Response to the Children in Detention letter campaign

In August, 132 early childhood professionals sent letters to the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton, calling on the Government to end the inhumane treatment of child refugees on Nauru and Manus Island.

Today I received a response – it can be viewed here. I have also posted the text below.

While I am pleased that the Department took the time to reply, I am not happy with their response – nor that the Minister or Prime Minister did not reply personally.

Continue reading “Response to the Children in Detention letter campaign”

Advertisements

The Early Education Show

Please forgive this quick bit of self-publicity.

Today myself and two of my favourite people in the early childhood sphere launched the first episode of the Early Education Show.

We’re excited and enjoying this little experiment in a new medium for the important issues affecting young children and early learning to be discussed, debated and analysed.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, I’d really appreciate you giving it a go.

You can find it on the iTunes store here, or by listening online at Podbean

Big thanks to Lisa Bryant and Leanne Gibbs for joining me on this little adventure.

image

Children in detention letter campaign

It’s easy to feel powerless. The recent media around the experience of children and other refugees on Nauru is sickening. With bipartisan support from the two major parties, it’s hard to know what can change it.

I like to write. I’ve already written to the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader on this issue. If you work in early childhood and aren’t sure where to start or what to say, I decided to make an easy way to get started.

Click here. It’ll take you through to the letter-writing campaign and tell you what to do.

The odd letter might not do much. But imagine a flood of letters from early childhood educators, teachers, Directors and other professionals bombarding the Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister.

Children are children. They don’t deserve what Australia is doing to them. If you work with young children, please consider taking action.

The loss of the PSCs will make for a less inclusive sector

From July, the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector will face some significant changes to the way support to improve quality approaches is provided. The Federal Government will cease funding Professional Support Coordinators (PSCs) in each State and Territory, while Inclusion Support Providers (ISPs) will continue with an expanded funding framework.

Additional funding to support inclusion issues is of course very welcome. The current Inclusion Support system has been underfunded for many years, particularly in the funding able to be provided to services to be able to raise the educator:child ratio to support inclusive practice. But what will this additional funding achieve, and is it worth the loss of the PSCs?

Continue reading “The loss of the PSCs will make for a less inclusive sector”

Four years on from the NQF, are educators more respected?

This week, the federal Department of Education is conducting a nationwide “Workforce Census” of early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. This census will provide important information on the qualifications, retention rates and other factors that provide a snapshot of the early childhood educator role in Australia.

This is a good opportunity to take a step back and look holistically at how early childhood educators are viewed and supported, both within the ECEC sector and in the community. The National Quality Framework (NQF) was introduced in 2012, and one of its key pillars was the acknowledgement that quality learning could be provided by qualified and valued educators.

Four years on, how close are we to realising that vision?

Continue reading “Four years on from the NQF, are educators more respected?”

What do the low numbers of men in ECEC really mean?

Once a year or so, another report, research document or news article appears that highlights the low numbers of male teachers working in early childhood and primary schools. Another was released in the past month, and tells familiar stories of isolation and suspicion.

The problem is tricky to solve, and has been for decades. It’s tricky because the problem isn’t really “the problem”. It’s a symptom of a number of inter-connected and entrenched issues, which are particularly thorny in early childhood.

Continue reading “What do the low numbers of men in ECEC really mean?”

Senate Report reveals sector is taking a huge gamble supporting the Jobs for Families Package

The partisan report from the Senate Committee hearings into the Jobs for Families Package clearly articulate the Government’s view of ECEC as parent welfare, not education for children.

After consultations, public hearings and duelling economic modelling at ten paces, the long-awaited Senate report into the Jobs for Families has been released. Predictably, the Government-majority Committee has recommended the Senate pass the package as it currently stands. Labor and the Greens delivered dissenting reports.

For advocates in the sector with a focus on children (not workforce participation with a side order of children’s rights), it’s a tough read.

