In this blog I will investigate and challenge the way in which children's rights are represented, reflected and advocated for in policies and schemes reflecting early childhood care and education.
Pathways to the Future, 20 Hours Free and what about the Budget Cuts?
According to the TeachNZ website, the New Zealand Labor Government launched Pathways to the Future (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2002) in 2002. Developed with Anne Meade's guidance, the intention of this strategic plan was to increase the quality of early childhood education by increasing child participation, promoting responsive reciprocal relationships and increasing the number of qualified, registered teachers to 100% in Early Childhood Education (ECE) settings by 2012.
It is suggested that UNCROC was used as a positive leverage to raise participation and quality of early childhood settings through the development of Pathways to the Future (MOE, 2002; Smith, 2007). It may be argued that through providing leverage for such a significant policy shift, UNCROC successfully aided Pathways to the Future (MOE, 2002) to provide children with their right to an increased quality of care and education given by teachers who have rich, professional knowledge specific to the development care, and education of young children who are able to effectively implement Te Whaariki (Ministry of Education, 1996).
This supports my belief that the implementation of Pathways to the Future (MOE, 2002) paired with the, 20 Hours Free ECE scheme launched in 2007, represented New Zealand as a nation who cared for and respected their children's rights to care and education of young children (Bushouse, 2008). It is suggested that UNCROC was used as a positive leverage to raise participation and quality of early childhood settings through the development of Pathways to the Future (MOE, 2002; Smith, 2007). It may be argued that through providing leverage for such a significant policy shift, UNCROC successfully aided Pathways to the Future (MOE, 2002) to provide children with their right to an increased quality of care and education given by teachers who have rich, professional knowledge specific to the development care, and education of young children who are able to effectively implement Te Whaariki (Ministry of Education, 1996).
However, although these policies and plans represented a major shift in policy and paradigm in early childhood education, thefollowing flaws were noted in the 20 Hours Free ECE scheme (Bushouse, 2008):
- 20 Hours Free was a blanket payment policy covering estimated average fees for participating families
- in which centers participating could not access further subsidies for low income families
- excluded te koohanga reo, playcentre and other parent lead services from funding
- only accessible to three and four-year-olds
As mentioned in the previous posting, the UNCROC committee report identified and supports the early childhood sectors plea for adequate funding for, and access to, quality early childhood care and education with knowledgeable qualified professional teachers. This recommendation suggests that the 2010 budget cuts, although deemed a necessity by the National Government, may not adequately reflect the right's of the child and consequently, I feel more concern, not for the 20 Hours ECE policy changes, but rather, how the $295 million budget cuts may effect the quality of care and education for participating children and their families.
With broken campaign promises devastating early childhood teachers, it is possible that the Government may have used the avocation of the rights of the child as political leverage (Reid, 2006) on the campaign trail while consequently putting many of the nations youngest children at risk. I feel this is of concern and that it is vital that UNCROC is legitimately used to advocate for children's rights to quality care and education.
In contrast to the retraction of funds, the National government currently claims to be investing a sum totaling 1.3billion dollars into childcare and education in the coming year.
Anne Tolley stated, that "it's vital this money is well spent to ensure the greatest number of children gain access to ECE and fully benefit from it".
In light of recent budget cuts, I wonder about the governments motive and the specifics of the investment.
I ask myself.
I am left wondering if children's interests are ever truly at heart in the governments moral intent and what can teachers do to advocate for children in times such as this?
With broken campaign promises devastating early childhood teachers, it is possible that the Government may have used the avocation of the rights of the child as political leverage (Reid, 2006) on the campaign trail while consequently putting many of the nations youngest children at risk. I feel this is of concern and that it is vital that UNCROC is legitimately used to advocate for children's rights to quality care and education.
In contrast to the retraction of funds, the National government currently claims to be investing a sum totaling 1.3billion dollars into childcare and education in the coming year.
Anne Tolley stated, that "it's vital this money is well spent to ensure the greatest number of children gain access to ECE and fully benefit from it".
In light of recent budget cuts, I wonder about the governments motive and the specifics of the investment.
I ask myself.
Where is this money going?
When it was spent?
Does this investment cover all age groups in ECE?
How is this investment going to benefit the children and families participating in all early childhood education settings?
What is the vision for the future of early childhood education in New Zealand, and how will this reflect and advocate the rights of the child?
I am left wondering if children's interests are ever truly at heart in the governments moral intent and what can teachers do to advocate for children in times such as this?
Until next time.
Mel.
Mel.
No comments:
Post a Comment