This ratio should be changed immediately or at least give toddler room 1 more educator if 16 toddlers or over until 2016 this way its a start to make something happen sooner but its a true fact that toddler educators leave their profession because no - one is listening and toddler educators do care about our children’s well-being because we know how bad it is .
Most of the work submitted carry weight, however when it come to FDC, that area is very wrong. Most educators working in FDC now are very well qualified, I choose to work in this area, because of lack of quality staff in long day settings. I live in a rural area where child care is hard at the best of times to get for families. We need better educators in rural area to give maximum benefit to the children. The rural children are in need in so many areas, please don't let their education in early learning get worse. FDC offers a service that suits families, during day, after school, over night and emergency care. There is a lot more to FDC than what most people think. We need them urgently in the bush.
Qualified staff who are available to work in child care are becoming as rare as hen's teeth.
Why? Wages are very low.
Few staff go back into child care once they start a family - the hours are not family friendly.
Child Care Centres prefer to have stable, full time educators to ensure that important attachments are developed between educators children and families. This is a vital element in meeting NQF quality requirements.
So we need to encourage educators to return to the child care sector. We need better wages and more flexible working conditions without compromising quality child care care
I have worked as a kindergarten teacher in the child care industry for a number of years. During this time I have seen the kindergarten classroom change from a non profit educational institution to a highly profitable business being traded on the Australian stock market.
I would like to see this enquiry address the following issue:
Is the government childcare funding intended to contribute towards teacher salaries, facilities and resources for our children, being pocketed as extra profit by unscrupulous business owners?
As a registered early years teacher in Qld, I am one of many who find themselves in a frustrating predicament. I achieved outstanding results at university (6.33 GPA), outstanding practicum reports and was assessed to be a High Performing Teacher by the Qld Department of Education. Upon graduation, I was lucky enough to attain a teaching contract in a year one classroom. After 4.5 terms in the classroom, a bad case of Appendicitis cut my contract short. Once I had recovered, I found that changes to the department's staffing calculator had forced many contract teachers out of their positions. I have spent 6 months actively seeking any type of school teaching job. Recently, I made the decision to widen my search to ECT positions only to be shocked by the disparity in wages and work conditions for ECTs with the same level of responsibility as school teachers. In recently accepting a new ECT position, I have lost access to 8 weeks of paid leave, must work a 38 hour week, and take a pay cut of $10 000 per annum. Whilst I am happy to be employed, I can't say that this situation will be sustainable long term, or that I wouldn't leave my ECT position if a school-based position arose.
In regard to nanny services becoming eligible for reimbursement, how do you guard against the open-endedness of possible nanny costs? 30% may be a small proportion of fees, but in terms of absolute costs it may well be significant for those nannies who are paid better than average (and I do not begrudge them that). A similar argument applies for those childcare services with fees well above average. Perhaps the reimbursement proportion could be based on the wages of workers (with centres, this could be average wages), to ensure that there is no price-gouging happening at the expense of the taxpayer.
SA
Working on the administrative side of childcare, I see my colleagues who have varying training, ECT, Diplomas, Cert III, struggle to keep up with the 'paperwork', taking them away from the real reason they are in this profession - the children. Let's streamline the system so that the children come first and staff can dedicate their energy in giving them the best start possible, not sweating over the paperwork.
NSW
As the Coordinator of a privately owned education and care service I am concerned about how these reforms are handled. Some of the issues are "Over East" problems, and you need to remember that not everyone lives in inner Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. There are still services that have vacancies and don't charge excessive fees.
Everyday I see parents who are using the system correctly with CCB and CCR helping them to pay for their child's care. Sadly, everyday I also see people who abuse the system. Parents who are claiming CCR and 50 hours when they don't work. Parents who claim CCB and have CCR paid directly to them, but then leave an outstanding account which is never paid, then moving to another service to do the same to them. Parents using the waiting list as a way of avoiding looking for work/study, then when offered a position, avoiding taking the position for a few weeks with various excuses, preventing a genuine family from taking the desperately needed position.
