• RAISE THE PROFILE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS. INCREASE WAGES AND THEN COMES THE RESPECT AND RECOGNITION THEY DESERVE. THIS MAY MEAN QUALITY STAFF MAY STAY IN THE INDUSTRY AND THIS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN .Currently staff are finding they need to put in extra time to provide high quality programs. After a while this gets them down and they either start to burn out or leave to take a job with less responsibility and more pay. The children are the ones that suffer as a result of this.
Thank you for the time taken to read this.
As long as childcare remain primarily a private sector, where the bottom line is profit driven, we will keep having the same issues over and over again. The government needs to take the ‘bull by the horn’ and run Childcare as a whole like state schools. It is a long and winding road, but in the long run, it will be worth it for all concerned. I have been in Childcare for over 25 years and nothing has changed, and it will not until the government takes full control.
I would like to express that I find the system is a one size fits all system that discriminates against small communities coming up with alternate models which suit their needs. Currently we are trying to put in a day care model that suits our small community in Forrest and feel that we are getting nowhere. I feel as it goes up the line we get blocked all the time. We can't access CCB due to lack of weeks care is offered which then directly impacts on our parents. There is no other close care availabe with parents traveling at the least 25mins to get care. We have the site, we have the workers, we have the need (although not huge, actually is in comparison to population of community), yet we are blocked in every direction and are continually getting misinformation.
Government calls for exact models we can offer at Forrest - we have Pre-school, school, Out of Hours care, playgroup and until mid last year In venue Family Day Care (Shire pulled the pin as said it was too costly!), all under the one roof, yet we cannot access CCB and Regulations increase costs due to staffing needs. It should not be a one size fits all model - we have looked at many ways of thinking outside the square yet to be told no cannot do that; no can't do that; no can't do that! What can we do? Where is the help? Where is the flexibility and ability to offer alternative models to suit small communities? Yet again as I have said the system is discriminatory and needs to ensure it is based on best interest of the children and community needs.
I am very passionate about the new framework, but feel the Government is not operating in the best interest of the children when it is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare to get anywhere. I feel that Government needs to be flexible for small rural communities especially when parents work within the town.
I am at boiling point and feel something needs to be done sooner rather than later. One size fits all is discrimination!!
I am an owner of a child care centre.
Over the past 2 years we have made changes to our centre's educational practices that are more in line with a Kindergarten curriculum which has improved the way the 3-5 year olds room is run. We have also introduced themes into our programme; which includes; seasons; our bodies; I am what I eat; other places in the world; transport; houses; language; science; families; community; other cultures and we really celebrate Australia Day in a big way.
We also have a huge focus on developing good social skills with the children. Our community is very diverse and there are many cultures in our centre and we try to celebrate their special days as well, e.g., Chinese New Year.
There is a lot of paper work in child care and a lot of regulations to follow; this has been quite a challenge to get everything in the right place.
We were a volunteer centre for the Early Years Learning Framework and we were very pleased with our overall results.
We are always trying to improve our centre and the way we are doing things; especially with the updating and making improvements to our QUIP (which takes up a lot of time); our programmes which we continually improve to reflect the level of competency of the Educators and the development level of the children.
It is a working progress and our Educators have done a great job to achieve a High Quality practice in our Centre.
I am an owner operator of a long day care service. I am also a parent of primary school age children who have attended creches, Family Day Care and Long Day Care before they went to school. I am also a holder of an approved qualification to be the Early Childhood Teacher. I support wholeheartedly this inquiry as I believe there has been a gross and negligent commitment of financial, political and workforce resources to the reform in Early Childhood Care and Education.
The debacle that has unfolded was both foreseeable and predictable. The outcome of spiraling increase in fees was also foreseeable and inevitable as this sector has contended with increasing regulation from other bodies with jurisdiction over aspects of our operations. I shall expand on this toward the end of my submission,
During my 20 odd years in the sector of child care and education, and again as a parent involved in school matters, I have been led to believe one of, if not the most significant indicator/predictor/influence on a child's development and academic achievement is purely and simply the education and occupation of their parents.
