REVIEW OF THE ISSUES THAT IMPACT
ON THE DELIVERY OF PRESCHOOL SERVICES
TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES
IN VICTORIA
PETER KIRBY SUE HARPER
Contents Page
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Review Process 4
2. Context 7
2.1 Development of Preschool Services 7 2.2 Recent Developments 9
3. Importance of The Early Years 12
3.1 CESCEO Report 12 3.2 Canadian Early Years Study 13 3.3 Conclusions from the Research 15
4. Central Issues 16
4.1 Funding System 17 4.2 Committees of Management 19 4.3 Terms and Conditions for Employment of Staff 23 4.4 Long Service Leave 28
5. Local Government and Planning of Provision 30
5.1 Local Government 30 5.2 Planning 31 5.3 Capital Facilities 36
6. Other Providers 37
6.1 Long Day Care 37 6.2 Independent Schools 40 6.3 Mobile Preschool Services 42
7. Regulations 43
8. Children with Additional Needs 44
8.1 Children with a Disability 45
Page
8.2 Children from non-English Speaking Backgrounds 46 8.3 Koori Early Childhood Education 47 8.4 Second Year of Preschool 48
9. Advice and Support Services 50
10. Quality Issues 53
10.1 Curriculum Framework 55 10.2 Training of Preschool Teachers 56 10.3 Professional Development 58 10.4 Master Teacher Classification 60 10.5 Preschool Teacher Registration 61
11. Administration 62
11.1 Integration of Early Childhood Services 64
12. Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations 65
Glossary 73
References 74
Appendices
1. Terms of Reference 2. Written Submissions to the Panel 3. Consultations with Individuals and Organisations
REVIEW OF PRESCHOOL SERVICES IN VICTORIA
1. Introduction
From a position of international leadership in the provision of high quality, accessible programs, there is now growing discontent, staff shortages, falling quality of services and inadequate leadership, despite the efforts of many well qualified, experienced and devoted teachers and the extraordinary voluntary work of parent committees.
There will need to be substantial reform if the current decline in Victoria’s preschool education services is to be arrested and it will take considerable time, resources and effort for those services to be restored to their former strength. However, the issue of early childhood development policy and services extends beyond preschool education and must embrace family support, maternal and child health, child care services, child safety and early years of schooling as well as preschool education. Such a holistic approach requires consistent and complementary Federal and State approaches and therefore lies beyond the power of the State alone. The State Government can however promote a framework that brings services for early childhood development together, making clear its commitment, aims and objectives.
Preschools, sometimes referred to as kindergartens, deliver individually planned programs to enhance the development of all children as well as providing the opportunity for families to develop links with their communities and to become more aware of the range of supports that are available.
In Victoria, preschool education programs are provided in a number of settings including stand- alone preschool centres, in centres providing a range of maternal and child health services, in long day child care centres, in universities, TAFE institutes and workplaces. Not all these locations qualify for or seek the per capita grants provided by the State Government for the provision of preschool education to four year olds.
According to the Department of Human Services’ preliminary data for February 2001, there were 61,467 four year olds enrolled in 1,667 funded preschool locations. There is some doubt about the precise number of enrolments, since the estimate of Victoria’s total four year old population in 2001 (based on the 1996 census data) is slightly lower than the estimated enrolment figure. The enrolment figure would not include an unknown number of four year olds in those independent schools and long day care centres who are not eligible for funding, or in respect of whom funding is not sought.
There is also a problem in estimating the number of preschool teachers in funded centres. While every funded centre must employ at least one qualified preschool teacher in order to be eligible for government support, it is not known how many of the preschool teachers (almost 70 per cent of whom work part-time) are employed in more that one funded centre.
Community based, stand alone preschool centres, which are the focus of this review, usually provide their programs on a sessional basis. Typically, children attend for a two-and-a-half hour session (morning or afternoon) on four days of the week, a total of ten hours per week. This is the yardstick for the government’s commitment to providing one year of preschool education to all Victoria’s four year olds. In rural areas and some non-rural, disadvantaged areas where the number of four year olds is small or there are barriers to access, attendance may be limited to only one half day session each week. In more remote areas with very small populations, preschool services are delivered by mobile services, which use any suitable facility to provide a few hours of preschool education, sometimes in combination with child care, on one day each week.
The links between preschool education and child care have become increasingly important in the past twenty-five years, as women’s involvement in paid employment has grown. With that growth has come increased demand for long day care services for children. In the past ten years, this demand for longer and more flexible hours of child care services has intensified, as casual, part-time, shift and other non-standard work arrangements have become more common. Nearly half of all mothers with children under four years of age are now in paid employment. Over the next few years, two-thirds of the growth in the labour force is likely to be accounted for by women. There are now many families with both parents in the workforce, and a significant number of families with no adult in paid employment.
These changes in the working patterns of both women and men have been accompanied not only by growth in long day care services, but the development of a range of other child care services, including:
family day care, providing care for children in private homes;
occasional care, offered for short periods in a range of settings from neighbourhood houses to leisure centres; and
before and after school hours care, usually provided for primary school children at their school. This care may extend to school holidays.
While the provision of preschool education has maintained its popularity, changes in the workforce have given rise to greater demand for extended hours of care. Parents expect that care to go beyond supervising and feeding their children, to encompass learning and developmentally appropriate activities and programs.
Other features of particularly appropriate note in Victoria’s preschool education services are the growth of preschool centres in schools (both State and independent), the extensive involvement of local government, despite an overall decline since the mid-1990s, and the significant involvement in the provision of preschool services by the Uniting Church, including mobile services in rural areas.
1.1 The Review Process
This review of Victoria’s preschool education has not been without difficulties.
Following industrial action and a public campaign by preschool teachers in mid 2000, the State Government decided to appoint a panel to review preschool education services. Mr Bill Pimm (chair) and Ms Sue Harper were appointed by the Minister for Community Services, the Hon Christine Campbell MP, to conduct the review, which was intended to be undertaken in two stages. The first stage, dealing with the salary and conditions of preschool teachers, was to be completed by December 2000 and the second stage, dealing with other issues, was to be completed by the end of March 2001.
The Terms of Reference for the review are set out in Appendix 1 to this report. In summary, they required the panel to investigate the issues that impact on the delivery of preschool services to children and their families in Victoria. In the course of the review, the panel was directed to consider the available research, to consult stakeholders and to report on:
the needs of children and their families for preschool education services;
trends in the provision of such services;
the place of these services in early childhood development; and
the training, development and employment conditions of staff providing these services.
Submissions were called for by the panel in two stages, corresponding to the two stages of the review. By December, 2000 submissions had been received in respect of both stages of the review. A number of organisations made submissions at both stages.
The review also engaged Mercer Cullen Egan Dell to undertake an examination of the pay and conditions of preschool teachers in each of the States and Territories. This report was delivered to the panel in November 2000. Prior to November 2000, the panel met with the Australian Education Union (AEU) and Kindergarten Parents Victoria (KPV) and visited three metropolitan preschool centres.
Unfortunately, Mr Pimm had to resign from the panel before the first stage could be completed and the work was interrupted until the end of January 2001, when the panel was reconstituted with the appointment of Mr Peter Kirby (chair) and the reappointment of Ms Harper.
The reconstituted panel began its work with an analysis of the submissions. Over 370 written submissions were received, from preschool teachers, parents, preschool centre management committee members, trade unions, employer organisations, local government, university staff, child care organisations, schools, early childhood health and development professionals and others with an interest in preschool education.
Appendix 2 to this report lists those who made one or more submissions.
Consideration of the written submissions took most of February 2001. The panel then met with many of those organisations which had made submissions. These meetings took place both in Melbourne and in regional centres. Appendix 3 to this report lists those organisations and people with whom the panel met during the consultation period.
The consultation was not as extensive as the panel would have wished, but the panel believed it was important to complete its work reasonably close to the original time schedule. Nevertheless, the large number of submissions, the consultative process, and the visits enabled the panel to feel confident that it had identified the major issues relating to the Terms of Reference.
2. Context
In Victoria, preschool education describes the educational and developmental programs delivered to children in the year before they begin full-time school education. These programs are designed to support the social, emotional, intellectual, physical and language development of children and to encourage family involvement.
“Parents are valued participants in the process as they play beside children and observe how their child plays and learns… We try to facilitate a sense of community and empowerment so that families can support each other through various aspects of child rearing.”
Submission from a parent
The State Government’s policy is founded on an entitlement to preschool education. It supports provision of preschool education to all four year old children in the year before they enter primary school. It seeks to implement this policy through effective partnerships with families and local communities, acknowledging that the important role families play in the early development of children needs to be supported. The Government also seeks to link preschool education to other early childhood services, such as health services, in a network of complementary local family services.
2.1 Development of Preschool Services
Victorian early childhood services emerged in the late nineteenth century to provide care, educational and developmental experiences for poor working families. This development came mainly at the initiative of people associated with established churches, with an emphasis on the need for suitable equipment and a suitable place to play and rest - matters that still feature large in the standards by which services are assessed today.
This early development of kindergartens combined philanthropic motives with concern for the education and socialisation of young children of poor families.
In Melbourne, the first free kindergartens were established in the inner suburbs in the early 1900s. Up until that time, Australia had some fee-charging kindergartens, mostly attached to private girls schools for the children of wealthy families.
The Day Nursery movement emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century in response to the needs of working mothers. These centres opened for longer hours than the kindergartens and provided care for children from infancy.
By 1910, the Free Kindergarten Union of Victoria (established in 1908) was receiving a grant from the State Government. The State Government wanted to see kindergarten services provided at the same location or near the child care in established crèches.
For four decades Victoria’s kindergartens and crèches were run by voluntary, philanthropic groups of women as a service for the children of poor families. The Free Kindergarten Union of Victoria provided the focus for the development of kindergartens and their interface with Government.
In 1938 the Commonwealth Government became involved in the provision of early childhood services, by funding a demonstration kindergarten in each State capital. These model centres, known as the Lady Gowrie Child Centres, were not only concerned with educational and social development of young children, but also with their health. Additionally, these centres were used to study the development of young children.
This intervention by the Commonwealth Government and greater public awareness of the potential of kindergartens to provide educational and socialising opportunities for children brought about a major change in the status of kindergartens, or preschool centres, as they were increasingly becoming known. There was a rapid spread of preschool centres in the wealthier suburbs and among middle class families. Fundraising activities among these families were directed to establishing and supporting their local centre.
Mellor (1990) as cited in “Kids and Kindergartens”, (Brotherhood of St. Laurence Melbourne, 1997) reported that:
“Within a decade of the end of the Second World War, the free kindergarten movement had developed from a service for the children of the very poor to an educational service applicable to all young children.”
By the late 1960s, attendance at preschool was being regarded as an entitlement for all young children. Unlike child care, it was expected to be provided free to families. The quality of preschool services in terms of the developmental needs of children and the training and qualifications of staff varied considerably. In particular, preschool centres in higher socio- economic areas were almost invariably of better quality, were better resourced and had better paid staff than those centres in poorer suburbs. Parents in low income areas were less able to establish centres. Access for children in low income areas, to a service increasingly being recognised as important to their social and intellectual development, became an issue. During the 1960s and 1970s, some State Governments took over preschool services provision but in Victoria (and New South Wales) preschool provision, remained largely in the hands of voluntary agencies. Unlike child care services, however, preschool centres were largely supported through Government subsidies, significant contributions from local councils, support from voluntary organisations and fundraising activities.
The urban sprawl, the growth in the number of under 5 year olds, the lower participation of women in the workforce, the fact that not many families had two cars were some of the features that resulted in a proliferation of neighbourhood preschool centres in the 1960s.
While preschool provision became widespread, it was not meeting the needs of working mothers. A strong push for the provision of child care services to support working mothers developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Commonwealth Government introduced the Child Care Act 1972 and became involved in the funding of child care programs. The focus of the Commonwealth Government’s interest shifted more to the support of the labour market participation of women. The dichotomy between preschool education and child care became more entrenched.
On its election in 1972, the Whitlam Labor Government committed to providing one year of free preschool education for all children and introduced grants to cover staff salaries and on costs, meet some operational costs and assist with the building of new preschool centres, or to help pay off the capital costs of existing centres. The Commonwealth Government also introduced free university education.
There was an immediate impact on the quality of preschool education and the calibre and number of applicants for training as preschool teachers. The management of preschool centres remained with the community, but the prospect of achieving consistent, good quality service provision across all areas improved.
Commonwealth Government funding of preschools soon came into competition with pressure for child care funding, and there was a move away from the child development focus to a greater emphasis on women’s access to child care services. Commonwealth Government funding for child care expanded, but grants for preschool centres were wound down under the Fraser Coalition Government in the late 1970s and the commitment to one year of free preschool education for every Australian child was abandoned. In 1977, under its ‘New Federalism’ policy, the Commonwealth Government withdrew from direct involvement in the funding of preschool education, replacing it with non-indexed block grants.
Under the Hawke Labor Government there was intensified support for child care which resulted in a substantial increase in places and the establishment of new services in areas of need, but the Commonwealth Government’s funding of preschool education finally ceased in 1985.
The Victorian Government, which along with other State Governments had resented the intrusion of the Commonwealth Government in 1972 into what it saw as a State responsibility, was left, along with local government, to take on the responsibility for preschool education.
By the 1990s, the State Government was meeting the full salary and related costs of preschool centre staff and contributing to the running costs of centres. The State operated a central payments system that relieved preschool centres of payroll responsibilities.
2.2 Recent Developments
In 1994, under the Kennett Coalition Government, the basis of funding preschool centres changed. A per capita grant for each eligible child enrolled in a preschool centre replaced the central payments system.
When first introduced, the per capita grants were based on a three-tier system. A fourth tier was added shortly after to provide a higher per capita grant for small, rural preschool centres. Subsequently, the preschool education funding support was extended to preschool education in long day care centres. The level of the per capita grant is currently based on geographic location and whether long day care is also offered. Figure 1 shows the per capita rate payable:
to agencies where only the Safety Net Adjustment (SNA) applies (those agencies which are not party to the Multi-Employer Certified Agreement (MECA) 2000 ** or equivalent certified agreement); and
the per capita rate payable to services which are party to the MECA or an equivalent certified agreement.
Figure 1. Preschool Per Capita Grant Rates: 2001 Preschool Year
Grant Category SNA - $ Certified Agreement - $ Standard 970.00 999.00 Rural 1,215.00 1,251.00 Small Rural * 1,821.00 1,876.00 Long Day Care 512.00 527.00
Note: * The Small Rural per capita grant is capped at $18,764 when there are 10 to 14 eligible children enrolled.. For 15 or more eligible children, the Rural per capita rate applies.
Source: Department of Human Services.
The introduction of per capita funding arrangements was accompanied by a substantial reduction in total State funding for preschool education, estimated by the Department of Human Services at the time to be about twenty per cent.
Note: ** MECA is the industry agreement between the Australian Education Union (AEU) and the Kindergarten Parents Victoria (KPV) on behalf of parent committees of preschool centres. It governs the terms and conditions for employment of preschool teachers.
From 1994, local government amalgamations were taking place (210 municipalities became 78) and the Compulsory Competitive Tendering legislation was introduced, requiring local government to be party to competitive tendering arrangements and necessitating a review of their operations.
The combination of these changes resulted in closure for a number of preschool centres and in all others necessitated a substantial raising of fees and increased fundraising to replace State and, in some cases, local government support.
The per capita grant is estimated to provide on average 50 to 60 per cent of the income of a preschool centre. The average preschool fee is estimated to have increased by 120 per cent over the four years 1994–97 (Auditor-General 1998 Special Report 55, p.107).
“Compared with the situation which existed before the change to per capita funding when the majority of preschool operating and administrative costs were met by Government, a large portion of the costs of providing preschool programs, has now been shifted to parents.”
Child Care and Kindergartens
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, April 1998
In some cases, fee increases were even greater, imposing considerable pressures on families seeking preschool services and on committees of management of preschool centres.
“Kindergarten fees have increased by 400% over the last 6 years and impose a significant and unacceptable financial pressure on families with limited budgets.”
Submission from the Geelong Kindergarten Association
The per capita arrangements also had unforeseen and uneven impact on the provision of services across the State. In response to the difficulties that arose for many community-based centres, the Government made provision for a number of support services. The stated purpose of this provision is detailed in the Community Care Division Policy and Funding Plan 2000:
“State-wide or regional projects which provide support to management bodies, staff and children attending funded children’s services to enhance the quality and accessibility of the service provided.”
These additional services are delivered through the five commercial contracts (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Children’s Services Support Contracts as at November 2000
Contracts Preschool Management Support Service Multicultural Advisory & Support Service Training & Advisory Support Service Annual Early Childhood Conference Preschool Payroll Support Service – PayLine Total Funding - $2,784,750
Source: Department of Human Services.
In addition, there si a service agreement (for $23,720) with the Australian Early Childhood Association (AECA) to provide an early childhood qualifications assessment advisory service, and an allocation to the Commonwealth’s Koori Preschool Assistants Program to facilitate the access of Koori children and their families to culturally appropriate preschool services.
Although the Victorian Government currently provides over $71 million in annual funding to preschool services, the Commonwealth Grants Commission Report (February 2000) stated that Victoria’s spending on preschool education was almost 40 per cent below the national average. The Commission estimated that Victoria would need to increase its expenditure by $28.8 million to bring its expenditure on preschool education up to the average level of the other Australian States.
3. Importance of the Early Years
Over the past twenty years, research evidence of the importance of the early years of childhood to later development has been growing strongly. Overwhelmingly, the evidence coming out of these studies is that early intervention is critically important in preventing life-long poverty and exclusion. The research evidence is dominated by United States studies, but research studies in Canada, the UK, Germany, France and New Zealand confirm the major findings that quality early childhood programs make a significant difference to children over the longer term. Australian research in this area has been very limited, but what is available confirms the value of early intervention in improving educational performance and employment prospects.
Many of the overseas studies have been longitudinal and have traced the experiences of the subjects of those studies over many years. A substantial number of these studies have been concerned with disadvantaged populations.
An extensive review of relevant literature is reported in two major papers on early childhood development: Early Childhood Education Working Party Report, October 2000, Canberra, by the Council of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers (CESCEO)
Reversing the Real Brain Drain: the Early Years (Canadian) Study, Final Report, April 1999.
Although the panel has given emphasis to these two reports, a large number of similar studies reach the same conclusions.
3.1 CESCEO Report
The report of the working party of the Council of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers (CESCEO) concluded that neuroscientific research on brain development and decades of research on child development have demonstrated that quality educational experiences for children in their early years are critical. It also concluded that the cost -benefit analyses of quality early childhood programs had clearly indicated the economic value of investment in the first years of children’s lives.
The report draws attention to the well-known Perry Preschool Project in the US, which for over thirty years has consistently shown social and economic benefits from investment in the early years of education. These benefits have included better academic and employment outcomes, fewer arrests for criminal activity and greater community participation in adulthood. For every $US 1,000 invested the return is estimated to have been $US 7,160 in terms of ‘savings’ in special education, income support, unemployment and crime. A similar cost-benefit analysis of quality early childhood care and education provision in the UK (Pascal and Bertram 2000) found that for every £1 spent on early childhood development there was a saving of £8.