We are operating at 95% occupancy, so we do have some vacancies. I am concerned that if Nannies are offered subsidies, during our operating times, our occupancy will drop and I will be forced to lay off staff. Out of operating hours subsidies for Nannies who have a Certificate 3 is appropriate, but needs to be policed tightly. As for subsidies for Grandparents, that is a ridiculous suggestion for many reasons including Grandparents not wanting to go "back " to study and if they do, they would be taking TAFE spaces from our potential work force, and what about the families who don't have that support network? It's not a functional idea.
I think we need to refine the system we have. It's not broken, it just needs fine tuning.
WA
I coordinate a program for 8-18 year old kids with moderate to severe disabilities in OSHC setting, in a low socio economic LGA. I have concerns for the Governments understanding of the desparation my families feel at the prospect of being denied this service due to lack of Government Funding. My families have nowhere else to go, as they struggle with raising a child with moderate to severe disability, some families with 2 children with disabilities, and maintaining a job. The focus always appears to be on mainstream services and yet my families do not have the eventual luxury of their child being able to care for themselves. They need care beyond their 18 years in order for parents to continue to access the workforce. Equality in services availability for mainstream children and the lack there of for children with disabilities desperately needs to be addressed. As for wages, the working environment that my staff and I endure everyday, in no way reflects the income we are on. We have children with dual diagnoses that have extreme behavioural issues to children needing continuouse personal care, feeding, suffer from epilepsy are non verbal,needing mobility aids, etc, etc. When investigating the industry, please do not neglect the disability sector, that are in need to be able to access the same services and entitlements that mainstream families are entiltled to and have access to.
NSW
disappointing that reduction in qualifications and checks are considered , good staff good care, parents want to be productive they need assistance , don't change the NQF again
QLD
As I have mention before to education minister, regarding child care industries.
There are lot of student who has done Diploma in Children Servises than why it is not in SOL list, As you know this is a very fragile industry and all the students workers are skilled than government should think for students. Instead of calling asylum seekers and refugees.
I have mention this thing to Education minister but still there is no answer.
I have found families are happy with the current long day care hours.
In talking about extended hours it is as though it is vital for pre-schoolers, but when children go to school, at the ripe old age of 5 suddenly flexibility of hours ceases to be important at all! Opening up benefits to be available for minimally regulated care, makes a mockery of the millions of dollars spent in creating quality educational childcare and opens up the opportunity for some to rort the system
VIC
School principals being responsible for ensuring schools offer before and after school care, including care for preschoolers.
Does this mean that the school is responsible for employing the care staff and operating the OSHC service?
WA
There has been a lot in the news recently about Non working parents taking up child care spaces. This is incorrect. If Susan Ley bothered to read the Child care Handbook she would see that any centre that receives benefits from the government MUST follow the priority of access rules.
1st priority - Children at Rick
2nd priority - working/studying families
3rd priority – social
If any centre did NOT follow these rules they would loose the CCB funding. We have had too negate these fears with parents.
Please get your facts right!!!!!
TAS
I work in Tasmania where the Kindergarden/pre school is actually offered within the school system. This seems like a much better outcome than the mainland where long day care centre's offer it. For one thing it's actually classed as school so they are enrolled in the school they will be attending helping with numbers for the school. Two they have access to a fully qualified early childhood teacher. Three it is paid for by the state government which is cheaper for families. Four consistency of a regular teacher with specific outcomes required.
Five it helps reduce the cost of Child care if you don't have to pay for a full time teacher who usually gets more than the director which won't sit well.
Long day care should be left as caring for children who are too young to attend school. But having said that the NQF is an improvement on "Glorified baby sitters" Just need to step up the training for new recruits as well as some of the older generation who still see themselves as babysitters and gripe about the NQF because they don't want to understand or learn it.