Demographically then, there are geographical areas where socio-economic data can determine where additional resources are most likely to generate significantly improved outcomes for a larger portion of the children in that area.
Similarly, there are localities where historically and currently the achievement of children during and after their school life are statistically better than the aforementioned. Any measurement or prediction of improved educational outcomes for children in these areas must pale into insignificance compared to the improvements achievable in areas of high need.
Under the current debacle (Labor's Early Childhood reform) these advantaged and higher achieving areas are working with the same regulations for Early Childhood and Education, the same curriculum, ie Early Years Framework as any other geographic or socio economic area
The resulting additional allocation of resources in terms of quality of care and education embedded in the reforms is universal, despite any comparison of benefits to be derived. The changes to staff ratios and qualifications, and the requirement to implement the Early Years Learning Framework (or other approved curriculum - do any others exist??) are the same regardless of assessed need, and the potential for real and significantly improved outcomes for children.
Surely the allocation of resources and any future models to be considered will be commensurate to the potential for gain or benefit. If not, in the larger context, this means some communities will benefit only marginally, since they are predisposed to better outcomes, and other communities could be deprived of the outcomes possible if they operated under a different model with allocation of resources more aligned to their needs.
Undeniably, this approach is open to criticism and the standard political rhetoric we have ingested during Labor's mismanagement of reform.... ‘All children deserve a good start in life.’ My point exactly! We can make a significantly better start for many many children, if sound decision making results in resource allocation where it is needed most. You may call it robbing Peter to pay Paul - but Peter is already streets ahead of Paul.
The best outcomes will be achieved from the multiplier effect, when communities as a whole are achieving higher outcomes in health, education, civic awareness and care for the environment. The resources need to be allocated to communities. Irrespective of an Early Childhood Education and Care Providers rating, ie. Working Towards, or Exceeding National Standard, the actual cost - benefit analysis to the community will not correlate.
Going back to my point about excessive regulation of the sector, I make reference here to the National Food Safety Regulations. Talk about being over regulated? The Environmental health officers from the local government will more than likely tell you, if you were interested enough to ask, that whilst the population of children in childcare are considered to be vulnerable, the actual incidence of food contamination and poisoning is insignificant, compared to that of children being served in school canteens, kiosks and fast food / take away outlets. There was insufficient evidence warranting additional regulation of child care centres, yet the impact on productivity and the drain on managerial resources is enormous. Again, another example of misallocation of resources. Surely the time spent administering, complying and enforcing these regulations must be tested against the measurable difference it has made to the actual incidence of health issues, as opposed to simply mitigating the risk of unsafe food handling occurring.
If the National Regulations are appropriate and adequate, where is the rationale for legislation and potential for penalties from other bodies.
When considering accessibility for families with regard to childcare the commission needs to consider the majority of workforce in childcare.If we are talking about extending hours and also having centres providing care on weekends how will that impact young families of women who work in childcare? The majority of workforce are women, seriously I do not think this has been thought through. All hours childcare will disadvantage women who work in childcare. Also whilst is difficult for centres to put in place I still want 100% ratio coverage it benefits children.
I am recognised as a qualified Early Childhood Teacher via ACEQA BUT I am not recognised by Qld Govt in regards to the Kindy program......WHY?
