Policing via Budget: Changes to the early childhood education in New Zealand post-2010 Budget

The Budget is the most important regulatory instrument of state policy in most countries today. In these hard econmic times, one need merely glance at the jugglery performed by finance ministries in Europe and North America to regulate societies in the wake of economic slowdown/meltdown. When in trouble countries turn to the finance wizards to fix the economy. The logic is that a fixed economy will automaticaly fix a society.

Since the media is a major influence on public opinion, the governments have to expend energy on framing the message.

This is precisely what was in evidence on days after the presentation of New Zealand Budget 2010 - sub-titled "building the recovery".

One of the big losers in this recovery-building exercise was the early childhood education (ECE)sector. The target of 100% qualified teachers was revised down to a 80%. This, it was argued, would help meet the shortage of qualified teachers. In economic terms this was a measure of frugality - restrain demand to regulate supply constraints and resourcefully using already existing resources. By framing the teacher qualification issue as a demand and supply issue it enables the government to implement solutions targeting that problem and making it unattractive for services to hire these professionals beyond a certain limit. Suddenly new entrants to the marketplace are also dettered.

In order to "align" the funding with the revised teacher targets the top two tiers of funding were to be done away to be replaced by a new 80%+ funding rate. If we analyse the flow of the argument the revision of teacher qualification targets was envisaged prior to cuts in funding. For the public and for the ECE sector, the funding cuts could only be rationalised by removing 100% qualified force as the governmental priority for the sector. So we have a policy change (revised teacher qualification targets) here effected not through any research and/or in consultation with the sector but through the mechanism of the budget.

The key arguments presented for the changes were:

(1) spending-levels on ECE are "unsustainable" (current spend on the education sector is over $4 billion; this measure would save $295 million). A straight forward budget cut in this sector would have raised a lot of hue and cry. So by revising the qualification target in an under-hand manner, the government could manufacture a malaise (high level of spending) and implement a solution (funding cuts).

(2) unqualified but high quality carers ("nanas") could replace the qualified teachers. Much media opinion has focused on this point. For example, the opinion piece by AnneMarie Quill and its rebuttal by Fiona Hughes (The COO of Kidicorp) in the New Zealand Herald. There has been little discussion about the impact of changes on people who are currently persuing ECE qualifications. Many trainee teachers have already been laid-off. A second round of lay-offs targetting qualified staff in centres over 80% qualifieds is expected.

(3) increasing participation in low socio-economic areas is a more "worthy" goal than full qualification of the force. The budget is so thin on detail about the third point that it seems to have been included to frame the announcements as being for those in "greatest need". If there was a need for a re-orienting policy priority to increase participation in low socio-economic areas, then the government should have been more explicit about how they will go about achieving this objective. Early childhood research has consistently pointed out that early education and care makes a difference in improving the life-chances and well-being of children. This is specially true for children from at-risk and low socio-economic families.

A prudent way to support the services, staff, children and families in high need would be to work on many fronts, while maintaining the essential focus on the education and care settings:

1. increasing the WINZ childcare subsidy for poorer families and those in study or working part-time.
2. funding community-focused, participation-oriented projects.
3. enhancing the capacity of childcare services to work with parents and families. This is very important if the government wants to involve unqualfied but expereinced and caring "nanas" in ECE.

Childcare settings need to be made a key site of interventions if ECE participation levels among low socio-economic families with high needs are to be improved.

- Baljit S Grewal, Ph.D