TAS
As a private childcare operator for 19 years and a mother of four children, , I have embraced the changes in early childhood, that have been introduced over the past five years. I have been privileged to witness the difference high quality care makes to children. Higher child to educator ratios directly relates to children developing a stronger sense of security. (as all research supports)
I have out endless time and money into ensuring that my staff are highly qualified and professional. The difference in the quality care having qualified, intelligent educators with good communication skills, understanding of children.and who scaffold, extend, plan for and challenge cannot be underestimated.
To seriously consider not having Diploma qualified educators for children under 3 is disturbing, as it points to a total lack of understanding of children.
Caring for one or two babies is very different than looking after up to 35 babies and families in a week, or 15 on a day. You need highly qualified, organised people who have strong theory and are very capable.
My four children went to preschools before the National Quality Standards and believe me there was huge scope for improvement. I believe the NQS has improved pre-school quality and it would be a giant step backwards to exempt them from this system.
In general, why do we want to go backwards in quality? Who would choose to have a lower quality care ? We have already gone from 52 standards to 7. The 7 standards that are left are the basics needed for high quality care.
Grandparents. nannies-how do you police that? I am sure most parents would be happy to sign their children into their grandparents care 5 days a week and not actually leave them there. Win/win? Grandparents get lots of money and don't actually have to look after the children. The government have just commissioned a compliance team-they will need to triple that if they seriously think a system of nannies and grandparents will not result in a hugh increase in rorting the system.
To see babies being held, read to, sung to, playing outside, given time, attention and having all their needs met-this is what the National Quality Standards, new regulations and EYLF have brought to childcare. Todldlers, preschoolers being engaged in such a stimulating, literacy and numeracy rich environment in which all skills, abilities,are developed. Where children have a choice of indoor or outdoor play because we have higher educator to child ratios. Where children are safe-because of Diploma Qualified, better child to educator ratios.
Please don't put Australian children' s health, safety well being, learning and communication skills at risk. We want a society that has teenagers and adults with good mental, physical and emotional health.
VIC
I am a Chilcare provider.
Iit is very disturbing to see the regulation of pay increase without much consultation with provider. It was a push based on union and worker crying pain of low wages.It has now finalised that new pay scale is on motion effective from 1st July 2014.The rediculous joke is that the government had scaled back on pay increase subsidy and go for training input.The government get the service proivider to bear the extra pay burden.It is no wonder more of providers is so discourage and many centre are going on sale.Only the big player will servive. it is another story liken to wolly and Coles which end up only servive in the competition. All other small market are suffering. Please know that there are a lot of genuine educational providers who believe what is fare and square that is profit and performance of staff must be an equal factor It is not just all about pay rise.
NSW
* The Bega Valley Early Childhood Directors Network embraces the National Quality Framework which has improved quality of preschools for children, families and the community.
* We recognise the link between quality and qualified staff. Qualified early childhood Teachers more likely to have the skills in terms of funding accountability and educational outcomes.
* Funding for 3 year olds is vital to ensure the viability of rural preschools.
*The Commission needs to take into account the important and unique role preschools play family support in rural communities who are more isolated from services provided in major cities.
NSW
I would be pleased to see Preschools attached to school being regulated by the school/Education Department. I have worked in Preschools attached to schools in Australia for 9 years. As the Director I have always felt like a square peg in a round hole, trying to manage all the regulations from both school and OECEC. Previously, I worked in the UK, in this sector, for 18 years and Preschool aged children there are part of the Education system. I found this system to work much better - feeling more connected to the school, providing better transitions for the children.
QLD
Community Kinders Plus is a not for profit Kindergarten Cluster Management organisation that currently manages and supports 17 kindergartens across Frankston and Mornington Peninsula employing 100 staff.
We are pleased to see the recommendation to continue with the provision of 15 hours of kindergarten for children the year prior to school entry. We have seen significant benefits for the children during the last two years with the introduction of 15 hours of kindergarten. Returning to 10 hours of kindergarten provision would be a detrimental step for children, families and the Early Childhood Education and Care sector as a whole. Australia which has long been regarded as a leader in Early Childhood Education would lose this standing very quickly.