I believe the EYLF has been misinterpreted by many services and the push for too much scholastic focus on young children is being pushed down by the Primary/Prep sector and is not endorsed by our Framework. The EYLF strongly advocates for play and social -emotional development in the 0-5 years. This is an absolutely critical phase of human development. Families are already well subsidized and subsidized hourly fees vs average hourly wages for working parents are generous. For example if your average hourly rate for childcare is $8.50 an hour - reduced to $4.25 per hour after CCR, and not even including CCB, this is a reasonable portion of the average adult hourly rate of pay, especially considering the value of the service being provided. I feel the Gov't might consider directly contributing to services wage costs so that professional educators receive better renumeration for the work they provide. ECEC wages are very low compared to the quals you must have. The bigger problem for quality is not related to the EYLF but in getting staff to remain current and informed through ongoing PD. Many experienced workers have implemented the new framework through old ‘lenses’ because they have not remained current in their training. The Gov't should not go backwards on the EYLF, nor should it minimize the efforts and significance of the sector by subsidizing out of scope services like Nannies and Au Pairs. This is like paying people to home school to reduce education costs. If parents choose to stay at home and raise their children, then they need to plan and prepare and make sacrifices to do so - childcare is heavily subsidized for two reasons - it encourages return to work which contributes to the economy, and it creates a stronger and more positive foundation for continued success (and therefore less drain on future economies) - if done well! Cheaper and more convenient should not be the preferred requirements for the care and education of our youngest citizens! The rating system of the NQF needs to be reviewed, being rated overall at the lowest level of achievement across 70+ elements is not equitable and neglects to embrace that different contexts and services will have different strengths and challenges. OOSHC services are completely different and need different levels of support and monitoring - that area of the industry is really suffering. I believe encouraging the growth of the privately owned sector will boost competition; there is a greater market share of NFP and gov't run services that might not have the same performance pressures as privately owned and run services. The $300m fund that was removed was not well thought out and I'm glad that it was axed. The industry needs help to look outside the box, refine business practices and move forward with the EYLF. Throwing more money at parents and reducing expectations for quals and quality will not be good solutions long term.
there should be research done into the value of the 1:4 ratio before implementation. educators need more help recovering debt by allowing centrelink to recover money from parents who do not pay fees. To make childcare affordable for families and worthwhile for educators to stay, the subsidy needs to be more for working families. Educators should have the option to have a percentage of their pay with held for sick days and holidays
I believe whilst trying to combine all our early childhood together under one lot of regulations we have managed to divide a team of work force.
In family day care as at 1 jan 2014 all states will go to 1:4 under school age yet in a centre they are 1:4 in babies room and 1:8 in preschool room 2:12 or 1:6.
These family day care educators have to have same qualifications do all the same paperwork and requirements and yet are not allowed same ratios and are discriminated against,
why not if your worried have stipulations in ratios no more than 2 under 2 and 3 or 4 preschoolers or 6 preschoolers only ?
This is causing conflict educators who do Family day care are allowed to choose how many children up to ratio of they only want 4 have four but those who can handle the same as a LDC centre should be given the same rights as an educator in same environment. The family day care educator does all the roles of each individual in a ldc and yet you tell her or him she isnt as good by limiting her ? This effects families in rural communities where sometimes this is the only form of care. Child have to be able to have an environment where they can learn from those around them teachers environment and other children .
Childcare prices are becoming extremely high and the Government rebates to families only seems to drive up prices so that the owners can gain more profit. There is a need to increase the rebate for working families and reduce the amount that non-working families can access childcare. Why should a family that are not working take up places that should enable mothers to return to work which makes it harder for those working mothers to find places in childcare. Especially in the 0-2 age range. Often depending on your income it is not financially viable to return to work if you have to pay 5 days a week childcare. Lets make it easier for mothers to return to work.
I have been working in childcare now for over 9 years, I am diploma trained and have a university degree in Interior Architecture. I honestly believe that working with young children is an incredibly hard yet equally rewarding job. People who choose to work in this field do it for the love of working with children and shaping the next generations, as they are grossly underpaid! I think what the government in the past and present have done to child care workers in terms of pay and award rates is disgusting! The first few years of a child’s life is when they learn morals and how to interact appropriately in our society, the quality of people teaching these children will have a direct impact on how the children will learn and develop all these important skills. If you do not pay people enough money for the very hard work they do, they do not feel valued and ultimately the very good teachers and child care workers end up leaving the field as the pay and work conditions are horrendous. I will never again work in a child care centre as they pay is terrible, the hours are long and the expected unpaid overtime for all the paper work required is ridiculous. I now do family day care and next year when I have to cut my ratio from 1:5 down to 1:4 that is a fifth of my income gone. I will continue to work as a family day care provider as I love children, but the loss of income will come with some financial strains for my family.
