We do not have any political agenda except to ensure that the Government is held accountable in this regard. We will therefore continue to lobby the Government to
a) ensure that the 20 hours free funding is available to all eligible 3/4 year olds and not just some at the expense of all; and
b) that 20 hours FREE (in the traditional sense of the word) ECE is provided for those children as was promised in August 2005.

COPY OF LETTER SENT TO EDUCATION AND SCIENCE SELECT COMMITTEE

Dear Mr Donnelly (and members of the Education and Science Select Committee),

Please find attached 3375 signatures for a petition requesting that the Government honour its promise of 20 hours free education for all 3 and 4 year olds from July 2007. The signatures represent parents who were excited about receiving 20 hours free childhood education for 3 and 4 year olds and are becoming increasingly disappointed as they see that it will not be delivered to ALL 3 and 4 year olds from 1 July 2007 and it will NOT BE FREE. We would like to make an oral submission in support of the petition and would be prepared to make ourselves available at a time convenient to the Committee either in person or via video conference link if that is possible.

Many parents are feeling frustrated as they try to plan and budget for their childrens’ pre-school education. Unfortunately there are few examples around the country of families actually receiving the 20 hours of childhood education for FREE. Most are either not getting it at all, are having to pay optional charges without knowing how long the provider will continue to opt in to the scheme, or they are paying more in other areas (with increased charges for their under threes or for additional hours after the 6 hour daily or 20 hour weekly limit). We are also aware of examples where families have been told that their centre will be offering the 20 hours but will only continue to educate children if their family agrees to switch from part-time to full-time hours.

The reality is that the Government has simply increased its funding for the early childhood education sector or another way of putting it, has provided further subsidies for parents of 3 and 4 years olds. This is clearly not what was promised and we are concerned that even if providers do end up offering the 20 free hours that the financial benefit to families will be severely compromised by centres recouping their costs from parents in others ways.
It is no use blaming the providers (and in particular the private sector) for not offering the scheme. The Government knew that they were dependent on the centres in delivering their promise and now must make it happen. After all, the promise was made to the parents (with the power to vote) not the early childhood providers.

We want you to understand why parents feel so let down about this broken promise. Besides the obvious financial savings, which could automatically make a huge difference to families, many parents we have spoken to have told us that the delivery of 20 free hours of early childhood education for their 3 and 4 year olds would have led to other significant changes in their lives. The four most common outcomes mentioned are: -

- - – The opportunity to continue or return to a career. The 20 free hours would improve the financial money-go-round situation faced by many working parents;
- - – The opportunity to take some time away from work and spend more time with the family while the children are so young (especially after the birth of a second or third child). Some parents work simply to afford early childhood education for their child. This is especially likely in areas where public kindergartens are not available until children are as old as 4 and private alternatives must be used.
- - – The opportunity to afford to have another baby. Many families can only afford the expense of early childhood education for one child at a time, but the 20 hours free funding could have enabled families to plan another child because 20 hours’ free childcare for the first child would be provided under the scheme.
- - – To increase the opportunity to access early childhood education when it was not previously available to a family due to financial constraints.

The potential impact on families around New Zealand of this promise was therefore significant and many people are relying on its successful implementation. It is our belief that the 20 hours free policy should have resulted in families having greater choice and flexibility to provide quality early childhood education to their 3 and 4 year olds yet the way that the scheme has been presented has, for many, only caused disappointment, confusion and uncertainty.

We also want to explain why we have asked for additional funding. As busy parents we don’t understand the various funding models behind the early childhood sector but with the Government promising 20 free hours and the centres saying they can’t afford to deliver that without compromising on the quality of care, the solution seemed obvious – increase the funding. Locally, we know of sessional centres who say that even if they did participate in the scheme, that the funding would only cover $3- $4 per 3 hour session, when families currently pay around $20. This has naturally made us concerned that in some cases the funding rates are inadequate. In fact, we are not so concerned about how the Government remedies the situation as long as all 3 and 4 year olds can access the 20 free hours as promised and that this happens as close to 1 July 2007 as possible.

Finally we should like to emphasise our expectation that “free” really means without payment. The reality is that most of the centres who have indicated they will opt in (including many not-for-profit organisations like the Auckland Kindergarten Association) will be requesting payment on top of the “free” hours. If even the public kindergartens can’t offer the scheme without requesting additional money from parents, it goes without saying that for-profit providers are likely to be substantially under-funded and will have to request payments from families. We note the concerns of the providers about enforcing payments as set out in the recent parent brochure produced by the Early Childhood Council (which are now appearing in the centres that our children attend). Although we are reminded by the Education Minister in the Ministry’s brochure that if families don’t want to pay the optional charges they don’t have to, the reality is not that simple. If one family refuses to pay an optional charge, this could jeopardise the future participation of their child’s centre in the scheme, because centres say they are only participating on a trial basis and will withdraw if they do not successfully recover all of their costs. This results in a moral dilemma for families, as they will not want to be the ones to force their centre to pull out. Parents can’t just remove a child from one centre and walk into another. Waiting lists can be more than a year long and alternative centres may not exist in the area. Of course, this is all hypothetical, because none of our centres are participating in any event.

We now would urge the Education and Science Select Committee to do whatever is necessary to remedy this situation and enable ALL our 3 and 4 year olds to have the best start possible. You may be interested in our blog (http://20hoursfree.blogspot.com) which includes postings from parents around the country explaining why the scheme is not working for them.

Yours sincerely

Amy Malcolm
(on behalf of 20 hours free. Please)

Sam Dixon. Parents are already subsidised through funding that goes directly to centres for each hour a child attends (up to a max number per week), plus those on low incomes get a top up to help pay their fees. So even w/o the ’20 free for ye but not necessarily for me’ policy (sister to the government’s ‘Working for Other People’s Families’ policy), parents wld be getting a significant subsidy – spending on ECE w/o thi sis in th hundreds of millions.

