http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1967 Search the Channel search http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/simple-search http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2150 Title: Appendix & Index - Kids Count: Better early childhood education and care in Australia<br/><br/>Editors: Hill, Elizabeth; Pocock, Barbara; Elliott, Alison http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2149 Title: Funding children’s services<br/><br/>Authors: Cox, Eva<br/><br/>Editors: Hill, Elizabeth; Pocock, Barbara; Elliott, Alison<br/><br/>Abstract: It is now over 30 years since the original federal Child Care Act waspassed in the dying days of the McMahon Liberal government butfunding and policy issues are still confused and contested. Manymore child care places exist and more funding is provided, butAustralia still lacks an integrated national childcare system thatrecognises the importance of the early years, and the need foreffective national policy for both early childhood care andeducation. Most of the problems are depressingly familiar, after mythirty-plus years of involvement in this policy area, but there aresome worrying newer aspects.In the three-plus decades of public debate on funding andproviding such services, there have been major shifts in politicalframeworks and priorities. These affect supply, quality andaffordability, so our questions and answers need to be reframed incurrent cultural social and political frameworks. The changingdemographic patterns, such as falling birth rates, delayed childbearing,increased female education and workforce participation,affect demand questions. The shifts in political frameworks willaffect supply and funding.Universal publicly funded child care was one of the key feministissues we raised in the seventies, as more women were moving intopaid work. Our hoped-for national program of quality affordablecare ran up against the arguments about whether women should beencouraged to be in paid work and pressure to retain theseparation between education and care. Before this divide could beresolved, the arguments were overtaken by the 1980s change ofpolitical directions to neo-liberalism which diminished the role ofthe state. Child care was expanded but in a framework which shiftedcollective risks from the individual by shifting from public servicesto market forces. Commercial child care was funded by 1990 andthe expansion of market providers was encouraged by policychanges after 1996. Overlapping with these changes in the mid 1990s were other,often contradictory, ideological shifts away from the 1980s emphasison encouraging self provision and private providers. This movesignalled the ascendancy of neo-conservatism, indicated by themove away from smaller deregulated governments to increasingsize, centralised controls and complex demands for accountabilityby bureaucratic requirements. The new political masters used thisincrease in interventions to promote moral agendas and neoconservativeviews. The changes are most evident in the social policyareas where government funding was to be directed at promotingconservative social positions. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2148 Title: Childcare provision: Whose responsibility? Who pays?<br/><br/>Authors: Goodfellow, Joy<br/><br/>Editors: Pocock, Barbara; Elliott, Alison; Hill, Elizabeth<br/><br/>Abstract: Recent debates about the provision of child care for children ofbelow school age have focused on issues relating to children, tofamilies, to social capital building and to financial return oninvestment. The first of these is concerned with providing forchildren’s growth and development and focuses on theenhancement of skills and experiences conducive to furtheringchildren’s capacity as learners. Early learning provides a criticalunderpinning for subsequent social and academic success(Shonkoff & Phillips 2000). For example, the Longitudinal Study ofAustralian Children (LSAC), identified that 4–5 years olds who hadnot participated in educational programs prior to school wereperforming less well on measures of early literacy and numeracy(Harrison & Ungerer 2005).Issues around social capital building recognise that a focus onthe early years, particularly for socially disadvantaged families,subsequently reaps long-term benefits in terms of improvement ineducational outcomes, increased economic self-sufficiency, crimereduction and improvement in family relationships and health(Bruner 2004; Karoly et al. 1998, Lynch 2004; Schweinhart 2005).Family circumstances include those associated with socialdisadvantage, child protection and disability. Martin (2003)identified that the childcare system in Australia returned over $1.86per dollar spent to the government’s ‘bottom line’ throughincreased taxation revenue and reduced social assistance outlays.Martin also recognised the potential for such investment to have aripple effect through society and, consequently, to facilitate socialcapital building. The Australian Government’s Stronger Familiesand Communities Strategy and the NSW Department ofCommunity Services Early Intervention Program have both welfareand social reform agendas but little attention has truly been givento financial and social return on investment. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/2147 Title: The determinants of quality care: review and research report<br/><br/>Authors: Sims, Margaret<br/><br/>Editors: Hill, Elizabeth; Pocock, Barbara; Elliott, Alison<br/><br/>Abstract: There is consensus around the world that young children mustexperience high quality services, not only to ensure the bestpossible future outcomes, but because children have the right tothe best possible present (Elliott 2004; Myers 2004; Wylie &Thompson 2003). All children are found to benefit from highquality early childhood programs, but those from disadvantagedbackgrounds demonstrate stronger advantages (Myers 2004). Thecatchphrase ‘the importance of the early years’ has now become acall to arms: it is recognised worldwide that we must provide thebest possible services to young children and their families (Stanley,Prior & Richardson 2005). However, there is not universalagreement as to what constitutes best possible early childhoodservices. Understandings of quality are value-based and change asvalues change (Childcare Resource and Research Unit 2004).Understandings are also different across cultures, religions,contexts and the person or group making the judgment (Friendly,Doherty & Beach 2006). Myers (2004, p.19) argues that ‘differentcultures may expect different kinds of children to emerge fromearly educational experience and favour different strategies toobtain those goals’. There is not a universal definition of quality: indifferent times and places different kinds of practices are valued ashigh quality.Despite this, within the Western world, professionals assume atleast a basic common understanding (see Cryer, 1999 for example).The European Commission Childcare Network attempted to definethese commonalities and came up with 40 quality targets (availableat www.childcarequality.org). Analysing the literature from a range of European countries, Myers (2004) argues there is consensusaround quality components including safety, good hygiene, goodnutrition, appropriate opportunities for rest, quality of opportunityacross diversity, opportunities for play, opportunities for developingmotor, social, cognitive and language skills, positive interactionswith adults, support of emotional development, and the provisionof support for positive peer interactions. However, performanceindicators identifying how these principles play out in practicediffer in different contexts and with different levels of expectationsand resources. What is clear is that quality is multidimensional,complex and multi-theoretical (Duigan 2005; Raban, Ure &Wangiganayake 2003). Single indicators of quality are ineffective, asquality outcomes for children are found to relate to a complexinterplay of many different factors (Buell & Cassidy 2001).