Another study referred to in the CESCEO report is the Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centres study, funded through the Carnegie Corporation in 1993. This study followed children through the first three years of school and found that those children who attended child care with high quality classroom practices had better language and math skills, fewer behaviour problems and better cognitive and social skills.
A US study (Barnett 1993) cited in the CESCEO report looked into the results of a number of early childhood programs and found that children from disadvantaged backgrounds who attended the programs experienced later school success. Barnett found that the programs had positive effects in reducing referral to special classes and improving retention and drop out rates. Two related Australian studies (Rowe and Hill, 1996 and Hill, 1995) also quoted, found that if the gap in achievements between students is not addressed early it widens over time.
While much of the research focuses on outcomes for children, the CESCEO report points out that research in New Zealand funded by the Bernard Van Leer Foundation found that parental involvement in early childhood education and care programs increased the parents’ ability to take on work and further education and increased their self-esteem and skills. Two other reported studies (St. Pierre et al 1995, and Yoshikama 1995) found that programs that link child-focused activities with adult-focused activities produce the best results for children’s development.
3.2 Canadian Early Years Study
In the report of The Early Years Study (April, 1999) research findings point to the negative impact on children of a poor environment and lack of stimulation in their early years and the importance of positive experiences in those first few years on life-long competence and coping skills. Children whose cognitive and behavioural characteristics are poorly developed in their early years are very likely to experience difficulties throughout schooling.
The Early Years Study reports studies (Tremblay 1999 and 1994) that found that boys who experienced poor parenting tended to exhibit anti-social and disruptive behaviour in school. They were also more likely to drop out of school. On the other hand, quality early life experiences brought aggressive behaviour under control.
A large US study quoted - the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care (1997) – found that vulnerable children spending time in low quality child care programs hindered rather than helped them to overcome deficiencies in language, confidence and socialisation.
“There are a number of innovative programs in our communities that help disadvantaged youth. Many of these programs are designed to minimise the negative effects of early childhood by helping them control abnormal arousal and emotional responses to stress… These programs often work because they change the environments for these children…”
The Early Years Study, page 39
The importance of preschool activities that focus on the parent-child interaction and provide the stimulation of play-based problem solving with other children are given further emphasis in the Early Years Study. Parent involvement in children’s play- based learning, according to the report, is an essential ingredient of successful early development programs. This parental involvement is intended to be more than an occasional visit to the preschool centre to observe activities. In some instances, it needs to involve home visits and link closely to maternal and child health services and parenting education and support.
One noteworthy longitudinal study cited in the Early Years Study is the Caroline Abecedarian Project. This study was designed to examine the effect of early childhood education and parent support on children from families classified as disadvantaged on socio-economic criteria, including level of parental income and education. The group that had been involved in a preschool program significantly outperformed the control group in terms of IQ measurements. All the children who had participated in the preschool program had better scores in reading and mathematics at age 15 years than the non-participants. Importantly, the support given to children from the control group (those not participating in the preschool program) only after they had started school, led to little improvement. Linked to that finding is another reported study by Tremblay and Craig (1995). This extensive review of crime prevention initiatives found that by the time children are in the school system, interventions are much less effective than in the preschool years.
Other related studies reported in the Early Years Study include findings from a large UK longitudinal study, a Swedish longitudinal study, and other studies from the US and France. All point to the beneficial impact of preschool education.
The Osburn and Milbank (1987) study of child health and education in the UK examined the effects of half-day preschool child care and play groups on children’s academic achievement and cognitive development. They found that the children who attended any form of organised group preschool program when they were three or four years old showed improved cognitive development and academic achievement, compared to children who did not have the benefits of such a program. Disadvantaged children were found to benefit slightly more from the programs than others. Children also did better when a parent participated in their own child’s program.
The Swedish longitudinal study (Andersson, 1992) of children’s social skills and cognitive abilities assessed the children at age eight and thirteen. The results showed that those children who had spent most time in early childhood development programs had the highest school attainments.
In France, the Ecoles Maternelle are public programs operated by the education system, catering for children from two-and-a-half years of age. The Bergmann (1966) study of these schools (as reported in the Early Years Study) also found that participation in preschool programs had an impact on later school achievement across all socio-economic groups. The longer the children attended preschool programs, the better their school achievement in the first grade.
A study in the US by Zoritch and Roberts (1998), also reported in the Early Years Study, involved 2000 children under the age of five years attending some form of day care outside the home. It concluded that the educational performance of children was higher for the group that attended the preschool centres. The study also noted that in some cases there were improvements in the educational, employment and financial achievements of the mothers whose children were involved in these programs.
3.3 Conclusions from the Research
The evidence gathered from studies of early childhood development programs in the US, Canada, Europe and elsewhere over many years – longitudinal studies, studies in neuroscience, developmental psychology, social science and epidemiology –overwhelmingly show that quality developmental programs in the preschool years have favourable impacts on subsequent learning, health and behaviour. The most successful programs have parent involvement; health and social services for disadvantaged children and their families are another essential component.
The research also points to the fact that where there are disruptions to and inadequacies in the early life of children, they can have a detrimental effect on behaviour, learning, physical and mental health and development and, without early intervention, can become difficult and costly to remedy. The problems may well in later life give rise to antisocial behaviour, delinquency and crime; to unemployment and financial difficulties. This may in turn disadvantage the next generation.
Children who have participated in preschool education programs, when compared with children who have not participated, show fewer referrals to remedial or special education classes, lower absenteeism, better grades and retention, and higher graduation rates. Beyond school, participants in preschool education have better employment rates and earnings, fewer arrests and antisocial acts, and greater family and community involvement.
“It is very clear that the community is slowly realising that the early years provide the best window of opportunity to address issues of social and educational disadvantage.”
Submission from Kevin Fell, Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne
The pressures of family life for Australians over the past quarter of a century have increased as a result of significant economic, workplace and community change. These pressures are reflected in the difficulties that many parents face in giving their children a good start.
Investment by Government in preschool education can help ensure that all children receive a good foundation for their later development. However, the preschool services have to be accessible and have the capacity to deliver quality programs. Currently, there are substantial differences in the accessibility and quality of preschool education between localities across Victoria.
“…early childhood is the period when human development is at its most malleable and open to environmental influences…high quality early childhood education programs have shown to have long term benefits resulting in cost savings that far outweigh the costs of the original programs.”
Submission from the Australian Early Childhood Association Inc (Vic Chapter).
One other vital ingredient for effective preschool education highlighted by the research literature is the importance of parent involvement in programs and services. The best services are both child and parent focused.
Victoria’s preschool education system has all the ingredients for an effective and quality service, including strong ties with local communities. Historically, it has led the way, with preschool education as a valuable interface between home and primary school. However, the State’s preschool education system now requires substantial reform to realise its potential and provide Victoria’s children, parents and communities with all the benefits the research demonstrates can be obtained from a quality service.
“A society that wants to have a highly competent population for the future to cope with the demands of the emerging knowledge based world and global economy will have to ensure that all its children have the best stimulation and nourishment during the critical early years of development, regardless of family circumstances.”
The Early Years Study (page 19)
4. Central Issues
The panel has identified a range of issues that are problematical for the successful operation of preschool education centres in Victoria and achievement of the Government’s policy objective of providing one year of quality preschool education for all Victoria’s four year olds. There are three central and interrelated issues, around which most, if not all, of the other issues revolve. If these three problems are successfully addressed, the major part of the required reforms will be accomplished. The three central issues are:
the system of funding preschool education;
the roles, responsibilities, liabilities and workloads placed on preschool centre management committees; and
the salaries, employment arrangements and career structure of qualified preschool teachers and assistants.
The necessary reforms will not be easily or quickly achieved. The reforms required to deal with the three central issues will require significant additional funding, which will have to be considered in terms of the State Government’s budget imperatives.
The argument in favour of reform of Victoria’s preschool education is provided by extensive international research in a number of fields covering early childhood development. This demonstrates that the early years are the most critical for success and set the stage for learning, behaviour and health throughout the life cycle to avoid more expensive interventions in later life.
The value of greater investment now in preschool education has to be considered alongside the likely future benefits and other current priorities. In the panel’s view, however, unless the decline in Victoria’s preschool services is arrested, there is no prospect that the Government will achieve its objective of providing one year of quality preschool education to all the State’s four year olds. Children in rural and economically disadvantaged areas are likely to be the first to miss out. The current decline in the State’s preschool services will not be arrested without commitment to a substantial program of reform.
Recommendation 1:
The panel recommends that the Government commit itself to a three year program of reform of the State’s preschool education services.
4.1 Funding System
The Department of Human Services provides support to eligible preschool centres, including child care centres and schools, by way of a per capita grant based on enrolments. The amount received by each preschool service is dependent on its funding category and the number of eligible children enrolled in the preschool education program (see Figure 1). The majority of services are funded at the standard per capita rate. Higher per capita rates are paid to some centres in rural areas, with the highest rate going to small rural centres with low enrolments. There is a lower per capita rate paid for preschool education programs in long day care centres.Schools receive the standard rate of per capita grant for preschool enrolments.
Prior to the introduction of the per capita funding system in 1994, the Government met the cost of the salaries and on costs of preschool centre staff and provided a contribution to the other operating costs. The change in the arrangements for funding introduced in 1994 resulted in a major shift of the costs of preschool education from Government to parents and brought about other changes detrimental to the provision of quality preschool education. It also resulted in the demise of many preschool centres, particularly in non-metropolitan areas, and left others in a precarious financial situation.
The earlier system of central payment of salaries and on costs had been introduced by the State Government in 1984 because of the concern about the financial problems of many preschool centres, some of which had lost funds for staff long service and other entitlements through misappropriation or mismanagement. These problems have arisen again under the current system, with a number of parent committees confronting problems of misappropriation of centre funds. Many more parent committees face problems of ensuring that their financial reserves are sufficient to meet staff entitlements and almost all parent committees of community preschools have difficulties with the financial management of their centre.
The financial problems of many preschool centres at the time of the change to per capita funding were made worse by the reforms to local government that occurred around the same time. As a result of the restructuring of local government and the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, a number of local councils ceased their support of preschool centres. This withdrawal of support placed further financial strains on centre committees who then had to meet additional expenses, such as electricity, water, insurance and building maintenance.
It is apparent to the panel that the per capita funding system was not fully considered before its introduction. The panel understands that consultants were engaged to assist the Department with the development of a revised funding system, but that their proposals were rejected in favour of the per capita system eventually introduced. It would seem that the per capita model was not adequately costed, nor the likely impact assessed for centres in different geographic locations and for centres in lower socio-economic areas. Also, no account appears to have been taken of the impact of withdrawal or reduction in support resulting from the reforms to local government then taking place.
The introduction of the per capita funding system brought problems of equity and administration. In terms of equity, the per capita approach had a detrimental impact on access. Families with low incomes found greater difficulty in meeting the higher fees that had to be imposed. In some cases, the level of fees was made worse by falling enrolments, which resulted in centres having less capacity for fundraising. Higher preschool fees proved especially difficult for low-income families not eligible for the Health Care Card concession and in rural areas where enrolment numbers were insufficient to meet the cost of operating the centre at affordable fee levels. For management committees, it became a problem of juggling expected enrolments with anticipated attrition; income from fees and grants and expected fundraising against operating hours and staff costs.
“Unpaid fees threaten the viability of services and volunteers are in the unacceptable position of having to chase up unpaid fees from friends and neighbours who can’t afford them.” Submission from the Geelong Kindergarten Association
A further inequity arises from the fact that the per capita funding relates solely to the number of enrolments and is provided regardless of the hours a child attends the preschool centre or is engaged in the preschool program. A child may receive only one hour of a preschool program a week, but the enrolment may still qualify for the full per capita grant.
Common outcomes of this annual task of balancing income and expenditure is under- employment of staff (to minimise cost) and over-enrolment of children, exclusion of children of families who cannot afford the fees and continual pressure on committees and staff to arrange fundraising activities. In some cases, children with special needs may be excluded because of the extra demands they are likely to make on staff. Rotational models of service delivery may be introduced so that more children can be enrolled with one preschool teacher, with the children attending in varying combinations of hours over the week. Many teachers now face student/teacher ratios that compromise their capacity to undertake the individual observation and assessment that is a vital part of preschool education.
“I often spend my own salary to increase supplies in the centre because there is insufficient funds available. I often provide my own stationery and materials such as paste, paper plates, birthday candles, laminating sheets, photocopying paper, etc.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
For treasurers of preschool centres, the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has brought added complications to an existing heavy load. In the section of this report dealing with the responsibilities of preschool centre management committees the panel elaborates on the workload of the committee’s treasurer.
The pressure on management committees to balance enrolments, fees, fundraising and staff costs also has detrimental effects for the preschool teacher. They are faced with the uncertainty of not knowing how many hours of work they will have from one year to the next, whether they will be employed at the same centre and, if not, whether their long service leave and other
entitlements are secured. For the committee, there are advantages in employing less experienced preschool teachers who cost less per hour than more experienced teachers.
“I am on the top level of pay… The centre receives no extra funding because of my experience and qualifications. I do not feel guilty in accepting this level of pay but this additional money could be spent on equipment etc. if a new graduate were employed. I am being priced out of the market (but) my remuneration does not reflect the professional basis of my job.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
Not only does the trend to employ less qualified, less experienced preschool teachers have implications for the quality of preschool education programs, it also reduces the opportunities for mentoring and professional development and in the longer run, has implications for the future supply of teaching staff in universities.
“In the per capita funding model, further study and qualifications can in fact reduce your employment options. The more qualifications you have the more you get paid, the more fees or fund raising parents have to pay or undertake.”
Submission from a the Lady Gowrie Child Centre
The panel has concluded that the starting point for reform of preschool education is the per capita funding arrangements. New arrangements for funding preschools and employing preschool teachers will resolve several problems. Associated with improved planning, which the panel’s model will propose, it will lead to more full-time employment of preschool teachers, improving their incomes, reducing attrition and increasing recruitment prospects. It will lead to better utilisation of the existing workforce and provide more continuity and certainty in the employment of staff. It will also reduce the administrative burden on committees.
4.2 Committees of Management
“The changes made to the funding model in 1995 have had a serious and negative impact on community kindergartens. Fees have trebled and the financial pressures facing committees of management are totally unacceptable. Volunteers are now faced with decisions and dilemmas about fees and charges in their centre where they are having to weigh up complex issues such as access and program quality in relationship to group sizes, attendance patterns, resources and maintenance. These are not appropriate responsibilities for volunteers whose motivation is to participate and contribute not to run a potentially non-viable business which poses such philosophical dilemmas” Submission from the Geelong Kindergarten Association
Of the more than 1,600 funded preschool locations, over 950 (about 58 per cent) are run by voluntary committees of management. Other management arrangements include support
services from local government, church groups, schools and child care associations. Under these arrangements, preschool centres will usually have their own parent committee.
In September 2000 the Family and Community Support Branch of Department of Human Services commissioned a review of the roles and responsibilities of the voluntary committees of management (Report of Consultations Conducted to Obtain the Views of Committee Members, 2000). The review arose from the State Government’s Community Services Policy, in which there is a commitment to ensure that parents are not exposed to unreasonable financial and legal risks, and to reducing the workload of committees through greater networking of administration.
The responses to that review from parents on committees of management of preschool centres are entirely consistent with those elicited by the panel. Overwhelmingly, parents want to be involved with the management of preschool centres while their children attend the centre. Equally, they believe the current administration and responsibilities placed on them are far in excess of what it is reasonable to expect of voluntary committees.
It was pointed out to the panel, time and again, that under the current arrangements, voluntary committees were typically operating small businesses of $100,000 to $200,000 turnover, where the management changes annually. Moreover, the parents on these management committees have little or no training for their tasks and are given minimum support.
The problems committees confront have escalated since the changes to the funding system were introduced in 1994, with changes to the Regulations, the increasing shortages of teachers and the withdrawal of some local government support. Many centres now find it extremely difficult to persuade parents to take on committee responsibilities and even when they achieve a full committee at the start of the year, there is considerable attrition as parents realise how much they are taking on. The responsibilities of any position which becomes vacant not infrequently falls on the preschool teacher.
“Participation in the formal management of the kindergarten is an onerous and time consuming task… This results in most kindergartens having to annually plead, cajole or embarrass parents into volunteering for the Committee of Management or even a sub-committee.”
Kindergarten committee submission
Most parents understand that there is a need to help out in the running of a preschool centre but few, if any, are prepared for the responsibilities and particularly the liabilities they encounter on a preschool committee. First and foremost are those relating to the employment of staff, from which most of their financial responsibilities flow. Management demands are placed on people who in many cases already have further significant commitments such as study, work and other family members. It is often halfway through the year before most committee members come to grips with the extent of their responsibilities and that is when many of them resign, leaving others, including the preschool teacher, to take on the additional work.
The problems associated with the employment of staff can raise conflicts of interest for parents on the preschool committee and place the preschool teacher in an invidious position. Apart from the committee’s responsibilities for maintaining staff records and entitlements and ensuring they are paid appropriately, conflicts can develop between a parent’s expectations of
the program for their child and the same parent’s role as employer of the centre’s staff. This relationship can become very difficult for staff when a committee becomes involved in supervising standards of teaching or initiating changes to programs, particularly as the committee members are likely to have no professional training in early childhood development. The dual role of preschool management committees has the potential to undermine the cooperative working relationship between teachers and parents that has been the hallmark of early childhood services in Victoria.
Ever changing management committees of largely well-meaning but untrained people acting as their employer, and the relative isolation of staff from peer support, are major contributors to the poor morale of preschool teachers and the resultant loss of experienced staff.
“We sat for 10 minutes in silence when nominations were called for the first (President) role, before we agreed to ‘come back to it’. We then sat through another 10 minutes in silence before a volunteer came forward for the second (Vice President) role. And so it went on … I had to explain that without a committee the centre cannot receive Government grants and would therefore close. This must be shattering for teachers and assistant teachers to sit through. And it has been the same for all 4 AGMs I have attended. Why our teachers have not left for primary school jobs by now makes no sense to me at all.”
Submission from the president of a preschool centre.
The management arrangements are equally damaging to the enthusiasm and support of parents confronting what, for presidents and treasurers in particular, are very heavy workloads and personal liabilities. Disputes, financial problems and even litigation never seem too far from the door for office holders. For those operating centres in low socio-economic and rural areas where support for committees of management may be more difficult to achieve, the pressures are even greater.
“We had our AGM … And a new committee had been elected for the year, myself taking on the role of treasurer. I should have made the connection straight away when I learned that last year’s treasurer was actually the teacher … but I was eager to help and missed the warning signs.
… It was after a few short weeks … that I was handed a list, ‘by the way these are people from last year, who still owe money’…
By this stage the financial hardship of many families at the kinder is becoming evident and the workload continues to grow. I’m almost a full time debt collector now, many parents avoid me in case I ask for money ...
I go to bed each night with this feeling of a huge uncompleted task … I scream at my children … What did they do to deserve that? It’s only halfway through the year, will we make it.
… I have had the most horrible job advising families that their child is unable to attend the centre due to non-payment of fees.”
