After reading this article, it made me reflect on the changes in Early Childhood Education in the United States. Has is improved? Or has service decreased? If it has improved, how has it improved? Or how has it decreased?
For Australia, there has been a shift in change. During the years of the Whitlam Government, there was substantial funding for child care. Funding changed where there was a fee subsidies for users for-profit services and the removal of operational subsidies to not-for-profit services in 1997. In 2000, there has been an introduction of the Childcare Benefit to stimulate private sector investments in child care. The Australian Government announced a 30 percent fee rebate scheme to further enhance the appeal of childcare provision to for-profit operators and investors. By 2004, fewer than 30 percent of children attending long day care services attended not-for-profit services, a dramatic contrast to the Whitlam era when almost all were not-for-profit (Sumison, 2006).
In my opinion, money is the driving force behind all Early Childhood Education Programs. Is this right? No. I feel that money should not talk for a program. On Kaua`i, there has been a serve decrease in Head Start hours. The employees start at 7:45 am and end at 11:30 am. So why such a drastic change in hours. The reason is decrease in funding. As a result, the children suffer. I feel that we need for advocate for our children. There needs to be policy for all children to receive early intervention. How do we do this? We need to write to our leaders who we placed in office. Will it make a change? I am not sure. However, if just sit back and watch changes happen then I feel that we agree to disagree.
President Judy Radich (2004) has emphasized, however, the need to make our advocacy efforts more 'strategic, effective, and sustainable'. In this article, I go a step further to argue that we should consider shifting our priorities from advocacy to activism and from policy to politics. These are fine distinctions and warrant elaboration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also believe that we need to advocate not only for the children but for Early Childhood Education as a whole, teachers included. You asked how do we do this? One of the ways that you suggested was write to our leaders in office. I agree with this too. But I also believe that in order to advocate for our cause we , all those in ECE, which include our families, our teachers, our professors, administrators, etc need to be all on the same page. We need to unite and be one group, one voice. Many times we do not know who the other educators on our Islands are. We do not know what the other preschools missions, philosophies or even what their classrooms or curriculum is like. We seem to be separate, but have the same kinds of goals and objectives. Don't we all have a strong louder voice if we speak in unison instead of separately? Shouldn't we be trying to bring ECE together and be of one voice? Why are we strangers to each other? Why don't we make time to visit each other's schools, introduce ourselves to each other, be resources and support systems for each other???
ReplyDeleteWould this not be one way to advocate?
Aunty Val
Hi U`ilani,
ReplyDeleteMoney, money, money -- it seems to be the center of many of our conversations. Relating to funding, teacher salaries, even administrator salaries, money becomes the reason for many decisions. So how might an administrator negotiate this part of the job?
In one of the readings this week, http://www.educate.ece.govt.nz/learning/curriculumAndLearning/TeWhariki.aspx, there is a discussion on distributed leadership. I wonder how distributed leadership could add to you conversation?
Also, what about the Decker text focused on curriculum? Does this relate to financial decisions? How might Exchange articles add to the conversation?
Jeanne
Yes. Money is always the center of conversations. I think for all programs, money is the main focus. However, I think it is sad that programs are closing due to less funding.
ReplyDelete