1 June 2011
Media release
ECE Taskforce funding proposal will undermine 20 hours ECE
Five academics from the Universities of Waikato, Victoria, Canterbury and Otago have said they welcome the strong
message of the ECE taskforce about the importance of prioritising early childhood education.
“At the level of principle there is a focus on system quality and many of the recommendations indicate a commitment to
continuing along the path of quality improvement which the sector wants”. Incentives for centres to employ 100%
qualified teachers, addressing quality issues in the home-based sector, and provisions to promote innovation are
excellent directions to follow.
“We also welcome the focus on encouraging leadership development within the sector- this is a new and long-overdue
initiative”.
However, the academics are united in their opposition to the proposed new funding system. This provides for targeted
funding for low income groups, Māori and Pasifika children while retaining fiscal neutrality. This proposal will
inevitably undermine the 20 hours ECE policy that provides free or very affordable early childhood education for 3 to 5
year-old children. It will undermine a widely supported principle that all children should be entitled to early
childhood education, no matter their circumstances. Another academic, who was a member of the Taskforce, Professor Anne
Smith, has already expressed concerns that if the principle of fiscal neutrality is retained, that it is inevitable that
middle-income families will have to pay more for early childhood education, which is likely to lead to lower levels of
participation.
The Taskforce states that it will “provide strongly differentiated payments for priority groups – Māori, Pasifika,
children from lower socio-economic backgrounds and children with special education needs”. In this system, a universal
approach is replaced by one that is much more targeted, with families outside the “priority” groups paying more. A
targeted approach would not serve the best interests of “priority” children, and does not address the needs of children
who are not deemed to be “priority”. There are issues about how to set criteria for “priority” and assess these, and
problems about children outside the designated groups or at the margins who do not meet criteria missing out. There is a
danger of ghettoizing “priority” children, when research is clear that children from disadvantaged homes do better in
early childhood centres that have more advantaged children in the same group. Universal high quality education helps to
diminish gaps in achievement between high and low socioeconomic families.
Targeted approaches rely on costly and time-consuming administrative processes that can stigmatise eligible families,
deterring applications for assistance. The Taskforce recommends that the early childhood service staff would assess
whether families fit into “priority” categories. Any such assessment would constitute an intrusion into private family
matters and risk spoiling the respectful and positive relationships that need to exist between staff and parents.
Middle income families with 3 to 5 year olds would lose funding under the Taskforce proposal. Recent New Zealand
research by one of the academics (Mitchell) shows the very positive impact on affordability of 20 hours ECE. 20 hours
ECE eased family budgets, benefiting family life and children’s learning and socialisation. There are indications that
20 hours ECE has enabled some children to attend who would otherwise have missed out.
A policy of free early childhood education is in keeping with trends in OECD countries to provide at least two years
free provision before children start school. Internationally, there is advocacy to develop policy framed around the
participatory rights of children. Provision of free early childhood education for all children whose parents see they
would benefit from the opportunity is consistent with such rights.
ENDS