Submission from a treasurer of a preschool centre
Preschool education centres can provide a positive and nurturing start for children through the professional skills of the preschool teacher and the involvement and support of parents. Notwithstanding management problems, if parents are involved in the management of the centre and its day-to-day operations, it fosters a sense of community and strengthens the links between family, centre and local community. Parent involvement is essential, therefore, for the success of preschool education, not just an important element but a central pillar of the system.
However, the involvement of parents in committees of management of preschool centres and the partnership between preschool teachers, families and community have been increasingly weakened and undermined by the 1994 changes to funding arrangements and the related reductions in support and advice available from Government services.
“This has been a year I won’t easily forget, though I do intend to try. What started out as a positive desire to help my kinder has turned into an unmitigated mess. Quite often I am at the kinder for as long as my child is but unlike him, I get homework as well. The huge workload has had a very negative effect on my family, to the point where I am unable to spend quality time with my three children. So you try to do the right thing and you can’t even do that. In closing I would just like to say ‘I am counting the days’ and I am, frankly, happy to be rid of the place. It is too hard and too much to rest the burden on the shoulders of so few.”
Submission from the same preschool treasurer
Of all the submissions made to the panel, only that from Kindergarten Parents Victoria (KPV) makes an attempt to estimate the hours voluntary committees give to the management of preschool centres. Although it can be taken as an indication only, this estimate is nevertheless useful in providing some assessment against which the many submissions from committees about their workload can be considered. The KPV estimate that collectively volunteer parents on preschool committees spend anywhere between thirty to fifty hours per week at their centre. It costs this contribution at an average wage of an administrative officer at the equivalent of $19 million per annum. Of course, in needs to be borne in mind that parent involvement in the management of preschool centres and their participation in fund raising activities benefit both the children and the parents. The social interaction between the centre, its committee, the parents and community are an important measure of the success of preschool centres.
In order to deal with the range of problems which result from the current per capita funding arrangement and to remove from management committees the burdens resulting from their employment of staff, the panel is recommending that the Government return to the arrangement where it funds the full cost of salaries and on-costs of preschool teachers and assistants. The panel intends this arrangement to apply to community-based preschool centres and to be subject to planning and other requirements detailed later in this report.
Recommendation 2:
The panel recommends that the Government take responsibility for funding the salaries of preschool teachers and assistants in community-based preschool centres, subject to conditions in respect of planning and group employment.
Other funding arrangements will be required for eligible preschool programs in schools and long day care centres and for other providers who do not meet the conditions for full salary funding. The proposed arrangements for funding these providers are dealt with later in this report.
4.3 Terms and Conditions for Employment of Staff
The third major problem for preschool education in Victoria is the salaries and employment arrangements of preschool teachers and assistants.
Examination of the rates of pay and conditions of employment of preschool teachers and related staff was undertaken in the first stage of the review. The findings of this examination are well supported by the many submissions received by the panel and through the consultations the panel undertook.
The role of the preschool teacher encompasses more than face-to-face teaching. In the vast majority of preschool centres, the preschool teacher provides the continuity between the administration of one management committee and the next. Inevitably, this involves the teacher in taking on responsibility for administration tasks that in the present system should rest with the management committee. It is known that some preschool teachers have been compelled to take on committee roles when insufficient numbers of parents have volunteered, or where vacancies on the committee have arisen in the course of the year, even though this gives rise to the potential for serious conflicts.
The trust that builds between preschool teachers and parents not infrequently results in parents seeking counselling and assistance from the teacher for a range of family and personal issues unrelated to the preschool.
The preschool teacher is responsible for record keeping, the health, welfare and safety of the children in their charge, the supply of materials and equipment, and for collating information to meet accountability requirements, in addition to their direct teaching role. They are also expected to liaise closely with parents, be involved with other professionals who support the children’s development, liaise with local schools, and seek support for those children who have additional needs. In addition, they often find themselves responsible for the planning of fundraising activities.
“Teachers in both schools and kindergartens have an undenied ‘duty of care’ towards their students, but in schools that duty can be shared. In kindergartens the teacher is the first aid trained teacher, the special education/integration teacher, the English as a second language teacher, the parent educator, the child/parent counsellor, the staff/volunteer/maintenance supervisor to name a few roles …”
Submission from a preschool teacher
The fact that most preschool teachers have a deep commitment to their work and are passionate about helping the early development of children was evidenced by the submissions from preschool teachers and the hours of discussion with them. The panel is in no doubt that many have left preschool teaching because of the burden of the increasing administrative tasks, the legal liability resulting from changes to the Regulations, the isolation from others of their
profession, the growing insecurity in the way they are employed and the lack of recognition for what they do. Many more are contemplating a change of career and very few are entering preschool teaching because of those factors.
“Early childhood teachers working in community based preschools can be regarded as ‘sole practitioners’. Such a role means that they have high levels of individual responsibility for program development, implementation and evaluation as well as responsibility for the children’s overall wellbeing and family support. Compared to their primary school counterparts, these teachers engage in professional decision- making without the support of another professional colleague, principal or staff team. Rural contexts may further exacerbate this professional isolation.”
Submission from a senior lecturer, at Monash University
The Auditor-General reported in 1998 (Special Report, No.55) that positive relationships between staff and children are dependent on staff consistency and that high levels of staff turnover and inappropriate staff rostering practices worked against such consistency. To such strains on the quality of preschool education can be added the increased workload presented by children with additional needs, worsening staff/child ratios, the difficulty of recruiting preschool teachers, the near impossibility of finding relief teaching staff to cover short-term absences and the declining number of full-time jobs in preschool teaching.
“Although I am passionate about my teaching, I could not continue with this overwhelming workload. My health was suffering and my family knew only that they could contact me at the Kinder – I was there so often.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
As the paid hours of preschool teachers decrease (as a result of pressure on committees to balance income with expenditures) their non-contact hours are the first to fall, and there seems little doubt that many work significant amounts of unpaid overtime. The amount of unpaid overtime that preschool teachers work relates to preparation for program activities, writing up reports, attendance at meetings, shopping for the service and small maintenance tasks in the centre. It is also not unusual for preschool staff to have to do the daily cleaning of the centre.
The per capita grant for enrolments makes no allowance for the different rates of pay between more recently qualified, less experienced teachers and those with more experience. Over the salary range, the difference amounts to thousands of dollars. The committees, when faced with funding pressures, have incentive to employ preschool teachers on lower rates of pay. Alternatively, they seek to reduce teacher hours. Almost 70 per cent of preschool teachers now work part-time. This increases the financial strain on these low paid workers and is a major disincentive for graduates to take up preschool teaching.
“The funding formula introduced as a result of the ‘1993 Strategic Directions’ paper has seen most teaching positions reduced to part-time. This is not conducive to attracting graduates to teaching in preschools, particularly in rural centres, where the cost of living, fuel, etc makes a part-time position financially unviable.”
Submission from a former preschool teacher
Without doubt, staff of preschool centres are conscious of the impact fee increases can have on the ability of families to maintain their involvement. They know that payment for overtime or improvements to their salaries can make the problems of fees and fundraising even more difficult and may well bring about the closure of the centre, so they are very reluctant to pursue improvements in their working conditions. The fact that they took industrial action in 2000 for the first time in a great many years indicates their level of frustration and how serious the situation has become.
“Teaching quality in kindergartens is in jeopardy because the more experienced and better qualified teachers are too expensive to employ.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
The Department of Human Services has not undertaken any research into the supply of and demand for preschool teachers since the 1994 changes came into effect. What planning there has been appears to be limited to that undertaken by a few local government authorities. From the information that came to the panel, there are shortages of preschool teachers right across the State and these are especially acute in rural areas. During the panel’s consultations, there were widespread complaints about difficulties in recruiting qualified staff, most especially for relief to cover short-term absences. KPV reported that there had been a substantial increase in preschool centres seeking KPV’s help in recruiting staff. While recruitment had been a problem of particular concern for rural centres two years ago, in recent years it has also become a problem in metropolitan areas.
Centres reported having spent hundreds of dollars advertising for permanent and relief staff and considered themselves fortunate to receive a single reply. More than one centre reported that having engaged a teacher after a lengthy search, the teacher resigned shortly after commencing when she discovered what was expected of her. Several preschool teachers who had moved from other States advised the panel in submissions that they would not undertake preschool teaching in Victoria because of the wage levels and employment arrangements. A number of these had instead sought employment in schools.
There were many reported cases of preschools closing for a day or longer because of their inability to replace teaching staff absent on account of illness or pressing family needs. Some services have shared lists or networks for obtaining relief staff, but the shortages have become so acute and the search for relief staff so competitive, centres are tending to keep their own lists.
Where centres have to close because relief staff cannot be found, or several different staff have to be employed for relief over a short period, it affects the quality of the programs and the relations between staff and children, and often causes considerable inconvenience to working parents.
“I hesitate to take time off work when feeling unwell as it is so difficult to find relief staff. In 1999, I was forced to take two weeks off due to a family crisis. In that time, after numerous phone calls, the committee were forced to employ four different relief staff over the period of my absence.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
In their submission the Australian Education Union (AEU) pointed out how uncompetitive preschool relief teacher rates were, when compared to relief teaching in schools. Those relieving in preschool teaching are paid a total of $57.45 for the first 3.5 hours and $15.83 per hour thereafter, a total of $120.77 for the day. In schools, relief teachers earn $29.34 per hour or $176.10 per day.
“Last week our centre had to close for a session when a relief teacher could not be found when I was unable to work. The committee had to ring all parents to notify them that the kinder session was cancelled, disappointing the children and creating new problems for working parents.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
The AEU made strong representations to the panel for increases in the salaries of preschool teachers to give them salary parity with Victorian primary school teachers. In their submission, the AEU pointed out that when the entry level salary of a four year trained preschool teacher is compared with the salary of a four year trained primary school teacher there is a difference of $6,810 per annum in favour of the primary school teacher and that this difference increases to $10,971 per annum at the top of the scale.
The AEU also advocated that a revised classification structure should be developed and that any new structure should provide for the professional career development of preschool teachers.
There was a common concern with the AEU among all major stakeholders who made representations to the panel – teachers, local government, management committees, parents and KPV – for improvements in the salaries and employment arrangements of preschool centre staff.
“…the current salaries for preschool teachers are well below their counterparts in other States. KPV is extremely concerned that this will impact on the numbers and potential quality of those embarking on an Early Childhood teaching career.
… many teachers especially those working in low socio-economic and/or rural areas, are being severely disadvantaged as committees have to reduce their hours of work to balance their budgets.”
Submission from Kindergarten Parents Victoria
The Mercer Cullen Egan Dell examination of preschool teachers rates of pay concluded that Victorian preschool teachers are paid at or towards the lower end of the range amongst preschool teachers across Australia.
The examination also concluded that Victorian preschool teachers’ assistants are paid between the middle and bottom end of the range for preschool teachers’ assistants across Australia.
Teachers holding the Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood) or equivalent, if employed for more than twenty hours per week, reach the top of their salary scale in eight years. Unless they undertake further study and obtain a degree, this is as far as they can progress.
Those teachers with the appropriate degree can progress two further increments. These graduates also commence two increments higher than those holding the Diploma when they commence. If working more than twenty hours per week, the graduate also reaches the top of the scale in eight years.
An allowance is paid where a preschool teacher is in charge of a centre, but only in the very few centres with double units. There is no recognition for the preschool teachers in charge of the single centre, no matter how many other staff they manage.
“Twenty years teaching experience two teaching diplomas and a degree and I earn per hour what a check-out (person) earns. It is demoralising and degrading and I can no longer do it, especially when I have the option of emergency teaching in primary schools… I will not be expected to attend meetings on my days off or at night, nor will I be expected to give advice to my ‘boss’ about running the business.”
Submission from a former preschool teacher
The panel believes that a range of issues contribute to the significant recruitment and retention problems being experienced by the preschool system. Current salary rates are a key factor.
It is clear that Victorian salaries have fallen behind their counterparts in other States and Territories however the inconsistencies between structures, qualifications and terms and conditions of employment mean it is not appropriate to use interstate comparability as the basis for determining salary rates.
Nor is it appropriate to compare preschool teacher’s salaries with those of school teachers, given the significant differences in the conditions of employment and teaching environments.
A preferable approach would be to address the issue of salary increases in the broader context of the crucial role preschools play in the range of early childhood services available to the community. It is essential that this include consideration of the classification structure. The panel also believes that there should be a pay adjustment for preschool assistants.
4.4 Long Service Leave
Another issue relating to the conditions of employment for preschool teachers is the entitlement to long service leave.
When the 1994 per capita funding system was introduced, the administrative arrangements which had underpinned the portability of sick and long service leave entitlements - the central payments system - ceased. From 1984 up to the time when the per capita funding arrangement was introduced, the Government department responsible for central payment of salaries of preschool teachers had maintained the records of entitlements. With the loss of the central payments system preserving the records of entitlement and security of the funds for long service and sick leave again became a problem.
Each preschool committee of management now has to set aside provision to meet teacher entitlements. When the staff member becomes eligible, the employer with whom they are employed is obliged to pay for the leave in respect of all the continuous service with the current and former employers. It is likely few centres would have maintained provision for the entitlements of staff who have moved on to other centres. Some centres have been unable to meet their obligations for long service leave entitlements when staff resigned or the centre closed.
“There is a particular problem at …that is probably replicated all over the State. We have a teacher who has been with us for 12 months. Before this she worked at 2 other kindergartens and so is entitled to ‘Portable Long Service Leave’. When she is due for Long Service Leave it will have to be funded by the three kinders’ she has worked at. There is no system in place to administer this, or even to explain how to attempt to solve it. At the moment it sits in my ‘Too Hard’ basket.”
Submission from a preschool treasurer
Sometime after the change to the funding arrangements for preschools was introduced, the Department of Human Services contracted KPV to conduct a feasibility study into the establishment of a long service leave and sick leave provisions fund for preschool teachers and teachers’ assistants. The report from KPV was completed in 1999, but there appears to have been no further action on the matter since that time.
Whether or not the change in arrangements for employing preschool staff recommended by the panel is accepted, a resolution of the current unsatisfactory arrangements for the preservation of the long service and sick leave entitlements of preschool staff will need to be found. The proposal by KPV to establish a central fund, similar to that providing portability of long service leave in the building and construction industry (the Co-Invest fund), appears to be feasible and appropriate. In the panel’s view, there should be an assessment of the costs and operational requirements, including an actuarial assessment of likely current and future liabilities of a fund, undertaken urgently. The outcome of that assessment can then be considered with other options for resolving the portability problem and securing the entitlements for long service leave of preschool staff.
Issues relating to improvement in salaries and conditions, and in the arrangements for preservation of long service and sick leave entitlements, are matters for negotiation between those representing employer interests and those representing the staff. If the panel’s
recommendations on revised arrangements for funding preschool centres are accepted, the State Government will also have a very strong interest in the negotiations. In respect of salaries, salary structure and preservation of long service leave, the panel makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 3
The Panel recommends that there be improvements to the salaries of preschool teachers and that in the context of the negotiations on those improvements, the following matters be given greatest weight:
that there be a restructuring of the salary scale to improve the career path of Victoria’s preschool teachers, one which recognises additional responsibilities for management and staff supervision and provides incentives for gaining relevant postgraduate qualifications and training;
that the restructuring of the salary scale should provide for career advancement through such classifications as specialist or advanced skills, or master teacher;
that the scale should provide a combination of automatic annual increments which recognise increasing experience over the early years and increments based on merit for advanced skills in later years.
Recommendation 4
The panel recommends that there be reassessment of the balance between contact and non-contact time of preschool teachers once revised arrangements for their employment are in place (see Recommendations 2 and 7) and the administrative workload of committees has been reduced.
Recommendation 5
The panel recommends that there be improvements to the salaries of preschool teachers’ assistants and that negotiations on these be conducted to establish relativities with any revised salary scale for preschool teachers.
Recommendation 6
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services take immediate steps to identify and cost the options for safeguarding the long service leave and sick leave entitlements of preschool centre staff. This assessment should be undertaken whether the existing employment arrangements for those staff continue or new arrangements are put in place.
5. Local Government and Planning of Service Provision
5.1 Local Government
Victorian local government has a long history of involvement in children’s services. It has been involved in preschools since the 1950s and in child care since the 1970s. This involvement has extended to planning, coordination, provision of capital and recurrent resources, as well as delivery of services.
The Victorian Local Government Act 1989 describes the functions of local government as including responsibility for “health, welfare and other community services” and the schedule to the Act lists the services as including those for children and families. Across Victoria, local government is involved in maternal and child health, preschool education centres, centre-based child care, out-of-school hours care and family day care. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) advised the panel that local government expenditure on health, education and welfare in Victoria comprises fifty-two per cent of total national expenditure in these areas.
The amalgamation of councils, the imposition on them of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) and the emphasis on smaller government in the 1990s resulted in a number of councils withdrawing from direct involvement in preschool education and in some cases withdrawing completely. However, local government involvement in preschool education is still extensive.
In 1999, the Victorian Local Government (Best Value) Act was introduced to replace CCT. This change along with the Competitive Neutrality Policy altered the way in which councils were able to manage the quality and cost of services and to consider community needs, accessibility and affordability, as well as value for money.
Local government, along with the Uniting Church, Early Childhood Management Services (ECMS, the management arm of KPV) and some preschool associations of providers have brought a number of preschools together to provide management support. This support variously includes the employment of preschool teachers and teachers’ assistants across a network of centres; management of payroll and staff entitlements; central enrolment; management of relief staff; and professional assistance, advice and support to staff and parent committees.
“The Council contributes in excess of $50,000 per year to the Preschool budget so fees can be standardised to make Preschool affordable to all eligible children, and so more experienced teachers can be employed. The Council also makes it easier for our voluntary Parent Committee by employing staff to administer the Preschool unit.”
Submission from a group of preschool teachers
These networks or federations of preschool centres vary in the number of centres they cover; the smallest has only two or three centres, but some encompass twenty or thirty centres. The Geelong Kindergarten Association has more than twenty centres in its operation; Monash Council manages or owns 29 out of the 31 preschools operating within its boundaries. Hobsons Bay contracts nine preschool centres to ECMS to manage. The Uniting Church operates 45 preschool centres, twelve long day care centres, six occasional care programs and two mobile children’s services.
“We are fortunate to have the ‘buffer’ of Warrnambool City Council as our management body. They provide staff management, administrative, enrolment and maintenance roles in all of our kindergartens for which we are grateful.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
5.2 Planning
Central enrolment services operated by councils and others provide one of the few data bases for assessing the demand for preschool education places and the distribution of that demand.
The Auditor-General (1998) was critical of the inadequacies in planning for future demand for preschool services.
“In the area of preschool programs, there is a need for more clearly defined planning priorities to be established particularly in regard to the Department’s objective of expanding the types of preschool programs and rationalising the number of stand alone kindergartens within the State.”
