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
