Comments from people who work in education and care services

We need consistent national requirements for Educators with cross border services and educators. We are required to complete two different processes with WWCC, Criminal record checks.

Services need consistent messages and guidelines between states from DEEWR departments. There have been varying interpretations between states in the past.

Inclusion Support Funding is difficult to obtain and ongoing requirements demand intense reporting and administration from staff. If a child is diagnosed with a severe and lifelong condition why does this require updated medical, educational observations and extensive care plans in order to receive ongoing funding.

It would be helpful to have start-up grants for new educators to get started, especially in rural and remote areas where services and training are difficult to access.

In Home Care could be included into the current National Quality Framework and National Regulation, this is another means of monitoring the quality being provided and better support and monitor services not meeting standards.

More funding should be available for professional learning and support for the implementation of the National Quality Framework. I.e. Bachelor in Early Childhood Education, Certificate 111 etc. This could also assist in maintaining ongoing requirements First Aid, CPR, Asthma, and Anaphylaxis training etc. This is often a consideration for Educators joining our service or deciding not to continue.

All early childhood services should be funded similarly. Care and Education services should be as one. There has always been division between Home Based Care, Pre-school and Long Day Care.

It is essential that early childhood services be available for parents and for the wider community. Early childhood is a vulnerable period for many families, some struggle financially, worry about work/life balance and struggle with the emotional isolation of raising a young child - as well as being the most vital foundation years for later life of the child. Early years services need to fulfil these needs of the community by providing comprehensive and high quality services that support parents in their role, as well as nurture the young child in their learning and development. The only way this is to happen a by providing low cost, high quality child care that is delivered by trained professionals that are paid well and treated with professional respect. Services need to operate with small stag to child ratios and ample space (especially outside). Family day care needs to be recognised as an important form of care for young children (especially infants) and offered more incentive and higher professional requirements. Services need to be a part of the community, working with other professionals and integrating the community into their philosophy.

Make early learning tax deductible for working families with an income over $150,000 joint income. Leave CCB to support the lower income families and JET. Means test the CCR to limit the access to middle income families and spread the cost more broadly. Maintain the NQF and qualification requirements. Lift the entry barrier for teachers in early learning to the same level as teachers to increase the skills base.

I would like to put forward a concern that we have at our Pre-School. We hold a Limited Hours, Type 2 Licence and currently care for children on a sessional/part time basis however they are unable to access the childcare benefit. We are unable to offer our families the CCB/R due to our licence type and we are unable to apply for a different licence type as our outdoor area does not meet the requirements. We offer sessional educational programs for children aged 2-5 years of age. Most of our families are comprised of 2 working parents. Many of the mothers are trying to keep their foot in the door by working part time and have chosen to put their child/ren in our sessional care programs as it gives their child/ren the best of both worlds – a stimulating formal learning environment (part time) and time at home with mum/dad. This is financially difficult as they do not receive any assistance in the form of the CCB/R. Their decision to put their child in shorter hours of care versus long day care leaves them disadvantaged. I would like to put forward that ANY type of care be rebatable for working/studying parents, and parents can use this money towards ANY care that enables them to work/study. Grandparents, nannies, Kinders, creche, long day care, occasional care – all of these types of care need to be equal so that families make choices that suit their needs. I suspect that by including other types of care and making them claimable, this would ease up the demand currently experienced in childcare centres and open up availability.