Continue reading “Senate Report reveals sector is taking a huge gamble supporting the Jobs for Families Package”

Goodbye, and thank you

I’m pondering a lengthier post on the challenges to ECEC advocacy some point the line that will no doubt refer heavily to the work she has done over the past 6 years or so, but for now I just want to briefly (and sadly) note that Community Child-Care Co-operative announced today that their CEO Leanne Gibbs will be leaving the role in June.

Others that know Leanne far better than I will be in a better position to praise her work in that role. I’m literally writing this about 20 minutes after learning of the news, so for now I want to say a personal thank you to her for a couple of things.

Firstly, Leanne has on a number of occasions taken a risk in working with me in some speaking and writing capacities. Someone once said to me that I “don’t work well with others”, and while that is certainly true for many in the sector, I do want to work with organisations like CCCC that put children squarely at the centre of their work – even with the political risks that can follow. This is obviously a fairly self-interested thank you, but I will say it anyway!

Secondly, Leanne has guided CCCC through a challenging time for the sector. Large-scale reforms like the NQF, endless inquiries and Governments at a State and Federal hostile to any advocacy could have seen CCCC become neutered or soft-touch. Instead, their advocacy has become crystal clear and part of the national conversation. Check out their submission to the Productivity Commission as a fantastic example of accessible advocacy that tackles a wide range of complicated issues. CCCC has been the standard-bearer for greater investment in NSW preschools for what seems like forever, despite the potential impact on their relationship with the NSW Government.

Leanne leaves CCCC as the most courageous and consistently child-focused advocacy organisation in Australia. I’ll have to steal a favoured compliment from a long-term colleague of mine here, which I leave as the highest tribute I can offer:

Australia’s children thank you.

Who should be at the centre of our advocacy?

A couple of weeks back, I wrote a piece on modelling commissioned by Goodstart Early Learning on the possible economic impact of the Government’s current proposed early childhood education and care (ECEC) reform package. I raised my personal concerns as an advocate on the report, why it was commissioned and how it was used.

I’ve linked to the piece above, but the main points in summary are:

  1. Uncertainty about why Goodstart would commission this report at all, given they are an early childhood organisation and not Government spokespeople;
  2. Serious concern with the facts of the report itself, which excludes both the Activity Test and subsidy cap from the modelling, essentially rendering it worthless; and
  3. How the report was used to further the political objectives of a Government which is seeking to slash access to ECEC for children based on the employment status of their family.

Goodstart were, unsurprisingly, not too happy with my analysis, and wrote to me asking me to publish their response. Which I did.

Last week, Early Childhood Australia (ECA) published a post by ECA CEO Samantha Page which discussed the importance of making economic arguments as part of ECEC advocacy. The post explicitly mentions “several commentators” being unhappy with the Goodstart-commissioned report, but does not name them or link to their pieces. I cannot help but find the timing interesting, but after reaching out to ECA they were unable to provide any further details of who these “several” commentators are, or links to the pieces that they are referring to.

I believe it’s fairly safe to assume the post was referring to me. Which means I will now have to, once again, defend the initial Goodstart post before moving on to discussing the ECA piece in more depth given their public “review” of my work.

As I have previously stated, ECA’s post does not address the serious issues with the report itself, nor discuss the implications of it being utilised to advance a particular political agenda. If, as the post suggests, ECEC advocates should ensure that their advocacy positions are well-informed in economic terms, ECA should be lining up beside me to dispute the PwC report purely on the basis it does not actually provide any accurate modelling by failing to take into account the Activity Test or the subsidy cap.

Goodstart’s response did not either. No-one, at any point, has ever challenged me on this. The fact that people seem to be either offended or unhappy that I have pointed this out is interesting, but irrelevant. I am more than happy to be challenged by facts, not hurt feelings.

Separate to the response to the report, ECA’s post raises a number of concerns regarding how they view ECEC advocacy – and ECEC advocates. The post states that advocates are “uncomfortable” with making arguments based on economic investment, and are “letting children down” by not utilising these arguments effectively.

I in no way, shape or form represent advocates in the ECEC sector, but for my part I respectfully disagree with Ms Page on this point, and actually find that perspective somewhat insulting. Again, only speaking for myself, but I have been making arguments based on the necessity for early investment for many years. Here, here and here, just to list a few. ECEC advocates have actually been doing this for quite a while. Of course the economic arguments can be made, but should always be made in subservience to the child-centred arguments which position early childhood education as a birthright, regardless of their socio-economic status.

