Rethinking the Welfare State: The prospects for ... - e-Library

Early childhood education 131
nominally remunerated child care services is an unfair burden that many family members,
friends and neighbours (especially women) presently bear and that adequate remuneration
would constitute overdue recognition of the social value of child care. However, this is to
import a distributional objective on the supply-side that is likely to be sharply at variance
with the objective of enhancing the availability and quality of early childhood education.
Given our argument that government support for child care is only justified on the
basis of education-based models of delivery, a clear role for government in certifying
prospective operators is implicated. Indeed, while many child care providers are currently
subject to regulation, it is clear that the current regulatory standards for child care
facilities “often fall short of professional recommendations.” 74 Barnett and Bergmann
suggest that the use of the subsidies could be restricted to designated high-quality
facilities. 75 However, we would caution against creating a voucher system that is
indistinguishable from supply-side subsidization. If vouchers can only be redeemed at a
small number of facilities, parental choice is stifled and competitive pressures fall,
obviating two of the main benefits of demand subsidies. Broad supplier eligibility is
important not only for maintaining competitive pressures and encouraging parental work
force participation, but also because key studies have found that parent satisfaction and
employment have reciprocal benefits for early childhood development at least as
powerful as early childhood education itself. 76
Parenting matters most to the early development of children, so parenting
and ECEC services must be complements rather than substitutes—Early
learning and care services, particularly when they are of high quality, have
important positive effects on children and tend to offset family-based
sources of risk. However, parenting is a much stronger influence and an
enduring one. This is one reason why a system of ECEC services and
programs is important—with maternity/parental leave complemented by
income and parenting support and by a network of different ECEC
services and early childhood development programs in local
communities. 77
Therefore, we would not recommend the elimination of parental leave arrangements, nor
would we emphasize quality to the extent that it precludes gainful parental employment.
We would instead suggest minimum accreditation requirements designed to ensure that
early childhood development is prioritized over simply “warehousing” children. Other
unaccredited arrangements would remain permissible but would not attract voucher
support. Alternatively, these arrangements might attract a lower level of support (akin to
the present child care expense tax deduction or credit in Canada and the US), instead of
no support at all. It needs to be acknowledged that in this context vouchers are likely to
dramatically increase public program expenditures, at least if the objective is to increase
the availability and quality of early childhood educational opportunities for all preschool
children. Increased expenditures are essential if we are to avoid the poor outcomes
experienced in Australia. 78 However, if a voucher system is properly implemented
competitive pressures should maintain costs far below those levels experienced in
jurisdictions such as Denmark.