Child Care and Kindergartens Auditor-General’s Office, April 1998, p. 139
It is important for future preschool policy and resourcing that account is taken of the changing pattern of demand for preschool services. There are declining numbers of preschool children in some areas of the State and strong growth in other areas. Under the current funding and management arrangements and with so many stand alone centres, the problems of redistributing preschool education places are likely to persist, despite the overall decline in Victoria’s estimated four year old population over the next twenty years as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Population Projections for Total State Persons, 0-4 years as at Feb 2000
2000 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection EASTERN METRO 58,657 58,688 55,440 52,526 51,430 51,131 NORTHERN METRO 50,127 50,036 48,162 46,925 47,374 48,243 SOUTHERN METRO 68,485 68,278 66,640 65,385 65,661 66,310 WESTERN METRO 40,256 40,275 39,646 39,266 39,558 39,747 BARWON S/W 21,195 20,799 18,916 18,003 18,027 18,118 GIPPSLAND 15,051 14,482 12,752 11,940 11,950 12,024 GRAMPIANS 13,533 13,158 11,643 10,866 10,800 10,762 HUME 16,411 15,847 14,346 13,704 13,913 14,184 LODDON MALLEE 19,105 18,634 16,812 15,944 16,130 16,352 TOTAL STATE 302,820 300,197 284,357 274,559 274,843 276,871 Source: Department of Human Services estimates
The decline in the numbers is consistent across all the Department of Human Services regions but in percentage terms is significantly greater in the Grampians and Gippsland regions, pointing to further difficulties with the per capita funding arrangements for rural preschool centres. The overall numbers also disguise significant areas of growth. The City of Casey, for example, has strong growth in its preschool population projected for a number of years. If adequate preschool education provision is to be made available to all four year olds in Casey, a significant program of building new or extending existing preschool education centres will be necessary.
“One of the impacts of these changes has been the oversupply of kindergarten places in the older areas of the municipality. There is also a shortage of places in the growth areas.” Local government submission
The Auditor-General (1998) also drew attention to the unreliability of the Department of Human Services statistics on enrolments and the corresponding estimates of preschool participation. The fault lies in the system of collecting the information which has not been adjusted since the 1994 introduction of the per capita funding arrangements. At least the inadequacies in the estimates of preschool participation are likely to have been consistent since 1994.
“….none of the regions audited had established a process to verify the accuracy of the enrolment data supplied by funded services and used in determining participation rates. In some cases, details of the number of children enrolled in a funded preschool program provided to members of the audit assessment team were less than those previously collected by the Department." Child Care and Kindergartens
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, April 1998, P.105
Although the Department of Human Services indicated at the time of the Auditor-General’s report that an enhanced system of compliance monitoring was to be introduced from 1 July 1998, it still relies on an inadequate system of data collection. In any case, the enrolment data provides a poor indication of the amount of preschool education being delivered, because each enrolment qualifies for the full per capita grant regardless of the number of hours of attendance by the child. Under the current per capita grant system, one hour of preschool education carries the same weight as ten.
Committees of management of stand alone preschools have neither the capacity nor the inclination to plan for improvements in the utilisation of facilities and the preschool workforce based on current enrolments and future demand. The Department of Human Services probably has the capacity, but its present information systems are inadequate for the task and it appears to wish to keep at arms length from any rationalisation of preschool resources.
The foundation of the recommended funding arrangements is greater planning. State Government expenditure on salaries and on costs of preschool staff must be based on the optimum allocation of staff and distribution of centres. Such an outcome is dependent on greater centralisation of enrolments, knowledge of the distribution of demand, reliable information on staffing and the capacity of existing centres, and information on the characteristics of local populations and availability of other services.
Local government is the most likely organisation to have the necessary data, or to be best placed to obtain it. It also has a strong interest in organising services to achieve the best possible distribution of resources and in integrating related local services.
A number of local government authorities have maintained strong links with preschool centres and provided considerable support by way of central employment and administration. Their central enrolment systems have improved planning and reduced the wasteful competition between centres for enrolments and staff.
The State Government is in other areas of administration seeking to engage local government in joint planning and funding of services, for example, in maternal and child health. The panel believes that this approach should be adopted for preschool education. The central funding of preschool staff salaries and on costs should be linked to agreements with local government on planning and delivery of preschool education services.
These agreements, which would form the basis for the employment of preschool centre staff and funding by the State Government (see Recommendation 2), should be designed to:
improve planning of the provision of preschool places;
promote a greater integration of early childhood services at the local level;
improve the utilisation of the experience, skills and knowledge of the preschool workforce through networking of information and support services;
increase the involvement of children and their families in areas of low participation; and
maintain the involvement of parents in the management of preschool centres.
The service agreements, like the arrangements being developed for the Primary Care Partnerships, will need to recognise the diversity of circumstances and requirements across the State in seeking to ensure high quality preschool education services for all four year olds. The experience gained in developing the Primary Care Partnerships will help with preschool service agreements.
It will be vital to ensure that the role of parents in the day-to-day management of their preschool centre is not diminished, aside that is from the loss of responsibilities as employer of centre staff. The involvement of parents in the operation and programs of the centre and their support for the centre should strengthen as the proposed changes come to fruition.
It will take time for the first of the proposed agreements with local government to be negotiated and put into place, during which time the extent of the involvement of the Uniting Church, Early Childhood Management Services and others associations or networks of preschools in the proposed arrangements can be determined. It appears unlikely that all local government authorities in the State will agree to be involved, and some centres may prefer to remain with or join a different group employer.
The first step may be for the State to seek a Memorandum of Understanding with the Municipal Association of Victoria outlining joint and respective responsibilities to support the service agreements that will underpin the funding and planning arrangements.
It will be necessary to recognise the costs of administration of these employers of preschool staff (called the group employer from hereon) and they will need capacity to provide relief staffing across their network.
Recommendation 7
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services negotiates funding agreements with local government and other group employers for the employment of preschool staff and that these agreements include an element for the employers’ costs of administration and for relief staff. These elements for administration costs and relief staff might be based on a formula related to the number of centres and staff in each network.
If planning is to have effective outcomes in the medium term, there will need to be a degree of continuity for the group employer.
Recommendation 8
The panel recommends that the funding agreements be on a calendar year basis and for a minimum of three years, subject to annual review and satisfactory annual audit.
Under the proposal, the State would be funding a number of equivalent full-time preschool staff positions based on approved plans. It will be necessary, therefore, to determine what a notional equivalent full-time position should be for the purposes of funding the salaries and related on- costs of preschool teachers. In that respect, the panel believes that the notional equivalent full- time position should be based on the hours of face-to-face teaching and the number of children in a standard two-and-a-half hour session of preschool education.
Recommendation 9
The panel recommends that the formula for funding an equivalent full-time teaching position in a preschool centre should be based on the notion of a teacher providing ten standard sessions of preschool education programs per week, plus preparation, to a minimum of twe nty and a maximum of twenty-five children per session.
There will need to be exceptions, for determining what is a notional equivalent full-time position in rural areas where numbers of enrolments are expected to be smaller and in centres where there are exceptional numbers of children with additional needs, for example, in localities with high numbers of enrolments of children for whom English is their second language.
Recommendation 10
The panel recommends that special consideration be given to what would constitute for funding purposes a notional equivalent full-time teaching position in rural locations with small numbers of four year olds and in centres with numbers of children with additional needs. This might be achieved by providing weightings for enrolments in such locations and centres. This and other considerations should involve discussions with stakeholders and observations at a number of centres with the relevant characteristics.
The panel does not support the provision of the payment of salaries and on costs for staff in stand alone preschool education centres, since the economies of scale of the group employer arrangement and the network advantages to the teacher would not be achieved. However, even with goodwill and time it may not be possible to persuade all stand alone centres to become part of a group employment arrangement. In such cases it will be necessary to continue per capita grants, subject to the provision of a minimum of two and a half hours of attendance per day of children involved in the program.
State schools with preschool centres could be funded on the basis that Department of Education, Employment and Training is the group employer. Not-for-profit child care centres providing preschool education programs could become part of a local government or other group employment arrangement for the purposes of having access to funded preschool teachers for the hours of preschool programs. In respect of private-for-profit child care centres and independent schools, however, other arrangements will be required to support the preschool programs in these centres.
Recommendation 11
The panel recommends that where a preschool centre prefers to stand alone and not join a group employer, the funding of the centre should continue on a per capita basis, subject to a minimum of two -and-a-half hours of preschool program activity per day of attendance in respect of each child for whom the grant is paid. Other conditions of eligibility for the per capita grant, such as the requirement for the program to be delivered by a qualified preschool teacher, should continue to apply.
5.3 Capital Facilities
Local government is also a major provider of infrastructure for preschool centres and in some cases accepts significant responsibilities for maintenance. Some stand alone centres are the sole occupants of the council property, others share the premises with child care, maternal and child health, neighbourhood houses or other local services. In some cases, the preschool centre is not owned by council but has been built on council land.
The Auditor-General in his 1998 report (Special Report No 55) estimated that the five Councils covered in the audit had around $30 million invested in child care and preschool education facilities. In its submission to the panel, Frankston City Council listed 181 preschool facilities owned by councils in nine municipalities of the southern region of the State. The council estimated that this was a capital investment of over $72 million. Similarly, Geelong provides 22 preschool centres with the buildings from which they operate. In the majority of cases, council owned buildings are provided to preschool centres at peppercorn rents. On the other hand, much of the resources and many of the facilities in preschool centres have been provided through the fundraising activities of parents.
“In the past four years… the parent Committee has fundraised and spent in excess of $30,000 for the cost of providing evaporative cooling for our double unit building and 2 extensive treated pine climbing forts and 2 bike paths and concrete areas.”
Submission from a committee member, preschool centre
Until the 1990s, capital funding for preschools was seen as a three-way responsibility between State and local government and the local community. The maximum State grant was set at $30,000 when land and building cost for a preschool centre was around $90,000.
When local government has both expanding and contracting demand for preschool services there are prospects of rationalising provision by using the proceeds from disposal of property in one locality to fund additional capacity in another. When the expansion in demand falls largely on one local government area, while another faces widespread falling demand, such rationalisation becomes more difficult. It’s hard to see how rationalisation will take place in those cases without some State Government assistance.
Improved planning of preschool services is likely to result in an expansion of places in some areas and a reduction in others. Inevitably, capital expenditure will be required for new and expanded facilities and in some cases to bring related services together at a single location. The panel believes that the State Government should help to foster such improvements in access to preschool services by offering a contribution to capital expenditure for new or expanded preschool facilities.
Recommendation 12
The panel recommends that the Government offer capital grants of up to $80,000 for preschool facilities to improve access to preschool education. These grants should be conditional on a matching local government contribution and a contribution from the local community.
6. Other Providers
6.1 Long Day Care
Victoria has many child care centres providing care for infants and children up to the start of school life. Some of these centres operate from early morning to evening and are known as long day care centres. There are estimated to be about 800 long day care centres in Victoria, some of which are not-for-profit community based centres and many others are private-for- profit centres. The growth in the provision of long day care offered by the private sector has been a response to the increasing number of women in the workforce and the changing patterns of hours of work affecting both men and women. The traditional hours of preschool attendance so popular in the 1950s and 1960s is now less convenient for many families where there is no adult available to collect the child at mid-day or mid-afternoon.
Since 1994, these long day care centres have been able to seek per capita funding for those of their preschool education programs which meet the funding criteria. More than eighty per cent
of the long day care centres are believed to be involved in preschool education program delivery, but only a proportion of these receive funding.
The division between child care and preschool education centres has become increasingly complex. The combination of the Commonwealth Government’s role in funding child care and their separate provision of services for children with additional needs and the State’s quite separate arrangements for supporting children in preschool education, together with local government involvement in the delivery of child care and preschool education services, has created a complicated tapestry of administration.
The Brotherhood of St Laurence study Kids and Kindergarten: Access to Preschool in Victoria, (1997) reported that:
“A number of child care centres provided preschool or kindergarten programs and some kindergartens provided child care sessions. Almost two-thirds of the children (64 per cent) were at four year old kindergarten, often in combination with child care arrangements ranging from child care centres or family day care to paid nannies and unpaid grandmothers. One quarter of the children (24 per cent) attended a child care centre, some in addition to a kindergarten and some instead of kindergarten. Some of the child care centres had their own preschool programs. A small number of children…were attending ‘pre-prep’ years at private schools…only three of the 149 children had no schooling, kindergarten or formal child care activities.” (p 16)
This range of services allows parents to choose the options which best suit their needs. Some choose sessional attendance, while other families require a full day program. The distinctions between services and providers is unclear for many families. Most long day child care centres are provided by the private sector (estimated at 70 per cent across Australia) while preschool centres are largely the province of State and local government and the not-for-profit sector.
“As the community’s demands have changed there have been a range of programs offered to families to meet these demands. The community values kindergarten programs, with a qualified kindergarten teacher. However, many families, due to their working commitments are unable to access the traditional sessional kindergarten program model. Long day care programs have responded to this need and have employed a teacher in their programs.”
Submission from the Lady Gowrie Child Centre
Preschool services in one form or another are an integral part of the life of most families with young children and there is an important place for preschool education programs in child care arrangements, particularly long day care. When parents choose long day care they don’t want their child to simply be watched and fed. They expect that the activities involving their child during the day will help to promote development and learning. As a result many child care centres provide quality child development and learning programs.
In his report on child care and kindergartens (Special Report No.55, April 1998) the Auditor- General assessed preschool programs in private sector long day centres as weaker than those in preschool centres, in terms of adopting an appropriate developmental approach, providing a balanced range of indoor and outdoor experiences, and providing equipment and facilities which enable a quality program to be delivered. Similar criticisms of preschool programs in child care centres were made to the panel during the consultations. It was said that some centres had poor outdoor play space and that in other cases there were few materials or other resources appropriate for four year olds. Some preschool teachers in long day care centres reported experiencing difficulties in delivering preschool programs to mixed aged groups.
From the point of view of the management of long day care centres, there are significant difficulties in delivering preschool education programs by qualified preschool teachers because of disparities in employment conditions and the demands of full-time child care. The teachers in long day care centres have fewer holidays and less preparation and planning time because of the demands for full day, full year child care services. Many long day care centres reported that because of the award conditions of preschool teachers and the fact that there is no classification in the award for preschool teachers working in child care settings they do not seek the per capita preschool funding but provide their preschool program activities in an integrated way throughout the day using their regular child care staff.
Undoubtedly, whether parents use preschool centres or long day care services they expect to have both the nurturing and developmental needs of their child met. It is also very much in the interest of children in long day care that preschool education programs are included in their day’s activities, programs delivered by qualified preschool teachers. However, if this is to be achieved it will require greater attention to the quality of the programs and consideration of the employment arrangements for preschool teachers who deliver the education programs in child care centres.
The services of private-for-profit long day care centres have become very important for a great many Victorian families and they now cater for significant numbers of four year olds. It is therefore important to ensure that they are not deterred from delivering quality preschool education programs in the child care setting by the funding arrangements for preschool education. Given their for-profit status, however, they will not easily fit a funding model where the government delivers the full staffing costs of preschool teachers.
One approach to accommodating private long day care centres in the recommended funding model would be to allow these centres to hire the time of a qualified preschool teacher from a group employer, perhaps at a subsidised rate corresponding to the current per capita grant for long day care.
The private centres would in that arrangement avoid the problems of recruitment and the costs of employing preschool teachers for other than the hours of delivery of preschool education programs. This would solve the problems experienced by the organisations providing private child care who made representations to the panel. They advised the panel that they had difficulty recruiting preschool teachers because of the different employment conditions they offer and the way in which they delivered preschool education programs. Nevertheless, other options for improving access of four year olds to preschool education programs in long day care will need to be explored with representatives of private long day child care centres
Recommendation 13
The panel recommends that if its proposals for revised funding arrangements are accepted, there should be exploration with the private long day child care centres of options for including those centres in the funding arrangements for the delivery of quality preschool education programs to four year olds in long day care.
6.2 Independent Schools
There are a number of schools (both State and independent) which are funded for delivery of preschool programs. Eight State school councils have taken on responsibility for a preschool and receive the per capita grant. A small number of other State schools have a preschool on their site, but they do not auspice the preschool. It is among the independent schools, however, where there has been strong growth in preschool centres (usually named ‘Early Learning Centres’). There are over sixty sites with funded preschool centres operated by independent schools.
All the preschool centres in schools operate under the framework of the Children’s Services Regulations 1998. The Regulations are designed to provide minimum standards of care and safety for all centre-based children under the age of six in the absence of their parents, whether or not they receive Government funding. Independent schools also operate under a duty of care and are subject to certain provisions of the Education Act 1958, relating to registration.
Preschools in independent schools operate as an integrated element of the school, exposing the children to other facets of the school’s curriculum, including aspects of the music and art programs and library and gymnasium activities. In that respect, they differ from preschool centres, including those in State schools. They also provide more extended hours of attendance than preschool centres.
The panel received a number of representations from independent schools concerning the inappropriate application of many of the Children’s Services Regulations 1998 to their preschool centres. Prior to the introduction of the Children’s Services Act 1996, preschool centres in independent schools were registered with the Registered Schools Board. The schools reported that their preschool centres formerly had no difficulty in operating as an integral part of the school, but the introduction of the 1998 Regulations had served to create a separation between their preschool centres and the rest of the school.
“Our preschool children had been offered wide ranging programs including music classes, sessions in the school library, sessions with the PE teacher, sessions with the Japanese teacher – these become prohibitively expensive if you have to have two professionally qualified staff standing in the room at one time.”
Submission from Haileybury College
In New South Wales those preschool centres which are attached to schools (about seventy) are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. Other centres (about 800), under similar arrangements to those in Victoria, operate under the NSW Department of Community Services.
In Queensland the arrangements are the same. Education Queensland has responsibility for preschool services attached to schools and the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care has responsibility for community preschool centres.
“The new rules and regulations regarding qualified kindergarten staff have just about brought our kindergarten to its knees. Kindergarten children at St Michael’s have a wonderful opportunity to attend classes from trained specialists within the school. For example, music… The Regulations mean that we not only have the trained specialist taking the lesson but need the kindergarten teacher in attendance as well.”
Submission from kindergarten staff
As with private long day care centres, the proposed funding arrangements are not appropriate for independent schools. The existing per capita system is more appropriate and is in line with State and Commonwealth Governments’ funding of primary and secondary independent schools. The regulation of preschool centres in the panel’s view is also not entirely appropriate for the regulation of preschool centres in schools.
Recommendation 14:
The panel recommends that preschool education in independent schools remain on a per capita basis at the current rate, subject to the provision of a minimum of two-and-a-half hours of preschool program activity per day of attendance in respect of each child for whom the per capita grant is paid.
Recommendation 15
The panel recommends that preschool centres operated by schools (both State and independent) be registered with the Registered Schools Board and administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Training, but subject to the continuing requirement that a qualified preschool teacher must be responsible for the preschool education program in those centres.
6.3 Mobile Preschool Services
Many of the problems of managing community based, stand alone preschool centres– recruitment and retention of teaching staff, fees and fundraising, persuading parents onto management committees, hours of provision - are compounded in rural areas where smaller populations (including a lower number of four year olds), the higher cost for travel between centres, poorer facilities and lower family incomes present far greater challenges to the viable operation of a conventional preschool.
The additional difficulties of rural areas were recognised to some extent when the per capita funding arrangement was introduced, through the higher per capita rates for enrolments in rural
preschool centres. These higher rates, however, have not been sufficient to overcome the problems experienced by country preschool centres.
Declining and ageing populations and poorer access to community services in rural areas make it extremely difficult to recruit new graduate preschool teachers. Teachers in rural preschools are almost invariably employed part-time. If they are able to obtain more than a minimum number of hours of work, it will usually be because they are bearing the cost, time and inconvenience of travel involved in working in more than one preschool centre and probably for more than one preschool management committee.