I have worked in and now work with early childhood education and care services. All available research shows that high quality care is necessary for good life long outcomes for children. This is now a fact. It does no good to give working parents 'affordable/flexible' access to care (that they trust is good) if that care is not able to support their children's emotional and attachment needs and their cognitive needs. It would seem to me that many of the youth problems that abound today are in part the result of parents' (and other authorities) not understanding the social and emotional needs of babies, toddlers and preschoolers, and sending children to poor quality care. Research is showing that for every dollar spent in the early years we can save up to $16 in the future. If parents understood that poor quality care can undermine their children for life they may think twice before they grabbed the 'affordable / flexible' banner. Quality care needs well trained and capable adults with lower adult child ratios. The NQS standards are the absolute minimum. Quality ECEC services generally have better ratios than this minimum standard. This does not come cheaply. The government would do better in educating families as to why we / they need to spend more money in the ECEC sector - that their children will benefit for life - than talking about affordability. And then improve subsidies for those who genuinely cannot pay. Also see ARACY's The Nest Action Agenda http://www.aracy.org.au/projects/the-nest#agenda. I challenge decision makers to spend a week in the babies room with 1 adult to 4 or 5 babies - or a preschool room with 1 adult to 30 children in some states - to see the impossibility of such 'affordability' decisions. Stop trying to unravel everything the previous government and the ECEC sector has achieved over the past 5 years. Back the NQS and the EYLF as valid and effective stepping stones to a better future for Australia's young children and so for Australia as a whole.

I believe the Ratio's of Educators to Children need to change NOW. Children are OUR main concern and Interactions foremost in our practice, better Ratio's will allow for quality and meaningful interactions that scaffold the children's interests. An example is 20 2-3yr olds in 1 room with 2 Educators. This age group is Toilet training and has nappy changes needed. ! Educator leaves the room to change and leaves 1 Educator to supervise. meaningfully interact and scaffold interests with 19 children. This becomes very stressful on all concerned. Educators are expected to compete an unrealistic amount of paperwork each day and are not provided with the opportunity or time off the floor to complete it, therefore each Educator needs time allocation to achieve their required paperwork and provide the goals needed. Ratio changes will support educators with better work place conditions, thus allowing Educators to enjoy their workplace more and CHILDREN to have the interactions they deserve.

We have 11 Child Care services in ACT & regional NSW. I am concerned about support for the inclusion of disadvantaged children, we provide care and education for many children from disadvantaged backgrounds including those who have been abused, are homeless and have behaviour problems. Inclusion support is costly and we cover these costs ourselves as Inclusion Support Subsidy (when funds are available) does not cover the costs, this cost is passed on to other families using the services or through fundraising. Our service is in Goulburn and is struggling to remain viable. There is an over supply of child care in Goulburn but other centres tend to pick and choose which families they enrol. Please look at Inclusion Support Subsidies. Staffing in all our services is difficult to acheive the qualification ratio required now for example our Capital Hill centre has a waiver (at a cost) because we can not find a Degree qualified person who wants to work with babies. All increased staffing costs for higher qualifications is passed on to families, the higher the qualification the higher the wage, we pay above award to remain competitive in the ACT market where there is a severe shortage of good, qualified educators. Please look at the qualification requirements.

I am the co-ordinator of an early childhood education and care service that does not currently qualify for approval for CCB purpose while still being in scope of the National Quality Framework. We are a sessional prekindy service catering for 54 children each week. Our children attend one or two half day sessions each week. Many of our families choose a prekindy service in combination with extended family care for their children while they work. This enables them to combine a flexible care arrangement with a consistent high quality early learning environment for their children. However, because we are not eligible for approval for CCB purposes their are many families who would choose our service but simply cannot afford to. We have enquiries from many families with children with special needs looking for a consistent environment for their child - same educators and same children each time they come - but because we are not approved for CCB we cannot access the support services CCB approved services can. Catering for the needs of these children is often not possible. Many of the children who attend our service are referred on to other health professionals such as speech pathologists, occupational therapists, etc when educators identify developmental concerns. Because so many families in the community are unable to afford the unsubsidised prekindy fee there are many more children whose developmental needs will not be identified until they start school. Prekindy services have been placed in scope of the National Quality Framework because they play a significant role in the care and education of young children but they are currently disadvantage in their ability to meet the needs of many vulnerable children because they do not meet the opening hours requirements of CCB approval.