But there is a limit. I will not, and cannot, support in any way a proposed reform package that at its heart shackles together a child’s right to participate in ECEC with the economic contribution of their family. That is what this package does, and no amount of amendments, or tinkering or minor changes will change that unassailable fact. Recent Senate Estimates put some hard numbers on the number of families that will be adversely affected by the Government’s proposed changes. 37,000 families will have their access to ECEC either slashed or eliminated as they are deemed to not contribute enough to the Australian economy. This week, SNAICC released a report that demonstrates Indigenous children will have the most to lose from this package, mere weeks after this year’s Closing the Gap report revealed that Australia had failed to meet the targets for early childhood education.

There seems to be a view that the because the package is on the table, it should not be blocked outright but amended. I will contend that is not advocacy in the best interests of children, and is patently not the only option given the current make-up of the Senate. Poor policy has routinely been knocked back by this Senate. So should the Jobs for Families package. Organisational submissions to the Senate Inquiry suggest I am far from alone in this view.

I can’t imagine the communities where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ECEC services will close as a result of this package will be swayed by the argument that it’s better overall for the economy.

Of course making economic arguments is important for advocates. But it should never be undertaken by separating out children from the equation. Yes, it might be easier to just argue from an economic angle. But no-one should get into the advocacy business thinking it’s going to be easy.

I’m genuinely puzzled by the defensive responses from Goodstart, and now ECA, by the simple stating of my position on these issues. Positions that are, again, hardly limited to myself. Advocacy is a big tent, or should be. Organisations can take whatever position they want on legislation, but they should be able to have the discussion with others in the sector on other approaches – particularly if they are representing the sector.

Interestingly enough, a mere two weeks before the economic article post was published, ECA actually published a great piece on the ethical obligation and responsibility to advocate in the sector. Strangely, it doesn’t actually mention the need to articulate the importance of economic investment. Given the spirited defence of the importance of economic arguments in “proper advocacy” in the most recent piece, it’s odd that it wasn’t brought up in the earlier post.

Some great points that are in that earlier piece though:

“The Code of Ethics also provides a responsibility to engage in public advocacy – to ‘utilise knowledge and research to advocate for universal access to a range of high-quality early childhood programs for all children’.”

That’s universal access, not access for some based on their parent’s roster.

I, and others, feel that responsibility to advocate for universal access to a range of high-quality early childhood programs for all children. I will continue to do so.

I can only speak for myself, but that means I will continue to vehemently oppose the Government’s proposed reforms. I would urge all other advocates to do the same. In fact I would go so far as to say that I am very “uncomfortable” which large ECEC organisations offering support to this package, and those that do are “letting children down”.

Indigenous children’s access to ECE slashed by Government reform package

New report reveals impact of Government’s reform package on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 8.46.07 PM

A report from Deloitte Access Economics for SNAICC released today revealed the concerning impact of the Federal Government’s “Jobs for Families” package for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families.

From ABC News Online:

The Deloitte research shows 40 per cent of families using the BBF services would receive fewer hours of subsidised care.

It also shows 54 per cent of families using BBF services would have higher out-of-pocket costs and the biggest impact would be felt by families earning less than $65,000.

Two-thirds of service providers would also receive less government funding.

Hilariously, the Federal Government has claimed the report is inaccurate and fails to take into account other elements of their reform package – despite the fact that the Government has consistently failed to reveal huge amounts of actual information the proposed reforms, both through the Regulatory Impact Statement process and in the proposed legislation currently before the Senate.

The Child Care Subsidy is only vaguely described, how it can be applied for and received is basically unknown, and how children and their families’ situations will be monitored on an ongoing basis is not described.

The economic benefits of the Jobs for Families package are dubious at best. The impact on children and families at-risk and experiencing vulnerability is crystal clear. The argument that this package is “OK with a few amendments” is becoming increasingly difficult to swallow.