Pedagogical implications of Government’s funding of ECE.

“Whatever happens in education is influenced by pedagogy…. and what happens in pedagogy, teaching styles, curriculum and so on, is the outcome of certain policies adopted by schools or educational institutions or governmental bureaucracies… Education can never be neutral” (Marshall, Coxon, Jenkins & Jones, 2000, p. 9).

My first blog provided a brief history of the social and historical climate in which our ECE system developed. The political rationale for government’s investment in ECE over a century ago began with the concern for the welfare of young children, with an intention to support the mothering role. In time, concerns for equity involving women’s rights, indigenous rights and children’s rights continued to drive policies supportive of investment in ECE. From the 1990s and onwards, the political focus on ECE has been guided by a discourse on ‘quality’ participation (May 2002).

According to Ceglowski and Bacigaupa (2002) national childcare policies are shaped by research on the quality of child care. Government recognises that quality ECE contributes to society as it lays the foundation for children’s learning. One of the reasons for measuring the ‘quality’ of an ECE service is to determine the cost of delivery of quality factors, believed to positively influence children’s learning. These quality indicators are measured by adult to child ratios, group size, staff experience and qualifications, wage and working conditions, stability of staff, adult to child and child to child interactions, environment and age appropriate learning experiences (Mitchell, 2002).

The 2002 Strategic Plan demonstrated the Labour government’s belief in the importance of quality ECE in its three core goals which include; “increasing participation in quality ECE services, improving quality…. [and] promoting collaborative relationships.” The notion of providing quality ECE carried with it the declaration that Government would be financially supportive particularly in its goal for a fully qualified teaching staff (for teacher led services) by 2012 (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 8). However with the recent change in government and its $400 million funding cuts to ECE implemented in February 2011, these goals for quality may prove a challenge to maintain.

According to McConnell the concept of ‘quality’ in ECE has its roots in the world of business which carries implications, such as the need for measurement, assessment, accountability and outcomes (personal communication, April 5, 2011). Critical theorists Dahlberg, Moss and Pence (1999) suggest that the dominant discourse of quality needs to be questioned as it involves measurement, and seeks answers for how best to achieve desired outcomes and cost effectiveness. Whose perspective of quality ECE is this? Is policy informed from the perspective of researchers, parents, teachers or children? Our understanding of ‘quality’ is shaped by values and beliefs, cultural influences and perspectives of childhood and therefore measurement of ‘quality’ is subjective.

May and Mitchell’s (2009, p. 4) report in favour of “strengthening community-based early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand” highlights its 2020 vision that “every child has a right as a citizen to participate in free ECE and every family that wishes to can access high quality, community-Based ECE.” However we have recently witnessed a shift away from the state’s support for the provision of free community based ECE, as further revealed by withdrawal of the word ‘free’ in Labour’s 2007’ 20 hours free’ policy. The policy decisions enacted by Government in last year’s ECE budget has caused considerable concern for early childhood educators, managers of ECE services and parents who in many settings have begun to feel the financial effects through increasing childcare fees. Therefore it is important that in a time of tight budgets, when difficult choices are made that we make sure our very limited resources are spent on priorities whilst remaining firmly committed to delivering a professional quality ECE for young children in Aotearoa New Zealand. 

 References:

Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four perspectives on child care
Quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (2), 87-92.

Dahlber, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives [ebrary reader version]. Retrieved from ebrary database, http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED433943.pd

Marshall, J., Coxon, E., Jenkins, K., & Jones, A. (2000). Politics, Policy Pedagogy: Education in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

May, H. (2002). Early childhood care and education in Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. McGill Journal of Education, 37(1), 19-36. Retrieved April, 2011 from Proquest. (Document ID: 202687706).

May, H., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Strengthening community-based early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Report of the quality public early childhood education project. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/ECE/Report_QPECE_project_web.pdf

Ministry of Education, (2002). Pathways to the future: Ngā huarahi arataki. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Mitchell, L. (2002). Differences between community owned and privately owned early childhood education and care centres: A review of evidence. NZCER Occasional paper 2002/2. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/11743.pdf   


Peaceful rally to highlight concerns over government fundings cuts to ECE

                                                                                           
         Peaceful rally Hastings- 16th April 2011

Government funded ECE for the good of society or for private good?