Working in a low socio-economic area we've found an increasing need over the last 5 years for Outside School Hours Care. I believe this is because our area has a high number of sole parents and low income earners working, looking for work and studying. However, after setting up an after school program and running the service at a loss (for social reasons) we handed the service over to a for-profit organisation as the administration side was increasingly unmanageable. Unfortunately the for-profit organisation raised fees outside the reach of our parent community, the numbers decreased (even though there was a high need) and the for-profit closed the service. Our school community still has a high need for OSHC, particularly for at risk students however economic decisions from the School and parents/carers have caused the service to be financially unsustainable.

I have worked in the Childcare Sector for 12 Years and even though i am very Commited to my Job i believe Educators in the Sector need Higher Wages to Equal the work we do teaching the Children of Australia and Supporting Australian Families and the Australian Workforce. If we a more Male Dominant Workforce we would have Higher Wages.

I am an early childhood teacher who has worked in the education and care sector for over 35 years. The introduction of the National Quality Standard is an achievement I never thought I would see during my working life. It has provided a direction and structure for all those in my sector which is necessary and very supportive. The documentation process provides so many opportunities for collaboration with colleagues and professional learning, and the parents seem to really appreciated the added detail and chances for discussion that the Framework's processes allow. There are tangible changes in the children - they are more engaged in activities, as the program is centred around their needs and interests, the children are more confident in their learning and language, as we now focus much more on their strengths and skill development - these changes are so rewarding to observe and be part of. I hope the Productivity Commission Inquiry acknowledges that the NQS and NQF are fundamental to having a quality education and care sector. It has given those of us working in the sector an increased focus on learning both for the children and also ourselves, and so it benefits us all.

For the National Law & Regulations to work effectively all states need to have one standard that is the same regardless of the state one might reside within. Eg NSW currently has different ECT ratio requirements than other states. Other states have ECT's on the premises for 6 hours or 60% of the day. However, NSW requires a ECT to be on the early childhood premises throughout the day and requires up to 2, 3 & 4 ECT on the licensed premises. NSW requires Temporary Waivers to be sought at a cost for training ECTs, whilst other states automatically accept a training ECT without a service undergoing extensive red tape and costly advertising. If NSW was expected to comply with the rest of the nation, childcare fees could be significantly reduced (ie less teachers= less wages=lower fee structures). The Assessment and Rating system is flawed. A service can be rated overall as Working Towards the national standard and yet have been assessed as Meeting the national standard for 52 of the 58 elements examined. There is a genuine problem with a system which seems to punish services for the small number of things they are yet to achieve and not acknowledge it for it's many achievements (ie 90% successes). One element rated as working towards should not render a whole quality area as working towards.

What I see as problems. The length of time it takes to get an application approved. I have heard of cases taking 6 months, and know of a current case (which should be straight forward as the child has Downs Syndrome) which is still in the system at 4 months. ISS is approved for the carer and not the child. This means that if a child goes to another Educator while the primary Educator is on holidays an entire new application has to be filled out. Even though the condition has not changed. KU, Inclusive Directions, Family Day Care and Federal Government Departments all seem to have different information. During a current case we were told by: Inclusive Directions - ISS will not be approved by non-working parents using ISS KU - ISS is not going to be approved for both Long Day Care and Family Day Care for non working parents Federal Government - Early Childhood Initiatives Susan Leys Office -that it has nothing to do with whether a parent is working or not, it's to do with respite. Family Day Care - there is no point in putting in applications as there is no funding. It is hard enough to find Educators qualified and willing to look after children with Additional needs when the 4 Agencies cannot even get their guidelines straight. Inconsistencies. Some Educators get ISS approved, and an identical case will not be approved.

I worked in a childcare centre for 18 months as a qualified kindergarten teacher. In that relatively short space of time I saw some very negative things - children not getting enough to eat (one serve on most days at lunchtime) lack of resources (I had to buy all my own books, games, puzzles, activities.) I wasn't paid adequately as a kinder teacher, in line with what other qualifieds get in independent kinders, nor did I get the planning time or holidays. When I questioned the director and area manager about all of the above I was put off like I was just making complaints and told there was no extra money for resources and food. i was not the only one with a problem with the company.