The recommendation to remove the tax benefits for not for profit organisations would be the end of a majority of kindergartens as the added tax burden would make them financially unstainable.
Removing dedicated preschools from the NQF is a flawed decision and would once again divide the sector which has only just become a cohesive one in regards to quality, laws and regulations.
Research shows that children's brain development is at its greatest from 0-4 years of age and the recommendation to remove the quality of care for children under 36 months is a very poor one and will have significant outcomes on children's learning and development. Long term it will cost the country in terms of interventions required. I would suggest investigating the financial equation developed by Jim Heckman about the saving for every dollar invested in early childhood.
VIC
I have been involved in the Care and Education Industry for 20 years now – working for Services and now owning my own Long Day Care Service in NSW (I have owned my service for almost 14 years).
I have seen many changed in this Industry over time – some great and some not so good.
The introduction of the Early Years Learning Framework and the National Quality Standards has brought some great changes to programs / Services but also brings lots of paperwork, stress and in some cases, tokenistic things to meet standards required – something that I don’t agree with. I have seen many instances where Services have gone out and gotten chickens, rabbits, etc. to educate children about sustainability but it is not embedded into the programs and children are not learning the real meaning of sustainably. This is just one example and I am sure there are many more.
Australia needs to have regulations that are the same for each state – this includes same ratios, same level of qualifications, etc. The requirement for Early Childhood Teachers in Care and Education Services is not necessary. I have Diploma Qualified Educators who run beautiful programs and have been devalued because of this requirement. Having Early Childhood Teachers into Long Day Care Services does not mean better quality or great programs – it just means Service Owners are paying out more wages for higher qualified Educators and this is being passed onto families as fees go up and up to meet the demand of qualified teachers required.
I have had to seek temporary waivers for these positions and pay a fee to obtain them – which is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot understand if you have a university qualification and you are good at what you do, why would you want to work longer hours in a Long Day Care Services? This makes no sense to me. There are so many wonderful Educators leaving this industry because of the changes that has been brought about by the National Quality Framework. We need to place more value on people who want to work with children and help them to stay in the industry – not drive them away with higher qualification demands and paperwork. The requirement for ETC in Child Care Services needs to be scrapped – there are so many Diploma qualified Directors that are now trying to study, run Services and deal with the day to day demands of directing Services – this is going to equal massive burnout and once again, great people will be leaving our industry. It needs to be stopped and some common-sense prevail. If we must have ECT in Services, why can there not be on-the-floor training like there is for Certificate III and Diploma?
The system needs a massive overhaul and things need to go back to basics where Advisors come into every centre – without notification and check to ensure the Centre is meeting high quality (meaning that there is programs happening that cater for all children, learning is documented, correct staff to child ratio applies, and all the basic things are covered). There should be no need for assessment visits if Advisors are regularly coming into Services to ensure everything is being done to the highest quality. As it currently stands, having an Assessor come into a Service for 1 or 2 days means nothing. They merely get to see a snap shot of what goes on (which is why it is so easy for Services to do so many tokenistic things during the visit) and in most cases, Educators are so nervous and stressed that they can’t explain things and feel like failures if things are not observed by the Assessor. Why does this industry need to be so difficult? The main focus for Child Care Services needs to be caring for children, providing environments where children feel safe, secure, loved and of course, happy. That is what every parent who leaves their child wants – they are not interested in reading pages and pages of information on EYLF or NQS, they want to SEE their child happy and having fun at the Service.
The National Quality Framework needs to be axed – it is pointless advising Services when their assessment is going to be. I have heard of Services that call in relief staff for the days to ensure correct ratio, Centres swapping resources to ensure that they have adequate natural elements in programs (both inside and outside) as well as doing all of these wonderful things for sustainability and recycling (but they only happen at the Service during the assessment visit).
