Govt cuts affect early childhood educators

04 Dec 2010 11:05a.m.

A TEACHER wrote:

National government support only people come with money, Children are not earning money so they neglets them. Government want to develop only high income earners children they can afford to pay for the centres with 100% qualified teachers.

08 Nov 2010 10:12a.m.

E.c.e Teacher wrote:

I think this cut in funding & change to E.C.E ratios, also allowing anyone with a teacher's qualification to take our jobs,~is a callous show of disrespect to young children as well as qualified Teachers. I as a qualified E.C.E teacher have suffered loss of employment along with many others due to this cut, and know the whole E.C.E sector of children and teachers are negatively affected. Ann Tolley, 'You have not kept your word/promise as Campbell read out.. There is no excuse for your decision, I am very disappointed, I will strongly reconsider who I vote for next elections!!

20 Oct 2010 07:48a.m.

worried wrote:

Oh no, Mease, not the "we are being taken over by foreigners" scare tactics to back the minister's poor policy.
I am really worried that after all your study you still don't have as many skills as an untrained person. What were you doing during the lectures? Buffing your nails? How did you pass your exams and your teaching practices?
I really, really hope your boss has you on a professional development programme so soon you will be at least as good as an untrained person.
I really, really hope that you are not working at the centre that either of my grandchildren attend

19 Oct 2010 09:15p.m.

Rachel wrote:

Mease, if Anne Tolley was supporting 80% I wouldn't be so upset, but she isn't. She has LOWERED the funding for the 80% bracket and INCREASED the funding for the 50-79% bracket (as it is meant to every July by 4% but this year it was only 2.4% so it wasn't even the promised increase). By reducing the gap between 50 and 80% Anne Tolley is indicating a pretty scary intention.
The most financially viable position for a centre to be in now is 55% registered. Registered staff will be replaced with unregistered. There will be less jobs and still the same number of qualified so you will actually be in greater compertition for fewer jobs, the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Remember the registered teacher count is for MINISTRY ratios, not centre ratios. If a mum had 5 children under 2 she would qualify for govt assistance but the govt funds centres at this rate, in a group care situation, not even their own home.
In centres that run to QUALITY ratios (1:3 and 1:7 for us)the staff above Ministry ratios will always be the grandmas and centre based training. We are NOT babysitting, we are EDUCATING
Why work in a job for 20 years without increasing skills and remaining at poor pay rates?

19 Oct 2010 02:24p.m.

Mease wrote:

The idea that 100% of ECE would be qualified by 2012 was always a big ask. I can see Nationals good sense in reducing this to 80% as it is unreachable and even if it was I think would spend tax payers money uneccessarily. I'm am pleased that as a qualified teacher I won't be in competition with an influx of international qualified teachers for work. If we ever managed 100% that would certainly be the case. Not to mention the exceptionally great unqualified people who love and care for children sometimes much better than we do as qualified teachers. Sometimes as qualified teachers we are so focussed on achieving quality learning that we forget this side, which is equally part of quality childcare. I think Quality care is 80% qualified and 20% for the amazing "grandma" & "Aunty" type figures in ECE.

15 Oct 2010 11:01p.m.

Jo Martin wrote:

What a show of bad faith towards the young people and families of New Zealand. These were not the changes signposted by the "time for a change" election campaign. These cuts are a travesty to the ECE industry, especially to those who have undertaken training in good faith to find that they may be now over qualified in the workplace. Our children deserve and need the best quality and childcare available to them. This policy is a direct attack on the less wealthy in society. One can only imagine that the Minister's aim is to create a perfect environment for a nanny state. Does anyone know the exact amount that the Minister has increased funding to private schools?

14 Oct 2010 10:32p.m.

Rachel wrote:

Interesting, but no one else seems to have picked up on the co-incidence that just as they trim $400m off EC budget they give $300m to universities

13 Oct 2010 11:49p.m.

Tessa Dunleavy wrote:

After working in the Early Childhooh sector for the past 25 years as a trained teacher I am distustd at the lack of foresight the Ministeer has shown in response to cutting trained teaching staff. The impact this will have on early Childhood Eduaction is truely destructive. Many Community based Centres that work in the heart of communities operate with 3 teachers working with 30 children as my Centre does. We do not have the ability to employ an untrained staff member to work under the guidance of a larger team as the Minister suggests which tells you she has not done her homework. The wider Early Childhood community who have invested much time and expense achieving a level of qualification that up until this budget was underpinning the quality of the service our country provided our tamariki have had a real kick in the guts and are still coming to terms with the significant impact this will have on education in N.Z.No doubt the telling will be told in the polling booth at the next election.

13 Oct 2010 07:14p.m.

Stephen Howard wrote:

It is my understanding that there is an abundance of research showing that outcomes from child care are closely related to continuity and commitment in the carers/educators. There only one way to ensure that our modern lifestyle that requires that both parents work to pay mortgages does not have negative effects on young children and that is to ensure that continuity and commitment. The way to do that is to require professional standards and incomes commensurate with professional standards. The moves by the previous government to push this sector to 100% registered teachers is obviously expensive up front but has huge future social and economic benefits. We have seen in the last few years how a sector that relies on cheapness with it's associated high turn over and low standard leads to major harm to those less able to protect themselves, that is the aged care sector. We don't want to see the scandals that sector has suffered just so that national can cut taxes for the rich. We need committed early childhood educators who are paid well enough to be secure in their work for the continuity that our children need.

13 Oct 2010 07:13p.m.

Joseph wrote:

Canvassing our native birds seems racist. If a sparrow, starling, blackbird or thrush are born in New Zealand aren't they entitled to be classed as resident bird thereby giving them the right to be canvassed too? Or will we have to create hybrids?