Parents of children attending Long day care and childcare centres who employ qualified staff should be paid at higher rate of rebate than those parents who leave their children at family day care centres and with grand parents.
I think children are left at other places don't learn as much as they do at childcare centres.
fee-free Cert III school-based VET courses launch an 'army' of low cost, well qualified carers into childcare.
Including CHC30812 into this structure would give this 'army' purpose and direction in elevating numeracy & literacy across Australia.
As the owner of a private Long Day Care Centre in an area of low socio-economic status, we find it a challenge to run a financially viable, let alone profitable business. We have increased our fees gradually, but still have, probably amongst the lowest, if not the lowest fees in the state.
I understand & agree that child care can be expensive for some parents, yet they expect & are entitled to an excellent standard of care/education for their child/ren.
How can the industry attract educated, dynamic & career oriented educators given the wages that they are currently paid? It is worse than Aged Care! The industry attracts mainly young girls with little &/or poor secondary school education, who come from dysfunctional homes, because ‘they love kids’. And you expect these girls to care for/educate babies/young children in their formative years! A recent study that the Labour Government released showed that 90% of children's brain development occurs in the first 3 years of life & yet funding is directed to four year old kinder. It's too late by this stage!
I think the NQF & the EYLF have been a step in the right direction, although transition from a developmental approach has been a challenge for our more experienced staff.
Whilst I understand the need for ratios, the higher ratios (1:4) in the under 3 rooms, is a financial challenge. It costs more to place staff in the room than there are children to charge/pay fees.
Another issue as a business owner is that of unpaid fees. Don't give parents the option of choosing where the CCR is paid. Pay it directly to the Child Care Centre so that we do not have parents running up fees with promises to pay & then leaving the centre with no notice to do it again at another child care centre. Chasing unpaid fees is not a pleasant aspect of running a business & even then we have limited success. Debt collectors only have limited success.
Why do people on welfare get higher CCB than people who work? If parents choose to stay home & care for their children, why do they need higher levels of subsidies than those that work?
As a tax payer, I personally don't have an issue with paying a higher rate of tax provided that the money is directed to areas of need - education (across all ages), the public health sector, essential services & efficient public transport.
I'm sure I'm not the only tax payer/voter who is sick of ineffective governance that waste's money.
Forcing outside school hours care to comply to the same regulations and requirements as long day care has made no sense and has made it almost impossible to retain appropriate staff at our services.
Once staff acquire the appropriate qualifications they immediately apply for full time positions in long day care as outside school hours care can never be anything more than part time.
Children who attend programs will have spent all day in a structured learning environment with 4 year trained teachers, expecting people who are Diploma qualified or working towards Diplomas, to be able to teach a mixed age group is absurd. Outside school hours needs to be run by caring individuals with common sense and first aid training to fulfill the role of a missing parent who would be in charge of them if they were at home.
The paperwork and red tape required at the moment only prevents the children from having quality time with the adults in charge of them in place of their parents.
There are plenty of people who are available to work the hours required but age and family commitments often prevent these ideal candidates from rejoining the workforce due to the high qualifications required to do a job that should require nothing more than a certificate 3 in a child care related field.
The topics posed in the inquiry don't address the affordability of mainstream parents, just the fringe ones.
The biggest issues are the heavy handed regulations introduced (bad law making) to wish by govt it may produce a mythical high quality standard, all based on a UNCROC which Australia is not a signatory to.
The simple answer to affordable childcare is REVERT BACK TO THE PREVIOUS REGULATIONS and STOP PROPPING UP GOODSTART CHILDCARE, to the detriment of all small privately run ones, which dont receive extra funding.
In addition, get rid of the NSW govts immunisation policy in childcare where centres from 1/1/14 are required to manage it (at high costs).
If you bring in nanny’s, grandparents etc for childcare are they going to have less rules and regulations as the government has put on the childcare industry. Scheme policies increasing as they want High Quality, police checks, working children first aid, NQF EYLF and the list goes on.There was 80-90 educators now only 28, at least 4 have gone private.I think educators should receive Higher payments considering the plumber cost $65 an hour, and we are looking after parents precious little lives their children.
