Articles

Ownership Debate In The NZ Listener

Joanne Black’s comment in a recent Listener article arguing that: “Who owns childcare centres is not the crucial thing” has sparked a debate in the Letters page of the publication. Joanne argued that the horrified reaction of the New Zealand Educational Institute, the primary and early childhood education union, was “perplexing.” Using her own family as an example, Joanne said “If the children are happy and thriving and the parents content, why is ownership an issue?” In response, Lynne Bruce, National Secretary of NZEI Te Riu Roa, wrote to the Listener disagreeing with Joanne Black, stating “there is a direct and proven relationship between the ownership of centres and the quality, affordability and accessibility of the education they provide.” Lynne Bruce concludes that “the prime objective of community-owned early childhood services” is to “be responsible for ensuring that every child gets a quality start in life”, whereas, according to Lynn Bruce, “The prime objective of private centres is to make a profit.” A Mr Dylan Braithwaite of Featherstone also wrote to the Listener claiming that ownership does matter and taking the opportunity to launch an attack on the principles of the Early Childhood Council. Mr Braithwaite suggested that when the government changed its 20 free hours policy to incorporate all early childhood centres, the ECC “put principle aside and welcomed the government’s decision.” In this week’s issue of the Listener (November 12), centre owner Ann Barrowclough from Dunedin argued for the validity of privately owned centres, saying, “I believe in what I am doing as an educator and… have demonstrated this by investing in it.” ECC CEO Sue Thorne also responded to the issues raised in this debate, addressing in particular Dylan Braithwaite’s accusations. The letter is printed below in full. Dylan Braithwaite (letters, October 29) argues that the Early Childhood Council 'put principle aside' when it welcomed the Government's decision to extend the availability of 20 hours free early childhood education from children attending community-run centres only to those attending privately-run centres also. This is not correct. Firstly, ECC does not represent private providers only as Mr Braithwaite implies. We have a membership that includes community-run centres as well. Secondly, we are alarmed that up to 20 per cent of children (more than 150,000 currently in school) fail in later education because, in part, they have not received the decent start that early childhood education can offer. Our preferred position remains, therefore, that Government should replace the universalist 20 hours free policy with one that targets substantial support at the poorest and most 'at risk' preschoolers. How would a 20 hours free policy, that excluded children attending privately-run early childhood centres, have impacted on our most 'at risk' three and four year olds? The answer is this. Those fortunate enough to live in areas with plentiful community provision would have got their 20 hours free. But thousands, living in areas with little or no community provision, would not. Millionaires in areas with much community provision would have received free care while thousands of 'battlers' in areas with few or no community centres would have paid up or missed out. Many would have missed out. In alphabetical order, areas with few community-owned centres (community centres comprising 30 per cent or less of licensed places in all-day education and care centres) included Cambridge, Kerikeri, Morrinsville, Mount Maunganui, North Shore City, Rangiora, Taupo, Tauranga and West Auckland. Areas with no licensed all-day community education and care centres included: Arrowtown, Awanui, Balclutha, Carterton, Clive, Dairy Flat, Dunsdale, Edendale, Gore, Hanmer Springs, Havelock-North, Hokitika, Kaeo, Kaikohe, Katikati, Kihikihi, Leeston, Mangawhai, Martinborough, Mount Ruapehu, Ngaruawahia, Ngongotaha, Orewa, Otorohanga, Paeroa, Paihia, Putaruru, Raglan, Renwick, Riverton, Rolleston, Ruakaka, Taipa, Te Aroha, Te Kauwhata, Temuka, Waihi, Waihi Beach, Waipu, Waipukurau, Warkworth, Wellsford, Whakatane, Whangamata, Whangaparaoa and Winton. The Government, quite rightly, saw problems with its policy and changed it. Despite the fact its solution was not our solution, the Government deserved praise for doing this. ECC believes government should not make distinctions between ‘private’ and ‘community’ ownership when providing assistance and subsidies because such policies are unfair, and bias parental choice towards services that are more heavily subsidized rather than services that provide better quality. And we do not accept that the ability of 'at risk' children to access government support should be a matter of where they happen to live. Our position is that it should be a matter of need. Mr Braithwaite is entitled to disagree with our principles. He is not entitled to accuse us of putting them aside. Sue Thorne Chief Executive Officer Early Childhood Council Auckland

07/11/05 - Sarah Ellich, Sue Thorne