ECE investment a ‘major threat’

WELLINGTON: It is not often a $1.2 billion investment in early childcare causes sector leaders to request an urgent meeting with Government ministers to avoid what some consider to be a lethal blow to their sustainability.

But that is where the sector finds itself following the Government announcing 20hoursfree of early childcare education (ECE) per week for children 3yearsold and above would be extended to 2yearolds — Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ flagship policy in Budget 2023.

On the surface, it is difficult to see the issue. Early education would become more accessible for more children and it eases the financial pressure on parents already dealing with persistent inflation driving up the cost of living. ECE providers were jumping for joy when it was first revealed.

But as the policy’s detail has become apparent, providers and advocates are rushing to highlight how conditions attached to the extension of 20hoursfree could lead to the quality of childcare becoming compromised and increasing the number of centres closing.

What’s the problem?

The expansion to make 2yearolds eligible for 20hoursfree is largely similar to when it was introduced by Helen Clark’s government in 2007 for children older than 3.

However, the chief sticking point now is that under this new policy, parents would be allowed to enrol children only for the free 20 hours per week, providing it was no more than six of those hours per day, early education providers said.

According to New Shoots Children’s Centre director Kelly Seaburg, the funding the Government provided for 20hoursfree was calculated by using a ratio of one teacher to 10 children, which was the minimum accepted ratio of teachers to children in New Zealand.

Most centres, did not settle with 1:10 and attempt to provide one teacher to every eight children for older children, while the younger ones — like 2yearolds — ideally had a ratio of 1:6 because they had greater needs, she said.

This view has been reinforced by the Education Ministry through its Early Learning Action Plan 20192029. It says ratios of 1:4 for under 2yearolds and 1:5 for 2yearolds would become ‘‘requirements for teacherled centrebased services’’.

But because centres are only funded to provide ratios of 1:10, the remaining cost to pay staff has to come from somewhere else.

‘‘We have to have a copayment from parents to make it workable, particularly for 2yearolds who have higher needs,’’ she said.

It was a cost that parents were happy to pay as long as it increased the quality of childcare, she claimed.

20hoursfree was not compulsory, centres could optout if they chose to do so. But fees for parents would likely double in order to continue providing a range of services including food, nappies and excursions, she said.

Another option available to centres was to reduce their operating hours. However, that could become a headache for parents trying to balance work and childcare.

Cathy Wilson, chief executive of Montessori Aotearoa New Zealand, which managed about 200 centres across the country, described the policy as the ‘‘second major threat’’ ECEs were facing from the Government, adding to a problematic pay parity review currently out for consultation.

She echoed Ms Seaburg in her concern that the quality of childcare would decrease if centres no longer received income through additional fees as parents chose to stick to the 20 hours on offer.

She gave an example of a Wellington centre, which operated for 30 hours per week, with an arrangement that meant parents were still able to access 20hoursfree but paid fees on top to cover the difference between what was provided by the Government and the cost of a quality service.

She, like Ms Seaburg, was quick to clarify that increasing access to education was something noone opposed, but there were fears the way in which it was rolled out could spell the end for some centres, particularly smaller outfits in low socioeconomic areas. —