I have few points to say about childcare and early childhood learning sector. Firstly, the condition for the educator need to be improved. In Japan, there are 600,000 people have full qualifications and not working in the sector mostly because of their payment is less than workers in the convenience stores even the responsibility and demands are very high. In the country, 2014, 74,000 carers and educators are lacking and children are on the waiting lists. ( 22,741 children in 2013 ) Another point is economic growth is dependent on if female work force could return to their work and pay tax after having children. And have more populations (giving birth) to have more taxpayers to support the growing population of retired elderly. Therefore, spending more tax to pay the educator and pay parents to support their fees and costs will not be wasted. But it is only a good investment. There is one good example of Yokohama City below. (English) http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/yokohama-says-it-has-no-children-on-daycare-center-waiting-list reference(Japanese): http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/2013/10/20/nursery-staff_n_4133460.html#slide=2506263

I have been working in childcare for 15 years I love my job!! I am a team leader at naracoorte childcare in SA. I have two children myself I balance work and being a mum. I have lost hours due to the teacher gaining hours 6 hrs a day . We provide quality care and should be paid as educators we work long hours with no perks or bonus ect fees are going up childcare places are going to be harder to find with the one school intake . This is only touching in a few issues but trying to be brief . It is all about our future and children are our future so support working parents raise them diet issues, speach, social and independence skills, motor and behaviour are all massive and parents do not have the time to teach these . We put our heart and sole into trying to offer diverse opporunities yes we have staff but no appreciation recognition and not a lot of time .......

The childcare benefit and rebate provided to families can be streamlined more efficiently and actual families and children benefit. With the current system families get 50 hours if they tell they are working and even part time and for sometime only and get rebate as well. People get a letter from child protection and get special childcare benefit and many misuse the system. There are well to do professionals and people in the name of doing business show less income and get maximum benefit. Unless strict criteria are enforced the system will be misused and lot of funds are drained in the wrong place for the wrong reason. Over haul the system and make it efficient. Australia can't survive if you don't close the loophole and make all people receive the benefit accountable. This is written in confidence and can be shared for the relevant purpose. Thankyou

Family Day Care is a flexible and underrated form of Chidlcare. Ratios in some states have dropped from 1:5 to 1:4. Surely if some states have run higher ratios while still providing quality care then 1:5 ratio could be across the whole country. It would immediately create more childcare places and FDC Businesses could drop fees or stop increasing fees to cover our costs. Gas and Elec are skyrocketing and that has to be shared amongst 4 children in care. The EYLF needs to be streamlined so the documentation requirements are clear and do-able. Parents need to be able to access respite overnights whereever they are.. Some schemes say yes, some schemes say no to the same parents. We need a level playing field

I, along with my staff, believe the following issues NEED to be addressed in the ECEC sector • Despite the agreement that quality ECEC is important, centres should not necessarily require an ECT to be high quality. If the government really wants us to have ECT’s to increase quality then they need to ensure we can hire quality ECT’s. They need to up the wages, not only for teachers but also for other staff that have the responsibility for the education and care of young children, in order to attract not just the dregs of the educator pool but high quality qualified staff.. • Not for profit centres DO need government assistance to increase wages for staff in order to keep fees down for families. Not for profit centres need to be funded by governments to some degree, as are schools, to assist with costs again, so families do not need to pay more • The NQS I believe is a great thing, along with the EYLF, but there is no way of families knowing the results of assessment properly. We obtained a ‘Meeting’ result but had many exceeding elements. The rating does not reflect this. I imagine anyone who received ‘Working Towards’ would be devastated if only one element wasn’t met as this sounds that the centre is not that good when in fact it could be extremely good and also have elements that reflect exceeding but have a rating that doesn’t reflect this. • Expansion of not for profit centres should be assisted by government so we can meet the needs of families for available education and care. We currently have an enormous wait list for babies. This is mainly due to for profit centres taking mainly over 3’s to increase their profit margin. Why should it cost us even more to provide this service that for profit centres? Why should for profit centres be allowed to only take over 2-3’s so they can make more money? Shouldn’t long day care be for all children under 5?