When early intervention and professional services are required to integrate children with additional needs into the preschool programs, parents of children in rural areas are likely to have to wait longer or travel further to access those services.
For families living in rural areas of Victoria, there are major problems in gaining access for their children to both child care and preschool education. Where there is a preschool centre, like the local school it becomes an important focus of community life. However, for many children living in a rural area, there is only very limited access to a preschool centre or none at all.
The mobile services of the Uniting Church, therefore, provide an extremely valuable addition to the conventional arrangements for preschool education. They give access to child care and preschool education for rural families who would otherwise be without them. By taking the service to rural areas from larger centres of population, the mobile services overcome the problems of trying to meet the costs of fixed facilities and staffing in a conventional centre. Mobile services are also able to utilise local facilities.
Whatever the future funding arrangements for preschool centres, special consideration will have to be given to preschool services in rural areas. This might be achieved by giving weightings in the funding to rural locations or providing exemptions from certain funding conditions. Mobile services, however, provide another option and one which offers efficiencies in delivering services to a number of neighbouring areas. The panel has concluded that there is merit in expanding mobile services for delivery of preschool education in rural areas.
There is also a need to ensure that the Children’s Services Regulations 1998 governing child care and preschool education take account of the different conditions that apply to the delivery of child care and preschool education through mobile services.
Recommendation 16
The panel recommends that consideration be given to an expansion of mobile services as an alternative to conventional preschool centres in rural areas, wherever there are persistent problems of recruiting staff and maintaining services under standard funding arrangements for preschool education.
7. Regulations
In addition to the criticisms of the Children’s Services Regulations 1998 made by independent schools and those providing mobile preschool services, many other submissions and a number of those consulted were of the view that the regulations required review and amendment. The main criticisms of the Regulations were that they are focused on child care and, in respect of preschools, restricted innovation and imposed unrealistic operational requirements.
“Our kinder has been in operation since 1966. Next year we will move the kinder about 20 meters into a newly refurbished building and DHS insists that we have to apply for a new licence to operate including the time and cost of getting police checks for all involved – despite (the fact that they are) all the same people.”
Submission from a director of a preschool centre
The attempt to produce one comprehensive set of regulations to cover a variety of very different providers with different obligations to parents and children and different operational and management arrangements was reported to the panel as severely limiting flexibility, to the detriment of quality and innovation.
“My suggestion is that if we could have amendments … to allow kindergartens to have a certain number of free access or privilege days a term this would allow for innovative and exciting programming.”
Submission from a director of a preschool centre
Many stakeholders believe that the attempt to provide all-encompassing regulations has actually had the effect of watering down standards rather than improving them, and in many cases the Children’s Services Regulations 1998 are now a poor fit for preschool education.
“In past years Governments encouraged the support of ‘community’ as an important part of the kindergarten service. The new regulations are counter productive to this … when we are now unable to have two or three classes together for special community occasions and educational demonstrations.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
For all their intended comprehensiveness and detail, there still appear to be important gaps in the Regulations, such as the absence of any regulation covering family day care and outside school hours care, or the ratio of qualified staff to children where there are numbers of children with additional needs in a class. Outdoor play areas is another matter not addressed. On the other hand, the inclusion of programming in the Regulations appears inappropriate and more a matter for the quality assessment framework.
The panel favours a re-examination of the Children’s Services Regulations 1998, in consultation with the stakeholders, with a view to making changes which recognise differences in the operations of various providers of preschool education programs. The panel recommends two specific areas for change in the Regulations be considered: providing greater recognition of the practicalities of providing preschool education by mobile services; and removing programming requirements from the Regulations.
Recommendation 17
The panel recommends that the Children’s Services Regulations 1998 be reviewed in consultation with stakeholders. The review should, in particular, address the operational arrangements of mobile centres and consider whether the limited provision relating to program content in the Regulations would be more appropriately dealt with in the quality assessment arrangements.
8. Children with Additional Needs
The Victorian Government’s policy of access to one year of preschool education for all four year olds embraces the inclusion of children with additional needs; those with disabilities, learning difficulties, developmental delay and other handicaps obstructing their full and successful participation in preschool education.
A range of special services and assistance are provided by the Government to children with these additional needs to enable them to share the experience of preschool programs. There was widespread agreement among those who made submissions to or met with the panel that the support was inadequate to meet the Government’s objective and was substantially less than that provided in schools.
“The criteria to access funds for additional assistance within the kinder room are now so stringent that numerous children are not receiving the help they so desperately need.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
The research on early childhood development, referred to in section 3 of this report, indicates that while preschool education programs benefit all children, they are of particular help to
children who have additional needs. However, many children with additional needs are missing out on preschool or not receiving the full benefits. A child may have a disability or medical condition that prevents their full participation without additional support. Children from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds may require access to staff who speak their language or understand their culture. Children with behavioural problems or other special difficulties in integrating with the group may require greater support and attention.
The availability of specialist services and staff, access to special equipment, advice and language services and the ratio of staff to children are some of the factors affecting the quality of preschool education for children with additional needs.
In those cases where the additional need is identified only after the child has commenced the preschool education program, it is almost impossible to gain prompt access to assistance.
There are commonly lengthy delays in gaining access to specialists, such as speech therapists or psychologists. Those specialist staff employed by the Department of Education, Employment and Training to assist school children are not available to children enrolled in preschools.
8.1 Children with a Disability
For children with a disability, preschool is likely to be their first opportunity to play and learn with other children their own age in an environment outside of the family home. If they are successfully integrated with other children at the preschool, it will make a great difference to their subsequent experience at school.
In many cases these children with a disability require assistance from a trained aide who is able ensure that the child fully participates and that the preschool teacher can maintain the program for all the children in the group. There was considerable concern throughout the consultations that access to additional assistants was too restrictive. Even when the service of an integration aide is provided, it is usually only available for about half the time the program operates.
“A major concern is the adequacy of support for children with Special Needs. Special Needs Subsidy only funds approximately 5 hours of a 10 hour program. This means that these children have less access to preschool than other children. As well as being an equity issue, the reduction in preschool hours affects the child’s preparedness for school and limits the support of families who are often already under stress.” Submission from the Macedon Ranges Shire Council
Where preschool centres have children with additional needs and the specialist help required is not readily available, it is important to ensure that special consideration is given to the ratio of staff to children to avoid the risk that all the children in the group, including the child with additional needs, will receive less than adequate attention.
The panel was advised that the Department of Human Services provides funding for additional assistants for preschool children with a disability at a per capita rate of just under $3,000. Apparently, the notional allocation in 2000/2001 is about $1.35 million, sufficient to provide assistance in about 450 cases.
“…Our son was diagnosed as autistic with severe language and social disorders … we set about to apply for funding…we were fortunate in having a very knowledgeable and helpful group of professionals to guide us through the process… After many meetings and applications we were fortunate to receive funding, but were then dismayed to find that it would cover only half of our child’s needs…5 hours per week, and our children attend kinder for 10 hours per week.”
Submission from a parent
Confusion can arise where a child with a disability attends both a child care centre and a preschool program. The assistance available to children with additional needs from the Commonwealth Government through the Commonwealth’s Children’s Services Resources and Development Officers and Playworks is much more generous and less restrictive than the assistance available to the same child in a preschool centre.
8.2 Children from non-English-Speaking Backgrounds
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 21 per cent of Victorian families speak a language other than English in their home.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies Use and Choice of Child Care, (1993) reported that children from non-English-speaking backgrounds were least likely to have attended kindergarten in the year before school.
The Department of Human Services provides funding for the Free Kindergarten Association of Victoria Multicultural Resource Centre (FKA-MRC) to operate an outreach and advisory service for non-English-speaking background children in preschool education programs. The MRC also provides support and professional development to staff who deliver preschool programs and provides bilingual materials. There is also a separate telephone interpreter service available to preschool centre staff, but this was reported , to no longer be a free service.
The Multicultural Resource Centre reported to the panel that it is having to use its resources to deal with an increasing number of languages and topics. At the same time, preschool staff reported that access to the Multicultural Resource Centre and the cost of some of its services (eg translations) were becoming more difficult as demand on those services increased.
The problems of gaining access to interpreter and other language services and support has become a major problem in locations of high concentration of non-English-speaking background families; for example, in some areas of the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne. It was reported to the panel that at Ridgeway Parade Kindergarten, seventy-five per cent of families using the centre and at Brenbeal Children’s Centre ninety per cent of families, had English as a second language.
“… we have over 75 per cent of parents on Health Care Cards (3 year olds not counted) and more than 75 per cent of children who speak a language other than English at home. While Vietnamese is the prominent language we also have a diverse lot of cultures in the centre e.g. Chinese, Macedonian, Bosnian, Lebanese, Greek, German, Laotian, Indian, Turkish, Maltese.”
Submission from the Sunshine Park Estate Kindergarten
8.3 Koori Early Childhood Education
In 1999 there were 402 Koori children enrolled in preschool programs in Victoria. The participation rate of Koori children in preschool education is among the lowest of any group of Victoria’s four year olds. The Koori population of Victoria has a more youthful profile than the non-indigenous population.
In the panel’s discussion with the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Incorporated (VAEAI), the Association rated early childhood education as their top priority. VAEAI believes that intensive effort to involve more Koori children in quality preschool education will make a major contribution to later outcomes in schooling, improving both participation and retention rates.
The State and the Commonwealth Governments have given priority to increasing the participation of Koori children in preschool education. Surprisingly, therefore, although VAEAI has a funding relationship with both Victorian and Commonwealth Education Departments and with the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, it is not funded by either State or Commonwealth government to help improve Koori participation in preschool programs.
The Commonwealth Koori Preschool Assistants Program, introduced in 1992 to increase the number of Koori teachers’ assistants, is directed at improving the preschool attendance of Koori children. The program was incorporated into Victoria’s Koori Early Childhood Education Program in 1998 to continue the work of increasing preschool participation by Koori children, but also to assist the development of culturally relevant preschool programs and to engage more parents in Koori preschool education. Nine Koori Early Childhood Field Officers (one in each region of the Department of Human Services) were appointed to improve the liaison between Koori families and the preschool services.
VAEAI believes the current priorities for Koori preschool education should focus on increasing the awareness of Koori families of the importance of preschool education and achieving greater involvement of Koori families in preschools. It recognises that this is a difficult task which requires intensive work with families by people who are familiar with Koori culture. Improving the avenues for Koori child care and preschool staff to progress beyond the TAFE diploma in child care is also seen as a priority in providing a more culturally sensitive environment in preschool and child care centres.
8.4 Second Year of Preschool
For some children, access to a second year of preschool education can be extremely important for their successful transition to primary school. Currently, the policy requires specialist assessment by an early childhood professional (other than the preschool teacher) to confirm delay in two or more areas of the child’s development. This process was widely criticised in submissions and the consultations.
For those children who may be old enough to attend preschool but are not sufficiently mature to cope with its demands, the policy requires that the decision to defer attendance is made by the end of Term 1. If it is not, the child is deemed to have received their funded year of preschool and will not receive a per capita grant in the following year when they re-enrol. This was seen as inequitable and as placing undue pressure on parents and preschool teachers to make an early judgement. The situation for parents who have decided to defer the enrolment of their child for a year on the grounds that the child is not ready for preschool may then decide, if the child is old enough, to enrol the child in primary school to avoid the expense of preschool. This is often the case for families in rural and economically disadvantaged localities. While the family may avoid the preschool fees, premature enrolment in primary school may not always be in the best interest of the child and may give rise to problems in their school education.
“The pressure to determine ‘readiness’ for kindergarten by the end of first term so that eligibility for funding in the following year can be maintained is an absurd pressure on staff and parents. The current process for determining eligibility creates a ‘crystal ball gazing’ exercise.”
Submission from the Geelong Kindergarten Association
The Minister for Community Services advised the panel that she had modified the arrangements for determining eligibility for a second year of preschool education and had done so to give greater weight to the judgement of the preschool teacher.
There is a need for significant improvement in the available assistance for children with additional needs. The improvement should extend the assistance available for children with disabilities. The services and support available to those children for whom English is not their first language, and for Koori children and their families, should be reviewed to establish the priority needs and reassess current funding allocations against those priorities. The arrangements for determining a second year of preschool education should also be reviewed, with the aim of providing for more timely and more locally based decisions.
Recommendation 18
The panel recommends that funding for the provision of additional assistants for children with disabilities attending preschool education centres be doubled from the current level of approximately $1.3 to $2.6 million, with the objective of increasing the availability of additional assistants and extending the hours of support to each eligible child.
Recommendation 19
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services reviews the support service funding for the provision of services to preschool centres to establish the priorities between the three areas of service - translation, telephone interpreter and visiting advisory services - and to reassess the support required to match these priorities.
Recommendation 20
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services reviews the range of assistance available to Koori children and their families, with greater emphasis on communicating with Koori families about the value of preschool education and increasing the participation of Koori parents in preschool activities.
Recommendation 21
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services revise the conditions for entitlement to a second year of preschool education, to provide for a deferral decision to be made at any time up until the start of the fourth term.
9. Advice and Support Services
A range of field staff have a role in improving preschool education services.
The Preschool Field Officers (about 33 spread across the State) have a broad role, with the main focus on enhancing inclusion of children with additional needs. These officers are part of the Early Intervention Services, auspiced by local government, non-government agencies, and Department of Human Services Specialist Children’s Services Teams and funded by the State Government.
Figure 5 provides an estimate of the numbers and location of preschool field officers.
Figure 5 Location of Preschool Field Officers
DHS Region Non-Govt Local Govt DHS Auspice Current Auspice Auspice EFT Agency Agency Barwon SW 2.1 1.00 3.1 Gippsland 2.00 1.0 3.0 Grampians 2.00 2.0 Loddon Mallee 2.6 2.6 Hume 2.6 2.6 Northern 2.0 2.9 4.9 Southern 3.3 2.7 6.0 Eastern 2.0 2.0 4.0 Western 1.0 3.0 4.0 TOTAL 15.6 13.60 3.0 32.2 Source: Department of Human Services February 2001.
According to the officer currently reviewing the Preschool Field Officers program, there is some doubt about the accuracy of the figures in Figure 5, although the panel believes that the total number of these officers is around thirty-five. The panel was not able to obtain the qualifications of the Preschool Field Officers, but understands that a number hold formal qualifications in special education.
The Preschool Field Officers program was reviewed in 1992-93, revised in 1994 and is currently under review again. The main criticism of the service, coming particularly from preschool centres, has been difficulty in gaining access to the officers when problems arise.
Responsibility for ensuring that the legislative and regulatory responsibilities of preschool operations are met falls to the Department of Human Services Children’s Services Advisers. The panel had difficulty in obtaining information on the equivalent full-time number of these officers and their qualifications. It appears that there are about forty officers, some of whom have preschool teaching qualifications and some of whom hold other qualifications.
The uncertainty about the precise numbers and qualifications arises from there being no central record of Children’s Services Advisers, since responsibility for their employment arrangements and the supervision of their work has been devolved to the regions. The regions also have a certain amount of discretion about the way they allocate their resources and this may be reflected in variations in the numbers and support of the Children’s Services Advisers between regions.
The Auditor-General in his 1998 report (Special Report No 55) observed that there was a degree of confusion about the roles of these advisers. The Auditor-General reported (paragraph 5.81) that their role had changed from one focused on providing advice and support to preschool centres, to one directed to regulatory compliance. The centres had expressed concern to the Auditor-General that they had lost a valuable source of advice as a result.
The Auditor-General also reported (paragraph 5.82) that there were inconsistencies in approach between regions and Children’s Services Advisers. Some advisers continued to provide support, help and advice to preschool teachers and management committees, while others adhered strictly to the inspection role.
The submissions and the panel’s consultations emphasised that this confusion in the role of the Children’s Services Adviser and the lack of consistency of approach across regions of the Department of Human Services has, if anything, worsened since the Auditor-General’s report. It is interesting to note that the 1986 Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Examination of State Funded and Subsidised Preschool and Child Care Services must have confronted the same problem, since it recommended the splitting of the dual advisory/inspection role.
“There is no support role shown to teachers by them (the Children’s Services Advisers) and they certainly don’t show any understanding of the huge and demanding role that kindergarten teachers are now under. Years ago the Advisers were helpful and caring! I do miss those days!”
Submission from a director of a preschool centre
“Oh for a Preschool Adviser like the good old days”
Submission from a preschool teacher
While the role of Children’s Services Advisers in monitoring compliance is critically important, it is equally important for preschool staff and management committees to have available field staff who can provide support and advice and facilitate links between preschool staff and other related professionals. It is also vital that such professional support be provided by experienced and appropriately qualified officers, able to offer advice on developmental programs and activities and best practice.
“… adviser’s visits (provide) no encouragement or positive comment. Their role seems to be to find transgressions and to criticise. When I graduated, advisers provided moral support, guidance and encouragement. This change has contributed to teachers feeling isolated and stressed.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
In an effort to increase participation in preschool education programs by under-represented groups of children, the Department of Human Services appointed a Regional Preschool Support Co-ordinator to each of its nine regions. The appointments were initially for twelve months in 2000-2001. The three main objectives of the program were to raise awareness of the availability and benefits of preschool education in areas where participation was low, promote community development and provide intensive support for children and families requiring additional help to participate in preschool education programs. The panel was informed that the Co-ordinator appointments were not extended at the end of the twelve months.
Many issues arising in the operation of preschool centres and programs fall outside the scope of inspections, compliance and matters requiring specialists. The everyday requirement of preschool staff and management committees is for a cadre of experienced, qualified officers who can provide advice, support and consultancy, act as mentors to newly appointed and inexperienced staff and committees and network the centres. The panel concluded that advisory field officers would also be valuable in identifying and disseminating good practice and achieving more consistent standards of performance. The panel also concluded that the roles of inspector and adviser are not compatible and should be separated.
Recommendation 22
The panel recommends that the role of ensuring compliance with the Children’s Services Act and the Regulations be removed from the responsibilities of Children’s Services Advisers and placed with an inspector group of suitably experienced officers, reporting to a senior inspector whose responsibilities should include ensuring consistency in the standard of inspections and recommendations for prosecutions.
Recommendation 23
The panel recommends that Children’s Services Advisers should be qualified preschool teachers with substantial experience in preschool education. Their role should include advice and support of preschool staff and parent committees; networking of preschool services and staff within their region; liaison with other early childhood development professionals and services; and advising on improvements in programs, services and access. They should also be responsible for identifying and disseminating good practice.
Recommendation 24
The panel recommends that the numbers and allocation of Children’s Services Advisers and those in the inspection group should be considered together with the proposals coming out of the current review of Preschool Field Officers.
In the course of its review, the panel noted that there were a number of other advisory and support services related to early childhood services that could usefully, and perhaps at comparatively small cost, be extended to preschool staff. The panel would encourage the Department of Human Services to identifying such services and to explore the scope for collaboration.
Recommendation 25
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services should explore other avenues for strengthening the advisory services available to preschool staff. This should include consideration of gaining access to advice and support from the Commonwealth funded services for children with additional needs, and from others who offer relevant advisory services, for example, on development and utilisation of outdoor play spaces.
