A smorgasbord of special interests has been lining up to participate in hearings hosted by the Productivity Commission, in the wake of its release of a draft report into Child Care and Early Learning.
Reports quote claims about how ‘science’ proves that quality care is vital to early childhood development, and that ‘evidence’ proves that any changes to minimum staff qualifications or staff-to-child ratios will put children ‘at risk’.
The nexus between children’s early development and government policies which are supposed to facilitate this is undoubtedly complex, and certainly worthy of investigation. But the evidence for particular policies, much less the costs associated with them, is certainly not as clear-cut as experts would have us believe.
Virtually undisputed is that a child’s innate potential can influenced – be hampered or be allowed to flourish – depending on the environment in which the child is raised, especially in the pre-school years.
The fact that socio-economic disadvantage can have a negative impact on children’s early development and skill acquisition is not new. Small-scale early childhood ‘interventions’ and demonstration programs such as the Perry Preschool Project and the Carolina Abecedarian Project have existed since the 1960s in the United States. Both of these programs showed impressive results, though the magnitude is disputed.
Unfortunately, current debates about quality and the importance of the early years have seen the results from these programs, and the more recent work by Nobel laureate James Heckman on the economics of early childhood interventions, be abused in the hands of special interests.
The results of programs that are focused on the most disadvantaged children are not generalizable to average Australian children. The design of these programs, which often include a substantial in-home parental skills coaching component, are certainly not comparable to the Australian system of long day care and family day care, which arose primarily out of a desire to facilitate female labour force participation.
On the other hand, the evidence that public (largely government-funded), universal (for all children) childcare programs confer social benefits in terms of improved outcomes for children is ambiguous. So, too, is the evidence that mandating higher qualifications and staff-to-child ratios than existed prior to the introduction of the National Quality Framework will deliver increased benefits. This also does not take into account the substantial costs involved.
There is no reason why the new minimum standards and quality regulations should be considered a sacred cow. Neither the Productivity Commission nor the minister in charge of childcare, Sussan Ley, should be taken in by special interests.
Trisha Jha is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Evidence on childcare twisted by special interests
Evidence on childcare twisted by special interests
Reports quote claims about how ‘science’ proves that quality care is vital to early childhood development, and that ‘evidence’ proves that any changes to minimum staff qualifications or staff-to-child ratios will put children ‘at risk’.
The nexus between children’s early development and government policies which are supposed to facilitate this is undoubtedly complex, and certainly worthy of investigation. But the evidence for particular policies, much less the costs associated with them, is certainly not as clear-cut as experts would have us believe.
Virtually undisputed is that a child’s innate potential can influenced – be hampered or be allowed to flourish – depending on the environment in which the child is raised, especially in the pre-school years.
The fact that socio-economic disadvantage can have a negative impact on children’s early development and skill acquisition is not new. Small-scale early childhood ‘interventions’ and demonstration programs such as the Perry Preschool Project and the Carolina Abecedarian Project have existed since the 1960s in the United States. Both of these programs showed impressive results, though the magnitude is disputed.
Unfortunately, current debates about quality and the importance of the early years have seen the results from these programs, and the more recent work by Nobel laureate James Heckman on the economics of early childhood interventions, be abused in the hands of special interests.
The results of programs that are focused on the most disadvantaged children are not generalizable to average Australian children. The design of these programs, which often include a substantial in-home parental skills coaching component, are certainly not comparable to the Australian system of long day care and family day care, which arose primarily out of a desire to facilitate female labour force participation.
On the other hand, the evidence that public (largely government-funded), universal (for all children) childcare programs confer social benefits in terms of improved outcomes for children is ambiguous. So, too, is the evidence that mandating higher qualifications and staff-to-child ratios than existed prior to the introduction of the National Quality Framework will deliver increased benefits. This also does not take into account the substantial costs involved.
There is no reason why the new minimum standards and quality regulations should be considered a sacred cow. Neither the Productivity Commission nor the minister in charge of childcare, Sussan Ley, should be taken in by special interests.
Trisha Jha is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: