only as I believe they are the ones who need the care, though I do acknowledge there are some non working families who do require care for various reasons such as respite etc.