KEY POINTS:
A top education researcher has attacked the Government's free preschool hours offer, claiming it is "fee control" that stifles innovation and makes little difference to the children it is supposed to help.
Childforum Research director Dr Sarah Farquhar has released results of a survey of 60 early childhood centre staff and managers, teacher trainers and parents.
Only 15 per cent said the Government's 20 hours free scheme meant children in the centres would have better experiences and learning.
"When it comes down to children benefiting, that question quite clearly shows that the opinion is it hasn't made a lot of difference," said Dr Farquhar. "If anything, it could be reducing the quality for children."
She said many of the teacher-led, licensed centres that opted in to the offer for 3 and 4-year-olds were struggling under more constrained budgets and some had already cut back on what they were providing for families.
"It's actually a fee control that the Government has introduced," said Dr Farquhar. "It's made it affordable for the Government, so that they are only paying out 'this' amount to services but it constrains services in what they can do."
Several survey respondents wrote that the financial security of centres was threatened.
"As most profit-making centres now lose money, I am concerned about the impact this has on children attending," wrote one.
Others expressed concern about reduced choice for families - claiming centres were getting around rules about charging by only offering longer sessions in order to bill extra fees.
"I suspect it will lead to centres being open more hours, staff working longer hours and many corners being cut to save $s," wrote one respondent.
But Ministry of Education spokesman Iain Butler said yesterday that provider feedback to an early impact study due to be released next month indicated the majority were satisfied or very satisfied with the scheme.
"From the ministry's point of view, we would say that we think the majority of services are comfortable with 'free' [hours scheme]," he said.
Mr Butler said it was not compulsory for providers to offer it.
"You have to assume that if they were losing money hand over fist they wouldn't be opting in."
He said a study was monitoring the impact on fees but early evidence suggested the scheme was making a difference to family budgets.
"Parents were opting [for their children] to go all-day rather than go sessional because, basically, the 20 hours free meant they could afford to do that."
Before its launch last July, the scheme which sees preschoolers get 20 free hours a week was slammed by some in the industry who described its level of funding as dangerous and a threat to the quality of early childhood education.
Only 50 per cent of eligible Auckland centres had opted in when it started - the lowest proportion in the country - while 62 per cent had nationally.
Latest figures show the country-wide proportion has risen to 79 per cent.
The scheme has attracted a wide variety of criticism.
In December, a minority of Advertising Complaints Board members sympathised with a self-described "mum who is trying to get ahead" who complained the Labour Party's pledge on free early childhood education was "grossly misleading, deceptive, socially irresponsible and completely untrue" because she had no access.
In August, a group of Auckland mothers known as 20 Hours Free Please presented the education select committee with a petition signed by 3375 people calling on the Government to fulfil its promise.
Childforum Research is a not-for-profit group with about 1000 members in New Zealand and overseas. It claims to have no political affiliations.
THE SURVEY ASKED
Q. Will the "20 Hours Free" early childhood education policy mean better experiences and learning for children in the programmes/centres signed up to the scheme?
A. 15% Yes, 85% No
SOURCE: Childforum Research survey
