The arguments for and against corporate childcare



Retreived from: http://www.piperreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Medicaid-Expansion-Arguments-For-and-Against.jpg

The argument against corporate childcare holds the view that the need for profits in these centres may outweigh the need for quality childcare in the minds of the management of corporate childcare centres. The corporate childcare centres rely on the good market value of their business to keep them afloat. Therefore, if centres are not turning over a good profit, their business can collapse. A recent example of this is the collapse of ABC which is discussed in an article here.

Accountability for public dollars is also an issue. Significant public funding is necessary to ensure that programs are both high quality and accessible to parents. But funding has to be well directed to be effective; this means ensuring that it all goes to children, not profits. This is touched on in an article here. This is essentially the heart of the political issue caused by corporate childcare as the government is funding businesses that are using these funds for profit and not necessarily for the children in their care.

Friendly and McCain (2008) pose an interesting question which shows the view of the argument against corporate childcare; "are preschoolers primarily consumers to be wooed for their profitability, or are they worthy of the same kind of interest and support we devote to their older siblings in the public education and university systems?”.

However, the argument for corporate childcare disagrees with this view, and suggests that the profits that are made through these centres is a positive thing as it enables more money to be put back into the centres. This suggests that the quality of centres is increased as profits are increased.

An article here suggests that profit may not be the only goal that investors have in mind. However these investors did make a large profit out of their business and there is no evidence in this article that any of these profits were put back into the early childhood centres.

I found a clip on youtube which shows the views of corporate investors in education. Though this clip is not based in New Zealand, I feel that the views that are expressed would be similar to those that are held by corporate investors in New Zealand.

The investors seem to be focussed on results, economic benefits, and ensuring children are ‘prepared’ to succeed. This clip suggests that the investment of businesses into early childhood is a positive thing that will have lasting repercussions for society.

An article here touches on both sides of the argument.

Conclusion

After researching this topic I feel that corporate childcare is not necessarily a positive movement for early childhood education. The argument for corporate childcare seems to suggest that turning early childhood centres into profitable businesses is positive, because the profits can be used to create quality childcare. However, much of the evidence shows that this is not happening, and that the corporate centres are instead focussed on creating profit over focussing on creating quality environments. I feel that the view expressed in the picture that I posted in my introduction does show the way corporate investors view children. I feel that the push from the government for higher participation in early childhood should not be abused as an opportunity to make money by selling the ‘learning experience’. I feel that the government should not be paying for these businesses to flourish.

Pedagogical implications of corporatisation

Corporate centre's push for children to attend their centers as one of their main goals is to make profits for their shareholders. This results in a high number of children being taught in minimum ratios.

An article here suggests that in for-profit centers, teachers appear to be struggling to keep up their professional practice. The lack of qualifications and minimum amount of ratios makes it very difficult for teachers to be able to deliver quality care. Brice (as cited in Blaikie, 2013) states “Those teachers are as passionate as we are about providing quality, they’re just not able to”.

Blaikie (2013) states that NZEI members reported that minimum staff ratios aren’t met, despite the best efforts of educators. The poor quality delivered by overworked and stressed staff makes it harder for the government to reach its student achievement goals. Research shows that not-for-profit centers are much more likely to produce the high quality environments, as they are more focused on providing quality care for children then enticing children in to boost profits.

Chief executive of Kidicorp Wayne Wright (as cited in an article here) said: "Quality comes from the knowledge and attitude of the staff in the centers and that comes from being a good employer and providing professional development, training, and support". Therefore quality care relies on the quality management of early childhood centers. However, even if the staff of corporate childcare centers receive regular professional development, the ratios of the centers may not allow for this development to be implemented.

Siraj-Blathcford states that “the Te Whāriki model suggests that an appropriate curriculum and pedagogy for young children will be determined with the needs of the individual and specific groups of children in mind” (2004, p. 141). However, corporate childcare limits this from happening as the minimum amount of ratios means that teachers are less able to focus on the needs of individual children.
  

Globalisation and the effect on corporatisation

Neoliberalism

(as defined by the free dictionary)

n

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc

Retrieved from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neoliberalism

 

New Zealand is governed under a neoliberalist view, therefore corporatisation is flourishing as it requires minimal government intervention, and it places the responsibility of education in the hands individual. This helps corporations to sell childcare to the consumers as they market themselves as being desirable, thereby bringing in more profits.

Education has become a valuable resource, especially early childhood education as it is increasingly being recognised as an essential foundation for future learning.  The corporatisation of early childhood is therefore on a steady rise.

Retrieved from: http://www.hssr.mmu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/41EmLKbrWpL__SS500__2.jpg



 



Globalisation is also an influencing factor on the rise of corporate childcare. Globalisation has been seen as an extension of mass media and the universalisation of western culture.

The effects of globalisation on education is explored in an article here

This article here suggests that one of the effects that globalisation has had on early childhood education is that they have become areas to be branded and sold to the public. Early childhood centres now have to compete for children in order to retain government funding. Early childhood care is being marketed by corporations in order to boost their enrolment’s, and ultimately, the profits they make. Due to neo-liberalism and globalisation, education is now becoming seen as the responsibility of the individual as it is for the private good.

The article suggests that “learning has increasingly been seen as a commodity or as an investment rather than as a way of exploring what might make for the good life or human flourishing”.

This had led to an emphasis on children achieving and being ‘school ready’ in order for the parents that are paying for their children’s education, to see results. Duhn (as cited in Smith, 2008) points out how early childhood is seen as maximising the child’s potential and generating a skilled work force for the future. This also contributes to the emphasis on school readiness in early childhood education.

