Right: Masks can be fun, but many child care centres point out that they are impractical in an early education class environment.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of early education and childcare being free
1. Early education is of great benefit to children
Among those who promote free childcare are those who argue that high quality early education is of vital importance for young children and should be regarded as a right in the same way as primary and secondary education is.
In an analysis published in The Conversation om April 11, 2019, and written by Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University and Kate Noble, Education Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, it was noted, 'There is mounting evidence that two years of quality preschool sets up a child for success throughout their education journey and life. A wealth of international research shows children who attend high-quality early childhood programs not only perform better in learning, but also in skills such as social competence, vocabulary, and self-control. And these benefits are greatest for children from disadvantaged background.'
The authors further commented, 'This is backed by research into early brain development, which shows the importance of laying foundations for learning early in life, while children's brains are most malleable. Economist James Heckman famously showed that investing in early learning and development has greater return on investment than addressing issues in later years.'
Overseas research has demonstrated the enduring benefits of early education. In the United Kingdom, a large study that began in 1997 assessed more than 3,000 children at the age of three and followed them all the way up to 16. It found two or three years of quality preschool placed children nearly eight months ahead in their literacy at entry to school, compared to children with no preschool. At the age of 16, more months spent in preschool was associated with higher grades in English and Maths.
The Early Years Education Program (EYEP), providing 145 vulnerable children with three years of tailored high-quality early childhood education and care has shown an impact on children's IQ. Children who attended EYEP had an estimated increase in IQ relative to the control group of about 4 points. On the scale used for measuring IQ, this is a relatively large increase, representing about one-quarter of a standard deviation in a norm population. For a normal distribution of IQ scores, this would imply that the mean IQ
for children enrolled in EYEP is better than the outcomes of about 60 percent of the control group.
Those who stress the value of early education also note that not only does it lead to academic advantages, it offers many other benefits. Quality preschools run play-based learning programs in which children are encouraged to discover and explore. These play experiences provide opportunities for children to develop essential skills such as co-operation, concentration, problem-solving and self-control.
Jackson and Noble argue, 'Part of Australia's commitment needs to be secure, ongoing funding for quality [early education] service provision, as we have for schools.'
Research has indicated that Australia's preschool provision needs to be developed and made more financially secure and accessible if the benefits it could provide are to be achieved.
In an article published in The Conversation on June 4, 2018, Jen Jackson further argued, 'Ongoing funding would...improve efficiency in preschool provision by allowing providers to plan ahead.
Evidence also shows the earlier children can access quality early childhood services; the better their longer-term learning outcomes are likely to be.'
Supporters of free early childhood education and childcare argue that these opportunities must be regarded as a right in the same manner that primary and secondary education are.
In an article published in The Conversation on July 15, 2019, Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, noted a recently released report which stated, 'The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia ratified in 1990, recognises children's right to education, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals recognise the importance of quality early childhood education and care in delivering that right to all children.
Governments willingly invest in school education, recognising the right to education means they have an obligation to their youngest citizens. Yet government investment in early childhood education in Australia still seems to depend heavily on economic arguments.'
2. Early childhood education and childcare fees are outside the range of many families.
Early education and childcare costs in Australia are high by international standards. The standing Commonwealth Child Care Subsidy is means-tested. Even for a family getting the maximum subsidy (85 percent of costs for households with income less than A$68,000) it costs about A$9,000 a year to have two children in full-time care. For a family where each parent earns A$80,000, the cost is about A$26,000 a year.
Comparative studies have indicated that childcare and early education costs in Australia are among the highest in the world. Out-of-pocket childcare costs are greater in Australia than in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand.
Commenting in June 2020, Kate Griffiths of the Grattan Institute has stated, 'Childcare cost is the big constraint on Australian families. The fees are particularly higher than in comparable countries. Even though we do have a good subsidy scheme, it needed to be more generous even pre-crisis.
For low-income families, the cost is a huge factor. There is a higher subsidy for low-income families, but it tapers off as your income reduces. The taper rate is quite steep.'
Full-time net early education and childcare costs absorb about a quarter of household income for an average-earning couple with two young children in Australia. The OECD average is 11 percent. Almost half of Australian parents with children under five say they struggle with the cost.
A recent Mitchell Institute report found some parents are spending more on day-care fees than they would on private schooling.
In an article published in The Conversation on June 4, 2019, Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, noted, 'There is a widening gap in participation in early childhood services based on family income. Fewer than one-quarter (22.4 percent) of young children from low-income families used preschool or childcare services in 2017, with a steady decline over the last five years.'
Australia has been criticised for it lower level of government funding for early childhood education and childcare. According to the OECD, Australia places 17th in the world for education spending on three to five-year-olds.
A recent survey found more than 50 percent of mothers (of children of all ages) who responded agreed with the statement 'the federal government should provide free childcare for all citizens to make childcare affordable'.
