ECE a user pays choice, not altruism

Education funding cuts take toll on families

Strikes me than that this is a bit of a cry wolf story. Sure it's a 'cost' but it is subsidised by tax dollars, and effectively a further tax break for families with young children in the system.

The ECE centers  near where I live (and I can think of 4) are newly built, purpose-built buildings. This would indicate that there is a business model that supports such a venture, and that you should be able to support your business on the basis of audience and revenues.

As a user pays business you, as the customer, either enrol or don't, pay or find a cheaper option. If you want to avail yourself of the services you do. The fees that you pay should reflect that this is a private enterprise that exists to make money, it's not altruism.

The faux outrage is over a change of policy to reducing funding to ECE centers in 2010.

Prior to the change, all-day, teacher-led centres with fully qualified teachers received $12.94 per hour for each child under 2 and $7.79 for every child over 2.

In the 80-99% qualified staffing bracket the rates were $12.16 and $6.91 respectively. The funding changes have removed the funding from centres with 81-100% qualified staff altogether.

Centres employing 80% qualified staff now get $11.80 per hour for under 2s and $6.53 for over 2s.

The change somehow has created significant funding shortfalls for those services employing more than 80% fully qualified teachers. (Early education services include; Kindergartens, Education and Care, Homebased, Te Kohanga Reo, and Playcentres). I'm picking these same centers charge a premium price for a better service.

A quick Google shows that for a job in Pre-school  the median salary is $52k, the salary range is 30k - $67k, or something like $15.50 to $35 per hour

A further google found me a FEE SCHEDULE all ages- based on 52 weeks, Fees are due and payable for all holidays, sickness, absences, and Statutory holidays
2 days $140, 3 days $200, 4 days $245, 5 days$280

FEE over 3 yr olds (with 20 hours subsidised)
2 days $ 90 , 3 days $120 , 4 days $150,  5 days $180

It's not cheap, it is a business, and it is your choice to stay at home and raise your children or pursue a job and juggle your commitments. I'm not sure I'm comfortable to pay more to private enterprises to support a lifestyle choice for some. Working for a wage should increment the family income. Otherwise what's the point? To claim that the fees are bigger than your income then means you haven't done the maths properly or are in a job that should pay more, it's not the fault of the government of the day.

Oh yes and we did have 2 children in day care, from a few weeks old, both of us worked and the only subsidy was a $300 tax break. It can be done. It's just not easy. Pointless claiming that it was cheaper then, or it's more expensive now, it is what it is.

I just found this too, but I take it under advice that there is a legal requirement, staff to children of 1:5, but can be 1:4 . So you can extrapolate out say 20 children would be 5 teachers. Fees (income) =$291,200, wages (at median pay) $260,000, that's a 31,200 potential operating profit, plus a subsidy payment of 20 children, 37.5 hours, 52 weeks @$6.53 = 215,000 give or take. Now that's handy!