As education is now being seen as a commodity, corporate childcare centres are able to ‘sell’ their centres to the consumers or parents of children. Corporate childcare market themselves as being able to achieve school readiness for children. Parents of children in early childhood  feel that this is an important goal to have, therefore the rolls are boosted, and corporate childcare reaps in the profits.

Legislation and policies

Retrieved from: http://its.unl.edu/images/policy2.jpg

The main policy that has effected corporate childcare is the ECE participation programme.

This programme is discussed in depth here. The focus of this policy is to increase the participation in quality early childhood education, as it is seen as an essential foundation for children.

 

This programme is specifically focussed on the children living in low socio-economic areas, as these children are seen as vulnerable. The aim is that 98% of children starting school will have participated in quality early childhood education by 2016. This effectively increases the demand for childcare, which boosts the numbers of children attending corporately run centres. 

 

One of the initiates of this programme is to "increase the supply of ECE services in target communities through full and partial funding of property projects and one-off grants". This affects corporate childcare as it means that if they are in a 'target community', they can be eligible to large amounts of funding from the government. This does not seem reasonable as corporate centres aim to make a profit, and so there is no guarantee that the funding they receive will go towards providing the quality of care that is so essential.

Retrieved from: http://franchiseassociation.bg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/legislation.jpg



The Early Childhood Services Regulations 2008 can be found here.

 

 

The schedules of these regulations set out the minimum requirements related to qualifications, ratios and service size.

Schedule 1
Qualification requirements

	Requirement
All services		Person responsible must hold recognised qualification
All services recognised as a teacher led service (as defined in regulation 44(4))		50% of required staff (including person responsible) must hold recognised qualification

Schedule 2

Adult to child ratios

 For all day centres

– under 2 years old maximum 21-25 ---to minimum 5 staff

- 2 years old and over maximum 41-50---- to minimum 5 staff

 

Schedule 3

Service size (Maximum)

 

Service		Number of children attending
Early childhood education and care centre and hospital-based education and care service		No more than 150 children aged 2 years and over attending at any one time
		No more than 25 children under 2 years attending at any one time unless otherwise approved by the Secretary under regulation 22A(3)
		No more than 50 children attending at any one time if children are a mixture of those under 2 years and those 2 years and over, unless otherwise approved by the Secretary under regulation 23(3

 

Summed up, these schedules state that only 50% of teachers in any early childhood centre need to be qualified. The adult to child ratios and service size therefore suggest that 150 children can attend a centre at any one time, which would require 15 staff, 7 of which have to be qualified. As corporate centres push for more children to attend so their profits are maximised, many corporate centres have 150 children that attend, with minimum staffing requirements. I feel that the ratios are therefore not relative to providing children with quality care. How can children receive quality care when only 50% of the teachers in their centre are qualified, and they are contending with 149 other children for the love and care of only 15 staff?

 

 

 

 

 



Requirement

All services

 

Person responsible must hold recognised qualification

All services recognised as a teacher led service (as defined in regulation 44(4))

 

50% of required staff (including person responsible) must hold recognised qualification

Service

 

Number of children attending

Early childhood education and care centre and hospital-based education and care service

 

No more than 150 children aged 2 years and over attending at any one time

 

 

No more than 25 children under 2 years attending at any one time unless otherwise approved by the Secretary under regulation 22A(3)

 

 

No more than 50 children attending at any one time if children are a mixture of those under 2 years and those 2 years and over, unless otherwise approved by the Secretary under regulation 23(3

 

The history of corporate childcare

Retrieved from: http://richmondconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-17-at-3.53.12-PM.png

The demand for childcare has grown and developed overtime as society has changed. Childcare has traditionally been seen as the prerogative of mothers and women. In 1877, when school attendance became compulsory from the age of six, the care of younger children was still seen as the parent’s responsibility. However, the need for women to work meant that formal childcare was gradually established.

As more women joined the workforce, the demand for childcare increased. In the 1970s  women began to seek economic independence through paid work. The amount of women in the workforce rose steadily from 1971 to 1980. This led to an increase in the amount of children that attended full-time care, and the availability of childcare services.

Corporate childcare began in the late 1970's as private centres operated from private homes. The first corporate childcare began with the opening of Kindercare in Auckland 1978.

 

Education and care became integrated when the government introduced the 'Before Five' policy. This led to an increase in government funding, and the implementation of the national curriculum called Te Whāriki.

 The complete history of New Zealand early childhood education and care can be found in an article here

A more recent history of child enrolments in early childhood care is shown on the chart below.

Retrieved from: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/early-childhood-education-and-care/page-1

This shows that numbers enrolled in care and education have skyrocketed since 1990. This has led to a further increase in the demand for childcare, and therefore an increase in the numbers of corporate centres to meet this demand.
The chart below shows the percentage of children that had prior participation in early childhood education when they began school. This has also been a contributing factor to the increase of childcare and corporate childcare.

Retrieved from: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/ece2/ece-indicators/1923

Introduction

Disclosure: This blog is being written for an assessment.


Every parent that sends their child to an early childhood centre wants to ensure that their child is supported in the best environment. Therefore, I have chosen to research the corporatisation of early childhood education (ECE) because I feel this is an issue which directly impacts on the way early childhood centres are run. I would like to learn about the conflicting views about the corporatisation of ECE, I want to find out about this topic:

• Why is corporatisation a political issue?
• What are the arguments for and against corporatisation?
• Does corporatisation compromise quality?

I would like to know if the view expressed in the picture below is the reason that companies turn their centres into corporations.

Retrieved from: https://reclaimreform.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/child-and-money3.jpg