{"id":7042,"date":"2012-02-06T14:52:34","date_gmt":"2012-02-06T02:52:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oece.nz\/general\/funding-system\/same-old-same-old-treasury-advice-on-targeting-ece-funding-assistance-but-is-the-government-listening\/"},"modified":"2021-08-07T13:15:04","modified_gmt":"2021-08-07T01:15:04","slug":"target-early-childhood-funding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oece.nz\/public\/big-issues\/funding-system\/target-early-childhood-funding\/","title":{"rendered":"Treasury Advice to Target Early Childhood Funding to Those Who Would Benefit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Target Early Childhood Funding. The New Zealand Treasury has been recommending for a number of years that funding in early childhood education be targeted towards children from lower socio-economic groups but whether the government has paid any attention is another story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is often said that the benefits of early childhood education are higher for children from disadvantaged homes and yet these are the very children who are less likely to participate in ECE. Therefore it is better to target early childhood funding to those who would benefit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Treasury has suggested a number of times over the years that funding should be targeted but so far the government seems to be largely ignoring the advice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is some limited targeting of early childhood education through grants such as the Discretionary Grants Scheme (recently replaced by the Targeted Assistance for Participation Scheme), equity funding for low-decile services and annual top-up funding for geographically isolated services. So targeting exists but mainly in a manner which is supported by ECE providers and affords the government good publicity opportunities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its latest briefing to incoming ministers, prepared for Finance Minister Bill English the Treasury states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite large increases in government expenditure, early childhood education (ECE) participation rates for children in the lowest income brackets have not increased, with the expenditure instead supporting a greater volume of hours and higher proportions of registered teachers. Given the gains that can be made, we recommend further targeting of existing ECE funding to children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. (Treasury, 2218133v5; 2012)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words economic growth would be helped by directing funding to support the education of children in low-income households. This reflects the message that Treasury has been putting forward for a number of years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1987 Treasury said: \u201cEquity concerns would have suggested a high degree of targeting in assistance – yet there appears in practice to have been very little. The ineluctable tendency for the middle classes to capture the agenda and the dollars in any broadly based government programme would seem to apply in the Early Childhood Services sector as much as in any other. The most highly assisted programmes appear to have been (until the advent of Te Kohanga Reo) largely catering for middle and upper class needs\u201d. (Big87ii-4.pdf)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2005 Treasury said: \u201cEarly childhood education \u2026 is particularly beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds if services are of high quality and if children participate regularly. Recently there has been significant government spending in this sector. We consider that value for money in this sector could be increased by targeting funding to children from disadvantaged backgrounds\u201d. (Big05-1.pdf)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2007 Treasury said: \u201cThere are strong pressure groups among both consumers and providers for increased public resources. By and large, consumer organisations and provider groups are united in general satisfaction with current policy trends and in their demand for more resources to enable further progress in established directions. The debate on ECS tends to be emotive and can at times generate more heat than light. There would seem to be two reasons for this. The first is that ECS raises issues of child-care practices and family patterns which evoke personal philosophies and experiences. Secondly, there is still relatively little objective evidence of the long-term effects of different childhood experiences which tends to lead to assertion and counter-assertion based on intuitive judgment and overextending the application of such research data as is available\u201d. (Big 87ii-4.pdf)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2008 Treasury said a medium term economic challenge was \u201cto increase enrolments of children in ECE who go on to attend low-decile schools\u201d (children who attend low-decile schools are considered to come from disadvantaged home backgrounds). The reason given for this challenge was that \u201cparticipation is increasing over time in early childhood education (ECE), but there are persistent concerns about lower rates of participation in ECE by children from disadvantaged backgrounds and M\u0101ori and Pasifika children. This is a particular concern given the importance of ECE participation in developing non-cognitive skills, such as communication and social skills\u201d. (Big08.pdf)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2012 Treasury is recommending a reform of the entire education system to improve educational attainment at a lower cost and says that for early childhood education one way this may be achieved is by targeting existing ECE funding to children in low-income households.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By Sarah Alexander.
February 6, 2012. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n