Tohua nga whakatipuranga ki te inu I te puna o te Matauranga.

Kia hora ai to whakaruruhau o te ora ki runga I te iwi

Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawanui

“Nurture the young and teach them to drink from the fountain of knowledge. For with them lies your protection, your strength and the destiny of your people.”

Up until the 1980s, New Zealand government followed a Western liberal tradition espousing the value of the educated individual as ‘good’ and a means through which freedom was likely to be achieved. Therefore it could be assumed that education would be adequately funded and beyond party politics. The past few decades have witnessed major changes as Government has implemented policy, aimed at reforming ECE (Aitken & Kennedy, 2007; Farquhar, 2008).

During the 1980s, strongly influenced by Treasury, Government introduced solutions such as deregulation, corporatisation and privatisation to solve the economic crisis of that time. With this shift towards neo-liberal thinking, the provision of education came to be viewed as a commercial enterprise as evidenced by the introduction of policies such as ‘Bulk Funding’ in 1990 and ‘20 Free Hours’ in 2007.  Although Bulk Funding proposed by the ‘Meade Report, endeavoured to address inequities between the various ECE services, opponents argued that it did not encourage quality ECE because Government funding per child, rather than for cost of services allowed centre managers a certain amount of freedom to determine their spending priorities. Some centres operating for profit saw no incentive to employ any more than minimum staff requirements. Also, this system did not bind government to sustaining or increasing funding levels, as bulk funding was not necessarily tied to expenses (Mitchell, 2001; 2005).

According to Marshall (2000) neoliberalism is the belief that the free market is the best means for determining economic and individual outcomes. In terms of education this involves the assumption that competition between ECE providers will result in quality services and public resources being used more efficiently. Policies such as de-zoning allow people (who are constructed as consumers) a choice of ECE provision to suit their own interests. However the free market provision of ECE has not necessarily provided equitably for marginalised or disadvantaged groups to exercise freedom of choice, as their access may have been inhibited due to cost of ECE provision and location of ECE services.

Participation for children in ECE is still a priority and despite the 2010 budget cuts, Government proposes to inject $91 Million to increase participation for up to 3,500 children who are currently missing out, in particular Maori, Pacifika and children from low socio-economic status or remote rural communities (New Zealand Government, 2010). Te One (2010) believes although this initiative is welcome it should not come at the expense of services in which 85% of Pasifika and 91% of Māori children are already enrolled; such as Free Kindergartens which operate in low income areas, with qualified teaching staff.

Australia and New Zealand’s governments have demonstrated a free market approach through a “gradual reduction of publicly funded and community based services” while allowing an increasing investment in the provision of ECE services by the private and corporate sector (Aitken & Kennedy, 2007, p. 176). Additionally, this theoretical shift in thinking influenced a change in emphasis of administration in education to one of managerialism as witnessed by the dismantling of the Department of Education in 1989. Those in authority are viewed as managers whose responsibility it is to deliver appropriate outcomes overseen by the Government’s Education Review Office [ERO] (Smith, 2002).

The rapid increase in a ‘for-profit’ ECE sector has been further facilitated by the implementation in 2007 of Government’s funding of  ’20 Free Hours’ policy which no longer distinguishes between private or public ECE services, provided licensing requirements are met ( Marshall, 2000; Mitchell, 2002). Extending the 20 hours ECE policy to include children in parent-led services such as Kohanga Reo and Playcentre and children aged 5 still attending, is a surprising development in light of the 2010 budget cuts. This could indicate Government’s motive as acting equitably in endorsing the value of parent-led ECE services but it could also signify its disregard for the recognition of teacher qualifications as an important factor in providing quality ECE service.

If new right ideology drives Government’s education policy, we need to critically examine whose interests are being represented. Marshall, Coxon, Jenkins & Jones, (2000) warn of the changing ideals of education from that of emancipation, training for leadership and personal autonomy to an education system for equipping people with skills to contribute to society and its place in the global market. This requires a two way relationship if Government is to maintain economic wellbeing, security and power for itself and the wellbeing of its people. Therefore to achieve its goals, Government influences people through education which has become a “strategic factor in the efficiency of national economic policies” (Marshall, Coxon, Jenkins & Jones, 2000, p. 16).