A Productivity Commission report released in February 2019 found the median weekly cost of full-time care was $480 in 2018, or $400 for family day care. This was an increase of 2.8 percent from the previous year - outstripping the overall inflation level for Australia which came in at 1.8 percent.
The Productivity Commission indicated that government subsidies had a greater impact for lower income families but these families still spent the highest proportion of their disposable income on childcare fees, nearly $1 in every $12 earned.
Almost one in six parents with kids under school age said they wanted more childcare hours each week. A third of these - 147,000 families - said they wanted the extra care for work-related reasons.
37 percent of parents who were not working indicated this was because childcare was too expensive to make it a viable option for them.
Parents unable to meet the cost of childcare have indicated that when fees are again charged they will be forced to withdraw their children. The childcare provider Uniting Vic and Tas has surveyed parents using its childcare services. Its survey has revealed that 64 percent of families are considering reducing days or removing their child from childcare when it was no longer free.
3. Government investment in early childhood education and childcare would be economically advantageous
It has been claimed that government investment in early childhood education and childcare would return major financial and social benefits to the country, boosting the social and educational competence of the nation's population and allow greater participation of women in the workforce.
In an article published in The Conversation on July 15, 2019, Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, noted a recently released report which stated, 'Quality preschool would deliver a two-for-one return on investment for Australia: that is, for every dollar governments invest in preschool, two dollars will be returned to the economy.'
Jackson focused on lasting economic benefits revealed by international research that occur when governments fund high-quality early childhood education and childcare. She observed that the early advantages that children receive can be compounded and built upon as the child moves into adulthood and that this is of great benefit to the national economy. Jackson noted, 'if the child can sustain their learning advantage...economic benefits are delivered through their participation in tertiary education. To realise this benefit, there needs to be a place for them in university, or in quality vocational education and training.
And finally, the full set of economic benefits are delivered when that child (now a young adult) takes their tertiary qualification into the labour market.'
Jackson also noted that nation-wide economic advantages would occur through increased government expenditure on early childhood education and childcare because more women would be able to return to the workforce and utilise their skills there. Jackson noted, 'The economic benefits increase if the adults in the family decide to increase their hours of paid work while the child attends preschool.'
Two economists from the progressive thinktank, the Australia Institute, have urged the government to scrap plans to reintroduce childcare fees. Matt Grudnoff and Richard Denniss have written a report arguing that free childcare would act as effective short-term stimulus as well as a long-run driver of economic growth. They have calculated that if Australia had the same average labour force participation rates as Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway, the economy would be $60bn larger - a gain of about 3.2 percent of gross domestic product.
Ben Oquist, the executive director of the Australia Institute, has claimed that the report shows that free childcare has multiple benefits. He states, 'Not only is free childcare a form of fiscal stimulus, boosting consumer demand by increasing the disposable income of families with young children, but in the long run it will significantly grow GDP and make Australia a far more equitable country.'
Oquist concluded, 'The empirical evidence makes clear that spending on services like childcare creates more jobs per $1m spent than expenditure in areas like construction. The government's focus on stimulus spending in male-dominated industries risks stymying economic recovery.'
In a comment published in The Conversation on April 27, 2020, Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan Institute; Kate Griffiths, Fellow, Grattan Institute; and Owain Emslie, Associate, Grattan Institute, summarised their support for the economic advantages of subsidised childcare. They stated, 'Our modelling suggests a subsidy of 95% of child-care costs for low-income families, tapering down slowly to zero as family income increases, would cost taxpayers an additional A$5 billion a year, compared with at least A$14 billion more for a universal scheme.
It would enable many women who want to increase their paid work to do so, support the post-crisis recovery and boost GDP by about $A11 billion a year in the medium term through higher workforce participation.'
4. The cost of early childhood education and childcare discourages mothers from returning to the workforce
It has been argued that the high cost of early childhood education and childcare disadvantages women, prohibiting women either from returning to the workforce or from doing so as fully as they wish. This, it has been claimed, is financially disadvantageous to their families and robs the country of their skills and labour.
It has been noted that women are more likely to be a family's "second earner", reducing their paid work hours to accommodate caring responsibilities. For many, early childhood education and childcare costs interact with other elements of Australia's tax and benefit system to make extra hours of paid work financially unattractive. Increased taxation due to extra hours worked, together with increased childcare costs, seriously limits the number of hours a week women can work.
An opinion piece published by the Grattan Institute gave the following example: 'Consider a household with two young children where both parents would earn A$60,000 a year if they worked full-time. Dad works full-time and mum three days a week.
If mum decided to take on an extra day, she would lose more than 90 percent of the income for that fourth day in childcare costs, tax and reduced family payments...mum [is] working for about A$2 an hour on her fourth day; and for nothing on her fifth day.'
The Grattan Institute comment concluded, 'The cost of childcare is the biggest contributor to...high workforce disincentive rates. Reducing that cost would do more than any other policy change to boost workforce participation for mothers of young children.'