10. Quality Issues
The clear trend in administration of the State’s preschool education services has been toward increased regulation and accountability. Far less attention has been paid to the quality of the programs, teaching practices and the impact of the programs on the children attending.
International research shows that while preschool education programs can be of great benefit to the early development of children, where the programs are of poor quality they will be detrimental to that development. Of equal if not greater importance than preschool participation rates and the compliance with the regulatory framework is the question of the quality of programs provided.
The Auditor-General (Special Report No 55), pointed out that quality assurance practice is the key to achieving consistent performance at high standards. While acknowledging that the concept of quality is, to some extent, a subjective one, the Auditor-General reported (paragraph 4.5) that there are certain factors influencing the quality of the service which early childhood development experts agree are vital:
interactions between the staff and the children;
relationship between staff and parents;
content of the programs; and
standards of health and safety.
The Auditor-General went on to criticise the quality standards of the centres (both child care and preschool centres) in respect of the above factors and criticised inadequacies in the performance management framework then operating.
The panel has concluded that the monitoring system to assess the quality of programs and the standards of preschool centres remains inadequate.
The Commonwealth Government funds the National Quality Improvement and Accreditation System, under which long day care centres seek to be accredited by the National Child Care Accreditation Council. Accreditation is assessed against fifty-two principles. This accreditation system received considerable support during the panel’s consultations and there were a number of suggestions for a similar approach to be taken in Victoria for preschool centres.
“The AEU applauded the development of the National Accreditation Program (QIAS) as one of world-wide standing in seeking to ensure high quality service provision. The accreditation of child care centres through this process has generally been regarded as valuable and welcome.”
Submission from the Australian Education Union
There was not the same support for the Preschool Quality Assessment Checklist, which the Department of Human Services introduced in 1998 to assess the quality of preschool services. It is a funding requirement that this assessment be made annually by the management committees.
“We are asked to self monitor our programs through a Preschool Quality Assessment Checklist. This requires a lot of discussion and meetings with staff and parents to evaluate practices and set goals. This is not followed up by anyone and would be quite easy for some centres to neglect this additional work altogether.”
Submission from a preschool committee
There was a good deal of anecdotal evidence provided to the panel that a number of centres did not, in fact, treat the checklist seriously. While many preschool teachers had no dispute with the quality indicators included in the checklist, they saw it as inappropriate for people with no qualifications or training in preschool education (the vast majority of committee of management members) to be expected to make the assessments.
The strongest support for a quality assurance process for preschool education came from local government and Kindergarten Parents Victoria.
“To ensure the integrity of preschool programs … it is imperative that the review investigate the need (for) … a quality assurance mechanism. This mechanism would ensure that programs delivered by all preschool providers have a consistent program delivery platform and service development that meets current levels of best practice.”
Submission from the City of Whittlesea
A quality assessment framework for preschool education programs is urgently required to allow for the subsequent development of a quality assessment process that is more comprehensive and outcome-oriented than the existing arrangements. The quality assessment process should be developed in consultation with stakeholders and in due course should form the basis for accreditation of preschool centres.
Recommendation 26
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services should immediately undertake the development of a quality assessment framework, in consultation with stakeholders, as the basis for a quality assessment process that would determine the accreditation of preschool centres.
10.1 Curriculum Framework
Although the desirability of developing a curriculum framework for preschool education is a matter of dispute, the panel believes it is difficult to assess the quality of the preschool education programs without some curriculum framework to guide the assessment. Just what this framework should be is a subject for detailed consideration.
Queensland has had Preschool Curriculum Guidelines since 1998. Some other States also have developed curriculum guidelines. The panel did not consider these guidelines as necessarily being appropriate for adoption by Victoria, but they would provide a useful input to the development of an appropriate approach.
The problem appears to be that some early childhood development practitioners consider that the Queensland approach and other efforts to develop a curriculum framework push teaching practice toward highly structured, academically oriented programs. Others see the development of an early childhood curriculum framework as facilitating good practice and differentiating early childhood teaching from the curriculum approach of schooling. The panel believes that while it is an issue which needs detailed consideration the development of an early childhood curriculum framework is essential and should complement a quality assurance system for preschool education in Victoria.
“The notion of the emergent or enacted curriculum as opposed to a highly structured and narrowly conceived curriculum needs to be supported. We are aware that there is a tendency in Australia to conformity in curriculum provision but we would not support such initiatives. The excellent Swedish preschool education system does not rely on highly prescribed curricula, but prefers instead to define the fundamental values and tasks of preschool (Swedish Curriculum for Preschool 1998). This is the model that Victoria should examine as it seeks to establish an appropriate framework for early childhood education in this State.”
Submission from the Faculty of Education, Monash University
The development of a curriculum framework for preschool education will provide an important safeguard of the integrity of preschool education delivered not only in preschools but also in child care centres, schools and other settings.
Recommendation 27
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services, in consultation with stakeholders, should develop a curriculum framework for preschool education programs to underpin the quality assessment process for preschool centres.
10.2 Training of Preschool Teachers
An essential underpinning for preschool education programs is quality undergraduate training of preschool teachers and the availability of quality professional development in their postgraduate careers.
Three universities in Victoria provide undergraduate programs for the training of preschool teachers: Melbourne, Monash and RMIT. Some of Victoria’s universities provide courses for upgrading qualifications in early childhood development and bridging courses for those wanting to obtain preschool teaching qualifications. Monash and RMIT universities provide dual qualifications for those who graduate after four years full-time study, enabling the graduate to teach in both preschool and primary school settings. The University of Melbourne is converting its three year course to a four year course to provide the same dual qualification. According to research conducted by the AEU, about one-third of practising teachers at that time held a four year teaching qualification, the standard now required for entry in to preschool teaching. Many of the current four year qualified preschool teachers originally graduated with a three year degree but subsequently obtained additional accredited training which provided them with the equivalent of the four year degree.
There is currently a high attrition rate among students in preschool education training. This has two main causes: deciding not to pursue the course after studies begin or choosing to take up the option of primary school teaching in preference to working in preschool education. In the 1990s, there was reported to have been a marked decline in the tertiary entry scores for preschool teaching, providing another indication of the unattractiveness of preschool teaching as a career.
“New graduates when faced with choices about career options are understandably daunted by the prospect of taking up a position in an independent kindergarten with limited practical experience…and an isolated workplace that has no structure for mentor programs or peer support.”
Submission from the Geelong Kindergarten Association
Among the criticisms the panel received about the existing university courses were that:
universities modify the content of their courses with little reference to other interested parties;
insufficient attention is given in the course to many of the everyday training needs of teachers, such as conflict resolution, dealing with children’s behavioural problems, and cultural diversity;
there is a lack of support for Koori staff to progress beyond the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) diploma;
there is poor support for distance education from the Victorian universities (a number of teachers and teacher assistants seeking to upgrade their qualifications were studying by distance from South Australian universities in preference to the Victorian Universities); and
there is a lack of access to appropriate courses of study in regional universities.
“Access to graduate education for kindergarten teachers is hindered by the lack of courses in regional universities.”
Submission from the Geelong Kindergarten Association
However, the major problems in securing an adequate supply of good quality candidates for preschool teaching have little to do with the content or quality of the current courses, and more to do with the employment arrangements and remuneration for preschool teaching. Given the employment arrangements and low salaries relative to other areas of teaching, the job insecurity and lack access to professional development, it is no wonder that preschool teaching is declining in its attractiveness.
“There is so little recognition of experience and qualifications in the preschool system. I would like to undertake my fourth year of study but, working 18 hours per week it would cost me almost a year’s salary and it would take me approximately eight years to repay the cost of my one year’s study through increased earnings.”
Submission from a Preschool Teacher
The panel believes that the Victorian post secondary education institutions providing courses leading to qualifications for preschool teachers should be requested to review access to those courses on a full-time and part-time basis by students living outside the metropolitan area. In light of the outcome of that review, the Department of Human Services should consider providing support for the development of arrangements that would provide greater access to undergraduate and bridging courses, both on and off campus, for students residing in the non metropolitan areas.
The panel has concluded that the content of the undergraduate courses for preschool teachers should also be reviewed, with particular reference to the quality and utility of the practical components, to ensure that there is adequate content relating to children with additional needs and to take account of overseas innovations in early childhood learning and teaching.
Recommendation 28
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services take the initiative with those Victorian providers of undergraduate and bridging courses for qualifications in preschool teaching, to review the content of existing courses and to examine options for improving access to those courses for students living outside the metropolitan area. The review should include options for improving the support for Koori students to progress from diploma to degree qualifications in children’s services.
10.3 Professional Development
Ongoing professional development is important in most occupations and for the challenges of teaching it is essential. Given the strains in the State’s preschool system at the present time, the professional development of staff should be given a high priority.
The award covering the employment of most preschool teachers provides for only two days per annum of paid leave for the professional development of a full time teacher. The panel was advised that even this most minimal provision was not always taken, because of time and funding pressures and the unavailability of relief staff.
Many of the submissions from preschool teachers and much of the consultation with them informed the panel about their unmet professional development needs. Preschool teachers particularly noted their requirements for additional skills and strategies for dealing with children who have medical or learning problems or challenging behaviour. Preschool staff also reported a need for greater opportunities to participate in professional development with their peers, to break down their isolation, improve their networking and knowledge of contemporary teaching practice, and to increase peer support.
“In short the opportunity for professional renewal and replenishment is not one enjoyed by preschool teachers in the main. Along with the relatively solitary working life of (preschool) teachers, the lack of supportive collegiate networks and professional development has contributed to teacher burnout and resignation from teaching. It also has an important impact on the daily work with children of teachers who remain practicing.”
Submission from the Australian Education Union
Overall, the panel became convinced that greater access to quality professional development programs for preschool staff was probably the most critical factor in improving the quality of preschool education in the short term. In the panel’s view, early action should be taken to identify the most immediate needs of preschool teachers and assistants for professional development.
The value of involving teachers’ assistants in programs of professional development and providing opportunities for members of committees of management to get together and share their experiences should not be overlooked.
The parents of preschool children, particularly those who serve on the management committees of preschool centres, make a vital contribution to the success of preschool centres and programs. In recognition of their important role in successful preschool education, the panel believes that an annual conference or workshop for these parents should be held in each region of the Department of Human Services, fully funded by the Department.
Recommendation 29
The panel recommends that the revised employment arrangements for preschool teachers should include a minimum of eight days of paid professional development each year. In view of the importance of shared experience and networking to preschool teachers, in the main the professional development should occur in the term breaks. This would ensure continuity of the preschool programs and avoid additional problems associated with finding relief staff.
Recommendation 30
The panel recommends that a minimum of four days of paid professional development should be available to preschool assistants each year. This should in the main occur in term breaks. Recommendation 31
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services fund an annual, regional conference or workshop for preschool centre parents and committee members.
Recommendation 32
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services review the professional development needs of preschool teachers and assistants and consult stakeholders in drawing up the priorities for relevant programs and activities.
Recommendation 33
The panel recommends that the delivery of programs of professional development for preschool teachers and assistants should be tendered annually by the Department of Human Services. The Department of Human Services should ensure that the delivery, content and outcomes of the programs are methodically assessed.
10.4 Master Teacher Classification
The future quality of preschool teaching is also dependent on finding future educators of preschool teachers. Proposals made to the panel for a Master Teacher classification was seen as helping to ensure well qualified and experienced teachers are available for universities to draw on in improving the professional training of preschool teachers.
A Master Teacher would need postgraduate qualifications in early childhood education, as well as extensive and lengthy experience in the field of early childhood education. In the field, they could fill positions of field adviser and be assigned mentoring responsibilities for other preschool teachers, undertake professional development for teachers and other preschool staff and, in some cases, lecture or tutor in the relevant university courses.
When linked to proposals for restructuring the salary scale of preschool teachers, group employment of preschool staff, modifying the role of Children’s Services Advisers (and, perhaps, Preschool Field Officers), greater professional development and greater recognition of post graduate qualifications, a career structure for preschool teachers starts to become a reality.
10.5 Preschool Teacher Registration
There was widespread support in the submissions and consultations for the establishment of a professional register of preschool teachers. This was seen as a further encouragement of quality services in early childhood education, promoting excellence in preschool teaching and raising the professional standing of preschool education. There was divided opinion, however, on whether the registration body should be that proposed for the teaching profession (the Victorian Institute of Teaching) or a body covering professionals in early childhood development as proposed by the Australian Early Childhood Association (Victorian Branch), or a Children’s Services Registration Board for all staff working in children’s services, as proposed by the State Government. Any of these proposed bodies could cover both preschool and primary school teachers.
The AEU argued that it was appropriate for preschool teachers to be included in the Victorian Institute of Teaching. It is well advanced and they believe it would be wasteful to have teachers registered with two separate bodies. Whether the Victorian Institute of Teaching would be the most appropriate body will depend on the role and responsibilities of the proposed registration bodies.
The proposals for the Victorian Institute of Teaching see its responsibilities revolving around three key themes: professional advocacy, professional learning and professional standards. It would maintain a public register of qualified teachers and only those on the register could be employed as teachers in Victorian schools. The Institute would be independent and capable of regulating its own affairs and, among other things, its policies would be developed in collaboration with practising classroom teachers.
It would appear that provided registration was open to preschool teachers, they could seek registration with the proposed Institute, whether or not they were also registered with another professional body.
Little is known of the proposal for a Children’s Services Registration Board. However, a working party auspiced by the Australian Early Childhood Association (the body responsible for advising the Minister for Community Services on qualifications for preschool teaching) developed proposals in 1999 for an Early Childhood Registration Board. The purpose of this
Board, as proposed, would be to protect the public and the profession through the establishment of standards of professional practice; it would register early childhood staff to work with children aged 0-12 years; raise public awareness about what constitutes good practice; and promote the professional status of workers employed in early childhood settings. The panel is of the view that any registration authority covering preschool teachers should also take a leading role in the development of both their pre-service and in-service training.
The panel supports the establishment of an independent statutory board for the registration of people working in the field of early childhood development. The board, in the panel’s view, should have separate divisions for various categories, including a division covering preschool teachers. The role of the board should, at a minimum, be responsible for:
registration of preschool teachers;
determining the qualifications for registration;
setting the fee for registration;
advising on the content of pre-service and in-service training; and
commissioning research.
Recommendation 34
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services provides initial support for the establishment of an independent statutory board for the registration of preschool teachers and others working in the field of early childhood development.
11. Administration
Among the submissions received by the panel, a large number from preschool teachers and some other interested groups advocated transfer of responsibility for preschool education from the human services portfolio to the education portfolio (from Department of Human Services to Department of Education, Employment and Training). With a few exceptions, it appeared to the panel that the motivation for seeking such a transfer was based on providing preschool teachers with peer support, better and more secure arrangements for their employment and greater access to support services. Only a handful of submissions argued the case for transfer on the basis of what was of most advantage to early childhood development policy and practice in the State.
While the panel agrees with the need for improvements in the employment arrangements and support for preschool teachers it does not see that as sufficient to justify the transfer of preschool education to the Department of Education, Employment and Training.
There does not appear to be one best model for administration of preschool education, as a number of different arrangements currently operate among the States and Territories of Australia:
- preschool services in the ACT are the responsibility of the Department of Education and Community Services;
- in NSW preschool services attached to schools (about 70) are the responsibility of the Department of Education and Training and others (about 800) are the responsibility of the Department of Community Services;
- the Department of Education has responsibility for preschool services in the Northern Territory;
- Education Queensland has responsibility for preschool services attached to schools. The Department of Families, Youth and Community Care has responsibility for licensing of community preschool centres;
- the Department of Education, Training and Employment in South Australia has responsibility for preschool services;
- in Tasmania preschool services are the responsibility of the Department of Education, Community and Cultural Development;
- the Education Department of Western Australia has responsibility for all preschool services.
The AEU provided the most detailed case for transfer of responsibility for preschool services to the education portfolio. The AEU’s submission, however, was careful to point out that it would be critical to maintain the integrity of preschool services with any transfer.
There are conflicting views about the likely effect on the integrity of preschool education services of their transfer to the education portfolio. The published research shows that views are divided on the effect of integration of preschool education into education systems. Some experts regard such a move as likely to result in a downward extension of the primary curriculum into the early years. Others, while acknowledging that the role of the early childhood professional is different from that of the traditional ‘didactic teacher’, nevertheless see advantages in a seamless progression from preschool experiences to those of primary school.
“There is a lot of talk about kindergartens joining the school system. There are many advantages to this but I am concerned that we may be forced to become mini primary teachers rather than retain our autonomy and teach from developmentally appropriate practices.”
Submission from a preschool teacher
Concerns were also expressed about the status of preschool services when competing for resources and recognition in large schools.
“I work at an independent (school) … and I feel completely undervalued by primary staff and the heads of the school departments.”
Submission from the director of a preschool.
There were contrary views from other preschool staff whose centres were administered by primary school councils. Preschool teachers found these councils to be supportive and understanding of their role.
The panel concluded that the question of whether preschool services were best placed in an educational or health/community services department would need a great deal more consideration and debate that could be given in the terms of this review. In any case, the panel is doubtful whether the issue comes within its terms of reference.
11.1 Integration of Early Childhood Services
The more important issue is how to bring about a greater integration of early childhood services and a more holistic approach to the development of early childhood policy. The links between preschool education and primary education need strengthening, but so do the links between preschool education and family support, child care, child health and other early childhood services.
The absence of a national or State policy on early childhood development will continue to bedevil efforts to provide a holistic approach to improving services to children and their families in those vitally important early years. This will continue to hamper the best use of resources in delivering early childhood services and frustrate those families who have to deal with different administrations to gain access to a continuum of service for their children’s early development.
In the absence of a national policy, there is no complete answer to the administration of early childhood services. In the panel’s view, however, arrangements in Victoria could be significantly improved if there was an organisation taking an overview of policy and practice in early childhood development. What’s needed is a body with responsibility for identifying gaps and shortcomings in services, promoting research, commissioning evaluative studies, developing a comprehensive database, identifying emerging international trends and promoting best practice.
The panel favours the establishment of a State Council with these or similar responsibilities that would be able, on the basis of their work, to advise the Government on strategies to promote a more holistic approach to early childhood policy and services. This council should comprise experts in the field of early childhood development rather than stakeholders, but consultation with these stakeholders should be integral to its work.
Recommendation 35
The panel recommends the establishment of a State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Development, comprising seven to nine people recognised as experts in their field. With respect to the development of Victoria’s policies, services and programs for children in their early years the Council would promote public discussion and debate, fund research and evaluation, consult interest groups, monitor overseas developments and advise the State Government.
12 Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations
Victoria’s preschool centres and related services, once among world’s best practice in early childhood development, are now in disarray. A substantial proportion of preschool teachers are demoralised by the conditions and the uncertainties in their employment arrangements, parents find the burdens of the management and administration of the centres, and the liabilities to which they are exposed, increasingly unacceptable, and many centres struggle to be viable. Children from poor socio-economic backgrounds and those who have special needs are least likely to have access to preschool education, and the support services provided by Government are patchy in their coverage, mostly inadequate and sometimes give rise to inconsistent application across regions.
The Government’s policy of providing access to one year of quality preschool education for Victoria’s four year olds confronts deteriorating facilities, shortages of qualified staff and services which are increasingly becoming unaffordable for families.
