Image via Wikipedia
It is terrific to see that in Auckland Unleashed, the Auckland Mayor’s Discussion Document, participation rates in early childhood education are targeted for improvement. Poor participation in early childhood education services is an equity issue. All children should have access to services that meet their needs; and the city has responsibility to see to ensure that the wellbeing of children is catered for everywhere.
But there needs to be great care in setting education targets. Early childhood participation rates don’t need improvement everywhere. Where participation is very high (and the data shows that is true in parts of the city), we can be satisfied that services are available for children and of sufficient quality to match demand.
However, setting a minimum participation rate across the city does not reduce inequality (it is proposed for 80% of all children, still a low average!). Average participation rates hide where pockets of very low participation actually occur, reducing the effectiveness of action to raise the target average and spreading scarce resources more widely and less wisely.
A better early childhood education target could be either to establish a benchmark of service levels that all children and their families should be entitled to expect.
Participation rates are complex calculations. Low participation is a function of many forces conspiring together: the number of available early childhood education ‘places’; the number of available and qualified educators; the demand from families; the transport options for access to services; cost; and appropriateness of provision (whether services are bilingual; are inclusive of children with special needs; are sessional or full-time; or include multiple health and support services for families) among them.
Pinning the target to a benchmark of participation rates or levels of service helps to avoid a further widening of the gap between those children who have access to quality services and those who do not. It also encourages a more flexible approach to delivery of the target. After all, just “more of the same” may not be the answer to improving participation rates.
What kind of benchmark might be appropriate? Starting with the equity argument, achieving a participation rate in the Papakura, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Otahuhu, Tamaki and Massey Local Board areas that matches the rate for other local board areas (for example, Devonport-Takapuna or Howick-Pakuranga) could be an appropriate medium-term goal.
How to get there? With the support of the Council, elected Local Board leaders should be invited to understand what this means for their community. The process for developing the target, setting progress indicators, and implementing action on the target should be championed by the Local Board.
The process must include conversations with central government and community leaders. Holding a Community Education Forum* becomes an opportunity for creating collective community ownership of change. With good data and evidence to back action, and consensus on goals and actions, the Local Board will be well positioned to champion action, monitor progress, and own the outcomes.
The dialogue at community level will inevitably raise the matter of what constitutes “participation”. Formal early childhood education services are only part of the answer to making sure that every child has the very best start in life. But that’s a topic for another day.
* Community Education Forum: a new idea with an old history. It is a place where educators and stakeholders together debate local educational outcomes and issues to be addressed, and forge collaborative actions to address them.