The childcare-related blocks to women's full participation in the workforce has been linked to a larger picture of female disadvantage. In an article published in The Conversation on May 8, 2020, Leah Ruppanner, Associate Professor in Sociology and Co-Director of The Policy Lab, University of Melbourne, and Andrea Carson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University, noted, 'The amount of unpaid domestic work women do is unsustainable. Mothers do almost twice as much housework as fathers, even when they are earning most of the family income. And this comes at the expense of their time in employment, leisure and sleep.'
It has also been noted that increased Female participation in the workforce would greatly advantage the Australian economy. Grudnoff and Denniss, researchers for the private think tank, the Australia Institute, have released a report on the state of women's workforce participation in Australia. They have unfavourably compared the situation here with that in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway. They argued that subsidised, high-quality childcare is one way these Nordic countries have increased female participation rates.
The researchers note, 'While Nordic countries have similar proportions of full-time to part-time work as Australia, they have much more generous childcare policies and much higher rates of female participation in full-time work.' Their research indicates that Australian women in their 20s have similar participation rates as women in Nordic countries but 'a distinct change occurs with women aged in their early thirties'. At that point, Australia's female participation rate falls before recovering and peaking with women in their 40s. However, women in Nordic countries see no decline in participation rates in their 30s.
Grudnoff and Denniss observe, 'Compared to Nordic countries, Australia's female participation rates fall significantly at the ages when the largest number of people are raising young families. Policies that make it easier for women to choose to go back to work, like the provision of free childcare, could mean that Australia reaps billions in benefits over the long run.'
5. In the circumstances created by COVID19, free early childhood education and childcare is particularly necessary
Supporters of free early childhood education and childcare argue that this provision is even more important in the difficult circumstances created by COVID19 and that this will remain the case beyond June 2020.
It has been noted that in current conditions, many families will have no choice but to remove their children from childcare and early childhood education when fees are reintroduced. The childcare provider Uniting Vic and Tas has surveyed parents using its childcare services. Its survey has revealed that 64 percent of families are considering reducing days or removing their child from childcare when it was no longer free.
In an article published in The Conversation on May 21, 2010, Kate Noble, Education Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, and Sarah Pilcher, Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, stated, 'COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in skyrocketing unemployment and underemployment. For many families, the transition back to work may be irregular and unpredictable. A sharp ending of the emergency measures may leave many families unable to access care when they need to get back to work.
On top of this, children's routines have been disrupted, increasing levels of isolation and anxiety. Many children not previously considered vulnerable will now fall into this category or become potentially vulnerable. High quality early childhood education can help reduce the risk of vulnerability.'
In an article published in The Conversation on May 8, 2020, Leah Ruppanner, Associate Professor in Sociology and Co-Director of The Policy Lab, University of Melbourne, and Andrea Carson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University, also argued for free prevision in response to the demands of COVID19. They stated, 'For some families, free childcare has produced an economic boon, expanding their bank accounts. This money will be essential as society opens back up and consumer confidence is necessary to keep the economic engines powered.
For others, free childcare provisions will become increasingly important for keeping families out of poverty.
We know women's employment has taken a harder hit during COVID-19 than men's.'
The small business ombudsman, Kate Carnell, told the Senate's Covid-19 committee that the government's plan to reintroduce childcare fees from 13 July would have a 'significant impact' on small-business owners struggling to get 'back up and running' as restrictions ease. Carnell noted 40 percent of small businesses were owned by women. 'Free childcare was a godsend for them - without it, they will struggle significantly.' Similarly, Alexandra Hordern, a director of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, has stated that for small-business people working full time - or more - and paid only the $1,500 JobKeeper rate, 'the only affordable childcare is free childcare'.
In addition to the assistance that would be provided to families and the economy by keeping early childhood education and childcare free during this COVID19-affected period, it has been argued that childcare centres may need childcare to remain free if they are to continue to survive. Noble, Jackson and Pilcher have stated, 'Early childhood providers are navigating rapid changes to attendance, staffing, funding and revenue. Under current arrangements, they are managing a steady growth in demand and a known stream of income. Reverting to the previous system will introduce a high degree of uncertainty.'
Noble, Jackson and Pilcher have also noted that those working in early childhood education face major employment uncertainty, made worse by COVID19. They argue, 'Early childhood educators are...in a tenuous position. They are among the lowest-paid Australians, with high levels of casual employment. Staff turnover is high, which undermines delivery of quality education, given the critical importance of secure relationships to children's early learning and development.
Funding certainty in the coming months will support job security, which benefits children as well as workers.'
Noble, Jackson and Pilcher concluded, 'We must also plan for longer-term reform to build a more stable and sustainable early childhood sector for all Australian children, which is less likely to need rescuing in the event of future shocks. With the rescue package generating calls to permanently remove fees for early childhood services, governments need to remain open to more ambitious reforms in future.'