At the heart of the problem are three interrelated issues:
the per capita arrangement for funding preschool education;
the responsibilities and liabilities placed on management committees of preschool centres; and
the employment arrangements of preschool staff, which for many is resulting in falling hours of paid employment in jobs which are in any case comparatively poorly paid.
If the decline in Victoria’s preschool services is to be arrested and the services are to be restored to a situation where all of the State’s four year olds will have access to one year of quality preschool education, the Government will need to commit itself to a program of reform.
The required reforms will not be easily or quickly achieved and will of necessity have to compete with other Government priorities and budgetary imperatives. The following recommendations present the panel’s view of the necessary agenda for reform.
Program Delivery
Recommendation 1
The panel recommends that the Government commit itself to a three year program of reform of the State’s preschool education services.
Recommendation 15
The panel recommends that preschool centres operated by schools (both State and independent) be registered with the Registered Schools Board and administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Training, but subject to the continuing requirement that a qualified preschool teacher must be responsible for the preschool education program in those centres.
Recommendation 16
The panel recommends that consideration be given to an expansion of mobile services as an alternative to conventional preschool centres in rural areas, wherever there are persistent problems of recruiting staff and maintaining services under standard funding arrangements for preschool education.
Recommendation 18
The panel recommends that the funding for the provision of additional assistants for children with disabilities attending preschool education centres be doubled from the current level of approximately $1.3 to $2.6 million, with the objective of increasing the availability of additional assistants and extending the hours of support to each eligible child.
Recommendation 21
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services revise the conditions for entitlement to a second year of preschool education to provide for a deferral decision be made at any time up until the start of the fourth term.
Recommendation 22
The panel recommends that the role of ensuring compliance with the Children’s Services Act and the Regulations be removed from the responsibilities of Children’s Services Advisers and placed with an inspector group of suitably experienced officers, reporting to a senior inspector whose responsibilities should include ensuring consistency in the standard of inspections and recommendations for prosecutions.
Recommendation 23
The panel recommends that the Children’s Services Advisers should be qualified preschool teachers with substantial experience in preschool education. Their role should include advice and support of preschool staff and parent committees; networking of preschool services and staff within their region; liaison with other early childhood development professionals and services; and advising on improvements in programs, services and access. They should also be responsible for identifying and disseminating good practice.
Recommendation 31
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services fund an annual, regional conference or workshop for preschool centre parents and committee members.
Recommendation 33
The panel recommends that the delivery of programs of professional development for preschool teachers and assistants should be tendered annually by the Departme nt of Human Services. The Department of Human Services should ensure that the delivery, content and outcomes of the programs are methodically assessed.
Recommendation 35
The panel recommends the establishment of a State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Development comprising seven to nine people recognised as experts in their field. With respect to the development of Victoria’s policies, services and programs for children in their early years the Council would promote public discussion and debate, fund research and evaluation, consult interest groups, monitor overseas developments and advise the State Government.
Funding Arrangements
Recommendation 2
The panel recommends that the Government take responsibility for funding the salaries of preschool teachers and assistants in community-based preschool centres, subject to conditions in respect of planning and group employment.
Recommendation 7
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services negotiates funding agreements with local government and other group employers for the employment of preschool staff and that these agreements include an element for the employers’ costs of administration and for relief staff. These elements for administration costs and relief staff might be based on a formula related to the number of centres and staff in each network.
Recommendation 8
The panel recommends that the funding agreements be on a calendar year basis and for a minimum of three years, subject to annual review and satisfactory annual audit.
Recommendation 9
The panel recommends that the formula for funding an equivalent full-time teaching position in a preschool centre should be based on the notion of a teacher providing ten standard sessions of preschool education programs per week, plus preparation, to a minimum of twenty and a maximum of twenty-five children per session.
Recommendation 10
The panel recommends that special consideration be given to what would constitute for funding purposes a notional equivalent full-time teaching position in rural locations with small numbers of four year olds and in centres with numbers of children with additional needs. This might be achieved by providing weightings for enrolments in such locations and centres. This and other considerations should involve discussions with stakeholders and observations at a number of centres with the relevant characteristics.
Recommendation 11
The panel recommends that where a preschool centre prefers to stand alone and not join a group employer, the funding of the centre should continue on a per capita basis, subject to a minimum of two -and-a-half hours of preschool program activity per day of attendance in respect of each child for whom the grant is paid. Other conditions of eligibility for the per capita grant, such as the requirement for the program to be delivered by a qualified preschool teacher, should continue to apply.
Recommendation 12
The panel recommends that the Government offer capital grants of up to $80,000 for preschool facilities to improve access to preschool education. These grants should be conditional on a matching local government contribution and a contribution from the local community.
Recommendation 14
The panel recommends that preschool education in independent schools remain on a per capita basis at the current rate, subject to the provision of a minimum of two-and-a-half hours of preschool program activity per day of attendance in respect of each child for whom the per capita grant is paid.
Salaries and Conditions
Recommendation 3
The panel recommends that there be improvements to the salaries of preschool teachers and that in the context of the negotiations on those improvements the following matter be given greatest weight:
that there be a restructuring of the salary scale to improve the career path of Victoria’s preschool teachers, one which recognises additional responsibilities for management and staff supervision and provides incentives for gaining relevant postgraduate qualifications and training;
that the restructuring of the salary scale should provide for career advancement through such classifications as specialist or advanced skills, or master teacher;
that the scale should provide a combination of automatic annual increments which recognise increasing experience over the early years and increments based on merit for advanced skills in later years.
Recommendation 4
The panel recommends that there be reassessment of the balance between contact and non-contact time of preschool teachers once revised arrangements for their employment are in place (see Recommendations 2 and 7) and the administrative workload of committees has been reduced.
Recommendation 5
The panel recommends that there be improvements to the salaries of preschool teachers’ assistants and that negotiations on these be conducted to establish relativities with any revised salary scale for preschool teachers.
Recommendation 6
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services take immediate steps to identify and cost the options for safeguarding the long service leave and sick leave entitlements of preschool centre staff. This assessment should be undertaken whether the existing employment arrangements for those staff continue or new arrangements are put in place.
Recommendation 29
The panel recommends that the revised employment arrangements for preschool teachers should include a minimum of eight days of paid professional development each year. In view of the importance of shared experience and networking to preschool teachers, in the main the professional development should occur in the term breaks. This would ensure
continuity of the preschool programs and avoid additional problems associated with finding relief staff.
Recommendation 30
The panel recommends that a minimum of four days of paid professional development should be available to preschool assistants each year. This should in the main occur in term breaks.
Matters for Further Examination
Recommendation 13
The panel recommends that if its proposals for revised funding arrangements are accepted, there should be exploration with the private long day child care centres of options for including those centres in the funding arrangements for the delivery of quality preschool education programs to four year olds in long day care.
Recommendation 17
The panel recommends that the Children’s Services Regulations 1998 be reviewed in consultation with stakeholders. The review should, in particular, address the operational arrangements of mobile centres and consider whether the limited provision relating to program content in the Regulations would be more appropriately dealt with in the quality assessment arrangements.
Recommendation 19
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services reviews the support service funding for the provision of services to preschool centres to establish the priorities between the three areas of service - translation, telephone interpreter and visiting advisory services - and to reassess the support required to match these priorities.
Recommendation 20
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services review the range of assistance available to Koori children and their families, with greater emphasis on communicating with Koori families about the value of preschool education and increasing the participation of Koori parents in preschool activities.
Recommendation 24
The panel recommends that the numbers and allocation of Children’s Services Advisers and those in the inspection group should be considered together with the proposals coming out of the current review of Preschool Field Officers.
Recommendation 25
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services should explore other avenues for strengthening the advisory services available to preschool staff. This should include consideration of gaining access to advice and support from the Commonwealth funded services for children with additional needs, and from others who offer relevant advisory services, for example, on development and utilisation of outdoor play spaces.
Recommendation 26
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services should immediately undertake the development of a quality assessment framework, in consultation with stakeholders, as the basis for a quality assessment process that would determine the accreditation of preschool centres.
Recommendation 27
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services, in consultation with stakeholders, should develop a curriculum framework for preschool education programs to underpin the quality assessment process for preschool centres.
Recommendation 28
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services take the initiative with those Victorian providers of undergraduate and bridging courses for qualifications in preschool teaching, to review the content of existing courses and to examine options for improving access to those courses for students living outside the metropolitan area. The review should include options for improving the support for Koori students to progress from diploma to degree qualifications in children’s services.
Recommendation 32
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services review the professional development needs of preschool teachers and assistants and consult stakeholders in drawing up the priorities for relevant programs and activities.
Recommendation 34
The panel recommends that the Department of Human Services provides initial support for the establishment of an independent statutory board for the registration of preschool teachers and others working in the field of early childhood development.
GLOSSARY:
AEU Australian Education Union CCT Compulsory Competitive Tendering CESCEO Council of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers DEET Department of Education, Employment and Training DHS Department of Human Services ECMS Early Childhood Management Services KPV Kindergarten Parents Victoria MAV Municipal Association of Victoria MECA Multi-Employer Certified Agreement MRC Multicultural Resource Centre SNA Safety Net Adjustment TAFE Technical and Further Education VAEAI Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc.
REFERENCES:
Kids and Kindergarten: Access to Preschool in Victoria Janet Taylor, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.
Early Childhood Education Working Party Report October 2000, Canberra, Australia. Report of the Council of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers (CESCEO).
Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years Study – Final Report, McCain, M.N. and Mustard, J.F. Ontario, Canada, April 1999.
Special Report No.55, Child Care and Kindergartens: Caring about Quality. Office of the Auditor-General, Victorian Government Printer, Australia, April 1998.
Use and Choice of Child Care: Early Childhood Study Report No.4, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia, 1993.
* Barnett, W.S. (1993) “Benefit Cost Analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25 year follow-up”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63 4 500-8.
* Rowe, K.J. and Hill, P.W. (1996) “Assessing, recording and reporting students” education progress: The case for subject profiles”. Assessment in Education 3 309-352.
* Hill, P.W. (1995) “School effectiveness and improvement: Present realities and future possibilities”. Inaugural Professorial Lecture in Dean’s Lecture Series, Faculty of Education, Parkville, Victoria: The University of Melbourne.
* Pascal and Bartram (2000). Report to DFEE, Centre for Early Learning, Worcester (unpublished).
* St. Pierre, G.R., Layzer, J.I. and Barnes, H.V. (1995) “Two-generation programs: Design, cost and short-term effectiveness”. The Future of Children. 5 3 76-93.
* Yoshikawa, H. (1995) “Long term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency”. The Future of Children 5 3 51-75.
Ø Tremblay, R. (1999) “When children’s social development fails”. In D. Keating and C. Hertzman (Ed) Development Health: The Wealth of Nations in the Information Age, New York: Guildford Press: 55-7
Ø Tremblay, R. Pihl, R. Vitaro, F. and Dobkin, P. (1994). “Predicting early onset of male antisocial behaviour from preschool behaviour. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1994; 51:732-739.
Ø The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1997). The NICHD Study of Early Child Care.
Ø Tremblay, R.E. and Craig, W. (1995). “Developmental Crime Prevention”. In M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (Eds). Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Vol 19 Chicago: The University of Chicago Press: 151-236.
Ø Osburn, A.F. and Mibank, J.E. (1987) “The Effects of Early Education: A Report from the Child Health and Education Study, Oxford; Clarendon Press, p.213.
Ø Andersson, B. (1992) “Effects of day care on cognitive and social emotional competence of thirteen-year-old Swedish School Children Child Development 63:20-36.
Ø Bergmann, B. (1996) “Saving our Children from Poverty: What the United States can learn from France. New York: Russell Saga Foundation.
Ø Zoritch, B. and Roberts, I (1998). “The Health and Welfare effects of day care for preschool children: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials”. In Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ed. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 1998 Oxford: Update Software (undated quarterly).
Note: Reports marked * are cited in the Early Childhood Education Working Party Report by CESCEO referenced above.
Reports marked Ø are cited in the Reversing the Real Brain Drain: Early Years Study referenced above.
Appendix 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A REVIEW OF ISSUES THAT IMPACT ON THE DELIVERY OF PRESCHOOL SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES IN VICTORIA
OBJECTIVES
To report to the Minister for Community Services on the provision of pre-school services throughout Victoria in relation to meeting the needs of children and their families and in particular with respect to the linkages with childcare and primary school. In this context, to also report on factors affecting recruitment and retention of preschool teachers including terms and conditions of employment.
OUTCOMES
To develop action plans with estimated costings to inform decision-making by Government.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
The Government recognises that there are issues relating to preschools and preschool teachers that may require improvements in preschool teachers’ remuneration, hours, duties and other changes in employment terms and conditions. The Government is committed to addressing those issues over a period of time.
The Government is considering any recommendations from the Review will consider the cost to budget and any impact from possible flow-on to other sectors of the community.
The Government is committed to continuing its involvement in preschool services in partnership with the community and parents to achieve improved services and with continuing financial contributions from all parties.
METHOD OF OPERATION
The Review will be conducted by an independent person appointed by the Minister for Community Services taking into account the attitudes of stakeholders related to the skills and attributes that would be judged to be necessary for the conduct of the Review.
The Review will examine, but not be limited to, the following:
· the place of early childhood education and children’s services in the social context of Victoria; · the needs of children and families and the flexible provision and delivery of early childhood education and children’s services;
· trends in early childhood care and education related to the provision of preschool educational programs;
· the link between preschool, childcare, primary and specialist programs and also the relationship with other early childhood programs including early intervention;
· issues relating to qualifications, training, conditions, career structures, salary levels and classification structures including consideration of appropriate relativities
In doing so the Review will examine and analyse Local, National and International experiences, research and data.
In developing its advice, the Review will consult widely with organisations, communities and individuals with a stake in Victoria’s early childhood education and children’s services.
TIMELINE
The Review will provide preliminary advice to the Government by 30 November 2000 and a final report by 31 March 2001.
Implementation of any financial outcomes from the Review will commence July 2001, with details of any adjustments to be determined in the course of the Review.