This raises the question of whether the ‘good of society’ is viewed mainly in economic terms. The Executive Summary (2006) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] of which New Zealand is a member, reveal the reasons why countries invest in ECE. Economic prosperity is deemed to be dependent on a high proportion of the population being employed, therefore increasing women’s participation in the labour force can improve the problem of a diminishing labour force due to an aging population and falling fertility rates. Other reasons for investment in ECE include addressing problems of children’s poverty and educational disadvantage and providing better support for the integration of immigrant’s children into the education system (OECD, 2006).

Globalisation, which can be understood as moving towards a global order or homogenisation of economy, technology, culture and politics, has affected most industries, including early childhood education (Marshall, Coxon, Jenkins & Jones, 2000). Many countries are realising the value of investing in ECE, particularly those in the OECD, as human capital is viewed as supporting the expansion of their global competitiveness and economic growth. New Zealand has invested much to create a world class ECE by international standards of quality, with the highest rates for participation (Special Interest Group, 2009). But now Government appears to have exhausted its purse or perhaps its priorities have shifted.

Community providers such as Kindergarten have always endeavoured to provide a quality ECE for children and now more than ever they will need to compete by marketing the learning experience to parents to maintain their share of government funding. Solutions such as extending hours and marketing the provision of a ‘free’ quality education are some of the strategies Kindergartens have already used to compete for children’s enrolment. However these solutions may no longer be enough in light of the recent budget cuts. According to Smith (2002) we are now witnessing a further attack on the more liberal ideology of education as a public good. The question is, What can be done about this?

 

Aitken, a., & Kennedy, A. (2007). Critical issues for the early childhood profession. In L. Keesing-Styles & H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogue. (pp. 165-185). Castle Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press.

Farquhar, S. (2008).Early childhood care and education: From advocacy to institution. In V. Carpenter, J. Jesson, P. Roberts, & A. Stevenson (Eds.), Ngā kaupapa here: Connections and contradictions in education (pp. 45-56). Australia: Cengage Learning.

Marshall, J., Coxon, E., Jenkins, K., & Jones, A. (2000). Politics, Policy Pedagogy: Education in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Marshall, J. (2000). Bright futures and the knowledge society. In J. Marshall, E. Coxon, K. Jenkins, & A. Jones (Eds.), Politics, Policy Pedagogy: Education in Aotearoa-New Zealand (pp. 187-215). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Mitchell, L. (2001). Bulk funding of New Zealand’s early childhood services-An analysis of the impact. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.

Mitchell, L. (2002). Differences between community owned and privately owned early childhood centres: A review of evidence. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/11743.pdf

Mitchell, L. (2005). Policy shifts in early childhood education: past lessons, new directions. In J. Codd, & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Education policy directions in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 175-198). Auckland, New Zealand: Thomson Dunmore Press.

New Zealand Government: Waitakere and Northland first to benefit from $91.8 million ECE boost. (2010, August 20). M2 Presswire. Retrieved April, 2011, from Proquest Central. (Document ID: 745759324)

OECD, (2006). Starting strong 11: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic and Community Development.

Smith, M. (2002). Globalisation and the incorporation of education. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization_and_education.htm

Special Interest Group. (2009). Leading early childhood researchers concerned about threats to quality early education. New Zealand Association for Research in Education: Te Hunga Rangahau Mātuaranga O Aotearoa. Retrieved April, 27, 2011 from http://www.nzare.org.nz/pdfs/ece/ECEPressReleaseDec2009.pdf

 Te One, S. (2010). Early childhood education-New pathways to an uncertain future. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from http://www.acya.org.nz/site_resources/library/Documents/Reports_to_UN/CYA_2010/Early_Childhood_Education.pdf

Reference for web link:

Organisation for Economic co-operation and Development, (n.d.) Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Government funding of ECE pre-budget and implementation of budget cuts.

Click this picture to see the cut

National’s 2010 budget, aimed at bringing ECE spending under control has now been implemented as of February 2011.

The last decade has witnessed an unprecedented increase in Government expenditure on ECE in New Zealand. Government Statistics reveal the total cost rising from $413 million in 2002, to *$1.354 billion per annum (year ended June 2010).

