20 Hours ECE bad for centers?

Forums › Off topic › 20 Hours ECE bad for centers?

David321

485 posts

Ultimate Geek

#305759 2-Jun-2023 09:55

I have heard some talk (not much) that the policy of 20 hours free ECE being extended from 3 to 5 years old to 2 to 5 year olds is going to be bad for the day cares but have heard very little about why.

As a parent of an almost 2 year old I was very happy to hear about it considering the cost of childcare, but I am interested to hear the negative side of it also (if there is one).

Anyone have any thoughts/ideas on this?

_David_

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#3083700 2-Jun-2023 10:20

Looking at the people speaking up about it I think there are two issues:

1) Labour came up with an idea that people might like in an election year, so it must be rubbished.

2) (From an actual ECE funding person) the 20 free hours for 2y/o is different from the existing 20hours for 3+ y/o in that the centres are allowed less room to arrange the hours to suit their staffing levels which could, in theory, mean they are compelled to book a child in on a day where they will have to then have an extra teacher rostered on to maintain ratio even though it will cost more than the govt funding will bring in. In practice, who knows, but there are unlikely to be any centres going broke because of it that weren't already badly run (not necessarily from a teaching point of view, but from maximising $$).

billgates

4705 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3083719 2-Jun-2023 10:53

20 hours free ECE is not enough starting from 2 years old tbh. We need to follow Nordic countries' example. Pay mothers their full salary for 12 months from current 80% salary of 6 months only while they take care of their baby. Pay 30 hours ECE every week for baby then from 12 months of age until they start primary.

Do whatever you want to do man.

vexxxboy

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#3083746 2-Jun-2023 11:50

basically, the Govt regulations for ECE means that to give two year olds 20 free hours a week , the centres will have to pay teachers below the minimum wage for them not to loose money , which they cant do.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

wellygary

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#3083797 2-Jun-2023 12:10

"New Shoots Children’s Centre director Kelly Seaburg told the Herald the Government’s additional funding of the 20-hours-free package - $1.2 billion over four years - was developed using a 1:10 teacher-to-child ratio.

Seaburg said it was generally accepted that 1:10 was not an appropriate ratio to deliver quality childcare, particularly to 2-year-olds, who had higher needs than older children."

This view had been reinforced by the Education Ministry through its Early Learning Action Plan 2019-2029. It said ratios of 1:4 for under 2-year-olds and 1:5 for 2-year-olds would become “requirements for teacher-led centre-based services”.

Only funding a 1:10 ratio meant centres were faced with the impossible choice of compromising the quality of their childcare or reaching into their own depleted pockets to pay for more teachers, given centres were prohibited from passing the cost on to parents.

“It’s unworkable ... the policy is tremendous, but the conditions are not,” Seaburg said.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/20-hours-free-childcare-expansion-could-compromise-standards-force-closures-sector-leaders/Y7RR7OMZLZBRRGH43MR424WKCQ/

Basically it was cooked up in a politicians office, with no input from those in the sector who will have to tell parents "sorry we can't offer this, because we will go out of business if we did"

cruxis

480 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3083852 2-Jun-2023 12:36

Surely the ECE still has the right to say Sorry we do not take under 3 year olds still? Too much of a workload. My local did not take under 3s.

wellygary

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#3083933 2-Jun-2023 13:29

cruxis:

Surely the ECE still has the right to say Sorry we do not take under 3 year olds still? Too much of a workload. My local did not take under 3s.

Yes,

But when you've got the Govt out there saying "we're providing 20 hours free" Centres get stuck in the middle having to explain to parents whey they are not offering 20 hours for under 2s free... esp if they are already taking under 2s....

Kookoo

787 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3083942 2-Jun-2023 13:49

David321:

I have heard some talk (not much) that the policy of 20 hours free ECE being extended from 3 to 5 years old to 2 to 5 year olds is going to be bad for the day cares but have heard very little about why.

As a parent of an almost 2 year old I was very happy to hear about it considering the cost of childcare, but I am interested to hear the negative side of it also (if there is one).

Anyone have any thoughts/ideas on this?

It's an issue of staffing ratios and capacity. ECE centres are required to maintain a minimum ratio of fully qualified teachers - I believe it's something like 90%, but I could be wrong. They're also required to maintain a ratio of teachers to childern, and that ratio decreases as children get older. Off the top of my head, you have 1/3 in the 0-2 year olds bracket, and then 1/6 in 3-4 year olds. In other words, the older groups subsidize the younger groups. From a business perspective, the younger groups are there to ensure there's a pipeline into the the older "cash cow" groups. They usually have lower capacity, which is why in some ECE centres you need to enrol your kid up to 6 months in advance if you want them to start in the younger groups. So, extending 20 hours free ECE to 2 year-olds will supposedly put even more capacity pressure on ECE providers which they don't want to meet because that'll drive up cost and eat into their margins.

Does it mean that the government is wrong in doing this? No, it just means that the current ECE business model is broken.

Hello, Ground!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

vexxxboy

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#3083949 2-Jun-2023 13:57

Kookoo:

I have heard some talk (not much) that the policy of 20 hours free ECE being extended from 3 to 5 years old to 2 to 5 year olds is going to be bad for the day cares but have heard very little about why.

As a parent of an almost 2 year old I was very happy to hear about it considering the cost of childcare, but I am interested to hear the negative side of it also (if there is one).

Anyone have any thoughts/ideas on this?

It's an issue of staffing ratios and capacity. ECE centres are required to maintain a minimum ratio of fully qualified teachers - I believe it's something like 90%, but I could be wrong. They're also required to maintain a ratio of teachers to childern, and that ratio decreases as children get older. Off the top of my head, you have 1/3 in the 0-2 year olds bracket, and then 1/6 in 3-4 year olds. In other words, the older groups subsidize the younger groups. From a business perspective, the younger groups are there to ensure there's a pipeline into the the older "cash cow" groups. They usually have lower capacity, which is why in some ECE centres you need to enrol your kid up to 6 months in advance if you want them to start in the younger groups. So, extending 20 hours free ECE to 2 year-olds will supposedly put even more capacity pressure on ECE providers which they don't want to meet because that'll drive up cost and eat into their margins.

Does it mean that the government is wrong in doing this? No, it just means that the current ECE business model is broken.

But it wasn't a secret that this was how the centres operated so for the govt to start a new scheme that they knew wouldnt work is just bad management and planning on the governments part.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Kookoo

787 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#3083956 2-Jun-2023 14:15

vexxxboy:

But it wasn't a secret that this was how the centres operated so for the govt to start a new scheme that they knew wouldnt work is just bad management and planning on the governments part.

ECE providers aren't struggling financially. They can afford to absorb the extra cost, and they definitely don't need to pay the teachers below minimum. The broken bit in this model is that unlike schools, ECE centres are private and driven by profitability.

Hello, Ground!

deadlyllama

1260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3083993 2-Jun-2023 16:11

Kookoo:

vexxxboy:

But it wasn't a secret that this was how the centres operated so for the govt to start a new scheme that they knew wouldnt work is just bad management and planning on the governments part.

ECE providers aren't struggling financially. They can afford to absorb the extra cost, and they definitely don't need to pay the teachers below minimum. The broken bit in this model is that unlike schools, ECE centres are private and driven by profitability.

If only ECE was provided by the state sector, we could simply underfund it and everyone would have to cope (until they couldn't, but that's after the election).