On Monday, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that $450 million would be dedicated to improving before- and after-school care. The funding represents a worrying shift from how child care has traditionally been perceived by public policy – as a way to keep women in the workforce – and towards a taxpayer-funded classroom service.
The $450 million includes funding to increase the number of places and the operating hours of care centres, as well as program quality. It will be distributed via a competitive grants system, whereby schools and child care providers will have to submit a proposal in order to be considered for an additional grant of up to $200,000.
The government currently pumps money into the child care system in two main ways: through fee assistance programs such as the Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate; and through funding services directly.
The cost to taxpayers of existing child care support programs according to 2013 budget figures (exclusive of fee assistance) is around $255.50 per-child. Given that Child Care Minister Kate Ellis has said the $450 million boost will allow for 68,000 extra places in Out of School Hours (OOSH) care, this per-child figure is going to increase astronomically. There seems to be no clear logic in this. If expanding access to OOSH care is the purpose, then such a large sum ought to increase the supply of places by far more than 68,000.
This appears to be about more than just child care for working parents. Kevin Rudd's press conference announcing the initiative promoted the funding boost as a part of the Better Schools program and kids' development. The funding includes support for supervised programs relating to sport, music and homework. It turns what was once a care facility with a specific public policy goal into a virtual classroom-like service.
The existing approach to the OOSH care system was never intended to enhance children's learning: that's what the school system is for. The government funds the child care system and offers fee assistance so that parents have somewhere to leave their children while they are at work. It has the explicit goal of increasing workforce participation for women. OOSH care and all associated spending is simply a means to that end.
The notion of a holistic system of OOSH care is not a bad one, but it isn't child care. If parents wish for their children to engage in more fulfilling activities after school than eating sandwiches, playing games and doing craft, they can organise it themselves and pay for it out of their own pockets. It should not be subsidised by the taxpayer through the existing child care system.
Trisha Jha is a Research Assistant at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Rudd’s after school care cash splash
Rudd’s after school care cash splash
The $450 million includes funding to increase the number of places and the operating hours of care centres, as well as program quality. It will be distributed via a competitive grants system, whereby schools and child care providers will have to submit a proposal in order to be considered for an additional grant of up to $200,000.
The government currently pumps money into the child care system in two main ways: through fee assistance programs such as the Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate; and through funding services directly.
The cost to taxpayers of existing child care support programs according to 2013 budget figures (exclusive of fee assistance) is around $255.50 per-child. Given that Child Care Minister Kate Ellis has said the $450 million boost will allow for 68,000 extra places in Out of School Hours (OOSH) care, this per-child figure is going to increase astronomically. There seems to be no clear logic in this. If expanding access to OOSH care is the purpose, then such a large sum ought to increase the supply of places by far more than 68,000.
This appears to be about more than just child care for working parents. Kevin Rudd's press conference announcing the initiative promoted the funding boost as a part of the Better Schools program and kids' development. The funding includes support for supervised programs relating to sport, music and homework. It turns what was once a care facility with a specific public policy goal into a virtual classroom-like service.
The existing approach to the OOSH care system was never intended to enhance children's learning: that's what the school system is for. The government funds the child care system and offers fee assistance so that parents have somewhere to leave their children while they are at work. It has the explicit goal of increasing workforce participation for women. OOSH care and all associated spending is simply a means to that end.
The notion of a holistic system of OOSH care is not a bad one, but it isn't child care. If parents wish for their children to engage in more fulfilling activities after school than eating sandwiches, playing games and doing craft, they can organise it themselves and pay for it out of their own pockets. It should not be subsidised by the taxpayer through the existing child care system.
Trisha Jha is a Research Assistant 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: