Implications of corporatization of early childhood education facilities

Benefits to corporatization include:

A potential benefit to corporatization is the amalgamation of many small, separately run centres into one, centrally run, operation.  Complex and time consuming administration duties can be centralised and this potentially frees up hours for teachers to have more quality time with children (King, 2008).  King also mentions that there is potential to “strengthen the management and governance of these services” as these important decisions happen from a business level and the burden then does not fall on the teachers who often have no managerial experience or training (p. 3)

On the negative side:

One study conducted in 2002 documenting the differences between community-owned and privately-owned early childhood centres, revealed that privately-owned centres employed significantly less qualified staff than community-owned centres (Mitchelle as cited in Aitken & Kennedy, 2007).  Statistics in the same article showed that the private centres employed “the lowest proportion of qualified staff (35 per cent) and the highest proportion of staff with no qualification (36 per cent)” (p. 177).  Private centres also paid their staff less than other centres.  New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) surveyed 22 staff members working for large, for-profit centres and found the following: children were denied food due to the budget being over; low numbers of staff with a high percentage of those team members unqualified; and bicultural agreements and Te Whāriki not understood or implemented by the staff (NZEI as cited in Blaikie, The rise and rise of corporate childcare, 2014).  The implication of poor adult to children ratios, low numbers of qualified staff,  overworked staff, and badly paid team members leads to very low  quality teaching. 

The present government seems to be more concerned about reaching their 98% goal of children’s participation in early childhood education than the quality of education provided.  If more children are in a centre, then parents are free to go to work and contribute to the economy of the country.  Parata (2015) states “ensuring each and every child gets a good education is the most important thing our government can do to raise living standards, and create a more productive and competitive society” (p. 1).  Unfortunately this neo-liberal approach to early childhood education has brought about: a marked decrease in qualified teachers and managers; an increase to ‘owner-led’ centres as apposed to ‘teacher/child/whanau-led’ centres; a decline in good teacher to child ratios; and less affordable and accessible education for the general population.  These corporate, profit-based facilities position the child and their family as the consumer who are paying for an education.  The child is seen as a commodity. (Betts, 2014).

Another drawback of a business-model approach to early childhood centres, is that instead of children, teachers and whanau making collaborative decisions for their centre, such as the use of funding, managers and owners, who often do not have early childhood qualifications, make these decisions on behalf of everyone (Aitken & Kennedy, 2007).  This is a dictatorial approach to education with little or no collaborative input from the people who are receiving (children and whanau) or implementing (teachers) the service.

Staff at for-profit centers are often provided with professional development in-house only and are not encouraged to partake in outside development (Aitken & Kennedy, 2007).  This type of professional development can be limited and controlled by management thus not allowing for fresh, contemporary ideas the staff may otherwise have picked up from other teachers and centres in the wider community. 

Fascinating article on corporatization of the early childhood sector Corporate childcare

Conclusion

As you can see, the negatives surrounding corporitization of the sector far outweigh the positives.  According to Aitken and Kennedy (2007) when education is a service provided to all families for public good, funding from the government can be describes as “adequate, sustained and beyond party politics” (p. 176).  However due to the increased neo-liberal approach to education, that it is seen as a private responsibility and not a social one, funding has diminished and allowed large private and corporate investment into early childhood sector.  With only a few pros and many cons, I am certainly not in favour of this corporate movement into the early childhood sector, however like it or not, big corporate companies are inevitably changing the face of early childhood education in Aotearoa.  

References

Aitken, H., & Kennedy, A. (2007). Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues. Castle Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press.

BestStart Educare. (2015). Early childhood education and childcare centres. Retrieved from BestStart Education and Care Centres: http://www.beststarteducare.co.nz/

Betts, R. (2014). Neoliberalism and the 'professional teacher'. Early Education, 56, 22-24.

Blaikie, J. (2014, October 2). The rise and rise of corporate childcare. Retrieved from Education Aotearoa: http://www.ea.org.nz/rise-rise-corporate-childcare/

Evolve Education Group. (2015). Evolve annual resport 2015. Retrieved from Evolve Education Group: http://www.evolveeducation.co.nz/

Kindercare;. (2014). Kindercare current locations. Retrieved from Kindercare Learning Centres: http://www.kindercare.co.nz/Locations.html

King, J. (2008, August). Evaluation of the Sustainability of ECE services during the implementation of Pathways to the Future - Ngā huarahi arataki. Retrieved from Education Counts: https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ECE/28930/4---findings

May, H. (2002). Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. McGill Journal of Education, 19-36.

McLachlan, C. (2011, September 3). An analysis of New Zealand's changing history, policies and approaches to early childhood education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36, 36-44.

Ministry of Education. (2016). Participation in early childhood education. Retrieved from Education counts: https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/main/student-engagement-participation/1923

Minstry of Education. (2016, March 23). The number of qualified teachers your ECE service needs. Retrieved from Education.govt.nz: http://www.education.govt.nz/early-childhood/running-an-ece-service/employing-ece-staff/the-number-of-qualified-teachers-your-ece-service-needs/

New Zealand Kindergartens Inc. (2009). History of kindergartens in Aotearoa. Retrieved from New Zealand Kindergarten Inc: Te putahi kura puhou o Aotearoa: http://www.nzkindergarten.org.nz/about/history.html

Parata, H. H. (2014, February). Investment in early childhood education gets results. Retrieved from National working for New Zealand: www.national.org.nz

Ritchie, J. (2013, October). Nga tikanga a nga mokopuna : crises in early childhood education policy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Retrieved from Unitec Institute of Technology: http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/2824

Policies and legislation regarding early childhood education in New Zealand

One of the National government’s goals over the past eight years has been to increase children’s ‘participation in early childhood education’.  The number of children attending an early childhood facility has increased steadily from 90% attendance in 2000 to 96.2% in 2015 (Ministry of Education, 2016).  The total number of hours children spend at their centres has also increased from an average of 13.5 per week in 2007 to 20.7 per week in 2014.  The government have achieved this goal by continuing to provide the 20 hours subsidised childcare for all children between the ages of three and five; subsidising hourly fees for all early childhood education centres; as well as subsidising the building of new centres.  The goal is to have 98% of all children under the age of five having attended an early childhood education facility before school.  

Figure 1.1 Graph showing increase in early childhood participation between 2009 and 2016.

In 2011, the law regarding the total number of children allowed at a centre at one time, was changed from 50 children per session, to allowing centres to enroll as many as 150 children at a time (Blaikie, The rise and rise of corporate childcare, 2014).  Blaikie (2014) goes on to say that in a survey conducted, teachers in these large centres reported feeling overworked, underpaid and seen as nothing more than glorified babysitters due to the lack of time and manpower for quality one on one interactions with the children.  

Teacher qualifications and ratios of adults to children are other important considerations to assess the quality of education New Zealand’s children are receiving.  The current government policy states that only 50% of the team members are required to be qualified teachers (Ministry of Education, 2016).  Before 2008, the labour government had put a policy in place that insisted that all adults in early childhood education centres needed to be qualified by the year 2012 (Blaikie, The rise and rise of corporate childcare, 2014).  Unfortunately, the national government took this policy away as soon as they gained power and now only 50% of team member are required to be qualified.  This was a huge setback for the early childhood teaching profession which “undermined and devalued early childhood teaching as a profession” (Betts, 2014, p. 23).  Personally I think this is a disgrace and one that should be rectified immediately to 100% qualified teachers educating our children.  I think a person has to ask just one question of our government and that is “Would you want a qualified or unqualified person teaching your child?”  As far as ratios are concerned, the current policy is: for children over the age of two, a facility is required to have one adult for the first six children and two adults for 20 children.  For children under the age of two, one adult is required for every five children.  For a more detailed chart on ratios, please visit Ratio chart

A big concern that should be discussed is about the Ministry’s complaints policy.  Complaints can be made to the Ministry of Education about an early childhood provider or teacher, however, the Ministry will only deal with the complaint if the teacher concerned is qualified (Blaikie, The rise and rise of corporate childcare, 2014).  This leaves a huge gap for unqualified staff members to teach unchecked and unmonitored by anyone, other than their centre.  Should a problem arise with that staff member, who are they accountable to if the Ministry is not responsible?  The answer is that there is no one at present and therefore these untrained staff members are literally falling through the cracks as they are not accountable to any governing body.