Appendix 2
List of parents, teachers, preschool field officers, children’s services advisers, employers of early childhood teachers, children’s services providers and members of the public who made written submissions to the Review:
Ann Addinsall Anne Albiston Karen Anderson Marge Arnup Rose Attwood Vicki Baker Gwenda Bland Cathy Boyle Bernadette Burnett Carmela Bush Melissa Cain Susan Caldwell Elleanor Campbell N Cannon Debra Carey Jenny Chilsom Sherryn Chrisp Lucy Clarke Merle C. Cook Sue Corlass Julie Cranwell Terri Creelman Lynne Crimmins Kathleen Crosbie Eileen Davis Trish Dell'oro A Dewey Suzanne D'Ombrain-Allain Glenis Donohue Darlene Elder Anne Forbes Deborah Gates Kathie Gay Gwen George Bernadette Giora Heather Gordon Michelle Graffeo Judith Green Judith Green Cathy Greenwood Moira Greenwood Jenny Gridley Mr & Mrs Jim Griffiths Kaye Hall Nola Hampton M Hayes Diana Heatherich Jacinta Hills Jennie Hollis Sue Horsburgh Alison Hughes
Patricia Ispen Andre Jack Danielle James Janet Jensen Jo-Ann Kline Angela Lane Darlene Leach Sue Leach Carolyn Lunt Merryn Maher Elizabeth and Scott Manning Pauline Maunder Marena McFarlane Judy McMurtrie Narelle McNaughton W.J. McQuillen Peter and Catherine Meyer Jo Micheli Sherril Milligan Susan Mitchell Helen Moonie Lyn Moonie Kathy Morris Janet Motley Anita Mundy Carol O'Bree Wendy & Peter Ockerby Melinda O'Dowd Dianne O'Dwyer Sarah O'Kelly Robin Owen Poppi Papacosta Michelle Parker Maureen Parry Janet Patching Suzanne Pendergast Carolyn Pereira Margaret Perkin Kaye Perry Debbie Phyland Anne Pierpoint Libby Pitruzello Jenny Planmer Pamela Power Helen Pratt Joan Prickett Sally Quantrelle B Quigley N Raisbeck Melissa Rankine Sarah Read
Anne Rees Jennifer Renton Patricia Richards Josette Ride Margaret Roberts Robyn Rochford Martinus Romana Veronica Ryan Lorna Sanderson Ann Sayers Helen Schwieger Leigh Shelley -McCahon Jenny Sjodin Elaine Sloan Cathy Smee Ellen Smiddy Ann Smith Faye Smith Barbara Sparrow Marlene Steiner Suzanne Stringer Kate Suter Anne Syer Susan Taggert Brenda Tatham Bronwyn Taylor Robyn Taylor Melody Telley Ruth Tideman Christine Tozer Veronica Tunchay Veronica Tunchay Nezia Van Eten Marian Vessey Alison Vinson Michelle Watson Julie Watts Kath Wenzlau Karen Weston Sally Wilkinson Ruth Williams Helen Wursthorn Robyn Mawdsby, A.G.Leech Kindergarten Matthew Addison, Anne Baker, Airport (Strathdale) Preschool Alexander Thomson Preschool Simone Smith, Anglesea Kindergarten Libby Mears, Anglesea Kindergarten Inc Marina Henley, Annie Dennis Children's Centre Inc Kathy Hilton, Ardoch Youth Foundation Josette Nunn, Bairnsdale Early Learning Centre
Kim McAlister, Bairnsdale Early Learning Centre Inc Ballarat and District Kindergarten Teachers Association Inc Odette Wilson, Ballarat Fidelity Club Kindergarten Peter Hunt, Ballarat Grammar School Lydia Hedley -Dobson, Balnarring Preschool and Infant Welfare Assoc Inc Kara Van Der Heyde, Balnarring Preschool and Infant Welfare Assoc Inc Carolyn King, Baw Baw Health $ Community Care Centre Jacqueline Sincock-Watts, Berwick Kindergarten Lou Johns, Biala Box Hill Inc Debra Emonson, Birchip and District Preschool Bruce Punshon, Black Rock Preschool Inc Shirley Fromberg, Blundell Hall Kindergarten E Braithwaite, Bonbeach Preschool Melina Simmons, Boroondara City Council Linda Sherriff, Brenbeal Children's Centre Stephen Gianna, Brotherhood of St Laurence Maurice West, Buloke Shire Council Michael Poulton, Buninyong Preschool Inc Jean Andrews, Campaspe Shire Council Joy O'Donnell, Campaspe Shire Council Karen Szabo, Canterbury Norwood Baptist Kindergarten Helen Butcher, Castlemaine Steiner Schools Kindergarten Kim Kulic, Chandler Kindergarten Inc Karen McIntyre, Chatsworth Kindergarten and Occasional Child Care Centre Inc Marelle Whitaker, Chiltern and District Preschool Preschool Teachers and Field Officer, City of Yarra Alison Giles, Clare Court Kindergarten Meredith Hyams, Clare Court Kindergarten Leonie Hede, Clare Court Kindergarten Inc Janet Hoare, Clare Court Kindergarten Inc Nicole Russo, Clare Court Kindergarten Inc Clifton Springs Preschool Parent Committee of Management Pauline Nowlan, Coppersfield Preschool Colleen Jackel, Coronation Kindergarten M Vaughton, Coronation Kindergarten Inc Cr. W. Twycross, Delatite Shire Council Kim Brodribb, Diamond Valley & Eltham Teachers Association Inc Bruna Evans, Diamond Valley & Eltham Teachers Association Inc Allison Mitchell, Dingee Preschool Inc Katrina MacDonald, Dromana Preschool Centre Inc Sharon Bisset, Drouin Kindergarten Dr Alan Anguin, Eastern Metropolitan Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Vicki Colgrave, Eastern Metropolitan Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Natalie Hobson, Echuca Central Kindergarten Eildon Road Children's Centre Sue Plaisted, Eltham South Preschool Diane Marsh, Eltham Woods Preschool Marilyn Watson, Epsom Preschool Inc Margaret Rogers, Ewing Kindergarten Joanne Walker, Fairy Hills Kindergarten Association Inc
Susan Sonnak, Fawkner Park Childrens Centre Co-operative Lynda Mohr, Felstead Avenue Kindergarten Georgie Smith, Felstead Avenue Kindergarten Janet De Grechy, Fordham Avenue Kindergarten Dianne Visnovsky, Fordham Avenue Kindergarten Association Inc Mandy Gatliff, Frankston City Council Rosemary Malone, Gateways Support Services Inc Dannie Dupliex, Geelong Kindergarten Association Debra O'Halloran, Gippsland Preschool Parents Regional Reference Group Anne Bek, Gippsland Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Fiona Speirs, Gippsland Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Anne Lomax, Glass Street Kindergarten Brenda Novak, Glass Street Kindergarten Inc Catherine Thompson, Glen Eira City Council Helen Stanley, Goodwin Estate Preschool Juinita Kirby, Goulburn Region Outreach Pauline Whyte, Grace Berglund Kindergarten Rhonda Mandy, Grace Park Preschool Evon Ginham, Grampians Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Marita Toohey, Grampians Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Barbara Napthine, Great Alpine Preschool Service Inc Kara Mamouney-Brown, Greater Bendigo City Council Virginia Lloyd, Greater Dandenong Children's Services Association Carol Neil, Greater Geelong City Council Carole Fitchers, Green Cottage Children's Centre Carl Fitchett, Green Cottage Children's Centre Kylie Mack, Greenhills Preschool Kerrie Byron, Greenville Kindergarten Jennie Storey, Gum Nut Gully Preschool Haileybury College Debra Robinson, Harcourt Preschool Inc Heathmont Preschool and Kindergarten Inc Glenys Brereton, Helen Street Preschool Highton Preschool Centre Inc Counsellor Marsich, Hobson's Bay City Council Horsham & District Kindergarten Association Peter Brown, Horsham Rural City Council Heather Maurer, Ivanhoe Uniting Church Kindergarten Sue Rewell, Ivanhoe Uniting Church Kindergarten Kristine Hughes, Jack and Jill Kindergarten Raelyne Barnes, Jaycee Kindergarten Josephine Miriklis, Kalker Montessori Centre Ltd Lyn Laby, Kallista Kindergarten Ruth Schofield-Smith, Kardinia International College Maree Debernardi, Karingal Kindergarten Kathy Head, Keilor Downs Kindergarten Rhonda Kinsman, Kennington Preschool Jacinta Barnes, Kindergarten Unions Children's Services Stephen Hill, Kingsway Preschool Frances Lakey, Kirralee Kindergarten Inc Chris Bower, Knox City Council
Anne Houghton, Kookaburra Kindergarten Kathy Donovan, Lady Gowrie Child Centre Heather Barnes, Lady Gowrie Child Centre Katherine Wilson, Lancefield Kindergarten Inc Preschool Teachers, Latrobe City Council Jill Sargent, Latrobe City Council Susan Donovan, Launching Place Preschool Michelle Sims, Lower Plenty Kindergarten Inc Noelene Horton, Lowther Hall Anglican Grammar School Anne McLennan, Macedon Ranges Shire Council Carol Challen Helen Bretherton, Mansfield Preschool Mansfield Preschool Inc Richard Merton, Mansfield Rudolf Steiner Kindergarten Janet Park, Maribyrnong City Council Anne Cumming, Maroondah Hospital Glenda Newell, Maroondah Hospital Aileen Browne, Maroondah Montessori Preschool Rebecca Walsh, Maroondah Montessori Preschool Maroondah Preschool Association Glenys McKenzie, Maroondah Teachers Association Tracie Burwash, McArthur Management Services Heather Scovell, Melbourne City Council Heather Goodwin, Mildura South Kindergarten Margaret Gatehouse, Mirboo North Kindergarten Inc Kim Kinnear, Monash Children's Centre Ellinor Campbell, Monash Children's Centre Geoff Loftus, Monash City Council Annette McKenzie, Moyhu $ District Preschool Anne Morgan, Murrundal Preschool Sue Western, Natimuk Road Kindergarten Marion Roberts, Newlands Preschool North Kew Kindergarten Inc Carol L'Anson, North Ringwood Community Children's Centre Sharon Taylor, North Ringwood Community Children's Centre Inc Julie Watson, Parkdale Preschool Association Inc Promontory Coast Children's Services Inc Emma Kirby, Quantin Binnah Community Centre Inc Claire Lucas, Richmond Kindergarten Elizabeth Jones, Ringwood Uniting Church Preschool Victoria Caldow, Rix Street Kindergarten Inc Kerry Stephens, Rix Street Kindergarten Inc Robina Scott Kindergarten Lynne McLean, Rushworth Kindergarten & Childcare Inc Serrell Street Kindergarten Association Inc Deidre Deklijn, Seville Preschool Inc Jenny Tompkins, Sorrento Preschool Leigh McCahon, South Gippsland Council Andrea Maek, South Sunshine Kindergarten Inc Children's Services Advisers, Southern Metropolitan Regional Office of the Department of Human Services Richenda Barnett, St Andrews Kindergarten
Julie Lees, St Arnaud Kindergarten Fiona Brooks, St Brendan's Kindergarten Corinne Salty, St Helena Preschool Helen Haysom, St Luke's Preschool Mandy Christoe, St Mel's School and Kindergarten Tom Sexton, St Mel's School and Kindergarten St Micahel's Grammar School Lyn Meier, St Michael's Grammar School Kindergarten John Hobba, St Peters Anglican Kindergarten Box Hill Inc Robyn Campbell, Stanhope & District Kindergarten Vanda Iaconese, Stonington City Council Geoff Stops, Studley Park Kindergarten Parents' Association Inc Christine Manning, Summerhill Park Kindergarten Lyn Saunders, Sunshine Park Estate Kindergarten Peter Horton, Surrey, Canterbury, Banyule and Greenvale Kinder Haven Heather Elkhuizen, Taralye Fiona Cranny, The Alexander Thomason Preschool Inc Andrea Crosbie, The Alexander Thomason Preschool Inc Tongala Preschool Beth McInnes, Tunstall Square Kindergarten Inc Joy Williams, Uniting Care, Victoria Joy Robinson, Uniting Church Hazel Road Preschool Natalie Spencer, Wahroonga Preschool Irene Owsianka, Walkers Road Preschool Inc Carol Scott, Wallaroo Child and Family Centre Glenys Jackson, Wangaratta West Kindergarten Karenne Thistleton, Wangaratta West Kindergarten Inc Teresa Laird, Waterfall Gully Preschool Geraldine Woolnough, Watsonia Preschool Susan Driscoll, Waubra Preschool Carol McIvor, Wayburne Preschool Joanne Armstrong, Willaura and District Kindergarten Inc Ruth Spielman, Wittlesea City Council Patience Harrington, Wodonga City Council Carol Ingersoll, Wyndham City Council Sharon Gorton, Yarra Ranges Shire Council R Leach, Yarralea Children's Centre Janet McLean, Yarralea Children's Centre
List of organisations which made written submissions to the Review
Association for Children with a Disability Australian Early Childhood Association Inc (Victorian Branch) Australian Education Union Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union Children's Services Co-ordinators Association Community Child Care Association of Victoria Early Childhood Intervention Australia (Victorian Chapter) Inc Education Faculty, University of Melbourne Faculty of Education, Monash University Kindergarten Parents Victoria Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Melbourne) Inc Montessori Association of Victoria Municipal Association of Victoria Norparrin Centre for Children with Special Needs OMEP Victorian Chapter Playgrounds and Recreation Assoc of Victoria Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Royal Victorian Institute of the Blind The Advisory Council for Children with Impaired Hearing (Victoria) The Association of Graduates in Early Childhood The Free Kindergarten Association of Victoria Inc Union of Australian Women (Victorian Sector) Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc Victorian Children's Services Inc
Appendix 3 Consultations with Individuals and Organisations
Name Agency Marina Alessio City of Greater Dandenong L.S. Association Terri Allen Maffra & District Children's Services Carol Allen Early Childhood Management Services Kindergarten Parents Victoria Cathy Allender Bilbungra Kindergarten Sue Allengame Department of Education Employment & Training Gwenda Allgood Rural City of Ararat Glenis Appleten Hyland Kindergarten, Sale Marina Ashley Department of Human Services Geraldine Atkinson Batdja Preschool and Child Care Chris Avery Epalock Crs Kindergarten, St. Albans Nicole Bailey Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Veronica Baker Axedale Preschool June Bamblett Department of Human Services Lionel Bamblett Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc Heather Barnes Lady Gowrie Child Centre Jeanette Bartlett Beaconsifeld Kindergaten Dolores Barton Jindi Woraback Children's Centre Jan Batty Willaura Kindergarten and Jack & Jill Kindergarten Mary Bawden Woodleight School (Junior Campus), Frankston Nicole Bawden Bauerbird Preschool, Carrum Downs Brenda Bedford Wynaham City Council Sandra Beeby Department of Human Services Anne Bek Department of Human Services Susan Bennett St. Andrews Kindergarten, Clifton Hill Joanne Bevilquava Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Jan Black Darebin City Council Mary Bluett Australian Education Union Carlene Bolden Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Board) Linda Botheras Sale Combined Kindergarten Inc Andrew Brady Kindergarten Edenhope College Leanne Braithwaite Bayside Council Kate Brett Department of Human Services Petra Brinkworth Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Beverley Bromham Department of Human Services Alex Brown Department of Human Services Annette Brown Marybynong Children's Centre Peter Brown Hosham Rural City Council Rachael Brown Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Louise Buckle Department of Human Services Jennifer Buckton Hyland Kindergarten, Sale Janice Burke City of Moonee Valley Linda Burrows DeGaris Preschool, Mildura
Loreta Camerlengo Department of Human Services Rosy Cebbai Springvale Preschool Centre Janet Chiron Parkside Preschool Trica Ciampa Try Youth & Community Services Jo Clark Queen Street Kindergarten, Maffra Sharyn Clarke Ouyen & Mallee Family Care, Mildura Paula Clarke Yarriambiak Shire Dr Priscilla Clarke The Free Kindergarten Association of Victoria Inc Marilyn Collins Department of Human Services Virginia Contreras Ethnic Council of Shepparton & District Inc. Libby Cumming Fintona Girl's School, Balwyn Fiona Currie Yarralea Children's Centre Frank Cusmano Child Care Centres Association Victoria Phil Dalling Department of Human Services Louise David Bendigo North Florence Davidson Mallee Family Care, Mildura Judy DeBono Longford Preschool Steve Dennis Yallambie Park Pre School Sam Di Benedetto Highett Preschool Margo DiBari Department of Human Services Kylie Dingwall Gwenfa Hampton Kindergarten, Sale John Dixon Golden Plains Shire Council Jenny Drysdale Department of Human Services, Seymour Louise Dwyer Murchison Pre School and GV Pre School Association Marjorie Earl Department of Human Services Sally Edwards Murchison Pre School and GV Pre School Association Linda Elston Sale North Kindergarten Phillipa Findlay V.U.T. Children's Centre Roland Finette Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc Barbara Fisher Early Childhood Management Services Heather Fleming Willaura Kindergarten and Jack & Jill Kindergarten Cecilia Fresle St Andrews Kindergarten Liane Galway Bilbungra Kindergarten, Keysborough Mandy Gatliff Community Child Care Association of Victoria Kara Lee Gedd Delecombe Park Preschool Sylvia Gerdtz Department of Human Services Joanne Geurts Kinder Management, Beth Glasson Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Kay Gould St. Helena Pre School, Eltham North Michael Gourlay Association for Children with a Disability Delwyn Graham Royal Children's Hospital Creche Alison Greene St. Andrews Kindergarten Evon Grinham Department of Human Services Glenda Grumnet Department of Human Services Julie Gunston Hume City Council Sue Hale Wallaroo Child & Family Centre, Hastings Clare Hargreaves Municipal Association of Victoria Patience Harrington Wodonga City Council Catherine Hayes City of Melbourne North Melbourne Children's Centre Barbara Hayes Early Childhood Management Services Susan Haywood-Downard Department of Human Services
Jennifer Heaps Violet Town Kindergarten Cheryl Hermence Darebin City Council Christine Hickson Ballan Preschool Dianne Holland Edenhope College Jill Horn Fintona Girl's School, Balwyn Peter Horton Victorian Private Child Care Association Marie Howard Department of Human Services Marian Howell Westdale Kindergarten, Bairnsdale Lesley Hubble Department of Human Services Kristine Hughes Jack & Jill Kindergarten, Ararat Alison Irvine Marrang Kindergarten, Stawell Rosemary Jackson Willaura Kindergarten and Jack & Jill Kindergarten Glenys Jackson Wangaratta West Kindergarten Lisa Jobson A Country Welcome Project, Moira Shire Jodie Johnson Cranbourne Day Care & Kindergarten Centre Kerron Johnson The Range Children's Centre, Williamstown Sharon Jordan Victorian University of Technology Children's Centre John Joyce Department of Human Services Bill Keane Buloke Shire Council Anne Kennedy Faculty of Education, Monash University Max Kerr Sebastopal South Kindergarten Robyn Kiddell Highett Preschool Sue Killeen Department of Human Services Monica King Dromana Child Care Rosalie Kinson Australian Education Union Fiona Kirby Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Simon Kirby Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Kim Kishazi Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Jodi Knox H.B.C.C. Fiona Kuch Sale North Kindergarten Helen Ladlow Horsham Kindergarten Association Tracie Laidlaw Jack & Jill Kindergarten, Ararat Dianne Lanergan Mildura Toni Lawson Department of Human Services Virginia Lloyd City of Greater Dandenong Claire Loughnan Community Child Care Association of Victoria Louise Lucas City of Casey Robyn Mangan Department of Human Services Kim Mann Gwenfa Hampton Kindergarten, Sale Gerard Mansour Kindergarten Parents Victoria Kay Margetts Education Faculty, University of Melbourne Paulette Maskell Olive Phillips Kindergarten, Beaumaris Joy Mason Fairbairn Road Kindergarten, West Sunshine Sharon McCorten Toolamba Kindergarten Denise McDonald Victorian University of Technology Children's Centre Virginia McIntyre Gwenfa Hampton Kindergarten, Sale Sharon McLean Charlton & Wycheproof June McLoughlin Centre for Child Community Health Collette McMahon Department of Human Services Narelle McNaughton St Augustine's Preschool, Mont Albert North Gaye McPherson Department of Human Services
Jenny McWilliam Bendigo & District Kindergarten Parents Association Lyn Meire St Michael's Grammar Kindergarten Janny Miller Barmal GV Preschool Association Kristie Mitchell Undera Kindergarten Leanne Mits Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Lowana Moore Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc Dea Morgain Community Child Care Association of Victoria Angela Moynihan Robina Scott Kindergarten, Williamstown Debra Mudra Wodonga City Council Carolyn Murchenberg St. Andrews Kindergarten, Clifton Hill Lynn Murphy Department of Human Services Bev Newcome Remote Family Services - Uniting Care Kara Nicholoson Fintona Girl's School, Balwyn Melinda Noonan Irymple Preschool, Mildura Josette A Nunn Bairnsdale Early Learning Centre Berenice Nyland Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Wendy Oates Growing Giggles Child Care Professor Frank Oberklaid Centre for Child Community Health Carol O'Bree Golden Square Janet O'Connor Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Melinda O'Dowd Roberts Avenue Kindergarten Fiona Ogilvy -O'Donnell Association of Independent Schools Victoria Mary Olanda Victorian University of Technology Children's Centre Silvana O'Rourke Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Nicole Otto Bennett Road Preschool Barbara Paice Department of Human Services Jenny Palmer Department of Human Services Janet Park Maribynong Children's Centre Jan Patching Dorothy Carlton Preschool Judy Pell Department of Human Services Greta Perry Department of Human Services Liz Petterson Maffra & District Children's Services Jacque Phillips City of Greater Shepparton Debbie Phyland Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn David Ploenges Kindergarten Parents Victoria Cheryl Porker Wangaratta West Mobile Service Sue Poynton Glassford Kindergarten, Maffra Shane Quinn Australian Education Union Maree Rabach City of Melbourne Central Carlton Children's Centre Susan Rafferty Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Liz Rausi Wyndham C.C. Gina Repic Early Childhood Management Services Bronwyn Reynolds Eltham College, Eltham Kathryn Richards Cooinda Kindergarten, Stawell Chris Rickard Caseys Child Care Centre Ruth Ritchgie Cobram District Childrens Services Inc. Erica Robinson St. Stephen's Kindergarten Rosalie Rogers City of Greater Bendigo Lucian Roncon Child Care Centres Association Victoria Sally Rose South Bendigo Preschool Amanda Rothwell Lady Gowrie Child Centre
Chereil Rust Department of Human Services Maureen Savage Australian Early Childhood Association Inc (Vic.Branch) Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Board) Glenys Schubert Rosanna Uniting Church Kinder Julie Scott Brenbeal Children's Centre Alisha Shearer St. Andrews Kindergarten Anita Siassios Department of Human Services Belinda Simms Department of Human Services Marg Simons St Augustine's Pre-School Barbara Sinclair Curzon Street Children's Centre Jo Smale Department of Human Services Georgie Smith Felsted Road Kindergarten Graeme Smith Wimmera Uniting Care Mohini Smith Kensington Child Care Centre Lisa Speedie Department of Human Services Rob Spence Municipal Association of Victoria Jane Spencer Alison Stephens Parkside Per-School Anne Stone Yarambooee Kindergarten Hoppers Crossing Suzanne Stringer Ormond Community Kindergarten Jennifer Thwaites Department of Human Services Marita Toohey Department of Human Services Jenny Trethewey Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Ann Turner Pope Road Kindergarten, Blackburn Sonia Van Hout Eltham College, Eltham John Veitch Hindsmarsh Council Rosemary Waite Victorian Children's Services Assoication Inc Kelly Walsh Spring Gully Leesa Warren Robina Scott Kindergarten, Williamstown Lyn Watts Springvale South Kindergarten Jenny Weight Horsham Kindergarten Association Sandra Wells Larch Street Kindergarten, Blackburn Sue Western Natimuk Road Kindergarten Karen Weston Australian Early Childhood Association Inc (Vic. Branch) Joy Williams Uniting Care Australia Megan Williamson Yallambie Park Preschool Odette Wilson Ballarat Fidelity Kindergarten Christine Wood Mildura South Margie Wright Alexandra and District Kindergarten, Alexandra Michelle Larch Street Kindergarten, Blackburn Moira Tunstall Square Kindergarten, Doncaster Samantha Wandin Pre-School, Wandin