Two of the most significant expenses included in the total* year ended June 2010 were:

·       Children’s ECE participation at $1.148 billion. (Cost of 20 hours funding to ECE providers, equity funding,  correspondence school and payments to license exempt services).

·       $150.2 million for childcare subsidy from Social Development.

According to NZEI the government will be cutting over $400 million from ECE services during the next few years. Most of the savings (approximately $295 million) will be made by cutting back the two highest funding rates for ECE centres that employ between 80-100% qualified teachers. This will affect approximately 2000 ECE services which cater for 93,000 children.

Prior to February 2011, ECE providers received government funding for employment of staff at differing rates, depending on their proportion of qualified teachers. Those employing between 80 - 100% qualified and registered teachers such as kindergartens, received the highest rates. This rate recognised the costs of employing 100% qualified teachers and provided an incentive for others to reach Labour’s strategic plan target of 100% qualified teachers by 2012. As a result of the 2010 budget the two highest rates have now been removed altogether and funding will only be paid for up to 80% of qualified staff.

Others cuts include scrapping the annual $4,300 PRT grant paid to centres who have more than 80% fully qualified teachers. This grant was used by centres to support provisionally registered teachers during their two years induction programme to become registered. According to New Zealand Kindergarten’s [NZK] chief executive Claire Wells there are at present 250 provisionally registered teachers in Kindergartens throughout New Zealand, which will equate to a further loss to Kindergartens of just over 1 million in funding. She argues that cutting back on spending due to the shortfall, could jeopardise the quality of their service, or if costs are passed on to parents, either way it could mean that children miss out. General Manager Bronwen Bertram said Heretaunga Kindergarten Association would lose $500,000 as a result of the budget cuts, but remain committed to retaining all qualified staff. She said lost revenue would be made up by cutting operational costs such as maintenance, professional development and resources (Personal communication, March 2011).

Government’s funding of ECE has become a complicated process as it endeavours to provide for the wide diversity of ECE services including education and care centres, home-based services, kindergartens, kōhanga reo, playgroups, and playcentres. The ECE funding rates for licensed services are subsidies that reflect teaching salary costs and four components of operating costs (operating, capital, property operating and non-teaching staff costs).

For many centres, particularly kindergartens that have traditionally always employed fully qualified teachers, the cuts will mean huge reductions to their funding. NZK chief executive Clare Wells estimates a $12 Million reduction to the annual NZ kindergarten budget. She points out that Kindergarten is a community based non-profit organisation which relies on government to meet most of their operational costs to support a high quality education. She believes the government is effectively saying 80% qualified teachers is sufficient to provide quality and yet research points to teacher qualifications as an important factor in providing quality ECE (Carr & Mitchell, n.d.).  This appears to be contradictory to the findings of the Minister of Education’s advisory group (2010, p. 9). This group was set up to consider future policy settings around the teaching workforce and stated in its report last year that "effective teaching is recognised as the most important lever for improving educational outcomes for students."

In a press release dated 31st January 2011, Minister of Education Anne Tolley announced that the National Government will invest the highest amount any government has ever spent on ECE. She reiterates National’s commitment to high quality ECE and greater participation for all children while also highlighting the need to bring spending under control due to escalating costs which has seen ECE funding treble over the last five years. In justifying the need to cut funding, Anne Tolley also mentions disproportionate government spending between the average taxpayer subsidised payment per ECE child of $7600, compared with the cost per primary school pupil at $5,528 and high school at $6733. (This comparison is rather misleading as the main difference is the cost of salaries for the higher adult to child ratios necessary in early childhood care and education; for children under 2 ½ years 1:4 and over 2 ½ at 1:10 for full day, or 1:14 for sessional) as recommended by the Ministry of Education.  

The ECE funding cuts may severely affect non-profit services which have for over a century provided for the 1939 Labour Government’s objective penned by Director of Education C. E Beeby, “that every child, whatever his level of ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right as a citizen to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted and to the fullest extent of his powers (May & Mitchel, 2009). Will Government continue to deliver a free quality early childhood education for children in New Zealand?  How will this compare  with early childhood services in business for profit?