History of early childhood education in New Zealand

In 1889 the first Kindergarten was established in Dunedin, New Zealand to cater for children from financially poor families whose parents were unable to care for them whilst they went to work (McLachlan, 2011).  Other Kindergartens and Early Childhood Education centers were set up around the country in the early 1900’s as the need for them increased.   More informal arrangements were common as ‘stay at home mothers’ looked after children of friends who needed to work.  Kindergartens were owned by the government who took responsibility for the teachers’ salaries as well as providing subsidies to centers so that children could attend at no cost to their parents (New Zealand Kindergartens Inc, 2009).  In the 1940’s the first government subsidized nursery play centers were set up and run by parents and working class families (McLachlan, 2011).  After the war in the 1950’s a wide range of centers emerged, such as full day childcare and education facilities, Montessori and Steiner kindergartens, and Māori and Pasifika language nests.

Figure 1: First NZ Kindergarten in Dunedin 

In the 1980’s the labour party moved the governance of early childhood education from the welfare department to the education department to join the kindergarten associations (McLachlan, 2011).  This meant that early childhood education was now the responsibility of the Ministry of Education which was a positive step towards, not only kindergartens, but all early childhood facilities being of a higher standard.  There was a large shift in thinking around this time as more children were encouraged to attend some form of pre-school educational facility (May, 2002).    

In 1983 the labour party introduced neo-liberalism to New Zealand which encouraged a large shift in social thinking from left winged liberal thinking, valuing equal opportunities for all and education for the public good, to a right winged conservative view which valued conformity, standardization, and said that “having children was a personal choice and educating them was a private responsibility” (McLachlan, 2011, p. 37).  The 90’s saw the development of more private centers than ever before.  Early childhood education was seen as big business and therefore big money and as a result corporatization of the sector increased substantially in dominance  (Aitken & Kennedy, 2007).  According to Betts (2014), in 2008, 36% of children were enrolled in privately owned centers.  By 2009, the figure had risen to 60%.

In 2007 the labour party introduced ‘20 hours free’ for three to five year olds in order to assist mothers who wanted the option of going back to work part time.  Initially this was only offered to not-for-profit organisations however through intense pressure from for-profit organisations, they extended it to these organisations too (Blaikie, 2014).  In 2008 the national party took power and shifted focus to young children’s literacy and numeracy achievement.  This is classified as ‘performance based curriculum’ rather than a ‘competence based curriculum’ (McLachlan, 2011).  This ‘performance based curriculum’ is in line with a neo-liberal approach to education and focuses on formal testing and standardization where New Zealand has, in the past, had a more ‘competence based curriculum’ focused on child-led early childhood education with Te Whāriki guiding the way.  According to McLachlan (2008) studies have shown that children who are educated using a ‘competence based curriculum’ “have better long-term outcomes in terms of school achievement, behavior, social competence and employment” (p. 39).  

Introduction

This blog will be discussing the corporatisation of New Zealand’s early childhood education facilities.  I am interested in this topic as I know relatively little about the subject and would like to find out more about an issue that could possibly have a large impact on the future of Aoteoroa’s early childhood education system. 

According to their website, ‘BestStart Educare’, who own Edukids, Early Years, Montessori, First Steps, and ABC, among others, presently own a total of 253 centers across New Zealand (BestStart Educare, 2015).  Furthermore in 2015, ‘Evolve Education’, the new publicly listed Early Childhood Education Company, bought up over 100 early childhood education providers across the country (Evolve Education Group, 2015).  They currently own four percent of the market share including Lollipops, Porse and Au Pair Link and are wanting to acquire at least another 15 centers by the end of April 2016.  ‘Kindercare’ is another corporate giant who, according to their website, currently own 42 early childhood education centers across New Zealand (Kindercare;, 2014). 

With the recent upsurge in large corporations buying up New Zealand’s early childhood centers, I would like to find out the advantages and disadvantages of this trend.  I wonder if there is an impact on such aspects such as the quality of education and care provided to the children, and teacher’s roles in the centers, focusing on the value of their early childhood education qualifications.