This policy was stupid to start with. I believe the government’s policy in its 2002 strategy paper was to increase participation among groups not participating in early childhood education. Given we already had 90%+ of kids in some form of ECE (or thereabouts), why did we need to subsidise 100% of families (inc the rich) to get This is all sounding so Muldoonian – price freezes, brainless policy made on the hoof, unclear policy rules, optional charges, shifting costs from those who receive the service to those who do not, ‘Buy six hours get the 7th for three times the price!’ deals for parents, etc.’

Sam Dixon. Parents are already subsidised through funding that goes directly to centres for each hour a child attends (up to a max number per week), plus those on low incomes get a top up to help pay their fees. So even w/o the ’20 free for ye but not necessarily for me’ policy (sister to the government’s ‘Working for Other People’s Families’ policy), parents wld be getting a significant subsidy – spending on ECE w/o thi sis in th hundreds of millions.

This policy was stupid to start with. I believe the government’s policy in its 2002 strategy paper was to increase participation among groups not participating in early childhood education. Given we already had 90%+ of kids in some form of ECE (or thereabouts), why did we need to subsidise 100% of families (inc the rich) to get <10% to participate?

The pre 20 free policy has been successful in helping the sector grow, and the bulk of that growth has been among not for profit and the ‘dreaded’ for profit ECE centres who dare to make a living providing a service that people want. This policy threatens to stuff it up over time.

The sector shld have been left on its own and any additional money shld have gone into helping those parents who really needed it. While that may have been good for parents and for the sector, it did not meet the short term political imperative that drives politicians. This is also flagrant example of middle class capture – along with other policy Think Big idiocies like the ‘free’ interest policy on student loans.

The word ‘free’ shld immediately set off alarm bells since nothing actually is free, as this has shown (and any advertising of 20 free should draw a complaint to the Advertising Standards Board since it clearly is not true).

Even if the policy gets 90% of centres to sign up, it will be a farce because it was only achieved through subterfuge.

The Orwellian doublethink required to justify the policy is incredible – free becomes ‘free for a fee’ (I think those were Duncan Garner’s words on TV3). Even the Minister’s argument that you pay for service above the regulated standard was added after the fact and even it does not hold water. Free kindergartens will not be providing anything above the regulated standard (eg child:teacher ratios), yet at least one – the Akl Kindie Assoc – will be charging an optional charge. If the policy is supposed to be that you can only use optional charges for providing a service beyond what is regulated, then why are they allowed to do so (though I wholeheartedly support them having the right to do it – why should they suffer for a stupid policy)? Pretzel logic.

Let’s just hope the government’s stubborn insistence on going ahead with its flawed policy simply to save face over its ’20 free’ political slogan (when it patently is not free) does not cause long-term damage to the sector.

In fact, none of the laws of the land apply to the Labour Party. Those laws are only there for the plebs – you know, the suckers who vote for the Labour Party.

A Kiwi song from the sixties seems strangely prophetic

“Why not come dance along with me
You’ll see what’s not was meant to be
We’ll fly through space without a care
and free our brothers from despair

And now we’re Spinning, spinning, spinning
Spinning, spinning through this magic land
getting back to the beginning of the end
that we once had
we’re seeing how tomorrow
like sparkling waves of sand
being washed by waves of laughter
guided by the master’s hand”

Does the same not apply to 20 hours “free” childcare, as long as the child is signed up for more than the 20 “free” hours at an additional special charge?

National don’t have to say a word as labour’s self destruction is so obvious . The ship of fools are going down real fast Sam ? Good isn’t it .

You don’t me I don’t knwo you – but you’ve got some balls to assert that when we disagree its becuase you live in the real world and I live in lala land – espeically as its me who’s done the actual, real world, research into the policy we’re discussing.

One last time, all together, 20 hours of preschool education to the set standards will be free from particpating providers from July 1, for service beyond that providers are entitled to charge a fee.

And, I agree, Labour has made a pig’s ear of this – surely a few million more could have placated those providers who are making a fuss.

But its still free – and thats a dman sight better than what Natioanls’ policy at the last election (tax deductiblity up to $1800 on childcare – so if you were rich enough to be spending $6000 a year on childcare you made away like bandits but nohting for those who didn’t have that kind of money), which Naitonal has now dropped. When asked in Select Committee what her alternative to 20Free is, since she sees so much wrong with it and opposes it generally (or does she just want it better funded? the answer changes day by day) Paula Bennett replies she does not have a policy.

Spokesperson for the main Opposition party opposes government policy on fringe issues, has no policy of her own = disgrace.

I agreed with your excellent summary, but the following bit is especially true.

“Suffice to say that when the tower crumbles it will be spectacular to observe.”

I’d go a little further and say that when the tower does crumble it will not only be spectacular but there will be little left, and the damage to the foundations (rest of the Labour party) will be so significant that repair will be difficult and lengthy at best.

Had Labour lost the last election Clark and Cullen would have walked away with quite favourable reputations & public perception of their time in office. They made the mistake of winning an election too many, and their whole legacy will be judged by the disgrace that is their third term.

Helen did tell us before the last election that they couldn’t support the smacking bill as it was against “human nature”.

They also gave us the “Chewing gum” budget (now you see it now you don’t).

It would appear that the likes of Tane would prefer to be mislead.

Posted by Tane Wilton” |

You mean Tane that Labout told us all their policies before the last three elections. Don’t think all of it was out there for us to see. All the social engineering was pretty well hidden.

But then again we were given the pledge card, or was that a wet bus ticket, that outlined in detail everything they had on the agenda.

The Supreme Court was one I missed.