Carr, M., & Mitchell, L. (n.d). Ocassional paper: Qualified teachers in early childhood centres: Do we need them? Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzkindergarten.org.nz/announcementretrieve.aspx?id=33643

May, H., & Mitchell, L. (2009). Strengthening community-based early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand: Report of the quality public early childhood education project. Retrieved from http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/ECE/Report_QPECE_project_web_2+JD.pdf

Reference for web links:

Early Childhood Education funding at record $1.4 billion, (2011). Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1101/S00168/early-childhood-education-funding-at-record-14-billion.htm

Early childhood education statistics, (n.d.). Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/ece

Key messages and facts, (n.d.). Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/ECE/Key%20Message%20and%20Facts.pdf

Ministry of Education, (n.d.). Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/Budget/Budget2010/Factsheets/ECEFundingChanges.aspx#jump1

Ministry of Education, (n.d.). retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/ManagementInformation/RegulatoryFrameworkForECEServices/RegulatoryReview20042008/AdultChildRatios/AdultChildRatiosSummaryOf2005Feedback.aspx

Ministry of Education, (2010). A vision for the teaching profession. Rertieved April, 2011, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/TheMinistry/Consultation/WorkforceAdvisoryGroup/WorkforceAdvisoryGroupFinalReportPDF.pdf

Wells, C. (2009). More funding cuts to kindergartens. Retrieved April, 2011, http://www.nzkindergarten.org.nz/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=42408

Wells, C. (2009). Children lose out in budget cutbacks. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.nzkindergarten.org.nz/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=32702

Social and political context of government funding for ECE in New Zealand over the past century.

                               http://cterfile.ed.uiuc.edu/mahara/view/view.php?id=22


In order to gain a clearer understanding of the current situation regarding the funding of ECE in New Zealand, it is necessary to consider the history of government’s involvement through the years.

The first kindergarten opened in Dunedin in 1889 as a charitable ideal. Teachers and supporters worked tirelessly to fundraise for resources and for the salary of a trained early childhood teacher (Fowler, 2008). It was not until 1904 that the first successful application for financial assistance from the government was granted (May, 2009). Government continued to subsidise children aged three to five years attending kindergarten, until 1928 when funding stopped due to the depression and was later restored in 1935. Despite the constant challenge of fundraising throughout the early 1900s the movement continued to grow, particularly during WW2, as men went off to war and women were left behind needing care for their children, while they had to work (Fowler, 2008).

The Bailey report released in 1947 resulted in government taking over the funding for kindergarten teacher’s salaries by 1948 on condition that the head teacher was suitably qualified. This report was mainly concerned with sessional kindergarten-styled education which public opinion and political beliefs up until the late 20^th century acknowledged as the most suitable environment for three and four year olds outside of the home. During this era Plunket encouraged mothers to be responsible for their domestic role of nurturing infants and toddlers (Cooper & Tangaere, 1994). After WW2, Playcentre followed kindergarten’s lead and began to receive government funding (Meade & Podmore, 2002).

The government’s 1961 Hunn report blamed Māori for their children’s poor health and educational achievement and so in 1963 funded the appointment of Lex Grey as the first preschool officer for the Māori Education Foundation to boost Maori participation in kindergarten or playcentres. Instead he encouraged Māori to open their own centres and preserve their language while participating in education with their whānau. At this time government funding was only available to kindergarten or playcentre and thus Maori preschools categorised themselves as playcentres. Many of these later closed and some became a forerunner for Kōhanga Reo which began in 1982 (Cooper & Tangaere, 1994).

By the 1960s kindergarten had become part of the free public education system. The Education Act of 1964 gave kindergarten teachers the same status as others in the education sector. Buildings were purpose built and this presented a professional image as opposed to the many private childcare facilities that had been set up in homes and halls without government funding (Farquhar, 2008).

Following the 1971 Hill Report, government provided funding to support the inclusion of children’s with special needs at kindergarten or playcentre. Although the Hill Report did acknowledge the need for fulltime childcare with educated childcare workers, it was not until 1990 that a three year training course was implemented, matching the primary teacher’s diploma and yet without compulsion for those who worked in childcare or with infants and toddlers (Cooper & Tangaere, 1994). During the 1970’s and 80s several conferences were held revealing strong feminist views about inequalities of women’s status in ECE. The first 1985 National ECE forum hosted by Labour government, expressed its goal that all ECE services were to be equally valued and funded accordingly (May, 2009).

The 1988 Meade Report, also known as “Education to be more” promoted the benefits of ECE and called for greater funding to ensure access, equity and quality. Government’s response to the Meade report saw the “Before Five” reforms finally include childcare, acknowledging equal status with all other education sectors and calling for equitable funding above the kindergarten rate, which it argued was also underfunded. All centres were subsequently required to create a charter and undergo a three yearly review by the Education Review office [ERO]. This was to be implemented in the early 90s along with the development of a national ECE curriculum with the goal for provision of quality ECE (May, 2009).

The 1990s were a time of political upheaval, beginning with change of government to National in 1990 who introduced a return to home-based services and “Parents as First Teachers” under the administration of Plunket. Kindergartens received their first bulk funding in 1992 which was to cover expenditure and salaries. This led to staff cuts, fee increases, pressure to fundraise and maintain full rolls and opening longer sessions (May, 2009).

A new labour government in 1999 began the millennium by introducing “Pathways to the Future” the ten year strategic plan, set to begin in 2002. Its aims included reducing the cost of childcare to parents, providing high quality ECE, increasing children’s participation and investing in research by way of showcasing the Centres of Innovation [COI].  Pay parity for kindergarten teachers was given the go-ahead the day after Labour’s successful re-election in 2002. Evidence of Labour’s support for ECE was revealed as the budget almost doubled from 2002 to 2007 and would continue to escalate with the cost involved of “20 Free Hours” policy introduced in 2007. The effects of increased government funding to the early childhood sector have been seen in the rapid growth in numbers of private ECE centres, some of whom have listed on the stock market (May, 2009).

National government has come back into power in 2008 and will continue to fund Labour’s 2007 “20 free hours” policy for children aged three to five years. As a result of the 2010 Budget, recent legislation has been implemented to cut a significant amount of funding to ECE beginning in February 2011. Information concerning National government's 2010 budget decision will be discussed further……

                   

Cooper, D., & Tangaere, P. (1994). A critical analysis of the development of early childhood education. In E. Coxon, K. Jenkins, J. Marshall, & L. Massey (Eds.), The politics of learning and teaching in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Farquhar, S. (2008). Prospects for the NewZealand Free Kindergarten system. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.childforum.com/articlesn.asp

Fowler, M. (2008). A proud heritage: Heretaunga Free Kindergarten Association 1928-2008. Havelock North, New Zealand: Michael Fowler Publishing.

May, H. (2009). Politics in the playground: The world of early childhood in New Zealand. Dunedin: Otago University Press.

Meade, A., & Podmore, V.N. (2002). Early childhood education policy co-ordination under te auspices of the Department/Ministry of Education: A case study of New Zealand (early Childhood and Family Policy Series n.1). Paris, France: UNESCO.

Reference list for web links:

May, H. (2002). Early childhood care and education in Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Ec/HMayspeech.pdf

Ministry of Education, (n.d.). Pathways to the future: English plan and translations. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/EarlyChildhood/ECEStrategicPlan/PathwaysToTheFutureEnglishPlanAndTranslations.aspx

The Hunn Report (1961). Retrieved March, 2011, from http://teaohou.natlib.govt.nz/journals/teaohou/issue/Mao34TeA/c28.html

Wells, C.  (1999). Future direction: Shaping early childhood education policy for the 21^st century-A personal perspective. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://library.eit.ac.nz:2053/pqcentral/docview/202687706/12F017B14286744351/1?accountid=39646

Woodham, M. (2008). Looking a gift horse in the mouth: Examining Labours

            “20 hours Free” early childhood education policy. Retrieved March, 2011, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/nzaroe/2007/pdf/10text-woodhams.pdf

Government's funding cuts to early childhood education

             
            "The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to
                     make money do more for the betterment of life." Henry Ford.

Over the coming weeks I will be discussing the current issue of Government funding cuts to ECE which have been enacted as of February 2011. I have chosen this as my topic to explore for my 3rd year paper, Politics, Pedagogy and Policy because it is of great concern to early childhood educators at this time in history.